Compliance is not enough

Monday’s ABC Four Corners program "Don't Speak" has cast a spotlight on the critical issue of workplace bullying and the harmful culture of silence that persists in many organisations. People sometimes ask for clear examples of the kind of behaviour that the Psychosocial Hazards updates to Work Health and Safety legislation cover. The 4 Corners “Don’t Speak” program gives many clear examples across the full spectrum. It serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences when these risks are ignored, including severe mental health impacts and, in the worst cases, loss of life. We need to do better!

Organisations are already starting to see action based on the new laws. But guess what - changing legislation on its own, won't change behaviour. 

As in physical safety, exemplar organisations have already embedded culture which supports speaking up, asking questions, encouraging diversity, respect, and valuing contribution. They go way beyond compliance, embedding psychological safety and responsibility as key ingredients of high performance.

There’s many practical ways to do exactly that. What does your organisation do about it?

If you’d like a hand with it in your teams, let me know I’d be delighted to assist.

Is it contradictory?

Psychological Safety is a slightly misleading term. Many people think it's about being nice for the sake of avoiding conflict - that to be psychologically safe, we should avoid holding ourselves and others to a higher standard of performance. We’ll also avoid difficult conversations and feedback, so people feel safe. A psychologically safe environment is often uncomfortable, precisely because it is safe to do all these things. As a result individuals and teams will push into greater performance.

High psychological safety without a correspondingly high performance standard creates a comfort zone. Comfortable, but highly unlikely to yield high performance, learning or innovation. Over time, those comfort zones crumble into complacency and eventually apathy.

So what can our business owner of last week do to raise both psychological safety and performance:

• Aim for 5x as much affirming feedback as corrective. Tell people when they are doing a great job and why. This is significantly more effective in setting a high performance standard than critical or corrective feedback. And corrective feedback will be more willingly accepted when it is needed. People will want to know how to improve.

• Ask for feedback yourself. Listen and act on it. By doing so you set the standard that feedback is part of how we work.

• Give yourself feedback by reflecting on your work, what went well and what could be improved. Show the way on this and set up opportunities for others to do the same regularly. Many micro versions trump occasional large ones like performance reviews once a year.

• Be specific and clear when giving feedback. Many of us shy away from this in an attempt to be ‘nice’. It misses the mark.

• Get to know your team and what motivates them. When people feel you care about them as people, as well as the results, the results will benefit.

PS if you’d like some great questions to ask for reflection and feedback, send me a message and we’ll send them through.

Force won’t fix it

A while ago, I was doing a maintenance job on my motorbike. When trying to re-fit the front axle it wouldn’t slide through without a bit of force. As the saying goes, ”If at first it doesn’t fit, get a bigger hammer.” I got one and in return I got some damaged parts. My bigger hammer made a bigger problem.

The situation came to mind when I was talking to a leader about the performance of his team. According to him, they are not bad, but the general standard of their work is a bit lackadaisical. In attempting to lift the standard, all his tactics are about more force. Some of what he told me:

• He expresses anger and/or disappointment at the current standard of work (Understandable by the way, it costs him $$ when work is not on point)

• He plays people off against each other

• He makes thinly veiled threats about people losing their job

• He demands longer work hours to make up for the perceived shortcomings

• He constantly reminds people of policies and procedures

• He is looking over people’s shoulders all the time

• He never thanks people for anything (Why should I thank them for doing the job they are paid to do, especially if they are not doing it well? he asked)

I asked him how that approach was working for him.

“I think it’s getting worse,: he said. People don’t take responsibility and blame others/circumstances for their results. Like me with my axle bolt, I understand his frustration, but I’m not surprised.

In an environment where high results/standards are expected, but people don’t feel psychologically safe, the dominant feeling is anxiety. People will do almost anything to avoid attention and cover their butts. More force adds to the problem, making it harder and longer to fix.

Next time we’ll look at some of what he can do to reverse the current situation and build

Psychological safety as well as the performance standard.

