We have reached a higher shared understanding that we don’t know what we will face tomorrow – – we don’t now what will happen, and this requires collaboration. We have seen an explosion in the demand for psychological safety I believe that everyone has realized that it was an unpredictable situation. However, Corona really was a message to everyone that “we do not know what’s coming” – now that’s one thing – However, Corona really was a message to everyone that “we do not know what’s coming” – now that’s one thing but we also don’t know how to best handle it. That’s something we are working out. We also know that psychological safety – that we have the confidence to talk about the things we experience. The belief that you will not be punished or humiliated if you talk about mistakes, doubts, questions, disagreements or if you contribute new ideas. It’s harder when we work flexibly, remotely and when the tasks change. Many have had to admit that psychological safety When you want to improve it, I usually point towards three things. The first is to look at: What is the frame for the work? Do we actually understand the task, do we agree on how to behave respectfully towards others, recognize that things will go wrong and are we capable of also telling people when things go wrong, so that we can learn from them together? The first part is the frame. That’s easy enough. It’s not always stable – but it’s easy enough. The place where leaders often run aground is in step two and three. This is: how do we then invite participation? Are we humble enough? Do we recognize our own fallibility, do we recognize what we do not know? So that it is so clear that people feel they need to talk about these things; they need to contribute with it. Do we have the structures and process for collecting it, where it is shared directly in the work group, and not just a satisfaction survey or whistleblower scheme, but in a way that is close to the daily work? Then there is the last one – step 3, which is: How do we react when something is put forward that we do not want to hear? When someone disagrees, has a different idea, or has made a huge mistake which might be expensive or has major consequences? The core of it is that if we do not react with appreciation So leaders who think it’s hard to listen to bad ideas, that it’s hard to listen to mistakes and complaints, they usually solve their problem by listening to less of these things. This also means that the problems are still there, but the ability of the leadership to do anything about it is reduced – – because those conversations take place elsewhere. I do not believe that this is a task for a leader alone; I think it is a task for everyone who works together – – to be respectful and interested in each other, so that we support each other’s level of psychological safety