Matthew Mezey's activity
In group: Reimagining Health and Care
-
Matthew Mezey posted an update in the group Reimagining Health and Care 5 years, 3 months ago
Hi all – I just received my copy of a new book about creating Psychological Safety: ‘the fearless organisation – Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth’.
I’ve not read any of it yet – though it does look rather excellent!
One thing I did notice is that it seems to have a lot about how to bring your whole self to work.
She even answers the question: “Help! I’ve started bringing my whole self to work and no one likes me (anymore)!”
Flicking through, I just spotted a somewhat depressing little table on ‘voice vs silence’.
VOICE:
WHO BENEFIT? The organisation and/or its customers
WHEN DOES BENEFIT OCCUR: After some delay
CERTAINTY OF BENEFIT: LowSILENCE:
WHO BENEFITS? Oneself
WHEN DOES BENEFIT OCCUR: Immediately
CERTAINTY OF BENEFIT: HighPut like that, it almost makes me think I should shut up more at work… 😉
Maybe we could get some feedback about the discussion and main themes that emerged on our call on Friday. Its my experince that psychological safety is not necessarily any better and sometimes even worse in some organsiatiosn that are attempting to adopt new ways of working. I think that’s the issue, the focus is on new ways of doing rather than being or relating so we attempt to change the external without considering the internal.
Jane
I am fascinated to hear this about how, even when we try to adopt ‘new ways of working’, the focus can so easily still be dominated by the externally-driven rather than balancing this with the internally co-created. In some ways it doesn’t surprise me, and yet in other ways, this is an early indicator that cultural work is essential in all groups, however they are structured, ‘managed’ – or not.
Thank you for sharing your insight. Food for thought.
PS I have put the March Friday (15th?) call in my diary, but already had commitments in for this Friday – am sorry to miss the conversation. Hope it’s energising! Am also chuffed to have received the invitation re: RSA on 19th March….. 🙂
Jeanne
I think you’re so right Jane – and I’ve certainly experienced self-managed structures where the being and relating aspects hadn’t really changed at all.
I guess we’re too early in all this for good research to emerge showing what happens if your prioritise one domain over another; which orders might work better than others etc, if you can’t do a ‘big bang’…
I remember that the leader of a Holacracy training organisation I once worked for also separately offered a different training, which I think was kind of for all the stuff Holacracy’s self-managed structure leaves out 😉
Never quite got my head around all that…
Jeanne, in my limited experience my guess is that hiking up a habitual medium or low level of Psychological Safety in an organisational culture is probably one of the most difficult things to do. That said, I’m not sure I’ve really seen anyone explicitly even try close-up…
Matt, something the ‘depressing little table’ (!) also highlights for me is that when people are under pressure (which most people are in some way) they are far more to ‘show up’ in self-preservation / survival mode, therefore human instinct is to go for the option which yields highest benefit to self, straight away, with least pain. I have not yet read the book in full. My previous experience of Amy’s work is that it is inspiring and brilliant thinking – and also that it needs a lot of imagination and courage to start putting it into practice individually and collectively. Analysing why what happens is one thing; doing something about it is quite another! But a chance to share lessons and learn together about this is something I am really keen on. 🙂
I think there are some structures and practices we can introdcue that help foster psychological safety. I think its useful to think about how we slice this. I dont think cutting into 3 chunkcs helps- if you cut off self managment to work on and leave the other two you just get a new operating system (if you are lucky), all the usual stuff is still there which also undermines the ability of the team and individuals to operate sucessfully at self-managment. ifyou don’t “big bang” but follow the eneregy you can slcie in a different way. The areas you focus on can work on all 3 breakthroughs which is more likely to be sucessful I think. The challenge then is how to manage the boundaires with the other areas of the organsiation.
I certainly agree that there are plenty of structures that might help foster Psychological Safety. Much of what I’ve done in my work for the Q Community could be seen in this light, I now realise (eg around Randomised Coffee Trials, SIGs, Communities of Practice, check-ins, Liberating Structures).
As I mentioned before, I’ve seen self-management put in place, but with the same weak level of psychological safety. Not a great approach really…
Have I understood the approach you find works best: follow the energy to whatever particular area of the organisation it leads to, then focus on that specific area – but bringing all 3 of Laloux’s key shifts to bear on it at once?
I suppose that we all perhaps find bringing our whole self, or finding a shared evolutionary purpose, far less straightforward than ‘just’ adding a new self-managed structure.
Maybe self-management can sometimes be a ‘Technical’ fix, whilst whole self and purpose are ‘Adaptive’ transformations? (Complicated vs complex?)
Yes thats right, all three in th same area and the structures you have been using @matthewmezey can build a great foundation, setting the scene. You are right, the self-managment can be a transactional change and I think is often appelaing because of this. I have met and worked with others who believe that wholeness and evolutionary purpose are not necessary or can be watered down to be less challaneging to tradtional tastes. The self-managment aspects then also struggle after a while or become a pastiche with the most meaningful elements removed tradtional management being reintrodcued but under new job titles or using ifferent language.
Are there well-trodden paths to achieving the other two, or are they rather more unique to each organisation, and the people?
Clearly there is no ‘Holacracy Constitution’ for wholeness… 😉
But maybe something like the ‘Map of Meaning’ is proving to be good for working with evolutionary purpose?
I guess I should go and dig into the Reinventing Organisations wiki: http://reinventingorganizationswiki.com/Main_Page
Or maybe there’s good stuff here: https://hackmd.io/s/Skh_dXNbE