Psychological safety has recently become a subject of interest in the Lean community. In her book The Fearless Organization, Professor Amy Edmondson defines psychological safety as: “…the belief that the work environment is safe for interpersonal risk taking. The concept refers to the experience of feeling able to speak up with relevant ideas, questions, or concerns.” The view is that by creating psychological safety for employees, more organizations will create a culture of learning and improvement and therefore successfully undergo a transformation to Lean management. Is this view correct? Is psychological safety needed? Or, is something else needed?
A hallmark of an organization that has transformed from classical management to Lean management is a shift among the executive team from mostly de jure to mostly de facto thinking and decision-making. What do the these Latin terms mean? de jure means the thinking and practices based on rules, customs, habits, sentiments, prejudices, policies, or laws; spiritual, belief-based, magical; and gut instinct — which in business is still highly venerated (see “‘Feel the Force’: Gut Instinct, Not Data, Is the Thing“). de facto means the thinking and practices based on that which exist in reality: facts, cause-and-effect, logical, objective, dispassionate, unbiased; scientific method; the material world. (For further details, see Chapter 3 of The Triumph of Classical Management Over Lean Management, “Metaphysical CEOs and Lean Management”).
Classically managed businesses are managed by leaders in a mostly de jure fashion. You experience this, for example, when you present the facts of a problem to executives, but the decision they make is different or opposite from the facts. Unfortunately, the vast majority of organizations that practice Lean management have not transformed. They remain classically managed businesses at their core. They are Fake Lean, which means that leaders like the tools of continuous improvement, and may demand their use among workers, but they have no interest in “Respect for People.” That means they have no interest in creating psychological safety. Instead, the preferred routines are to hide bad news, blame people for problems arise, and do whatever the boss tells you to do. These routines are more important to senior leaders than learning and improvement among regular employees.
The image below shows the situation. It comes from an earlier blog post titled “Where Scientific Thinking Lives and Dies.” While scientific thinking is applicable to all levels of an organization, it lives only in the lower levels and is largely devoid in the higher levels. That’s because business problems are solved with de jure thinking (e.g. gut instinct) while technical problems are solved with de facto thinking (e.g. the seven QC tools).
Psychological safety is a benefit bestowed by top managers onto workers. Benefits given to workers have costs — perhaps not economic costs, but certainly social, political, and philosophical costs (read The Triumph of Classical Management Over Lean Management to find out why). These are costs that most top leaders are unwilling to bear. Fear is useful to leaders. It quickly conditions employees to fit in, do what the boss says, and adhere to the plan. They must display loyalty and fealty to their superiors and commit themselves to rapid response to problems or unfavorable metrics, such that their correction benefits the leader. It does not matter if the problem is big or small, infrequent or a daily occurrence. What matters is that workers respond quickly and that they effectively ameliorate the problem. And, of course, the only good idea is the boss’s idea — which typically comes long after others have identified the idea.
If de jure thinking and decision-making are minimized, then there is no need for psychological safety because leaders, accustomed to de facto thinking and decision-making, recognize that many problems exist and that they must be understood and corrected without blaming people. de facto leaders understand that the fundamental nature of business and work is problem-solving and learning, and both are cumulative process that result in ever-more effective capabilities over time when employees are allowed to speak up. de jure leaders have no such understanding. Problems are taken as a personal affront to one’s intelligence, capabilities, and credibility, which expose leaders as weak and ineffective, thus causing them social and political harm within the organization, and a loss of honor.
By design, de jure leaders are hopelessly out of step with the times and unable to respond to rapidly changing business conditions because they are so slow to acknowledge the facts. They retain the belief that power and control are more useful, both personally and organizationally, than facts. In my 1998 paper “Lean Behaviors,” I showed how de jure leaders generate mountains of behavioral waste and block the flow of information, to the detriment of stakeholders: employees, suppliers, customers, and investors.
All organizations struggle to transform from classical management to Lean management. Most fail because leaders have a deeply held belief, based on thousands of years of tradition, that it is more important to retain their prerogatives (privileges) than succumb to facts. The facts are dangerous because they render leaders impotent. Nothing could be worse.
Whether intended or not, Lean management has always been presented to leaders in a way that has made them feel stupid. Instead, try presenting Lean as something that will help relieve them of burdens and the out-dated traditions of leadership.
An exchange between Kevin Eakin and I on Linked in:
Professor Bob Emiliani are you saying that a widespread culture of psychological safety is more of an output of lean management than an input? It’s an observed effect in the culture of great companies and then mistaken for a cause? If so, what enables those few brave leaders to move from de jure to de facto thinking? I’m guessing it is a good coach/sensei who respectfully challenges the leader to practice kaizen?
Hi Ken Eakin. Yes, typically more the output because it is not in the interest of classical management leaders to create psychological safety. Yes, I think there is confusion on cause-and-effect. Some leaders just don’t believe/buy-into the idea that de jure is a smart or effective way to run a business — the facts are obscured by de jure thinking and actions. Coach/sensei has only so much influence; the leaders must be receptive.
Professor Bob Emiliani what, then, makes them receptive? Are they born that way or can it be taught? My experience is that leaders who are receptive have a deeply humanistic bent to them, where either they were raised with “respect all people” values (and somehow ended up in management despite this) or they have some sort of mid-life epiphany where they realize that their purpose on this planet is not all about their personal accumulation of money and power.
Great questions Ken Eakin. I’m not convinced it’s a humanistic bent/respect for people thing, born or taught (or combination of the two). That could certainly be the case some of the time. I think more often it is a logic/illogic (de facto/de jure) split that exists as a result of a combination of natural outlook (born) and taught (I’d put more emphasis on taught). Some in-born empathy as well.
In the Lean Six Sigma Green Belt class I am taking, our professor stresses the people portion of the lean mindset. He strongly believes in an environment of learning and continuous improvement all the way from the top to the bottom, which from this article you can tell does not happen everywhere. Some organizations like to preach the lean philosophy for show, but they cannot benefit from lean if the whole organization does not adopt all of the principles including the people. Creating an environment in the workplace where employees feel psychological safety will lead to a culture of continuous improvement, which is a major part of the lean mindset.