June 25, 2025 • 44 mins
Welcome to The Inner Game of Change, the podcast where we explore the unseen forces that shape how we lead, adapt, and thrive in the face of change and transformation.
In this episode, I sit down with Dr Jonathan Thorp; a former Navy pilot turned leadership educator—to unpack one of the most vital ingredients of effective teams: psychological safety.
From the boardroom to the break room, we explore what makes conversations feel safe, why trust must precede truth-telling, and how safety and accountability must work together—not in opposition—for change to truly take hold.
Jonathan also shares his six-step dialogue framework and reminds us that not all resistance is resistance—sometimes, it’s just people needing time to process.
Whether you lead teams through change or support those who do, this episode will leave you with both practical tools and fresh perspective.
I am grateful to have Jonathan chating with me today.
An Acxiom podcast where we discuss marketing made better, bringing you real...
Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify
Ali Juma
@The Inner Game of Change podcast
Follow me on LinkedIn
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
In our experience there have been times when we've
introduced psychological safetyand people in the workplace
will roll their eyes and they'llsay, well, that's not a serious
concept.
This is a work environment andthere are times when we have to
talk tough and tackle some verydifficult challenges.
And if all we're doing isbuilding a psychologically safe
environment, then maybe I won'thave the ability I need as a
manager, supervisor or a leaderto go ahead and have these
(00:23):
difficult conversations manager,supervisor or a leader to go
ahead and have these difficultconversations.
So what we found was, over time, it's very important that we
emphasize that psychologicalsafety includes accountability.
If you can think of a model inthis way, psychological safety
if all it is is a safe placereally presents a comfort zone
that employees will never wantto leave.
(00:44):
They might not be motivated tostretch themselves and to really
outperform because all thecomforts are provided in a
psychologically safe environment.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Welcome to the Inner Game of Change, the podcast
where we explore the unseenforces that shape how we lead,
adapt and thrive in the face ofchange and transformation.
I am your host, ali Juma.
In this episode, I sit downwith Dr Jonathan Thorpe, a
former Navy pilot turnedleadership educator, to unpack
(01:23):
one of the most vitalingredients of effective teams
psychological safety.
From the boardroom to the breakroom, we explore what makes
conversations feel safe, whytrust must precede truth-telling
and how safety andaccountability must work
together not in a position forchange to truly take hold.
(01:45):
Jonathan also shares his sixstep dialogue framework and
reminds us that not allresistance is resistance.
Sometimes it is just peopleneeding time to process.
Whether you lead teams throughchange or support those who do,
this episode will leave you withboth practical tools and a
(02:05):
fresh perspective.
I am grateful to have Jonathanchatting with me today.
Well, jonathan, thank you somuch for joining me in the Inner
Game of Change podcast.
I am eternally grateful foryour time.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Ali, it's my pleasure , Happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Thank you so much, jonathan.
Today we will talk about animportant topic in the workplace
and maybe even outside, butwe're going to focus
predominantly on the workplaceand on psychological safety and
how it's connected to managingchange in the workplace the
impacts, the relations.
But before we start with that,it would be fantastic for you to
(02:47):
introduce yourself to myaudience.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
You may have heard this, jonathan Thorpe, here in
Dallas, texas.
I spent a number of yearsflying airplanes in the Navy and
from that career I got intofinancial services and performed
a second career, learning thatbusiness and learning how to
hopefully change and influencethe minds of people with some
helpful advice.
Following that career, I jumpedinto leadership development and
(03:12):
went back to school and nowteach at a couple of grad
schools, hoping to pass on someof those lessons learned that I
picked up over the last severalyears.
So a little bit of this and alittle bit of that, but here
today to have a greatconversation we do about
psychological safety.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Fantastic Safe conversations in the workplace.
How would you define those?
What is a safe conversation?
Speaker 1 (03:34):
We define safe conversations as an interactive,
two-way dialogue in thepresence of psychological safety
and probably with the absenceof negativity.
So there's a couple of thingsgoing on there.
A safe conversation meanspeople feel comfortable to
express their views, but alsotake the time to listen and
(03:54):
digest and process the views ofthe other person so that once
people have finished theconversation, they can both
honestly say that they felt seenand heard by the other person.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Jonathan, what are the dependencies of having a
safe conversation?
Because they don't happen in avacuum, do they?
Speaker 1 (04:11):
No, absolutely not.
I mean, I think you'd have tosay that there's some
vulnerability and risk there,and a person has to feel
comfortable in sharing what'shonestly on their mind, even if
they know it might not be whatthe other person's anticipating
hearing or even what they wantto hear.
So I think one of thedependencies is certainly an
(04:32):
honesty.
Another is what we talked aboutearlier and that's
psychological safety.
That I can actually risk havinga conversation in this case you
and I and I know that I won'tfeel humiliated or embarrassed.
And so there is some safetythat the outcomes are going to
be somewhat reasonable andsomewhat predictable for me,
(04:53):
that I can have a conversationwith you and not really stumble
out of it, having suffered someirrecoverable damage either to
my reputation, my career or evenmy role at work either to my
reputation, my career or even myrole at work, and I assume
these conversations happenduring a meeting, one-on-ones
gatherings, chats, even in thecafes.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Where does trust sit within that context?
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Well, I think it's at the center of any of those
conversations you mentioned.
You comment about a safeconversation could occur
anywhere.
I think that's absolutely true,certainly in the workplace, at
the water cooler, at aconference table, even over a
Zoom call, but just as easily asafe conversation could happen
in your personal space, at home,with family, with friends in
(05:42):
the commute on the way to work.
And so you talk about wheredoes trust sit?
I think trust is a criticalpart of having a safe
conversation, because you haveto trust that the person will
give me a chance to speak mymind.
I have to trust that the personwill listen to what I have to
say and not race to judgment,that they will actually evaluate
(06:03):
the merits of my argument or mypoint and then just suspend
judgment long enough to say,okay, I might agree with you, I
might not agree with you, butI'm going to go ahead and accept
your viewpoint for you.
I don't have to change it, Idon't have to influence it.
I just want to become aware ofit so I can become generally
more aware of a greater numberof viewpoints.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
What is the consequence, jonathan, some of
us sometimes think right orwrong, think that not engaging
in conversation is probably asafe option, and obviously
that's a reflection of a lack oftrust.
And obviously that's areflection of lack of trust.
(06:46):
But what's the consequence ofnot engaging in any type of
conversation and just keeping itto the dry interaction of I'm
going to do my job and I'm goingto leave work at 5 o'clock or
whatever it is, and then I don'twant to deal with anything else
?
Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Well, I think we're seeing that play out in real
life all over the world rightnow, that exact scenario that
you just painted, which isgrowing levels of disconnection
becoming growing levels ofdisengagement, which becomes
even more lasting, and then itdrives huge turnover and job
change and people not staying ata job because they don't feel
(07:30):
connected or engaged orproductively employed.
And so, to that end, what's therisk?
The risk is is, if you choosenot to engage in any safe
conversation, for example, thenyou'll disconnect from the
moment at hand, and if thathappens in a repeated pattern,
now you start to becomedisengaged.
Where I'm not counted on havingan opinion, I'm not asked for
(07:52):
my input, and before long I'lljust assume that nobody wants my
input.
And so the organization suffersbecause now it has a smaller
supply of opinions and insight.
The individual suffers becausethey don't feel like they're an
active contributor, and so, inboth of those cases, what sounds
like a very simple decisionwell, maybe this one time I'll
(08:13):
keep my mouth shut has become anepidemic, and now workplace
disengagement is a huge problem,and what we'd like to do is
encourage people whether you'rea teammate, team member, member
or supervisor to go ahead andstart sponsoring active
dialogues, to go reaching forpeople that might have
historically said very littleand draw them into the
(08:35):
conversation and let them knowthat today, perhaps going
forward, that I want to rely onyour input, I want to encourage
you to say something and if I'mgood at it, hopefully I can make
the environment safe enoughwhere they feel welcome to do
that.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I like the idea of how you articulated that, that
there is a negative consequenceif there is a short supply of
opinion and input.
Jonathan, I appreciate if youcan go deeper into that.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Yeah, sure, I think this groupthink mentality says
that the first person thatthrows out an idea, that the
only winning opinions then areto second that or to third that
original insight.
And it's become really trickyin the workplace today to
offering up a challengingviewpoint, for whatever reason.
If the environment is not asafe one, then somebody might
(09:28):
feel like I can't disagree withthe boss or I can't disagree
with the first thing that'smentioned, and I think the
safest environments and thestrongest organizational
cultures are the ones thatactively promote a variety of
opinions and that they recognize.
Hey, only through the greatestmixing of ideas and thoughts
will we ever have a chance atrecognizing the best thought,
(09:50):
the best idea.
