We-ness: The secret cause of Psychological Safety

Howdy, howdy ho, and welcome to Fantasy Fanfellas. I'm Hayden, producer of the Fantasy Fangirls podcast, and your resident lover of all things Sanderson. And I'm Stephen, your bookish internet goofball, but you can call me the Smash Daddy. And we are currently deep diving Brandon Sanderson's fantasy epic, Mistborn. But here's the catch. Stephen here has not read Mistborn before. That's right, hey, hey. So each week, you'll get my unfiltered raw reactions to every single chapter. And along the way, we'll do character deep dives, magic explainers, and Stephen will even try to guess what's next. Spoiler alert, he'll be wrong. Newsflash, I'm never wrong. Episodes come out every Wednesday and you can find Fantasy Fanfellas wherever you get your podcasts. Taking care of your eyes shouldn't be a hassle. That's why Warby Parker is a one-stop shop for all your vision needs. Our prescription glasses and sunglasses are expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Stop by a nearby store or use our app to virtually try on frames and get personalized recommendations. Did we mention we offer eye exams and take vision insurance too? For everything you need to see, head to your nearest Warby Parker store or visit warbyparker.com today. That's warbyparker.com. This is Eat Sleep Work Repeat. It's a podcast about workplace culture. Hello, I'm Bruce Daisley. A good person to follow on LinkedIn is Professor Rob Briner. He's a professor of organisational psychology at Queen Mary's University in London, but he posts quite a lot of stuff about evidence-led people interventions, trying to dispel the idea that quite often some of the things that we talk about and say are helpful have limited evidence in their favour. You'll see this on other podcasts. People talk about, oh, you need to do this, you need to do this. And in fact, from a lens of someone like Rob, there's just no evidence that these things work. He posted something recently, which I've included at the top of the show notes, which was a post about psychological safety. Psychological safety must be the term that is most used in cultural interventions, discussions about workplaces. It's become sort of like the foundational part of workplace discussions. But the interesting thing, as he said in his post, was that even Amy Edmondson, the person credited with popularising the term, says that there's no accepted and proven copybook for how to bring about psychological safety. Well, today's guest feels that they have the answer to this. And for me, it's one of the most compelling forms of system thinking about psychological safety that I think you can achieve. We're all familiar with the notion that an idea in hindsight seems immediately obvious. And the thing that Katrin is going to take us into is a discussion about how actually psychological safety is an output of feeling a shared sense of group identity. Effectively, it's when we've got a sense of us, a sense of we-ness to our group, that we unlock psychological safety. And she's demonstrated this quite compellingly in a couple of papers that I've included in the show notes. The model that she suggests in the show notes is that leaders forge a sense of the group's identity, this we-ness results from it, and then psychological safety comes from that. In fact, in the processes they discuss in the paper, they say the absence of that we-ness, or when people don't necessarily feel perceived and significant to the coach, that's when burnout comes. So we've got a couple of interesting things going on there. The thing that really strongly comes out is if we're thinking about creating a sense of we-ness, a sense of the collective, a sense of group identity, the most important people are not the nominal leaders. They are not the managers. And for me, this really resonated with my own experience of really strong cohesive teams. You might have someone in the team who's like the energiser, someone in the team who's the funny person, someone in the team who just helps hold it all together because they've got the tactical nouse or they've got the insight, or maybe they've got the marketing contribution. It's really interesting that leadership is collectively owned, and it strongly comes out in her paper. For me, it was a really important consideration. I saw it as a piece with mattering. And the mattering stuff, and I actually discussed this with Katrin, but the mattering stuff for me feels like the entry point to a team is feeling like we have a me in the team. I'm significant to the leader. I'm seen by the leader. My work is considered to be important. That unlocks the opportunity then to start building a we. We start building the collective around us. And from there, what we see is, as Katrin talks about, we unlock psychological safety. We unlock resilience. Conceivably, that might be the entry point, I think, to where sort of group motivation comes from, the idea that we unlock autonomy. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. It was a really compelling discussion. If you've got the sort of the appetite for it, reading a couple of the papers or even dropping the paper into something like Notebook LM would give you a really compelling way to try and explore it a bit further. This is my discussion with Katrin Francois. Thank you so much for joining me. I wonder if, to kick off, you could introduce who you are and what you do. Yes, hello. I'm Katrin Francois. I'm a professor of leadership and coaching at the University of Belgium. I'm a researcher mainly focused on leadership and on leadership in teams to unpack those relationships that are so typical with the role of a sports team and with the expectations that we have for a leader in a sports team. I'm a researcher who looks at the same characteristics of identity leadership in sports teams. We think about the group, thinking about the manager, the senior, etc., but we also look at the leader of the first organisational identity which is about the leader. So the expectations that we have for a leader, the same things like what they actually do, like take the collective of we, expected in the sense that when people within the team, so those social gestures within the team, get that sense of feeling of me or the sense of the we of the team, so those social leaders within the team get that sense of feeling of we or group identity, then the psychological safety develops. But when we look at the social leaders, to make sure we have the same values, effectiveness, in terms of autonomies of the team, also a bit the expectations about the mutuality of the social leaders, the leaders of the teams, and the outcomes, like what they actually do in terms of the role job characteristics, that's what unlocks the psychological safety. But when we then look at the social leaders, the notion of the leader, the social leaders or the leaders, we see that only in a one percent of the teams, so one hundred teams, the team Captains actually do the same, the same characteristics of the identity leadership, because if you ask people what the characteristics of the leader, you don't think about really one thing, but I think that is actually one of the biggest problems that underutilising the characteristics of potential identity leadership in schools, but that also the expectations about team leadership, we see that the same characteristics of the autonomy that leaders expect to get to the right technical efficiency expected in getting to the motivation of me or my team, the factors that actually do give a collective or a collective within the team to do all those characteristics of the leaders, some of them are actually to develop the social atmosphere within the team. The social team leaders, the social leaders, unlock a sense of belonging into the team to unlock this thing of identity leadership both of the status as a status, the status. The social leaders also dim to the social leaders, the leaders within the team, to do all those things that are the expectations of the leaders. And actually if I think about the social leaders, I see that only in one percent of the teams, so one hundred hundred teams, that the leaders within the team do what the expectations of the leaders, which really good, unlock the psychological safety and unlock resilience. Conceivably, that might be the entry point, I think, to where sort of group motivation comes from, the idea that we unlock autonomy. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. It was a really compelling discussion. If you've got the sort of the appetite for it, reading a couple of the papers or even dropping the paper into something like Notebook LM would give you a really compelling way to try and explore it a bit further. This is my discussion with Katrin Francois. Thank you so much for joining me. I wonder if to kick off, you could introduce who you are and what you do. Yes, hello. I'm Katrin Francois. I'm a professor of leadership and coaching at the University of Belgium. I'm a researcher mainly focused on leadership and leadership coaching and on leadership in teams to unpack the relationships that are so typical with the role of sports teams. We think about the coaching, we think about the manager, the senior, etc. But we also look at the leader of the first organisational identity of leadership in sports teams. We think about the coach, we think about the manager, the senior, etc. But we also look at the leader of the first organisational identity of leadership in sports teams. We think about the coach, we think about the manager, the senior, etc. But we also look at the leader of the first organisational identity of leadership in sports teams. We think about the coach, we think about the manager, the senior, etc. But we also look at the leader of the first organisational identity of leadership in sports teams. We think about the coach, we think about the manager, the senior, etc. But we also look at the leader of the first organisational identity of leadership in sports teams. We think about the coach, we think about the performing team is when someone is able to manage to be both the motivational coach and the nominal coach. It's sort of those rare instances where one individual manages to do that a bit. Your research seems to suggest that that's by no means the norm. No, and I think the issue is a bit, I always expected at the beginning, so like Johannes, to be honest, not able to do it. And I can say, yeah, I have to do something about the selection criteria, for example, or team captain or overall performance. And we are really managing all of the aspects. And you know, the issue is that the first is, um, it's not really feasible, because you have to be able to expect of different different values of leaders, the two of the two. And so when someone performs well, but at the same time, maybe and then you just develop teambuilding teams as you develop, for example, in these moments of religious roles, and this is something that we can control and can work on, and that will lead to higher psychological safety with all these benefits afterwards. That's an interesting bifurcation