What does psychological safety at work depend on?
What does psychological safety at work depend on?
Laetitia@Work #75
Hi everyone,
I was recently asked to give a talk about psychological safety at work by the VYV Group, the leading mutual health and social protection organization in France. Preparing for this presentation was a stimulating process. I was thrilled to explore this topic at the intersection of the individual and the collective. Psychological safety is about the individual within an environment and a culture. A good understanding of this subject requires as much sociology and anthropology as it does psychology, as much thought on management as it does on personal development.
In fact, psychological safety could be defined as an environment where individuals feel safe to express themselves, ask questions, raise issues or take risks without fear of negative consequences, such as ridicule or punishment. It allows people to talk about their mistakes, thereby preventing problems from being swept under the rug, which could endanger the group. It’s an atmosphere of trust that allows everyone to be themselves and to perform well.
Naturally, it’s also the individual’s actions that help maintain this climate of trust. In essence, it’s a chicken-and-egg thing— a circular dynamic where the environment and the individual mutually influence each other. A reinforcing loop occurs: if an individual experiences a supportive environment where their ideas are welcomed, they’re encouraged to continue, and others may imitate this behaviour. Conversely, in a more hostile environment, people stay quiet and distrustful, which further worsens the atmosphere.
Psychological safety has positive effects on all stakeholders. For example, in caregiving relationships, an employee in a psychologically safe environment conveys trust to a patient or client. The challenge, therefore, is to break vicious cycles and create virtuous loops. In this newsletter, I’ll deal with psychological safety from an anthropological, psychological and managerial angle.👇
#1: The anthropological angle
What’s the “culture code” that fosters psychological safety? That’s more or less exactly the question Daniel Coyle asked himself before he started writing his book The Culture Code. In short, he believes safety depends a lot on the belonging signals and cues we send one another in a group. He insists on the vital importance of the signals that group members send to each other to strengthen psychological safety and team cohesion. Groups that succeed in creating a safe climate exchange signals that demonstrate engagement, recognition, and inclusion. These signals have three key characteristics:
Energy to show engagement: signals reflect active engagement, attentive listening, and responsiveness. When a person feels that their input is not only heard but also appreciated, it strengthens their sense of belonging and safety. Examples include eye contact, nodding, or encouraging phrases. This energy (engagement) is primarily conveyed through non-verbal language.
Individualisation: recognising each person’s uniqueness: the second key characteristic is that the most effective signals acknowledge the individuality of each person in the group. Individuals feel seen and recognised as unique, with their own strengths, ideas, and contributions. Each person gets the sense that what they bring to the table is not lost in the crowd. Individual recognition boosts feelings of security and trust. (Here’s why it’s sooo important to remember people’s names and use their names in conversation).
Future-orientation—projecting a shared future: the third characteristic of signals that build psychological safety is their future orientation. These signals show that the group is committed to a long-term relationship with a common goal. This reassures members about their place in the group and their future belonging within it.
By combining these three characteristics—energy, individualisation, and future orientation—groups can create a culture of trust and safety. Coyle shows that these signals are not just communication tools but the glue that binds group members together. Coyle is not an anthropologist but what he describes about signals in the workplace echoes the work of anthropologists. According to anthropologist and primatologist Robin Dunbar, humans developed language to form bonds and facilitate trust, much like apes groom each other. That’s a fascinating insight in the book Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language.
Among apes, grooming is not just about hygiene; it is also a crucial social ritual. This behaviour allows apes to create and strengthen bonds of trust and solidarity. By taking the time to groom others, apes engage in positive social interactions that contribute to group cohesion. This reduces tension and fosters a safe environment where members can interact without fear of conflict. Interestingly, Dunbar draws a parallel between this grooming behaviour and the use of language among humans. While physical grooming is a fundamental social act for primates, human language plays a similar role in facilitating communication and establishing emotional bonds. Thanks to language, humans can “groom” many more individuals, even several of them at the same time. In a way, language enables grooming “at scale”!
Nevertheless there is a cognitive limit to the number of stable social relationships an individual can maintain (even with the help of language). For humans, this number is generally estimated to be around 150 meaningful relationships. Beyond this limit, the quality of interactions can diminish, as managing both verbal and non-verbal signals becomes more difficult. This phenomenon is reminiscent of social groups among apes, where trust is often maintained through regular interactions, whether physical or verbal.
