What is the data telling us about psychological safety? with Juliet Owen
We Not Me · Juliet Owen, Dan Hammond, Pia Lee
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (media.transistor.fm) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
the latest dataset from Squadify reveals how teams rate psychological safety. Juliet Owen joins Dan and Pia to go through the numbers and add some context.
Carl Rogers defines psychological safety as an individual feeling unconditional worth. This forms the basis of the movement, continued on by Amy Edmondson who defines it as a shared belief held by team members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. Timothy Clark's model defines four stages of psychological safety: inclusion safety, learner safety, contributor safety, and challenger safety.
Takeaways from Dan and Pia
- Team leaders should recognise that feeling psychologically safe may be biased towards individuals with high status. It's a common mistake to assume everyone can speak their minds freely.
- We need to reimagine how to create personal connections within a hybrid environment, both virtually and face-to-face. If we don't, the foundation of psychological safety will be compromised.
- Challenger safety might be seen as a momentum killer and a pain. However, it's important for leaders to take on challenges. The comfort levels of the team leader themselves play a big role in creating a sense of safety for their teams. And doing so without being controlling can be difficult.
Links
- Connect with Juliet on LinkedIn
- Psychological safety in teams – We Not Me episode 3 with Dr Jessica Tonissen
- Building psychological safety: a how-to guide – We Not Me episode 41, with Stephan Wiedner
- Leave us a voice message