Why can’t we just talk openly?

A new CEO asked this question of his senior staff, one of whom I’m coaching at the moment. His belief is that people should be able to raise issues and talk openly about them with each other. But people don’t. Simply saying that they should, regardless of good intent, won’t change people’s minds.

There’s been a history in the organisation of people raising issues and experiencing significant backlash. There’s been people actively working to boost their reputation while tearing others down. There's been gossip and blame. People are accustomed to bad outcomes when they speak openly about problems. There’s nothing in recent history that suggests doing so would be good or safe.

To change that will take more than words. It will take building trust and psychological safety. That will likely mean starting with relatively small and inconsequential pieces and building up to the bigger stuff. It will take some courage and accountability.

All that can be achieved reasonably quickly, but simply saying it won’t make it so.

The Dark Side

Psychological Safety (PS) is confidence that you won’t be embarrassed, rejected or punished (by boss or team) for speaking up, sharing ideas, asking questions and providing feedback. 

So far we’ve seen that Musk encourages all of these, especially in the development of the products his companies create. It is far from a perfect picture however. Let's look at Musk’s behaviour which reduces PS. BTW, few (If any) of us  are perfect in this regard. This is intended to provoke reflection.

• “You’re an idiot” - Musk will often use language like this. It damages PS  by  directly attacking a person, rather than an open conversation about the problem. It also doesn't give any suggestion or support for improvement.

• “Your resignation will be accepted” - When people push back on timeframes, safety or variability of an idea/solution, Musk resorts to ordering them to do it while threatening their job. There are examples of this making teams go further/faster than they thought possible, but they don’t feel safe. This kind of behaviour leads to people covering things up, rather than telling the full story. Arguably, it was precisely the same behaviour that caused the Challenger space shuttle explosion.

• Ignoring sound advice - Musk puts arbitrary time frames on delivery that are often completely unobtainable. He has a litany of promised features behind him that have been confidently announced and not achieved. Parts of his team acknowledge that this has pushed them further/faster, however there is also chaos in the wake. I like Gilbert Enoka’s (former All Black’s Mindset coach) approach to this. He says targets need to be out of reach but not out of sight. When we can’t conceive it being achievable, a target can demotivate. If it’s too easy it won’t motivate us either. Musk could maintain the relentless drive for innovation and progress while making it more safe (and fun) by setting better gaps. It would do a lot for the believability of his promises too.

How do you personally create or contribute to the PS of your working environment? Are your behaviours net positive or negative?

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaacson. It’s current up to 2023. The book was the catalyst for this series.

Musk making it safe

mage of Starship explosions tweeted by Musk"

Elon Musk has an unusually high appetite for risk compared to most entrepreneurs. There have been many times over his many business ventures when he has risked an ‘all-in’ bet on something that was far from certain. On some of those occasions, Musk himself has stated that the most likely outcome will be a company ending failure. He’s also known to be demanding, setting very high expectations and seemingly impossible timeframes. He’s not shy when it comes to firing people. So how does he create psychological safety, which is an important ingredient for success in a high performance environment:

• Clear vision - for all of his companies there is a single line summary of purpose (except Twitter now X perhaps). SpaceX is “Make humanity a multiplanetary species to ensure the survival of consciousness.” While this is lofty, it also drives real world-decisions. Musk moves fast, because the goal is not just a moon shot, or orbit, but a Mars colony. Whatever you think of the vision, there’s no ambiguity in it.

• Delete, Delete, Delete - Musk is on a relentless drive to delete anything unnecessary from his companies and the rules governing them. That would normally lead to people feeling at threat, but Musk’s mantra “if we don’t end up adding back at least 10% of what we deleted, we didn’t go hard enough” sets the stage. There’s an inherent understanding that some of the deletion experiments will fail. That’s both expected and encouraged.

