Athletes have brought the issue of mental health to the forefront of a national discussion. Superstars in their respective sports including Simone Biles, Naomi Osaka, Michael Phelps and various athletes from professional sports teams, have courageously voiced what other athletes have increasingly openly acknowledged—how they have battled with mental health issues during their athletic careers. Such high-profile expressions of mental health challenges have helped de-stigmatize issues of mental health for everyone. That is, they have made raising the personal and collective issue of mental health more discussable.

What are the applications of this newfound openness to discussing mental health issues within the context of organizational life? Most of us live in organizations for at least eight hours a day, five days a week. For many it’s a lot more time than that. Often, especially prior to the remote work necessities brought on by COVID, we saw our co-workers as much if not more than our families. Certainly, the workplace setting must have something to do with mental health. And it does. The themes expressed by athletes apply to organizations across different levels from executives and managers to individual contributors.

“Stress” is a common word individuals use to express their psychological response to work. It’s a safer word than “anxiety” or “depression,” in part because it’s an accepted aspect of the work experience. We all know that work can be stressful. It’s also a more neutral word. Stress, as psychologists tell us, isn’t always bad. Some of it reflects the “ambition” of wanting to succeed at certain tasks or achieve certain goals. It’s only when stress results in an inability to cope with the external demands these goals require that it becomes “distress” that can manifest itself into other mental health issues. I suspect many employees, at all levels, use the word stress to feel psychologically safer in discussing what are really feelings of distress.

As a coach to senior executives for over 20 years, I note several parallels between what both my clients and athletes describe. A pressure to perform and succeed despite factors that remain out of their control. A reduced sense of self-esteem when things aren’t going right. Frustration with the overwhelming time commitment that comes with meeting high expectations, often at the cost of personal relationships and fuller lives outside the workplace. The emotional toll of fearing “failure” coupled with any accompanying potential financial implications. Surrounding all these issues is the sense of loneliness that emerges when the individual feels isolated by place or position, lacking others with whom they can share their feelings.

Matters were further complicated as we navigated living through the COVID-19 pandemic. There was, for many, a complete disruption of personal connections and social lives and, along with it, the work context was overturned. In addition to obvious issues brought on by the crisis, there is the parallel sense of uncertainty it has brought us for life going forward. Even as we readied ourselves for a return to the office (which depending on the person could engender relief, anxiety, or some combination of both), we have come to understand that for some better and some worse, work life is different for many than what it was before.

So, what do we do to improve mental health in the workplace? Organizationally, there are some obvious safeguards in place within many organizations like employee assistance programs. Increasingly, organizations are offering formal stress reduction programs like yoga and mindfulness, as well as access to fitness classes or gym memberships. But they need to do more than that. We know there is pressure in all organizations to achieve “bottom line” results, but most couple that with an expression of respect and concern about the welfare of their employees. Mental health is also not an antithesis to organizational productivity—it’s promotion can support an engaged, vibrant, and loyal workforce. Organizations that embrace these sentiments authentically need to make an honest assessment about whether their work culture is truly in alignment. That includes setting realistic expectations on work-related tasks by providing adequate staffing and resources. Organizations can better appreciate boundaries on work time, understanding and respecting the value of “time off’ for employees and even executives. This includes respecting, absent “emergencies,” evenings, weekends, and especially vacations, even as the ever-expanding impact of technology is making 24/7 access to managers easier and commonplace.

Offering greater flexibility is potentially another avenue for better mental health. One of the slivers of a silver lining for many employees during and post the worst of Covid has been the flexibility of working from home, in part because of its elimination of long and often unproductive commutes. Understandably, working from home isn’t right and can’t be right for everyone; some jobs require meeting in a workplace with customers or clients. Additionally, personalities are different. Some have found the lack of in-person work interactions somewhat isolating or prefer a natural and concrete break between their home and work lives. Many employees report having worked longer, not shorter, hours from home. Younger employees often miss the comradery and social outlet that organizational life can afford. CEOs and senior managers worry about the impact of virtual work within a culture. However, working from home is also not an all or nothing proposition—home and office hybrid models are being used effectively. Moreover, the ideal working situation and accordingly what flexibility may look like is different for different people and different organizations. The bigger point is that over the last few years by necessity, we’ve learned that flexibility, in some form, is often possible, without damaging and even sometimes enhancing business results.

