Psychological Safety and Fiduciary Duty
Psychological Safety: Research to Practice
Listen here.
Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music & Audible or Spotify!
Or subscribe here for an email with each episode!
Learning as a Fiduciary Responsibility
In this third episode of the Beyond Self-Care Podcast, Gail Markin and Jade Garratt explore a concept that sounds technical but is actually deeply human: fiduciary duty. Specifically, they examine how this legal responsibility, as outlined in the School Act in British Columbia, is being interpreted and how that interpretation shapes psychological safety for school leaders.
What is fiduciary duty in this context?
In school systems, fiduciary duty refers to the responsibility of principals and vice principals to represent the board when speaking to the public. Under the School Act, they act as agents of the board in public-facing contexts. However, this duty is sometimes interpreted more broadly.
Drawing on Gail’s research with principals and vice principals, the conversation centers on moments of voice and silence. When invited to share times they chose to speak up and times they held back, several participants named “fiduciary duty” as a reason for staying quiet. They described feeling legally and professionally obligated to align with the board, even in internal leadership meetings. What begins as a responsibility to represent the board publicly appears, in practice, to have expanded into a broader expectation of compliance.
Gail and Jade unpack this expansion. They consider how a legal clause about representing the board when meeting with the public has, in some contexts, become a cultural norm of silence. The episode invites listeners to question how policies are interpreted, how systems reinforce particular behaviours, and how psychological safety can erode when leaders feel like vessels rather than contributors.
“We can’t write a rulebook for exactly what acting with your fiduciary duty looks like in every individual situation… that line is probably dotted at best.”
Key Ideas
Fiduciary Duty: What It Says and What It Becomes
The School Act specifies that principals represent the board when meeting with the public. However, in practice, some school leaders interpret this as a blanket prohibition against expressing disagreement in internal meetings. The distinction between public representation and internal dialogue becomes blurred. This shift from legal text to lived culture has profound implications for voice and agency.
Silence as a Systemic Signal
When principals describe choosing not to speak up, their silence is not rooted in apathy but in perceived obligation. The invocation of fiduciary duty becomes a shield and a constraint. Rather than reflecting agreement, silence often signals caution, fear of overstepping, or uncertainty about professional boundaries. In this way, silence becomes a symptom of system dynamics rather than individual reluctance.
The Power of Policy Interpretation
Policies do not operate in isolation. They are interpreted, reinforced, and sometimes stretched in everyday practice. Legal language carries weight and consequence, so we really want to get it right. The less risky way to do that is to stay silent. This episode highlights how systems can unintentionally cultivate silence by the way rules are communicated and understood.
Designing Learning Spaces Is a Fiduciary Act
Leadership meetings, professional learning spaces, and decision-making spaces are not neutral. Norms about who can speak, question, or disagree communicate whether learning is truly valued. Clarifying the boundaries of fiduciary duty can help distinguish between responsible public representation and healthy internal dialogue.
“Right now… in many spaces, we’re not having those conversations, so the fear just keeps building.”
Key Takeaways
Fiduciary duty, as defined in policy, applies to public representation of the board.
In practice, this duty is sometimes misinterpreted as requiring silence or unquestioning agreement.
Silence in leadership meetings may reflect perceived obligation rather than genuine agreement.
When policy language is overextended, it can unintentionally suppress critical thinking and healthy debate.
Psychological safety is influenced by system design, not just individual behavior.
What You Can Do
Clarify fiduciary duty
Make sure there is a shared and open understanding of fiduciary duty across your organization. Name what it is, what it isn’t and give examples of what it looks like in practice. Be clear that the practice of fiduciary duty is situational and complex. It will require learning and practice over perfection.
Model “not knowing”
Model learning by openly naming something you don’t yet know or are still figuring out before asking others to contribute. For example, say “I don’t have a clear answer yet, and I’m still learning” or “This is something I’m actively working through.”
Slow down responses to mistakes.
Slow down the response when a mistake happens by pausing and asking a clarifying or curious question instead of correcting immediately. For example, ask “Can you walk me through what you were trying to do?” or “What did you notice when this didn’t work?”
Treat mistakes as information, not interruptions.
Treat mistakes as information by explicitly framing them as signals about where learning is still developing, rather than as interruptions to progress. For example, ask “What did this reveal that we didn’t see before?”
Explicitly invite questions.
Invite questions deliberately by saying out loud that questions are expected and by leaving space for people to think before responding.
Reflect on unequal cost of speaking up.
Reflect on the emotional and psychological cost of learning by considering who had to be most visible, uncertain, or vulnerable when you are learning together. For example, ask “Who had to be most visible?” or “Who took the biggest risk?” or “Who stayed quiet?”
🎧 Listen to the full episode to explore why psychological safety is inseparable from fiduciary responsibility in learning spaces.
“If we can better open up those lines of communication rather than trying to throttle them or shut them down altogether, this is where we actually can all grow together and build better organizations and systems.”
