Article

PSYCHOLOGICAL
SAFETY
– what, why and how?

By Rand Blak Barawy, Are you interested in creating an effective and high-performing
[email protected],
Implement Consulting Group team, or are you merely curious about how it can be done? Cre-
ating a workplace and a social climate that foster psychological
safety is key to creating effective and high-performing teams.

If we want to support organisations in including statisticians, organisational

becoming more fit for humans, an impor- psychologists, sociologist and engineers.
tant part is to work with both culture and Project Aristotle’s researchers reviewed
behaviour in organisations, teams and half a century of academic studies looking
individuals. Having worked with a broad at how teams worked and had also inter-
range of clients on creating effective and nally been collecting surveys, conducting
high-performing teams, one key approach interviews, making observations of groups
has been to foster psychological safety. and analysing statistics for almost three
years.
What constitutes the effective In 2015, Project Aristotle’s researchers
high-performing team? concluded that understanding and
In 2012, Google launched Project Aristotle influencing group norms were the keys to
in their quest to build the effective high- improving the teams of the company. In
performing team. They wanted to find out line with a 2010 study (Wolley et al.), they
what the main ingredients of the effective determined traits like social sensitivity and
high-performing team were and gathered conversational turn-taking as instrumental
some of the company’s best specialists, ingredients in an effective high-per-

implementconsultinggroup.com 1
Psychological safety

forming team. Since both traits are central to implement, it has proven to be quite
aspects of the concept of psychological difficult. Otherwise, we would assume
safety, the project team became very that psychological safety in teams would
interested in the concept and dug into be the norm.
its core.
When we perceive an interaction or setting
to have minimal interpersonal risk, and
Psychological safety is daring to we thus feel psychologically safe, we
speak up and make mistakes share thoughts without worry of negative
Psychological safety was defined by consequences. In contrast, when a setting
Harvard Business School professor Amy is psychologically unsafe, individuals are
Edmondson back in 1999 as a “shared less likely to share (Edmondson & Nemb-
belief held by members of a team that the hard, 2009).
team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking”.
Behaviours like asking a question,
A psychologically safe workplace is one providing input, seeking feedback,
where employees dare to speak up and reporting a problem or making a sugges-
make mistakes without the fear of humil- tion can make us susceptible to the risk
iation and punishment. In psychologically of appearing ignorant, incompetent,
safe teams, the team members give unable, disruptive or negative in front of
each other feedback and challenge each others. This may lead to embarrassment,
other. Thus, candour and authenticity rejection or punishment and is therefore
are central elements. Also, healthy and perceived as potentially unsafe.
constructive conflicts are a main part of
forming a psychologically safe team. In many of these situations, we unfor-
tunately tend to act in ways that inhibit
If team members are kind and polite learning, as we fear to face potential
without being candour and honest, team threat, embarrassment, rejection or
members will miss out on the opportunity punishment. We tend to rather stay silent
to communicate with and learn from each than to speak up, even if it could provide
other. Valuing politeness over progress benefits for the team or organisation. But
has by author Kim Scott (2017) been every time we withhold, we rob ourselves
named “ruinous empathy” – an empathy and our colleagues of small moments of
that may make employees feel good in the learning, and we simply miss out on the
short term but fail to help people grow or possibility to innovate.
improve.
Often, we are so busy managing impres-
I find it important to highlight a distinction sion, at least unconsciously, that we don’t
between psychological safety and inter- contribute to creating a better organisation
personal trust, as psychological safety (Edmondson, 2014). But our eagerness to
involves and goes beyond interpersonal manage impression also tells us some-
trust. It describes a team climate charac- thing about the social and cultural climate
terised by interpersonal trust and mutual we navigate in.
respect, in which people are comfortable
being themselves. We must thus under- Zooming in on the neuroperspective
stand psychological safety as a team If we zoom in on the brain, it can help us
concept rather than a concept that better understand why the creation of
describes the relationship between two psychological safety is difficult. When we
individuals (Edmondson, 1999). encounter something unexpected, our
amygdala, a part of our limbic system, is
aroused, and if the perception is danger,
Creating psychological safety is then the response becomes a pure threat
difficult – a neuroperspective response – also known as the fight, flight
Even though psychological safety in or freeze response.
theory might sound simple and easy

