A Depth of Trust

Summary

Choiceology with Katy Milkman: "A Depth of Trust" (June 1, 2026)

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Katy Milkman explores the decisive role of psychological safety—trust that empowers people to speak up—in high-stakes environments. Through compelling stories such as the 2010 Chilean mine rescue and insights from leading researcher Amy Edmondson, the episode dissects how open communication, fostering candor, and empowering every team member can prevent disasters and enable extraordinary outcomes. The lessons extend from disaster sites and hospitals to everyday team dynamics and even personal financial advice.

---

Detailed Episode Breakdown

1. The Cost of Silence: The Columbia Shuttle Disaster

• Timestamp: 00:08 – 01:55
• Key Points:
  • The 2003 Columbia Shuttle tragedy wasn’t just about a piece of foam damaging the wing; it revealed a deeper cultural problem.
  • Despite engineers raising red flags and requesting further investigation, NASA management dismissed concerns, and the culture discouraged speaking up.
  • Quote: “It took over two years of grounded flights and an investigation for NASA to realize the disaster wasn't just a flight failure. It was an organizational one, driven by a culture that didn’t encourage speaking up.” (B, 01:24)
• Insight: A team or organization’s culture—whether it allows people to raise critical concerns—can be the difference between life and death.

---

2. The Chilean Mine Miracle: Trust, Candor, and Collaboration

Setting the Scene: The San Jose Disaster

• Timestamp: 02:37 – 05:35
• Key Points:
  • In August 2010, 33 miners became trapped nearly a kilometer underground after a catastrophic collapse.
  • The mine was notoriously unsafe; “they would call themselves the kamikazes because they got paid really good, but it was really dangerous.” (A, 04:09)
  • Maps were unreliable, and initial rescue efforts were essentially blind.

Building a Team Culture of Listening and Respect

• Timestamp: 05:35 – 10:58
• Key Points:
  • Chilean authorities (prompted by President Sebastián Piñera's bold promise to save the miners) pulled together a global cross-disciplinary team.
  • Specialists from multiple countries debated openly—no one dismissed even the wildest ideas out of hand, creating a highly inclusive, “United Nations” dynamic.
  • Experts openly shared failures—drill attempts frequently missed, but lessons were discussed without shame.

Breakthroughs Enabled by Psychological Safety

• Timestamp: 10:58 – 15:12
• Key Points:
  • Three simultaneous plans (A, B, C) were developed; none was dismissed prematurely.
  • Crucial moment: When Plan B’s drill jammed, Igor Proistakis, a 24-year-old junior engineer, suggested using a “spider”—a risky but innovative idea learned in university.
  • Senior leaders listened, immediately implemented, and the idea saved the effort.
  • Quote: “He’d valued the young engineer’s input and given him a seat at the table when it mattered most. That trust was now the mission’s last lifeline.” (B, 14:19)

Emotional Climax: The Rescue

• Timestamp: 15:12 – 16:56
• Key Points:
  • Plan B ultimately succeeded, rescuing all 33 miners after 69 harrowing days underground—a testament to teamwork and a psychologically safe environment.
  • Quote: “It was the closing chapter on just a most remarkable example of teamwork from people from around the world.” (A, 16:44)

Reflection

• Timestamp: 16:56 – 17:35
• Key Points:
  • The Chilean mine rescue stands as a “masterclass in global collaboration,” enabled by a team culture “where rank didn't silence good ideas and even the most junior voices carried weight.” (B, 16:56)

---

3. The Science Behind Team Candor: Amy Edmondson on Psychological Safety

Defining Psychological Safety

• Timestamp: 18:39 – 19:50
• Guest: Amy Edmondson, Harvard Business School
• Key Points:
  • Psychological safety is an environment “where candor is expected. Candor is welcome. You do not believe you will be punished or shamed... for saying what you think, for asking for help, for offering a dissenting view, for admitting a mistake.” (C, 18:54)
  • Such environments are rare—even in high-stakes settings, people often hold back concerns.

Why Psychological Safety Matters

• Timestamp: 19:50 – 21:22
• Key Points:
  • Edmondson’s research in hospital teams (e.g., NICUs, cardiac surgery teams) showed higher psychological safety led to radical improvements in outcomes.
  • Teams that encouraged voice and learning performed better, especially when tackling new, complex problems.

