• About

Kathy Stoddard Torrey

~ Leadership Coach and Trainer

Kathy Stoddard Torrey

Tag Archives: #ProjectAristotle

Psychological Safety: Open with a CAR

20 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#CAR, #feedbacktool, #Google, #KathySays, #LeadershipRules, #LeadYourselfFirst, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, relationships

I’ve talked with several people over the past few weeks about how to begin the difficult conversations that are the hallmark of psychological safety. Even if the group has norms in place that encourage people to challenge one another and to offer diverse ideas, it can feel intimidating to bring up a subject that is going to create some conflict.

A great way to start is with a CAR; it’s a feedback tool that includes Circumstances, Action, and Result. This format works well because it encourages us to talk about facts. Our discussions stay grounded in objective, observable behaviors.

CAR with outline

We begin by discussing the circumstances surrounding the action we want to talk about. We clearly outline when it happened and what was going on. For example, we might start with, “Yesterday when we were trying to get the order shipped for XYZ.” That tells the person or group what situation you are talking about.

Then we move on to the action or procedure that we want to discuss. We might say, “Fred followed our required procedures to get the order out the door.” It’s important to stick to observable facts and use no colorful adjectives or adverbs like “archaic” or “stupid” when describing the procedure or action – or a person, for that matter!

Then we explain the results of the actions. As much as possible, we want to make these business results – how the actions impacted the organization and group goals. If we continue with our example above, the results might have been that we did not get the shipment out on time because the required procedures include a lot of paperwork and time. We damaged the relationship with the customer, and our reputation for reliability was weakened. All of those results will make it more difficult to keep and gain customers.

After describing the circumstances, action, and result, we can offer an alternate action that would have been more useful. In our example, we might offer ways to streamline the process so that it takes less time. We could also ask for other people’s ideas about how to get orders shipped more efficiently.

It’s important to talk about the positive outcome that would happen with the new actions so that everyone stays focused on a positive business result. In our example, if we improve the shipment paperwork process, we can meet deadlines more easily, get more done faster, and maintain our reputation for reliability.

The beauty of the CAR format is that it helps to keep the conversation grounded in observable facts and desired business results. It keeps a group from blaming each other and going over past events. The focus is on achieving outcomes that help everyone.

Before we begin a discussion using the CAR format, it’s important to set our intention to create a positive, helpful environment for the conversation. Our purpose is to create success for the group and the organization, not to prove anyone wrong. We must maintain a helpful, positive attitude. We do not want to carry an adversarial attitude into the discussion.

The CAR format can be used to give any kind of feedback. In leadership workshops, we practice using it to give positive and developmental feedback to employees. We can use the CAR format to let someone know the specific action that he or she took that helped the team and organization. Remember, we want to create positive relationships and comment on the good things that we see as often as possible.

The CAR format is great for giving positive feedback because it tells the person exactly what they did that was useful and the good effect that it had for the business. Whenever we see someone doing something that we’d like to see them do again, we should give them some positive feedback on it. Appreciation is one of the biggest motivators for people.

Printing the CAR .pdf and using the individual CAR formats to keep track of feedback that we’ve given is an excellent practice. You can download a copy under the “Free Stuff” tab on my website. It’s a good way to collect information that we will need when we give performance reviews. It can be difficult to remember the actions of all of our employees over time.

It’s also a good idea to use the CAR format to keep track of our own actions. Our supervisors might not notice everything that we do. If we take a minute to jot down things we do, both good and not so good, we have specific examples to offer during our performance reviews. We can say, “I think I’ve done this well, and here are some examples.” Be sure to date the CARs. When asked what we need to work on, we will have already identified areas that we want to improve. If by chance our supervisors say that they think we need to improve in a certain area in which we have actually had some success, then we have ready examples of specific circumstances and our actions in those circumstances.

Maintaining a fact-based conversation with a positive attitude supports an environment of psychological safety. The CAR format can keep us on track and give us courage to start difficult conversations.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: Danger of Indifference

13 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

#dangerofindifference, #Google, #KathySays, #LeadershipRules, #LeadYourselfFirst, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, #SlidingDoorMoments, Mindfulness

psych safety danger of indifference 550 px

As I’ve been imagining what a psychologically safe environment looks like, I’ve seen it as animosity- and sarcasm-free. I felt like getting rid of active aggression would solve the problem and make people feel free to share their opinions and take risks. As I’ve watched the world around me, I’ve realized that another huge obstacle to psychological safety is indifference. Mostly, it shows up as not being fully present and attentive during a conversation.

