One of the fascinating things about the Discourse of ‘psychological safety’ is its many silences. This is despite the fact that the advocates for psychological safety argue that silence is the problem. Apparently, the test for psychological safety is speaking up and being critical. Yet, most of what floats about this discourse is silent on many critical factors in the social psychology of organising (Weick).
There are so many critical issues that this pop-psych approach to workplace relations doesn’t talk about.
So much of the noise about ‘psychological safety’ is naïve and says so little about ethics, moral power, indoctrination, compliance, culture and methodology. Most of what parades about as little more than positive psychology is silent about critical thinking, forms of power, political dynamics, competing values, personhood, moral meaning and the collective unconscious.
Of course, you mustn’t be critical or apply critical theory to psychological safety, even though the movement advocates for open criticism. If you are critical, you are ‘toxic’ and must be isolated.
As I waded through the pop-psych of The Fearless Organization it reminded me of Simon Sinek entertainment complete with slogans, corporate stories by a journalist with no experience in leadership and management (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21714764 ), lecturing people about leadership and management. Sinek’s popularity and appearance fee says much more about what he’s on about than the struggles of power in an organisation. So much of this stuff is entertainment with no method or ethic. One of my favourites is where Sinek tells people to be selfish, ego-centric and anti-community (https://youtu.be/fYsUXh3scoc?si=F8cRjOAsjBVNrNNN) then later, writes a book called Leaders Eat Last. Yet, no-one seems to see the contradiction and fraudulence.
In the end it’s all about marketing and feeding the management and leadership speaking circuit and the entertainment it craves. The only thing that really changes is someone’s bank balance.
In the so called ‘fearless organisation’ what we really see is an assumption chasing after stories to fit the assumption. So much of what that book contains are familiar corporate failure stories, individualist projections of blame, brain-centrism, behaviourism and no methodology or method for how to create psychological safety. There is no discussion on the fundamentals of social organising (Weick).
If you want to sell a pop-psych book, get on the speaking circuit and make a fortune, just pull out the same old formula of corporate failure stories and make them fit the sales pitch. Even though, so much of the pitch doesn’t fit. Imagine using Pixar as an example of something and making no mention of Steve Jobs or luck! (pp86ff) Talk about cherry picking a theme for an assumption. What is clear from all we know of Steve Jobs is he was toxic towards people.
Yet, this book on psychological safety talks about success and never defines it as little more than ‘performance’ and financial gain. This is no different than talking about care with no reference to method, ethic, power or definition. This is what Safety laps up and spends its money on: entertainment, story-telling and slogans. Then it calls it ‘innovation’ and ‘professional’. Most often, the only value is about the dinner dance on the conference program.
Let’s take the statement from this book that, fear inhibits learning and analytical thinking. Whilst an element of this is true it is not practically true. The dynamic of Allostasis and Homeostasis are triggered by unconscious fear. Evolutionary self-preservation is driven by fear. In an organisation fear plays a vital role in self-preservation and is at the foundation of political conformance.
The book states on page 82 that: ‘For speaking up to become routine, psychological safety – and expectations about speaking up – must become institutionalized and systematized’. The very purpose of organising, institutionalising and systematizing is to quash dissent, build a fortress, establish conformity, create equivocality and a consensually validated grammar (Weick). Indeed, these dynamics work against the process of ‘speaking up’ and non-conformance. Similarly, with the idea to ‘make it safe to fail’. The whole purpose of organising, institutionalising and systematizing is to mitigate failure and build safety.
All this silly language about ‘drift’ and ‘making it safe to fail’ is just spin. In the real world of safety where zero takes centre stage (https://visionzero.global/vision-zero-takes-centre-stage-world-congress) the pervasive climate is fear of risk, fear of injury and fear of harm. Of course, the psychological safety discourse is really promoted by an academic with no experience or expertise in social organising, management or leadership. Nearly every tier one organisation frames safety by zero. Indeed, just look at all the sponsors of Zero (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/). These are all the organisations where one could never ‘speak up’.
The purpose of zero vision is to quash vision, quash creativity and innovation. Zero cannot be contested. Contesting zero is anti-safety. There can be no psychological safety in any zero organisation. A zero organisation is a fearful organisation. So much for the ‘fearless organisation’. The book The Fearless Organisation makes no comment on zero, that way it can continue to rake in exorbitant appearance fees and not upset anyone. The best way to keep that high appearance fee rolling in, is to not challenge any sacred cows of large organisations.