• Accountability - If someone says “It's an engineering requirement”, Musk will ask, “who from engineering said so?”. There’s a name attached to everything. It stops people hiding behind departments or processes, and gets people to own their decisions. It also means things can be discussed. Much harder to have a conversation with ‘engineering’ than with Steve from engineering. That this is framed as an expectation so that deletion conversations can be had faster, rather than as a blame point for failure makes it safer. Steve would still be sweating when the spotlight turns to him, but it’s very different from a blame game or witch hunt. Steve will be prepared to answer challenges on the calls he made.

There’s no doubt Musk drives himself, his people and companies harder than I think is ideal; however these and other clear elements make it very obvious what people are signing up for. As a result he attracts, driven, focussed people who want to change the world we live in. There’s no denying the incredible list of achievements.

Next time we’ll look at some of the ways Musk damages psychological safety and what we can learn from that.

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaccson. It’s current up to 2023. The book was the catalyst for this series.

Work Both Ways

I worked with a team with some of the best scores I have ever seen for psychological safety. It wasn't surprising. The team focusses on it in everything they do. Despite the scores, their biggest opportunity for improvement was feedback. They give and receive plenty. They value it. They care about each other as well as the result. These are all ingredients for a great feedback culture. Almost all of them said the quality of feedback was the challenge.

To give quality feedback work in 2 directions at once. Down into detail and up into context. Specific, actionable detail is feedback gold. If it's not specific enough it's difficult to act on. The master stroke is to link to a bigger contextual frame. Context makes feedback useful across everything you do, rather than just the immediate situation.

I love working with teams to develop great feedback skills. Done well feedback is a superpower for teams. Done poorly it can tear them apart.

How does your team score on feedback?

Do They Know

All she was doing was requesting some leave. Leave she was owed, no special requests. And yet days had gone by with no action. She told me, I’m waiting for the right moment. Her boss had to be approached when he was in ‘the right mood’ or otherwise the reaction could be unpredictable. Really? For leave?

I’ve had a few conversations like these lately where people are tiptoeing around colleagues, and people up and down the line. And we are all human - bad days where we are not operating at our best, or as our best self are going to happen from time to time.

But one of the best things leaders and teams can do for each other is consistency. We can’t predict all the things that will happen in our workplace. Ideally though how we will respond should be really predictable. And it should instil confidence not fear. Our behaviour to each other is one of the elements we can control and enables teams to build a sense of certainty regardless of the situation and workload.

If as a leader you are feeling a bit frayed at the edges, it might be time to reset. For teams, it's well worth a conversation to establish how we will be, regardless of what we have to do.

Know Your Place

One of our Perth footy teams has been copping a heap of flack lately. They have had a woeful season, plagued with injury and losses. As always, there’s a bunch of armchair coaches with plenty of views about what could or should be done to fix it.

One player has been copping more criticism than usual. It’s been based on how much contact he has with the ball (Nowhere near enough apparently). In a radio interview another player was discussing the issue. His view is the player is doing exactly what his job is on the team, and doing it well. Apparently the position has wildly variable ball stats because it’s oriented slightly behind the play to create opportunities and turnovers. Depending how the game unfolds this means either lots of contact, or none. He could easily rush into the play and increase his stats, but hanging back is precisely what he’s meant to do.

There are several lessons from this interview that relate to Psychological Safety and high performance in any team:

• Clarity and willingness . The roles are clearly articulated and understood. People are willing to play their role for the team, even when there’s external pressure to do something different.

• Support roles are crucial. There are roles that are specifically about support. The people in these roles are unlikely to be the central figure or superstar (many times they don’t want to be either). Their support is part of the recipe for success. The highly visible roles in any team are surrounded by people who make it possible for them to do their best work.

• Support for support roles is crucial too. In a high performing team their essential contribution is recognised and celebrated in ways that make sense to the people in support, and the culture of the team. If those in support roles are not properly recognised, they either rush into action to improve their ‘stats’ or they become increasingly disengaged as their hard work goes unnoticed (or worse, others claim credit for it).

