<p>Karthik, a passionate HR manager, used to display extra-role behaviours at the workplace. He used to go the extra mile beyond his job description and try to innovate new solutions. He initiated a people solution as the company was transitioning to a hybrid culture which did not produce the expected outcome. Consequently, he had to face the wrath of the titans and give an explanation to the management. He finally refrained from taking new initiatives and started playing it safe.</p>.<p>A McKinsey Global report (2020) infers that organisations that do not guarantee psychological safety to their employees may have to face the flames of a toxic ecosystem and people tend to demonstrate safety behaviours for the fear of workplace victimisation. </p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>In-group and out-group</strong></p>.<p>A report published by the British Psychological Society (2017) extensively deliberates on the factors that influence social identity and the evolution of in-group or outgroup concepts. It is implied that people who develop an irrational emotional connection with the members of the in-group may indicate extreme antagonism and shrewd behaviours towards the out-group. The mindset of in-group or outgroup sabotages mutual trust and they tend to be more defensive and activate safety behaviours during behavioural transactions. </p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Mind games </strong></p>.<p>Employees resort to mind games if they do not have autonomy in the workplace. Indeed, the oppressor or the oppressed have their hesitancies. The oppressor tends to be extremely cautious or precarious during psychological games. The oppressed feel vulnerable and tend to channel their expressions through their chosen mind games. A research study published in the journal Nature has classified these games under Oppressor and Oppressed. The oppressor may employ the games of idealisation, triangulation, guilt trip, and gaslighting. The oppressed may play the games of subordination, histrionics, idolization, and Love-shelling (Dufwenberg, 2008). </p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Microaggression</strong></p>.<p>An article published in HBR (Ella F, 2022) defines micro-aggression as an insensitive or subtle statement or action against a colleague/s with the intention of defending oneself or harming one’s reputation. A survey published in Psychological Bulletin (April 2019) conducted a survey including 19,000 participants with multiple dimensions of microaggression. The survey inferred that these micro-aggressions are expressed through safety behaviours due to the infringement of psychological safety. </p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Ego transactions</strong></p>.<p>According to the theory of Transactional Analysis, a psychoanalytic theory, every individual possesses three major ego states: parent ego (critical and nurturing), adult ego, and child ego (free and adapted). Although people use all ego states, the frequency of using them during conversations differs from one to another. Researchers say that people who feel vulnerable or unreliable in the workplace resort to ‘adapted child ego’ and try to act safe. The safety behaviour may include acceptance, nonreaction, withdrawal, and sycophancy (Leary, 2009).</p>.<p>From the existing literature and real-life scenarios, it is evident that employees’ safety behaviour is an outcome of toxic work culture. Some organisations in European countries have adopted a unique strategy called The Fearless Organisation Scan wherein psychological safety is assessed, and necessary actions have been initiated to neutralise toxic elements in the organisational culture.</p>.<p>(The author teaches behaviour science)</p>
<p>Karthik, a passionate HR manager, used to display extra-role behaviours at the workplace. He used to go the extra mile beyond his job description and try to innovate new solutions. He initiated a people solution as the company was transitioning to a hybrid culture which did not produce the expected outcome. Consequently, he had to face the wrath of the titans and give an explanation to the management. He finally refrained from taking new initiatives and started playing it safe.</p>.<p>A McKinsey Global report (2020) infers that organisations that do not guarantee psychological safety to their employees may have to face the flames of a toxic ecosystem and people tend to demonstrate safety behaviours for the fear of workplace victimisation. </p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>In-group and out-group</strong></p>.<p>A report published by the British Psychological Society (2017) extensively deliberates on the factors that influence social identity and the evolution of in-group or outgroup concepts. It is implied that people who develop an irrational emotional connection with the members of the in-group may indicate extreme antagonism and shrewd behaviours towards the out-group. The mindset of in-group or outgroup sabotages mutual trust and they tend to be more defensive and activate safety behaviours during behavioural transactions. </p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Mind games </strong></p>.<p>Employees resort to mind games if they do not have autonomy in the workplace. Indeed, the oppressor or the oppressed have their hesitancies. The oppressor tends to be extremely cautious or precarious during psychological games. The oppressed feel vulnerable and tend to channel their expressions through their chosen mind games. A research study published in the journal Nature has classified these games under Oppressor and Oppressed. The oppressor may employ the games of idealisation, triangulation, guilt trip, and gaslighting. The oppressed may play the games of subordination, histrionics, idolization, and Love-shelling (Dufwenberg, 2008). </p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Microaggression</strong></p>.<p>An article published in HBR (Ella F, 2022) defines micro-aggression as an insensitive or subtle statement or action against a colleague/s with the intention of defending oneself or harming one’s reputation. A survey published in Psychological Bulletin (April 2019) conducted a survey including 19,000 participants with multiple dimensions of microaggression. The survey inferred that these micro-aggressions are expressed through safety behaviours due to the infringement of psychological safety. </p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Ego transactions</strong></p>.<p>According to the theory of Transactional Analysis, a psychoanalytic theory, every individual possesses three major ego states: parent ego (critical and nurturing), adult ego, and child ego (free and adapted). Although people use all ego states, the frequency of using them during conversations differs from one to another. Researchers say that people who feel vulnerable or unreliable in the workplace resort to ‘adapted child ego’ and try to act safe. The safety behaviour may include acceptance, nonreaction, withdrawal, and sycophancy (Leary, 2009).</p>.<p>From the existing literature and real-life scenarios, it is evident that employees’ safety behaviour is an outcome of toxic work culture. Some organisations in European countries have adopted a unique strategy called The Fearless Organisation Scan wherein psychological safety is assessed, and necessary actions have been initiated to neutralise toxic elements in the organisational culture.</p>.<p>(The author teaches behaviour science)</p>