你在職場上有心理安全感嗎？

文章資訊

作者：Anique van der Putten, MPsych, BBA　　日期：2026-06-07

原文標題：Are You Psychologically Safe at Work?

Medium 原連結：https://medium.com/read-or-die-hq/are-you-psychologically-safe-at-work-00b94f5f6862

⭐ 收藏

🎧 摘要語音

🔊 朗讀全文（收藏後自動生成）

---

📝 重點摘要

TL;DR

正向互動需明顯多於負向，職場才具心理安全感,但常用的量化比例證據薄弱。

核心問題

毒性領導與缺乏心理安全感,普遍存在於高壓、低自主的職場。作者試圖找出可操作的方法,讓員工與主管能「把脈」自身團隊的心理安全程度,並即刻改善。

關鍵發現 / 數據

• Losada 比例:高績效團隊正負互動比 ≥ 2.9:1,毒性團隊 ≤ 1:1;超過約 11.6:1 效益反而下滑。
• 致命缺陷:Brown、Sokal & Friedman(2013)指出 Losada 的數學模型無效,「臨界比」缺乏實證與數學支持。
• Gottman 比例:衝突中維持 5:1 正負比的伴侶最可能維繫關係;接近 1:1 強烈預測離婚——此比例有縱貫實證基礎。
• 應用建議:雙人互動套用 5:1、團隊會議套用 3:1 作為探索性指標。

方法亮點

• Losada 將互動分三維度:正向/負向、探詢/主張、利他/利己,逐分鐘編碼計頻。
• Gottman「愛情實驗室」結合生理感測器與言語/非言語行為編碼的縱貫觀察法。
• 強調看「意圖與效果」而非字面;負向回饋仍可能安全,示好也可能令人不安。
• 提供雙人(Gottman 式)與團隊(Losada 式)兩種計數表單做 pulse check。

對我的研究有用嗎?

參考價值有限。但對 LLM-judge / 行為編碼設計有啟發:把對話「逐句編碼分類再計比例」的框架,可類比於用 LLM 對多輪對話做情感/角色標註與聚合評分。最大教訓是方法論警示——漂亮的量化比例可能建立在無效數學上,提醒研究者對「看似嚴謹的 benchmark 數字」保持懷疑與可複現性檢驗。

評語

不值得為研究深讀;屬實用型管理科普,作者誠實揭露 Losada 比例已被證偽是亮點,但仍建議沿用該比例,邏輯略矛盾。

---

🌐 中英對照

Author: Anique van der Putten, MPsych, BBA 作者：Anique van der Putten，心理學碩士、企業管理學士 Published: 發表日期： Source: https://medium.com/read-or-die-hq/are-you-psychologically-safe-at-work-00b94f5f6862 來源：https://medium.com/read-or-die-hq/are-you-psychologically-safe-at-work-00b94f5f6862 Fetched: 2026-06-07T19:55:03.764333 擷取時間：2026-06-07T19:55:03.764333

---

Are You Psychologically Safe at Work? / 你在職場上感到心理安全嗎？

Let's do a pulse check! / 讓我們來做個現況檢測 (pulse check) 吧！

Press enter or click to view image in full size

按下 Enter 或點擊以檢視完整尺寸圖片

Photo by Adam Rutkowski on Unsplash

照片由 Adam Rutkowski 拍攝，來源為 Unsplash

I encourage subscribing to Medium, but if you can't right now, you can still read this story on my website www.appliedtom.com

我鼓勵你訂閱 Medium，但如果你現在無法訂閱，仍然可以在我的網站上閱讀這篇文章 www.appliedtom.com

Throughout my career, I have taken on long‑term projects across many organizations, motivated by a desire to strengthen my organizational psychology and business administration skills. Along the way, I worked with a wide range of leaders, each with their own leadership style: transformational, transactional, democratic, autocratic — and, of course, occasionally the toxic kind that bullies seem to prefer.

在我的職業生涯中，我曾在許多組織承接長期專案，動力來自於想要強化我在組織心理學 (Organizational Psychology) 與企業管理 (Business Administration) 方面的能力。一路走來，我與各式各樣的領導者共事，每位都有自己的領導風格：轉型型 (transformational)、交易型 (transactional)、民主型 (democratic)、專制型 (autocratic)——當然，偶爾也會遇到那種霸凌者似乎偏愛的有毒型 (toxic) 領導。

Unsurprisingly, I thrived under inspiring leaders but withered when working for the bullies.

不出所料，在能激勵人心的領導者底下我能蓬勃發展，但在為霸凌者工作時卻日漸枯萎。

One experience from my late twenties stands out. A CEO hired me to build a marketing and sales department from scratch. At first, the CEO and I got on like a house afire. I was energized by his can‑do mentality, but it didn't take long for the first signs of toxic leadership to surface.

我二十多歲後期的一段經歷特別令我印象深刻。一位執行長 (CEO) 聘請我從零開始建立一個行銷與業務部門。一開始，這位執行長和我相處得火熱投契。他那種凡事都做得到的心態讓我充滿幹勁，但沒過多久，有毒領導的第一個徵兆就浮現了。

Although he appeared to be doing an excellent job — everything seemed to be running smoothly and according to plan — I gradually became aware of something unsettling during management team meetings: the silence in the room. It was just a little too quiet. Not a single dissenting voice.

