Keeping your team safe... safe from what?

We recently discussed boundaries in the workplace in the context of polarised opinions. The idea that some topics might be best kept "off limits", to avoid conflict and protect the team, or individuals within the team.

It made me think of this quote from Pierre Beaumarchais:

Why might some topics be safer not discussed?

The reasons you might do this can broadly be boiled down to two things: Keeping your team productive, and keeping them safe.

The productivity angle seems straightforward. As I wrote about here, motivation is partly a function of how much connection you feel with your team-mates. You don't want members of your team to feel alienated or disconnected from others because of differences in strongly held opinions.

The safety angle - more precisely psychological safety - is less obvious. One of the values we hold at my business Honeycomb Consulting Skills Training is to "create safe spaces" during our training sessions.

What do we mean by that? Well, what we don’t mean is some effort to ensure that no-one is ever exposed to difficult ideas, challenging feedback, or even controversial topics. In fact the opposite is true. We often want people exposed to things they find uncomfortable - that is where the growth is.

Put another way: We often want to make the uncomfortable comfortable, and the comfortable uncomfortable.

The risk comes when that exposure is uncontrolled. So what we seek to create is a space where difficult topics can be safely explored. That exploration sheds light, builds understanding, and ultimately fosters connection.

What does this mean for boundaries and safety when there are polarised perspectives in your team?

My recommendation is to get them out in the open, in a safe way. Easier said than done. Here's how this can work:

Firstly, I would speak to the people involved individually to ensure they are heard and they feel able to express themselves on the topic. In these sessions I’m in listening mode to make sure they feel heard. By the way, “listening” and “agreeing” are different things - I may not agree with what they are saying. That’s ok. Now is not the time to debate or discuss, just to understand. Active listening in it’s purest form - Listen, Observe, Verify, Empathise.

With those 1-2-1 conversations done I schedule a session, in-person if possible, to hold a group discussion. Establish some ground rules: No interrupting, No arguments, Listen to understand, Acknowledge when things resonate with you.

Give each person the time they need to express their views on the topic and explain why they hold them. Everyone contributes if they are willing to. Whilst someone is talking they are respected and not challenged.

Once everyone has spoken there may be questions. Discussion. Debate. Argument even.

Your job is to hold the space. Make sure the ground rules are kept to. Release pressure if it rises (get people to stand up and move around). Then, bring it to an cohesive end. Ask people if they understand each other more at the end of the discussion. Ask if they trust each other more. Ask if they are happy to put their differences to one side and work together.

More often than not, this process brings a team together.

By bringing these differences into the open like this you make it safer for everyone. And guess what?

More connected teams tend to be more productive too.