The psychological safety of a team only hinges on its least safe member. Each of us carries emotional experiences influenced by our previous workplaces, upbringing, education, gender, ethnicity and race, generation, neurodiversity, socioeconomic status, language, and more. These factors shape our perceptions of power dynamics in the workplace and how we engage within them.

The Wheel of Power and Privilege

For many of us, speaking up at work is risky, and even in psychologically safe environments, it can take a long time to unlearn those lessons. The Wheel of Power and Privilege, a tool developed by Marilyn Loden and Judy Rosener, illustrates various aspects of privilege and power dynamics in society. The closer you are to the center, the more power you hold. Speaking up involves risks—whether interpersonal, job security, financial, or reputational—and the stakes are higher for some than others.

A Short History of Psychological Safety

Psychological safety was first attributed to clinical psychologist Carl Rogers, who is believed to have coined the term in 1954 in a collection of papers on creativity edited by P.E. Vernon. Rogers used the term to describe conditions that help individuals feel they have “unconditional worth.” Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis further introduced psychological safety into management studies in the 1960s, defining it initially as a group phenomenon that minimizes interpersonal risk. Fast forward to the 90s when William Kahn and Dr. Amy Edmonston’s research greatly expanded the understanding of its role in organizational dynamics and team effectiveness.

In 2020, Oxford-trained social scientist Timothy R. Clark, author of “The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety,” built upon previous research to provide a framework for understanding and developing psychological safety within teams and organizations. Clark’s book outlines the progression through four levels of safety—Inclusion Safety, Learner Safety, Contributor Safety, and Challenger Safety—each essential for fostering a culture where individuals feel safe to be themselves, ask questions, contribute ideas, and challenge the status quo. Clark’s work aims to help leaders create environments that encourage inclusion, trust, and innovation by addressing the specific needs and fears at each stage of psychological safety.

To grasp psychological safety concepts more fully, it’s crucial to understand its connection to privilege and intersectionality.

The Ladder of Vulnerability

At the very base level, Inclusion Safety allows for individuals to feel accepted. With Learner Safety, people can ask questions and make mistakes, which is needed to confidently share ideas, as experienced in Contributor Safety. Challenger Safety, the highest level, is when we feel empowered to challenge the status quo and suggest changes without fear.

These four levels build upon one another, cultivating trust and openness essential for maximizing team engagement and fostering innovation. As one progresses through each stage, not necessarily linearly, the required level of vulnerability increases, which Clark named the “ladder of vulnerability.” Climbing each rung of this ladder can feel increasingly daunting, especially for those already facing disadvantages or underrepresentation. We all move through different degrees of safety in different teams, contexts, and emotional states. This variability underscores the dynamic nature of psychological safety, which can fluctuate based on factors such as team dynamics, situational contexts, and personal experiences within the organization.

Challenger Safety Sets the Stage for Innovation

Challenger Safety satisfies our basic human need to make things better, giving the support and confidence to ask, “Why do we do it this way?”, “What if we tried this?”, or “Can I suggest a different approach?” It demands both vulnerability and personal risk to speak up and offer new perspectives. These fundamental questions need to be asked to improve the status quo.

Researchers such as Edmonston and Clark delved deeper to define the essential conditions for cultivating an innovative environment. The larger and more hierarchical the organization, the more likely we are to overvalue opinions from the top and undervalue opinions from the bottom. To stir things up and ignite change, we must create spaces that combat authority bias and promote “cultural flatness,” where every opinion is valued, regardless of hierarchy. This approach encourages openness and constructive conflict, which are essential for maintaining intellectual diversity. Without it, innovation is stifled.

So how are we doing?

Aside from power and privilege dynamics, several other factors can prevent people from expressing Challenger Safety, such as fear of rejection, lack of trust, cultural norms, and social pressure. These factors often trigger a fear response. One of the most intimidating situations arises from hierarchical structures or dominant personalities that silence dissent, making it difficult for team members to challenge the status quo. Overcoming these barriers is required to create an environment where Challenger Safety can flourish.

In his work, Clark assesses the levels of Challenger Safety by asking questions such as:

1. Can you think of a change you started but didn’t finish? Why did you snap back to your original behavior?

2. When was the last time you tried to cover up a mistake? What motivated you to do that?

3. Do you feel that you have a license to innovate in your organization?

4. Do you feel the risk of ridicule on your team?

5. How do you protect your team against the dangers of groupthink?

Depending on the answers, you can determine how well your team fosters an environment that encourages innovation and constructive dissent.

3 Ways for Leaders to Combat Bias and Build Challenger Safety (thanks to Amy Edmonston and Timothy Clark for naming these):

• Frame work as a learning problem: Your positive emotional response to disruptive ideas and bad news shows your high tolerance for candor. This will protect your team’s right to dissent. Stay curious, ask other people what they think, and ask them to contribute. Everything is an experiment with the outcome in part being learning how to do it better next time.

• Reward shots on goal: Reward attempts and recognize and encourage team members when they challenge the status quo. Not all ideas will be successful, but increasing the number of attempts is crucial. Be sure to provide air cover in exchange for candor.

• Speak last: When you hold positional power, speaking first can unintentionally censor your team. Listen carefully, acknowledge others’ contributions, and then share your perspective. In short, weigh in less! Want extra bonus points?

• Acknowledge your own fallibility. By admitting when you make a mistake or don’t know the answer, you encourage others to do the same.

Leaders are pivotal in establishing and upholding safety for all team members. To foster an environment conducive to continuous improvement and innovation, it’s critical to nurture a culture where everyone feels secure in expressing their distinct viewpoint. Recognizing the intersection of psychological safety and privilege is a momentous first step.