When a climate of psychological safety exists, group members feel substantially free to contribute in service of their shared goals. In this state, anxieties and fears are manageable (seldom completely absent) and the common experience is a generative one. In contrast, groups become less effective when participants experience negative qualities, for example, being ignored, excluded, shamed, blamed, persecuted, or similar. Where a sense of psychological safety predominates, this usually correlates with a high quality of personal and professional competence. Here, an environment is created where meaningful, ‘flow-state’, experiences take place and development is accelerated. The positive impact is felt by participants, and those around them.

How do we as facilitators understand and work with factors that lead to psychological safety as a common group experience?

In practice, the experience of safety is a complex one. On the one hand, groups can be so safe that there is insufficient challenge for development to take place. On the other hand, groups can feel so unsafe that defensive behaviours arise as a way to handle the stress. Further, individual perceptions of safety tend to differ. What one person considers safe, another considers unsafe. So how then do we judge and calibrate our facilitator interventions?

Finally, it’s evident that the language of psychological safety has become common parlance in organisations, and perhaps rightly so. But, how does language, attitudes and dialogue about psychological safety impact group experience? Can the concept itself become used as a power play or an avoidance mechanism? What has been your experience?

In this learning lab, we will critically reflect on our own practice as facilitators and develop our own strengths and understanding of facilitating in and around the bounds of psychological safety.