Ever found yourself in a work environment where you hesitated to ask a question or suggest an idea? Such instances are frequent in various workplace structures where people prefer to bite their tongues rather than raise concerns.  Often, staff members restrain themselves from speaking out despite feeling that their input could be valuable for the future of the organization or even life-saving. This situation goes beyond hesitation; it mirrors an organizational culture lacking psychological safety support.

As discussed in earlier blogs, psychological safety is the feeling that one can freely express oneself,  take risks, and be authentic without fear of consequences to one's self-image, status, or career. It's about feeling respected and accepted. Better said: in the modern workplace, where knowledge and collaboration are cornerstones of success, psychological safety is absolutely essential.

Fukushima: Understanding the lead-up to the disaster

The Fukushima nuclear disaster exemplifies this reality, particularly when examining the events leading up to it. While a natural catastrophe primarily triggered it, subsequent investigations shed light on failures within both organizational practices and regulatory systems.
‍

One crucial problem revolved around the absence of a culture that promoted communication, the expression of concerns, and the reluctance to question authority. In companies with a deeply ingrained cultural norm of respecting authority and being hesitant to openly challenge superiors, this cultural context can create difficulties for employees in voicing dissenting opinions or concerns, especially when they might challenge the decisions or perspectives of those in positions within the organization's hierarchy.

Additionally, research has revealed that there were no mechanisms in place for employees to safely report safety concerns or violations. Without a system to shield whistleblowers from retaliation, employees are often discouraged from reporting issues due to fear.

The Fukushima Daiichi plant, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), exhibited signs of complacency and overconfidence in its safety measures. Although studies had shown that the seawall protection was insufficient to mitigate statistically probable hazards, there was an assumption that safety protocols were adequate. The resulting mindset diminished the sense of urgency or necessity to address safety concerns raised by employees. It also became evident that there were issues with communication both within TEPCO and between the company and government regulatory bodies. The sharing and addressing of information regarding safety risks and vulnerabilities at the plant were not handled effectively.

Anyone’s voice at any time can be mission-critical.

Chernobyl: the aftermath

‍
A comment on psychological safety on LinkedIn brought up the horrors of the Chernobyl incident, especially its aftermath. One key factor was the prevailing culture of fear and suppression within the Soviet Union's system in industries with high stakes like nuclear power. This environment discouraged communication and stifled any willingness to share concerns or express doubts. Plant engineers fearing consequences from their superiors often hesitated to report issues or question decisions even when they recognized possible risks or operational mistakes.

Another contributing factor was the bureaucratic structure combined with pressure for positive outcomes. This created an atmosphere where operators and safety personnel lacked the empowerment to challenge practices or halt reactor operations when necessary.

The disaster’s aftermath further revealed a lack of safety. The fear of speaking out against figures of authority or established procedures meant that critical voices were either silenced or disregarded. At first, the Soviet authorities were hesitant to acknowledge the accident. They then took their time admitting the seriousness of the situation both within their country and the international community. This delayed response and lack of communication worsened the disaster's consequences.

The absence of a sense of safety in a high-risk environment like a nuclear power plant can lead to terrible outcomes.  If you are interested to learn more about Fukushima and Chernobyl, we recommend watching two series, "The Days" on Netflix and "Chernobyl" on HBO. These shows shed light on the culture during the evolving Fukushima disaster and emphasize how the lack of psychological safety had consequences after the Chernobyl meltdown.
‍

Invite engagement proactively. Insist on dissent.

In today's business world, simply hiring top talent is not enough to create peak results. Organizations must foster an environment where employees feel comfortable and confident utilizing their skills and knowledge. This is particularly crucial in fields that require diverse expertise integration. Psychological safety directly affects a company's bottom line since employees' observations, questions, and ideas are vital for understanding market dynamics and internal processes.

To illustrate this point further, we share an example from our coaching practice.  We once worked with a branch manager at a foreign subsidiary who faced challenges with delayed and uninspiring inputs from the finance team in the European headquarters.  In the coaching sessions, we discovered that the main problem was how the branch manager communicated. This created an atmosphere where the finance team felt unsafe to share their thoughts or concerns. By recognizing and addressing this issue, the manager was able to change the dynamics, resulting in improved information flow and fresh ideas that impacted the bottom line and overall performance.

In summary, psychological safety is a strategic factor for any organization that values innovation, growth, and long-term success. Encouraging conversation, respecting diverse viewpoints, and breaking down hierarchical barriers are not only ethical principles but also essential for organizations to thrive in today's complex