雖然他看起來表現傑出——一切似乎都順利並按計畫進行——但我在管理團隊會議中逐漸察覺到一件令人不安的事：會議室裡的沉默。實在是太安靜了一點。沒有任何一個異議的聲音。

I remember wondering, Can it really be that this CEO has all the right answers?

我記得當時心想：這位執行長真的可能擁有所有正確的答案嗎？

At one point, when it was my turn to report on my work, I briefed the management team on the progress I had made and mentioned an upcoming meeting with the people who were going to round out the sales and marketing team. The CEO fixed his gaze on me, told me to stay after the meeting, and then calmly moved on to the manager sitting next to me.

有一次輪到我報告工作時，我向管理團隊簡報了我所取得的進展，並提到即將與那些將要補齊業務與行銷團隊的人員開會。執行長目光緊盯著我，要我在會後留下來，然後便冷靜地轉向坐在我旁邊的經理。

What followed once the room emptied made it immediately clear: I was dealing with a bully — and one of the worst kinds.

當會議室人去樓空後接下來發生的事，立刻讓我明白：我面對的是一個霸凌者——而且是最糟糕的那種。

The CEO and I were sitting at a large oval table that could easily seat twenty people. He was positioned at the head of the table, while 'little old me' remained seated at the far end.

執行長和我坐在一張可以輕鬆容納二十人的大型橢圓桌旁。他坐在桌子的主位，而「渺小的我」則坐在最遠的另一端。

He stayed quiet for a moment. Then, slowly, his facial expression shifted into a mixture of anger and disgust as he rose from his chair. He stared at me briefly — though it felt like hours — before finally speaking, his voice low and controlled.

他沉默了一會兒。然後，他的臉部表情緩緩轉變成一種憤怒與厭惡交織的神情，並從椅子上站了起來。他短暫地盯著我看——雖然感覺像是過了好幾個小時——才終於開口，聲音壓低而克制。

"So, Anique," he said, "you mentioned that you have been talking to the people who are going to man the sales and marketing department."

「那麼，Anique，」他說，「你提到你一直在和那些將要進駐業務與行銷部門的人交談。」

"Uh, yes, I have," I replied, surprised, with a flicker of apprehension crossing my face as I began to explain the conversation we'd had.

「呃，是的，我有。」我驚訝地回答，臉上閃過一絲憂慮，同時開始解釋我們之間的那場對話。

Out of nowhere, the CEO cut me off, slammed his fist on the table, and shouted:

冷不防地，執行長打斷了我，一拳猛擊桌面，並大吼：

"Those people are soldiers! You don't discuss anything with them! You give them orders!"

「那些人是士兵！你不跟他們討論任何事！你只要對他們下命令！」

I sat frozen, stunned into silence. After a long pause, all that came out of my mouth was a tentative, "Oookay."

我僵坐在那裡，震驚得說不出話。沉默良久之後，從我口中說出的只有一句猶疑的：「好…好吧。」

He stormed out of the room, and I went straight to Human Resources to report the incident.

他怒氣沖沖地衝出會議室，而我則直接前往人力資源部門 (Human Resources) 通報這起事件。

The HR manager didn't sugarcoat it: The organization had a serious problem with the CEO's leadership style. They had already lost an unusually high number of colleagues because of him. The HR manager asked whether I was considering leaving the organization. My response was immediate — I didn't feel comfortable staying.

人資經理沒有粉飾太平：組織在執行長的領導風格上存在嚴重問題。他們已經因為他而流失了異常多的同事。人資經理問我是否考慮離開這個組織。我的回答很乾脆——我覺得留下來並不自在。

He then asked whether I would reconsider if measures could be put in place to help me cope with the CEO's toxic leadership style. I was hesitant at first, but the safeguards that we designed together felt solid, especially the proposal to install a manager between the CEO and me as a buffer. Knowing I could always choose to leave if things didn't work out, I decided to give it a try.

他接著問我，如果能採取一些措施來幫助我應對執行長的有毒領導風格，我是否會重新考慮。起初我有些猶豫，但我們一起設計的防護措施感覺相當穩妥，尤其是在執行長和我之間安排一位經理作為緩衝 (buffer) 的提議。想到如果情況不順利我隨時都可以選擇離開，我決定試一試。

Looking back on the experience, I'm glad I stayed— although it remained challenging at times. The new arrangements allowed me to complete the project without getting drawn into the drama. From a safe distance, I was also able to observe the social dynamics that this type of leadership created, including the profound psychological toll it took on several colleagues, especially the manager who had been installed as a buffer.

回顧這段經歷，我很慶幸自己留了下來——儘管有時仍然充滿挑戰。新的安排讓我得以完成專案，而不至於被捲入那些紛擾之中。從一個安全的距離，我也得以觀察這類領導所製造出的社會動態 (social dynamics)，包括它對幾位同事造成的深刻心理傷害，尤其是那位被安排來當緩衝的經理。

It wasn't until a year and a half into the project that the board was finally able to remove the CEO. Almost immediately, a sense of calm settled over the organization.

