The Inner Game of Change
Welcome to The Inner Game of Change podcast, where we dive deep into the complexities of managing organisational change. Tailored for leaders, change practitioners, and anyone driving transformation, our episodes explore key topics like leadership, communication, change capability, and process design. Expert guests share practical strategies and insights to help you navigate and lead successful change initiatives. Listen in to learn fresh ideas and perspectives from a variety of industries, and gain the tools and knowledge you need to lead transformation with confidence. Explore our episodes at www.theinnergameofchange.com.au, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Youtube or anywhere you listen to your podcasts.
The Inner Game of Change
E89 - Building Change Psychological Safety - Podcast with Dr Jonathan Thorp
Welcome to The Inner Game of Change, the podcast where we explore the unseen forces that shape how we lead, adapt, and thrive in the face of change and transformation.
In this episode, I sit down with Dr Jonathan Thorp; a former Navy pilot turned leadership educator—to unpack one of the most vital ingredients of effective teams: psychological safety.
From the boardroom to the break room, we explore what makes conversations feel safe, why trust must precede truth-telling, and how safety and accountability must work together—not in opposition—for change to truly take hold.
Jonathan also shares his six-step dialogue framework and reminds us that not all resistance is resistance—sometimes, it’s just people needing time to process.
Whether you lead teams through change or support those who do, this episode will leave you with both practical tools and fresh perspective.
I am grateful to have Jonathan chating with me today.
Ali Juma
@The Inner Game of Change podcast
Follow me on LinkedIn
In our experience there have been times when we've introduced psychological safety and people in the workplace will roll their eyes and they'll say, well, that's not a serious concept. This is a work environment and there are times when we have to talk tough and tackle some very difficult challenges. And if all we're doing is building a psychologically safe environment, then maybe I won't have the ability I need as a manager, supervisor or a leader to go ahead and have these difficult conversations manager, supervisor or a leader to go ahead and have these difficult conversations. So what we found was, over time, it's very important that we emphasize that psychological safety includes accountability. If you can think of a model in this way, psychological safety if all it is is a safe place really presents a comfort zone that employees will never want to leave. They might not be motivated to stretch themselves and to really outperform because all the comforts are provided in a psychologically safe environment.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the Inner Game of Change, the podcast where we explore the unseen forces that shape how we lead, adapt and thrive in the face of change and transformation. I am your host, ali Juma. In this episode, I sit down with Dr Jonathan Thorpe, a former Navy pilot turned leadership educator, to unpack one of the most vital ingredients of effective teams psychological safety. From the boardroom to the break room, we explore what makes conversations feel safe, why trust must precede truth-telling and how safety and accountability must work together not in a position for change to truly take hold. Jonathan also shares his six step dialogue framework and reminds us that not all resistance is resistance. Sometimes it is just people needing time to process. Whether you lead teams through change or support those who do, this episode will leave you with both practical tools and a fresh perspective. I am grateful to have Jonathan chatting with me today. Well, jonathan, thank you so much for joining me in the Inner Game of Change podcast. I am eternally grateful for your time.
Speaker 1:Ali, it's my pleasure, Happy to be here.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much, jonathan. Today we will talk about an important topic in the workplace and maybe even outside, but we're going to focus predominantly on the workplace and on psychological safety and how it's connected to managing change in the workplace the impacts, the relations. But before we start with that, it would be fantastic for you to introduce yourself to my audience.
Speaker 1:You may have heard this, jonathan Thorpe, here in Dallas, texas. I spent a number of years flying airplanes in the Navy and from that career I got into financial services and performed a second career, learning that business and learning how to hopefully change and influence the minds of people with some helpful advice. Following that career, I jumped into leadership development and went back to school and now teach at a couple of grad schools, hoping to pass on some of those lessons learned that I picked up over the last several years. So a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but here today to have a great conversation we do about psychological safety.
Speaker 2:Fantastic Safe conversations in the workplace. How would you define those? What is a safe conversation?
