3 ms·

This topic could be controversial, but maybe we can hack out some tools for it. Previously, this would just have been part of team alignment. In a business cul

This topic could be controversial, but maybe we can hack out some tools for it. Previously, this would just have been part of team alignment. In a business culture that eshews black-and- white thinking, the zero-sum state of "safety," should be replaced with something more dynamic, like risk, because then it is something manageable you can reasonably engage with. Accepting the principle of psychological safety implies that it's not just a (unfalsifiable) fire alarm lever to pull. If anyone told me they felt "unsafe," it would be difficult not to make every effort to avoid them, and I think any lawyer would say the same. US law has this concept of "fighting words," which this concept is not directly, but appealing to safety is absolutely a legal and political threat, and it is not normal professional discourse. Since I am not a psychologist, I am not equipped to deal with psychological safety, and this is an HR issue. Imo, we should really look at reframing "psychological safety," as something more manageable like, "burnout risk," "initiative risk," "working trust," or something else less formal.

IggleSniggle 6y ago
This comment highlights both the need for what the article is advocating for AND why the waters here will always be treacherous; there will always be a push and pull. To be effective, a team needs to be able to communicate freely, and each individual needs to be able to speak freely. But there’s a lot of power dynamics at play, not just in the team, but external to the team. This is also why minorities are especially cursed in work environments: it’s not just that some folks might actually have prejudices against you based on your identity, it’s also that some folks might have prejudices against you based on your identity, and so you watch what you say and/or try not to be too assertive or contentious and/or wonder if some poorly worded comment was intended as a slur or not...and the smart manager is also cursed, because they may feel that they too need to be careful not to be too assertive or contentious, lest they draw attention from HR or a lawsuit. Successful teams require mutual respect and brave communication. “Psychological safety” is a term that feels correct to me in the abstract, but very wrong as an applied concept for the workplace. I think “cultivating mutual respect and open communication” is probably a better framing.
watwut 6y ago
Personally, I find the tendency to describe everything in terms of risk and risk taking increasingly annoying. If you are avoiding someone, you feel unsafe. That is what it is, no reason to avoid that word.
Bjartr 6y ago
If someone extended their trust to you to tell you that they felt unsafe, your immediate reaction is to betray that trust and run away? They ask you for help and you punish them for it? > Since I am not a psychologist, I am not equipped to deal with psychological safety, and this is an HR issue. And yet, the way you choose to communicate and interact with others contributes to how safe they feel. You aren't formally educated in psychology, but it's still your informal responsibility as a member of society, to generally not cause psychological harm to those around you. Including when at work. If you don't take that responsibility, then you become the HR issue. > zero-sum state of "safety," should be replaced with something more dynamic, like risk How is risk any less zero-sum than safety? If you're going to claim the only states are safe/not-safe, why doesn't risky/not-risky work the same way? > we should really look at reframing "psychological safety," as something more manageable I think you're putting the phrase on too high a pedestal. To paraphrase the article, psychological safety is feeling that asking for help or admitting failure will not be punished. That's it. > burnout risk," "initiative risk," "working trust," something else less formal. Those all seem more formal to me, though I think "working trust" is at least in the same ballpark.
foxhop 6y ago
It's not an HR issue either, I wouldn't trust HR at all. They don't work for employees, they partner with employers.

IggleSniggle 6y ago

This comment highlights both the need for what the article is advocating for AND why the waters here will always be treacherous; there will always be a push and pull. To be effective, a team needs to be able to communicate freely, and each individual needs to be able to speak freely. But there’s a lot of power dynamics at play, not just in the team, but external to the team. This is also why minorities are especially cursed in work environments: it’s not just that some folks might actually have prejudices against you based on your identity, it’s also that some folks might have prejudices against you based on your identity, and so you watch what you say and/or try not to be too assertive or contentious and/or wonder if some poorly worded comment was intended as a slur or not...and the smart manager is also cursed, because they may feel that they too need to be careful not to be too assertive or contentious, lest they draw attention from HR or a lawsuit. Successful teams require mutual respect and brave communication. “Psychological safety” is a term that feels correct to me in the abstract, but very wrong as an applied concept for the workplace. I think “cultivating mutual respect and open communication” is probably a better framing.

watwut 6y ago

Personally, I find the tendency to describe everything in terms of risk and risk taking increasingly annoying. If you are avoiding someone, you feel unsafe. That is what it is, no reason to avoid that word.

Bjartr 6y ago

If someone extended their trust to you to tell you that they felt unsafe, your immediate reaction is to betray that trust and run away? They ask you for help and you punish them for it? > Since I am not a psychologist, I am not equipped to deal with psychological safety, and this is an HR issue. And yet, the way you choose to communicate and interact with others contributes to how safe they feel. You aren't formally educated in psychology, but it's still your informal responsibility as a member of society, to generally not cause psychological harm to those around you. Including when at work. If you don't take that responsibility, then you become the HR issue. > zero-sum state of "safety," should be replaced with something more dynamic, like risk How is risk any less zero-sum than safety? If you're going to claim the only states are safe/not-safe, why doesn't risky/not-risky work the same way? > we should really look at reframing "psychological safety," as something more manageable I think you're putting the phrase on too high a pedestal. To paraphrase the article, psychological safety is feeling that asking for help or admitting failure will not be punished. That's it. > burnout risk," "initiative risk," "working trust," something else less formal. Those all seem more formal to me, though I think "working trust" is at least in the same ballpark.

foxhop 6y ago

It's not an HR issue either, I wouldn't trust HR at all. They don't work for employees, they partner with employers.