What we get wrong about psychological safety

I recently re-read an HBR article by Amy Edmondson and Michaela Kerrissey on psychological safety, and why it remains a misunderstood, yet critical, element of high-performing organizations.

As psychological safety has become more of a buzz-term, misconceptions have multiplied. Here are three that stood out to me:

1. Psychological safety ≠ Being nice It's not about comfort or avoiding difficult conversations. The most psychologically safe teams I've worked with engage in the toughest debates but they do it without fear of interpersonal punishment.

2. It's not a policy you can mandate. You can't install psychological safety through a memo or training program. It's built (and easily broken) interaction by interaction, through consistent leader behaviors that signal: "Your voice matters here. We need your perspective, especially when it challenges our thinking." Model it, don’t mandate it.

3. It doesn't mean everyone gets their way. Psychological safety enables robust discussion and dissent. It doesn't guarantee your idea will be chosen. But it guarantees you will be heard and genuinely considered.

But here's what really resonates: Psychological safety isn't the end goal, it's what enables success. It's the foundation that allows innovation, learning, and performance to flourish.

This is why it sits at the heart of our work with leaders, teams, and organizations. It's not about what we make people do. It's about how we show up for our people, creating the conditions where they can bring their full thinking, challenge assumptions, and do their best work.

It’s a competitive necessity. Without it, perspectives remain locked away. Innovation stalls. People disengage. And performance suffers.