Psychological Safety in Teams Training Course

Participants can gather and interpret evidence about psychological safety in their own team.

• Psychological Safety Index questions adapted for team diagnostic conversations
• Anonymous pulse surveys interpreted alongside interviews, observations and operational signals
• Speaking-up barriers segmented by hierarchy, identity, expertise and contract status
• Heat maps identify meetings, handovers and decisions with highest interpersonal risk
• Diagnostic findings separated from assumptions using evidence logs and confidence ratings
• Baseline measures selected for voice, learning, inclusion and incident reporting

Participants can use leadership behaviours that make contribution, challenge and learning more likely.

• Framing work as learning when uncertainty, interdependence and novelty are present
• Acknowledging fallibility without undermining authority, competence or decision accountability
• Inviting input with specific questions, wait time and multiple response channels
• Responding productively to bad news, dissent and incomplete information
• Advocacy-inquiry statements balance a leader's view with genuine curiosity
• After-action reflections turn errors into process improvements and owner actions

Participants can conduct difficult conversations that preserve dignity while addressing behaviour and impact.

• Ladder of Inference separates observations, interpretations, assumptions and conclusions
• SBI feedback structures specific behavioural feedback without character judgements
• Nonviolent Communication identifies observations, feelings, needs and workable requests
• Repair conversations address interruption, dismissal, blame and public embarrassment
• Microaffirmations recognise contribution, expertise and effort without tokenism
• Closed-loop communication confirms meaning, ownership, timing and escalation routes

Participants can design meeting routines that make dissent, uncertainty and alternative views visible.

• Meeting contracts establish dissent, challenge, confidentiality and decision-rights expectations
• Round-robin check-ins distribute airtime before senior views shape discussion
• Red team and devil's advocate roles test proposals safely
• Pre-mortem analysis surfaces concerns before commitments become difficult to reverse
• Anonymous input channels protect candour on sensitive or high-status issues
• Decision logs record alternatives, dissent, rationale and follow-up owners

Participants can recognise status dynamics and design more inclusive participation in team discussions.

• Status dynamics examined through expertise, tenure, role power and social identity
• SCARF model identifies status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness triggers
• Turn-taking patterns measured for interruption, overlap, credit and response quality
• Language audits detect exclusionary shorthand, assumptions and unequal standards of proof
• Remote participation designed through agendas, chat, polls and asynchronous input
• Cultural differences discussed without stereotyping national, professional or personality groups

Participants can manage productive disagreement and recognise when matters require formal escalation.

• Task conflict separated from relationship conflict and process conflict
• Interest-based negotiation identifies needs, options, criteria and commitments
• Thomas-Kilmann modes selected according to stakes, relationships and time
• De-escalation scripts address defensiveness, anger and positional bargaining
• Grievance, safeguarding and whistleblowing routes distinguished from team repair
• Conflict agreements specify behaviours, escalation thresholds and review dates

Participants can combine candid dialogue with clear standards, consequences and delivery commitments.

• Psychological safety paired with clear standards, consequences and delivery commitments
• Accountability conversations distinguish capability gaps, capacity constraints and conduct issues
• Just Culture principles classify human error, at-risk behaviour and reckless conduct
• Performance expectations translated into observable behaviours and decision boundaries
• Learning reviews avoid blame while assigning corrective actions and due dates
• Escalation protocols clarify when candour requires formal reporting or intervention

Participants can integrate psychological safety into team routines, people processes and operational reviews.

• Onboarding routines establish voice expectations before informal norms harden
• Recognition systems reward questions, learning and responsible challenge
• Incident reviews integrate psychological safety indicators with operational controls
• Manager calibration reduces inconsistent responses to dissent and bad news
• People policies aligned with anti-retaliation, grievance and whistleblowing requirements
• Team charters convert agreed norms into routines, roles and measures

Participants can create a measured implementation plan for strengthening psychological safety in their team.

• Stakeholder mapping identifies sponsors, sceptics, influencers and affected team members
• A 30-60-90 day plan sequences behaviours, routines, measures and review points
• Behavioural commitments specify triggers, response scripts and accountability partners
• Team safety charter drafted with norms, indicators and escalation agreements
• Progress reviews compare pulse data, meeting observations and incident signals
• Personal reflection identifies habits that suppress voice or invite contribution