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/High 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.