Speaker 1:We define safe conversations as an interactive, two-way dialogue in the presence of psychological safety and probably with the absence of negativity. So there's a couple of things going on there. A safe conversation means people feel comfortable to express their views, but also take the time to listen and digest and process the views of the other person so that once people have finished the conversation, they can both honestly say that they felt seen and heard by the other person.
Speaker 2:Jonathan, what are the dependencies of having a safe conversation? Because they don't happen in a vacuum, do they?
Speaker 1:No, absolutely not. I mean, I think you'd have to say that there's some vulnerability and risk there, and a person has to feel comfortable in sharing what's honestly on their mind, even if they know it might not be what the other person's anticipating hearing or even what they want to hear. So I think one of the dependencies is certainly an honesty. Another is what we talked about earlier and that's psychological safety. That I can actually risk having a conversation in this case you and I and I know that I won't feel humiliated or embarrassed. And so there is some safety that the outcomes are going to be somewhat reasonable and somewhat predictable for me, that I can have a conversation with you and not really stumble out of it, having suffered some irrecoverable damage either to my reputation, my career or even my role at work either to my reputation, my career or even my role at work, and I assume these conversations happen during a meeting, one-on-ones gatherings, chats, even in the cafes.
Speaker 2:Where does trust sit within that context?
Speaker 1:Well, I think it's at the center of any of those conversations you mentioned.
Speaker 1:You comment about a safe conversation could occur anywhere. I think that's absolutely true, certainly in the workplace, at the water cooler, at a conference table, even over a Zoom call, but just as easily a safe conversation could happen in your personal space, at home, with family, with friends in the commute on the way to work. And so you talk about where does trust sit? I think trust is a critical part of having a safe conversation, because you have to trust that the person will give me a chance to speak my mind. I have to trust that the person will listen to what I have to say and not race to judgment, that they will actually evaluate the merits of my argument or my point and then just suspend judgment long enough to say, okay, I might agree with you, I might not agree with you, but I'm going to go ahead and accept your viewpoint for you. I don't have to change it, I don't have to influence it. I just want to become aware of it so I can become generally more aware of a greater number of viewpoints.
Speaker 2:What is the consequence, jonathan, some of us sometimes think right or wrong, think that not engaging in conversation is probably a safe option, and obviously that's a reflection of a lack of trust. And obviously that's a reflection of lack of trust. But what's the consequence of not engaging in any type of conversation and just keeping it to the dry interaction of I'm going to do my job and I'm going to leave work at 5 o'clock or whatever it is, and then I don't want to deal with anything else? Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 1:Well, I think we're seeing that play out in real life all over the world right now, that exact scenario that you just painted, which is growing levels of disconnection becoming growing levels of disengagement, which becomes even more lasting, and then it drives huge turnover and job change and people not staying at a job because they don't feel connected or engaged or productively employed. And so, to that end, what's the risk? The risk is is, if you choose not to engage in any safe conversation, for example, then you'll disconnect from the moment at hand, and if that happens in a repeated pattern, now you start to become disengaged. Where I'm not counted on having an opinion, I'm not asked for my input, and before long I'll just assume that nobody wants my input. And so the organization suffers because now it has a smaller supply of opinions and insight.
Speaker 1:The individual suffers because they don't feel like they're an active contributor, and so, in both of those cases, what sounds like a very simple decision well, maybe this one time I'll keep my mouth shut has become an epidemic, and now workplace disengagement is a huge problem, and what we'd like to do is encourage people whether you're a teammate, team member, member or supervisor to go ahead and start sponsoring active dialogues, to go reaching for people that might have historically said very little and draw them into the conversation and let them know that today, perhaps going forward, that I want to rely on your input, I want to encourage you to say something and if I'm good at it, hopefully I can make the environment safe enough where they feel welcome to do that.
