Most people would agree that wanting a Psycho-Socially safe workplace is a desirable thing. The Federal Government of Australia definitely thought so when they introduced Psycho-Social Hazards into managing Health and Safety see SafeWork Australia .
All of us have biases that reflect our experiences, upbringing and unconscious. Organisations have biases that reflect their journey, progress and collective unconscious. This is rarely talked about and definitely an influencing factor to understanding any organisation. Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR) has been doing this for 20 years now.
So, you want Psychosocial Safety to be normal in your organisation? Let’s take a look at normal.
What is normal?
Bad news, normal doesn’t exist. Article from Psyche
Well let’s take a look at a paradox then. All safety people know you need to be qualified to perform a task. But in the curriculum for safety, training for Psychosocial doesn’t exist. The laws changed before the information is available. Training Details Dip.WHS
So, people and businesses have been asked to implement a concept they don’t understand, haven’t been trained in and most likely be asked to give advice. And with the very best of intentions, will probably give advice.
I look at an article written yesterday about swimmer Cate Campbell ABC New Article who as an elite athlete struggled to manage her menstrual cycle. The advice that was given led to various physical and mental struggles further to what she was already experiencing.
I am not a trained counsellor. I would struggle to understand what she was going through. It is easy to advise anyone to seek professional help, but that still doesn’t translate into psychosocial safety inside the workplace. What does a Safety person do in this situation?
· Rely upon training that doesn’t exist?
· Apply the hierarchy of controls?
· Mitigate the risk?
· Outsource the problem?
· Phone a friend?
Let’s hope none of the above ever becomes a cultural solution.
Matt Thorne
Latest posts by Matt Thorne (see all)
- In 2022 The world economic forum predicted this - January 14, 2025
- Social Psychology of Risk comes to the USA - December 31, 2024
- What is your Risk iCue?- Houston May 2025 - November 14, 2024
- Culture Cloud Tour – Myths Symbols Semiotics and Religion - November 4, 2024
- Culture Cloud Tour Part 13 – Myth - October 25, 2024
simon p cassin says
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your post. One issue I have yet to hear discussed (but is related to psychological safety) is ‘Epistemic injustice’. This is where the comments of some are given less credibility because of the perceived credibility of the commentor. For example in a court we can imagine that an eye witness statement from a doctor may often be given more weight than that of a homeless person. In this example we can reasonably predict that our biases may be preventing us from justly considering the testimony of the witnesses.
In the workplace we can see this happen when a senior person talks about safety as opposed to a shop floor worker. The more status, power and influence the commentor has the more likely we are to accept a person’s comments.
Philosopher Miranda Fricker’s book epistemic injustice highlights this problem in society and the workplace. If a shop-floor worker felt that their opinion was likely to be ignored or disregarded in favour of their supervisor’s opinion this would likely result in a negative impact the level of psychological safety experienced by the worker.
This is where an ability to critically consider the opinions on their merit and through the lens of philosophical charity is a vital aspect (but generally) overlooked aspect of the psychological safety discussion.
Cheers Rob
Matt Thorne says
Hi Simon,
Great observations.
One of the challenges in this space is how does one person truly understand another person?
Is it possible?
Can it be measured? (no)
Is it able to be expressed?
Cheers Matt
Rob Long says
Hi Matt, a very simple but clear blog that nails just one of many issues safety is blind to in all of this. Whilst safety wants to get rid of the language safety culture, I think here it is on full show.
simon p cassin says
Hi Matt
please forgive me for mistakenly attributing your post to Rob. Thanks again for your post,
all the best
Simon
Rob Long says
Hi Simon, that was Matt’s blog. He’s one of the best in SPoR I know. Will chase up the book. Will send you a copy of great book on this matter, send me your email: robertlong2@mac.com
As usual insightful reflections.
simon p cassin says
Hi Rob
thanks for highlighting my mistake. I’m confident you will find Miranda’s book enlightening. I’m a big fan of her work, she is one of many brilliant contemporary philosophers who are adding to our knowledge and understanding of important moral issues.
I would argue that psychological safety is primarily rooted in the the concept of respecting the dignity and intrinsic value of humans. When one’s perspective of our fellow humans is viewed through the lens of scientific pragmatism it results in relationships based on the objectification. Unfortunately it has become so engrained in our way of thinking that we are often unable to recognise that we are doing it.
my email is simon@ouchlandd.co.uk
cheers
Rob Long says
Yes, started on it today, it is excellent.
I think you are right about being rooted in the dignity and respect of humans but going on the history of safety, as we would say in Australia, it’s rooted.