In short, whether we are talking about apes or humans, trust is built through repeated social interactions. Psychological safety, both among great apes and humans, is built through supportive and recognitive gestures and moves.
The anthropological angle helps understand some of the challenges of hybrid work. There are key takeaways that apply to team dynamics at work. From all of this, I understand the outsized importance of non-verbal and informal exchanges in psychological safety. Sometimes, these have been profoundly undermined by hybrid work, which focuses more on information than trust and atmosphere. Small talk is absolutely essential. It needs to be given more space. Hybrid work can lead to isolation, exhaustion, and distress if we don't pay attention to "grooming". The focus has often been primarily on productivity, without fully grasping the importance of signals that aren’t purely productive. There are 3 takeaways we all need to heed:
Lesson #1: Non-verbal communication is a catalyst for trust. Smiles, open body language, eye contact convey acceptance. These gestures are perceived instinctively and immediately.
Lesson #2: Verbal and non-verbal communication must be consistent. If someone says they value others’ ideas but looks distractedly at their phone during a meeting, the non-verbal signals contradict the verbal ones. The dissonance leads to mistrust and insecurity.
Lesson #3: Establish clear guidelines on communication channels and response times. For example, specify which types of messages should be handled by email, instant messaging or during meetings. This helps avoid misunderstandings and ensures that all team members feel included and informed, regardless of how and where they work.
The irony of the return-to-office (RTO) mandates by companies like Amazon or Ubisoft lies in their use of arguments around team cohesion to justify a full-time return, while simultaneously disregarding employees' psychological safety. Paradoxically, these measures create an environment of profound insecurity. Employees' individual needs and preferences are ignored, a one-size-fits-all approach is imposed, and veiled threats about job security or career progression linger in the background. These policies may also be designed to push a significant number of employees to resign, which only further erodes any sense of safety or trust in the workplace. They risk undermining the very cohesion they claim to build.
#2: The psychological angle
At first glance, the psychological angle is often viewed from an individual perspective. However, there is also a collective psychological angle. For instance, there is such a thing as collective emotional intelligence, which involves developing emotional skills within the team to strengthen psychological safety. Psychological safety is not primarily a matter of personal development but rather interpersonal development.
Collective emotional intelligence is the ability of a group to recognise, understand, and manage emotions, both individually and in interactions with others. It includes empathy, effective communication, and constructive conflict resolution. By developing collective emotional intelligence, team members can better manage their own emotions and those of others, fostering a climate of trust. As a result, each member feels safe to share ideas and concerns. How? Through active listening, collaborative conflict resolution, and constructive feedback...
However, individual perception also plays a role: our personal experiences and emotions influence how we feel at work. Sometimes, the environment isn't as hostile or toxic as we think! It’s essential for individuals to learn to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant emotions. This means knowing yourself well and learning to understand others, as well as learning to manage conflicts in a constructive way (active listening). In short, the individual plays a key role in their own psychological safety and helps strengthen that of others.
Each individual perceives the work environment through the lens of their own experiences and emotions. What may seem hostile or stressful to one person may not be to another. This variability highlights the importance of recognising that our feelings are often colored by our personal experiences. For example, a critique might be seen as constructive by some, while others may view it as an attack (due to cultural or personality differences).
The series Severance brilliantly illustrates the difficulty of separating private emotions from professional life. In the show, employees undergo a procedure that surgically divides their personal memories from their work selves, creating two distinct identities. Despite this extreme separation, the characters' personal emotions still seep into their professional personas, manifesting as inexplicable feelings of unease, dissatisfaction, or even rebellion. Severance emphasizes how deeply intertwined our private and professional emotions are, showing that it’s nearly impossible to fully disconnect one from the other, even in the most controlled environments.
Nevertheless it is crucial for all of us to learn to differentiate between relevant emotions, which can inform decisions and improve understanding of work situations, and irrelevant emotions, which may lead to disproportionate or inappropriate reactions. Relevant emotions are directly tied to the situation at hand and provide useful information that can guide our actions, decisions, and understanding of others (e.g., fear of conflict with a colleague might encourage me to better prepare my argument). Irrelevant emotions, by contrast, are not directly linked to the current situation and don't provide useful information. They arise from past triggers or unresolved issues and can cloud our judgment or reactions. For example, an argument with a spouse or family issues might skew perceptions of professional relationships. While we can't ignore irrelevant emotions (which is clearly shown in Severance), we can distance ourselves from them (e.g., delay professional decisions, develop rituals for emotional distancing, seek support, etc.).
