Practical Psychological Safety: A simple, two-step process to identify, build, and maintain it anywhere 

Written by Terje Brevik – This article is from AIM Issue 2 (released November 2023).

Psychological safety is a way to define whether we feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of others.

It is subjective; a perception of how others will react to what we say and do, how we say and do it, what we wear, eat, drink and so on.

As humans, we’ve learned from enough negative experiences to be careful about expressing ourselves in certain ways and settings. Our brains have even provided us with an inner critic; a strict judge of impulses that wants us to make as few faux pas as necessary. This frightened voice is very good at protecting us from punishment, humiliation, and rejection, but is also what keeps us from engaging – sharing our ideas, concerns, questions, or mistakes with others.

As practitioners of Applied Improvisation, it is especially important to help identify and reduce, or even remove, the fear that keeps our participants from unlocking their inherent, unlimited potential. Practical psychological safety is an efficient tool to help us do just that, with any individual, team or organization.

Dynamic conditions

Our perception of psychological safety is always changing based on where we are and who we’re with; dynamics that leave us no choice but to try to adapt to our rapidly changing environments.

To put it bluntly, ‘actionable items’ and ‘synergy’ are perfectly safe words to use in a workplace meeting room. Announcing that you just broke wind, followed by blowing raspberries, is far less acceptable. Meanwhile, put yourself in a kindergarten classroom and you’re likely to build strong rapport with the latter, and get a lot of blank stares with the former!

The fear is real

Flatulence jokes aside, the consequences of doing or saying something wrong can be dire in the professional world and we know it. The fear of being seen as ignorant, incompetent, negative or disruptive is stressful and very real. So is the potential punishment, humiliation or exclusion from the group. Reactions can lead to a loss of livelihood or being known as Farting Frances for the remainder of one’s professional career.

Our brains need us to live, so they protect us in the safest way they know: by engaging less, or not at all. It’s safety racketeering, and it strangles efficiency, problem solving, productivity and revenue, not to mention team dynamics, motivation, positive work environments and health.

As with most rackets, what follows is an increase in accidents, turnover, and other health and safety-related issues.

From theory to practice

The lack or presence of psychological safety is something we experience in ourselves and with others every day, holding us back or moving us forward. Despite a lot of theory on the what, the how seems, in my experience, to be more ambiguous. The gap being a practical approach for building psychological safety with any team, workplace, or general gathering of people.

For this, I recommend Practical Psychological Safety. It is a simple, two-step process to identify, build, and maintain psychological safety in groups you are facilitating. Step one is figuring out where you are. Step two is how to go from there.

One could consider adding a third step – identifying a desired destination or end-goal – but it might not be necessary. More on that later.

Step One: Figuring out where you are

A check-in is a very efficient tool to determine the level of psychological safety felt by an individual or group at the point of observation. A check-in can serve many purposes. In this context it’s defined as a simple, “I’m here, you’re there, we’re here” process.

It can be a relatively quick process, with the advantage of being able to check-in larger groups quite fast. An obvious disadvantage to speed is that you might miss important nuances or get inaccurate indicators.

It doesn’t matter how simple you make the check-in process; we can’t help showing who we are to the world if we know what to look for.

For some people, the check-in is an opportunity to stand out; to show how funny or clever they are. This is perhaps indicating a perceived pressure to perform. For others, it is a chance to conform, to show that they’re to be taken seriously – perhaps indicating a perceived pressure to comply.

Sometimes the answer from a person with a certain status will shape the response from the others, indicating status and hierarchy, or actual leader- and follower-figures in the group. Other times, people may be hesitant to share their answer, even when provided with safe or low-risk alternatives. This may present as speaking with a barely audible voice while avoiding eye contact. It could be a low sense of security, but it could also just be a migraine.

The latter is a reminder that the check-in is a surface-level snapshot and not a 3D map. Our observations and interpretations may be wrong or influenced by internal or external circumstances we’re not privileged to know.