that you describe, that when athletes or team members don't necessarily feel respected, considered part of a group, largely because of the coach's actions, the leader's actions, that's one of the things that can contribute towards burnout and sort of demotivation. That's really interesting for me. Sort of the idea that that sense of alienation from the group, or in particular, from the leader, is one of the things that activates burnout. Could you explore that for me and describe what you're seeing there? Yes, absolutely. And I found that the research that I was going to do, because a lot of papers also referred to this about the we-ness is the essential. So we have a form of leadership over it, it seems like, well, this is the leader's expectation that we expect them to manage all of the aspects. And you know, the issue is that the first is, it's not really feasible, because we always expected of different values of leaders to be able to do it. How can you form a better relationship with yourself also, so that you really develop teambuilding team? And this whole leadership is something that I don't feel well. And actually, most of the time, I was not doing my best here, my research. So I didn't know how to lead it forward, but also I got a lot of the team to feel well, and you might be my plan to build up a team. And I think the things that which people really need, really trust, all the teams that they feel safe, so they can take risks, they can try out new things. And if they don't know well, they won't get less intimidated, so they will try again and try again. And those young women, which they again can improve at better and eventually and that's the thing that psychological safety and we all know that it's expected that team is performative. Cause the thing that got me thinking in my head was, I wonder if there was a me before the we, in the sense that I needed to feel like the coach cared for me, respected for me, that I mattered to the coach, that that was an important entry point to then feeling part of the we. So it was like me feeling seen as an individual was an entry point to then me feeling part of a group. Would you see it that way or is that just semantics? How do you see that? This is what I'm saying. It could be that the solution is that, what I was saying, this is what I find is that the We-ness is just a tool that can be used in the right direction that the leaders create a strong sense of we-ness as a team together. And I think it makes the team stronger, for example, doing something with the leadership. And then the thing comes my point, there are a lot of things that yeah, within the we-ness struggle with, this is people see on the domain. And I think the leaders were a lot of struggles, trying to do different things in the team, but they're all not really good enough, so they don't feel well. And you might be my plan to build up a team. And I think the, the things that which people really, really trust all the teams that they feel safe, so they can take risks. So they can take risks, they can try out new things, and even if they don't know well, they won't get less intimidated. So they will try again and try again. And those young women, which they again can improve at better and eventually, and that's the leadership. But I think there are a lot of ways, even though there's a lot of life, the parts where I thought that I don't feel like I feel like a team and by doing so also, I feel like a better relationship with myself also, you have to recall that I don't feel well, but looking back, that was actually the thing that made the difference to really invest in the leadership and creating rituals, making sure that everyone feeling really part of the team. And by doing so, also the fact that I don't feel leadership, you know, if we can help leaders to become better as a leader, then that will increase the, uh, the sense of leadership and will increase the team. So when I do the translation for example, a lot of, um, at the time, I was not doing my best here, my research. So I didn't know how to lead it forward, but also I, how can I form a better relationship with myself also to make sure that this is the goal? Um, but that was not only the case, but also not only the case, also develop the team. So it's not only about the team, but also about the team and the team. So for example, when the leaders create a strong sense of, of we-ness as a team, it should also create a sense of we-ness within the team. And they try to try and invest a lot of and at the time I was not doing my best here. My research, I didn't know how to lead it forward, but also I, how can I form a better relationship with myself also, I feel that they are doing for example, and again, the thing comes my point, a lot of, and at the time I was not doing my best here, my research. So I didn't know how to lead it forward, but also I, how can I form a better relationship with myself also to make sure that these people are feeling, feeling that they belong to the team. And by doing so, also the fact that identity leadership in the group. So this really creates a sense of identity leadership and we all know that it's expected of different leaders to exhibit this and to really invest in this is the strong sense of we-ness. And I mean, just in terms of the things that might serve to undermine identity leadership, you know, one of the things that you've described is like this, this idea, it's a touch jargony, but this idea of leader prototypicality, the idea that the leader feels like one of us. And there are certain things, I think, in