October 30, 2024 • 33 mins
Continuing the theme of great research environments, I explore how to contribute to creating great research cultures with a focus on the concept of psychological safety. I contrast the prize winning example we heard about in the last episode with examples of experiences with poor research environments. This leads to a discussion of the value of psychological safety as defined by Amy Edmondson, and others for enabling creativity, collaboration, and innovation. Psychological safety is about creating conditions where people feel safe speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns and mistakes and that foster a learning culture. I discuss practical strategies for leaders through their everyday interactions for fostering such an environment and enabling innovation, collaboration and personal growth and wellbeing. And I finish up with an invitation for all of us to reflect on our role in cultivating a supportive and inclusive academic culture.
00:00 Intro
00:29 Introduction to Creating Great Research Cultures
00:52 Recap of Prize-Winning Research Environment
02:38 Understanding Psychological Safety
03:40 Examples of Poor Research Environments
10:37 Defining Psychological Safety
12:21 Historical Context of Psychological Safety
15:42 Research on Psychological Safety
21:31 Psychological safety as key factor in Google's great teams
23:03 Leadership and Psychological Safety
24:15 Role Modeling and Self-Awareness
26:46 Fostering Belonging, Inclusion and Learning
29:18 Co-Creating Research Culture through our Actions
31:20 Conclusion and Reflection
Related links:
Previous podcast episode with Line, Nicklas, and Nina on Danis Young Academy prize research environments
Amy Edmondson web page
Amy C. Edmondson and Shike Lei, Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. Vol 1:23-43, 2014.
Amy C. Edmondson. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley. 2019.
Pat Thomson, Blog article - Felling like an imposter?
Pat Thomson, feeling like an imposter?
Google’s Project Aristotle
Royal Society, Research Culture Embedding inclusive excellence: Insights on the future culture of research. (Tom Welton quote on culture p6)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Geri (00:05):
Welcome to Changing Academic Life.
I'm Geraldine Fitzpatrick and this isa podcast series where academics and
others share their stories, provideideas and provoke discussions about what
we can do individually and collectivelyto change academic life for the better.
(00:29):
In today's solo episode, I want toinvite us all to reflect on what are
the ways that we can each contributeto creating great research cultures.
And in particular, I'm going to focuson this concept of psychological
safety as a key requirement forcreating research cultures that foster
good science and good wellbeing.
(00:52):
As a reminder in the lastepisode, we celebrated a prize
winning research environment.
We heard from Line and Nicklaswho nominated their department
for the prize that was awardedby the Danish Young Academy.
And we heard from Nina from the academy.
Who reflected on the patternsthat the committee saw across
the nominations for what makesfor a great research environment.
(01:16):
So just as a recap, let's hear from Nina.
Nina (01:20):
The most common thing is that people describe that they have a sense of
belonging to their research environment.
That's the most important factor.
To create that sense.
So, um, So that includes having a commonpurpose or a common identity, a defined
(01:41):
mission that people can jump onto.
And also, ways of promoting diversityand ensuring that people can be their
true selves, they feel comfortable asthe person they are, it's having a
shared set of values that people canagree to having clear expectations.
(02:03):
So people know what, what is expected.
It's having a way to fosterand value creativity.
Setting up structures where people havetime to explore creative ideas and
discussing new ideas in an environmentwhere they're not afraid to express
(02:24):
those ideas and they can get constructivefeedback . As Line and Nicklas also
said that it builds on initiativesfrom the top and from the bottom.
So everybody contributes intheir own way to this environment.
Geri (02:39):
As Line and Nicklas also said this connects to the
concept of psychological safety.
I asked them, what did theymean by psychological safety.
Nicklas (02:51):
Yeah, it's, it's that you're feel safe in the environment you're a part of.
That you you'll safe enough to makemistakes doing the process you're
in that you don't have to do itthe correct way every single time.
And then feel the support both whenyou're succeeding with things, but
also when you're not succeeding.
(03:11):
So you feel like, yeah, you feel safein, in things when you're doing things.
Geri (03:20):
This concept of psychological safety and its association with, with
notions of belonging and inclusion.
Is so critically importantto creating great research
cultures, research environments.
And before I go on to describepsychological safety in
a little bit more detail.
It's probably worth reflecting on whatmight be the research environments
(03:45):
that could win the Razzie awards.
The, uh, anti greatresearch environment wards.
And towards this, I can reflecton examples that I've heard from
different people that I've talkedwith or, experiences that I've heard
people share workshops that we've run.
And also experiences that I've had myself.
(04:07):
Though, I won't make clear inthe following examples, which
are mine and which are others, orwhich institutions are involved.
So.
Imagine you're in an environmentwhere you're in a meeting.
And this could be a faculty meeting ora group meeting or a project meeting.
Maybe you're in a tenured position.
(04:29):
But you're fairly new to the place.
And you put your hand up to makea contribution and the person
who's in charge of that meetingevery time you try to speak, they
deliberately or so it seems to you.
They turn around in theirchair to face away from you.
And may get distracted on their phone orchoose that moment to go to the bathroom.
(04:53):
And you're sitting there feeling reallyred in the face and embarrassed because
this is conveying a message, not justto you, but also to your colleagues.
That your contributions are not just notheard, but also not valued in any way.
And that you are not valued.
So how likely are you going to beto speak up again at a next meeting?
(05:17):
Or even attend in the first placeto put yourself in that situation.
Or imagine another situation where you'vejust presented something that you've
been working on . And, you know, it'swork in progress and you really want to
hear some good feedback and have somegood discussions about the work so that
(05:38):
you can help develop it collectively.
But even while you're presentingthe work, you can see the senior
professor of the group raising theireyebrows and shaking their head.
And instead of discussing your work,it ends up being roundly critiqued and
criticized in the harshest of terms.