implementconsultinggroup.com 2
Psychological safety

The latest research suggests that we

Why psychological safety is good:
trigger the same neural responses that Effects of psychological safety
drive us toward survival when we perceive There are several reasons as to why the
the way we are treated by other people. creation of psychological safety should
Some studies even show that the brain be prioritised. Firstly, psychological safety
equates our social needs with our survival in teams affects learning behaviour,
(Rock, 2009). And as vital as our threat which in turn affects team performance
response was to our ancestors’ survival in (Edmondson, 1999). Secondly, studies
the savannah, it is almost as vital today to show that psychological safety allows
understand that a social threat or failure for moderate risk-taking, speaking your
isn’t life-threatening even though our mind, creativity and sticking your neck out
brains are trying to convince us of some- without fear of having it cut off (Delizonna,
thing else. 2017). Thirdly, psychological safety frees
up energy since you no longer spend
In other words, when you are criticised, mental resources on impression manage-
reprimanded, rejected or anything the ment and avoiding mistakes.
like, your brain will react as if your life is
threatened. And in that light, it is obvious As an example, it is both mentally taxing
that most of us will try to minimise the and deadly to the productivity of both
risk of being in a situation that is perceived persons and organisations to handle the
threatening by the brain – if we can. threat response. The threat response and
the energy you spend on handling the
Another interesting study by Naomi Eisen- threat response occupy your brain and
berger et al. (2006), a leading social neuro- impair analytical thinking, creative insight
science researcher at the University of and problem-solving. In other words, when
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), indicates you need your mental capabilities the
that physical pain and social rejections most, your brain’s internal resources are
share neurocognitive substrates. When taken away from you (Rock, 2009).
researchers looked at brain images from
the study, they found activity in the dorsal In a psychologically safe workplace, we
portion of the anterior cingulate cortex, feel free to share ideas, mistakes and
which is the same neural region that is criticism. We are less worried about
involved in physical pain. This means that protecting our image and more focused
the feeling of being excluded provoked on doing great work. That is, we’re free to
the same sort of reaction in the brain that focus on and contribute to the company’s
physical pain might cause. mission (Edmondson, 2018). According
to Edmondson (Edmondson & Nickisch,
Matthew Lieberman, one of Eisenberger’s 2019), another issue with the lack of
fellow researchers at UCLA, hypothesises psychological safety is that we are not
that human beings evolved this link tapping into all the latent talent that
between social connection and physical exists in our organisations since we are
pain within the brain because social not making it psychologically safe enough
connection to caregivers is necessary for to get to that talent and put it to good
mammals to survive. The brain doesn’t work.
differentiate between you being at work or
in a private setting. Instead, it experiences In sum: If you want your employees
the workplace as being first and foremost to be satisfied, empowered, engaged,
a social system. motivated, creative, innovative, candour,
learning, growing, sharing information and
If we want to create a psychologically high-performing, then you might want to
safe workplace, we must handle and work hard on creating a workplace and a
cope with the neural impulses that can social climate that foster psychological
perceive aspects of social interactions safety.
as both threats and physical pain.

implementconsultinggroup.com 3
Psychological safety

10 ways to create team member to get back on track

and to solve the issue at hand. No one
psychological likes to screw up, and the last thing
we need is a leader telling us that it is
safety bad that we screwed up. We need help
figuring out how to get back on track.
If someone is screwing up repeatedly,
As I see it, there are two different we have an obligation to help solve the
approaches as to how you can foster issues and challenges (Edmondson &
psychological safety in teams. One Nickisch, 2019). Furthermore, nothing
approach is to work with behaviours, kills psychological safety quicker than
especially leadership behaviour, and a negative reaction to an error. Instead,
another approach is to hack the structures focus on the positives: A mistake was
around you. caught, it can be fixed, and there’s
something to learn from the experience.
In the following, I will introduce you to five Above all, a psychologically safe envi-
behavioural and five structural ways to ronment protects employees from the
create psychological safety in your team. fear of being wrong.

4. Ask for and give feedback

Behaviours that create Ask for feedback on how you deliv-
psychological safety: ered your message. It disarms your
1. Dare to be vulnerable and show opponent, illuminates blind spots in
fallibility communication and models fallibility,
Show your colleagues that it is OK which again increases trust (Delizonna,
to make mistakes by demonstrating 2017). Asking for feedback has no hier-
vulnerability and directness. When you archy. If seniors, leaders or experienced
articulate that no one is perfect, you colleagues practice willingness to
can accelerate a new culture in your learn and curiosity towards their own
team where making mistakes is appre- appearance, it will have an impact on
ciated and celebrated for the sake of the organisational culture. Give feed-
creating more boldness and innovation. back when you can, and when you do,
Showing fallibility also has a posi- be specific, constructive and appre-
tive effect on interpersonal empathy. ciative, but remember: No matter how
According to Edmondson, it can even constructive you believe you are, feed-
be effective for leaders to apologise for back can trigger defence mechanisms
not facilitating trust and safety in the in the recipient, making them less
past. receptive to new ideas. Separate feed-
back from evaluation where you can,
2. Be curious and humble clearly make your feedback focused on
Have an open mindset and be curious. development and problem-solving and
The great team consists of team evaluate on performance separately.
members who are humble in the face of
the challenges that lie ahead, and it is 5. Welcome questions, doubts and
curious about what others bring. Situ- bad news
ational humility combined with curi- Ask for questions and opinions and be
osity creates a sense of psychological proactive in inviting input. When you
safety that allows you to take risks with ask your employees for their opinions
strangers (Edmondson, 2017). in group settings, they will not only feel
more involved and accountable but
3. Respond productively and forgive also empowered to innovate (Slack,
mistakes 2019). Managers should show appreci-
It is OK to be disappointed as a leader, ation when employees speak up about
but the disappointment may never be unrealistic timeliness or ask for clarifi-
so dominant that you can’t help your cation on a project.

implementconsultinggroup.com 4
Psychological safety

Thank them for voicing their concerns, members spoke proportionally the
and then help them decide on next same amount of time, a phenomenon
steps (Slack, 2019). Finally, leaders that researchers referred to as “equality
must respond to good ideas and bad in distribution of conversational turn-
news alike with appreciation. The prac- taking”. If only one person or a small
tices above help to build and reinforce group speaks all the time, the collective
a culture of psychological safety. intelligence will decline (Duhigg, 2016).

