In psychology, we aim to create training environments where individuals feel they belong, are respected, bring value and are connected to others in the group. As part of the Multicultural Guidelines, the American Psychological Association (APA) has emphasized the importance of examining the intersectionality of our identities, the role culture has played in our formation as individuals throughout our history and the need to have increased awareness of how our assumptions and biases shape our thoughts and behaviors (APA, 2017). Another important aspect of cultural identity is having a sense of belonging to a group. APA (n.d.) defines belonging as “the feeling of being accepted and approved by a group or by society as a whole.” A sense of belonging contributes to psychological safety. In a psychologically safe environment, individuals feel confident to express themselves freely, ask questions, and take risks because they feel supported and appropriately challenged (Edmondson, 2018). To further understand the shared perception of the work environment on a systems level, psychologists Hellriegel and Slocum (1974), formalized the concept of organizational climate. To determine if an organization creates a psychologically safe climate, leaders cannot make assumptions but, rather, need to ask individuals for their feedback.
As a psychology training program, we felt responsible to ensure that we served as role models by integrating multicultural competencies and a sense of belonging across all training experiences. As psychologists, we believed that a deep understanding of our individual culture and organizational climate are both an ethical imperative and a necessary foundation for clinical practice. We felt that the time devoted to climate work would not interfere with achieving professional competencies. In fact, teams with greater psychological safety show more learning behavior, including asking questions, admitting mistakes, and seeking feedback, and this learning behavior predicts team performance (Edmondson, 1999; Kim et al., 2020). Therefore, our Psychology and Social Work Committee for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging aimed to explore how well we were meeting the needs of faculty, staff, and trainees within these Sections.
What we did to assess organizational climate
An internal, organizational culture survey was created in May 2020 and distributed by email on a yearly basis for four years (i.e. 2020 to 2023). This project was reviewed by our Institutional Review Board and determined to be exempt because it qualified as a quality improvement initiative. Each year, the results were synthesized, shared, and processed as a group. Our goal in processing the results in a group format was to foster a sense of shared ownership and create action steps that align with our mission to identify and eliminate the barriers to a culturally inclusive and responsive section. The survey included demographic questions such as respondent’s positionality within the section, gender identity, race, and ethnicity. Seven items on the survey (see Appendix A) used a Likert-type scale with six response options (i.e., from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, or prefer not to say). Five items on the scale used an open-ended format to solicit qualitative information related to our sections’ respect for and attunement to culture and identity. Within two weeks of the closing of the survey, quantitative results were aggregated, qualitative results were grouped by themes, and all data was distributed in writing prior to the group discussion each year. To promote psychological safety, individuals joined group discussions separated into a faculty group and a trainee group. The two groups then reintegrated for a large group discussion to share solutions, action steps, and further reflection on the survey process.
What we learned about ourselves as a group & the process overall
Over four years, results and discussions led to organizational changes, including internship policies, group supervision spaces, and interviewing practices. Individuals reported increased self-awareness, deeper reflection on their language and responses, and an appreciation for the group through the continued request for feedback. Themes from the qualitative responses included: appreciation for active diversity efforts, increased awareness of inclusive practices, and a genuine desire to be better overall.
The initial results of the survey in 2020 were jarring to read as they were sometimes blunt and critical, but over time, the collective group worked together to create sustainable changes aligned with the vision of the Sections. Examples of new initiatives include an anonymous feedback portal, social justice book club, outside diversity experts to increase dialogue, and revised committee mission and vision. The annual survey indicated an increase in sense of belonging and created a psychologically safe work environment over time (see Appendix B for detailed data over time). The survey also gave a voice to individuals who previously had not spoken up or whose voices were discounted in some way by the majority.