(05:59):
And even taken to a personal level,telling you in front of everyone, that
you've no idea what you're doing and it'sjust rubbish and you should start again.
Or imagine a situation where youtake a different methodological or
epistemological approach to your work.
And whenever you try to discussit, it's just laughed off as there
(06:22):
you go again, trying to push Y.
And there are conspiratorialsmiles all around the table.
And with that quick dismissal,everyone moves on to discuss their
own work and their own approaches.
And if you're a young PhD studentor an early career researcher
and feeling insecure in any way.
(06:45):
Then in both of these previous situations,you're not going to be wanting to
bring up your work again to this group.
You're going to be really reluctantto seek any feedback in future.
Or present a different way of doingthings, present a different point of
view to what is the dominant model.
Or imagine that you're sitting in youroffice and coming down the corridor are
(07:09):
sounds of people yelling at each other.
Not conversing, not communicating,not discussing, just yelling.
A really tense, angry, toxic environment.
Not good.
Imagine having someonesay to you, unsolicited.
(07:32):
That so-and-so doesn't like you.
And this could be a so-and-so who'sin a position of power and this
really comes as a surprise to you.
You've no idea what might be the issue.
You thought you had afine relationship though?
You didn't interact with them very much.
And so you're not just wondering aboutthe relationship with this person, but
(07:55):
the fact that you've been told this meansthat you're left wondering, What are
people saying about me behind my back?
And what else don't I know.
And who else has different perceptionsof relationships than what I have.
Imagine you're being critiquedbecause you want to go home
(08:16):
at 6:00 PM to see your family.
And that's even still late.
And you don't want to participatein the competition to see
who can work more hours.
But there's attention drawn to it andyou get the sarcastic remark of Oh.
Are you heading off already?
(08:36):
Imagine being in one of those situationswhere you never know which version of
your line manager, leader, supervisor,professor, you're going to get.
Is it going to be the niceone or is it going to be the
stressed out and cranky one?
Or where you feel almost gaslighted,where you've been working on something
(08:56):
that you believe is what you've agreed.
And then when you turn up again to sharethat there's a dispute about whether
that was agreed or not, or whether they'dactually asked you to do something else.
And then of course, we also hearmany stories of discrimination
and harassment in the workplace.
(09:17):
And I've heard this in termsof gender and ethnicity.
And along other more subtle dimensions.
So you can imagine again, feeling reallymarginalized and like you don't belong.
You're maybe you're someone whodoesn't drink at all yet all of the
social gatherings in the group involvesignificant amounts of alcohol,
where you're just not comfortable.
(09:38):
Or where you're the only woman in a group.
And everyone immediately turns to you andexpects you to make the cake to celebrate
someone's birthday or to take the notes.
And I'm sure you could come up withloads of other examples where you just
haven't felt at home in the environment.
Where you haven't felt comfortable,felt like you belonged.
(10:00):
Where you haven't felt free tooffer an opinion or a point of view,
or to just stand up for yourself.
And I don't know about you, butmy reaction in these situations
is to withdraw and to hide.
And what I'll often choose todo is to redirect my efforts to
other communities outside of myresearch group or my faculty.
(10:24):
Where I can feel like I'm moreaccepted and where I can feel like
I belong, because why would I put myhead on the block again only to get
knocked down or hurt in some way.
And that's what psychologicalsafety is about.
How do we create environments wherethese sorts of scenarios don't happen?
(10:47):
Where people genuinely feel free toshow up fully human fully themselves.
Where they don't have to change to fit in.
But where there is space madefor everyone to be able to find
their place, to find their voice.
It means people being able to challengethe status quo to express opinions or
(11:10):
preferences without fear of ridicule.
And instead where thoseopinions and preferences are
engaged with, with curiosity.
It means people feeling seen and heard.
Where their ideas are valued.
And it doesn't always meanyou have to be in agreement,
(11:32):
but it feels okay to speak up and tomake contributions and we can explore
and understand our differences.
And it means the embracingthe fact that we're all human.
We all make mistakes.
And we're able to own up to them withoutfear of being critiqued or judged.
(11:52):
Or without being shamed.
And not just that, but thatwhere the, the sharing of this
is embraced and celebrated.
And we then can participate in ashared learning journey about what
we can take from this for next time.
(12:13):
Psychological safety is just such acritical factor for our research cultures.
So, where does the term come from?
We can trace it back to Carl Rogers in1954, who first turned the coin and it was
brought into management studies work inthe 1960s by Ed Schein and Warren Bennis.
(12:36):
And they talked about it in terms ofreducing interpersonal risk and where
people feel accepted and worthwhile.
And then in 1990, William Kahn alsotalked about psychological safety
to describe conditions that wereinfluencing personal engagement at work.
And talked about it in terms of beingable to show up and be yourself without
(12:57):
fear of negative consequences to yourself image or your status or career.
However, the more recent resurgence ofinterest in psychological safety can be
attributed to Harvard business school.
Professor Amy Edmondson.
Amy drew on this concept for her 1999 PhDthesis, to explain why the best performing
(13:25):
clinical teams in a hospital were notthe ones who made the fewest mistakes as
they had hypothesized, but they were infact, the ones who've made more mistakes.
But what distinguish them was that theyfelt safe enough to own up to and talk
about and learn from these mistakes.
(13:46):
Amy defined psychological safety is abelief that "one will not be punished
or humiliated for speaking up withideas, questions, concerns, or mistake.
And that the team is safe forpersonal interpersonal risk taking".
And she's written about this in a 2019book called 'The fearless organization.
(14:09):
Creating psychological safetyin the workplace for learning
innovation and growth'.
And I'd highly recommend that book.
And it's interesting in thattitle where she talks about
learning innovation and growth.
