Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson coined the term psychological safety. She defines it as, “A belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes.” In a recent webinar, Charles Vivian, managing director at North Highland consulting, described psychological safety as, “The extent to which team members feel safe to speak up, take risks, and bring diverse perspectives, trusting that it will not be held against them.”

In this postmodern world of constant change when consistent knowledge sharing is a must, all organizational change practitioners should evaluate how free the people in their organizations feel to express their thoughts and opinions. As Edmondson says in her book, The Fearless Organization (2019): “No twenty-first-century organization can afford to have a culture of fear.”

Essentially, the goal of psychological safety is to eliminate (or minimize) interpersonal fear. As humans, we are constantly assessing and negotiating people’s perceptions of us as we interact throughout the day. This is particularly true in the workplace where the consequences of saying something that is misconstrued or seen as contradictory to those in authority could damage reputations, relationships, and even careers. This ongoing, internal negotiation and the fear it incites is emotionally and physically draining and is shown to negatively impact performance. 

The logic behind the drive to create the fearless organization is grounded in neuroscience; research shows that “fear consumes cognitive resources, diverting them from parts of the brain that process new information. When we experience fear,” said Edmondson in a recent Forbes interview, “we are less able to engage in analytic thinking, creative insight and problem-solving.”

By eliminating fear, we create an environment that fosters learning, innovation, and growth—all characteristics that are vital to high-performing individuals, teams, and organizations.

iGen’ers are now in their mid-20s; the oldest are transitioning into the workforce. So now is the time for leaders to ensure the workplace is free of fear and optimized for collaboration.

iGen’ers typically share three characteristics that make creating a work environment that is psychologically safe especially challenging:

Organizations can help iGen’ers master self-talk and interpersonal communication so they can collaborate more effectively in the workplace.

iGen’ers are particularly in tune with their image and how it is being perceived every day, in every situation, across multiple channels. The necessity of creating a personal brand is ingrained in their psyche, as they have been monitoring and regulating how they portray themselves and what image their followers perceive since they created their first social media account, most before the age of 12.  Yet managing their inner voice (self-talk) and negotiating relationships (interpersonal communication) is becoming more challenging with each generation born in the postmodern world of globalization and technology.

Sample Scenario: As iGen team members attempt to promote a personal brand at work, their behaviors can result in some awkward situations. Think about the new employee who appears to completely understand an enterprise system but struggles and does not ask for support. The self-talk goes something like this: I am a digital native, so I am a techie. My manager hired me for this job, so she expects me to figure out the system by myself. If I ask for help, I will be admitting my incompetency and may lose my job. The reality is, enterprise systems are seldom intuitive, and when employees are afraid to ask the right colleague the right questions, the results can be humiliating and counterproductive.

Try This: Employers can bridge the disconnect between authenticity and the desire to promote a personal brand by providing new employees with a clear picture of workplace norms and policies during the onboarding process and guidance as to what professionalism looks like in their particular industry and unique corporate culture. Educate new iGen employees as to the importance of interacting face-to-face with co-workers of all ages to build relationships, garner support, and identify potential mentors. And remind existing employees, particularly those of older generations, that they were young once and the new kid on the block. Supporting young employees by engaging them in honest conversations about workplace norms and generational differences will go a long way in building their confidence and ability to share information in an environment of psychological safety.

Dr. Jean Twenge, social psychologist and foremost expert on generational values, describes iGen teens and twenty-somethings as less likely to take risks than previous generations. They are less likely to party, less likely to have sex, and less likely to drink alcohol, for example. That means fewer high schoolers are participating in risky behaviors that present a danger to overall health (which is good); but it also means that when iGen’ers enter the workforce, they are less likely to push the limits of social, emotional, and intellectual growth.

Sample Scenario: Managers who are highly risk-averse tend to isolate their teams, a practice that has its pros and cons. The Director of Quality Assurance at a software development company (I’ll call her Emily) followed this management style. Emily stayed in her lane, which meant her team operated under the radar. Her management style helped her steer clear of conflict (even positive conflict) and keep team members focused. What it did not do, however, was ensure her team was aware of and aligned with evolving business goals and objectives. When individual goals are aligned with business goals, employees are more motivated to innovate and grow with the organization. Emily’s team was safe but siloed.

