Psychological Safety at Work
Mike Jones
Director @ LBI Consulting | Traditional approaches don't work. It's time to rethink
What is ‘psychological safety’?
Psychological safety refers to an individual’s confidence and ability to interact within a group setting and fulfil a designated role without fear of negative consequences on their self-image, status or career[1]. In an environment where people feel psychologically safe, they might feel able to be themselves, make suggestions, admit to errors and be open to learning new things, without worrying unduly about how they are perceived by their colleagues. People who don’t feel psychologically safe at work might not feel comfortable making suggestions, voicing concerns or taking risks that could prove beneficial to the whole team, as they might be concerned that they will be penalised for their actions (even if that isn’t necessarily the case).
In an article for the Harvard Business Review, Laura Delizonna explained the physiological impact of psychological safety:
“The brain processes a provocation by a boss, competitive co-worker, or dismissive subordinate as a life-or-death threat. The amygdala, the alarm bell in the brain, ignites the fight-or-flight response, hijacking higher brain centres. This “act first, think later” brain structure shuts down perspective and analytical reasoning. Quite literally, just when we need it most, we lose our minds.”[2]
Image source: https://scienceforwork.com/blog/psychological-safety/
Why does psychological safety matter?
Research collated by The Oxford Review claims that between 50-70% of employees will feel as though their psychological safety has been contravened at some point in their working life. They may feel that the organisation has wronged, mistreated or let them down in some way – an issue referred to as a ‘psychological contract breach’[3] – and this can have an impact on the individual and the wider business in a number of ways:
- Reducing job satisfaction
- Increasing staff turnover
- Increasing the likelihood of conflict in the workplace
- Making it more challenging to meet organisational goals, as team members are less likely to make suggestions about changes to working practices, take risks, or voice concerns over issues if they feel as though their feedback is undervalued and unappreciated.
If an individual doesn’t feel that they are psychologically safe in their workplace, they are also less likely to want to engage in learning – a major limiting factor when it comes to developing and nurturing effective teams. Amy Edmonson, in her 1999 paper ‘Psychological Safety and Learning Behaviour in Work Teams’, found that team psychological safety was associated with positive learning behaviour in a study of 51 work teams, highlighting the fact that if you want a team to remain competitive and relevant through up-skilling and personal and professional development of its core members, that a psychologically safe environment is a necessity.
What makes someone feel psychologically ‘safe’?
One of the key factors that influence psychological safety appears to be leadership style. Laissez-faire leadership behaviour – where leaders are ‘hands-off’ and leave decision making to team members – tends to result in a working environment with low perceived psychological safety and has been found to have positive correlations with role conflict, role ambiguity and conflict with co-workers[4]. Humble leaders, on the other hand, ‘not only publicly admit their limitations and mistakes, but also consider mistakes as a normal and even a beneficial part of learning… Such behaviours send important information that followers can feel psychologically safe to take interpersonal risks and express themselves to realize their potential and grow’.[5] Character traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness in a leader have been linked to perceptions of psychological safety and ‘ethical’ leadership[6], suggesting that leaders who are more open to positive communication, thoughtfulness and constructive discussions around the issues of risk and error are more likely to foster a psychologically safe environment for their team members.
What lessons can we learn from this?
- Team members should be encouraged to raise concerns and address problems in a positive and constructive way – this could be in a group setting if the dynamic of the team allows for it (for example, if there are low levels of co-worker conflict), or via individual ‘check-ins’ with team members.
- Professional and personal development opportunities should be presented positively to team members, highlighting the value of development over the potential of ‘lost’ working hours.
- Leaders should endeavour to be more ‘ethically’ minded – that is, being ‘fair and principled decision-makers who care about the people and the broader society, and who behave ethically in their personal and professional lives’[7], as these characteristics have been shown to contribute to perceived psychological safety.
[1] Kahn, William A. (1990). "Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work". Academy of Management Journal. 33 (4): 692–724.
[2] Delizonna, L. (2017) ‘High Performing Teams Need Psychological Safety. Here’s how to create it’. Harvard Business Review, August 24, 2017: https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-teams-need-psychological-safety-heres-how-to-create-it
[3] ‘When employees get p*$$ed off. What the manager does next makes a difference’ Research Intelligence Brief – The Oxford Review www.oxford-review.com
[4] Skorgstad et al. (2007) ‘The Destructiveness of Laissez-Faire Leadership Behaviour’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12:1, pp. 80-92.
[5] Wang, Liu and Zhu (2018) ‘Humble Leadership, Psychological Safety, Knowledge Sharing, and Follower Creativity: A Cross-Level Investigation’ Front. Psychol., 19 September 2018 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01727/full
[6] Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015848
[7] Brown, M.E. and Trevi?o, L.K., 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The leadership quarterly, 17(6), pp.595-616.