Comfort vs Need

by Tom Geraghty

What do we do when the things that help some people in the team feel psychologically safer don’t work for everyone? Perhaps one person says they need time away from the main meeting group to reflect on how they feel about something, but the person leading the meeting would rather hear ‘gut reaction’ responses in the moment? Or maybe you want to have a ‘crack down’ on excessive email traffic, but there’s someone in the team who primarily uses written communication because they struggle with verbal communication?

In our workshops, when we’re working on ways to improve psychological safety for everyone in teams and groups, we very often get asked about how to manage these conflicts of preference or need.

And we often need to remember the uncomfortable truth, that psychological safety is not comfortable. In fact, fostering psychological safety often means greater discomfort, particularly for those of us accustomed to the privilege of status, power, or leadership roles. 

This is where we need to clarify the difference between “comfort” and “need”. 

Comfort is Optional, Needs Are Not

• Comfort: A preference or convenience, often subjective, flexible and negotiable.
• Need: A fundamental requirement, usually objective, non-negotiable, often linked to health, safety, or basic dignity.

As an example, we may feel far more comfortable seeing everyone’s faces on screen in a video call, for example. My personal preference is to have cameras on: it helps me see if people are engaged, I can observe reactions and I can see if someone wants to speak up or is trying to get my attention. I can also much more quickly and easily tell if my internet connection has dropped! I will often express this preference, and invite people to have their camera on if possible, and hope that they are able to. It makes for a more enjoyable and potentially more productive meeting or online workshop. 

But this is not a need. Yes, it helps me feel more comfortable, and it’s my strong preference, but I also recognise that for various reasons, many people may not be able to have a camera on. This may be due to neurodiversity and sensory processing differences, managing health conditions, or using a shared family space to work from. It may also be that their internet connection is poor and they need to prioritise good audio over the visual connection. If we insist on universal camera use, we may be unintentionally prioritising our comfort over another’s need.

Photo By: Kaboompics.com

Remote and flexible working is another example. While working in-person as a  default may indeed feel more comfortable, familiar, or even productive, to some, it can be inaccessible to others. For many folks, remote or flexible working isn’t merely convenient, it’s essential. If we insist that our team meeting starts at 9am and everyone must be in the office for that time, we may make work extremely difficult or even impossible for the parent who has to fit in a school drop-off, or the person using a wheelchair who has to navigate public transport to the office at the busiest, least accessible time of day. The converse applies too, of course: some people can’t work from home because they don’t have the environment, facilities or space to do so – they may need to come to the office because it’s the only place they can work.

Then there’s identity-related needs, such as a team member asking us to use pronouns such as they/ them. This might initially make us feel awkward or uncomfortable because it’s outside our usual habit or social experience, but respecting someone’s pronouns addresses a fundamental need for recognition, identity, and dignity. And experiencing minor, short-term discomfort while we adjust to remembering this detail is a small price to pay to meet that need.

Our comfort doesn’t trump someone else’s needs.

Psychological safety is supported by people feeling that they belong in the group, that they’re included, and that they matter. This means acknowledging their needs, and doing what we can to fulfil them, even if that causes us some discomfort.

Of course, there’s a spectrum between comfort and need. It’s not possible to draw a definitive line between the two, and we do need to make informed professional judgements about where to draw that line, which will depend on context, person, or situation. For instance, while we might usually give people time to process information before sharing any concerns, it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to speak up directly and straight away if they spot something that is dangerous and needs addressing urgently.

What we need to remember is that not every discomfort indicates a need; we should consciously differentiate between what makes us personally comfortable and what others genuinely need. We should be explicit about our own needs, whilst being careful to reflect on whether it truly is a need, or a strong preference. Misinterpreting our own comfort as a necessity can inadvertently create exclusionary practices and erode psychological safety for those around us, for instance if we tell people that we “need” them to be direct with us or to look us in the eye. Conversely, dismissing someone else’s genuine need as a mere desire for comfort can foster misunderstanding and resentment. 

Comfort and Needs in Practice

In practice, this also means recognising where we’re part of a power gradient. It’s all too easy for leaders or those with more power in the group to unintentionally impose their comfort as standard practices. We might not even realise how much more challenging this makes it for individuals lower in the power structure to voice their needs. As an example, we might see this when a manager strongly prefers face-to-face working, and expresses to their team that they “need” them in the office at certain times. Those who struggle to get to the office at those times, or experience sensory overload in the noisy, shared space may feel pressured to compromise their needs (or leave the team) in order to align with the preferences of their boss. It’s hard to speak up when your boss has told you they “need” you to do something. 