Speaker 2:I like the idea of how you articulated that, that there is a negative consequence if there is a short supply of opinion and input. Jonathan, I appreciate if you can go deeper into that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, sure, I think this groupthink mentality says that the first person that throws out an idea, that the only winning opinions then are to second that or to third that original insight. And it's become really tricky in the workplace today to offering up a challenging viewpoint, for whatever reason. If the environment is not a safe one, then somebody might feel like I can't disagree with the boss or I can't disagree with the first thing that's mentioned, and I think the safest environments and the strongest organizational cultures are the ones that actively promote a variety of opinions and that they recognize. Hey, only through the greatest mixing of ideas and thoughts will we ever have a chance at recognizing the best thought, the best idea. So I think you want to actively encourage these organizations to not just settle on one idea, even if the next three people say that's a great idea. Boss, we should do exactly that. I think you want to encourage somebody.
Speaker 1:Great idea, what other thoughts do you have? Something that doesn't sound the same thing? What are you thinking? And really solicit your team to push themselves and come up with new ideas and know, if psychological safety is present, that there's not a risk in doing so. They can actually say something that might be a little far-fetched or that might seem remote at first, but as you know, ali, some of these ideas are the ones that turn the tide of a technological revolution or an organizational breakthrough. It was because one person was courageous enough to say an oddball thing that somebody said, hey, wait a second, that might not be the craziest thing I've ever heard. That somebody said, hey, wait a second, that might not be the craziest thing I've ever heard. Let's explore that, or let's take some time and let's have a group of people go research that and come back and report to us if that is in fact a silly idea or if in fact there's really something to it.
Speaker 2:The way I look at it, jonathan, and just my opinion, I always think that engaging in conversations is a decision and not engaging is a decision too, and one has got the potential of you know that the organization and the team and the individuals will benefit from those conversations. And one is that you're probably depriving your workplace and your colleagues and your teams from your ideas. What do you think of my thinking here?
Speaker 1:I agree 100%. I think absolutely. The choice remains with the individual, and somebody could choose to say nothing and to refrain from sharing an opinion. I think that will remain their choice. I think you absolutely do rob the organization of the merits of another thought, another opinion. That's the only way we can actually hopefully represent a representative consensus is if everybody checks in and gives their opinion. But here's something else Even in a safe conversation, it will always remain the other person's choice to participate.
Speaker 1:If you and I are having a safe conversation and I invite you to participate and share your thoughts with me, you still have the choice to say no. That's really all I'm willing to share right now. But what I love about that situation is you had the choice to tell me no and you also walk away knowing that I cared enough to ask. In a safe conversation, you now believe hey, jonathan was willing to ask, he was interested in my opinion and he took the time to give me a chance to share. Now, for whatever reason, I wasn't ready to share today with him, but at least I know he was receptive to my thoughts and inputs. And so maybe today you didn't want to share, you made the choice of not sharing, but maybe tomorrow you might say, huh, here's a guy that was willing to listen. Maybe I'll give him a chance in our next opportunity.
Speaker 2:And Jonathan and I. Conversations don't need to happen face-to-face and verbal, do they?
Speaker 1:No, they don't, and today probably more and more of them are happening virtually or digitally.
Speaker 2:You know, for my listeners and anybody interested in this, sometimes we think, when the description of the word conversation may mean that I need to speak to somebody face-to-face, they've got different avenues of having conversation. It can be in a chat. I mean obviously the human touch to it. There is no replacement for having face-to-face. But if there are constraints in there you know distance I don't feel comfortable talking to somebody. You can actually have conversations different ways.
Speaker 1:You have to be able to reach people in a number of different ways, and I agree, I don't think there's any substitute for a face-to-face conversation, where not only do I get all of the verbals and the variety of tonality and pitch, volume, pace, all of these rich signals that give me extra information of being able to talk to you If I'm in your presence, I also get how you're managing space and body language and gestures, and so the richness of conversation is at its peak in a face-to-face exchange.
Speaker 1:However, comma, we don't always have that luxury and sometimes, whether it's a travel constraint or whether it's budgetary constraints, we might have to pull people in virtual environments, and so today's leaders and today's employees have to understand that I have to be capable in a text environment. I have to be capable in a voice environment. I have to be capable even in an email environment, one of perhaps the toughest environments. In a voice environment, I have to be capable even in an email environment, one of perhaps the toughest environments. As well as being in a voice or face-to-face capability, you have to have them all. There's no excuse for communicating poorly if the channel that you're on isn't optimal.