The Counterintuitive Truth: Tough Leadership Can Backfire

• Timestamp: 21:22 – 24:45
• Key Insights:
  • Strict, no-mistake leadership seems logical in high-stakes scenarios, but it often increases fear; mistakes go unreported, and problems grow.
  • Quote: “When you say you must not make mistakes, you don't magically create human beings who don't make mistakes—you basically vastly increase the chances that you won't hear about the mistakes that do happen.” (C, 22:30)
  • Transparent, candid environments speed up error detection, adaptation, and innovation.

Practical Guidance for Building Trust and Candor

• Timestamp: 25:04 – 27:43
• Key Actions:
  • Leaders: Call attention to uncertainty (“None of us has a crystal ball... your voice matters.”), encourage questions, respond with curiosity rather than blame.
  • Teams: Replace “execution” mind-sets with “learning” mind-sets—adapt, ask what’s working/not working, and share openly.

Myths and Misconceptions

• Timestamp: 27:43 – 29:58
• Key Points:
  • Myth: Psychological safety is about comfort. Truth: It's not about comfort or “niceness”—it's about candid, constructive risk-taking.
  • Myth: Change must be top-down. Truth: Anyone, at any level, can nurture psychological safety through curiosity, humility, and genuine inquiry.
  • Quote: “Wherever you are, you can show up with more humility, with more curiosity, with more inquiry, and you can start to create little pockets of learning and energy wherever you are.” (C, 29:34)

Psychological Safety Beyond the Workplace

• Timestamp: 29:58 – 30:54
• Key Points:
  • Psychological safety is not just for managers—if you’re seeking advice (e.g., in financial planning), you can foster trust by asking thoughtful questions and expressing a desire to learn.
  • Courage and psychological safety are “two sides of the same coin.” (C, 30:32)

Improving Decision-Making on Teams

• Timestamp: 30:54 – 32:33
• Key Points:
  • Make space for all voices; conversations should include genuine inquiry, not just statements.
  • Aim for conversations that make everyone smarter; call out and redirect unproductive patterns.
  • Quote: “If you think of your primary job in knowledge-based industries as steering and participating in high quality conversations... those better happen in psychologically safe environments, then your job is just to keep facilitating those, keep participating... and just improve them every single day and that will improve the quality of outcomes.” (C, 32:16)

---

4. Broadening the Lens: Psychological Safety Everywhere

Takeaways for Listeners

• Timestamp: 32:50 – End
• Key Points:
  • Google’s Project Aristotle found that psychological safety was the best predictor of high team performance—even more than intelligence or leadership quality.
  • The lesson: Psychological safety isn’t just valuable at Google or NASA—it matters everywhere: in families, communities, sports teams, and with advisors.
  • Quote: “By remembering how much it matters to signal that you want to learn from the people around you... you can help create a psychologically safe climate anywhere... And it’s worth the effort.” (B, 34:09)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the risk of silence:
  “It took over two years of grounded flights and an investigation for NASA to realize the disaster wasn't just a flight failure. It was an organizational one, driven by a culture that didn’t encourage speaking up.” (B, 01:24)

• On leadership and humility:
  “President Piñera immediately acknowledged that he had no idea, no idea how to do this. So he started to convene the best safety experts across Chile.” (A, 06:13)

• Power of empowered junior voices:
  “He’d valued the young engineer’s input and given him a seat at the table when it mattered most. That trust was now the mission’s last lifeline.” (B, 14:19)

• Amy Edmondson on psychological safety:
  “Candor is expected. Candor is welcome. You do not believe you will be punished or shamed... for saying what you think, for asking for help, for offering a dissenting view, for admitting a mistake.” (C, 18:54)

• On candor vs. fear:
  “When you say you must not make mistakes, you don't magically create human beings who don't make mistakes—you basically vastly increase the chances that you won't hear about the mistakes that do happen.” (C, 22:30)

