Black History Month (BHM) is a time to recognize the trailblazing contributions the Black community has made in the U.S. It’s also a necessary time to reflect on our history, progress made, and the important steps we must take to help create a m…
64% climb this month has analysts warning that it’s a poor hedge against a fall in stock prices
But some say this moment in the sun is more hype than substance
The union increases the combined workforce of the digital ad players to 140, with offices in eight cities across North America
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault pledges not to back down if Facebook shuts off news as it did in Australia
The novelty of Zoom meetings framed by our quarantine bookcases in the background has long since passed. Many homebound individuals are feeling the effects of long-term pandemic isolation. Working from home, while in some cases found to make employees …
The signs and symptoms of burnout were already showing themselves on a daily basis by the time Paula Davis identified their cause.
It was 2009, and Davis was working as part of the in-house legal team for a large firm. After having panic attacks on a near daily basis for a year, and ending up in the emergency room twice, she decided to quit her job. “I didn’t understand at all what it was or what caused it,” she says.
Since then, Davis has dedicated herself to studying the signs and symptoms of burnout and teaching others how to avoid suffering the same fate, founding the Stress and Resilience Institute and authoring a book called Beating Burnout at Work. She believes there is a strong correlation between “psychological safety” and burnout prevention.
Psychological safety, a concept pioneered in the 1960s and then largely abandoned until the late 1990s, refers to an environment or relationship in which members aren’t afraid to speak up, be themselves, admit to their mistakes, or offer honest feedback.
“I used to leave ‘Paula’ in the car when I was a lawyer, and showed up as I thought a lawyer should be; I left my kindness and my zest and enthusiasm behind,” Davis says. “When we have to stop being who we are or change who we are or adapt to who we think we need to be—because we are looking to fit in—it shows we don’t feel like we belong, and it’s enormously wearing. It’s really exhausting to not be our whole selves.”
That exhaustion might only show itself in subtle ways at first, Davis says, but it compounds over time, and can eventually develop into larger problems, such as burnout. Davis adds that the biggest misconception about burnout is that the cause and solution are internal, and that it’s up to the individual to monitor, prevent, and work through independently.
“It’s become a self-help-ified individual problem, when in reality it’s more of a complex workplace-leader-team-culture issue,” she says. “That’s the lens that we need to start looking at it with, instead of thinking we can yoga our way out of it.”
Our Growing Understanding of Psychological Safety
Amy Edmondson, the Harvard Business School professor of leadership and management who is widely credited for the term’s renaissance in recent years, says our understanding of psychological safety has grown immensely in a relatively short period.
“There’s been more and more research put out there from different kinds of workplaces that show a relationship between psychological safety and other things like learning, or reporting mistakes, or innovation,” Edmondson says. “There is research that suggests it’s not about the challenge or the stress of your job that predicts burnout or leaving, it’s the absence of someone to talk to about the challenge or the stress.”
The other big change she’s observed in recent years is the growing understanding of psychological safety’s connection to diversity and inclusion. “Now that we have an even greater mandate to worry about diversity and inclusion in the workplace, a connection between that goal and a psychologically safe workplace has become an area for people to think about and study and work on,” she says.
A 2015 report coauthored by Edmondson, for example, suggests psychological safety can be an “antidote” for creating a workplace that benefits from a diversity of backgrounds, thoughts, and experiences.
Fostering a Psychologically Safe Work Environment
As our understanding of psychological safety grows so does our understanding of how it’s developed, nurtured, and scaled in the workplace.
“In particular, people in positions of power or supervision can and do create more psychological safety when they ask more questions, listen to the answers, and when they acknowledge their own shortcomings,” Edmondson says. “By shortcomings I don’t mean terrible failings, I mean saying ‘I’m not an expert on that; I’ll rely on your input there,’ or ‘I might have missed something; I’d like to hear from you.’”
Edmondson explains that these often-subtle invitations for candor and honesty breed a culture where employees feel comfortable bringing forward ideas, admitting to their mistakes, and providing honest feedback without fear of repercussion.
“Ordinary statements of opportunity for others to contribute makes a big difference; asking good questions makes a big difference; having a productive response to someone suggesting a crazy idea or admitting to a mistake makes a big difference,” she says. “These are micro-interpersonal interactions that by and large invite and don’t punish candor when it comes along.”
Psychological safety often also requires a degree of emotional intelligence on the part of the leader. Key attributes of emotional intelligence—including courage, curiosity, and self-awareness—are all important prerequisites, explains Laura Delizonna, a Stanford University instructor, speaker, author, and executive coach who specializes in helping teams foster psychological safety.
“Psychological safety is generally built in the gray zones,” she says. “It’s built in the moments where you mess up and you have to clean up your mess, in how you own that behavior, and in how you speak to your missteps. ”
Practices that Promote Psychological Safety
Delizonna explains that psychological safety can be built upon or broken down in just about any workplace interaction, but there are some specific policies and practices that can help foster a more psychologically safe working environment.
For example, she recommends hosting regularly scheduled town hall meetings where any member of the organization can pose any question or idea to upper management. Delizonna emphasizes that just hosting the meeting isn’t enough, adding that leaders need to demonstrate how they’re taking ideas, complaints, and suggestions seriously in order to encourage others to speak freely.
She also recommends instituting regular office hours, during which any member of the organization can book a few minutes of one-on-one time with senior leadership, and creating an anonymous suggestion box.
