Can You Have Too Much Psychological Safety?

This is probably the question I am asked most often. When I talk with people in companies, hospitals, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world, they intuitively recognize the need for psychological safety to allow learning and innovation to take hold. Yet many worry, understandably, that by releasing the brakes on voice, people will just plain talk too much. Uninformed, unhelpful comments will derail projects. Good ideas will get lost in a sea of chatter. People will be sloppy.

My short answer? No. I don't think you can have too much psychological safety. I do think, however, that you can have not enough discipline. Psychological safety is about reducing interpersonal fear. Making it less heroic to ask a question or admit an error. It doesn't mean you automatically have a good strategy for getting the work done. It also doesn't mean your employees are sufficiently motivated or well-trained.

People asking this question are often wondering where the level of psychological safety should be set to have the best results. I have sympathy for the concerns that motivate them to ask. But I want to suggest a solution that doesn't involve figuring out the optimal level of interpersonal fear.

My view is that interpersonal fear is never particularly helpful at work. While it can be motivating to be afraid of missing a deadline, afraid of failing the customer, or afraid of the prowess of the competition, being afraid of one's boss or colleagues is not only unhelpful in an environment where technologies, customers and solutions are in flux, it's downright risky. The potential costs of not speaking up in a timely way are simply too great.

What today's leaders need to understand is that people spontaneously set an invisible threshold that governs when they speak up and what they speak up about. The problem is that most people set the level too high when they're at work. We err on the side of holding back information or questions – even when we believe they might matter, that they might have the potential to add value. In fact, it's extremely rare to find people erring on the side of voice. I'm not saying that it isn't possible for the threshold to be set too low, thereby unleashing all kinds of unhelpful or inappropriate voice, but rather that this occurs less often than one might expect. Even so, this particular risk (of excessive voice) is not best addressed by reducing psychological safety but rather by providing feedback to give the speaker insight into the impact he or she had.

I do not see psychological safety as a panacea. Far from it. Psychological safety is only one of many factors needed for success in the modern economy. As discussed in Chapter 2, psychological safety is better thought of as an enabler that allows other factors like motivation, confidence, or diversity to have the desired effects on work outcomes. Psychological safety makes it possible for other drivers of success (talent, ingenuity, diversity of thought) to be expressed in ways that influence how work gets done.

Won't Having a Psychologically Safe Workplace Take Too Much Time?

This question – along with the very similar, “How will we get anything done if people are always talking?” – clearly overlaps with the question about having too much psychological safety but adds explicit attention to time and efficiency. And time and efficiency are such important issues in the modern organization that it's worth stopping to consider them directly.

Mirroring the concern about a low threshold for voice is the concern that meetings will go on and on because everyone must have his or her say. This confuses psychological safety with bad process. Just as discipline is needed for excellence in general, managing effective meetings – for decision-making, problem solving, or mere reporting – is a matter of skill, discipline, and smart process design. There are many good sources of advice on how to have effective, efficient meetings, complete with practical tools for ensuring input without unleashing chaos.¹⁹ And none of these tools is at odds with establishing a climate of candor, where people are able to focus on the task rather than on face-saving and self-protection.

To take it a step further, I argue that psychological safety can save rather than consume time. Although not a hard and fast rule, psychological safety can be a source of efficiency. For instance, I've studied senior management teams in which a lack of psychological safety contributed to long-winded conversations (indirect statements, with veiled criticisms and personal innuendo, take longer than candid ones), elongated meetings, and an inability to come to a resolution about crucial strategic issues.²⁰ Decisions that could have been resolved in hours stretched over months.²¹ In short, the lack of psychological safety can be deeply inefficient, in addition to being ineffective. Also recall from Chapter 3 how a lack of psychological safety at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York led issues to be discussed at length without resolution. By way of contrast, I have worked with teams in which clear process combined with direct and open dialogue to produce efficient, smart conversations and clear decisions.

