Fostering Psychological Safety at Transom

Psychological safety is the belief that you won’t be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. (Center for Creative Leadership)

To deliver novel design and development solutions, Transom needs to be a place where everyone is comfortable speaking up, asking questions, constructively disagreeing with the way things are, and where everyone feels that their ideas and contributions are genuinely considered and able to generate change.

4 Stages of Psychological Safety

Inclusion - the basic human need to connect and belong is met; you feel safe to be yourself and are accepted for who you are, including your unique attributes and defining characteristics
Learner - the human need to learn and grow is met; you feel safe to exchange in the learning process by asking questions, giving and receiving feedback, experimenting, and making mistakes
Contributor - the need to make a difference is met; you feel safe to use your skills and abilities to make a meaningful contribution
Challenger - the need to make things better is met; you feel safe to speak up and challenge the status quo when you think there is an opportunity to change or improve

Take a moment to consider where you fall in these stages of psychological safety at Transom. Are there behaviors or patterns in the workplace that prevent you from moving from one stage to another?

Threats to Psychological Safety - The Master Suppression Techniques

The master suppression techniques are a framework created in 1945 by psychologist and philosopher Ingjald Nissen and popularized by social psychologist Berit Ås that identifies ways that people in positions of power indirectly suppress those with less power. These techniques are strategies of social manipulation that perpetuate real or imagined hierarchies.

Making invisible - silencing or marginalizing people in opposition by interrupting or ignoring them
Ridicule - portraying the arguments of an opponent, or the opponents themselves, in a ridiculous fashion. This is analogous to the logical fallacy Appeal to ridicule, which is presenting an opponent’s argument as ridiculous or absurd and therefore not worthy of consideration
Withholding information - Excluding a person from the decision making process by knowingly not forwarding information so as to make the person less able to make an informed choice
Double bind - damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Punishing or otherwise belittling the actions of an opponent, regardless of how they act.
Heaping blame / putting to shame - Embarrassing someone or insinuating that they themselves are to blame for their position.
Welcoming but resistant - Showing apparent consensus or openness to an idea, but failing to act upon it and declining responsibility (when in a position of power) for a problem
Defining reality - Positioning yourself as the only person who has the right to define norms, truth or reality
Objectifying - Discussing the appearance of one or several people in a situation where it is irrelevant

Consider this inbox:

No one likes to receive email with an ALL CAPS SUBJECT LINE, and there is no part of our service agreement with our clients that sets the expectation of service within twenty minutes. It is true that sometimes clients are under pressure from outside forces and are just having a tough day, but this behavior is part of a larger pattern that creates a workplace that is psychologically unsafe, limits our ability to provide service, and erodes our team’s capacity to do good work.

In situations like the example above, the client expected immediate service, which is outside of our scope when we offer support services. What makes this example particularly toxic is the client also exhibited the master suppression technique of withholding information. They declined to share what their issue was until they had received an immediate phone call, going as far as to heap blame by writing this email before sharing information about what their issue was:

Kit. Sorry for the arm waving, but to be honest a quick phone call would equate to similar time as taken to write your response. We will organize our questions and write you back momentarily…

Responses like this heap blame by deriding the course of action that follows Transom policy – requesting more information about their issue to triage it before scheduling a meeting – and implied that I was to blame for still not knowing what their time-sensitive request was. It was a rebuke for asking questions and communicating a boundary.

This behavior creates a psychologically unsafe workplace where we are not able to do our best work or be our best selves.

Countermeasures to the Master Suppression Techniques

The first step to counter the master suppression techniques is to create awareness around them and provide concrete examples of situations where they occur, as we’ve seen in the example above. There are also specific counter strategies that can be used if you observe or experience a situation that is covered by this framework. These strategies provide examples of how to respond while staying calm and maintaining respect. The strategies are as much – if not more – the responsibility of observers to enact when the suppression technique is acted out.

Making Invisible

Countermeasure: Taking up space Insist on transparency, point out when people dominate. Goal: Feel visible, seen, and understood

Validation technique; methods of changing workplace norms: Visiblising others “I’m curious if Jamie has any feedback”

Ridicule

Countermeasure: Questioning, speaking up Not going along with an inappropriate joke, pointing out if the tone is unacceptable. Goal: feel respected, safe, on equal footing with others in a group

Validation technique: Showing respect

Withholding information

Countermeasure: Cards on the table Demand transparency and in some cases more time to deliberate. Ask questions, and agree on important decisions if you feel well-informed Goal: feel informed enough to be confident in your decisions

Validation technique: Proactively providing stakeholders with the relevant information that is available

Double bind (damned if you do / damned if you don't)

Countermeasure: Alter / break free of the pattern Demand the ability to say no. Establish and balance competing priorities. Goal: not feeling guilt because of own choices, dilemmas and priorities

Validation technique: Double reward Showing respect for the individual choices and priorities, offer gratitude for every choice a person makes

Heaping blame / putting to shame

Countermeasure: Intellectualize / focus on the facts of the situation (while holding space to process the emotions connected to the situation when it is possible to do so) Only take responsibility for what you can reasonably control, analyze the situation, reject the blame for something that you cannot change Goal: not feeling guilty if a problem is hard or urgent

Validation technique: Setting reasonable standards Accept your part of the responsibility, practice recognition and affirmation.

Welcoming but resistant

Countermeasure: Demand to be taken seriously Demand that people take co-responsibility for creating change, set concrete goals and share responsibility Goal: the wish for change is taken seriously and acted upon

Validation technique: Take seriously and act upon issues that require a change in our workplace norms

Defining reality

Countermeasure: Ask & answer Create space for curiosity, exploration and dialogue Goal: feel that your world view and experience is respected and taken seriously

Validation technique: Accept and respect different experiences and world views, even if you do not understand them

Objectifying

Countermeasure: Decline to accept the comment Say no to comments that are not relevant, confront people who objectify by asking them to relate their objectifying statements to the relevant situation Goal: to feel able to act in a space where you are completely respected

Validation technique: Viewing others whole and complex people with their own views and experiences

In Conclusion

Transom’s commitment to a healthy and safe workplace is foundational to what we want this company to be. No paycheck is worth enduring trauma—indeed we believe work can and should be an edifying and enriching experience more days than not. We hope you’ll join in this goal of keeping the relationships we have with our clients, the public, and each other to be safe and respectful.