By Adrian Furnham and Dr Amanda Potter
At your last departmental meeting, did you join in, or did you zone out? Did you buckle down, or clam up? Well, don’t feel too bad if your participation wasn’t as wholehearted as it might have been. It could just be that you’re a victim of poor psychological safety.
When is it unwise to express your views at work? “Speak now or forever hold your peace” is a sentence that is often heard at Christian wedding ceremonies. There is a difference between using the words “peace” and “piece”. You “say your piece” when you want to speak your mind. You “hold your peace” if you are going to keep quiet.
There are numerous occasions when it is unwise to “pipe up”. One is where you are simply ignorant about the topic. But all too often, most people report on times when they (and others) did not feel confident enough to speak up on an important issue and where they were later proved right. It is not always a matter of confidence or eloquence. It is often about the perceived consequences of airing particular views. In short, you get punished. The situation is that it is simply not safe to air your views.
There is a lot of psychological research on the topic of (not) speaking up in groups. To choose three examples:
1. Brainstorming/Thought-Showering
You must have taken part in a brainstorming session, which now often goes under less misleading and potentially offensive terms. Whatever you call them, these idea-generating sessions can be a lot of fun. They have strict(ish) rules, which include freewheeling, out-of-the-box thinking and speaking, and piggy-backing. They can lead to seriously creative ideas, as well as create a powerful sense of group well-being.
Participants in these sessions are encouraged to be different, to break the mould, to let rip and allow any crazy idea or association into the solution. Silence is discouraged and nothing is unacceptable. The second rule is no criticism. In order to encourage the most creative ideas, participants should not be put off by the disapproval of others. At this stage, all ideas, however way out (indeed because they are unusual), are equally valuable. Be courageous and outrageous.
The third rule is that piggy-backing is OK. This means that it is quite acceptable to jump on the back of others, to run with their ideas and to follow someone down an unusual path. Indeed, this is precisely why this activity is group-oriented. Groups supposedly give one synergy and energy, and provide stimulation.
Brainstorming is used most frequently to generate as many solutions to a particular problem as possible, because quantity is favoured over quality. The product of a session is ideally a wide range of possible conclusions (options, solutions) which can be presented to a third party qualified to pick the best one. The basic assumption is that “two heads are better than one” and that, together, in groups, innovative solutions can be found.
So how are brainstorming sessions different from the average business or staff meeting? Standard business meetings are clearly structured not around fun, but often the complete opposite. There are explicit or implicit rules about who and what can be challenged and criticised – and, more importantly, when it is safe to speak up.
2. Pluralistic Ignorance and Collective Illusions
Ever come out of a meeting when there was supposedly total agreement about a decision, and confessed to a (trusted and close) colleague that you personally did not agree with the decision, only to find that they feel just the same? Then one wonders about the others who all voted in the same way. Did no one have the guts to speak up?
Pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly believe that others predominantly hold an opinion different from their own.
Pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly believe that others predominantly hold an opinion different from their own. People don’t speak up or disagree with others out of fear, embarrassment, or social inhibition. In pluralistic ignorance, people often privately reject but publicly support a norm or belief.
This is related to wilful blindness. In decision-making, wilful blindness means choosing to ignore critical information, risks, or perspectives that could challenge your assumptions or make your choice more difficult, even when evidence is available. This is particularly the case if there is cognitive dissonance. It’s refusing to see, because you don’t want to see.
This is all related to the “groupthink”, false consensus, illusion of unanimity, and spiral of silence effects. Pluralistic ignorance has also been cited to explain why majorities remain comparatively quiet about certain issues at work and keep up the collective illusion of consensus.
3. Conformity
Conformity is defined as the tendency to change one’s belief and / or behaviours in ways that are consistent with the group norm or standard. It means yielding to perceived group pressure to behave like the group, even when no direct request or command has been made. In this sense it is different from compliance, which is doing what others request or ask you do to (even if you prefer not to), and obedience (which is following orders).
Some of the most dramatic studies in social psychology have demonstrated how often people conform to the group, even when the group is seen to be wrong.
We also conform because we like to “fit in”, to gain social acceptance. This is the very essence of social pressure.
People look to others for clues on how to behave. What is correct etiquette? The less informed we believe ourselves to be and the more informed we perceive those around us to be, the more we “follow the crowd”. This seems a rational process. We also conform because we like to “fit in”, to gain social acceptance. This is the very essence of social pressure. We do so because of our need to belong. To be a member of the group, we need to follow the rules and norms, even if perhaps we disagree with them. Certain groups allow for rule-breakers and non-conformers. Some make it safe for people not to conform, though that may be the exception rather than the rule.
What Are the Core Elements of Psychological Safety?
Psychological safety is characterised as the belief that individuals feel comfortable speaking up, asking for help, admitting mistakes, or challenging the status quo, all without the fear of negative consequences for their brand, self-image, status, or career. Essentially it is when people feel safe at work, they take smart risks, speak honestly, and contribute fully. This raises an important question: is such openness only for the brave, the naïve, or those already inclined to take risks?
In practice, psychological safety is feeling safe enough in your environment at work to be honest and candid, try new approaches, raise concerns, offer suggestions, make mistakes, and ask for support. These behaviours are distinct yet interconnected. Not feeling able to safely contribute to work issues can cause staff to feel frustrated and also leave good ideas unaired.