Speaker 2:You developed a framework for facilitating, or to facilitate, safe conversations in the workplace. Do you want to give us an overview of the framework, jonathan?
Speaker 1:Sure. One of the things we'd like to suggest up front is that the creation of psychological safety is paramount, and without a psychologically safe work environment, then no amount of dialogue or no amount of structured conversation will make any difference. Because if you put in place the most beautiful, the most sophisticated combination of phrases and sentence stems to build a very complex conversation, if people aren't going to risk sharing honest thoughts because there's no psychological safety, then none of the conversation structure matters. And so we believe in a work context, the very first thing you need to do is build and establish psychological safety, and we do that with a handful of tools, tools like the skill of affirmations, the skill of zero negativity, raising one's awareness and finally, the structured dialogue. All of those skills help us build a psychologically safe work environment.
Speaker 1:And now, when I say psychologically safe, that doesn't mean it's just a lounge where people can go and say anything they want without any kind of responsibility. Married right up with psychological safety. We also suggest some level of accountability, so that the people in a psychologically safe environment are still accountable for the things they say and for the things that they do. Now, once psychological safety is established, we teach a universal six-step sequence of sentence stems that guide people through a conversation, and there's a lot of flexibility, there's elasticity in how these six steps are operating. But these same six steps can apply in positive conversations, like affirmations and appreciations, but they can also help people tackle tricky, difficult situations, like frustrations coworkers are having with another or if there's an unmet need in that work relationship, how to tackle that. So that's a real basic explanation of putting in place a foundation of psychological safety and then teaching a simple six step process to cover any of a range of conversations and then teaching a simple six-step process to cover any of a range of conversations.
Speaker 2:Why do you think you've focused on the word accountability in there? Is that because psychological safety can be misunderstood?
Speaker 1:In our experience there have been times when we've introduced psychological safety and people in the workplace will roll their eyes and they'll say, well, that's not a serious concept. This is a work environment and there are times when we have to talk tough and tackle some very difficult challenges. And if all we're doing is building a psychologically safe environment, then maybe I won't have the ability I need as a manager, supervisor or a leader to go ahead and have these difficult conversations. So what we found was over time. It's very important that we emphasize that psychological safety includes accountability. If you can think of a model in this way, psychological safety, if all it is is a safe place, really presents a comfort zone that employees will never want to leave. They might not be motivated to stretch themselves and to really outperform because all the comforts are provided in a psychologically safe environment.
Speaker 1:Now, if you draw yourself all the way over to the other end of the spectrum let's just say that there was no safety there and all you had was accountability the other end of the spectrum In an accountability-only space, then you're being driven to produce results and that risk and accountability is really all you feel. And so that extreme isn't any better. It's just an opposite place. What we like to promote is somewhere in the middle, with equal parts of psychological safety and accountability, and what that allows is learning to occur where people feel safe enough to be themselves, to take risks, to make mistakes, to admit mistakes and to offer each other grace because of all those safeties are in place. But they also understand accountability, that they will be held responsible for their results, for their ideas and their performance. And so when you mix equal parts psychological safety and accountability you have a wonderful middle zone called the learning zone, where I think most organizations will benefit.
Speaker 2:And I love that learning zone because that's the only way for an organization and a team to grow and individual as well.
Speaker 2:I think a few weeks ago somebody was asking me about describing the perfect environment or an ideal environment for me to be the best I can be as an individual within an organization and I described that in whatever context and whatever engagement that I choose to have with any of my clients, I would appreciate a level of a challenge and I appreciate a level of autonomy.
