Posts

The safest thing to do in most organisations is to do nothing. That's precisely why so many of them fall behind.

We're living in an era where change is the default setting. Not optional. Not polite. It's relentless. And yet the cleverest investments a Company can make aren't always new tech or the shinier office. They're the quieter ones, the cultures you build, the conversations you protect, and the small routines that make people feel safe enough to try things that might fail. Call it psychological safety. Call it creating a safe space for innovation. Whatever label you prefer, the outcome is the same: organisations that foster it adapt faster, attract talent more readily and ship better outcomes.

Let me be frank: innovation without safety is just noise. You can put an impressive boardroom on level 45 of a CBD tower, recruit the cleverest brains in Sydney and plaster your values on the intranet, but none of that guarantees new ideas will surface. People will always prefer survival to creativity when the cost of getting it wrong is humiliation or job loss. We need to design workplaces where intelligent risk taking is normal, not exceptional.

Why this matters now is obvious. The World Economic Forum estimated that by 2025 roughly 44% of the skills people need will change, a reminder that adaptive capacity is now a strategic capability, not a nice to have. If a business cannot learn quickly, it will be overtaken by one that can. That learning requires speaking up, challenging sacred cows, trialling things, failing fast sometimes, and learning. None of that happens without trust.

Psychological safety is not a fluffy HR project. It's the oxygen for experiments. Teams that feel safe to speak up are the teams that iterate, course correct and ultimately deliver. That's why leaders in Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra, right through to remote teams in Western Australia, need to think less about branding their innovation strategy and more about the environment they're creating day to day.

What safe space for innovation really looks like

Let's clear up a misnomer straight away. "Safe" doesn't mean cushioned, slow or risk averse. It means predictable fairness. It means processes that ensure people can propose a radical pivot without being shouted down in the first 90 seconds of a meeting, and that when something fails, it's treated as learning rather than a career limiting event.

A good safe space balances breadth and structure. Creativity thrives inside constraints. Think frameworks not fences. Define the guardrails: acceptable risk levels, budget limits for experiments, clear criteria for when to scale or kill off a pilot. Within those parameters, give teams autonomy. Too much structure kills creativity. Too little invites chaos, or worse, hero culture.

Culture is top down and bottom up at once. Leaders set tone and remove barriers. Managers translate strategy into day to day rituals. Peers model behaviours. And everyone, especially senior people, must be willing to be vulnerable. Saying "I don't know" or "We got this wrong" is a radical act in some places. Make that normal.

Practical levers that actually work

Rituals that normalise risk and reflection Weekly check ins that ask "what did we try this week that didn't work?" rather than only celebrating wins. Run short, honest post mortems that focus on systems and decisions, not people. Host monthly "what if" sessions where improbable ideas are entertained without immediate judgement. These rituals reframe failure as data.
Real accountability, not fear If an experiment fails because the hypothesis was wrong, that should be applauded. If it fails because someone ignored agreed upon constraints, that should be addressed. Differentiate between intelligent risk and negligence. People crave clear expectations.
Resources, time and permission You can't ask teams to innovate in the 30 minutes they have between client calls. Allocate time, official "exploration hours", innovation days, or sabbaticals for projects. Give access to tools, budget and data. Remove gatekeepers who say "ask marketing" or "talk to legal" as a reflexive dead end.
Cross functional teams Bring product folks, operations, legal, frontline staff and a finance person into one room. The cognitive diversity from different functional lenses reduces blind spots. It also signals that every perspective matters. When a customer service rep can flag an on the ground issue directly to product, innovation cycles shorten.
Mentorship and knowledge transfer Pair curious juniors with seasoned leaders. Create apprenticeship style learning for specific domains. Institutional memory should be shared, not hoarded. Mentors who encourage experimentation and model recovery after failure are priceless.
Transparent decision making People need to see how ideas are selected and funded. Ambiguity breeds suspicion. Publish criteria and the outcomes of decision reviews. Explain why some pilots are scaled and others aren't.

The messy, necessary work of psychological safety

Let's be clear: building psychological safety is not a checklist. It's slow, uneven, and political. It requires constant attention. And there will be pushback. Some senior leaders come from cultures where decisiveness was measured by shutting down debate. Others worry that more "safe" talk equals more bureaucracy. I hold two contrarian opinions here: first, that measured bureaucracy can sometimes accelerate innovation by reducing the cost of failure through clear rules; and second, that traditional performance reviews, yes, the dreaded annual appraisal, are salvageable if retooled to be coaching focused rather than judgement heavy. People will disagree. Fine. Let's have a proper argument.

What I see fail most often is the "initiative blizzard", organisations that announce an innovation program, run some workshops, launch a pilot, then lose momentum. Why? Because the policies and incentives don't change. If your KPIs still reward hitting quarterly margin targets above all else, no one will take the long shot bets that lead to breakthrough products. Align incentives. If experimentation is valuable, measure it. Track learning velocity. Reward the insights that didn't pay off yet but taught the team something crucial.

Leaders who talk about their own mistakes do more than inspire. They create permission. I once worked with a leadership team in Brisbane where the CEO started weekly town halls not to trumpet wins but to deconstruct recent flops. It was messy. It made some people uncomfortable. But it also freed the middle managers to escalate problems earlier, and within a year the team's delivery timeline decreased by nearly a third. Stories move culture more than policies do.

Tools and the illusion of fairness

Everyone wants the magic tool to fix innovation. New collaboration platforms, AI assistants, ideation software, these are useful. But tools don't create psychological safety. People do. Technology amplifies culture, it doesn't fabricate it.

