FRONT OF THE ROOM
Brian Lange
In the LTEN Primetime! for Trainers workshop, we talk about the importance of creating a “safe environment” for our learners. We’ve been sharing this concept for more than 20 years, and it’s been fun to note that a similar concept or phrase has become popular within the last several years in general organizational development; the concept of “psychological safety.”
I was excited when I first saw that term because it obviously reminded me of our efforts at building a safe environment in the learning context. I’ve often had to clarify for folks that a safe environment doesn’t mean it’s safe from receiving feedback that we may not love or from encountering ideas or opportunities that make us uncomfortable.
I’ve always stressed that a safe environment is one in which people can feel that the facilitator up front has their back and won’t allow a contributor to become humiliated or embarrassed in front of their fellow learners. Essentially, what audience members must feel about their facilitator is: “I’m willing to learn with you.”
In the organizational performance context, psychological safety defines an environment in which people are free to speak up, ask questions and seek accountability from their colleagues. They can do so without investing any (or much) energy into assessing how co-workers might respond to an idea, being gently questioned on progress or worrying whether people might try to assign motive. Psychological safety is when you say (respectfully) what you need to say without fear of retribution, judgment, harassment and psychoanalysis.
A recent article in the Harvard Business Review, “What People Get Wrong About Psychological Safety,” identified six misconceptions about the concept of psychological safety. I’ll share a couple of them here to continue to build upon and further define the parallel concept of a “safe” learning environment.
Psychological safety means being nice. It’s consistent with kindness, but “nice is the easy way out of a conversation. Kind is being respectful, caring and honest.” Same thing in a training environment: You want kindness, but not at the expense of holding back from coaching that may contain some “tough” feedback.
Psychological safety requires a trade-off with performance. Some believe that psychological safety will “make it hard to address weaknesses and assign accountability for achieving excellence.” This one is actually connected to the previous misconception in a way: While being nice can lead to avoiding accountability, focusing on performance while at the same time being honest, clear and kind can ensure better results.
Building a safe environment in the classroom earns the opportunity to help learners stretch and receive input they need to hear. It’s a positive consequence of “I’m willing to learn with you.” In fact, once you feel your audience is “with” you and believes in the safe environment you’ve built, it’s then time to leverage that safety to compel your audience to stretch, try new things and practice at a high level.
Reading the article gave me a healthy opportunity to reflect more deeply on the critical importance of building a safe environment in the classroom.
It was a great reminder that creating an environment where our audiences become engaged and committed participants does not mean a trade-off between safety and performance. Both concepts need each other.
Brian Lange is with Perim Consulting and serves as lead facilitator for LTEN PrimeTime! For Trainers workshops. Email Brian at blange@perim.com or connect with him on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/brianplange.