Splitting teams? Psychological safety is an aid, not an obstacle.

In the Rands Leadership Slack, a member recently asked about resolving the tension between psychological safety and the needs of the business when it came to splitting a team:

How do you balance, as an engineering manager, the trade-off between

• building a team that feels very psychologically safe, where everyone really likes to work with each other
• the need to split the team in half to accommodate company growth, new hires, etc.

People have expressed sadness and complaints, and no one wants to “leave” the existing team. How can I find a good compromise for both people and the company? Both sides are valid. Of course, the feeling of togetherness should not harm company growth, but I also don’t want people to leave eventually.

I empathize with the person asking the question. In my first managerial role, the organization was growing quickly and hiring extensively. After working hard to help build some great teams, I was tasked with pulling individuals from existing teams to establish new ones. One of the teams, in particular, was upset by this news. I felt very conflicted. From this experience, I learned that it’s important to remember that psychological safety is more about how you engage with direct reports regarding challenges and much less about shielding them from those challenges.

The manager who asked this question started off on the right foot by engaging with team members and hearing their input.^[1] Openly addressing challenging situations and seeking input are two crucial aspects of psychological safety. Most humans feel valued when they feel listened to. In addition, discussing the changes could reveal a valid reason to change plans. In this case, disappointment is the overriding input from the team members, which does not rise to that level.

Psychological safety also requires candor.^[2] In this situation, the manager must explain why the change is happening (the need to grow and absorb new hires) and convey that these business objectives take precedence over team member concerns (discomfort and sadness). Shielding team members from this reality is counterproductive to psychological safety.

Servant leadership also plays a crucial role here. The manager feels tension between serving team members and serving the company. Nonetheless, individual benefits can and should still be maximized within the company's constraints. For example, supporting new hires presents an excellent opportunity if existing team members wish to mentor others. Additionally, are any team members interested in formally or informally leading the establishment of psychological safety in one of the new teams?

Finally, the adverse outcome that the manager fears, an employee leaving, should not weigh heavily on their mind. After going through some version of team splitting a few times, I’ve seen individual feelings normalizing as people settle in with their new colleagues. If a team member cannot overcome their disappointment or adjust to the new normal, leaving may be the best choice for both them and the organization. A growing company with multiple new hires may not provide the environment they desire. They may be better suited for a smaller organization and/or one that is less prone to change.

While seeking compromise when splitting the team may seem like the right approach, the goal is to maximize the team members' positive outcomes in the context of the constraints. Psychological safety and servant leadership provide a means to navigate the change, not a reason to avoid it.