‘May you live in interesting times’ – a curse, a blessing, the contents of a Chinese fortune cookie, a parable of our times? More the latter it would appear.
Turn on the news, pick up a newspaper, venture onto social media and it’s hard to avoid the division, the strife, the naked and simmering anger. Would that such vitriol was concentrated purely within our media channels – however, coverage of homophobic violence, people for and against Donald Trump and his recent visit and the very tangible nastiness of the Tommy Robinsons of this world, suggest the times we’re living in seem starkly more intolerant, uncompromising and divisive than simply interesting.
If it’s true we get the politicians we deserve, then perhaps such times are going to get increasingly more interesting. The battle to replace Theresa May appears a frantic, drug-induced race to the bottom. Individuals such as Farage and Trump have made their names through fuelling such anger, creating increasingly polarised debates, politics and even societies. One of our major parties appears infested with anti-semitism, the other with a growing Islamophobia issue.
And at the heart of such division, certainly from a UK perspective? Brexit. Whether it is the root cause of such rancour or it has merely encouraged its expression is not for this article. Back to social media and it is hard to recognise the usually sane, reasoned and nuanced individuals once the Brexit word comes up. Whether they want a second referendum, a deal, no deal, whichever part of the spectrum they inhabit, their anger is tangible.
Such divisions are exacerbating and politicising genuine issues such as poverty, food banks, housing shortage and social mobility.
It’s suddenly becoming more clear as to why my career as a stand-up never really took off.
Quick summary? We’re living in times which are stressful, quick-tempered, incendiary, uncompromising and where tolerance is taking a backseat.
But we’re not just living in such times.
We’re also working through such times.
The prevailing political environment is so endemic that it’s nearly impossible to leave it at the door when we come to work. It’s more than likely to be a factor in stress levels and their contribution to mental health.
A recent survey commissioned by Right Management indicated that only 38% of UK employees feel confident that their organisations will survive Brexit. Similarly, 42% wanted a greater understanding and clarity as to how Brexit would impact their organisation and their role.
Perhaps, then, it is no surprise that LinkedIn reports that some 50% of workers feel stressed in their jobs today.
But despite this – potentially because of it – the modern workplace is seeing a growing acceptance of the advantages of constructing psychologically safe working environments.
There are two important sources as to the importance and deliverables of psychological safety. Google’s Project Aristotle – its name chosen because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts – sought to create greater understanding as to why some teams functioned better than others. The project took two years and analysed the make-up of no fewer than 180 internal Google teams.
What must have been a fascinating exercise eventually threw up five common attributes of what made up high performing teams. Perhaps not surprisingly, four of those attributes related to the meaning of work, the impact of work, counting on each other and clarity of purpose.
More interestingly, the fifth one and the one that really stood out for Google was psychological safety. It was not the better educated teams, nor those with greater ethnic or gender diversity that performed better. Those teams that performed better were the ones who trusted each other, in which people felt comfortable speaking out and speaking up. Who felt they could demonstrate creativity, autonomy and who could take risks without fearing retribution, criticism and judgement. Who felt they could make mistakes which would not count against them.
Such a view is reflected in recent work from Dr Amy Edmondson at Harvard Business School. The definition of psychological safety, for Dr Edmondson, is ‘a shared belief that the team is a safe environment for interpersonal risk taking’.
In such an environment – and it’s one advocated by LinkedIn’s Jim Barnett – people feel as though they can speak freely and openly and that their voice is listened to. An environment where ‘teams can create safe zones in which employees can let down their guard’. In which they park any worries they might have about consequences, about careers about misunderstandings.
If we equate such a sense of freedom and expression to Gallup data, then its importance becomes clear. For Gallup, just 3 in 10 US employees agree that their opinions matter at work. If that ratio were to be nudged up to 60% – through the establishment of psychological safety zones – then organisations would have the opportunity of enjoying a 27% reduction in labour turnover and a 12% increase in productivity.
The origins of the construct of psychological safety hark back to the 60s, however, its importance and potential have come back into focus given the relevance it attaches to teamwork, collaboration, learning and innovation. Psychological safety helps to create glue around a group of individuals, enhancing their ability to rub along together and reducing barriers to innovation.
So, if we look outside our organisations and observe a landscape characterised by vitriol, intemperance and intolerance, how does this contrast with the internal working landscape?
Do your employees feel free to express themselves, do they feel they can comment openly and freely, that they can compromise and expect it from others, that there will be tolerance and respect throughout the workplace?
And what about candidates? Do they perceive that by joining your organisation, they might enjoy greater safety and freedom, more capacity to express themselves to innovate, to progress? With less ridicule, criticism and consequences?
Better yet, for organisations who authentically encourage environments of psychological safety, to what extent does this feature in their Employee Value Propositions? Because this does feel genuinely ownable, differentiated territory for an employer brand.
Or do the feel that such a workplace is populated by the working equivalents of Farage, Robinson and Widdecombe – individuals you feel would be slightly less than accommodating towards the differing opinions, approaches and methodologies of others. Less inclined to compromise and tolerance. Less indulgent of mistakes and errors.
When the outside world appears harsh, binary and divisive, then it has never been more important that your people feel psychologically safe to express opinions, views, themselves. And to express such opinions without a sense of fear, rejection and ridicule.
At a time where it often appears easier and wiser not to express an opinion for fear it might be the wrong opinion outside work, it’s never been more important to encourage the expression of opinions inside work.
Ask your people if that feels like your organisation or not.
If they’re comfortable telling you.
Getting to the heart of your employee mindset 