Freda: Good morning, this is Freda Liu, you’re listening to Raise Your Game.

In ancient times, before the advent of an advanced form of communication, the only way to send messages was through human emissaries. And in times of war, there was an unwritten code of conduct in which a commanding officer was expected to receive and send back unharmed these emissaries or diplomatic envoys sent by the enemy. This is probably where the term “don’t shoot the messenger” came from.

So, how relevant is this in the modern world, you ask? Well, it’s quite relevant today. We have our own version of shooting the messenger, where institutions penalise or castigate a person who gives feedback information on non-compliance, infringements, or outright wrongdoing. Instead of giving them a framework of safety for doing what’s right towards preserving the integrity of the company, institutions opt to transfer them, put them in cold storage, make work untenable for them, or even turn the tables on them and make them the scapegoats.

Today, we have Human Equation founder, Sheila Singam, to discuss the concept of a safety framework, or psychological safety, and why is it important for institutions to have and implement it. And of course, Sheila is always back on the final Monday of every month.

So Sheila, I love this—don’t shoot the messenger—but what does the concept of psychological safety mean?

Sheila: Okay, so the concept was first defined by Harvard organisational behavioural scientist, Amy Edmondson, as a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. So, she explains further that it is a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.

Freda: Right, okay, so that was the history behind it. Now, why is it so relevant for institutions?

Sheila: I’ll give you a few statistics first. So, a Gallup poll that was done a few years back showed that increasing psychological safety in organisations reduces turnover by 27%, reduces safety incidents by 40%, and raises productivity by 12%. And you might say 12% is not that much, but you know, that is among the institutions where it was conducted. And as you know, you know, everything is very relevant to the context of where the study was conducted. But I’m saying that if you can raise productivity by 12%, 15%, I say, “Hey, go for it! Why are we not doing this?”

And then again, Google did a study on what makes great teams successful. And they came up with a list of five key dynamics, okay? Psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity—that means like clear goals and where we’re going and so on—meaning that employees find meaning in what they do, and the impact. Right?

I guess which one stood out as the most important factor, Freda? So, when there is no psychological safety, what you get is workplace silence. People don’t speak up with new ideas.

Freda: Right. OK. And why do you think that happens, the workplace silence that prevails in many institutions now?

Sheila: OK, I believe there are a number of reasons. I think first, and the way it starts, is with us ourselves. We’ve been brought up conditioned by a very patriarchal society. Kind of in a way, we grew up probably in very authoritarian homes. And then our school system was like, you know, “Don’t speak until you are spoken to, keep quiet, don’t ask so many questions,” and all that, right?

So, people are told, “Don’t ask so many questions; people think you’re ignorant. Don’t admit your weaknesses or mistakes; people think you’re not competent.” And our family set-up is, “Don’t offer ideas; people may feel threatened, or they may see you as being very—like being very kaypoh (a busybody), intruding on their territory. Don’t be too smart for your own good. Know your place.” And of course, “Don’t criticise the status quo because you will be offending people or be seen to be challenging authority.”

So, all this becomes part of what Amy Edmondson calls our “impression management”. So, we are always doing that, managing the impression people have of us. So, we take it on. So, it becomes like a cage in which we cage ourselves.

So, I’ve had, you know, I’ve had CEOs and leaders saying, “You know, I give them the opportunity to speak, but no one wants to speak.”So, it’s like, you know, sometimes you open the cage door, but people don’t want to step out. They don’t know how to step out, right? So, we often go to work or live in places where the cage door is not open. We are not encouraged to step out. So, we stay in these cages of silence. And when the cage door is open, we don’t know how to come out. We choose not to step out because we’re so conditioned. So, that’s one area that lies with us.

Freda: Right, okay. So, and I’ve heard of these veiled threats, right? Where someone speaks up and then the person, short of saying, you know, “Well, you can try to find work elsewhere,” especially during this time, right? So, it’s not short of saying, you know… and in a calm and tone, you know, calm manner, but the underlying, the veiled threat of “go and find work elsewhere” when someone speaks up.

