Some of the highest-performing teams in the world make more mistakes than average teams.
At first glance, that seems impossible.
In reality, those teams aren’t making more mistakes—they’re reporting more of them.
This insight fundamentally changed how organizations think about leadership, teamwork, and organizational performance.
For decades, many leaders believed that high-performing teams avoided mistakes and conflict.
Research now suggests something different.
The strongest teams create environments where people feel comfortable speaking up, asking questions, admitting mistakes, challenging ideas, and requesting help without fear of embarrassment, punishment, or retaliation.
This environment is known as psychological safety.
Psychological safety does not eliminate accountability.
It does not lower performance standards.
It does not mean everyone agrees.
Instead, it creates the conditions necessary for honest communication, continuous learning, innovation, and better decision-making.
Throughout my coaching work with executives and leadership teams, I’ve found that psychological safety is often misunderstood.
Some leaders worry it means avoiding difficult conversations or protecting people from constructive feedback.
The opposite is true.
Psychological safety makes honest feedback easier because people trust that difficult conversations are intended to improve performance rather than assign blame.
As organizations become more collaborative, global, and knowledge-driven, psychological safety has become one of the defining characteristics of effective leadership.
Why Psychological Safety Matters
Organizations succeed when people share information.
Employees notice problems.
Frontline workers identify risks.
Managers observe trends.
Specialists possess technical expertise.
Executives establish strategic direction.
When people hesitate to speak openly, valuable information remains hidden.
The consequences can include:
• Poor decisions.
• Preventable mistakes.
• Reduced innovation.
• Lower employee engagement.
• Slower learning.
• Increased turnover.
• Greater organizational risk.
Conversely, psychologically safe teams often demonstrate:
• Better collaboration.
• Faster learning.
• Greater adaptability.
• More innovation.
• Higher engagement.
• Better problem-solving.
• Stronger organizational resilience.
Psychological safety allows organizations to benefit from the knowledge that already exists within their people.
Executive Coach’s Perspective
One question reveals a great deal about a team’s culture:
“What happens here when someone makes a mistake?”
If the answer is blame, silence usually follows.
If the answer is curiosity and learning, people continue speaking up.
The best leaders don’t expect perfection.
They create environments where people feel safe identifying problems before they become crises.
What Is Psychological Safety?
Developed by
Amy C. Edmondson
First published
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams (1999)
Core idea
Amy Edmondson defines psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.
In psychologically safe teams, people believe they can:
• Ask questions.
• Admit mistakes.
• Offer ideas.
• Express concerns.
• Challenge assumptions.
• Request help.
• Disagree respectfully.
…without fear of humiliation, punishment, or damage to their professional reputation.
Psychological safety focuses on interpersonal climate rather than individual personality.
It describes how safe people feel interacting with one another.
Why it matters
Many organizational failures occur because employees recognize problems but remain silent.
Psychological safety encourages earlier communication, allowing organizations to identify risks, improve decisions, and learn more quickly.
Research has consistently linked psychological safety with team learning, innovation, employee engagement, and organizational effectiveness.
Best applied when
• Leadership development.
• Team management.
• Innovation.
• Healthcare.
• Aviation.
• Project management.
• Organizational change.
Limitations
Psychological safety should not be confused with comfort.
Healthy teams still challenge one another, provide honest feedback, maintain accountability, and uphold high performance standards.
Primary source
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Psychological Safety Is Not…
One reason this concept is frequently misunderstood is that people confuse it with several related ideas.
Psychological Safety Is Not Friendship
Teams do not need to become close friends to communicate openly.
Professional trust is sufficient.
Psychological Safety Is Not Lower Standards
High-performing teams maintain ambitious expectations.
Psychological safety supports performance by making it easier to identify problems and improve continuously.
Psychological Safety Is Not Avoiding Conflict
Constructive disagreement is encouraged.
People feel safe challenging ideas because disagreement focuses on improving outcomes rather than attacking individuals.
Psychological Safety Is Not Being Nice All the Time
Honest feedback remains essential.
The difference is that feedback is delivered respectfully and received as an opportunity for learning rather than as a personal attack.
