Being the skunk at the picnic

I was reading an article earlier this week on psychological safety. A scenario was described where an individual had chosen not to speak up and challenge a planned piece of work that they believed to be flawed and likely to fail. The man’s prediction was proven to be correct and, when he was asked why he had not said something at the time, he said that others’ enthusiasm and good intentions had left him afraid to be ‘the skunk at the picnic’.

No-one wants to be the skunk at the picnic, but sometimes it is necessary and right to say things that might be uncomfortable for us to utter, and perhaps hard for someone else to hear. Key to that, though, is feeling as though you can say those things without fear of negative consequences for you or your team. This is how Amy C. Edmondson defines psychological safety.

I have been reflecting on this phrase, ‘skunk at the picnic’, in relation to conversations I have been having with various Senior Leadership Teams around my institution, and how important it is that we should all feel able to take that role in a conversation when it is necessary.

I have not come across any examples of where colleagues have felt unable to speak up and challenge something that has the potential to cause significant damage (financial, reputational, etc.) to their area of work or the institution, but there are two broad but impactful ways that the question of colleagues not wanting, or feeling unable, to ‘be the skunk’ seems to manifest.

1.Suggesting improvements where something is agreed to be value-add, but the way it is being pursued is flawed or ineffective
One comment that I have heard in a number of conversations has been, ‘There has to be a better way of doing this’, but some colleagues have not always felt able to openly share this feeling and the suggestions they might have to improve things. Typically, this comment is made in relation to an activity or process that is agreed to be important, even essential, but which doesn’t seem to be operating optimally, either in terms of its outcomes or the input and effort required from colleagues.

There is an underlying feeling of not wanting to be the one to rock the boat where something is working, even if there is scope to improve it. A common culprit has (perhaps unsurprisingly) been meetings that have a remit of overseeing or reviewing particular aspects of a University’s activity.

Part of having good governance around our meetings (and regular reviews of its effectiveness) is ensuring that colleagues — perhaps particularly those colleagues at the sharp end of providing secretarial and administrative support — have opportunities to critique and question ways of working.

We should welcome that critique where it is accompanied by positive suggestions, and should more regularly seek creative ideas for how we can achieve the desired outcomes from our meetings, but in ways that don’t take significant time away from the actual doing of the work (looking at you, REF!):

• Do we really need all that documentation? Could the information be presented to us in an alternative format that is quicker to put together? Could we be presented with less detail, and trust that the underpinning information or data are correct?
• Do the meetings need to be that frequent? Could we switch to an approach of meeting quarterly, annually, every other year, or every three years?
• How can we structure the discussion in a way that is genuinely helpful? How can we avoid getting tangled in the detail or looking backwards, and focus on the strategy, actions and support that are needed to move forward?
• Do we really need all those people at the meeting? Could some members be invited on an as-needed basis?

2. Being able to challenge reactive work and timescales
All areas of activity in our universities sit under the leadership of a senior team, perhaps including a Director or Head, and may also sit under the portfolio of a Pro Vice-Chancellor, Vice-Principal, or similar role. That’s quite a lot of senior colleagues who, whilst being committed to the objectives and priorities of their area, are also likely to have their own (often exciting!) ideas of things we could be doing beyond existing priorities.

One consistent reflection across teams has been an urgent need to address a reactive way of working within our institutions where, in a fundamental sense, it isn’t necessary. Colleagues want to have time to forward plan and to deliver high-quality outcomes against both their business-as-usual responsibilities and the projects and initiatives that deliver an agreed set of priorities.

But challenging a new or reactive idea could mean needing to push back or question someone much senior to you, which is always going to be an uncomfortable power dynamic to negotiate. We need our senior colleagues to be sensitive to that power dynamic, to provide space for teams to give honest responses, and to trust and listen to teams when they say they do not have capacity to take on a new project.

The pandemic has undoubtedly exacerbated this reactionary way of working, and it is going to take a concerted effort to unlearn some of the habits we have all formed — senior leaders included — over the last two years. We may no longer be in the period where we were consistently turning around significant, complex pieces of work around within 24–48 hours, but it very much feels as though that horizon has only receded to a distance of 1–3 months (if that, in some cases). It is not sustainable, and colleagues must feel able to challenge when they are asked to take on additional pieces of work, and where timescales are set that are (unnecessarily) tight.

Both of these things only further reinforce why culture and behaviour are integral to making our processes and practices more efficient. If colleagues do not feel they have the psychological safety to say ‘No’, question, or push back, we will only continue to add layers of complexity and burden on top of existing processes and activities, potentially distract from important work that can end up being deprioritised (whether intentionally or not), and all without checking ourselves as to whether an activity serves our larger strategic priorities and/or responsibilities.

With that in mind, I’ve added ‘Being the skunk at the picnic’ to the list of things I’ll need to be prepared to do in my current role.