all manner of places where the leader doesn't feel like one of us. In sport, especially in professional sport, the leader can feel a long way away from us. It can feel like elevated. Um, or in work, wage inequality can be something that makes the leader feel like they're operating in a completely different economy to us. What are the things that serve to undermine that prototypicality, that sense that the leader is one of us? Yeah, good question. And I think that when a lot of these you can, can undermine that in my general base features by doing the opposite. This happens almost. So for example, some of us may uh promotion or of uh which are sort of the promotion of the group. So this will actually invest a lot of and that time I was not doing my best here, my research. So I didn't know how to lead it forward, but also I, how can I uh this is the thing, you know, it is really the marriage of the team and by doing so also develop the leadership and creating rituals, making sure that this, the team. So I think the difference again, the leader product. It's really something because the leadership and that's the way that the team works, but also the leadership. And by doing so, I think that when they was the time I was not doing my best here, my research, so I didn't know how to lead it forward. But also I, how can I form a better relationship with myself? And by doing so also, how can I go forward? And I think the, the things that which people really trust all the teams that they feel safe. So they can take risks. They can try out new things, and even if they don't know well, they won't get less intimidated. So they will try again and try again. And those young women, which they again can improve at better and eventually, and that's the leadership. But I think there are a lot of ways, even though there's a lot of life, the parts where I thought that I don't feel like I feel like a team and by doing so also, I feel like a better relationship with myself also and and the team. So the leaders create a strong sense of we-ness as a team and by doing so also, I feel like a better relationship with myself also, you have to recall that I don't feel well, but looking back, that was actually the thing that made the difference to really invest in the leadership and creating rituals, making sure that everyone feeling really part of the team. And by doing so also the fact that I feel like leadership, you know, if we can help leaders to become better as a leader, then that will increase the uh the sense of leadership and will increase the team. So So how can I help you as my manager to, for example, improve performance better as a team and to make sure that everything is in order? So I think thinking of what we are at the first step, let's kind of then say, let's say, let's sort of do it. It's really important that we really, you know, in both ways, top down, it's really important that at the bottom-up, what is important for the team. And then we get further strengthen our teams. It's a lot of structures. It's really important that us go just about structures and questions about the culture is, for example, humor is a trigger of identity, especially in a close-knit team. If we're thinking of sort of groups of, you know, seven to 20 people, one of the things that often signals whether people are in group is humor, whether people get in jokes, whether people know which things are funny or which origin stories are sort of part of the legend of a team. Do you see that as something that's culturally universal, or is that just specific to certain, is that just an Anglo-Saxon lens or a British lens that I'm applying to that? Are things like humor an important part of team identity? I think it could be one of, it could be one to develop, for example, group performance better as a team and to make sure that everything is in order. So I think team development, team styles, that are very different. For example, only one of the three groups could be like, you know, we just touched at first the togetherness, because even the things that the team does to make better these group dynamics, or communication, better structures, etc. And one of the things that often is a trigger of identity, especially in a close-knit team, if we're thinking of sort of groups of, you know, seven to 20 people, one of the things that often signals whether people are in group is humor, whether people get in jokes, whether people know which things are funny or which origin stories are sort of part of the legend of a team. Do you see that as something that's culturally universal, or is that just specific to certain, is that just an Anglo-Saxon lens or a British lens that I'm applying to that? Are things like humor an important part of team identity? I think it could be one of the things. It could be one to develop, for example, for example, to perform better as a team and to make sure that everything is in order. I think we are in a team style, so that is very different. For example, only one of these could be like, you know, we're on the same level, but I think you have these styles that are very different and you have the same structures that are very different, that develops a different identity. So I think it is very important to have a really strong team identity. So only one of the teams could be like, you know, we're on the same level, but I think you have these styles that are very different, that develop a different identity. So I think it is very important to have a really strong team identity. So only one of the teams could be like, you know, we're on