[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 Don Hammond.

[00:00:13] Pia: And I am Pia Lee. And a very warm welcome, a return. Welcome to Juliet Hammond. Welcome back, Juliet.

[00:00:21] Juliet: Thank you so much. It's great to be here.

[00:00:23] Pia: Oh, we're very excited. It's such a great opportunity to delve into our own data and really pick up a, a, a topic that we can, deep dive. Won't be talking about exactly what that is. Hold a bit of a suspense, and in the meantime, I shall throw you into the torch chamber with young Dan, who will ask you an excruciating question.

[00:00:43] Dan: Yes. And well, um, without giving too much away, we are going to be talking about psychological safety. So I imagine this is the point at which your psychological safety is lowest Juliet. So, um, uh, but I'm going to,

[00:00:54] Juliet: slightly nervous.

[00:00:55] Dan: split it back and. Oh,

[00:00:57] Pia: and it's just got worse.

[00:00:59] Dan: as, as Mr. Hammond himself, uh, the, the, uh, the, the other half, I love this one. So, I am really OCD about.

[00:01:08] Juliet: Oh my goodness.

[00:01:10] Pia: I think I know what that is. I think I don't, I think I've heard

[00:01:13] Juliet: Okay. Um, I've, I'm afraid to say as I get older, I'm finding I'm becoming more OCD about more things, um, which is slightly troubling. But the one that my family rib me most about is that when I make coffee or tea for people, I have to give them matching mugs. So we have a whole collection of mugs that have been bought over time. Um, but generally they're in twos and threes and fours, and I always have to serve matching mugs to people. 

[00:01:40] Pia: So, and how many ma, how, what's your set? What's your set? I mean, like what, what, what numbers can you cater for?

[00:01:45] Dan: Well, that's a good point.

[00:01:47] Pia: you know, like what happens if you, if you've got 10 people, have you got 10 mugs the same?

[00:01:51] Juliet: No, no, at, at that point things could just go horribly wrong. Mostly if we're, if I'm, if I'm serving coffee to 10 people, mostly, hopefully, I've had a glass of wine already, so

[00:02:00] Pia: Yeah. So then that's okay. Let's calm the nerves. Yeah, and I've heard things about the dishwasher as well, un restacking. I, I've, I've heard this 

[00:02:07] Juliet: Oh, yes, I'm, I feel I'm not alone here. but maybe that's what people who have OCD about dishwashers say.

[00:02:13] Pia: They do. I think they do. Yeah. I, I get told off about stacking the dishwasher, so obviously clearly you don't suffer from OCD, but there you go.

[00:02:23] So Juliet, we have a really exciting topic to talk about today. Something that is a real hot topic, psychological safety. Before that, for the benefit of people who dunno who you are, can you give us a little quick intro?

[00:02:36] Juliet: Yes, sure. So I started out as an economist. So I studied economics at university and I joined Unilever in their corporate strategy and economics department. So advising the business on the economics of their markets, uh, for launching products and things, which was great fun.

[00:02:53] After that, I, uh, joined Dell. I spent a little bit of time in investment banking after doing an MBA. And then when the kids were little, I went back to university again. Um, I think Mr. Hammond was almost despairing of me at this point. Um, and I studied, uh, psychology. Psychology. I think probably I was softening a little. Um, and so it seemed that the combination of kind of strategy, economics, and then psychology took me to leadership, really business leadership and leadership more generally. And so for the last 10 or so years I've been working, uh, in leadership, primarily on more of the analytics side. So looking at the data behind, uh, the interventions that we do, the research that supports our thinking around leadership.

[00:03:37] Pia: And tell us what you specifically do in Squadify.

[00:03:40] Juliet: So primarily my role is, uh, in research, so looking into our data, delving in, and helping the team to understand what we're seeing, the trends that we're seeing, the changes, looking across all of our teams globally to help us understand what's going on for teams.

[00:03:55] Pia: And I think that's, um, like the world is changing. Um, we've seen that the ripple effect post the pandemic, um, and the, the, the future of work is now. So this is a really important time for us to be able to get that data and look at that from a team's perspective. 