The goal of a great leader is to create positive relationships. We know from Google’s Project Aristotle that exceptional teams have psychological safety, which does, in fact, create and foster positive relationships. One of the ways to create positivity in a relationship is to pay attention to the other person and actively listen to what he or she has to say.

We also know that positive relationships require a positivity interaction ratio of at least 5:1, which means that we must have about five positive interactions for every negative one. In one study, asking a student how homework was going turned out to be a negative interaction. For the purposes of maintaining the positivity ratio, a negative interaction doesn’t have to include animosity or anger; it just won’t be positive.

When we continue to type on the computer while talking to someone, we are having a negative interaction because we are not making the other person feel valued. We are sending the message that what they are saying is not as important as what we are typing. In workshops, I hear complaints over and over about bosses who don’t stop what they are doing to actively listen to what someone is saying.

Each and every interaction builds positivity and, hence, psychological safety, or damages it. Dr. John Gottman, a well-known researcher on successful relationships, calls them “sliding-door moments,” after a Gwyneth Paltrow movie called Sliding Doors. In the movie, Paltrow’s character decides to go home because she isn’t feeling well. We first see her miss a train in the London tube. She goes home and uneventfully climbs into bed. Then the scene replays, and she catches the train. She gets home earlier than she did in the first scenario and catches her boyfriend cheating on her with her best friend.

Gottman contends that we face sliding-door moments all the time in relationships. The dramatic difference in outcomes might not be as immediate as in the movie, but every interaction is a chance to turn towards a person and meet a need for connection. Each interaction is also an opportunity to turn away and ignore an emotional need. In The Science of Trust, Gottman writes:

“Failing to turn toward our partner in any one of these sliding-door moments may not have hugely negative consequences. However, when we add up many such choices to dismiss emotion instead of attuning to it, the result is two different trajectories leading to very different universes.”

If we pay attention to someone’s emotions and need for connection, we help to create psychological safety and a positive relationship. When we ignore or dismiss a person’s bid to connect, we damage the relationship because we damage trust. Each bid is really asking the question, “Can I trust you to respond to me as a person you respect and care about?” Make no mistake, leaders must care about the people who work for and with them.

Lately, what’s brought home the danger of not being fully present for me has been watching parents and children. I’ve noticed a lot of children staring off into space while a parent talks on the phone, reads a book, or plays a game. It breaks my heart. A charming child who makes bids for interaction with an adult is ignored. What conclusions is the child making about the parent? It is an accumulation of moments that leads to a certain outcome, so I’m not saying that we need to focus every moment on our children. However, if we are physically present with a child or adult and pay attention to something besides him or her, we are saying that the person is not as important as what we are doing.

We combat the challenge of indifference by being fully present in each moment when we are with others. We pay attention to them, to what they are saying, to their emotions, to their body language, and to their message. We show them that they are worthy of our time and attention, and in that moment, we are focused on them.

I heard the retired CEO of Campbell Soup Company, Douglas Conant, talk about his book TouchPoints: Creating Powerful Leadership Connections in the Smallest of Moments. He said that he used to view interruptions by his employees as annoying intrusions. He felt like he couldn’t walk down the hall without being pestered to pieces. Then he made a mindset shift and looked at each one of those moments as an opportunity to reinforce company values and provide encouragement. In other words, each interaction was a sliding-door moment, and he got to choose how to act and react. Conant advocates for pausing and being fully present instead of hurriedly brushing the person off.

Seriously, wouldn’t the world be a great place if we inhabited each moment and turned towards the people around us? In her work on increasing positivity, Barbara Fredrickson found that micro-moments of positivity with complete strangers can increase our own feelings of positivity. We get something out of paying attention to others! I’ve had some great and brief conversations while waiting in line at the grocery store when I’ve chosen to look at the people around me instead of at my phone.

Psychological safety, trust, and positivity are things we create one moment at time, but only if we intentionally choose to fully inhabit those moments and give the gift of our time and attention to others when it is asked for.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: You first!

27 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

#LeadershipRules, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, #YouFirst, relationships

psych safety you first 550 px

I’ve noticed a trend as I’ve been talking with people about psychological safety, trust, and Negative Sentiment Override (NSO). Overwhelmingly, the first thing people ask me is “How can I get someone to realize that they are negative?” Hmmm. They don’t realize it, but that’s a loaded question.

