When asked why she thought the regulators chose deference even though they possessed this power, her answer was succinct: βthey are coming from a place of fear.
Related Quotes
In hesitating and then choosing not to speak up, Christina was making a quick, not entirely conscious, risk calculation β the kind of micro-assessment most of us make numerous times a day.
When I studied top management teams with action scientist Diana Smith, we analyzed detailed transcripts of their conversations to show how a psychologically safe climate for candid discussion of strategic disagreement can be created, even in high-level teams confronting strategic challenges, and how this can enable productive decision-making.
The regulators were, in a sense, disabled from effectively carrying out their regulatory duties by a culture of fear and deference.
I don't mean to imply that working in a fearless organization takes more effort or a tremendously difficult undertaking. It doesn't. But initially, when we've been entrenched in fear and its attendant mental frameworks, it's not always obvious.
This need to be always on guard was an unmeasured expenditure of energy, the slow siphoning of the essence. It contributed to the fast breakdown of our bodies. So I feared not just the violence of this world but the rules designed to protect you from it, the rules that would have you contort your body to address the block, and contort again to be taken seriously by colleagues, and contort again so as not to give the police a reason.