直到專案進行一年半之後，董事會 (board) 才終於得以撤換這位執行長。幾乎是在同時，一股平靜的氛圍便籠罩了整個組織。

Press enter or click to view image in full size

按下 Enter 或點擊以檢視完整尺寸圖片

Image by Daniela Elena Tentis from Pixabay

圖片由 Daniela Elena Tentis 提供，來源為 Pixabay

Psychological safety — a modern concept that makes work easier / 心理安全感 (Psychological Safety)——讓工作更輕鬆的現代概念

Over the years, toxic leadership has become easier to discuss as research increasingly highlights the serious consequences of keeping toxic leaders in place. Today, employees expect work environments that inspire them to do their best, enable them to learn from their leaders, and feel safe enough to experiment and take risks. Achieving this requires a leadership style that is favorable to a high level of psychological safety.

多年來，隨著研究越來越強調留任有毒領導者所帶來的嚴重後果，有毒領導已變得較容易被討論。如今，員工期望的工作環境能激勵他們全力以赴、讓他們能向領導者學習，並且感到足夠安全以進行實驗和承擔風險。要達成這一點，需要一種有利於高度心理安全感的領導風格。

Psychological safety means that people within an organization or team feel like they can address issues and take risks without fear of punitive action from others — especially their leaders. This type of safety is achieved through the implementation and communication of norms that sustain a safe climate, and values that promote positive engagement and a sense of thriving.

心理安全感意指組織或團隊中的成員覺得自己可以提出問題、承擔風險，而不必擔心遭到他人——尤其是領導者——的懲罰性行動。這種安全感是透過實施並傳達能維持安全氛圍的規範 (norms)，以及促進正向投入與蓬勃感受的價值觀，來達成的。

Even though this sounds self‑evident, a surprisingly high percentage of work environments still lack psychological safety. This is particularly true in high‑pressure, low‑autonomy contexts, often found in blue‑collar work environments. Highly competitive environments are another common example.

儘管這聽起來不言自明，仍有出乎意料高比例的工作環境缺乏心理安全感。在高壓、低自主權的情境下尤其如此，這在藍領 (blue-collar) 工作環境中很常見。競爭激烈的環境則是另一個常見的例子。

We all want to be treated with respect and care, and most of us are inclined to pay this kind of positive behavior forward. Why, then, is psychological safety so difficult to cultivate?

我們都希望被以尊重和關懷對待，而我們大多數人也傾向於把這種正向行為傳遞下去。那麼，為什麼心理安全感如此難以培養呢？

Psychological safety requires deliberate culture, structure, and leadership behaviors. All leaders need to be on board with this commitment, yet even when they are, they don't necessarily share the same perspective on what good leadership looks like.

心理安全感需要刻意營造的文化、結構與領導行為。所有領導者都必須認同這項承諾，然而即使他們認同了，對於「好的領導」究竟是什麼樣子，他們也不見得抱持相同的觀點。

For many leaders, leadership styles such as "transformational," "servant," "coaching," and "inclusive and authentic" go against their natural way of interacting with others. These leaders rely on punishment or blame to bring about what they believe to be positive behavioral changes.

對許多領導者而言，諸如「轉型型」、「僕人式 (servant)」、「教練式 (coaching)」以及「包容且真誠 (inclusive and authentic)」等領導風格，與他們與人互動的自然方式背道而馳。這些領導者依賴懲罰或指責，來促成他們所認為的正向行為改變。

Some leaders feel the need to be perceived as omnipotent and omniscient, afraid to share their mistakes or incompetencies, and create distance between themselves and their team members in the process.

有些領導者覺得自己必須被視為全能且全知，害怕坦露自己的錯誤或無能，並在這過程中製造了自己與團隊成員之間的距離。

Still others struggle to let go of control and end up micromanaging team members, creating a sense of mistrust, anxiety, isolation, and resentment — in other words, an unsafe environment.

還有一些領導者難以放手交出控制權，最終對團隊成員進行微觀管理 (micromanaging)，從而製造出不信任、焦慮、孤立與怨恨的感受——換句話說，就是一個不安全的環境。

The consequences of a psychologically unsafe work environment / 心理不安全的工作環境所帶來的後果

Surprisingly, many organizations are still unfamiliar with the concept of psychological safety. The absence of this familiarity, however, carries deep and far‑reaching consequences for both individuals and the organization as a whole.