Whatever type of power we possess, we could ask ourselves:

• Is this truly a need, or is it a preference shaped by my own comfort?
• Have I taken time to understand what others might genuinely need, rather than assuming?
• Could prioritising my own comfort unintentionally come at the expense of someone else’s psychological safety or inclusion?
• How can I clearly express the difference between a preference and a need – and stay open to hearing the same from others?
• What can I do to create space for others to articulate their needs, especially when they differ from my own?

One way to facilitate this in practice could be through co-created, always evolving personal user manuals, social contracts and team charters. It’s through these opportunities to foster shared norms and language, agree on inclusive and high-performing behaviours and practices, and define what we value as a group, that we can establish both what people in the team prefer, and what we need.

Further Reading:

• Psychological Safety Doesn’t Mean Feeling Comfortable
• What Psychological Safety is Not
• Psychological Safety and Privilege
• Typologies of Power
• Reducing Power Gradients 
• Psychological Safety, Diversity and Inclusion
• How We Respond Matters
• Personal User Manuals
• Team Charters

Psychological Safety in Practice

The Lundy Model

Developed by Professor Laura Lundy, the Lundy Model provides a clear, structured approach to ensuring that children and young people are genuinely heard, not just given tokenistic ‘student voice’ opportunities. It brings Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to life by focusing on four key elements:

Space – How do we actively create inclusive, safe spaces for children’s views, rather than only reacting to children’s voice when it appears?
Voice – How can we support children to form and express their views voluntarily and in modes of expression that work for them?
Audience – How do we ensure their views are actively listened to by the people who can create change?
Influence – How do we make sure these views shape decisions, lead to meaningful change and are responded to with transparency and openness?

Lundy’s frames this not as a ‘gift’ from adults but as a fundamental right of the child in line with Article 12. This isn’t about generosity, it’s about responsibility.

Too often, ‘student voice’ initiatives stop at Voice without ensuring Audience or Influence. But listening alone isn’t enough. Children’s perspectives must be acted upon in ways that respect their rights and agency.

Image source: National Framework for Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making, Government of Ireland

This model has huge implications, not just for education but for any context where we need to centre the voices of those with less power, which is so much of our challenge in working on psychological safety in all contexts.

The academic article that formed the basis of the Lundy Model, ‘Voice is not enough’,  is now available open access: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01411920701657033

Thanks to Jade Garratt for this write-up.

“WASTE”

Whilst we usually share things that are useful and/or interesting, sometimes I feel the need to share “bad” ideas or concepts to raise awareness of how harmful they can be. 

This “WASTE” image has been circulating on various social platforms. While (hopefully) well meaning, they’re often written from a one-sided and privileged perspective and it’s worth being very careful about the messages they send out. Is it never ok to express our ideas in an email when we’re upset or emotional? And do we always need solutions to express concerns or raise problems? (a la “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”, which is terrible advice.)

Many of us relate to feeling overwhelmed by emails at times, and we’d always recommend talking to colleagues about how and why we use emails to make sure they are as effective as possible. But part of that discussion needs to recognise that written communication is far easier for many than verbal, especially around something personal or sensitive, if we have a speech difficulty or difference, or simply if we have different work patterns. 

These messages are potentially hugely damaging to psychological safety and may well silence important voices.

Practices for Psychological Safety & Autonomy In Teams

Thanks to Helen Sanderson for inviting Jade and I to speak about psychological safety, team agreements, social contracts, conflict, lived vs espoused values, and much more! Listen here.

Can Germany rein in its academic bullying problem?

This is a great article in Nature about how Germany’s academic system is under scrutiny for widespread bullying and abuse of power, enabled by rigid hierarchies, legal protections for tenured professors, and a culture that often normalises coercive behaviour. I would argue that this is certainly not limited to only German academic institutions – we see the same academic dynamics in UK, Europe and the US.

Psychological Safety Stickers 

If you’d like to show your dedication to fostering psychological safety, what better way that plastering your laptop, phone, mug, car, and other inanimate objects with some of these great stickers?

Available as packs of 4 or 12, or larger orders if required. You can choose which ones you want at the checkout, or leave it up to us for a random surprise selection! Available at the psychsafety.com shop.

This week’s poem:

I Am Somebody, by Reverend William Holmes Borders Sr.

I may be Young
but I am
Somebody.
I may be on Welfare
but I am
Somebody.
I may be on Small
but I am
Somebody.
I may make a Mistake
but I am
Somebody!
My clothes are different,
My face is different,
My hair is different,
but I am
Somebody.
I am black, brown, white.
I speak a different language.
But I must be respected,
protected,
never rejected.
I am God’s child.
⁣I am
Somebody!

‘I Am – Somebody’ was written in the 1950s by Reverend William Holmes Borders Sr., an African American minister and civil rights leader, and ⁣was adapted and popularised by Reverend Jesse Jackson who recited this poem with a group of children on the stoop of 123 Sesame Street.