Resisting mutation: how to prevent psychological safety from becoming an empty buzzword (part 2)

Welcome back, psychological safety and teamwork fans – thank you for returning to the series, and for all of the great feedback on part 1.

In the previous post, I suggested that the term psychological safety was in danger of becoming diluted with well-intentioned but inaccurate applications of what the concept is. Even in the last few weeks, I’ve heard people say that their workplace is not psychologically safe because SLT didn’t go with an idea that had been suggested by their department. Someone else told me they were very psychologically safe because the team got on really well and had a lot of fun in their meetings. 

Gah.  

But, to be fair, the term ‘psychological safety’ conjures up all sorts of associations, and I can see why it is now steeped in misconceptions. It is easily mutated, sadly. 

In the previous post, we explored some of my, and the wonderful Amy Edmondson’s, top misconceptions that undermine a true culture of psychological safety. 

So, what’s next? 

This is a three-part series, and in this post we will explore some of the research behind psychological safety that I haven’t written about before, and start to turn from ‘what’ and ‘why’ to ‘how’. Post 3 will become even more tangible, as I provide concrete actions for school teams. 

But for now, let’s continue exploring some principles of psychological safety that will build our understanding and steer us away from common misconceptions.

‘When people work in psychologically safe contexts, they know that questions are appreciated, ideas are welcome, and errors and failure are discussable. In these environments, people can focus on their work without being tied up in knots about what others might think of them. They know that being wrong won’t be a fatal blow to their reputation’ Edmondson, 2023

It’s what you do, not who you are 

A common question I’ve heard from teams is about how we foster open discussion and honest communication when some members are quieter or more introverted. Or perhaps less ‘senior’ in a hierarchical sense. I accept that everyone is different, but in my experience, psychological safety is something that a group works on together, and does not rely on individual personalities. Edmondson (2023) agrees, stating that ‘it’s an emergent property of a group, not a personality difference. This means your perception of whether it’s safe to speak up at work is unrelated to whether you’re an extrovert or an introvert. Instead, it’s shaped by how people around you react to things that you and others say and do.’ I’d encourage team leaders to embrace and discuss this with members. Your team might naturally be quiet, but as a group you are in control of how you grow together; in confidence and conversation; in discussion and debate. You can narrate the improvements and small wins and keep encouraging the team to continue on the trajectory towards psychological safety. 

Does psychological safety affect performance and accountability? 

Other concerns that I’ve heard are that psychological safety creates a sense of friendliness that doesn’t allow for accountability and a drive towards improvement. We debunked the warmth misconception in the previous blog post, but I understand why doubts linger about how you can feel safe, and also be held to account. The question is, how can we respond constructively and supportively when things go wrong, without encouraging lax performance? Edmondson argues that concerns about accountability vs safety stem from a ‘false dichotomy’, and that ‘a culture that makes it safe to talk about failure can coexist with high standards.’  Indeed, both Edmondson’s research and other studies such as Project Aristotle, which found that Google’s top-performing teams were psychologically safe, indicates that psychological safety helps teams to improve their performance, and not hinder it. Edmondson goes onto say ‘it isn’t synonymous with “anything goes”’ and that you can still impose deadlines and expectations while creating a holistic culture of psychological safety.

Recrimination for speaking up 

One of the core features of psych safety is that staff feel able to speak up about concerns or ideas. A common flaw in teams is that staff don’t want to take the ‘interpersonal risk’ that exists when they raise something: what if they seem like a trouble maker, complainer, or if they are getting above their station?! Psychologically safe teams reduce or diminish the niggling voice in our heads which tells us to keep quiet. Two key reasons employees refrain from speaking up are the aforementioned fear of retaliation, but also a perception that even well-founded concerns will not be addressed. So, leaders must ensure that they respond positively and constructively when staff do speak up, and, even if it feels tough to take certain feedback, we must preserve the psychological safey in the group that made a person feel able to contribute their voice.

‘In Psychologically Safe teams, leaders trust employees to challenge myopic directives, and they empower team members to own decisions that safeguard long-term resilience. Candor is expected, as well as protected’ Harvard Business Review, 2024

What’s all this mistake stuff? 

