Psychological Safety is Insufficient

By Karen Natzel, Business Therapist, K Communications

As a culture cultivator, I am buoyed by leaders’ growing awareness of psychological safety’s role in fostering healthy team dynamics. In the same breath, I feel I need to offer a cautionary tale about how it gets nurtured in the workplace, lest it turn into an unintentional liability.

Let’s start with what it actually means to have a psychologically safe workplace. Dr. Amy Edmonson, Harvard Business School Professor and pioneer of the concept defines it as “a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes, and that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.”

In her research, teams that had psychological safety as their backdrop were more likely to take initiative, be innovative, and bring out the best in each other. A psychologically safe workplace can help mitigate inherent power dynamics between leaders and their direct reports so that candid conversations can take place. It can foster a learning environment with a mindset of continuous improvement – emphasizing lessons learned over mistakes made.

Social scientist Timothy Clark outlines the following stages in his book, The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety:

Stage 1: Safety to connect – “Can I be myself?”

The journey starts with belonging. People need to know they are accepted and respected for who they are, regardless of background, role, or difference. Without it, people mask parts of themselves, and collaboration suffers.

Stage 2: Safety to learn – “Can I grow?”

Once people feel included, they want to develop. Learner safety is about giving permission to ask questions, experiment, and make mistakes without fear. Errors are reframed as opportunities to learn. Curiosity is encouraged, not criticized.

Stage 3: Safety to contribute – “Can I make a difference?”

Inclusion and learning pave the way for contribution. Here, individuals feel safe to use their skills, ideas, and strengths to make a tangible impact. Contributions are welcomed and recognized. Everyone’s perspective is seen as valuable. Leaders create space for people to step forward and add their voice.

Stage 4: Safety to challenge – “Can I challenge the status quo?”

The final stage is about courage. Challenger safety allows individuals to question assumptions and spark debate. Dissent is seen as healthy, not disruptive. Leaders invite contrarian voices, even when it’s uncomfortable. Teams become adaptable, resilient, and forward-thinking.

This is where true transformation happens — when people feel safe to question the way things are and imagine how they could be better.

Red Flags

Where it gets messy is when psychological safety is misconstrued, deployed purely rhetorically, or even weaponized, thereby eroding the very trust it is meant to establish.

What Psychological Safety is NOT:

1.     A shield for accountability. “While people should always be inherently valued, there’s no diplomatic immunity from delivering results in the workplace.”*

2.     A justification for the avoidance of hard conversations.

3.     Coddling. “Psychological Safety means respecting your humanity, not increasing your fragility.”*

4.     Consensus decision-making. Psychological safety gives people a voice, but it does not change decision-making authority.

5.     Unearned autonomy. Psychological safety can increase influence and contribution, but there is still oversight and approval in the mix.

6.     Placating. If you merely say the words but fail to live it in spirit, your culture will grow more toxic, not less.     

* Timothy Clark, The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety

Pitfall: Confusing safety with comfort

Psychological safety is not about making work comfortable. It’s about making honesty possible. When honesty is possible, teams learn faster, solve problems earlier, and hold each other accountable with far less drama and communication breakdowns. 

Hard conversations, tough feedback, and mistakes will naturally bring up challenging emotions that create discomfort. Growth comes from leaning into discomfort with a desire to improve and a curiosity to understand what happened so those mistakes are not made again.

Disagreements can be a sign of healthy, robust problem solving. A disagreement doesn't have to equate to defensiveness - it may simply be a difference of perspective or opinion.

The Psychological Safety [PS] + Accountability Matrix

1. Apathy Zone: [Low PS/Low Accountability] Disengagement, minimal effort, low initiative, check the box

Lack of direction, avoidance of difficult conversations, little recognition or feedback, Energy here feels flat. Innovation and ownership rarely appear.

2. Anxiety Zone: [Low PS / High Accountability] This environment pushes for results but punishes mistakes.

Fear of speaking up, risk avoidance, blame when things go wrong, defensive communication. People may work hard, but creativity and honesty shrink. Teams in this zone often hide problems until they become large.

3. Comfort Zone: [High PS/Low Accountability] This is where the misinterpretation of psychological safety often lands.

Friendly relationships, avoidance of tough feedback, low performance pressure, lots of support but little stretch. The culture is pleasant but not very productive. Teams may protect harmony rather than challenge each other.

4. Learning Zone: [High PS/High Accountability] This is where strong teams live.

There is open dialogue, constructive challenge, clear expectations, rapid learning from mistakes, and ownership for results.

Leadership Behaviors that Foster the Learning Zone

Leaders can create a sense of safety by admitting their own mistakes. When leaders model vulnerability and authenticity, they set the tone for learning.

They can also cultivate the learning zone by asking for people’s perspective and advice and thanking them when they raise concerns. When leaders are confident enough to solicit and reward feedback, this encourages employees to say what they really think and to be willing to hear the opinions of others in return.

Wouldn’t you want people to feel safe enough to tell you what they really think, rather than what they think you want to hear? There is nothing safe about wondering what other people really think or where you stand!

Additionally, leaders can increase their team’s capacity to embrace accountability by setting clear expectations, clarifying roles and ownership, following through on commitments, and addressing performance gaps directly and promptly.

