Tag Archives: #psychologicalsafety

Psychological Safety: Fact and Feeling Parts

27 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in #Communication, Feelings, Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

fact and feeling 550 px

It’s important to know that every message has a fact and a feeling part. One must identify both parts in order to deal with a conflict effectively or to communicate clearly.

This is a Kathy Observation, not researched fact, but I’m pretty sure that you cannot create psychological safety and strictly stick to facts all the time. We are humans, and humans have feelings. As leaders, we don’t have the luxury of ignoring them. I learned this lesson late in life, and it would have saved me some time and trouble if I’d known about it sooner.

For 20 years, I led volunteers as an Army spouse. In one group that met monthly, there was one young woman who always sat at my right hand and objected to everything that the group proposed. She objected on a factual level – logistics, budget, convenience. She slowed us down every single month.

If I’d been savvier, I would have figured out that it wasn’t the facts that she objected to. I had a vague notion that she was unhappy or resentful, but I had no idea why. There was a feeling component that I wasn’t dealing with at that time. If I’d asked and listened, I could have saved us a lot of time arguing over facts for no good reason.

Now I pay attention to everyone’s nonverbal communication and ask about any telltale signs of an emotion. People often agree with something or say that everything is fine while their nonverbals say exactly the opposite. Crossed arms, furrowed brows, and a lack of eye contact are all indicators that they don’t agree and everything is not fine. They will carry those unexpressed feelings out the door and stew in them if I don’t bring them out in the open by asking some questions.

It can feel scary to voluntarily dive into the ocean of emotions. The water is murky and deep, and you have no idea of what lurks down there. Take heart! First, leadership requires bravery – so take a deep breath, and go for it! Second, naming an emotion that you see and asking about it can create an uncomfortable situation, but it isn’t fatal. In the workplace, you generally get an explanation for the emotion that makes a lot of sense and gives you new information. The answers can be surprising – something that you wouldn’t have guessed.

We can only create psychological safety if we deal with both the facts and the feelings of individuals. The only way to identify the feeling part of a situation is to ask!

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: Open with a CAR

20 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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 in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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: Negative Sentiment Override as a Way of Life

06 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

psych safety NSO mindset 550 px

I’m still fascinated by Negative Sentiment Override (NSO) and how it affects psychological safety, which influences our lives at home and at work. We’ve talked about what NSO is and that it’s hard to recognize it in ourselves. We’ve also discussed that we can’t force anyone else to stop being negative. The only person that we can change is ourselves.

So far, we’ve talked about one-to-one relationships, which the research on NSO supports. As far as I know, research on NSO has been done with couples in mind. I want to extrapolate the findings to other scenarios and want to be clear that we are now moving into Kathy’s musings and away from proven research.

As I’ve viewed the world lately through the lens of NSO and Positive Sentiment Override (PSO), I’ve noticed that some people seem to be in a state of NSO towards entire groups – not just one individual.

Of course, the most glaring, public example is of conservatives and liberals. I have friends in both categories, and what strikes me is their inability to see any good in what the other group says and does. It feels like a values issue, which means we feel most strongly about it. If we are in NSO, every action is an insult and we are enraged by them. However, if we are in PSO rather than NSO, we recognize neutral and positive actions and comments from the other side.

It’s important to remember that a state of NSO distorts our view of reality. We aren’t seeing things accurately. In a sense, we are demonizing people and groups with our interpretation of their words and actions. Honestly, it takes very little effort to put a negative spin on anything, and in NSO we are making up other people’s motivations. Keep in mind that we don’t know what anyone is really thinking or why they do things unless we ask.

We usually don’t ask because we surround ourselves with people who share our values and think like us. They reinforce our beliefs for us. We also scan the world for things that support our slanted view. We do not register facts that would support an opposing view – either because we don’t get those facts because we insulate ourselves, or we don’t notice. Remember, a partner in NSO misses 50% of the positive gestures of the other person.

Let’s go one step further. I’ve noticed people who have an NSO mindset about everything! I think it’s what I’ve considered a “victim mentality.” In NSO, a person is overly sensitive and hypervigilant for putdowns. I know people who live in that state. They cruise through life determined to be insulted by almost everything. They take the circumstances of life and most interactions with others as personal affronts.

