Welcome to
AXIS Live.
Your DEIB toolkit, here whenever you need it. This sample opens one section: psychological safety.
Reach for it when a real moment lands.
A living reference for the language, ideas and situations that come up in your workplace. Every page ends with prompts that turn your organisation's AI assistant into a personal guide, on whatever you're dealing with right now.
What it isn't: a course.
No homework, no modules to finish, no test at the end. Read one page or fifty. Nobody is keeping score.
When to reach for it
Ask it. Don't just read it.
Every page ends with prompts. Copy one, paste it into your organisation's AI assistant, and keep replying. The prompt sets things up. The conversation is yours.
Copy the prompt.
One tap on the button.
Paste it into your organisation's approved AI tool.
Copilot, ChatGPT Enterprise or whatever your company uses. Not a personal account.
Keep going.
Reply, pick an option, push back, ask it to go simpler. It gets more useful the longer you stay.
Learn it
You want to understand something properly.
The AI explains it in a work setting, gives you a real example, then offers three ways to go further. You pick; it follows.
Challenge me
You're not sure you agree, or want to test your own thinking.
The AI makes the sceptic's case, then the other side, then asks where you land. No audience, no judgement.
Help with a real situation
Something has happened, or is about to.
You describe it without names or client detail. The AI asks a few questions, helps you think it through, and gives you words you could use.
Plan my path
You want to know where to go next.
The AI asks about your role and what you're facing, then suggests where to start and what to read next.
AI can be wrong, and it can sound very sure while it is.
Treat it as a thinking partner, not an authority. Anything involving policy, discipline or the law goes to HR or your formal routes, not a chatbot.
Psychological safety.
People move when they feel invited, not indicted.
AXIS Live doesn't tell you what to think, and it doesn't blame. It gives you the language and the context to act with confidence.
Psychological safety, unpacked.
This is a sample of AXIS Live. Links shown faded go to pages in the full toolkit.
Psychological safety is the shared sense, in a team, that you can speak up without being punished or embarrassed for it. Ask the question, flag the mistake, disagree with the senior person, try the idea that might not work. The term comes from Harvard professor Amy Edmondson, who spent decades studying why some teams learn and others don't.
"A shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking."Amy Edmondson
"The sense of being able to show and employ one's self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status or career."William Kahn
What it is not
The Performance Pyramid
For years we assumed performance came from skill, ability and experience. Those are necessary, but not sufficient. Skill only becomes performance when it stands on a foundation of safety, both physical and psychological.
Safety is the base, skill is the middle, and performance sits on top of both. A capable person who doesn't feel safe won't give you their best. They'll give you their careful, guarded second-best.
How feeling unsafe works
The sequence is the same whether the threat is physical or psychological.
Trigger
Something happens: words, tone or volume, a look, a gesture, silence, being left out, an assumption, a memory, the energy in the room.
Threat to self
You read it as a risk to something that matters: your reputation, status, competence, influence, career, income, mental health or sense of belonging.
Unsafe
Your body reacts before you've thought it through. A threat to your standing registers much like physical danger.
Response
You protect yourself.
Disconnect
You're in the room, but you've left. You stop contributing and start performing engagement. It looks like compliance, which makes it the hardest to spot.
Retreat
You speak less, hedge more and make yourself smaller. You wait to see which way the wind is blowing before you commit. This is where the meeting after the meeting comes from.
Attack
You go on the offensive: sarcasm, humour that cuts, dominating the airtime, dismissing ideas before they land. At senior levels it often gets mistaken for confidence or decisiveness, which is what makes it the most damaging.
How it feels
Signs it's missing in a team
- People only speak in meetings when asked directly.
- Ideas come up in the corridor, not the room.
- Agreement in the meeting, contradiction afterwards.
- Nobody challenges the most powerful voice.
- Mistakes are hidden or played down.
- Over-performing. "I can't afford to be seen struggling."
- Humour as deflection. The person who always makes a joke when things get tense.
- Fast agreement. How quickly does the room settle on the leader's view?
- Selective silence. Who goes quiet on some topics but not others?
- The bright star who dimmed. Someone who used to contribute, and has stopped.
In many South African workplaces, deference to seniority, age and hierarchy runs deep, which can make speaking up feel riskier than the organisation intends.
What the research says
- Finally, a way to talk about why good people go quiet.