And then after that person speaks about a situation that affects an organisation, the person’s taken aside and told that, “You know, that was very disrespectful to me for having brought up that question.” And so, and it’s such a contrast to what the organisation is supposed to do. And yet, you know, that kind of, you know, it’s a, like I said, it’s a veiled threat, right? And you mentioned our own need for impression.

It’s okay, that reluctance to speak, you know, it’s not the case with the whole workforce of today, right?

Sheila: No, no, you’re right in saying that. I mean, there is a whole group, a generation of people there who are not as bound by impression management, and that’s the millennials. They’re the ones who want to speak up and actually who are speaking up to bring about change, whether it’s at an organisational level, whether it’s at a governmental level, you know, because they’re the social media generation. They’re used to speaking out in the public domain, all right? And they have very strong beliefs.

For people who come and tell me that the millennials are, “Oh, all they want is self-indulgence, they are a very entitled generation,” I don’t agree with that. I believe that they have very strong beliefs. They have a very strong value system, but it’s a different system from what the older generation has. They march to the beat of a different drummer. So, that’s why they often appear to be in conflict with managers from the—leaders from the baby boomer and Gen X.

But then, when they speak up, they’re told to keep quiet. “Oh, y’all are just new, y’all are young, y’all don’t know anything, we’ve got years of wisdom.” After a while, they say, “You really don’t want our ideas.” And they’ve got fantastic ideas. I mean, I work with millennials all the time and they come and give me great ideas. And I’m like, “Wow, very impressed.” So, you know, prolonged conflict, if you keep telling them, “Keep quiet, keep quiet,” they keep quiet and then they leave. And then your turnover rates go up, you know?

Freda: And I think that’s an indication, right? When people leave, right? Now, you mentioned our own need for impression management as a reason for workplace silence. So, are the leaderships of institutions also equally responsible for psychological safety that will give people the freedom to speak, or the lack thereof?

Sheila: Absolutely. I mean, of course, you know, many of us come through life. We go into the workforce, we go out into the world, we’ve got limiting beliefs and all that, our values imposed on us from outside forces, right? But when we encounter an environment and milieu where we are encouraged to come out of those cages, where we are encouraged to leave behind those limiting beliefs, where we are empowered and motivated to step out of our comfort zone into new territory, then that’s when people flourish and blossom.

So, organisations have to take the lead in creating the environment for psychological safety. You see, they have the power. As you said earlier, if people come and talk and then you say, “You want to get another job?” or “I can move you to some far-off regional office there,” so they have the power. So, it’s in my opinion that instead of using the power to suppress people, organisations should use it to create an environment that encourages collaborative discourse, ideas, questions, even a whistle-blowing policy that’s safe when things go wrong. Because when they don’t, they penalise people for bringing things up. That’s where things begin to go wrong.

So, I’ll give you a story, right? I was reading the story of this Armenian king, Tigranes, who killed the first messenger who brought him news of a huge advancing army. So, the messenger says, “You know, there’s this huge army coming and all that.” And he killed him. He didn’t want to hear the bad news. So, needless to say, after that, no one wanted to come and give him the bad news. So, without any intelligence at all, he sat while the war was blazing around him, giving ear only to those who flattered him. Does it sound familiar? Yeah.

Freda: (laughing) Is it the Emperor’s new clothes?

Sheila: Absolutely. So, if you’re only interested in favourable financial reports and how everything is hunky-dory, you don’t wanna know about the ripples and rumbles. You don’t wanna know about issues like unfair treatment, bullying employees, racism, sexism, sexual harassment, and all that. You don’t have a framework for reporting all of these complaints, mistakes, and all these things, or even new ideas for improvement. You are seriously asking for trouble. We see that all around us—Emperor’s new clothes, that’s what I’d call it.

Freda: And we’ll continue our discussion around this psychological safety. Sheila Singam from Human Equations. Stay tuned, BFM 89.9.

[Commercial Break: Become fabulous millionaires. BFM 89.9]

Freda: You’re listening to Raise Your Game, Freda here speaking to Sheila Singam from Human Equations. She joins us for the last Monday of the month. And we talk about psychological safety, right? And we talked about the repercussions of psychological safety and how, you know, that can really affect an organisation.