“Conduct pulse surveys asking questions on a frequent basis about aspects of psychological safety, like Do you feel like you can bring your ideas forward? Do you feel like you’re being heard? Do you feel safe bringing feedback to your boss or manager?” she says. “Getting frequent feedback can really increase the self-awareness of the leader and illuminate when and how psychological safety is being built, and when it’s being broken.”
Delizonna adds that psychological safety isn’t about being nice or polite, which is a common misunderstanding, but about being honest, transparent, and authentic. That mindset also extends to conflicts and difficult conversations, even terminations; it’s not about being kind, but about being constructive.
“Positive conflict is what differentiates a psychologically safe environment from a nice environment,” she says. “Some of the nicest environments are the least psychologically safe, but when you can engage in positive conflict and constructive feedback with care and candor—when people can say hard truths to each other—that’s when you really know you have a psychologically safe environment.”
We are facing a gender equality crisis. The numbers have made for a steady string of headlines recently: We hit a 33-year low in women’s labor participation in January, and nearly 3 million women have dropped out of the workforce compared to a y…
I was working hard at the office and home before I delivered my second child in January 1983. Too hard.
Keen to spend extra time with my family, I sought a four-day schedule following my maternity leave from the Washington bureau of The Wall Street Journal. A reduced workweek is highly unusual, I noted in my proposal. But by satisfying an important personal need, the arrangement “would permit me to channel even higher energy levels into my Journal assignments.”
Management rejected my request. Luckily, I finally got my wish in fall 1983, after Norm Pearlstine became the Journal’s managing editor and Al Hunt its Washington bureau chief. Both bosses greatly valued working women. Hunt and his wife, Judy Woodruff, a White House correspondent for NBC News, had a toddler son.
Pearlstine gave me Fridays off without cutting my pay or benefits because I was one of the Journal’s most seasoned female reporters. He also said I could work normal hours for the rest of the week and keep covering my beat, which was organized labor. Pearlstine and Hunt believed I would be just as productive on a four-day schedule. “An incredible deal,” I exulted in my diary that day. Abra was 8 months old, and Dan had recently turned 4. My Fridays at home turned into such a precious time for our kids and me that Abra nicknamed them “Mommy Day.”
But I chose to conceal my incredible deal from my Washington, D.C., coworkers. Like many baby-boom generation moms, I kept quiet to protect my reputation for being laser-focused on my career. The other employees in the Journal bureau remained clueless about my special arrangement until a local journalism review broke the news a few years later with an article about me and other star journalists. The revelation of my four-day week bothered some men in the bureau. “If I get pregnant, can I take Fridays off, too?” one male reporter needled me.
Career gains with reduced hours
My reduced hours at the Journal didn’t reduce my output. The quality and quantity of my Washington stories stayed excellent, according to my supervisor. I stopped working a four-day week once the Journal elevated me to news editor of its London bureau in 1987. But Abra was unhappy that I no longer stayed home every Friday. “What happened to the Mommy Days that were school days?” she implored, tugging at my heartstrings.
Like me, several other boomer “power moms initially found themselves rebuffed over their efforts to work less and parent more. They’re exemplified by Nina McIntyre, who is chief marketing officer of ETQ, a software technology company. The tech industry veteran delivered her eldest daughter in 1988, when she was a senior product manager for a division of Eastman Kodak Company. Kodak had introduced photography to the masses at the dawn of the 20th century.
McIntyre asked for a four-day schedule once her three-month maternity leave ended. “A weekday at home was really precious and worth finding a way to make happen,” she said. The new mom figured that her boss, the unit’s new vice president of marketing, would let her take Fridays off because she was a working mother, too.
McIntyre figured wrong. The older woman reacted to the four-day proposal by describing how she had worked and attended Harvard Business School full time after giving birth years earlier.
“She then smiled and said, ‘No, you may not go part time,’” according to McIntyre. “She just didn’t believe in part time . . . because she didn’t need it. So why would anyone else?”
The first-time mother resigned weeks later, wooed away by a part-time arrangement at Lotus Development Corporation, a software maker. Her hiring manager was a former Kodak colleague who matched her full-time pay of about $40,000 for a three-day schedule at Lotus.
McIntyre expected that her career advancement would pause while she worked fewer hours. Instead, her work received recognition. Her outstanding performance during three years of shortened schedules opened doors to higher-level spots with regular hours.
She was the full-time supervisor of 17 staffers when her younger daughter arrived in 1994. Upon McIntyre’s return from that maternity leave, Lotus elevated her to general manager. She assumed command of a software development team for the first time, overseeing 83 people.
“I was surprised to be given such a big job,” she remarked. Other employers noticed her progress. Invention Machine Corporation, a small software provider, recruited her to be its chief operating officer in 1997. She helped the business raise $10 million before moving on. She held marketing management posts at seven more companies—interspersed with part-time consulting gigs—before ETQ hired her in 2018.
“Very few of the companies I have worked in over the last 20 years make it easy for managers to work part time,” she said. Nevertheless, she advises younger women to imitate her example of intermittent part-time employment.
Joann S. Lublin was the management news editor for The Wall Street Journal, working with reporters in the U.S. and abroad, until she retired in April 2018. She remains a regular Journal contributor.
This excerpt is adapted from Lublin’s Power Moms: How Executive Mothers Navigate Work and Life published on February 16 by Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.
