The Miseducation of Psychological Safety
In my work, I’m humbled when employees share their stories with me. I often hear distressing tales about inequities, feeling unseen, and feeling they can’t speak up or be authentic. I hear these stories repeatedly and find it interesting that often, employees can’t find the term to describe their experience. This term, psychological safety, is familiar to those in human resources and leadership, and organizations often utilize it when they feel their organization has it and can use the term in a positive light. When psychological safety is absent, the term becomes void in our vocabulary. We don’t say ‘we aren’t psychologically safe’, instead, organizations use variations of ‘our employees are not engaged’, or ‘we need a more resilient workforce’, or worse, ‘this new generation is (insert bias/generalization here)’.
What is psychological safety?
Organizations sometimes try to manipulate complex definitions of organizational culture to cater to/justify their harmful culture. Concerning psychological safety, I’m partial to a clear and straightforward definition–William Kahn provides an excellent summary; “the sense of being able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status or career.”
Companies that demonstrate effective psychological safety have better performance, innovation, creativity and resilience among employees. Without it, employees are more susceptible to stress, burnout and turnover. Organizations have a responsibility to ensure their employees’ psychological safety. According to The National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace (aka the Standard), human needs (belonging, social justice, self-worth, autonomy etc.), when satisfied, can lead to psychological and organizational health. If organizations see value in psychological safety, they, by default, should also understand the value and importance of integrating Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) because The Standard, even in 2013, recognized that organizations need not only to effectively address human needs such as belonging, but must consider the unique needs of diverse populations.
Psychological safety and EDI
From an EDI perspective, a psychologically safe workplace by definition, means that we all, regardless of our race, religion, sexuality and other elements of our identity, are encouraged to express ourselves in the workplace fully. This means we have the space to fail, grow, share ideas and be our authentic selves because it is safe to do so. Psychological safety means the workplace is equitable and we have a true sense of belonging.
There’s an ongoing focus on psychological safety in human resource publications and within organizations. Yet, as an EDI consultant, I constantly see organizations struggling with high mental health issues, high turnover and low engagement. So, why are organizations struggling to put psychological health and safety into practice? Has it simply become a catchphrase? According to McKinsey, only 26% of leaders create a space for psychological safety–and even in organizations claiming to focus on it, negative experiences with employee experience are evident and continue to impact equity-deserving groups unfairly. I hear from countless individuals in focus groups and interviews that equity-deserving employees do not feel safe in the workplace, experience microaggressions and do not have the same opportunities afforded to their non-marginalized colleagues. Interestingly, many of those same individuals express a lack of psychological safety–even if they can’t name it. A recent ADP report confirms that Black and Indigenous employees are not afforded the same psychological safety as other employees, but this is not limited to BIPOC employees; LGBTQ+ employees also report a lack of psychological safety in the workplace due to feelings of isolation, vulnerability and the inability to fully express oneself. In my line of work, I hear this far too often.
When given a safe space to speak their truth, employees take the opportunity to share their thoughts and experiences. These discussions allow me to see trends of inequities and toxic behaviour, manifesting in exclusion, fear or feeling unheard. But they also enable me to identify opportunities to understand the culture better and build an effective EDI strategy.
The cyclical nature of psychologically unsafe workplaces
If employees feel psychologically unsafe, why don’t they say something? Well, it’s not that easy. Often, when employees voice their concerns to leaders, directly or indirectly (through surveys, focus groups, etc.), these leaders, who are supposed to take action to create a better and more inclusive workplace often explain away the issue. These brave employees who attempt to share their experiences and raise concerns are quietly labelled as detractors or trouble-makers, and this has real impacts on their careers in terms of damaged relationships, lack of access to opportunities/advancement or even termination. Organizations often recenter the feedback to focus on maintaining the oppressive culture. The result? Employees become disengaged and are silent–often refusing to identify any issues within the work environment, leading to a dangerous culture of obedience.
Psychological safety for all
Being a truly psychologically safe organization takes more than simply claiming the title or by offering resources that reactively supports wellbeing. It’s essential to proactively identify and acknowledge how the organization unintentionally engages with oppressive systems. Organizations need to ask themselves hard questions such as;
Do some employees flourish while others feel the need to code-switch, remain closeted at work, and hide certain aspects of their identities?
Do some employees remain silent because past feedback has resulted in retaliation or disinterest in the issue?
Are biases affecting how we are perceiving feedback?
It’s important to listen to employees and understand their realities. Uncovering this will work towards understanding what’s reinforcing a psychologically unsafe workplace and shed light on what’s needed to create a safe, inclusive and equitable space. Leaders especially need to challenge their biases, specifically ones that trick them into believing silence means employees are content or that the current company culture creates an environment where everyone feels psychologically safe to speak up and be authentic in the workplace.
To assess how psychologically safe your organization is for all your employees, here are some preliminary actions you can take: Recognize that silence is not agreement; there can be many reasons someone is silent and still disagrees with X, i.e., fear and cultural dimensions such as power distance or assertiveness.
Take a look at the data; gathering and analyzing data around absence, turnover rates, and program utilization can provide valuable insights into potentially deeper issues - consider investing in resources such as engagement surveys to help you gather preliminary feedback across your organization. Pay special attention to feedback secured from exit interviews.
Hire a third party to conduct focus groups and interviews to explore further concerns related to inequity and psychological safety, and conduct a thorough audit of policies, processes and programs to ensure they are inclusive, equitable and promote a culture of trust, respect and wellbeing.
Build leadership capability through learning opportunities and coaching to welcome diverse perspectives, enable courageous conversations and find space for self-awareness.
Conclusion
Leaders must understand that the journey to a psychologically safe and thriving organization cannot happen in isolation or without EDI. An organization that believes its workplace is psychologically safe must also have validation in the form of employee feedback, supportive policies and programs, and observable signs such as open and respectful communication, active participation in decision-making, constructive conflict resolution, and willingness to share diverse perspectives without fear of negative consequences. They also need to have a proven focus on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. Through a deep dive gap analysis, critical vulnerabilities can be identified to inform an effective strategy, allowing for spaces where employees feel confident to speak up and feel safe.
Simply declaring psychological safety exists in the workplace does not mean your organization is equitable and inclusive, and only when psychological safety is reviewed through the lens of EDI and the two strategies are integrated can organizations confidently make progress in ensuring psychological safety for all.