- It makes speaking up the norm, not an act of courage.
- It gives managers something practical to work on, not just a value on a poster.
- "Soft." Another HR buzzword for making everyone comfortable.
- Worry that it lowers standards, or that feedback now has to be sugar-coated.
- Scepticism from people who've seen "speak up" campaigns come and go while nothing changed.
Both reactions have a point. It is overused as a buzzword, and it has been used to mean "never upset anyone", which is not what it means. The honest version is harder: high standards and high safety, at the same time.
In five sentences, explain what psychological safety is and what it isn't. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a lack of it cost the team something real. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my thinking on psychological safety. First, make the strongest honest case that it's a soft idea that lowers standards, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation where people aren't speaking up, or where I don't feel safe to. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about psychological safety in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- Psychological safety
- The shared belief in a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions, admitting mistakes or disagreeing.
- Interpersonal risk
- Anything you say or do at work that could make you look ignorant, incompetent, negative or disruptive.
- Employee silence
- Holding back ideas, concerns or information that could help, usually because speaking feels risky or pointless.
Inclusive leadership.
Inclusive leadership is how you use your position to make it safe for everyone on your team to contribute, disagree, ask for help and grow, while still holding a high standard. It is not a separate job from leading. It is what good leading looks like when the team is diverse, which in South Africa it always is.
Everyone shares the responsibility for how a team feels. The responsibility isn't even, though. The person with the most power in the room has the most influence over what is allowed, what is rewarded and what is ignored.
What it is not
Seeing the unsaid
Noticing who goes quiet, who agrees too fast, and what gets said in the corridor instead of the room.
Knowing what your people carry
Understanding that people bring their lives, histories and identities to work, and that some carry more.
Knowing how to apologise
Owning a mistake quickly and simply, so the team learns that mistakes can be named.
Guarding safety
Protecting the conditions for honesty, especially when the pressure is on.
The four behaviours of inclusive leadership, Run to the Monster.
Set up, maintain, deepen
Set up
Make it clear, early, what this team is like: how we disagree, how we handle mistakes, that questions are welcome. Go first.
Maintain
Protect it when it is tested: when someone is mocked, interrupted or shut down, and when the pressure is on.
Deepen
Stretch it over time, so the team can have harder conversations about the work and about each other.
Your own state matters. A leader who is stressed, irritated or rushed spreads it to the whole room, whatever they say. Noticing that, and naming it, is part of the job.
Set up, maintain, deepen, Run to the Monster.
Firm management or bullying?
Holding a standard is uncomfortable, and it is legitimate. Bullying is uncomfortable, and it is not. Five tests tell them apart.
Every complaint is an ask
When someone pushes back or raises a concern, ask what they want you to do with it. The same sentence can mean three different things.
Investigate
"This process is broken." "This policy contradicts our values." It is about the system, not their capacity. Look into it and come back with what you found.
Coach
"I'm not ready for this." "I need more support." They want you in it with them, not to pull them out of it. Stay close; don't rescue.
Hold the line
"That's outside my scope." They are asking not to do it. "I hear you, and this is still part of your role. Let's talk about what support you need to do it."
If what you hear is about someone being harmed, treat it as a possible harassment or bullying report, not a coaching conversation.
- A practical description of what good leaders already do.
- Gives managers permission to hold standards and be human.
- Puts the responsibility where the power is.
- "You can't manage anyone any more." Fear that any hard feedback will be called bullying.
- Feeling that leaders are being asked to be therapists on top of everything else.
- Scepticism about another leadership framework.
The fear about feedback is understandable, and the five tests answer most of it: firm management is still management. You are not being asked to fix anyone's life, only to notice, to make room and to be fair.
In five sentences, explain what inclusive leadership is, including the difference between firm management and bullying. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a manager has to hold a high standard with someone who is struggling. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my thinking on inclusive leadership. First, make the strongest honest case that inclusive leadership is soft and makes it harder to manage performance, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation in my team where I want to lead more inclusively, or where I am not sure if I am being firm or unfair. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about inclusive leadership in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- Inclusive leadership
- Leading in a way that makes it safe for everyone in a team to contribute, disagree and grow, while holding a high standard for the work.
- Bullying
- Unwanted conduct, usually repeated, that abuses power or position, such as belittling, public humiliation, exclusion or moving the goalposts. It can run down, across or up a hierarchy. Firm management, which is about the work, proportionate and consistent, is not bullying.
