Divisional leader: “You are the senior leaders of this group. If you don’t understand the strategy, you shouldn’t have your jobs.”
Daneel: “I don’t understand the whole strategy, and the parts I do understand, I don’t think are aligned across everyone here.”
*crickets*
This was at a leadership off-site, before I learned the term psychological safety. I knew if we were to make progress, we needed to have a clear understanding of the issues, and the strategies we would apply to tackling them. After that meeting several people told me they felt the same way, and were glad I had made the point.
The absence of psychological safety is easy to detect. People feel uncomfortable at best, and deeply stressed at worst. It inhibits questions and dialogue, weakens decision-making, and can lead to disasters.
I believe that the lack of psychological safety is a cause of many business failures, but because it is indirect, it’s rarely highlighted. One instance I have seen it called out in, is the culture at Boeing that led to the litany of issues with the 737 Max. When one of your pilots says an aircraft you built was “designed by clowns”, and the issues that led to the comment go unaddressed, you have serious problems. I have not worked at Boeing, but key problems being known at lower levels of an organisation, and not at senior levels, is a classic example of what happens when psychological safety is not present.
What is psychological safety?
Psychological safety is a shared belief held by members of a team that the group is a safe space for interpersonal risk-taking. Interpersonal risk-taking means expressing one’s thoughts and feelings without fear of negative consequences. It is the foundation of productive team relationships, and the core around which a strong culture is built. In a psychologically safe environment, people are comfortable with and encouraged to:
- Challenge others’ views, in particular those senior to you in the organisation. People who do this are viewed as helpful by others because they trust that their colleagues do so out of a desire for improvement, not for point scoring.
- Ask for help. Someone asking for help is viewed as having the self-awareness to recognise when they don’t have sufficient skills, knowledge or resources to complete a task.
- Share failures, so that others can learn from their experiences.
- Raise concerns to help avoid mistakes and problems, and is viewed by colleagues as exactly that, helpful.
Although they are related, psychological safety is not the same as trust. Trust is the expectation that others will act in a reliable, honest, and benevolent way. Psychological safety is the perception that the environment is conducive to taking interpersonal risks. Trust is more about the individual, while psychological safety is more about the team.
Why is psychological safety important?
The first thing that makes psychological safety a good thing to foster is, it’s the right thing to do. People spend so much of their lives at work, and a psychologically safe environment is much less stressful, with the potential to be fulfilling. Without it, relationships are weaker, the team less productive, and outcomes are worse. Google ran project Aristotle to understand what made some teams operate better than others, and psychological safety was found at the heart of the higher performing teams.
With psychological safety in place, genuine dialogue takes place, with concerns being shared and either resolved or acknowledged and mitigated, and ideas being shared to consider unorthodox approaches. The higher quality discussion which leads to lower risk and improved decision-making. It also decreases the chance that problems will snowball, becoming larger than they needed to be.
When people trust that their colleagues are trying to help them, they are more comfortable being vulnerable, and feedback is shared more openly. This in turn accelerates learning and development, as well as resolving conflict and misalignment more quickly.
The increased transparency and buy-in across the team promotes shared ownership of outcomes, and makes it more likely the team will succeed or fail together, which typically make it more resilient, recovering faster from setbacks. It also fosters an environment that diversity and inclusion can thrive in.
How do you develop psychological safety?
Lead by example. No matter what values the company puts on posters, culture is defined by how leaders in the organisation act, and what behaviours are rewarded and discouraged. If senior people don’t buy into psychological safety, and act accordingly, it will never take root. As a leader you can:
- Share your own vulnerabilities, such as your mistakes, doubts, or fears, and show how you learn and grow from them.
- Solicit and welcome diverse opinions, feedback, and suggestions from your team, and acknowledge and appreciate their contributions. Ask for confidence levels that a project will succeed rather than if anyone has any concerns, and enquire when they aren’t 5/5. A mid to low confidence level can be the result of lack of ability to assess it, and that is a helpful answer to get.
- Encourage and support your team to take calculated risks, experiment with new ideas, and learn from failures. Failures resulting from planned risk taking should be painted as steps on the road to success.
- Address and resolve conflicts and issues in a constructive and respectful way, and avoid blaming or shaming anyone. This is not a lack of accountability. It’s about focusing conversation on identifying root causes, and changing processes and systems to improve future outcomes. People should acknowledge their mistakes, and take ownership for doing everything they can to fix resulting problems and ensure the same thing doesn’t happen again. There’s a well worn saying to praise in public and correct in private. In an environment that lacks psychological safety, this is generally a good approach, but it misses opportunities for group learning, seeing accountability in action, and to shape behaviour. If people make a hard transition to correcting as well as praising in public, it can do more harm than good as people may feel shame or intense anxiety from having their mistakes aired in a group. Instead, ease into it as psychological safety grows, starting with small errors, sharing context for why you are talking about the issue publicly.
