I saw Lizzo at BottleRock. It’s a music festival in Napa, and Lizzo was one of the headliners. She spoke openly about everything, her favorite word being “b***h”. That’s not for everyone. You get the impression, Lizzo honestly doesn’t care some individuals immediately chose Duran Duran (the other headliner) or listened to a few of her songs and then bounced to the other stage.
What I admired is Lizzo created a safe space in a sea of tens of thousands of people - over 100,000 were expected at BottleRock this Memorial Day weekend. You could dance, sing, sit, or simply take it all. Nothing else mattered - just celebrate your amazing self.
In a broad sense, there are two parties in any space. The person speaking up and the “observer”. One cannot imagine blank apathetic faces listening to Lizzo. Does that mean we all need to be as charismatic and as outspoken as Lizzo to be successful leaders? There are bits of truth in the statement. Successful leaders are often charismatic, confident, and communicate a plan. And just like the concert audience, their team shows up “in person”, in intent, and in energy.
It’s not easy to create an engaging and safe space. The following articles provide tips and guidance. That said, despite a leader’s best efforts, they might be looking out on blank faces. I’ll share some guidance when that happens too.
Unlocking the Power of Psychological Safety
I’m preparing for the June cohort of People-First Product Leadership. As a reader of my newsletter, you can receive 10% off using the code FRIENDS10.
Psychological safety is a topic we explore on day two. What’s fascinating is how frequently psychological safety comes up as a key learning from the course. Individuals often had heard of the concept and knew as a leader, you seek to create a space where it is ok to speak up and responses are appreciated and forward-looking (what should we do next). Yet, there are quite a few nuances to consider.
Psychological safety is not “soft” or “easy”. Nor does psychological safety mean “being nice”. Instead it calls for honesty, challenging and clarity.
Definition: Belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. Shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for risk-taking. Founded by Amy C. Edmondson.
Psychological Safety also means not having to speak.
“The problem is no longer getting people to express themselves but providing little gaps of solitude and silence in which they might eventually find something to say. … What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing … the thing that might be worth saying.” — Tweet, original quote from Gilles Deleuze
Why is psychological safety important for product people? As the world around us continues to evolve, so do customers' interactions and expectations of products. Even though a foundational Job to be Done (JTBD) is likely to remain, how it is addressed over time will change. To continue to meet and exceed customer expectations, product people must feel comfortable experimenting, learning, and applying the learnings - to feel and be empowered, to be (and become) better.
To measure the level of psychological safety in your team, there are a few approaches - lightweight, middleweight, and heavyweight!
Lightweight is to simply listen out for signals, such as how often you hear people admitting mistakes, challenging others positively, or suggesting ideas.
Middleweight is to use the performance quadrant. Another option is a variation on the retrospective (here) to facilitate a discussion
Heavyweight is a full survey. Both of these articles (article 1, article 2) offer frameworks leveraging Amy Edmondson’s research
Why go to this effort? You may have heard of Google’s project Aristotle. “Google wanted to know why some teams excelled while others fell behind.” The original thinking being, the best people simply had the best results. That proved not to be the case. Instead the most effective teams had these five characteristics, with the fifth one being the key ingredient.
Dependability. Team members get things done on time and meet expectations.
Structure and clarity. High-performing teams have clear goals, and have well-defined roles within the group.
Meaning. The work has personal significance to each member.
Impact. The group believes their work is purposeful and positively impacts the greater good.
And, yes, ‘the truth hurts’… Psychological Safety.
Despite your best efforts to create psychological safety, your team stars back at you blankly. What’s up? Why are they not saying anything? John Cutler has a theory.
My theory is that many more people notice issues than raise issues—even in relatively psychologically safe environments. The more dysfunctional the org gets the lower the ratio. That—along with the fact that people choose to stay at/leave companies (survivorship bias)—means that it is very easy for leaders to discount certain things as fringe, rare, and unimportant.
The point being, even when you have created a psychologically safe space, there could be other reasons people might not choose to speak up. Below I’ve included a few of the factors John Cutler highlights. I’ve also suggested ways to introduce change.
They lack confidence. Intuitively they sense that something is off but are not confident in their ability to describe the problem, defend their perspective, or propose potential solutions. —> Call on team members directly or do a round-robin (popcorn) to enable everyone to have a voice.
