Psychological Safety: How High-⁠Performing Teams and Organizations Are Built

Picture two teams with the same talent: two locker rooms, two product teams, two orchestras. In one, a player who misreads a play stays quiet and hopes the coach didn’t notice. An engineer sees a flaw in the launch plan and says nothing because a senior leader wrote it. In the other team, those same people say, “That was me,” or “I think there’s a problem here,” and it gets fixed before it costs anything. Over a season, a fiscal year, or a run of shows, that difference adds up.

The second team has more psychological safety. This article is for coaches, managers, executives, directors, and anyone else responsible for how a team works.

What psychological safety is

Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson defines psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-⁠taking (Edmondson, 1999). In plain terms: people can ask a question, admit a mistake, raise a concern, or offer an idea without being embarrassed, punished, or quietly written off.

It’s a property of the team, not of any one person’s personality. The same athlete, analyst, or musician may speak up freely in one group and say nothing in another. Edmondson also found it can vary from team to team inside the same organization, which means it is shaped mostly by local leaders: the head coach, the department manager, the section leader, the director.

Why it matters for performance

Teams perform well when information moves quickly: what went wrong, what someone noticed, what isn’t working. When speaking up feels risky, that information stays hidden. People cover mistakes, avoid asking for help, and hold back ideas that might not work. Edmondson’s original study of work teams found that psychological safety predicted learning behavior (asking for feedback, discussing errors, trying new approaches), and that learning behavior in turn predicted team performance (Edmondson, 1999).

The findings have held up. A meta-⁠analysis of 136 studies found psychological safety was linked to more information sharing, more learning behavior, and better task performance, along with higher engagement and commitment (Frazier et al., 2017). When Google studied what made its most effective teams work, psychological safety came out as the most important of the five factors it identified (Google re:Work, 2015).

Sport is catching up. A systematic review found psychological safety in sport is tied to athlete wellbeing, willingness to report injuries and mental health concerns, and team functioning, and called for more research on its direct link to performance (Vella et al., 2022). For organizations, the reporting point applies far beyond sport: a team that hides injuries, burnout, safety concerns, or errors is carrying risk no one can see.

Safety doesn’t mean coddling

This is the part that gets misunderstood most. Some coaches, managers, and directors hear “psychological safety” and picture participation trophies, softened feedback, and no one ever being told they fell short. That isn’t it.

Edmondson is clear that psychological safety and high standards are two separate dimensions, and that high-⁠performing teams need both (Edmondson, 2019). Put them together and you get four very different team cultures:

Coddling is the comfort zone: plenty of safety, not much challenge. A harsh, fear-⁠based culture is the anxiety zone: plenty of challenge, no safety. Both underperform. The learning zone asks a lot of people and makes it safe for them to struggle out loud while they rise to it.

Sport psychology research describes the same idea in terms of challenge and support. Fletcher and Sarkar (2016) argue that resilience and sustained success grow best in a “facilitative” environment, one with high challenge and high support. High challenge with little support tends to wear people down. High support with little challenge leaves them comfortable but unprepared.

Common myths

Myth Everyone has to be nice all the time.

Reality Safety makes honest disagreement possible. Teams that never disagree usually aren’t safe. They’re quiet.

Myth Standards get lowered.

Reality Expectations stay high. What changes is that people can admit they’re falling short and get help meeting them.

Myth No one is held accountable.

Reality Accountability gets clearer, because problems come to light early instead of being hidden.

Myth People never feel uncomfortable.

Reality Hard feedback, tough training, and big goals are uncomfortable. Safety means discomfort comes from the challenge, not from fear of being shamed or punished.

Myth It’s an HR initiative.

Reality Psychological safety is built or broken in everyday moments: a team meeting, a film session, a rehearsal note. It belongs to whoever leads the team.

What it looks like on a team

Psychological safety shows up in small, repeated moments more than in mission statements or values posters:

• Mistakes are treated as information. After a loss, a failed launch, or a rough show, the question is “What happened and what do we change?” rather than “Whose fault is it?”
• Leaders go first. A coach who says “I called the wrong play” or an executive who says “I missed that” makes it easier for everyone else to do the same.
• Questions are invited, not tolerated. “What are we missing?” and “Who sees it differently?” are asked out loud, and the answers aren’t punished.
• Feedback is direct and about the work. “Your footwork on that rep was late” is safe and demanding. Sarcasm, public humiliation, or comments about someone’s worth are not.
• Speaking up about health is expected. Reporting an injury, burnout, or a mental health concern is treated as responsible, not weak.
• Status doesn’t decide who talks. Rookies, junior staff, and new ensemble members are asked for their view, not just the veterans.

Across settings

Sports teams and athletic departments: players flag injuries early, own blown assignments in film review, and tell coaches when a game plan isn’t working on the field. Companies and workplace teams: people raise risks before a project goes sideways, admit when they’re over capacity, and challenge a bad idea even when it comes from someone senior. Ensembles, companies, and studios: musicians, dancers, and actors can say a section isn’t landing, ask for another run, or name performance anxiety without fearing they’ll lose their part.

How to tell where your team stands

Edmondson’s research measures psychological safety by asking team members how much they agree with statements like the ones below. You can use them as a quick, informal check. The most useful answers usually come from asking the team anonymously, not from what leaders assume.

What leaders can do

Edmondson (2019) describes three things leaders do to build psychological safety:

1. Set the stage. Be clear about what’s at stake and why everyone’s input matters. Frame the work as hard and uncertain, so mistakes and questions are expected.
2. Invite participation. Ask real questions, admit what you don’t know, and build in structured ways for quieter people to weigh in, such as going around the room or collecting input before the meeting.
3. Respond productively. When someone speaks up, thank them. When something goes wrong, focus on learning and next steps. Save consequences for real misconduct or repeated disregard of clear standards, not honest mistakes.

The third step is where trust is won or lost. One sharp reaction to bad news can undo months of saying “my door is always open.”

Building it across an organization

Because psychological safety lives at the team level, organizations get the most from it when they work through the people who lead teams, not just through company-⁠wide messaging:

• Train the middle. Assistant coaches, team leads, and section leaders shape most people’s daily experience. Give them the skills, not just the expectation.
• Build it into routines. After-⁠action reviews, film sessions, retrospectives, and rehearsal notes are natural places to practice blameless review and honest feedback.
• Keep the bar high. Pair safety work with clear goals and standards so it doesn’t drift into the comfort zone.
• Measure and revisit. Check in with the team periodically, especially after a big change, a new leader, a tough season, or a crisis.

The bottom line

Psychological safety isn’t about making people comfortable. It’s about making it possible to be honest, so a team can take on hard goals, learn fast, and catch problems early. The highest-⁠performing teams pair it with high standards.

At WPS, our clinicians work with sports teams, athletic programs, companies, and performing arts groups on building cultures that are both safe and demanding, through workshops, leadership consultation, and team sessions. Learn more about sport and performance psychology, including work with athletes, performers, and business professionals, or call the office about team and organizational rates.

Sources

1. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
2. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
3. Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2016). Mental fortitude training: An evidence-⁠based approach to developing psychological resilience for sustained success. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 7(3), 135–157.
4. 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.
5. Google re:Work. (2015). Guide: Understand team effectiveness (Project Aristotle).
6. Vella, S. A., Mayland, E., Schweickle, M. J., Sutcliffe, J. T., McEwan, D., & Swann, C. (2022). Psychological safety in sport: A systematic review and concept analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology.