Psychologically strong teams and how to develop one  (Part 2)

Psychologically strong teams think, do and disagree exceptionally well. Here's my complete guide to developing this quality in your team - whatever stage you're at right now.

 

In part one, I introduced the concept of Psychological Strength.

(ICYMI, here's Part 1 - Psychologically Strong Teams - and how to develop one)

There is a LOT of chat about psychological safety (and rightly so). But there is also an argument that psychological safety never truly exists in the real world.

Psychological strength on the other hand is a thoughtfully designed and well scaffolded, responsive container in which important conflict can take place.

It is imperfect BUT it is always improving (and always open to improvement).

One mistake won’t shatter everyone’s safety.

Everyone takes responsibility - the more power and privilege, the more responsibility we take.

Psychological strength is active, solid, positive, intentional, generative, reflexive.

Ever wondered what the "bolder" in FewerFasterBolder means? It is the psychological strength that allows us to do better collaboration in less time, not more. To match ambition with safety.

If there is one thing I know about defensiveness, it’s that it is makes everything painfully slow!

If there is one thing I know about a conflict-avoidant organisation, it’s that little important progress is made.


So if psychological strength is the goal, in one chorus together: “But how do we build it?!”


In part one, I told you the 5 things I did in my two challenging teams. In team 1, people were very quiet and passive. In team 2, people were vocal and combative. In both teams, people were acting from a ‘defended’ position.

We needed to develop psychological strength in both teams.

Let’s look one-by-one at the five things I did. This is not a 'hey, watch me, I'm the guru' post. This is literally how I approached this situation and so you can examine it for yourself and make your own thoughtful choices. I didn't get it all right and not everything worked but we did make enormous strides and both teams transformed into high performing, warm and energetic places to work.

 

1. I developed non-negotiable ground rules

Here’s how I see it:

We discussed earlier that work is inherently not 100% safe. We cannot make it so, even in the unit of our teams. BUT we can create a container with specific and explicit norms that massively improve how safe people feel. And crucially we can dynamically use and improve these norms so the container becomes stronger and stronger.

Here’s what I did each time:

I made norms explicit - essentially ground rules for interaction which could be around interruptions, listening to and valuing viewpoints, confidentiality etc. I made these as specific as possible.

It was super-awkward to start setting rules! So I talked about the ambition we had as a team, how important every single person’s contribution was and how we needed a really strong and safe way to work together that brought the best out of everyone to have a shot at our shared ambition.

If the team I was working with was doing ‘ok’, I would ask everyone to contribute to this ground rule setting.

But in these two teams, it was clear no one felt safe to contribute. It was too difficult for them at their level of safety to say out loud in the group what would make them feel safe!

I had tried this before and we ended up with a very watered down version and quite a lot of passive aggression! This time, I knew it was absolutely on me to make the container MORE safe and strong than they would have dared to ask for out loud.

So I led and modelled the way by suggesting a core set of norms and asking the team to help me flesh these out in practice.

I also asked people at this stage about what they needed and preferred to get the most out of how we collaborate together. I was asking about adjustments that help them digest information, think clearly, contribute confidently and focus when they need to.

I gave everyone an anonymous survey to encourage them to share very specific requests for what would help them contribute at their best. This received a pretty full on response as group inhibitions were lifted and people felt free to say what they really expected!

In both teams, I also spoke to everyone 1:1. It was clear that there were major problem dynamics not with me but with other team members so we had to talk about those offline.

Back to the ground rules. In both teams, I asked people to discuss two lists for each ground rule: 1. what it is and 2. what isn’t. This allows us to think explicitly about what each look like in practice and what the overuse or weaponised use of it is.

I used very clear, simple, EILIF (explain it like I’m five) language e.g.

“Mistakes and go-arounds are an essential part of our work in this team - let’s welcome them, make them fast, low-risk and get the highest learning possible from every single one”

This list when in the centre of our online whiteboards and at the front of each document.

The key to their presence was that I referred to them regularly, not that they were just literally present.

 

2. I encouraged people to speak truthfully and developed modalities for that over time.

 

Here’s how I see it:

We need people to tap into their incredible human-sensing machines and relay what they think, feel and experience - as faithfully as possible. A very convoluted way of saying… we need people to speak with candour. There are lots of reasons we don’t do this, the main two being we don’t think it will be appreciated and/or we don’t have the opportunity.

This was absolutely true in the two teams I worked with.

Here’s what I did:

- I used Rounds a lot to make sure everyone had the opportunity to speak by moving through participants in order, especially in decision-making or brainstorming sessions. I used this even just to get opinions/takes on stuff at various points in meetings. In team 1, this encouraged people to speak more and in team 2, it equalised voices.

- Used tools that allow team members to share thoughts and ideas in their own time, which could then be addressed as a group (e.g. brainwriting instead of brainstorming)

- Created a ‘car park’ for off-topic discussions and making sure I addressed them later.

- Used small groups or a variation of 1-2-4-ALL (from Liberating Structures) so people got the chance to explore their thoughts in smaller groups before participating in the full gruo.

- Encouraging different team members to own certain meetings or or parts of meetings, in line with their responsibilities for the content under discussion (i.e. if they are the owner, they lead that part of the meeting). I did this over time, first taking responsibility for securing the space myself.

