Building Culture: Principle 3

A nine-part introduction to the Principles of Culture Principle 3: Staff raise issues because trust permeates the organization

Author: Dr. Lisa Lande

As we continue our nine-part series in review of the existing safety culture principles, let’s begin this week’s look at Principle 3 with a few questions: Do you perceive that trust permeates your local and entire organization today? Do you believe that employees freely speak up to each other and to any level of manager with complete confidence that they will be heard, and heard without retaliation? How about your level of confidence that trust will ever fully permeate the organization, let alone the local organization you support? And if you do believe this climate currently exists or is attainable in the future, is the permeation of trust throughout your organization really the optimal performance platform for you individually as well as organizationally? Though the answers to these questions extend beyond the scope of today’s brief article, it is critically important we are aware of the limitations of trust as we strive to achieve it, recognize how easily it can be compromised, and remain alert to pockets of existing distrust when they emerge so we can analyze and learn from it. I dare say that healthy distrust can even be a powerful and effective lens from which to view and evaluate work as well as ensure it is being done most conscientiously. A good dose of healthy distrust can and does serve us quite well in the pursuit of safety culture, operational excellence, and even self- and community preservation. It is important to not discount it or avoid it when it does exist because it has the potential to serve us well. Both trust and mistrust can and arguably must exist to optimize performance.

But let’s return to the very good and correct intention of this third culture principle. In a nutshell, principle 3 – Staff raise concerns because trust permeates the organization – is a firm extension of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) safety conscious work environment, or SCWE (pronounced skee wee). For those who may not know, SCWE is defined by the NRC as “…a work environment where employees are encouraged to raise safety concerns and where concerns are promptly reviewed, given the proper priority based on their potential safety significance, and appropriately resolved with timely feedback to the originator of the concerns and to other employees as appropriate.” And I want to extend our common interpretation of safety here: we are not just talking physical safety, but psychological and emotional safety too. More about that in a moment. But how do we do create this sort of work environment? What must be there to create such an open environment where staff feel safe to raise concerns without fear of retribution in any shape or form? (It’s important to remember that even something as nuanced as eye-rolling or scoffing in response to another’s comments, is a form of retribution. Retribution is not limited to overt acts of punishment like those where the messenger loses her job or resources or other forms of support or reward. Any form of retaliation or alienation of an employee breaks down SCWE, and breaks down trust and hence performance. More, it undermines your credibility as a manager making it more difficult for others to trust you have their back or to follow your leadership. if you allow these behaviors to occur, or even demonstrate some yourself at the same time you tout support and championship for culture enhancement efforts and LOSA and SAFE, then your words and deeds do not match, creating distrust. So let’s first briefly discuss the research behind the power of SCWE. Then we will review a few ways that it can be created in our organizations in order to both preserve our own individual credibility as well as ensure that it exists for everyone’s benefit.

The following approaches and resources have been gathered from organizational development and human performance experts. Plus they are tried and true. Noted a moment ago and also mentioned in earlier articles from this series, is the construct of psychological safety. Psychological safety plays a huge role in creating a safety conscious work environment, where one speaks up willingly because personal risk is perceived as minimal or non-existent and where they may even receive reinforcement for doing so. Psychological safety has been defined by Amy Edmondson as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking.” It has been studied and validated as a significant contributor to team performance at workplaces such as Google and has been linked to increased levels of employee’s confidence. These studies offer compelling empirical support for the power of a safe working environment where the existence of psychological safety creates the context where employees raise concern without fear of retaliation. In fact, an environment where they are genuinely and unconditionally encouraged to speak out, and not just when it is palatable or convenient for the receiving manager.

Creating Psychological Safety

Let’s talk about how psychological safety can be created. It is always wise to start with a benchmark so you know where you are when you start and can measure progress against it. First let me ask you whether you yourself as well as those whom you support, are willingly raising issues when they see them? And do they do so without receipt of any form of retaliation from their peers or the greater Institution when doing so? Remember, we can retaliate with simple acts of dis – disregard, dismissal, disgust. Now if your answer is no, good for you for admitting it. First step, as we say. And now you are encouraged to explore the reasons why and then determine “what must go right” to build psychological safety into your local environment and broader Institution. Because I promise you, if you have inadvertently broken the trust needed to create a psychologically safe environment where one can perform optimally, you are not alone. And to speak candidly, you are also at great risk of hurting your credibility as a leader as well as sabotaging the organization's ability to enhance existing culture. The good news: with a bit of conscious effort, you can turn that ship around and the reward is worth the effort.

