Dissent and psychological safety: Testing some theories with Tim Bowers

Recently, I had a conversation with Tim Bowers, Project Director at Galliford Try, on the topic of “psychological safety” in the context of challenging environments, whether in a company or a project.

There were some ideas I wanted to run by him because he’s at the sharp end of complex project outcomes.

I put it to him that delivering complex outcomes requires collaboration, and that collaboration needs creative dissent.

He was drawn to the word, “dissent”.

“I see this as useful challenge,” he said, “however this needs to be constructive, hence the use of the word ‘creative’.”

He went on: “Challenge without support equals stress and this is something to be avoided. True challenge helps ensure the outcome is the right one. The team needs to be agile enough to align with new ways of thinking; no one idea is utopic and, likewise, [team members need to] accept the rebuttal of challenge if the challenge doesn’t hold any gravitas.”

I liked that: “accept the rebuttal of challenge”. To me it means having the maturity to accept that you lost the argument.

Then I suggested that the leader’s role is to increase “intellectual friction” in the organisation, while at the same time decreasing “social friction”.

Tim agreed: “I see intellectual friction being the challenge of ideas, the test to ensure the output is on purpose and will deliver. Social friction is unnecessary hassle, office politics and gaming each other. Decreasing it is bringing people together, strengthening relationships, so the team has the maturity to accept challenge to maximise results.”

I then suggested that “psychological safety” is the oil that lubricates collaboration, because diversity is a fact, but inclusion is a choice.

He wasn’t sure what I meant, so I said that diversity is a fact because we are all different. Inclusion, meanwhile, is a choice, because we choose to include or exclude others and their contributions.

I then relayed what I understood to be the four stages of increasing psychological safety*:

1. Inclusion safety: You feel accepted;
2. Learner safety: It’s safe to ask questions, and make mistakes;
3. Contributor safety: You feel safe to contribute as a full member of the team;
4. Challenger safety: You feel safe to challenge the status quo without fear of retribution.

Tim accepted this. “The higher the level of psychological safety, the higher the team performance,” he said. “Having an environment where everyone is valued, every idea or challenge is considered can only deliver the very best of results.”

I wondered aloud then whether the good leader’s response to dissent should not be to quash it, but rather to assign somebody to do it. For example, set up a “tiger team” whose role is to challenge, identify weaknesses and gaps, and expose bad ideas and ineffective practices.

“I’m conflicted,” he said. “Should ‘tiger teams’ challenge just for the sake of it, or only if they believe they have a better way of seeing the whole? I can imagine this being quite emotive for the team if they are challenging just for the sake of it, however, how do we test the solution is robust without challenge?”

* Based on selected excerpts from Michelle McQuaid Podcast 168 in conversation with Dr Timothy R Clark.