Navigating the Shifting Sands: Psychological Safety, Failure, and the Efficacy of Team Coaching
Article by Vlad Duțescu - EMCC România President
The conventional paradigm of learning – the sequential acquisition of knowledge followed by its application – is increasingly inadequate within the context of rapid and pervasive change. Reg Revans’s dictum starkly articulates this inadequacy, L>=EC (Learning must equal or exceed environmental change), which underscores the imperative for adaptive learning in the face of dynamic environmental shifts (Revans, 1982). A critical question thus emerges: How can organizations cultivate psychologically safe environments that foster learning and adaptation amidst conditions of continuous upheaval?
The issue of psychological safety in a volatile and evolving landscape presents a complex challenge. While the concept is recognized as crucial for individual and team performance (Edmondson, 1999), its consistent attainment remains an elusive goal. Scholarly discourse highlights the organizational shift from hierarchical structures to flexible, team-based configurations (Lawler, 1986) as a necessary adaptation to a globalized and technologically driven world. The emergence of frameworks like VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) and more recent iterations such as BANI (brittle, anxious, nonlinear, incomprehensible) (Casio, 2020) and TUNA (turbulent, uncertain, nonlinear, ambiguous) (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014) acknowledge the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the current environment.
However, the metaphor of the harbor serves as a useful heuristic; a vessel perpetually anchored in safety will never engage with the vastness of the sea. Therefore, the salient question remains: how can organizations navigate the turbulent waters of change while simultaneously maintaining a sense of psychological security?
Photo: Timon Studler
Dr. Timothy R. Clark's (2020) Four Stages of Psychological Safety Framework provides a potential point of departure. While the model possesses a linear structure and lacks extensive empirical validation, it introduces the critical dimensions of Respect and Permission as essential prerequisites for psychological safety. Furthermore, Clark (2020) delineates five distinct levels of safety: Exclusion, Inclusion Safety, Learner Safety, Contributor Safety, and Challenger Safety. It is noteworthy that individuals can simultaneously occupy different levels of perceived safety depending on the specific contextual factors at play that do not make the model less useful. It makes us think of psychological safety as the melting clock from Salvator Dali's famous artwork “The Persistence of Memory”.
A focus on psychological safety alone, however, is insufficient. Amy Edmondson’s (2011) Spectrum of Reasons for Failure, detailed in The Science of Failing Well, offers a framework for understanding the nuanced nature of failure and its capacity for generating learning. This model, in conjunction with the concept of comfort zones, raises the crucial concern that an overemphasis on psychological safety might become a crutch, inhibiting individuals from venturing beyond their established comfort zones to achieve higher levels of performance.
Moreover, a compelling interrelation exists between psychological safety, ethical awareness, and the consequences of failure. Peter Hawkins (2017), in addressing the increasing prevalence of mental distress despite material advancements, identifies psychological overload, environmental degradation, fragmented social structures, and anthropocentric tendencies as significant contributing factors. Consequently, the question arises: how can organizations foster psychological safety in diverse teams while navigating varying ethical paradigms and hierarchical structures?
Photo: Paolo Bendandi
Based on personal experience as a team coach, while psychological safety serves as a foundational element, its presence is often inferred rather than directly measured. Teams that exhibit high levels of engagement, initiative, learning, challenging inquiry, and a willingness to acknowledge mistakes typically possess a considerable degree of psychological safety. Nonetheless, accurately perceiving these dynamics necessitates a sophisticated understanding of team dynamics and a nuanced approach to observation.
Edmondson’s model, which integrates both psychological safety and performance standards (Edmondson, 2011), provides a valuable perspective. However, is psychological safety alone sufficient to enable high performance? Or, is a co-created, shared accountability approach, facilitated by team coaching, necessary to cultivate both psychological safety and high-performance standards?
Tammy Turner’s framework (Turner, 2022) shifts the focus from psychological safety to psychological contracts. These contracts, operating within the team, the broader organization, and between the coach and team members, provide an avenue for transparent communication and conflict resolution. This approach promotes an "Adult to Adult" dynamic characterized by reciprocity, choice, feedforward mechanisms, and shared responsibility.
While no contractual agreement can capture the inherent complexities of human interaction, this framework emphasizes the importance of identifying behaviors that impede communication and generate unproductive conflict, while also recognizing those that facilitate agreement, nurture positive relationships, and foster constructive conflict that supports learning and growth.
Photo: Emily Liang
Finally, other models like "Theory U" (Scharmer, 2009), the "Trust Equation" (Maister et al., 2001), Peter Hawkins' "Mistrust Quotient", and the "Flow" model (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) suggest that genuine progress requires more than just psychological safety. It ultimately necessitates elements such as intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and trust in others. Team coaching, with its explicit emphasis on cultivating these qualities, holds promise in unlocking true potential within individuals and teams.
In conclusion, psychological safety serves as a critical foundation for learning, development, and enhanced performance. However, it is not a singular, panacean solution. By integrating various conceptual models, embracing the dynamics of failure, and fostering a culture of shared accountability and mutual trust, organizations can create environments where individuals and teams can thrive in a continuously changing world. The challenge lies not simply in creating safety, but in establishing the conditions that enable bold exploration, calculated risk-taking, and continuous learning, while acknowledging that this journey necessarily involves navigating the inevitable oscillations of success and failure.
References
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92(1/2), 27-28.
Casio, W. (2020). Human Resource Management: Managing a sustainable future. McGraw Hill
Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 stages of psychological safety: Defining the path to inclusion and innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2011). The science of failing well. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Hawkins, P. (2017). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective transformational leadership. Kogan Page Publishers.
Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. Jossey-Bass.
Maister, D. H., Green, C. H., & Galford, R. M. (2001). The trusted advisor. Free Press.
Revans, R. (1982). The origin and growth of action learning. Chartwell Bratt.
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Turner, T. (2022) Team coaching - beyond the individual: creating team development through psychological contract. The Coaching Psychologist, 18(1), 79-91
Vlad Dutescu, Scholar in Residence at Renewal Foundation, Bath - UK, July 2024, spend six weeks working and dialoguing with Peter Hawkins, exploring the following inputs:
The ethical guidelines and codes of the major coaching bodies
The main literature on coaching ethics, team coaching ethics, and organizational transformation ethics, including published case studies.
Both of their wide experience as practitioners of team coaching, systemic team coaching and systemic team of teams coaching, organizational transformation, as well as from their many years of supervising practitioners in all these fields.
The case material emerging from the research for this book on coaching the team of teams.
