Agrees generally with some specific points but would not think they correlates with anti-fragile culture (unless it deviates from regular definition which in that case would recommend a different erm); and disagree with Fire Fast
Anti-fragile because it enables fixing problems
On Mission First: I agree, but usually in practice, an anti-fragile environment is not mission first, but it enables blames more easily and this distracts people from focusing on mission.
Anti-fragile because your team will certainly make hiring mistakes, and when you do, you need to be able to fix them
On Fire Fast: I disagree with fire fast, since this only creates uncertainty and bad environment where people are again distracted on their own performance rather than putting mission first. It is very easy for managers to judge performance on one single instance, even though that might be noise not true signal. The real solution is to make sure not to hire too fast and recklessly.
Anti-fragile because it reduces the impact of status races and the risk of burnout
On Work sustainably and avoid burnout: I agree, but usually in practice, anti-fragile culture fosters status races, and increase the risk of burnout. Anti-fragile seems to convey the idea that when facing stress, endure it, as opposed to reduce stress factors in the first place in the organization. This does not usually work in the long term.
Usually to achieve the specific points you mentioned, I see organizations hire based on a common goal/intrinsic motivation, embrace collaboration, allow mistakes, foster honesty with non-violent communication, and encourage growth mindset. These are usually values that can promote peace and retain talent. It is really about the balance of multiple values, where a single value may be limited. We cannot go extreme/one sided on either side of “anti-fragile”.
Agrees generally with some specific points but would not think they correlates with anti-fragile culture (unless it deviates from regular definition which in that case would recommend a different erm); and disagree with Fire Fast
On Mission First: I agree, but usually in practice, an anti-fragile environment is not mission first, but it enables blames more easily and this distracts people from focusing on mission.
On Fire Fast: I disagree with fire fast, since this only creates uncertainty and bad environment where people are again distracted on their own performance rather than putting mission first. It is very easy for managers to judge performance on one single instance, even though that might be noise not true signal. The real solution is to make sure not to hire too fast and recklessly.
On Work sustainably and avoid burnout: I agree, but usually in practice, anti-fragile culture fosters status races, and increase the risk of burnout. Anti-fragile seems to convey the idea that when facing stress, endure it, as opposed to reduce stress factors in the first place in the organization. This does not usually work in the long term.
Usually to achieve the specific points you mentioned, I see organizations hire based on a common goal/intrinsic motivation, embrace collaboration, allow mistakes, foster honesty with non-violent communication, and encourage growth mindset. These are usually values that can promote peace and retain talent. It is really about the balance of multiple values, where a single value may be limited. We cannot go extreme/one sided on either side of “anti-fragile”.