Provide structure and clarity. Psychological safety does not mean that anything goes. It means that there are clear and fair expectations, rules, and boundaries that enable interpersonal risk-taking. You can provide structure and clarity by taking these actions:
- Establish and communicate the purpose, goals, roles, and norms of your team, and ensure that everyone understands and agrees on them. When individuals understand their roles and responsibilities, they are more likely to feel confident in expressing their ideas and opinions. Clear goals also contribute to a sense of purpose and direction, reinforcing the importance of each team member’s contributions.
- Provide regular and specific feedback, coaching, and recognition to your team, and help them develop their skills and capabilities.
- Monitor and measure the progress and performance of your team, and celebrate their achievements and milestones.
- Review and revise the processes and practices of your team, and make sure that they are aligned with the desired outcomes and values.
Build relationships and trust. Psychological safety is based on the quality of the relationships and trust among team members. Steps to build relationships and trust:
- Create opportunities and spaces for your team to interact and socialise, both formally and informally, and to get to know each other as individuals. Teams that cultivate a sense of belonging and camaraderie among members are more likely to create an environment where individuals feel safe to contribute their unique perspectives.
- Encourage and facilitate collaboration and cooperation among your team, and provide them with the resources and support they need to work effectively together.
- Empower and involve your team in decision-making and problem-solving, and respect and trust their autonomy and expertise.
- Show empathy and compassion to your team, and be attentive and responsive to their needs and emotions. In today’s busy workplace it can be very hard to create space for people to think, feel and be recognised for who they are. Sometimes all you have to do is hold space, and the rest will follow.
Conclusion
Psychological safety is the bedrock for creating a high-performing and happy team. It allows people to speak up, take risks, learn, and grow, without fear of negative consequences. By following the behaviours I’ve laid out, you can create a psychologically safe environment for your team, and reap the benefits of increased learning, innovation, engagement, diversity and inclusion, and improved decision-making. Remember to clearly set the objectives and rationale, then start small and grow into it, taking feedback along the way.
If having someone on your team who understands psychological safety at a deep level sounds appealing, or you’d like to learn how to build it yourself through coaching, please hit the button below and let’s have a conversation.
3 Responses
Psychological safety (PS) is clearly massively important as part of a bigger picture, in my personal opinion. It’s a true leadership skill to build this quickly with a team, and continuing to live by the same values – with one misstep is potentially gone, and it’s not coming back any time soon! I completely agree that the accretive value can be massive, really can accelerate outcomes and avoid the costs and opportunity costs of having to rework things.
The challenges for senior leaders managing across multiple layers of the organisation are clearly significant; with required pace, various different views of outcomes and keeping multiple stakeholders on the same implementation bus a potential risk. I completely agree that early establishment of purpose, goals, roles and agreed norms is key. I’ve found these two books particularly helpful Simon Sinek’s Leader’s Eat Last (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReRcHdeUG9Y) and Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCxct4CR-To). From memory Lencioni does propose that the more senior team is most important (although I’ve not reviewed this specifically before writing this response).
Spending time as a team to understand each other’s fundamental make up is always helpful and time well spent in my experience, particularly when new teams are formed. External assessments normally add value. Taking and acting on that information helps individuals quickly build alignment – even if it just gets people understanding why someone’s behaviour is different from what they would normally expect.
Building the right culture where Leaders Speak Last is obviously crucially important. This is obviously challenging for those team members who want to focus on execution and just be told what needs to be done, and also to those who want to dive straight into action. I’ve often found it’s better to take a bit more time up front to ensure that there’s complete alignment. It makes execution considerably easier in my experience.
All this needs to be supported by clearly agreed timeframe for decisions. At some point, discussions need to come to an end and decisions need to be made even if decision inputs aren’t 100% understood. Getting these agreed up front helps keep pace high, and gets early buy in to what’s collectively being aimed for. There are clear risks here from a PS position – individuals need to understand it’s not that they haven’t been listened to, just that another suggestion has been selected.
I agree that all parties maintaining respect is vital – “designed by clowns” may very well be an accurate view from the pilot, but such phraseology isn’t going to build open dialogue, and can undo a lot of hard work.
Learning through post implementation reviews of key projects is key. It’s clear that not everything is going to go without issues, and learning needs to take place.
It’s certainly a “Leave your Ego” at the door topic. There’s a clear shared objective to make things better through building safety, and everyone needs to enter the process with that in mind. Improved PS should help us all get 1% better every day!
Thanks for your thoughtful response Colin. I’ve read and really liked Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team. His other book that’s relevant is The Advantage, in which he argues that culture is the only long term sustainable advantage a company can have.
When it comes to balancing execution speed with maintaining PS, there are three tools I use to help with that. The first is being explicit about how a particular decision will be made. The second is using decision-making frameworks to align the team on the key elements contributing to a decision. The last is sharing context and rationale so that even if the decision goes against the preferences of the team, they understand why (which often helps them learn).
I agree that language is important, and insulting people is not conducive to productive dialogue. The point of the linked article was that PS was lacking at Boeing, and the quote illustrates that in multiple ways.
Ego development theory, specifically work by Susanne Cook-Greuter, has been the backbone of my development for many years. Getting your own ego out of the way is a great catalyst for collaborative working, though the theory has a much wider scope than that.
Thanks Daneel, I haven’t seen any of Susanne’s work so that gives me something to dig into and continue my own development.