Why the best workplaces are psychologically safe but intellectually dangerous

Here’s a thought: workplaces should be psychologically safe – but intellectually dangerous 🤔.

People must feel psychologically (and physically) safe in any workplace.

But at the same time, workplaces should have a strong intellectual immune response against bad ideas.

This distinction sounds easy in theory, but it can be quite difficult in practice.

Because many of us struggle to get the balance right between pushing back on bad ideas and not wanting to scare people off from ever putting one forward again. As a result, we give too much space to poor ideas before cutting them, which wastes time and robs people of realtime feedback that might improve their idea.

I think the trick is in how we frame it – not just in our own minds, but in conversation with our team.

We’re not aiming for a harsh, gladiatorial environment where bad ideas have their heads ripped off by lions.

But rather a vibrant ecosystem where the good ideas outcompete the bad ones before they take root.

An environment where we never confuse a person’s worth with the merit of any one idea they bring to the discussion.

Where people can have their idea proved wrong, without ever being made to feel like there’s something wrong with them.

Workplaces where ideas compete fiercely, not people.

Which is the opposite of what’s going on in politics these days.

Politics in many countries has become psychologically dangerous and intellectually safe, which is completely arse about.

Politicians increasingly seek to ‘beat’ their opponents in a contest of personalities, rather than a contest of ideas.

But this is where workplaces, politics and society need more leadership. If we want people to think more boldly, then we must leave space for them to come up with some boldly wrong ideas.

Because people must feel psychologically safe before they can be intellectually dangerous.

And this is what separates high performing organisations from high anxiety ones.