Creating a Safe Space: For Dialogue about Values & Ethics

The Need for Safe Spaces

When faced with an ethical dilemma, or even just a sensitive question about institutional values, many people are apprehensive about discussing the matter with co-workers. Some fear reprisals for speaking out. They may worry about being perceived as troublesome (not a team player), as well as the long-term career damage that such a stigma entails. Hurt to one's feelings, self-esteem, and sense of self-respect often follow interpersonal conflict, so potential conflict tends to be avoided as much as possible. Most often, people are simply anxious about the unknown, for discussing ethical issues is often seen as opening a can of worms. It is not always clear what will happen next.

Experience shows that when challenges involving values and ethics are not addressed in a thoughtful and proactive way they can escalate into major controversies. Without an outlet to explore ethical issues, people tend to feel trapped and may even resort to actions that are counterproductive. At that point, it may be too late to resolve the matter to anyone's satisfaction. So how can managers encourage others to speak about the ethical issues they face in a spirit of openness and cooperation? How does one overcome the reluctance to engage in a meaningful conversation?

Of course, the answers to these questions depend on the seriousness and magnitude of the ethical dilemma faced. If the issue is the violation of a law or an act of corruption, formal procedures and safeguards (i.e. whistle-blowing protections) need to be put in place to protect those who sound the alarm. Thankfully, the vast majority of ethical issues faced by public servants do not fall into this category. Most are not ethical dilemmas at all, but are simply questions about potentially conflicting values. How does one start the conversation rolling in these cases?

The answer is to create a "safe space" in which people feel comfortable speaking truthfully and candidly about values and ethics.^{Footnote 1} It is an environment where people feel a sense of belonging and can voice their opinions in an authentic way without feeling the need to self-sensor. In a safe space, people feel listened to and taken seriously. Their views are considered carefully and, if action is warranted, they have assurances that there will be follow-through. People participate voluntarily and work together to formulate joint solutions. Most importantly, such a space offers security. Those engaged in dialogue do not have reason to fear that adverse consequences will result.

To be clear, a safe space is not necessarily a specific place where dialogue takes place, such as a separate room within the workplace. When speaking of a "space", one is referring (metaphorically) to the environment and atmosphere in which people conduct themselves. Moreover, it is also not a license to vent one's general frustrations, grievances and pet peeves in an inconsiderate way. Respectfulness, decorum and civility are mandatory. People need to check their petty gripes at the door. A safe space is intended to defuse unproductive tensions, not allow them to flourish.

If someone needs to create a safe space for dialogue, how is that done? This tool will offer advice about how to create such spaces based on evidence and analysis found within the research literature. The intent is to help jump-start dialogues on values and ethics in the workplace.

Building the Foundations of a Safe Space

The notion of "safe space" is not a new one. Indeed, many aboriginal societies addressed ethical challenges by coming together within a circle, with the expectation that the shared decision becomes expressed in the lives of everyone involved. In the modern workplace, however, the cultural traditions and community norms that make such gatherings possible rarely exist. In fact, the hectic, formal and hierarchical nature of the modern workplace often create challenges for those wanting to create safe spaces.

There is a rich literature about those things that give people a sense of "psychological safety" at work. It is normal for people to fear immediate consequences of speaking out more than the longterm harm of doing nothing.^{Footnote 2} Safe conditions exist in situations where people know what is expected of them and know what the potential consequences of their actions are. Conversely, unsafe conditions are said to exist when the environment is threatening, ambiguous and unpredictable.^{Footnote 3}

The chief factor contributing to a sense of safety is the relations one has with their manager and perceptions of the manager's trustworthiness. When measured, the role of the manager was found to have an impact that was more than twice as large as any other factor. But what, specifically, are the managerial behaviours that create this relationship? There are at least eight of them.^{Footnote 4}

Consistency.

Managers are more likely to be deemed trustworthy when they are consistent and predictable in the way they behave, both over time and within different contexts.

Modeling Behaviour.

Trusted managers are seen "walking the talk" or, in other words, show a high level of consistency between what they espouse and what they do.

Shared Responsibility.

As employees are afforded opportunities to participate and share, they gain a measure of control that breeds feelings of safety. This requires managers to delegate some control and feel comfortable working jointly to create solutions. Managers exert authority more effectively through persuasion, not by pulling rank.

Accurate Communication.

Too often, managers communicate mixed messages or are perceived as avoiding issues. The research suggests that managers need to explain what they do and what they intend to do in an accurate and open way.

Accessibility.

Managers who are approachable and accessible, offering "open door" policies and the like, reduce the perception that there are conversational barriers between them and their staffs. This is enhanced when managers take the time to explain the rationale for their actions.

Solicitation of Feedback.

Managers who regularly and actively solicit feedback about work affairs add to feelings of safety by regularly reinforcing that input from others is valued.

Humility.

People are sensitive to status differences and can erect barriers to communication in an attempt to compensate. Explicit signs of humility, fallibility and vulnerability convey a shared humanity and partly diffuse the issue of status.

Demonstrated Concern.

Finally, people feel more willing to open up when managers demonstrate concern about the ethical issue at hand. This is apparent when managers consider people's input deeply, show outward signs of empathy and actively work to protect people's interests. Some care needs to be taken, however. If manipulation or exploitation are detected, trust and feelings of safety are lost. Also, when others are highly sensitive to differences in social status, shallow or token expressions of sympathy can be viewed as being offered by "someone one-up to someone one-down."^{Footnote 5}

These factors illustrate the importance of managers who are supportive and work to help their staff achieve clarity.

While managers can control their own behaviours directly to make others feel safe, feelings of safety can be encouraged through indirect means, too. Managers can play a constructive role generating co-worker relations that are supportive and trusting. Specifically, co-workers that trust each other "generally express concern for the welfare of each other, believe in the intrinsic virtue of such relationships and are willing to make future emotional investments in the relationship."^{Footnote 6} This involves cultivating a sense of collegiality and recognition of the commonweal (collective wellbeing). Also, it helps if everyone understands what the boundaries of appropriate behaviour are so that people know where they stand. When these prevailing norms are not understood, people feel less safe.

Creating the Conversation Space

Dialogue is "a conversation with a centre [sic], not sides. It is a way of taking the energy of our differences and channeling it toward something that has never been created before."^{Footnote 7} In other words, dialogue is unlike a debate where rivals forcefully put forth opposing positions in an attempt to "win" an argument. Dialogue involves working together to overcome differences and reach a common goal. Openness, candor and listening are vital to a healthy dialogue. As one would expect, this involves creating a safe space.

It is one thing to build a strong cultural foundation of safety and trust within your organization. It is quite another to maintain that safe space during a challenging dialogue. So how does one set up a safe space for an actual conversation about values and ethics? More importantly, how does one maintain the sense of safety and how do you tell when this feeling is in jeopardy? To answer these questions, it helps to think about a dialogue in stages.

The Preparation

Before jumping into conversation, it is worth pausing and taking stock of the situation. The invitation to converse that is offered can communicate a great deal. The way the issues are framed, or the subtle signals one gives off, can set the mood. Scanning for warning signs in the behaviour of others is vital. So what, specifically, does this stock-taking exercise involve?

Self-awareness.

Preparing for dialogue begins with an assessment of self. An initiator of the conversation ought to know the (subtle and not-so-subtle) signals given off when engaging others. Keeping a level head means knowing one's own "danger zones"; hot buttons that are likely to provoke counterproductive emotional reactions and knee-jerk interventions.

Pulse Taking.

Some courage is necessary to discuss sensitive issues. Superficial and overly diplomatic discussions are certainly safe, but usually fail to accomplish much. In a challenging conversation, safety is best promoted by an astute observer of the emotional stakes and others' capacity to discuss potentially controversial topics. It helps to ask oneself a few questions. What are the identity and ego stakes involved? What is known about participants' history of engaging in candid dialogue, or just their everyday conversation skills?

Whole-body Listening.

It has been shown that more than half of inter-personal communication is non-verbal, while more than a third is inflection and tone.^{Footnote 8} This suggests that the body language used (gestures, facial expressions, posture and physical distance) and speech patterns say more than words do. A disconnect between words used and other elements of communication will breed suspicion. It is just as important to be conscious of the subtle signals given off by others that suggest emotional discomfort and defensiveness.

Sensory Balance.

