Gen Z & Workplace Safety: Redefining Psychological Needs

The workplace is undergoing a shift in expectations, particularly among younger generations. A recent Verkada study of 1,000 professionals revealed a significant gap between how leaders perceive safety at perform and how their teams actually experience it. While 69% of leaders feel very safe, only 37% of workers share that sentiment. This disparity is most pronounced among Generation Z employees, who are twice as concerned about safety as their Baby Boomer counterparts. Understanding what kind of safety this generation seeks is crucial for fostering healthy and productive work environments.

The Evolving Definition of “Safety”

For much of the 20th century, “safety” primarily referred to physical well-being. However, the concept has expanded, introducing terms like “emotional safety” in the 1980s, which focused on an individual’s internal sense of security. More recently, the meaning of safety has continued to evolve, leading to what psychologist Nick Haslam terms “concept creep.” This expansion, while intending to be positive, has inadvertently created challenges for workplace culture and, specifically, for Gen Z employees.

A key distinction lies between psychological safety and emotional safety. Psychological safety, as defined by NYU psychologist Jonathan Haidt, is a hallmark of a healthy team. It allows for open debate, respectful disagreement, and constructive criticism – essential components of innovation and problem-solving. In a psychologically safe environment, team members feel comfortable challenging ideas without fear of retribution.

Emotional safety, in contrast, centers on the expectation of avoiding negative feelings triggered by others’ actions or words. This concept, which gained traction on some college campuses, suggests an individual has a “right not to be triggered.” The difference is significant. While psychological safety encourages robust discussion, emotional safety prioritizes shielding individuals from discomfort. This isn’t necessarily reflective of the real world, where navigating difficult emotions is a necessary life skill.

As an international affairs editor who has reported from challenging environments, I’ve observed that resilience is often built through confronting discomfort, not avoiding it. The ability to engage with differing viewpoints, even those that evoke strong emotions, is vital for progress and understanding.

The Risk of Fragility

The pursuit of emotional safety, while well-intentioned, can inadvertently foster fragility. When individuals are shielded from all negative experiences, they may struggle to cope with the inevitable challenges of life and work. Criticism, rejection, and disagreement are not inherently harmful; they are opportunities for growth and improvement. A cartoon illustrating this point depicts a teacher telling parents, “We’ve created a safe, nonjudgmental environment that will leave your child ill-prepared for real life.”

This isn’t to say that workplaces should be intentionally harsh or insensitive. Rather, it’s a call for balance. Organizations need to create environments where constructive feedback is welcomed, and individuals are equipped to handle difficult conversations.

Establishing Clear Boundaries

At Growing Leaders, we’ve implemented several policies to navigate this complex terrain. These include:

1. Everyone has a voice, but not everyone has a vote. Leadership must retain the authority to produce final decisions.
2. Everyone can weigh in, but not everyone has equal influence. This reflects the realities of experience and expertise.
3. Everyone deserves to be heard, but everyone does not need to secure their way. Collaboration requires compromise.
4. Everyone is more critical than their job, but no one is more important than the mission. The collective goals of the organization must take precedence.

These principles aim to foster a culture of respect and accountability, where individuals feel valued but also understand the importance of contributing to a shared purpose.

Lessons from the Military

The concept of overprotecting individuals from discomfort is further illustrated by a story shared by a friend who served seven years in the U.S. Navy. During boot camp, recruits were given cards to hold up whenever a drill sergeant said something that made them feel uncomfortable. While intended to create a safe learning environment, the question arises: would we send soldiers into battle with similar cards? The analogy highlights the importance of preparing individuals for the realities of challenging situations, rather than shielding them from all potential discomfort.

The need for preparation extends beyond the military. In any profession, the ability to navigate difficult conversations, handle criticism, and cope with setbacks is essential for success.

What This Means for Employers

The Verkada study underscores the need for employers to actively assess how safe their workplaces feel to employees. This requires a nuanced understanding of the different types of safety – physical, psychological, and emotional – and a willingness to address concerns proactively. Leaders should encourage open communication, provide opportunities for feedback, and foster a culture of respect and accountability.

It’s also important to recognize that expectations around safety are evolving. Gen Z employees, in particular, may have different perspectives than previous generations. Understanding these differences is crucial for building a workforce that is both engaged and resilient.

The conversation around workplace safety is ongoing. Organizations that prioritize open dialogue, embrace constructive feedback, and foster a culture of psychological safety will be best positioned to attract and retain top talent in the years to come. For more information on building a psychologically safe workplace, consider exploring resources from Inc.com and Inc.com. The work of Jonathan Haidt on psychological safety provides a valuable framework for understanding the dynamics of healthy teams. Psychology Today offers further insights into this evolving field.

Looking Ahead: Continued research into generational differences in workplace expectations will be vital. Organizations should also invest in training programs that equip leaders with the skills to foster psychological safety and navigate difficult conversations effectively. Regular employee surveys and feedback sessions can help identify areas for improvement and ensure that workplaces remain responsive to the needs of their teams.