First, it’s important to remember that each of us can only change one person, and that is ourselves. We cannot force other people to change their behavior. I mean, let’s think about it. How would any of us react if someone walked up and said that we were negative and needed to change? If you immediately thought, “Oh, I wouldn’t mind. I might be negative sometimes,” you probably aren’t negative. If you immediately thought, “Well, I’m not the one that needs to change here,” chances are pretty good that you are in NSO. At the very least, you are not seeing the other person as someone with needs, dreams, rights, and ideas that are equally important as your own.

We must start with ourselves. The question we need to ask is, “How can I invite the behavior that I want to see in others?” We can’t force another person to behave better, but we can influence others’ behavior by our own.

For example, let’s say that I have a significant other who comes home late all the time, and it really annoys me. I mean, I manage to get home on time! I’ve talked with my significant other about it and told him that it really bugs me when he doesn’t get home when he says he is going to be there. He says that he understands my irritation and will try to do better.

The next day he gets home 10 minutes later than he planned. I am angry, AND I have choices. I could yell and berate him for being 10 minutes late. What behavior am I inviting from him with that action? Am I creating motivation for him to come home on time – or at all? OR I could greet him at the door with a smile and say that I appreciate his effort and that he was only 10 minutes late. What behavior am I inviting from him then?

So before you go all outraged on gender stereotypes here and ask why I, or you, should have to pander to a significant other who is late, let’s look at this from a leadership perspective. As a leader, I want certain behaviors from my employees that will guarantee their success and mine. It’s important that they finish projects on time and work with a professional attitude. If someone is late turning in a project, I have choices.

I could yell, or at the very least make him or her feel really bad about the lateness. What are the effects of that? Am I creating more positivity in our relationship or less? Am I motivating the person to do better? Maybe, in the sense that they don’t ever want to go through the experience of being shamed again, but that’s a negative motivation that usually results in the person looking for another job. Remember that for the most part, people quit their bosses, not their jobs.

So, as the leader, I need to pause and consider the outcome that I want from our conversation. The first thing that an exceptional leader always wants to do is enhance or maintain the relationship. I don’t want to damage the relationship if I can help it.

Does that mean that I just let everyone slide and break the rules? Not at all! However, it does mean that I don’t get to yell, berate, or shame anyone. It means I see everyone as a person with needs, dreams, and obligations equal to my own. This concept is explained with a story in the book Leadership and Self-Deception.

First, I want to get curious and ask what’s going on. (Honestly, if the project is more than a day late, I should have been checking on it already and asking what was going on.) I want to know what caused the lateness, but not from a blaming perspective. I need to know what happened, so I can work with the employee to make sure it doesn’t happen again. I want to ask how I can help in the future and what the employee can do to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

The outcome I want is for the employee not to be late with a project again AND to maintain a positive relationship. If lateness is a chronic problem, we have a coaching issue that we need to focus on, but when someone is trying, it’s a leader’s job to provide support and remove obstacles, not humiliate.

So, the first question to ask ourselves is, “Am I acting in a way that invites others to produce the outcome that I desire?” If you still call that pandering, you are missing the point of great leadership. It’s our job to bring out the best in others, and we don’t do that with anger, shaming, and humiliation. We do it with curiosity, compassion, and respectful enforcement of necessary rules.

The bottom line is that we see people as people and treat them as we would like to be treated if we made a mistake.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: Positive and Negative Sentiment Override

20 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

#Google, #NegativeSentimentOverride, #PositiveSentimentOverride, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, #trust, relationships

psych safety PSO NSO 550 px

The next concept that I want to talk about has a lot to do with trust – and it’s complicated. Ideas and possibilities have been running around in my head all week, and I’ve had several interesting discussions. I find that when my brain is a jumble, it’s best to start with awareness – what do I know for sure? This blog is a definition of Positive Sentiment Override (PSO) and Negative Sentiment Override (NSO).

I first read about the concepts in What Makes Love Last? by John Gottman and Nan Silver. NSO is a real problem in relationships. Gottman and Silver state, “people tend to construe neutral and even positive events as negative.” We cannot achieve psychological safety and trust when we are experiencing NSO.

Research shows that people who suffer from NSO do not recognize 50% of their partners’ positive gestures. That’s huge! If I am in a state of NSO towards you, I completely miss 50% of the nice things that you do!

Robert Weiss defined NSO and PSO in 1980. How have I missed these concepts for so long? Here is a definition of the two states from Gottman’s The Science of Trust:

NSO: The negative sentiments we have about the relationship and our partner override anything positive our partner might do. We are hypervigilant for putdowns. We tend not to notice positive events. We also tend to see neutral, or sometimes even positive, things as negative. WE ARE OVERLY SENSITIVE.

