In mid-2019, I hired an operational supervisor for our foodservice business.

Restaurants enjoyed a
good moment in terms of revenue, but high operating costs impacted net income, and the number
of customer complaints grew day by day. Our new supervisor had more than 20 years of work
experience in Brazil's largest fast-food chains, and, at her peak, she supervised 14 Bob's stores in
Brazil.

As soon as she got on board, I told her she had a free hand on operational issues. In short notice, she
changed a significant part of our standard operating procedures, fired a manager and some kitchen
assistants, and hired a person she trusted. With ten times more experience in the foodservice sector
than my partners and I had, it was easy for her to spot sub-optimal processes and underperforming
employees.

This move created some unrest in the company, and a senior person expressed his and his team's
concerns. Among them, one that stood out was the lack of clarity regarding the supervisor's
functions. Although I had presented her to everyone in the company, I didn't make her job
description and powers clear. Intuitively, I knew it was a problem of information asymmetry. To
reduce the discomfort, the supervisor and I prepared a presentation and talked with all of our
employees.

In this presentation, we decided to (1) highlight the company's mission, vision and values, (2) give an
overview of our supervisor's career and competencies, (3) state, in clear terms, why the supervisor
came to our team and what her role was, (4) show the reasoning behind the measures she had
already taken, and (5) explain how her addition to the team would drive us closer to our shared
goals.

Weeks after, we could already see the results. Employees were more motivated, operational
performance had increased, and there was little to no unrest. Back then, I thought the situation had
improved because we had bridged the informational gap between employees and management. It
seemed to me that making everything as straightforward as possible was the sole cause of such
improvement.

Looking back, though, I now see a new component that might have played a role: psychological
safety. Right after our supervisor was hired, she took strong measures to improve operations, but
this might have led the team to feel threatened. Reflecting on how we structured the presentation, I
can now see that we first created a sense of belonging and re-established a shared goal and vision.
This brought the team closer together, and everyone felt part of something larger. Explaining why
the strong measures were taken also helped people understand that only the "bad apples" (all gone,
then) had cause for concern. Everyone who was still in the team had proved their value and could
resume work with an ease mind.

Together, the transparency (rules, roles, events) and the sense of belonging might have led to more
trust among team members and a heightened sense of psychological safety - resulting in better
performance and team morale.