[00:04:14] Um, we're gonna focus on psychological safety. So I think we probably need to start with what that is because some people may be, have listening, may have different definitions of it. So I think that's probably first how, how do we classify it?

[00:04:30] Juliet: I think that's a really good point, Pia. We need to be very clear about what we're talking about. 'cause psychological safety can mean different things to different people. So the term was first coined by Amy Edmondson, um, at Harvard Business School in 1999, and she described it as a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. So it really is about that, uh, that vulnerability. It's about being able to put yourself out there being able to demonstrate that you don't know, or that you, you are asking questions.

[00:05:02] We, we've seen further, um, project Aristotle by Google in 2012. They studied 180 teams looking at 250 success measures that yielded five key success factors. And the most important one of those was psychological safety. Lencioni, the mar, the the king or the originator of, of,

[00:05:22] Dan: Yes.

[00:05:24] Juliet: Research on research on teams. His five dysfunctions of teams start with, um, an absence of trust as the fundamental measure as it were. And when he talks about trust, he says it's a vulnerability based trust. So we are seeing consistently this real understanding that it's about an ability to be vulnerable within the people you work with, and it's that, that we really want to dig into today and explore.

[00:05:52] Dan: And what's the latest thinking here, Juliet? What's the, what's the up-to-date sort of research and, and thinking on this topic?

[00:05:57] Juliet: So Tim Clark is really, his model is the most recent 2020. He came out with a model of four levels of psychological safety, starting with inclusion. That is, you know, do you feel part of this team. Learner is the second level. So are you able to learn within your team? Are you safe to learn? The third is contributor. Can I actually contribute my ideas? Am I listened to? Am I valued? Are my opinions valued? And then the fourth is challenge, which is really that highest level of psych safety, which is around am I safe enough to challenge others, including senior people within the team in order to bring my thoughts to, to the team and contribute. 

[00:06:38] Dan: I think it's just worth us, three of us pausing to just cover why is this so important? I mean, it sounds, you know, it sounds like it should be, and it sounds, you know, not just nice, of course you can hear that challenge in there, but why is this a driver of. you know, there's that sense of belonging and enjoyment and mental health, but also performance? What, what is it about this factor that, as you said, Juliet comes up time and again? I think that's an interesting one for us to explore. Um, Juliet, what's your, what's your thinking on, on that?

[00:07:11] Juliet: Well, I think one of the biggest drivers for this is that, that there's a lot of research to show that people who are more engaged perform better. And so it's about feeling part of that team, feeling engaged and owning it, and that ownership of the, of the decisions that you make is going to me mean that people are comfortable to perform better.

[00:07:33] So following on from engagement, the Google Aristotle research, really those five success measures are around what makes a team perform well, and the very fundamental one is psychological safety. So it's absolutely the core to driving performance is having that foundational psychological safety that enables people to become engaged and do their best work.

[00:07:54] Dan: And I, I've seen this in teams where that psychological safety doesn't exist. It's quite, and as a practitioner helping those teams, it's sort of, you know, which order do you do these things in? You know, for example, clarity we know is really important. But actually, if you want a really good conversation about building clarity, you need safety so that people can explore, try new things, ask naive questions, be vulnerable, contribute, challenge.

[00:08:21] And then when you are executing, um, yeah, you need to be able to say, oh, that project didn't, didn't go so well, did it, or whatever. You, you, it's about sort of, it opens the door to actually build, bringing truth and also multiple perspectives into the team, doesn't it? It's quite an interesting lens to look at in a way for me that it, it brings a lot of those necessary things into a team

[00:08:43] Juliet: Yes, and in fact, Amy Edmondson has moved into that learning space now. So her most recent book is called the Right Kind of Wrong, and that's about people being, um, comfortable with failure. And I know failure is a very loaded word, but I think that learning piece that being able to express that I don't understand that, or I don't, or that didn't work out so well, and learning from that is a really important part of psych safety.

[00:09:10] Pia: And I think what's interesting is that when we constructed the questions on psych safety, we didn't do that in isolation of the other factors that create high performance. So whilst you have a learning environment and a safe environment, we're still account, we're still accountable for results, otherwise we've got hobbies, not jobs. Um, and so it's a different, you know, it's a different, and it's how to hold that, how to, how to hold those elements. 

