Why Openness Fails Quietly, and What Governance Has To Do With It

​

Senior leaders consistently say they want openness, early risk visibility, and honest challenge. Yet in high-authority organisations, voice often narrows just when it matters most.

​

This is rarely dramatic. Meetings remain polite. Decisions move forward. Alignment appears intact. Over time, however, learning slows, risks surface late, and important concerns are raised outside the room where authority sits.

​

This pattern is not caused by poor intent or weak relationships. It is a rational response to ambiguity. Where authority is consequential and expectations are implied rather than governed, silence becomes adaptive.

​

Our Stance

 

At TACT, we work from a simple premise:

​

Psychological safety cannot be trained, encouraged, or mandated into existence.
It depends on how authority behaves under pressure.

​

In high-authority contexts, invitations to speak up and well-intended encouragement are rarely enough. What matters is predictability. People assess safety by watching what happens when challenge occurs, when mistakes are named, and when inconvenient truths surface.

​

Psychological safety becomes reliable only when expectations around consultation, challenge, and non-retaliation are explicit and consistently upheld.

​

That is a governance question, not a mindset one.

​

The Leadership Covenant (TLC)

 

The Leadership Covenant is a governance container that constrains how authority is exercised when challenge, consultation, and accountability are required.

​

It is not a behavioural model, a values framework, or a cultural prescription. It defines clear conditions under which voice can occur without placing individuals at personal risk.

​

The Covenant is structured around three governing dimensions:

​

• Stewardship

Authority is held in trust, not owned. Leaders remain accountable for performance while protecting those who surface risk on behalf of the system.

 

• Consultation

Engagement happens before commitment, not after. Voice is treated as responsibility rather than defiance, and leaders remain accountable for decisions.

 

• Respect

Dignity is protected while truth and accountability are pursued. Correction is firm and proportionate, without humiliation, exposure, or retaliation.

 

When these constraints are applied consistently, authority becomes predictable. Psychological safety emerges as a property of the system rather than a test of individual courage.

​

How TACT Works With This

 

TACT uses experiential methods to help leaders and teams practise authority under real conditions, not ideal ones. Our work includes:

​

• Forum theatre and simulation to rehearse challenge, consultation, and correction in realistic scenarios

• Facilitated leadership dialogues around live decisions where authority and risk are present

• Team and group coaching focused on consultation before commitment and disciplined correction

• Executive coaching centred on authority calibration rather than personal style

​

The emphasis is always on observable practice, not abstract intention.

​

For Those Who Want The Full Thinking

​

For leaders, practitioners, and researchers who want the complete design rationale behind the Leadership Covenant, including its governance logic and sourcing, the full paper is available here:

​

 

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​Shared for dialogue and learning. We’ll only use your email to send the paper.

​​