[00:00:00] Dan: Hello and welcome back to We Not Me, the podcast where we explore how humans connect to get stuff done together. I'm Dan Hammond.

[00:00:13] Pia: And I am Pia Lee. I must say, um, I had a bit of a throwback from England about all the furore over M O T D 

[00:00:22] Dan: match of the day.

[00:00:26] Pia: to 

[00:00:26] Dan: that the one? I dunno. I dunno if that's it, but.

[00:00:28] Pia: That is it. That is it. So for all of the listeners who may not be from English heritage, this is a Saturday night football show that has sort of become pretty legendary and part of the weekly calendar for, I don't know, a couple of three, four decades. I don't know. It's a long, long time. Anyway, interesting that we are gonna be talking about psychological safety cuz Gary Linekar spoke out on Twitter regarding the asylum policy, likened it to an event in Europe in the 

[00:01:07] Dan: yeah, exactly.

[00:01:08] Pia: and promptly got told to step down, but shut up, apologized back down so it wasn't very safe. Wasn't certainly 

[00:01:18] Dan: safe. And interestingly, of course, he, he, he is such a powerful figure that he, that other people were able to join him. And, and of course they, they ran the show without, I don't know. I didn't even see it. But they, there was no commentators. There's no pundit. It's nothing, nothing doing. I, so,

[00:01:35] Pia: And the um, and even, even the players refused to be interviewed

[00:01:39] Dan: Brilliant. So, I mean, that's power. But most, and, and the following week it was back, they'd had some talks, the BBC backed down and, and it was all back on. I mean, there's a lot of political shenanigans around that. But as you say, essentially someone else in that situation would not be safe. They had been shot up. And, um, that's generally what you don't want in a, in a team. But it's very easy actually, as we'll see on the today's show, we'll have a chat about, it's a, to have a create an environment where people cannot speak up, um, as Gary Linekar did. And so, but today we've got a bit of a special show, one that

[00:02:13] Pia: Oh, special Guest

[00:02:14] Dan: the lovely Mrs. 

[00:02:16] Pia: lovely Mrs. Hammond. 

[00:02:17] Dan: She's been on the show before, but we've realized that we are getting so much duty. From the Squadify data set that we should, you know, some insights from the data set and we should share that. So we are hoping that once a season, Juliet will join us to share, a little snippet, something that is of value that the data is telling us. And today it's gonna be all about psychological safety. So let's, let's head over and hear what the numbers are telling us.

[00:02:46] Pia: And it is fantastic to have you, Juliet, join us yet again. Sad that we're not in a pub this time though.

[00:02:57] Juliet: indeed. Thank you for having me. It's very exciting to have the opportunity to shine a light on the data.

[00:03:03] Pia: And that is exactly what we're gonna do today. And for those of you who've not met Juliet before, Juliet is part of our Squadify team, um, is our business analyst and is the person who analyzes all the data from the Squadify database to give us some amazing insights. And, um, and that is our focus specifically on psych safety.

[00:03:24] Pia: So we're gonna look at it from a, a bit more of a scientific data led lens and see what comes up today. But first I'm gonna do an extraordinary thing, which is hand over to your husband who's go been so wanting to do, to torture you with the cards

[00:03:40] Dan: Yeah, exactly, exactly right. Yes. Because Juliet is also the lovely Mrs. Hammond, and when people jokingly say, um, of their other half, they're the brains of the outfit, it's pretty obvious that that is definitely the

[00:03:52] Pia: I've been telling you that for years.

[00:03:54] Dan: Juliet, here's your question. Here's a question. The best film ever made.

[00:03:59] Juliet: Oh my goodness. Oh, crikey. That's a real tricky one. Well, there are many, and I, I wouldn't wish to for a moment, suggest the best film ever made because people enjoy films for different reasons. And so you bring to the film what you want. One of my favorite films is a film called Chinatown, which we re re-watched recently and it held up beautifully.

[00:04:21] Juliet: It's set in the, uh, thirties in the West of America. And it's a kind of conspiracy caper, uh, but involving water and taking water for building developments. And it sounds very serious, but it's actually brilliant.