Try This: The heads down all the time mentality does not work in an era of constant change. Collaboration is mandatory. If Emily had been operating in a fearless organization, in a culture where people are allowed (and even encouraged) to fail, she may not have felt the need to protect the team from the changes going on around them. Instead, she would have engaged with leadership across the organization to explore innovations to business processes while at the same time guiding her team to collaborate and still strive to meet high-level goals and objectives that clearly aligned with their personal and departmental work efforts.

Even though iGen’ers are the safest, most protected children in history, adults are constantly driven to protect them even more. And while parents often think that this level of protection gives young people a heightened sense of security, it actually has the opposite effect. Since parents are protecting their iGen’er children from situations that would force them to face their fears or overcome adversity, young people are growing up less confident with a limited ability to perform tasks independently.  

This lack of confidence is intensified by a movement currently underway at colleges and universities that promotes what Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt call vindictive protectiveness; in other words, universities are jumping on the bandwagon to protect not only students’ physical wellbeing but also their emotional wellbeing. They are doing so by eliminating words or ideas that might cause them discomfort, turning always speakers whose topics could cause anxiety, and requiring professors to issue trigger warnings for courses that could cause students to have an emotional response.

The result is that mere words are now perceived as a source of danger. When words hurt their feelings or make them anxious, iGen’ers do not address the person or situation; instead, they look for a safe place to retreat and recover.

Sample Scenario: To avoid emotional injury, iGen’ers tend to avoid people who do not agree with them and situations that could trigger an emotional response. This attitude sets up an us vs. them mentality, which causes division and impairs a team’s ability to collaborate. Managers must recognize the need to actively guide the behaviors and attitudes that support a divisive mindset. Managers must become more adept at driving organizational change management practices to create awareness and a desire to collaborate with people who think differently and provide team members with the skills they need to do so.

Try This: There are a number of strategies managers can use to alleviate the negative impacts the emphasis on emotional wellbeing can have on the organization pursuing fearlessness, including the following:

It is only natural that young people are apprehensive as they transition from academia into the workplace, but for iGen’ers, the fear is more salient. Leaders who are trying to create an environment of psychological safety need to make a connection between what a new employee has experienced and the future state those leaders envision for the company.

An Education Week special report (2020) reveals that 76% of schools use a Social Emotional Learning (SEL) approach to teaching students how to develop self-awareness, self-control, and interpersonal skills. As a result, employers can be confident that iGen’ers have been immersed in a common vocabulary, which includes words such as SMART goals, empathy, growth mindset, community, and so on.

These words translate nicely into a framework for managing inner and interpersonal communication, as well as promoting confidence for growth through risk-taking and for addressing words and ideas that challenge personal viewpoints. In today’s workplace, this framework is known as Emotional Intelligence (EI).

Make the connection for new iGen employees between SEL at school and EI at work, and they will be more prepared to share the company vision of a fearless organization.

Related Articles: Why Projects Need Change Expertise

Image credits:
Book Photo by Ambra Watkins
Self-Talk Photo by Tengyart on Unsplash
Risk Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels
Emotional Wellbeing Photo by G Allen Penton / Shutterstock.com

The truth is, taking the time and effort to help employees understand what makes each generation tick can actually serve as a unifying force. Managing generational difference can accelerate team performance, enhance work quality, and minimize employee turnover.

Managers can use what makes people different to build stronger teams. However, the idea that people of one generation are no different from those in another precludes this unifying effect. Consequently, the Us vs. Them mindset prevails, preventing project teams from achieving peak performance.

Clearly, cultures change over time, and those changes affect people. Thus, we have generational differences. Social scientists determine how the events, trends, and other cultural phenomena people experience during their formative years (birth to age 18) help shape them. They use this information to identify people’s characteristics and core values and determine when one generation ends, and another begins.

As author and speaker Chuck Underwood explains, our core values continue to influence decisions, lifestyle preferences, and even career choices throughout our lives.

William Strauss and Neil Howe were pioneers in generational theory. When conducting research for a compilation of biographical sketches in the 1980s, the two men discovered a recurring generation cycle in American history. This discovery evolved into the Strauss-Howe generational theory which holds that throughout history there were distinct people groups with shared characteristics and values. They first explained the theory in The Fourth Turning, a book that details how these historical cycles work and how social scientists can use them to predict future impacts. Strauss and Howe founded LifeCourse Associates, a consulting company that continues to use historical, generational data to help managers and marketers predict national trends.

