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 an

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.