• On everyday impact:
  “You can show up with more humility, with more curiosity, with more inquiry, and you can start to create little pockets of learning and energy wherever you are.” (C, 29:34)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:08 – 01:55: Columbia Shuttle disaster and the consequences of silencing warnings
• 02:37 – 16:56: 2010 Chilean mine collapse, rescue efforts, and lessons in team trust and innovation
• 18:39 – 19:50: Amy Edmondson defines psychological safety
• 19:50 – 21:22: Edmondson’s hospital studies: outcomes and impact
• 21:22 – 24:45: Why psychological safety, not “tough leadership,” prevents disaster
• 25:04 – 27:43: Practical tips for leaders and teams
• 27:43 – 29:58: Common myths and misconceptions dispelled
• 30:54 – 32:33: Action steps for improving team conversations and decision-making
• 32:50 – End: Applying psychological safety insights everywhere—at work, home, and beyond

---

Key Lessons and Takeaways

• Cultures where people feel safe to speak up catch problems sooner and are more innovative, adaptable, and resilient.
• Psychological safety is about inviting candor—not about being “nice” or making people comfortable.
• Leadership humility (admitting uncertainty and actively welcoming feedback) is crucial, but anyone—not just managers—can foster psychological safety.
• This trust and openness are critical not only in dramatic rescues and hospitals but in everyday teams, families, and even financial planning.

---

Further Reading and Recommended Actions

• Amy Edmondson’s book, The Fearless Organization, and her work on teams and learning.
• For more on building trust with advisors, see the related “Financial Decoder” episode mentioned in the show.
• Reflect on your own teams and relationships: Where can you ask more questions, welcome dissent, and make others feel genuinely heard?

---

This episode is a powerful reminder: When everyone feels empowered to contribute and raise concerns, the impossible becomes possible—whether it’s saving lives deep underground or making better everyday choices.

Transcript

[A]

Columbia, houston, uhf commcheck.

[B]

Columbia, Houston, com check. It's February 1, 2003. Seven astronauts are just minutes from home, hurtling through the atmosphere at 18 times the speed of sound.

[A]

GC flight fly GC, lock the doors. Copy.

[B]

But as the world watches the sky over Texas, the space shuttle Columbia isn't landing. It's breaking apart.

[A]

Debris was seen falling from the skies above Texas. The Columbia's lost. On board was a crew of seven. There are no survivors.

[B]

The tragedy was blamed on a mechanical failure, a piece of foam insulation striking the wing during launch. But the real failure happened a week before. An engineer saw the damage and knew the risk. He asked for satellite photos, but managers blocked him, insisting there was no safety of flight issue. He even drafted an urgent alert to his superiors. But in the end, he never sent. Took over two years of grounded flights and an investigation for NASA to realize the disaster wasn't just a flight failure. It was an organizational one, driven by a culture that didn't encourage speaking up. In this episode, we explore what happens when people feel safe enough to raise concerns and how creating the right working conditions can mean the difference between life and death. I'm Dr. Katie Milkman and this is Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. It's a show about the psychology and economics behind our decisions. We bring you true and surprising stories about high stakes choices. And then we examine how these stories connect to the latest research in behavioral science. We do it all to help you make better judgments and avoid costly mistakes.

[A]

When the miners are having lunch, they tend to have lunch in a little shelter that was way down at the bottom of the mine. They would keep their lunch there. They'd. There was water there. They could take their break. So on this day, they heard like a huge crack. And it was something that none of them had ever heard before. And it was like their world just shattered.

[B]

The air inside the mine explodes. Dust and debris are everywhere. And in seconds, the way out disappears. The men understand immediately this was a full collapse. Copiapo, in northern Chile is one of the region's most important mining cities. Just outside of town, the desert landscape is dotted with gold, silver and copper mines.

[A]

The miners who worked in the San Jose mine would often talk about how the mine would cry. And I didn't understand what they were talking about. And they explained, no cry is when like little boulders would fall from the roof. And these aren't so little, like the size of a refrigerator. But that was like when the mine was crying. They knew that this mine was shifting and it had been mined really haphazardly.

[B]

This is Jonathan Franklin, he's a journalist based in Santiago who was on the front lines during the San Jose mining incident. The gold and silver mine had been in operation for over 100 years. It was isolated in the desert, so safety checks from the government were not very frequent.

[A]

It was known to be so dangerous that the workers themselves, they would call themselves the kamikazes because they got paid really good. But it was really dangerous.

[B]

The miners safety was never guaranteed.

[A]

They literally prayed on the way in.

[B]

On August 5th of 2010, the miners worst fears became a reality.