Of course, it’s also prudent to be realistic about what organizations can and will do to further employee mental health, especially if it’s seen or imagined as having a negative business impact. In addition to the courage in speaking out, athletes (like, for example Simone Biles) have shown that it is critical to take the matter into their own hands. That includes focusing on one’s own needs for mental health and taking decisive action to incorporate steps proven to support mental health (e.g., exercise, meditation, diet, therapy, etc.). It’s ultimately up to the individuals to incorporate healthy practices into their lives even when the demands of workplace stress and pressure often send us in the opposite direction.

For many executives, managers, and other “exempt” employees that may extend to defining personal boundaries for what constitutes reasonable work demands within an organizational culture. For all employees, where possible, that may mean finding the right and maybe a different work culture. None of this is a panacea. However, as executives attend to their own needs in recognizing the organizational conditions and actions that can foster both their own mental health and work productivity, they may also consider the broader changes to organizational life that can do the same for all employees.

Although lessening the grind of 60+ hour work weeks is appealing for most of our clients, men and women in senior executive roles, a vision of endless recreation doesn’t itself immediately feel like a satisfying or desirable goal. They may no longer want to travel at a speed of 200 miles per hour, but they also don’t want to travel at 25 mph. For some, the right pace may be at 50 mph while for others it’s 150 mph. The common thread is how to build a life and a lifestyle that finds the right balance of that “in between.”

The Traditional View of Retirement Planning

Traditional retirement planning has generally not tackled that issue directly. Retirement planning is mainly thought of as a financial exercise. Do I have the money to retire? And if necessary, what potential financial/lifestyle compromises am I willing to make to do so? These are essential questions, and usually any advice I give to clients about these issues starts with recommending a comprehensive picture of their financial situation from a qualified financial planner or accountant. However, while understanding one’s financial position is a prerequisite to good “retirement” planning, it doesn’t end it.

Part of the problem is the word “retirement” itself. The word is so infused with the sense of all work ending that it tends to inherently present a bifurcation—you are either working or you are not. In truth, retirement for many of our clients means less work, maybe even much less work, but it doesn’t necessarily mean no “work”, even if that work isn’t always for pay. For those who no longer want to “work” at all, there is often still a major question: how do I keep myself occupied? Even individuals tired of the grind of work can still long for some of the non-material benefits that a professional job provides, among them intellectual engagement, social connections, and status. Additionally, even those who can afford to make less money than they did previously, can’t necessarily afford, or aren’t psychologically willing, to have no work income at all.

So how do we plan for a life post one’s predominant career and, if not “retirement”, what do we call it? Recognizing the problems and inconsistencies in using the word “retirement” for this time of life, some career coaches started experimenting with new words as a substitute. My favorite among them was the “third age”, a likely nod to the career coaching pioneer, Richard Bolles’ framework of “3 boxes of life”—“learning, work and leisure”. Although I like the phrase the “third age”, most people have no idea of what that means, so I have tended to go with the less interesting but more descriptive phrase of “active retirement”. So how do you plan for an active retirement?

Thinking Through the “Life Sectors”

While Bolles’ use of the word “leisure” can be sometimes taken as synonymous with recreation, leisure refers to the greater freedom for individuals to choose how to spend their time, apart from the dominance that working typically occupies throughout a large portion of one’s life. That can include recreation and as we noted earlier, even work, but the choices represent broader “sectors” of life. They can be labeled in different ways, but I use the following: Work, Finances, Recreation, Family, Learning, Health, Community, Spirituality. I also tend to add an “other” category so that if a client has a goal that they aren’t sure fits neatly into one of these boxes they can add it (and we can often decide where it belongs). The sectors are not always mutually exclusive. Someone can have travel goals with a spouse and that can be captured under family or recreation. There is also no requirement for someone to have goals in each one of these sectors. The idea is to identify which ones are important to you.

Most of these sector labels are self-explanatory, but two may need a little more description. “Community” pertains to the goal of engaging in some way with improving one’s larger social environment. That can be involvement in a governmental or nonprofit issue or organization within the confines of one’s town, state, country, or on something that pertains to community on a larger global basis. “Spirituality” refers to ways of seeking deeper meaning in one’s life, whether through religious or secular means.

Prioritizing and Setting Concrete Goals

Having thought through these sector headings, the next step in planning for an active retirement is to figure out which are important to you, how they fit together in terms of importance, and establishing more specific action goals for those selected. How do I want to spend my time? That is the question we have clients ask themselves when figuring out what sectors are most important to them. Planning for an active retirement in part represents two pie charts—one comprised of the current life sectors in one’s life in their rough allocations, and another one with the desired future sector allocations. The second chart doesn’t have to be a static picture of the future. It could change dynamically over time as one’s interests and priorities change.

