
Insecurities shape everything we do. That is why we need to take them into account when we interact and collaborate.
Creating good and robust solutions in an ever changing environment is a challenge and an important task for all organisations of all sizes and in all industries in fast transforming environments in which we all operate today.
And all these environments have something in common: Robust decisions ideally are taken on the basis of good and meaningful conversations. Conversations in which we acknowledge the ideas, insights, knowledge, research and life experience of all people involved in the conversation.
Just 20 years ago, good and meaningful conversations and sound decisions where not unimportant, but it was easier to get away with mediocre conversations and with less robust decisions, because the world we lived in was a different one. It was less complex, communication was slower, and bad decisions did of course have consequences, but the speed in which a not-so-robust decision affected the whole system was not as breathtakingly fast as today, when most decisions or the results based on those decisions are instantly visible online for everyone to see and comment.
Of course, bad decisions of those days can still be felt 20 years down the road or longer, such as using faulty or dangerous building materials, flooding the market with processed foods or taking bad political decisions that shape our societies still today. To correct those decisions is often expensive and tedious.
Today, one bad decision (at a large scale) can mean the difference between a thriving organisation and a failing one. This is why today’s decision making should be more like probing on a small scale first, followed by measuring the results and then by correcting the course of action based on those measurements. (If you want to know more about the fabulous thinking behind that idea, have a look at Dave Snowdens cynefin framework. According to this model, navigating a complex environment with emergent practices requires a probe — sense — respond approach).

But whether at a small experimental scale or, when tested, on a larger scale, implementing ideas always needs to be preceded by sound decision making and, before that, by one or often several meaningful conversations by people with different, preferably diverging, viewpoints, expertise and backgrounds. At least, that is what produces the best outcome. But achieving great decisions with a diverse team is not at all a walk in the park.
Robust decisions today require diversity. But diversity is one of the most difficult things to navigate. It is easier (albeit not trivial) to take decisions among peers who have similar knowledge, mindset and background than with a group of people who have completely different skills, come from different backgrounds, have a profoundly different view of the world around them, might come from different cultures and value different things in their lives.
But while it is maybe easier to take decisions with the more homogeneous group, decisions taken with the diverse group based on meaningful conversations are more robust because they take into account more perspectives than the decisions taken with the more homogeneous group. In the homogeneous group, the risk of group-think is also much higher than in the group with more diversity, because homogeneous groups have a greater risk of thinking that the first solution presented is a no-brainer, while in more heterogeneous groups first ideas are more likely to be challenged by others in the group based on the diverging thinking of the diverse participants.
The insecurities that influence everything
Most interactions that we have with others, whether in a work related or private setting, are influenced by how secure we feel about ourselves and how safe we feel in those interactions. If we feel secure in ourselves, in the relationship or team setting, and if we feel valued for who we are, it is much easier to express our ideas and needs freely and to participate in truly meaningful conversations.

The thing is, many people already have a problem just feeling secure in themselves. Many different things influence how secure we feel, and these smaller and larger insecurities are heightened when we interact with others. Also, we never show all of our insecurities to others, and of some of our deepest insecurities and how much they influence how we interact with others most of us are not even aware ourselves.
If the setting in which we are participating in allows for personal insecurities and if the people in this setting acknowledge that insecurities influence our conversations and our decision making processes, the outcome is better than in settings where we forget that personal insecurities influence what we do, how we interact, discuss and decide.
Good conversations and decisions need a safe space
In other words, we need a safe space in which it is not only possible to be our true selves but where others acknowledge that the way we interact is shaped by our underlying insecurities and the invisible influencers we are not openly talking about, and that it is not only ok that these layers exist but that we try to make them more transparent and more part of the conversation, in the same way we make the diversity and different viewpoints of a diverse team visible and useful for the whole group.
If we take care of creating safe spaces where we can present more of our whole selves to the people we are interacting with, we can start looking for common ground and common solutions rather than trying to fight for our position.
In settings where it feels safe to be vulnerable and insecure, we can ask questions like «what are you most afraid of?» or «what worries you deeply about this scenario?» and feel secure enough to lay our fears on the table.

What does a safe space need?
So what does a safe space need for us to really show up and present ourselves as we are, with the layers under the surface rather than just the tip of the iceberg?
Clearly, it depends on the group and the setting, but there are a few things that help no matter what the setting and group:
- A common and clear purpose (what are we fighting for together?)
- Explicit agreements between the group members (how do we want to interact? How do we acknowledge individual insecurities and allow for vulnerability?)
- Facilitation: Someone who is not participating in the discussion but making the discussion possible (this is a role that can rotate among the group members)
- In certain settings it is also useful to have additional roles such as someone capturing the results / decisions of the meeting and someone taking care that the safe space and the agreements among the group members are kept intact.
- Common practices on how the group usually reaches decisions are also helpful (see the decision making model I am working on below to see what decision making options are even possible).

