Leading for Psychological Safety Part 2

6 April 2022
Errol Amerasekera

In my last blog, Leading for Psychological Safety, I gave an overview and discussed some of the fundamental dynamics which make psychological safety an essential ingredient of organisational performance, growth and transformation, and at the same time, challenging to achieve.

Thank you to all of you who sent feedback and questions pertaining to that blog. The interest generated by that piece suggests that organisations and leaders are increasingly seeing the benefits of psychological safety, and also grappling with the practicalities of how to create more psychologically safe cultures.

Rather than address people’s questions specifically, I thought it might be of greater value to continue our discussion about psychological safety in a way which deepens our understanding of the concept and also addresses those questions and queries that people sent through.

Psychological safety is not binary

There is a belief that psychological safety is binary – either we have it or we don’t. In fact, psychological safety exists along a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is a culture that is 100% fear-based, at the other end is a culture that is 100% psychologically safe. Organisational cultures that exist around these extremes are a rarity; far more common are cultures that are positioned somewhere in between, where there is some degree of psychological safety, but it is not absolute.

The extent to which a challenging topic can be raised, and a conversation about it can take place in a safe and constructive manner, is determined by where an organisation’s culture is situated along this spectrum. For example, if there is a moderate degree of psychological safety, teams can have productive conversations about “less challenging” subjects such as alignment of strategy, organisational values or the importance of people development.

In comparison, more challenging subjects such as those about interpersonal dynamics, performance management or the barriers to collaboration within or between teams, may well require higher levels of psychological safety. Finally, for organisations and teams to have conversations about complex and painful challenges such as diversity and inclusion requires even higher levels of psychological safety. This is because of the personal impact of dynamics such as gender inequity, racism and homophobia; the extent to which they activate LSMs (as defined in my previous blog); and because of the complexity of how organisational culture, systems and processes intersect with individual experiences of oppression and marginalisation.

This is one of the reasons why diversity programs have a poor success rate, and in some cases actually decrease diversity within an organisation. When the design and delivery of a diversity program requires a degree of psychological safety beyond the current capability of the culture, the program itself can be detrimental. This is because if people speak openly and personally about their lived experiences of discrimination, but the culture is unable to “hold”, process and start to resolve these dynamics, narratives about a lack of openness and inclusion of these experiences will only be confirmed. This creates an even less safe environment, and with less safety and security, people’s LSM’s get activated and there is a collective retreat back to safety and familiarity. As a result aspects of diversity and inclusion are less likely to be proactively addressed, which over time can result in a workforce that is not as diverse as well as a less inclusive culture.

Obviously, these are arbitrary examples. Some organisations may well be able to have conversations about diversity in a safe way, but be more challenged in creating the psychological safety required to manage underperformance in a proactive manner. For other organisations, discussions about values will be experienced as safe, yet unpacking the challenges of collaboration may require greater psychological safety than currently exists. Ultimately, what topics and areas people feel safe to address and effectively resolve, will be determined by where the level of psychological safety sits along the spectrum in combination with the particular nuances and dynamics specific to that organisation’s culture.

Psychological safety is like a container, which can be weakened or strengthened

Think of psychological safety like a container. A flimsy container means that a conversation that is even slightly challenging cannot be discussed in a psychologically safe manner. On the other hand, a strong and robust container means that a more challenging, perhaps even confronting, conversation can be held, deepened and then resolved in a psychologically safe environment.

Initiating a conversation which requires a greater level of psychological safety than is currently present, itself exerts a pressure on this “cultural container”. If the pressure exerted exceeds the strength of the container it further weakens, perhaps even creates cracks in that container. In practical terms, this has the effect of reducing psychological safety. How many times as a leader have you initiated a difficult conversation, which has not gone so well, and as a result you decided, either consciously or unconsciously: I am never going to bring that topic up again?

When we overestimate the degree of psychological safety within a given culture, or we underestimate the amount of psychological safety required to have a particular conversation, the result can be to further weaken the cultural container, and in effect further undermine levels of psychological safety. On those occasions where, for whatever reason, we don’t even consider the dynamics of psychological safety in how and when particular conversations are initiated, there is the potential to do serious damage to organisational cultures. Previous “fault lines” in the cultural container now start to rupture and levels of psychological safety cascade backward along the spectrum, making subsequent conversations not only more challenging, but also less likely.

This is why we often see a “spiralling” of organisational cultures. When psychological safety declines, and with an already weakened (or ruptured) container, it takes progressively less challenging conversations to further weaken the container, meaning the next even slightly challenging conversation cannot be safely had. Therefore, over years, months, sometimes even weeks, there is a noticeable decline in the psychological safety within a particular culture and a corresponding rise in the palpable tension between particular individuals and within team dynamics. This tension whispers the barely perceptible message: Don’t go there. Don’t bring up that topic. Whatever you do, don’t take a risk. Just keep your head down and be safe.

Psychological safety is a fluid dynamic and therefore constantly changing

As alluded to in the previous paragraphs, psychological safety is a fluid dynamic. In fact, not only does it exist along a spectrum, where it is situated along that spectrum is continually changing.

We have all sat through team meetings where there has been a palpable change, either for the better or for the worse, in psychological safety at the end of the meeting in comparison to when the meeting commenced. Because psychological safety is a feeling within the culture, most of us experience the levels of psychological safety by the degree of tension or safety or freedom to be ourselves that we feel. But in the busyness of day-to-day business, we don’t often take the time to reflect on, and therefore build capability around how that subtle feeling of tension or safety relates to what happened in that meeting which altered the levels of psychological safety.

There are many things which increase or decrease psychological safety within a given culture. Perhaps counterintuitively, the most effective way of increasing psychological safety is to actually have a direct conversation about psychological safety. People discussing where they do or don’t feel safe, and what it may take for them to increase their levels of safety, is a significant driver of psychological safety. The paradox however is that if these discussions are not facilitated in a way where people feel validated, valued and witnessed in what they share i.e. in a psychologically safe manner, they can be more detrimental than beneficial.

This is where leadership is so critical. When leaders have more consistent access their prefrontal cortex which regulates those executive functions as well as the compassion and empathy that are so essential for leadership, they are better able to cultivate these moments of safety. However, in an activated state, where their amygdala and LSMs are determining how they lead, the psychological safety required to create an environment where people feel validated and valued in what they are sharing, becomes much more difficult to attain.

This is why leaders being supported in their own development, particularly in building awareness of, and then the resolution of their LSMs, is so critical. Psychological safety is primarily leader driven, so what ultimately determines where along a spectrum psychological safety sits in a given moment in time, is the leader’s ability to create safety firstly within themselves (by minimising the impacts of an “amygdala hijack” as discussed in the previous blog) and then doing the same within their respective team.

Therefore, the creation of a more psychologically safe culture should not only be viewed as an organisational initiative, but also a deep and personal journey for leaders. It is a journey that takes them to the heart of their LSMs; perhaps even to the centre of the places where they feel most wounded and inadequate. And then supporting them to find ways to transform these aspects of their own experience, and simultaneously leverage the resolve and resilience they have developed (by necessity) as a result of these LSMs.

This is not a journey for the faint of heart or for those who are not fully committed to the process. But it hopefully explains why despite the numerous and powerful benefits of psychologically safe cultures, finding a pathway to their creation remains complex and elusive.