Second, consider asking your subordinates to submit their honest responses to the following questions in an anonymous format. Aggregate the responses for items 1, 3, and 5 (where ideally you want to receive all “no” responses”) and for items 2, 4, 6, and 7 (where ideally you want all “yes” responses). If you wish, you can also add a modified Likert scale of 1 - 4, with 1 - strongly agree, 2 - somewhat agree, 3 - somewhat disagree, 4 - strongly disagree for respondents to apply to each item. After you have aggregated the responses, pull the team together and honestly report the results out, and discuss what will be done differently to strengthen the score:

1. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you. 
2. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues. 
3. People on this team sometimes reject others for being different. 
4. It is safe to take a risk on this team. 
5. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help. 
6. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.
7. Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized.

In In her TEDx talk, Edmondson offers three simple things anyone can do to foster team psychological safety. I have modified them a bit to ensure they capture the interpersonal as well as operational side of the work:

1. Frame the work as a learning problem, not an execution problem. 
2. Acknowledge your own fallibility and where you may have undermined trust. 
3. Model curiosity and ask lots of questions. Empower and engage by doing so. 

Here is a comprehensive list of actions that can help you become more aware of the behaviors that foster psychological safety on your teams, and then implement them. These have been compiled and made available to the public by rework.withgoogle.com. Give it a go, and next time, we will move on to Principle 2, Leaders value the safety legacy they create in their discipline.

Demonstrate engagement

● Be present and focus on the conversation (e.g., close your laptop during meetings)

● Ask questions with the intention of learning from your teammates

● Offer input, be interactive, and show you’re listening

● Respond verbally to show engagement (“That makes sense. Tell us more.”)

● Be aware of your body language; make sure to lean towards or face the person speaking

● Make eye contact to show connection and active listening

Show understanding

● Recap what’s been said to confirm mutual understanding/alignment (e.g., “What I heard you say is…”); then

acknowledge areas of agreement, disagreement, and be open to questions within the group

● Validate comments verbally (“I understand.” “I see what you’re saying.”)

● Avoid placing blame (“Why did you do this?”) and focus on solutions (“How can we work toward making sure this

goes more smoothly next time?”, “What can we do together to make a game plan for next time?”)

● Think about your facial expressions- - are they unintentionally negative (a scowl or grimace)?

● Nod your head to demonstrate understanding during conversations/meetings

Be inclusive in interpersonal settings

● Share information about your personal work style and preferences, encourage teammates to do the same

● Be available and approachable to teammates (e.g., make time for ad hoc 1:1 conversations, feedback sessions,

career coaching)

● Clearly communicate the purpose of ad hoc meetings scheduled outside normal 1:1s/team meetings

● Express gratitude for contributions from the team

● Step in if team members talk negatively about another team member

● Have open body posture (e.g., face all team members, don’t turn your back to part of the group)

● Build rapport (e.g., talk with your teammates about their lives outside of work)

Be inclusive in decision-making

● Solicit input, opinions, and feedback from your teammates

● Don’t interrupt or allow interruptions (e.g., step in when someone is interrupted and ensure his/her idea is heard)

● Explain the reasoning behind your decisions (live or via email, walk team through how you arrived at a decision)

● Acknowledge input from others (e.g., highlight when team members were contributors to a success or decision)

Show confidence and conviction without appearing inflexible

● Manage team discussions (e.g., don't allow side conversations in team meetings, make sure conflict isn’t personal)

● Use a voice that is clear and audible in a team setting

● Support and represent the team (e.g., share team’s work with senior leadership, give credit to teammates)

● Invite the team to challenge your perspective and push back

● Model vulnerability; share your personal perspective on work and failures with your teammates

● Encourage teammates to take risks, and demonstrate risk-taking in your own work

Sources

● Edmondson and Lei (2014). "Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal

Construct," Annual Review Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior.

● Edmondson (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly

The Next Article, Principle 2: All staff value the safety legacy they create in their discipline (Click on link to access article)

8. A healthy respect is maintained for what can go wrong and must go right

7. Hazards are identified and evaluated for every task, every time

6. Learning never stops

5. A questioning attitude is cultivated

4. Cutting edge science requires cutting edge safety

3. Staff raise safety concerns because trust permeates the organization 

2. All staff value the safety legacy they create in their discipline 

1. Everyone is personally responsible for ensuring safe operations