Because that really captures whypsychological safety is so important.
And how relevant.
Our learning innovation and growthare for our research environments.
(14:37):
On her webpage.
Amy also talks about psychologicalsafety being what is needed to clear
blockages that will block innovation,collaboration, and risk taking.
And again, that sort of terminologyof innovation, collaboration, and
risk-taking could be very much theterminology that we would use as basic
definitions of what science is about.
(15:00):
We embrace many of today's problemsand try to address them and
solve them through innovation,collaboration, and risk taking.
Where we really need everyone tocontribute in order to make a difference.
We need people to be able to speak up.
We need people to be able to take risksand to ask challenging research questions
(15:24):
and to live with uncertainty and dealwith trying different paths and see
things not working and trying again.
It's for these reasons that I reallysee it as a critical concept for
research and research environments.
So with co-author Zhike Lei.
(15:45):
I'm not sure if Ipronounce that correctly.
Amy wrote an interesting paper that waspublished in 2014, that reviewed a lot
of research that had been conducted onpsychological safety up to that point.
And I'll put a link tothe paper on the webpage.
And in that paper, they identified anumber of what they call consistent
relationships across the studies.
(16:08):
So just listen to these and thinkabout them through the lens of
doing innovative research in ainterdisciplinary collaborative teams.
So, first of all, they identified thatthere's a significant relationship between
psychological safety and performance.
And they talk about this relationshipbetween psychological safety and effective
(16:31):
performance as being particularlyrelevant, where there is uncertainty
and a need for either creativity orcollaboration to accomplish that work.
So psychological safety enables us todeal with the uncertainty and own up to
all of the risks that's involved in that.
And isn't that the definition ofresearch, engaging with uncertainty
(16:55):
in order to make new contributions,to knowledge and to society.
And the collaboration aspect too enablesus to deal with the importance of
needing lots of different contributions.
And working out how to best mobilizethose contributions and negotiate all the
challenges that arise from recognizingthat collaboration involves difference,
(17:19):
different opinions, different pointsof view, different personalities.
And how we negotiate,navigate those differences.
And the importance of us all being free tospeak up and offer our opinions and so on.
So the second theme that they talkabout is in relation to learning.
(17:41):
And again, what is research, ifnot an ongoing learning journey?
So to quote directly from their article.
"Much learning in today'sorganization takes place in the
interpersonal interactions betweenhighly interdependent members.
And learning behaviors can belimited by individual concerns about
(18:03):
interpersonal risks or consequences,including a fear of not achieving one's
goals and learning anxiety createdby feelings of incompetence that in
that occurred during the learning".
End of quote.
And here I'm reminded from this lovelyquote from Pat Thompson, a researcher
from Nottingham university who talksabout us as academics, needing to get
(18:28):
comfortable being learners on the pathto becoming professional not knowers.
I'm not sure if I've gotthat totally correct.
But don't you love that?
We're always going to be learners andwe have to be just come comfortable
with being professional not knowers.
So that means that learningis always about that gap, that
(18:50):
uncomfortable gap between what weknow now and what we need to know.
One of the common ways that we bridgethat gap is often through trying things
out by trial and error that doesn't work.
And reflecting on it and tryingsomething else or by making mistakes.
(19:11):
And I think in that learning,it's also about just being human
and having good and bad days.
And they go on to talk about how thefact that "people are more likely
to offer ideas, admit mistakes,ask for help, or provide feedback
if they feel safe to do so".
(19:31):
Again, this is so important for beingable to come up with our best research
solutions that have impact on society andthe challenges that we're trying to solve.
And that's the very reason why we'redoing research in the first place.
And the third strand that they'reidentified across their studies is
(19:52):
about people needing to feel preparedto speak up to power in a way.
So they, to quote them "Individuals whoexperienced greater psychological safety
are more likely to speak up at work.
Upward communication can be avital force in helping contemporary
organizations learn and succeed.
(20:12):
By speaking up to those who occupypositions to authorize actions,
employees can help challenge thestatus quo, identify problems or
opportunities for improvement.
And other ideas to improvetheir organizations wellbeing".
End quote.
(20:32):
We can think that through formany situations where it feels
particularly risky to speak up tosome sort of power or authority.
Especially if they seem to know much morethan what we know, or if they're really
under stress and pushing, delivery onthe project, because they're concerned
about producing results for the fundingagency or the next publication for
(20:55):
their CV or for their promotion case.
And so on.
And it's this safe feelingthat you can speak up.
That's going to be so important.
If we're going to see a decreasein the number of retracted papers,
say due to methodological problemsthat aren't being honestly reported.
(21:15):
Or the fudging of results.
You know, And often junior researchersnot feeling brave enough or safe enough to
actually say there was a problem with theparticular performance of an experiment.
So that was their three themes.
And it's interesting that an internalstudy at Google that started in 2012
(21:37):
and actually involved significantamount of data studying 180 of their
teams identified psychological safetyas the most important factor to explain
what made the most successful teams.
And this was in a project thatthey called project Aristotle.
So it wasn't about having the besttechnical superstars in the team.
(22:03):
And in fact, their top five factorsalso reflect very much what Nina said
about the patterns that they saw atthe academy across the nominations for
what makes a good research environment.
So those top factors that made for thatGoogle's most successful teams were 1.
Psychological safety that peoplefelt safe to take risks and be
(22:25):
vulnerable in front of each other.
2.
Dependability that people got thingsdone on time and to a high standard.
3., that there was structure and clarityaround roles and plans and goals.
And remember Nina talkingabout clear expectations.
4.
About the work being meaningful.
(22:48):
And personally important in some way.
And 5.
Impact feeling like theirwork and contributions matter
and help create change.
