FAA Organizational Definition of Psychological Safety
Prepared by Grace Romjue on behalf of the First Aid Arts Board, 2019
This paper seeks to develop a working, applicable definition of psychological safety for teams at First Aid Arts. The term “psychological safety” was coined by Amy C. Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership at Harvard Business School. She provides this definition of the term:
Psychological safety describes individuals’ perceptions about the consequences of interpersonal risks in their work environment. It consists of taken-for-granted beliefs about how others will respond when one puts oneself on the line, such as by asking a question, seeking feedback, reporting a mistake, or proposing a new idea. [I]ndividuals engage in a kind of tacit calculus at micro-behavioral decision points, in which they assess the interpersonal risk associated with a given behavior. In this tacit process, one weighs the potential action against the particular interpersonal climate, as in, “If I do ‘x’ here, will I be hurt, embarrassed or criticized?”
Psychological safety does not imply a cozy environment in which people are necessarily close friends, nor does it suggest an absence of pressure or problems. Rather, it describes a climate in which the focus can be on productive discussion that enables early prevention of problems and accomplishment of shared goals, because people are less likely to focus on self-protection.[1]
Common threats to psychological safety are “sarcasm, lecturing, put-downs, outbursts, public humiliation, negative tone of voice or body language, inconsistency, unfairness, rigidity, favoritism, endless rules and regulations; infantilizing treatment, blaming and shaming.”
People who have been repeatedly psychologically violated will have adapted to the emotional abuse but are likely to have done so using maladaptive coping skills that are then repeated in the present. They need to be respected for their ability to manage tormenting situations in the past but they also need to recognize the need for change and in all likelihood, a need for an expanded version of emotional intelligence skills.
Depending on the nature and quality of childhood relationships, they may require relational experiences in the present that are essentially corrective. Their lives may have been corrupted by experiences of betrayed trust so they are likely to have difficulty trusting trustworthy people in the present. …[I]t should be clear here that we are not just referring to the clients who present to social service and mental health settings, but to everyone. This is why creating a psychologically safe environment is so important – it is important for everyone in the community.[2]
A psychologically safe workplace is not the same as a “safe space,” such as on university campuses where a speaker may be denied a platform if any of his or her ideas are found offensive by some of the student body. In fact, this culture of “vindictive protectiveness… in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression or worse” is antithetical to a psychologically safe workplace culture.
Vindictive protectiveness is supported by “emotional reasoning,” a cognitive distortion which can be defined as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’” Emotional reasoning can also be defined as “letting your feelings guide your interpretation of reality. …A claim that someone’s words are ‘offensive’ is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense.” Where emotional reasoning replaces the freedom to discuss conflicting points of view openly and maturely, psychological safety is lost.
“Attempts to shield [people] from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation…. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of ‘the other side’ are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed” to create psychologically safe communities, including workplaces.[3]
Understanding what psychological safety does and does not include, we can apply these principles to the work environment at First Aid Arts. How can leaders and all team members create a psychologically safe work environment? Amy Edmondson offers three necessary behaviors for psychologically safe teams:
1. Frame the work as a learning problem, not an execution problem.
2. Acknowledge your own fallibility.
3. Model curiosity.[4]
In summary, “psychological safety is a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.”[5] A psychologically safe environment is one where all team members:
make themselves vulnerable through direct, clear communication;
rely on other team members to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when they lack knowledge, have made a mistake, or have a need;
engage in discussion with respect and maturity even when conflict is present, not assuming that one’s own feelings define reality;
approach each new task as a learning experience;
humbly acknowledge their limits and invite others to help;
model curiosity.
[1] Amy C. Edmondson, “Psychological Safety, Trust, and Learning in Organizations: A Group-level Lens,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268328210_Psychological_Safety_Trust_and_Learning_in_Organizations_A_Group-level_Lens
[2] Dr. Sandra L. Bloom, “Psychological Safety,” The Sanctuary Model, http://sanctuaryweb.com/TheSanctuaryModel/THESANCTUARYMODELFOURPILLARS/Pillar3SharedLanguage/S=SanctuaryasaSafetyCulture/PsychologicalSafety.aspx
[3] Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” The Atlantic, Sept. 2015
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
[4] Adapted from Amy C. Edmondson, TEDx Harvard Graduate School of Education: “Building a psychologically safe workplace,” available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhoLuui9gX8
[5] Ibid.