The Real Meaning of Psychological Safety in the Workplace: Beyond the Buzzword

Why “Feeling Safe” isn’t the same as “Being Safe”

In today’s leadership conversations, psychological safety in the workplace is one of the most quoted, and most misunderstood, concepts. Too often, it’s equated with being nice: avoiding conflict, softening feedback, or creating comfort at all costs.

But true psychological safety doesn’t mean comfort; it’s a matter of courage.

When Amy Edmondson first defined psychological safety as “a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking,” she was describing the foundation for effective learning and performance, not harmony. Real safety means creating an environment where people can speak up, share ideas, or admit mistakes, without fear of humiliation, ridicule or punishment.

Unfortunately, many leaders take the easy route because our brains are inherently lazy. Your brain is always seeking the path of least resistance. It prefers what feels safe and familiar, even if that means settling for surface-level comfort instead of deep trust.

The original idea: Amy Edmondson’s psychological safety – courage, not comfort

Edmondson’s research revealed that teams with higher levels of psychological safety outperform others because they learn faster and innovate more. However, as the idea spread, it became diluted. “Safety” was misread as “Everyone should feel comfortable.”

That’s not what Edmondson meant. Psychological safety enables people to take risks, not avoid them. It’s about being able to question assumptions and challenge norms without fear of reprisal.

The irony is that when psychological safety is done right, it can actually feel uncomfortable. You’re encouraged to face difference, uncertainty, and constructive conflict, all of which activate the brain’s threat system before leading to growth.

Why leaders get it wrong: The brain’s easy route and cognitive biases

Leaders often misapply psychological safety because of the brain’s preference for simplicity. Cognitive biases like Confirmation bias and Status Quo bias push us toward interpretations that fit our existing comfort zones and behavioral preferences.

The brain’s energy-saving instinct means it loves familiar routines. So, when hearing about psychological safety, the easy interpretation becomes:

“I should make everyone feel comfortable and avoid upsetting them.”

That’s not safety, it’s self-protection. Leaders justify their behaviour by saying, “That’s just my style,” or “That’s how I’ve always led.” But these are forms of self-serving bias, defending identity rather than expanding it.

Real psychological safety challenges this bias. It calls on leaders to stretch beyond personal preference and face the discomfort of genuine dialogue and diverse perspectives.

Identity, in-groups, and the myth of the “authentic self”

Many people believe that psychological safety means “bringing your authentic self to work.” But much of what we call “authentic” is really just habitual. A set of learned patterns and defences.

When someone says, “That’s just the way I am,” they’re often protecting a narrow sense of identity, not expressing authenticity. The danger is that this stance can justify unhelpful behaviours, like dogmatic statements, aggressive sales tactics or harsh accountability, that feel valid to one person but create fear or offence for others.

From a neuroscience perspective, this is deeply human. The brain evolved to form in-groups and out-groups, reinforcing belonging and defending identity. When challenged, our limbic system reacts as if under threat, triggering cortisol and defensive reasoning. The research also shows that we are more likely to trust and accept information from in-group members and distrust and reject information from out-group members.

That’s why true psychological safety in the workplace shouldn’t mean unfiltered authenticity, rather it should mean showing up as your Best Self, not your “raw self.”

Your Best Self seeks to balance honesty with respect, confidence with humility, and self-expression with collective purpose.

The Equity Mindset paradox: balancing helpfulness and assertiveness

In the Harrison Behavioural Paradox framework, the Equity Mindset Paradox captures the tension at the heart of psychological safety: balancing helpfulness with assertiveness.

• Too much helpfulness leads to harmony without honesty, creating self-sacrificing behaviours.
• Too much assertiveness creates control without connection, creating dominating behaviours.

Leaders who achieve the balance of mutual help make it safe to disagree without being disrespectful. They show that inclusion isn’t about endless agreement but mutual accountability. They blend fairness with firmness, ensuring that every voice matters but no one dominates.

This paradox explains why building psychological safety requires both empathy and boundaries. When teams trust that discussions will be fair, not personal, they engage more openly, even in disagreement.

The neuroscience of psychological safety: trust, threat, and the social brain

The neuroscience of psychological safety shows that our brains are constantly scanning for signs of threat or trust.

• When people feel excluded or criticised, the brain’s limbic system floods the body with adrenalin and cortisol, reducing creativity, openness and trust.
• When leaders create fairness and empathy, the brain releases oxytocin, building trust, connection and openness to new ideas.

There is nuance to consider though: oxytocin rises not from agreement but from shared challenge and mutual respect. Real safety doesn’t eliminate conflict, it transforms it into learning. Leaders who manage emotional climate like thermostats, not thermometers, making adjustments to create conditions where people stay engaged even when it’s tough.

Avoiding the bias trap with the Self-Actualisation paradox

The Behavioural Paradox of Self-Actualisation helps leaders counter bias. It balances self-acceptance with self-improvement.

Leaders who lean too heavily on self-acceptance fall into complacency and defensiveness, believing they’re “already good enough.” Those who over-focus on the need to improve risk burnout due to relentless self-criticism.

The sweet spot lies in acknowledging our biases with humility while staying committed to growth. When we can admit, “I might be wrong,” we create the space for collective intelligence to emerge. That’s when psychological safety turns from a concept into a deliberate living practice.

Practical leadership tips for building psychological safety

1. Normalise curiosity, not perfection. Reward questions and reflection, not just quick answers.
2. Model vulnerability with accountability. Admit mistakes and share what you’ve learned.
3. Balance care and candour. Invite open challenge, but insist it serves the team’s purpose.
4. Clarify norms. Define what respectful debate and productive disagreement look like.
5. Be the thermostat. Regulate team emotions and maintain balance under pressure.

Conclusion: bringing your Best Self to work

Psychological safety isn’t a case of creating comfort zones, it’s a case of creating learning zones. It’s not about “accepting people as they are,” but helping them become their Best Selves.

When leaders balance empathy with accountability, trust with challenge, and self-acceptance with growth, they cultivate a culture where people can take interpersonal risks in service of shared purpose.

That’s the real meaning of psychological safety, not freedom from fear, but freedom to think, speak, and grow together.