- Appreciation
- Recognising someone for who they are, such as their care, courage or judgement, rather than only for what they delivered. Recognition is for performance; appreciation is for the person.
Getting it wrong, and putting it right.
Everyone gets this wrong sometimes: a name, a pronoun, a comment, an assumption, a joke that lands badly. Nobody gets through a working life without crossing someone's line. The aim isn't to be perfect. It is to be able to repair.
Repair means noticing the impact, owning it without a long defence, saying sorry, and changing what you do. Your intent matters to you. The impact is what the other person lives with. Repair is how you close the gap between the two.
What it is not
Repair, step by step
Notice
Something landed badly, or someone tells you it did.
Own it
Listen. Don't defend, explain or argue the details.
Apologise
Once, briefly, for the specific thing.
Change
Do it differently next time, and keep doing it.
Let it go
Don't keep bringing it up. Forgive yourself, too.
When someone tells you that you crossed a line
It is embarrassing, and the first instinct is to defend yourself. Remember what it cost them to say it. They are not out to get you. Usually they want two things: for it to stop, and for you to acknowledge it. An apology is not a weakness. It protects the working relationship.
Accountability with redemption
"Cancel culture" is often described as accountability without redemption. Accountability matters. Without a way back, though, there is little reason to apologise, and every reason to avoid each other.
Accountability and redemption, from The Line, Run to the Monster.
- Relief: you don't have to be perfect.
- A clear, short way to handle the moment.
- A way back for people who have got it wrong.
- Worry that "repair" lets serious harm off the hook.
- Fatigue at having to manage other people's feelings.
- "Why should I apologise when I didn't mean it?"
Repair is for everyday mistakes, not a replacement for consequences when there is real harm, harassment or a pattern. And apologising for impact doesn't mean admitting bad intent. It means you care how it landed.
In five sentences, explain how to repair a mistake with a colleague, including the difference between intent and impact. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where someone says something that lands badly and has to decide what to do next. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my thinking on getting it wrong and putting it right. First, make the strongest honest case that it is too easy to be called out these days and apologising just encourages it, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation where I got something wrong, or someone told me I crossed a line. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about getting it wrong and putting it right in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- Intent and impact
- Intent is what you meant. Impact is how it landed. Both are real, and when they differ, the person on the receiving end lives with the impact. Repair starts with impact.
- Repair
- What you do after you get something wrong: notice it, own it without a long defence, apologise briefly, change the behaviour, and move on.
- Cancel culture
- A loose term for publicly shaming or shutting someone out after they are called out for something, often online. It is sometimes described as accountability without redemption. The term is contested: some use it to dismiss legitimate criticism.
- Redemption
- The way back after getting something wrong: an apology backed by changed behaviour, and others allowing the relationship to continue.
Why this matters.
Strip away the jargon and diversity, equity and inclusion work is trying to do one thing: help people work well together, and deal with what gets in the way. Plenty gets in the way. A bad night's sleep, a fight at home, a deadline. Identity is one of the biggest: who we are, how we are seen, and what we have been taught to expect of each other.
Our workplaces were always diverse. What has changed is that the diversity is now closer: in the same team, the same meeting, the same client room, and more willing to speak. Many of us were never taught how to work well across those differences. That is a skill, and it can be learned.
What it is not
The Performance Pyramid
We used to think performance came from skill, ability and experience. They are necessary, but not sufficient. Skill turns into performance when it stands on a base of safety, physical and psychological.
Everyone wants to do good work, get paid fairly and be treated with respect. When people feel safe, they bring what they can actually do. When they don't, you get caution, compliance and a lot left unsaid.
From belonging to performance
Belonging
I feel part of this team, as I am.
Safety
So I can relax enough to speak, ask, try and fail.
Performance
So the team gets my full ability, not a guarded version of it.
Trust is speed
Trust is what lets a team move fast. If you trust a colleague's work, you don't check every line. If you trust your manager, you raise the problem early. Without trust, everything slows down: more checking, more copying people in, more meetings about meetings.
Trust is earned, and it is also given. People don't start from the same place: some get the benefit of the doubt from day one, others have to prove themselves twice. Building trust across difference can take longer at first. That is an honest cost, and it is worth paying for what a team gains when everyone contributes.
Inclusion is comfort.
