It is probably inevitable that when a concept achieves broad acceptance that there will be debate over what it is and what it is not. Surveying LinkedIn and other social media sources, it’s apparent that the concept of psychological safety developed by Harvard Business School’s Amy Edmondson has both achieved this level of acceptance and also is subject now to the debate. It’s hard to miss the infographics that attempt to simplify a sophisticated concept and practice.
Every strong concept does tend to bring up its Shadow. Recently, for example, a client said to me:
“Well, it’s gotten to the point where the first person to claim they have been made to feel psychologically unsafe by somebody else in the office gets the attention and is assumed to be the victim of somebody else’s insensitivity or malice. They get the interpersonal leverage.”
It sounded to me as if there was some form of emotional blackmail going on, a weaponizing of the concept of psychological safety. In a workplace where interpersonal mistrust had become entrenched, the claim of unsafety had become a power-play.
I’ve encountered other situations where someone seemed to believe that safety — meaning freedom from any sort of interpersonal risk — was a kind of workplace entitlement. This can give free rein to negative beliefs about the motives of others and immunity from deeper examination of one’s own behavior.
And so I think it is inevitable that attempts will be made to define the concept of psychological safety with ever greater precision, although I have a fundamental doubt that this will help. People becoming doctrinaire about what a concept is and is not primarily happens on an intellectual level, not an emotional or spiritual one, although it can get downright dogmatic. It may well be easier to measure or describe something like psychological safety than the broader, more ambiguous concept of interpersonal trust, but that doesn’t mean we humans will not find a way to pollute it with darker feelings and the perceived negative motives of others.
What can we do? For one thing we can call out and then examine the assumptions that linger behind the scenes. If psychological safety is being weaponized or viewed as an entitlement, we can begin to evaluate what core beliefs are often then in play. For example:
• The workplace is fundamentally a competition for credibility, visibility and power over others. If you don’t compete, you won’t get your due. Given others’ motives, it’s naive to think otherwise.
• People have a right to work in a place that doesn’t require taking interpersonal risks. If leaders don’t make is safe for me to be me, then there’s something wrong with them and they are not doing their job.
• Criticism of any kind is negatively driven and is tantamount to bullying and harassment.
This is very tricky territory because, of course, there are situations where someone is being bullied and where the whole work environment is corrupted by mistrusts and competitions. And yes I tend to agree that it is up to the leaders to do something about that destructive culture.
But it’s also the case that those in leadership roles are not the only ones who may have blind spots. While the leaders often need to “go first” in terms of being willing to look at their own behavior, that doesn’t mean no one else has to also do that. Responsibility isn’t the sole purview of top leaders — everybody has some to take.
I recall making a large group presentation a long time ago. In it, I suggested that one of the ways trust is created is by people learning to take interpersonal risks. Thoughtfully, mindfully, and calculated — essentially being courageous and constructive messengers to one another — just as friends sometimes are. I immediately got an argument from the crowd of middle managers in attendance, one of whom stood up to flatly state he would never take any kind of interpersonal risk in his role so long as he didn’t feel like he could completely trust leadership. The crowd nodded in agreement and there was murmuring throughout the room. Clearly a nerve had been struck. The best I could do in that moment was to encourage people to think about what was being said — essentially asking people to examine for themselves how risk, trust and leadership are related, what a good workplace looks like on these dimensions and why. Today, I’d probably go a step further and ask the audience to also apply their sense of personal responsibility and consider how they’d propose to enact change without perfect psychological safety — which is usually the reality.
I suggest there’s a conversation to be had that doesn’t cave to simplistic assumptions that it is either one way or totally the other. What do you think?
Well said Dan! Love your notion in the summary, “I suggest there’s a conversation to be had that doesn’t cave to simplistic assumptions that it is either one way or totally the other.”
It’s time for more questions here than water-tight answers — just as you implied with such wisdom. Humor (especially self-deprecating) is often a great conduit for folks to risk the vulnerability and to step up for growth. Even then we sidestep cynicism for humor that benefits all.
Ellen, thank you for this sage comment. Humor can be a really wonderful vehicle for shaking loose the roots of mistrust. My only caveat would be that sometimes things are so seriously personal and emotional that humor feels inadequate or even inauthentic. But I think we can always ask ourselves about our willingness to be real and to balance risk with our care for others. This includes accepting ownership of our own behavior, having a clear direction for personal growth and change, learning to ask for feedback, overcoming incorrect assumptions and learning how to manage our own triggers. That’s a lot, but I think it is one way to achieve real safety in our interactions.