Creating an Environment for Honest Team Input

When I debrief teams on their psychological safety scan results, I see the same dynamics over and over again: The loudest voices often dominate the room, while the most thoughtful contributors hesitate to speak up. Not because they lack insight, but because the environment makes it risky to challenge ideas, ask questions, or share unconventional perspectives. Here are 3 steps to foster team psychological safety: 1️⃣ Establish ground rules for inclusive discussions Create norms that actively encourage everyone to contribute, such as asking quieter team members for their input or setting a “no interruption” policy to give space for reflection. 2️⃣ Celebrate constructive dissent Normalize disagreement by framing it as an opportunity for growth, not conflict. Leaders can model this by asking, “What might we be missing?” or “Who sees this differently?” 3️⃣ Reinforce learning over perfection Create a culture where mistakes and questions are seen as stepping stones, not setbacks. Praise team members for their willingness to take risks and share ideas, even if they’re not fully formed. The result: 🧠 A team that doesn’t mistake confidence for competence, speed for depth, or volume for value. Instead, it’s one where collective intelligence thrives. P.S.: How does your team ensure that thoughtful voices are heard and valued?

🤐 "Dead Air" on Zoom? It’s Not Disengagement — It’s Cultural. 🌏 Your global team is brilliant, but meetings are met with silence. You ask for input, and… nothing. It’s not that they don’t care. It’s cultural. In many cultures, challenging a leader publicly can feel disrespectful. Speaking up might risk "losing face." So, instead of collaboration, you get cautious nods, and critical ideas die quietly. 💥 The cost? Missed feedback, hidden conflicts, derailed timelines, and talent feeling unseen and unheard. But it doesn’t have to be this way. 🚀 Here’s how to encourage real participation and build trust across cultures — starting today. 1️⃣ Invite opinions privately first. Many cultures value privacy and may hesitate to disagree publicly. Before the meeting, send out an agenda and ask for input by email or private chat. This gives team members time to reflect and feel safer sharing. 2️⃣ Create "round robin" sharing moments. During the call, explicitly invite each person to share, one by one. Use phrases like: "I’d love to hear a quick insight from everyone, no wrong answers." This reduces the fear of interrupting or "stepping out of line." 3️⃣ Model vulnerability as a leader. Share your own uncertainties or challenges first. For example: "I’m not sure this is the best approach — I’d really value your perspective." When you show it’s safe to be open, your team will follow. 4️⃣ Acknowledge and validate contributions publicly. After someone shares, affirm them clearly. For example: "Thank you for that perspective — it really helps us see this from a new angle." This builds psychological safety and encourages future participation. 5️⃣ Use cultural "mirroring" techniques. Mirror verbal and non-verbal cues appropriate to different cultures (e.g., nodding, using supportive phrases). Show respect for varying communication styles instead of forcing a "one-size-fits-all" dynamic. ✨Imagine meetings where every voice is heard and your team’s full potential is unlocked. Ready to stop the silence and turn diversity into your superpower? #CulturalCompetence #GlobalLeadership #InclusiveTeams #PsychologicalSafety #CrossCulturalCommunication 

One of the hardest things to get right at a company is feedback—quality input, from everyone. You need enough perspectives to make a good decision, but the more people you bring in, the slower and mushier that decision tends to get. The classic failure mode is going around the room. It sounds like a reasonable way to give everyone a turn. But if the first person likes the plan and the next two agree, good luck getting the fourth person to disagree out loud. Pulse is the ritual we use to solve that at Superhuman. It's the companion to Dory, the ranking ritual I wrote about a while back, and together they're the two rituals we use more than any others to make decisions. Here's how it works. On any weighty decision—ship the feature, hire the person, buy the company—everyone writes down where they stand, gives a number for how aligned they are, and adds their reasoning. Nobody sees anyone else's answer until the whole group has responded. Thinking it through privately, before you know what anyone else thinks, is what gets you honest answers instead of polite ones. I've watched a lot of teams adopt Pulse at this point, and picked up some favorite variations along the way: 1️⃣ Add roles to the input. Getting everyone's view isn't the same as letting everyone vote. Mark what each person is there to do: recommend, weigh in, or make the call. Now you can weigh the finance lead's take on budget differently than the designer's take on timing, and it's still clear who's actually deciding. 2️⃣ Separate the opinion from the commitment. Get the honest view first. Then discuss, decide, and only after that, ask people to commit. This gives everyone who disagreed a real moment to disagree and commit, which holds up a lot better than pretending everyone was aligned the whole time. 3️⃣ Give everyone $100 to spend. Skip yes/no. Hand everyone a theoretical $100 to spread across the options, and have them explain the split. It forces real prioritization and quickly surfaces misalignment. If someone puts $80 on an option nobody else touched, you know exactly where the conversation needs to start. Pulse won't make the decision for you. What it does is give whoever's deciding an honest read of where everyone actually stands, which, most of the time, is the hardest part.