Attentiveness to the body language of others is not enough. Care should be taken to not give off the wrong signals by having the right demeanor. At minimum, this means modeling calmness and showing outward signs of interest, such as an attentive posture.^{Footnote 9} Ideally, it means achieving what Diane Bone calls "sensory balance" among participants. This is a rapport in which the tone of voice, vocabulary, physical movements and breathing patterns of the participants are in sync.^{Footnote 10}

Suspending Judgment.

People approach conversations with preconceptions, assumptions, and experiences that shape what is noticed and how judgments are reached. It is not enough to have an open mind, one should refrain from expressing impulsive judgments or forcing premature conclusions. These interventions indicate to others a reluctance to listen and come to joint-decisions. This involves keeping one's "little critic" in check. It also involves recognizing one's "listening filters", or those elements of past experience and ideology that condition the way one listens and interprets.^{Footnote 11}

Setting Expectations.

Ethics and values issues are not always conducive to "right/ wrong" judgments or even clear cut solutions. Often, the challenge is between selecting between two "right" answers. Make it known ahead of time that these are challenging issues with solutions that sometimes come in unfamiliar forms.

The Opening

The beginning of the conversation is usually the most difficult part. Initiating can be stressful. Others may have their guard up, talking in diplomatic speak and addressing issues only superficially. Thankfully, participation in dialogue is voluntary and the invitation to converse can, in itself, be a means of diffusing tension and bringing down barriers. There are a few things to consider when initiating that can help disarm others in a constructive way.

Naming Fears.

By naming a fear and discussing it openly, tension is diffused and solutions are more likely to address the concerns of others. Putting the fears on the table also demonstrate an understanding of the issues at hand.^{Footnote 12}

Self-disclosure.

As mentioned, discussing sensitive issues requires some courage. Disclosing one's own inner conflicts, insecurities, and vulnerabilities can show a willingness to take risks, encouraging others to do likewise. Self-disclosure of this kind can also be a sign of respect and solidarity.^{Footnote 13}

State Intentions.

Transparency diffuses fears that a hidden agenda is being harboured. One's intentions, however, are not directly observable. Suspicious people may even attribute incorrect and untoward motives. Stating intentions up-front go some distance toward eliminating a source of mysteriousness. Stating what you hope to accomplish is also a healthy check to make sure everyone has the same expectations from the conversation. This said, intentions should not be the main subject of values and ethics conversations because it distracts from the issues at hand and causes people to think in self-defensive terms.^{Footnote 14} Stating intentions early gets them out of the way.

Stress Mutuality.

The most commonly cited factor that contributes to a safe conversation space is the expression of mutual purpose and respect. To some extent, this is inherent in the dialogue method, which revolves around joint exploration of issues and creating solutions in partnership. It helps to emphasize this at the beginning, as well as make sure that mutuality does not become lost during the course of the conversation.

Outsider Perspective.

When someone jumps into a conversation by phrasing matters from their personal perspective, there is a chance that it will provoke defensive reactions. It may suggest that the person views things in a self-centred way, instead of attempting to understand another's point-of-view. This risk is avoided when speaking from a third-party perspective.^{Footnote 15} How would a neutral observer characterize the situation? Can ideas be expressed in a way that does not unduly favour one person's perspective? This third lens encourages the initiator of conversation to look at issues in a more analytical way.

Ground Rules.

Safety is about knowing what behaviour is appropriate and what behaviour is not. Most of these principles of interaction are unstated and commonly understood norms of proper conduct. It may prove fruitful to highlight a few rules of engagement, especially when the conversation involves a group of people. For example, it may be worth asking people to not interrupt each other. Some ground rules specifically designed to promote open conversation include a commitment to confidentiality and non-attribution of particular views outside of the conversation (at least not without permission).

The Discussion

The actual discussion is when safety matters most. It is at this stage that the substance of the values and ethics issue is discussed with candor and depth. There are a number of things that can be done to make sure safety is maintained, even during challenging points in the conversation.

Comfortable Pace.

If a conversation is rushed or shoe-horned into an unrealistically brief time-slot, then a sense of safety may be compromised. The reason is twofold. First, a hurried discussion can provoke alarm among participants by conveying a sense of urgency.^{Footnote 16}Second, the fast pace removes the opportunity to think and reflect, making people feel pressured to come to premature decisions. The issue may or may not be resolved in short order. The key, however, is to not expect a quick fix.