When people feel safe, and when there is clear and healthy accountability, people don’t just show up — they raise their game.

Telltale Signs of Organizational Stress Fractures

I see organizations as living systems, shaped by both structure and the humans who animate them. Organizations have personalities, patterns, characteristics, reputations, and fluctuating levels of health.

Organizational stress often stems from heightened demand: rapid growth, constant change, competing initiatives, market or political pressures, leadership transitions, or any factors that increase the experience of instability.

Given the uncertainty, speed, and bombardment of noise in our world, it is no surprise that organizations feel like they are running on reserves. 

Recognizing the Signs

Organizations under prolonged stress tend to exhibit recognizable patterns, including:

• Communication breakdowns

• Role confusion and unclear ownership and authority

• Reduced accountability and increased finger-pointing

• Passive-aggressive behaviors

• Task-focused “check the box” execution with limited big-picture awareness

• Decreased collaboration and increased “us vs. them” dynamics

• A nearly constant state of urgency and reactivity

Among these, one of the clearest signals of a stressed culture is the normalization of chronic firefighting.

Firefighting: Heroic Lift or Monkey Wrenches in the System?

In stressed ecosystems, everything begins to feel urgent. Leaders become first responders to a continuous stream of issues, operating at high speed.

Human nervous systems are not designed for sustained high alert. When leaders and teams operate in constant urgency, they risk:

• Reactive thinking overriding reflection

• Diminished creativity, strategic insight, and empathy

• Short-term, fragmented decision-making

• Stress responses becoming the baseline

Leaders act as signal amplifiers. Their urgency spreads through meetings, teams, and workflows, reinforcing a system-wide sense of pressure and relentless optimization.  The result: organizations reduce their ability to navigate complexity and spark innovation.

Why Leaders Slip Into Firefighting Mode

This pattern rarely begins as dysfunction. It often starts with care and a desire to help.

Leaders step in because they want to protect their teams, meet expectations, and solve problems quickly. Many are rewarded for decisiveness and responsiveness. For natural problem-solvers, there is also a sense of satisfaction in resolving immediate issues.

Over time, urgency becomes a habit loop. Firefighting feels productive because it is visible and immediate. Strategic work, by contrast, is quieter. It requires consistency, discipline, patience, and long-term focus, often without immediate recognition.

The Cultural Ripple Effect

Culture takes its cues from leadership behavior. When urgency becomes the norm:

• Everything feels like a priority, which ultimately means nothing is

• Initiative declines as people wait for direction

• Planning loses traction because priorities frequently shift

• Speaking up feels less useful or worthwhile

The result is a culture that emphasizes motion over meaning and busyness over effectiveness.

The Illusion of Productivity

Firefighting can create the appearance of productivity. Problems are addressed, and work keeps moving.

Beneath the surface, however, work is frequently interrupted, fragmenting focus. Shifting priorities lead to wasted effort and rework. Decisions are made on the fly, often without sufficient context or coordination. Meanwhile, underlying systems receive only patchwork attention.

The Hidden Cost

Operating in a constant state of urgency carries costs that are not always visible:

• Talent is underutilized when leaders step in rather than build capability

• Time is spent reacting rather than preventing issues

• Burnout increases, often leading to turnover and loss of institutional knowledge

• Systems and tools are layered on reactively, increasing complexity

This mode of operation becomes both inefficient and unsustainable.

Morale: From Engagement to Exhaustion

Initially, high-intensity environments can feel energizing. There’s a sense of camaraderie in “getting through it together.” Eventually, it can have a negative impact. People feel like they can never catch up, success is fleeting, all effort and no rest reduce long-term capacity, and trust erodes. What begins as intensity often ends in fatigue, disengagement, and eventual withdrawal.

The Underlying Paradox

Firefighting often feels like effective leadership. It signals commitment, competence, and control.

Yet when sustained, it is frequently a symptom of deeper misalignment, including:

• Unclear priorities

• Ineffective systems

• Avoidance of difficult strategic decisions

• Lack of boundaries

In this way, the very behavior that appears to stabilize the organization may, over time, contribute to its strain.

Moving Toward Health and Resilience

Shifting out of firefighting mode is not easy. But awareness creates choice. As leaders recognize their patterns and triggers, they can respond more intentionally and strategically.

If stress fractures are forming, the solution is not to move faster. It is to reduce strain, strengthen systems, and create conditions for sustainable performance.

Practical shifts include:

• Pause before acting. Create space for reflection and thoughtful triage. Guide rather than do.

• Clarify priorities. Limit active initiatives and align resources accordingly.

• Strengthen execution. Treat internal work with the same rigor as external commitments, with clear ownership and accountability.

• Finish what you start. Incomplete efforts create drag and erode trust.

• Define success clearly. Align on outcomes and focus on what matters most.

• Communicate context. When priorities shift, explain why and connect decisions to strategy.

• Assess organizational health. Address root causes, not just symptoms.

Firefighting may never disappear entirely, but it no longer has to define how the system operates.

Leaders can turn down the heat, creating an environment where clarity, steadiness, and calmness set the stage for smart, long-term and robust organizational health.