• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SafetyRisk.net

Humanising Safety and Embracing Real Risk

  • Home
    • About
      • Privacy Policy
      • Contact
  • FREE
    • Slogans
      • Researchers Reveal the Top 10 Most Effective Safety Slogans Of All Time
      • When Slogans Don’t Work
      • CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
      • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
      • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
      • COVID-19 (Coronavirus, Omicron) Health and Safety Slogans and Quotes for the Workplace
      • Safety Acronyms
      • You know Where You Can Stick Your Safety Slogans
      • Sayings, Slogans, Aphorisms and the Discourse of Simple
      • Spanish Safety Slogans – Consignas de seguridad
      • Safety Slogans List
      • Road Safety Slogans 2023
      • How to write your own safety slogans
      • Why Are Safety Slogans Important
      • Safety Slogans Don’t Save Lives
      • 40 Free Safety Slogans For the Workplace
      • Safety Slogans for Work
    • FREE SAFETY eBOOKS
    • Free Hotel and Resort Risk Management Checklist
    • FREE DOWNLOADS
    • TOP 50
    • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS
    • Find a Safety Consultant
    • Free Safety Program Documents
    • Psychology Of Safety
    • Safety Ideas That Work
    • HEALTH and SAFETY MANUALS
    • FREE SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT RESOURCES
    • Whats New In Safety
    • FUN SAFETY STUFF
    • Health and Safety Training
    • SAFETY COURSES
    • Safety Training Needs Analysis and Matrix
    • Top 20 Safety Books
    • This Toaster Is Hot
    • Free Covid-19 Toolbox Talks
    • Download Page – Please Be Patient With Larger Files…….
    • SAFETY IMAGES, Photos, Unsafe Pictures and Funny Fails
    • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
    • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Social Psychology Of Risk
    • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
    • Safety Psychology Terminology
    • Some Basics on Social Psychology & Risk
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk – Prof Karl E. Weick
    • The Psychology of Leadership in Risk
    • Conducting a Psychology and Culture Safety Walk
    • The Psychology of Conversion – 20 Tips to get Started
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk And Safety
    • Psychology and safety
    • The Psychology of Safety
    • Hot Toaster
    • TALKING RISK VIDEOS
    • WHAT IS SAFETY
    • THE HOT TOASTER
    • THE ZERO HARM DEBATE
    • SEMIOTICS
    • LEADERSHIP
  • Dr Long Posts
    • ALL POSTS
    • Learning Styles Matter
    • There is no Hierarchy of Controls
    • Scaffolding, Readiness and ZPD in Learning
    • What Can Safety Learn From Playschool?
    • Presentation Tips for Safety People
    • Dialogue Do’s and Don’ts
    • It’s Only a Symbol
    • Ten Cautions About Safety Checklists
    • Zero is Unethical
    • First Report on Zero Survey
    • There is No Objectivity, Deal With it!
  • THEMES
    • Psychosocial Safety
    • Resiliencing
    • Risk Myths
    • Safety Myths
    • Safety Culture Silences
    • Safety Culture
    • Psychological Health and Safety
    • Zero Harm
    • Due Diligence
  • Free Learning
    • Introduction to SPoR – Free
    • FREE RISK and SAFETY EBOOKS
    • FREE ebook – Guidance for the beginning OHS professional
    • Free EBook – Effective Safety Management Systems
    • Free EBook – Lessons I Have Learnt
  • Psychosocial Safety
    • What is Psychosocial Safety
    • Psychological Safety
      • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
      • Managing psychosocial hazards at work
      • Psychological Safety – has it become the next Maslow’s hammer?
      • What is Psychosocial Safety
      • Psychological Safety Slogans and Quotes
      • What is Psychological Safety?
      • Understanding Psychological Terminology
      • Psycho-Social and Socio-Psychological, What’s the Difference?
      • Build a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Taking Risks and Analysing Failures
      • It’s not weird – it’s a psychological safety initiative!
You are here: Home / Social Psychology of Risk / Impacts of Cognitive Dissonance in the Workplace

Impacts of Cognitive Dissonance in the Workplace

November 25, 2022 by Goran Prvulovic 1 Comment

cognitive dissonenceTheory of Cognitive Dissonance (CD) describes a condition of stress, or a feeling of internal discomfort caused by conflicting ideas, values, beliefs or practices. Essentially, this is a situation where two or more opposing thoughts are causing psychological discomfort. Humans have an inner drive to maintain harmony between attitudes, beliefs and practices and when faced with an internal clash or those cognitions, our natural reaction is to reduce or eliminate it to prevent emotional discomfort. Theory of cognitive dissonance offers three options for reducing stress: changing attitudes or beliefs, acquiring new information (dissonance reduction process) and reducing the importance of cognitions (internal reasoning and justification) (Cooper, 2007).