While Strauss and Howe apply an historical perspective to generational difference, Jeffrey Jensen Arnett looks at it as a developmental psychologist. Arnett published his first theory in American Psychologist in 2000, in which he presents emerging adulthood as a new phase of life. Based largely on qualitative data, the theory demonstrates that the transition into adulthood is no longer a brief rite of passage. The time between adolescence and adulthood can now last more than ten years, from age 18 to age 29. That is how long young people are generally taking to explore their identities and start adulting.

The growing body of knowledge regarding emerging adulthood offers a better understanding of what young people are experiencing and why. Emerging adulthood is delaying key life events—launching from the family home, for example; marrying and having children; seeking a post-secondary education; and even finding gainful employment. The fact that young people are growing up more slowly is reshaping the way businesses recruit, hire, and retain young talent.

Jean M. Twenge is also a professor of psychology. Unlike Arnett, however, she primarily uses quantitative data to conduct research on generational difference. And she does not use one-time studies; instead, she tracks standardized psychological test scores over decades, which effectively eliminates the age factor.

Twenge listens to what young people have to say then determines how that is different from what people said 10, 20, or 30 years ago. She examines generational differences in work values over time. Twenge uses this information to advise leaders when to adapt management strategies for a new generation.

The study of generational difference is still in its infancy, so many of the benefits are yet to be revealed. One benefit I foresee is related to people’s ability to flex in the midst of change. As the workforce evolves, leaders are finding new ways to adapt to the accelerating rate of change; they are adopting more agile methods of delivering projects. But shouldn’t they also be planning how to make people more agile? An understanding of generational difference provides managers with a means of taking what makes people different and using it to build more cohesive, flexible teams.

It is necessary and beneficial to provide the workforce with tools that enable better interaction and communication across generations. Agility believes that leaders and managers need to be aware of how generational difference affects job performance. With this knowledge, they can build teams that more readily flex and react as businesses respond to today’s highly fluctuating markets and trends.

Generational difference is big deal because, when well-managed, it is a unifying force that can enable project teams and key stakeholders to maximize performance.

Related Articles: 3 Change Management Misconceptions That Limit Outcomes

The value of managing change became increasingly evident to me over time. So when I had the opportunity to transition into management consulting at Accenture, I did. There I managed change (or business readiness as many clients called it) as part of the Talent and Organization Performance group. We addressed components of change including stakeholder management; leadership and ownership; communication; training and performance support; and organization design.

The scope of work that change management practitioners perform has grown tremendously since then. Practitioners now have access to end-to-end processes and to practice communities that support them. In 2011, the Association for Change Management Practitioners (ACMP) was born. In 2014 the organization launched the first Standard for Change Management™, followed shortly thereafter by the certification process and CCMP exam.

Change management is now well defined. The Standard outlines detailed processes, and multiple third-party organizations provide methodologies that complement those processes. But even while the necessity of devoting time and resources to the people side of change is gaining acceptance, there are still widely-held misconceptions that must be put to rest before businesses can fully realize the benefits of organizational change management.

One misconception is that change management leadership is only valuable in areas that touch employees the most—communications and training. Not so. Change management is an end-to-end process. Practitioners guide stakeholders at every stage from project initiation through closing and beyond. Their work ensures the company can sustain the change and realize expected benefits.

Another misconception is that if leadership adopts an approach to change at the beginning of an initiative, no further change intervention is needed. The idea is when management grasps the approach, they can use it to lead employees through project execution. This way of thinking about change management eliminates the need for a robust, end-to-end OCM engagement.

With no consistent and enduring vision of OCM during a project, stakeholders tend to lose sight of the big picture. I experienced this phenomenon first-hand when I was responsible for change communications on a large program with multiple high-level initiatives. Consultants trained key stakeholders in OCM concepts early in the program. But two years later, when it came time to address communications, stakeholders were not prepared. They had no overall vision of how employees would view the change in the long-term. Without that knowledge, the risk that communications will not support a smooth implementation is high.