Now I know that in a research environment,we have a lot of structural problems that
are implicated here in the pressures thatwe might be experiencing that lead to a
(23:12):
lack of psychological safety in some way.
You know, our highly competitiveperformance culture are very
metrics driven environment.
And I don't want to discount the workto be done at this structural level.
But I still think it's an 'and' situation. It can have implications for all of us.
So I'm just going to focus here forthe rest of this episode what I think
(23:35):
of particularly the implicationsfor those of us who might be in some
position of leadership or authority,and this doesn't have to be a formally
recognized big L type leadership position.
It's any of us who haveinteractions with others that may
involve some power difference.
(23:56):
So, whether you're a project leaderor a research group leader, or a
supervisor advisor of students, As aleader, I think we have a particular
responsibility to set the tone.
And to role model the sorts ofbehaviors that we want to see.
So I can go through a few things here.
One is role modeling,what it means to be real.
(24:21):
In the workplace, likeshowing up as ourselves.
It means role modelingwhen we've made a mistake.
. . . And that means owning up to the factthat we can have good and bad days.
So we may get cranky.
We may speak to someone in away that we're not happy about.
(24:42):
We may engage in some non-verbalbehaviors that convey some sort
of disapproval or critique.
But I think we need to be big enoughto go and apologize and say that
wasn't good enough rather than justlet it hang, because if we let it
hang, that becomes a standard ofbehavior that's acceptable around here.
That we can have a bad dayand take it out on people.
(25:06):
It means role modeling thatwe don't know something.
And that it's okay not to know everythingand to invite input and opinions
and perspectives from other people.
It means role modeling,seeking feedback for ourselves.
Genuinely interested in how wecan improve, even if it's hard.
(25:33):
And showing that we are alsoon a learning journey as well.
And wanting to know how we canbe better, how we can do better.
And not just inviting the feedbackfrom others, but also responding
to it with curiosity and grace.
And showing that we actually valuethat feedback by making changes and
(25:54):
reporting back, how are we going
And so we, we need as leadersto be so much more self-aware.
Of how we react or respond in situationsand to be aware of how our actions and
reactions can be perceived by others.
That even if we don't intend toknock people down, that may be
(26:17):
by spinning around on a chair andnot giving attention to the person
who's speaking, where inadvertently.
Whether deliberately or notcommunicating that this person's
point of view is not important.
So self-awareness and self reflectionI think is really key to thinking
about how we show up and how we rolemodel, what are the behaviors we
(26:39):
value as part of a psychologicallysafe supportive research culture.
Second bundle of things I think isvery much around, Requiring us to
get to know people as individuals.
Because belonging is really a coreunderpinning for psychological safety.
(27:02):
And, belonging is about.
Being seen and heard and valued.
For who we are.
And that means as leaders, ourresponsibility to get to know who people
are and to understand what each person'sstrengths are and what they can bring in
what they can contribute to the group.
(27:24):
And also how we can bestsupport different people.
And this requires deep listeningskills and deep empathy skills.
Another class of activities can bearound how we engage with difference
and how we run our groups, how weinvite seriously invite different
(27:48):
voices, different opinions and engagewith disagreements in our groups.
And treat them as sitesfor productive engagement.
For, um, opportunities for learning.
And this becomes really important in termsof not just what we say, but what we do.
(28:09):
So we may invite peopleto bring up problems.
And then it becomes reallyimportant that we don't focus.
On the problems in termsof looking back or seeking.
To blame or whatever, but that.
We really learn how to facilitatethe discussions where we can.
Move it forward.
And what can we draw out from this?
What can we learn from this for nexttime so that we can get better together?
(28:32):
So it's about inviting the voicesand, and rewarding people for
speaking up and making it a learning.
How do we learn?
And it's the consistencyin how this plays out.
And in terms of clarity aroundroles and responsibilities
as was brought up previously.
(28:52):
So psychological safety is created byenacting and enabling belonging and.
Inclusion.
Now that are both sort of like the basicrequirements for psychological safety,
as well as outcomes in a way of havinga psychologically safe environment.
So I think there's this sort ofmutually reinforcing relationship
between psychological safetyand belonging and inclusion.
(29:18):
And we can also connect here todefinitions of research culture.
Where research culture is often talkedabout as encompassing the behaviors,
the values, the expectations,attitudes, norms of what we expect
around here and what we accept.
It's how we do things.
(29:39):
And there's this lovely quote byprofessor Tom Welton in a UK Royal
Society report that talks about theway in which cultures are enacted.
That we enact culture there.
So let me start that quote.
"Cultures are not set by policy documentsor by distributing a leaflet, but
(30:02):
through the people with whom we meetin thousands of seemingly insignificant
interactions on perfectly ordinary days.
And we should all ask ourselves whether wedisplay the characteristics that we value.
And want to see embedded withinthe cultures in which we work.
Some people are more visible than others.
(30:25):
[And here I can interjectthat this would be the leaders
that I've just talked about.
And to continue the quote].
But none of us are invisible.
And we all have a part to playin developing an inclusive and
supportive research culture for all".
End of quote.
And this connects beautifully towhat Line and Nicklas and Nina said.
(30:50):
About everyone having a rolein contribution to creating
great research cultures.
And this means we all have a partto play in contributing to making
that a psychologically safe culture.
Where people can show up as theirauthentic selves and without fear
(31:14):
of rejection or ridicule and so on.
So what might be some examplesof these seemingly insignificant
interactions on perfectly ordinary days?
In closing here I invite youjust to reflect on what might
(31:38):
be some examples for you.
Of the seemingly insignificantinteractions on perfectly ordinary days.
And it's an invitation toreflect on how you show up.
And how you contribute to creatinga great research environment.
That you may one day want to put forwardfor a research environment prize as
(32:03):
an example of how to do great work.
And we know that these great researchenvironments, aren't just about
feeling good and everyone being happy.