Cognitive Dissonance in the workplace is common and a significant cause of stress for professionals working in organisational support functions, such as risk management and human resources. In those functions, people are sometimes exposed to, or coerced towards tolerating, supporting and executing tasks which are in deep conflict with their sense of right and wrong, training, ethics, or personal values. Fundamental importance of those internal set of beliefs needs to be emphasised as in majority of cases, those are primary factors responsible for people choosing those occupations as a career path. For many of them, being health, safety and environmental advisors, trainers, nurses, paramedics, or human resources professionals is far more than a profession, it is a calling. When faced with conflicting beliefs and practices and the pressure to tolerate them, those professionals often experience deep personal dissatisfaction, distress and a state of permanent tension which can result in a range of personal health effects as well as chronic impairments to individual work performance.

There are many examples and scenarios which can cause cognitive dissonance in support functions, ranging from having to observe inappropriate and poor leadership practices to being asked to perform tasks which are not in line with procedures, norms, training, organisational or personal values. For example, a HR manager who is asked to dismiss an employee for misconduct without appropriate evidence or with the evidence pointing against the actions being taken will experience significant cognitive dissonance. On one side, his internal values, sense of right and wrong and knowledge of long term organisational damage will be placed directly against the expectations of senior decision maker and potential negative impact to his career. It is a fine balancing act and it is not surprising to see high stress levels as a by-product of those choices.

Similarly, a project health and safety advisor who is asked by his manager to ensure that an incident investigation “goes easy” on certain factors will experience similar symptoms. In many cases where a person makes a conscious choice to execute a particular task (stressor) against his beliefs and values, the stress does not dissipate afterwards but rather becomes chronic, and with variable intensity. This often leads to workplace related depression. Regardless how much we try to change internal values and beliefs in order to reduce cognitive dissonance, this is not always possible. Even in best case scenarios, some residual stress is left for a considerable amount of time, mostly because the change of beliefs is incomplete and forced by external factors as opposed to voluntary internal realisations and adaptation of the personal overarching ‘view of the world’.

Interestingly, it seems that when faced with stressors of this kind, a good percentage of people still choose to execute tasks they so deeply disagree with. They do this for several reasons such as:

· Positional Obedience – justifying their actions because instruction has arrived from a person of greater authority (“outside of my control, I have to do it”)

· Normalisation – process of internal justification (“It is unpleasant but all part of the job” “others do it too”) or

· Emotional Trading – calculating that a future reward for obedience is worth the compromise of beliefs and values

All of those are part of internal justification methods. When faced with real life choices in the workplace this rationale seems much more logical than when analysed later. In other words, we tend to be prone to persuade ourselves towards the choice which seems to be the easiest option at the time; however this is usually a very short lasting belief. We live to regret lots of choices we make.

Another powerful reason for a decision not to challenge uncomfortable instructions is a natural human tendency towards avoiding a confrontation with an authority figure and negative emotional experience which comes from it. All personnel in positions of authority really need to be aware of that, in terms of their leadership style and approach.

Unaddressed, cognitive dissonance in the workplace often cause the following effects:

· Increased absenteeism. This is one of the most common effects of cognitive dissonance in the workplace. People are finding it emotionally easier to justify their absenteeism than to be exposed to stress causing factors. In author’s opinion, the existence of cognitive dissonance related absenteeism is well under recognised and under reported, which decreases opportunities for introduction of various corrective actions. This early indicator of workplace stress is often masked by excuses and is often only discovered when formal processes of performance management are applied. Financial losses to organisations arising from this type of absenteeism are obvious and significant

· Withdrawal and disengagement. Stressed employees are not productive employees. They often withdraw, cease to put their ideas forward and if they remain in the organisation, they function primarily in employment preservation mode. This has a significant impact and influence on other employees and the overall organisational culture. Employees suffering from cognitive dissonance often alienate themselves and others, and are disengaged from the key organisation processes they meant to support and drive

· Significant reduction in performance – directly resulting from the above two points

· Negativity and Inappropriate Behaviour. In addition to stress, people suffering from work-related cognitive dissonance also experience a range of other negative emotions such as disappointment, anxiety, and anger which can manifest in a range of counterproductive behaviours such as:

1. Silent Obstruction – intentional actions (failing to do) aimed at disrupting various organisational processes and causing damage