You Advocate a Psychologically Safe Workplace. Does That Mean We Have to Be Transparent About Everything?

To say that psychological safety can't be too high is not the same as saying more transparency is always better. Different situations likely call for different levels of transparency. In the surgical operating room, I'd venture to say that full transparency is excellent practice. Please share any observations you have! If they are wrong or unhelpful, I hope (and expect) others to respond with appreciation and transparency to that effect as well. But there are times where it simply isn't all that helpful to share each and every one of your workplace thoughts – for example, about someone's attire or presentation style. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether Ray Dalio's aggressive transparency would work in their own companies or industries. Decisions about what aspects of personal growth and feedback are fair game in your organization, for instance, can be thoughtfully made.

But very few of us would voluntarily seek to work in an environment where we don't feel psychologically safe. So why should we want this for others? None of us does our best work when distracted by mild worries about how our colleagues or bosses will react if we speak up with a work-relevant idea or question. The goal is to figure out how much transparency, and about what, you need (and this will probably take some experimentation to get it right) to do the best possible work in your company or in your industry. In the meantime, it's important to keep working hard to make sure people are not holding back on work-relevant thoughts due to fear of embarrassment.

I'm All for Psychological Safety at Work, but I'm Not the Boss. Is There Anything I Can Do?

While it is true that bosses – team leaders, surgeons, department heads, etc. – play an outsized role in shaping expectations and behaviors in the workplace, anyone can help create psychological safety. Sometimes, all you have to do is ask a good question. This is truly a great place to start. A good question is one motivated by genuine curiosity or by a desire to give someone a voice. Questions cry out for answers; they create a vacuum that serves as a voice opportunity for someone. Especially when a question is directed at an individual (and expressed in a way that conveys curiosity), a small safe zone is automatically created. By asking a question, you have conveyed, “I am interested in what you have to say.” In so doing, you have created a safe space that helps one or more others to offer their thinking.

Additionally, with or without having asked a question, you can create psychological safety by choosing to listen actively to what people say and by responding with interest, building on their ideas, or giving feedback. True listening conveys respect – and in subtle but powerful ways reinforces the idea that a person's full self is welcome here. Note that this does not mean you have to agree with what someone said. You don't even have to like it. But you do have to appreciate the effort it took for her to say it.

Saying things to frame the challenge you see ahead is another helpful practice. Reminding people of what the team is up against – for example, by talking about how the work is uncertain, challenging, or interdependent – helps paint reality in ways that emphasize that no one is supposed to have all the answers. This lowers the hurdle for speaking up. It reminds people that their input is welcome – because it's needed.

Finally, I would like to suggest a few simple, uncommon, powerful phrases that anyone can utter to make the workplace feel just a tiny bit more psychologically safe:

• I don't know.
• I need help.
• I made a mistake.
• I'm sorry.

Each of these is an expression of vulnerability. By being willing to acknowledge that you are a fallible human being, you give permission to others to do likewise. Removing your mask helps others remove theirs. Of course, this means acting as if you feel psychologically safe, even if you might not be fully there yet. Sometimes, you have to take an interpersonal risk to lower interpersonal risk.

Similarly powerful in shaping the climate even if you are not the boss are words of interest and availability. For example, most of us face many opportunities to say things like these:

• What can I do to help?
• What are you up against?
• What are your concerns?

The personal challenge for all of us lies in remembering, in the moment, to be vulnerable, as well as to be interested and available. To do this you will have to take on the small interpersonal risk that your attempts may be ignored or, worse, rebuffed. But in my experience, the odds are low. Assuming a modest level of good will in your organization, most of the time your colleagues will respond well to genuine expressions of vulnerability and interest. So, give it a try. Pause; look around. Whom can you invite into the safe space for learning and contributing to the shared goal? See what happens.

What I hope is clear at this point is that you don't have to be the boss to be a leader. The leader's job is to create and nurture the culture we all need to do our best work. And so anytime you play a role in doing that, you are exercising leadership.