[00:09:37] So Juliet, how have we taken those levels of psych safety from Tim Clark and applied it to the questions in Squadify?

[00:09:44] Juliet: So we have seven questions in Squadify that address psychological safety are and included in our psych safety dynamic. Um, and so I'll take you through them at each of the levels of, uh, Tim Clark's model. So in level one, which is include inclusion, safety, we have a question: everyone is included, and people behave in a positive and constructive manner. So that's really a kind of a base level, around psych safety.

[00:10:11] The second level is learning learner, safety. And we have two questions there too. The first is learn from failure without blame, uh, and the second is a safe place to share ideas. So that's really about people feeling comfortable with being able to offer ideas and knowing that they're going to be learning along the way.

[00:10:30] Third level is contributor safety. So we have, again, two questions there. Listen to each other and straight talking without offense. So, and, and really what we're talking about is active, genuine listening. And the the longer form version of the question is around listening with the intent to understand. So it's really about giving everybody the opportunity to contribute in that way. And straight talking so you can really say what you wanna say without feeling that you are constrained.

[00:10:56] Um, and then the fourth one is challenger safety. And our question is simply around do you feel safe to challenge others within the team? So there's just one question on that.

[00:11:05] And these are questions that are asked over time. So the way that Squadify works is that we are constantly, every few months tracking people's scores on this so that teams can really monitor how they progress, um, How they are moving the dial forward on each of these dimensions to move towards that ultimate goal of a, a truly psychologically safe, team. 

[00:11:27] Pia: Um, so tell us, Juliet, what, what are we seeing? I know it's early days, but we, we've had a lot of clients go through this and we're starting to see some trends emerge. What are you seeing?

[00:11:37] Juliet: Well, it's really interesting, Pia. Um, first of all, what we're seeing is that overall teams rank the importance of the factors of psychological safety higher than the presence. So what's gratifying, I guess, is that teams are really recognizing that these factors are important, and I think that really reflects the amount of discussion and, and airtime that psych safety gets these days. But what we're seeing is that that's not really matched by the present scores just yet.

[00:12:05] Pia: So good to see that the importance scores are higher. That's an interesting, because, um, our old friend, strong personal connections, remember we always struggled to get that to be a, an a higher important score. So I think maybe this is something a little bit more concrete and closer to home. What, what else are we seeing in the data? So what, what are we seeing in amongst those seven questions that's interesting?

[00:12:28] Juliet: So what's really interesting is, um, the first, the very first level of inclusion, safety, everyone is included, is the highest ranking condition, um, in Squadify. So for presence. So we are really seeing that, that at that very base level, most teams are ticking the box and, and really getting that level of inclusion, which is very positive to see. Another high scoring one is safe place to share ideas so people are feeling like their teams are safe places where they can suggest their thoughts. So that's really positive.

[00:13:05] What we're seeing that's less encouraging is that than some of the other sort of higher levels. Psych safety aren't quite there yet, so, um, listen to each other is really fair, fair. You know, these are now in the middle rankings, so in the sort of area of, uh, halfway down the rankings. So listen to each other. Learning from failure. Straight talking. And most sort of, I guess the highest challenge of all challenger safety, which is really the high point. These are all really only at the midpoint in terms of rankings. So they're way below their importance ranking, which means that teams are feeling they want more of that than they getting. And it feels like these are all around that challenge, straight talking, evolutionary side of psych safety.

[00:13:53] Pia: And I think that what's interesting when I'm working with teams, you don't wanna get confused that psych safety is being nice, um, because that might not actually be effective within a team. And so yes, it can have a safe place to share ideas. We can include, but actually that, yes, that's, that's the first stage gate. But if we're really working in a business, we have to have the faith and the trust that we can really challenge each other. And that, that appears. We don't appear to have the muscle in quite the same way.

[00:14:23] Juliet: I think you're so right. And actually, going back to Lencioni's five dysfunctions, his second level was around artificial harmony, the fear of conflict. And I think that's a really big challenge for a lot of teams is that you can give a sort of outward impression of being a safe place and includes, including up to a point. But that sort of fear of, of conflict really probably holds people back from getting to that deep level of psychological safety, which is really where the gold is. That's really where, when we are willing to challenge and explore really different opportunities, that's where you can really accelerate performance considerably.

