The Myth of Psychological Safety – the importance and limits of creating a ‘safe’ space

I talk a lot about psychological safety in the context of my work. Lately, I’ve heard a lot of discussion about the concept being misleading, or even taking on mythical status as something that might not be possible to promise in therapeutic, personal development and organisational development spaces. So, what does psychological safety mean, and what are its limitations, if we can offer it at all?

The expression ‘this is a safe space’ is often used in group and one-to-one environments from organisational development programmes to coaching rooms and therapeutic spaces. This usually seems to be offered with an aim of reassuring people that they can be themselves and say what they want to say in confidence without worrying about being judged. I’ll go on to explore why this is a challenging and potentially misleading promise to make, but first, let’s define what we might mean when we consider this type of ‘safety’. Amy Edmonson defines psychological safety as "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". This is focused specifically on a workplace context, and considers a psychologically safe environment as something that is necessary in order to promote creativity, innovation and problem solving. But the concept is relevant to any environment where people might be asked to take emotional and social risks, such as sharing or processing traumatic experiences, discussing sensitive and divisive subjects, or taking part in an activity that might make people feel vulnerable and exposed (in my experience, many somatic or embodiment based practices have an element of this).

For me, there are links between psychological safety and belonging. My experience of psychological safety is also an embodied one – I feel that I can take off some of the ‘body armour’ that I might subconsciously be wearing (in the form of muscle tension), and also that I can show up authentically as myself without looking over my shoulder for signs of danger. That is possible in a social environment when there’s a sense of connection with others, a genuine feeling that I will be met with unconditional positive regard, and a sense that, if there’s challenge or disagreement, we can get through it with minimal damage to relationships. This speaks to that sense of belonging and beginning to cultivate trusting relationships. We might achieve that through good contracting, informally building rapport, people sharing honestly about their own views and experiences, and those holding the space demonstrating consistency and reliability. All of this takes time and effort – the psychological safety isn’t just present in the room at the outset, but rather, is something that we can purposefully co-create. This is related to the concept of the ‘safe container’, which is about creating a physical and psychological space in which people feel that whatever they bring can be held and contained. A safe container might offer features like privacy and quiet, colours and textures designed to promote a sense of calm, and clear boundaries around what happens in the space, when and with whom. It may also be facilitated by practitioners who are able to demonstrate that they are skilled, compassionate and resourced enough to ‘hold’ whatever ideas, emotions and revelations arise in the space.

I’m very sensitive to the ‘feeling in the room’ and attuned to signs of feeling more or less safe and comfortable in a space, so I hugely value efforts to create a sense of psychological safety. However, I also believe that we need to add more nuance to offers of ‘safe spaces’. Those of us facilitating spaces that encourage people to be courageous and take social and emotional risks have a level of power and influence that it’s important to acknowledge, but there are limits to what we can control. In a group environment, we can collaborate to create a contract where everyone agrees to actively listen, withhold (or at least interrogate) judgement, and hold others’ confidentiality. And, should the social contract be breached, we can step in to address the situation, but it would be wildly unrealistic to guarantee that a participant will not be judged while they are sharing a personal experience or opinion. For some people, the impact of feeling judged might be negligible, while for others, this may be a deeply distressing experience. We can’t know everything that people are bringing into the space with them, and we can’t anticipate and avoid every possible trauma trigger. Some people’s traumatic experiences are significant enough to leave them feeling a constant sense of being unsafe – in this case, the best we can offer is to try to mitigate factors that might contribute to or exacerbate these feelings. One aspect of working with trauma that can help is to let people know that they have agency and control. A sense of increased psychological safety can be developed by finding a way of working that is based on co-creation and that gives permission for participants to speak up for their needs, do what they need to do in order to regulate themselves, and help to shape the session. This doesn’t negate or erase any traumatic experiences that have led to a person feeling unsafe, but it can be genuinely reassuring to feel more in control and less ‘done to’.

It seems clear that there are things we can do in order to increase a sense of belonging, safety and calm in a given space, but that there are limits to what we can realistically promise. So, is the concept of offering psychological safety unhelpful enough to be retired? I’m not convinced that psychological safety is a myth, per se. I’d suggest that there is perhaps a spectrum of sensations and emotions that might be experienced as a sense of safety or danger. And while there may be some common themes for many of us, each person will have a different experience around what they need in order to feel safe in a given environment, as well as a different interpretation and level of engagement with their own feelings around this. I’m reminded of a previous work situation where there were competing needs within my team in terms of what each of us needed in order to feel safe during challenging discussions. Some people felt less safe when they perceived tension due to unexpressed thoughts and feelings, while others felt anxious and confronted when met with direct communication about what others were thinking and feeling. This demonstrates the complexity of trying to create a space where everyone feels safe – what represents calm for one person may be a source of stress for another. So, if we can’t promise to create the conditions for feeling safe, what can we do?