[A]

It turns out that it was a piece of rock many times bigger than the Empire State Building. And it kind of slid like a big gate and just sealed the in this chamber 900 meters deep. This wasn't like a rock slide. This wasn't something you could dig through. This was like there was no way they were ever going to get out. From the beginning, this was a death sentence.

[B]

33 miners were trapped half a mile underground and nobody knew if they were dead or alive. From the start, the rescue faced a terrifying problem.

[A]

There's many debates about what the solution might be like. How would you even begin to look for them? There's basically no maps of the mine. The maps are useless.

[B]

Years of haphazard expansion of the mine meant that maps were inaccurate and incomplete.

[A]

Their initial challenge is that they have very poor maps. Not a deep understanding of the different geological features that they have to drill through and the clock ticking in their head that, you know, every day somebody might die.

[B]

Word spread quickly. Drilling crews arrived. Then the Chilean government stepped in, including Chile's Mining Minister Lawrence Goulborn, and then President Sebastian Pinera.

[A]

So when this happens, all of the President's aides say, Mr. President, stay away. Mine accident means dead miners. But being an entrepreneur and being a very savvy thinker, Sebastian Pinera said, we're going to pull him out alive.

[B]

It was a bold promise. No one had any idea what condition the miners were in. But what Pinera did know was that he would need help.

[A]

President Pinera immediately acknowledged that he had no idea, no idea how to do this. So he started to convene the best safety experts across Chile. And just south of Santiago, he found a man named Andre Sugarett.

[B]

Andre Sugaret was a mining executive who at the time managed the world's largest underground mine.

[A]

So when Andre Sugeret lands in the desert, it's like a Sahara dune. Like there's no plants, it's completely barren, it's Windy. It's kind of golden colored. And so he's driving up into this like never never land. And what he sees is dozens and dozens of family members of the trapped miners staring at him. And nobody's applauding. They're not smiling. But he later compared to walking past a jury. And he said, for the entire rescue, that kind of moral imperative was what drove him to barely sleep and to recruit the best of the best. From every corner of the world.

[B]

Other people from Chile's mining community had already gathered and begun drilling small exploratory holes to try to locate the safety refuge. They figured it was the most likely place the miners would be if they had survived the collapse. But Tsugeret realized that finding them would take more than guesswork. It would take a team with diverse skills and experiences.

[A]

Within about 10 days of the miners being trapped, there's people volunteering from all over the world. You have South Africans, Brazilians, NASA submarine commanders. And you also have a kind of a central mess hall where everybody eats. And this becomes like the United nations where they debate everything.

[B]

Experts would go back and forth pitching solutions.

[A]

People would describe, you know, I've drilled in this area, so I know that the first hundred meters are this. Then you hit this. The South Africans would say, yeah, but you need bits that can last for weeks because it's going to take weeks to get down to them. And people didn't laugh off bad ideas, but the bad ideas seem to die pretty quickly.

[B]

More than two weeks of exploratory drilling went by without a single sign that the men were still alive. And while it was quiet deep underground, things were getting loud up on the surface. Pressure from the miners families was increasing, with many of them camped outside the site in a swelling settlement dubbed Camp Esperanza or Camp Hope. Hundreds of reporters flocked to the scene. Massive collapse at the San Jose mine. Rescuers are drilling through.

[C]

One thing we know for certain, time is running.

[B]

And the eyes of an entire nation were watching as the search for the safety refuge became a race against time.

[A]

It was a target that they missed time and time and time again. I believe it was the first 17 times they drilled the men in the room. They could hear the drills come closer and closer and then just miss them. Closer and closer and stop.

[B]

Then on the 18th drill attempt,

[A]

the drill bit actually ripped through the roof of the shelter where the men were living and surviving. When they pull up one of their drills, the rescuers see a note and they reach up and they scrape away the mud and scrape away the water. And there's a note tied by elastic to the drill bit. And they open the note and it says, estamos bien en el fugio los trente tres. We are in the safety spot. All 33.

[B]

Finally, the miners had been confirmed alive. It was an enormous relief for the men's families and loved ones. And to everyone on the rescue team who had been working around the clock. All of Chile breathed a sigh of relief. But that initial joy was short lived. Communication was now possible, but it was fragile. Through this tiny opening, a literal lifeline began to flow. Cameras, audio devices, medicine, and finally real food. Still, the hardest part lay ahead. Finding them was one thing, getting them out was another. Andrei Sugeret knew it was risky to rely on just one plan. He decided that three different drilling ideas and technologies would be tested at once.

