What is the data telling us about psychological safety?

<p>the latest dataset from Squadify reveals how teams rate psychological safety. Juliet Hammond joins Adn and Pia to go through the numbers and add some context.</p><p><br>Carl Rogers defines psychological safety as an individual feeling unconditional worth. This forms the basis of the movement, continued on by Amy Edmondson who defines it as a shared belief held by team members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. Timothy Clark's model defines four stages of psychological safety: inclusion safety, learner safety, contributor safety, and challenger safety.</p><p><br><strong>Takeaways from Dan and Pia</strong></p><ul> <li>Team leaders should recognise that feeling psychologically safe may be biased towards individuals with high status. It's a common mistake to assume everyone can speak their minds freely.</li> <li>We need to reimagine how to create personal connections within a hybrid environment, both virtually and face-to-face. If we don't, the foundation of psychological safety will be compromised.</li> <li>Challenger safety might be seen as a momentum killer and a pain. However, it's important for leaders to take on challenges. The comfort levels of the team leader themselves play a big role in creating a sense of safety for their teams. And doing so without being controlling can be difficult.</li> </ul><p><strong>Links</strong></p><ul> <li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/juliet-hammond-a5016a20/">Connect with Juliet on LinkedIn</a></li> <li> <a href="https://www.squadify.net/wenotme/episode-3">Psychological safety in teams</a> – We Not Me episode 3 with Dr Jessica Tonissen</li> <li> <a href="https://www.squadify.net/wenotme/episode-41">Building psychological safety: a how-to guide</a> – We Not Me episode 41, with Stephan Wiedner</li> <li><a href="https://podinbox.com/wenotme">Leave us a voice message</a></li> </ul>