Pay close attention to the frequency of healthy debate, constructive challenge and openness to new and divergent ideas that takes place in your teams. If the frequency is low… …there is the risk of creating the illusion of performance because people readily ‘understand’ each other, agree on everything, collaboration seems to flow smoothly and there is a collective sensation of progress. However, the opportunity cost is teams gets trapped in their own paradigms, opportunities get overlooked, risks ignored - and ultimately their output becomes derivative not innovative, performance diminishes as opposed to improving and compounding. If the frequency is high… …there is a level of psychological safety that allows for team members to be more objective, to speak up with relevant ideas, to constructively challenge each other, and bring their diverse perspectives and experiences to the table - in the knowledge it won’t be held against them. This opens up the opportunity of reframing the paradigm, and connecting different perspectives and ideas. Ingredients for creativity, innovation, resilience and performance. You see homogeneous teams might feel easier, but easy doesn’t translate into Performance. Here are a few ideas to experiment with your teams… 1. Intentionally foster a team environment that replaces scepticism with intellectual curiosity, an open and learning mindset.   2. Consider how you can create a ways of working that allows all ideas and perspectives from everyone in the room to be heard. 3. Encourage dissenting perspectives. Surrounding yourself with people who are willing to disagree with you and challenge your perspectives and each other. 4. Consider whether you may need to invite others to that creative or idea generation meeting to ensure you get a broader perspective. 5. De-stigmatise failure through sharing past mistakes and celebrating lessons learnt. 6. Institutionalise a team culture of healthy candour. Candour is one of the key attributes to improving the quality of output, levelling up creativity and enabling effective collaboration. What would you add? 👇🏽 #culture

Most leaders say they want honest feedback. Netflix actually built systems for it. Angela Morgenstern spent years at Netflix during their massive shift to original content, scaling from 20 shows to 1,000+ annually. What she learned about "farming for dissent" (and more) could transform how you approach decision making. The problem: Most organizations accidentally punish honest disagreement. People learn to stay quiet or tell leaders what they want to hear. Netflix built specific mechanisms that made dissent safe and expected: 🔸 Memo-driven culture with transparent commenting: no fancy presentations, just clear rationale with open document-driven discussions. 🔸 Product Strat meetings where farming for dissent was the point: senior forums designed for debate before decisions. 🔸 Informed Captain model: the person closest to the problem gathers different perspectives, then decides. The result? As Angela put it: "If you really hold truthfulness as a North Star...then you really have to work on forums where people feel like they can be direct and honest with the right set of consequences." Three things you can try today: 1️⃣ Switch one weekly presentation to a shared doc. Ask your team to comment with questions and disagreements before you meet. 2️⃣ Explicitly ask for dissent. Before your next decision, say "I need someone to argue the opposite view" -- and be grateful when they do it! 3️⃣ Separate debate from decision-making. Give teams time to gather input, then make it clear when the discussion shifts to decision mode. Netflix's global expansion from Silicon Valley to creating hits in Spain and Korea wasn't just about content strategy. It was about building a culture that could learn, adapt, and scale through honest conversation -- and adapt globally, another story in this week's column! 👉 Read on: https://lnkd.in/ge4Ej8VH What's one forum where your team could benefit from more honest disagreement? #culture #decisionmaking #feedback

