Project Management

Psychological safety breeds team resilience

From the Easy in theory, difficult in practice Blog
by
My musings on project management, project portfolio management and change management. I'm a firm believer that a pragmatic approach to organizational change that addresses process & technology, but primarily, people will maximize chances for success. This blog contains articles which I've previously written and published as well as new content.

About this Blog

RSS

Recent Posts

Leading Through Crisis Means Leading Through Context

"It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for." - retirement lessons from the Doctor

Just because they are non-critical, doesn't mean they are not risky!

Just because they are non-critical, doesn't mean they are not risky!

How will YOU avoid these AI-related cognitive biases?

Categories

Agile, Artificial Intelligence, Career Development, Change Management, Communications Management, Decision Making, Governance, Hiring, Kanban, Lessons Learned, Personal Development, PMO, Portfolio Management, Project Management, Resource Management, Risk Management, Risk Management, Schedule Management, Scheduling, Tools

Date

linkedin twitter facebook Request to reuse this  


HBR published an article this week on how leaders can help their teams to recover quicker from disruptions. Given the events of the past year, this topic is apropos and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

In the article, the author introduces the concept of collective self-healing at the team level drawing upon observations of how ant and other social insect colonies respond to major upheavals. She identifies three characteristics which enable teams to become more resilient:

  • The ability for a task to be completed by more than one person on the team even if that activity is not within their normal responsibilities. A team of generalizing specialists would satisfy this requirement, but even a team of specialists can behave in this manner if there is support for them to take on different responsibilities when the situation demands it and if they are willing and have confidence in their ability to learn new skills.
  • The ability to operate efficiently with distributed leadership. Who leads depends on the needs of the moment and when the context has changed such that someone else on the team is better equipped to lead, that person steps in. This is a characteristic of mature teams where the lead role is not associated with only one member of the team.
  • Sufficient self-awareness to know when they need assistance and the humility to seek that help in a timely manner without letting the fear of loss of social capital get in the way. Not only does this allay the fears of stakeholders that the team is hiding the true status of a situation but it also reduces the likelihood of major impacts which can occur if a problem is allowed to fester.

The author closes with three questions which leadership teams should ask themselves to determine whether they have the right system in place (e.g. values, policies & processes, roles and measures) to support the realization of these team attributes.

But one prerequisite which is not specifically referenced in the article is psychological safety.

When team members don’t feel safe, they will prioritize their own safety over that of the team. They will be less willing to take on unfamiliar responsibilities due to the fear of blowback if they fail. Even if they are the best person to lead the team in a given situation they will be less likely to do so for the same reasons or because they are worried about how others in the team will perceive or treat them. And they will avoid asking for help in a proactive manner since they won’t want to appear vulnerable within the team.

Just as it is for creating high-performing teams, psychological safety is an underpinning for creating resilient teams which are able to handle the vicissitudes of delivering during turbulent times. So the number one question which leaders should be asking themselves is “Have we cultivated sufficient safety within our teams?


Posted on: April 11, 2021 07:00 AM | Permalink

Comments (6)

Please login or join to subscribe to this item
avatar
Luis Branco CEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, Ldª Carcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dear Kiron
Interesting the theme that brought to our reflection and debate.
Thanks for sharing and your opinion
It is important to take into account the dangers and fallacies of psychological security mentioned by Emy Edmonson

avatar
Luis Branco CEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, Ldª Carcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Instead of psychological security psychological safety

avatar
Kiron Bondale Retired | Mentor| Retired Welland, Ontario, Canada
Thanks Luis - which fallacies are you referring to?

avatar
Luis Branco CEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, Ldª Carcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dear Kiron:
As a student of this subject, you know, for sure, better than me:
- Comfort zone
- Zone of apathy
- Anxiety zone

avatar
Kwiyuh Michael Wepngong
Community Champion
Financial Management Specialist | US Peace Corps Yaounde, Centre, Cameroon
Thanks Sir,
When you say "When team members don’t feel safe, they will prioritize their own safety over that of the team. They will be less willing to take on unfamiliar responsibilities due to the fear of blowback if they fail"
There are real experiences we encounter daily that just fit this

avatar
Mayte Mata Sivera PMO Leader | Speaker | Author Ut, United States
Thank you for sharing. I really enjoyed the article and your blog about this topic. Always trying to learn something new!

Please Login/Register to leave a comment.

ADVERTISEMENTS

"I never resist temptation, because I have found that things that are bad for me do not tempt me."

- George Bernard Shaw

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors