(You can find the German version of this article here.)

 

‘A climate of psychological safety is the most important factor for high team performance’ - this result of the so-called Aristotle Project by Google from 2012 caused quite a stir. And there are many other studies that describe the positive effect of high psychological safety in a team. If you want to strengthen your team, it is therefore highly recommended that you familiarise yourself with this topic and know your options for action. But let's start with a definition.

 

What does psychological safety mean?

Psychological safety is a construct of organisational psychology. According to Prof A. Edmondson, it refers to ‘a team climate in which we feel safe to take interpersonal risks’. In such a climate, we feel safe to raise ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes without being penalised or shamed. We don't wear a metaphorical mask, but feel comfortable coming out as a whole person.  We feel accepted and comfortable as individuals and are therefore ready to contribute fully. Research shows that such a climate is team-specific, but can also be influenced by the organisational culture.

 

Which effects has psychological safety on team performance?

According to research, a high level of psychological safety in a team has numerous positive effects. The results found in Google's Aristotle project with regard to team performance are also reflected in other studies: according to Li and Yan (2009) and Lee, Swink and Pandejpong (2011), psychological safety is linked to quality, efficiency and productivity. 

 

In addition, psychological safety strengthens both the acquisition of new knowledge and the utilisation and processing of existing knowledge. Both are necessary for maximising overall performance (Kostopoulos & Bonzionelos, 2011, among others). In addition, innovative behaviour increases (Post, 2012; Gu, Wang & Wang, 2013) and the result of joint work is more creative (Wilkens, 2006). 

 

Diversity in expertise also has a positive effect on team performance when psychological safety is high. This diversity means that there is a variety of knowledge, skills and abilities in a team. If there is no climate of psychological safety, this diversity of expertise actually has a negative effect on performance (Martins, Schilpzand, Kirkman, Ivanaj & Ivanaj, 2013). 

 

Another consequence of psychological safety is that colleagues are more likely to help each other, e.g. with difficult tasks or when a colleague has too much to do. In addition, such a climate promotes identification with the organisation for which one works (Singh & Winkel, 2012). 

 

With all these studies that look at psychological safety in isolation, it is important to note: Psychological safety is particularly effective when there is a high level of accountability and motivation in the team. If this is not the case, a culture quickly develops in which team members feel safe but not challenged and important feedback is not provided (Edmondson, 2012; Tenelius & Gill, 2020)

 

Which factors influence, how psychological safe a team is?

Some studies show that differences in status have an influence on psychological safety. People who are high up in the hierarchy feel the most secure (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Kahn, 1990). In addition to formal status in the organisation, subjective status also has an influence on psychological safety (Bienefeld & Grote, 2012). One example of this is informal membership of the manager's inner circle (Burris et al., 2009).

 

Liu et al. (2014) were able to show that an even distribution of leadership influence in the team has a positive effect on psychological safety. This means that leadership responsibilities are distributed among the team members and are not taken on by just one person. We are therefore talking here about self-managed/self-organised teams. 

 

If there is a manager in the team, the behaviour of this manager has a major influence on psychological safety. For example, it is beneficial if managers value their employees and consider them to be competent (Tynan, 2005). Furthermore, the integrity and assessability of the manager is important (Palanski & Vogelsang, 2011; Kahn, 1990) Coaching-oriented leadership behaviour also promotes psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999).

 

In addition to hierarchy and leadership behaviour, the relationships between colleagues also play a role. Relationships that are emotionally resilient are conducive to psychological safety. This means that it is possible to express different emotions without embarrassment in these relationships. This promotes feeling understood. In such relationships, it is also possible to express oneself authentically and spontaneously without having to fear negative consequences. Furthermore, there is strong connection and openness. And finally, these relationships are characterised by mutual appreciation (Carmeli, Brueller & Dutton, 2009; May, Gilson & Hartner, 2004).

 

 Equally relevant are an error-friendly culture, norms that reward innovative thinking and experimentation (Schein, 1992), freedom to pursue one's work (Kahn, 1990), the availability of the required information and resources (Edmondson, 1999), and the creation of a diversity climate. The latter describes the extent to which employees perceive that the company values, embraces and promotes diversity (Singh, Winkel & Selvarajan, 2012).

 

What can be done concreteley?

Now it's getting exciting. What specific measures could be helpful in promoting psychological safety in a team?

 

First of all, it makes sense to look at the specific case to see what the situation is in terms of psychological safety and which factors are at play. It can be useful to get an initial quantitative picture using a questionnaire developed by Prof. Amy Edmondson and/or to develop a deeper understanding through qualitative interviews. Measures can then be developed on this basis. I would like to highlight a few

 

Since status differences can be a hindrance, shared leadership can be an answer. However, this does not necessarily have to mean completely self-managed teams. These can actually strengthen psychological safety – but in my experience only if there is already a certain basis of psychological safety and communication, feedback and conflict skills. Otherwise it can backfire. It makes sense to proceed cautiously on the road to self-organisation. 

 

Initially, a first step could be just a little more shared leadership, e.g. by delegating some management tasks to team members, by using participatory decision-making methods in certain subject areas, etc. . What is important here is that the manager adheres to what they have agreed with the team with regard to shared leadership. Otherwise, insecurity and mistrust arise. It also makes sense to look at effective forms of joint decision-making. Consensus and majority principles are often neither effective nor efficient. I recommend looking at the integrative decision-making process and other so-called consent-based decision-making methods.

 

If it turns out that the management style of the manager weakens psychological safety, then executive coaching with a coach who is familiar with psychological safety can certainly be helpful. 

 

I believe that non-violent communication (NVC) is a great way to ensure good communication in a team. NVC is a way of getting to know yourself better, with your feelings and needs, and thus expressing yourself more clearly and asking for what you need. It is helpful for self-clarification, conflict resolution and feedback discussions. It helps us to understand each other better, to treat each other with respect and to stand up for ourselves at the same time. This can strengthen relationships. In addition to NVC training, structures are helpful that enable the clarification of tensions before they become a conflict (e.g. regular feedback conversations with each other) as well as formats for conflict resolution. 

 

So-called check-ins before meetings can also promote safety. Each person briefly shares what is present for them at the very moment – i.e. how they are doing or what is on their mind. This can help to strengthen mutual understanding and more mindful interaction with one another. In principle, opportunities for team members to get to know each other better are helpful. 

 

It can make sense for individual team members to seek support through coaching or similar to examine unconscious patterns and less helpful behaviours in the team structure in a protected setting and to try out new ones. However, this should always be done voluntarily. 

 

The way of dealing with mistakes should be constructive; the potential within it for development should be recognised and the focus should be on shared success. It also makes sense to distribute tasks based on strengths. 

 

Overall, psychological safety can only be strengthened and maintained through recurring actions and not through one-off training sessions or declarations of intent. 

 

"Yes, but..." says the nervous system research

Before the article ends, I'll make it a bit more complicated again ;-) 

 

All the measures described above cannot guarantee that a person feels safe. How safe we feel has a lot to do with our nervous system and the experiences of (perceived) safety and insecurity stored in it. In particular, overwhelming past experiences (trauma) can lead to our not being able to perceive safety in the now. At the same time, people with a well-regulated nervous system do not necessarily need all the measures described above to feel safe and comfortable.

 

Curious? Learn more in part 2 of this series: Psychological safety from a nervous system perspective

 

(Foto from Sylvain Brison on Unsplash)