令人驚訝的是，許多組織至今仍對心理安全感這個概念感到陌生。然而，這種陌生所造成的後果，無論對個人或對整個組織而言，都既深刻又深遠。

Individuals

個人層面

• Mental health issues: chronic stress and anxiety, burnout, depression, and withdrawal
• 心理健康問題：慢性壓力與焦慮、職業倦怠 (burnout)、憂鬱，以及退縮
• Confidence and learning issues: fear of failure, imposter syndrome, feelings of invisibility or powerlessness
• 自信與學習問題：害怕失敗、冒牌者症候群 (imposter syndrome)、覺得自己被忽視或無能為力

Teams

團隊層面

• Poor collaboration and communication
• 協作與溝通不良
• Lower trust and cohesion
• 信任與凝聚力降低

Organizations

組織層面

• Declining performance
• 績效下滑
• Higher turnover and absenteeism
• 更高的人員流動率 (turnover) 與缺勤率 (absenteeism)
• Reputational damage and increased risk exposure
• 聲譽受損與風險暴露增加
• Stunted innovation and growth
• 創新與成長受阻

If you recognize one or more of these challenges in your work environment, there may be a leadership problem lurking beneath the surface.

如果你在自己的工作環境中辨認出上述其中一項或多項挑戰，那麼表面之下可能潛藏著領導方面的問題。

But how can you tell for sure?

但你要如何才能確定呢？

Two psychological safety pulse checks / 兩種心理安全感現況檢測法

The best way to assess an organization's psychological safety level is by observing behavior during personal interactions. These observations should be recorded by describing both positive and negative interactions, and by calculating the ratio of positive interactions to negative ones.

評估一個組織心理安全感程度的最佳方式，是觀察人際互動中的行為。這些觀察應透過描述正向與負向互動，並計算正向互動與負向互動的比率，來加以記錄。

Luckily, two scholars have done research on this matter. The first researcher is Dr. John Gottman, whose work inspired the research of the second researcher, Dr. Marcial Losada. I should give you a heads-up before we go further: The conclusions from both studies come with some important caveats.

幸運的是，有兩位學者針對這個議題做過研究。第一位研究者是 John Gottman 博士，他的研究啟發了第二位研究者 Marcial Losada 博士的研究。在我們繼續深入之前，我應該先提醒你一下：這兩項研究的結論都伴隨著一些重要的但書 (caveats)。

Because we are focusing on organizational environments, we will start with Losada's research, as Gottman's research was done in the context of romantic relationships — the first caveat!

由於我們聚焦於組織環境，我們將從 Losada 的研究開始，因為 Gottman 的研究是在浪漫關係的脈絡下進行的——這就是第一個但書！

The Losada Ratio / 羅薩達比率 (The Losada Ratio)

Dr. Losada was a Chilean psychologist, consultant, and former director of the Center for Advanced Research (CFAR). He developed the Losada ratio (later expanded by Barbara Fredrickson). The Losada Ratio, or critical positivity ratio, calculates the ratio of positive-to-negative interactions in teams during real-time discussions.

Losada 博士是一位智利的心理學家、顧問，並曾任先進研究中心 (Center for Advanced Research, CFAR) 的主任。他發展出了羅薩達比率（後來由 Barbara Fredrickson 加以延伸）。羅薩達比率，或稱關鍵正向比率 (critical positivity ratio)，計算的是團隊在即時討論期間正向與負向互動的比率。

Losada described positive and negative interactions as follows:

Losada 對正向與負向互動的描述如下：

Behaviours that express appreciation, interest, encouragement, or constructive energy such as: "That's a great idea. "Thanks for clarifying that. "I really appreciate your input. "We've handled worse, we'll get through this."

表達讚賞、興趣、鼓勵或建設性能量的行為，例如： 「那是個很棒的主意。」 「謝謝你把那點說清楚。」 「我真的很感謝你的意見。」 「我們處理過更糟的狀況，我們會度過難關的。」

and

以及

Behaviours that express disapproval, cynicism, defensiveness, or withdrawal: "What the hell were you thinking? "Everything is going wrong. "You're the reason this failed. "They always mess this up."

表達不認同、譏諷、防衛或退縮的行為： 「你到底在想什麼鬼？」 「一切都搞砸了。」 「這件事失敗就是因為你。」 「他們總是把這件事搞砸。」

He divided these interactions into three categories:

他將這些互動分為三個類別：

1. Positivity vs. Negativity Is the emotional tone supportive (appreciation, encouragement), or critical (disapproval, blame)?

2. 正向 (Positivity) vs. 負向 (Negativity) 情緒基調是支持性的（讚賞、鼓勵），還是批判性的（不認同、指責）？

3. Inquiry vs. Advocacy Is the communication mode exploring (curiosity, listening) or asserting (defending, persuading)?

4. 探詢 (Inquiry) vs. 倡議 (Advocacy) 溝通模式是探索性的（好奇、傾聽），還是主張性的（辯護、說服）？

5. Other-Focus vs. Self-FocusIs the interpersonal orientation other-focused (empathy, inclusion), or self-focused (ego, dominance).

6. 他人取向 (Other-Focus) vs. 自我取向 (Self-Focus) 人際取向是以他人為中心的（同理、包容），還是以自我為中心的（自我中心、支配）。

In Losada's studies¹ ² ³, behavior was coded minute by minute during team meetings, with observed interactions being classified as positive, negative, or neutral. The coding relied on overall frequency counts per team, rather than detailed micro-behavior coding. The aggregate results were then calculated as a positive-to-negative interactions (P/N) ratio as follows:

在 Losada 的研究¹ ² ³ 中，行為在團隊會議期間被逐分鐘地編碼 (coded)，所觀察到的互動被歸類為正向、負向或中性。這種編碼依賴的是每個團隊的整體頻率計數，而非詳細的微觀行為編碼。彙總後的結果接著被計算為正向對負向互動 (P/N) 的比率，公式如下：

P/N = Number of positive statements ÷Number of negative statements

P/N ＝ 正向陳述的數量 ÷ 負向陳述的數量

The ratios for the other two categories were calculated in the same manner.

