70% of managers overestimate the psychological safety in their team

When the leader feels that everyone dares to speak their mind, reality can look very different. Research points to a gap between the manager's perception of safety and the employees' experience. But how do we discover what is left unsaid, and what does it take to create a work climate where people actually dare to contribute?

“We have no problems with that here. Everyone dares to say what they think,” says the CEO, looking around the room. A few members of the management team nod in agreement. But further down the table, two employees exchange glances. Someone discreetly raises an eyebrow. No one objects.

It is easy to confuse the absence of conflict with the presence of psychological safety. But the fact that no one protests does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees. Sometimes it means exactly the opposite.

When the manager's perception does not match reality

A dissertation from the University of San Diego (Harrell, 2020) reported that 70 percent of managers overestimated the psychological safety in their groups. It is a thought-provoking figure, but the result is perhaps not particularly surprising. As a leader, you often have more information, greater influence and a different position in the group than your employees. What feels obvious and risk-free to you can feel considerably more sensitive to someone else.

Questioning a decision, admitting a mistake or raising a problem can involve a social risk, especially when the person listening also has influence over your tasks, development or future. We humans also tend to assume that others experience situations roughly the way we do. That is why a leader can be convinced that there is an open conversational climate, while employees have learned which topics are best avoided. In other words, psychological safety cannot be determined by how safe the leader feels, but must be understood from how the members of the group actually experience the climate.

Artificial harmony – when silence is mistaken for consensus

One of the greatest challenges in many teams and management groups is what is often called artificial harmony. On the surface, collaboration works. Meetings run smoothly, conflicts are few and decisions are made without much resistance. But beneath the surface there may be a very different reality. Employees have learned which topics are sensitive, which opinions are accepted and when it is wisest to stay quiet. They adapt their behaviour to avoid social risks, rather than contributing their real perspectives.

It can mean holding back an idea for fear of appearing ignorant, avoiding questioning a decision that already seems made, or raising problems in the corridor instead of in the meeting. The problem is that artificial harmony often looks like well-functioning collaboration. The group appears united and efficient, while important perspectives, objections and ideas never surface.

A team where everyone agrees is not necessarily a team where everyone dares to disagree. When people start censoring themselves, the organisation risks missing out on learning, innovation and better decisions. Especially in management teams, where decisions often affect many people, the price of silence can be high.

Psychological safety is not about always agreeing

The concept of psychological safety has had a major impact, not least through Professor Amy Edmondson's research and Google's much-publicised Project Aristotle. Despite this, misconceptions remain about what psychological safety actually means. It is not about everyone always feeling comfortable, about avoiding conflict or about lowering standards. On the contrary, it is about creating a climate where people dare to take interpersonal risks: asking questions, expressing dissenting opinions, asking for help, admitting mistakes and challenging established ways of working without fear of being ridiculed, punished or belittled.

Amy Edmondson's research shows how psychological safety creates the conditions for learning and development in teams. When safety is combined with clear expectations and accountability, it becomes possible to both challenge each other and work towards ambitious goals. Safety is therefore not the opposite of high demands, but an important prerequisite for people daring to meet them together.

What does the research say about the effects?

A comprehensive meta-analysis by Frazier and colleagues (2017), which compiled results from 136 independent samples, shows links between psychological safety and several important aspects of working life, including performance, learning, information sharing and engagement.

When people dare to share unfinished thoughts, question established solutions and propose new ways of working, better conditions are created for innovation and creative problem-solving. Innovation rarely begins with everyone agreeing, but often with someone daring to think differently. In the same way, it becomes easier to learn from mistakes and handle changing conditions when the members of the group can openly discuss what is not working.

Psychological safety also matters for the quality of collaboration. Feedback is crucial for development, but at the same time involves a social risk. Telling a colleague that something needs to improve, or asking for help yourself, requires a certain degree of trust. When safety is higher, it becomes easier to give and receive feedback, share knowledge and raise problems before they grow.

Research also shows links between psychological safety and positive work-related outcomes, such as engagement and job satisfaction. Constantly having to weigh your words, hide uncertainty or avoid difficult conversations takes energy. When people instead feel that they can contribute openly, better conditions are created for both wellbeing and performance.

Why is it not enough to just talk about psychological safety?

Most leaders agree that psychological safety is important. Yet there is a big difference between understanding the concept and actually changing how we behave towards each other. A leader can encourage openness at Monday's meeting, but react defensively when someone questions a decision on Tuesday. A team can talk about the importance of feedback, but continue to avoid the conversations that are really needed.

It is in these everyday situations that psychological safety is built up or broken down. How do we react when someone disagrees? What happens when a colleague admits a mistake? Do we listen to understand, or to defend our own position? And how often do we actively invite perspectives that differ from our own?

Psychological safety is not created primarily by what we say we value, but by how we actually act when someone dares to take a risk. That is why the work needs to go beyond lectures, discussions and good intentions. It is our behaviours that need to be developed and practised, not just our understanding.

From gut feeling to real change – why measurement is crucial

If leaders risk overestimating the safety in their groups, it becomes clear why gut feeling is not enough as a basis for decisions. Asking “Do we have an open climate?” in a meeting rarely gives the full picture, especially if there is already uncertainty about what may be said.

By measuring psychological safety, the team gets a shared starting point and the opportunity to make differences between individuals' experiences visible. Does everyone dare to express dissenting opinions? Is it safe to admit mistakes and ask for help? Are there topics or conflicts the group systematically avoids? A well-conducted measurement can help the group identify patterns that would otherwise risk remaining invisible.

But measurement is only the beginning. The real value arises when the results lead to shared reflection, concrete behavioural changes and follow-up over time. Knowing where you stand is important, but it is only when insights are turned into action that development begins.

Psychological safety is a skill that can be trained

At Trust Go Grow® we assume that psychological safety is not something created through a single initiative, but something that needs to be developed continuously. Just as we train other important skills, we need to practise the behaviours that strengthen trust and collaboration in a group.

It can mean becoming more aware of how your own behaviour affects others, listening actively even when you disagree, giving constructive feedback or handling conflict without damaging relationships. Small changes in how we meet each other can, over time, make a big difference to the group's ability to collaborate, learn and perform.

In the Trust Go Grow® development programme, measurement, practical workshops and group coaching are combined to help leaders and teams move from insight to action. By mapping the current situation, practising concrete behaviours and following up on progress, psychological safety becomes something organisations can work with systematically and long-term.

Because in the end, the most important question is not whether you as a leader feel safe in the group. It is whether others feel safe enough to tell you what you may not want to hear.

So the next time you sit in a meeting where everyone seems to agree, it may be worth asking yourself: Do we really agree, or have we just become good at avoiding disagreement?

Sources

• Harrell, T. (2020). Do We All Agree? A Mixed-Methods Study of the Impact of Climate Strength on Psychological Safety, Team Learning, and Team Performance. University of San Diego.
• Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165.
• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• McKinsey & Company (2021). Psychological Safety and the Critical Role of Leadership Development.