the same level, but I think you have these styles that are very different, that develop a different identity. So I think it is very important to have a really strong team identity. So only one of the teams could be like, you know, we're on the same level, but I think you have these styles that are very different, that develop a different identity. So I think it is very important to have a really strong team identity. So only one of the teams could be like, you know, we have this relationship or this relationship of feeling better, etc. Those are all different outcomes that we found that resulted from the feeling of belonging, that shared team identification. And those also, if I think about one of my previous examples, is that with a regular process, so if you just start regularly with the start of the group, this could be like, you know, mature. So you really build a stable team, whether it's a team of seven to 20 people or something like that. So I think the whole team building that I experienced on the timeline should be the rest of the team building. My experience, for example, they have at the relationship level at the point that was not really accepted by the team. So I don't think it would help for a team that might not be so united. So you need to watch the dynamics and bringing some application of this to the nature of contemporary knowledge-based work. Quite often we're preoccupied, we're doing other things, we're distracted, we're not necessarily giving full attention to things. We're doing other things at the same time. And it strikes me that actually the intentional efforts of team building, the intentional efforts of trying to form a we, are maybe neglected by a lot of leaders. They're not giving enough time to these, often seemingly unproductive things of just people getting to know each other, people interacting with each other, people maybe disagreeing with each other. And I just wonder, as you're thinking about the applications of your work to the world of knowledge work, people sitting on Zoom calls all day, is there anything about the attention that's required to do this effectively that you think about? I think one of the things is that we work a lot, I think it was the same for myself. It was not just a one-time case. So it's not a regular process. So if you just start regularly with, I think it's gonna help to build the team further and further. It's the same with the first example. For example, at the very start, we see that we might have new players. So people cannot really assess the leadership qualities of these folks. But you know, the team styles are very similar. For example, at the very start, the first, let's get the first, et cetera. And then in the next phase of the group, when we actually train those leaders, how to become better as a team. That's interesting. I think when I read that in your paper, that's done anonymously initially, is that right? That people sort of, they rank their colleagues initially without everyone knowing what the scores were. That's right. And we do that on purpose. And I think that's an important aspect because you give just the discussions openly, no, but what you probably hear is that the one that's voice and what you're not might not be the people that really differently, but don't dare to speak up because they're not kept twice kept at the top of the voice. So I think those two are the two, especially the ones that tend to be very, very, very. But one of the things that becomes clear as you're talking for me is that the, all of these processes require a sense of group and a sense of collective attention really that, you know, we've got to think about things. We've got to watch the dynamics and bringing some application of this to the nature of contemporary knowledge-based work. Quite often we're preoccupied, we're doing other things, we're distracted. We're not necessarily giving full attention to things. We're doing other things at the same time, and it strikes me that actually the intentional efforts of team building, the intentional efforts of trying to form a we are maybe neglected by a lot of leaders. They're not giving enough time to these often seemingly unproductive things of just people getting to know each other, people interacting with each other, people maybe disagreeing with each other. And I just wonder as you're thinking about the applications of your work to the world of knowledge work, people sitting on Zoom calls all day, is there anything about the attention that's required to do this effectively that you think about? I think one of the things is that we work a lot, I think it was the same for myself. It was not just a one-time case. So it's not a regular process. So if you just start regularly with, I think it's gonna help to build the team further and further. It's the same with the first example. For example, at the very start, we see that we might have new players. So people cannot really assess the leadership qualities of these folks. But you know, the team styles are very similar. For example, at the very start, the first, let's get the first, et cetera. And then in the next phase of the group, when we actually train those leaders, how to become better as a team. That's interesting. I think when I read that in your paper, that's done anonymously initially, is that right? That people sort of, they rank their colleagues initially without everyone knowing what the scores were. That's right. And we do that on purpose. And I think that's an important aspect because you give just the discussions openly, no, but what you probably