What happens when we get psychological safety wrong?
Everyone talks about it, everyone wants it, but few know how to implement it…
We see it in the consulting projects we do with companies where we are helping them with culture evolution and change.
The people supporting and championing it have the best intentions, however, many of the initiatives on psychological safety just fall short:
Why does this happen?
(i)they fail to account for the system (ii) we go too narrow with individual behaviours (iii) we forget to include power dynamics
Laura de Molière has an article that can help you see the pitfalls from a behavioural lens:
1. Overlooking Systemic Influences
When we diagnose problems related to psychological safety, we tend to focus on the behaviors we see: people staying silent in meetings, hesitating to speak up, or avoiding conflict. But these behaviors don’t happen in isolation. They’re often driven by systemic factors like performance management systems, leadership recruitment, or the ways projects are managed.
As Laura writes, "it is important to take an organization‘s particular context into account when thinking about how to improve psychological safety. Systems influences will be unique, as will be the individuals that are in the organization"
2. Focusing Too Much on Individual Behaviors
"The concept of psychological safety does not actually describe individual behaviours, but a shared belief that is the property of a team (i.e. that this is a safe environment to speak out and take risks)"
Focusing only on individual behaviors without addressing broader beliefs can lead to unintended consequences.
For example, pushing people to speak up more might actually result in criticism or conflict if the broader team dynamic doesn’t support it or emphasizing positive interactions too much could create “toxic positivity,” where negative emotions are suppressed.
3. Ignoring Power Dynamics
One of the most overlooked aspects of psychological safety is power dynamics. Leaders often forget that their perception of safety is different from that of junior team members.
Meaning that the C-Level usually by default already have higher psychological safety than the rest of those in the organization, who may fear negative consequences.
Remember, "well-meant interventions can backfire, and risk employee wellbeing as a result. All too often, people have a shared history. Where a team member was once bullied or dismissed by a leader, it might be perceived as disingenuous to focus on psychological safety without acknowledging past structures and patterns."
If we want to work on change, we need to start moving away from a purely individual focused approach to a more holistic, systemic and systematic way.