One of the first things I had drilled into me when I first started dipping my toes into the madcap world of organizational change was that you never, ever, “ambush” someone in a meeting with questions they are not prepared to answer. This was particularly important in cases when you had concerns or questions about something another person in the meeting was attempting to accomplish. These types of discussions, I was told, should ideally happen before the meeting so that when you go in front of the rest of the group you were presenting a “unified front.”

In other words, you and the other person hash your issues out in a meeting-before-the-meeting, come to an understanding, and then go and present your decision to the group as the “right” decision.

This scenario is one of the many reasons why I have a long-standing reputation as a person who hates meetings. It represents a fine example of collaboration theater, and it is just as wasteful as the meeting-after-the-meeting where decisions that were supposedly made tend to get undercut.

I have been trying to get my head around why this happens for years, and I have landed on what I think are a few main reasons, but they all tend to circle back to two root causes – Lack of psychological safety, and lack of trust.

Psychological safety gets tossed around a lot these days, and I feel like the importance of the notion has been dampened as a result. It seems like there is a common misconception that when someone says uses the phrase “psychological safety” they are implicitly implying that there should be no conflict. I interpret psychological safety to mean essentially the exact opposite. For me, psychological safety represents situations in which healthy conflict can occur. Ones in which people felt free to express their opinions, ask questions, challenge assumptions, and otherwise contribute without fear of being negatively impacted by doing so. Negative impacts can range from being characterized as a troublemaker, being complained about to a supervisor, being passed over for promotions, being bullied, or even losing a job (to list just a few things).

Trust can also be interpreted in a variety of ways in this context. Trust that the other people in the room have common goals for one, but it also includes trust in the competence of people outside of your immediate sphere of influence. Trust that those you are working with are operating with the best of intentions and at the best of their abilities is another.

Neither of these concepts is new, which is one of the reasons why I find myself surprised that both things are still a factor in many modern professional settings. Perhaps surprised is not really the proper word. Creating trust in the workplace is hard. Creating cultures where team members feel genuine psychological safety is hard. These things require dedication, diligence, and a significant amount of time. Time that can also be spent trying to “get things done.”

Completing tasks is easy. Much easier than changing the way we work, and treat, each other in the workplace.