How to level up your teamwork

Simply put, psychological safety makes it possible to give tough feedback and have difficult conversations without the need to tiptoe around the truth. In psychologically safe environments, people believe that if they make a mistake others will not penalise or think less of them for it. They also believe that others will not resent or humiliate them when they ask for help or information. This belief comes about when people both trust and respect each other, and it produces a sense of confidence that the group won’t embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up.

Tolerating risky behaviour

Thus, psychological safety is a taken‑for‑granted belief about how others will respond when you ask a question, seek feedback, admit a mistake or propose a possibly wacky idea. Most people feel a need to manage interpersonal risk to retain a good image, especially at work, and especially in the presence of those who formally evaluate them. This need is both instrumental (promotions and rewards may depend on impressions held by bosses and others) and socio‑emotional (we simply prefer approval over disapproval).

It doesn’t mean groupthink

Psychological safety does not imply a cosy situation in which people are necessarily close friends. Nor does it suggest an absence of pressure or problems. Psychological safety does not mean a group has to be cohesive or in agreement about things. As research has shown, group cohesiveness can reduce people’s willingness to disagree with or challenge each other. The term groupthink refers to this problem. Specifically, in many cohesive groups, people are reluctant to disturb the feeling of harmony created by the group’s apparent agreement about an important issue. This leads them to hold back or fail to admit to holding a different view, and thus contributes to poor decision‑making.

Differing views welcomed

Yale professor Irving Janis attributed President Kennedy’s ill‑fated plan to send Cuban exiles to invade the Bay of Pigs in 1961 to groupthink. By contrast, psychological safety describes a climate in which raising a dissenting view is expected and welcomed. A tolerance of dissent enables productive discussion and early detection of problems. 
I have found that many people are genuinely pained and frustrated by keeping silent at work. For the most part, the people I’ve studied aren’t failing to provide ideas or input because they’ve ‘checked out’ or don’t care, but because of a subtle but pervasive fear of what others, particularly those in power, might think of them. As most people intuitively recognise, each of us engages in a tacit calculus in which we assess the risk associated with a given interpersonal behaviour, quickly and effortlessly, as we face a micro‑behaviour decision point.

Potential gain v loss

To illustrate what I mean by a micro‑behaviour decision point, imagine that while you are in a conversation with your boss, you consider fleetingly, ‘Should I say something about this?’ In this almost imperceptible thinking process, you weigh the potential gain against the potential loss. You wonder, ‘If I do this, will I be hurt, embarrassed or criticised?’ If you quickly conclude that the answer is no, then you have a sense of psychological safety, and you proceed to voice your thoughts. (If you believe that the answer might be that you could be hurt but you speak anyway, then you are demonstrating courage.) Typically, proceeding means being authentic. It means expressing the work‑relevant thoughts and feelings on your mind without excessive self‑censorship.

Honest mistakes are accepted

Consider the fact that admitting a mistake or asking for help may be unthinkable in one work setting and yet readily accepted, even valued, in another setting. The difference between the two situations is what psychological safety is all about.

The easy solution to minimising image risk at work is to avoid doing or saying anything unless you’re absolutely sure you’re right. This is obviously a facetious solution. Not only does it limit creativity, stifle innovation and preclude authentic relationships, but it also creates important risks of another kind: risks to performance and safety. This is especially true in dangerous industries such as nuclear power, where admitting errors and asking for help may be critical for avoiding catastrophe.

This column is an edited extract from Amy Edmondson’s book 90 Days to Level Up Your Teamwork (Wiley)

 

You may also be interested in:

• Navigating leadership expectations and psychological safety with a Team Charter
• See how to make psychological safety within your teams through the APM Learning platform
• How to achieve high-performance teamwork