[A]

Plan A, plan B and plan C. And they were different kinds of drilling techniques. You know, one might bore out and put pull at it, that one might smash it to pieces. You know, it was different techniques that are extremely well used worldwide. But in this case, the most important factor was speed.

[B]

Plan A involved drilling a new rescue shaft directly above the men, then gradually widening it. This approach would take an estimated three to four months. Plan B focused on widening an existing borehole using a hammer drilling technique. Rescuers predicted a quicker two month process. Team B included a young engineer named Igor Proustakis. At just 24 years old, he was one of the more junior members. Yet he got to pitch the hammer drilling plan to Andre Sugaret. Sugeret approved and the hammer drill was underway. Lastly, plan C employed a high speed oil drilling rig. But it would take some time to transport and construct the drill on site at the San Jose mine. None of the three plans were foolproof. Many of the technologies involved hadn't been used under similar conditions or so far underground before. It was trial and error.

[A]

There was times when a plan would be down for a couple days because something exploded and they had to fly it in from Chicago. So things would break down and plans would be stalled for days.

[B]

But after several days of drilling, the rescue teams were making good progress on plans A and B. Until plan B hit a major roadblock. The drill head had collided with iron rods used to reinforce the mine which shredded and entangled the drill head. For five days, crews tried to remove the stuck metal chunks but failed. If the broken equipment couldn't be cleared, the rescue team working on plan B would have to start all over again and drill a brand new borehole. That's when the junior engineer on Team B spoke up.

[A]

Igor, a young engineer, he actually approaches Minister Golborn, the mining Minister. You know, the mining minister was stressed beyond belief and this is a very junior young man approaching, approaching him. But the, the spirit of the rescue was that, you know, there were no bad ideas or at least ideas would be considered.

[B]

Igor remembered a technique he'd learned in a university class. Nicknamed the Spider, it's a tool used to recover lost material from deep inside a mine. A spider is basically an open metal jaw with sharp teeth. It's lowered to the bottom of a mine shaft and opened around the target. In this case the drill bit pieces that needed to be removed. Then extreme pressure is applied from above so that its teeth slowly snap shut like a spider trapping its prey. The technique was crude, but time tested. When Igor brought the idea forward, Golborn and Sugeret were willing to listen.

[A]

The mining minister instantly agrees that Ygor's idea is key and tells his team to apply it.

[B]

Igor's idea worked. The spider removed the drill head bits that were blocking the path below. Plan B was moving ahead again. Looking back, Igor has shared that he was struck by the weight of that moment. He knew this was the most high stakes, career defining mission of Sugouret's life. Yet the veteran leader hadn't let Igor's age or junior status get in the way. He'd valued the young engineer's input and given him a seat at the table when it mattered most. That trust was now the mission's last lifeline. As the drills for Plan A and Plan C stalled out from major setbacks, Plan B became the only hope left, steadily grinding its way toward the miners.

[A]

Plan B was the little engine that could and just kept on going.

[B]

On October 9, more than two months after the original mine collapse, the Plan B drill broke through. The rescuers rigged a capsule above the shaft and lowered it to the 33 men anxiously waiting below.

[A]

They have to climb into what's like basically a round tiny little elevator. And it very slowly like drags you up and up and up. As they're coming up, it's pretty dark. They have a light on them so they can see a bit of the walls going by. But it's like being inside this very weird tube and it curves a little this way and that way, kind of like Space Mountain at Disneyland, but slow motion. And when the first person gets up, people start crying and screaming. You think, you think Chile had won the world. People were so excited. And he walked out and he wasn't skinny, he wasn't didn't look unhealthy, you know, he just looked like he was going to make it.

[B]

One by one, the miners sat in the capsule for a 45 minute journey that brought them up to the surface and into the arms of their teary eyed families, medical professionals and media crews. All 33 miners were safely extracted from the San Jose Mine, a miner and his president.

[A]

It was the closing chapter on just a most remarkable example of teamwork from people from around the world.

