Case Study
Fostering Psychological Safety
Introduction
Psychological safety refers to an environment where individuals feel safe expressing their
opinions and raising their voice against wrongdoing without fear. This type of environment
allows people to perform to the best of their abilities and provides opportunities for personal
and professional growth. In Uli's management style, the elements necessary to foster
psychological safety are notably lacking (Edmondson, 2004; Nembhard & Edmondson,
2006).
This paper examines the behaviours that reflect and signal the lack of psychological safety in
Uli's team, the importance of psychological safety, and how Lencioni’s model from The Five
Dysfunctions of a Team can be applied to improve the situation.
1. Behaviors Reflecting Psychological Safety
Uli lacks the major factors required to foster psychological safety; however, he is given the
responsibility to work on large-scale projects. This factor puts him at the top of the list among
colleagues and gives him a certain level of hold over the projects. Apart from that, the
experienced team member referred to in the case could feel psychologically safe among the
other teammates as they found the idea strong, well-researched, and worth exploring. This
acknowledgment by teammates can provide a certain sense of validation (Edmondson, 2004).
2. Behaviours Signalling Lack of Psychological Safety
Uli exhibits an increasing intolerance for mistakes and ideas, as evidenced by his denial of an
idea from an experienced team member. He publicly trounced the idea and spoke badly about
the person. Such feedback hinders experimentation and innovation; people will not be
encouraged to try out new ideas and take risks, and their learning will be impacted, ultimately
holding back improvement and growth (Edmondson, 1999). Resistance to ideas from Uli
signals that management is unsupportive and narrow-minded. This approach prevents further
exploration and development of ideas, even when there is potential for improvement
(Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009).
3. Importance of Psychological Safety
A psychologically safe environment enables teams to put forward their ideas, gain
management's support, and confidently work on project execution. This environment fosters
employee engagement, team collaboration, and enhanced commitment as employees feel
valued and respected. Employees are more likely to stay in the organization long-term and
perform better (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). When team members feel safe, they are more
likely to share ideas and contribute fairly to projects, as they do not fear punishment for their
experiments and innovations (Detert & Burris, 2007).
4. Applying Lencioni’s Model from The Five Dysfunctions of a Team
Lencioni’s model identifies five dysfunctions that can hinder team performance. Let's look at
them one by one:
i)
Absence of Trust
Uli's behavior of publicly criticizing an idea sets in fear among the team, and they will not be
likely to share ideas even if they feel the idea is good. Trust takes time to build and a moment
to shatter; this is what happened in this case. The team may not trust Uli going forward.
Speaking negatively behind their back undermines trust and creates an environment of fear
and suspicion, causing the manager and team members to lose trust among themselves
(Lencioni, 2002). To build trust, Uli should encourage open communication, create an
environment where team members feel safe sharing ideas, ask for feedback, and seek
necessary support (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
ii)
Fear of Conflict
Conflicts can be both positive and negative for the organization. Healthy conflicts can be
helpful for growth and innovation, whereas negative conflicts can hinder them. Uli's
intolerance for new ideas can lead to conflict, which the teammates don't want to experience.
Uli should encourage healthy debates and discussions on the ideas presented by the
teammates. He should be available to give constructive feedback and support the ideas
whenever needed (Jehn, 1995).
iii)
Lack of Commitment
The commitment of all team members to their work is necessary; without it, the project might
not get completed as expected. Management must create an environment where the team can
work with dedication and full commitment. Uli must bring some changes to enhance the
team's commitment. He should set goals and stand by the team to achieve them. He should
also recognize and praise each team member's efforts that made it possible to get there
(Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004).
iv)
Avoidance of Accountability
Being accountable means taking responsibility for your actions and behavior. While working
in a team, accountability may become complex if there isn't a delegation of tasks and duties.
If there is a lack of accountability among the team, then performance will be affected,
ultimately leading to not meeting the expected results. To address this, Uli should clearly
delegate tasks so that team members can be held accountable for their part of the project and
will not blame each other (Lencioni, 2002).
v)
Inattention to Results
Inattention to results means a lack of focus on outcomes and success. Uli's rejection of the
idea shows he is not focused on the collective achievement of the team. To improve attention,
Uli should align his goals with the team's goals and regularly assess progress towards
achieving them. He should also celebrate the small victories made towards the goal; this will
ensure the team is working in the right direction (Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012).
vi)
Applying Theory
Continuing to focus on and apply theory about teams supports these claims and demonstrates
an understanding of teamwork theory. Using theories like Lencioni’s model helps identify
areas of improvement and provides actionable steps to foster a more effective and
psychologically safe team environment (Understand team effectiveness, n.d.).
References
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviors in the workplace: The role of
high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 26(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.932
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really
open? Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for
research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.87.4.611
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens.
In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches
(pp. 239-272). Russell Sage Foundation.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an
interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
1(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A
conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991
Understand team effectiveness. (n.d.). re: Work. Retrieved from
https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/steps/introduction/
Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New directions
for teams’ research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 301-315.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1774