[00:04:36] Pia: Sounds Gring. Juliet,

[00:04:37] Dan: Yeah. He made that sound very dull to be honest.

[00:04:40] Pia: if we were, in a book club, I think I might have just left.

[00:04:43] Dan: Jack Nicholson and Mia Farrow.

[00:04:47] Juliet: There you go. Very 

[00:04:48] Pia: that, and why do you like it? 

[00:04:50] Juliet: Partly it's because it, we watched it with friends when we were living in the States and we were learning a lot about the history of the US during that time. So partly it's just them, it's the story, but also it's just very elegant and very cool, and I don't know, it just takes you to a completely different place. It was, it was just a magical moment in time. I.

[00:05:12] Dan: Sorry, I need to correct myself. Um, it is not me, Pharaoh. It's Fay, Fay Donaway. Um, but it, but, and contentiously, it's directed by Roman Polanski, who is obviously a persona non grata now, but, but is, it's, it's a wonderful film. Right. Juliet, well done. That was great. You got a film question, which is, um, which, which suits you, I think.

[00:05:30] Pia: So let's, um, let's get onto this hot topic because I mean, we've talked about this before. In fact, we've talked, this is the third of our third episode where we focused on psych safety. So I think it's kind of a, cuz it's a big topic and we sort of uncovered. in the first one, uh, with Dr. Jess, and then Stephan Wiedner looked at it from a broader perspective. And now we wanted to bring the science and, and data that we actually have amassed through Squadify and look at it in a slightly different way. 

[00:06:02] Juliet: So it really emerged even before Amy Edmondson in the fifties, Carl Rogers defined psych safety as a situation in which an individual feels unconditional worth. And I thought that was quite a lovely definition of. Which helps us to think about what is it that we're trying to achieve here? It's really about that person feeling like they can contribute, um, to the greater, uh, efforts of either their team or the organization.

[00:06:29] Juliet: Then in, in the sixties, shine and Bennice looked at it from a, um, perspective of reducing interpersonal risk. So a condition, the conditions in which people can feel like interpersonal risk is reduced, and really it was Amy Edmondson in 1999 who really brought us. The concept that it was very much at a team level and that she defined it as a shared belief held by members of the team, that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. So she built on that interpersonal risk, but very much positioned it inside a team.

[00:07:02] Pia: when you talk about it like that, it makes a lot of sense. I mean, I don't think people want, would ever want their team to either be unsafe or people not to feel included or worthy or, um, I think, I think that's a general, I mean, but whether we do it or not, or actually know what the components are, to be more scientific about it? 

[00:07:23] Juliet: Yes, and I think it does challenge hierarchies to some extent, doesn't it? Because we say we want everyone to feel safe, but I certainly remember in jobs in my early career where nobody was concerned about my safety. They really wanted to tell me what to do and how to do it. So I think it is quite an interesting tension between everybody having their role. and actually being allowed to speak up and make changes and suggestions, however young, inexperienced, or whatever you are. 

[00:07:53] Dan: That was a radical bit of thinking in the fifties because that, people going into work and, you know, someone thinking that they should feel that unconditional worth. It is. That was pretty radical. As you say, the hierarchy was really well established by then. And, um, yeah, so that's a really good thought, actually, how it, it, it does challenge the hierarchy. I think that's, exactly what it does. Obviously we all 

[00:08:15] Pia: And there weren't many females in the workplace. And we're looking at a, we're looking at a white male, middle-aged workforce, really. So that's quite interesting that even that situation, people must have felt. Unsafe in some ways for that, for that term to emerge in the first place.

[00:08:33] Juliet: Well, those hierarchies are hard to 

[00:08:35] Dan: They're aren't to break, aren't they? Exactly. . Exactly. So, um, what, let, let's dive into this in a bit more detail. How can we, you know, for teams, how can we sort of break this down and, and, and get it under the microscope?