Speaker 2:The challenge will actually help me push my boundaries and therefore will expose areas for growth and learning, and the level of autonomy gives me that creativity zone where I can actually make some decisions and feeling okay that that's going to be accepted by the organization. Obviously, this is all within the norms of the accountability. I'm still an accountable individual, but that balance between the two so I further explain that to that individual is that too much autonomy will lack accountability for me and also I probably get bored with too much autonomy. Too much challenge will actually push me beyond the discomfort zone and probably will push me to the stress zone where there's not much learning happening in there. So a balance between the two is probably what I prefer that and maybe ultimately that will give me the definition of that I am safe, not as in this danger, but I'm safe to be the best I can be in that organization. Critique my thought and my thinking process here.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I happen to agree with all of it. I think there is a healthy mix between a safe-only zone and a stress-only zone, and I love that you're willing to investigate this really powerful world called autonomy. I think everybody wants some measure of it. Certainly, some people are more comfortable with a lot and certainly others are more comfortable with less, but I think the heart of that is having a dialogue with your supervisor or the person able to manipulate or tailor your role, and I think it's important being able to have that conversation and saying my hope for level of autonomy is this is that something we can meet?
Speaker 1:You know, it kind of brings up something else that we stumble into, which is this this gap that exists between most employees and most supervisors, and the gap is between the employee's actual performance and the expectation the expectation that the supervisor has of their performance.
Speaker 1:So the supervisor has an expectation of what that person will do and perform.
Speaker 1:Oftentimes, though, that expectation is not articulated to the employee, and so the employee is doing their best, hoping to fulfill and satisfy the supervisor, without any knowledge that the supervisor has a different expectation for the performance.
Speaker 1:So there's this gap settling up between what I think my boss wants me to do and what my boss actually wants me to do, and so too many supervisors never spell this out for the employee, yet they become increasingly frustrated because the employee is underperforming their expectation, and so what we want to do is promote a safe conversation between supervisor and employee to lay out everything that is connected to that expectation of performance and give the employee a chance to talk about things like you mentioned, about autonomy and initiative and responsibility and authority and accountability all these very powerful words. So you helped me stumble into a topic that I'm fascinated by, and I hope that more supervisors are willing to take the risk and introduce this idea about there being a gap between my expectations of your performance and your actual performance, and putting it on the table and letting the employees you know articulate what they think they can deliver and what the supervisor is actually expecting articulate what they think they can deliver and what the supervisor is actually expecting.
Speaker 2:You're making me think now that a lack of clarity from a manager or supervisor about their expectations can also contribute to a lack of psychological safety in the workplace.
Speaker 1:It's probably one of the most fundamental causes of the lack of psychological safety. It's because we're not having this open conversation about expectations and I've witnessed it my entire adult life about supervisors being some of the most fantastic people on the planet, with the best of intentions, good people, but never having the courage to actually tell an employee what they actually expect them to perform. The supervisor will say to themselves in their head well, I hope they get it. I hope they understand what I really looking for is hard work, initiative, accountability, and yet they don't say anything, because it could be a difficult conversation if the employee is a human being and is not wired to be perfect, and so they don't feel the psychological safety. The supervisor doesn't feel safe that they can actually say what is my honest expectation for your performance, and the employee might not feel the safety to challenge their supervisor and say hey, I get the feeling that I'm frustrating you, but I don't know why.
Speaker 1:I feel like I'm putting in a great day's work, I'm doing a lot of wonderful things, but yet I don't receive a lot of praise from you. So I'm not an idiot I'm doing a lot of wonderful things, but yet I don't receive a lot of praise from you. So I'm not an idiot. I'm a smart enough guy to recognize I must be disappointing you in some way. Yet we're not talking about this, maybe because we don't feel psychological safety, maybe because there is no trust present, and so it sets up for a lot of anxiety, stress, and that's no way to run a work for and that's no way to run a work, for who is responsible about creating a safe environment in the workplace.
Speaker 1:In my opinion, it's everybody that walks the floor. Every person in the organization is responsible for creating psychological safety. It is experienced individually, but it is absolutely created as a group. Now you might argue that the leader is accountable for the level of psychological safety. You can make that argument. But I think everybody has a component responsibility to do their part, to go ahead and say positive and encourage things to each other, to limit the amount of negativity, the shame, the blame, the criticism that we levy on each other. And so I think everybody bears a little bit of that responsibility, if perhaps the leaders bear accountability.