另外兩個類別的比率也以相同的方式計算。

Based upon the aggregated results, Losada calculated one "critical-ratio" and argued that:

根據彙總後的結果，Losada 計算出一個「關鍵比率 (critical-ratio)」並主張：

· Highly thriving and engaging teams would have a ratio of 2.9:1 or higher.

· 高度蓬勃發展且投入的團隊，其比率會是 2.9:1 或更高。

· Low-performing toxic teams would have a ratio of 1:1 or smaller.

· 低績效的有毒團隊，其比率會是 1:1 或更低。

Losada also claimed that above roughly 11.6 : 1, benefits plateau or even decline. The work environment was said to become too positive to the extent that it was no longer grounded in reality.

Losada 還宣稱，在大約 11.6:1 以上，效益會趨於停滯甚至下降。據說工作環境會變得過於正向，以至於不再立足於現實。

The second caveat!

第二個但書！

I don't like to disappoint my readers, but there is also one major problem with the Losada studies. Scholars who tried to replicate Losada's analyses — especially Brown, Sokal, and Friedman⁴ — concluded that the math was invalid, and the "critical ratio" was not empirically or mathematically supported.

我不喜歡讓我的讀者失望，但 Losada 的研究也存在一個重大問題。試圖重現 Losada 分析的學者們——尤其是 Brown、Sokal 與 Friedman⁴——得出的結論是：其數學是無效的，而那個「關鍵比率」在實證或數學上都得不到支持。

So, is there no ratio by which we can judge positivity?

那麼，難道就沒有任何比率可以讓我們用來判斷正向程度了嗎？

Okay, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The idea that experiencing more positive than negative interactions creates a healthier work environment not only seems self-evident, but this idea has been substantiated by research that is empirically sound.

好吧，我們別把孩子和洗澡水一起倒掉（別因噎廢食）。「體驗到的正向互動多於負向互動會營造出更健康的工作環境」這個觀點，不僅看似不言自明，而且也已獲得實證上站得住腳的研究所佐證。

Remember, Losada's research on team performance was heavily influenced by Gottman's work on relationships. Losada cited Gottman's "magic ratio" of positive to negative interactions, which was built on strong empirical research, as the foundation for his own model.

請記得，Losada 關於團隊績效的研究深受 Gottman 關於關係的研究所影響。Losada 引用了 Gottman 那個正向對負向互動的「神奇比率 (magic ratio)」作為他自己模型的基礎，而該比率是建立在扎實的實證研究之上的。

The Gottman Ratio / 高特曼比率 (The Gottman Ratio)

Psychologist Dr. John Gottman studied romantic relationships, particularly in connection with marriage stability, using a highly controlled observational approach⁵, and found that a higher ratio of positive to negative interactions predicted success. His early results closely matched Losada's later model, around 5:1.

心理學家 John Gottman 博士運用一種高度受控的觀察法⁵ 研究浪漫關係，尤其是與婚姻穩定度相關的部分，並發現較高的正向對負向互動比率能夠預測關係的成功。他早期的結果與 Losada 後來的模型相當吻合，約為 5:1。

His research would later take place in what became famously known as the "Love Lab." Couples were invited to discuss various topics while wearing physiological sensors to measure stress responses.

他後來的研究是在後來廣為人知的「愛情實驗室 (Love Lab)」中進行的。伴侶們被邀請來討論各種主題，同時佩戴生理感測器以測量壓力反應。

At the same time, their verbal and nonverbal behaviors were meticulously coded, providing rich longitudinal data on the dynamics that predict relationship success. This approach allowed Gottman to identify patterns like the "magic ratio."

與此同時，他們的言語與非言語行為也被細緻地編碼，從而提供了關於「能預測關係成功之動態」的豐富縱貫性 (longitudinal) 資料。這種方法讓 Gottman 得以辨識出諸如「神奇比率」之類的模式。

He found that couples with a 5:1 ratio during conflict were most likely to stay together. Ratios lower than 5:1, especially approaching 1:1 or worse, were strongly predictive of divorce.

他發現，在衝突期間擁有 5:1 比率的伴侶最有可能維繫在一起。低於 5:1 的比率，尤其是接近 1:1 或更糟的，則強烈預示著離婚。

Unlike the Losada ratio, the Gottman Ratio was derived from robust, longitudinal empirical data. Another difference is that the Gottman Ratio was descriptive (qualitative), rather than being derived from mathematical modeling (quantitative), as Losada's ratio was.

與羅薩達比率不同，高特曼比率是從穩健的縱貫性實證資料中推導出來的。另一個差異在於，高特曼比率是描述性的（質性的），而非如同 Losada 的比率那樣是從數學建模（量化的）中推導出來的。

But can we actually use these ratios in the workplace?