Without role clarity, none of this will happen well. What can you do today to increase clarity for the people in your team dedicated to support? How does recognition happen for them? Could that be improved?

If you’d like some tips and strategies for improving Psychological Safety in your team, feel free to be in touch.

Disclaimer - My knowledge of AFL is possibly the lowest of any human in Australia (at some point I’ll tell you about my own woful start and very short footy career). While my interpretation of the nuances of the game is way below the average armchair coach, the observations derived still stand.

The Right Tool for the Job

On the weekend I did a bit of work on my old 4WD. It got me thinking. I spent about 60 minutes applying brute force and busting knuckles trying to get a ball joint out of its socket. I phoned a friend. I swore quite a bit. Nothing worked. Then I went round the corner and paid $50 for the right tool for the job. In less than 10 minutes I had done 2 joints. It was easy and even pleasurable.

Sometimes we have to make do with not having the ideal tool to hand. More often than not it's false economy. One of the effective things leaders can do to build psychological safety and create momentum in the workplace is to set people up with the right gear for success.

Are there any areas where you or your team don't currently have the right tool?

P.S. This isn't a licence to demand the best and latest of everything. I could have bought a $800 tool that would have done the same job. If I was using it daily that would be money well spent. For the one off job, it would have been overkill.

A picture of Self-Reliance

I work with many organisations who provide support to people with disabilities and the elderly. At face value, their clients are not very self-reliant. The truth of it is we are all reliant on others, all the time, regardless of how independent we think we are. As leaders, recognising and appreciating the people we rely on is a great way to build a sense of team, and to grow psychological safety in your workplace.

I love Steve Jobs’ take on this…

"I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow I did not breed or perfect the seeds.

I do not make any of my own clothing.

I speak a language I did not invent or refine.

I did not discover the mathematics I use.

I am protected by freedoms and laws I did not conceive of or legislate, and do not enforce or adjudicate.

I am moved by music I did not create myself.

When I needed medical attention, I was helpless to help myself survive.

I did not invent the transistor, the microprocessor, object oriented programming, or most of the technology I work with.

I love and admire my species, living and dead, and am totally dependent on them for my life and well being."

(An email Jobs sent to himself in 2010. Bought to my attention by James Clear in his weekly post)

Isolation - What Does it Mean at Work?

16 years ago, I did a 12 day solo survival walk. An isolated part of Western Australia was the backdrop. Sourcing food and water from the land. Sleeping on the ground in just my clothes. When I first started, being alone and unplugged was an absolute luxury, but as the days wore on the effort of doing 100% of everything and having no one to share the scene, decisions, insights etc became wearing. There were moments when I felt the impact of isolation at a deep and visceral level. Without an external reference point, my mind explored all manner of answers to the question “Who am I?”. Some of it was useful and enjoyable. Some of it had a darker edge.

Since then there’s been a regular stream of survival shows that leave people alone. There’s a consistent pattern to the exits. Early on people with insufficient skill or experience quickly pull out and retreat to home. Of the people left, many have the skills to survive a very long time, if not indefinitely. Eventually, they all quit because they crave the company of others. Assuming no medical reasons for withdrawal, it's the isolation that gets people. We are meant to be with other people.

It’s no surprise to me that isolated work (including work from home) is listed as one of the potential risks in workplace psychosocial hazards. The baseline is to consider how we facilitate connection and inclusion in inherently isolated working settings. But I reckon the gold standard is to become really aware of how we potentially isolate people in any setting.

Who has access to resources and opportunities?

Are we Cliquey?

Are people snubbed or shunned for behaviour, appearance, professional background, belief, or any other factor?

How are social connections working? Everything from casual chats over coffee to formal events.

While we don’t have to include everyone in everything all of the time (That would get really cumbersome), we should be having regular conversations about what connection looks like in our workplace. How is it at yours?

A Cautionary Tale

I was called in to facilitate a discussion between six team members from a settlement agency in a small open plan office. On a daily basis, they relied on each other for information, and to ensure timely settlements took place.

