Source: Inc.com |
Derrick Bransby, Michaela Kerrissey, and Amy Edmondson have published some fascinating new research on psychological safety in the Harvard Business Review. They found an alarming trend regarding new hires and their willingness to speak up. They write, "We studied more than 10,000 employees in a large organization and discovered that new hires’ psychological safety eroded swiftly. On average, newcomers joined the organization with higher psychological safety relative to their more tenured colleagues, then lost it and waited years to reach levels comparable to when they arrived." Their findings proved consistent across various demographic groups.
As I read the article, I thought about why new hires might experience a significant drop in psychological safety soon after joining an organization. One can imagine that new hires might think that leaders welcome pushback and are open to new ideas. After all, they probably heard a good deal of positive talk during the hiring process about how leaders expect them to contribute during meetings and to bring fresh ideas. New hires might learn quickly, however, that some leaders react poorly to dissenting perspectives or the sharing of bad news. In some cases, experienced leaders might not recognize how their reactions to new perspectives have discouraged new hires.
Three other explanations might exist for this drop in psychological safety though, and it may not involve dysfunctional behavior by team leaders. First, new hires might not be particularly adept at speaking up. Perhaps they try to share a concern about a proposed course of action, or express a dissenting opinion, during some early meetings. If they struggle to present their ideas, they might find that others do not seem receptive. New hires could conclude that people don't want them to speak up, when in fact, others simply didn't find the arguments well-crafted and persuasive. Or, others may feel that the pushback was not presented in a constructive fashion. The remedy for this problem is some effective coaching and development for new hires, so that they can become more effective at presenting their ideas.
Second, psychological safety may decrease for new hires as a result of their socialization into the organization. New hires may hear from peers that they should "keep their heads down" and "not rock the boat." Sometimes, peers are sharing accurate appraisals of the culture, and specifically, of the low level of psychological safety on that particular team. However, at times, peers may be overly negative. Take, for instance, a situation in which the leaders themselves are relatively new. Long-tenured employees may be accustomed to prior leadership that led in a top-down fashion and did not welcome dissenting views. These experienced team members may not yet have adjusted to new leadership and may not trust that the new leaders genuinely want to hear dissent. Peers also might be wary of newcomers who question existing practices and challenge the conventional wisdom. They might even feel threatened. As a result, they may discourage new hires from speaking up.
Third, new hires may come to the organization with a "grass is always greener" mentality. Perhaps they concluded during the hiring process that this organization is clearly superior to their old company. When their highly optimistic expectations prove not to be accurate, they may become discouraged. Perhaps the new team does have higher psychological safety than their old team, but the failure to meet lofty expectations may be troublesome. It's certainly true that it can be very challenging to assess psychological safety during an interview process.
No comments:
Post a Comment