Dogged inaction by leaders when staff raise issues is one cause of organisational silence (which I wrote about last week), and ultimately causes the destruction of psychological safety. Dogged inaction is what happened to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs around the immigration detention of Cornelia Rau which lead to the 2005 Palmer Report.
While a lack of psychological safety means a team is missing out on the opportunity to take risks and innovate (as I pointed out last week), when the lack of psychological safety becomes rampant, a much bigger risk develops. That risk is the deafening silence that descends on the organisation because no one will speak up.
There are more avenues to helping a leader realise they need to change to create psychological safety than I shared in my blog last week. While showing them what was happening is a good start, you also need to make sure they understand what they can have if they make changes. That is, answer the question “What’s In
Last week I wrote about Kate and her experience of “psychological warfare” which is a culture where psychological safety does not exist. Upon reflection, Kate realised that while she created psychological safety for her team she did not create it for herself. So when she spoke up, her boss and others on the executive felt threatened and
I expect the term psychological warfare interests you because you are wondering which kind I would be writing about. Would it be about China, the US Election or state border restrictions in Australia? None of those. It’s about needing to operate in a culture where psychological safety is not just lacking, it’s non-existent. Recently I