PSO: The positive sentiments we have about the relationship and our partner override negative things our partner might do. We see negativity as evidence that our partner is stressed. We may notice negative events, but we don’t take them very seriously. We tend to distort toward positive and see even negative as neutral. WE ARE NOT OVERLY SENSITIVE AND DO NOT TAKE NEGATIVITY PERSONALLY.

The capitalization is mine.

I want to add a couple of more ideas for us to stir into the mix and consider. Psychologist Fritz Heider discovered that we have a tendency to minimize our own errors and to attribute them to current circumstances. We also emphasize the errors of others and attribute them to negative traits and character flaws. The book Leadership and Self-Deception describes this phenomenon well and is worth a read.

Finally, here is short description of the Overconfidence Effect. It says that the more certain you are of something, the more likely it is that you are wrong. The Overconfidence Effect happens most often when we don’t see all the various perspectives of a situation. It comes from a lack of empathy and an inability to see the big picture.

I included descriptions of Heider’s fundamental attribution errors and the Overconfidence Effect because of several discussions that I’ve had about PSO and NSO. In my workshops and in one-to-one conversations, people often tell me that they know they are right about a person or a situation. They are absolutely convinced about the inherent wrongness and negativity of another person.

For now, let’s step back and take a more neutral view of people we feel animosity towards. The best example I found comes from What Makes Love Last?:

Nathaniel’s wife says, “Oh look. The lightbulb blew out again.” If he’s in the throes of NSO, Nathaniel’s inner dialogue will sound something like: Who died and made me the Official Lightbulb Changer? She can fix it herself! By contrast, if hurt and suspicion are not tainting his thoughts, Nathaniel is likely to assume that his wife’s words meant that, well, the lightbulb blew out.

I love that story! Wouldn’t it be great if we could take everyone’s statements at face value and not add our own emotional agendas to them?

I am going to make an effort to take everyone’s statements to mean, well, exactly whatever they said – and not attach my own emotional charge. That perspective sounds wonderful because it saves me emotional pennies and makes my heart lighter.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: Zero-Sum Game Mindset and Trust

13 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#Google, #LeadershipRules, #LeadYourselfFirst, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, #zerosumgame, relationships

psych safety zero-sum game 550 px

In the analysis of psychological safety, we’ve discussed the importance of creating a foundation of trust, but it was a superficial discussion based on personal experience. I wanted to find some research on trust, and the first person I turn to when I want research-based recommendations is Dr. John Gottman. Gottman is known for his work on marriage and relationship analysis through direct scientific observations.

He offers up a lot of good information on trust, but the first concept that I want to discuss is zero-sum game theory. In game theory, an underlying assumption is that we are all rational and want to maximize our own gains. In a zero-sum game, everyone wants to get the biggest payoff for themselves and also wants their opponents to get as little as possible. In a zero-sum contest, I’m happy if you get nothing!

I have worked with leaders who have a zero-sum game mindset. They want power, money, and promotions. They also don’t want anyone else to get these things. These leaders are nightmares to work with. Sometimes they experience success, but it’s at the expense of their organizations and everyone who works with them.

It’s key to understand that someone who lives in a zero-sum game mindset tries to win while getting you to lose AND believes that you are doing the same thing. This was a bit of a revelation to me. I know people who only look out for themselves, and I accept that about them. I didn’t realize that they believe that I am doing the same. Knowing they expect me to try to take advantage when I can explains a lot of behavior that was a mystery to me before. Of course, this is an accurate description of a negative relationship devoid of trust.

To me, this is an emotionally exhausting scenario. If I am working with someone who is trying to take me down, I am constantly watching my back and documenting every conversation. Neither one of us is focusing on work or organizational goals. We are wasting a lot of time and emotional energy.

In his research, Gottman found that in relationships without trust, partners did not feel joy in each other’s happiness and did not get particularly fussed when the other was upset. As a matter of fact, their emotions were only in sync when they were both in a negative or angry state.

I see professional relationships like this all the time! I am often called in to work with organizations when this scenario of distrust is present because the zero-sum game mindset keeps people from being productive. The team, group, or organization flounders because no one is focusing on organizational goals; they are all focusing on themselves.