Google’s Project Aristotle
Conducted by
Google People Operations
Published
2015
Core finding
Google studied more than 180 teams to determine why some consistently outperformed others.
Researchers initially expected that team composition, educational background, personality types, or technical expertise would explain the differences.
Instead, the single most important factor distinguishing high-performing teams was psychological safety.
Team members consistently reported feeling comfortable asking questions, admitting mistakes, sharing ideas, and expressing concerns.
The study also identified four additional characteristics:
• Dependability.
• Structure and clarity.
• Meaning.
• Impact.
However, psychological safety emerged as the foundation that allowed the other characteristics to flourish.
Why it matters
Project Aristotle brought psychological safety into mainstream leadership and demonstrated that high-performing teams depend as much on interpersonal dynamics as technical ability.
Primary source
Google re:Work. Project Aristotle (2015).
Key Takeaways
• Psychological safety enables people to speak openly without fear of unnecessary interpersonal consequences.
• Amy Edmondson’s research established psychological safety as one of the most influential concepts in modern leadership.
• High psychological safety supports learning, innovation, collaboration, and better decision-making.
• Psychological safety should never be confused with lowering standards or avoiding accountability.
• Google’s Project Aristotle identified psychological safety as the most important characteristic of its highest-performing teams.
The Four Stages of Psychological Safety
Developed by
Timothy R. Clark
First published
The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety (2020)
Core idea
Building on Amy Edmondson’s research, Timothy Clark proposed that psychological safety develops progressively through four stages.
Each stage creates the foundation for the next.
Stage 1: Inclusion Safety
People feel accepted as members of the team.
They believe they belong regardless of differences in background, experience, or perspective.
Without inclusion, meaningful participation becomes difficult.
Leaders strengthen Inclusion Safety by:
• Welcoming diverse perspectives.
• Treating everyone respectfully.
• Encouraging participation from quieter team members.
• Demonstrating fairness and consistency.
Stage 2: Learner Safety
People feel comfortable asking questions, experimenting, making mistakes, and learning.
Instead of fearing embarrassment, employees view mistakes as opportunities for improvement.
Learner Safety encourages:
• Curiosity.
• Continuous improvement.
• Professional development.
• Innovation.
Stage 3: Contributor Safety
People feel confident contributing their skills, ideas, and expertise.
Rather than simply completing assigned tasks, employees actively look for ways to improve the organization.
They willingly:
• Share ideas.
• Solve problems.
• Volunteer for initiatives.
• Offer recommendations.
Stage 4: Challenger Safety
The highest level of psychological safety.
Employees feel comfortable respectfully challenging existing assumptions, decisions, and processes—even when their opinions differ from those of senior leaders.
This stage is particularly important because innovation depends on questioning the status quo.
Why it matters
The model helps leaders recognize that psychological safety develops gradually.
Employees rarely begin challenging established practices before first feeling included, respected, and valued.
Best applied when
• Leadership development.
• Team coaching.
• Organizational culture initiatives.
• Innovation.
• Change management.
Limitations
The four stages describe a developmental progression rather than fixed categories.
Teams may experience different levels of psychological safety depending on the situation or leadership environment.
Primary source
Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Executive Coach’s Perspective
Many leaders ask,
“How do I get my team to speak up more?”
A better question is:
“What might be preventing them from speaking up?”
Silence is usually a symptom.
People often remain silent because previous experiences taught them that speaking honestly carried unnecessary risk.
Changing that perception requires consistent leadership behavior over time—not a single meeting or announcement.
Leadership Behaviors That Build Psychological Safety
Research consistently shows that psychological safety is shaped primarily by leaders’ everyday actions.
The following behaviors have the greatest impact.
Model Humility
Leaders who acknowledge they don’t have all the answers encourage others to contribute their own expertise.
Simple statements such as:
“I may be missing something.”
or
“What do you think?”
Signal that different perspectives are genuinely welcome.
Admit Mistakes
When leaders acknowledge their own mistakes, they normalize learning rather than perfection.
This encourages employees to identify problems earlier instead of hiding them.
Invite Questions
Instead of assuming understanding, effective leaders actively encourage clarification.
