How misconceived psychological safety could be harmful to your wellbeing

Psychological safety is a prominent topic in Canadian and western societies.  In fact, all across Canada, governments have enacted legislation that requires employers to investigate harassment.  Additionally, universities and sport and arts organizations have adopted stringent rules against interpersonal offences.  A dilemma arises, though, when efforts are made to define harassing behaviour through the subjective lenses of the participants in a workplace discussion.  What one person perceives as reasonable communication can be viewed as unreasonable by another.  

A recent case I’m aware of that involves an elite sports coach illustrates the problem:  the coach was accused of maltreatment after questioning an athlete about their recent declining performance, which was proven by objective measurement.  The athlete took offence to the coach’s questions in spite of the fact that there was no yelling or screaming, swearing, or belittling.  The coach was exonerated, but not before going through a stressful and emotionally exhausting investigation process conducted by their national sports organization.

So how should organizations understand psychological safety?

In a 2022 TED Talk, world-renowned organizational psychologist Adam Grant provides crucial insights into the common misunderstanding of what psychological safety is and is not.  It is not:

1. Being Nice: "The problem with some of these misconceptions in particular like being agreeable and being nice,” Grant says, “is that they're exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about... being nice in the workplace often means not telling you what I really think, because it wouldn't be nice." While psychological safety requires respectful but candid communication, being nice often involves withholding honest feedback to avoid hurting feelings.

2. Being agreeable:  An organization’s goal should be to achieve respectful candor that advances its organizational objectives.  In psychologically safe environments, disagreement is valued as a path to better solutions.  Insincere agreement to avoid offence fails to advance organizational objectives and actually fosters a deterioration of psychological safety.
   

Similarly, in a talk given at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics several years ago, CNN commentator Van Jones expressed strong opposition to the concept of ideological/emotional safety, which he described as the expectation to "feel good all the time".  Jones argued that this contortion of liberalism becomes "useless, obnoxious and dangerous" in the real world and becomes antithetical to learning and development.  He encouraged students to resist the expectation that the jungle should be paved for them.  Instead, “Put on some boots and learn how to deal with adversity.”

In workplaces, classrooms, competitive athletic environments and in the arts, the mix-up between psychological safety and the expectation that everyone should feel good all the time is leading to a withholding of truth.  In turn, that withholding is causing employees, athletes, musicians, and actors to be deprived of opportunities to learn, to correct, to improve, and to grow.  When managers, professors, coaches, and directors are afraid to give honest feedback, it’s the people they are managing who ultimately lose.  Short-term shielding from less than positive feedback prevents long-term development, and it does not equate to a psychologically safe interaction.

Importance of humility

Organizationally, a way to foster true psychological safety is found in the teaching and expectation of humility.  On this point, Admiral William McRaven, a leadership expert and University of Texas professor, described to Adam Grant steps he has used to create psychological safety for his staff by:

• acknowledging his own fallibility;

• explicitly asking for feedback;

• showing respect by spending time with team members at all levels;

• setting high standards while encouraging accountability in both directions.
  

A study that I am currently involved in concerning the practice of humility offers an additional option for organizations.  Humility is a virtue that has lost some of its subscription over the fifty years, but it supercharges organizations with psychological safety.  The practice of humility requires all of us to acknowledge that our ideas could very well be wrong and our performance may not be perfect.  If we train our members in humility and have them commit to it as an organizational virtue, candid discussions about our own performance at work, school, on teams, or in the arts become easier to have. In turn, facilitating candid reviews of our performance provides us with building blocks for improvement. 

That’s the benefit of psychological safety, and that’s where it differs from simply feeling good.

Kelly VanBuskirk, KC, PhD, C. Arb. is a lawyer and principal at VanBuskirk Law. He has practiced labour, employment, and human rights law for more than 30 years.