Courageous Conversations and the pursuit of psychologically safe workplaces

Having worked in the health and community services sector for over twenty years, the concept of professional development and supervision is something that was a regular agenda item and often a pain point for practitioners, supervisors, and managers.

How can we as an organisation put the most effective frameworks in place in often diverse workplaces where there are differences in disciplines, practice wisdom and roles?

I recall one occasion where a senior leader questioned the purpose of engaging an external facilitator for reflective practice due to the cost. If they already had operational supervision, clinical group supervision…why do they need reflective practice? I could not answer the why immediately, and my curiosity got the better of me and I set out to better understand frameworks for supporting practitioners.

My journey to unpack the “why” came to a head when I was asked to facilitate a reflective practice group session for a team in my new independent gig. I found it a tad hypocritical – agreeing to facilitate reflective practice without completely connecting with the purpose of it however I took it as a learning opportunity.

My brief was to facilitate a two-hour reflective practice session for a team of eight with diverse disciplines and roles. The objective of these reflective practice sessions was not black and white, which of course I loved because working with community is not black and white, however I felt a need to ensure that I was across the evidence based models for reflective practice and wanted to approach it with a structure that elicited the most impactful discussion.

I spent time researching, reviewing, planning, and developing a structure that I believed was the best fit for the purpose. As I commuted to the city the morning of the first session, I decided to throw all my intentions out the window. This team had previously had reflective practice facilitated and they did not find it useful. In my mind, coming in with the usual tools would just be more of the same, and I am not a ‘pre-determined structure’ type of facilitator, so I was grappling with showing up as my authentic self and letting imposter syndrome take over.

I entered the space with how I work naturally, how I mentor/coach and supervise others and how my supervisors get the best from me…real and raw and I proceeded to run the session with what comes naturally, combined with my practice knowledge and wisdom.

What comes naturally to me is not a structured environment, rather it is principles of practice that I embed in every space I operate in.

-          Authenticity

-          Prioritising connection

-          Holding space

-          Purposeful discussions

-          Integrating the personal self and values to the work self

-          Approaching practice with a systems lens

-          Collaborative facilitation- guiding the discussion and creating space for everyone to participate.

However most importantly, co-designing the session with the people it is there to serve.

Not surprisingly, these principles were strongly embedded in each individual in the session and what ensued was robust, meaningful, purposeful conversation that wasn’t loose or fluffy however left the team with hope, a stronger connection to each other and a reminder of why they love what they do….and it was simple and enjoyable.

On my commute home, I circled back to the question the senior leader asked. In an environment of tight budgets and deadlines, why reflective practice?

After facilitating this session, I now completely stand by the value of reflective practice.

Before I share my discovery, I want to put it in the context of the myriads of mechanisms organisations have in place to support practitioners.

-          Clinical supervision

-          Clinical review

-          Operational supervision

-          Group supervision

-          Reflective practice

-          Coaching/mentoring

These are on top of team meetings and staff meetings and any independent supervision a practitioner seeks out. You can see why managers and practitioners feel overwhelmed. Each of these has a place in supporting the operations, growth and development of clinicians, and their wellbeing however the commitment from a budgetary and time perspective can be too much…so much so that the value and purpose becomes redundant, and practitioners show up with resistance, negativity or simply avoid it.

Whilst I was researching these approaches and the processes that underpinned them, I went down countless rabbit holes. The evidence underpinning them is exhaustive and they all have a time and place so how can any organisation develop a framework that is going to appease the diversity in their workplace?

The most crucial factor if any framework is going to create impact is co-design. Across our sectors there is a push for co-design with lived and living experience however we continue to see an absence of co-design with our own staff, the very people impacted by policy and process. It may be time consuming to do however the outcome increases engagement and sustainability…change management 101.

There are fundamental questions that need considering when decided on a framework or approach, even to consider in the co-design process to ensure that there is a common outcome goal.

1.      What is the objective/purpose? Is the primary purpose for the management of clinical risk, practitioner growth, improve team cohesion or provide a safe space to unpack operational, client and systems issues?

2.      What are non-negotiables? Do you have specific disciplines that require discipline specific supervision? Are there broader policies that dictate supervision practices in the organisation? Is there capacity for multiple approaches and flexibility?

3.      What are the resources available? Are there budgetary constraints? Does the organisation have internal resources that can be skilled up or does the purpose/objective require an independent facilitator?

On the last point, it is vital that whoever is engaged as a facilitator is skilled in facilitation. This does not mean skilled in the discipline, although that is important in the clinical realm, however have they received training in facilitation and do the understand the context in which the work is being delivered? A psychologist could have extensive practical experience, significant academic success and be skilled in facilitation, however have they worked in community settings with clients with intersecting needs? I have seen the absence of this type of awareness and experience in a facilitator as an absolute barrier for engagement.

Lastly, an often the most overlooked is for the facilitator to have a cohesive understanding of the organisation’s values, strategy, and processes.

The reason this is so important is that any supervision is a chance to enable connection to organisational purpose and vision. A space to reflect on integrating personal values with organisational values and to identify pressure points where the work, or processes may be incongruent with these values, a point of tension that is often challenging to articulate…. however, it creates disconnection.

Having worked across multiple roles, with articulate, highly skilled clinicians, the latter is something that is not embedded in our workforce. The “leaders” in senior management positions can often speak to strategy and vision, organisational values are displayed on posters however the embedding of strategy, values and vision in practice requires intentionality…equipped our future leaders to practice and promote this through supervision spaces is integral.

So I return to the question about why reflective practice and true to my nature…I have done away with the traditional term reflective practice and coined Courageous Conversations…because as well as supporting alignment to organisational vision and values…the aim of this should be to create psychological safety which is the mechanism for achieving organisational performance.

Psychological safety is a huge subject, and I once mistook this for organisational culture…which it is not.

According to Amy Edmondson, Havard Business School professor and author of The Fearless Organisation, team psychological safety is a shared belief held my members of a team that is it OK to take risks, to express their ideas and concerns, to speak up with questions, and to admit mistakes- all without fear of negative consequences…..it’s felt permission for candour.”

I could not love this definition anymore.

Evidence shows that psychologically safe teams achieve higher levels of performance, subsequently driving organisational vision and strategy…with impact.

Reflective practice…or Courageous Conversations…when facilitated without bias, power imbalance or judgement…creates the foundations for team psychological safety. It works to establish trust amongst the team, provides space for individuals to explore their personal values and how they show up in the workplace, it fosters collaborative learning and growth and allows individuals to show up, in an extremely challenging work environment, with vulnerability.

In a world of tight budgets, excessive wait times and competing life demands, investing in this space not only creates sustainable growth across the organisation, but it also provides glimmers for practitioners who often feel overwhelmed and frustrated. Glimmers that in turn lead to employee engagement, retention, wellbeing, and performance.

So why do we need reflective practice? I can now answer that question with the wholehearted belief in the value it brings to creating psychologically safe teams and subsequently, organisations.