Amy Edmondson has an excellent example of one of the less visible aspects, one which is nevertheless of vital importance. Literally, actually.
The example below is a simplification of Edmondson’s own presentation, which is based on data from her studies in the hospital world.
Imagine you are critically ill but have been given the choice of 3 different hospitals that could save your life. To help you make the right choice, you will get an overview of the number of reported errors.
- Hospital A has 7 reported errors
- Hospital B has 2 reported errors
- Hospital C has 24 reported errors
If your life was at stake, which hospital would you choose?
The logic says, of course, Hospital B. It looks like they're in control. Conversely, Hospital C is a complete failure.
Or is it?
The reality, as you may have guessed, is actually the diametrically opposite. The overview says very little about safety at the various hospitals – on the other hand, it says a lot about how willing employees are to report errors and challenges in the workplace.
The explanation becomes clearer if we reformulate the question a little.
If your life was at stake, would you choose the hospital where the most or least errors are reported?
In Hospital C, far more errors are reported than in the other hospitals. This suggests a work and management culture with high psychological safety, where there is room to point out errors and areas that could be improved.
The result is far more opportunities to correct those errors, correct skewed processes, better collaboration between colleagues and ultimately better treatment of patients.
You may think that psychological safety is of course not so intimately linked to life and death in all industries. And you would be right, to a certain extent.
If the organization ignores the psychological safety and psychosocial working environment, it risks at best the organization coming to a standstill and at worst, a slow death.