但我們真的能在職場中使用這些比率嗎？

Having discussed both ratios, I have to admit that applying them in organizations is not as straightforward as I initially hoped. One ratio lacks solid scientific support, while the other is empirically grounded, but has not been extensively tested in workplace settings. What has been consistently shown, however, is that maintaining a similar positivity buffer provides tangible benefits for team dynamics and performance.

在討論過這兩種比率之後，我必須承認，將它們應用於組織中並不像我起初所期望的那麼簡單。一種比率缺乏扎實的科學支持，而另一種雖立足於實證，卻尚未在職場情境中經過廣泛的檢驗。然而，一再被證實的一點是：維持類似的正向緩衝 (positivity buffer)，能為團隊動態與績效帶來實質的益處。

On this basis, I propose that when you want to pulse-check psychological safety between dyads (e.g., manager and employee, or two peers), the Gottman ratio can be used as an exploratory guide. For teams and organizational culture, the Losada ratio is more appropriate for conducting a preliminary psychological safety pulse check.

在此基礎上，我建議：當你想要對二人組 (dyads)（例如：經理與員工，或兩位同儕）之間的心理安全感進行現況檢測時，高特曼比率可作為一種探索性的指引。而對於團隊與組織文化，羅薩達比率則更適合用來進行初步的心理安全感現況檢測。

Psychological safety in work dyads, Gottman-style exploration / 工作二人組中的心理安全感：高特曼式的探索

Here we can use the qualitative-oriented method of Gottman by analyzing moments of conflict or silence between pairs of people for:

在這裡，我們可以運用 Gottman 偏向質性的方法，分析兩人之間衝突或沉默的時刻，著眼於：

• Emotional tone (e.g., contempt vs. curiosity)
• 情緒基調（例如：輕蔑 vs. 好奇）
• "Repair behaviors" and responses to mistakes
• 「修復行為 (repair behaviors)」以及對錯誤的回應
• Instances of speaking up and reactions from others
• 勇於發聲的事例，以及他人的反應

Of course, not every insight from Gottman's research on romance translates perfectly to the workplace, but many can be adapted:

當然，並非 Gottman 浪漫關係研究中的每一項洞見都能完美地轉移到職場，但其中許多可以加以調整：

Romantic interaction → Professional Equivalent

浪漫互動 → 職場對應

• Compliment → Recognition of work, gratitude
• 讚美 → 對工作的肯定、感激
• Affection → Friendly tone, supportive gestures
• 情感表達 → 友善的語氣、支持性的舉動
• Humor → Light-hearted banter or icebreakers
• 幽默 → 輕鬆的玩笑或破冰
• Criticism → Constructive feedback or harsh criticism
• 批評 → 建設性的回饋或嚴厲的批評
• Contempt → Dismissiveness, sarcasm, belittling, condescension
• 輕蔑 → 不屑一顧、諷刺、貶低、屈尊俯就
• Stonewalling → Ignoring, not responding, withholding info
• 築牆冷處理 (Stonewalling) → 忽視、不回應、隱瞞資訊

It is important to focus on intent and effect rather than just words. For instance, receiving negative feedback can still feel safe, while conversely, affection can make a person feel unsafe. It is about the reasons you attach to the other's behavior and how the other's behavior makes you feel.

重要的是要聚焦於意圖與效果，而不只是字面上的話語。舉例來說，收到負向回饋仍然可能讓人感到安全，而相反地，情感表達卻可能讓人感到不安全。關鍵在於你賦予對方行為的理由，以及對方的行為帶給你什麼感受。

I have created a form as an example of a tally sheet on which the who, what, when, where, how, and interpretation of the end result can be described. Feel free to download and use the form via the link provided below.

我製作了一份表單，作為計數表 (tally sheet) 的範例，可以在上面描述人、事、時、地、方法以及對最終結果的詮釋。歡迎透過下方提供的連結下載並使用這份表單。

Gottman-Style Dyad Pulse Check-In Form

高特曼式二人組現況檢測表單

Track interactions over a week or a project cycle. Include meetings, chats, emails, and casual conversations. Remember, leaders have more influence; a single negative interaction with a leader might carry more weight than multiple negative interactions with peers. Record the following:

追蹤一週或一個專案週期內的互動。涵蓋會議、聊天、電子郵件以及隨意的對話。請記得，領導者具有更大的影響力；與領導者的一次負向互動，所佔的份量可能比與同儕的多次負向互動還要重。請記錄以下內容：

• Log interactions — write down positive and negative moments.
• 記錄互動——寫下正向與負向的時刻。
• Rate intensity — not all negatives are equal; being "ignored once" isn't the same as being publicly belittled. You can weight negative interactions as 1 (mild tension, e.g., light irritation), 2 (moderate tension, e.g., a noticeably cold reaction) and 3 (high tension, e.g. emotionally charged behavior, undermining)
• 評定強度——並非所有負向互動都同等。「被忽視一次」和「被當眾貶低」並不相同。你可以將負向互動加權為 1（輕度緊張，例如：些微的惱怒）、2（中度緊張，例如：明顯冷淡的反應）和 3（高度緊張，例如：情緒激動的行為、暗中破壞）。
• Calculate approximate ratio — e.g., 10 positive: 2 negative = 5:1.
• 計算約略的比率——例如：10 個正向：2 個負向 ＝ 5:1。