Ok, zero-sum gaming is not good and is rife with distrust. Neither person is taking the other’s well-being into consideration. Let’s take a look at what Gottman says a trusting relationship looks like. Here is his definition of trust in What Makes Love Last?:

“Trust is not some vague quality that grows between two people. It is the specific state that exists when you are both willing to change your own behavior to benefit your partner. The more trust that exists in a relationship, the more you look out for each other. You have your beloved’s back, and vice versa. In a trusting relationship you feel pleasure when your partner succeeds and troubled when he or she is upset. You just can’t be happy if achieving your payoffs would hurt your significant other.”

He goes on to say that each partner doesn’t have to put the other’s needs first all the time – that is probably not healthy. However, their happiness is interconnected. Each will change his or her behavior to increase the gains and happiness of the other.

If we look at this from a leadership perspective, we cannot get a person’s best performance when we act from a zero-sum game mindset. To be a successful leader, we must do what we can to improve other people’s happiness and well-being. An exceptional leader helps to create success for the people he or she works with, as well as for the organization. I often use the truism “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” So when an employee or peer is upset, we need to feel some empathy.

In Gottman’s research, he had people watch the video of an argument that they had with their partners. They had a dial in front of them that they used to register the feeling that they had in each moment of the discussion. They turned the dial all the way to the left when they had been experiencing a negative emotion and all the way to the right when they had been feeling a positive emotion.

Gottman categorized the feelings into three boxes: Nasty, Neutral, and Nice. The Nasty box included negative behaviors like anger, criticism, belligerence, bullying, defensiveness, sadness, disappointment, fear, tension, whining, disgust, stonewalling, and contempt. The Nice box included positive emotions and behaviors like interest, amusement, humor, laughter, excitement, joy, validation, and empathy. Any sort of blah reaction in the middle, he put in the Neutral box.

I think the dial and emotion boxes are useful tools for leaders. When an employee is upset, our dial should move to the Negative box to show concern and sadness. We definitely don’t want to move our dial to the Nice box and be gleeful about the employee’s plight. We can check in mentally on where our dial is pointing during conversations to ensure we are acting appropriately.

We can only create positive, trusting relationships if we link our happiness and well-being to the happiness and well-being of others. Our friends, peers, family, and employees must believe that we have their best interests at heart.

Gottman teases out a difference between trust and trustworthiness. He says that trustworthiness indicates a partner’s willingness to sacrifice for the relationship. It means sometimes putting our own needs on the back burner because the partnership matters most.

As leaders, we can’t put the individual needs of everyone in the organization above organizational requirements. Our main goal is the organization’s success. However, that does not mean that we can’t take them into consideration, feel empathy, and make what accommodations that we can.

Gottman goes on to say that it is important to let the other person know that the relationship is unique and irreplaceable. In other words, we want to let the other person know that we value the relationship and that he or she is valuable. How great would the world be if we did that one thing in every relationship that we have?

Research on motivation shows that people respond to appreciation and want to know that what they do makes a difference. When we are trustworthy, we act in a way that increases trust, motivation, commitment, and productivity. We also increase the confidence and well-being of others.

We know from Project Aristotle that the presence of psychological safety helps teams excel. We know that trust and trustworthiness increase a person’s feeling of safety and confidence. We can create success for everyone by avoiding the zero-sum game mindset and truly creating win-win scenarios for everyone, including the organization.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: We Are All Naturally Creative, Resourceful, and Whole

30 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Leadership, Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#creativeresourcefulandwhole, #Google, #LeadershipRules, #LeadYourselfFirst, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, Feelings, relationships

loving kindness cropped 600 px

In the examination of psychological safety, we’ve talked about a need to be trusting and trustworthy. We’ve also discussed the importance of having the courage to let people express their opinions and feelings – standing bravely in the lion’s roar. I’ve discovered another big reason why we have trouble creating psychological safety, and it’s inspired by the best of intentions.

We want to protect other people from disappointment, annoyance, and anger. We want to make their lives smoother and easier. It is definitely a feeling of protection – and it’s not helpful, even though that is our intention.

As I look at my own parenting and the parenting of others, I see a lot of protection going on. We don’t want our children to experience crushing feelings of disappointment or failure. However, we aren’t helping our children or any adult by keeping them from facing and managing unpleasant feelings.

In fact, we are viewing them as too weak to handle a difficult situation. We are telling them that we don’t trust their abilities to overcome a challenge and manage their emotions. It’s a terrible message to send.

We are also robbing them of the opportunity to grow emotionally. Each time we overcome a difficult situation, we get stronger and better at it. When the next challenge comes along, we think, “I totally got through something similar before, so I know that I can do it again.” Facing and overcoming challenges builds resilience and confidence. We don’t want to steal those opportunities from people.