Not comfort zones. The intrinsic comfort that lets you ask for help, disagree, try something new and fail. The more comfortable people are in a space, the more they explore and excel in it.
Trust is speed and Inclusion is comfort, Run to the Monster.
- Finally, a case for inclusion that talks about the work, not just values.
- Gives managers a reason to care that connects to what they are measured on.
- Treats people as capable adults who want to do good work.
- "The business case" can feel cold, as if fairness only matters when it pays.
- Scepticism about the numbers, and about another initiative promising results.
- Worry that it is a polite way of saying standards will drop.
Each has a point. Fairness matters in its own right, and in South Africa it is also the law. The performance case doesn't replace that; it explains why inclusion belongs in everyday management. And none of it means lower standards. It means more people able to meet them.
In five sentences, explain how inclusion, psychological safety and team performance connect. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a team is underperforming because not everyone feels able to contribute. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my thinking on inclusion and performance. First, make the strongest honest case that inclusion is a distraction from performance, or that the business case is overstated, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation where my team is not performing as well as it could and I wonder whether inclusion is part of it. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about inclusion and performance in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- Inclusion
- The experience of being heard, seen, valued and able to contribute as yourself. Run to the Monster describes it as comfort: not a comfort zone, but feeling at ease enough in a space to speak up, ask for help and take risks.
- Psychological safety
- The shared belief in a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions, admitting mistakes or disagreeing.
- Productive interaction
- An interaction you walk away from feeling it worked: connected, understood, and clearer than before. The more productive interactions a team has, the higher its trust and the better it collaborates.
I got it wrong.
You used the wrong pronoun for a colleague in a meeting. Or mispronounced their name, again. Or made a comment that landed badly the second it left your mouth. Your face goes hot, and part of you wants to carry on as if it didn't happen.
Everyone gets this wrong sometimes. The slip itself is usually small. What the other person remembers is what happens next: whether you noticed, whether you cared, and whether it keeps happening.
Intent matters to you. Impact is what they live with. Both are real, and repair is how you close the gap between them.
Correct it quickly, then carry on.
A small slip needs a small fix, in the moment.
If it was bigger, follow up privately.
A short word afterwards, not a public scene.
Apologise once, briefly.
Name what you did, say sorry, stop.
Change the behaviour.
Practise the name. Use the pronoun. The apology only counts if it doesn't keep happening.
Let it go.
Once you've repaired it, don't keep bringing it up.
- Over-apologising. Now they have to comfort you.
- Explaining your intent at length. It turns the moment into a conversation about you.
- "I'm just bad with names." It sounds like an apology but works as an excuse.
- Getting defensive. "I didn't mean anything by it" may be true, and still doesn't help.
- Avoiding them afterwards. Awkward distance does more damage than the slip.
"Sorry, they. As I was saying..."
"I've been saying your name wrong. Could you say it for me? I want to get it right."
"What I said earlier landed badly, and I'm sorry. I'll be more careful."
"Thanks for telling me. I'll change it."
If it keeps happening, if the other person has raised it formally, or if it wasn't really a slip, this is no longer a repair conversation. Speak to HR or your line manager. If you were on the receiving end, go to 3.3 It was aimed at me.
I got something wrong with a colleague and I want to put it right. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand what happened and how it landed. Then tell me honestly whether it needs a follow-up, and if it does, give me a few short words I could actually say. Don't let me over-apologise.
Here's what happened: [describe it using "a colleague" or "someone on my team"]
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
Someone said something off.
Someone makes a comment in a meeting. About a colleague's accent, about "people like that", about who is really good with numbers. A couple of people laugh. Someone looks at the table. The meeting moves on, and you are sitting there wondering whether you should have said something, and whether it is too late now.
The room has just learned something about what is allowed here. If nobody responds, the lesson is that this kind of comment is fine. The person it was about, or anyone who shares that identity, has learned something too: that they are on their own.
Most people stay quiet because they are not sure it was bad enough, they don't want a scene, or the person who said it is more senior. That is normal. It is also why the bystander is one of the most useful people in the room. You don't need a speech. You have more options than "say something dramatic" or "say nothing".
Pick the move that fits the moment.
You don't have to confront it head on. The five Ds give you a range, from low risk to high: Delay (check in with the person afterwards), Distract (change the subject, ask a question), Delegate (get someone with more standing to step in), Document (note what was said, for the person affected) and Direct (address it in the moment).