Achieving psychological safety requires a team or organisational climate of trust, interpersonal connection, respect, openness, inclusion, and a willingness to learn. These elements, while not identical, reinforce one another and together create the conditions in which people can participate more confidently and constructively.
Most importantly, psychological safety is not just a “nice to have”. There is lots of empirical—not just anecdotal—evidence that demonstrates that psychological safety underpins high performance, innovation, and employee engagement. Of course, it is not binary (have / not have) nor similar across all contexts and situations. One might feel more able to express honest personal views in a team vs in a departmental meeting (complete honesty = high psychological safety). Employers might feel safe enough to confront the CPO but not the CFO or CEO.
In a review, Newman et al. (2017) noted:
In the majority of studies we reviewed, psychological safety was the mechanism through which the effects of these supportive environments were transmitted to desirable outcomes, such as increased knowledge sharing, engagement, creativity, innovation, and ultimately performance … Psychological safety is a valuable resource, especially important in hazardous work contexts where speaking up and providing feedback is imperative in order to reduce errors and improve safety (p. 530).
Facets or Components
Those who have attempted to measure psychological safety have come up with different facets to get a finer-grained understanding of the concept. For example, Plouffe et al. (2023) developed the Psychological Safety Inventory, which has five dimensions. Interpersonal Risk-Taking is defined as a sense of confidence that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (e.g., speaking up about mistakes, asking for help, seeking feedback, and experimentation). Mutual Trust Respect refers to perceptions of the team environment, whereby individuals exhibit trust and mutual trust, care about and are interested in each other. Organisational / Structural Support is characterised by the presence of structural features such as adequate access to resources, information, and rewards to promote a sense of support. Identity and Clarity refers to perceptions of positive individual identity, importance, and security within the team. Supportive Leadership reflects one’s perceptions of positive leadership defined through effective guidance and support, encouraging personal growth, and prioritising the open and efficient resolution of issues.
Our research led to a slightly different model, also with five facets. These were Learning from Mistakes, Being Inclusive, Creating Purpose, Speaking up and Sharing ideas, and being Personally Connected.
Teams that learn from mistakes tend to see failure as a learning opportunity, often report mistakes honestly, and are likely to take time to consider and reflect on errors. For example, a sales team that learn from mistakes may analyse why they missed their sales target so they can improve next quarter. They treat mistakes not as something to hide or be ashamed of but openly discuss them and use the discussion to refine their future strategies.
When the team focuses on being inclusive, they are likely to value equality and often take time to actively listen to their colleagues. For example, during a project launch meeting, everyone may be encouraged to share their ideas, and quieter team members are specifically given space to speak and share their views. Ideally, the project lead ensures that all voices are heard and respected, fostering a sense of belonging and mutual respect.
When a team has a clear purpose, they clarify team roles and responsibilities, set clear standards, and all work toward a common goal. For example, if each team member understands their specific role in delivering the project and everyone aligns their work toward achieving the company’s mission, they are more likely to succeed. They stay focused on shared objectives, ensuring clarity, accountability, and collective progress.
When a team speaks up and shares ideas, they engage openly in conversation and debate, and can be vocal in questioning assumptions. For example, when invited to brainstorm, team members openly challenge each other’s ideas to explore all perspectives before making a decision. They see constructive debate as a strength, using genuinely open dialogue to spark innovation, improve outcomes, and avoid conformity.
At the heart of psychological safety is personal connection. When people invest in each other’s personal and collective success, they tend to understand one another more deeply. When team members check in on each other’s well-being and celebrate both personal and professional milestones together, they build trust through genuine care, compassion, and support, creating a safe environment where everyone feels valued, heard, and understood.
Climate and Culture
It is important to distinguish between organisational climate (the shared perceptions of the day-to-day working environment) and culture (the deeper values and norms). Psychological safety is considered more a climate phenomenon—how people feel in their team’s environment.
It is very apparent to an outsider whether groups experience psychological safety. It can be seen in their everyday interactions. It doesn’t happen by accident; it must be understood, measured, and actively nurtured. In highly competitive, dog-eat-dog cultures, psychological safety really does not exist—indeed the opposite: the office is a battleground with winners and losers, heroes and suckers, the victors and the vanquished. Stick your head above the parapet and you get shot.
But we know the benefits of psychological safety: high-trust teams, inclusion, innovation, better decision-making, employee well-being, retention. Research has found that psychological safety contributes to productivity and team effectiveness. Psychologically safe teams are more likely to achieve financial success. Of course, it is not the only important factor in healthy, happy, and productive teamwork, but it seems to be a prerequisite for many other factors.
The good news is that psychological safety is relatively simple to measure and not too difficult to introduce. But it is a journey and not the destination, a delicate flower that needs constant surveillance and nurturing.
About the Authors
Adrian Furnham is Professor in the Department of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the Norwegian Business School, which is a very safe organisational environment.
Dr Amanda Potter is the CEO Zircon Management Consulting Ltd and the lead author of the “BeTalent Psychological Safety Questionnaire”, and the award-winning host of the “Chief Psychology Officer” podcast.