All introspective practices and the effort to understand one's emotions (and to distinguish relevant from irrelevant emotions) reduce the risk of misinterpreting other peoples' behaviour (and becoming paranoid) and help contribute positively to the psychological safety of others.
All of this is even more relevant in the case of “emotional workers” (nurses, caregivers, and even teachers) who face big emotional challenges every day. In their case, introspection alone isn't enough. The emotional burden of their work must be acknowledged through a supportive environment (such as clinical supervision sessions, support groups, or training on emotional management) that allows caregivers to share their feelings and find strategies to better handle their emotions at work. Especially since emotion management influences interactions with patients or clients.
Also, constructive conflict management is a fundamental aspect of psychological safety. Conflicts should not be avoided at all costs. They should be embraced and turned into something constructive. Conflicts can be fruitful. They are necessary. For this, there is one essential technique: when disagreements arise, it’s crucial to adopt an approach based on active listening. This involves not just hearing the other person's words but also understanding the emotional context behind them.
Active listening is a communication technique that involves paying full attention to the speaker, seeking to understand their words, emotions, and intentions. Popularised by psychologists like Carl Rogers and Richard Farson in the 1950s, it involves body language (eye contact, nodding) and paraphrasing to show the speaker that they are heard and respected. By fostering open and empathetic dialogues, teams can turn potential conflicts into opportunities for learning and strengthening relationships.
In short, individual behaviours do contribute to psychological safety! Every team member has the ability to contribute to their own psychological safety and to develop better self-awareness and interpersonal skills so they can positively influence their colleagues’ psychological safety. It is not just a matter of company policy but also a relational dynamic where everyone plays an active role in supporting one another.
#3: The managerial angle
Managerial exemplarity plays a critical role: the actions and attitudes of managers have a direct impact on psychological safety. Indeed, there is an asymmetry in work relationships. The behaviour of people above us in the hierarchy have more weight because these people have the power to sanction or reward their team, advance their careers, or hold them back. The actions of a manager not only influence the team but also establish the rules they must follow.
Implicitly, managerial behaviour either authorises or prohibits certain actions. Few things are more important than leading by example. By demonstrating the qualities expected of their team, managers legitimise their role, build trust, reinforce culture, foster performance, and promote workplace well-being.
Managerial exemplarity can be said to be the foundation of organisational culture. Empathy, inclusion, teamwork, the right to make mistakes, transparency, humility, politeness, punctuality… Companies often talk about these qualities and values. But are they always exemplified by managers? Employees could be asked to rate how much they believe their managers embody these values on a scale of 1 to 10. This "exemplarity score" would provide a way to assess what may seem abstract and track its evolution over time. In some respects, this score could be a key indicator of a team’s culture. A significant gap between what is claimed to be important and what leaders actually do can weaken the culture.
In What You Do Is Who You Are, Ben Horowitz explains that culture isn’t a set of values you hang on a wall. It’s not what you say in speeches and meetings. It’s not even what you believe. “It’s what you do and who you are." He is convinced that the influence of leaders is paramount in shaping culture, which he defines as:
“Your culture is how your company makes decisions when you’re not there. It’s the set of assumptions your employees use to resolve the problems they face every day. It’s how they behave when no one is looking. If you don’t methodically set your culture, then two-thirds of it will end up being accidental, and the rest will be a mistake.” (Ben Horowitz)
There is a significant asymmetry between employees and their manager. Subordinates rely on their manager for their professional life and many aspects of their personal life, such as career advancement, pay, time off, and vacations. As a result, employees closely watch their manager’s actions, often obsessively. This helps them gauge whether they can trust the manager or if they need to be cautious. Consciously and unconsciously (in order to stay on their good side), employees tend to imitate their manager’s behaviour.
Therefore, each culture inevitably reflects the personality and behaviour of its founders and/or leaders. Cultural "accidents" and unethical behaviors, like misuse of company resources and corruption, tend to spread from the top of the hierarchy. Imitation fosters the development of traditions, whether good or bad, and the building of culture. It allows for the transfer of information (behaviours, customs) between individuals and generations. Hence, managers are role models, embodying the values and practices of the company and shaping a culture that extends beyond them—making their responsibility great!