As with any workplace, there were a number of characters who would be unlikely to have much to do with each other outside work. Over the course of about two years, what started as a minor issue escalated to a full-blown investigation into bullying allegations. The heightened state of friction and tension in the office was causing significant performance issues, both individually and across the whole business. Balls were being dropped, and financial penalties were being applied due to non-delivery. The business was not dealing particularly well with the issue, and there was even the possibility of a massive escalation of the original complaint.

There were two issues that had once been minor, and had been allowed to escalate to the stage where they threatened work effectiveness, performance, peoples’ health, and the very company itself. The first was a personality clash that was exaggerated by the open plan office environment and sloppy personal and organisational management. Two people would spend large amounts of time talking about social situations and their personal lives. The kinds of conversations we all have over coffee, a meal or after work. The fact that it was during work time and in an open workspace had another colleague attempting to join the conversation. The others didn’t want to include her in the conversation. So far this is a minor issue.

Over time she felt increasingly excluded and marginalised from the conversations. She tried harder to join them. The other two increasingly shunned her and eventually escalated their behaviour to the point that a bullying and harassment complaint was made and the subsequent investigation found that they had not treated their colleague appropriately. Going forward there was considerable and difficult work required to repair the fractured relationships to the point that they could work effectively together again. Success would now require significant commitment, effort and willing participation from all parties.

In parallel, the person who eventually made the bullying complaint had several genuine performance issues with her work. Her manager had not dealt with these, and they too had escalated until the situation was untenable.

But the time I was involved, it was pretty much impossible for the manager to deal with any of the performance issues, without them being seen as an extension of the bullying the woman was experiencing. It seemed unlikely that the various players could find a space to move on from the issues. Their demeanour and attitudes suggested they would just continue to escalate their part in the drama.

Both issues could have been easily dealt with when they were hotspots or small tears. Like many in the face of tension, friction or conflict, the manager and others had avoided the issue for so long it had become largely unsalvageable.

The manager (and others) could have taken action to clarify expectations, set the bar, and catch it early. They could have:

• Addressed the issue of excessive social chat in the open plan work environment, especially when the conversations were not intended to be shared with everyone. Simply leaving these conversations for a morning coffee break or lunch would have made the issue disappear before it got traction.

• Addressed the performance issues as soon as they were noticed - initially by asking if the person needed support or clarification of their role, and ultimately through formal performance management if needed.

• Had a whole team conversation about expectations and behaviour in the open plan environment which would have enabled the team to set and monitor their own benchmarks for healthy ways of working together and getting the job done, as in the next case study.

How quickly will we evolve?

The recent formalising of Psychosocial Hazards in Australian Work Health and Safety legislation is a fantastic evolution. We have been aware of the risks to people’s well being (Both mental and physical) from Psychosocial Hazards for a long time, and it’s taken a while for it to be seen as a hazard that needs to be actively managed.

Early in the industrial age accidents and fatalities were an accepted and expected outcome in work environments. The attitude was largely “You know the risks, so the responsibility is on you. By the way, it might not end well”. Over time safety and risk became the subject of increased awareness and responsibility for employers, transitioning through cultures dominated by compliance/policy/procedure and ultimately growing to deep safety cultures. The exemplars of this are zero blame cultures where safety is prioritised over production. Everyone is empowered to call a halt if something seems unsafe, and there are continual conversations about how it can be made more safe.

We are just emerging from the equivalent of “you know the risks” in PsychoSocial Hazards. You can track it in laguage like:

• Stress is part of the job, suck it up

• Go to the hardware and buy a bucket of harden up

• Your emotions have no place at work

• Everyone is busy, deal with it

• Yes he’s a bully, but he’s also a great performer we’ll all just have to put up with it

These are fading, but they haven’t gone away. We now have a regulatory environment. How quickly can we evolve to cultures of deep responsibility where we are encouraged to call out unsafe practice, hold each other to account, educate rather than blame? We have a road map in the physical WHS space that has been a roughly 200 year evolution. Let's not take that long on psychosocial hazards. The clock has been ticking for a while.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be exploring some of the hazards named in the excellent Worksafe “CODE OF PRACTICE - Psychosocial hazards in the workplace” and especially how these contribute to a high performance culture as well as one free from harm. Just like physical safety, it makes sense regardless of what metric you measure.