[00:08:49] Juliet: So Amy Edmondson really set the foundation for thinking about psych safety, but the model I'd like to take us through is Timothy Clark's model because he takes it just a step further beyond the binary sort of on off, and really defines four stages of psych safety.

[00:09:06] Juliet: Um, and it helps us to think about the way that teams can build psych safety because each stage sort of sits on top of the next to reach a really high level of psych safety.

[00:09:17] Juliet: So we start with inclusion. Safety, and he, um, Clark defines that as members feel safe to belong to the team. They're comfortable being present, do not feel excluded, and feel like they are wanted and appreciated

[00:09:29] Juliet: The second stage then is learner safety, and Clark defines this as members are able to learn through asking questions. Team members here may be able to experiment, make and admit small mistakes, and ask for help.

[00:09:41] Dan: It's, it is great actually, isn't it? These stages because you sort of think, oh, actually that's what I thought psychological safety was in a way, is that, that one piece. But obviously when you, when you respite it down, there are a few more pieces, but that, that is almost about, isn't it? Sort of being able to not know things when it comes down to it, I don't have to feel like I know everything. Um, which is obviously really important in the times when everything's so new and we can't know things. 

[00:10:08] Pia: And I think that the challenge there happens is because people are often feel that they're in their position to demonstrate the expertise to be right. And that's where the conflict can happen, particularly in a team because, there there's no curiosity and there's no openness to that, that actually we may not be right.

[00:10:26] Dan: I, I, I saw a, um, I heard someone talking about an interview they did with the Dalai Lama, and they asked him a question and he, and he just sat there in silence and you think he's going to come out with this great sort of well thought out piece of wisdom. And he, after about two minutes of silence, apparently he said, I don't know. I, I'm going have to, I haven't thought about that and I'm gonna have to think about it. And those, those three words, I don't know, or four words to be, to look at it, it, it's rarely heard in business, isn't it? And, um, we are not supposed to, we're sort of not traditionally supposed to say that.

[00:11:01] Dan: So I think learner safety is a really good one. Um, it allows us to get that space for learning, doesn't it as well, if you, in a team.

[00:11:09] Juliet: I agree. Contribute to safety is the third level. Members feel safe to contribute their own ideas without fear of embarrassment or ridicule. This is a more challenging state because volunteering your own ideas can increase vulnerability.

[00:11:23] Pia: So that's sticking your neck out.

[00:11:24] Dan: Yeah,

[00:11:27] Juliet: It's just that next step up, isn't

[00:11:29] Pia: Yeah, like that. You know, no idea is a bad idea until you say it and everyone else thinks that that was a really bad idea. it is. One of those ones, you know, 

[00:11:38] Dan: it's when your post-it note falls off the board and no one picks it up. Yeah.

[00:11:41] Pia: Yeah. They're just going to know that that was rubbish. But it's, yeah, that's quite a big one, isn't it? Because we all wanna feel part of something I suspect, and we don't want and, and we don't. We all have our own insecurities of not looking stupid. So that is a little bit sticking your neck out at that point, I think. And actually knowing that it's safe to do that.

[00:12:02] Dan: I've worked with a couple of teams recently who, when they moved to a virtual environment in particular, but actually when it came, when it came to it, they realized they did this face-to-face as well, was that they were neither, uh, giving space to others nor taking the space. They admit, they realized that they hadn't even, they don't step into that space. So this, this level contributed safety was not, was not there, um, in, in the team. So they had to really work on that. So I think that's a very practical one. Sticky neck out's. A good one. Good way of describing, I think.

[00:12:31] Juliet: And finally we get to, to level four challenge. Your safety members can question others, including those in authority, question their ideas or suggest significant changes to ideas, plans, or ways of working. So that's a really bold step up. And in fact, between three and four, Clark defines this as the innovation threshold.

[00:12:51] Juliet: So this is really the level of psych safety where you see innovation becoming really genuinely.

