Resisting mutation: how to prevent psychological safety from becoming an empty buzzword (Part 1)

Like many, I’ve been familiar with Psychological Safety and the work of Amy Edmondson for a number of years, and was convinced by the research (still am!) that it was a concept that could ignite the way teams thrive. I blogged about the basics of what it is and how to introduce it back in 2022  and, in short, psychological safety in teams is a shared belief that it’s okay to take risks, to express ideas, raise concerns, ask questions, and to admit mistakes. In these teams, there is no interpersonal risk to being honest and open with team members; in fact, this is the norm and it is encouraged. It creates fulfilling work conditions in which teams discuss, debate, evaluate, get a lot done, and learn together. Teams who have psychological safety are usually more effective than those who don’t.

In the last 5 years, many books have mentioned or focused on psychological safety, along with plenty of research continuing to demonstrate the robustness of the concept, including Edmondson’s own evidence review in 2024.

After 25 years of research, Edmondson concurs that Psychological Safety, when genuinely present, helps teams to get productive work done, improves team learning and learning behaviours, and fosters a more satisfying work environment. But she cautions that leaders must be proactive in cultivating psychological safety within teams and across organisations, and it is indeed a tough nut to crack. Edmondson has said herself in interviews that the ‘coziness’ evoked from the term is regrettable as it leads people to immediately misunderstand the depth of the concept, and that we must do more as leaders to fully communicate what it is and what it means for our work.

“Psychological safety research has come of age. No longer a novel construct in need of theoretical and empirical justification, psychological safety has taken its place as a mainstream construct in the organizational behaviour literature.” Edmondson, 2024

I’ve spoken in front of thousands of people about the principles of psychological safety, sometimes for a few minutes, and at some organisations, for several hours. I always wonder what the impact is. It’s such a complex thing to get right, and what’s more, it’s dynamic. It can’t be ‘completed’, and always needs attention. I’m not a fan of seeing it boldly declared in recruitment packs: ‘we’re a psychologically safe team’.

The truth is, it’s an easy concept to hitch your wagon to, and just as easy to misunderstand and mutate. Exploring these issues has been on my mind lately, as I see the term pop up more in CPD presentations, articles, blogs, and books.

After the 2024 evidence review, Edmondson and Kerrissey (2025) went further this month in depicting a cautionary tale by writing a fantastic article for Harvard Business Review, outlining the six common misconceptions that have arisen from psychological safety over the years. It was inevitable with a name like psychological safety that it’s meaning would get warped and its principles diluted, and I’m pleased that Edmondson herself has challenged how it is being implemented in workplaces. I’d advise you to immediately read this article!  The misconceptions they outline are:

1. Psychological Safety means being nice
2. Psychological Safety means getting your own way
3. Psychological Safety means job security
4. Psychological Safety requires a trade off with performance
5. Psychological Safety is a policy
6. Psychological Safety requires a top down approach

“As the popularity of psychological safety has grown, so too have misconceptions about it. As a result, many have become frustrated by distorted or incorrect ideas and expectations surrounding it that get in the way of progress” Edmondson, 2025

It got me thinking about how well psychological safety is being applied to education and schools. The chance that leaders have misunderstood or misapplied some of the principles is very high (including me!), and just as high that those within our teams have, too. We cannot allow such a valuable component of teamwork to become mutated: it cannot be an empty platitude. We have enough of those.

I’m fully accepting that you’ve jumped ship by now to get to Edmondson’s article (and good on you, really), but here’s what I’ve found in the education world regarding why psychological safety doesn’t take off:

1. Fluffy Mcfluff

As they highlight in the article, Psych Safety can often be misunderstood as a synonym for warmth and comfort. The issue is that people like working in warm, friendly workplaces, and often worry that debate and conflict are kryptonite to that (perhaps superficial) harmony. But we can have both. We can enjoy warm relationships with our colleagues, and then have an honest, productive discussion about the direction of travel for a project; we can foster psychological safety so that everyone feels able to speak up and genuinely share their views, while also creating an environment where we are not offended by differing views but allow them to actually bring us closer together. So, in short, Psychological Safety is often thought of as being fluffy, fuzzy, and warm, with teams embracing the term under a collective ignorance that being nice and taking in an interest in each other is psychological safety. Sadly, while those are traits of lovely human beings, they do not fulfil the more robust and productive traits of a psychologically safe team.