If you can, name it lightly and early.
A short, calm line in the moment does more than a long one later. You are describing the comment, not judging the person.
Check in with the person it was about.
Privately, afterwards. Being believed and not left alone matters more than what you said in the room. Ask what they would like, if anything.
Talk to the person who said it, if it needs more.
One to one, with curiosity: what did they mean, and how might it have landed? Most people take this better in private.
If you run the meeting, it is your job.
The most senior person in the room sets what is allowed. A simple "let's not do that here" from the chair carries a lot of weight.
- A public lecture. It makes the person defensive and turns the room's attention to the argument, not the comment.
- Sarcasm. It feels satisfying, and it usually escalates.
- Speaking for the person it was about. "That's offensive to her" puts them in a spotlight they didn't ask for. Ask them first.
- Waiting for someone more senior to do it. Often, nobody does.
- Laughing along to keep the peace. It tells everyone the comment was fine.
"Let's not do that here."
"Hang on, I'm not sure that came out the way you meant it."
"What did you mean by that?"
"I heard what was said earlier. Are you okay? Is there anything you'd like me to do?"
If the comment was about someone's race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion or another part of who they are, and it keeps happening (or one incident was serious), it may be harassment. If it was sexual, or a threat, it is more than a bad comment. The person affected usually decides what they want to do, and they may want your support or your notes. If you manage the people involved, you may have to act once you know: see 3.4 A colleague came to me with something. See 3.3 It was aimed at me and The law in plain language.
Someone said something off in a meeting and I am not sure how to respond. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions: what was said, who was in the room, and where I sit in terms of seniority. Then tell me honestly whether it needs a response, which of the five Ds (delay, distract, delegate, document, direct) fits best, and give me a few short words I could actually say. Keep it calm and practical.
Here's what happened: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
A colleague came to me with something.
A colleague asks if you have a minute, closes the door, and tells you something hard. Someone has been making comments. They feel shut out of the team. They are not coping. They are watching you, waiting to see what you do with it, and you are trying to work out what you are supposed to say.
They chose you. That is a sign of trust, and the next few minutes will decide whether they ever raise something like this again, with you or anyone. What people remember most is whether they were believed and whether they were left alone with it afterwards.
You don't have to fix it in the room. Your first job is to listen without interrupting, judging or rushing to a solution. Your second job is to find out what they want, which may not be what you would want in their place. If you are their manager, you may also have a duty to act, and you need to be honest about that.
Listen first, all the way through.
Don't interrupt, question the details or offer solutions yet. Silence is fine. Let them finish.
Believe them, and say so.
You don't need to have seen it to take it seriously. "Thank you for telling me" is almost always the right first line. Believing them means taking their experience seriously. It isn't a verdict on anyone else, so it doesn't stop a fair process later.
Ask what they want to happen.
Are they asking you to look into something, to support them through it, or just to know? The same words can mean very different things.
Be honest about confidentiality.
If you can keep it between you, say so. If you can't (because you are their manager, or because it involves harassment or safety), tell them before they say more, and tell them what happens next.
Follow up.
A short check-in a day or two later. Hard conversations often leave people feeling exposed afterwards. Knowing you haven't forgotten them matters.
- "Are you sure that's what they meant?" Even if you mean well, it sounds like doubt.
- "That doesn't sound like him." It tells them who you are likely to believe.
- Jumping to fix it. Going straight to the other person, or to HR, without asking takes away their choice.
- Making it about you. Your shock, your anger or your own story can wait.
- Promising more than you can keep. "This stays between us" when it can't is a trust you will have to break later.
"Thank you for telling me. I believe you. Tell me more."
"What can I do to support you? Is this something you want me to act on, or do you need me to know?"
"I want to be straight with you about what I can keep between us and what I can't."
"I've been thinking about what you told me. How are you doing?"
If what you heard involves harassment, discrimination, a threat or anyone's safety, it is more than a listening conversation. If you are a manager, you are usually expected to report it, and your organisation must act once it knows. Tell the person what you need to do and involve them in how it happens. If they are struggling with their mental health, point them to support, and stay in touch.
A colleague came to me with something hard and I want to respond well. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions: what they told me, what my role is in relation to them, and what they seemed to want from me. Then help me work out whether they are asking me to look into something, support them, or just listen, and what I can and can't keep confidential. Give me a few short words for the follow-up.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague" or "someone on my team"]
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
Glossary, A to Z.
