Boundary systems for psychological safety.
Breaking the chains of stagnation in innovation, and complacency of the status quo, in an overtly safe environment.
While I had two amazing advisors, the graduate school, postdoc path was incredibly stressful, in my field at least the values seemed clear, the path however was not. Close to the end I contemplated between joining the peace corps or accepting a postdoc. I remember my advisor saying “you have to be nuts to do what we do”.
Maybe it says something about me that I chose the later, I wanted to do something that I felt mattered and I thought only contributing to some earth shattering event, like the overall discovery of new physics at the LHC was the way to go. Well we know how that went (or goes , we all know something is out there it is just less clear where to look )
Those who know me, know my search of meaning, value, and mental health and where it led me. From physics, neuro-biology, to multimodal deep learning models that provide value from medicine to agriculture. It never ended and I don’t think it will, and that is ok with me, regardless, here is another asymptotically divergent thought.
Levers of Control
I enjoyed many things from the strategy course from Robert Simmons at Harvard. One of these things was the levers of control model, the idea there were four main ways (levers) to find a balance between managing and controlling an organization with the idea of using the levers needed to be balanced.
In no particular order, these were:
Diagnostic Control Systems
Traditional feedback systems monitor processes and correct deviations from preset performance standards.
Belief Systems
The shared values, beliefs, and visions within an organization that guide and inspire employees.
Boundary Systems
Rules, procedures, and limits that set the scope for decision-making and acceptable behavior within the organization.
Interactive Control Systems
Systems that allow managers to involve themselves in subordinates’ decisions, stimulating learning and adaptation to emerging opportunities or threats.
Of the four, the boundary system was the one I loved the most as a theoretical physicist. While Boundary Systems may be associated with rules and procedures throughout the course, it was emphasized that focusing on what they can’t do versus what they should do was more effective in making sure innovation and creativity flowed without the fear of potentially crossing an ambiguous ethical line while still creating clear goals to optimize towards.
“No-go theorems remind us that the road to progress in fundamental physics often requires us to challenge our preconceptions, question our assumptions, and be open to radically new ideas.” - Lee Smolin.
In theoretical physics, this concept is similar to the idea of no-go theorems, which are generally used to establish certain limitations or constraints on what is possible in a given physical theory or framework. However, rather than accepting these limitations as insurmountable obstacles, they serve as a springboard, propelling us toward uncharted territories ripe for exploration. These no-go theorems act as guideposts, pointing us toward a starting point for further inquiry, where we daringly embark on a quest to unearth new theories, frameworks, or approaches that boldly transcend these imposed boundaries.
As we traverse these unexplored avenues and unlock novel solutions and theorems, our understanding of the universe undergoes a remarkable metamorphosis, propelled forward by transformative advancements that push the boundaries of human knowledge.
Now let’s combine with another management practice I hold dear.
Boundary Systems for Psychological Safety
I’ve certainly experienced my share of toxic workplaces, from companies to academia labs. Over the last four years, I’ve delved into psychological safety, poring over countless articles, books, and posts. Psychological safety refers to the belief one will not be punished for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. Combining those with the high standards and fast-changing goals necessary to compete in a fast-paced environment requires we use all the levers of control.
Just as imposing excessive processes can undermine an agile team’s adaptability, mis utilizing and implementing psychological safety can have detrimental effects, often leading to stagnation in innovation or complacency with the status quo.
Sometimes it’s a reaction to toxic leaders leaving, causing an over-adjustment, or it simply may stem from individuals eagerly applying theoretical frameworks in practical settings with little experience or misunderstanding a new corporate policy, or even not understanding that there is more to a name, similar to the Agile means fast fallacy. This is where creating clear boundaries helps.
The vital point is understanding what psychological safety isn’t before enforcing it. Recognizing potential problems that could emerge, especially in larger teams, is crucial. I will summarize Timothy R. Clark’s insightful article, which provides insights into this topic [1]. In the article, he places them in these seven categories; let’s summarize them:
A Shield From Accountability
Psychological safety is pivotal in cultivating a nurturing workplace, yet it’s often distorted as a shield against accountability by underperforming employees. This misguided interpretation undermines performance standards and encourages a harmful cycle of shifting non-performers into less crucial roles, diluting the concept’s true purpose. One typical flag is the advocating for self-governance without structure or oversight.
Niceness
Misconceptions equating psychological safety with excessive niceness can foster an artificial harmony, inadvertently promoting indifference towards challenging decisions. Overstressing the need to be nice can obstruct essential intellectual conflict, causing decision-making inertia and hindering innovation and breakthroughs.
Coddling
Misunderstanding psychological safety as an overprotective shield can inadvertently foster dependency and a victim mentality instead of promoting resilience and self-efficacy.
Consensus Decision Making
Contrary to some beliefs, psychological safety doesn’t mean granting everyone equal decision-making authority, but rather, it empowers individuals to express their opinions without fear. It’s vital to distinguish between having a voice and having decision-making power. Notably, it is indispensable for keeping up with rapid change and creating swift organizational changes in large, complex organizations.
Unearned autonomy
While fostering a more comprehensive contribution, psychological safety is often misinterpreted as universal, self-directed empowerment, but it doesn’t automatically grant new levels of autonomy or reduced supervision. The misconception that it allows one to act without discussion or approval essentially becoming one’s boss, is a significant distortion. True autonomy and freedom are attained through demonstrated competence, not an entitlement.
Political Correctness
Psychological safety does not subscribe to any political agenda, person, or organization. It remains an apolitical, non-partisan concept promoting a cultural condition empowering people’s potential.
Rhetorical Reassurance
A common fallacy is believing that psychological safety can be achieved solely through verbal proclamations. Merely stating, “Psychological safety is our priority; please feel free to share your honest opinions,” doesn’t automatically foster a safe environment. Leaders’ credibility is undermined when their actions don’t mirror their proclamations, which include the calls for accountability and not retaliating against those pushing for a shift from the compliancy of the status quo, for these are the catalysts for innovation.
In conclusion, setting clear boundaries is a crucial foundation for fostering a safe environment that fuels innovation and breaks free from the constraints of the status quo. It requires not letting people abuse the idea of psychological safety by inadvertently hiding performance standards or vetoing decisions which should be in the hands of leads/leaders in the field, especially those who are often correct, nor coddling people who want freedom from conflict. It paves the way for transformative advancements by not obstructing the essential intellectual conflict in discord to surface risks while still keeping decision-making speed properly. Thus, unleashing the full potential of our teams and driving disruption forward.
[1] “What Psychological Safety Is Not” Forbes, June 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothyclark/2021/06/21/what-psychological-safety-is-not/?sh=394184a36452