[00:15:02] Dan: I've, I've always, that's a great reminder actually. I've always liked that Lencioni, um, the, um, artificial harmony. When I, when I first looked at that, those five levels, those five dysfunctions, I thought, wow, that's such a great way of putting it. And, um, and exists in so many teams. So I think, as you say, Peter, we're seeing a lot of teams, aren't we? And that's coming out in the data that, that challenge ability to challenge is, is low in presence across teams. And, and I think, am I right? I think, I think Tim Clark says that's above the innovation threshold. So that he says you need that to innovate. 

[00:15:35] Which of course if you think about teams today, we all need to be innovating. We're seeing things we've never seen before. So actually it's a really great thing to focus on, and um, to, to, to, to really, so not to say, oh, it's fine. We don't challenge each other. It's not fine. We need to be moving on, and we don't do that without a challenge. So I think the data really points to teams, to something they can really work on to make a difference to their performance.

[00:15:59] Pia: And there's an important part here where teams need to have a conversation about how. How they work together. And I, and I don't mean that from an operational perspective, but the rules of the game, the social contract, what's what's expected, what could be called out, how to give feedback. And if we don't have that more mature type of conversation, then the, the opposite is to, instead of leaning in, we lean out. And that almost like creates the vacuum that just feels a little bit unsafe, 'cause everyone's feeling that, oh God, I hope someone's gonna speak.

[00:16:35] And it, what, what I found interesting too is that the question are in clarity, understanding how we work together, I'm seeing that that has the one of the biggest gaps in clarity at the moment. So I may know my own functional role or my project role, or individual role, but how it intersects and with the rest of my team and the interdependencies, I'm less clear. And therefore it's gonna make psych safety. Tricky because we haven't established either of those. The clarity of how we all fit together and the clarity of how we actually behave and work together. 

[00:17:16] Dan: Yeah. And if you add this to one of the, um, sort of team habits that I've seen quite a bit of recently, which is when we get together, we present to each other, If you add to that the fact that you've got people presenting projects, here's my idea. What do you think? But actually we have a team culture where we don't say what we think, we don't, we're not able to challenge. It makes that whole thing rather pointless, actually. And you can see how people don't then use a team to bring diverse perspectives in to really optimize the, the, the, the plans. It's all, it's all it again, individualizes the team. It's very easy for people to get fragmented and they just go away and do their thing without real input.

[00:17:55] Pia: Well, and Juliet then Gallop has just released its 2023 report on organizations and engagement in Australia and New Zealand. What, what, what's that telling us? 'Cause that's the, that's a context piece as well.

[00:18:09] Juliet: Yes, indeed. And the, it's not good. Um, the, the, the 2023 data shows that 48% of employees said they felt stressed yesterday. Um, and actually that's mirrored in the global data, 44% of people e experiencing a lot of stress. And so we are really in a, in a situation where there's a lot that, that your workplace can do to help you to address that, that the, you know, in this times of rapid change, we really, there's an opportunity for your work to provide a calm and comforting place, and that isn't currently the case.

[00:18:50] I think there's the co the other piece of data from Gallup is that only 20% of employees are actively engaged. Uh, so that means four-fifths of them are not thriving. Um, and that certainly for us as an organization that is helping teams to thrive is something that we see as a huge opportunity and also a very sad stat to be starting from.

[00:19:13] But it is worth mentioning that that level of 20% of people being engaged has, is a five-year high. So we're back up to about the levels of 2012. They dipped in 2017 and they've been rising steadily ever since. So I think this, the fact that people are talking about psychological safety and that that since Covid, in fact, where managers, I think I mentioned before, managers have really realized that their role is a little broader than just directing, and actually they need to care about one another and care about teams, even just that conversation is starting to have an impact on the level of engagement of employees.

[00:19:51] Dan: So what can teams do about this practically? 