They assume the situation is normal. Based on their lived experiences, they see the issue as a "fact of life" or "just how X works". —> Trust your gut. Ask the team if they too feel something is not right. Airing your thoughts can lead to others sharing theirs as well.
They fear their job is at risk. People worry they may get on the wrong side of their manager if they keep bringing something up. —> Use FigJam or another app that enables anonymous contributions.
They haven't heard from other people with the same challenge. Imagine you see and feel a problem, but no one on your team sees the problem. At that point, it's tempting to write yourself off. —> By connecting the dots, you may have found a connection between poor communication and a problem with org design.
They assume there must be a reason why things remain unfixed. The new employees believe they're missing an important detail. The long-time employees assume something must be right if they've survived this long. —> Invite individuals from outside your team or company to share their experiences and show there are other ways of working.
They believe the issue is too big to be addressed. Some problems are so ingrained in a company's culture that team members may feel it's futile to try to change them. —> You may have found a connection between poor communication and a problem with org design that requires you managing up and introducing incremental changes to correct.
They benefit from the problem. For example, someone hired to manage dependencies probably won't advocate for fewer dependencies. —> Similar to the suggestion above, there might be an individual you may need to manage out of the business for others to feel comfortable to speak up.
Behavioral science is the interdisciplinary study of human behavior and the underlying factors that influence it. The article begins by noting some critics of behavioral science perceive the practice to be a “top-down” approach that limits transparency, learning, and autonomy. Sound like a lack of psychological safety to anyone?
With most things in life, there are multiple sides to the story. And, the author suggests just that, recommending individuals seek to “understand behavioral science approaches and get involved in applying them, either directly or by providing active input to the work of others” before disregarding the method. He explains “…I [also] think we need to change the way we talk about the options available.”
Specifically if the people impacted by change “are involved as participants, rather than subjects” the end result will be more effective, tailored, and appropriate. They will feel more empowered (and consequently safer). The two real drivers are:
How far a person performing the behavior is involved in shaping the initiative itself. They could not be involved at all, involved in co-designing the intervention, or initiating and driving the intervention itself.
The level and nature of any capacity created by the intervention. It may create none (i.e., have no cognitive or motivational effects), it may create awareness (i.e., the ability to reflect on what is happening), or it may build the ability to carry out an action (e.g., a skill).
The figure below uses a gym as an example of different proposals mapping against the two drivers described above.
If the “participant” is not actively involved in the change, there is a low likelihood of empowerment or a resulting change in behavior. Whereas if action is required either in the form of co-design, application of learning, or self-initiated creation of additional “capacity”, the “participant” feels more like a facilitator or partner than a “subject” and a sense of empowerment - and change - occurs.
I recommend keeping the above points in mind if you are seeking to transform your team or business and want employees to participate - not push against - the change.
I’m a member of Teresa Torres’ continuous discovery community. I find it fascinating that individuals often anonymously submit questions as there is a perception one must know everything about opportunity solution trees to participate. I admire the members who dive in with long, almost scientific, responses. On the other hand, if people don’t feel comfortable (or psychologically safe) placing questions directly, is there a likelihood of less learning and consequently less adoption?
I was pondering this question as I read a post of Teresa’s from 2014 which was shared in the community newsletter this past week.
Even though the answer is not 42, it’s fun to guess the question. Teresa says it is “What should you build next?” I found the scenarios interesting as one would need to come from a foundation of psychological safety in their role to pursue the suggested paths. Reason being, most go against the typical norms of product management and product leadership practices.
Don’t Do What Most People Do - Don’t create a spreadsheet comparing Customer Demand, Time to Build, and Stakeholder Needs.
Assume Your Competitors Are Wrong - If you define a clear vision and pick a unique position in the market, your competitors’ customers are not your customers.
Don’t Build What Customers Request - Customers are limited by what is feasible today. If you build what they request, you’ll build yesterday’s product. Customer input should inform what you build, but it should not dictate what you build next.
Time-to-Build Doesn’t Matter - Decide what’s the most important thing to build next and then figure out how to build it in the time that you do have.
Stakeholders Shouldn’t Be Involved - Yes, their input matters, but products built by consensus suck. Instead, get stakeholder buy-in on the goal you are pursuing (outcome). But don’t let other stakeholders dictate what to build next (output).
Excellent question and topic to explore with your team. Enjoy!
