Psychological Stupidity

How stupid is this?

In team psychology, we all want team members and managers to speak up more, right?

We all realize that what prevents us from speaking up with controversial or dissenting views is the possibility of being browbeaten with unfair naysaying, and inevitably, a conflict arises.

But instead of creating a simple intervention (we call ours SpatzAI) to address this unfair and sometimes uncivil behavior, we are encouraged to resort to creating a system around “fostering” some vague culture thing that the manager is responsible for and encourages her team to use by modeling behavior like curiosity, respect, vulnerability, etc etc. and call it psychological safety.

I believe this is the psychology of stupidity, and everyone seems to be falling for it. Yes really.

What Does the SpatzAI GPT Say About This View?

Here is a more measured and objective opinion on the subject:

“The concept titled “Psychology of Stupidity” presents a critical examination of common approaches to team dynamics and conflict resolution in the workplace. It highlights a fundamental paradox in team psychology: the desire for team members and managers to actively voice their opinions, especially when they hold controversial or dissenting views.“

“This desire, however, is often hindered by the fear of encountering aggressive rebuttals or being overwhelmed by conflicts. Such fears are not unfounded, as instances of being browbeaten with unfair criticism or naysaying are not uncommon in team settings. These situations can discourage open communication, leading to a stifling of diverse perspectives and innovative ideas.“

“In response to this challenge, many organizations attempt to foster a culture of ‘psychological safety.’ This concept, which has gained considerable traction in modern workplace psychology, emphasizes the creation of an environment or culture where team members feel safe to express their thoughts without fear of negative consequences. It is often the responsibility of the manager to cultivate this culture, encouraging their team to adopt behaviors characterized by curiosity, respect, vulnerability, and other positive traits.“

“However, the criticism posed in “Psychology of Stupidity” is that this approach can be seen as overly simplistic and somewhat naive. It suggests that merely promoting a culture of psychological safety and expecting managers to model positive behaviors is insufficient to address the underlying issues. This perspective above, argues that relying on such vague and indirect methods to resolve conflicts and promote open communication overlooks the need for more direct, concrete intervention strategies. It implies that there is a certain level of irrationality or ‘stupidity’ in adhering to this widely accepted approach, proposing that more straightforward and effective solutions are being overlooked in favor of a less confrontational, but potentially less effective, method.“

“In essence, “Psychology of Stupidity” challenges the prevailing wisdom in organizational behavior, questioning whether the current trend of fostering psychological safety is truly the best way to encourage open communication and resolve conflicts within teams. It invites a reevaluation of how organizations handle dissent and conflict, suggesting that a more direct approach might be necessary for truly fostering a culture where diverse ideas and opinions are not just tolerated, but actively encouraged.”