[B]

Jonathan Franklin is a journalist based in Santiago, Chile. He's the author of 33 Men Inside the Miraculous Survival and Dramatic Rescue of the Chilean Miners. You can find links to his work in our show notes [e-mail] podcast. The San Jose Mine Rescue was a masterclass in global collaboration. Beyond raw skill and persistence, the mission's success hinged on a rare team culture, one where rank didn't silence good ideas and even the most junior voices carried weight. Igor Proistakis, the 24 year old engineer who spoke up and suggested the use of a spider tool to get Plan B back on track, wasn't the most experienced person in the room, but he felt empowered to suggest an idea to clear a major problem, a drill head that was stuck and threatening everything. Without his vital input, Plan B might have remained stalled indefinitely. My next guest is an expert on team dynamics and a world renowned researcher whose work has revealed just how important it is to build cultures that invite candor. Amy Edmondson is the Novartis professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School. Amy studies leadership, organizational learning and change and is best known for her pioneering work on psychological safety. Her book on the topic, the Fearless Organization Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth has been translated into 15 languages. Hi Amy, thank you so much for joining me today.

[C]

It's a pleasure.

[B]

Well, I'm really excited to talk to you about your amazing research on psychological safety and I was hoping you could start by offering us an explainer of what it means for a group or a team to be psychologically safe.

[C]

It is an environment where candor is expected. Candor is welcome. You do not believe you will be punished or shamed or otherwise rejected for speaking up with honest work, relevant content, for saying what you think, for asking for help, for offering a dissenting view, for admitting a mistake. So it's an environment where we can be real with each other and not that that's easy or fun or comfortable, but that you understand it to be expected. And I just want to add that that isn't the norm Right. In most workplaces, people will be much more likely to hold back things that they're thinking, even if they think they might be very relevant indeed, than to speak up. So I've just spent an awful lot of time thinking, you know, how do we make this easier? And that's what psychological safety is.

[B]

I would love it if you could describe one or two of your favorite research studies showing differences in outcomes that groups experience if they are able to successfully foster psychological safety.

[C]

Two of my favorites would be ones I did in hospital settings, and one was with Ingrid Nemhard, one of your colleagues, and Anita Tucker at BU and we studied 100 or so teams in 23 different neonatal intensive care units that were actively working, working on quality improvement projects. And what we found was one of the most powerful predictors of implementation success was psychological safety. So first of all, you have to realize that the teams really varied in terms of their psychological safety, of their candor. And then when they had higher psychological safety, they were more able to do this really life changing work of quality improvement. And the other one, also in a hospital setting, was 16 different teams and 16 different cardiac surgery departments, all trying to implement a radically innovative technology for minimally invasive surgery. And those teams, these are operating room teams now, that had higher psychological safety were more able to make the changes happen that you needed to make to be able to really successfully implement the new technology. So those are both. I love them, I guess, because the relationships were quite strong and because the implications are life changing.

[B]

Yeah. I love that work that you've done in hospitals. It's so important. And I teach it in my classroom at Wharton, I should say, Amy, every year. And I. It's a light bulb moment for all of my students every time I want to ask you to dig in a little bit to what's going on here and why it is that candor and psychological safety on these teams seems to lead to better outcomes. Because I think part of what makes this so interesting is the counterintuitive aspect to it, which is that we all kind of think that having a really tough leader who doesn't tolerate mistakes seems like it would be critically important in life and death situations. So could you talk a little bit about what is going on with this effect?

[C]

Sometimes I find it hard to explain. And yet bear with me, because I think I can. I think I can do it. So I think many of us were brought up with the notion of, you know, failure is not an option. And as, you know, you should be a tough leader or teacher or Whatever that says, you know, this is what I expect, and then you're more likely to get it. And in fact, I was talking to executives in a financial services company who are like, well, we just can't have failures. And I understand where they're coming from. I even empathize enormously with the sentiment behind what they're saying. But what the reality is, when you say you must not make mistakes, you don't magically create human beings who don't make mistakes, you basically vastly increase the chances that you won't hear about the mistakes that do happen. And mistakes that we don't hear about have far more pernicious outcomes than the ones that we catch. Speak up about. Correct quickly. And so even when you have people working hard, leaning in to do their very best work, not only will we make mistakes, but perhaps more importantly, nowadays there's a lot of uncertainty, there's a lot of change, so things will go wrong even that are not technically speaking mistakes, but that are just unexpected outcomes of maybe small experiments or unexpected events that happen that just sort of change the course of what we're doing. And so you could say that in times of uncertainty and interdependence, what's most important is the speed at which people are sharing what they see, what they know, what's really going on. Because when we know what's happening, then we have a prayer of reacting to it in a productive way. So the mechanism is that we need transparency. We need to know what's really going on as quickly as possible so that we can react accordingly. So you want to create an environment that has both high standards, you know, people are motivated and committed to doing the best work they can, but also high candor. And the combination of sort of high standards and high candor is what I like to call the learning zone. But that's where good performance, whether it's quality improvement in the NICU or innovation or you name it, whatever work you do, a consulting project, that's where the best work happens, is when we're really motivated and really candid.

