Leadership & Management DefinedTerm

Psychological Safety

Also known as: Psychological Safety, Team Psychological Safety

A shared belief that the team is a safe environment for interpersonal risk-taking, where one can speak up, make mistakes, and ask for help without fear of negative consequences.

Updated: 2026-01-04

Definition

Psychological Safety is the shared belief among team members that the team is a safe environment for interpersonal risk-taking. The concept was defined by Amy Edmondson (Harvard Business School) in 1999 as “a perception that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes”.

In psychologically safe teams, people feel free to:

  • Admit mistakes without shame
  • Ask “stupid” questions
  • Propose unconventional ideas
  • Disagree with leadership or colleagues
  • Ask for help when needed

It doesn’t mean absence of accountability or low standards, but an environment where feedback is given and received constructively.

Google Research: Project Aristotle

Google conducted a multi-year study (2012-2015) analyzing 180+ teams to identify what makes a team effective. The surprising discovery: psychological safety is by far the #1 factor.

Other important factors (dependability, structure & clarity, meaning, impact) contribute, but psychological safety is a prerequisite. Without it, other factors have limited impact.

Key insight: it’s not “who” is on the team (individual skills), but “how” the team works together. Mediocre teams with high psychological safety outperform star teams without it.

How It Manifests

Observable behaviors in teams with high psychological safety:

  • Interrupt meetings to ask for clarification
  • Admit “I don’t know” without embarrassment
  • Share failures and lessons learned openly
  • Challenge senior leader decisions if they see risks
  • Experiment and fail fast without punishment

Signs of low psychological safety:

  • Silence in meetings, decisions made without input
  • Errors hidden until they become critical
  • Risk-averse innovation (only “safe” ideas proposed)
  • Blaming and finger-pointing after failures
  • High attrition, burnout

Measuring Psychological Safety

Edmondson’s 7-item survey (Likert scale 1-7):

  1. If I make a mistake on this team, it is often held against me
  2. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues
  3. People on this team sometimes reject others for being different
  4. It is safe to take a risk on this team
  5. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help
  6. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts
  7. Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized

Average scores above 5 indicate high psychological safety, below 3 low.

Building Psychological Safety

Leadership behavior (Amy Edmondson):

  1. Frame work as learning problem, not execution problem: “We don’t have all the answers, we need to experiment”
  2. Acknowledge your fallibility: leaders admitting mistakes model vulnerability
  3. Model curiosity: ask questions, show genuine interest in diverse perspectives
  4. Create structure for voice: rituals inviting input (retrospectives, anonymous feedback)

Concrete practices:

  • Blameless postmortems: after incidents, focus on “what happened” not “who did it”
  • Celebrate intelligent failures: distinguish between productive failure (experimentation) and negligence
  • Normalize asking for help: senior leaders publicly asking for help create permission
  • Respond to voice: when someone speaks up, listen, thank, act visibly

Impact on Performance

Innovation: psychologically safe teams innovate more. Breakthrough ideas often seem stupid initially. Without safety, they’re self-censored.

Error reporting: in healthcare, higher psychological safety correlated with more error reporting, leading to fewer fatal errors (counterintuitive but proven).

Learning velocity: high-safety teams learn faster because they share knowledge, admit gaps, iterate rapidly.

DevOps performance: the DORA State of DevOps Report identifies psychological safety as a predictor of elite teams. Enables blameless culture critical for deployment frequency and MTTR.

Psychological Safety and Accountability

They’re not opposites: psychological safety + high accountability = learning zone and high performance. Low safety + low accountability = comfort zone (stagnation). High safety + low accountability = comfort zone with nice conversations.

Edmondson’s framework:

  • Anxiety zone: high accountability, low safety → stress, fear
  • Apathy zone: low accountability, low safety → disengagement
  • Comfort zone: low accountability, high safety → nice but no results
  • Learning zone: high accountability, high safety → innovation, growth

The goal is Learning Zone: high standards + safe environment for risk-taking.

Common Misconceptions

”Psychological safety means always agreeing”

No. It means being able to disagree without fear. The best teams have robust “productive conflict”, but on tasks/ideas, not on people.

”Building psychological safety takes years”

Not necessarily. It can improve significantly in weeks/months with leadership commitment and concrete practices. It’s dynamic, not a fixed trait.

”It’s HR’s responsibility, not the manager’s”

False. Psychological safety is a team-level phenomenon created by daily behaviors of leader and members. HR can support, but the manager is critical.

”With psychological safety people become lazy”

No. When combined with high accountability and clear standards, psychological safety increases performance. Without accountability it becomes comfort zone, but that’s management failure, not an intrinsic problem.

  • DevOps: requires psychological safety for blameless culture
  • OKR: stretch goals require safety for risk-taking
  • Growth Mindset: complementary mindset for learning
  • Agile: effective retrospectives require safety

Sources

Back to Glossary