If honesty feels risky, silence becomes survival. That’s not safety. That’s a signal. ⤷ People overthink simple replies ⤷ Honest feedback stays in drafts ⤷ Small issues turn into silent exits ⤷ Meetings end with “fake” alignment ⤷ Team members agree just to exit the call ⤷ Everyone says “yes” but means “not really” ⤷ People don’t ask questions, they play it safe ⤷ Small problems grow because no one speaks up In quiet cultures, performance looks fine. But under the surface? ≫ There’s fear. ≫ There’s distance. ≫ There’s guessing. Psychological safety isn’t a buzzword. It’s what allows real work to happen. Here’s what actually helps: ➤ Thank people for the truth, even when it’s hard ➤ Ask, “What do you need from me right now?” ➤ Ask for honesty and listen without defense ➤ Fix what’s raised, not just “who” raised it ➤ Act on what’s said, don’t just collect it ➤ Give calm feedback, not loud fixes ➤ Make it safe to say, “I don’t agree” ➤ Protect people who speak up People stop trying when honesty costs them too much. The fix isn’t a new tool. It’s safer conversations. And your team’s future depends on them. P.S. When was the last time someone gave you the truth and it helped? 👑 Follow me if you’re building teams where real talk feels safe. ♻️ Share this with someone who listens to understand, not to react.

“The fastest way to slow a team down is to make people afraid of being honest.” Read that again. Slow teams aren’t lazy teams. Slow teams are silent teams. When people fear speaking up: • Mistakes get hidden • Problems reach leaders too late • Innovation dies quietly • Meetings look productive, but nothing really moves 🚨 Silence is not alignment. 🚨 Quiet does not mean commitment. 🚨 Agreement without honesty is just compliance. The highest-performing teams I’ve seen have one thing in common👇 Psychological safety. Where people can say: ✔ “I disagree.” ✔ “This won’t work.” ✔ “I made a mistake.” ✔ “I need help.” And they’re not punished for it. Great leaders don’t ask for honesty and then react emotionally when they get it. They reward truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. Because honesty: • Saves time • Prevents costly errors • Builds ownership • Creates real trust If you want speed, you need truth. If you want performance, you need safety. If you want loyalty, you need respect. 💡 Leadership isn’t about having all the answers. It’s about creating an environment where the best answers can surface. 💬 Question for leaders & managers here: Do people in your team feel safe enough to disagree with you? Your answer defines your culture.

The meeting looked “healthy” on paper. Everyone was polite. Updates were smooth. No one disagreed. And yet, afterwards, two people messaged me the same thing: “I didn’t feel safe saying what I really think in that room.” That was my wake-up call. Somewhere along the way, we’d confused 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 with 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺. We were rewarding the people who made things feel easy, not the ones who made things more true. I changed in how I lead conversations by: 1️⃣ Signal that tension is expected, not a problem I now say upfront, “If we all agree too quickly, I’ll assume we’re holding back. I’m especially interested in what feels risky to say.” 2️⃣ Protect the first person who takes the risk The first dissenting voice sets the tone. I slow down, thank them specifically, and ask curious questions instead of defending my original idea. Everyone’s watching what happens next. 3️⃣ Separate content from consequence I don’t allow performance reviews, project allocations, or “fit” narratives to be quietly influenced by who raised hard truths. Disagreement can shape the work, but it cannot become a label on the person. 4️⃣ Normalize discomfort as part of the job I tell my teams: “If this feels slightly uncomfortable, it means we’re doing real work, not just rehearsing.” That one sentence has opened more honest dialogue than any slide on “values.” If you lead people, your goal isn’t to create comfort. It’s to create conditions where honesty doesn’t come with a hidden tax. ______________ ♻️ Repost if this resonates ➕ Follow Janice Mah 𝗠𝗕𝗔, 𝗜𝗖𝗗.𝗗 for more 🔔 Turn on notifications to not miss future posts #Leadership #PsychologicalSafety #WorkplaceJustice