Throughout this process, we learned lessons based on how we chose to conduct our survey. The measure used to collect data was not a validated tool, limiting our understanding of the reliability and validity of the data. While using an internal survey allowed us to adjust items each year based on feedback and the needs of trainees, that flexibility meant that shifts in item endorsement cannot be confidently distinguished from measurement error and our results cannot be generalized. Programs replicating this process could include their own questions alongside an established measure of psychological safety or organizational climate. Some examples of established higher-education climate instruments are included. The Diverse Learning Environments survey from UCLA assesses perceptions of institutional climate, sense of belonging and academic and interpersonal validation, with staff and faculty instruments. The National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates developed by USC includes surveys focused on campus racial climate and institutional equity with national comparison data. A hybrid design, combining a validated core instrument with personalized questions, would retain comparability while preserving the responsiveness we valued in our process.
The demographic make-up of the individuals completing the survey changed each year, due to the rotation of trainees, which may have biased the outcomes. Interpretation could be strengthened by reporting cohort composition and examining the stable faculty subgroup separately as a partial control. While larger programs could disaggregate responses by position, our number of respondents in any identity group was too small to examine separately without compromising anonymity. Unfortunately, a more homogenous cohort could report fewer concerns simply because members share more reference points and encounter fewer moments of feeling like an outlier. This would suggest that an apparent improvement in climate partly reflects a less diverse cohort rather than a genuine cultural shift.
While the core group of faculty remained relatively intact over time, engagement in the survey decreased by year four without a clear understanding for the decline. Several explanations are plausible: fatigue from repeated administrations; frustration that concerns raised were not addressed; and concern about anonymity. There is an increased risk of nonresponse bias. Individuals who feel least included are perhaps most likely to disengage resulting in overstated favorable trends. Programs should treat the response rate as a significant finding and address a decline directly.
Another limitation of the survey questions was that many individuals focused on race as a single variable for culture, which was not the sole intention of the questions. When disseminating the survey, we should have provided a broad, inclusive definition of cultural feedback alongside prompts naming specific dimensions of culture as a multidimensional concept. Overtime, we found room for improvement in the discussion of results. Facilitators would have benefited from asking participants to pair concerns with an action step, prioritize action items rather than raising new ones, and using a designated scribe, to convert themes into action items.
While we were able to make some important systems-level changes, other suggestions were difficult to implement due to institutional constraints. When suggestions surface and visibly go unaddressed, the process erodes trust and may have contributed to a decline in participation. Programs should consider sorting feedback into three categories: what the section can change, what requires escalation, and what lies outside institutional control. Progress updates of proposed changes can then be reported each year. This makes inaction transparent and attributable rather than read as indifference. Each year, the survey surfaced something we would not otherwise have known, and on that basis, we judged it worth the time to administer, analyze, and discuss.
Why others should consider conducting a cultural feedback survey
Asking pertinent questions is always better than assuming. We chose to administer the cultural feedback survey to make our training environment more effective, to determine what was outside of our awareness, and to intentionally hear the other voices of individuals who made up our sections. Developing and analyzing the survey was not just for data collection; it was cultural responsivity in practice, lived through collaboration and shared purpose. The intentionality behind the survey was crucial to open the door for positive change and increased insight. As psychologists, we ask others to reflect on their relationships, think deeply about their choices, and determine what defenses may impact their progress. When we apply these same principles in leading our organizations, we are living our values and encouraging others in psychology to do the same.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Multicultural Guidelines: An Ecological Approach to Context, Identity, and Intersectionality. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Belonging. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved July 6, 2026, from https://dictionary.apa.org/belonging
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, research and contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.2307/254979
Higher Education Research Institute. (n. d.) Diverse Learning Environments survey. University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from: https://heri.ucla.edu/diverse-learning-environments-survey/
Kim, S., Lee, H., & Connerton, T. P. (2020). How psychological safety affects team performance: Mediating role of efficacy and learning behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 1581. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01581
USC Race and Equity Center. (n.d.) National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates. University of Southern California. Retrieved from: https://race.usc.edu/colleges/naccc/
Nathan Brown, PsyD
Correspondence: nbro10@lsuhsc.edu
Sandy Hyatt, PsyD
Correspondence: shyatt@lsuhsc.edu
Ashley West, MS
Correspondence: awest5@lsuhsc.edu
Michelle B Moore, PsyD
Correspondence: mbacon@lsuhsc.edu