Tag: psychological safety

According to Juan Toribio, writing in MLB.com, Blake Grice waited patiently with his right hand raised for about two minutes to hear his name called inside the Dodgers’ interview room. When he was finally noticed, LA Dodgers star pitcher Clayton Kershaw asked “Whatcha got?” The 10-year-old related that his dying grandfather, Graham, had created a bucket list of things he still wanted to do, one of which was to meet Kershaw. Blake was credentialed by MLB to attend the Post-Game Press Conference and when he did, he dedicated the moment to his now deceased  grandfather.
As reported by Toribio, Blake told Kershaw ““My grandpa loved you. He watched the 1988 [World] Series and he wanted to meet you and Vin Scully one day. So this moment is important to me because I’m meeting you for him.” Before he finished telling Kershaw the story, Blake began to cry” and Kershaw responded by going over to Blake and consoling him with a hug. Kershaw the said to him, “Come here, dude, great to meet you. Thanks for telling me. That took a lot of courage to tell me that. Great to meet you. Your granddad sounded like an awesome guy. Thanks for coming up.””
With a nod of the (St. Louis Cardinals) hat to Tim Erblich for sending me this story, I thought it was a very good way to introduce Part 2 of my series on advancing ethical culture through psychological safety. This series is based on a recent article in the MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer edition, entitled “Fostering Ethical Conduct Through Psychological Safety” by Antoine Ferrère, Chris Rider, Baiba Renerte, and Amy Edmondson. The authors believe “there are a number of things organizations can do to make it more likely that people will speak up when they observe unethical behaviors.” But one key is psychological safety, defined by co-author Edmondson as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking” — or, put another way, that “we can say what we think” or “be ourselves around here.” Today, we look at how to determine the state of psychological safety in your organization.
The authors’ research concluded that while many employees “said that they spoke up after witnessing perceived unethical behavior, a substantial minority said that they did not speak up.” The authors found that “those who felt less psychologically safe were significantly less likely to report those behaviors via channels where organizational leaders might act on them.” Conversely, employees “who felt the most psychologically safe were most likely to have reported the misconduct they observed. This held true even after taking into account a range of other psychological factors that could influence incident reporting, such as perceived levels of organizational justice, fairness, and trust. Psychological safety is therefore important for more than just team effectiveness and well-being; it may also be critical for forming strong ethical cultures where employees feel comfortable speaking up.”
Interestingly, the authors realize the non-siloed nature of psychologically safety at the workplace. They note that ethics, risk management, legal and compliance functions, plus Human Resources (HR) all share an interest in fostering such an environment. This mandates a cross-functional approach as an essential requirement of molding an organization’s culture to include psychological safety. The authors believe, “Managers throughout a company must become aware of the blind spots created by a psychologically unsafe environment, along with the associated risk of underreported misconduct.” They also caution that a formal program such as a reporting hotline “may capture only a fraction of the problematic behaviors that occur.” This leads the authors to posit that gauging psychological safety “may help companies determine whether misconduct is being reported and, in turn, enhance the effectiveness of their formal speak-up programs.”
After 15 years of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other regulators talking about “tone at the top”; the authors credit that most organizations appear to have senior leadership that talks about ethics positively. They believe “CEOs emphasize that integrity is a core value of their organizations, and that point is reiterated in calls with shareholders and during employee town hall meetings.” Unfortunately, while this messaging is important, the research indicated “it is not sufficient to prevent the derailers of ethical conduct that occur deep within an organization.”
The authors recognize what compliance professionals have known for some time, that it is middle managers, and “not just official speak-up channels are often on the front lines when it comes to hearing about unethical behavior.” They found that 80% of employees who did report internally, went to their direct managers, who are almost always in middle management. This is because middle managers are the company leaders play who play the critical role in ensuring that an employee speaking up feels supported and heard. The authors noted, “Our data shows that how line managers act has a disproportionate impact on the way potentially unethical behavior is addressed within organizations.”
Unfortunately, simply because a middle manager may feel psychologically safe you must not assume that their direct reports feel the same way. Confirming the findings from the ECI Report of its 2021 Global Business Ethics Survey, “managers and senior leaders tend to feel more psychologically safe than their employees and have a more positive perception of their organization’s ethical climate than the rest of the workforce. When you put these two findings together it makes clear that the higher up in the organization you go, there may well be “an ethical blind spot. That makes the role of team managers even more important when it comes to fostering an environment conducive to both engaging in ethical behavior and talking about ethics in an open, constructive way.”
The authors also confirmed a greater problem which is that “in a global context, psychological safety is not uniform across nations.” Survey respondents from “the Americas and Europe tended to score higher on psychological safety than respondents from Asia.” This suggests to the authors that “the potential effectiveness of tailoring interventions that promote speaking up in order to address the specific circumstances of different groups of employees.” Moreover, “global organizations that seek to build psychological safety must assess its various region-specific drivers and derailers to adjust their activities to specific seniorities and cultures.”
Join us tomorrow in Part 3 where we consider why a company that does not have psychological safety throughout it can not only be so toxic but in serious danger as well.