Questions should be viewed as evidence of engagement—not incompetence.
Respond Constructively
Employees quickly learn whether speaking up is rewarded or punished.
When someone raises a concern, leaders should respond with curiosity before judgment.
Even when an idea cannot be implemented, respectful consideration reinforces trust.
Encourage Constructive Dissent
Healthy organizations benefit from respectful disagreement.
Leaders should occasionally ask:
• “What are we overlooking?”
• “Who sees this differently?”
• “What risks haven’t we discussed?”
These questions reduce Groupthink while improving decision quality.
Psychological Safety and Innovation
Innovation depends on experimentation.
Experimentation inevitably involves uncertainty.
Uncertainty inevitably involves mistakes.
Organizations that punish every mistake unintentionally discourage experimentation.
Research suggests psychologically safe teams are more willing to:
• Test new ideas.
• Share unfinished thinking.
• Report failures early.
• Learn from setbacks.
• Improve continuously.
Innovation therefore depends not only on creativity but also on creating an environment where people feel safe taking intelligent risks.
Psychological Safety vs. Accountability
One of the most persistent myths is that psychological safety reduces accountability.
The research suggests the opposite.
Amy Edmondson emphasizes that high-performing organizations combine:
High Psychological Safety
People feel comfortable speaking openly.
High Accountability
People are expected to meet demanding performance standards.
This combination creates what Edmondson refers to as a learning zone.
In contrast:
High Accountability with Low Psychological Safety often produces anxiety.
High Psychological Safety with Low Accountability can produce comfort without performance.
Exceptional leadership requires both.
Common Leadership Behaviors That Destroy Psychological Safety
Leaders sometimes reduce psychological safety without realizing it.
Examples include:
• Publicly criticizing employees.
• Interrupting people repeatedly.
• Dismissing questions.
• Punishing mistakes without examining causes.
• Reacting defensively to feedback.
• Discouraging disagreement.
• Rewarding only those who agree with senior leadership.
These behaviors gradually teach employees that remaining silent is safer than contributing honestly.
Key Takeaways
• Timothy Clark’s Four Stages explain how psychological safety develops progressively within teams.
• Leadership behavior has a greater influence on psychological safety than organizational policies alone.
• Innovation depends on creating environments where intelligent risk-taking is encouraged.
• Psychological safety and accountability are complementary—not competing—leadership responsibilities.
• Leaders build trust through humility, curiosity, respectful listening, and consistent responses to employee input.
Psychological Safety and Team Performance
For many years, leaders assumed that high-performing teams naturally trusted one another.
Research now suggests the opposite may also be true.
Teams that intentionally build trust and psychological safety often become high-performing because people communicate more openly, learn faster, and identify problems earlier.
Psychological safety improves performance by encouraging behaviors such as:
• Sharing ideas before they are fully developed.
• Asking for help before problems become crises.
• Reporting mistakes early.
• Challenging assumptions respectfully.
• Learning from failures.
• Giving and receiving constructive feedback.
These behaviors accelerate learning while reducing costly errors.
Learning Behavior in Organizations
Developed by
Amy C. Edmondson
Core idea
One of Amy Edmondson’s most influential contributions is the concept of learning behavior.
Learning behavior includes activities such as:
• Asking questions.
• Seeking feedback.
• Experimenting.
• Discussing mistakes.
• Sharing knowledge.
• Reflecting on outcomes.
These behaviors require interpersonal risk.
Employees will rarely admit uncertainty if they believe doing so will damage their reputation or career.
Why it matters
Organizations often invest heavily in training while unintentionally discouraging learning behaviors.
Employees cannot learn effectively if they feel unsafe admitting they do not know something.
Psychological safety creates the environment where learning becomes continuous rather than occasional.
Primary source
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Executive Coach’s Perspective
One question I encourage leaders to ask regularly is:
“What did we learn?”
Not:
“Who made the mistake?”
When leaders focus first on learning rather than blame, people become more willing to identify risks, discuss failures honestly, and improve future performance.
This simple shift changes how entire teams think about accountability.
How Leaders Respond to Mistakes
Every organization experiences mistakes.
What distinguishes exceptional organizations is not the absence of failure but the quality of their response.
