In today’s dynamic work environment, terms like inclusion and allyship are rightly gaining prominence. But what truly underpins these crucial concepts? At its simplest, it’s about psychological safety – the feeling of being mentally safe at work. This isn’t just a “nice-to-have”; it’s a fundamental requirement for individuals to thrive and for organizations to succeed.
My journey in the professional world, starting as a safety manager in a warehouse in the early 2000s, offered a powerful early lesson. We lived by the mantra, “no job is too important that we cannot do it safely.” Every near-miss and injury was meticulously reported, analyzed, and learned from. Our compensation was even tied to our safety record. This unwavering commitment to physical safety not only dramatically reduced injuries and costs but also significantly boosted employee engagement. The connection between physical and psychological safety is profound: once basic needs are met, humans inherently seek belonging and safety, and this doesn’t stop at the workplace.
Fast forward to today, teaching at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, I’m struck by how my undergraduate students not only understand but expect psychological safety in their future workplaces. This isn’t a novel concept for them; it’s a non-negotiable. This expectation is particularly significant given the looming global labor shortages. The power dynamic is shifting; employees, especially younger generations, increasingly hold the cards.
The Power of Perspective-Taking in Fostering Psychological Safety
One crucial element that intertwines with psychological safety is perspective-taking. Remember “the dress” that went viral in 2015? Millions debated its true colors – gold and white or black and blue. Neuroscientist Pascal Wallisch concluded that these differing perceptions stemmed from assumptions about lighting. Those assuming a shadow saw gold and white, while those assuming artificial light saw black and blue. The core takeaway: our assumptions heavily influence our perceptions.
This viral phenomenon perfectly illustrates a common pitfall in human interaction: once we cement an initial perception, we become less open to alternative viewpoints. The goal of both psychological safety and allyship is to consciously “park your own assumptions” before jumping to conclusions. That brief pause, that moment of staying curious a little longer, is an invitation for new perspectives and a powerful deterrent to judgment.
Chris Argyris’ Ladder of Inference model further illuminates how our brains construct beliefs and assumptions. We observe data, selectively choose what supports our existing views, assign meaning, assume its truth without verification, and then draw conclusions that inform our actions. To climb down this ladder and avoid its pitfalls, we must proactively broaden our data collection. Make it a deliberate practice to seek out at least one contrasting perspective you hadn’t considered. Verify the accuracy of information before drawing conclusions. This not only leads to more inclusive decisions but also to more robust and effective outcomes.
Unpacking Unconscious Bias As A Foundation for Allyship
As humans, we are wired to layer in our own assumptions. This isn’t limited to the color of a dress; it extends to how we perceive individuals in the workplace. Unfortunately, a prevalent bias leads us to perceive individuals from dominant groups as leaders more readily than those from historically marginalized groups. Our brains have a pre-existing blueprint of what leadership “looks like,” reinforced by historical patterns where dominant group members have held the majority of leadership positions. The World Economic Forum highlights a stark example: children are unbiased about gender and science at age six, but by age eight, they are significantly more likely to draw a male scientist. This begs the question: what shapes these perceptions so early?
In my 2020 TEDTalk, “What If Through Claiming Our True Gender, We Claim Our True Strength?“, I discussed how gender socialization negatively impacts all genders. The societal pressure for boys to “man up” and suppress emotions, or for girls to be “pleasing” and avoid being “too bossy,” creates behavioral differences that aren’t inherently biological. The Representation Project provides ample evidence that while biological differences exist, there’s little innate difference in skills like STEM or emotional intelligence across genders. The disparities we see in representation in STEM careers or in the development of emotional intelligence are largely a product of socialization. When girls don’t see women in STEM, they’re less likely to be interested. When they face gender bias, they often develop higher emotional intelligence as a survival mechanism. These are reactions to an overly gendered environment, not innate differences.
Once we recognize these ingrained differences, allyship becomes about embracing them rather than trying to fit everyone into existing cultural norms or gloss over distinctions. It begins with an intentional and consistent practice: asking, “What perspective am I missing?” This question must be followed by active listening, truly hearing and validating the other person’s perspective, rather than minimizing or dismissing it. This approach, rooted in psychological safety, is the cornerstone of building genuinely inclusive workplaces where every voice is heard, valued, and contributes to collective success.
Psychological safety fuels inclusion and allyship. Feeling safe at work boosts engagement. Challenge assumptions, embrace diverse perspectives for a truly inclusive environment.