If we rely on reports of workplace process hindrances to enable us to focus resources to resolve obstacles effectively, we're dependent on unbiased reporting. That is, we hope that the stream of reports allows the recipients of those reports to develop an accurate representation of the threat landscape. Unbiased reporting is important because biased reporting can cause the report recipients to allocate resources sub-optimally, which leads to unnecessary costs and delays.
One source of bias in reporting hindrances is inadequate psychological safety. The dual of psychological safety, fear/anxiety, causes reporters to bias their reports — a phenomenon we might call fear/anxiety bias. For example:
Consider a project team that will imminently encounter an obstacle to progress. DeveloperOne, who is now working on implementing the project, is aware of the soon-to-be-very-serious problem, but she has elected not to report her concerns to management. This particular obstacle is one that reveals errors in an assumption that underlies the fundamental concept of the approach that was chosen for proceeding with the project. Call that approach ApproachAlpha.
The people who participated in development of ApproachAlpha include DeveloperOne. Another important contributor was ManagerTwo, who also happens to be the supervisor of DeveloperOne and several other project team members.
ManagerTwo had been a strong advocate for ApproachAlpha, while DeveloperOne harbored serious doubts about its wisdom. DeveloperOne did express those doubts, though perhaps not as strongly as she could have. Because she had recognized that ManagerTwo was inclined to favor ApproachAlpha, she felt it safest and wisest not to critique ApproachAlpha too strongly. She registered her objections, and then went along with ManagerTwo when he adopted ApproachAlpha.
We might call this scenario the "Too Mild Objection." It's an example of the effects of Fear/Anxiety Bias, and it follows the path that connects inadequate psychological safety to organizational failure. It's a path we know too well.
But there are other paths, less well known, that are just as dangerous. They're the topic of next week's post. Meanwhile, this post provides a brief review of psychological safety, which is useful for understanding these other patterns that people use to manage the risk of speaking the truth.
A brief review of psychological safety at work
A sense Although feeling psychologically safe
is essentially an individual state,
Fear/Anxiety Bias, as a phenomenon,
emerges at the group levelof psychological safety at work is the belief that the workplace is safe for interpersonal risk taking. [Edmondson 2014] [Frazier 2017] Psychological safety is the perception that the consequences of taking interpersonal risks are acceptable or even welcome. Feeling psychologically safe is essential to learning, because learning entails voluntarily accepting the consequences of potential failure. Edmondson and Lei provide a persuasive summary of the research connecting psychological safety with organizational performance. [Edmondson 2014]
When a sense of psychological safety is absent — when fear and anxiety lead us to feel that we are in a state of psychological risk — we're less likely to engage in behaviors that we feel could lead to unwelcome consequences. We're reluctant to try new things, we don't speak up about issues we recognize as obstacles, and we limit our exposure to risks generally.
Fear/Anxiety Bias is an emergent phenomenon
Although feeling psychologically safe is essentially an individual state, Fear/Anxiety Bias, as a phenomenon, emerges at the group level. That is, when managers arrive at a biased assessment of the state of the organization because of biased reporting due to fear and anxiety, no single individual is the source of the bias. The bias is emergent. Its source is the body of all reporting, rather than any single individual's report (or choice not to report).
For example, in the scenario above, the choice not to report the difficulties encountered in implementing ApproachAlpha is in each case a personal choice. But bias is the result only if all (or most) of the team members elect not to report the problem. Fear and anxiety are personal feelings; but the bias is emergent, emerging from the array of choices the team members make.
Those choices, however, are not made independently. How one team member chooses to mitigate psychological risk affects how others do. For example, if fear and anxiety are deeply rooted in the culture, the familiar adage applies: "Whoever speaks first, speaks last." That is, when one person speaks up, the others remain quiet. The quiet ones rationalize that the report of trouble has been delivered, so there is no need to take on any personal risk. When people know that this pattern is likely in place, no one dares speak first. To the question, then, "Has anyone encountered any hindrances?" the response is stony silence.
In some rare instances, people form a Cabal of Honesty, the members of which all agree to report the truth of the situation. But if management responds by "killing the messengers," one by one, most such cabals collapse quickly. And as long as social memory of the incident persists, future Cabals of Honesty are unlikely to form.
The connection between psychological safety and fear/anxiety bias is inherently difficult to measure. We can explore psychological safety by sampling individuals; to explore fear/anxiety bias we must examine group behavior. Focusing on measuring the bias alone is little help, because measuring the amount of bias would require comparing the biased reporting to some unbiased standard, which, of course, is unavailable.
What we can measure is the incidence of tactics people use to avoid the risks of speaking the truth about hindrances and obstacles. Next time, I provide a short catalog of these tactics. Next in this series Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Obstructionist Tactics: I
- Teams and groups depend for their success on highly effective cooperation between their members. If
even one person is unable or unwilling to cooperate, the team's performance is limited. What tactics
do obstructors use?
- When the Answer Isn't the Point: I
- When we ask each other questions, the answers aren't always what we seek. Sometimes the behavior of
the respondent is what matters. Here are some techniques questioners use when the answer to the question
wasn't the point of asking.
- The Knowledge One-Upmanship Game
- The Knowledge One-Upmanship Game is a pattern of group behavior in the form of a contest to determine
which player knows the most arcane fact. It can seem like innocent fun, but it can disrupt a team's
ability to collaborate.
- The Discontinuity Effect: What and Why
- Counterproductive competition is more likely in group-group interactions than in one-to-one or one-to-group
interactions. Why does counterproductive competition happen?
- Covert Obstruction in Teams: I
- Some organizational initiatives are funded and progressing, despite opposition. They continue to confront
attempts to deprive them of resources or to limit their progress. When team members covertly obstruct
progress, what techniques do they use?
See also Workplace Politics and Conflict Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming March 29: Time Slot Recycling: The Risks
- When we can't begin a meeting because some people haven't arrived, we sometimes cancel the meeting and hold a different one, with the people who are in attendance. It might seem like a good way to avoid wasting time, but there are risks. Available here and by RSS on March 29.
- And on April 5: The Fallacy of Division
- Errors of reasoning are pervasive in everyday thought in most organizations. One of the more common errors is called the Fallacy of Division, in which we assume that attributes of a class apply to all members of that class. It leads to ridiculous results. Available here and by RSS on April 5.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info