So I think you want to activelyencourage these organizations
to not just settle on one idea,even if the next three people
say that's a great idea.
Boss, we should do exactly that.
I think you want to encouragesomebody.
Great idea, what other thoughtsdo you have?
Something that doesn't soundthe same thing?
What are you thinking?
And really solicit your team topush themselves and come up
(10:13):
with new ideas and know, ifpsychological safety is present,
that there's not a risk indoing so.
They can actually say somethingthat might be a little
far-fetched or that might seemremote at first, but as you know
, ali, some of these ideas arethe ones that turn the tide of a
technological revolution or anorganizational breakthrough.
(10:36):
It was because one person wascourageous enough to say an
oddball thing that somebody said, hey, wait a second, that might
not be the craziest thing I'veever heard.
That somebody said, hey, wait asecond, that might not be the
craziest thing I've ever heard.
Let's explore that, or let'stake some time and let's have a
group of people go research thatand come back and report to us
if that is in fact a silly ideaor if in fact there's really
(10:56):
something to it.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
The way I look at it, jonathan, and just my opinion,
I always think that engaging inconversations is a decision and
not engaging is a decision too,and one has got the potential of
you know that the organizationand the team and the individuals
will benefit from thoseconversations.
And one is that you're probablydepriving your workplace and
your colleagues and your teamsfrom your ideas.
(11:28):
What do you think of mythinking here?
Speaker 1 (11:33):
I agree 100%.
I think absolutely.
The choice remains with theindividual, and somebody could
choose to say nothing and torefrain from sharing an opinion.
I think that will remain theirchoice.
I think you absolutely do robthe organization of the merits
of another thought, anotheropinion.
That's the only way we canactually hopefully represent a
(11:58):
representative consensus is ifeverybody checks in and gives
their opinion.
But here's something else Evenin a safe conversation, it will
always remain the other person'schoice to participate.
If you and I are having a safeconversation and I invite you to
participate and share yourthoughts with me, you still have
the choice to say no.
That's really all I'm willingto share right now.
But what I love about thatsituation is you had the choice
(12:22):
to tell me no and you also walkaway knowing that I cared enough
to ask.
In a safe conversation, you nowbelieve hey, jonathan was
willing to ask, he wasinterested in my opinion and he
took the time to give me achance to share.
Now, for whatever reason, Iwasn't ready to share today with
him, but at least I know he wasreceptive to my thoughts and
(12:43):
inputs.
And so maybe today you didn'twant to share, you made the
choice of not sharing, but maybetomorrow you might say, huh,
here's a guy that was willing tolisten.
Maybe I'll give him a chance inour next opportunity.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
And Jonathan and I.
Conversations don't need tohappen face-to-face and verbal,
do they?
Speaker 1 (13:05):
No, they don't, and today probably more and more of
them are happening virtually ordigitally.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
You know, for my listeners and anybody interested
in this, sometimes we think,when the description of the word
conversation may mean that Ineed to speak to somebody
face-to-face, they've gotdifferent avenues of having
conversation.
It can be in a chat.
I mean obviously the humantouch to it.
(13:32):
There is no replacement forhaving face-to-face.
But if there are constraints inthere you know distance I don't
feel comfortable talking tosomebody.
You can actually haveconversations different ways.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
You have to be able to reach people in a number of
different ways, and I agree, Idon't think there's any
substitute for a face-to-faceconversation, where not only do
I get all of the verbals and thevariety of tonality and pitch,
volume, pace, all of these richsignals that give me extra
information of being able totalk to you If I'm in your
(14:07):
presence, I also get how you'remanaging space and body language
and gestures, and so therichness of conversation is at
its peak in a face-to-faceexchange.
However, comma, we don't alwayshave that luxury and sometimes,
whether it's a travel constraintor whether it's budgetary
constraints, we might have topull people in virtual
(14:29):
environments, and so today'sleaders and today's employees
have to understand that I haveto be capable in a text
environment.
I have to be capable in a voiceenvironment.
I have to be capable even in anemail environment, one of
perhaps the toughestenvironments.
In a voice environment, I haveto be capable even in an email
environment, one of perhaps thetoughest environments.
As well as being in a voice orface-to-face capability, you
have to have them all.
(14:50):
There's no excuse forcommunicating poorly if the
channel that you're on isn'toptimal.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
You developed a framework for facilitating, or
to facilitate, safeconversations in the workplace.
Do you want to give us anoverview of the framework,
jonathan?
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Sure.
One of the things we'd like tosuggest up front is that the
creation of psychological safetyis paramount, and without a
psychologically safe workenvironment, then no amount of
dialogue or no amount ofstructured conversation will
make any difference.
Because if you put in place themost beautiful, the most
(15:32):
sophisticated combination ofphrases and sentence stems to
build a very complexconversation, if people aren't
going to risk sharing honestthoughts because there's no
psychological safety, then noneof the conversation structure
matters.
And so we believe in a workcontext, the very first thing
you need to do is build andestablish psychological safety,
(15:53):
and we do that with a handful oftools, tools like the skill of
affirmations, the skill of zeronegativity, raising one's
awareness and finally, thestructured dialogue.
All of those skills help usbuild a psychologically safe
work environment.
And now, when I saypsychologically safe, that
doesn't mean it's just a loungewhere people can go and say
(16:14):
anything they want without anykind of responsibility.
Married right up withpsychological safety.
We also suggest some level ofaccountability, so that the
people in a psychologically safeenvironment are still
accountable for the things theysay and for the things that they
do.
Now, once psychological safetyis established, we teach a
(16:35):
universal six-step sequence ofsentence stems that guide people
through a conversation, andthere's a lot of flexibility,
there's elasticity in how thesesix steps are operating.
But these same six steps canapply in positive conversations,
like affirmations andappreciations, but they can also
help people tackle tricky,difficult situations, like
(16:56):
frustrations coworkers arehaving with another or if
there's an unmet need in thatwork relationship, how to tackle
that.
So that's a real basicexplanation of putting in place
a foundation of psychologicalsafety and then teaching a
simple six step process to coverany of a range of conversations
and then teaching a simplesix-step process to cover any of
(17:18):
a range of conversations.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Why do you think you've focused on the word
accountability in there?
Is that because psychologicalsafety can be misunderstood?
Speaker 1 (17:28):
In our experience there have been times when we've
introduced psychological safetyand people in the workplace
will roll their eyes and they'llsay, well, that's not a serious
concept.
This is a work environment andthere are times when we have to
talk tough and tackle some verydifficult challenges.
And if all we're doing isbuilding a psychologically safe
environment, then maybe I won'thave the ability I need as a
manager, supervisor or a leaderto go ahead and have these
(17:51):
difficult conversations.
So what we found was over time.
It's very important that weemphasize that psychological
safety includes accountability.
If you can think of a model inthis way, psychological safety,
if all it is is a safe place,really presents a comfort zone
that employees will never wantto leave.
(18:12):
They might not be motivated tostretch themselves and to really
outperform because all thecomforts are provided in a
psychologically safe environment.
Now, if you draw yourself allthe way over to the other end of
the spectrum let's just saythat there was no safety there
and all you had wasaccountability the other end of
the spectrum In anaccountability-only space, then
(18:32):
you're being driven to produceresults and that risk and
accountability is really all youfeel.
And so that extreme isn't anybetter.
It's just an opposite place.
What we like to promote issomewhere in the middle, with
equal parts of psychologicalsafety and accountability, and
what that allows is learning tooccur where people feel safe
(18:54):
enough to be themselves, to takerisks, to make mistakes, to
admit mistakes and to offer eachother grace because of all
those safeties are in place.
But they also understandaccountability, that they will
be held responsible for theirresults, for their ideas and
their performance.
And so when you mix equal partspsychological safety and
(19:17):
accountability you have awonderful middle zone called the
learning zone, where I thinkmost organizations will benefit.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
And I love that learning zone because that's the
only way for an organizationand a team to grow and
individual as well.
I think a few weeks ago somebodywas asking me about describing
the perfect environment or anideal environment for me to be
the best I can be as anindividual within an
(19:44):
organization and I describedthat in whatever context and
whatever engagement that Ichoose to have with any of my
clients, I would appreciate alevel of a challenge and I
appreciate a level of autonomy.
The challenge will actually helpme push my boundaries and
(20:04):
therefore will expose areas forgrowth and learning, and the
level of autonomy gives me thatcreativity zone where I can
actually make some decisions andfeeling okay that that's going
to be accepted by theorganization.
Obviously, this is all withinthe norms of the accountability.
(20:26):
I'm still an accountableindividual, but that balance
between the two so I furtherexplain that to that individual
is that too much autonomy willlack accountability for me and
also I probably get bored withtoo much autonomy.
Too much challenge willactually push me beyond the
(20:50):
discomfort zone and probablywill push me to the stress zone
where there's not much learninghappening in there.