That said, equitable access to tools levels the playing field. When every team has access to data analytics, prototyping platforms and customer feedback loops, the best ideas come from where the insights are, not from where the budget used to sit. That's why I like to see digital democratisation, putting basic analytics and prototyping kits into the hands of frontline staff. Simple idea: provide a shared sandbox environment and encourage low cost experiments. Don't gatekeep.

How to run experiments without wrecking operations

A common fear I hear from executives in Melbourne and Perth is the risk of innovation disrupting core operations. Sensible. The approach is to compartmentalise risk with clarity. Use small, time boxed pilots with defined rollback plans. Apply minimum viable product principles: test hypotheses with the least investment necessary. Build guardrails, legal, compliance and customer impact thresholds, that must be met before scaling.

Also: separate the learning budget from the delivery budget. If you fund experiments inside the delivery budget, managers will be reluctant to cannibalise performance. Ringfence funds for discovery work. Treat it as R&D.

On diversity and the stubborn myths

Diversity is not a moral bonus, it's a practical advantage. When teams include different ages, genders, cultural backgrounds and cognitive styles, they surface more blind spots and generate richer solutions. That said, diversity without inclusion is performative. If diverse voices are present but not heard, the value evaporates.

Here I'll take another slightly unpopular stance: diversity quotas can be a blunt but effective lever to jump start inclusion. Quotas aren't the end goal, inclusive practices are, but they force the structures to change and create space for the behaviours that then need to be nurtured. Some readers will bristle. Others will nod. Either way, the data linking diversity to performance is compelling enough that sensible organisations make it a priority.

Measurement: what you should actually track

If you want real behaviour change, measure it. Not vanity metrics. Not "number of ideas submitted". Measure learning and inclusion.

Learning velocity: how many experiments per quarter, average time from hypothesis to outcome, proportion of experiments that produce actionable insights.
Psychological safety indicators: anonymous pulse surveys that track whether people feel safe to voice dissent, make mistakes and ask for help.
Collaboration metrics: number of cross functional initiatives, percentage of budget allocated to interdisciplinary work.
Decision transparency: proportion of decisions with documented rationale available to teams.

These metrics should inform both reward systems and leadership development. They tell a story about how safe your space really is.

The role of leadership development

Leaders are not born knowing how to create safe spaces. They learn it through coaching and practice. We need leadership programmes that focus on humility, curiosity and listening, not just strategy spreadsheets. Senior leaders should be drilled on how to handle dissent constructively, how to give feedback that preserves dignity, and how to extract learning from failure.

In Australia, the appetite for such programmes is growing. I've been part of designing sessions where execs are put into facilitated simulations: they lead through ambiguity, face transparent feedback, and must make decisions with incomplete information. They leave with practical tools: how to frame a failed experiment in a way that surfaces learning, how to solicit dissent without inviting chaos, and how to shepherd cross functional teams when priorities shift.

Mentorship matters. When senior leaders mentor across functions, they signal that career progression isn't a narrow ladder but a lattice.

Removing structural blockers

Some obstacles show up as culture; some are plain process. Look at procurement, legal and compliance. They are common bottlenecks. Invite those teams into the innovation conversation early. Make them partners in finding ways to de risk experiments. I'd rather see procurement design fast track approvals for low risk pilots than be a permanent roadblock.

Another blocker is performance management. If your appraisal system punishes risk taking, don't be surprised when people play safe. Rework performance frameworks to include recognition for informed risk, collective learning and cross team collaboration.

Final thoughts, a bit blunt, because I prefer being useful

Innovation isn't a department. It's a capability that runs through every team, every role and every policy. Creating a safe space for that capability takes work that is often invisible: the conversations leaders choose to have, the rituals teams commit to, the small decisions that show who is listened to. It's not glamorous. It's not a headline for the investor deck. But it's the difference between a Company that reacts and one that shapes the future.

A closing, slightly provocative opinion: sometimes the best innovation move you make is to slow down. Give people space to breathe, to read, to tinker without KPI driven panic. It's counterintuitive, we're obsessed with speed, but some of the most valuable insights come to those permitted to be curious rather than hurried.

At times I find other trainers and consultants offer shiny frameworks that produce short term excitement and little change. We try to be different. We prefer to design the scaffolding for habit change: a cadence of experiments, clear feedback loops, and incentives that match the behaviours you say you value. Practical, stubborn, messy work. The kind that wins in the long run.

There's no single recipe. Every Organisation will mix these ingredients differently based on size, sector and location. But the common DNA is straightforward: build fairness, enable access to resources, make failure productive, and hold people, from the shop floor to the executive suite, accountable for learning. Do that and innovation stops being an annual offsite topic and becomes the way work gets done.

One last thing, not a checklist item, more of a dare. Ask your teams: "What's the riskiest idea you'd try if you knew you wouldn't be penalised for it?" If their answers are cautious, you've got work to do. If they laugh and give you a dozen half baked projects, you are on your way. Either way, listen.

Sources & Notes

World Economic Forum, The Future of Jobs Report 2020, statistic referenced about skills change by 2025.
Amy C. Edmondson, Harvard Business Review and related research on psychological safety and team learning.
Google re:Work / Project Aristotle, research highlighting the importance of psychological safety in effective teams.
Practical observations drawn from working with leadership teams and training programmes across Australian cities including Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane; examples include practices observed in prominent Australian tech firms (positive organisational practices noted, unnamed in detailed discussion).