Encouraging and nurturing contracting and negotiation that offers a sense of shared responsibility for (sometimes competing) needs to be met can be helpful – it’s each person’s responsibility to advocate for their own needs and to try to accommodate others’ needs. But that’s easier said than done in a space where there is a lack of trust in those who hold power and influence, so it’s important that those holding the space are able to support negotiations where necessary, and to take people’s stated needs seriously. Environments that support people to develop self-awareness and to use the resources they need in order to self-regulate and process difficult emotions may also yield better outcomes in terms of people feeling safe enough to share their authentic thoughts, feelings and experiences. Ultimately, here’s what I suggest for those holding space for others:

1.        That we don’t make promises we can’t keep – ‘this is a safe space’ would be an example of such a promise. Instead, we might state that we’re aiming to offer a ‘safer’ space, or one where people feel able to be themselves and express themselves with courage.

2.        That we support others to develop the awareness, skills and tools to feel safer in a given environment. This might include becoming aware that a space is unsafe or wrong for them, and taking action accordingly.

3.        That we see developing psychologically safer spaces as a collaborative project and a shared responsibility. We can work together to cultivate conditions where people are more likely to feel able to take risks, feel seen and heard, and experience a sense of belonging.

If you’d like to discuss how to create spaces in which people feel seen, heard, valued and as psychologically safe as possible, why not book a free exploratory call with me?

Performance Anxiety Part 2: Supporting candidates to shine in recruitment and audition

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about my own and my clients’ experiences of performing for the purposes of being assessed – job interviews, auditions and the like – and what can make the difference between a successful, positive experience and a negative one that might lead to shame, fear and a knock to self-esteem. I’ve experienced and heard about interview and audition situations that range from the joyful to the downright traumatic. This has made me a passionate advocate for an approach that pays attention to psychological safety as a means of getting the best from the candidate. Below, I offer some tips and reflection points to support leaders involved in recruitment, audition and assessment of candidates to create a safe and welcoming enough environment to help the hopefuls to shine.

It feels important to note that a positive experience (whether or not the person gets the job, passes the exam or bags their dream role) is created both by the individual being assessed and those tasked with judging their performance. And there may be an element of assessing ability to perform under pressure involved in many cases, but I’d argue that being judged by people who have the power to change their life represents a sufficiently pressurised situation, no matter what the context. We don’t need to engineer additional stress on top of what may already be a nerve-wracking experience.

So, what do I mean by ‘psychological safety’? This is about creating conditions that allow people to feel welcome, valued and able to express themselves authentically. When people feel safe and grounded, they can access the skills, qualities and brain functions that allow them to give their very best performance. It’s true that we can’t create or guarantee a sense of safety in someone else, regardless of what we put in place – some of that work rests with the individual. But we all have a different baseline and set of experiences that influence how we feel and function, both in general and in specific situations. We all consciously and unconsciously bring baggage wherever we go. In our bags, we may be carrying messages and judgements that influenced us as children, previous experiences that influence our thoughts, communication and the way we use our bodies. Some people may have worked hard at unpacking their luggage and discarding any reactions and coping mechanisms that are outdated and unhelpful, only to find that they have sneaked back into their bags when a stressful situation presents itself. If a candidate has had negative experiences of being seen, heard and judged or assessed in the past, they may find that they need to do a lot of work to calm and ground themselves enough to be able to give their best performance (tips on reducing performance anxiety in part 1 of this series here). So, what can you put in place as a recruiter/assessor to help candidates show you what they can really do?

-Be warm and welcoming:

 An authentic attempt to connect and show someone that they are welcome and valued can make a real difference to their experience. We are wired to seek out signs of whether we belong in an environment because it has historically been crucial to our survival. Most of us are well attuned to signs that someone is impatient, bored or disengaged. This may be something to consider at the point where interviews, auditions etc. are being scheduled, as an over-stretched, exhausted or rushed recruiter may well have a negative impact. Additionally, gentle eye contact can often support an overwhelmed person to ground and re-regulate (I acknowledge that in some cases, direct eye contact can increase stress - e.g. for some Autistic candidates. It’s best to be responsive to individual reactions and follow their lead).