Temperate Phrasing.

Phrasing things in a constructive, accommodating and sensitive way goes a long way towards reducing a conversation's emotional temperature. Using hot-button terms and phrases to provoke others will raise the temperature. It may be tempting to play the "devil's advocate" in order to push people off the fence and confront certain issues, but it will likely cause defensive reactions and add to the emotional volatility of a dialogue. It is, therefore, necessary to be mindful of the language used and how specific terms and phrases will be interpreted.^{Footnote 17}

Clarity of Expression.

Talking in vague, figurative or euphemistic terms may make the speaker feel safer by side-stepping controversies and concealing gaps in knowledge. Talking in this way, however, does the opposite for the listener. Ambiguity makes people feel insecure. Clarity also helps people reach sound conclusions instead of fudges, which is an imperative with values and ethics discussions.

Constructive Questioning.

Some questions are actually statements in disguise: "Don't you think it would be best if we just did things this way?" Others can unreasonably limit the responses available and make others feel backed into a corner: "Did it happen or didn't it happen? Yes or no?" Questions can be leading, or may involve goading others into agreement. These types of unconstructive questioning should be avoided. Instead, questions should attempt to achieve clarity and allow others to express themselves fully.

Assess for Safety Problems.

Safety could be in jeopardy at any point during the conversation. As Douglas Stone and his colleagues point out, this requires the listener to "dual process"; that is, be aware of both the content of the conversation and the surrounding conditions.^{Footnote 18} Signs to watch for include a tendency by others to: (a.) withhold meaning or state opinions selectively; (b.) force a particular meaning on others; (c.) avoid sensitive subjects or show signs of withdrawal; and (d.) show emotional signs, such as changing the tone of one's voice.^{Footnote 19}

Decorum.

How does one balance candor with safety when sensitive (or potentially explosive) issues are involved? Charles Garfield and his colleagues make a useful distinction between brutal honesty ("which may be accurate but needlessly hurtful") and truth telling ("which considers the larger context and other people's vulnerability and state of mind").^{Footnote 20} This is not to suggest that potentially provocative, or even painful, matters can not be addressed. It simply means that some comments can be so divisive that they cause people to recoil and, at worst, create long lasting ruptures in the relationship.

Achieving Closure

Closure is not something that can be imposed. It may be tempting to draw a lengthy conversation to a close pre-maturely, but unless a solution has been crafted to everyone's satisfaction, this can be a risky and unproductive move. One can always continue the conversation if scheduling conflicts appear, so long as the continuance is not tactic to avoid tough issues. There are a few things to keep in mind about the conclusion of the dialogue.

Advice Giving.

When unsolicited advice is offered on a sensitive subject (or to a particularly leery person) there is a risk that the advice is perceived as threatening or imposing. Ideally, the dialogue will lead a person to their own conclusions or, with constructive questioning, conclusions reveal themselves without having to make recommendations. It might suffice to ask the other person to offer self-advice or review what was learned during the dialogue.

Review Solution.

Once the conversation has reached closure with a joint conclusion, it helps to reinforce and reassure by reviewing the common ground. This provides a last minute check for misunderstandings and helps make sure that expectations have been met.

Follow-through.

If action is needed, then it is necessary to take steps to make it happen. As stressed earlier, inconsistency between deeds and words can quickly lead to cynicism and a general sense of insecurity. Itemizing the "next steps" and keeping others abreast of milestones completed go a long way towards demonstrating this consistency.

One could continue at length with further advice about how to ensure a dialogue operates smoothly and is fruitful. It is also worth emphasizing that engaging in a dialogue is an art that requires some creativity. Nonetheless, by following these pointers, a crucial aspect of dialogue—ensuring participants feel secure and confident—will more likely result.

Conclusion

By this time, it may be clear that creating a safe space is not always a simple undertaking. Feelings of security will not always happen automatically. It may require some work and a long-term change in one's work style. Creating this space is, however, a shrewd investment. Addressing values and ethics issues proactively through dialogue is the best way to cope with risk and help others see themselves reflected in their institution.

Reference