"Psychological Safety" Is Not "Lukewarm Comfort" — Organizations That Avoid Healthy Conflict Quietly Rot
When someone makes a proposal in a meeting,
even though you actually think, "Won't that fail?"
you nod and say, "That sounds good."
Have you ever had an experience like that?
Voicing a dissenting opinion makes the atmosphere awkward.
It would be a shame to dampen the mood when he worked so hard on the materials.
Where do the words you swallowed like that go?
Recently, I feel that the term "psychological safety"
has become established while being slightly misunderstood.
It is a state where
"no one gets hurt"
"no waves are made"
are prioritized, and a "kind relationship" is built where people do not step on each other's toes.
However, from the perspective of a business designer,
that is not a safe organization.
It is merely an "indifferent" organization.
This time,
I will consider the structure where kindness causes an organization to rot, and how to break out of it.
"Indifference" in the name of kindness
True psychological safety
refers to a state where "it is okay to take interpersonal risks."
Whether you ask a stupid question,
report a mistake,
or provide harsh feedback,
it is the peace of mind that your relationships will not be destroyed
or your evaluation unfairly lowered because of it.
However, in many workplaces,
"psychological safety" has become a "friendship club."
"Aren't these numbers a bit off?"
Why is it that one cannot say that?
It is because
the task (issue) and the person (personality) are fused together.
Feedback on an output
is taken as if it were an attack on that person's character.
Therefore, the more you try to respect the other person,
the more you are forced to keep your mouth shut.
As a result,
low-quality projects pass,
they blow up in later stages,
and everyone ends up exhausted.
In that moment, we are
sacrificing "the team's future" and "value for the customer"
in order to protect "the person in front of us."
That is not kindness; it might be called
indifference toward the future.
Where there is no friction, there is no heat.
When we, as business designers, create "systems,"
we sometimes intentionally design "friction" into them.
A process where everything flows smoothly,
with no one saying anything,
may look efficient at first glance.
However, there is no room there
for "thought" to intervene.
Noticing something is wrong,
stopping in one's tracks,
and questioning it.
Because only from that friction
can refined value be born.
"Psychological safety" is
the soil that allows this friction to occur without fear.
What is needed to escape the "lukewarm water"
So, how can we escape the "lukewarm water"?
Even if you decide through sheer willpower
"let's speak strictly to each other,"
it usually doesn't last.
What is needed is
a system that acts as a "cushion" (buffer) to separate the person from the issue.
For example,
Prepare a checklist that looks only at "whether it meets the criteria," not "who said it."
Formally set aside "time for criticism" on the meeting agenda, and have people point things out as a role.
By doing so,
you design it so that you can create friction against the structure without hesitation,
while avoiding direct conflict in human relationships.
A prescription for not fearing conflict
If your organization is
quiet,
kind,
but for some reason, work isn't going well.
It may not be that the interpersonal relationships are too good, but rather that the "quality" of the relationships is structurally flawed.
The "quality" of the relationships may be structurally wrong.
First, why not start by allowing for small frictions?
Why not start by allowing for small frictions?
That should be the first step toward reigniting the "heat" in the organization.
That should be the first step toward reigniting the "heat" in the organization.
▼ A prescription for those who read this article (Related articles)
For those who want to understand the true nature of the current vague "kindness" from a structural perspective and translate it into concrete design.
The following articles should provide some hints.
The following articles should provide some hints.
■ Why does stating the truth make the atmosphere awkward?
This is a theory on designing "friction" to separate issues from people and generate healthy discussion.
This is a theory on designing "friction" to generate healthy discussion.
👉 #GapInTheSystem | Friction polishes the system
■ If you are too close, work stops
On the traps that organizations fall into when they rely too much on "tacit understanding" or "trust," and how to fix that sense of distance.
On how to fix that sense of distance.
👉 Design of Movement #2 | Systems where relationships are too close
■ To begin with, what should you ask?
Not just criticizing, but how to hold "questions" to make the organization breathe.
On how to hold "questions" to make the organization breathe.
👉 #DesignOfQuestions | The breathing of the system beyond the question