What does a safe environment look like in the context of a workplace challenge?

Malcolm: That’s an interesting question, one that can have a range of answers depending on how you define ‘safe’, ‘environment’ and ‘workplace challenge’.

OK, so what definitions are we going to use here?

Environment: the organisational context, physical and cultural.

Safe: ‘safe’ should be relatively straightforward, but often isn’t. If they’re safe, nobody should feel they’re taking a risk by raising, or trying to address, a workplace challenge. That risk, in this context, needs to include their feeling of psychological safety; an assurance that nothing bad will happen should they decide to take action. The language around this indicates where we’re starting from: how often have you heard about someone ‘putting their head above the parapet’, ‘sticking their neck out’, or some other metaphor that implies a serious degree of injury?

Workplace challenge: while a workplace challenge might relate to health and safety, in this blog, we’re also talking about any issue of operational risk, or threat to productivity.

Returning to the original question, what does a ‘safe environment’ look like?

Essentially, it’s one where people feel empowered to share observations about the problems that an organisation faces, alongside any ideas they might have on how to resolve that.

It means the individual knows they won’t be criticised, castigated or ridiculed for making their point. It means that they’ll get credit for having identified the problem, or contributed to the solution. It means they’ll get a reasoned explanation should their suggestions not be adopted. Ultimately, they’ll feel valued for having improved the organisation, indeed, having improved their organisation.

How can we facilitate open and honest conversations, to move away from conflict creation?

Honestly, the best way to do this is for us all to get better at listening. And not just listening, but hearing what’s not being said as much as what is. It’s relatively unusual for conflicts and disputes not to have some element of miscommunication within them. Ever been in a heated debate with a colleague and so eager to make your point that you don’t really hear them? You’re not alone.

But waiting to speak isn’t the same as listening. Offering advice might seem helpful—but do you know what they actually need?

A needs-based approach to negotiation can lead to more productive relationships, built on respectful disagreement and real collaboration.

At The Melting Pot, we believe that truly productive workplaces begin with people who feel heard and understood. Encouraging active listening and needs-based negotiation strengthens relationships and fosters a culture of respectful collaboration—core to our people-centric approach. It also makes the experience of working with our facilitators and consultants less daunting and more productive.

What is the connection between safe negotiating environments and social impact?

A starting point in this context is recognising that workplaces often have characteristics in common with communities. There are friendships, rivalries, frictions and all the other things that go along with bringing groups of people together.

“Unless there’s something skewing the recruitment model, a workplace should reflect the diversity of the society around it.“

A safe negotiating environment is more inclusive. When it’s more inclusive, inequality is reduced and there is greater diversity of thought in generating ideas – which leads to better decision-making.

That more collective approach to negotiating, particularly through listening with genuine curiosity and looking behind the mask, can surface issues that might otherwise remain hidden or ignored. So, it’s good for the organisation.

Once people feel safe, everyone can be more open to constructive dialogue, and curious about disagreement. The focus is then on identifying and meeting the underlying need rather than satisfying the ‘want’, which often doesn’t meet the ‘need’ in any case.

By operating a more inclusive negotiation culture, and focusing on the needs, it’s also better for the communities that surround those workplaces. Both The Melting Pot and Strathesk Resolutions know that people who experience a problem are best placed to solve that problem – that means that our approaches are both more effective and impactful.

We’re pleased to be working with Malcolm and Strathesk Resolutions to negotiate for impact and ensure that organisations engage the right people in delivering solutions for change. For us, it’s an essential way of working within our productivity strand of The Melting Pot’s Consultancy.

If you’re interested in hearing more, contact [email protected] for a joint 30-minute exploratory chat with Sam and Malcolm.