Here’s my super-spicy hot take: psychological safety is bullshit.
Not only that, but today’s concept of it drives exactly the opposite behaviour to what is intended by the term.
So let’s start there: What is intended? Why do we want “psychological safety” in the first place?
Here’s my take: we want it because we want people to perform.
And we understand that, in order to perform at the highest level, people need to be creative, take calculated risks, be willing to fail. People need to share ideas and observations that go against the grain, what Wes Kao describes as “Spiky Points of View.” People need to operate with a sense of ownership and accountability.
Theoretically, psychological safety is at the heart of all this.
The term was coined by Carl Rogers in the 1950s as an attempt to establish the conditions necessary to foster an individual’s creativity. For Rogers, psychological safety had three components: “accepting the individual as of unconditional worth, providing a climate in which external evaluation is absent, and understanding empathically.”
Harvard Professor Amy Edmondson says psychological safety is “the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes, and that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking,” explaining, “What that really means is I can do my job without fear of humiliation or punishment.”
The case for psychological safety really took off when Google studied more than a hundred of their teams to work out the commonalities among the high performers. “[The] researchers began searching through the data they had collected, looking for norms… When [they] encountered the concept of psychological safety in academic papers, it was as if everything suddenly fell into place.”
A critical component of high-performing teams. Freedom from the fear of being humiliated or punished. Being understood and accepted as of unconditional worth.
What’s not to like?
Well, let me ask you a question: What do you picture when you hear the word “safe”?
Are you warm? Sheltered? Curled up in front of a fire? Maybe you’ve just crossed home plate and scored a run? Maybe the jewelry is protected behind the vault door?
Here’s what you’re almost certainly not picturing: Disagreement. Edginess. Friction. Conflict.
I don’t actually have a problem with the concept of psychological safety. It’s the terminology that doesn’t work for me.
Using a phrase like “psychological safety” can lead to people feeling like it’s not ok to be challenged or disagreed with. “I will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas,” can translate to, “No one can ever disagree with my ideas.” “Providing a climate in which external evaluation is absent,” can mean, “No one can ever assess my performance.”
To gain value from psychological safety, we have to recognise its purpose, which is to create the conditions not for creativity, but for discomfort.
As one of my advisors said to me recently, “You can be mediocre and safe, or you can be brave and excellent.”
Being creative, taking calculated risks, being willing to fail, sharing ideas and observations that go against the grain, operating with ownership and accountability… All of these things can be deeply uncomfortable.
Psychological safety is useful to the degree that it fosters a willingness for discomfort.
Maybe we need a new phrase, one that encompasses the positive aspect of the concept as well as its edginess. A client of mine uses the term “productive heat.” It’s the commitment to getting in there, getting our hands dirty, sharing opposing viewpoints, working through the messiness and the trickiness so that instead of being right, we can, together, get it right.
Keep your psychological safety. I want to be brave and excellent.
Noho ora mai rā / stay well,
Kaila