Mindset Magic

When I was young a great uncle made coins disappear then magically reappear in new locations, often as sweets or notes. I remember dearly the curious fun it created, and my clumsy attempts to repeat the trick.

Magic gives us a visceral experience of just how much we miss as we look at the world around us. Psychologists tell us that we miss up to 80% of what's happening right under our noses. This is both a super power and flaw for us humans.

Super Power - it allows us to deeply focus and pull detail from chaos. All our successful endeavours rely on this ability, both individual and collective.

Flaw - we are easily lulled into thinking we have the whole picture. The blind spots that result can cause massive (sometimes fatal) problems.

Teams that create psychological safety have a deep curiosity about what they might be missing. Finding a blind spot is cause for celebration rather than criticism.

Magic gives us a playful way to explore blind spots.

I’m delighted to announce a collaboration with the fabulous Stuart Lightbody. Stuart is an award winning, global touring, sleight of hand master. What he can do with card and coin baffles your brain. He and I are running a short workshop on 22 February for humans who are curious about:

• How we filter

• The stories we tell

• Creating Magical Moments

• How these things can be used to navigate uncertainty and lead well

The workshop is going public on Friday, I wanted you to have access to it before then. Tickets can be purchased here.

P.S. I rarely use this blog as a sales platform. There’s no expectation or obligation to buy. However, if you are curious, Stuart and I would love it if you can join us.

Clarity

Brené Brown is well known for her assertion that “Clear is Kind”.

In Psychological Safety research people give many reasons for avoiding clarity. The top ones are:

• It will result in some form of retaliation

• It will damage the working relationship

I see myself and others do this all the time. I have something to tell you but I’m not sure hope you’ll react - so I beat around the bush using vague statements, or avoid the topic entirely.

Psychological Safety and clarity are reciprocal. Build one you build the other. Damage one you damage the other. Usually our own intention and meaning is 100% clear (and obvious) to us. For clarity to be shared, we have to get past filters, assumptions and experience.

Make it a personal and team standard to be more clear as a result of any interaction with others. Some places this applies:

• Vision, mission or purpose

• Expectations about behaviour or standards

• What success looks like

• How problems get solved

• Who is responsible for an action, and by when

• Targets and time frames

• Boundaries of delegated authority

• What you are asking for

• Your ‘Yes’ or ‘No’

What is one thing you could do immediately to be more clear? What about this week? Are there any longer term projects that could benefit from greater clarity? How could you contribute to clarity? Is there anyone you need to seek greater clarity from?

Field of Play

“The ideal solution is re-stump the house. That would cost around $80K. I don’t think it’s worth it. We can stabilise the structure and achieve a reasonable result for way less, but It won’t be perfect. Let’s discuss the compromises and consequences of the cheaper version to make sure you’ll be happy with the result”

Harry the Chippy

“We have clarity about the features that must be included at launch. These cannot be compromised. If needed we’ll delay launch until we can deliver them. Then there’s features that are essential to long term success. It would be great to have them at launch, but we won’t delay for them. We’ll likely release them over the first few months of the platform being live. Finally there’s our wish list, features that would make the product match our dream. For now we can’t be distracted by these. We can build them as we build success.”

Mike the Software CEO

Both these are examples of a leader doing one of the most effective things to reduce uncertainty - they are bringing clarity to the field of Play. Imagine a sporting team trying to focus its effort without knowing the rules of the game or boundaries of the arena. It would be chaos.

As a leader, especially in uncertainty, one of your main roles is to clarify the field of play.

