Watch the recording of the webinar (in English):
Watch a German-language version of the webinar:
View the English slides (downloadable PDF):
View the German slides (downloadable PDF):
Listen to the recording via our podcast:
Imagine a board meeting. The CEO presents a plan he's excited about. He asks: all in favor, say aye. What he hears is silence. What the people in the room are actually thinking -- no, a thousand times no, heaven forbid -- stays inside their heads.
Sabrina Malter opens with this cartoon because it illustrates a dynamic that most people in organizations recognize immediately. The room full of people silently managing their impressions, choosing not to voice the concerns that are their actual job to voice. Their job in that meeting is to identify risk, surface problems, make the idea better. They're not doing that. They're calculating what the boss wants to hear.
This is impression management -- and Sabrina's argument is that it's not a character flaw, it's a learned behavior. We practice it from childhood through school and into the workplace. It works. It protects people. And it quietly destroys organizational learning.
This session is about what to do about that. Sabrina Malter is a Leadership and Learning Coach and Consultant at Unveil Business Consulting, based in southern Germany. She brings 25 years of industry experience in business transformation, organizational development, and strategy management, along with deep expertise in Kata coaching, leadership development, and cultural change. She has delivered this session in both English and German.
Every child loves to learn. Adults don't suddenly lose the capacity for it when they enter an organization. What changes is the environment -- and specifically, what the environment signals about the risk of being honest.
Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety is the foundation here. Sabrina uses Edmondson's framework to name the zone most organizations actually occupy: not toxic, not safe, but somewhere in the anxious middle. When she asks live audiences to rate their teams on a 0-to-10 psychological safety scale, the answers cluster around 5 or 6. Nobody says 10 for the whole organization. And one pattern repeats: the CEO would say 10. Most employees would say 3.
At low psychological safety, people operate in an anxiety zone. High performance standards plus a low-safety environment equals silence. People don't voice concerns, don't share mistakes, don't float half-baked ideas. They wait until they're certain, and often they wait too long or never surface the insight at all. The organization misses the chance to learn.
At high psychological safety, teams operate in a learning zone. People collaborate across silos, speak up with ideas and concerns, share mistakes so others can learn from them, and engage in disagreement without fear of reprisal. This is also, according to the research, where the highest performance lives.
The gap between most organizations' current state and the learning zone isn't primarily a training problem or a knowledge problem. It's a leadership behavior problem.
The first shift is what leaders ask for, explicitly and repeatedly. Learning doesn't happen when it's implicitly welcomed. It happens when it's explicitly expected.
Sabrina identifies several specific behaviors here. Encourage sharing half-baked ideas -- not polished conclusions, but early thinking that others can build on. Encourage admitting mistakes and near-misses so the whole organization can learn from them, not just the person involved. Encourage failing fast and course-correcting, which is how genuine innovation becomes possible rather than just aspirational. And encourage both following current best practices and consciously deviating from them when professional judgment warrants it -- then sharing the learning from that deviation.
The point about people with high self-assessed expertise is worth naming directly. People who are certain of their own competence are often the last to admit they deviated from procedure, even when that deviation revealed something important. Framing sharing as a contribution to learning -- rather than as an admission of imperfection -- changes what those people are willing to disclose.
Sabrina uses a quote from a former Toyota chairman who responded to a manager's self-congratulatory status report by saying: we all know you are a good manager, otherwise we would not have hired you, but please talk to us about our problems so we can work on them together. Senior leadership meetings are expensive in time and attention. Their purpose is not to confirm that everything is fine. It's to work on what isn't.
This is the one Sarah describes as both the most obvious and the hardest.
You're excited about a project. You share it with your team. Someone raises a critical concern. What does your face do?
Sabrina's point is blunt: if you say "thank you for sharing that" while visibly not meaning it, people will read your face. Your verbal acknowledgment is a learned phrase. Your reaction is real, and it teaches everyone in the room what actually happens when they raise a concern. If the response to honest feedback is displeasure -- even nonverbal displeasure -- people learn to stay quiet.
The fix isn't a communication technique. It's an attitude. You have to genuinely value critical responses as contributions to better outcomes, not as threats to your work. That takes effort, and it takes the self-awareness to notice when you're not doing it.
Other trust-building practices she identifies: regular check-ins and gemba walks that show genuine respect and interest in people's work experience, not just process observation. Modeling and expecting inclusive behavior as a baseline -- people whose attention is divided by a hostile environment don't bring their full thinking to the work. And leading with kindness, which she connects to her colleague Karyn Ross's framing: kindness is the opposite of fear. High psychological safety requires that the alternative to silence be not just acceptable but welcomed.
