The notion of distributed teams and their related challenges has long been part of multi-site and multi-national corporate organizations. However, with the worldwide outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, traditional hierarchical organizations and small to medium enterprises have realized the true impact of working in a distributed world.
Business leaders are learning that their teams can work from home while still maintaining acceptable efficiency and quality of work. Many employees also prefer this alternative because it brings a balance to their personal lives that was missing in the past. Companies are migrating from strict command-and-control routines to a more people-centric structure, enabling individuals to work from anywhere as long as the agreed-upon output and performance indicators are reached.
Enter: The era of distributed teams and a new primary focus for their leaders called Psychological Safety.
History
Psychological safety is a buzzword used in many popular publications on leadership and the future of work. It is also a highly studied topic in literature and is considered an enabling condition of modern-day group dynamics in high-performance teams. This relates directly to the new way of working in distributed teams, where people collaborate in various alternative ways to achieve a shared outcome.
The concept of psychological safety dates back to 1965, when MIT professors Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis argued that it was essential for making people feel secure and capable of changing their behavior in response to shifting organizational challenges.
William A. Kahn’s study, "Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work" (1990), describes three psychological conditions: Meaningfulness, Safety, and Availability, and their individual and contextual sources.
Jump forward to 1999, when behavioral scientist Amy Edmondson modernized the phrase in her publication "Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams."
“Psychological safety is a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.” - Amy Edmundson
For leaders, psychological safety means showing your true self without fear of negative consequences for self-image, status, or career. This establishes a work environment where team members feel included, accepted, and respected. They are free to learn, experiment, and respectfully challenge the status quo without fear of being punished, embarrassed, or marginalized.
A practical approach
Psychological safety is not a simple flick of the switch but a journey that requires trust, empathy, and experimentation. Unfortunately, there is no magic formula or instant solution—this is why so many organizations and leaders fail to achieve psychological safety and realize the full benefits of an employee-friendly culture.
Semco Style was developed from Ricardo Semler's practical experience to codify an approach that will enable self-organization, autonomous decision-making, and agility and achieve more significant impact and performance with happier and more engaged employees.
It equips leaders with a framework to lead, manage, and inspire distributed teams and create an employee-friendly culture characterized by psychological safety. It is underpinned by three concepts that are believed to be at the core of a psychologically safe work environment:
- Democracy. Usually, top management is responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the organization are under control. This leads to highly hierarchical command-and-control structures to ensure that objectives are reached. Democracy advocates for inclusion, utilizing the power and wisdom of employees doing the work. By no means does this mean that all decisions should be put up for a vote, but including employees makes them part of the process, giving real insights into practical problems and distributing decision-making to the appropriate levels. This creates the space for self-management to flourish and empowers people with the autonomy to make decisions themselves. Building trust and transparency is at the core of democracy. It requires that adults in the organization be treated as adults—responsible individuals who take ownership of their decisions and actions.
- Common sense. Traditional workplaces are characterized by various layers with complex bureaucracies and silos that destroy any form of trust, stifle creativity, and hamper efficient workflow. Employees become robots that only act on instruction and lose the ability to think for themselves. This causes a vicious cycle, putting even more pressure on top management to make decisions and keep control. Common sense means that a person can act with sound judgment in practical matters without sophistication or special knowledge. Unfortunately, common sense is not that common, and it is essential to share relevant information and equip employees with the correct skills to enhance their capability to make appropriate decisions. Reducing complex bureaucracies is a continuous process done with the input of employees to enhance efficiency on a team level. It is up to leaders to create an environment where employees do not mindlessly follow orders but are allowed to challenge the status quo respectfully. This is achieved by having a learning mindset that welcomes curiosity. Improvement should be driven through structured experimentation, where failures and mistakes are seen as learning opportunities. As long as mistakes do not recur, they are free from adverse effects or punishment. It is essential not to lose control but to establish alternative methods that enable leaders to be in control.
- Aligned self-interest. In classic hierarchical organizations, there is a disconnect between an individual’s personal (self) interest and the reason for working in their position. In return for specific remuneration, leave, or days off between shifts, many people are willing to endure hierarchical command-and-control structures, complex bureaucracies, and functioning purely on instruction. The question is if the actions of people in different departments are consistent with what they're promising and if they are being transparent about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Aligned self-interest calls for active engagement – an environment where team members feel included, accepted, and respected. This will also require the ability to show vulnerability and have some critical dilemma conversations. In high-performance organizations, the goals of the employee and the goals of the company are genuinely and fully integrated and aligned. Simplified, this means that people do not just work for the next paycheck but understand and subscribe to the company's vision. It becomes their vocation – a career that fulfills them and enables them to be themselves and contribute through their unique skill set. Again, this is not a switch-to-flick. Leaders must create an environment that fosters extreme alignment between all stakeholders through clearly defining roles, expectations, and perspectives in daily work. When people are clear about their needs and beliefs, they can better align with their team and company interests. It is about finding shared interests, not about everyone pursuing the same things or getting everyone on board. Instead, it concerns departments and stakeholders finding common ground on shared dreams or objectives.
Effectively leading remote teams in a distributed world is a core capability required in the future of work, and psychological safety essentially becomes non-negotiable if the company is to survive.
People acting with autonomy and a sense of purpose react quicker to change! They learn fast and innovate faster. They are fulfilled workers that enhance their own environment and positively impact on the sustainable growth of the company into the future.
REFERENCES:
- Kahn, William A. (1 December 1990). "Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work." Academy of Management Journal 33 (4): 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287. ISSN 0001-4273. JSTOR 256287.
- Edmondson, Amy (1 June 1999). "Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams" (PDF). Administrative Science Quarterly. 44(2): 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999. JSTOR 2666999.
- Clark, Timothy R. (March 2020). “The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation.” Berrett-Koehler. ISBN 9781523087686.
- "Author Q&A: The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety". InfoQ. Retrieved 2019-12-05.
- Edmondson, A.; Lei, Z. (2014). "Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct." Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 1: 23–43. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305.
The article was initially published on Semcostyle.com
.png)
