Psychological safety often gets dismissed by leaders and because it is mistakenly seen as a soft approach or a possible deterrent to performance accountability. Leaders often fear that by allowing psychological safety to flourish they will allow team members to get away with behaviours that are unprofessional or will lose control on being able to hold teams responsible for their performance
These fears come from the misunderstanding of what psychological safety really is. If anything, psychological safety allows for an increase in intellectual debate, while lowering social friction and leading to more cohesive teams.
When bringing in a culture of psychological safety it is important to not mistake it for the following.
Permission to overlook and allow low or mediocre performance: If a leader is unable, to call out low performance, that in itself is an indicator of low psychological safety. Not the other way round. A psychologically safe environment allows both the leader and the team members to hold each other accountable for performance. When implemented well, it takes away the pressure on the leader to drive performance. Instead, it makes the team members take ownership of their own and the team’s performance.
Permission to say and do whatever you want: Psychological safety is rooted in respect and trust. It allows for people to speak their minds by taking away the fear of repercussion. It also assumes that the person speaking is coming from a place of respect for the other people in the room.
Permission to disrupt: While it encourages discussion psychological safety also allows people to call out disruptive behaviours. If a team member shows that are disruptive to collaboration and prevent the team from performing psychological safety allows the team and the leader to call out these behaviours and together work to resolve them.
Agreeing on everything: Psychological safety is about discussion and not agreement. It allows for hearing diverse views. It encourages well thought out decisions arrived at by deliberation and not passive consensus.