[00:12:58] Pia: and I think so much of the tone here is created by the leader themselves. because they've really gotta permit people to feel safe enough to offer their ideas. And you know, we've interviewed many people, haven't we, over the, over these last couple of years on these episodes where that hasn't happened and they've been in critical situations. In, in a surgical situation, in a in a in a emergency situation. And that feedback's gotta come through thick, thick and fast.

[00:13:29] Dan: And in, in a way, you know, think about the fifties or even way, way beyond up to today, that this used to be one of the perks of being senior, wasn't it? No one challenged you. I mean, what, what, that's that. It's just, that's a real bonus, isn't it? I mean, obviously joking aside, it, um, , it washes, um, innovation and, and, um, uh, but you are right Pia. It's very, this is where you have to be very conscious as a leader. I suppose all of these is, is, is as a leader, but that one there where you clearly give permission reward challenge is, um, is something that has to be very conscious. 

[00:14:02] Juliet: And also I do think it's worth recognizing that innovation isn't just for innovation teams. You know, it's not just for software developers or designers actually in the c in the world in which we live, where changes are constant, every team needs to be innovative. Even a finance team or, you know, everybody needs to be ready to be questioning the way they're working and the way they're doing things, um, in order to meet new challenges that are coming at us every day. So innovation's not just for some people, it really is important.

[00:14:34] Dan: Yeah, it's a, it's a good point. Yeah, to think about things like AI, there's no job it won't be affected by that. Everyone's gotta be thinking about it. And you are right. You know, our own finance team, they're innovative, they've been looking at systems and, and new, new apps and you, you've gotta be doing that, um, all the time otherwise it's, um, you're gonna fall back. So, yeah. Good point. So that applies to everyone. So we have the framework, which I'm thinking inclusion is being part of it, learner is not knowing. Um, contributor is stick your neck out. And then, uh, challenger safety is, there's another way. You know, here's here. Really sort of

[00:15:11] Pia: Yeah. Take a deep breath.

[00:15:13] Dan: Take a deep breath. Come on. Um, but you're, you are increasingly getting a bit more, and I can see the hierarchy actually the way that gets up, but each of those being things that you can consciously build. So what does the data in Squadify tell us?

[00:15:28] Juliet: Oh, I'm so excited. 

[00:15:31] Juliet: I'm excited. You're letting me get to the data. So, 

[00:15:34] Dan: Right? There's a background done

[00:15:36] Juliet: So we have thousands of teams and several million data points. So we are really able to, um, dig into this and see what's going on for teams. And it's interesting, what we did is we lined up specific questions within the Squadify, uh, data set against each of those levels of psych safety and saw where the presence scores for teams sat, and, and specifically where they ranked. So how high in the rankings each of those questions came for teams in their scores of how well they felt they were doing.

[00:16:09] Juliet: And it's really interesting. I mean, the picture is mixed, but what's particularly clear is that teams have a real challenge at the very bottom in inclusion, safety, and at the very top in challenger safety. And that's really where the challenges lie.

[00:16:25] Dan: So talk us through those. What, um, what's happening in inclusion? Because we, we've talked about this a fair bit and Marsha Ramroop's helped us to really pick this apart. What's happening in that, that one where people sort of feel part of the team?

[00:16:37] Juliet: So we took two specific questions, uh, aligned to this. So the first was strong personal connections and the second listen to each other, listen to each other, does pretty well. It's pretty high up in the rankings. It feels to us like teams, uh, listen to one another, which is an important part of that feeling like you are, you are important and valued.

[00:16:56] Juliet: Strong personal connections, rated 33 out of 37, almost at the bottom in terms of how teams rate themselves in achieving that condition. It's also, by the way, the lowest rated for importance. And I know this is constantly and, uh, a question that we have in our heads, what is it about strong personal connections that teams just don't seem to value? Um, and I think that's a real challenge for establishing the foundations of psych safety if people aren't seeing the importance, um, and taking the time to build those connections amongst each other.

[00:17:31] Pia: I find this really interesting about the, the listening and the, and the challenge I have is, are we talking about hearing or are we talking about really listening? And, and like, when you actually work with teams. Um, and I, I've done this quite a bit recently, looking at the levels of listening, most of the time you're listening to validate your own expertise or opinion, or you are looking for the bit like a gap in the traffic to get your point in.