[00:19:54] Pia: I think my answer to that would be, if you don't talk about it and you don't actually bring the conversation up to question it within the team, then it is gonna go. Busyness is gonna take, and task achievement is gonna take over and it's gonna be relegated. But, It's, it's a, it's a sleeper. So it actually, if it's not, if it's not there, then it's just going to, to build. So measuring it I think is really important and having the conversation about it. And actually seeing it as work in progress. So sometimes that, that there is just such a number of mitigating factors that, that create it. So it's not like a nirvana. It's a little bit like a marriage. You know, you have great moments and then you have lots of great moments.

[00:20:36] And that's a bit like how psych, 'cause different personalities can create different impacts. External, of course, people are gonna be put under pressure and some of that you can't, can't actually impact. But if you don't have the regular opportunity to talk about it, Input people's views, then you're making it something that isn't important and, and then it's, it, it, it will have a, a much bigger effect, a negative effect on performance and on people.

[00:21:09] Juliet: And I think you're right pier, it's not one thing. So you can't say, okay, our psych safety is low. We'll work on psych safety. I think it, it's helpful to look at, for example, the Tim Clark model and say, Okay, what are the elements that we can put in place and the building blocks that will take us towards psych safety? So let's, even if to begin with, it feels a little clunky, right? In every meeting, instead of presenting to each other, we're going to ask a question, bring a problem, and ask people and listen to one another and use that as the first thing, and maybe have a retro and reflect on things and think about learning proactively put in steps that you can do to encourage learning as a team. And so as you build on each of those elements of psych safety, the output is a more psychologically safe team.

[00:22:01] Dan: I think that's a really good thought, and actually targeting those areas rather than saying, oh, We've got this psychological safety issue, you can actually just dive in on one specific thing and really work on that and see if you can move it on.

[00:22:12] I think the other thing that this, this brings to mind is, you know, when, um, I've seen this with teams all a parallel is when people say, I've got a problem with this person, they don't take feedback. And you know, it's tricky 'cause you're giving them feedback on not taking feedback. They don't take feedback. You've got a little bit of an issue here with, with a team where there isn't psychological safety, that it's hard to raise that topic in the team, isn't it?

[00:22:36] I think this is an exceptional thing. If I look across all the other conditions for success, most of those you can, if safety exists, you can sort of talk about them and bring them into the light and you can have a constructive conversation. if psychological safety doesn't exist, you've gotta deal with that in a different way, haven't you? Because it's not going to be surfaced in the group. You're gonna see the same dynamic happening and it'll be suppressed, right?

[00:22:58] Pia: And, it's self perpetuating. And then on top of that, you know, let, let, let's name the elephant in the room here, if the leader is the person that is creating a psychologically unsafe environment that then, then that's a challenge. So, you know, let's be honest, that can happen. A leadership style can, um, it can be reactionary to the pressures that they may be facing, but the consequences are, it creates an unsafe place for, um, team members to contribute, and, and that's a real challenge.

[00:23:31] So there's a bit here too, where. Where leaders do have to take responsibility for their role in, in the shadow that they cast from a psychologically safe perspective because, the way that they behave will have a, will have a huge impact.

[00:23:49] Juliet: There's a fascinating piece of work by a US organization, strangely called UKG. UKG Research, and they identified that the manager's impact on people's mental health is greater than either their doctor or their therapist.

[00:24:03] Pia: And that's probably 'cause they may not see either of those other two people very often, but they do see their manager. 

[00:24:09] Dan: Whether they want to or not. Yeah,

[00:24:11] Pia: Every day.

[00:24:12] Dan: Yeah. I, think that makes sense. It makes, you know, we've, there's all, you know, people say they don't, people don't leave companies, they leave a manager and, and all of those things that they just, they just really true. It has a huge impact and I think that this piece is where the rubber hits the road, isn't it, for the manager is to make sure they're creating the space. And I know not just around challenger, but to take that lead in saying I am, as you said, Juliet, I am open to input, I'm open to challenge, I'm open to learning. I've demonstrated, you know, a leader if they can say, I don't know, we don't know this yet. Let's go and find out, oh, I've, I've run this project, but didn't go as well as I'd hoped, and I've learned this. These are habits that leaders have to get into.