But they're actually aboutcreating the conditions in
which we can do our best work.
Our best creative thinkingour best collaborations for
(32:23):
the benefit of great science.
And psychological safetyis really key for that.
Not just for great science, butalso for enabling the wellbeing and
development of people and learningprocesses that support the production
of that great science and taking risks.
(32:46):
Culture matters.
It really matters.
And we create andco-create culture together.
By our choices and by oureveryday interactions.
We can make it better.
You can find the summarynotes, a transcript and related
(33:07):
links for this podcast on www.
changingacademiclife.
com.
You can also subscribe toChanging Academic Life on iTunes,
Spotify and Google Podcasts.
And I'm really hoping that we canwiden the conversation about how
we can do academia differently.
And you can contribute to this by ratingthe podcast and also giving feedback.
(33:29):
And if something connected withyou, please consider sharing this
podcast with your colleagues.
Together, we can make change happen.
Welcome to Changing Academic Life.
I'm Geraldine Fitzpatrick and this isa podcast series where academics and
others share their stories, provideideas and provoke discussions about what
we can do individually and collectivelyto change academic life for the better.
(00:29):
In today's solo episode, I want toinvite us all to reflect on what are
the ways that we can each contributeto creating great research cultures.
And in particular, I'm going to focuson this concept of psychological
safety as a key requirement forcreating research cultures that foster
good science and good wellbeing.
(00:52):
As a reminder in the lastepisode, we celebrated a prize
winning research environment.
We heard from Line and Nicklaswho nominated their department
for the prize that was awardedby the Danish Young Academy.
And we heard from Nina from the academy.
Who reflected on the patternsthat the committee saw across
the nominations for what makesfor a great research environment.
(01:16):
So just as a recap, let's hear from Nina.
Nina (01:20):
The most common thing is that people describe that they have a sense of
belonging to their research environment.
That's the most important factor.
To create that sense.
So, um, So that includes having a commonpurpose or a common identity, a defined
(01:41):
mission that people can jump onto.
And also, ways of promoting diversityand ensuring that people can be their
true selves, they feel comfortable asthe person they are, it's having a
shared set of values that people canagree to having clear expectations.
(02:03):
So people know what, what is expected.
It's having a way to fosterand value creativity.
Setting up structures where people havetime to explore creative ideas and
discussing new ideas in an environmentwhere they're not afraid to express
(02:24):
those ideas and they can get constructivefeedback . As Line and Nicklas also
said that it builds on initiativesfrom the top and from the bottom.
So everybody contributes intheir own way to this environment.
Geri (02:39):
As Line and Nicklas also said this connects to the
concept of psychological safety.
I asked them, what did theymean by psychological safety.
Nicklas (02:51):
Yeah, it's, it's that you're feel safe in the environment you're a part of.
That you you'll safe enough to makemistakes doing the process you're
in that you don't have to do itthe correct way every single time.
And then feel the support both whenyou're succeeding with things, but
also when you're not succeeding.
(03:11):
So you feel like, yeah, you feel safein, in things when you're doing things.
Geri (03:20):
This concept of psychological safety and its association with, with
notions of belonging and inclusion.
Is so critically importantto creating great research
cultures, research environments.
And before I go on to describepsychological safety in
a little bit more detail.
It's probably worth reflecting on whatmight be the research environments
(03:45):
that could win the Razzie awards.
The, uh, anti greatresearch environment wards.
And towards this, I can reflecton examples that I've heard from
different people that I've talkedwith or, experiences that I've heard
people share workshops that we've run.
And also experiences that I've had myself.
(04:07):
Though, I won't make clear inthe following examples, which
are mine and which are others, orwhich institutions are involved.
So.
Imagine you're in an environmentwhere you're in a meeting.
And this could be a faculty meeting ora group meeting or a project meeting.
Maybe you're in a tenured position.
(04:29):
But you're fairly new to the place.
And you put your hand up to makea contribution and the person
who's in charge of that meetingevery time you try to speak, they
deliberately or so it seems to you.
They turn around in theirchair to face away from you.
And may get distracted on their phone orchoose that moment to go to the bathroom.
(04:53):
And you're sitting there feeling reallyred in the face and embarrassed because
this is conveying a message, not justto you, but also to your colleagues.
That your contributions are not just notheard, but also not valued in any way.
And that you are not valued.
So how likely are you going to beto speak up again at a next meeting?
(05:17):
Or even attend in the first placeto put yourself in that situation.
Or imagine another situation where you'vejust presented something that you've
been working on . And, you know, it'swork in progress and you really want to
hear some good feedback and have somegood discussions about the work so that
(05:38):
you can help develop it collectively.
But even while you're presentingthe work, you can see the senior
professor of the group raising theireyebrows and shaking their head.
And instead of discussing your work,it ends up being roundly critiqued and
criticized in the harshest of terms.
(05:59):
And even taken to a personal level,telling you in front of everyone, that
you've no idea what you're doing and it'sjust rubbish and you should start again.
Or imagine a situation where youtake a different methodological or
epistemological approach to your work.
And whenever you try to discussit, it's just laughed off as there
(06:22):
you go again, trying to push Y.
And there are conspiratorialsmiles all around the table.
And with that quick dismissal,everyone moves on to discuss their
own work and their own approaches.
And if you're a young PhD studentor an early career researcher
and feeling insecure in any way.
(06:45):
Then in both of these previous situations,you're not going to be wanting to
bring up your work again to this group.
You're going to be really reluctantto seek any feedback in future.
Or present a different way of doingthings, present a different point of
view to what is the dominant model.
Or imagine that you're sitting in youroffice and coming down the corridor are
(07:09):
sounds of people yelling at each other.
Not conversing, not communicating,not discussing, just yelling.
