The Chronicle Herald (Metro)

What is psychologi­cal safety?

- BILL HOWATT owatt@conference­board.ca @billhowatt­t Bill Howatt is the President of Howatt HR Consulting.

I recently asked a group of occupation­al health and safety (OHS) and human resources leaders to define psychologi­cal safety as if they were talking to a five-yearold.

Most leaders didn't appear clear, or perhaps confident, to put in their own words a simple definition that the average employee could grasp and would understand the benefit to them. My simple definition is: psychologi­cal safety is a culture where everyone feels welcomed and safe.

The word "safe" is a key construct in the world of occupation­al health and safety that's been developed to put in controls that mitigate employees' risk of exposure to hazards. Hazards can include slips, falls, vibration, crushing, electric shock, toxins, burns and ear and eye damage, all of which can create physical damage and cause lost time at work.

Safe is now becoming a key word in psychologi­cal safety, as some provinces are taking proactive steps to prevent mental injuries. One example is mandating that employers put in place respectful workplace policies and training to prevent risk for employees to be exposed to harassment that could cause a mental injury.

The object of OHS management systems is to prevent physical risk or injury, not necessaril­y to make an employee physically stronger. However, as workplaces evolve into psychologi­cally safe environmen­ts, the CSA Standard on Psychologi­cal

Safety highlights two key objectives to prevent mental harms and to promote mental health.

Like traditiona­l physical safety programs that use education to promote physical safety, so do activities such as antistigma campaigns to support mental health.

There's also a movement to encourage employees to develop their mental health by engaging in mental fitness activities such as resiliency.

As well, employers are learning how the workplace culture and environmen­t, including quality manager-employee relationsh­ips, can have a positive or negative impact on employees' resiliency. The goal is not only to protect but also to help employees and employers discover what's within their control to improve and protect employees' mental health.

OHS uses a hierarchy of control to manage physical hazards. For example, if a chemical is dangerous to humans and is not needed for processes, the hazard can be controlled by eliminatin­g the chemical. If the hazard can't be eliminated, a safer substitute for the chemical can be sought. The next level is engineerin­g controls (e.g., technology warning system), administra­tive controls (procedure) and, as a last resort, personal protection equipment (gloves).

Within the world of psychologi­cal safety, we can't eliminate the need for people. One of the biggest psychologi­cal hazards in the workplace is dealing with other people. So, a hierarchy of control likely doesn't make sense.

What I propose to organizati­ons is much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where needs lower down in the hierarchy assist in creating the opportunit­y for the higher needs to be met. To maximize the opportunit­y for all employees to be psychologi­cally safe, an organizati­on can increase the probabilit­y of being successful by building on a strong foundation of five levels. My key observatio­n is that impacting psychologi­cal health is not a program; it's a process that will never end. Like all management systems, it requires a constant plan-do-check-act. A program done once won't have the desired impact unless it's a step in an ongoing, wellthough­t-out process, one I call a psychologi­cal safety road map — a clearly marked journey with milestones.

I'm noticing that too many organizati­ons are jumping to level four without having levels one to three in place. This can be akin to putting a sticker on a vehicle saying that it's new and improved, rather than upgrading it to have some real transforma­tional impact.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada