Chapter 9 Exercises: Building Psychological Safety

Instructions for Students

These exercises range from individual reflection to live role-play. Work through them in order when possible — the conceptual and reflective exercises build the vocabulary you need for the applied and role-play exercises. Difficulty is marked with stars (★ accessible, ★★ moderate, ★★★ challenging). Exercise type is labeled in brackets.

Part A: Conceptual Foundations

Exercise 9.1 [Conceptual] ★ Write a one-paragraph definition of psychological safety in your own words. Without looking back at the chapter, try to capture (a) what it is, (b) what it is not, and (c) why it matters for difficult conversations. After writing, compare your definition to Amy Edmondson's. Where do they align? Where do they differ?

Exercise 9.2 [Conceptual] ★ The chapter distinguishes psychological safety from three things it is often confused with: comfort, agreement, and the absence of accountability. For each of the three, write one specific example of how the confusion might play out in a real conversation — what someone might do or say if they mistakenly believed psychological safety required comfort (or agreement, or no accountability).

Exercise 9.3 [Conceptual] ★★ The Google Project Aristotle research found that psychological safety was the #1 predictor of team effectiveness — more predictive than talent, structure, or process. Why do you think this was the finding? What is it about psychological safety that enables better performance across such varied dimensions? Write a 200-word response that goes beyond restating the research to analyzing why it makes sense.

Exercise 9.4 [Conceptual] ★ The SCARF model identifies five domains of social threat: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. For each domain, write one sentence describing how a poorly handled conversation might threaten that domain. (Example: Status — "Telling someone their idea is 'not very thought-through' in front of the whole team threatens their status.")

Exercise 9.5 [Conceptual] ★★ Mutual purpose and mutual respect are described as the "two foundations" of conversational safety. Write a scenario in which mutual purpose is intact but mutual respect is missing, and a second scenario in which mutual respect is present but mutual purpose is unclear. In each case, describe what the conversation likely sounds like and how the person on the receiving end probably experiences it.

Part B: Self-Reflection

Exercise 9.6 [Scenario] ★ Think of a conversation from your own life where you went into "silence mode" — you withheld something true because you didn't feel safe saying it. Describe the situation (briefly), what you didn't say, and what you were protecting yourself from. Looking back: was the threat as large as it felt? What would have needed to be different for you to have spoken honestly?

Exercise 9.7 [Scenario] ★★ The chapter describes the "violence" end of the silence-versus-violence spectrum — behaviors like labeling, sarcasm, and controlling, which force conversation rather than engage it. Think of a time when you went to the violence end rather than the silence end. What were you protecting? What did you do? How did the other person likely experience it?

Exercise 9.8 [Scenario] ★ What is your default protective strategy — silence or something closer to violence? (Most people have a preference, though they may use both depending on context.) What circumstances push you toward each? Is your default strategy serving you, or is it getting in the way of conversations you need to have?

Exercise 9.9 [Scenario] ★★ The chapter discusses internal safety and external safety. Think of a difficult conversation you're currently avoiding. Write two columns: (a) the external factors that feel unsafe (things about the other person, the power dynamics, the relationship history), and (b) the internal factors that feel unsafe (your own fears, uncertainties, past experiences). Which list is longer? Which is more within your control?

Exercise 9.10 [Applied] ★★ Apply the safety-building preparation checklist from Section 9.3 to a real conversation you need to have. Fill in each element: - Core message - Positive intent - Mutual purpose - Evidence - Flexibility - Self-regulation plan - Recovery plan

After completing the checklist, write two or three sentences about whether the exercise changed anything about your relationship to having the conversation.

Part C: Safety Cue Recognition

Exercise 9.11 [Scenario] ★ Read the following exchange and identify all the safety-breakdown cues you can find. Label each as verbal, nonverbal (if implied), or content-based. Then identify which end of the silence-violence spectrum each cue represents.

Mira and her colleague James are meeting to discuss a project conflict. James has been late to three of their shared deadlines.