2. Malicious Compliance – intentional actions aimed at causing damage such as following all rules into finest possible detail, even when that is completely counterproductive and

3. Sabotage – Although relatively rare, those are intentional actions aimed purely at causing organisational or personal damage

4. Aggression and other disruptive behaviour

· High staff turnover. Eventually if not addressed, most cases of chronic cognitive dissonance will result in people departing from organisations. This is often a significant business loss in terms of organisational knowledge and resources used in recruitment, training and development. It also has an adverse impact to organisational reputation and future hiring of high calibre candidates

· Adverse health effects. Chronic workplace stress caused by cognitive dissonance often results in a range of negative health effects such as depression, fatigue, anxiety and many others. Those are especially likely in situations where a person feels that he or she is “out of options” and has to continue exposure to a stress inducing environment due to financial or other constrains

· Workplace stress claims

If not addressed in a timely manner, some cases of cognitive dissonance can easily alienate a person from the organisation and create a perception that the only way out of the situation is through making a workplace stress claim. Undoubtedly there are cases where this appears to be the only option. In presence of specific events and witnesses, likelihood of the workplace stress claims can dramatically increase, often with very expensive results.

Common causes for cognitive dissonance in organisational support functions are factors such as particular management or leadership style, bullying, discrimination, application of double standards, inappropriate or unethical business practices and many others. Addressing those is the key for reduction of the cognitive dissonance in the workplace.

Internal Rationalisation – Circles of Control & Organisational Envelope

For a practicing risk management or a HR professional, coming to terms with certain organisational decisions, instructions and practices can often be a matter of professional survival. In majority of cases causes for cognitive dissonance can be traced to organisational deficiencies and culture, as well as substandard and inappropriate leadership behaviours and practices which are sometimes tolerated at certain organisational levels. As cultures in organisations can take years to change, support professionals are instrumental in facilitating this process. As a result, dealing with cognitive dissonance becomes a necessary survival skill, especially since in reality there are only two choices available. Dealing with cognitive dissonance and winning the battle, or leaving the organisation. Many outstanding professionals depart organisations long before they have had a chance to have a maximum positive organisational impact.

So how do we internally rationalise what we witness or have to enact, in order to distance ourselves and reduce internal stress?

All three traditional and theoretical options of reducing the CD induced stress levels have their merit but also limitations. For example, a task of changing people values is an arduous one as values are deeply ingrained in human psyche and heavily dependent on a variety of factors forming the individual view of the world. Dissonance reduction through obtaining new information and therefore reducing the importance of cognitions is an easier option. When dealing with the workplace cognitive dissonance the very first and the most important step of dealing with CD induced stress should be an internal analysis based on an individual span of control, operational envelope and a relationship of positional responsibility – accountability – authority. This is the first line of internal defence which should focus on critical internal analytical questions, as a self-check.

clip_image002

Fig.1 – First Line of Defence from Cognitive Dissonance in the Workplace (RiskWise Solutions, 2015)

What does this mean exactly? As humans, we are prone to emotional response to issues, situations and processes which are in misalignment with our values. More importantly, we are prone to emotional thinking which is often a circular process, feeding on itself and perceived stressors, over and over again. As this process continues, it often amplifies emotions and keeps our rational and analytical thinking supressed. Contrary to common advice used when dealing with people and decisions, emotions can never really be ‘placed aside’. They in many ways form a critical part of making the right decisions. In situations which are causing cognitive dissonance, having emotions under control but active in the background is the key in being able to rationally analyse internal stressors and exercise critical thinking.

Essential elements of this internal analysis are:

· Define and contextualise stressors. Write them down if necessary. Name your problems and establish a degree of their significance to you personally. For example, are they inconvenient, unsettling or simply unbearable?

· Map those problems and break them down into their basic components

· For each component, establish your personal control, influence, responsibility, accountability and authority

Critical point in dealing with internal stress and dissonance is in analysis of personal and positional limitations and creation of internal emotional satisfaction by acknowledging that everything which can be done is being done about the problem at hand. This can be illustrated with the following diagram and a set of internal questions:

clip_image004

Figure 2 – Individual Operational Envelope and Circles of Responsibility (RiskWise Solutions, 2015)

· Direct Control (Doer)

The issue is within my direct control, authority and accountability. Can I make a decision, change my approach or execute a direct decision which can eliminate or reduce the problem? Is this completely within my positional power and authority? If I cannot make a decision, what is the reason? What are my barriers? Do I have authority and accountability? What else can I do apart from what I have already done?