Less Effective Response
• Identify who is responsible.
• Assign blame.
• Avoid discussing the issue afterward.
More Effective Response
• Understand what happened.
• Identify contributing factors.
• Correct the immediate problem.
• Improve systems and processes.
• Share lessons learned.
This approach is often called a “just culture” in industries such as healthcare and aviation.
A just culture recognizes that while individuals remain accountable for reckless or unethical behavior, many mistakes result from weaknesses in systems, communication, workload, or decision-making rather than individual negligence alone.
Primary source
Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate.
Psychological Safety in Healthcare
Healthcare has become one of the most extensively studied environments for psychological safety because communication failures can directly affect patient outcomes.
Research has shown that healthcare professionals are more likely to report near misses, identify safety concerns, and speak up about potential risks when psychological safety is present.
This improves organizational learning and contributes to safer patient care.
These findings have influenced leadership practices far beyond healthcare, including aviation, manufacturing, technology, finance, and professional services.
Primary source
The Joint Commission. Sentinel Event Alert: Leadership Committed to Safety (multiple publications).
Psychological Safety in Remote and Hybrid Teams
Remote work creates additional challenges.
Without informal conversations and face-to-face interaction, employees may become less willing to ask questions or raise concerns.
Leaders of remote teams can strengthen psychological safety by:
• Inviting participation from everyone during virtual meetings.
• Checking in individually, not only during performance reviews.
• Creating opportunities for informal conversations.
• Responding promptly to questions.
• Encouraging respectful disagreement during online discussions.
• Ensuring quieter team members have opportunities to contribute.
Psychological safety becomes even more important when communication occurs primarily through digital channels.
Signs Your Team May Lack Psychological Safety
Leaders should pay attention to behavioral indicators.
Possible warning signs include:
• Few questions during meetings.
• Silence after asking for feedback.
• Employees agreeing too quickly.
• The same individuals speaking in every meeting.
• Problems discovered late.
• Little experimentation or innovation.
• Fear of admitting mistakes.
• Employees withholding bad news.
These behaviors often indicate not a lack of engagement but a lack of perceived safety.
How to Measure Psychological Safety
While no single measure captures psychological safety perfectly, leaders can regularly ask questions such as:
• Do people feel comfortable asking for help?
• Are employees willing to admit mistakes?
• Do team members respectfully challenge ideas?
• Does everyone contribute during meetings?
• Do employees believe their opinions are valued?
Amy Edmondson’s Team Psychological Safety Scale remains one of the most widely used research instruments for assessing psychological safety in organizations.
Primary source
Edmondson, A. C. Team Psychological Safety Scale.
Key Takeaways
• Psychological safety encourages the learning behaviors that improve long-term organizational performance.
• Great leaders respond to mistakes with curiosity before assigning blame.
• A just culture distinguishes between human error, system failures, and reckless behavior.
• Remote and hybrid teams require intentional leadership to maintain psychological safety.
• Silence during meetings is not always agreement—it may indicate employees do not feel safe speaking openly.
Building Psychological Safety as a Leader
Creating psychological safety does not require a complete cultural transformation overnight.
It is built through hundreds of small leadership behaviors that signal respect, curiosity, consistency, and trust.
The following practices are supported by research and can be implemented immediately.
Ask More Questions
Leaders often feel pressure to provide answers.
However, asking thoughtful questions is frequently more valuable.
Questions such as:
• “What concerns do you have?”
• “What am I missing?”
• “Does anyone see this differently?”
• “What risks haven’t we considered?”
Demonstrate genuine curiosity and encourage participation.
Respond with Curiosity Before Judgment
When someone raises a concern or admits a mistake, the leader’s first response shapes future behavior.
Compare these responses.
“I can’t believe that happened.”
versus
“Help me understand what happened.”
The second response encourages learning instead of fear.
Recognize Contributions Publicly
Employees are more likely to continue sharing ideas when their contributions are acknowledged.
Recognition does not require agreeing with every suggestion.
Simply thanking someone for raising an issue reinforces that speaking up is valued.
Normalize Learning
High-performing organizations openly discuss lessons learned.