So a balance between the two isprobably what I prefer that and
maybe ultimately that will giveme the definition of that I am
safe, not as in this danger, butI'm safe to be the best I can
(21:11):
be in that organization.
Critique my thought and mythinking process here.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Yeah, I happen to agree with all of it.
I think there is a healthy mixbetween a safe-only zone and a
stress-only zone, and I lovethat you're willing to
investigate this really powerfulworld called autonomy.
I think everybody wants somemeasure of it.
Certainly, some people are morecomfortable with a lot and
certainly others are morecomfortable with less, but I
(21:40):
think the heart of that ishaving a dialogue with your
supervisor or the person able tomanipulate or tailor your role,
and I think it's importantbeing able to have that
conversation and saying my hopefor level of autonomy is this is
that something we can meet?
You know, it kind of brings upsomething else that we stumble
into, which is this this gapthat exists between most
(22:03):
employees and most supervisors,and the gap is between the
employee's actual performanceand the expectation the
expectation that the supervisorhas of their performance.
So the supervisor has anexpectation of what that person
will do and perform.
Oftentimes, though, thatexpectation is not articulated
to the employee, and so theemployee is doing their best,
(22:27):
hoping to fulfill and satisfythe supervisor, without any
knowledge that the supervisorhas a different expectation for
the performance.
So there's this gap settling upbetween what I think my boss
wants me to do and what my bossactually wants me to do, and so
too many supervisors never spellthis out for the employee, yet
they become increasinglyfrustrated because the employee
(22:47):
is underperforming theirexpectation, and so what we want
to do is promote a safeconversation between supervisor
and employee to lay outeverything that is connected to
that expectation of performanceand give the employee a chance
to talk about things like youmentioned, about autonomy and
initiative and responsibilityand authority and accountability
(23:08):
all these very powerful words.
So you helped me stumble into atopic that I'm fascinated by,
and I hope that more supervisorsare willing to take the risk
and introduce this idea aboutthere being a gap between my
expectations of your performanceand your actual performance,
and putting it on the table andletting the employees you know
(23:30):
articulate what they think theycan deliver and what the
supervisor is actually expectingarticulate what they think they
can deliver and what thesupervisor is actually expecting
.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
You're making me think now that a lack of clarity
from a manager or supervisorabout their expectations can
also contribute to a lack ofpsychological safety in the
workplace.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
It's probably one of the most fundamental causes of
the lack of psychological safety.
It's because we're not havingthis open conversation about
expectations and I've witnessedit my entire adult life about
supervisors being some of themost fantastic people on the
planet, with the best ofintentions, good people, but
never having the courage toactually tell an employee what
(24:12):
they actually expect them toperform.
The supervisor will say tothemselves in their head well, I
hope they get it.
I hope they understand what Ireally looking for is hard work,
initiative, accountability, andyet they don't say anything,
because it could be a difficultconversation if the employee is
a human being and is not wiredto be perfect, and so they don't
feel the psychological safety.
(24:33):
The supervisor doesn't feelsafe that they can actually say
what is my honest expectationfor your performance, and the
employee might not feel thesafety to challenge their
supervisor and say hey, I getthe feeling that I'm frustrating
you, but I don't know why.
I feel like I'm putting in agreat day's work, I'm doing a
lot of wonderful things, but yetI don't receive a lot of praise
(24:53):
from you.
So I'm not an idiot I'm doing alot of wonderful things, but
yet I don't receive a lot ofpraise from you.
So I'm not an idiot.
I'm a smart enough guy torecognize I must be
disappointing you in some way.
Yet we're not talking aboutthis, maybe because we don't
feel psychological safety, maybebecause there is no trust
present, and so it sets up for alot of anxiety, stress, and
that's no way to run a work forand that's no way to run a work,
(25:17):
for who is responsible aboutcreating a safe environment in
the workplace.
In my opinion, it's everybodythat walks the floor.
Every person in theorganization is responsible for
creating psychological safety.
It is experienced individually,but it is absolutely created as
a group.
Now you might argue that theleader is accountable for the
(25:40):
level of psychological safety.
You can make that argument.
But I think everybody has acomponent responsibility to do
their part, to go ahead and saypositive and encourage things to
each other, to limit the amountof negativity, the shame, the
blame, the criticism that welevy on each other.
And so I think everybody bearsa little bit of that
(26:01):
responsibility, if perhaps theleaders bear accountability.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
I love how you put that.
It is individually experiencedand created as a team.
I really like how you put that.
I want to shift gear and I'vegot a couple of questions.
But I want to talk more abouthow having a safe place can be a
good enabler for adoptingchange.
(26:24):
And I've seen it in my practicebecause when there's a change
happening in the workplace, thatis also one of the big moments
where you're going to test ifthere is a psychological safety
in the workplace or not.
Another place is actually tosee how much psychological
safety you've got is duringperformance management times.
(26:45):
You know when there's going tobe performance reviews and all
of these conversations happening.
But since I work in thebusiness of change and
communication, I notice that allthe time.
I think the lack ofpsychological safety contributes
to a high level of resistancefor a change, and there are so
(27:08):
many contributing factors.
You've already touched on a few, including that the management
will not communicate, they willnot enable, they will not create
the environment, they will notgive me, they will not
understand my own individualcircumstances.
It doesn't mean that we don'trun the business, but it does
mean that I got to have to dothe right thing as an
(27:32):
organization.
So then my employee can adoptthis change and they can be
better, the organization can bebetter and the customers can be
better as well.
So where is that?
So where is thatinterconnectedness between
having a fully enabled safeplace from a psychological point
(27:52):
of view and adoption of change?
Speaker 1 (28:00):
You know, one of the things you have to recognize is
that every change initiative isdifferent and some change
initiatives are openly resistedand sometimes change initiatives
are just slowed by friction.
And there's a differencebetween friction and resistance.
Resistance is willfulopposition to a potential fear
of a worse outcome.
Friction might just be somekind of inertial drag.
(28:23):
Inertial drag and the bestdescription of inertial drag is
when a supervisor is briefed ona potential change initiative
and they go through all of theiremotional wranglings to go
ahead and reconcile this newchange.
They understand there'll be alot of work.
They understand there'll be ahuge communication effort to get
people aligned.
(28:43):
They'll understand thatthere'll be a lot of change
emotions I've got to manage.
They reconcile all that andthen they bring that to the team
and they're expecting the teamto say, okay, I was just briefed
on the change, I now need to gotackle that change.
But in fact everybody on thechange now should be due the
same sequence of time to processthrough their emotions.
(29:03):
And yet all too often when theteam reacts very naturally by
saying wow, that's, we're notready for the change, this is a
lot to process, it's it's termedas rejection or even resistance
, when in fact they just haven'thad the time to process the
weight of all the things thatare now going to be expected to
change, alter and rework.
(29:24):
And so I think, with somehealthy level of connectivity,
with safe conversations andpsychological safety present
when change is floated, thesupervisor and the team can have
that open exchange, thedialogue, and the supervisor can
say I've had a few days toprocess this, you guys might
need time to process the change,to come on board to see this.
(29:48):
I think that's part of it.
I think another part of it isis sometimes we see resistance
to change and we, you know,mistake it for a number of other
things, like it is willfuldisobedience or rejection of the
opportunity.
Oftentimes a team environmentmight be just in such a decent
(30:09):
place, a good place, thatthey're afraid of risking great
right.
You know that human beings areloss averse and if I'm faced
with either the hope of gain orthe fear of loss, I'm going to
wait the fear of loss twice asmuch as the hope of gain.
That's just the way human brainis wired.
The default always is that thedefault always is that, and so
(30:31):
sometimes, if I'm actuallyintroducing a change initiative,
I might have to qualify what isthe hope of gain, what is the
fear of loss, properly.
So if somebody says, well, Idon't want to take a risk and
end up in a worse place, maybeI'll just fold my arms and do
nothing, maybe our team willdrag our feet and we'll actually
be late adopters.
And I think the leader'schallenge then has to be well,
(30:55):
hang on.
Maybe folding arms and doingnothing is no longer on the
table, maybe doing nothing is nolonger an option.
Maybe I either accept thechange initiative or we all
prepare ourselves forobsolescence or some other
negative consequence of notparticipating in change.
And so I think those are someof the things that have to be
part of a leader's mindset whenthey introduce a change
(31:18):
initiative.
To say, let's make sure I'mprocessing the signals
accurately.
If I've got change initiativeon the table, I make sure that
it's not friction, that it isresistance, and if it is
resistance, ask the questions tounderstand it.
Because we know people are lossaverse.
We get that.
We have to define what is trulythe worst case scenario.
The worst case might not bedoing nothing.
(31:40):
The worst case scenario mightbe if we don't change in
transition.
Maybe our work organizationfails to exist, we go away.