[B]

It's so intuitive to know you want high standards. And the part that makes your work so interesting and important, I think, is that people forget that that could come at the cost of creating a psychologically safe environment or creating candor. And if it does, they've actually created a really bad situation for their team's success.

[C]

Yes, that's well put. Like, even the best intentioned leaders may fail to realize how their effort to create high standards inadvertently created high fear. Y and High fear, limited people's ability to process the work carefully and to speak up openly.

[B]

Amy, can you tell us about things that leaders or just individuals can do to create a more psychologically safe space, whether it's on a NICU team or a financial advisor who wants their client to feel psychologically safe talking about their financial decisions?

[C]

Yeah, I think that in both contexts, it would be almost the same advice, which would be call attention to uncertainty or interdependence, or both. Or novelty, by the way, which is related to uncertainty. But if you're a financial advisor and working with a team, you might say, none of us has a crystal ball, right?

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Boy, we wish we did, but we don't. So your voice matters, right? Anyone's voice could make a crucial difference at an unexpected time. Or you're in a patient care ward, you might say, I could so easily miss something. I really need you. In a sense, these kinds of moves, I call them framing moves, they're reminding us that the work that lies ahead is more of a learning problem than a mere execution problem. Because I think most of us come to work every day with a mental model or a frame that says, I just got to get through the list. I got to get my work done. Like, we bring an execution frame to a learning problem erroneously all the time. Because most of us would be better served by engaging fully in paying attention to what's going on. What might we try? What's working, what's not working? So framing, calling attention to uncertainty, interdependence, novelty, so that you get everybody on that same page of, yep, we're learning, not just doing. And related to that. Ask more questions. Right. As a leader, you should be in the habit of constantly asking questions. What are you hearing from the customers? What ideas do you have? People will not hold back when they know their voice is invited. So just do more of it. And then finally, and obviously, pay attention to how you respond. You know, what's your face doing when someone speaks up with a dissenting view? Do you look annoyed or do you look curious? When someone brings to your attention a mistake that's actually gonna delay the project, do you say, how the heck did that happen? Or do you say, thank you so much for that clear line of sight? How can I help? Right? And just these little things, these little tiny reactions, especially to bad moments, because those bad moments are already bad, but you can make them better. And you can show that, yes, candor is not always fun, but it is always welcome.

[B]

I love that. I suspect there are a lot of myths that you've come across around psychological safety. I'm curious if there are any myths that you think it's important to dispel for people to really understand this idea and, and how to implement it properly.

[C]

Probably the number one myth is that psychological safety is about being comfortable. Right? That, you know, it's, it gets confused with safe spaces like, you know, trigger alerts. And what I want in my classroom, for example, is that for people to be willing to take risks, knowing that those risks will not end badly in the form of humiliation or bad grades, but in fact will help their own and others learning. And closely related is the misconception that it's about being nice. Right. And I don't hear me saying I think it's great to be mean to people. No. Right. But nice is, in the vernacular, are often interpreted as don't say what you really think. You know, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. We, some of us grew up with that. But I hear people making a distinction between being kind and being nice. You know, being kind, I'll tell you, you have spinach in your teeth or that your idea wasn't very good because I respect and care about you enough to give you that sort of truthful feedback. Whereas being nice would be like, oh, great idea, Katie. Love that idea. So it's psychological safety. We're not wrapping people in cotton wool. We're not making people feel comfortable. And probably one more, if you'll indulge me, one more misconception is that this sort of idea, that our hands are tied if the bosses or the boss's bosses, bosses aren't interested in this. It's like, forget about it. This does not have to be top down. This has to be wherever you are, you can show up with more humility, with more curiosity, with more inquiry, and you can start to create little pockets of learning and energy wherever you are. So it's not something where you have to wait, where it has to be top down. It's something that is fundamentally team level. You can show up as a learner and make that small difference every single day.