Leaders can ask after projects:
• What worked well?
• What surprised us?
• What would we do differently next time?
These conversations gradually shift attention from blame to continuous improvement.
Admit When You Don’t Know
Leaders often believe they must always appear confident.
Research suggests the opposite.
Appropriate humility increases credibility because it encourages others to contribute expertise and perspectives the leader may not possess.
Executive Coach’s Perspective
One sentence consistently changes team dynamics:
“I could be wrong.”
It is a simple statement, yet it communicates humility, curiosity, and openness.
Employees become far more willing to contribute when they believe the leader values learning more than appearing infallible.
Psychological Safety and Innovation
Innovation requires experimentation.
Experimentation requires uncertainty.
Uncertainty inevitably includes failure.
Organizations that expect innovation while punishing every unsuccessful attempt create conflicting expectations.
Employees quickly learn that taking risks is dangerous.
Organizations known for innovation generally encourage:
• Experimentation.
• Thoughtful risk-taking.
• Open discussion.
• Early reporting of problems.
• Reflection after projects.
Importantly, encouraging experimentation does not mean accepting careless work.
Intelligent risks are based on thoughtful planning, reasonable evidence, and continuous learning.
The objective is not eliminating failure.
It is learning faster than competitors.
Psychological Safety During Organizational Change
Periods of organizational change often reduce psychological safety.
Employees naturally wonder:
• Will my role change?
• Will my workload increase?
• Am I receiving complete information?
• Is my job secure?
When uncertainty increases, communication becomes even more important.
Leaders strengthen psychological safety during change by:
• Sharing information early whenever possible.
• Explaining the reasons for change.
• Acknowledging uncertainty honestly.
• Encouraging questions.
• Providing regular updates.
• Listening to employee concerns without becoming defensive.
People generally accept difficult decisions more readily when they understand how those decisions were made.
Common Myths About Psychological Safety
Myth 1
Psychological safety means everyone agrees.
Reality
Healthy disagreement is encouraged.
Respectful debate improves decision-making.
Myth 2
Psychological safety lowers accountability.
Reality
Amy Edmondson’s research demonstrates that the highest-performing teams combine psychological safety with high accountability.
Myth 3
Psychological safety eliminates conflict.
Reality
Conflict continues to exist.
The difference is that disagreements become more constructive and less personal.
Myth 4
Psychological safety makes leaders appear weak.
Reality
Research consistently shows that humility, curiosity, and openness increase leadership credibility rather than reducing it.
Myth 5
Psychological safety develops automatically.
Reality
It requires consistent leadership behaviors and intentional cultural reinforcement.
Recommended Books on Psychological Safety
If you’d like to explore this topic further, these books provide excellent evidence-based guidance.
The Fearless Organization by Amy C. Edmondson remains the definitive book on psychological safety in the workplace and explains how leaders create environments that encourage learning, innovation, and accountability.
The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety by Timothy R. Clark expands on Edmondson’s work by describing how psychological safety develops over time within teams.
Turn the Ship Around! by L. David Marquet demonstrates how empowering people to think and contribute can dramatically improve organizational performance.
Thanks for the Feedback by Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen provides practical guidance for creating conversations where feedback is viewed as an opportunity for learning rather than criticism.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can a leader tell whether employees feel psychologically safe?
One of the strongest indicators is employee behavior rather than survey results alone.
In psychologically safe teams, people ask questions, admit mistakes, offer ideas, challenge assumptions respectfully, and raise concerns before problems escalate.
If meetings are unusually quiet, everyone agrees immediately, or bad news consistently arrives late, psychological safety may be lower than leaders realize.
Can psychological safety exist alongside high performance expectations?
Yes.
In fact, research suggests the strongest teams combine both.
Amy Edmondson’s work demonstrates that high psychological safety encourages learning and open communication, while high accountability maintains performance standards.
Without accountability, teams may become comfortable but ineffective.
Without psychological safety, employees often become cautious, silent, and less willing to innovate.
What’s the biggest mistake leaders make when trying to create psychological safety?
Many leaders confuse psychological safety with avoiding discomfort.
In reality, psychologically safe teams often have difficult conversations, challenge ideas, and provide candid feedback.