· Indirect Control (Influencer/ enforcer)

The issue is within my control but it needs to be solved by others. What and who do I need to coach to enable a different point of view without forcing the decision? How do I pass the message, inspire and guide? Have I done everything I possibly could to solve the problem, as I still have accountability?

· Strong Influence (Coach)

The issue is not within my direct control or accountability but I have a powerful ability to influence actions. Have I prompted the conversation or tried to influence other decision makers? Are any other influencing strategies worth exploring?

· Weak Influence (Guide)

I have no control over the issue but I may be able to offer alternative thinking. Have I tried my best in promoting different ideas and solutions with key stakeholders, without causing relationship damage?

· No Control or Influence (Observer)

I have no control and/or influence over the issue. Any further attempts are likely to cause damage.

This may sound like common sense to some, however in author’s experience increase in CD related stress is on the rise which indicates that what we perceive as ‘common sense’ may not be common at all.

The above is a simple method and a useful strategy in dealing with dilemmas in decision making and workplace stress by achieving internal conformation and an acknowledgement of individual efforts. Each particular component of the problem may be found anywhere within the operational envelope and a careful rationalisation will often cast a different light on an issue and provide an emotional relief from stress. It is a process of objective thinking, analysis and rationalisation. The relief comes from realisation that we often experience stress over things which are completely outside of our control or on contrary, completely within our decision making authority. This enables us to emotionally distance ourselves from the continuous influence of stressors, or on the other hand make decisions which are often difficult but result in significant relief from the CD induced stress; even if they may be difficult and unpleasant. The alternative is prolonged stress and negative health and social impact, not only on the person but also on the surrounding environment.

Potential physical and mental health implications arising from CD induced stress are a serious problem in all industries, at all organisational stratum levels and they deserve more attention and further studies from experts in organisational psychology.

References

Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. London: Sage Publications.

Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
  • More about Goran
Goran Prvulovic

Goran Prvulovic

Director & Principal Consultant at RiskWise Solutions
Goran Prvulovic

Latest posts by Goran Prvulovic (see all)

  • Impacts of Cognitive Dissonance in the Workplace - November 25, 2022
  • Safety Manager – an Ultimate Scapegoat - September 5, 2016
  • HSE Performance – Back to Basics - May 28, 2015
  • Organisational Risk Profiling by Consequences – a Failed Approach - March 30, 2015
  • Are Our Front Line Leaders Ready? - March 8, 2015
Goran Prvulovic
Goran is a HSE Professional from Western Australia with multi industry experience, currently operating in the power generation industry as a Regional HSE Manager. His career in the Western Australian mining industry began in 1989 where Goran performed a multitude of operational and leadership roles, culminating in a full time engagement as a safety professional in 2005. Goran’s specialties include Safety Culture, Leadership and Operational Discipline interventions and catastrophic risk profiling and management. Goran holds a Master’s Degree in OHS from Edith Cowen University in Western Australia. He also holds a number of vocational educational accreditations and is currently undertaking further studies in the area of Management and Leadership. Goran has held a number of senior HSE management positions in Western Australian Mining where he has managed multidisciplinary teams as well as lead and assisted in development and implementation of HSE management systems. He also developed a number programs aimed at leadership development, improvement of safety culture and operational discipline in several organisations. He is currently developing his consultancy business focused on safety leadership and upskilling of front line leadership in OHS. He enjoys development and execution of training as well as occasional writing. He lives with his wife and children in Perth, Western Australia and enjoys bushwalking.

Please share our posts

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Social Psychology of Risk, Unconscious Tagged With: cognitive dissonance

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. rohit says

    November 25, 2019 at 3:56 PM

    thanks for the information

    Reply

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search and Discover More on this Site

Never miss a post - Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,521 other subscribers

Recent Comments

  • Rob Long on It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Chris. on It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Pierre Joubert on Zero Doesn’t Work, Road Fatalities Increase
  • James on We are all equal
  • Rob Long on We are all equal
  • James Parkinson on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Admin on We are all equal
  • James Parkinson on We are all equal
  • Rob Long on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Simon Cassin on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Simon Cassin on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

RECOMMENDED READING

viral post – iso 45003 and what it cannot do

Introduction to SPOR – FREE!!

Psychosocial Safety and Mental Health Series

It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe

The KISS of Death in Safety

Is Your Safety World Too Small?

You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

When Safety (Zero) is Abusive

Hands Up the Best Safety Fraud!