Mira: "I wanted to talk about the project timelines, because the past few weeks have been a bit of a strain." James: "Right. Sure." Mira: "I guess I'm wondering if there's something on your end that's been hard?" James: "I mean, I've been dealing with a lot. But I'm fine. Whatever you need to say." Mira: "I'm not trying to make this a big thing—" James: "Then why are we having this meeting?"

Exercise 9.12 [Applied] ★★ Observe a conversation this week — in class, at work, in a social setting — where you notice safety might be breaking down. You don't have to participate; observing is sufficient. Take brief notes on: (a) what cues you noticed, (b) what you think triggered the breakdown, (c) what happened next, and (d) what you think a safety-restoration move might have looked like.

Exercise 9.13 [Conceptual] ★★ The chapter notes that you should look for clusters of cues and departures from baseline rather than reading any single cue in isolation. Why is this distinction important? What might go wrong if you over-interpret a single cue? Give an example.

Exercise 9.14 [Scenario] ★★★ Marcus reads Tyler's silence in the chapter's opening scenario as hostility. Dr. Priya Okafor reads her sister's silence as stubbornness. Both misread safety breakdown as something else. Think of a recent time when you misread someone's safety-breakdown behavior. What did you think was happening? What was likely actually happening? How did your misread affect the outcome?

Part D: Safety Restoration Practice

Exercise 9.15 [Applied] ★★ Write three contrast statements for three different difficult conversations (real or hypothetical). Each should follow the formula: "I don't want [feared negative]. I do want [genuine positive]." After writing them, reflect: Does naming the feared negative explicitly feel risky? Why or why not?

Exercise 9.16 [Applied] ★★ Write a mutual purpose restoration statement for each of the following scenarios. Use the three-part script: (1) state your positive intent, (2) name the shared interest, (3) invite collaboration.

a. You are addressing a conflict with a close friend about feeling taken for granted. b. You are a supervisor giving difficult feedback to a team member who seems to be shutting down. c. You are having a conversation with a parent about a major life decision they disagree with.

Exercise 9.17 [Applied] ★★ The "step out" move requires you to leave the content of the conversation to address the conversational dynamic. Many people find this deeply uncomfortable — it feels like an interruption, a distraction, or an escalation of the problem. Write a 200-word reflection on what makes stepping out feel difficult, and what might make it easier to do in the moment.

Exercise 9.18 [Scenario] ★★ Read the following scenario and write the safety-restoration sequence you would use. Be specific — write out the actual words you would say.

You are in a conversation with your roommate about dishes left in the sink. You've raised this before and nothing has changed. Your roommate has started responding in clipped, minimal answers. You can see their jaw tighten. You realize the conversation has degraded — they are no longer engaged, just enduring. You need to restore safety before you can make any actual progress.

Part E: Role-Play Scenarios

Note for instructors: Exercises 9.19–9.25 are designed as paired role-plays. One person plays the "speaker" who is attempting to have the difficult conversation; the other plays the "receiver" who starts in protective mode and must be safely reached. After each role-play, debrief: What safety cues did the receiver display? What restoration moves did the speaker use? What worked?

Exercise 9.19 [Scenario] ★★ The Performance Conversation (Sam and Tyler)

Person A (Sam): You are a manager who needs to address a team member's recent performance issues — missed deadlines, minimal communication, withdrawal in meetings. You have data. You genuinely care about this person's success.

Person B (Tyler): You feel unfairly criticized. You believe the problems have been caused by unclear direction from management, but you don't feel safe saying so. You start the conversation in withdrawal mode: minimal answers, deflection, careful agreement.

Goal for Person A: Use at least two safety-restoration tools to get Tyler to a place where they might actually say what they're thinking. Goal for Person B: Start guarded, but respond authentically to genuine safety restoration — if the person truly reaches you, let it land.

Debrief questions: - What did Person B do that signaled safety breakdown? - What restoration moves did Person A use? - Which move was most effective, and why?

