Practical tools for developing psychological safety on your teams.

In part 1 of this series, I introduced the five dynamics of highly successful teams identified by a massive Google research project. There I discussed each and then the importance of starting a company wide conversation about these topics. In this part I will go deeper on the first of the five traits, ‘Psychological Safety.’ Researchers deemed it the most important dynamic of the five by far. They found that its absence made it impossible to form a truly effective team, after reading this I’m sure it will be clear why.

‘Psychological Safety’ is a group trait defined by Harvard Ph.D. and professor Amy Edmondson in 1999. A team with a high level of psychological safety means that its members feel comfortable taking interpersonal risks without the fear of negative professional or social consequences, (i.e., embarrassment or demotion of status). Achieving this dynamic has been shown to improve team learning and increase the efficacy of innovation of both product and process. I think many would claim that learning and innovating, together, form the core purpose of any startup.

In this post, I aim to paint a picture of an overarching framework that nurtures psychological safety within your team. Three major pillars stand out:

  1. Creating a voice
  2. Making room for failure
  3. Leading by example

For each, I’ll point you to key tools that can create the scaffolding for psychological safety. These tools are well discussed elsewhere, so I won’t go too deep on the implementation of each. As my friend Akshay says, “There will always be details.” I’ll connect the dots, and leave hammering out the details to you. From there you can hopefully get the hang of it and create an ethos of psychological safety in every corner of your organization.

Creating a Voice

Giving your team a voice is the first key ingredient to psychological safety. With groups of ambitious individuals, a strong voice will often manifest on its own. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t intentionally build healthy channels and processes for that voice into your organization. If a voice is lacking or not providing much signal, these tools can absolutely help jumpstart the process.

Begin with high caliber one-on-ones to boost the voice of individuals. For those unfamiliar with one-on-ones, they are quite simple but can go a long way when done right. On the surface, they are simply regularly scheduled meetings with direct reports and peers with whom you have an important work relationship.

So, how do they help create a voice? First, they create a safe space for people to start talking. Second, they give you a chance to coach your team on participatory behaviors. A culture of effective one-on-ones is critical for a startup or team of any size. Even if your team is just a handful of people, I can still recommend making time for these.

Quality is vital. Ben Horowitz claims that building the communication architecture is probably the most important task of a leader, and good one-on-ones are essential to that. Remember communication is bidirectional, not just telling your story out. One-on-ones are the leading edge for information gathering, listening, and thereby a crucial part of your infrastructure. If you are not getting a good signal at the beginning of the funnel, the whole pipeline is pretty worthless. A prevalent phrase comes to mind, “garbage in, garbage out”. Teach yourself and your team to make them meaningful.

There is an abundance of methods describing how to have productive one-on-ones. Mark Rabkin even shows us how to have “awkward” one-on-ones to solicit consequential feedback. My advice is to embrace the diversity of techniques, find a format that jives with your style, but always have a few tricks up your sleeve. Different personality types on your team can often require different approaches. Some individuals might need more coaxing, and some individuals might provide information overload where you’ll need to distill the kernels of value.

Whatever your method, through the lens of building a voice, there are a few key things to keep in mind.

Next up, nurture a constructive team voice with retrospectives. I believe retrospectives are the most impactful and versatile tool in your playbook. As with one-on-ones, there are many many forms of retrospectives. I tend to gravitate to the lightweight and light hearted methods like Mad/Sad/Glads, but feel free to peruse this exhaustive list and pick favorites. Hold them at the end of your work week, sprint cycles or whatever breaking points make the most sense for your teams. Here are things to focus on:

Finally, create a venue for company wide discussions in town halls + Q&A sessions. Notice the larger pattern here? You’re establishing different channels for the different tiers of your company: individuals, teams, and company wide. As you move up each tier, the topics of conversation should become broader for the broader audience.

Townhalls can be pretty hard and take a lot of effort to get right. Some huge companies put in a ridiculous amount of work, however, positive effects of this type of communication are multiplied across the entire company. Each company will want to incorporate different things, data deep dives, show and tells, customer highlights, etc. There is a lot you can do in regards to creating a voice, here are some key ideas:

Making Room for Failure

If there is one thing we discuss obsessively in Silicon Valley, it’s failing. Phrases like, fail fast, and success is built on failure, permeate the community. On a small team, you intrinsically have visibility into everyone's efforts as well as strong personal connections. This gives you a lot of built-in trust and context to fall back on when things go unexpectedly. As a team expands, both visibility and connections naturally fade and cannot be relied on. You must design ways to make room for failure and extract the learnings. When individuals know a process exists to catch them, they will feel more comfortable taking appropriate risks to better your product and organization.

One tool that we’ve seen become almost ubiquitous among engineering teams is the blameless post-mortem. I believe this mindset works for a broad range of teams; in fact the core ideas have been lifted from manufacturing and healthcare. Blameless post-mortems are a great place to start, simply because failure happens, even when we don’t want it to. I’ll leave the details of implementation to others more versed than me, here is a good intro to the topic from the Etsy team.

It’s pretty obvious how this makes room for failure, here are some key themes that relate to building a culture of psychological safety:

The vast majority of issues in your organization do not require a formal post-mortem, this is where retrospectives should come into play again. They provide a place to bring attention to these small learnings and, as a team, commit to getting better. The efficiencies gained from small improvements compound to massive gains in productivity and happiness. Here are key dynamics to think about with respect to making room for failure via retrospectives:

If you want to up your game even further, try out pre-mortems. These are helpful as high risk, high investment projects begin to appear. They require a great deal of receptiveness, the ability to embrace potential challenges. This takes a greater extent of humility and trust within your team.

Lead by Example

Image courtesy of Filipe Dos Santos

Gene Klann wrote that leaders are always being watched and that this should be used to their advantage. If you’ve been able to implement half of everything above, you’re probably doing a great job setting the tone already. However, there are a few things that, as a leader, can be hard and even scary to model for your team.

The overarching theme here is to set an example of healthy vulnerability. The pinnacle of psychological safety certainly exists in a space where vulnerability is revered. I like a quote from Brené Brown: “Vulnerability is the birthplace of innovation, creativity, and change.”

Humans are as brilliant as they are fallible. That brilliance cannot be unleashed if individuals are trapped in the confines of their own mind. One of our many challenges is to implement structure that accounts for our fallibility and, at the same time, nurtures a culture where the voice of brilliance can ring true.