The importance of psychological safety: Amy Edmondson

We spoke to Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School, about the importance of psychological safety in health and care.

[@rafaelcardoso4181]

"Psycological safety isn't the goal. Psychological safety is the means to the goal and that goal is excellence." Excellent points!

[@w.a.m7936]

thanks a lot, very appreciate!

[@sylviema6306]

such great opinions!!

[@ofpersaverance]

Followed a link from work to this video. Good video

[@carolratliff8672]

It would be so great to change the world.

[@Bushcraft242]

As a security guard my supervisors push us around when they feel like it

[@LucKenter]

This is só important!

[@juansarmientomolina5760]

Could you share with me the operational definition of this construct.

[@danvitorino]

Is there a way to get this video subtitled or close captioned? thanks!

[@kkmiddletonspeaks7899]

👏🏾

[@walterspaceman5592]

There is no such thing as, psychological safety. However. There is if you speak, the response, " John there appears a serious question as to how you have been charging on your time card.". Welcome to suddenly discovering the challenging opportunities awaiting you in the fast food industry. Go ahead, speak up, share, you'll look good in that " be all you can be ", stunning burger paper service counter cap. What fentanyl world do you live in ? Ours is unforgiving. Best wishes.

[@kaleb7299]

King's fund, why don't you go and speak with people who have been subject to an insult by those within the system? Interestingly, the opposite of safety is 'risk', and given that the system is reliant upon the 'Risk Society', let alone 'Governmentality', then one has to consider the alarming reality whereby ideas from prior Governments, say the introduction of 'Risk Assessment', determined that organisations were applying risk assessment tools and procedures that had not been subject to cross cultural generalizability, nor had they established the norms relevant to the UK. If you can't even be relied upon to have safely introduced an ideology that would then severely damage many lives, then what can you, or even should you, be trusted with? If you can't get your own risk ideas right, then how the hell can you be relied upon within the context of psychological safety? It becomes non sequitur, it simply does not add up.