We Not Me
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
Episode 57 - What is the data telling us about psychological safety?
Show Notes
The latest dataset from Squadify reveals how teams rate psychological safety. Juliet Hammond joins Dan and Pia to go through the numbers and add some context. Carl Rogers defines psychological safety as an individual feeling unconditional worth. This forms the basis of the movement, continued on by Amy Edmondson who defines it as a shared belief held by team members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. Timothy Clark's model defines four stages of psychological safety: inclusion safety, learner safety, contributor safety, and challenger safety.
Takeaways from Dan and Pia
- Team leaders should recognise that feeling psychologically safe may be biased towards individuals with high status. It's a common mistake to assume everyone can speak their minds freely.
- We need to reimagine how to create personal connections within a hybrid environment, both virtually and face-to-face. If we don't, the foundation of psychological safety will be compromised.
- Challenger safety might be seen as a momentum killer and a pain. However, it's important for leaders to take on challenges. The comfort levels of the team leader themselves play a big role in creating a sense of safety for their teams. And doing so without being controlling can be difficult.
Links
- Connect with Juliet on LinkedIn
- Psychological safety in teams – We Not Me episode 3 with Dr Jessica Tonissen
- Building psychological safety: a how-to guide – We Not Me episode 41, with Stephan Wiedner
- Leave us a voice message
.svg)
Meet the guests
.svg)
Juliet is the Business Analyst for Squadify – her core role is to take the vision of the product from the founders and work with the development team to make it happen. She also leads our research and data analytics activities and is driven to find insights for teams to help them work better together. In her spare time Juliet loves to go for long runs on the beautiful Yorkshire moors.
.svg)