In almost every project I’m leading today, psychological safety comes up sooner or later. We want openness, dialogue, feedback, and a culture where people feel comfortable speaking their minds.
We therefore find these terms reflected as values in quite a few mission statements. Yet many employees and managers in organizations experience the opposite on a daily basis: reluctance, caution as soon as things get challenging, unspoken frustrations, and conversations that only take place after a silence in meetings. This points to a fundamental reality: safety does not arise from intentions, but from systemic behavior. Not from what we say is important, but from what people experience when they speak up.
A common reflex in such situations is to invest in feedback training, create behavioral charters and communication guidelines, launch “open-culture campaigns,” and conduct performance reviews with those who are “ruining things.”
The real work doesn't begin until the feedback has been given.
However, the problem often isn’t “how the feedback is given”—it’s not that people don’t know how to do that. The problem lies more in how the feedback is received. That’s where the real sense of safety—or lack thereof—lies. What happens when people give feedback?
For example, last month I heard an employee say: “"I feel like decisions are often already made—why should I participate?" The manager replied: “"What do you mean? Isn't that exactly what we're doing? That's not true at all! We're really trying to get everyone involved."
The intention was good—namely, to reassure the employee. However, the result was that the conversation came to an end. There was no discussion of what had caused the employee to feel that way.
Safe teams and leaders practice containment—that is, the ability to tolerate tension without immediately resolving it. “I hear something that’s rubbing me the wrong way. I’m not going to react to this right away. Let’s explore this.” That requires emotional maturity—and practice.
Safety, then, is not a skill, but a context that is supported by the whole.
“Safety, therefore, is not a skill, but a context that is supported by the whole. ”
Safety is not a matter of comfort, but a secure foundation
Research on psychological safety, including that conducted by Amy Edmondson, shows that people only take risks when they feel safe. To admit mistakes, dare to express doubts, and dare to show resistance, people must feel safe. George Kohlrieser refers to this as Secure Base Leadership : leadership that provides security and challenges at the same time. It’s a leader or a team that, even without words, can say: “You belong here. And I expect you to grow—even if it means going through some ups and downs.” Just think of the manager who, when an employee gets stuck, doesn’t immediately start giving advice, but is able to sit with them for a moment as they grapple with their helplessness and search for a solution—and who also pays attention to what it’s like to be in that phase.
In many teams, safety is confused with harmony. People avoid tension, go easy on each other, and call that “treating each other with respect.” In reality, however, this causes precisely what is needed for learning and improvement to disappear: differences, friction, and honesty. In the best teams, there are occasional clashes—and they can be intense.
For example, I used to tell my teams that I’d rather they stand there awkwardly yelling at each other—as long as the differences in opinion, the frustration, or the difficulties actually came out into the open—than have them swept under the rug.
Or, as Patrick Lencioni puts it: without constructive conflict, there can be no true engagement. And without engagement, feedback becomes threatening.
People follow behavior, not slogans
One of the most underestimated sources of insecurity is mixed messages. As a manager, I used to make that mistake myself. Every day, I would tell my employees: “"Set your boundaries. Take good care of yourself." And at the same time, I was still answering emails late at night, didn’t take any real, visible breaks, and was often the last one at work. I explained this by “Someone has to do it,” or “We’re busy.”
What the system learns, then, is not that boundaries are important, but that those who matter and are important are the ones who cross those boundaries.
So, anyone who wants to build a sense of security must be authentic. Not perfect, but recognizably human. A leader who sets boundaries legitimizes boundaries for others. He makes recovery visible and practices what he preaches.
Those who are not seen remain silent
“"How do I ensure that the 'veterans' don't always call all the shots, but also make room for new people? How do I ensure that these new people still feel comfortable sharing their opinions, and that the veterans actually listen to them, so that they can create together instead of continuing to work in silos? How do I build a culture like that?" A director asked me that recently.
Inequality is another such underestimated source of insecurity. It arises when people feel systematically overlooked and given less space. In addition to seniority, this happens for reasons such as hierarchy, gender, or background, language proficiency, introvert-extrovert differences, or dominant personalities.
Deep Democracy teaches us that silence is often a minority position. Not everyone who remains silent is insecure, but many have learned that speaking up yields little benefit—or even carries risks.
Secure Base Leaders actively seek out those different perspectives. Not by saying: “"Is there anything else?" but with: “"Which voice aren't we hearing here?" They know that people don’t remain silent out of indifference—which is rarely the case—but out of self-preservation. And more importantly, they protect that voice from immediate correction.
Care and challenge: care without dare means standing still
Kohlrieser emphasizes: safety without challenge leads to stagnation, and challenge without safety leads to fear. In many nonprofit organizations, I see how teams are constantly oscillating between those two extremes.
After a difficult period, people are saving money: “"We shouldn't ask too much of them right now; they're already having such a hard time. Let's just give them a break."