Speaker 2:I love how you put that. It is individually experienced and created as a team. I really like how you put that. I want to shift gear and I've got a couple of questions. But I want to talk more about how having a safe place can be a good enabler for adopting change. And I've seen it in my practice because when there's a change happening in the workplace, that is also one of the big moments where you're going to test if there is a psychological safety in the workplace or not. Another place is actually to see how much psychological safety you've got is during performance management times. You know when there's going to be performance reviews and all of these conversations happening. But since I work in the business of change and communication, I notice that all the time.
Speaker 2:I think the lack of psychological safety contributes to a high level of resistance for a change, and there are so many contributing factors. You've already touched on a few, including that the management will not communicate, they will not enable, they will not create the environment, they will not give me, they will not understand my own individual circumstances. It doesn't mean that we don't run the business, but it does mean that I got to have to do the right thing as an organization. So then my employee can adopt this change and they can be better, the organization can be better and the customers can be better as well. So where is that? So where is that interconnectedness between having a fully enabled safe place from a psychological point of view and adoption of change?
Speaker 1:You know, one of the things you have to recognize is that every change initiative is different and some change initiatives are openly resisted and sometimes change initiatives are just slowed by friction. And there's a difference between friction and resistance. Resistance is willful opposition to a potential fear of a worse outcome. Friction might just be some kind of inertial drag. Inertial drag and the best description of inertial drag is when a supervisor is briefed on a potential change initiative and they go through all of their emotional wranglings to go ahead and reconcile this new change. They understand there'll be a lot of work. They understand there'll be a huge communication effort to get people aligned. They'll understand that there'll be a lot of change emotions I've got to manage. They reconcile all that and then they bring that to the team and they're expecting the team to say, okay, I was just briefed on the change, I now need to go tackle that change. But in fact everybody on the change now should be due the same sequence of time to process through their emotions. And yet all too often when the team reacts very naturally by saying wow, that's, we're not ready for the change, this is a lot to process, it's it's termed as rejection or even resistance, when in fact they just haven't had the time to process the weight of all the things that are now going to be expected to change, alter and rework. And so I think, with some healthy level of connectivity, with safe conversations and psychological safety present when change is floated, the supervisor and the team can have that open exchange, the dialogue, and the supervisor can say I've had a few days to process this, you guys might need time to process the change, to come on board to see this.
Speaker 1:I think that's part of it. I think another part of it is is sometimes we see resistance to change and we, you know, mistake it for a number of other things, like it is willful disobedience or rejection of the opportunity. Oftentimes a team environment might be just in such a decent place, a good place, that they're afraid of risking great right. You know that human beings are loss averse and if I'm faced with either the hope of gain or the fear of loss, I'm going to wait the fear of loss twice as much as the hope of gain. That's just the way human brain is wired.
Speaker 1:The default always is that the default always is that, and so sometimes, if I'm actually introducing a change initiative, I might have to qualify what is the hope of gain, what is the fear of loss, properly. So if somebody says, well, I don't want to take a risk and end up in a worse place, maybe I'll just fold my arms and do nothing, maybe our team will drag our feet and we'll actually be late adopters. And I think the leader's challenge then has to be well, hang on. Maybe folding arms and doing nothing is no longer on the table, maybe doing nothing is no longer an option. Maybe I either accept the change initiative or we all prepare ourselves for obsolescence or some other negative consequence of not participating in change. And so I think those are some of the things that have to be part of a leader's mindset when they introduce a change initiative. To say, let's make sure I'm processing the signals accurately. If I've got change initiative on the table, I make sure that it's not friction, that it is resistance, and if it is resistance, ask the questions to understand it.
Speaker 1:Because we know people are loss averse. We get that. We have to define what is truly the worst case scenario. The worst case might not be doing nothing. The worst case scenario might be if we don't change in transition. Maybe our work organization fails to exist, we go away. We don't survive if we don't change in transition. Maybe our work organization fails to exist, we go away. We don't survive if we don't change. And maybe sometimes that consequence has to be articulated and discussed.
Speaker 2:And this is why being in a leadership role or a managerial role is such a complex business, because sometimes you create the perfect environment and everybody is happy and then all of a sudden, there is an external factor that you would need to introduce a new change to the team, and change is disruptive by its own nature.
Speaker 2:So the way I think about it is that every time there is a change, it will create the ripple effect inside the team and it will disrupt the equilibrium of the team, regardless of what you've done, which means that when you do all the great work around helping your team adopt the change safely, you still need to think this is a new state of the team that you need to actually bring back to equilibrium, and this is why it's really complex, you know, and not an easy job to be in a managerial role, but maybe sometimes I think that's why human resources teams exist in the first place is actually to help the managers. But I often see that sometimes the managers outsource, unfortunately, those engagement activities with the employees to people like the project team or the HR team or the communication team. What's your experience?
Speaker 1:The worst possible thing you could do is outsource the triage or the management of downstream effects of change to an hr business liaison or somebody else. I think the leader has to take a personal responsibility to lead his team or her team through this place. So, for example, I've always, you know, leaders and managers are two separate roles and they could be the same person, but I think in every leadership position, you need to develop managerial skills. In every leadership position, you also need to develop leadership skills. Your management skills help you lead through times of stasis in the status quo when existing goals, missions and visions meet the purpose. So we support what is in place today, but we also need to be a leader and in my opinion, the leaders manage change and guide organizations through change.
Speaker 1:And because change is constant, you will always need these leadership skills to lead your team through change. The leader must personally lead his or her people through these places and not outsource it to HR. Hr has some fantastic resources and they can do a world of good. There's no question about that. But I wouldn't delegate the prickly questions, the touchy aspects of change and transition to anyone else, because if my team doesn't hear it from me, then they no longer trust me to be straight with them, to be honest with them, and so change and transition offer a wealth of opportunities to have some tricky conversations. My advice is don't outsource a one of them.
Speaker 2:I always think that, jonathan, that and I've coached lots of managers on change.
Speaker 2:In fact, I say to them you should be more interested in the change than anybody else, because that's going to impact how your team is going to function and therefore your team is a reflection of you and your responsibility.
Speaker 2:But one of the things I also I coached a manager maybe about a year ago. He did not have a good relationship with the team and so I. The first question was can you see any upcoming change coming your way? And if you're not aware, that's a problem obviously. And he found out that there's a big change that's going to impact his team and I worked with him to coach him around that that is a perfect opportunity to build the relationships with your team, because they are going to see you at the coalface of the change and then you're going to have to promise yourself you're going to be with them in the trenches. So I used even the change as an enabler for management to connect with their teams, because that's the only time they will actually test your credibility as a manager and your real, keen, genuine interest in their well-being and their performance.
Speaker 1:Great advice. I mean, they don't hire you for the sunny days, they hire you for the stormy days. And that's exactly what change presents an opportunity to steady their nerves and their fears and to let them know that the organization has put a lot of time and effort into constructing this change initiative, but also encouraging them to speak up if they recognize something might be problematic or risky, because there is every possibility that somebody down the line or up the chain failed to see everything or human beings. So if a leader is trusted to deliver this news to the team, then the team members might even relay some information that could save the initiative, something that somebody didn't forecast or see.
Speaker 2:Yeah, what are the measures Jonathan organizations can adopt to really gauge the psychological safety in their workplace?
Speaker 1:Well, it's funny, we actually have a proprietary metric where we can actually survey a company and find out the overall level of connectivity in an organization, numerically, quantitatively. But without access to that tool you're going to have to actually ask some very qualitative questions about how much participation do I get in any group conversation, how much resistance do I get for various projects? And you ask, how much participation do I get at group events? All these kinds of observations you're willing to make to try to see if people are paying attention and functioning and engaging in an organization. I think those are some of the best ways that you have to gauge psychological safety.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much. One of the things that I usually one of the questions I usually ask my guests at the end and I'm aware of the time and I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation. You made me think about a couple of things. Definitely the difference, and it's a good reminder that resistance is not friction and we're just going to have to be really mindful of that. And the second one is that it can be individually experienced but collectively created. Are you like those and I'm grateful that you've sort of enlightened me on this, or at least you helped me articulate those things For us people in the business of change and communication, what would be your advice to us when we go into a team and we work with the team on a change initiative?