To me, I always have this image of when this happens, it’s like the termites in the bottom of a building, right? That looks really good and it’s just eating away at the core of the building, and one day it just crumbles, right?

So, how then can institutions encourage an environment of psychological safety?

Sheila: So, I will approach it from two levels: a macro organisational framework and an angle of what leaders personally need to do. Because it’s psychological safety, it’s not just you can have the most perfect framework for it and set it all up, all the rules and regulations.

Just recently, we had one leader saying that, “Oh, you know, we are very fair and open and transparent and all that,” and then a video goes circulating that a senior leader in the organisation is berating—a very sexist statement—someone else. Okay? So, I mean, you, you, you can have that, but it’s also the people.

So, let’s look at the organisational framework. But I think, I suggest that all organisations, and not only those that need to comply with governance, you know, issues, that all organisations, SMEs, anybody and everybody who has a business needs to have a clear governance framework in which specific actions are spelt out and cascaded down to the ranks. And sometimes you need to spell it out. A simple thing like taking home office supplies to help your children with the homework at home is wrong. Okay, this just needs to go down to really basic stuff. Okay?

And then you need to have a fair, confidential, and independent whistleblower unit. The problem is now your whistleblower unit in your organisation is parked within your organisation, with your people in your organisation who are there to listen and execute whatever or not. And then—and of course, the best thing is to have it administered by an independent group of people, not part of the mainstream organisation. So, all those people who are working in governance and all that, I think there’s a great business opportunity there: set up these independent governance units and offer your services to companies. So, it’s outside people. I feel so free coming and talking to you. And if there’s no interference from the administration, then people will feel free talking. I think our government really needs that, by the way.

Another thing that we need to do, companies need to do, is set up an innovation incubator, right? That meets regularly once a month or whatever, however often you want, to brainstorm problems, improvement solutions, new ideas, and encourage discourse, ideation, and performance enhancement at an organisational level.

And then, more simply, a framework for giving and acting on feedback that can improve company performance without prejudice, all right? And of course, when you want to encourage people to do all of this, give them an incentive for problem-solving. If you have a solution or an idea that can save the money—company money—or make more money for the company, then you need to be rewarded. So, these are some of the things companies can put in place.

Freda: Right. I think also one of the things is like when people don’t see it is when they are still profitable. And they don’t see how it’s a problem now because they’re so profitable. So, how do you then talk about the importance of this, because until you see, “Whoa, okay, people are leaving, we’re not profitable anymore, people don’t want our solutions,” and it’s always a case of too late—too little, too late, right? How do you, I guess, get that message across before, you know, before it’s taken seriously?

Sheila: I think it always goes back to companies need to keep going back and re-evaluating: what is their vision, their mission, their strategic intent, their brand promise, their value system? You cannot start your company 20, 30, 40 years ago and still be having the same vision, the same mission. I mean, the world has changed in one and a half years.

All companies need to go back now to the drawing board as far as I’m concerned and relook your vision, mission, your values, and the—the way that you’re doing business. And in that, in that you need to build in this framework for psychological safety. If you’re going to just look at the money and the profits and the bottom line and survival, and not look at the people—which is your biggest asset as far as I’m concerned—and not looking at the needs of the people to be creating an environment where they thrive and they’re happy to work and, you know, they’re giving suggestions and being able to take ownership of the company, then I think you’re really missing the whole point of why you’re doing business.

Freda: Right. Okay. You know, okay, what about individual leaders? How can they advocate and promote psychological safety?

Sheila: Okay, so the first thing is it starts with them. Okay, they need to look at their own character and behaviour. So, they need to start transforming into being more authentic, transparent, and open. Don’t be like the emperor with the new—new clothes, only wanting flattery and good news, not wanting to take feedback. Keep asking for upward feedback, acknowledge personal weakness, you know.

