Recently, I met with three team members to discuss any concerns they had about their upcoming two-day team retreat. All three shared similar worries, summarized as: “There are issues we need to address that won’t be raised – it’s not safe.” If you were the leader of this team, what are you curious about?
What it means
Psychological safety, as defined by Amy Edmondson in “The Fearless Organization,” is the workplace climate where people “feel comfortable sharing concerns and mistakes without fear of embarrassment or retribution” (p. xvi). Research, including Edmondson’s studies and Google’s “Project Aristotle,” highlights psychological safety as a critical factor for high performance in teams. In these teams, candid conversations are expected, and mistakes are quickly acknowledged and addressed. Interestingly, Edmondson found that high-performing teams didn’t make more mistakes than other teams; they were just more willing to report and address mistakes promptly.
What it does NOT mean
Psychological safety is not about being nice or polite, nor does it imply a constant state of comfort. It doesn’t mean lowering performance standards or eliminating consequences for poor performance or actions. And it doesn’t mean avoiding dissent. In fact, psychologically safe workplaces foster more dissent, as team members feel secure enough to share unpopular perspectives.
What is the “get” part of Psychological Safety?
As a team member, I desire an environment where I feel respected and “included, safe to learn, safe to contribute, and safe to challenge the status quo, without the fear of being embarrassed, marginalized, or punished in some way” (Timothy Clark, “The Four Stages of Psychological Safety,” p. 2). I want to feel it’s safe to give candid feedback to my boss and teammates and to share my ideas, even if they are not universally accepted. Who wouldn’t want that?
What is the “give” part, and who is responsible?
The leader of the team plays a pivotal role in creating and sustaining the conditions for a psychologically safe environment. This begins with the leader modelling the candour, respect, and willingness to hear (and not punish) critical feedback, as well as acknowledging their own mistakes.
However, the team leader is not solely responsible for this safety; team members have a role in that responsibility as well. As a team member, my “give” involves my commitment to provide candid (and possibly critical) feedback in a respectful manner to both team leaders and peers. At the same time, I must be open to receiving candid feedback just as respectfully. Calling “unsafe” as a reason for me to withhold my ideas or feedback may be warranted by inadequate leadership….and/or it may be due to my unwillingness to accept – “own” – my part in creating that safety. We all must hold each other accountable for maintaining the kind of environment of which we wish to be a part.
Why it matters?
A psychologically safe environment is critical to enabling high performance in a team. Such environments make it safer to challenge one’s own thinking, to ‘try on’ the different perspectives that can lead to identifying new possibilities, and to more comfortably adopt an experimental mindset needed to lead in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world.
