psychological safety

Political Statements Undermine Psychological Safety

/in , , , /by

CEOs, wanting to appear decisive, damage psychological safety by speaking too quickly.

Shut your mouth if you want people to speak their minds. CEOs, wanting to appear decisive, damage psychological safety by speaking too quickly.

Why It Matters

People must believe they’ll be heard and treated respectfully before they disagree with you or a colleague, offer fresh ideas, or try new things.

Stating your preferences upfront chills conversation and invites band wagoning. People will keep ideas to themselves — why waste energy when the boss has already voted?

Making statements on contentious social or political issues tells people who believe differently that their views are not welcome.

React quickly to stop bullies from badgering or intimidating others into silence.

By the Numbers

Companies with high psychological safety experience:

  • 27% lower turnover
  • 76% higher engagement
  • 50% more productivity

Your employees experience:

  • 74% less stress
  • 67% willingness to try new things
  • 29% more life satisfaction

Take these steps:

  • Let others offer their views and ideas before you weigh in.
  • Use RAVEN when someone disagrees with you or offers fresh ideas.
  • Enforce mutual respect. Don’t let the self-righteous create a hostile work environment.
  • Don’t comment on political and social issues or make people display symbols. Do reinforce your values.

Suppose mutual respect is a core value, for example. In that case, emphasize that the freedom to disagree agreeably is central to your company’s ability to report bad news quickly, explore fresh ideas and innovate.

Going Deeper into psychological safety

We’re in a workplace crisis. 40% of Americans report that their job harms their mental health. Psychological safety gets dangerously low when people worry that anything they say or write puts them at risk of being scolded. Workplace fear heightens anxiety.

Universities have significant problems. At MIT, for example, over 40 percent of the faculty report self-censoring more today than in 2020. Large publishers increasingly reject books that might stir controversy, fearing another American Dirt fallout. 

CEOs often feel pressure from employees and customers to take a stand on divisive issues. Major League Baseball moved the All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver over concerns that Georgia’s new voting law would suppress Black voters. Disney waded into Florida politics over the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill. CEOs from several companies spoke out against the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade.

Principled arguments exist on most issues, and CEOs have found themselves looking foolish or retracting statements as more facts emerge. Taking one side alienates employees and customers who see the issue from another perspective. You can reaffirm your values and commitment to mutual respect without getting burned on the hot buttons.

P.S. My psychological safety article was so popular that Dr. Mark Goulston and I created the Net Psychological Safety Score so you can assess your organization.

fire employees

Attract Great Talent – Learn how to Fire Employees

/in , /by

The people you fire become ambassadors or detractors, and everyone in your organization is watching.

The economy is heading toward recession, and companies participating in the post-COVID hiring frenzy are laying people off. Ferocious firing has replaced quiet quitting.

How to fire employees well

You will also fire employees, whether by economic necessity or common sense, and you should put the same care into letting people go as you do in bringing them on board.

Doing it wrong is a smell that keeps on stinking.

  • You come across as incompetent
  • Your employees focus on their exit strategy instead of their jobs
  • You get a reputation as a jerk and your company as a bad workplace

Doing it right boosts your credibility.

  • People feel valued as you give them an off-ramp
  • Your most productive employees stay engaged
  • People you let go will want to rejoin your company
  • Good reputation spreads

Going Deeper

Every good company has an onboarding process. Do you have a dignified off-ramp?

Recession is coming; not inevitable, but likely, and layoffs are stacking up. Finding a new job takes most people 3.5 to 6 months.

Tech companies are firing people poorly. Google reportedly fired 12,000 by midnight email, even as CEO Sundar Pichai doesn’t cut his compensation. Netflix let go of hundreds and yet wants to hire a $385,000 flight attendant for the bigwig’s private jet.

Apple has avoided the Google, Netflix, and Meta mess thanks to slower hiring and leaner perks.

HBR has good advice for CEOs.

Only a third of the workforce is engaged, while the percentage of actively disengaged increased to 18% in 2022. One out of every five employees is both unproductive and spreading dissent. By firing well, you are doing the latter a favor by allowing them to find a better fit.

Hiring slowly means you’ll make fewer errors and find that you don’t need as many on the payroll. You can do without a significant percentage of the fifty percent who report being unengaged.

invest time

Aaron Rodgers Shows That Leaders Need to Invest Time in New Subordinates

/in , , , , /by

The best leaders invest time

The best leaders that I have studied create implicit understanding with their new subordinates.

Relying on implicit understanding can damage your organization. Leaders need to take the time to invest in their new subordinates.

It’s as if they can read each other’s minds, anticipate their responses, and be on the same page in the most fluid situations. Implicit understanding powers your organization through volatility and uncertainty.

What happens when people who share implicit understanding split up and new people arrive? 

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers is one of the best to have ever played the position. I started being a Packers fan when he got the starting job, and I have loved watching him perform and elevate the team’s performance as a leader. For the past few years, Rodgers and Pro Bowl receiver Davante Adams had a unique chemistry that comes from an intuitive understanding of how each other thinks and reacts to situations.

There’s an excellent chance that you have a similar relationship with some of your subordinates, which creates a sense of flow whenever you are together. You know that you can rely on these subordinates to be at the critical points, respond appropriately to challenges, seize opportunities, and bounce forward from setbacks.

Rodgers lost Davante Adams and a few other receivers before the 2022-23 season and gained a crop of talented replacements. As usual, Rodgers did not attend much training camp before the season began. He knows the offense cold.