Grinding the Gorge

“If we are where you say we are, that wall should be north of us,” he said.

I agreed, it was an obvious statement. We’d been looking at the map, confirming where we were. He pulled out the compass and pointed it at the wall. South! My brain did back flips as I assimilated the info. I was horribly wrong about where we were, and we were way off course!

How did it get so bad? We’d been walking for a while assuming everything was OK.

In hindsight I caused it all. I’d set up an environment where there was little opportunity for input from others and low incentive to offer it. Even though the mistake cost everyone effort and miles of walking, it was a long time before anyone spoke up. Perhaps you’ve been in leadership situations like that… Wishing someone had said something earlier. 

So what were the causes

• Arrogant overconfidence. I’d been navigating on land, sea and air, plus underwater for years. I taught classes on the topic. I knew my stuff and was technically good. I felt like I couldn’t go wrong and that got me fixated on my assumptions rather than open and curious. 

• Man with the plan. People defaulted to me as the ‘guy with the answers’ because I quickly took control and started moving.

• No Space. The pace left no room for questions. Even if people were unsure, stopping to ask a question would have felt like impeding forward progress (we had some ambitious destination targets). If the ‘question’ was a niggling uncertainty rather than a clearly formed concern, it would risk looking foolish in front of the group. When we stopped for a break, someone had time to look, think, examine the map and ask a question, but before then it would have been hard.

• No feedback loops. As a group we did nothing to establish how we would work together. We just flew into action. Spending some time doing this would have saved us hours of pointless walking.

If your people are not contributing ideas, voicing concerns, suggesting improvements and bringing their best, it’s worth asking:

“What am I doing to make it difficult for people to do that?”

If you have a trusted advisor you might like to ask them the same question and listen to the answer.

Leaders set the tone for the team.

Testing...testing

Small tweaks ideally happen all the time. Those changes to systems, approaches and thinking that come from observing ourselves, peers and competition in relation to our work. But sometimes a big change is required… David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain during WWI said, “Don’t be afraid to take a large step where one is indicated. You can't cross a chasm in two small leaps.” I love the imagery that evokes!

Small changes can be a fantastic practice ground for bigger steps. Great leaders use the smaller moments to create a sense of safety to suggest or make changes. They can become like mini dress rehearsals for:

• Being open to and encouraging of new ideas

• Robust discussion about the merits of new ideas

• A cadence of testing stuff to see if it has merit

When a big step is needed, this practice may well be what makes the difference.

Everything depends on it…

And over the past two years it has taken a massive beating. 

It’s Psychological Safety. 

Unlike physical safety which can be more readily seen, measured and mitigated - Psychological Safety is more about how safe something feels. As a young outdoors instructor I often saw people deeply concerned about the safety of abseiling down a 50 metre cliff, and yet quite happy to jump in a raft to shoot some rapids.

 If you are using properly rigged and rated gear, the abseil is very low risk. It becomes quite a predictable environment from a physical safety point of view. But we are born with a hard wired fear of falling from height. That’s smart design isn’t it - especially given the consequences! The barriers are almost all psychological and it feels very unsafe and exposed. Rapids on the other hand can be way riskier. And yet it seems easier for most of us to trust the boat and jump in.

In the workplace Psychological Safety impacts many elements contributing to bottom line:

• Dealing with conflict

• Contributing innovative ideas

• Spotting and correcting physical safety issues

• Giving and receiving useful feedback

• Developing new skills

• Pointing out potential flaws in a product or plan

• Taking responsibility/accountability for results

• Giving honest estimates of time required for projects

• Open conversations about budgets, strategy, tactics and opportunities

If people don’t feel safe to do these things and more without experiencing negative kickback, they are likely to find any reason not to do them. What you say, or what the official policy is doesn’t make much difference to this. It’s all about feel. 

How would you rate the Psychological Safety of your workplace, especially after the assaults of the last 2 years? If you’d like a practical 20 point checklist to measure and improve it, send me a message and I’d be happy to send you one.