The difference is that these discussions occur with mutual respect and a shared commitment to learning rather than blame.
Key Takeaways
• Psychological safety is built through consistent leadership behaviors rather than isolated initiatives.
• Curiosity, humility, and respectful listening encourage employees to contribute openly.
• Innovation depends on creating environments where intelligent risk-taking is supported.
• Organizational change increases the importance of transparent communication and active listening.
• High psychological safety and high accountability together create the strongest conditions for long-term team performance.
Executive Coaching Reflection
Building psychological safety begins with changing a leader’s daily habits.
Take a few minutes to reflect on the following questions.
• When someone on your team disagrees with you, what is your first reaction?
• Do people on your team regularly challenge your ideas—or mostly agree with them?
• When was the last time you publicly admitted making a mistake?
• How often do employees ask questions during meetings?
• If someone discovers a serious problem, would they feel comfortable bringing it directly to you?
• Which behaviors of yours encourage openness, and which might unintentionally discourage it?
• If your team completed an anonymous survey today, would they describe your workplace as psychologically safe?
Small changes in leadership behavior often create significant improvements in team culture over time.
Putting Psychological Safety into Practice
Psychological safety is not created through slogans, workshops, or employee surveys alone.
It is created through everyday leadership.
Every question you ask.
Every mistake you acknowledge.
Every concern you listen to.
Every disagreement you encourage.
Every piece of feedback you deliver.
Employees continuously observe these moments and decide whether speaking openly is safe.
Organizations with strong psychological safety do not eliminate mistakes.
They identify them earlier.
They do not eliminate disagreement.
They improve the quality of their discussions.
They do not lower expectations.
They increase learning while maintaining accountability.
Amy Edmondson’s research, Google’s Project Aristotle, Timothy Clark’s developmental model, and decades of organizational psychology all point toward the same conclusion:
People perform at their best when they feel both challenged and respected.
Leaders who consistently foster curiosity, humility, accountability, and open communication create teams that learn faster, innovate more effectively, solve problems earlier, and adapt more successfully to change.
In today’s knowledge-based economy, psychological safety is no longer a “nice-to-have.”
It has become a competitive advantage.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can I improve psychological safety without lowering performance expectations?
Psychological safety and accountability reinforce one another rather than compete. Continue setting clear expectations, measuring performance, and providing constructive feedback while encouraging questions, admitting uncertainty, and treating mistakes as learning opportunities whenever appropriate. The goal is not reducing standards but creating an environment where people feel safe enough to meet them.
Can psychological safety exist in high-pressure industries?
Yes. In fact, some of the strongest evidence supporting psychological safety comes from healthcare, aviation, emergency response, and other high-reliability industries where mistakes can have serious consequences. In these environments, encouraging people to speak up about risks, concerns, and errors is essential for both performance and safety.
How long does it take to build psychological safety within a team?
There is no universal timeline. Teams begin developing psychological safety when leaders consistently demonstrate trustworthy behaviors, but lasting cultural change usually occurs gradually. Every meeting, difficult conversation, coaching discussion, and leadership decision either strengthens or weakens employees’ confidence that it is safe to speak openly. Consistency matters far more than speed.
Final Thoughts
Psychological safety is one of the most extensively researched leadership concepts of the past three decades, yet it remains one of the most misunderstood.
It is not about making work comfortable.
It is about making learning possible.
It is not about avoiding accountability.
It is about creating the conditions where accountability can thrive.
It is not about preventing difficult conversations.
It is about making those conversations honest, respectful, and productive.
Organizations that consistently outperform their competitors rarely do so because they hire only the smartest people.
They outperform because they create environments where intelligent people are willing to share what they know, question what they don’t understand, admit mistakes quickly, and collaborate openly.
Ultimately, psychological safety is built one interaction at a time.
Every conversation is an opportunity to reinforce trust.
Every response to a mistake teaches employees whether learning or blame defines the culture.
Every question you ask signals whether curiosity is genuinely valued.
The leaders who understand this create teams that are not only more innovative and resilient, but also more engaged, adaptable, and prepared to succeed in an increasingly complex world.
