We must be open to doing things differently when faced with the prospect of making a mistake. As Peter Vaill (1996, p. 82) notes, this means that we must be aware that we are about to learn something new and try something different. An assumption is made in a learning organization that everyone will be engaged in ongoing growth through learning. Vaill (1996, p. 82) suggests that this means we should feel free “to ask for help without embarrassment of apology and [are] able to be non-resentfully dependent on someone who has more knowledge or expertise.”
A commitment to psychological safety (Edmondson, 2018) accompanies an assumption of ongoing learning and growth. Safety requires attention to three domains that have been astutely identified by Goodwin Watson (Watson and Johnson, 1972): structure, process, and attitude. Safety at the structural level would include the formal policies and regulations of the organization, as well as the ways these policies and regulations are enforced. Appropriate levels of authority and accountability (Simons, 2005), and a commitment to measurement of such factors as morale and motivation (Bergquist, Sandstrom, and Mura, 2023) also provide a foundation for organizational safety.
Process-based safety concerns how people treat one another individually and in groups. While “good manners” can rarely be taught, process-based safety can be increased with sufficient interpersonal training and mentoring, along with the skillful facilitation of group meetings. The strong emphasis on human relationships for fifty-plus years is founded on the assumption that process-based safety is critical to organizational productivity (e.g., Schein and Bennis, 1965).
We must pause here, for safety (as Watson would suggest) must ultimately be secured not by structure or process but by attitude (at the individual level) and culture (at the collective level). Psychological safety is secured in one’s Head and Heart. How do we feel about the structures and processes that have been introduced? Do these initiatives secure safety, or are they just “public relations”? Are there prevalent assumptions that members of this organization genuinely care about each other and appreciate one another (Srivastava, Cooperrider, and Associates, 1990)? Do folks respect one another’s rights while feeling some collective responsibility for the overall welfare of those working in this organization?
Ultimately, effective accommodation doesn’t just require safety. It requires our capacity and willingness to learn from and about the context and environment in which we operate. We are taught by the mistakes we make. We learn most about the world in which we work when we fail. This is especially the case when we are operating in a whitewater environment.
It is also important to recognize that we must never only engage in accommodation. We must retain our fundamental values (the ground anchor) and reasons for entering the whitewater. The chariot we ride and the shell we carry must never be abandoned. As Peter Vaill reminds us, we are always accommodating (and learning) on behalf of some enduring mission and purpose. Thus, we can blend accommodation and assimilation. We can reflect on and learn about ourselves as learners and successful accommodators. We can appreciate our distinctive skill as a “change agent.” This appreciation is particularly salient when the change occurs inside our Head and Heart—and in our courageous navigation of this turbulent environment.