What's the Relationship Between Psychological Safety and Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging?

This question, increasingly common, almost answers itself. So let me start by saying that a workplace that is truly characterized by inclusion and belonging is a psychologically safe workplace. Today we know that although diversity can be created through deliberate hiring practices, inclusion does not automatically follow. To begin with, all hires may not find themselves included in important decisions and discussions. Going deeper, a diverse workforce doesn't guarantee that everyone feels a sense of belonging. For instance, when no one at the top of the organization looks like you, it can make it harder for you to feel you belong.

Each of these three terms represents a goal to be achieved. The goals range from the relatively objective (workforce diversity) to the highly-subjective (do I feel that I belong here?). Inclusion is more likely to function well with psychological safety because diverse perspectives are more likely to be heard. But it is not easy to feel a sense of belonging if one feels psychologically unsafe. As goal achievement becomes more subjective, psychological safety becomes more valuable; there is no way to know if you're achieving the goal without broad input from people in different groups.

Although I've been studying psychological safety for more than 20 years, it's only recently that I've been asked to consider its relationship to diversity, inclusion and belonging at work. As issues related to diversity at work have moved to the forefront of the agenda in organizations aspiring to excellence, in response to current news and other societal factors, I have begun to consider the central role that psychological safety plays and can play. A fearless organization realizes the benefits of diversity by fostering greater inclusion and belonging. A recent tidal wave of harassment claims highlights the costs of failing to create a psychologically safe workplace for women.

At the same time, a singular focus on psychological safety is not a strategy for building diversity, inclusion, and belonging. These interrelated goals must go hand in hand. Great organizations will continue to attract, hire, and retain a diverse workforce because their leaders understand that that is where good ideas come from, and talented applicants will be drawn to work for those organizations. These leaders also recognize that hiring for diversity is not enough. They also must care about whether or not employees can bring their full selves to work – whether they can belong in the fullest sense to the community inside the organization. In short, leaders who care about diversity must care about psychological safety as well. It's that extra ingredient, as discussed in Chapter 2, that allows diversity to be leveraged.

Is Psychological Safety About Whistle-blowing?

Whistle-blowers are organizational insiders who expose wrongdoing they've observed (and often tried unsuccessfully to alter) by reaching out to external authorities or to the press. By reporting activity that may be illegal or unethical – from fraud and corruption to public safety or national security risks – whistle-blowers take on the risk of retaliation from those they accuse of wrongdoing. They demonstrate courage. Whistle-blowing, however, is not a reflection of psychological safety but rather an indication of its absence. In companies with psychological safety, whistle-blowing should not be needed because employee concerns will be expressed, heard, and considered.

Speaking up and listening, which go hand in hand in a healthy organizational culture, reinforce standards of professionalism and integrity. When valid concerns are expressed, changes can be made in a timely way. Of course, it is possible for an employee to fail to fully explore the options for internal discussion of concerns – and blow the whistle prematurely. It is possible even in a climate where internal learning would have been welcomed. By and large, however, in a psychologically safe climate, an employee's first instinct is not to go outside the organization to report perceived wrongdoing.

It's in any organization's best interest to foster an environment that facilitates speaking up internally rather than to leave people feeling they have no choice but to go outside the organization with their concerns. It is far better to respond to early signals that there may be problems, so as to address them through meaningful changes, rather than to end up with visible public reports of wrongdoing or harm. To make this process easier, ombudspersons can help internal voices be expressed in a specific context that is designed to be safe. Ombudspersons offer confidentiality and support for those with ethical and safety issues and also can trigger a process of making necessary changes in an organization to mitigate concerns through genuine improvement.

What About Those Successful Companies Run by Arrogant Top-down Dictators Who Don't Listen to Anyone and Sometimes Reduce People to Tears?

I've been asked this question more times than I can count. It comes from smart people who step back and think, “wait a minute! If psychological safety promotes excellence in an uncertain world, how come I can point to counterexamples – that is, to stories of extremely successful companies that seem very much to lack psychological safety?”