Most clients start with examining the finance category because the question of “how much money do I need to make going forward?” is often the major constraint for assessing how much the “work” sector will play in one’s, at least in the immediate future. Distinguishing between financial “need” to make money and psychological “want” to make money is important. Finances have both objective and subjective components. “I need to make this much money to cover my current spending” is an objective reality, but whether one’s current spending is all necessary can be more subjective. Do I need that extra house, and at what cost to my other life interests? Additionally, there are some clients who believe they need to make more money despite their financial planner saying otherwise. It can be out of habit—”I’ve earned since I was 15,” out of the anxiety of a financial calamity—”suppose we enter into an economic depression,” or out of guilt—“my father worked until he was 75, what gives me the right to retire at 62?”

To be clear, we make no judgments about these things for any person. Our aim is to help clients be aware about their assumptions regarding money so they can make intentional choices about what is right for themselves now. Not what their father or mother did, and not what was right 15 years ago.

Intentionality speaks to choices across all the life sectors. “What do I want to do with the rest of my life?” is an enormously important question, and examining one’s aims across the spectrum of life sectors is a good way to begin to address it. But intentionality also speaks to concreteness. “I want to get healthier” is a wonderful start for priority within the health life sector but it needs specificity to help bring it into reality. For example, “I am going to contact a personal trainer” is a specific action step someone could apply towards that goal. Each of the life sectors need to be pursued through a set of actions. Figuring out which sectors, goals, and actions helps bring intentions to fruition.

Understanding the Role of Work in Your Allocation

As we indicated earlier, the idea of an active retirement doesn’t necessarily mean that someone isn’t going to work at all (though that could be the case), just that he or she might be either working less, or that the “work” pursued is not primarily in the interest of making money. Maybe it’s moving to a different kind of work environment, a part-time role, board work, a paid position connected to an avocation, or some intellectually engaging volunteer role. What we often see in folks desiring an “active retirement” is an interest in creating greater passion and/or building more flexibility into schedules to be able to devote time to goals in other sectors. Although there is often worry about the real obstacles of age discrimination for senior executives seeking new full time roles, the wisdom that comes with experience is often prized for roles that demand specific expertise in a more concentrated form—that can include, among other things, developing one’s own consulting practice, interim executive roles, teaching, and corporate or nonprofit board positions. It can also include a “portfolio” of multiple work activities (that can be coupled with non-work life sector activities.) 

Engaging with Your Spouse, Partner, or Significant Other in “Retirement” Discussions

Retirement, active or otherwise, can impact partners, and their plans may have an impact on yours. Retirement can be a wonderful time for relationships, but it often represents a major transition in lifestyle. For some, that may be getting used to the experience of having both individuals home much of the time (though in a post-COVID world it’s possible couples have better adjusted to that). But even more significantly, life sector allocations do not always match exactly. It may be that while one partner is ready to slow down a bit in terms of work, the other isn’t. Or one wants to slow down but the other wants to stop. I had a client who complied with their wife’s requests to contain work within certain parameters (for example, limiting their consulting practice to six months a year so that winters could be spent recreationally in a warm climate.) Or both want recreation but have different visions of what that means. I also was once involved in discussions with a client and her husband. They both had visions of retiring elsewhere, but only realized during our collective discussions that she had in mind somewhere in Florida and he had in mind somewhere in Europe. The point in this is that conversations between couples to clarify their respective retirement assumptions and expectations are valuable in building a mutually satisfying next stage of life.

The Value of Planning

Thinking of a life beyond the dominant goal of making a living can be very exciting. However, it can produce anxieties in people who aren’t sure what that life will look like in terms of intellectual engagement, or how they will get there. There are a myriad of tactical steps towards the “getting there” part not addressed in this blog. But the first step of the process is figuring out a vision of what a satisfying “active retirement” looks like for oneself. Financial planning is critical towards any retirement, but a satisfying active retirement is not just about finances; it’s about developing a full plan for how individuals want to devote their time over the next chapter of their lives, and beyond.

Essex Partners: Experts in Executive Transitions and Retirement Planning

Are you preparing for a career transition and considering retirement as a possible option? Our team of experts has been helping executives like you for nearly 25 years through our breadth of corporate sponsored services curated specifically to meet the needs of senior level and C-Suite executives. Interested in learning more? Contact us today.

Implementing Change: What’s the Real Mandate?