One phrase helps me when faced with the urge to protect someone from difficult feelings. In coaching, we consider people to be naturally creative, resourceful, and whole. We trust that every person can face and manage the experiences in their lives. It is true! We are all naturally creative, resourceful, and whole. It’s important that we trust in the ability of others to weather the storms of life and that we have enough courage to stand beside them in those storms.

I’ve volunteered with the Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC), where a team of facilitators would spend a couple of days educating community leaders on the unique challenges that military kids face. The one concept that struck me was how they explained what a military child, or anyone else, needs in order to overcome huge challenges and disappointments.

MCEC says that the adage “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is not always true. A person can experience overwhelming psychological damage if two things are not present during the struggle. Those two things are hope and support. MCEC doesn’t advocate keeping a child from experiencing grief or change; we can’t anyway. They say we must offer hope and support.

That’s what we can offer others when we see that they are facing a situation that creates strong negative feelings. We shouldn’t try and keep them from experiencing disappointment or anger. We want to offer support and hope for a better future.

Seeing someone as naturally creative, resourceful, and whole is a tremendous gift. We show confidence in their abilities to handle life. When we allow people to feel difficult emotions and overcome difficult situations, we are giving them the opportunity to grow stronger and build confidence. What we can do is stand beside them and offer support and hope. Helping someone build resilience is helping them create success in life.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: My Focus for 2018

02 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

#2018focus, #Google, #LeadershipRules, #powerofgroupnorms, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, relationships

psych safety intro 600 px

At the beginning of each year, I pick one concept or behavior on which to focus. One year I explored and practiced the various pieces and parts of emotional intelligence. Another year I examined compassion and encouragement. This year it is psychological safety. Frankly, as I look back over my life, I have failed at this one in many ways.

I talk about behavior that creates psychological safety in my leadership workshops and writing but have never named it as the reason for the behavior. However, the concept is one that it took Google three years to pin down, so I don’t feel too bad about not seeing it clearly. I am proud that if you take my online class called Boot Camp for New (and Lightly-Trained) Supervisors and do what it says, you create psychological safety for you and your employees without knowing its name.

So, what is psychological safety? Psychological safety exists in a relationship when the people in the relationship feel free to say what’s on their minds or make a mistake. No one fears angry yelling, being made fun of, or people saying mean things behind their backs. There may be consequences for a mistake or an action, but there is no punishment for speaking your mind or taking a risk. The essence of psychological safety for me is the phrase “feels free.”

I first got the name, the handle for this thing, from a friend of mine named George. George is an old PR guy who does an amazing job of keeping up with the current world. He read an article about  Project Aristotle, which is a massive research project done by Google, and insisted that I read it.

Google had studied management and managers and had a list of successful characteristics of leaders, but still there were some teams that outperformed others. Now, everyone at Google is smart and motivated, so you would think that all the teams would do equally well. However, some teams definitely did much better than others, so they decided to figure out why.

It took three years for the research team to figure it out. Their first discovery was that the best teams’ success had something to do with group norms. Then, they worked to determine the exact group norms. In the end, they found that the groups with the highest performance were the ones that had psychological safety.

The leaders of the exceptional groups created an atmosphere of openness and acceptance. The members of the team felt that they could disagree and not be punished for it. An honest disagreement and discussion were acceptable – even encouraged. Taking intelligent risks was also encouraged. The team could try innovative ideas without fear of being belittled or punished.

I see a lack of psychological safety in lots of relationships outside work. I hear people talking all the time about not telling a spouse about a purchase or mistake because they don’t want the hassle of their partner questioning them and making them feel bad. When anyone feels they must hide things or keep secrets for fear of reprisal, there is no psychological safety. I believe most of us feel that way in at least one or two relationships in our lives. The more important the relationship, the more psychological safety is needed.

I, for one, am tired of hiding who I am, what I think, and what I do. This year, I plan to master the communication and leadership skills needed to ensure that I and everyone who I am in a relationship with don’t feel those needs. I think exploring and mastering the creation of psychological safety could be a turning point for me in my life.

I am so grateful to my friend George for insisting that I read the Project Aristotle research. It’s a new lens through which I am choosing to view life. You are welcome to join me – or not. No repercussions here, only psychological safety.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Newer posts →

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 214 other subscribers
  • RSS - Posts

Categories

Archives

  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • February 2014
  • January 2014

Powered by WordPress.com.