I want to respond in two parts to this important question. First, let's remember the fallacy of sampling on the dependent variable, a classic error in research. In other words, the success in question may in fact be explained by the leader's arrogance and top-down approach; conversely, it may be explained by other factors: good timing, a market vacuum, a genius idea, or even just plain luck.

Second, there's a lack of ready access to counterfactual data. In other words, we don't know what would have happened in the successful company had more of the talent it contained been put to good use. We simply have a case of low psychological safety and high company performance for a particular period of time. The first variable may, or may not, explain the second. It's possible that the company would have failed had more people felt able to express their ideas; it is also possible, and perhaps even likely, that the upside for the company could have been even higher than it was. Finally, the company's success may ultimately prove to be short lived because it is at risk of failing to make necessary changes when early warnings of the successful formula's wane in a changing marketplace are not heard or heeded. Not to mention the possibility that smart, talented people who are not being heard may leave for other opportunities.

Finally, the companies motivating thoughtful people to ask this question may be one of those rare cases of a genius at the helm who indeed has all the answers. Steve Jobs comes to mind. To the extent that you feel you fall into that category – a rare genius who has perfect pitch in terms of what the market wants – you may be able to specify the work that needs to be done clearly enough for others to merely execute. In that case, go for it! You will be able to forfeit seeking or listening to the input of those who work below you in the organization. Henry Ford, after all, was said to have complained, “why is it every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?”²² But for the rest of us, I wouldn't recommend that approach. Few business leaders today can afford to squander the brainpower available in their companies. At the very least most of us need an honest sounding board. But better yet, we need people to bring their ideas to work to help us create better products and a better organization.

Help! My Colleague Is Bringing His True Self to Work and It's Driving Me Crazy!

I think most of us can empathize with this one. Perhaps there are people we wish felt a little less psychologically safe at work so that they'd stop expressing themselves! Tempting as it is to want to solve this kind of problem with a sprinkle of interpersonal fear, in the long run it's not a productive solution. The most important reason is this: a colleague who is not being helpful and productive needs – and deserves – our feedback. Psychological safety doesn't guarantee effectiveness. It just makes it easier to find out what people have to offer. Sometimes, that's a happy surprise. But when people feel able to express themselves, and you find that what they say is not adding value, then you have a responsibility to help. To coach. And even though it's not fun to give people that kind of feedback, it's better to know that someone is in need of it than to remain in the dark. Moreover, it's only fair to let your colleagues know that the impact they're having is not what they're hoping it is.

Help! I've Started Bringing My Whole Self to Work and No One Likes Me (Anymore)!

I suspect if you're reading this book, the odds of the situation implied by this question are low because you're probably thoughtful, curious, and intent upon making your organization a better place. And, if so, others similarly intent on learning are likely to welcome hearing what you have to say. Nonetheless, let's consider the two basic possibilities. One is that your ideas are just not getting the positive reception you had expected. In this case, just as others deserve your feedback, you deserve others' feedback. Consider this a learning opportunity – an opportunity to find out what it is about what you're saying or doing that is falling short of the mark.

The other possibility is that you're learning something about your colleagues or your organization that suggests that you're not in a job that is a good fit with your personal values and goals. If you're sharing sincere concerns, ideas, and ambitions for the organization, and others are indifferent, turned off, or disparaging, then you may want to look for an opportunity where you will have colleagues who appreciate your commitment to making a positive difference at work.

What Advice Would You Give to the People Who Report to Managers Who Can't or Won't Change?

I would start by recommending curiosity, compassion, and commitment. You see, we all need to remind ourselves, whether we're the boss or not, that no one can actually change another person. We can't force people to change how they think and act, even when we have formal responsibility over them – let alone when we don't. We can only influence them. The good news is that anyone can influence others by modeling the three Cs listed above. Start with curiosity, which leads us to ask questions. When we ask genuine questions, people feel they matter (whether boss, peer, or subordinate), especially when we listen and respond thoughtfully to their answers. (Meanwhile, we just might learn something, which can also be helpful).

