Psychological Safety and Neurodiversity

The field of psychological safety often focuses on neurotypical contexts.

Psychological safety is defined as a shared belief that a group is safe for interpersonal risk taking. In practice, this seems simple; individuals speaking up, sharing ideas, asking questions and admitting mistakes, all without fear of ridicule or punishment. Many years of practice and research has shown that it is essential as the foundation not only for high-performing teams but also for inclusion and diversity. Indeed, diversity is one of the core factors that drive team performance and good outcomes.

However, one of our main criticisms about the field of psychological safety is that it can, often, focus too narrowly on Western, English-speaking, white-collar, neurotypical contexts.

If we consider the specific aspect of neurodiversity, we see that there’s a risk that discussions about psychological safety can neglect neurodiversity, assuming that neurotypical behaviors are the right behaviors. For example, if you read certain LinkedIn posts and popular psychological safety “hot takes”, you might conclude that you can only achieve psychological safety once everyone feels comfortable speaking up verbally, without stuttering or hesitating, while maintaining eye contact, and engaging in spontaneous and unstructured interactions.

However, neurodiverse, neurodivergent, or neurodistinct individuals, such as those with ADHD, autism or dyspraxia, often communicate differently. They (we) may find eye contact uncomfortable, prefer written communication, need time to think before speaking, or may speak with a stammer, a tic or using more, or fewer non-verbal gestures than other folks. We need to resist presuming that psychological safety looks the same to everyone, when in reality it can be wildly different.

What’s the issue with this framing of psychological safety?

The assumption that psychological safety looks the same to everyone overlooks the fact that the concept is, realistically and in practical terms, individualized. Everyone has their own communication preferences and needs (which are also not fixed over time), and this overlooking of those needs is perhaps especially true when it comes to underrepresented groups.

So why is psychological safety framed this way?

It’s probably the combination of early psychological safety research being US based and focusing on white collar contexts, and the way it is then portrayed and represented in the modern, majority Western and English-language media (particularly WEIRD cultures – Western, Educated, Individualistic, Rich, and Democratic). It’s understandable that the context in which most of the research is conducted becomes (over)represented in the literature.

But this limited perspective on what psychological safety “should” look like can be problematic, creating a standard that excludes many people. It suggests that psychological safety is only present when certain communication norms are met, thereby disregarding the unique needs and expressions of a diverse workforce. Some may even see “non-typical” ways of communicating, such as stammering, as indicators of a non-psychologically safe space, when it can in fact be the opposite. Making it safe to stammer actually increases the ability for some people to speak up, even though some may perceive stammering as an indicator of feeling psychologically unsafe.

Credit: Sugar and Sloth: What does neurospicy mean?

However, if we can challenge this view, and acknowledge that psychological safety looks different for everyone, we can create workplaces that are inclusive of neurodiversity and supportive for all.

How can we create psychological safety for neurodiverse people?

That sounds simple, but the idea that psychological safety has a single, uniform expression is quite insidious, so we need to actively and purposefully foster environments that support diverse communication preferences and interaction styles.

To build psychological safety in ways that support neurodiversity, consider the following practical solutions:

Encourage multiple modes of communication,* not just verbal, for instance:

Written: provide options for individuals to express their thoughts and ideas through writing or drawing, whether that’s emails, chat platforms or shared documents.
Nonverbal communication: recognize and acknowledge non-verbal gestures such as nodding, hand gestures or the use of visual aids such as traffic light cards.

Allow for pauses and processing time:

Patience: encourage and create space for reflective thinking. Allow people the time they need to formulate and express their thoughts without interruption.
Preparation: provide people with information and time to prepare for meetings, interviews, and collaborative sessions.
Follow-up opportunities: create mechanisms for individuals to contribute their thoughts and feelings after meetings, allowing them more processing time or simply letting them contribute from a more comfortable environment.

Normalise diverse speech patterns:

Stuttering or stammering: foster an environment where speech differences are given patience and accepted without judgement. Avoid pathologizing speech differences.
Volume variability: allow people to speak at a volume that is comfortable to them. If necessary, adjust the environment, such as by altering background noise levels to allow them to be heard.
Also embrace different accents, dialects and languages. Allow people to speak in the way that feels most comfortable for them.

Accommodate neurodiverse needs:

Tic friendly spaces: be explicit that the workplace is an environment where tics and other neurodiverse expressions are welcome.
Flexible interaction styles: help all team members to support and understand different ways of interacting, such as acknowledging that some people prefer to avoid eye contact or need to stim.
Language choice: Be mindful that for some people, sarcasm, or the use of euphemistic language can create barriers to understanding. Bring these challenges into the open (personal user manuals are a great way to initiate these conversations) and help each other find ways to communicate more clearly.

By implementing practical changes like these, organizations can create a genuinely inclusive environment that is psychologically safe for everybody.

Psychological safety doesn’t look the same for everyone.

Psychological safety is essential for inclusive work environments, but its current framing sometimes assumes a Western, white-collar, particularly neurotypical perspective.

We recognize that this is a huge problem, and is not spoken about often enough. The message is so important to us that it sits in our Top Ten Ways to Foster Psychological Safety: No.9: embracing differences.

Embracing diverse communication and interaction styles, preferences and needs frees us up to create true psychological safety that works for everyone, not just neurotypical people. We just need to move past the sticky belief that psychological safety looks the same for everyone. It doesn’t, and it shouldn’t need to.

source: https://psychsafety.co.uk/