Throughout my career, I have been guided by a simple belief: leadership is not only about what we achieve, but how we achieve it and what we leave behind.

We inherit institutions, relationships, cultures, and capabilities built by others. None of us starts with a blank canvas, and none of us finishes the work. Our responsibility is to learn from the past, steward the present, and leave things stronger for the future.

As a First Nations woman, this understanding of leadership feels deeply familiar. It is grounded in the idea that we are connected to those who came before us and responsible to those who will come after us. In recent years, the Australian Public Service has increasingly described this responsibility through the language of stewardship.

Whatever language we use, the principle is the same: leadership is not just about delivering today’s outcomes. It is about strengthening the trust, capability and culture that future generations will depend upon.

For me, that is why psychological safety matters.

Psychological safety is often described as creating an environment where people feel safe to speak up, ask questions, offer different perspectives, and raise concerns. All of that is true. But I think psychological safety is about something bigger.

It is about creating the conditions for people to contribute.

The greatest asset of the Australian Public Service is not our structures, systems or processes. It is our people. It is their experience, judgment, expertise, and commitment to public service. Good leadership is not about having all the answers. It is about creating the conditions in which the best answers can emerge.

That means creating environments where people feel respected enough to contribute honestly and where different views are welcomed rather than dismissed. Public leadership is at its strongest when it creates value for individuals, institutions and the public at the same time.

Stewardship asks us to think not only about what we achieve, but how we achieve it. It asks whether our decisions build capability, strengthen trust and leave those who follow better placed than when we began.

Psychological safety helps us do exactly that.

It enables individuals to contribute with confidence and dignity. It strengthens institutions by encouraging learning and challenge. And it improves public outcomes because better decisions are made when people feel safe to share what they know.

This matters because the work of government is rarely simple. People’s lives do not fit neatly into policy frameworks. The challenges we face are often interconnected, contested, and deeply human. Effective public administration requires us to engage with that complexity rather than simplify it away.

The strongest policy advice rarely comes from a room where everyone thinks alike. The best ideas are often uncovered when assumptions are tested, risks are raised early and people feel confident enough to ask, “Have we considered another perspective?”

This is why diversity of thought matters.

Diverse thinking helps us identify blind spots, challenge assumptions and find better solutions. It strengthens policy development, improves service delivery and leads to better decisions. But diversity of thought does not happen automatically.

You can have diversity on paper and still have a culture where people feel pressure to think the same way. Individuals may bring different experiences, expertise and perspectives, but if they do not feel safe to contribute, the benefits of that diversity remain unrealised.

Psychological safety is what unlocks diversity of thought.

It creates confidence to ask difficult questions. It creates permission to disagree respectfully. It allows people to contribute ideas without worrying that challenge will be mistaken for disloyalty.

Creating that environment is one of the most important responsibilities of public leadership.

People notice how leaders respond when challenged. They notice whether different views are genuinely welcomed. They notice whether mistakes become opportunities to learn or opportunities to blame. Culture is shaped less by what leaders say than by what leaders repeatedly do.

The strongest public leaders are not those who seek to have all the answers. They are those who create the conditions in which collective wisdom can emerge.

That requires humility. It requires curiosity. And above all, it requires listening.

For First Nations peoples, there is a long tradition of understanding that wisdom emerges through listening. Relationships, reciprocity and respect matter. Decisions are strengthened when different voices are heard. The idea that the best outcomes emerge from collective wisdom is not a new leadership theory. It is a principle that has sustained communities for generations.

Listening is often described as a leadership skill. I increasingly see it as a leadership discipline.

It takes time, intent and genuine openness to perspectives different from our own. It asks us to listen not simply so we can respond, but so we can understand.

The more senior we become, the more important this discipline becomes. Position and authority can unintentionally create distance. People may become hesitant to bring forward difficult messages or alternative views. Yet some of the most important insights in any organisation come from those closest to the work, closest to the community or closest to the problem.

Good leaders work deliberately against the silencing effect of power.

They create space for robust discussion. They encourage respectful dissent. They understand that authority does not equate to wisdom and that good decisions depend on hearing perspectives that might otherwise go unheard.

Listening also matters beyond the boundaries of our organisations.

The Australian Public Service exists to serve a democratic system of government. The ability to provide frank and fearless advice depends on people feeling safe enough to raise concerns, identify risks and offer alternative views. Equally important is our willingness to listen to the community, particularly when what we hear challenges our assumptions.

Trust is not built through authority alone. It is built through openness, responsiveness and respect.

Listening matters not because it guarantees agreement, but because it improves understanding. It helps ensure decision-makers are informed by evidence, expertise and the experiences of the communities they serve.

Genuine engagement does not mean every view will prevail. What it does mean is that people are heard, their perspectives are treated seriously and decisions are strengthened by a broader understanding of the issues at hand.

When people feel unable to speak within institutions, important insights are lost. When institutions fail to listen to the public, trust is weakened. In both cases, decision-making suffers.

Ultimately, psychological safety is stewardship in practice.

If leadership is about learning from the past, stewarding the present, and leaving things stronger for the future, then creating environments where people can contribute fully is not optional. It is fundamental.

Our responsibility is not simply to deliver outcomes today. It is to leave behind stronger institutions, stronger capability and stronger trust than we inherited.

We cannot do that if important voices remain unheard. We cannot realise the collective potential of our people if some feel unable to contribute. And we cannot deliver the best outcomes for Australians if we are unwilling to listen, learn and embrace different ways of thinking.

Excellent public leadership is not defined by certainty or authority. It is defined by the ability to create the conditions in which people can contribute, challenge, and strengthen the decisions we make on behalf of the Australian community.

That, for me, is stewardship. And that is the public good that psychological safety makes possible.

‘Making a Better Public Servant’ is a collaboration between The Mandarin and IPAA ACT. You can find all of the articles in the series here.