Speaker 1:One of the first places you can go to for support in a change initiative is the team itself, and, before you launch the initiative, survey their appetite for change, survey their readiness for change and understand how much willingness exists before you say word one. Oftentimes you'll discover that you might have champions on the team ready to support a new way of doing business, or even leaning out or opposed to a change initiative, before you ask them about how do they see the environment, how do they see the organization and if they're ready for change. People are loss averse, so we have to work extra hard as leaders to prepare the organization for what are the negative risks, what are the worst-case outcomes, and then steal them, steady them for an alternative, a best case outcome. I think that's probably where I'd start in terms of advice.
Speaker 2:Fantastic, and that's really appreciated. Jonathan, I've already enjoyed this conversation with you. How would people connect with you? Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1:The best way to reach us is at quantumconnectionscom Q-U-A-N-T-U-M connectionscom, and there you can find me in the About Us section and shoot me an email. It's easy. It's jmthorpe at quantumconnectionscom. I would love to hear from you and I welcome your emails.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much. We're going to put all the information about you, jonathan, and the podcast information. I've thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed this. I am grateful for your time. I hope I can get you back in the future at some stage and we talk more about maybe how technology, and especially artificial intelligence maybe, can help us, also can be an enabler for us to use as a tool to help us create a better place in the workplace. But until that time, stay well and stay safe, jonathan.
Speaker 1:My pleasure, ali. Can I make one add?
Speaker 1:I just thought of something here and I don't mean to interrupt your recording, but when you asked me about advice, something escaped my mind. I think it's super important and maybe if you're clever with the audio you can splice it in there as something I would have thought about. But in terms of advice, if I'm talking to a leader team and I want to motivate them, I think one of the most important pieces of advice you could give somebody is to always be challenging your current level of self-awareness how much do I know about myself, how much do I know about my team and how often do I challenge that? What do I think I know and what do I know that I don't know? And go back and revisit that. I think too many times leaders believe that they have a good read on themselves or their people and they fail to ask questions kind of a 360 degree feedback tool.
Speaker 1:So I think, that's something I would encourage people to do is remain mindful of their own level of self-awareness. And the second thing super important in change initiatives that I failed to mention forgive me, but it's so important and that's make sure you're sharing your own growth journey through previous change initiatives. And what I mean by that is what have I learned personally through the mistakes I've made in change initiatives, and what I mean by that is what have I learned personally through the mistakes I've made in change initiatives, so that I let people know I'm not afraid to admit that we've made mistakes in the past, and I personally have made mistakes in the past, but here's what I've learned from them and that's what I hope to share with you that we might not be a zero defect. You know organization. We don't have to be we're human beings, not robots but it is important to talk about mistakes you've made so that people understand that there is some grace and maybe some safety present in a very tricky, change-rich environment.
Speaker 2:And that's another way of honoring the past, jonathan, which is really an important piece. Very solid advice. I love it. I hope I can get you back in the future and talk probably more around technology. I'm very deep into the rabbit hole of artificial intelligence and so hopefully that will be an interesting conversation, jonathan, but until then, stay well and stay safe.
Speaker 1:I look forward to it. I've enjoyed the time. Pali, thanks, and have a great day. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2:Thank you for listening. If you found this episode valuable, remember to subscribe to stay updated on upcoming episodes. Your support is truly appreciated and, by sharing this podcast with your colleagues, friends and fellow change practitioners, it can help me reach even more individuals and professionals who can benefit from these discussions. Remember, and in my opinion, change is an enduring force and you will only have a measure of certainty and control when you embrace it. Until next time, thank you for being part of the Inner Game of Change community. I am Ali Jammah and this is the Inner Game of Change podcast.
.JPG)