The result of not investing time

Missing training camp deprived Rodgers and his new receiving corps of the opportunity to build trust and chemistry before the season began. The offense was out of sync as the Packers lost eight of their first twelve games before winning four straight and heading into the final game with a playoff berth on the line.

Rodgers and the offense were off all game, and the Packers lost. Setbacks happen in professional sports, business, and life. While it’s easy to spend time dissecting the reasons for the poor performance in the final game, I go back to the pre-season’s lost opportunity. Had Rodgers invested time as a leader in his new receivers, the Packers would have won a few more of their first twelve games and been a lock for the playoffs.

Why it matters

Intuitively believing that your new subordinates “get it” and get you as well as their predecessors is a standard error for even the most experienced leaders. Confederate general Robert E. Lee made the same mistake with a new corps commander, which cost him at Gettysburg. I remember being frustrated with a new subordinate until I looked in the mirror and recognized that I had not invested as much time building the new relationship as I had with his predecessor.


Performance usually drops when a dynamic leader-subordinate duo splits up because the leader presumes the implicit understanding transfers seamlessly. Disappointment always follows.

You cannot transfer, teach, or scale intuitive relationships and processes. As a leader, you must make expectations as explicit as possible by using commonly understood visuals, terms, and behaviors. By doing so requires you to invest time in developing your relationships and being prepared to shift your behavior to bring out the best in your new subordinates.

Explicit communication is the foundation for implicit understanding.





psychological safety

How the Best Leaders create Psychological Safety

/in , , /by

The best leaders create an environment in which people feel the confidence to speak their minds about problems and issues.

People don’t speak up about problems unless they feel safe doing so, and inadequate psychological safety has led to airline crashes, massive business calamities, surgical errors, military defeats, and at least one naked emperor.

The best leaders create an environment in which people feel the confidence to speak their minds about problems and issues. Toyota was famous for encouraging employees to stop the production line when they believed something was going wrong. After taking over as Ford’s CEO, Alan Mullaly noticed that every stoplight briefing chart was green even though the company had a series of production disasters. His subordinates were afraid to tell the truth, and it cost millions.

Psychological safety is not as easy as telling people to let it rip. Bullies speak their minds to intimidate others or shut down debate. They might call it radical candor or another euphemism, but they create a toxic environment that discourages other points of view.

People who believe they can speak their minds without retribution but are certain their views fall on deaf ears will soon decide not to waste their energy and breath.

The best leaders I’ve studied employ a common approach to psychological safety

I just finished reading, And There Was Light: Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle, Jon Meacham’s recent biography of the 16th President. Lincoln surrounded himself with people who saw the world differently than he did and encouraged them to convey their ideas and perspectives.

Meacham’s telling of Lincoln’s meetings with Black leaders, political allies, and opponents about Emancipation and ending slavery is a study in psychological safety. Lincoln encouraged people to share their views, demanded mutual respect during debates, and showed that he took new ideas seriously.

General Dwight Eisenhower used the same approach. He cultivated cognitive and experiential diversity and used clarifying questions to encourage people to speak their minds. He fired staff officers (primarily American) who could not work with allies and carefully considered opposing views and new ideas. Success at Normandy and in Western Europe followed.

He also had his share of hiccups giving Montgomery the green light for the overly-optimistic Operation Market Garden and accepting groupthink from his intelligence chiefs who missed the Nazi build-up before the Battle of the Bulge.  

Psychological safety does not ensure perfection, nor does it mean the leader always makes the right decision among competing options. However, it gives you the best chance to prevent problems, encourage innovation, and shape the future.

Dr. Mark Goulston and I created the Net Psychological Safety Score so you can assess your organization. Contact Chris at chris@strategicleadersacademy.com if you want to use the assessment for your organization.





Southwest and China show the Consequences of Poor Investment

/in , , /by
Southwest China

Southwest reportedly uses 1990s technology to manage its crews, ground support, and aircraft.

Whereas other airlines used profits and COVID subsidies to invest in better infrastructure and workforce improvements, Southwest, which used to be known for its employee-friendly and customer-centric culture, shelled out dividends to investors.

When last week’s predictable winter storm hit, Southwest was alone among other airlines in its inability to adapt. Employee shortages impeded ground operations as people called in sick or refused demands to work overtime. Some of those who came to work suffered frostbite, which shows inexcusable leadership deficiencies. Poor communications infrastructure undermined Southwest’s ability to know where its crews and planes were and how to get them to the right places. The airline canceled flights a week later; thousands were stranded or separated from their bags.

China, meanwhile, lifted its draconian zero-COVID policy with little warning or preparation, exposing millions to death from the virus.  

China’s vaccines do not work as well as western ones, but chest-thumping nationalism was more critical to the Chinese Community Party than protecting their people. Zero-COVID also meant that few people built natural immunity from exposure; the virus could be as deadly in China as earlier and more lethal versions were in the west. Mr. Xi was asleep at the switch on the healthcare system, preferring to invest billions in threatening Taiwan and others instead of building hospitals and facilities needed for post-zero-COVID.

Southwest will take a massive hit to its bottom line and reputation. The Biden administration looks keen to sanction the company, too. I’ll be choosing United more often now because I don’t trust Southwest until they enact meaningful reforms.

The likely death toll in China will damage its international reputation and may inspire more public protests like the ones that brought about the end of zero-COVID. Mr. Xi used the pandemic to create the world’s most sophisticated police state, so brutal crackdowns are likely if protests threaten the regime’s stability. Mr. Xi and his cronies have only themselves to blame.

Southwest and China show that preventive action, like investing in your people and infrastructure, is always cheaper than corrective action.

What strategic investments are you making in yourself and your people?