Many new executives coming into an organization believe that they have been given both the mandate and the authority to change the organization in significant ways. However, when implementing such change, these leaders need to either keep in mind or quickly learn that such a directive comes with an unspoken caveat-don’t significantly disrupt the comfort of others in the organization while doing so.

Of course, that is not the message executive candidates typically receive throughout the interview process. There, the focus is about the organization’s need for dynamic change or “transformation” to stay viable in meeting the current demands of the market. This, coupled with the fact that the interview process is often imperfect with respect to the mutual sharing of information. During any interview process, job candidates are in a selling mode, working to convince others of their perfect fit for the role (“yes, I can do that”) while hiring managers (including the CEO), are in a recruiting mode, trying to put the best possible light on the company’s situation and prospects (“yes, we need and are ready for this kind of change”).

This type of selling and recruiting mindset sets the stage for a problematic dynamic-an executive, entering the organization with only partial information, not only believing they have been given an edict to engender change, but as a committed senior professional, feeling the need to attack that edict with a sense of urgency. Yet those good intentions backfire when that urgency runs against an organizational structure that perceives a particular set of changes as uncomfortable and/or unnecessary. The pushback often filters upward to a hiring manager or a CEO who, rather than recognizing the efforts of the executive in achieving critical organizational objectives, comes to see the new executive as a heavy-handed and somewhat clumsy leader who doesn’t fit the organization’s culture.

The Safer Way to Effectively Pursue Organizational Change

So, is the lesson of this dynamic for new executives to avoid pursuing an agenda including change? No, that perspective too is fraught with danger. The senior executive who hires someone with a change goal in mind does expect action and results; they often just want them done “clean” of the messiness often inherent in any major organizational change. Therefore, effective executive action is neither a blind pursuit of transformation nor an acceptance of the status quo. It’s finding that sweet spot where that mandate for major change emanates from an organization’s most senior leaders. That is, major organizational change requires broad and committed sponsorship at the highest organizational levels. 

What are the strategies for gaining that sponsorship to pursue a major change agenda?

·       Understand in concrete terms the hiring executive’s agenda and timing.

Many conversations about change, especially in the context of job interviews, can be relatively abstract. A hiring manager, even if it is the CEO, may have a general sense of where they eventually want to get with respect to an organizational issue or problem, but may not immerse themselves into the specifics of that vision or how they envision getting the organization to that point. A hiring manager may also not always want to share sensitive information -or ‘dirty laundry’ -with someone who is not yet formally an employee, especially while trying to recruit them for the role.

While it is often the hired executive’s job to figure out those details, it’s good to start with a deeper understanding of the hiring manager’s assumptions regarding the nature of the changes being sought. What would success look like for those changes? What are the expectations regarding the timeline for the changes to take place?

·       Dialogue with important change constituencies.

A hiring manager is perhaps the most important constituent for a senior executive, but not generally the only one. The first weeks of a new role should be spent speaking with others in the organization, in part to get to know people on a more personal level. But it also helps to get a sense of how others may be impacted by potential initiatives and who will have the power to support or quash them. Dialogue is important to get at the root of someone’s actual feelings about a change. Though sometimes initiatives are thwarted by overt pushback, often it can also be undermined by the more subtle sabotage of inaction or whispers of frustration designed to get back to the executive’s hiring manager and/or CEO. When executives are focusing on organizational change, let alone “transformation,” they need to build a realistic understanding of the forces both for and against it.

·       Recommend and negotiate a change strategy.

Change in organizations is often highly political. That’s not necessarily intended as pejorative, but as a recognition that individuals within the organization have different perspectives on what is right for the company, their team, and themselves. Like all politics, making change is about understanding these perspectives, influencing them, and building the right coalitions of support. Armed with the new information and perspectives, this also means going back to one’s manager with an honest assessment of what it will take to get the change, the pros and cons that come with it, and a recommended plan and timeline for doing so.

This includes presenting the unintended consequences of certain changes, preparing managers for the possible blow back from part of the organization, and their implications for the company’s ultimate success. Anticipating and preparing executives for challenges that may arise as part of a major change initiative will reduce the chances of other executives overreacting negatively when challenges do occur. Sometimes that means also pushing back on initial assumptions regarding expectations, strategy, and timelines for implementation. This can be hard, but an honest conversation in which realistic expectations are set in terms of reactions, results, and timing is better than failing to meet them.

·       Secure buy-in and sponsorship.

The culmination in assessing a change strategy, as well as its tactical approach, is to get explicit buy-in and support on it from would-be sponsors. Know that they understand and back the implementation of said strategy. This necessitates basic agreement on the scope and speed of making changes against the backdrop of how they will impact the organization, both positively and negatively. Tell organizational leaders directly what is needed from them in order to make a major change or transformation work. Utilize their organizational authority and influence as a resource for the change.