Compassion is the self-discipline to imagine and remember that everyone faces hurdles. All people are up against something – small or large – that frustrates them or keeps them up at night. The more you understand what others are up against, the more you spontaneously do things that help build work relationships that are resilient and strong, as needed for getting the work done. Finally, commitment matters because if you demonstrate your dedication to achieving the organization's goals, it can be contagious. When people, especially managers, believe you really care about the work, they'll also cut you some slack.

A related, oft-raised issue is captured in the following comment: “but the people above me don't do this, so I'm stuck.” With great empathy, my response is first to let people know how widespread this experience is and that I recognize how frustrating it feels. Then, I go on to point out that people have a natural tendency to look up – to look in the direction of the managers above us in the hierarchy. We have to train ourselves to look down and across instead. As noted earlier, each of us can shape the climate in which we work in small ways. Creating a pocket of excellence, candor, and learning in your group is worthwhile, no matter what those above you are doing. It may be contagious! As an aside, I've been struck by how many times the people articulating this concern are near the very top of enormous companies. They may be among the top 200 managers in a global corporation, and yet their natural tendency is still to look upward and bemoan their powerlessness. And so I also remind them gently that there are a great many more people looking up and pointing to them as the problem than there are above them.

Can Anyone Learn to Be a Successful Leader of Psychological Safety?

My view is that, yes, most people can learn. And that includes learning to better understand the positive and negative effects that one's mindset and behavior is having on others. Most people would prefer to have positive rather than negative effects on others, and most are also able to gain insight on how to do that, with training and coaching. Will some people be harder to help? Yes, of course. Narcissism, borderline personalities, low emotional intelligence, and other limitations will make it more difficult to behave in ways that build psychological safety and, in some cases, impossible. Nonetheless, there is very little downside to starting with an open mind about the ability of anyone to change to become more effective. You might win, and you likely lose very little, with that open mind.

What About Cross-cultural Differences? Is It Possible to Create Psychological Safety in China? In Japan? In [you name the country here]?

Many people believe that in some countries expecting employees to speak up at work is simply unrealistic. Indeed, research shows that workplace psychological safety is lower in countries with greater “power distance,” the extent to which a society accepts that power is distributed unequally between high-status and low-status members.²³ Trying to promote candor or error-reporting, for example, they claim, would be a fool's errand in Japan. Of course, this impeccable logic bumps up against the reality of the Toyota Production System – an approach to continuous improvement and flawless execution that depends on every employee, up and down the hierarchy, to continuously, energetically, willingly point out errors! Is this typical of the Japanese culture? No. Is it deeply embedded in the Toyota culture? Yes.

In other words, it can be done.

Of course, it's not easy to create a culture like Toyota's. But it is worthwhile – if excellence and continuous improvement are goals of your organization. And cultural differences in power distance does mean that the job of creating psychological safety is harder in some countries than others. Nonetheless, this does not make it any less necessary. If the work an organization does involves uncertainty, interdependence, or high stakes, success depends on creating some degree of psychological safety. Without a willingness to speak up about problems and errors, quality cannot improve. Without willingness to ask for help, employees will underperform. Without a willingness to challenge a decision, organizations are at grave risk of preventable failures, both large and small. So roll up your sleeves; you have work to do! It may involve swimming upstream against cultural forces, but it can be done. The good news is that, when done well, your efforts can create a powerful source of competitive advantage in a playing field where average psychological safety is low.

What the Questions Reveal

In closing, I am sometimes struck by the anxiety people seem to feel about creating psychologically safe organizations; perhaps we're naturally comfortable living with the devil we know – organizations where self-protection quietly crowds out much of the creativity, learning, or belonging that lies under the surface without our noticing. And the devil we don't know – unusual workplaces where people can be and express themselves, confronting greater conflict and challenge but greater fulfillment as well – awaits.