Jump to section
Does the concept of psychological safety, which champions dissent in organizations, truly serve their sustainable growth needs? Or, akin to the ‘woke’ movement, is it merely a concept espoused by a minority to promote their agenda of disagreeing with the majority, potentially leading to a backlash that benefits no one? Consider the numerous stable organizations that have served populations for centuries without encouraging or even affording dissent. Are these long-standing institutions, which have championed public interest for millennia, fundamentally flawed?
Deconstructing Dissent: Trust, Faith, and Organisational Cohesion
Are elements of trust and faith, alongside safety, truly open to dissent and challenge, or does dissent, instead of integrating, lead to fragmentation? Let’s delve into what existed before the widespread adoption of “Psychological Safety.”
Amy Edmondson defines psychological safety as “a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.” Her framework suggests individuals and teams progress through stages:
- Belonging: Feeling included and accepted within the group.
- Learning: Feeling safe to ask questions and acknowledge mistakes.
- Contributing: Feeling comfortable offering ideas and solutions.
- Challenging: Feeling secure enough to question fundamental assumptions and practices.
Edmondson’s research posits that psychologically safe environments foster greater innovation, improve error reporting, and lead to superior organizational outcomes. However, what if one were to question and challenge the fundamental assumptions of psychological safety itself, a term popularized by Carl Rogers and Amy Edmondson?
The International Coaching Federation (ICF), from its inception, prioritized “Trust and Intimacy” as a core competency, aligning with the psychological safety concepts used by Rogers and Schein. This implied a confidential and safe relationship inherent in any human interaction, crucial within a coaching dynamic. This encompassed Belonging, Learning, and Contributing, but did not necessarily extend to Challenging. A coach, rather than directly questioning or challenging a client’s assumptions, explores the validity of their limiting beliefs in a trusting environment. Humble Inquiry (Schein) and Client Centricity (Rogers) do not advocate for challenge or dissent in this context.
Effective listening, a cornerstone of both coaching and leadership, as articulated by Rogers and exemplified by Edgar Schein in ‘Humble Inquiry,’ is about allowing individuals to express alternative perspectives without necessarily dissenting or causing offense. Unfortunately, many proponents of psychological safety often resort to a blame game, labeling others as autocratic and toxic, thereby shifting the locus of control away from themselves into a victim mode.
Lessons from Enduring Institutions: Hierarchy, Faith, and Unquestioning Service
For millennia, hierarchical organizations like the military and the Church have thrived on Belonging, Learning, and Contributing, with little to no space for dissonance, dissent, and direct challenge. Yet, these institutions have served as enduring templates of faith and safety. Similarly, organizations like Freemasonry and other secret societies continue to flourish through mystery, silence, and the absence of dissent.
One might argue that in military organizations, where lives are at stake, decisions cannot be consensual, leaving no room for questioning or challenging. While this holds true, the same cannot be said for the Church. Those who dissented with the Church’s canons often risked their lives. Nevertheless, the majority followed, and many continue to follow even without external pressure, drawn by a belief in the spiritual aspect of religion that encourages serving and treating others as equals, rather than the controlling and fragmenting aspects of religious fundamentalism.
Is there more to an individual’s safety and sense of security than the psychology of safety and the perceived need for dissent and challenge?
The Science of Spiritual Safety: Beyond Psychological Constructs
What does science say about this? Scientific studies of spiritual practices, which often arise from religious beliefs yet without efforts to control conformance, demonstrate that practitioners of meditation, reflection, and prayer tend to feel safe within a space of acceptance and fulfillment.
Andrew Newberg’s research indicates that spiritual practices activate the brain’s default mode network, leading to reduced anxiety and stress. Work by Davidson and Lutz shows that contemplative spiritual practices create lasting structural changes in brain regions associated with emotional regulation and attention, suggesting that spiritual frameworks reshape neural architecture to support psychological stability. Research at Harvard and other institutions has also established that various forms of meditation contribute to reduced stress and increased creativity.
Psychological research by Peterson and Seligman suggests that the inability to challenge doctrine can be offset by the psychological benefits of certainty derived from spiritual practice. The work of Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Solomon demonstrates that coherent belief systems act as a buffer, reducing existential anxiety related to mortality. Furthermore, research by Park and Folkman indicates that spirituality helps individuals interpret personal experiences with a coherent global meaning, which remains stable precisely because its core elements are not regularly challenged.
Both scientific evidence and common sense suggest that people feel good when they have some control over their actions and when their expectations are met. Many find safety and protection within hierarchical structures, provided they feel their interests are addressed and they are genuinely heard.
Toxicity: An Internal Landscape?
Science informs us that stress arises from our perceived inability to cope with external pressures. Interestingly, many individuals perform better under stress; the validity of the Eustress-Performance curve is well-established. How one breaks down under stress and recovers from emotional trauma are individual characteristics, often influenced by personal values, beliefs, purpose, and meaning. As the noble Buddha implied, suffering is relative and often optional.
Having worked with individuals experiencing emotional trauma for decades, I’ve observed that sensorily internalizing one’s trauma experience can help alleviate suffering through what might be termed the “Observer effect.” Coacharya offers several lecture-demonstration recordings illustrating this phenomenon.
In my experience, true safety is spiritual, not merely psychological. Mortality remains the most significant threat to one’s sense of safety, and no one can guarantee immortality. Toxicity is a similar concept. While we all desire freedom of expression and wish to be heard, we don’t always remember that our freedom to express can adversely and toxically affect others. The ancient Isa Vasya Upanishad, one of the world’s oldest known scriptures, profoundly states that true self-realization occurs when one sees oneself in others and others in oneself.
The next time your coach or consultant suggests a psychological safety survey in your organization, pause and reflect. Is the organization, the individual, or the interaction truly creating toxicity? There are more systemic solutions to this blame game.
Sustainable Growth: Explore Spiritual Safety with Coacharya
Does your organization truly cultivate a space for sustainable growth? Moving beyond conventional ideas of psychological safety, Coacharya’s coach education and leadership development programs delve into the profound impact of spiritual safety on individuals and teams.
Just as enduring institutions have thrived on trust, faith, and shared purpose, our programs equip leaders to foster environments where belonging, learning, and contributing flourish. This leads to a more cohesive and resilient workforce. Discover how to leverage effective listening and cultivate an internal landscape of resilience and clarity, moving beyond the blame game to empower genuine, lasting development.
Connect with Coacharya today to learn how our unique approach helps leaders build a foundation of spiritual safety that drives true organizational success.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization or institution.