Advancing Organizational Change: There is Safety and Strength in Numbers

Major organizational change and transformation is inherently difficult. Change can evoke fears in an organization on a range of both business and personal issues that generate pushback. At its core, the central question in making a major change is: how critical and urgent is that change to the company’s ultimate success to live with the challenges and pushback that are bound to occur? And, who will convey this criticality and urgency? Successful execution of major organizational change is an inherently collective enterprise. Executives, especially those new to a company, who pursue change unilaterally, do so at their own peril.

We Can Help

Keystone Partners serves as a catalyst for the development of leaders and their organizations to create sustainable business advantage, and has been doing so for the last 40 years. Interested in learning how we can help your team create meaningful change? Contact us today to learn more.

Framed in this way, the values of psychological safety can present as kind of a “motherhood” and “apple pie” of organizational life. What organization wouldn’t want to expand organizational learning or avoid groupthink? Yet many employees would attest that such safety is an unrealized goal within their organizations, even when it is espoused. Why is an almost universally recognized organizational value, be so hard to attain in practice?

One reason is that while enhancing organizational decision making through the flow of open communication is a very rational goal, people aren’t always rational; therefore, neither are organizations. A host of emotions informs individual actions, some conscious and some not. There are individual drives to protect against encroachments of ego that can make an individual feel vulnerable in some way -what is often perceived as “defensiveness.” Despite our expressed interest in the “gift” of feedback for self-improvement, receiving feedback is hard and can feel threatening depending on the situation. And as is sometimes said about other “gifts” -it can feel better to give than receive.

Conversely, giving feedback in organizations is not always easy either, especially when we are considering giving it vertically, specifically upward, within organizational hierarchy. There is an inherent power dynamic in organizations -some people have more of it than others. That power differential can have economic ramifications making upward directness feel potentially risky. Some worry that even a well-intended rebuttal to a senior leader’s position is a potential threat to livelihood and consequently financial health.

Psychological safety may be an expressed value, however, like a lot of values its authentic expression lies in action rather than words. Attaining psychological safety in organizations is something that doesn’t happen naturally, rather it must be proactively cultivated.

Surveys as a Double Edge Sword

One mechanism organizations typically use in collecting “direct” feedback is anonymous employee surveys. Surveys can be a useful tool for collecting employee opinions, however it is important to realize that the very anonymity promised through surveys is also an acknowledgment that many employees would not be comfortable giving that feedback through direct and personal dialogue. Surveys also have drawbacks. Because there is no interpersonal interaction in a survey, the concerns of respondents are not always clear or actionable. Numerical ratings give a directional signal in terms of general themes, but they are typically not concrete about the thinking behind those ratings. Even comments in a survey are subject to interpretation. For example, someone may indicate that communication “isn’t good” in an organization, the vagueness of the statement results in assumptions as to how to interpret those comments. In fact, two respondents may indicate the same “communication” concerns but mean very different things by that. I’ve been in many leadership meetings where we try to assess the intent behind the comments or ratings in a survey.

A second problem with respect to surveys and psychological safety is whether employees trust that the survey is fully anonymous. In an understandable effort to interpret surveys in the context of specific categories of employees (e.g., division, level, or function) employees may worry that ratings or comments in a survey could be somewhat traceable. Consequently, there is always a danger that even in a truly anonymous survey, people hold back. 

The Skills of Getting Direct Honest Feedback

The best indication of psychological safety within an organization is its ability to solicit direct and honest feedback from employees and engage in healthy dialogue on relevant issues. In order to do that, individuals within organizations, and especially its leaders, need to develop a specific set of interpersonal skills. They include the ability to: 1) invite feedback, 2) respond thoughtfully to feedback, 3) engage in respectful dialogue, and 4) uncover hidden assumptions. These may all sound simple but between organizational dynamics and individual psychology that may not always be the case.

Inviting Feedback The most obvious way to elicit feedback is to ask for it. But how we ask for it and how often we ask for it sends a message to employees or even peers as to how genuine the desire is to hear contrary viewpoints. How invitations are constructed engender different reactions on the part of the listener for how much feedback is really sought. Managers that give a forceful articulation of their positions followed by the question, “any thoughts?” may get a different level of candor than if the question had been articulated as “I’d like to get your honest reactions to this,” or “tell me what I may be missing here.” There are a lot of different ways to phrase authentic feedback requests; the point is that some ways of framing are more effective than others at eliciting honest opinions.

Keep in mind that asking for feedback in a genuine way presupposes we want it. Let’s be honest; sometimes we don’t. We may become decided on a particular course of action, or fear that seeking reaction to a controversial or difficult situation will open a pandora’s box that can’t be closed. However, just because we don’t ask for feedback, it doesn’t mean the reactions to organizational decisions go away; they can just go underground. Nor does asking for feedback mean that a leader necessarily must change one’s mind on an issue; it is just demonstrating that it’s safe to raise alternative points of view.

Responding Thoughtfully to Feedback Of course, asking for feedback is only the first part of the equation. How we respond to feedback is critical in determining whether or not people in an organization feel there is safety in raising issues. Does the initial response to a different perspective appear to aim to shut it down immediately (e.g., “that will never work…”; or “you’re not thinking clearly about this”); or is there an openness to continued dialogue. (e.g., “tell me more about why you think that”)? It is difficult to respond thoughtfully when emotions are running high on a particular issue, or when the feedback presented feels like a personal attack.

The latter presents the other dynamic of psychological safety, whether it registers under that heading, managers or leaders may feel psychologically unsafe when they perceive their competency or integrity is being attacked, (even if the feedback is not necessarily intended that way). Staying composed is difficult under these conditions, but that is perhaps when it’s most incumbent on a manager to react in a way can create the conditions for a productive dialogue.

Engaging in Respectful Dialogue What are the conditions for a productive dialogue? The coupling of honesty with respect is critical. In her bestselling book Radical Candor, Kim Scott focuses on the importance of the honesty part of the equation with a compelling argument on the importance of directness in managerial conversations. However, in the preface to the updated version of the book she speaks to the importance infusing respect and compassion into those dialogues, acknowledging that the modifier of “radical” to candor led some people to apply her concepts in ways she did not intend. “Some people were using Radical Candor as a license to behave like jerks, conflating Obnoxious Aggression and Manipulative Insincerity with Radical Candor.” Honesty can be utilized as a weapon that impedes psychological safety, or it can be employed in a way that expands it. So much of that is the sense of respect and compassion that accompanies any direct feedback, and the intentionality towards mutual respect and professional development.

Uncovering Hidden Assumptions Another skill for engaging in respectful and productive dialogue is systematically uncovering the underlying assumptions of another’s point of view. Heated conversations can devolve to volleys of opinions: I advocate for my point, then you advocate for your point, and then we do it all over again as part of an infinite argumentative loop. Once we get into those loops, how often do we stop and ask the other to clarify what they mean, or how they got to those opinions? Arguing in favor of our own viewpoint is reasonable and very natural; less natural is the systematic inquiry into the viewpoints of others through genuine questions designed not to “trap” the other individual but to truly understand the assumptions upon which another point of view is grounded.

One approach to getting to root assumptions is based on the concept of “ladder of inference;” whereby inferences and attributions are attached to the very words or actions upon which they are based. Because human minds almost instantaneously draw a host of inferences based on personal experiences, the statement, “I am not sure about that approach” can immediately become interpreted as “Jess, hated that approach,” or even “Jess is being stubborn.” In having productive conversations, it is important to separate empirical facts from inferences made.

It is important to remember that respectful dialogue does not necessarily mean agreement or consensus. Someone always has the final decision-making authority in an organization and the fact that a decision has not gone one’s way does not necessarily indicate that there was no respectful dialogue, nor that the alternative point of view was not heard. Psychological safety represents the ability to speak openly about issues relevant to some facet of the business or organizational life. It is not a guarantee of achieving one’s desired outcomes.

Psychological Safety is a Continuous Goal Not an Endpoint

As tempting as it is to see psychological safety as an organizational endpoint (€œwe are a psychologically safe organization”) there is danger in being complacent about such safety as an “achievement” rather than as an ongoing commitment. The complexities of organizational dynamics and human psychology make absolute safety a worthy ideal, but in reality, there should always be a healthy curiosity on the part of organizational leaders to uncover where they personally, their teams, as well as the organization as a whole, may be falling short of that ideal.

Psychological safety in organizations is similarly less of a dichotomous yes or no, and more of a continuum about what is and isn’t discussable within an organization. Clearly, not every potential conversation is necessarily relevant or appropriate for discussion in an organization. Therefore, it is incumbent upon organizations to be clear regarding what is and isn’t appropriate, and to live by those values.