The resulting ratio may indicate the following:

所得出的比率可能代表以下意義：

5:1 or higher → Strong psychological safety (aligned with findings from John Gottman's research on high-functioning relationships)

5:1 或更高 → 強健的心理安全感（與 John Gottman 關於高功能關係研究的發現一致）

3–5:1 → Moderate safety

3–5:1 → 中等程度的安全感

Below 3:1 → Psychological safety is likely fragile

低於 3:1 → 心理安全感很可能是脆弱的

1:1 or lower → High risk of conflict and low psychological safety

1:1 或更低 → 衝突風險高且心理安全感低落

Important: Psychological safety is multidimensional — it's not just about positive/negative ratio but also about being able to speak up, take risks and trust your leader or team. Use the Gottman ratio as a tentative indicator and just one data point, not the whole picture.

重要提醒：心理安全感是多面向的——它不只關乎正向／負向比率，也關乎能否勇於發聲、承擔風險，以及信任你的領導者或團隊。請把高特曼比率當作一個暫定的指標，僅僅是一個資料點，而非全貌。

Psychological safety within your team or organization, Losada inspired exploration / 你所在團隊或組織中的心理安全感：受羅薩達啟發的探索

Psychological safety can be gauged on a macro-level: focusing on group dynamics and communication culture. On this level, you look for patterns and frequencies by computing ratios of the following three dimensions¹ ²:

心理安全感可以在宏觀層次上加以衡量：聚焦於群體動態與溝通文化。在這個層次上，你透過計算以下三個面向的比率來尋找模式與頻率¹ ²：

1. Positive: Negative
2. 正向：負向
3. Inquiry: Advocacy
4. 探詢：倡議
5. Other: Self
6. 他人：自我

Over a period of several weeks, pay attention to short team meetings or organizational interactions (10–20 min). Focus not only on what is said (the content), but also on how it is said. Each "utterance" (a statement, question, comment) counts as one observation. Mark each utterance with the appropriate code (e.g., +/— , ?/!, O/S)¹ ². Tally utterances per dimension.

在數週的期間內，留意簡短的團隊會議或組織互動（10–20 分鐘）。不僅要聚焦於說了什麼（內容），也要聚焦於是如何說的。每一個「話語單位 (utterance)」（一句陳述、提問、評論）都算作一次觀察。為每個話語單位標上適當的代碼（例如：+/—、?/!、O/S）¹ ²。按面向統計話語單位的數量。

I have also created a form for Losada's observational method. Again, feel free to download and use the form via the link provided below.

我同樣為 Losada 的觀察法製作了一份表單。再次歡迎透過下方提供的連結下載並使用這份表單。

Losada-Inspired Team Observation Form

受羅薩達啟發的團隊觀察表單

The resulting ratios of each of the three categories (positivity, inquiry and other-focus) may indicate the following:

三個類別（正向、探詢與他人取向）各自所得出的比率，可能代表以下意義：

1. P/N > 3:1 → generally supportive, safe, constructive
2. P/N > 3:1 → 整體上具支持性、安全、建設性
3. P/N 2:1–3:1 → Generally positive, moderately safe climate
4. P/N 2:1–3:1 → 整體上正向、中等程度安全的氛圍
5. P/N ~1:1–2:1 → Mixed signals; cautious or uneven trust
6. P/N ~1:1–2:1 → 訊號混雜；謹慎或不均衡的信任
7. P/N ~1:1 → tension, low trust, fear (red flag)
8. P/N ~1:1 → 緊張、低信任、恐懼（警訊）
9. Very high P/N → assess whether criticism is entirely absent (another red flag)
10. P/N 非常高 → 評估是否完全缺乏批評（另一個警訊）

Looking at the entire picture, you can use the following guidelines¹ ²:

綜觀全局，你可以運用以下的指引¹ ²：

• High positivity + high inquiry + high other-focus → likely high psychological safety; team feels heard, respected, and curious
• 高正向 ＋ 高探詢 ＋ 高他人取向 → 很可能具備高度心理安全感；團隊感覺被傾聽、被尊重，且充滿好奇
• Low positivity → risk of defensiveness or fear of speaking up
• 低正向 → 有防衛或不敢發聲的風險
• Low inquiry → discussions may be dominated by a few voices; less learning
• 低探詢 → 討論可能被少數幾種聲音所主導；學習較少
• Low other-focus → people may feel ignored or undervalued; psychological safety suffers
• 低他人取向 → 人們可能覺得被忽視或不受重視；心理安全感因而受損

As with the Gottman ratio, the calculated Losada ratios are merely descriptive, not prescriptive. It is best to focus on patterns across dimensions, not individual parameters. Combine the verbal interactions with observed micro-behaviors (smiles, eye contact, gestures) for richer insight.