[00:24:55] And it's a long way, certainly we've talked about a bit this on our, on the podcast a bit, it's a long way from where I started in the workplace and you see the managers and what the managers were was right. And this is a big shift. And what I'm hoping in my mind is that, you know, since 2017, as you said, Juliet, in the last five years, those, um, five, six years, um, but that, that, that we are getting better at this, that, that we are humanizing the workplace and that managers don't have to be perfect, and actually that will start to roll down to their teams in, in allowing that the space created by that vulnerability. But it does come from the, the leader or the senior people in the teams, that's for sure.

[00:25:37] Pia: And it's not something that, um, is like compliance training. Let's do a training on psychological safety and it'll all be better, because of all those other factors. You've gotta see it as a journey. Gotta see it as a, as a as, as, as the way that you operate and, and work in progress by the whole team, by the leader. Um, and it's that commitment to it that actually makes it, um, I, I think a massive learning journey for everybody, and, and, and can open up huge avenues of growth and opportunity and potential for everybody in the team. But it's, but it's, it's not a one hit wonder. Go and do a one hour course and you're done. It doesn't work like that.

[00:26:19] Dan: no, and, and of course it can be overplayed, I think. Um, I saw really good webinar yesterday on, on strengths and how, you know that whole idea can be overplayed. And you, if you do, you know, people do. Want clarity, they want decisiveness as well. So it's it. So you've gotta really hold these things in balance.

[00:26:39] I've seen a couple of leaders recently who are brilliant at it, very clear and very open to learning and challenge. Because if you, on the other hand, just constantly saying, oh, I don't know. Let's learn. Let's go and find things out and oh, we're still thinking about it, that's not good either. So really holding those things in balance and going for the and, I think is a, is a, is a challenge for today's leader, but one that could release them as well from that grip of, of rightness.

[00:27:03] Juliet: Yes. It's really where those six dynamics in Squadify all play a part, isn't it? We can't focus on one over any of the others. We need to be able to have direction, be able to execute, be psychologically safe. They all need to sit in balance.

[00:27:19] Pia: Juliet, I think that's given us a really brilliant insight into both how the questions are set up, but also the insights. Any final parting words for teams today in the Hurley burly of working in organizations that they can take and apply this psych safety?

[00:27:39] Juliet: I think really it's, it's a process and not an end point. And I think that's something that we've been, we've learned from the research and we're seeing with clients is that, um, if we see psychological safety as just a, an opportunity for teams to get closer and more constructive and work more effectively together, that it's an ongoing process and, and the, the, the small moves in the right direction are all valid and useful.

[00:28:05] Pia: And that's it. I think it's a work in progress, um, rather than a destination. But everything is pointing to, um, that whole element. You get great people and great performance with psych safety.

[00:28:18] Dan: Juliet, thank you so much for joining us today with all this juicy data, and I hope you'll join us in season eight. Can you believe, um, with some new, um, new angles, maybe an update on this topic or something totally new, but this is such a, it's a topical topic if you like. It's a, it's really on people's um, minds. We know there's new legislation Australia about this exact topic. So thank you so much for digging into the date and giving us an early read on these, um, psychological safety metrics. 

[00:28:47] Juliet: My pleasure. Thanks so much for having me again. 

[00:28:49] Pia: I do wonder whether, um, although the concept of psych, safety's been around for some time because it's come into workplace legislation literally a couple of months ago in Australia, and it's, and it's, you know, we're starting to see incidents in the media of, um, where people are citing it as a, as a, a reason for their, um, lack of wellbeing. And I wonder whether we're still, still needing to define it and make it pragmatic. Because just like, it's a bit like ai. We kinda swing one way and then, you know, we, we've gotta find the, find the evolution and the, and the happy medium.

[00:29:31] Dan: And we love to oversimplify, don't we? And sort of not look for the tensions it involves. Yeah.

[00:29:38] Pia: You also don't want it to become either a constraint on the way that people work and they feel that they have to sort of, it's that toxic pos positivity, in and, and it, and it can breed that, or that it's used to weaponize people so, you know, they, they speak up and, you know, I, I think, I think we're going, I think we've got a bit of a journey on this one. 