We don't survive if we don'tchange in transition.
Maybe our work organizationfails to exist, we go away.
We don't survive if we don'tchange.
And maybe sometimes thatconsequence has to be
articulated and discussed.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
And this is why being in a leadership role or a
managerial role is such acomplex business, because
sometimes you create the perfectenvironment and everybody is
happy and then all of a sudden,there is an external factor that
you would need to introduce anew change to the team, and
(32:18):
change is disruptive by its ownnature.
So the way I think about it isthat every time there is a
change, it will create theripple effect inside the team
and it will disrupt theequilibrium of the team,
regardless of what you've done,which means that when you do all
the great work around helpingyour team adopt the change
(32:40):
safely, you still need to thinkthis is a new state of the team
that you need to actually bringback to equilibrium, and this is
why it's really complex, youknow, and not an easy job to be
in a managerial role, but maybesometimes I think that's why
(33:00):
human resources teams exist inthe first place is actually to
help the managers.
But I often see that sometimesthe managers outsource,
unfortunately, those engagementactivities with the employees to
people like the project team orthe HR team or the
(33:21):
communication team.
What's your experience?
Speaker 1 (33:26):
The worst possible thing you could do is outsource
the triage or the management ofdownstream effects of change to
an hr business liaison orsomebody else.
I think the leader has to takea personal responsibility to
lead his team or her teamthrough this place.
So, for example, I've always,you know, leaders and managers
(33:48):
are two separate roles and theycould be the same person, but I
think in every leadershipposition, you need to develop
managerial skills.
In every leadership position,you also need to develop
leadership skills.
Your management skills help youlead through times of stasis in
the status quo when existinggoals, missions and visions meet
(34:10):
the purpose.
So we support what is in placetoday, but we also need to be a
leader and in my opinion, theleaders manage change and guide
organizations through change.
And because change is constant,you will always need these
leadership skills to lead yourteam through change.
The leader must personally leadhis or her people through these
(34:32):
places and not outsource it toHR.
Hr has some fantastic resourcesand they can do a world of good
.
There's no question about that.
But I wouldn't delegate theprickly questions, the touchy
aspects of change and transitionto anyone else, because if my
team doesn't hear it from me,then they no longer trust me to
be straight with them, to behonest with them, and so change
(34:54):
and transition offer a wealth ofopportunities to have some
tricky conversations.
My advice is don't outsource aone of them.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I always think that, jonathan, that and I've coached
lots of managers on change.
In fact, I say to them youshould be more interested in the
change than anybody else,because that's going to impact
how your team is going tofunction and therefore your team
is a reflection of you and yourresponsibility.
But one of the things I also Icoached a manager maybe about a
(35:26):
year ago.
He did not have a goodrelationship with the team and
so I.
The first question was can yousee any upcoming change coming
your way?
And if you're not aware, that'sa problem obviously.
And he found out that there's abig change that's going to
impact his team and I workedwith him to coach him around
(35:48):
that that is a perfectopportunity to build the
relationships with your team,because they are going to see
you at the coalface of thechange and then you're going to
have to promise yourself you'regoing to be with them in the
trenches.
So I used even the change as anenabler for management to
connect with their teams,because that's the only time
(36:11):
they will actually test yourcredibility as a manager and
your real, keen, genuineinterest in their well-being and
their performance.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Great advice.
I mean, they don't hire you forthe sunny days, they hire you
for the stormy days.
And that's exactly what changepresents an opportunity to
steady their nerves and theirfears and to let them know that
the organization has put a lotof time and effort into
constructing this changeinitiative, but also encouraging
them to speak up if theyrecognize something might be
(36:46):
problematic or risky, becausethere is every possibility that
somebody down the line or up thechain failed to see everything
or human beings.
So if a leader is trusted todeliver this news to the team,
then the team members might evenrelay some information that
could save the initiative,something that somebody didn't
forecast or see.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Yeah, what are the measures Jonathan organizations
can adopt to really gauge thepsychological safety in their
workplace?
Speaker 1 (37:19):
Well, it's funny, we actually have a proprietary
metric where we can actuallysurvey a company and find out
the overall level ofconnectivity in an organization,
numerically, quantitatively.
But without access to that toolyou're going to have to
actually ask some veryqualitative questions about how
much participation do I get inany group conversation, how much
(37:43):
resistance do I get for variousprojects?
And you ask, how muchparticipation do I get at group
events?
All these kinds of observationsyou're willing to make to try
to see if people are payingattention and functioning and
engaging in an organization.
I think those are some of thebest ways that you have to gauge
psychological safety.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
Thank you so much.
One of the things that Iusually one of the questions I
usually ask my guests at the endand I'm aware of the time and
I'm thoroughly enjoying thisconversation.
You made me think about acouple of things.
Definitely the difference, andit's a good reminder that
resistance is not friction andwe're just going to have to be
(38:25):
really mindful of that.
And the second one is that itcan be individually experienced
but collectively created.
Are you like those and I'mgrateful that you've sort of
enlightened me on this, or atleast you helped me articulate
those things For us people inthe business of change and
(38:45):
communication, what would beyour advice to us when we go
into a team and we work with theteam on a change initiative?
Speaker 1 (38:57):
One of the first places you can go to for support
in a change initiative is theteam itself, and, before you
launch the initiative, surveytheir appetite for change,
survey their readiness forchange and understand how much
willingness exists before yousay word one.
Oftentimes you'll discover thatyou might have champions on the
team ready to support a new wayof doing business, or even
(39:27):
leaning out or opposed to achange initiative, before you
ask them about how do they seethe environment, how do they see
the organization and if they'reready for change.
People are loss averse, so wehave to work extra hard as
leaders to prepare theorganization for what are the
negative risks, what are theworst-case outcomes, and then
steal them, steady them for analternative, a best case outcome
(39:48):
.
I think that's probably whereI'd start in terms of advice.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Fantastic, and that's really appreciated.
Jonathan, I've already enjoyedthis conversation with you.
How would people connect withyou?
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
The best way to reach us is at quantumconnectionscom
Q-U-A-N-T-U-M connectionscom,and there you can find me in the
About Us section and shoot mean email.
It's easy.
It's jmthorpe atquantumconnectionscom.
I would love to hear from youand I welcome your emails.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
Thank you so much.
We're going to put all theinformation about you, jonathan,
and the podcast information.
I've thoroughly, thoroughlyenjoyed this.
I am grateful for your time.
I hope I can get you back inthe future at some stage and we
talk more about maybe howtechnology, and especially
artificial intelligence maybe,can help us, also can be an
(40:41):
enabler for us to use as a toolto help us create a better place
in the workplace.
But until that time, stay welland stay safe, jonathan.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
My pleasure, ali.
Can I make one add?
I just thought of something hereand I don't mean to interrupt
your recording, but when youasked me about advice, something
escaped my mind.
I think it's super importantand maybe if you're clever with
the audio you can splice it inthere as something I would have
thought about.
But in terms of advice, if I'mtalking to a leader team and I
want to motivate them, I thinkone of the most important pieces
(41:18):
of advice you could givesomebody is to always be
challenging your current levelof self-awareness how much do I
know about myself, how much do Iknow about my team and how
often do I challenge that?
What do I think I know and whatdo I know that I don't know?
And go back and revisit that.
I think too many times leadersbelieve that they have a good
read on themselves or theirpeople and they fail to ask
(41:41):
questions kind of a 360 degreefeedback tool.
So I think, that's something Iwould encourage people to do is
remain mindful of their ownlevel of self-awareness.
And the second thing superimportant in change initiatives
that I failed to mention forgiveme, but it's so important and
that's make sure you're sharingyour own growth journey through
previous change initiatives.
(42:03):
And what I mean by that is whathave I learned personally
through the mistakes I've madein change initiatives, and what
I mean by that is what have Ilearned personally through the
mistakes I've made in changeinitiatives, so that I let
people know I'm not afraid toadmit that we've made mistakes
in the past, and I personallyhave made mistakes in the past,
but here's what I've learnedfrom them and that's what I hope
to share with you that we mightnot be a zero defect.
You know organization.
We don't have to be we're humanbeings, not robots but it is
(42:26):
important to talk about mistakesyou've made so that people
understand that there is somegrace and maybe some safety
present in a very tricky,change-rich environment.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
And that's another way of honoring the past,
jonathan, which is really animportant piece.
Very solid advice.
I love it.
I hope I can get you back inthe future and talk probably
more around technology.
I'm very deep into the rabbithole of artificial intelligence
(42:56):
and so hopefully that will be aninteresting conversation,
jonathan, but until then, staywell and stay safe.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
I look forward to it.
I've enjoyed the time.
Pali, thanks, and have a greatday.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (43:15):
Thank you for listening.
If you found this episodevaluable, remember to subscribe
to stay updated on upcomingepisodes.
