A few years back, I met and developed a friendship with Dr. Martin Shain. Dr. Shain is one of the authors of the Canadian Standard on Psychological Health and Safety. (see: CAN/CSA-Z1003-13/BNQ 9700-803/2013 (R2022)).
The Standard was published by the Canadian Standards Association in 2013 about 8 years after we founded what was then called the Workplace Fairness Institute and is now called Workplace Fairness International (WFI).
Our foundational idea at WFI was that Conflict Management was all about Fairness. We defined Fairness as “Equity of Concern and Respect for all workplace participants.”
As soon as Martin and I met, we realized we had come from exactly the same place in our thinking about psychological health and safety in the workplace. And after a few exploratory meetings with our team, Dr. Shain said something that has fundamentally changed the way I see psychological health and safety.
It’s All About Fairness
Dr. Shain said that the 13 psychosocial risk factors that had been developed for the Standard can all be boiled down to one principle: Fairness.
It took me a couple of years to truly understand what he meant by that comment. However, as I continued in the fields of conflict management and conducting workplace health assessments, Dr. Shain’s point crystallized for me.
Here is how I concluded that there is only one psychosocial risk factor, and that is Fairness.
The Source of Psychological Harm is Conflict
The Canadian Standard on Psychological Health and Safety postulates (with plenty of scientific evidence) that when people are not treated with dignity and respect, it has a serious impact on their psychological health.
This brings us to the question of why. To understand, we must explore both conflict theory and individual and group psychology.
The source of all conflict is also the source of psychological harm. This connection becomes clear as we explore the definition of conflict.
According to Abel, Felstinter and Sarat, the authors of (“The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming . . .” Law & Society Review Vol. 15, No. ¾,) all conflict begins with a “perceived injurious event.”
In the realm of human psychology, a perceived injury is a real injury. There is no difference between a “perceived” injury and an “actual” injury. To put it another way, a perceived injury is an actual injury.
But how does a “perceived injurious event” arise?
In the workplace setting, we have placed considerable focus on the extreme forms of psychologically injurious events, such as harassment, violence, threats of violence, and bullying. These are obvious examples where the victim is bound to experience perceived injurious events.
However, the introduction of the concept of psychological health and safety has suggested that perceived injurious events can happen in much more subtle, systemic and insidious ways. The Canadian Standard presently lists 13 areas where workplace participants can experience “perceived injurious events.” The Standard calls them “psychosocial risk factors”. They are:
- Organizational Culture
- Psychological and Social Support
- Clear Leadership & Expectations
- Civility & Respect
- Psychological Demands
- Growth & Development
- Recognition & Reward
- Involvement & Influence
- Workload Management
- Engagement
- Balance
- Psychological Protection
- Protection of Physical Safety
The Canadian Standards Association and the Mental Health Commission of Canada enumerate these 13 areas where workplace participants can experience psychological harm. They maintain that where organizations perform poorly in any of these 13 areas, there is an increased risk of psychological harm caused by perceived injurious events. They also suggest that where organizations perform well in these areas, this reduces the risk of psychological harm and increases psychological health.
Fairness and Psychological Health and Safety
In analyzing these 13 areas and exploring the sources of psychological harm, they all boil down to one conclusion that is made by the person experiencing the perceived injurious event: “I am not being treated fairly,” or “I am observing the unfair treatment of others.”
To put this another way: “I am not being treated with equity of concern and respect.”
We conclude that 13 psychosocial risk factors are categories of circumstances where workplace participants feel treated fairly or unfairly. If they are treated fairly, this will increase their psychological health and safety. If they are treated unfairly, this will decrease their psychological health and safety.
So How Do We Increase Psychological Health and Safety Through Fairness?
First, we must define fairness and explore what it requires of organizations and their leaders.
Our definition of Fairness is “Equity of Concern and Respect for Each Workplace Participant.” This means that as a human being, each person deserves to be treated with equity of concern and respect regardless of their position in the organization and regardless of their background, traits, conditions or experiences which might make them different than the cultural archetype in that organization.
The idea of Equity of Concern and Respect has already found itself in human rights codes, constitutions, minimum standards legislation and even occupational health and safety legislation. The core principle of this legislation is that every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. This is a social right we have by virtue of being human.
Equity of Concern and Respect for each workplace participant requires that we take three operational principles seriously:
- Communication
- Collaboration
- Proactivity
Each of these three operational fairness principles will reduce the risk of perceived unfairness, thus reducing the risk of perceived injurious events and ultimately improving psychological health and safety.
The question is how?
Communication
To understand why communication will improve fairness and reduce the risk of psychological harm we need to explore attribution theory. The essential message of attribution theory is that when a person does not know the motivations or intentions of another person or organization, they assume intentions. Intentions are often assumed to be negative where there has not been a strong history of demonstrated fairness in the relationship. Our natural tendency is to assume negative intentions unless we have positive experiences with the other person or organization.
This is why communication is essential to reducing perceived injurious events. With thorough communication about intentions and reasons for decisions, there is less room for negative assumptions to arise. Organizational participants do not have to guess the intentions of the organization because they are made clear through the words and actions of the organization.
Reduced perceptions of negative intentions lead to fewer perceived injurious events. This reduces conflict and increases psychological health and safety.
Collaboration
Over the last few years, there has been a lot of thinking about the relationship between collaboration and psychological health and safety.
First, the Standard itself lists Involvement and Influence as well as Engagement as psychosocial risk factors. Where workplace participants do not feel involved, where they do not have an opportunity to influence outcomes and where they are not engaged in the success of the organization, they experience psychological harm.
Second, we know from Trauma-Informed principles that agency, choice and involvement are key elements to reducing the risk of trauma or re-traumatization.
Collaboration as a principle is therefore necessary to increase psychological health and safety and to reduce the risk of trauma. Collaboration reduces the risk of perceived injurious events by insisting that each workplace participant feels valued, informed and involved. Collaboration also increases efficiency and business outcomes as better solutions are arrived at through the collective power of multiple experiences. Collaboration improves group identity and teamwork, which builds trust. All of these reduce the risk of perceived injurious events.
Proactivity
Most conflict is predictable. Successful organizations consider potential sources of conflict and predict external factors that might increase perceived injurious events. Proactive thinking includes robust change management principles. Organizations that understand the risks of perceived injurious events can develop communication and collaboration strategies to reduce those risks. Thinking and acting proactively also increases feelings among staff that the organization cares about them enough to think ahead.
Proactivity also includes organizational culture development. Tone setting in the organization will have a huge impact on perceptions of fairness. Proactivity includes leadership development so that they can set clear expectations and provide positive leadership. Where leaders are trusted, then their actions are less likely to produce perceived injurious events.
Conclusion: Fairness is the Key to Psychological Health and Safety
Dr. Shain was prescient in his conclusion about psychological health and safety and fairness.
When we break it down it looks like this:
Unfairness leads to Perceived Injurious Events
Perceived Injurious Events are the source of Psychological Harm
Fairness is the key to reducing Perceived Injurious Events
By increasing Fairness through Communication, Collaboration and Proactivity, we reduce Perceived Injurious Events and increase Psychological Health and Safety.
Therefore, as Dr. Shain said… Psychological Health and Safety is All About Fairness.