>just like it's possible to have a reasonable level of physical safety while driving a car

Then again, it's reasonably straightforward to measure physical injury and come to some agreement about acceptable risk. Psychological injury is far more subjective.

Measuring psychology safety is easy: ask them. "Subjective" != "arbitrary".

First: I did not say that subjective means arbitrary. Second: The problem with this is, there still must some agreement on what constitutes an acceptable answer when you "ask them". This brings us back to the subjectivity of psychological injury.

That's interesting, in that there's a risk that, if they feel really unsafe, they'll want to pretend that all is fine

And if the group is small, even if you try to make the answers anonymous, maybe you still would be able to figure out who wrote what, and they'll realize this, and write mostly nice sounding things

Anyway, asking and talking about it seems like a good idea. Maybe also asking them to read the article being discussed here :-)

> How can any human feel totally psychologically safe in a world with climate change, cancer, random attacks of violence, earthquakes, etc?

Speaking my mind does not increase the speed of climate change, the chance that I might get cancer, or the probability of earthquake. Therefore, it is easy not to think about those things while discussing work.

I think psychological safety comes from similar expectations of the employer/employee relationship. You don’t have to agree on the specifics, as long as you agree on the methods.

>psychologically safe in a world with climate change, cancer, random attacks of violence, earthquakes, etc?

Obviously, "total" in this context means in the workplace. Also, psychological safety essentially means "ability to express yourself and make mistakes without the fear of negative consequences" - it has nothing to do with shielding yourself from cancer, climate change etc. Ironically, the Buddha, who was quoted in the OP grew up with "total psychological safety" as you defined it, and you know where that led him.

> just like it's possible to have a reasonable level of physical safety while driving a car

Again, this is not a comparable analogy at all. If you're unable to in no uncertain terms say "this project is going to hurt users" out of fear of getting fired/looking like not a team player, that is not even a "reasonable level" of psychological safety.

I have told my managers many many times "I think this feature/change is bad for users" without fear of negative repercussions. If the entire existence of the project itself is user-harmful, then you have bigger problems than psychological safety.

Fair enough, good for you. I'm not sure if you're a Googler, but nevertheless, my point was that this luxury isn't afforded to the vast majority of people in tech. I highly doubt it's even afforded to the majority of Google engineers either (based on my acquaintances), but that is beside the point. Somehow whenever you mention Google in any context, a bunch of people come forward to defend Google culture -- so, my mistake that I sort of pulled Google into it.

> If you're unable to in no uncertain terms say "this project is going to hurt users" out of fear of getting fired/looking like not a team player, that is not even a "reasonable level" of psychological safety.

We're talking about software engineers in big tech companies, right? They're extremely well paid and would have no problem finding a new job.

Except for the ones on visas, interns, and recent grads. Anyone who doesn't want to or can't cram for four hours of consecutive leetcode is also going to struggle.