All of this makes me very nervous about the accuracy with which I view people, groups, and the world. What positive things am I missing? What neutral things am I moving to negative? Honestly, it feels a little like an episode of The Twilight Zone.

It makes me wonder, am I in NSO towards any one person, group, or the world? How would I know? If I am in NSO, my view of reality is distorted. I am not seeing 50% of the good things about a person, group, or the world. If all that is true, wouldn’t I feel justified in my animosity and anger towards them?

And bingo! I think we’ve found the first tell. The question to ask is, “Am I angry a lot of the time?” Another good one is, “Do I feel insulted often?” Another good question is, “What am I spending my emotional pennies on?”

On the whole, I don’t live in a state of anger. I don’t feel like a person or group’s actions are a personal affront. There are groups that I don’t agree with because they do not value what I value. Their actions might make me angry, but it isn’t a permanent state. I don’t even hate these people.

And bingo! Here is our second hint about whether or not we are in an NSO state. We could ask, “Do I hate this group, this person, or the world?” It’s important to see other people as people, and not as objects. It’s really hard to hate someone who we view as having thoughts, dreams, and rights equal to our own.

In my experience, most people do what they believe is right based on their own experiences, values, and beliefs. Yes, people caught in NSO who cannot see any part of the other’s perspective are particularly annoying, but we cannot force them to change. We can only invite the behavior we’d like to see by showing them what positive and open-minded look like.

I feel that I could easily slip into an NSO state with a group. When we join a group that is in NSO, everything feels certain and comfortable. We all believe the same things, and there is a strong sense of belonging because it is us against them. It’s comfortable and not confusing at all. Everything is clear because we have taken a reality full of grays and made it black and white.

And bingo! Our third indicator of being in NSO is an absolute feeling of superiority of belief and value over another person or group.

So I feel a little better! I don’t have to sit around wondering if I’m distorting reality and clueless about it. I have questions I can ask myself:

  • Am I angry a lot of the time?
  • Do I feel insulted often?
  • What am I spending my emotional pennies on?
  • Do I hate this group, person, or the world?
  • Do I feel superior to another person or group?
  • Am I completely confident that my way of thinking and believing is the only right way?

Awareness is a first step to wisdom and control. Anyone who knows me knows I like control. Wisdom is something I’m always working on.

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 in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

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 in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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 in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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: Moving Through the Four Stages of Group Development

06 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Leadership, Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Group development 550 px

When leading a group, it’s useful to know the four stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. When a group first comes together, they are in the Forming stage. It’s a very polite stage when people are beginning to get comfortable with each other.

Storming is the next stage, and it can be a little rough, but it’s necessary. When Storming, the group is testing boundaries and figuring out how each person reacts in certain situations. They are also testing the leader’s abilities and authority.

If the group determines that they can trust one another to be professional and reliable, then they will move to Norming. The group is working together effectively and beginning to put group goals and professionalism above personal considerations in the Norming stage.

Ideally, the group ends up in the Performing stage. At this point, they are a well-oiled machine that accomplishes tasks and goals with ease. The Performing stage is comfortable and fun. The only danger is that if change needs to happen, then the group will resist because they like the way things are!

The group doesn’t go through the stages just one time. They start over each time there is a change in personnel or procedure. However, they will usually move quickly back to the stage that they were in before the change.

Most groups face change all the time. As a result, they are constantly experiencing the group development cycle. The important question is “How can a leader help the group move through the stages as quickly and painlessly as possible?” The answer is psychological safety.

The Storming phase is the most painful and crucial of the four stages. During this stage, the group is testing to see how much psychological safety is present. Can they speak their minds without repercussions? Is it OK to state a different perspective? If they take a risk and fail, what is the result?

Leaders can help a group move smoothly through Storming by ensuring the group feels free to disagree with one another and to take reasonable risks. Is that all? How can a leader accomplish that?

People work together in groups better when they establish a clear set of behavioral guidelines. In systems coaching, we call the guidelines a Designed Alliance. It’s an agreement among all group members about how they want to interact and solve problems. A Designed Alliance can help a group consciously create the culture that they want and ensure psychological safety.

Ground rules created by the leader of the group that are then handed down as mandates are not that effective. The group has not explicitly agreed to abide by those rules. Also, it is then the leader’s responsibility to enforce the rules. The group has little buy-in around rules that they didn’t have a part in creating.