Your support is trulyappreciated and, by sharing this
podcast with your colleagues,friends and fellow change
practitioners, it can help mereach even more individuals and
professionals who can benefitfrom these discussions.
(43:36):
Remember, and in my opinion,change is an enduring force and
you will only have a measure ofcertainty and control when you
embrace it.
Until next time, thank you forbeing part of the Inner Game of
Change community.
I am Ali Jammah and this is theInner Game of Change podcast.
In our experience there have been times when we've
introduced psychological safetyand people in the workplace
will roll their eyes and they'llsay, well, that's not a serious
concept.
This is a work environment andthere are times when we have to
talk tough and tackle some verydifficult challenges.
And if all we're doing isbuilding a psychologically safe
environment, then maybe I won'thave the ability I need as a
manager, supervisor or a leaderto go ahead and have these
(00:23):
difficult conversations manager,supervisor or a leader to go
ahead and have these difficultconversations.
So what we found was, over time, it's very important that we
emphasize that psychologicalsafety includes accountability.
If you can think of a model inthis way, psychological safety
if all it is is a safe placereally presents a comfort zone
that employees will never wantto leave.
(00:44):
They might not be motivated tostretch themselves and to really
outperform because all thecomforts are provided in a
psychologically safe environment.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Welcome to the Inner Game of Change, the podcast
where we explore the unseenforces that shape how we lead,
adapt and thrive in the face ofchange and transformation.
I am your host, ali Juma.
In this episode, I sit downwith Dr Jonathan Thorpe, a
former Navy pilot turnedleadership educator, to unpack
(01:23):
one of the most vitalingredients of effective teams
psychological safety.
From the boardroom to the breakroom, we explore what makes
conversations feel safe, whytrust must precede truth-telling
and how safety andaccountability must work
together not in a position forchange to truly take hold.
(01:45):
Jonathan also shares his sixstep dialogue framework and
reminds us that not allresistance is resistance.
Sometimes it is just peopleneeding time to process.
Whether you lead teams throughchange or support those who do,
this episode will leave you withboth practical tools and a
(02:05):
fresh perspective.
I am grateful to have Jonathanchatting with me today.
Well, jonathan, thank you somuch for joining me in the Inner
Game of Change podcast.
I am eternally grateful foryour time.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Ali, it's my pleasure , Happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Thank you so much, jonathan.
Today we will talk about animportant topic in the workplace
and maybe even outside, butwe're going to focus
predominantly on the workplaceand on psychological safety and
how it's connected to managingchange in the workplace the
impacts, the relations.
But before we start with that,it would be fantastic for you to
(02:47):
introduce yourself to myaudience.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
You may have heard this, jonathan Thorpe, here in
Dallas, texas.
I spent a number of yearsflying airplanes in the Navy and
from that career I got intofinancial services and performed
a second career, learning thatbusiness and learning how to
hopefully change and influencethe minds of people with some
helpful advice.
Following that career, I jumpedinto leadership development and
(03:12):
went back to school and nowteach at a couple of grad
schools, hoping to pass on someof those lessons learned that I
picked up over the last severalyears.
So a little bit of this and alittle bit of that, but here
today to have a greatconversation we do about
psychological safety.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Fantastic Safe conversations in the workplace.
How would you define those?
What is a safe conversation?
Speaker 1 (03:34):
We define safe conversations as an interactive,
two-way dialogue in thepresence of psychological safety
and probably with the absenceof negativity.
So there's a couple of thingsgoing on there.
A safe conversation meanspeople feel comfortable to
express their views, but alsotake the time to listen and
(03:54):
digest and process the views ofthe other person so that once
people have finished theconversation, they can both
honestly say that they felt seenand heard by the other person.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Jonathan, what are the dependencies of having a
safe conversation?
Because they don't happen in avacuum, do they?
Speaker 1 (04:11):
No, absolutely not.
I mean, I think you'd have tosay that there's some
vulnerability and risk there,and a person has to feel
comfortable in sharing what'shonestly on their mind, even if
they know it might not be whatthe other person's anticipating
hearing or even what they wantto hear.
So I think one of thedependencies is certainly an
(04:32):
honesty.
Another is what we talked aboutearlier and that's
psychological safety.
That I can actually risk havinga conversation in this case you
and I and I know that I won'tfeel humiliated or embarrassed.
And so there is some safetythat the outcomes are going to
be somewhat reasonable andsomewhat predictable for me,
(04:53):
that I can have a conversationwith you and not really stumble
out of it, having suffered someirrecoverable damage either to
my reputation, my career or evenmy role at work either to my
reputation, my career or even myrole at work, and I assume
these conversations happenduring a meeting, one-on-ones
gatherings, chats, even in thecafes.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Where does trust sit within that context?
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Well, I think it's at the center of any of those
conversations you mentioned.
You comment about a safeconversation could occur
anywhere.
I think that's absolutely true,certainly in the workplace, at
the water cooler, at aconference table, even over a
Zoom call, but just as easily asafe conversation could happen
in your personal space, at home,with family, with friends in
(05:42):
the commute on the way to work.
And so you talk about wheredoes trust sit?
I think trust is a criticalpart of having a safe
conversation, because you haveto trust that the person will
give me a chance to speak mymind.
I have to trust that the personwill listen to what I have to
say and not race to judgment,that they will actually evaluate
(06:03):
the merits of my argument or mypoint and then just suspend
judgment long enough to say,okay, I might agree with you, I
might not agree with you, butI'm going to go ahead and accept
your viewpoint for you.
I don't have to change it, Idon't have to influence it.
I just want to become aware ofit so I can become generally
more aware of a greater numberof viewpoints.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
What is the consequence, jonathan, some of
us sometimes think right orwrong, think that not engaging
in conversation is probably asafe option, and obviously
that's a reflection of a lack oftrust.
And obviously that's areflection of lack of trust.
(06:46):
But what's the consequence ofnot engaging in any type of
conversation and just keeping itto the dry interaction of I'm
going to do my job and I'm goingto leave work at 5 o'clock or
whatever it is, and then I don'twant to deal with anything else
?
Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Well, I think we're seeing that play out in real
life all over the world rightnow, that exact scenario that
you just painted, which isgrowing levels of disconnection
becoming growing levels ofdisengagement, which becomes
even more lasting, and then itdrives huge turnover and job
change and people not staying ata job because they don't feel
(07:30):
connected or engaged orproductively employed.
And so, to that end, what's therisk?
The risk is is, if you choosenot to engage in any safe
conversation, for example, thenyou'll disconnect from the
moment at hand, and if thathappens in a repeated pattern,
now you start to becomedisengaged.
Where I'm not counted on havingan opinion, I'm not asked for
(07:52):
my input, and before long I'lljust assume that nobody wants my
input.
And so the organization suffersbecause now it has a smaller
supply of opinions and insight.
The individual suffers becausethey don't feel like they're an
active contributor, and so, inboth of those cases, what sounds
like a very simple decisionwell, maybe this one time I'll
(08:13):
keep my mouth shut has become anepidemic, and now workplace
disengagement is a huge problem,and what we'd like to do is
encourage people whether you'rea teammate, team member, member
or supervisor to go ahead andstart sponsoring active
dialogues, to go reaching forpeople that might have
historically said very littleand draw them into the
(08:35):
conversation and let them knowthat today, perhaps going
forward, that I want to rely onyour input, I want to encourage
you to say something and if I'mgood at it, hopefully I can make
the environment safe enoughwhere they feel welcome to do
that.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I like the idea of how you articulated that, that
there is a negative consequenceif there is a short supply of
opinion and input.
Jonathan, I appreciate if youcan go deeper into that.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Yeah, sure, I think this groupthink mentality says
that the first person thatthrows out an idea, that the
only winning opinions then areto second that or to third that
original insight.
And it's become really trickyin the workplace today to
offering up a challengingviewpoint, for whatever reason.
If the environment is not asafe one, then somebody might
(09:28):
feel like I can't disagree withthe boss or I can't disagree
with the first thing that'smentioned, and I think the
safest environments and thestrongest organizational
cultures are the ones thatactively promote a variety of
opinions and that they recognize.
Hey, only through the greatestmixing of ideas and thoughts
will we ever have a chance atrecognizing the best thought,
(09:50):
the best idea.
So I think you want to activelyencourage these organizations
to not just settle on one idea,even if the next three people
say that's a great idea.
Boss, we should do exactly that.
I think you want to encouragesomebody.
Great idea, what other thoughtsdo you have?
Something that doesn't soundthe same thing?
What are you thinking?
And really solicit your team topush themselves and come up
(10:13):
with new ideas and know, ifpsychological safety is present,
that there's not a risk indoing so.
They can actually say somethingthat might be a little
far-fetched or that might seemremote at first, but as you know
, ali, some of these ideas arethe ones that turn the tide of a
technological revolution or anorganizational breakthrough.
