Psychological safety can be approached from at least three different levels: psychosocial safety climate on organizational level, close work community psychological safety, and individual psychological safety. Psychological safety or unsafety is experienced within a group and with others, but ultimately, the sense of safety is an individual experience. The formation of a sense of safety is influenced by personal experiences, position, and identity. People bring their entire world of experience to interactions, affecting the type of safety experienced.

How does psychological safety support learning? 

Research has examined the impact of psychological safety from the perspectives of performance, learning, well-being, and leadership. The results suggest that psychological safety supports success, especially in demanding and creative information-intensive work in a complex world. It has been found to enhance creativity, initiative, and learning, as well as improve team performance. Job engagement may also increase.

A master's thesis conducted at the University of Eastern Finland found that psychological safety positively affects commitment to studies and better learning practices. Large group sizes and remote teaching undermine psychological safety, whereas group work and discussions proved to be safe teaching methods. Psychological safety has been observed to enhance the quality of the learning experience, and according to a McKinsey report, decision-making improves. An article from the University of Tampere highlights the impact of funding models and control procedure on leadership choices and thus on psychological safety.

While learning, the ability to make mistakes and learn from them is crucial. Practices of joint learning and a culture of constructive conversation allow, for example, reviewing homework safely together. When information, perspectives, concerns, and ideas can be shared safely, radically new ideas can also be created. According to Edmondson, psychological safety should not be a goal but a means to enable other goals.

Can it be too safe? 

Psychological safety has been criticized for possibly preventing the discussion of important issues, especially controversial topics. Criticism has been raised in various contexts, such as in Kulttuuricocktail, at the University of Helsinki, and in the Living Arts Collective.

Edmondson emphasizes that a psychologically safe environment does not mean being polite at all costs. It is not a space where discomfort is avoided to preserve psychological safety. It is a space where one can boldly be oneself and express differing views, even on difficult topics. Studies also refer to 'voice,' indicating the importance of expressing one's opinions. Respect and appreciation for others, as well as accepting another's experience, even if one cannot understand it, are crucial. Different perspectives are handled constructively, and the fear of humiliation or rejection does not hinder learning and development.

Learning and making mistakes can be uncomfortable experiences. Making mistakes often involves feelings of shame. Revealing vulnerability carries risks, but risks can be taken when the space is safe, and consequences do not need to be feared.

Internationality adds new dimensions to safety

Aalto University students represent 117 countries, and the staff comes from 93 countries. These numbers indicate a highly international community. How should internationality be considered in creating psychological safety, in order to support seamless and interdisciplinary collaboration?

Cultures may have differences that affect the courage to challenge others' (or general) ideas. It is essential to consider the impact of, for example, the fear of losing face on whether one can talk about mistakes or try to correct shortcomings. Bringing up inappropriate behavior may also go unreported if the permission to stay in Finland depends on the continuation of employment. However, not everything is culture-bound; generational views may also differ.

When there are wars and natural disasters in the world, it likely affects many people in an international community. The challenge is that colleagues’ or their families' origins may not always be known. There is a need to get to know fellow workers as individuals. The Finnish way of giving space for people to bring up their problems when they want to, may signal to representatives of another culture that no one cares and is interested in them at hard times.

Responsibility for psychological safety 

So, whose responsibility is psychological safety at universities? As an institution, universities must make the framework for psychological safety clear to everyone. They can provide tools and support for raising awareness to students and employees, but the experience is always formed in everyday encounters, where the university's role is smaller.

Aalto's equality, diversity and inclusion officer Ida Salin emphasizes that the more power a person has, the more significant the responsibility for psychological safety becomes. Tools to contribute to psychological safety for those in positions of power, like professors, are traditional good leadership practices: listening, asking, being present, having empathy, as well as skills in giving and receiving feedback. It is crucial to recognize one's own biases and one's position in creating safety.

In many ways, psychological safety is intertwined with good communication skills, trust, and respecting others. Therefore, the right answer for earlier question is: psychological safety is everyone's responsibility. Everyone has an important role in creating a safe space in daily encounters.

References

Ayub, U., Yazdani, N. and Kanwal, F., 2022. Students’ learning behaviours and their perception about quality of learning experience: the mediating role of psychological safety. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(3), pp.398-414.

Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. 2012. Reaping the Benefits of Task Conflict in Teams: The Critical Role of Team Psychological Safety Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158. 

Edmondson, A.C. 2023. https://amycedmondson.com/psychological-safety/

Edmondson, A.C. & Bransby, D.P., 2023. Psychological safety comes of age: Observed themes in an established literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, pp.55-78.

Edmondson, A. C. & Z. Lei, 2014. Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour 1:1, 23–43.

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. 2017. Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. 

Gallo, A. 2023. What is psychological safety? Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2023/02/what-is-psychological-safety, kts 28.11.2023.

Majuri, Julia. 2023. Psykologisen turvallisuuden tasot ja työhyvinvointiyhteydet: Henkilösuuntautunut tarkastelu. Tampereen yliopisto. Pro gradu.

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. 2017. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.

Roussin, C. J., MacLean, T. L., & Rudolph, J. W. 2016. The Safety in Unsafe Teams: A Multilevel Approach to Team Psychological Safety. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1409–1433. 

Sanner, B., & Bunderson, J. S. 2015. When feeling safe isn’t enough: Contextualizing models of safety and learning in teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(3), 224–243. 

Suojanen, I. 2022. Onnellinen turvallisuus, Turvallista arkea etsimässä. Gaudeamus.

Wacklin, L. 2023. YLIOPISTO-OPISKELIJOIDEN KOETUN PSYKOLOGISEN TURVALLISUUDEN YHTEYS OPISKELEMISEEN JA OPPIMISEEN. Itä-Suomen yliopisto. Pro gradu.

https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/29715, kts 29.11.2023.