Even when the book talks about a ‘toolkit’, there is no ‘toolkit’.
Aspirations are not actions and method. Similarly, there is very little about the nature of motivation and the dynamics that supress psychological safety.
One thing is for sure, there can’t be any psychological safety in Safety. Even when it is demonstrated that zero harm doesn’t work, the zero organisations continue with zero despite all the harm they endure. Anglo American is a classic example (https://www.angloamerican.com/sustainable-mining-plan/our-critical-foundations/zero-harm). This is despite the fact that people have died (https://hbr.org/2012/06/the-ceo-of-anglo-american-on-getting-serious-about-safety) and it is currently trying to extinguish a fire underground (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/03/queensland-coalmine-fire-moranbah-anglo-american-grosvenor). This is like Boeing claiming that safety is their first priority (https://safetyrisk.net/boeing-safety-rhetoric-and-reality/). It’s just all rhetoric and no alternative is given to the norm.
Just criticise zero in a zero organisation and see if you feel safe!
And for heaven’s sake, don’t shift the ideology (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) that doesn’t work. Even though Greg Smith demonstrates clearly that certain systems and approach to safety don’t work (https://safetyrisk.net/paper-safe/; https://safetyrisk.net/proving-safety-a-book-review/; https://safetyrisk.net/proving-safety/), nothing changes. Even though our survey demonstrates the nature of belief about zero (https://safetyrisk.net/update-on-zero-survey-just-believe/), nothing changes.
When everything about Safety is about hazards, controls and compliance, there can be no psychological safety.
And for heaven’s sake, don’t read any of that Safetyrisk (https://safetyrisk.net) stuff, its toxic.
Don’t read anything that criticises the AIHS. This is despite the fact that practical alternatives that work are clearly articulated and are offered for free! (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/ )
Unfortunately, much of the pop-psych stuff oozing about on psychological safety is naïve and lacking in substance. Whilst its fine to fork out tens of thousands of dollars to be entertained, nothing changes. Despite talking about the need for innovation and using the word ‘innovation’ nothing emerges that is innovative.
In the end, the message of psychological safety is just more of the same: systems, engineering, behaviourism and compliance. There is no real movement with the fundamental philosophy that drives business. How on earth could you cut off the hand that feeds you?
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Understanding the Nature of Performance and HOP - October 5, 2024
- If You Want to Know About Mental Health, Don’t Ask Safety - September 30, 2024
- Its all About Behaviours - September 20, 2024
- I Wasn’t Thinking Mr Spock - September 20, 2024
- The Seduction of Drift in Safety - September 20, 2024
Rosa says
Lots of food for thought on psychological safety. Since I was an early proponent of the concept, I now have to reevaluate how useful that term has been. Especially since most companies give it lip service, but it is not integrated because of all the reasons Dr Long gave above.
I do believe the research that indicated that a team that felt they would not be ridiculed for their ideas or asking stupid questions would be higher and performance. However, the other side of that coin is that Adults need a certain amount of anxiety to learn something new. Children, on the other hand, learn quite naturally and thrive in a generative social field. And that field includes feeling safe.
There is much more that needs to be explored on this topic.
Rob Long says
Yes, Rosa. I find much of this pop-psych stuff is unquestioned and takes the high moral ground but gives no method for action.
It’s easy to call out dysfunctional organising and re-tell tales of corporate failure and then give no method. This is the same as so-called safety differently. It’s easy to call out corporate failure and string together a collection of slogans but without a clear methodology or method people just retreat back to same old safety.
Much of this stuff is about academics entertaining people at conferences and making lots of money from it.
The latest by Edmonston on the so called ‘science of failing well’ is just the same old positive psych stuff where saying nothing well churns out another book.
Lots of this stuff on failure just echoes James Reason and more behaviourism. These people in the psychological safety space love to talk about right and wrong with not a clue about ethics, power or the social psychology of organising. There is no discussion on Allostasis or Archetypes and its mostly brain-centric goop without a clue of Everyday Social Resilience. Similarly no discussion on the delusions of science.
Great for selling pop-psych books and charging high appearance fees but saying nothing well is still discourse in nothing.