8. Feedback sessions and giving

Structures and designs that employees a voice
create psychological safety: Set up meetings and sessions that are
6. Setting the stage designed in thoughtful ways to make it
Building a culture of psychological easier for the team to give each other
safety, paradoxically, starts with being candid feedback or to really critique
open and explicit about the many chal- the work at hand (Edmondson & Nick-
lenges that lie ahead. Amy Edmondson isch, 2019). Create liberal pathways
call this “setting the stage”. Setting to leadership, provide channels for
the stage means getting people on the feedback and encourage conversation.
same page about the nature of the Upward communication can be a vital
work they are doing (Edmondson & force in helping contemporary organi-
Nickisch, 2019). Most companies today sations learn and succeed. By speaking
operate in complex and uncertain up to those who occupy positions to
environments. They face constant authorise actions, employees can help
risks – risks of obsolescence, of new challenge the status quo, identify prob-
nimble competitors, of employee lems or opportunities for improvement
burnout and more. It may seem strange and offer ideas to improve their organi-
to argue that leaders should emphasise sations’ well-being (Attfield, 2019).
such risks but doing so builds psycho-
logical safety by clarifying the rationale 9. Empathy training – storytelling
for speaking up. It helps people under- Create sessions where every member
stand that their input is critical to the of the team shares a story with team
company’s ability to keep learning – as members to raise the level of interper-
it must to remain viable. Leaders need sonal empathy. Storytelling is a good
to make sure people know that they’re method for that purpose. By sharing
operating in complex knowledge-inten- personal stories, you support the crea-
sive businesses that live and die based tion of an environment and culture
on thoughtful input and intelligent risk- where employees can bring their full
taking (Edmondson, 2018). selves to work. No one wants to leave
their personality and inner life at home.
7. Conversational turn-taking We want work to be more than just
Tom Carmazzi, CEO of manufacturing labour. Building bonds is essential and
company Tuthill in the US, uses index telling and sharing stories with team
cards to create a safe space in his members can help cultivate the bonds.
meeting rooms. All meeting participants
write down something they want 10. Prototype, test and evaluate
to share on a flashcard. This gives Create sessions where employees
everyone a chance to share their opin- and leaders prototype the behaviours
ions and goals and sets the stage they want themselves and each other
for co-workers to ask clarifying, non- to practice. Test it in real life and use
leading questions for more insight different formats to evaluate how it
(Slack, 2019). By structuring turn-taking works. Is something hindering our
this way, you can control that everybody intended behaviours? Can we hack that
gives their input to any given topic at “something” and more successfully
hand. In Google’s Project Aristotle, they implement the well-intended behav-
noticed that in the effective teams, iours and social practices?

implementconsultinggroup.com 5
Psychological safety

References Edmondson, A. (2014). Building a psycho-

Attfield, B. (2019). 7 ways to create logical safe workplace. Ted Talk.
psychological safety in your workplace,
Jostle Edmondson, A.C. (2017). How to turn a
group of strangers into a team. Ted Talk.
Duhigg, C. (2016). What Google learned
from its quest to build the perfect team. Edmondson, A. C. & Nickisch, C. (2019).
The New York Times Magazine, 26, 2016. Creating psychological safety in the work-
place. Harvard Business Review.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological
safety and learning behavior in work Eisenberger, N. I., Jarcho, J. M., Lieberman,
teams. Administrative science quarterly, M. D., & Naliboff, B. D. (2006). An exper-
44(2), 350-383. imental study of shared sensitivity to
physical pain and social rejection. Pain,
Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. 126(1-3), 132-138.
(2009). Product development and learning
in project teams: The challenges are the Delizonna, L. (2017). High-performing
benefits. Journal of product innovation teams need psychological safety. Here’s
management, 26(2), 123-138. how to create It. Harvard Business Review,
24.

Rock, D. (2009). Managing with the brain

in mind. PwC Strategy & Edmondson,
A. (2018). How to build work cultures of
psychological safety rather than fear.
Interview with Kathy Caprino, Forbes.

Scott, K. (2017). Radical Candor: How to

Get What You Want by Saying What You
Mean. Pan Macmillan.

Slack. (2019). Psychological safety first:

building trust among teams. From the
team behind slack.

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland,

A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010).
Evidence for a collective intelligence
factor in the performance of human
groups. science, 330(6004), 686-688.

FAST FACTS
ABOUT IMPLEMENT
Founded: 1996
Number of employees: 900
Offices: Copenhagen, Aarhus, Stockholm, Malmo, Oslo, Zurich and Munich
implementconsultinggroup.com