Firms that value psychological safety and want to ensure that value is effectively socialized throughout the organization can begin with open discussions between leaders and their teams. Recalling that actions speak louder than words, it is imperative for leaders to embrace the skills outlined above, and model behavior that reinforces a commitment to a psychologically safe environment.

Additional posts from Howard Seidel

The New “Discussability” of Mental Health: Applications to Organizational Life

Managing Multiple Executive Job Offers

What are the applications of this newfound openness to discussing mental health issues within the context of organizational life? Most of us live in organizations for at least eight hours a day, five days a week. For many it’s a lot more time than that. Often, especially prior to the remote work necessities brought on by COVID, we saw our co-workers as much if not more than our families. Certainly, the workplace setting must have something to do with mental health. And it does. The themes expressed by athletes apply to organizations across different levels from executives and managers to individual contributors.

“Stress” is a common word individuals use to express their psychological response to work. It’s a safer word than “anxiety” or “depression,” in part because it’s an accepted aspect of the work experience. We all know that work can be stressful. It’s also a more neutral word. Stress, as psychologists tell us, isn’t always bad. Some of it reflects the “ambition” of wanting to succeed at certain tasks or achieve certain goals. It’s only when stress results in an inability to cope with the external demands these goals require that it becomes “distress” that can manifest itself into other mental health issues. I suspect many employees, at all levels, use the word stress to feel psychologically safer in discussing what are really feelings of distress.

As a coach to senior executives for over 20 years I note several parallels between what both my clients and athletes describe. A pressure to perform and succeed despite factors that remain out of their control. A reduced sense of self-esteem when things aren’t going right. Frustration with the overwhelming time commitment that comes with meeting high expectations, often at the cost of personal relationships and fuller lives outside the workplace. The emotional toll of fearing “failure” coupled with any accompanying potential financial implications. Experiencing the “burnout” from the intensity of work demands coupled with their duration. Surrounding all these issues is the sense of loneliness that emerges when the individual feels isolated by place or position, lacking others with whom they can share their feelings.

Complicating matters further as we navigate living through 18 plus months of the COVID-19 pandemic is the complete disruption of personal connections as social lives and, along with it, the work context was overturned. In addition to obvious issues brought on by the crisis, there is the parallel sense of uncertainty it has brought us for life going forward. Even as we readied ourselves for a return to the office (which depending on the person could engender relief or anxiety or some combination of both), the rise in COVID cases despite the availability of vaccines showed us that we were not back to normal just yet.

So, what do we do to improve mental health in the workplace? Organizationally, there are the obvious safeguards in place within many organizations like employee assistance programs. Increasingly, organizations are offering formal stress reduction programs like yoga and mindfulness, as well as access to fitness classes or gym memberships. But they need to do more than that. We know there is a pressure in all organizations to achieve “bottom line” results, but most couple that with an expression of respect and concern about the welfare of their employees. Mental health is also not an antithesis to organizational productivity – its promotion can support an engaged, vibrant, and loyal workforce. Organizations that embrace these sentiments authentically need to make an honest assessment about whether their work culture is truly in alignment. That includes setting realistic expectations on work related tasks by providing adequate staffing and resources. Organizations can better appreciate boundaries on work time understanding and respecting the value of “time off’ for employees and even executives. This includes respecting, absent “emergencies,” evenings, weekends, and especially vacations, even as the ever-expanding impact of technology is making 24/7 access to managers easier and commonplace.

Offering greater flexibility is potentially another avenue for better mental health. One of the slivers of a silver lining for many employees over the past 18 months has been the flexibility of working from home, in part because of its elimination of long and often unproductive commutes. Understandably, working from home isn’t right and can’t be right for everyone; some jobs require meeting in a workplace with customers or clients. Additionally, personalities are different. Some have found the lack of in-person work interactions somewhat isolating, or prefer a natural and concrete break between their home and work lives. Many employees report having worked longer, not shorter, hours from home. Younger employees, especially, often miss the comradery and social outlet that organizational life can afford. CEOs and senior managers worry about the impact of virtual work within a culture. However, working from home is also not an all or nothing proposition-home and office hybrid models are being used effectively. Moreover, the ideal working situation and accordingly what flexibility may look like is different for different people. The bigger point is that over the last 18 months we’ve learned that some flexibility, in some form, is often possible, without necessarily damaging business results. In balancing employee mental health with business effectiveness, it is worth considering and experimenting with different working arrangements.