[00:18:00] Pia: And that's not really listening. So I'm not even sure that, we're answering that as a, as a real active exercise rather than a passive exercise. And it's that the strong personal connection shows up because it's quite a point. It, it, it's not one that normally gets asked, and I think that's why we're slightly exposed that actually, no, we don't because we, we interpret that as, and we've talked about this before, you know, could be, do we see this as some we're socializing or they're our best friends? And it's not, that's not, that's not what the question's asking. It's talking about the value that it's placing on personal connections and what and, and what's there.

[00:18:42] Pia: So I really wonder. I really wonder about this because I think when you really test out that level of listening, it might not be as acute as we may be thinking it is, and maybe we've got a bias towards that.

[00:18:55] Dan: Yeah. And I think people, yes, and of course at the other end of that scale of of Sharma's levels of listening is listening with an open will, which is genuinely listening in. With a, with an openness to being changed yourself, you know? And, and I think that level, that, that's quite rare. I suspect, as you say, Pia is quite often looking for confirmation or, or the gap in the traffic.

[00:19:18] Dan: So even the listening piece might be overstated. But yeah, the close per the, the, sorry, the strong personal connections here, rated low on importance. But when we get teams together, I know Pia you do the same thing. That building that foundation, helping people to know each other, particularly in a hybrid environment where those, those accidental conversations, the serendipity doesn't happen in the hallway, is is a thing that needs to be focused on because otherwise people won't feel included.

[00:19:43] Dan: And, uh, just another thought in a for hybrid. It's quite easy actually. Weirdly, it's very easy to include people in hybrid to make sure everyone has a voice, to use the technology, to use polls, to use notes to sort of make sure everyone has a voice. But what I've also seen is actually that people use technology to hide. Um, you know, we are on our call yesterday, weren't we? Pia with a big company and they, they're all off video. Goodness knows what they're doing. They're sort of hard, you know, it's actually quite easy to hide. So again, teams have to be very conscious about this because it's not something that, I think that's my point so I'm talking a lot, but it's, it's not something that happens naturally. You've got to help pe welcome people in. You can't, well, the door's unlocked, come on in. No. Open the door and usher them in. Bring them in. Um, otherwise this just won't happen.

[00:20:34] Pia: Yep.

[00:20:35] Juliet: If we look at, uh, both learner safety and contribute to safety, it's more mixed. There's no, there's no red flags for learner safety. We have a safe place to share ideas and learn from failure. No blame safe place scores very highly. It's third in the rankings. Again, Pia, you might say, well, that's because it's not really safe or people are being nice. I think it's a, it's an interesting idea. And contribute to safety. We looked at positive and constructive, as in, are people being positive, constructive in meetings and are they actively participating? And that's probably just tipping into the slightly low score. It's really right in the middle of the pack, actively participate. And I think to your point, it's one thing to be there and to be positive, but actually if you, in order to contribute, you have to say something. You have to do something. You can't just hide and be quietly good natured.

[00:21:27] Pia: Yeah, I think what this says to me is that actually to, to create a psychologically safe environment requires quite a lot of focus and attention. It's not the absence of friction or the absence of tension. And I think that it's quite easy to jump to conclude, well, you know, everyone, everyone gets on. you know, And that's, that's important, but. It's quite easy to fall into the trap of being nice and not necessarily being feeling that actually you're, you are in a, you're in an environment where you can be your creative best, you can contribute. You're gonna learn from people, you've got straight talking, and yet you, you, you are just growing as an individual and as a team, as a result of the interactions that takes work.

[00:22:16] Dan: Yeah, it's very easy to mistake that niceness for safety, whereas actually, yeah, you've, you've got to demonst, you've gotta hear words, you've gotta, people gotta feel included. But then you've got learners say, you've gotta feel, hear people say, I don't know that. And then in contributor actually making sure that everyone is sharing their, there was, these are, these are active things, not that passive sort of sink into a bath of Horlicks type of feeling that some you can have sometimes if you're not careful. 