2. Being complacent

I’ve found that team dynamics can be pretty fragile, especially in school environments. Staff are so busy, and potentially stressed, and their feelings towards a team can change quickly if they have had a tough week or don’t feel supported. I’ve seen teams establish genuinely open and thriving cultures of discussion and debate in their meetings while they are working on a certain project. But then, weeks or months later, something changes: maybe a new project, maybe a dip in performance, maybe a change in some personnel. And suddenly the culture is gone. Or perhaps it dwindles more gradually. The point is, we have to keep reinvesting in psychological safety because team dynamics are live and shift, especially when we aren’t looking. We can’t take it for granted – it needs to be a priority in the way you lead the team, and the way the team interacts.

Sometimes this ‘mission creep’ with psychological safety happens due to workload increases or difficult circumstances, which is understandable. But equally, complacency occurs; leaders perhaps think after a few productive discussions that the team has made it. ‘We are a team with psychological safety’, they cry. But, think Dunning Kruger. It is a layered and nuanced concept and often when you think you’ve made it, that’s exactly the moment to go back and improve.

3. Words over actions

Lastly, leaders often do the right thing by reading, researching, thinking, planning strategically and putting things in place for the benefit of their teams. But psychological safety is a difficult concept to implement, and it certainly can’t be achieved in a speech or mentioned at the start of a meeting followed by: ‘so let’s have a really open discussion now’.

Psychological safety, in other words creating the climate for all members of the team to share openly and feel comfortable to speak up, is hugely complex, and requires a lot of proactive thought from a leader about how to manage situations. How do we frame discussion and debates in meetings? How do we narrate our values and principles before, during and after these discussions? How do we encourage or touch base with people before and after discussions? How do we model getting feedback from our team? How do we ensure that we make progress on the work that people’s discussions have fed into, so they feel like words and honesty translate into next steps? These are just some actions that have to be considered for a team aiming for a culture of psychological safety.

Often, in my interviews and surveys I find that team members feel like Psychological Safety is a name for an empty concept that sounds brilliant but often doesn’t have legs or translate to real work. And, even more commonly, that the words ‘psychological safety’ are used in team meetings, but that it doesn’t match the reality when people do contribute ideas or feedback. The challenge is to curate the right message about the why and how of psychological safety, and then to invest time and effort in cultivating methods to increase this within our teams so that discussions, ideas, and feedback are rewarded and used to move the team forward. Reality has to match the vision. Actions over words.

So what next?

‘Our brains are hardwired to keep us safe; our default mode is to presume some level of threat in most environments. Like animals that sense a predator in the forest, humans tend to stay quiet in a workplace form of ‘freeze’, unless we know we can safely speak up with concerns, fresh ideas, or unique perspecitves.’ Gube and Hennelly, 2024

We have to be constantly aware that people in our teams do not feel inclined to contribute freely; our job is to foster connection, culture, and psych safety so that honesty and openness is the norm, so that the team can fulfil its potential and actually benefit from its shared expertise and viewpoints. Otherwise, what’s the point in even being in a room together?

One safe bet is to ensure that the team always has performance challenges that are compelling and require the collective strength of the group. Only when facing a challenge can the group foster psychological safety and really get stuck into the behaviours we’ve been talking about.

In this post I have explored why we must consider psychological safety with caution; not because it is a flawed concept, but because it is easy to mutate in various ways. Like anything worth doing, it takes time, deliberate thought, strategic planning, and lots of trial and evaluation.

Join me next time for a change in direction, as I explore some evidence-informed strategies to improve the way we build psychological safety in our teams.

For now, go back to that Amy Edmondson article, and others such as this

And I don’t pretend to be an expert in this area, but I have spent a lot of time and thought considering how to increase psychological safety in my own teams and in others – I’m happy to chat anytime.

Reflective questions for teams and leaders:

1. What do you know about psychological safety so far? What more could you find out?
2. Have you tried to introduce this concept in your team or workplace? How has it gone?
3. Considering the misconceptions identified, how might this have impacted your colleagues? How could it?
4. What’s next, in your exploration of psychological safety?

Part two now available – click here!

Part three now available – click here!

Sources:

Edmondson, A. and Bransby, D. P. (2023) Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 55-78.

Edmonson, A and Kerrissey, M. (2025) What People Get Wrong About Psychological Safety. HBR May – Jun 2025. https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety?tpcc=orgsocial_edit&utm_campaign=hbr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin

Gube and Hennelly, Harvard Business Review (2024) Psychological Safety (HBR Emotional Intelligence Series). HBR Press.