A safe space for scrutiny?

Would you say that executive members arrive at your scrutiny meeting ‘wearing armour’? Perhaps they are ‘on the defensive’ or ‘determined to stick to their script’? I’m asking as these are things I’ve heard occasionally from scrutineers and thought it might be helpful to reflect on.

Whilst this defensiveness might simply be a choice on behalf of the executive member, it might also have something to do with the way they have come to see scrutiny and the experiences they have had at meetings. Maybe you’ve been in those executive shoes yourself, or have a friend who has, and so will have some insight.

I was reminded of this the other day by something the wonderful Jo Carter posted about psychological safety in teams. Drawing on the work of Amy Edmonson, Jo highlights how ‘being bold’ in meetings requires that psychological safety is provided and nurtured by colleagues.

Similarly, if we would like executive members to ‘be bold’, to ‘let their defences down’, be ‘open to influence’ or to ‘go off script’, scrutiny meetings have to provide a safe environment to make this more likely.

Of course, ensuring that scrutiny is a psychologically safe space is more of a challenge than it is for an ‘ordinary’ meeting.

Consider how being in an executive role requires people to present themselves as confident and capable, all the time having to weigh up what their words might mean to other stakeholders who are not in the room.

At the same time, scrutiny takes place in public and is recorded, usually videoed. Who wouldn’t take care with their words in these circumstances?

And of course, there are often party politics in the background with the invisible strings of the party group potentially shaping what might be said.

So, it’s difficult for executives to be bold or to go ‘off-script’.

But not impossible.

I’ve seen executives ‘digging deep’ for answers to questions, engaging in constructive debate and in productive dialogue. I’ve also seen those unexpected ‘moments of influence’ leading to new ideas being suggested or new areas of concern being identified.

Sometimes I’ve also seen executives expressing vulnerability, in other words, accepting that wrong turns had been taken, saying that they simply don’t know the answer or asking scrutiny for help.

Perhaps the challenge for you as a scrutineer, then, is to maintain a professional level of scrutiny whilst, at the same time, providing a safe space for change to happen. An environment that, whilst rigorous, is also respectful and supportive. This will likely involve committee members positively reinforcing the behaviour they want to see, for example, “thank you for being so candid” or “we really appreciate you working through this with us”. Of course, it won’t involve point scoring or ‘gotchas’ or anything else that will cause the executive member to go back into their shell.

After all, it seems to me that scrutiny is more likely to have influence if the executive member is willing to leave their armour at home.

I hope this was useful 🙏
​

Jo’s Post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jocarter64_teamculture-psychologicalsafety-govcampcymru-activity-7283095815638679553-nLCu?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop​

​
​

​
​

​
​