Communicating Professionally in Risk

How NOT to be Professional in Safety

How NOT to do Anything About Culture in Building and Construction

Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline

More Posts from this Category

NEW! Free Download

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

FREE eBOOK DOWNLOADS

Footer

VIRAL POST – The Risk Matrix Myth

Top Posts & Pages. Sad that most are so dumb but this is what safety luves

  • Free Safety Moments and Toolbox Talk Examples, Tips and Resources
  • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
  • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’!
  • Road Safety Slogans 2023
  • 15 Safety Precautions When Working With Electricity
  • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
  • Ratio Delusions and Heinrich’s Hoax
  • Safety Acronyms
  • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS, CHECKISTS, REGISTERS, TEMPLATES and APPS

Recent Posts

  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’!
  • My Story is Better than Yours
  • Understanding Safety as a Cultural Reproductive Process
  • The Unconscious and the Soap Dispenser
  • Thinking Outside the Safety Bubble
  • Understanding Language Influencing, A Video
  • Safetie
  • You are NOT the Sum of Safety
  • Update on SPoR in India, Brazil and Europe
  • It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Safety at the Margins
  • Research Basics for Safety
  • We Need Communities and They Need Us
  • Researching Within The Safety Echo Chamber
  • Confirmation Bias, Risk and Being Offensive
  • Lemmings for Lemmings in Leadership and Risk
  • Expertise by Regurgitation and Re-Badging
  • Zero Doesn’t Work, Road Fatalities Increase
  • Can There Be Other Valid Worldviews Than Safety?
  • Evaluating Value by the Value of What You Don’t Know
  • Reality vs Theory, The Binary Divide
  • No Paradigm Shift with BBS
  • The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Is Your Safety World Too Small?
  • What Does Safety Achieve?
  • In Praise of Balance in Risk and the Threat of Extremism
  • We are all equal
  • You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • What in the (Risk & Safety) World is Imagination?
  • iCue Engagement Process
  • SPoR, Metanoia and a Podcast on Change with Nippin Anand
  • For the Monarchists of Safety
  • The Sully Effect
  • All Things Must Pass in Risk
  • Scapegoating and Safety
  • Understanding Habit, Habituation and Change
  • Don’t Mention the War
  • Safety in Design for Who by Who?
  • Beyond ‘What We Do Around Here’
  • Asking the Wrong Questions
  • When Safety (Zero) is Abusive
  • Mandala as a Method for Tackling an Ethic of Risk (a Video)
  • Safety Cosmetics
  • Visualising the EHS Role
  • Towards Dumb
  • Workshops with Dr Long – Vienna, Austria 26-30 June 2023
  • Visual, Verbal and Relational Mapping in Risk Assessment
  • Abduction in Risk and Safety
  • Creating Myths and Rituals in Safety
  • The Safe Christmas Psychosis

VIRAL POST!!! HOW TO QUIT THE SAFETY INDUSTRY

FEATURED POSTS

Unthinkable

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK – INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP

Diagnosing Safety

You Don’t Want a Compliance Culture

Toilet Roll Safety

If you truly believe in zero it will happen

Right Then Children, Sit Up Straight and Take Some Safety

Desensitisation–the by-product of ill-conceived safety initiatives

History and Hindsight in Safety

Affirming Chance

Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk – Prof Karl E. Weick

My thoughts during a walk in the Forests in Vienna

How was your break?

The Paradox of Positivism for Safety

Does Safety Have A Soul?

Rituals in Risk Management – Podcast

Towards Dumb

A Poetics of Safety

The Great Safety is a Choice Delusion

London Workshops 24-28 October

iCue Diagnostic, What is Your Risk iCue?

Safety-as-Persona

The Repression of Uncertainty

Don’t Make Safety a Habit

Symbols Matter

Collaborating, Cooperating and Cohesion in Risk

When Art Speaks to Harm

Courage to Challenge the Great TRIFR and LTIFR Delusion

Sanctimonious Safety

Are You a Safety Fool?

Keep Discovering

King of the World – Why is Sociopathy and Psychopathy so prevalent ‘at the top’?

Gesture in Risk Matters

Learning Wisdom from the Collective Unconscious

Tattoos, Taboos and The Risk of Permanence

Managing the Unexpected

20 Cognitive Biases That Affect Risk Decision Making

The Lexicon of Safety Gibberish

Perth Workshops

The Colour of Safety

More Posts from this Category

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,521 other subscribers

How we pay for the high cost of running of this site – try it for free on your site

WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY?

What is Psychological Safety at Work?


WHAT IS PSYCHOSOCIAL SAFETY

x
x