Psychological Safety Begins With the Response

We hear a lot about psychological safety in the workplace. Organizations invest in training, policies and programs designed to create environments where people feel able to speak up, ask questions, challenge decisions and raise concerns. But I think we need to ask a harder question.

What happens after someone does?

Throughout my career, I have worked with leaders and organizations through change, conflict, crisis and difficult issues. I have seen how much depends on the response when someone brings forward information that is uncomfortable or difficult to hear. My work as a trauma-informed practitioner has given me another lens. When someone has experienced harm, speaking about it can require considerable courage. The response they receive matters.

This is particularly important in the workplace, where power is rarely equal. An employee may be raising a concern about someone more senior or influential. They may already be wondering whether they will be believed, whether there will be consequences for speaking up or whether anything will actually change. The organization may see a complaint as a process to manage. The person bringing it forward may experience it very differently.

Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson's research has been central to our understanding of psychological safety. Harvard describes it as a workplace climate in which people feel able to speak their minds without fear of retribution or embarrassment. Harvard Business School: Fostering Candor in Teams and Organizations

But speaking up is only part of the equation. The other part is what happens when someone does.

A policy cannot create psychological safety on its own. Neither can an open-door policy, an HR department or a formal complaint process. The experience of the person who comes forward is shaped by what happens next. Are they listened to? Are their concerns taken seriously? Are they given enough information to understand the process? Is there appropriate independence? Does anyone consider whether the process itself could create further harm?

These are not simply procedural questions. They are questions about trust. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's evidence review on trust and psychological safety found that psychological safety is linked to people's willingness to share ideas, ask questions, admit mistakes and offer different viewpoints without fear of punishment or ridicule. Trust and psychological safety: An evidence review, CIPD

The CIPD also notes that people may remain silent when they believe the risks of speaking up outweigh the benefits, particularly when speaking challenges established views or involves someone senior. Employee Voice, CIPD. Silence, then, should not automatically be interpreted as agreement. Sometimes people have simply decided that speaking will not make a difference.

Trauma-informed practice has taught me to pay attention to safety, transparency, choice, collaboration and power. These principles can inform how organizations approach conflict, complaints and difficult conversations. That does not mean accepting every complaint without question. It means recognizing that the way an organization responds can have consequences for the people involved. Sometimes the greatest damage is not caused by the original event alone. It is compounded by what happens afterwards.

Being dismissed can be damaging. Being ignored can be damaging. Being left in uncertainty can be damaging. And when that happens in a workplace, other employees are watching. They are forming their own conclusions about whether it is safe to speak, whether leadership will listen and whether organizational values actually apply when circumstances become difficult. That is why psychological safety needs to be considered alongside organizational accountability.

It is not enough to tell people they can speak up. Leaders need to think carefully about what happens when they do. Are concerns taken seriously, even when they are uncomfortable? Are assumptions challenged? Is the process appropriate to the concern? Is there sufficient independence? Is the response helping to restore trust?

No organization will get through every difficult situation with ease. There will be disagreement. There will be competing accounts. There will be times when concerns cannot be substantiated. That is not the measure of a healthy organization. The measure is how it responds. People learn whether it is safe to speak by watching what happens to those who do. In my experience, that is where psychological safety becomes real.

About the author

Catherine Cameron is a Toronto-based senior communications leader, strategic advisor and leadership coach with more than 30 years of experience helping organizations navigate leadership, change, reputation and complex challenges. Her work spans strategic and executive communications, crisis and reputation management, stakeholder engagement, organizational culture and trust.