What makes great teams great? Most of us would instinctively think of competence. High-performing teams are highly competent; therefore, the most important condition for it must be to have highly skilled team members.
Others would say a results-oriented team leader. Clearly, a team that consistently outperforms others should have a leader that has superior execution skills? Well, not quite.
Recent academic research, along with data from Google’s Project Aristotle, it’s psychological safety.
P.S. Learn how to unlock your team’s fullest potential with SSA Academy’s WSQ course on facilitating effective work teams at supervisory level!
According to the Harvard Business Review (HBR), psychological safety is the belief that you won’t be punished when you make a mistake.
One of the most significant findings of Project Oxygen (Google’s other successful research project) was that people don’t want to come to work feeling as though they have to put on a different face.
In other words, the ideal working environment was one where they felt like they could be their full selves, trust their colleagues, and show vulnerability without being penalised for it.
When people feel safe enough at work, they:
Essentially, teams that are abundantly rich with psychological safety can communicate much more effectively than those that aren’t.
Since team members feel so safe around one another, they’re much more adept at giving, receiving, and asking for feedback. Additionally, because no one feels a distressing need to protect themselves from looking ignorant or incompetent to others, people are more willing to participate fully in discussions without holding back.
They’re not worried about whether the new idea they just thought of before the meeting is going to make them look stupid and incompetent. Neither do they hesitate to ask “obvious” questions or provide input that runs contrary to the team’s general consensus.
Psychologically safe teams:
They also tend to look at failures as an opportunity to learn and move forward together as a team instead of as an indicator of incompetence.