I think that they need to turun ke padang (go down to the grassroots), do a walkabout at your workplace. Go down, you know, to the machine room, the delivery room where everybody—they’re where the drivers hang out—and just talk to them. Okay, talk to people and have an—so this is about active listening. Have an open-door policy without filtering to encourage approachability. Let anybody come. So, have a time where you say, “This—this day my door is open, anybody can come.”

And then be open to ideas different from your own. Like what you said earlier, you know, when—when you go and give ideas and then the leader comes and says, “Oh, you’re embarrassing me, humiliated me,” and all that. That should not be it at all.

And then another thing is give your 100% attention to people at meetings. I hate it when they go to meetings and the leader thinks it’s his prerogative to answer the phone because he’s like so important. What about the people there who are giving you ideas, talking to you? Aren’t they important? Aren’t they more important because they’re helping you to run this company, right? And of course, have regular town halls, right?

And another thing, if you want people to interact, you set ground rules. Say like you and I and a few others in a meeting and then you say something, and it’s like, “No, no, Freda, I don’t agree. That idea is no good.” That should not be allowed at all. No interruptions, no profanities, no name-calling, sexist, racist statements, shouting, no blaming, and all ideas accepted equally.

And one more thing, every time there’s a meeting, just decide, take turns for people to make minutes and make notes. Why do you always pick the woman in that meeting to take the minutes and do the notes? For me, that’s a subtle form of sexism if you ask me.

And of course, ultimately, you want to develop a learning culture. Use every mistake, every failure. Reframe it as a learning experience. “Now, what can we learn from that? How can we move on from here?” Not as a blame game.

And organisations… I always—I just recently heard someone who’s in conflict within his organisation. He said, “You know, I’m so tired of it. Every time we meet to discuss solutions, everyone is looking at what’s the problem and who to blame rather than the solution.” So, these are just some ways that I have to suggest.

Freda: Right. And I’ve heard of organisations where suggestions are met with silence, where it’s not even acknowledged. And I think there is that like—wow, it’s even the game, like a psychological game that we’re playing, right? Where if it’s one thing, at least you’re acknowledged, but when there’s just silence, it’s like, “Okay, wow, that means my thoughts are not important at all.”

Sheila: Well, if you are in a meeting, when you’re asking for suggestions and there’s absolute silence, instead of pointing a finger and saying, “What’s wrong with all these people? I give them a chance to speak, they don’t want to speak,” then you’ve got to ask yourself: why are they not speaking in the first place? Why is everybody in that room not saying anything?

You’ve got to look back at yourself, or you’ve got to look back at the culture of organisations where they go for other meetings with other leaders, maybe aside from yourself, where their ideas are not accepted, they are clamped down, they’re told, you know—like they’re—I told like, “Why did you bring that up at the meeting?”

I have seen this happen. An organisation tells me that, “Oh, come in and do focus group studies and we want to know what the people think and all.” And finally, we came up with an entire report of what the people think—fingers all pointed to senior management. So, when we had a meeting and senior management started bringing up problem-solving and all that, offsite after the meeting, a few of the managers went and said, “Why did you have to bring that up at the meeting? It made my department and me look very bad.” And then I’m looking at… but you said you wanted transparency! So, you know, you got to really walk the talk.

Freda: Right, okay. So, we’re talking about psychological safety. What can we talk about next month?

Sheila: Okay, let’s do a drill-down from psychological safety. I’ve been hearing a lot of cases of people being bullied at work. And they’re taking it—they’re taking it because they’ve been given this subtle threat, like what you said: “If you answer back or question them, find another job. You think in this pandemic it is easy to find a job?” So, this kind of thing. So, let’s talk about bullying. It’s a very real thing. I mean, it’s happening at a governmental level, at organisational levels, at every level that we can see here—sort of uniform bodies and all that, I don’t want to mention. But yeah, let’s talk about that, Freda.

Freda: All right, Sheila Singam from Human Equation. We’ve been talking about psychological safety. She’ll be back the final Monday of October to talk about bullying. So, you’ve been listening to Raise Your Game, at BFM 89.9.

[Commercial Close: Thank you for listening to this podcast. To find more great interviews, go to bfm.my or find us on iTunes. BFM 89.9, The Business Station.]