Learning that happens but doesn't spread is wasted. Sabrina's third practice is building the structures that make learning visible and shareable.
Coaching questions in one-on-ones and team meetings -- genuine questions that surface what someone is thinking, rather than prompts toward a predetermined answer. Deliberate requests for problems, mistakes, and learnings in operational reviews and project reviews, rather than tolerating purely positive status updates. And establishing platforms -- physical, digital, or habitual -- where mistakes and learnings are actively shared as contributions.
The combination matters. Questions that invite learning are necessary but not sufficient without a response environment that actually rewards learning when it appears. The platform and the practice reinforce each other when both are present, and undermine each other when one is absent.
Of all the human skills Sabrina covers, she identifies this as the most important and probably the hardest to actually practice.
Listening with your whole being is easy to describe and very hard to do consistently. Not typing on your phone while someone presents is the obvious floor -- and a floor that isn't always respected. But genuine listening goes further: being present in the moment, letting wandering thoughts go rather than following them, not preparing your response while someone is still speaking.
Sabrina's practice recommendation is specific. Set an intention at the start of the day or week: in this meeting, or in this conversation, I will listen without preparing my answer. Notice when you drift. Return. Reflect at the end of the day on whether you did it and what got in the way. Adjust and try again.
She draws on an African Zulu greeting -- Sawubona, meaning "I see you" -- as a description of what genuine listening actually does for people. When someone listens to you with real presence, you feel seen. That experience changes what people are willing to share. It signals that what you have to say matters enough to attend to. And that signal is one of the foundational conditions for psychological safety.
The companion to listening is speaking -- and specifically, how you communicate in ways that build connection and trust rather than defensiveness.
Sabrina draws on non-violent communication as a starting framework: observation, feeling, need, request. Not as a rigid script but as a structure that helps people move from reactive communication to something more deliberate. This is the foundation of effective feedback. It also applies to any conversation where the default mode might be judgment, instruction, or pushback.
Her point about feedback conversations is practical: most people find feedback uncomfortable, given or received. A communication approach grounded in non-violent communication can make those conversations more connecting than confrontational -- and that shift has a direct effect on psychological safety and trust over time.
The third human skill connects directly back to the leadership practices: you can't invite all brains if you don't know how to ask questions that actually open thinking.
Open-ended questions. What and how questions rather than yes/no questions. Avoiding leading questions that prompt toward a predetermined answer. This is also the foundation of coaching, and Sabrina recommends it practically: rather than formal extensive coaching training, equip people with these basics, set up peer-to-peer coaching pairs or small groups, and let them practice on real work. Cross-functional peer coaching also builds relationships across silos -- an effect that compounds over time.
The caveat she adds is the same one she applies to listening: knowing the principle is not the same as practicing it. In stressful situations, under urgency, when you care strongly about the outcome -- these are exactly the moments when the instinct is to tell rather than ask. That's when the practice matters most and is hardest to access. Which is why deliberate practice and the reflection cycle are the mechanism, not just the framework.
Threading through all of these practices is a simple structure Sabrina returns to throughout the session, explicitly adapted from PDSA: reflect, set an intention, plan something concrete, do it, then check and adjust.
The sequence matters: reflect first, not plan first. Start by honestly looking at what your current habits actually are and what they're producing. From that honest baseline, set an intention -- not a goal, but a way of showing up. Then plan one specific thing: in my next daily huddle, when someone shares an idea, I will count to ten before responding. Do it. In the evening, ask honestly: did I do that? What happened? What will I adjust?
This cycle works individually, in pairs, and in teams. The peer accountability version -- sharing your intention with a colleague and asking them to tell you when you're drifting back -- is particularly effective. Weekly team reflections where everyone shares what they intended, what they tried, and what they learned are a low-overhead habit that accumulates over time.
The obstacles the live audience named -- firefighting, urgency, lack of time, lack of management support -- are real. Sabrina's response is direct: you don't need management support to apply this in your own team or with peers who think similarly. You can start there. That's how most cultural change actually begins.
The live audience named a long list of obstacles to becoming a learning organization: firefighting, fear, time pressure, production focus, constant management turnover, learning not seen as a strategic goal, urgency of recovery, lack of buy-in from upper management.
