Jacqui Lewis
No one strives to feel ignorant, incompetent, intrusive or negative, least of all early childhood educators, whose professional identity is tightly bound to a relational pedagogy of connection, reflective activism and professionalism (Hargreaves; 2000; Zembylas; 2003 Hanson and Appleby; 2014) Yet, if, as Edmundson & Lei (2014) suggest, we prioritise our all too effective, self-protection strategies and don’t ask questions, admit weakness or mistakes, offer ideas, or criticise the status quo, within our teams, we are ‘robbing ourselves of small moments of learning’. Not only that, but we are fuelling a systematic approach which, by its very nature, could make us feel professionally psychologically unsafe. Such vulnerability, at a time where staff retention and staff moral are crucial to children’s experiences must be considered further. Kline (2002) advises, ‘there is no hierarchy in thinking’, and I firmly believe reflecting on concepts such as psychological safety, should not just be reserved for more experienced leaders or those engaging in such dialogue and discussion within higher education. All leaders of early childhood provision can aspire to construct an inclusive culture where a sense of belonging nurtures all staff to bring their authentic selves to work, to empower creative thinkers and create an emotionally safe environment for their whole setting community.
Edmundson & Nembhard (2006) define psychological safety as ‘The belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.’ This aligns with the characteristics of inclusive leadership, where a relational, participative pedagogical leadership, centralizes respect, establishes norms of active consultation, and shares power and decision making to drive success. A leadership which creates an environment that seeks to include and value diverse perspectives and backgrounds, leading without bias and creating environments where every child, family and member of staff feels seen, valued, and heard (Ferdman & Davidson; 2002, Nembhard & Edmondson; 2006, Hollander; 2009, Nishii & Mayer; 2009, Randel et al; 2018).
The liberating permission to wallow somewhat in an uncertain togetherness, through an affordance, but not abundance of, vulnerability, can invite a new power dynamic into a team, where children become the greatest benefactors. However, as a new leader keen to impress and beguile with trusted airs of decisiveness, accountability and maybe an uncomfortable imposturous lean towards extroversion, the chances of perceiving this as an out of reach utopian culture, could well remain just so. It may also be a hugely daunting leap to consciously change your leadership style after a long stint at the helm within the same setting. However, by reflecting on your style of leadership and the impact this has upon your team, can directly and positively effect staff morale, retention and ultimately children’s experiences.
The pressure to radiate authority as a leader is real. I have coached many early education leaders who assume what their team require at the wheel, is an authoritarian style of leadership. A pressure, particularly felt by leaders, in the aftermath of disorientation or destabilisation, arising from either safeguarding incidents or an unexpected inspection outcome. Unfortunately, such pressure also increases the likelihood of being governed by our unconscious biases (Frith; 2015), where at other times, we may be more able to afford ourselves a slower and more mindful decision-making process. Thus, moving even further away from the characteristics conducive with inclusive leadership.
More frequently, we are hearing of the necessity to be comfortable with feeling uncomfortable, to truly empower is not to have all the answers. Psychological safety is not safety from discomfort, on the contrary, it means there’s safety in discomfort. Geraghty (2024), a recognised authority on the subject, warns also however, of a potential weaponization of psychological safety through misinterpreted translations equating to free expressions of harmful views. Geraghty suggests the language one may in fact hear from staff who feel psychologically safe, may include ‘I don’t know yet’, ‘I need help’, ‘I have an idea’, ‘I think we have a problem’, ‘I made a mistake’ etc. Edmundson & Lei (2014) provide us with ways of reflecting on our own emotional climate including our specific responses to mistakes made within the team, the readiness of staff to raise concerns, the rejection of team members from within the team and how easy staff find it to ask for help.Of course, accountability should not be sacrificed in the attempts to achieve such emotional safety, a balance is required. We must hold in mind that inclusive leadership is not only realised within setting aims, policies and procedures, but observed in the behaviours enacted by all, to co-create the psychological experience of uniqueness and belonging.
This blog offers an invitation to reflect, to consider your thoughts and to whet a professionally curious appetite, to wonder how psychological safety could be achieved in your setting. Edmundson advocates that to instil a psychological safe environment, one needs to create a rationale and safety for speaking up, to lead a modelling of curiosity, but acknowledge uncertainty together. To strike a balance of accountability and the unity of every voice. So, go forth and seek bravery not perfection, and remember that ‘connection requires vulnerability and the courage to be authentic and genuine’ Brown (2015).
References
Brown, B (Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. Avery Publishing.
Edmundson, A., Nembhard, I. (2006) Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of organizational behaviours.
Edmundson, A., Lei, Z. (2014) Psychological Safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual review of organisational psychology and organisational behaviour. Vol.1.
Ferdman, B. M., & Davidson, M. N. (2002). Inclusion: What can I and my organization do about it? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(4), 80–85.
Frith, U. (2015) Unconscious Bias. The Royal Society https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/publications/2015/unconscious-bias-briefing-2015.pdf
Geraghty, T. (2022) Weaponization of Psychological Safety. 24.06.2022 https://psychsafety.co.uk/psychological-safety-65-weaponisation-of-psychological-safety/
Hanson, K., Appleby, K. (2014) Reflective Practice in: A Critical Companion to Early Childhood. Ed: Reed & Walker. Sage Publications.
Hargreaves, A. (2000) Mixed Emotions: Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Interactions with Students. Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (8): 811–826.
Hollander, E. (2009) Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kline, N. (2002) Time to Think. Listening to ignite the human mind. Cassell
Nishii, L., Mayer, D (2009) Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology
Randel, A., Galvin, B., Sore, L., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., Chung, B, Dean, M., Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource management Review. Volume 28, issue 2, P.190-203.
Zembylas, M. (2003) Emotions and Teacher Identity: A Post Structural Perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 9 (3): 213–238.