Psychological Safety Leadership Training Course

Participants can identify and reduce leadership behaviours that create interpersonal threat.

• SCARF domains applied to status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness
• Status threats created by expertise claims, interruptions and public correction
• Power distance examined in reporting lines, hierarchy and decision rights
• Leader emotional regulation during challenge, uncertainty and unwelcome feedback
• Micro-behaviours that signal curiosity, respect, patience and genuine attention
• Intent-impact gaps identified through feedback on leadership communication patterns
• Authority gradients reduced through explicit invitations and protected response time

Participants can establish clear norms that make questions, challenge and reporting routine.

• Team charters define expected behaviours for questions, dissent and escalation
• Meeting protocols allocate airtime before decisions become fixed
• Red-flag language standardised for risks, concerns and unresolved assumptions
• Decision logs record dissenting views, evidence and final rationale
• Rotating roles prevent expertise, seniority or confidence dominating discussion
• Pre-mortem questions surface failure modes before commitments are approved
• Remote participation norms protect contribution through chat, polls and pauses

Participants can lead conversations that test assumptions without creating defensiveness.

• Ladder of Inference separates observations, assumptions, conclusions and actions
• Advocacy-inquiry combines a clear view with genuine investigation
• Open questions expose evidence, alternatives, constraints and untested assumptions
• Paraphrasing checks meaning before responding to disagreement or concern
• SBI feedback model structures situation, behaviour and observable impact
• Challenge statements distinguish data gaps, risk concerns and value conflicts
• Meeting language replaces premature certainty with disciplined curiosity

Participants can respond to errors and concerns in ways that protect learning and accountability.

• Initial response separates appreciation, fact finding, accountability and remedy
• Blameless incident reviews identify conditions, decisions, safeguards and recovery
• Leader wording prevents punishment narratives after reported mistakes
• Human error distinguished from at-risk choices and deliberate violations
• Escalation routes clarified for conduct, fraud, safety and safeguarding concerns
• Closure messages show reporters what changed and why
• Learning reviews convert recurring failures into control improvements

Participants can address exclusion patterns that prevent people from contributing fully.

• Meeting access barriers identified for remote, junior and specialist contributors
• Interrupted contributions recovered through chairing interventions and clear turn-taking
• Identity-based assumptions challenged using specific behavioural observations
• Credit allocation made visible for ideas, work and risk identification
• Language choices reviewed for belonging, respect and professional inclusion
• Informal networks assessed for information access and decision influence
• Ally behaviours support colleagues facing dismissal, interruption or stereotyping

Participants can convert disagreement into evidence-based discussion and workable decisions.

• Task conflict separated from relationship conflict and personal attack
• Conflict triggers identified before positions harden into defensive behaviour
• Shared purpose statements reset stalled or adversarial conversations
• Interests, positions and constraints clarified before proposing solutions
• Respectful interruption stops harmful conduct while preserving discussion
• Dissent documented when decisions proceed despite unresolved concerns
• Repair conversations address trust damage after exclusion or disrespect

Participants can combine candid communication with clear standards, consequences and follow-through.

• Performance expectations translated into observable behaviours and measurable outputs
• Accountability conversations separate explanation, ownership, remedy and follow-up
• Developmental feedback addresses capability gaps without avoiding difficult messages
• Boundary setting responds consistently to disrespect, harassment and retaliation
• Decision rights clarify who recommends, decides, approves and escalates
• Consequences linked to conduct, performance standards and documented evidence
• Psychological safety tested during deadlines, restructures and performance pressure

Participants can gather credible evidence of team climate and prioritise improvement actions.

• Pulse questions measure comfort raising concerns, mistakes and alternative views
• Behavioural indicators track participation, challenge, escalation and follow-through
• Listening sessions distinguish isolated complaints from recurring climate patterns
• Survey results interpreted alongside turnover, incidents and employee relations data
• Segmentation reveals differences across grade, location, tenure and work pattern
• Action priorities selected using impact, urgency, ownership and feasibility
• Progress reviews communicate findings without exposing individual respondents

Participants can implement a focused plan for maintaining psychologically safe team practices.

• Stakeholder mapping identifies sponsors, influencers, sceptics and affected team members
• Ninety-day action plans specify behaviours, milestones, measures and review dates
• Leadership routines embedded in one-to-ones, meetings and decision forums
• Manager peer reviews create accountability for visible behaviour change
• Escalation patterns reviewed monthly for quality, timeliness and closure
• Communication plans explain expectations, boundaries and reporting protections
• Personal commitments link leadership triggers to specific replacement behaviours