[00:22:45] Juliet: I think you've, I think you've put your finger on it, Pia. For challenger safety, we looked at the question straight talking without offense, and that ranked 30th out of 37. Really, really low. So actually that makes us question, doesn't it? All of these other great scores, if people actually aren't allowed to talk straight without a fence, then are we all just retreating slightly and being nice on the surface?

[00:23:11] Pia: Yeah. Being polite, which is a nice thing, and that's very pleasant. But I think then, um, what tends to happen and, and what we don't see in In these scores, is that, does the squad speak with one voice? Do they ha, do they use the forum of when they're together to have the robust conversation to get that collective agreement and for everyone to feel like they've contributed it? Or does everybody just sort of nod their head and be polite and then they're going say and do something quite different when they're outside the room? Which is not safe either, because you haven't got that, sense of alignment, no, you don't, don't have that sense of trust. And that's where we also then see the next phase of this is that this starts to sort of expand into trust issues. 

[00:23:52] Dan: This one reminds me as well, I, without wanting to get overly sort of modelly about it, but, you know, a lot of people love, quite rightly, Kim Scott's work on radical candor. And that's where this question comes from. And of course, where people care deeply in the quadrant where people care personally and challenge directly, uh, and, but, but, sorry, but don't challenge directly. So where they're caring but not challenging, she calls that ruinous empathy. And I've always thought that was such a powerful, just a bri, little bit of genius there because, you know, wow. You see teams like that and, and, and they're different and, and everyone's nice and everyone's caring. That is not helping you because you are not challenging and you're not looking for new ways. So shifting the, the, the sort of magic ingredient there is speaking up. And in terms of the, particularly the leader, allowing people, encouraging people to speak up are rewarding people for that. Um, yeah. So the, there's that, that next step. But yeah, avoid the ruinous empathy. It never does. Just doesn't sound good, does it?

[00:24:52] Dan: So let's talk about what, let's just see if we can wrap up. What should teams be doing, do we think, to, you know, to, to try just, just really move forward given what the, we know, you know, of the data. What, what, what, what p should people be looking at? Let's just see if we can tie that up in a nice little bow.

[00:25:11] Juliet: I mean, the two, the two big scores that stand out as red flags are right at the bottom at the foundation, building strong personal connections, and then right at the top, straight talking without a fence and it, they're very much connected. Right? So it's about building those relationships that are actually, as you say, not just nice for the sake of an easy time, but actually caring enough about people that you want to have those tough conversations in order to together move forward to a better place.

[00:25:41] Pia: I heard this about a team today that, um, were newly formed and actually when they did a Squadify it was just that realization. Gosh, we just don't really know one another there, there are no strong personal connections cuz we just literally are in that very first stage of forming and getting to know one another. So they're really invested just. Time to be able to do that and could immediately feel that uplift. But that was a team that actually recognized that as being important. And that will be there. That is the cornerstone of the way that they will work together and, and ultimately innovate and create and solve, um, a whole heap of challenges and problems that come their way.

[00:26:23] Dan: and I think the other thought I I that's come, come to me as we're talking particularly about challenge of safety, but all of these fours, we build them. I think it's wrong to think of a psychologically safe team as Having loads of friction and being tough to work in and, and because actually it, it, that's not what actually happens. I think our team, I have to say, we do a lot of work on this and I think it's, we all just absolutely love our meetings. Cause we, we are coming up with ideas. We're challenging. We all feel heard and it's a lovely. . Yeah. There's, you're not, you don't come outta that feeling. Oh, I wish I could have said that. I, oh, I didn't like that idea, but I couldn't say anything. You know, it's actually a really great, um, not only productive, but you feel, um, you, you feel really good in that context. So I think, uh, equally, I don't think people should see this as a, as a sort of difficult working environment. It's actually quite the opposite.

[00:27:17] Juliet: it's energizing, isn't it, 

[00:27:19] Dan: Yeah, exactly. 

[00:27:20] Juliet: kind of environment. 