It’s more effective for the group to design an alliance together. The group establishes clear guidelines for acceptable behavior and agrees to follow them. The group members also agree to enforce the rules of the Designed Alliance. It’s especially important for the group to determine how it wants to deal with conflict.

They agree with the rules and abide by them because they helped to create them! Remember that if you use a rule like “Be respectful,” you need to clearly define what that means. Ask questions like, “Are we being respectful when we are on time, or do we need a separate rule for that?” The Designed Alliance can grow and change over time as challenges come up. It helps the group interact in a positive way that helps them focus on results. We know from Google’s Project Aristotle that results can be extraordinary if psychological safety is present.

Here are some questions to get the discussion about behavioral guidelines started:

  • What atmosphere or culture do we want to create?
  • What would help the group flourish?
  • How would an ideal team handle conflict?
  • What will we commit to for one another?
  • What do we need to feel free to express our opinions?
  • How are we going to handle taking risks?

If a group does not experience psychological safety in the Storming phase, then they will move back to a super polite Forming stage forever. The group will not become an effective team.

Creating psychological safety and success is ultimately the responsibility of the leader. Group guidelines for behavior are great and usually effective. However, every now and then there is a bully in the group who refuses to play by the group’s rules. It is then up to the leader to call out the behavior. A leader can never stand by and do nothing when a member of the group disrespects another person.

If the behavior persists, it becomes a private coaching topic for the bully. A leader cannot allow the behavior to continue under any circumstance because the effectiveness and success of the team depend on the psychological safety of the individuals who comprise the team.

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 in Leadership, Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

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: Standing in the Lion’s Roar

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

psych safety lion's roar 550 px

After I read everything I could find on Project Aristotle and psychological safety, I brought the subject up with my therapist. I explained the research and the concept, then went on to say that the whole thing depended on trust. In my mind, people are trustworthy if they are reliable, consistent, and kind. I don’t completely trust someone unless I feel that they have my best interests at heart – that they care about me.

Then I played devil’s advocate a bit but was also voicing my own concerns. I asked, “How can a person ever completely trust another human being?” I mean, we are human, and we make mistakes. We don’t follow through, and we let people down. Sometimes we care about ourselves more than others. Every now and then we get upset and yell. Is it even possible to create psychological safety in relationships?

The therapist then answered with a question that I often ask during leadership workshops. I hate it when my stuff comes back at me. He asked, “Kathy, who can you control?”

“Only me,” I replied with a sigh, but then continued, “I know that, but how can I have psychological safety with other people whom I cannot control who will positively, without a doubt, disappoint me at some time?” Before we go on, I want to point out that I know that I am a flawed human being who disappoints others on occasion.

Then he asked me why a disappointment or word not kept or words said in anger had to destroy trust. Hmmm. Interesting question. It felt like the answer had two parts.

First, I could alter my expectations and standards a bit. Instead of demanding perfection and admirable superhuman behavior 100% of the time, I could accept the fact that people (including me) goof up.

Second, I could use some strength of character to endure disappointments, rude tones, and even yelling with more grace. If I know that people are going to lose their tempers and forget to do things, then I can accept those actions in stride.

When someone is upset and venting in a coaching session, we call it standing in the lion’s roar. As coaches, we stand firm, but without judgment or reactive emotion. We don’t take it personally. Can I do that in my personal life when I am not coaching?

Let’s briefly go back to secrets, which are one of the signs that psychological safety does not exist. Why do I want to hide the fact that I am throwing away supplements or not tell anyone when I get turned around while driving somewhere? I don’t want to face questions, anger, or teasing. Why don’t I? I mean it’s not pleasant, but it’s not life-threatening. I can help create psychological safety with a little grit and courage.

In my supplement scenario, my husband would be justified in some annoyance at my buying and not using supplements. Is there any reason not to allow him to express that annoyance? Why shouldn’t I let him tell me his reaction?

It might not be the reaction that I am predicting anyway! He might see the bottles in the trash and say, “That’s too bad that those didn’t work for you the way that you hoped.” In relationships that matter, both at home and at work, we need to allow others to express their feelings. We need to be brave enough to listen.

The first step in creating psychological safety is building some courage and resilience. Teams at work depend on people expressing differing points of view in order to find the best solutions to challenges. The same is true of every relationship.

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.