Many of us will have read with fascination the articles about high-stakes workplace mistakes being preventable, such as staff in operating theatres witnessing impending mistakes by a surgeon and not correcting them, or aircrew who foresee pilot erros but don’t feel able to mention it. When I first started reading about psychological safety, I had to reflect on the constant mention of admitting mistakes at work. I suppose, teaching is quite different to other jobs. I probably misspeak or make the wrong decision many times a day, amidst the thousands of micro decisions while working with students, parents, and staff. In other sectors, this might look a little different; perhaps I made a decision to say yes or no to a new product or project. But it’s helped me to realise that we should consider our decisions a bit more and evaluate when we’ve tried something and it has or hasn’t worked. The research shows that when staff feel able to speak up about errors and set backs, they and the team frame mistakes as being inevitable bumps in the road – vital for learning. So let’s embrace when things go wrong and not try to guard or save face – we can only learn and grow when we take responsibility and share vulnerability. Psychological safety, therefore, is synonymous with learning in a team.

Research digest 

Before we go onto some practical team strategies for schools, which will be the focus of Blog Post 3, let’s continue a quick research digest about psychological safety cross sector, looking beyond Amy Edmondson’s work and at other researchers in the field. 

Information sharing is key 

Marlow et al (2024) find that, contrary to previous assumptions, group Psychological Safety can decline over time, which is why we shouldn’t assume that it naturally builds as the team’s life cycle evolves. One factor that can increase psychological safety is the way the group shares information, especially in the earlier phase of their work. Team members like transparency: if there are deliberate, purposeful methods to share updates, information, work approaches and other things that are going on, team members are more likely to enter a state of psychological safety, the study shows.  

Participation and psychological safety 

Sesari et al (2025) conducted a  study to find out how psychological safety impacts team participation, with their findings suggesting that it does indeed foster sustained participation among members. Their research finds that teams can increase psychological safety and participation by inviting all members of a team to contribute, and by ensuring ‘interaction diversity’, whereby different members of the team, who may not naturally communicate as much, converse and share ideas. In our teams, are we fostering different members of the group speaking, discussing, working together and overcoming challenges together?

Psych safety diminishing over time 

Lastly, this one will appeal to you Milton fans out there. Bransby et al published a paper in 2023 called Paradise Lost (and Restored?): A Study of Psychological Safety over Time, which explores psych safety in healthcare teams. As many others have, their study reveals that psych safety is dynamic and fluctuates over time. Interestingly, when joining experienced teams, newcomers often started off with high psychological safety, but this then tails off, a bit like a honeymoon period. They recommend both ensuring that departments and teams continue to invest in psychological safety and not take it for granted, but also spend more time with new recruits as they integrate into teams over time, to help them remain psychologically safe. 

As we have read, psychological safety is an emergent state among a group of people. It is dynamic and everyone plays their part in maintaining and improving this in the team. But leadership really matters, here. Are leaders aware of the benefits of psychological safety? Do they understand the concept and how to implement it? When it has been introduced, do we as leaders know how to continue fostering this culture, even when things are tricky or busy? McKinsey (2021) found in a study that only 26% of leaders develop the skills needed to create psych safety for their teams. So, this is clearly an area that is underinvested in.

Once a team builds psychological safety, all aspects of their work can improve. They solve problems more, share information and resources, engage in regular low-stakes evaluation, pool their expertise honestly and productively, learn together, and get things done. It is one of the keys to unlock a team’s potential. 

Join me next time for some more tangible strategies about how to achieve this in your team. 

Thanks for reading and sharing

Sam

Click here for Part 3, out now!

Sources: 

Bransby, P. C., Edmondson, A., & Kerrissey, M. (2022). Paradise Lost (and Restored?): A Study of Psychological Safety Over Time. Academy of Management Journal, 66(4), 1076–1106. 

Edmondson, A. C. (2023). Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well. Atria Books. 

Harvard Business Review, Edmondson, A. C., Auger-Dominguez, D., Keswin, E., & Carucci, R. (2024). Psychological Safety (HBR Emotional Intelligence Series). Harvard Business Review Press. 

Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., & Salas, E. (2024). Examining How Psychological Safety Consensus Emerges Over Time. Small Group Research, 56(2), 175-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241288221 (Original work published 2025) 

McKinsey (2021). Just 26 percent of leaders create psychological safety for their teams. Website: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/sustainable-inclusive-growth/charts/just-26-percent-of-leaders-create-psychological-safety-for-their-teams

Sesari, E., Sarro, F., & Rastogi, A. (2025). Safe to Stay: Psychological Safety Sustains Participation in Pull-based Open Source Projects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17510.