  

3. I helped us all sharpen our listening

Here’s how I see it:

Learning to truly listen to others (rather than listening for ourselves, or listening to our own thoughts) is a lifetime’s work. It’s not something I can tell other people to do and it’s dependent on our own motivation to even consider listening as a Thing. But there are two things I can do: 1. Raise awareness of how we listen and 2. Demonstrate and model the skills.

I see listening in two ways. Firstly, it's how we make space for other people's thinking. Secondly, it's how we make sense of what we hear.

Here’s what I did:

I did three main things.

- I talked reflectively about listening and used language I thought would get people thinking, for example the concept of moving from thinking competitors to thinking peers.

- I encouraged (and massively tried to model) asking open questions to explore meaning before assuming and ascribing meaning myself (which was usually negative!). In a strong space, the idea is that we not only build people's sense of safety to raise something but that we address our relationship with feedback so we don't incorrectly hear task conflict as relationship conflict.

- I really worked on my attunement skills - how I could tune into my team in meetings, providing them with the best quality listening space and modelling the energy I wanted to see across the whole team. Looking back, this was the hardest thing to do and the most effective. The more I attuned and gave people my relaxed focus, the more the team relaxed and opened up.

Follow Ian Heaton for daily inspiration on developing how you listen in practice.

 

4. I created scaffolded the healthy conflict we needed

Here’s how I see it:

I've talked a lot about healthy/needed vs unhealthy/unwanted conflict a lot in FrictionFree. The challenge is that we are so steeped in corporate baggage that healthy/needed conflict is not always easy to do. I've found it can really help to add some scaffolding to make this easy to practice. Scaffolding helps guide behaviour and makes everyone feel more confident to step into helpful disagreement.

Here's what I did:

In those two teams, I did it two ways.

1. I used some scaffolding from the FewerFasterBolder playbook to create the vibe of "us against the problem" rather than "me against you", for example:

Using a "strong statement" at the start of a session to signal that disagreement is important and give some guiderails for how we'll do it.
Using a constructive rant to help people really get to the bottom of frustrations or concerns. A constructive rant is not unlike Brene Brown's rumble or Byron Katie's 'Noticing'. It's the first step to a powerful inquiry. Knowing what stage you're at is helpful orientation that develops group psychological strength. James Rutter, Chief Creative Officer at COOK talks about how they might say in a meeting "We're going to have a rumble... and we'll be ok". Great example of strength building.
Developing some nice fast ways of sharing responses e.g. while someone presents their idea/roadmap/progress etc, everyone else is post it noting or commenting in the chat in three categories: what I like, questions I have, how I can help. Instant, prolific, task focused feedback for everyone!
I know other people use things like De Bono's Six Hats very effectively. I've always found that a bit clunky for a regular team meeting but I know others have had success with it!
 

2. I had a specific conflict resolution place. So if people are unhappy about how conflict is being resolved, they can raise it there!

In practice this was a two-weekly retrospective but it could have been something different. This is really the most important part of psychological strength - that there is somewhere where feedback is always welcomed and where whatever problems inevitably arise from how we interact can be safely addressed.

 

5. I took responsibility for setting the tone, holding the space and coaching, coaching, coaching.

Here’s how I see it:

Teams are not single homogenous units. There is not one dial for trust and safety - but many. We have many different and dynamic relationships within just one team.

But our primary gauge of safety comes from our link with the leader (however 'leader' is defined in this context). We can operate well with colleagues we don't trust so much, if the container the leader creates is watertight.

People in the two teams I've been talked about needed to know that I was their sturdy leader. That I wouldn’t switch on them or get weird about something unexpectedly. That I would be open, responsive and fair. They needed to see me manage my triggers...
 

Here’s what I did:

- I opened a lot of our meetings by allowing everyone a moment to say what was front of their mind, unrelated to the meeting's agenda. This helped people transition into the meeting zone and gave us all a window into each other's worlds. At the start, it was all positive.

"Busy week here!"

"Getting cracking on my actions, all good!"

"Looking forward to the weekend!"

 

Over time, you could tell people felt safe to say a bit more.

"This week has been a toughie."

"I'm finding X project is occupying my thoughts a lot"

"I'm feeling stuck on Y"

- I recognised and thanked participants for their contributions, every chance I got.

- I tried to be scrupulous with my language and framing, so focusing my words around solving problems rather than implicitly attributing blame. For example, I talked about learnings, not mistakes. If someone framed something with blame or judgment I would reframe it for them to transition the group back into a strong space and give people the language to describe it differently next time e.g. "So it sounds like you want to exploring what we might do next to make sure we get [this important positive outcome]. Ok let's..."

- I took a coaching approach with the group, asking open questions to help the group develop its problem solving powers: "What options do you see?" "

- Often, I closed with a check out round (though I am notorious for having to slam the brakes on at the end of the allotted meeting time!). The idea was to give everyone a quick chance to reflect on what we discussed or express how they're feeling about the outcomes.

- I really tried to follow up on actions and particularly on concerns raised. I wanted to demonstrate that contributions bravely made had value and that I would be as good as my word.

  

It's a lot of work, I definitely get that. The question is... is it faster in the long run? I'm certain it is BUT there are only so many teams you can go to this depth with. It's a natural constraint to the sheer volume of collaborative projects you can work on at once.

But when you get the flywheel going across a whole organisation, the tide rises and people start to feel safe and strong everywhere. And that's when performance goes off the scale...