How to Create the Wrong Kind of Psychological Safety

Psychological Safety

I feel like this term has recently started heading in the wrong direction.

It started when I was talking to the head of another department the other day and felt, 'Oh, it seems like a lot of people are misunderstanding this.'

It is not about being best buddies

The biggest mistake you can make is saying, 'Our department is really close-knit!'

Anyone who studies this term a little bit knows that being close-knit does not equal high psychological safety.

However, because the word has taken on a life of its own—or rather, is running wild—some people end up making this mistake. And this includes managers and department leaders.

Of course, there is an aspect where poor relationships make it hard to increase psychological safety. But being too close-knit is also not good.

To put it very simply, a state of high psychological safety is an environment where you can say constructive things without being criticized or pressured.
In short, it is an environment where you can take on challenges.

Even if people are close, it is no good if they are whispering behind each other's backs.

There are no rules

I wrote about this in yesterday's note, but rules are actually quite important.

Not manuals, but rules.
If you are interested, please take a quick look at yesterday's note.

Having rules means, simply put, that 'you are safe as long as you follow the rules.' Inside the rules is a safe zone. But outside the rules... well, if we are talking about Pokemon, it is like the tall grass. You never know what might jump out at you.

It might be fine if it were a Pidgey or something, but what if a Suicune or Raikou suddenly appeared? (My apologies to those from a different generation).

It would be an instant wipeout.

By being within that zone of rules, every team member can take responsibility. It means a team where everyone can speak and act responsibly, and where the atmosphere is not critical of those actions—that is what a 'state of high psychological safety' is.

There are various definitions, but...

I feel like there are many definitions for this term.

It varies quite a bit depending on the book you read. But when you get down to it, I feel it ultimately refers to a team built on positive elements rather than negative ones.

A critical team cannot possibly be in a good state.

Constructive opinions are fine, but good work cannot be done where interactions and discussions are driven by emotional arguments like 'I don't like it' or 'I don't want to do that.'

The term 'psychological safety' means nothing on its own. It simply refers to a single state. Do not be swayed by it. What you should do is not to 'execute' this term.

By doing what needs to be done, a team with high psychological safety will naturally be formed. I believe that is what a smart team is.