如同高特曼比率，所計算出的羅薩達比率僅僅是描述性的，而非規範性的 (prescriptive)。最好聚焦於跨面向的模式，而非個別的參數。將言語互動與所觀察到的微觀行為（微笑、眼神接觸、手勢）結合起來，以獲得更豐富的洞見。

After repeating these exercises over an extended period of time, your sense of the organization's level of psychological safety will begin to come into sharper focus. Use the ratios to guide reflection and coaching, not for evaluation purposes. When you suspect a low (unhealthy) level of psychological safety, best practice is to engage an organizational development professional to conduct an assessment and support you in developing a plan to address psychological safety concerns.

在一段較長的時間內反覆進行這些練習之後，你對組織心理安全感程度的感受將開始變得更加清晰。請運用這些比率來引導反思與輔導，而非用於評鑑的目的。當你懷疑心理安全感處於低落（不健康）的程度時，最佳做法是聘請一位組織發展 (organizational development) 的專業人士來進行評估，並協助你制定一個方案以處理心理安全感方面的疑慮。

What immediate steps can you take to cultivate psychological safety? / 你可以立即採取哪些步驟來培養心理安全感？

You don't have to wait for an assessment or for professional assistance to promote psychological safety at work. There are a few behavioral adjustments that you can implement immediately.

你不必等到評估或專業協助到位，才開始在職場中推動心理安全感。有幾項行為上的調整是你可以立即實施的。

• In daily work dyads, try to maintain roughly five affirming or constructive interactions for each corrective or critical one. This builds an emotional buffer that allows people to handle negative or corrective feedback without reacting defensively.
• 在日常的工作二人組中，試著讓每一次糾正性或批判性的互動，大致對應約五次肯定性或建設性的互動。這能建立起一道情緒緩衝，讓人們在面對負向或糾正性回饋時不至於產生防衛性的反應。
• In team meetings, aim for roughly three positive comments, acknowledgments, or supportive statements per criticism or challenge.
• 在團隊會議中，力求每一次批評或挑戰，大致對應約三次正向的評論、肯定或支持性的陳述。
• At the organizational culture level, promote a climate where constructive candor coexists with recognition and encouragement.
• 在組織文化的層次上，推動一種讓「建設性的坦率」與「肯定及鼓勵」並存的氛圍。

Together, these behaviors create a psychologically safe, but energetic, environment in which people feel valued enough to innovate, yet honest enough to confront problems.

這些行為加總起來，便能創造出一個既具心理安全感、又充滿活力的環境，在其中，人們覺得自己受到足夠的重視而願意創新，同時又能保持足夠的誠實而願意正視問題。

References / 參考文獻

1. Losada, M. (1999). The complex dynamics of high performance teams. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 30(9–10), 179–192.
2. Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams: A nonlinear dynamics model. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 740–765.
3. Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678
4. Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2013). The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist, 68(9), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032850
5. Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47

---

🔤 關鍵術語

英文	繁中譯名	文章中的脈絡 / 簡短說明
Psychological safety	心理安全感	全文核心概念：團隊成員能提出問題、承擔風險而不必擔心受到懲罰
Losada Ratio (critical positivity ratio)	Losada 比率（臨界正向比）	計算團隊即時討論中正向與負向互動的比值，約 2.9:1 以上為高績效
Gottman Ratio (magic ratio)	Gottman 比率（神奇比率）	源自婚姻研究的 5:1 正負互動比，預測關係穩定
Positive-to-negative (P/N) ratio	正負互動比	正向陳述數 ÷ 負向陳述數，用於評估互動氛圍
Transformational leadership	轉型領導	啟發、激勵成員成長的領導風格
Transactional leadership	交易型領導	以獎懲交換績效的領導風格
Toxic leadership	毒性領導	霸凌式、製造恐懼的破壞性領導，本文 CEO 案例
Servant leadership	僕人式領導	以服務團隊為核心、利於心理安全感的領導風格
Inquiry vs. Advocacy	探詢 vs. 主張	Losada 三維度之一：好奇傾聽相對於辯護說服
Other-Focus vs. Self-Focus	他者導向 vs. 自我導向	Losada 三維度之一：同理包容相對於自我主導
Imposter syndrome	冒牌者症候群	心理不安全環境下個人的自我懷疑現象
Burnout	職業倦怠	慢性壓力導致的耗竭，心理不安全的後果之一
Repair behaviors	修復行為	Gottman 式分析中，衝突後修補關係與回應錯誤的舉動
Stonewalling	築牆／冷處理	忽視、不回應、隱瞞資訊的負向互動模式
Contempt	輕蔑	嘲諷、貶低、居高臨下的負向情緒表達
Nonlinear dynamics model	非線性動力學模型	Losada 與 Heaphy（2004）用以建模團隊表現的數學方法
Longitudinal data	縱貫性資料	Gottman「愛情實驗室」長期追蹤的實證資料
Micro-behavior coding	微行為編碼	逐分鐘標記笑容、眼神、手勢等細微互動的觀察法
Organizational psychology	組織心理學	作者的專業背景與分析職場行為的學門