[00:27:21] Dan: Wonderful. Well, look, I think that gives our listener a couple of things to, to go after and, um, and if everyone wants to see sort of bit more data, they can get in touch with us. Um, and, um, yeah. But I think that we, we've, we've really taken the psychological safety horse around the paddock several times and, and really broke it down and sort of said, right, what's, how do you do this and what is the data telling us? So, um, Juliet, it's been great to have you on the show and we are looking forward to having you on each season now to share a little nugget of, of data.

[00:27:52] Juliet: Excellent. I'm delighted to be here. Thanks for having.

[00:27:54] 

[00:27:54] Dan: You know, it occurs to me that for a team leader in particular, the team leader has to be really conscious that they may feel psychologically safe, but that's actually a bias that's got status built into it. For someone, someone with high status, it's quite easy to feel safe. Nothing's gonna happen to them. So this is, this is almost about thinking of applying those logical steps that Juliet talked about to the person with the, you know, the lowest status in the team, if you like, if that exists in the team. You know, it's, it's an easy mistake to make this, yeah, I say what I want, but actually not everyone can.

[00:28:32] Pia: And I think that can actually be a blind spot and, and slightly entitled that of course you can say that, when you're in a position of status and actually you don't feel a real threat. It's a, it's a different position to be in when you do feel unsafe.

[00:28:45] Pia: I also had a really great chat with one of our Squadify users in uh, New Zealand, sustainable energy company, and he was talking about how we may be unconsciously de-skilled post the pandemic. But being a hybrid environment, we have to rethink about how we create these personal connections and not almost shy away from it because we are not in the same office having coffee together and doing all the normal human things. Because that, we do have to reimagine how to create personal connections and how to be able to do that in a way that is both virtualized as well as face to face. Because if we don't, the very foundation of psychological safety is cracked. it's like a f, it is like a foundation.

[00:29:37] Dan: it's actually down at that inclusion level really, isn't it? That if you, that base level that Juliet talked about that is a little bit iffy, that when the personal connections are cracked, as you say, you don't have anything to sort of stand on in your psychological safety. Yeah, that's a really, I love that, the, the, the de-skilling and, and it's such a conscious effort that was made that you need to make to, to keep it up.

[00:29:59] Dan: I was also thinking, Pia, I was reading a thing from, um, actually Mark, a lovely, um, producer, put out a thing about he, he's got a podcast manual handbook, which is excellent, and in there it said, talk about the things that people might disagree with. So I was thinking possibly some of this might be sort of obvious. I wonder if some people might disagree with the challenger, um, safety part that a team leader might say, Hmm, I've had challenges in my team, and they just stop the momentum and they hold 

[00:30:29] Pia: Pain in the 

[00:30:30] Dan: pain in the neck. Yeah, exactly. The, that good old technical, psychological term. But yeah, I suspect there are maybe some people who think, Hmm, I actually don't want that bit in my team. And for, again, for a leader, that's probably the hardest thing, the actual. Being able to take that challenge.

[00:30:47] Pia: It may not be everybody's cup of tea, and I guess that depends. A large part of this is the comfort levels of the team leader themselves, and how, how comfortable they are being vulnerable or how, what their relationship is to feeling unsafe and what they will do to, to create which safety, which may almost be perceived as control.

[00:31:11] Dan: Yeah, it could be. It could be, and the ego rises up and controls everything. So I think that's, that's the area probably where team leaders will have to challenge themselves most, because above that line, as Juliet said, Innovation lies, which all teams need right now. So, wonderful, wonderful stuff. Great to see the data.

[00:31:27] Dan: But that is it for this episode. You can find show notes and resources at squadify.net, just click on the We Not Me podcast link. If you enjoyed the show, please do share the love and recommend it to your friends and family. If you'd like to contribute to the show, just email us at wenotmepod@gmail.com. We Not Me is produced as we just mentioned by Mark Steadman of Origin. Thank you so much for listening. It's goodbye from me.

[00:31:53] Pia: And it's goodbye from me.