Leaders face a historically challenging time. Pandemics, constant competition for talent, the so-called 'great resignation’, increased digitalization, you name it. At the same time, getting companionship from your employees and motivating them is more important than ever. How do you, as a manager, do that at this time?

‍

According to an article from Børsen, 9 out of 10 Danish managers answer that they try to cope with this through trust-based management. Psychological safety is also a concept that we increasingly see emerging as essential to succeed as a team. According to an article by Accenture, psychological safety at work is associated with 50% more productivity, 57% greater probability of collaboration, and 74% less stress. This makes me wonder; is psychological safety really what is needed to succeed in this time, rather than trust? And what exactly is the difference between the two?

‍

In this blog post, I will try to explain what psychological safety is and why vulnerability based trust is a key term in the matter. I will zoom in on a case from Danske Bank to finally give you 3 essential tools to succeed in your organization or team through psychological safety.

‍

What is psychological safety?

Before I give you some more concrete steps on how to increase psychological safety in your team, it is essential to understand what psychological safety is and why it is important.

‍

With a quick google search for “psychological safety”, you will find the following definition from Center for Creative Leadership: “Psychological safety is the belief that you won't be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.”

While this is a great definition, it lacks some nuances to what psychological safety is, which is why we will now unfold the term “psychological safety” a little further, starting with a perspective from the Danish best-selling author on leadership, Christian Ørsted.

‍

According to Ørsted, most Danish managers assume that the informal and non-hierarchical Danish management leads to greater openness and honesty in our organizations than in other cultures and that psychological safety is thus already present and not something we need to spend time working on.

The problem here, according to Ørsted, is that most managers confuse psychological safety with friendly, appreciative, and trust-based leadership. Furthermore, Ørsted points out that when you as a manager show trust in your employees, it does not mean that there is psychological safety in your team.

What is the difference, then, between trust and psychological safety?

Writer and speaker within business management, Patrick Lencioni, points out that some equate psychological safety with trust. The difference is that a distinction is made between two forms of trust that leaders can develop with teams, respectively predictive trust and vulnerability based trust. The former concerns the trust that my employees or colleagues carry out their work tasks and keep what they promise. Whereas the latter is about the ability to speak openly and honestly and express one's opinion. Vulnerability based trust can thus be equated with psychological safety. Lencioni points out that it is this kind of trust that is important when working with teams (Lencioni, 2015).

When Christian Ørsted claims that you do not necessarily have psychological safety in your team just because you, as a manager, show trust in your employees, it can therefore be assumed that he is referring to predictive trust. It may therefore be worthwhile as a manager to ask yourself which of the two forms of trust is dominant in your team, if any.

‍

‍

‍