Despite a fast approaching deadline, I had to step back and redefine the change management approach. Then I met together with the various initiative leads to unite them going forward. It was also necessary to hold brainstorming sessions with change leads and SMEs to reassess stakeholders, and thereby ensure effective change communications. (See the related case study.)

The third misconception is that there is only one side to change management—the soft side. Leaders of pragmatic-minded organizations tend to believe change management is too touchy-feely. They think it adds no financial or measurable value to project implementation—it is extraneous. Because change management processes are now well defined, practitioners can use them to help organizations measure readiness, risk, engagement, adoption, and even benefit realization.

Agility and other change management-focused consulting firms are also adept at communicating change. Furthermore, we know how to look at change capability and change capacity to create more flexible, agile organizations.

Like many creative people, I find the greatest satisfaction in seeing anything I do from beginning to end. It turns out I was spot-on when I sensed there was more to helping people change than user guides and training. I have been following this quickly expanding field of OCM for years. Doing so has provided me with a new level of self-fulfillment as I launch Agility to help people navigate change.

Related Articles: Why Projects Need Change Expertise

Image credit: ID 58759836 © Leowolfert | Dreamstime.com

Whether companies engage change management experts or train their project managers in change management best practices, there is no way around it. Companies must consider how the number and complexity of scheduled initiatives will affect employees, their ability to do work, and ultimately the overall productivity and success of the organization.

Granted, program and project management activities prevent overlap of effort at multiple levels. Each project schedule tracks resources to identify conflicts and prevent resource overload; i.e., when resources are loaded, project managers can determine whether a resource is working on multiple tasks at the same time. Program managers provide oversight across projects. And, under ideal circumstances, the project management office (PMO) performs master planning activities to identify conflicts across the organization.

Consequently, project management can prevent schedule conflicts from impeding project delivery. But what discipline is in place to prevent the impacts of those projects from overlapping? Change management does the heavy lifting to ensure that there is not so much change going on in an organization that people are overwhelmed. Change management monitors and measures change saturation, preventing employee frustration, paralysis, and burn-out.

The traditional project manager’s role is to drive projects from initiation through closing. Project success is based on whether project activities are completed on time and on budget with quality. The gap lies in managing how people move from the current operating state that exists prior to project execution to the future operating state that will exist Day 1 after project implementation.

The change manager’s job (or the project manager’s new responsibilities) include assessing whether an organization has the capacity and the capability to achieve a particular change. This is the input to the business case “yah or nay” decision. If the organization is ready, how ready? And where there are gaps, how can leaders fill those gaps to ensure people transition into the new way of doing work with minimal loss of productivity (and sanity)? The change implementation extends beyond project delivery to ensure sustainability. Success is based on whether the people adopt the change and the organization actually recognizes expected benefits.

Why do 70% of transformations fail? asks the writer of a recent Forbes article:

These are all elements of transformation that experienced and qualified change practitioners are prepared to address. PMs must learn to address these elements as well if businesses want to raise the success rate of their transformational change initiatives.

The Project Management Institute (PMI) is becoming increasingly aware of the need for PMs to build skills in guiding change. When I took the PMP exam in 2012, I was surprised to discover that the standards documentation (the PMBOK) does not provide guidance for managing the people side change. Any references to “change management” refer to managing change requests. Since that time, however, PMI has been providing a growing knowledge base of learning resources related to organizational change.

PMI recognizes that projects need change expertise. The new PMP exam, to be enacted in July 2020, tests PMP candidates for their knowledge of OCM. Candidates will be tested on tasks such as how to support organizational change by assessing organizational culture and evaluating change impacts.

The rate of change is accelerating exponentially, and people from the break room to the board room need help navigating that change. You will hear me state this truth over and over again. It is a truth that resonates throughout my writing and work.

The tides of change are upon us. Managing the people side of change is now critical to successful organizational transformation, so projects need change expertise. For smaller projects with fewer impacts, that might mean OCM training for PMs. For large, complex projects, that means engaging expert change management practitioners to focus on organizational change.

Change expertise needs to be in place when projects are selected at the beginning of the business case cycle. That way, leaders will have the information they need to avoid introducing the risks of change saturation.

Related Article: 3 Change Management Misconceptions That Limit Outcomes

Image credits:
ID 145547161 © Wrightstudio | Dreamstime.com
ID 164123546 © Funtap P | Dreamstime.com