A really tense, angry, toxic environment.
Not good.
Imagine having someonesay to you, unsolicited.
(07:32):
That so-and-so doesn't like you.
And this could be a so-and-so who'sin a position of power and this
really comes as a surprise to you.
You've no idea what might be the issue.
You thought you had afine relationship though?
You didn't interact with them very much.
And so you're not just wondering aboutthe relationship with this person, but
(07:55):
the fact that you've been told this meansthat you're left wondering, What are
people saying about me behind my back?
And what else don't I know.
And who else has different perceptionsof relationships than what I have.
Imagine you're being critiquedbecause you want to go home
(08:16):
at 6:00 PM to see your family.
And that's even still late.
And you don't want to participatein the competition to see
who can work more hours.
But there's attention drawn to it andyou get the sarcastic remark of Oh.
Are you heading off already?
(08:36):
Imagine being in one of those situationswhere you never know which version of
your line manager, leader, supervisor,professor, you're going to get.
Is it going to be the niceone or is it going to be the
stressed out and cranky one?
Or where you feel almost gaslighted,where you've been working on something
(08:56):
that you believe is what you've agreed.
And then when you turn up again to sharethat there's a dispute about whether
that was agreed or not, or whether they'dactually asked you to do something else.
And then of course, we also hearmany stories of discrimination
and harassment in the workplace.
(09:17):
And I've heard this in termsof gender and ethnicity.
And along other more subtle dimensions.
So you can imagine again, feeling reallymarginalized and like you don't belong.
You're maybe you're someone whodoesn't drink at all yet all of the
social gatherings in the group involvesignificant amounts of alcohol,
where you're just not comfortable.
(09:38):
Or where you're the only woman in a group.
And everyone immediately turns to you andexpects you to make the cake to celebrate
someone's birthday or to take the notes.
And I'm sure you could come up withloads of other examples where you just
haven't felt at home in the environment.
Where you haven't felt comfortable,felt like you belonged.
(10:00):
Where you haven't felt free tooffer an opinion or a point of view,
or to just stand up for yourself.
And I don't know about you, butmy reaction in these situations
is to withdraw and to hide.
And what I'll often choose todo is to redirect my efforts to
other communities outside of myresearch group or my faculty.
(10:24):
Where I can feel like I'm moreaccepted and where I can feel like
I belong, because why would I put myhead on the block again only to get
knocked down or hurt in some way.
And that's what psychologicalsafety is about.
How do we create environments wherethese sorts of scenarios don't happen?
(10:47):
Where people genuinely feel free toshow up fully human fully themselves.
Where they don't have to change to fit in.
But where there is space madefor everyone to be able to find
their place, to find their voice.
It means people being able to challengethe status quo to express opinions or
(11:10):
preferences without fear of ridicule.
And instead where thoseopinions and preferences are
engaged with, with curiosity.
It means people feeling seen and heard.
Where their ideas are valued.
And it doesn't always meanyou have to be in agreement,
(11:32):
but it feels okay to speak up and tomake contributions and we can explore
and understand our differences.
And it means the embracingthe fact that we're all human.
We all make mistakes.
And we're able to own up to them withoutfear of being critiqued or judged.
(11:52):
Or without being shamed.
And not just that, but thatwhere the, the sharing of this
is embraced and celebrated.
And we then can participate in ashared learning journey about what
we can take from this for next time.
(12:13):
Psychological safety is just such acritical factor for our research cultures.
So, where does the term come from?
We can trace it back to Carl Rogers in1954, who first turned the coin and it was
brought into management studies work inthe 1960s by Ed Schein and Warren Bennis.
(12:36):
And they talked about it in terms ofreducing interpersonal risk and where
people feel accepted and worthwhile.
And then in 1990, William Kahn alsotalked about psychological safety
to describe conditions that wereinfluencing personal engagement at work.
And talked about it in terms of beingable to show up and be yourself without
(12:57):
fear of negative consequences to yourself image or your status or career.
However, the more recent resurgence ofinterest in psychological safety can be
attributed to Harvard business school.
Professor Amy Edmondson.
Amy drew on this concept for her 1999 PhDthesis, to explain why the best performing
(13:25):
clinical teams in a hospital were notthe ones who made the fewest mistakes as
they had hypothesized, but they were infact, the ones who've made more mistakes.
But what distinguish them was that theyfelt safe enough to own up to and talk
about and learn from these mistakes.
(13:46):
Amy defined psychological safety is abelief that "one will not be punished
or humiliated for speaking up withideas, questions, concerns, or mistake.
And that the team is safe forpersonal interpersonal risk taking".
And she's written about this in a 2019book called 'The fearless organization.
(14:09):
Creating psychological safetyin the workplace for learning
innovation and growth'.
And I'd highly recommend that book.
And it's interesting in thattitle where she talks about
learning innovation and growth.
Because that really captures whypsychological safety is so important.
And how relevant.
Our learning innovation and growthare for our research environments.
(14:37):
On her webpage.
Amy also talks about psychologicalsafety being what is needed to clear
blockages that will block innovation,collaboration, and risk taking.
And again, that sort of terminologyof innovation, collaboration, and
risk-taking could be very much theterminology that we would use as basic
definitions of what science is about.
(15:00):
We embrace many of today's problemsand try to address them and
solve them through innovation,collaboration, and risk taking.
Where we really need everyone tocontribute in order to make a difference.
We need people to be able to speak up.
We need people to be able to take risksand to ask challenging research questions
(15:24):
and to live with uncertainty and dealwith trying different paths and see
things not working and trying again.
It's for these reasons that I reallysee it as a critical concept for
research and research environments.
So with co-author Zhike Lei.
(15:45):
I'm not sure if Ipronounce that correctly.