[00:29:57] Dan: And I heard someone say, it's weird, isn't it? 'cause it can look like, sound like niceness, but I heard someone say, boy, it's got a such a hard edge that. Because as soon as you've got that word psychological in it, it takes you into mental health and it's got a, in a way, a weird weight on it, which is obviously really important, but it can, it has that, that side as well. So, Yeah, the term itself can, can lead us to sort of oversimplify in some strange ways I think. 

[00:30:23] Pia: I'm working with a client at the moment where defining it and, and, and as you cascade it down through the organization, making sure that everybody has a common understanding of it. 'cause it is easy just to, to make it nice. And then how do you, how do you. Bring in accountability and performance so that you know, that, you know, we're here to do a job most of the time in workplaces. We're not mates out on a fishing trip. So how, how do we create that expectation of what we're accountable for and a really safe environment for us reciprocally to be able to have that conversation?

[00:30:59] Dan: Can actually, and if we do it right, the psychological safety helps us to achieve those things that we're accountable for both, you know, individually and, and jointly. Yeah, it's, it's, um, I think you've been using this sort of two by two matrix. Haven't you have accountability at one side, psychological safety along the bottom, and then you've got these four sort of squares, and we don't need to talk about all the names of that. But you can imagine that, um, you know, a bo, high on both is a cracking culture. But if you have, for example, high psych safety with low accountability, and, and low drive and, and you know, low desire for, for results as, uh, as, as Lencioni would say, you, you get into a, you could get into a zone where yes, you have safety, even challenge your safety, but you're not really moving forward. I could, I could, I could see that.

[00:31:46] In fact, I was working with a team a couple weeks ago who said, you know what? I think we've got, I don't think they said too much. Cha challenge the safety, but I think we challenge too much. We don't make decisions, you know, we've got this nice safe environment. We can all say what we onto to each other, but we don't move on. And that was maybe a little bit of that accountability, lack of accountability creeping in potentially. 

[00:32:07] So, yeah, having, it's that tension, creating both of those together is seems to be the, you know, that sweet spot that's, that's hard to achieve but is less simplistic than, than people might think. 

[00:32:19] Pia: And probably really important that goals are really clear. The plan's really clear. Our unifying direction is really clear. And the clarity on actually how you work together to achieve it is also really clear. 'Cause then psychological safety is saying, and these are the, these are the expectations and the guardrails of the way that we behave with one another. And that's, that's how it's going to work.

[00:32:41] Dan: And psych safety is sort of around climate and competence, but that clarity has to be there or you can be a bit directionless. Um, so yeah. and, and obviously this is the continuing challenge of teams and leaders. Um, it's, you know, it's not, not easy.

[00:32:57] And I do, I just, uh, the, my, my final reflection is that, um, again, working with the team this week, the, the, the role of the leader is so crucial here, you know. And it is a different thing, but, and has to be treated really carefully. Get the data on how are you doing on psychological safety. But the leader has a really special role because there are still power, power distances. And, um, so it needs to be, um, both, in both in terms of the accountability and the psychological safety in that, in those two dimensions. So, um, Yeah. another, another bit of a hefty job for the, for the team leader, but for the team ideally to share ultimately, 

[00:33:36] Pia: So I think there'll be, um, I think there'll be quite a bit to learn over this next. 12, 24 months as it becomes more mainstay inside organizations as it should, but we get to learn practically how to utilize it to its best intent, and to support people to thrive in the workplace, which is really what we're looking 

[00:33:58] Dan: Absolutely, absolutely. And I've seen teams just recently doing a really good job of talking about psychological safety as a team. What does it mean for them? You know, that's, that's a great conversation. But of course, if you don't have psychological safety, that conversation is not, it's not true. So it's, it's got a built in, um, some built-in barriers, but if you can get to that point, you can help to really define it together and keep a track on it. But, uh, great episode. Thank you Juliet, for all the insights and the data. Wonderful stuff. 

[00:34:28] Um, but that is it for this episode. You can find show notes on squadify.net, under Resources. If you've enjoyed the show, please do share the love and recommend it to your friends. And why not share it with your team so that you can open a conversation about psych safety. If you'd like to contribute to the show, just email us at wenotmepod@gmail.com. We Not Me is produced by Mark Steadman of Origin. Thank you so much for listening. It's goodbye from me. 

[00:34:54] Pia: And it's goodbye from me.