Verbal cues to look for

Below are some examples from my experiences using a simple check-in exercise in a group circle setting. Participants respond in various, but common ways, to the prompt, “Please say your name and a number.”:

Funny and clever – Numbers like 69 (sexual innuendo), 42 (Douglas Adams’ meaning of life) and Pi (more clever than Arabic numerals), very large (because my number is bigger than your number), negative numbers, or many decimals (both very clever). Replies like these are fairly common with new groups and can indicate an individual pressure to perform or stand out, or a group that rewards competitive or clever behavior.

Patterns and mirroring – When someone answers 1979, and now everyone’s answer follows the pattern of four digit birth years. Patterns are fairly common with established groups and can be an indicator of complacency within the group, as other options are no longer being explored. It can also say something about social status, in the case where someone breaks the pattern or establishes a new one. It might be done to show who’s really in charge, or perhaps to avoid a status fight by not repeating 1979, as this year now ‘belongs’ to the first person who said it. Identical or almost identical numbers is another status indicator, as people are likely to mirror people with higher status. Mirroring can indicate an intention to create an illusion of higher status, or rapport with the individual in power.

Mirroring can also indicate physical attraction, so again, we benefit from not jumping to conclusions.

Originality – Most people are hesitant to repeat numbers that have already been said by others. This can indicate a pressure to be perceived as original and a low level of safety.

This also provides a harmless but powerful demonstration of psychological safety and how our brain is working non-stop to take care of us: “I wanted to say seven, but it seemed too obvious, so I chose eleven. Then someone else said eleven so I couldn’t say that anymore. I thought five, but then it felt wrong for some reason, so I just went with seventeen.” Look for the nodding of heads if you point this out, as this internal thought process seems to be universal.

Replacing numbers with letters will provide similar results. Expect X or Foxtrot, as A and B are too obvious. I’ve experienced this with movies, professions, food, drinks, artists, colors, and more. These subtle clues seem to be true for most groups, and we haven’t even mentioned nonverbal cues!

Last but not least, if people comment on each other or their answers during the check-in process, it can provide a ton of information about the group’s dynamics and the struggle for status between its members, or someone’s need to challenge their interim leader: you.

What do I do with all this information?

It is important to note that these observations are not a checklist of static truths by any means. There are just too many internal and external variables that will affect our observations.

Time of day. Lighting. How we as facilitators are sitting, in relation to the group and the room. Seating type and formation for the group itself. Air quality. The change in group dynamics when we go from sitting to standing or standing to moving. Body language, intonation, volume, eye-contact, dress code, coffee intake, personal health and hygiene, to mention a few. Everything. Everywhere. All at once.

I’m usually cautious of sharing my assumptions with the client or group, as this can affect the trust required to facilitate a safe space for learning to take place. The information gathered from the check-in is for me as a facilitator, to support decision-making for what comes next.

Step Two: What comes next?

Use your observations to adjust your current plans for the group.

By knowing their starting point – the pre-requisites of the group – you’re in a much better position to utilize the time you have together, on the fly and regardless of topic or content. Unknowingly, the group has told you which exercises or content to add, remove, or adjust.

Look for behaviors to resurface later during your facilitation process to confirm or disprove your observations.

Safety for safety's sake?

A practical approach to psychological safety can be implemented by itself, or in addition to practical exercises designed to train interpersonal skills.

Improv offers a wide range of practical exercises designed to identify and train interpersonal skills, as well as provide a way to explore the psychological safety of an individual, team or organization. Done right, they will facilitate a state of play; a joyful feeling of being in the moment, together with our partner(s). In this moment, there’s no fight, flight, or freeze, no worries about the past or the future; only effortlessly releasing the unlimited potential in ourselves and our partner(s).

A destination or end-goal might be relevant to identify, but you need to know where you’re starting from to get to where you want to be. Success depends on the right crew and mode of transportation, and a goal that is likely to be achieved. Finding out that your crew is unfit for certain journeys can be a lifesaver, which is why I believe a destination is secondary in the process of practical psychological safety.