(10:36):
It was because one person wascourageous enough to say an
oddball thing that somebody said, hey, wait a second, that might
not be the craziest thing I'veever heard.
That somebody said, hey, wait asecond, that might not be the
craziest thing I've ever heard.
Let's explore that, or let'stake some time and let's have a
group of people go research thatand come back and report to us
if that is in fact a silly ideaor if in fact there's really
(10:56):
something to it.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
The way I look at it, jonathan, and just my opinion,
I always think that engaging inconversations is a decision and
not engaging is a decision too,and one has got the potential of
you know that the organizationand the team and the individuals
will benefit from thoseconversations.
And one is that you're probablydepriving your workplace and
your colleagues and your teamsfrom your ideas.
(11:28):
What do you think of mythinking here?
Speaker 1 (11:33):
I agree 100%.
I think absolutely.
The choice remains with theindividual, and somebody could
choose to say nothing and torefrain from sharing an opinion.
I think that will remain theirchoice.
I think you absolutely do robthe organization of the merits
of another thought, anotheropinion.
That's the only way we canactually hopefully represent a
(11:58):
representative consensus is ifeverybody checks in and gives
their opinion.
But here's something else Evenin a safe conversation, it will
always remain the other person'schoice to participate.
If you and I are having a safeconversation and I invite you to
participate and share yourthoughts with me, you still have
the choice to say no.
That's really all I'm willingto share right now.
But what I love about thatsituation is you had the choice
(12:22):
to tell me no and you also walkaway knowing that I cared enough
to ask.
In a safe conversation, you nowbelieve hey, jonathan was
willing to ask, he wasinterested in my opinion and he
took the time to give me achance to share.
Now, for whatever reason, Iwasn't ready to share today with
him, but at least I know he wasreceptive to my thoughts and
(12:43):
inputs.
And so maybe today you didn'twant to share, you made the
choice of not sharing, but maybetomorrow you might say, huh,
here's a guy that was willing tolisten.
Maybe I'll give him a chance inour next opportunity.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
And Jonathan and I.
Conversations don't need tohappen face-to-face and verbal,
do they?
Speaker 1 (13:05):
No, they don't, and today probably more and more of
them are happening virtually ordigitally.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
You know, for my listeners and anybody interested
in this, sometimes we think,when the description of the word
conversation may mean that Ineed to speak to somebody
face-to-face, they've gotdifferent avenues of having
conversation.
It can be in a chat.
I mean obviously the humantouch to it.
(13:32):
There is no replacement forhaving face-to-face.
But if there are constraints inthere you know distance I don't
feel comfortable talking tosomebody.
You can actually haveconversations different ways.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
You have to be able to reach people in a number of
different ways, and I agree, Idon't think there's any
substitute for a face-to-faceconversation, where not only do
I get all of the verbals and thevariety of tonality and pitch,
volume, pace, all of these richsignals that give me extra
information of being able totalk to you If I'm in your
(14:07):
presence, I also get how you'remanaging space and body language
and gestures, and so therichness of conversation is at
its peak in a face-to-faceexchange.
However, comma, we don't alwayshave that luxury and sometimes,
whether it's a travel constraintor whether it's budgetary
constraints, we might have topull people in virtual
(14:29):
environments, and so today'sleaders and today's employees
have to understand that I haveto be capable in a text
environment.
I have to be capable in a voiceenvironment.
I have to be capable even in anemail environment, one of
perhaps the toughestenvironments.
In a voice environment, I haveto be capable even in an email
environment, one of perhaps thetoughest environments.
As well as being in a voice orface-to-face capability, you
have to have them all.
(14:50):
There's no excuse forcommunicating poorly if the
channel that you're on isn'toptimal.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
You developed a framework for facilitating, or
to facilitate, safeconversations in the workplace.
Do you want to give us anoverview of the framework,
jonathan?
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Sure.
One of the things we'd like tosuggest up front is that the
creation of psychological safetyis paramount, and without a
psychologically safe workenvironment, then no amount of
dialogue or no amount ofstructured conversation will
make any difference.
Because if you put in place themost beautiful, the most
(15:32):
sophisticated combination ofphrases and sentence stems to
build a very complexconversation, if people aren't
going to risk sharing honestthoughts because there's no
psychological safety, then noneof the conversation structure
matters.
And so we believe in a workcontext, the very first thing
you need to do is build andestablish psychological safety,
(15:53):
and we do that with a handful oftools, tools like the skill of
affirmations, the skill of zeronegativity, raising one's
awareness and finally, thestructured dialogue.
All of those skills help usbuild a psychologically safe
work environment.
And now, when I saypsychologically safe, that
doesn't mean it's just a loungewhere people can go and say
(16:14):
anything they want without anykind of responsibility.
Married right up withpsychological safety.
We also suggest some level ofaccountability, so that the
people in a psychologically safeenvironment are still
accountable for the things theysay and for the things that they
do.
Now, once psychological safetyis established, we teach a
(16:35):
universal six-step sequence ofsentence stems that guide people
through a conversation, andthere's a lot of flexibility,
there's elasticity in how thesesix steps are operating.
But these same six steps canapply in positive conversations,
like affirmations andappreciations, but they can also
help people tackle tricky,difficult situations, like
(16:56):
frustrations coworkers arehaving with another or if
there's an unmet need in thatwork relationship, how to tackle
that.
So that's a real basicexplanation of putting in place
a foundation of psychologicalsafety and then teaching a
simple six step process to coverany of a range of conversations
and then teaching a simplesix-step process to cover any of
(17:18):
a range of conversations.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Why do you think you've focused on the word
accountability in there?
Is that because psychologicalsafety can be misunderstood?
Speaker 1 (17:28):
In our experience there have been times when we've
introduced psychological safetyand people in the workplace
will roll their eyes and they'llsay, well, that's not a serious
concept.
This is a work environment andthere are times when we have to
talk tough and tackle some verydifficult challenges.
And if all we're doing isbuilding a psychologically safe
environment, then maybe I won'thave the ability I need as a
manager, supervisor or a leaderto go ahead and have these
(17:51):
difficult conversations.
So what we found was over time.
It's very important that weemphasize that psychological
safety includes accountability.
If you can think of a model inthis way, psychological safety,
if all it is is a safe place,really presents a comfort zone
that employees will never wantto leave.
(18:12):
They might not be motivated tostretch themselves and to really
outperform because all thecomforts are provided in a
psychologically safe environment.
Now, if you draw yourself allthe way over to the other end of
the spectrum let's just saythat there was no safety there
and all you had wasaccountability the other end of
the spectrum In anaccountability-only space, then
(18:32):
you're being driven to produceresults and that risk and
accountability is really all youfeel.
And so that extreme isn't anybetter.
It's just an opposite place.
What we like to promote issomewhere in the middle, with
equal parts of psychologicalsafety and accountability, and
what that allows is learning tooccur where people feel safe
(18:54):
enough to be themselves, to takerisks, to make mistakes, to
admit mistakes and to offer eachother grace because of all
those safeties are in place.
But they also understandaccountability, that they will
be held responsible for theirresults, for their ideas and
their performance.
And so when you mix equal partspsychological safety and
(19:17):
accountability you have awonderful middle zone called the
learning zone, where I thinkmost organizations will benefit.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
And I love that learning zone because that's the
only way for an organizationand a team to grow and
individual as well.
I think a few weeks ago somebodywas asking me about describing
the perfect environment or anideal environment for me to be
the best I can be as anindividual within an
(19:44):
organization and I describedthat in whatever context and
whatever engagement that Ichoose to have with any of my
clients, I would appreciate alevel of a challenge and I
appreciate a level of autonomy.
The challenge will actually helpme push my boundaries and
(20:04):
therefore will expose areas forgrowth and learning, and the
level of autonomy gives me thatcreativity zone where I can
actually make some decisions andfeeling okay that that's going
to be accepted by theorganization.
Obviously, this is all withinthe norms of the accountability.
(20:26):
I'm still an accountableindividual, but that balance
between the two so I furtherexplain that to that individual
is that too much autonomy willlack accountability for me and
also I probably get bored withtoo much autonomy.
Too much challenge willactually push me beyond the
(20:50):
discomfort zone and probablywill push me to the stress zone
where there's not much learninghappening in there.
So a balance between the two isprobably what I prefer that and
maybe ultimately that will giveme the definition of that I am
safe, not as in this danger, butI'm safe to be the best I can
(21:11):
be in that organization.
Critique my thought and mythinking process here.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Yeah, I happen to agree with all of it.
I think there is a healthy mixbetween a safe-only zone and a
stress-only zone, and I lovethat you're willing to
investigate this really powerfulworld called autonomy.
I think everybody wants somemeasure of it.