[B]

That's really great. And I think for some of our listeners also, and trying to think about how this also applies to the financial decision making, which is a topic we care a lot about on this podcast. It also suggests there's an opportunity. If you are not the person giving advice, you're the person seeking advice. There are opportunities to express how much you want to learn, to ask lots of questions and to create a space where it's going to be easier to work with a coach or someone who has more knowledge and get the most out of that interaction by creating a psychologically safe environment. Even when you're not in a position of power.

[C]

Yes, I sometimes think that that courage and psychological safety are two sides of the same coin.

[B]

Yeah, no, that's really interesting. Do you have any advice for our listeners on how they can make better decisions, be more successful, be more productive now that they understand the importance of psychological safety?

[C]

Yes, I think that the importance of psychological safety is most manifested in the quality of the conversations you have with your colleagues in your teams. And there's really three dimensions. One is let's make sure people don't hold back, work relevant content. Let's create the environment where people know their voice is expected. Number two, pay close attention to building a healthy mix of statements and questions. You know what my mentor Chris Erdris called advocacy and inquiry. Most conversations are dominated by statements and there is very little in the way of genuine inquiry. So if you start noticing that, you can start leaning into more questions. And I think the third element of a high quality conversation is when you feel you're getting smarter as a result of being a part of it. Right. So if you're not feeling that this conversation is going somewhere or that we're making progress toward an uncertain decision, do something about it. It's like you have a responsibility not just to say, oh, this conversation's going around in circles, but to pause it and say, hey, seems to me we're going around in circles. Do others see it too? If you think of your primary job in knowledge based industries as steering and participating in high quality conversations, and those better happen in psychologically safe environments, then your job is just to keep facilitating those, keep participating in those and just improve them every single day and that will improve the quality of outcomes.

[B]

I love that and thank you so much for this conversation, which certainly made me feel smarter and I know our listeners will feel the same way. I really appreciate you taking the time.

[C]

Well, it's great to be with you.

[B]

Amy Edmondson is the Novartis professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School. You can find a link to her book on psychological safety, the Fearless Organization, and to her other excellent books on teams and the science of failing well in our show notes or visit schwab.com. Open, honest communication is important in any relationship, including with your financial advisor. To learn more about building trust and maintaining open communication with an advisor, check out the Financial Decoder Episode what Should you'd Advisor Know about yout? You can find [e-mail] financialdecoder or just search your podcast app. In 2012, Google launched an effort called Project Aristotle, which was an internal attempt to understand what best predicted the performance of nearly 200 teams working in engineering and sales. Many people expected the biggest differentiators to be things like team size, leadership quality, and the IQs of individual team members. Instead, the strongest predictor of success was whether teams had built a psychologically safe culture, measured using insights from Amy Edmondson's work. As a result, Google and many other organizations began investing heavily in creating psychological safety. They worked to craft cultures where people felt comfortable being candid, taking risks, and trusting that they wouldn't be punished for admitting mistakes, asking questions, or offering unconventional ideas. What I hope you'll take from this episode, though, isn't that psychological safety is valuable at Google or NASA, or in hospital NICUs, or when mining engineers are racing to save lives. I hope you'll see that it's valuable everywhere by remembering how much it matters to signal that you want to learn from the people around you, by asking questions with genuine curiosity, by modeling candor, and by showing respect for people regardless of their status, you can help create a psychologically safe climate anywhere, with your family, at work, with your soccer team, with your doctor, or with your financial advisor. And it's worth the effort. You've been listening to Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. If you've enjoyed the show, we'd be really grateful if you'd leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, a rating on Spotify, or Feedback wherever you listen. You can also follow us for free in your favorite podcasting app. And if you want more of the kinds of insights we bring you on Choiceology about how to improve your decisions, you can order my book how to Change or sign up for my monthly newsletter, Milkman delivers on substack. That's it for season 17 of Choiceology. We'll be back in the fall, but in the meantime you can explore over 100 episodes in our back catalog. Search for Choiceology on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. I'm Dr. Katie Milfin. Talk to you soon. For important disclosures, see the show notes or visit schwab.com choiceology.