The more you ask, the quieter the room gets. Not awkward. Not confused. Just... still. You can see the opinions on their faces. But no one speaks. Eyes meet yours, then look away. Because in Vietnam, speaking up doesn't just feel risky. It feels like stepping out of your place. Disagreement isn't neutral. It's a signal. And that signal reads as disrespect. So when you invite open debate, your team isn't thinking: "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦." They're thinking: "𝘈𝘮 𝘐 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦?" You think you're building trust. They think they're protecting the relationship. And honesty doesn't disappear. It just moves sideways. That’s where Vietnam sits on the map 👇. Not less honesty, just not where you expect it. A colleague pulls someone aside in the hallway. A message gets sent on Zalo after the meeting ends. The real conversation happens between peers, out of sight. That's where alignment actually happens. And by the time it comes back to you, it's already filtered, softened, or too late to act on. What works: Instead of "What do you think?" Try: "𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬?" → Frame input as helping you succeed, not challenging you. Instead of "Does anyone disagree?" Try: "𝘐𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦?" → Remove personal risk from the disagreement Instead of "Let's discuss this together." Try: "𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 1:1 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘐 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴?" → Private conversations unlock what group settings shut down. Each one shifts the frame from "Am I safe to disagree?" to "𝘈𝘮 𝘐 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨?" That's a different question, and one your team can answer. Then close the loop. "𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘶𝘵. 𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦'𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘺." Clarity removes the guessing. And when people stop guessing, they stop holding back. Conversations are more direct. Decisions get cleaner. Things move faster without you having to push them. If your team is quiet in the room, they're not empty. Ask yourself: 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂?

Your open-door policy isn't building trust. It's giving you a reason to believe you don't have to. Most leaders genuinely think they're accessible. Approachable. The kind of person their team can be honest with. But consider this: "If your employees only speak up in anonymous surveys, your open-door policy is a myth." A benchmark study of over 100,000 US employees by DecisionWise found that 34% of employees stay quiet at work because they're afraid of what will happen if they don't. That's a trust problem. And the silence it creates is expensive. It leads to missed problems and bad decisions. Your people are physically present but mentally already gone. Here are five reasons people go quiet - even when the door is open: 1. You react badly to bad news - even when you don't mean to. ↳ A sigh, a long pause, a sharp follow-up question. ↳ People notice. They remember. ↳ They stop telling you things. 2. Ideas get dismissed without explanation. ↳ No feedback, no reasoning - just a "no." ↳ So people stop bringing ideas. 3. Feedback disappears into a void. ↳ Someone shares a concern. Nothing changes. Nothing is said. ↳ They learn that speaking up is pointless. 4. Someone once paid a price for being honest. ↳ It only has to happen once. ↳ The whole team takes note and adjusts accordingly. 5. Agreeing is just easier. ↳ When a culture quietly rewards alignment over honesty, people get very good at reading the room and saying nothing. The door might be open. But the environment is closed. Six ways to actually change that: 📌 Ask - then stop talking. ↳ Invite input without immediately defending or explaining yourself. ↳ Silence after a question isn't awkward. It's productive. 📌 Close the loop on every piece of feedback. ↳ Tell people what happened with what they shared - even if the answer is "We can't act on this right now, and here's why." 📌 Publicly thank someone for disagreeing with you. ↳ Not performatively. Just honestly.  ↳ "You challenged my thinking in our last meeting and you were right."  ↳ That one moment does more than any policy ever will. 📌 When you get bad news, get curious - not alarmed. ↳ Your first reaction sets the temperature for everything that follows.  ↳ Stay calm. Ask questions.  ↳ Show people it's safe to surface problems early. 📌 Have one-on-ones that aren't about tasks. ↳ Ask how someone is actually doing. Mean it. ↳ Not as a formality - as a real question with real patience behind it. 📌 Show your own uncertainty out loud. ↳ Share a mistake you made.  ↳ Admit when you don't know.  ↳ Leaders who appear infallible don't get honest teams - they get managed ones. Trust isn't built through policy. It's built through a hundred small moments where people watched how you responded. The question isn't whether your door is open. It's whether people actually walk through it. ♻️ Follow Ty Jernstedt and repost to help your network work better with trust.