Managers can trigger a vulnerability loop. The "vulnerability loop" highlights that expressing vulnerability comes before trust, not the other way around. When someone, like a manager (Person A), shows vulnerability, it invites the other person (Person B) to do the same. In return, Person B expresses their own uncertainties or weaknesses, which strengthens the trust between them. This repeated process helps create a secure environment where everyone feels free to express doubts, fostering psychological safety and group cohesion.
“Normally, we think about trust and vulnerability the way we think about standing on solid ground and leaping into the unknown: first we build trust, then we leap. But science is showing us that we’ve got it backward. Vulnerability doesn’t come after trust—it precedes it”
“In some ways, we intuitively know that vulnerability triggers cooperation and trust,” says Dr. Jeff Polzer, a professor of organisational behaviour at Harvard. He emphasises that vulnerability is less about the sender and more about the recipient. The "vulnerability loop" is a shared exchange of openness and “the cornerstone of cooperation and trust”.
To foster cooperation, vulnerability is not a risk but a psychological necessity. Exchanges of vulnerability, which we usually try to avoid, fuel teamwork: by admitting our limitations, we signal that we need the complementary skills of the team. In other words, admitting vulnerability is like saying, “I need you.”
Here are some tips to leverage the "vulnerability loop" and foster more trust and cohesion:
The leader should be the first to show signs of vulnerability and do so regularly. Since we generally fall victim to the "authority bias," no moment of vulnerability carries more weight than when a leader signals their own vulnerability.
Appoint leaders with strong listening skills. To encourage cooperation, leaders should stop giving orders and start asking questions. “Although questions make up only 6% of verbal interactions, they generate 60% of the ensuing discussions,” explains Coyle. Questions have the power to help innovative ideas “emerge” within the group.
Psychological safety is deeply tied to an organisation's culture, and fostering it requires deliberate managerial practices that encourage vulnerability and a culture free of blame. Key examples include:
Raising errors without blame: practices like Pixar's "Post Mortem" allow teams to analyse mistakes without assigning blame, which promotes collective learning and improvement.
Explicit communication: in hybrid work environments, it is essential to clearly define expectations and verify mutual understanding to prevent misunderstandings.
Recognition: establish rituals that value effort and contributions from all team members, reinforcing a sense of security. There are four types of recognition: results, titles, effort, and existential recognition. Valuing effort, risk-taking, and experimentation as part of the learning process is crucial.
In conclusion, psychological safety is both a necessity and a powerful force. But beware: by over-psychologising it or treating it as merely a matter of "best practices," we risk overlooking the fundamental issues. When working conditions deteriorate, feelings of insecurity increase. Discussions about quality of work life and mental health should not be disconnected from the observation of concrete working conditions, workload, resources. Healthcare workers, for example, are experiencing heightened work pressure and insecurity (especially since COVID). When the most material elements deteriorate, the foundation on which security rests collapses. In short, it’s not just about the chicken and the egg, it’s also about the omelet!
🎙️ Here’s the last episode of season 1 of “Vieilles en Puissance”:
💡Check out the latest articles I wrote (or contributed to) for Welcome to the Jungle: Repenser le contrat de travail : l’indispensable pour (enfin) fidéliser la gen Z ?, Secret parenting : ces salariés contraints de gommer leur parentalité au travail (in French).
🎙️ There is one new Nouveau Départ episode! Les mots du travail (with Mariette Darrigrand), Souffrance au travail : la boule au ventre (with Élise Fabing) 🎧 (in 🇫🇷). Subscribe to receive our future podcasts directly in your inbox!
Miscellaneous
🤔 We Can Do Better Than ‘Positive Masculinity’, Ruth Whippman, The New York Times, October 2024: “Positive masculinity still draws on all the old trappings and anxieties of traditional manliness, the same belief that there is such a thing as a “real man” and the same fears of falling short. As its political standard-bearer, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Tim Walz, is still required to constantly prove his masculine credentials. It is only by presenting as a man’s man and a veteran who loads his speech with sports metaphors and gun references that he earns the social leeway for his more feminist sensibilities. After all, only a “real man” is secure enough to fight for tampons in the grade school bathrooms.”
Stay safe and keep it safe for those around you! 🤗