Certainly, some people are morecomfortable with a lot and
certainly others are morecomfortable with less, but I
(21:40):
think the heart of that ishaving a dialogue with your
supervisor or the person able tomanipulate or tailor your role,
and I think it's importantbeing able to have that
conversation and saying my hopefor level of autonomy is this is
that something we can meet?
You know, it kind of brings upsomething else that we stumble
into, which is this this gapthat exists between most
(22:03):
employees and most supervisors,and the gap is between the
employee's actual performanceand the expectation the
expectation that the supervisorhas of their performance.
So the supervisor has anexpectation of what that person
will do and perform.
Oftentimes, though, thatexpectation is not articulated
to the employee, and so theemployee is doing their best,
(22:27):
hoping to fulfill and satisfythe supervisor, without any
knowledge that the supervisorhas a different expectation for
the performance.
So there's this gap settling upbetween what I think my boss
wants me to do and what my bossactually wants me to do, and so
too many supervisors never spellthis out for the employee, yet
they become increasinglyfrustrated because the employee
(22:47):
is underperforming theirexpectation, and so what we want
to do is promote a safeconversation between supervisor
and employee to lay outeverything that is connected to
that expectation of performanceand give the employee a chance
to talk about things like youmentioned, about autonomy and
initiative and responsibilityand authority and accountability
(23:08):
all these very powerful words.
So you helped me stumble into atopic that I'm fascinated by,
and I hope that more supervisorsare willing to take the risk
and introduce this idea aboutthere being a gap between my
expectations of your performanceand your actual performance,
and putting it on the table andletting the employees you know
(23:30):
articulate what they think theycan deliver and what the
supervisor is actually expectingarticulate what they think they
can deliver and what thesupervisor is actually expecting
.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
You're making me think now that a lack of clarity
from a manager or supervisorabout their expectations can
also contribute to a lack ofpsychological safety in the
workplace.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
It's probably one of the most fundamental causes of
the lack of psychological safety.
It's because we're not havingthis open conversation about
expectations and I've witnessedit my entire adult life about
supervisors being some of themost fantastic people on the
planet, with the best ofintentions, good people, but
never having the courage toactually tell an employee what
(24:12):
they actually expect them toperform.
The supervisor will say tothemselves in their head well, I
hope they get it.
I hope they understand what Ireally looking for is hard work,
initiative, accountability, andyet they don't say anything,
because it could be a difficultconversation if the employee is
a human being and is not wiredto be perfect, and so they don't
feel the psychological safety.
(24:33):
The supervisor doesn't feelsafe that they can actually say
what is my honest expectationfor your performance, and the
employee might not feel thesafety to challenge their
supervisor and say hey, I getthe feeling that I'm frustrating
you, but I don't know why.
I feel like I'm putting in agreat day's work, I'm doing a
lot of wonderful things, but yetI don't receive a lot of praise
(24:53):
from you.
So I'm not an idiot I'm doing alot of wonderful things, but
yet I don't receive a lot ofpraise from you.
So I'm not an idiot.
I'm a smart enough guy torecognize I must be
disappointing you in some way.
Yet we're not talking aboutthis, maybe because we don't
feel psychological safety, maybebecause there is no trust
present, and so it sets up for alot of anxiety, stress, and
that's no way to run a work forand that's no way to run a work,
(25:17):
for who is responsible aboutcreating a safe environment in
the workplace.
In my opinion, it's everybodythat walks the floor.
Every person in theorganization is responsible for
creating psychological safety.
It is experienced individually,but it is absolutely created as
a group.
Now you might argue that theleader is accountable for the
(25:40):
level of psychological safety.
You can make that argument.
But I think everybody has acomponent responsibility to do
their part, to go ahead and saypositive and encourage things to
each other, to limit the amountof negativity, the shame, the
blame, the criticism that welevy on each other.
And so I think everybody bearsa little bit of that
(26:01):
responsibility, if perhaps theleaders bear accountability.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
I love how you put that.
It is individually experiencedand created as a team.
I really like how you put that.
I want to shift gear and I'vegot a couple of questions.
But I want to talk more abouthow having a safe place can be a
good enabler for adoptingchange.
(26:24):
And I've seen it in my practicebecause when there's a change
happening in the workplace, thatis also one of the big moments
where you're going to test ifthere is a psychological safety
in the workplace or not.
Another place is actually tosee how much psychological
safety you've got is duringperformance management times.
(26:45):
You know when there's going tobe performance reviews and all
of these conversations happening.
But since I work in thebusiness of change and
communication, I notice that allthe time.
I think the lack ofpsychological safety contributes
to a high level of resistancefor a change, and there are so
(27:08):
many contributing factors.
You've already touched on a few, including that the management
will not communicate, they willnot enable, they will not create
the environment, they will notgive me, they will not
understand my own individualcircumstances.
It doesn't mean that we don'trun the business, but it does
mean that I got to have to dothe right thing as an
(27:32):
organization.
So then my employee can adoptthis change and they can be
better, the organization can bebetter and the customers can be
better as well.
So where is that?
So where is thatinterconnectedness between
having a fully enabled safeplace from a psychological point
(27:52):
of view and adoption of change?
Speaker 1 (28:00):
You know, one of the things you have to recognize is
that every change initiative isdifferent and some change
initiatives are openly resistedand sometimes change initiatives
are just slowed by friction.
And there's a differencebetween friction and resistance.
Resistance is willfulopposition to a potential fear
of a worse outcome.
Friction might just be somekind of inertial drag.
(28:23):
Inertial drag and the bestdescription of inertial drag is
when a supervisor is briefed ona potential change initiative
and they go through all of theiremotional wranglings to go
ahead and reconcile this newchange.
They understand there'll be alot of work.
They understand there'll be ahuge communication effort to get
people aligned.
(28:43):
They'll understand thatthere'll be a lot of change
emotions I've got to manage.
They reconcile all that andthen they bring that to the team
and they're expecting the teamto say, okay, I was just briefed
on the change, I now need to gotackle that change.
But in fact everybody on thechange now should be due the
same sequence of time to processthrough their emotions.
(29:03):
And yet all too often when theteam reacts very naturally by
saying wow, that's, we're notready for the change, this is a
lot to process, it's it's termedas rejection or even resistance
, when in fact they just haven'thad the time to process the
weight of all the things thatare now going to be expected to
change, alter and rework.
(29:24):
And so I think, with somehealthy level of connectivity,
with safe conversations andpsychological safety present
when change is floated, thesupervisor and the team can have
that open exchange, thedialogue, and the supervisor can
say I've had a few days toprocess this, you guys might
need time to process the change,to come on board to see this.
(29:48):
I think that's part of it.
I think another part of it isis sometimes we see resistance
to change and we, you know,mistake it for a number of other
things, like it is willfuldisobedience or rejection of the
opportunity.
Oftentimes a team environmentmight be just in such a decent
(30:09):
place, a good place, thatthey're afraid of risking great
right.
You know that human beings areloss averse and if I'm faced
with either the hope of gain orthe fear of loss, I'm going to
wait the fear of loss twice asmuch as the hope of gain.
That's just the way human brainis wired.
The default always is that thedefault always is that, and so
(30:31):
sometimes, if I'm actuallyintroducing a change initiative,
I might have to qualify what isthe hope of gain, what is the
fear of loss, properly.
So if somebody says, well, Idon't want to take a risk and
end up in a worse place, maybeI'll just fold my arms and do
nothing, maybe our team willdrag our feet and we'll actually
be late adopters.
And I think the leader'schallenge then has to be well,
(30:55):
hang on.
Maybe folding arms and doingnothing is no longer on the
table, maybe doing nothing is nolonger an option.
Maybe I either accept thechange initiative or we all
prepare ourselves forobsolescence or some other
negative consequence of notparticipating in change.
And so I think those are someof the things that have to be
part of a leader's mindset whenthey introduce a change
(31:18):
initiative.
To say, let's make sure I'mprocessing the signals
accurately.
If I've got change initiativeon the table, I make sure that
it's not friction, that it isresistance, and if it is
resistance, ask the questions tounderstand it.
Because we know people are lossaverse.
We get that.
We have to define what is trulythe worst case scenario.
The worst case might not bedoing nothing.
(31:40):
The worst case scenario mightbe if we don't change in
transition.
Maybe our work organizationfails to exist, we go away.
We don't survive if we don'tchange in transition.
Maybe our work organizationfails to exist, we go away.
We don't survive if we don'tchange.
And maybe sometimes thatconsequence has to be
articulated and discussed.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
And this is why being in a leadership role or a
managerial role is such acomplex business, because
sometimes you create the perfectenvironment and everybody is
happy and then all of a sudden,there is an external factor that
you would need to introduce anew change to the team, and
(32:18):
change is disruptive by its ownnature.
