Top executives and psychological safety: it is a difficult marriage. On the one hand, quite a few leaders have contributed to cultures of fear in companies. The scandals that resulted, such as fraud, sexual harassment and abuse of power, have been widely covered in the media. On the other hand, executives are often named as the obvious people to create a safe climate. Without commitment from the top nothing happens, people say. So what is the truth? Are executives safety eaters or safety givers?
Björn Schigt, a consultant and coach who lives and works in Switzerland, set out to investigate. He came back with a double message. Knowledge of the subject is often lacking at the top. But there are certainly ways to get leaders interested in it.
What is psychological safety?
Psychological safety is the shared belief in a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks. Harvard professor Amy Edmondson put the concept on the map. She showed that teams in which people feel safe learn more, and therefore perform better. Edmondson
Like many people, Schigt became interested when he read about Google's Project Aristotle. That research looked for the factors behind successful teams. The researchers studied 180 teams, both high-performing and less well-performing ones. What really mattered was not so much who was in the team, but how the team worked together. And the most important factor was psychological safety: in the best teams, people feel safe to admit a mistake, ask a question or put forward a new idea. Google re:Work
'The research taught me,' says Schigt, 'that nobody wants to put on a "work face" when they come into the office. Nobody wants to leave part of their personality at home. People want to be fully present at work. That is only possible in a climate of psychological safety. You have to be free to share things that matter, without fear and blame. We need to be able to talk about what is messy or sad. We want work to be more than labour.'
Lost for words
But do CEOs of large, international companies think the same way? With that question, Schigt visited twelve CEOs of Dutch and Swiss companies. They were executives with operational responsibility, not leaders who work at a distance from day-to-day business. The executives knew in advance what the conversation would be about. So you would think the first question was a gift: had they ever heard of psychological safety, and did they know what it meant?
The answer was as honest as it was sobering. Four of the twelve had never heard of it. Four had heard the term mentioned, but could not say what it meant. Two placed it in the psychological corner and referred to topics such as motivation. Only two CEOs really knew what it was. A telling detail: they had just taken a management course with Edmondson at Harvard.
Personal experiences are central
After the concept had been explained to the CEOs, Schigt asked what would prompt them to take action on it. Social developments, such as the call for more diversity and inclusion, played only a small role. They considered a better organisational climate more important. But most important of all were their own experiences. All the CEOs could remember moments of feeling unsafe in their careers. They were not listened to, they were ignored or overruled, their opinion was ridiculed, or after a mistake others acted as if they no longer existed. Painful experiences from long ago, which they still remembered clearly.
What does that tell us? That you should approach psychological safety not so much through the rational route, but above all through people's personal experiences, in this case those of leaders. Fostering psychological safety is not a matter of a perfect business case or a grand vision. It is about facing your own negative experiences, talking about them and turning them into positive energy. That happened during the conversations too. The more the CEOs let themselves be guided by their own experiences, the more important they found the subject.
Feet on the ground
Did the CEOs get completely carried away, then? No, they kept their feet on the ground. They saw psychological safety mainly as a necessary basic condition, not as a force that motivates by itself. In other words: they considered its absence a bigger problem than its presence an advantage. For them, the goal was not so much inclusion or humane business, but above all engagement and performance.
They also pointed to possible drawbacks. Too much focus on psychological safety could lead to a soft, cuddly culture, an overly informal atmosphere and a lack of boundaries, but above all to endless talking and little performing. As a leadership style, almost all of them chose a fairly classic approach: encouraging employees and giving them energy, building close relationships and steering firmly on results.
The bad news and the good news
This small, qualitative study is not exactly encouraging. Knowledge and awareness among top executives are limited, and so is the appetite to really act on it. The CEOs mainly choose the defensive route: limiting the risks of psychological unsafety, such as damage to image and reputation, as much as possible. Is the situation hopeless, then? Not at all.
Anyone who wants to reach the top of organisations would do well to repeat the story ad nauseam, because there is still a lot of ignorance. And the road to more awareness runs best through personal experiences. There were no slick presentations. People talked about everyday, personal experiences.
One more important lesson: are you not part of the top, but do you want to work on psychological safety? Then don't wait for the top to move. Get started in your own team. Show that the subject goes much further than being nice to each other, and prove with your team's performance that psychological safety is not only more pleasant, but also leads to better results.
Also read: more effective teams through psychological safety.
About this article: this piece is based on a blog by Hans van der Loo.