-Manage expectations:

As far as possible, let candidates know in advance what to expect and offering any information you can give about the format, timings, space and anything else that might help them to prepare. This stage also offers an opportunity to find out if any reasonable adjustments are required if you haven’t already. Predictability can help to set up a sense of safety, and can be offered while still requiring the person to think on their feet, if necessary. And be honest about what the person can expect following their experience – if you know that it’s likely to take a long time to make a decision, or if you truly lack the capacity to offer feedback to unsuccessful candidates, let them know in advance.

-Interrogate your unconscious bias:

I can think of a number of situations where an assessor’s bias has been made very apparent by specific questions, expressions of surprise or rejections based on incorrect assumptions or judgements. I would argue that we all need to develop a practice of interrogating our assumptions about a person based on, for example, their perceived age, gender expression, neurotype/disability, ethnicity, accent or perceived socioeconomic background. This is especially true in recruitment. Having been on both sides of the recruitment process, I’ve found that sometimes we can’t quite pin down the reason when someone is ‘good on paper’ but not quite right. Maybe the chemistry is wrong, maybe it’s not the best ‘culture fit’, maybe we had a specific vision in our mind’s eye that’s difficult to let go. That might be entirely valid - often, our instincts are worth listening to. But being in a position of power means there’s an added responsibility to check out and unpack any assumptions that may be underneath the feeling. I believe that expanding our vision around how a person in a specific role could look, sound and behave has benefits on a level wider than the person, role and organisation. Being able to honestly evaluate what we might have assumed about a person, and on what basis, can help us make more informed, fair decisions. And, speaking as a person who can tick a few ‘protected characteristic’ boxes on the equalities monitoring form, I can tell you that when these biases are front and centre in a recruitment process, we can often tell.

-Provide a safe container:

You may or may not have much control over the physical environment in which you carry out interviews, auditions etc. Ideally, the space would be comfortable, an appropriate size (big enough to maintain a sense of personal space but not unnecessarily large) and set out in a way that suggests welcome, warmth and calm. As a minimum, I’d suggest a psychologically safe-enough space needs to be quiet, free from interruptions and tidy. If there are a number of factors that are not in your control, consider what you can do to mitigate. Can you section off part of a large space to offer a sense of containment? Can you do anything to influence the level of background noise coming from adjacent spaces? If not, it can be even more important to cultivate a sense of safety through your interactions with the candidate and, if something in the space is unavoidably presenting an obvious distraction or barrier, to acknowledge this and perhaps discuss potential ways of minimising the impact. It’s impossible to anticipate the different needs of every person who enters your space, but thinking ahead about how people with accessibility needs or sensory sensitivities might experience it is a useful place to start.

-Be patient:

Experienced assessors are often skilled in putting nervous candidates at ease by being patient, recognising when they have stumbled that they may need a moment to regroup and try again, and even at times offering words of encouragement or reminders to take a breath. Even the most talented and capable people can come unstuck under pressure in a way that may not reflect their ability to perform in the role. Helping someone who is experiencing a ‘freeze’ response to re-regulate doesn’t demonstrate preferential treatment – it’s an acknowledgement that ‘singing for their supper’ (whether literally or figuratively) can be overwhelming sometimes. Demonstrating that you haven’t written someone off when their Autonomic Nervous System has gone into hyper- or hypo-arousal can often help them to regain control and deliver a fantastic performance.

-Let go of survivor’s bias:

In some professions and performing arts contexts, an element of acceptance of unnecessary stress or even ritual humiliation can persist because ‘we all had to go through it’ and it’s ‘character building’. I can think of some particularly egregious examples of this from high stress environments with pronounced hierarchies and heavy emphasis on tradition. I hope that this is a mindset that’s on its way out as we develop a common awareness of the need to support our people’s wellbeing (both because we value them as people and because healthy people perform better). It may be the case that the threshold for what constitutes a humiliating, shaming or unnecessarily exposing situation varies from person to person. But it’s worth considering what purpose a particular aspect of an assessment serves and whether it’s the best way of achieving that aim. Are you planning consciously, or falling into the trap of doing things in a specific way because that’s ‘just how things have always been done’? Do candidates really need to be auditioned and given feedback in front of the entire pool of hopefuls? Is your recruitment process putting extra pressure on those with caring responsibilities, health needs or long hours in their current role by requiring them to carry out unpaid work that will take several hours? Does anyone on your interview panel regard a candidate’s questions about reasonable adjustments, working culture or hours/boundaries as a sign that they are likely to be ‘difficult’ to work with?

Perhaps these ideas seem like basic examples of good practice. Or maybe as you read this, you notice a sense of irritation about the increasing demands made by early career professionals. Maybe there’s a sense of regret that some of these courtesies weren’t extended to you when you were starting out in your career. It might be useful to take a moment to reflect on what has been provoked or inspired in you as you read this. And I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject – you can contact me here.