Sabrina's response to the "traditional management" question -- leaders who are doers and fixers who resist anything that looks like prioritizing development over execution -- is to frame it as a choice the leader makes about what performance they're willing to accept. You have the power and the responsibility to move toward higher team performance. That reframe doesn't guarantee a breakthrough, but it opens a conversation that framing it as a cultural deficit doesn't.
On HR's role: helpful, but not the right leading force. The leading force should ultimately be senior leadership, ideally the CEO. But if that's not present, you can still build this within your team.
On rebuilding broken trust: the most effective path is an honest conversation, even a difficult one. Share your thinking so people can't misinterpret it. Apologize genuinely if an apology is warranted -- people know the difference between a genuine apology and a performed one. Name what you're working on. Invite people to call you out when you fall back. And recognize that trust erodes quickly; one bad response to an honest comment can set back months of work. The prevention is more valuable than the repair.
The learning organization Sabrina describes depends on a specific operational condition: when people surface ideas, problems, mistakes, and observations, something actually happens with them. The futility problem -- the belief that speaking up doesn't lead to anything -- is just as destructive to learning culture as fear. You can build psychological safety through all the behaviors Sabrina describes, and still have people stop sharing if their contributions disappear into a system that doesn't respond.
KaiNexus provides the infrastructure that closes this loop: every idea submitted is acknowledged, tracked, and connected to an outcome. People can see what happened to what they raised. Leaders can see patterns across teams and facilities. The learning that happens in one unit becomes visible to every other unit that might benefit from it. None of that replaces the leadership behaviors and human skills Sabrina describes -- those are the prerequisite. But without the infrastructure, even the best-intentioned leaders struggle to sustain the system at scale.
Sabrina Malter is a Leadership and Learning Coach and Consultant at Unveil Business Consulting, based in southern Germany. She brings 25 years of experience in business transformation, organizational development, and strategy management, with particular expertise in Kata coaching, leadership development, and cultural change. Her educational background includes an MSc in Sustainability Management from The Open University, UK, and further study in leading people-centered change, leadership coaching, and professional resilience. She can be found on LinkedIn and at her website.
Why doesn't a learning organization emerge on its own?
Because organizations create conditions that discourage learning, often unintentionally. Impression management -- the learned behavior of saying what you think others want to hear rather than what you actually think -- is rewarded from childhood through school and into the workplace. In the absence of deliberate leadership behaviors that make honest contribution safe and valued, the default is silence, and learning doesn't happen.
What is the connection between psychological safety and organizational learning?
Amy Edmondson's research shows that when psychological safety is low but performance standards are high, organizations operate in an anxiety zone: people are afraid to speak up, mistakes go unreported, and learning stalls. When psychological safety is high with high performance standards, teams operate in a learning zone where they surface problems, share mistakes, and build on each other's ideas -- which is also where the highest performance lives. Most organizations, when surveyed honestly, find themselves in the middle.
What does "appreciative responses to contributions" mean in practice?
It means genuinely valuing critical feedback as a contribution to better outcomes, not just tolerating it. The gap between a learned phrase ("thank you for sharing that") and a genuine response is visible in body language and facial expression. People read it. When the real response to honest feedback is displeasure -- even nonverbal -- people learn to stay quiet. Building this requires developing an actual attitude that difficult truths are more valuable than comfortable agreement.
What is the personal learning cycle Sabrina recommends?
Adapted from PDSA: reflect on your current habits and what they're producing, set a specific intention for a behavior you want to practice (not a goal but a way of showing up), plan one concrete action to practice it, do it, then check and adjust. This cycle works individually, in pairs with an accountability partner, or in weekly team reflections. The key is starting with honest reflection rather than jumping to planning.
How do you handle managers who see their role as doers and fixers?
By reframing empowerment as a choice about performance level. Leaders who are the sole decision-makers and problem-solvers create a ceiling on their team's performance. Leaders who develop their people's ability to solve problems remove that ceiling. The question isn't whether to be a high-standards leader -- it's whether you want your team's performance to be limited by what you personally can fix, or whether you want to build a team where everyone contributes.
Can you build a learning culture without senior management support?
Yes, within your own team or with peers who share the commitment. You can apply all of these leadership practices and human skills within your sphere of influence regardless of what's happening at the organizational level. That's often how broader cultural change begins -- not from the top down but from a team that demonstrates what's possible, generating interest from others who see the results.
.svg)
Copyright © 2026
Privacy Policy