Current challenges, such as new business models, digitization & transformation, require – I will go into this again in this article – that managers build a strong culture.

What do I mean by that exactly? With the shift to remote and hybrid work, corporate culture is becoming even more important, sometimes more diffuse and difficult to grasp. At the same time, we are experiencing in many places how the speed of change is increasing and our ability to adapt is also being challenged.

I therefore hope that this blog post will restart a debate on psychological security, because it is not new.

What does psychological security mean?

Amy Edmondson, Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, founded the Psychological Safety Concept back in 1999. It means:

  • Employees will not be sanctioned or humiliated if they express ideas, questions, concerns, errors, or critical or contrary opinions.
  • People have to feel accepted in a group if they want to give feedback on content or question structures.
  • When team members share their ideas, everyone needs to be respectful of each other’s views and focus on a healthy debate.

Basically, this concept outlines a matter of course. Behind this is the conviction: In a work environment in which colleagues are afraid to express themselves, good teamwork can no longer arise. And in a team in which only what the supervisor or a few colleagues have to say counts, no innovation can develop.

How do you see it? I think we still have a lot to do before this psychological security is broadly normal.

Evidence of the importance of this concept

My hypothesis is: Transformation needs a strong culture; including psychological security. In such an environment of constant trial and error, there are many mistakes, but even more good ideas. These are continuously compared with the goals to be achieved. Many good ideas increase the likelihood of new products and services – developed from the customer´s perspective – that contribute to the economic success of the company.

I would like to highlight three studies in this context:

(I) Dave Ulrich: Crises Are Opportunities to Lead. Dave takes up the Leadership Code, which he created together with Norm Smallwood and Kate Sweetman in 2009, revised in 2017 and now updated again to reflect new insights into leadership in times of crisis. This Leadership Code 3.0 (see presentation, illustration on page 2) covers ten requirements in order to discover and use opportunities in crises.
“Executor 3.0” is about the “right” culture. This combines internal values and behavior – psychological security! – with the value they create for customers and investors.

(II) Amy C. Edmondson, Per Hugander: Psychological Safety Is Not a Hygiene Factor. Amy and Per outline three levels of psychological security (see presentation, illustration on page 3). So a level 2 or below is a toxic environment, a company between 3 and 6 appears reasonably healthy, but is likely to be less engaged, open, and learning-oriented than it appears at first glance. An organization that is on a scale of 7 and above has a strong cultural performance.

(III) Donald Sull, Charles Sull: 10 Things Your Corporate Culture Needs to Get Right. Ten cultural elements are very important for employees. These were grouped into four categories: respect, leadership, remuneration and job security / reorganizations.
The best predictor of a company’s cultural value is whether employees feel respected at work. Respect is by far the most important factor. In addition, the way in which leaders support their employees is a strong predictor for the assessment of the corporate culture (see presentation, illustration on page 4).

Corporations such as Google and SEB work along this Harvard concept and support the above hypothesis.

Refreshing performance management

In a hybrid world of work, executives have to deal with the following questions, among others:

  • How are goals set, managed and assessed when the work is done without the physical presence of the executive?
  • How should executives coach and provide feedback when working asynchronously with employees?
  • How can executives give fair reviews when they are not with employees?

I’ve worked with several methods before, including OKR, 4DX, BSC, and Hoshin. The 3C model of modern performance management (see presentation, illustration on page 5) relies on three levers:

  • Teams that cultivate future-oriented feedback and fairness cultures promote both commitment and corporate performance.
  • When managers act as coaches (capability), show openness and remove barriers, this promotes individual performance.
  • Companies that provide employees with clarity for today and for the future encourage employee engagement.

The methods mentioned have four disciplines in common: (1) setting and focusing goals, (2) achieving clarity and holding weekly coordination meetings, (3) obtaining feedback, ensuring commitment and visualizing current indicators and key figures, (4) evaluating performance and agreeing new commitments .

Important: Psychological security is the basis, not the result! A common question asked when applying psychological security practices is: does this mean that I cannot expect excellence? Yes, because managers who create psychological security and hold their employees accountable for excellence are the best performers. According to Amy, it’s about finding the right balance in order to advance into the learning or growth zone (see presentation, illustration on page 6).

Bitte akzeptieren Sie statistics, marketing Cookies, um diesen Inhalt sehen zu können.

 

Conclusion

As a strategist, I am deeply convinced of this psychological safety concept. Looking back, I shouldn’t have started some projects because the cultural prerequisites weren’t there yet. No matter how good a master plan, it cannot compensate for cultural weaknesses.

Psychological security stands and falls with executives who act in an exemplary manner. The leadership code and necessary leadership skills indicate the direction.

As a result, psychological security is about creating a sense of belonging and community within companies where fear, anger and depression are replaced by choice, flexibility and freedom.

In her 2020 book, Amy offers seven questions that can be answered on a Likert scale. It’s about agreeing or rejecting a statement. The scale has seven levels, a 4 would be a neutral neither-nor-attitude.

  1. If I make a mistake on the team, it is often used against me. (R)
  2. Team members can raise problems and difficult questions.
  3. People on the team sometimes reject others because they are different. (R)
  4. In this team, taking risks is not a problem.
  5. It is difficult to ask other team members for help. (R)
  6. Nobody on this team would deliberately go against my efforts.
  7. When working with others, my skills are valued and used.

These questions are presented to a team and everyone answers them silently and anonymously. In the case of the four positively formulated questions, individual agreement indicates greater psychological security; in the case of negatively formulated (reverse) questions, rejection indicates greater psychological security. R questions are evaluated inverted (1 for 7, 6 for 2, etc.).