Amy wrote an interesting paper that waspublished in 2014, that reviewed a lot
of research that had been conducted onpsychological safety up to that point.
And I'll put a link tothe paper on the webpage.
And in that paper, they identified anumber of what they call consistent
relationships across the studies.
(16:08):
So just listen to these and thinkabout them through the lens of
doing innovative research in ainterdisciplinary collaborative teams.
So, first of all, they identified thatthere's a significant relationship between
psychological safety and performance.
And they talk about this relationshipbetween psychological safety and effective
(16:31):
performance as being particularlyrelevant, where there is uncertainty
and a need for either creativity orcollaboration to accomplish that work.
So psychological safety enables us todeal with the uncertainty and own up to
all of the risks that's involved in that.
And isn't that the definition ofresearch, engaging with uncertainty
(16:55):
in order to make new contributions,to knowledge and to society.
And the collaboration aspect too enablesus to deal with the importance of
needing lots of different contributions.
And working out how to best mobilizethose contributions and negotiate all the
challenges that arise from recognizingthat collaboration involves difference,
(17:19):
different opinions, different pointsof view, different personalities.
And how we negotiate,navigate those differences.
And the importance of us all being free tospeak up and offer our opinions and so on.
So the second theme that they talkabout is in relation to learning.
(17:41):
And again, what is research, ifnot an ongoing learning journey?
So to quote directly from their article.
"Much learning in today'sorganization takes place in the
interpersonal interactions betweenhighly interdependent members.
And learning behaviors can belimited by individual concerns about
(18:03):
interpersonal risks or consequences,including a fear of not achieving one's
goals and learning anxiety createdby feelings of incompetence that in
that occurred during the learning".
End of quote.
And here I'm reminded from this lovelyquote from Pat Thompson, a researcher
from Nottingham university who talksabout us as academics, needing to get
(18:28):
comfortable being learners on the pathto becoming professional not knowers.
I'm not sure if I've gotthat totally correct.
But don't you love that?
We're always going to be learners andwe have to be just come comfortable
with being professional not knowers.
So that means that learningis always about that gap, that
(18:50):
uncomfortable gap between what weknow now and what we need to know.
One of the common ways that we bridgethat gap is often through trying things
out by trial and error that doesn't work.
And reflecting on it and tryingsomething else or by making mistakes.
(19:11):
And I think in that learning,it's also about just being human
and having good and bad days.
And they go on to talk about how thefact that "people are more likely
to offer ideas, admit mistakes,ask for help, or provide feedback
if they feel safe to do so".
(19:31):
Again, this is so important for beingable to come up with our best research
solutions that have impact on society andthe challenges that we're trying to solve.
And that's the very reason why we'redoing research in the first place.
And the third strand that they'reidentified across their studies is
(19:52):
about people needing to feel preparedto speak up to power in a way.
So they, to quote them "Individuals whoexperienced greater psychological safety
are more likely to speak up at work.
Upward communication can be avital force in helping contemporary
organizations learn and succeed.
(20:12):
By speaking up to those who occupypositions to authorize actions,
employees can help challenge thestatus quo, identify problems or
opportunities for improvement.
And other ideas to improvetheir organizations wellbeing".
End quote.
(20:32):
We can think that through formany situations where it feels
particularly risky to speak up tosome sort of power or authority.
Especially if they seem to know much morethan what we know, or if they're really
under stress and pushing, delivery onthe project, because they're concerned
about producing results for the fundingagency or the next publication for
(20:55):
their CV or for their promotion case.
And so on.
And it's this safe feelingthat you can speak up.
That's going to be so important.
If we're going to see a decreasein the number of retracted papers,
say due to methodological problemsthat aren't being honestly reported.
(21:15):
Or the fudging of results.
You know, And often junior researchersnot feeling brave enough or safe enough to
actually say there was a problem with theparticular performance of an experiment.
So that was their three themes.
And it's interesting that an internalstudy at Google that started in 2012
(21:37):
and actually involved significantamount of data studying 180 of their
teams identified psychological safetyas the most important factor to explain
what made the most successful teams.
And this was in a project thatthey called project Aristotle.
So it wasn't about having the besttechnical superstars in the team.
(22:03):
And in fact, their top five factorsalso reflect very much what Nina said
about the patterns that they saw atthe academy across the nominations for
what makes a good research environment.
So those top factors that made for thatGoogle's most successful teams were 1.
Psychological safety that peoplefelt safe to take risks and be
(22:25):
vulnerable in front of each other.
2.
Dependability that people got thingsdone on time and to a high standard.
3., that there was structure and clarityaround roles and plans and goals.
And remember Nina talkingabout clear expectations.
4.
About the work being meaningful.
(22:48):
And personally important in some way.
And 5.
Impact feeling like theirwork and contributions matter
and help create change.
Now I know that in a research environment,we have a lot of structural problems that
are implicated here in the pressures thatwe might be experiencing that lead to a
(23:12):
lack of psychological safety in some way.
You know, our highly competitiveperformance culture are very
metrics driven environment.
And I don't want to discount the workto be done at this structural level.
But I still think it's an 'and' situation. It can have implications for all of us.
So I'm just going to focus here forthe rest of this episode what I think
(23:35):
of particularly the implicationsfor those of us who might be in some
position of leadership or authority,and this doesn't have to be a formally
recognized big L type leadership position.
It's any of us who haveinteractions with others that may
involve some power difference.
(23:56):
So, whether you're a project leaderor a research group leader, or a
supervisor advisor of students, As aleader, I think we have a particular
responsibility to set the tone.
And to role model the sorts ofbehaviors that we want to see.
So I can go through a few things here.
One is role modeling,what it means to be real.
(24:21):
In the workplace, likeshowing up as ourselves.
It means role modelingwhen we've made a mistake.
