So, I promised a thread about my unease with misunderstandings/misinterpretations I notice as the term #psychologicalsafety becomes part of the leadership discourse. Just my own wonderings, as a practitioner immersed in PhD research rn, nothing more or less. Not right or wrong 1/
This thread is not a critique of current research (that might be another one!). It's more about leadership practice implications, & it addresses team PS as the level at which it's understood to be most significant (though more research is now happening at indiv. & org. levels) 2/
The dominant narrative sees leadership as being abt individuals who possess special traits/competencies/behaviours that inspire others to action. It's role-oriented. So we're primed to think about any workplace phenomenon as being under the control of individual leaders 3/
It's not surprising, then, that I see lots of 'leaders' claiming PS as something they give or provide to their teams. Actually PS belongs to the team, a shared belief in which your leader presence is key, but.... 4/
...it's not your special traits that mean you're significant in this. It's about the power you hold over others, the privilege you have & how you handle that. So as a leader you can have an (important) effect on the space in which PS emerges, but that's your limit 5/
In hc QI, my area, there are 2 broad areas of l'ship practice that research suggests help - 1. modelling inclusive behaviours that invite others into the space, welcome their contributions & entertain the possibility that their insights might be more prescient than your own; & 6/
2. maintaining a steely focus on continuous improvement, getting comfortable with the idea that always striving for improvement doesn't mean we're stuffing up rn (a big mindset barrier in NHS imho - heroes etc.) 7/
The way PS has been researched has favoured knowledge which attempts to seek out variables which allow us to predict that if you do A+B you'll get C (hence the above identified factors). So we (may) know about the 'what'. 8/
We know much less about how PS unfolds over time, something which might take us beyond role-driven leadership to leadership-as-practice, happening wherever & however it appears (see Joe Raelin if keen) 9/
All leadership theories are susceptible to reductionism. We need and want to grasp the complexities of human behaviour at work. Me too. But as pracs, we must be mindful of this trap. 10/
So when interpreting the research in your practice, read the small print. PS can't be isolated from all the other, often invisible, stuff. We can't know everything that goes on moment to moment which influences micro decisions about speaking up and out. 11/
PS was originally coined around 60 years ago. The mainstreaming has been much much more recent. We risk losing the nuance in that journey & getting stuck if we don't push the boundaries of our understanding. 12/
PS could be a powerful force to challenge the l'ship-as-characteristics perspective but it risks being swallowed up into it if we don't maintain our skills of critical appraisal and succumb to its undoubtedly seductive appeal. 13/
As pracs, I think we need to lock in the basic premise of PS (that it's a shared belief amongst the team) & ask more of the research community to broaden what we understand of this concept, if our end goal is for more meaningful workplace experience & better patient care. 14/
If you got to the end of this, well done! It churns around my head all the time & I'm sure my thoughts will evolve further. For now, my plea to the l'ship community is to keep curious - that is, after all, what PS is all about. Over and out. 15/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
