Data point of the week
Just over a decade ago, Google embarked on a quest to identify what made some teams effective while others floundered. They analyzed a total of 180 high- and low-performing teams. They conducted hundreds of interviews and sorted through virtual piles of survey data, analyzing over 250 different factors.

The results surprised them. A team’s success had little to do with the skills and expertise of individual group members or even finding a magical combination of the “right” people. In fact, the “who” of the team didn’t seem to matter. Neither did educational backgrounds, having shared interests, or whether or not group members were friends outside of work or coming together for the first time to work on a project.

After studying the data for more than a year, sifting through conflicting clues and hitting dead ends, they discovered that what did matter was the group’s culture, or the norms they established. One group norm in particular stood out as a key differentiator. The team’s ability to create an atmosphere of psychological safety.

According to Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, psychological safety is a sense of confidence that your voice and perspective are valued, and that you will not be embarrassed, rejected or punished for speaking up. It is characterized by a climate of “interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.’’

This type of environment encourages risk-taking and creates space for group members to be three-dimensional human beings, rather than leaving their personal lives and personalities at the door when they step into their professional roles.

In other words, it means creating an environment that cares about the people in it. Where people feel like they matter.

Reflection
I’ve worked in environments that were psychologically safe … and one that most definitely was not.

In the psychologically unsafe environment, I dreaded going to work every day. As several co-workers put it, entering the building felt like walking into a “dark cloud.” I felt the need for constant vigilance, to monitor my every word and action. I put my head down and put in my hours, but it killed my creativity, initiative, and spirit. And it took a toll on my physical and mental health, which ultimately led me to quit.

Of course, most workplaces fall into grayer areas of the psychological safety spectrum. They don’t inspire trust and engagement, nor do they inspire an extreme degree of distrust and withdrawal.          

Most of the research on psychological safety has focused on work contexts, but the findings can be extrapolated to other groups and even interpersonal relationships. For example, psychological safety in the classroom creates an atmosphere where it’s okay to ask questions and share ideas without fear of attack.

Psychological safety in a relationship allows both parties to express differing viewpoints and discuss conflicts without being villainized or rejected. The concept is closely related to trust. Is it safe to be yourself with this person, or do you feel the need to hold back, perform, or please?

“Safety” has become a hot topic. It’s been associated with pampering, overprotecting, and sweeping problems under the rug to avoid discomfort. But safety isn’t the same as comfort. Safety shouldn’t be used as an excuse to suppress the experiences of people who’ve been marginalized in order to protect the emotional comfort of people with power and privilege.

Creating a psychologically safe environment doesn’t mean shielding people from discomfort, conflict or tension.  

Rather, it means valuing each person, and making space for their voice. This is the difference between having difficult conversation versus “canceling” someone. Cancel culture shames and silences. It suppresses ideas and behavior rather than changing them.

Being truly inclusive means including ALL voices … even the ones we don’t want to hear.

Connection Skill & Action Step: Create psychological safety
It is far easier to build safety and trust from the start rather than to try to re-establish it after it has been broken.

The list below describes the characteristics of a psychologically safe group. If you belong to a group, team, organization, or community—especially if you are in a position of leadership—think about how you can crate these cultural norms. The same norms apply to individual relationships. In psychologically safe groups:

• Group members spoke roughly the same amount – perhaps not in every meeting, but on balance.

• Each voice/perspective was listened to and respected, including dissenting voices and differing perspectives.

• Group members displayed higher than average levels of social sensitivity. They picked up on how others felt based on tone of voice, facial expressions, and other nonverbal cues and showed empathy and caring.

• Group members took emotional risks to share about their ideas and about themselves.

• Group members shared or alternated leadership roles and did not compete with other members for resources or recognition.

Questions to reflect on or to spark conversation. Please share your responses in the comments—we love hearing from you!

Have you been in a psychologically safe group/team/classroom/workplace? What was it like? What contributed to feeling safe?

Have you been in psychologically unsafe group/team/classroom/workplace? What was that like? What might have made a difference?