A little while later, things take a turn: “Things can’t go on like this; we expect more responsibility.”
I recently coached a team in youth care where this pattern was particularly evident. After months of crisis cases and staff absences, management had deliberately slowed things down. Understandable. People were tired. But six months later, the team had come to a standstill. Agreements were no longer being followed through on. Roles had become blurred. No one dared to call anyone out anymore, for fear of “making things worse.”
When the pressure was ramped up again, it felt to many like a sudden shift: from saving to over-borrowing, with no intermediate step.
Safe leaders create a more stable balance. They remain close when things get tough, while at the same time having the courage to provide direction.
Harmonious teams are often vulnerable
Many organizations describe their teams as “warm,” “close-knit,” and “pleasant.” That sounds positive. But it’s no guarantee of safety.
In many of these teams, loyalty and a sense of belonging are more important than truth, professionalism, or growth. People go easy on each other. They don’t want to disrupt the atmosphere. They don’t want to “let anyone down.” The result: problems pile up beneath the surface.
“According to Lencioni, trust isn’t built by avoiding conflict, but by weathering conflict without damaging relationships. Teams that never clash, therefore, don’t grow either. ”
On the Systemic Roots of Insecurity
When I put all these examples together—the closed-off feedback, the mixed messages, the silent employees, the back-and-forth between holding back and asking too much, the apparent harmony—I rarely see isolated incidents. I see patterns.
Systems that learn what is safe. Systems that remember what constitutes a risk. Systems that adapt in order to survive.
What leaders often perceive as “this team is difficult,” or conversely, “the leader is creating an unsafe environment,” is usually a system that has lost its way somewhere along the line.
When psychological safety remains consistently low, you almost always see the same underlying dynamics recurring.
- Disrupted Order
Unclear roles, shifting responsibilities, and ambiguous decision-making processes. People no longer know who is responsible for what. This creates uncertainty. And uncertainty triggers defensive behavior.
- Imbalance in Giving and Receiving
Especially in the healthcare and social-profit sectors, I see a high degree of loyalty and emotional commitment, without any formal recognition or say in decision-making. That commitment then gradually turns into exhaustion and cynicism.
- What Didn't Make the Cut
Old conflicts, abrupt departures, failed change initiatives. What was never addressed continues to play a hidden role in how people react today.
- Organizational Trauma
Systems retain information. When speaking out in the past carried risks, teams learn to remain silent. That pattern is passed down collectively and often unconsciously.
In all these cases, insecurity is not a character flaw. It is a logical consequence of history. And that is precisely why we cannot solve it with a single training session, a single model, or a single meaningful conversation.
Structures without a foundation reinforce power
I often see leaders and organizations turning to models of self-management, participatory decision-making, deep democracy, and sociocracy. These can be valuable. However, they require emotional maturity and only work if the team is at the appropriate level of development. In unsafe systems, they often reinforce informal power. Formally, everyone may have a say, but informally, the outspoken win and the quiet lose. That tension only increases frustration and cynicism and achieves the opposite of what was intended.
Insecurity requires a foundation first, and only then structure.
Leadership as a Regulatory Function
Leaders serve as emotional reference points. Under stress, a team always subconsciously looks to its leaders for guidance and seeks security there. Leaders, however, are not immune to this; they are part of the same dynamic. When they themselves do not feel they have the space to doubt, make mistakes, or face pushback, they cannot pass that space on to others. The principle is simple: you cannot give what you yourself do not receive.
That is why leadership support is not a luxury, but a prerequisite.
So what actually makes a difference in practice?
When I look at organizations where psychological safety isn’t just a buzzword but a reality, I don’t see perfect teams. What I do see, though, are the same patterns recurring.
- Leaders and teams who consciously pay attention to what happens after feedback.
Not just what is said, but how it is responded to. Is it investigated? Or is it immediately defused?
- Teams that practice continue even when they feel uncomfortable.
Those who don't want to solve everything right away. Those who can say, “I sense resistance, and I'll keep listening.”
- Leaders who actively protect deviance.
Those who don't wait for someone to dare to speak up, but who create space themselves for what hasn't been said yet.
- People who dare to be authentic.
Who also acknowledge their own struggles with boundaries, pressure, and expectations. Setting a direction without the capacity to sustain it creates a sense of insecurity.
And almost always, I see one constant: leaders who are supported themselves.
People who have a place to turn to with their doubts, their fatigue, and their anxiety.
These are not dramatic measures
Psychological safety arises when people feel comfortable being themselves and know they are being challenged.
Where leaders are close by without being overbearing.
Where conflict is not avoided, but embraced.
Where feedback isn't a risk, but a sign of engagement.
Safety is not a project. It is relational infrastructure.
And that requires daily maintenance.
Are you ready to take the first step toward psychological safety?
“Safety is not a project. It is relational infrastructure. ”
