Psychological safety as team practices

Amy Edmondson, a researcher at Harvard Business School, defined team psychological safety as a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Interpersonal risks are ordinary work acts that could make someone look ignorant, incompetent or disruptive: asking a question, admitting a mistake, raising a concern or disagreeing with a more senior person. In her study of work teams in a manufacturing company, psychological safety was associated with more learning behavior, and learning behavior was associated with better team performance. That study, like much of the later research, shows association rather than proof that one causes the other, but the pattern has been repeated in many settings.

Psychological safety is not the same as being nice, avoiding conflict or lowering expectations. A team can hold high standards and still make it safe to say that something is not working. In fact, candor is what lets high standards be met. It is also a team-level condition. It describes how a group works, not a personality trait that some staff have and others lack.

Because it is a condition, it is built through practices that anyone can observe. Make disagreement normal: before deciding, ask for the strongest case against your own idea, and thank the person who raised a concern in front of others. Separate unfamiliarity from intentional harm: most awkward moments at work come from not knowing, and the right response is information and a chance to change. Intentional harm goes to the formal channels. Put repair on the person with more power: when a comment or decision lands badly, the leader names it and takes responsibility, and the person harmed is not asked to explain, educate or forgive on a schedule. Show that input changed something: regularly say what changed because someone spoke up, and if nothing did, say why. Watch the grind: constant urgency silences people, so protect time for thinking and for saying no.

None of this replaces the confidential and formal channels. A team with good habits still routes complaints of harassment and discrimination to HR and EOAD. Psychological safety makes it more likely people will speak up early. It does not make the supervisor an investigator.

Fictional case: Rosalind supervises a DSD waiver policy team. In a planning meeting, she dismisses a concern from a newer analyst, Obi, about a notice that he thinks will confuse families, saying there is no time to revisit it. Two weeks later a county partner raises the same problem. Rosalind notices that Obi has stopped speaking in meetings. She wants to fix the damage without making Obi feel singled out.

In your next meeting, try one practice: ask for the strongest case against a proposal, or close by saying one thing that changed because someone raised it. Notice what happens.

Think of a team where you felt free to disagree. What did the leader or group do that made that possible? Which of those habits do you practice yourself?