So the way I think about it isthat every time there is a
change, it will create theripple effect inside the team
and it will disrupt theequilibrium of the team,
regardless of what you've done,which means that when you do all
the great work around helpingyour team adopt the change
(32:40):
safely, you still need to thinkthis is a new state of the team
that you need to actually bringback to equilibrium, and this is
why it's really complex, youknow, and not an easy job to be
in a managerial role, but maybesometimes I think that's why
(33:00):
human resources teams exist inthe first place is actually to
help the managers.
But I often see that sometimesthe managers outsource,
unfortunately, those engagementactivities with the employees to
people like the project team orthe HR team or the
(33:21):
communication team.
What's your experience?
Speaker 1 (33:26):
The worst possible thing you could do is outsource
the triage or the management ofdownstream effects of change to
an hr business liaison orsomebody else.
I think the leader has to takea personal responsibility to
lead his team or her teamthrough this place.
So, for example, I've always,you know, leaders and managers
(33:48):
are two separate roles and theycould be the same person, but I
think in every leadershipposition, you need to develop
managerial skills.
In every leadership position,you also need to develop
leadership skills.
Your management skills help youlead through times of stasis in
the status quo when existinggoals, missions and visions meet
(34:10):
the purpose.
So we support what is in placetoday, but we also need to be a
leader and in my opinion, theleaders manage change and guide
organizations through change.
And because change is constant,you will always need these
leadership skills to lead yourteam through change.
The leader must personally leadhis or her people through these
(34:32):
places and not outsource it toHR.
Hr has some fantastic resourcesand they can do a world of good
.
There's no question about that.
But I wouldn't delegate theprickly questions, the touchy
aspects of change and transitionto anyone else, because if my
team doesn't hear it from me,then they no longer trust me to
be straight with them, to behonest with them, and so change
(34:54):
and transition offer a wealth ofopportunities to have some
tricky conversations.
My advice is don't outsource aone of them.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I always think that, jonathan, that and I've coached
lots of managers on change.
In fact, I say to them youshould be more interested in the
change than anybody else,because that's going to impact
how your team is going tofunction and therefore your team
is a reflection of you and yourresponsibility.
But one of the things I also Icoached a manager maybe about a
(35:26):
year ago.
He did not have a goodrelationship with the team and
so I.
The first question was can yousee any upcoming change coming
your way?
And if you're not aware, that'sa problem obviously.
And he found out that there's abig change that's going to
impact his team and I workedwith him to coach him around
(35:48):
that that is a perfectopportunity to build the
relationships with your team,because they are going to see
you at the coalface of thechange and then you're going to
have to promise yourself you'regoing to be with them in the
trenches.
So I used even the change as anenabler for management to
connect with their teams,because that's the only time
(36:11):
they will actually test yourcredibility as a manager and
your real, keen, genuineinterest in their well-being and
their performance.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Great advice.
I mean, they don't hire you forthe sunny days, they hire you
for the stormy days.
And that's exactly what changepresents an opportunity to
steady their nerves and theirfears and to let them know that
the organization has put a lotof time and effort into
constructing this changeinitiative, but also encouraging
them to speak up if theyrecognize something might be
(36:46):
problematic or risky, becausethere is every possibility that
somebody down the line or up thechain failed to see everything
or human beings.
So if a leader is trusted todeliver this news to the team,
then the team members might evenrelay some information that
could save the initiative,something that somebody didn't
forecast or see.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Yeah, what are the measures Jonathan organizations
can adopt to really gauge thepsychological safety in their
workplace?
Speaker 1 (37:19):
Well, it's funny, we actually have a proprietary
metric where we can actuallysurvey a company and find out
the overall level ofconnectivity in an organization,
numerically, quantitatively.
But without access to that toolyou're going to have to
actually ask some veryqualitative questions about how
much participation do I get inany group conversation, how much
(37:43):
resistance do I get for variousprojects?
And you ask, how muchparticipation do I get at group
events?
All these kinds of observationsyou're willing to make to try
to see if people are payingattention and functioning and
engaging in an organization.
I think those are some of thebest ways that you have to gauge
psychological safety.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
Thank you so much.
One of the things that Iusually one of the questions I
usually ask my guests at the endand I'm aware of the time and
I'm thoroughly enjoying thisconversation.
You made me think about acouple of things.
Definitely the difference, andit's a good reminder that
resistance is not friction andwe're just going to have to be
(38:25):
really mindful of that.
And the second one is that itcan be individually experienced
but collectively created.
Are you like those and I'mgrateful that you've sort of
enlightened me on this, or atleast you helped me articulate
those things For us people inthe business of change and
(38:45):
communication, what would beyour advice to us when we go
into a team and we work with theteam on a change initiative?
Speaker 1 (38:57):
One of the first places you can go to for support
in a change initiative is theteam itself, and, before you
launch the initiative, surveytheir appetite for change,
survey their readiness forchange and understand how much
willingness exists before yousay word one.
Oftentimes you'll discover thatyou might have champions on the
team ready to support a new wayof doing business, or even
(39:27):
leaning out or opposed to achange initiative, before you
ask them about how do they seethe environment, how do they see
the organization and if they'reready for change.
People are loss averse, so wehave to work extra hard as
leaders to prepare theorganization for what are the
negative risks, what are theworst-case outcomes, and then
steal them, steady them for analternative, a best case outcome
(39:48):
.
I think that's probably whereI'd start in terms of advice.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Fantastic, and that's really appreciated.
Jonathan, I've already enjoyedthis conversation with you.
How would people connect withyou?
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
The best way to reach us is at quantumconnectionscom
Q-U-A-N-T-U-M connectionscom,and there you can find me in the
About Us section and shoot mean email.
It's easy.
It's jmthorpe atquantumconnectionscom.
I would love to hear from youand I welcome your emails.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
Thank you so much.
We're going to put all theinformation about you, jonathan,
and the podcast information.
I've thoroughly, thoroughlyenjoyed this.
I am grateful for your time.
I hope I can get you back inthe future at some stage and we
talk more about maybe howtechnology, and especially
artificial intelligence maybe,can help us, also can be an
(40:41):
enabler for us to use as a toolto help us create a better place
in the workplace.
But until that time, stay welland stay safe, jonathan.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
My pleasure, ali.
Can I make one add?
I just thought of something hereand I don't mean to interrupt
your recording, but when youasked me about advice, something
escaped my mind.
I think it's super importantand maybe if you're clever with
the audio you can splice it inthere as something I would have
thought about.
But in terms of advice, if I'mtalking to a leader team and I
want to motivate them, I thinkone of the most important pieces
(41:18):
of advice you could givesomebody is to always be
challenging your current levelof self-awareness how much do I
know about myself, how much do Iknow about my team and how
often do I challenge that?
What do I think I know and whatdo I know that I don't know?
And go back and revisit that.
I think too many times leadersbelieve that they have a good
read on themselves or theirpeople and they fail to ask
(41:41):
questions kind of a 360 degreefeedback tool.
So I think, that's something Iwould encourage people to do is
remain mindful of their ownlevel of self-awareness.
And the second thing superimportant in change initiatives
that I failed to mention forgiveme, but it's so important and
that's make sure you're sharingyour own growth journey through
previous change initiatives.
(42:03):
And what I mean by that is whathave I learned personally
through the mistakes I've madein change initiatives, and what
I mean by that is what have Ilearned personally through the
mistakes I've made in changeinitiatives, so that I let
people know I'm not afraid toadmit that we've made mistakes
in the past, and I personallyhave made mistakes in the past,
but here's what I've learnedfrom them and that's what I hope
to share with you that we mightnot be a zero defect.
You know organization.
We don't have to be we're humanbeings, not robots but it is
(42:26):
important to talk about mistakesyou've made so that people
understand that there is somegrace and maybe some safety
present in a very tricky,change-rich environment.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
And that's another way of honoring the past,
jonathan, which is really animportant piece.
Very solid advice.
I love it.
I hope I can get you back inthe future and talk probably
more around technology.
I'm very deep into the rabbithole of artificial intelligence
(42:56):
and so hopefully that will be aninteresting conversation,
jonathan, but until then, staywell and stay safe.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
I look forward to it.
I've enjoyed the time.
Pali, thanks, and have a greatday.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (43:15):
Thank you for listening.
If you found this episodevaluable, remember to subscribe
to stay updated on upcomingepisodes.
Your support is trulyappreciated and, by sharing this
podcast with your colleagues,friends and fellow change
practitioners, it can help mereach even more individuals and
professionals who can benefitfrom these discussions.
(43:36):
Remember, and in my opinion,change is an enduring force and
you will only have a measure ofcertainty and control when you
embrace it.
Until next time, thank you forbeing part of the Inner Game of
Change community.
I am Ali Jammah and this is theInner Game of Change podcast.
Host
Ali Juma
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.