Yesterday, I met an old friend who has been taking leadership classes at MIT. Naturally, I was curious about what he had learned. Leadership courses typically focus on teaching individuals how to become leaders, so I asked him what insights he had gained.
He responded that the course emphasized innovation and the importance of psychological safety, along with various other factors essential for fostering innovation. Intrigued, I asked him, "How do you create psychological safety?" His answer was that the course advised allowing people to speak up, among other strategies. However, as he looked at me, he noticed my face. He asked, "Manish, do you disagree?"
I replied honestly, "Yes." What he was learning was not leadership itself but rather the attributes of a system that naturally emerge when there is effective leadership. Simply knowing the characteristics of a well-functioning system does not mean one understands how to create that system. Anyone can observe characteristics of a great systems but systems leadership is not about knowing those characteristics but having a knowlege of systems build the conditions that foster those attributes.
To illustrate my point, I shared an analogy:
Imagine a scenario where everyone agrees that the lion is the king of the jungle. A sheep that aspires to leadership approaches a "management school of the jungle" and asks what it takes to be a leader. The school provides a list of lion-like attributes: a majestic mane, a thunderous roar, sharp claws, and powerful teeth. The sheep, eager to transform, tries to adopt these attributes. However, no matter how much it mimics the lion's appearance, it remains a sheep because what makes a lion is not just external traits but its genetic makeup, which shapes the lion's social system. A lion is not simply the leader of the jungle—it is part of a system that naturally establishes leadership within its environment.
Similarly, leadership is not about chasing attributes like psychological safety; it is about understanding the systems that create these attributes. Psychological safety is not something a leader provides directly—it emerges from a well-designed system. Without understanding how to design such systems, leadership courses merely teach people to recognize attributes rather than cultivate the conditions that generate them.
The Pitfalls of Superficial Fixes
This brings me to another example. I once met a CTO who believed he had significantly improved psychological safety within his organization. Curious, I asked what actions he had taken.
He explained that employees had expressed fear of speaking up in public Slack channels because they were open to everyone. Their request was to make team channels private so they could ask questions without fear. This seemed logical to the CTO, so he implemented the change. He also introduced anonymous questioning through tools like Slido, as employees felt more comfortable asking questions anonymously. He proudly shared that now, many people were using these options.
I then asked, "Are your employees truly feeling psychologically safe?"
He hesitated. "I guess so, because I've implemented everything they asked for."
I challenged him: "Don't tell me they must feel safe just because you made changes. Tell me, are they actually feeling safe?"
He was uncertain, so I asked, "In your all-hands meetings, what percentage of questions are anonymous now?"
He answered, "Around 90%."
"And what was the percentage two years ago?"
"Maybe 50%."
"So, is psychological safety improving or getting worse?"
He was taken aback—clearly, it was getting worse. By making Slack channels private, he had unintentionally created silos, preventing cross-team communication. The very measure intended to enhance psychological safety had, in reality, deepened organizational fragmentation.
This was a classic case of misunderstanding the relationship between cause and effect. The CTO had good intentions, but his actions were misguided. His focus was on responding to surface-level symptoms rather than addressing the underlying system that fostered psychological safety.
Understanding Systems to Lead Effectively
The key takeaway is this: psychological safety does not come from granting anonymity or privatizing discussions—it comes from creating an environment where people feel comfortable speaking openly. Instead of closing off spaces, a leader should focus on fostering a culture where public discussion is encouraged and valued. Anonymity should be seen as a signal of fear, not a solution.
This brings us to a fundamental distinction: in the physical world, we deal with truth and falsehood, but in the social world, we deal with right and wrong. Just because a statement is true ("people feel unsafe speaking publicly") does not mean the resulting action ("make all discussions private") is right. Understanding this distinction is crucial for designing effective systems.
Without systemic knowledge, leaders will continuously act on true statements in ways that inadvertently harm the very systems they aim to improve. Leadership is not about responding to individual requests but about designing environments where the right conditions naturally emerge.
As I told the CTO, "The path to failure is often paved with good intentions. Success, however, comes from understanding systems—not just acting on perceived needs."