Of course, it’s also prudent to be realistic about what organizations can and will do to further employee mental health, especially if it’s seen or imagined to be a threat to or having a negative effect on, business results. In addition to the courage in speaking out, athletes like Simone Biles showed that it is critical to take the matter into their own hands. That includes focusing on one’s own needs for mental health and taking decisive action to incorporate steps proven to support it (e.g., exercise, meditation, diet, etc.). It’s ultimately up to the individuals to incorporate healthy practices into their lives even when the demands of workplace stress and pressures often send us in the opposite direction. For many executives, managers, and other “exempt” employees that may extend to defining personal boundaries for what constitutes reasonable work demands within an organizational culture. For all employees, where possible, that may mean finding the right and maybe different work culture for them. None of this is a panacea. However, as executives attend to their own needs in recognizing the organizational conditions and actions that can foster both their own mental health organizational engagement, and work productivity, they can also consider the broader changes to organizational life that can do the same for all employees.

Have formal criteria prepared
Depending on the model one is using, about 10-15 key categories comprise career satisfaction. They include compensation, intellectual fulfillment, culture, mission, work life balance, influence, independence – among some others. Of those key criteria, most executives consider some critical, some “nice to haves,” and others that are less important. Know what is important for you.

Rank these opportunities
Now that you have identified the key criteria important to you, evaluate the aspects of different job opportunities against those. If one opportunity is high on all criteria it’s clearly the winner. Executives need to think through the interplay among their criteria, if one opportunity is good in some areas while another opportunity is better in others. Ask yourself, what things are most important to you? What compromises are you willing or not willing to make? Sometimes even with a criterion that might not be most important to a client, there still is a minimum baseline a person feels they need to reach. For example, I’ve had many clients say that while compensation isn’t their most important variable for selecting a role, the pay needs to be above “X.”

Have a negotiating strategy
The first rule of negotiations is “don’t lose the offer.” An employer deciding to extend an offer is a significant sign. Express that you appreciate getting the offer and that you are very interested in the role before getting into negotiations to improve it. Make sure before those negotiations start you really understand the offer. How is the bonus determined? Is the equity really likely to be worth it, depending on different scenarios? Understanding the offer comes before negotiating for more!

Once negotiations start, use your leverage effectively, but don’t over estimate your leverage or wield it like a hammer. Let the employer know you are really interested in the position but have other options. Learn more about the offer and explain your position. Negotiating offers is fine and expected but it has to be done wisely. Even when you have gotten what you think is a “low ball” offer, don’t assume the employer has intended to low ball you. Learn how and why they got to that offer and explain your own position. It’s not just about what you want but about effectively explaining your rationale for why what you want is fair and appropriate to the situation.

Obviously, having another offer that is paying more is an important piece of leverage but understand when you are comparing apples and oranges. Having the big offer from the multi-national company may help you negotiate a start-up to stretch a bit on base pay, however, understand they are two very different kinds of opportunities and they will likely be compensated as such.

For slower moving preferred opportunities, try to appropriately coax them by gently conveying you are working through other options-that you are very interested or even excited about that organization’s role but are also being presented with other faster moving potential options. You have to position it properly, but it can help speed up the process, or at least provide perspective regarding where you stand with that organization.

Relationships matter-try to end things in the right way
Be mindful of burning bridges with employers and especially recruiters. I’ve seen relationships end based on how an executive candidate handled him or herself during the search process. When and why you turn down a job may have implications for a recruiter’s willingness to present you with a different opportunity at some time in the future. It’s fine to pull yourself out of a process early because you conclude it’s not the right fit. However, once you receive an offer, your messaging needs to be more thoughtful if you turn down an opportunity. Recruiters may not be happy if you turn down a job because you like another offer better but they get it. Be sure to convey that you took the opportunity seriously, “I really liked the organization, really loved the people and culture, but this other opportunity better fits my global interests.”

If you turn down an offer because of things you knew earlier in the process, such as location or compensation, they aren’t so forgiving. Hearing, “We’ve decided we don’t want to relocate” at the 11th hour or telling a recruiter that “the compensation is too low” when you conveyed it was acceptable earlier in the process, is a likely way to end a relationship with that person. Additionally, recruiters don’t appreciate believing they were being used as foil merely to help drive up the offer from a different organization.

Rescinding offers after accepting them or leaving a role after a short amount of time can have even bigger implications. It can be done (there are few absolutes in managing careers), but a lot of thought should be given to how it could affect future opportunities, how you should do it, and the messaging around it to others, including future employers.

Having multiple career opportunities and/or offers can be professionally rewarding. Managing them can be tricky but also exhilarating. The key to success is to couple thoughtful strategy with appropriate action.