Every term in this sample, defined once. Definitions describe real people and real identities, so they are written to be accurate and neutral. Where a word is still contested, we say so.
- Appreciation
- Recognising someone for who they are, such as their care, courage or judgement, rather than only for what they delivered. Recognition is for performance; appreciation is for the person.
- Bullying
- Unwanted conduct, usually repeated, that abuses power or position, such as belittling, public humiliation, exclusion or moving the goalposts. It can run down, across or up a hierarchy. Firm management, which is about the work, proportionate and consistent, is not bullying.
- Cancel culture
- A loose term for publicly shaming or shutting someone out after they are called out for something, often online. It is sometimes described as accountability without redemption. The term is contested: some use it to dismiss legitimate criticism.
- Employee silence
- Holding back ideas, concerns or information that could help, usually because speaking feels risky or pointless.
- Inclusion
- The experience of being heard, seen, valued and able to contribute as yourself. Run to the Monster describes it as comfort: not a comfort zone, but feeling at ease enough in a space to speak up, ask for help and take risks.
- Inclusive leadership
- Leading in a way that makes it safe for everyone in a team to contribute, disagree and grow, while holding a high standard for the work.
- Intent and impact
- Intent is what you meant. Impact is how it landed. Both are real, and when they differ, the person on the receiving end lives with the impact. Repair starts with impact.
- Interpersonal risk
- Anything you say or do at work that could make you look ignorant, incompetent, negative or disruptive.
- Productive interaction
- An interaction you walk away from feeling it worked: connected, understood, and clearer than before. The more productive interactions a team has, the higher its trust and the better it collaborates.
- Psychological safety
- The shared belief in a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions, admitting mistakes or disagreeing.
- Redemption
- The way back after getting something wrong: an apology backed by changed behaviour, and others allowing the relationship to continue.
- Repair
- What you do after you get something wrong: notice it, own it without a long defence, apologise briefly, change the behaviour, and move on.
Every psychological safety prompt, in one place.
Filter by the kind of help you want, or by section. Every prompt works in your organisation's approved AI tool. No names, no client details.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain how inclusion, psychological safety and team performance connect. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a team is underperforming because not everyone feels able to contribute. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my thinking on inclusion and performance. First, make the strongest honest case that inclusion is a distraction from performance, or that the business case is overstated, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation where my team is not performing as well as it could and I wonder whether inclusion is part of it. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about inclusion and performance in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain what psychological safety is and what it isn't. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a lack of it cost the team something real. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my thinking on psychological safety. First, make the strongest honest case that it's a soft idea that lowers standards, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation where people aren't speaking up, or where I don't feel safe to. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about psychological safety in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain what inclusive leadership is, including the difference between firm management and bullying. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a manager has to hold a high standard with someone who is struggling. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my thinking on inclusive leadership. First, make the strongest honest case that inclusive leadership is soft and makes it harder to manage performance, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation in my team where I want to lead more inclusively, or where I am not sure if I am being firm or unfair. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about inclusive leadership in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain how to repair a mistake with a colleague, including the difference between intent and impact. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where someone says something that lands badly and has to decide what to do next. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my thinking on getting it wrong and putting it right. First, make the strongest honest case that it is too easy to be called out these days and apologising just encourages it, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation where I got something wrong, or someone told me I crossed a line. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about getting it wrong and putting it right in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I got something wrong with a colleague and I want to put it right. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand what happened and how it landed. Then tell me honestly whether it needs a follow-up, and if it does, give me a few short words I could actually say. Don't let me over-apologise. Here's what happened: [describe it using "a colleague" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. Someone said something off in a meeting and I am not sure how to respond. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions: what was said, who was in the room, and where I sit in terms of seniority. Then tell me honestly whether it needs a response, which of the five Ds (delay, distract, delegate, document, direct) fits best, and give me a few short words I could actually say. Keep it calm and practical. Here's what happened: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. A colleague came to me with something hard and I want to respond well. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions: what they told me, what my role is in relation to them, and what they seemed to want from me. Then help me work out whether they are asking me to look into something, support them, or just listen, and what I can and can't keep confidential. Give me a few short words for the follow-up. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague" or "someone on my team"]