hear is that the one that has the voice and what you're not might not be the people that really differently, but don't dare to speak up because they're not kept twice kept at the top of the voice. So I think those two are the two, especially the ones that tend to be very, very. Fascinating. And then you seek to try and develop, enhance what they're already telling you is there. That's right. And my belief was on a level, but what we also see is that people that are not really on the same level, they don't dare to demonstrate that leadership because they think it might not be accepted by their team members or, for example, at the same level, they would say, you should be as well a leader, and they have the same structure, etc. But those are usually, normally the ones that get the feedback of, for example, the relationship of each other that can actually implement the real structure of shared leadership. So really a formal structure of shared leadership, not just at the captains, but really to get the first step. I feel that, for example, there had been a relationship level at the point that was not really accepted by the team members Looking at the results, there are these is a time. And you get a lot of this, but also stronger leader that will offer organizations. So let's round off certainly in terms of my main questions. The idea of evidence of impact of this. Have you seen sort of direct line through to results of teams channeling this? Does it lead to greater effectiveness? Because I guess, you know, if all it does is makes teams feel better, then people might say, well, so far, but so irrelevant. Is there evidence that you've got that this cohesiveness, this sense of us has a straight line through to better results? Absolutely. And I think that's something that we not just found in one study, but really see across all different studies. We found the transactional, but we have also known from experience that a stronger, stronger performance will lead us to, you know, show higher confidence in their team relationship that will lead us to a better performance. And that's confidence travels around the team and that makes also the doing process efficiency in ranking of the competition of those teams. So it really has some very strong effects on the objects of performance as well, not just feeling better, but also functioning better as a team, being more cohesive and doing better things together as a team, building up this togetherness will lead us to a better performance. I'm so immensely grateful. Thank you. Thank you to Katrin. I spent ages actually after doing all of that and recording that podcast. I've put the transcript on the website and I tried to create a notebook LM, you know, one of those sort of AI applications, loading up the couple of papers in the show notes, loading up the transcript and seeing if I could give access to people to the whole discussion. If you've played with notebook LM, you'll know that effectively it allows you to interrogate, to play around, to explore a bit of knowledge because this is sort of superficially quite esoteric. I thought it might give you a good entry point. Anyway, I tried that. It didn't work. I don't know how to give access to it. However, I would suggest that if you do want to explore, if you do want to gift yourself a degree more AI expertise, then dropping this discussion into notebook LM might give you a way to sort of explore your understanding of the concept. I really love it. I'm not kidding when I say there's a huge penny drop moment. And for me, actually understanding that we-ness and psychological safety are of a piece with each other was a really important realization. Really grateful to Katrin for taking the time. She does work with organizations. And if you want to check out her work, you can see that all on the link in the show notes. I've been Bruce Taisley. Thank you for your company. See you next time. Howdy, howdy ho and welcome to Fantasy Fan Fellas. I'm Hayden, producer of the Fantasy Fangirls podcast and your resident lover of all things Sanderson. And I'm Stephen, your bookish internet goofball, but you can call me the Smash Daddy. And we are currently deep diving Brandon Sanderson's fantasy epic, Mistborn. But here's the catch. Stephen here has not read Mistborn before. That's right. Hey, hey. So each week you'll get my unfiltered raw reactions to every single chapter. And along the way, we'll do character deep dives, magic explainers, and Stephen will even try to guess what's next. Spoiler alert, he'll be wrong. Newsflash, I'm never wrong. Episodes come out every Wednesday and you can find fantasy fanfellas wherever you get your podcasts. Guys, it's no use putting it off. The best time for an underwear refresh is now. Tommy John underwear is designed for a perfect fit that stays put all day. There's zero chafe thanks to four times more stretch than competing brands. And their innovative horizontal quick draw fly is a game changer. With over 30 million pairs sold, there are thousands of men out there more comfortable than you. Don't settle for less. Go to TommyJohn.com today for 30% off site-wide with code comfort. That's TommyJohn.com slash comfort. Tommy John, comfort perfected. Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things. So why waste time sending important documents the old-fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want with Stamps.com. Print postage on demand 24-7 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust Stamps.com. Go to Stamps.com and use code podcast to try Stamps.com risk-free for 60 days.