Exercise 9.20 [Scenario] ★★ The Family Conversation (Dr. Priya and her sister)

Person A (Priya): You know psychological safety in theory but are struggling to create it in this specific relationship, which has old history and charged dynamics. You need to discuss your mother's care decisions, and your sister consistently shuts down around the topic.

Person B (Arjun, the sister): You feel steamrolled by Priya's expertise and certainty. When she gets into "expert mode," you stop feeling like an equal partner. You go quiet. It's not hostility — it's exhaustion.

Goal for Person A: Notice when your sister goes quiet and try to restore safety rather than pressing on. Goal for Person B: Signal your discomfort through behavior, not words — let the other person read the cues.

Debrief questions: - What was the specific dynamic that broke safety here? - What would genuine mutual respect look like in this relationship? - Did Person A's expertise help or hinder?

Exercise 9.21 [Scenario] ★★ The Roommate Confrontation (Marcus)

Person A (Marcus): You've rehearsed this conversation many times and still feel unsafe. You need to tell your roommate that you want to change the living arrangement — you want to move out next semester. You expect disappointment and possibly anger.

Person B (roommate): You are surprised by this conversation. Your initial response is hurt, which you mask as confusion or minimal engagement. You're not hostile; you're stunned and protecting yourself.

Goal for Person A: Practice beginning even though it doesn't feel safe. Use preparation and internal safety tools before beginning. Goal for Person B: Respond authentically to what feels like a rejection — not dramatically, but genuinely. Remain in protective mode unless Person A does something specific that shifts it.

Exercise 9.22 [Scenario] ★★★ The Professional Peer Conflict

Person A: You and a colleague have been in low-grade conflict for months. Passive comments in meetings. Competition for the same project. You need to have a direct conversation before it damages both of your reputations. You feel unsafe because you don't fully trust this person.

Person B: You are suspicious that this conversation is a performance — that the other person is covering themselves politically while positioning you as the problem. You are strategic and self-protective.

This is a harder scenario because external safety is genuinely lower. The challenge for Person A: Establish mutual purpose with someone who is skeptical of it. The challenge for Person B: Be genuinely difficult to reach without being unreachable. Something should shift by the end.

Exercise 9.23 [Scenario] ★★★ The Self-Safety Practice

Individual exercise (no partner needed). Choose a conversation you need to have that you've been avoiding. Spend ten minutes on the following:

1. Sit quietly and notice what happens in your body when you imagine beginning this conversation. Name the sensations specifically: Where is the tension? What does anxiety feel like in your body right now?
2. Practice the observing ego: "I notice I am feeling [sensation]. That's my nervous system preparing me. It doesn't mean this will go badly."
3. Run through the preparation checklist: core message, positive intent, mutual purpose, evidence, flexibility, self-regulation plan, recovery plan.
4. Write the first sentence you will say when you begin the conversation.

After completing this exercise, write a reflection: Did the internal preparation shift anything? If you could have this conversation tomorrow, would you feel more or less ready than you did before?

Exercise 9.24 [Synthesis] ★★★ Choose a real conflict — one you are currently in or have been in recently. Write a 600-word analysis that addresses all of the following:

• What is the baseline psychological safety level in this relationship, and what has contributed to that level?
• What mutual purpose and mutual respect factors are in play?
• If safety has broken down (or degraded), what cues are/were present?
• What SCARF domains are being threatened?
• What safety-restoration moves would be most appropriate for this specific situation?
• What internal safety work do you need to do before the conversation?

Conclude with a specific plan: what you will do, in what order, and what success looks like.

Exercise 9.25 [Synthesis] ★★★ The Design Challenge

You are helping a friend who is about to have the most difficult conversation of their professional life — they need to tell their business partner that they want to dissolve the partnership. The partner has a history of going to the violence end of the spectrum when threatened.

Design a conversation preparation guide specifically for your friend. It should include: - At least two internal safety practices to do before the conversation - Advice on how to open in a way that establishes mutual purpose - Three specific contrast statements they might use at different points - A step-out script for when the partner escalates - A plan for what to do if safety cannot be restored in the session

Present your guide in whatever format would be most useful to your friend.