. . . And that means owning up to the factthat we can have good and bad days.
So we may get cranky.
We may speak to someone in away that we're not happy about.
(24:42):
We may engage in some non-verbalbehaviors that convey some sort
of disapproval or critique.
But I think we need to be big enoughto go and apologize and say that
wasn't good enough rather than justlet it hang, because if we let it
hang, that becomes a standard ofbehavior that's acceptable around here.
That we can have a bad dayand take it out on people.
(25:06):
It means role modeling thatwe don't know something.
And that it's okay not to know everythingand to invite input and opinions
and perspectives from other people.
It means role modeling,seeking feedback for ourselves.
Genuinely interested in how wecan improve, even if it's hard.
(25:33):
And showing that we are alsoon a learning journey as well.
And wanting to know how we canbe better, how we can do better.
And not just inviting the feedbackfrom others, but also responding
to it with curiosity and grace.
And showing that we actually valuethat feedback by making changes and
(25:54):
reporting back, how are we going
And so we, we need as leadersto be so much more self-aware.
Of how we react or respond in situationsand to be aware of how our actions and
reactions can be perceived by others.
That even if we don't intend toknock people down, that may be
(26:17):
by spinning around on a chair andnot giving attention to the person
who's speaking, where inadvertently.
Whether deliberately or notcommunicating that this person's
point of view is not important.
So self-awareness and self reflectionI think is really key to thinking
about how we show up and how we rolemodel, what are the behaviors we
(26:39):
value as part of a psychologicallysafe supportive research culture.
Second bundle of things I think isvery much around, Requiring us to
get to know people as individuals.
Because belonging is really a coreunderpinning for psychological safety.
(27:02):
And, belonging is about.
Being seen and heard and valued.
For who we are.
And that means as leaders, ourresponsibility to get to know who people
are and to understand what each person'sstrengths are and what they can bring in
what they can contribute to the group.
(27:24):
And also how we can bestsupport different people.
And this requires deep listeningskills and deep empathy skills.
Another class of activities can bearound how we engage with difference
and how we run our groups, how weinvite seriously invite different
(27:48):
voices, different opinions and engagewith disagreements in our groups.
And treat them as sitesfor productive engagement.
For, um, opportunities for learning.
And this becomes really important in termsof not just what we say, but what we do.
(28:09):
So we may invite peopleto bring up problems.
And then it becomes reallyimportant that we don't focus.
On the problems in termsof looking back or seeking.
To blame or whatever, but that.
We really learn how to facilitatethe discussions where we can.
Move it forward.
And what can we draw out from this?
What can we learn from this for nexttime so that we can get better together?
(28:32):
So it's about inviting the voicesand, and rewarding people for
speaking up and making it a learning.
How do we learn?
And it's the consistencyin how this plays out.
And in terms of clarity aroundroles and responsibilities
as was brought up previously.
(28:52):
So psychological safety is created byenacting and enabling belonging and.
Inclusion.
Now that are both sort of like the basicrequirements for psychological safety,
as well as outcomes in a way of havinga psychologically safe environment.
So I think there's this sort ofmutually reinforcing relationship
between psychological safetyand belonging and inclusion.
(29:18):
And we can also connect here todefinitions of research culture.
Where research culture is often talkedabout as encompassing the behaviors,
the values, the expectations,attitudes, norms of what we expect
around here and what we accept.
It's how we do things.
(29:39):
And there's this lovely quote byprofessor Tom Welton in a UK Royal
Society report that talks about theway in which cultures are enacted.
That we enact culture there.
So let me start that quote.
"Cultures are not set by policy documentsor by distributing a leaflet, but
(30:02):
through the people with whom we meetin thousands of seemingly insignificant
interactions on perfectly ordinary days.
And we should all ask ourselves whether wedisplay the characteristics that we value.
And want to see embedded withinthe cultures in which we work.
Some people are more visible than others.
(30:25):
[And here I can interjectthat this would be the leaders
that I've just talked about.
And to continue the quote].
But none of us are invisible.
And we all have a part to playin developing an inclusive and
supportive research culture for all".
End of quote.
And this connects beautifully towhat Line and Nicklas and Nina said.
(30:50):
About everyone having a rolein contribution to creating
great research cultures.
And this means we all have a partto play in contributing to making
that a psychologically safe culture.
Where people can show up as theirauthentic selves and without fear
(31:14):
of rejection or ridicule and so on.
So what might be some examplesof these seemingly insignificant
interactions on perfectly ordinary days?
In closing here I invite youjust to reflect on what might
(31:38):
be some examples for you.
Of the seemingly insignificantinteractions on perfectly ordinary days.
And it's an invitation toreflect on how you show up.
And how you contribute to creatinga great research environment.
That you may one day want to put forwardfor a research environment prize as
(32:03):
an example of how to do great work.
And we know that these great researchenvironments, aren't just about
feeling good and everyone being happy.
But they're actually aboutcreating the conditions in
which we can do our best work.
Our best creative thinkingour best collaborations for
(32:23):
the benefit of great science.
And psychological safetyis really key for that.
Not just for great science, butalso for enabling the wellbeing and
development of people and learningprocesses that support the production
of that great science and taking risks.
(32:46):
Culture matters.
It really matters.
And we create andco-create culture together.
By our choices and by oureveryday interactions.
We can make it better.
You can find the summarynotes, a transcript and related
(33:07):
links for this podcast on www.
changingacademiclife.
com.
You can also subscribe toChanging Academic Life on iTunes,
Spotify and Google Podcasts.
And I'm really hoping that we canwiden the conversation about how
we can do academia differently.
And you can contribute to this by ratingthe podcast and also giving feedback.
(33:29):
And if something connected withyou, please consider sharing this
podcast with your colleagues.
Together, we can make change happen.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.