Psychological safety can be helpful (up to a point) – this is where it gets dangerous

We are designed to relentlessly find ways to improve our comfort and safety. That desire has been a motivating force for innovation ever since we started using tools. We are meant to strive for these things but never achieve them. We are not designed for total and continuous comfort.

In The fearless organizationAmy Edmondson described teams with a shared belief that it’s okay to take risks, admit mistakes, and ask questions without fear of reprisal. No organization would challenge these ideas today; they have become self-evident. In Fail fast, fail often Babineaux and Krumboltz described organizations full of action-oriented people who were free to experiment and who saw failure as a valuable opportunity to learn. No organization will dispute this, although they can make comments.

However, when our idealized corporate culture is seen in practice, we have a different expression of these values. Over time, “psychological safety” and “fail fast” have become management bromides, and employees are reluctant to take risks or speak up. We have redefined psychological safety as freedom from stress, responsibility and risk; we are safe when we feel comfortable. As we saw our peers facing the consequences of their rapid failures, we transferred that risk to product owners and our stakeholders.

Separating tech workers from decision-making

There is nothing more psychologically soothing than simply following someone else’s instructions. Receiving a list of activities for a two-week sprint cycle, orchestrated externally, without the threat of change or personal responsibility, is the ultimate safety net. If an activity is not completed as expected, we can say that it has been underestimated. If an approach does not work, we can refer to the person who gave us the assignment. If a person does what he is told, he can completely extricate himself if something goes wrong.

For most organizations, this toxic view of psychological safety is the implicit goal. Processes and structures are designed to separate technology workers from decision-making as much as possible. Once practitioners are on board, they are seen as largely interchangeable. We, for our part, obey, tempted by the possibility of giving up the more stressful parts of our profession.

This mentality has resulted in practitioners and technology functions becoming relegated order takers, replacing the stress of responsibility for a solution with execution alone. In seeking comfort and security, we have also given up any sense of ownership in our work.

For a high-performing practice, and for high-performing individuals, it is critical that we have a different kind of psychological safety. We need to create an environment where safety does not come from the transfer of risks, but where we can deal with risks in a supportive way. To have a psychologically safe team, it is crucial to give them the opportunity to express their opinions.

According to Edmonson, “Psychological safety in the workplace is the belief that the environment is safe for interpersonal risk taking. It is the belief that a person will not be punished or humiliated for expressing his ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.”

In other words, safety should be about the ability to take risks, not about avoiding stress.

Creating a culture where mistakes are tolerated

As leaders, we must ensure there is tolerance for failure in our organizations, and take the time to uncover the lessons from these failures. We must encourage risk-taking in our reports, and especially speaking out and sharing their ideas. However, we cannot take this practice to the next level by simply increasing the number of failures; we should judge ourselves solely by the value we create.

We have a lot to offer. Collaborative scoping and design leads to products and services that are far superior to those designed separately by business stakeholders. Factories were originally designed around water wheels, which transmitted power through a central axle. When electricity was introduced, it was initially used to power the rudimentary shaft, rather than powering appliances directly. This increased productivity, but it was a modest improvement.

The real value only became apparent when factories were redesigned around electricity. Likewise, when we use technology to supercharge outdated approaches, we will only see marginal improvements. It is critical that we are willing to contribute our perspectives. Henry Ford summed this up perfectly by saying, “If I had asked what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.” To be at our best, we need a challenger mentality and a team of supportive leaders. We need to be comfortable being uncomfortable and include ourselves in the decision-making process.

Encouraging discomfort does not preclude an organization from being psychologically safe; it only reinforces the need for careful planning and attention to human factors. Technological work brings challenges. We simply need to be transparent about the risks and continually focus our teams on value. Embracing the responsibility and healthy stress that comes with owning the technology in our organizations not only leads to greater professional success, but also greater personal fulfillment.

Jeremy Adamson is an independent data and analytics consultant, lecturer in business strategy at the University of New Brunswick, and author of ‘Geeks with Empathy’ and ‘Minding the Machines.“