Lately, more and more organizations have been calling me in to help their teams develop psychological safety. It’s easy to wonder, is this just another HR fad?
Actually, it’s one of the most research-backed predictors of team success we have.
The concept was pioneered by Harvard’s Amy Edmondson, but it was Google’s landmark study of over 180 teams that really brought it into the mainstream.
Their researchers were trying to crack the code of high-performing teams—expecting to find answers in talent, work ethic, or experience.
Instead, they found something else entirely.
The teams that performed best weren’t the ones with the highest IQ or longest hours. They were the ones where people felt safe to speak up, challenge ideas, take risks, and—crucially—be real.
Psychological safety turned out to be the single most important factor in high-performing teams.
But here’s the twist. When it’s misunderstood or misapplied, it can become the very thing that holds a team back.
A C-suite executive from a global bank once confided in me. He had challenged a team member who wasn’t pulling their weight. Not aggressively. Just directly.
A few weeks later, he received feedback in his 360 review that he’d “failed to create psychological safety.”
He was stunned.
Now, there are two possibilities here:
- He delivered the feedback poorly—perhaps without empathy or openness to dialogue.
- The team member lacked the emotional resilience to receive it.
From what he described, it sounded like #2.
Which brings me to a critical point:
When we confuse comfort with safety, we create psychological danger.
Too often, organisations interpret psychological safety as a culture where no one ever feels uncomfortable. But that’s not safety. That’s avoidance.
Avoiding tough conversations. Holding back feedback. Making sure everyone feels good, even if performance suffers. It may feel safe in the short term. But it’s dangerous in the long run. Because when we don’t challenge, we don’t grow.
When we don’t speak up, we miss critical insights. And when we avoid feedback, underperformance becomes invisible—and permanent.
According to a global Harvard study, 57% of people would rather receive corrective feedback than praise.
Why? Because we don’t just want comfort. We want clarity. We want to get better. They just want it delivered constructively. (Many leaders need to learn how to do that.)
And when companies train and reward feedback-giving? They see results. In a study of 57 organisations, the third who did it best doubled the financial performance of the third who did it worst.
Feedback isn’t the opposite of psychological safety. It’s the outcome of it.
When people feel safe to be challenged—and strong enough to challenge others—you don’t just get harmony. You get growth.
This is the foundation of what we call Team Quotient (TQ).
TQ measures how well your team actually functions together. Not just one factor, but the key, interconnected drivers of real cohesion:
- The ability to give and receive feedback
- Emotional regulation under pressure
- Constructive conflict resolution
- Shared purpose
- Mutual accountability
- Psychological safety
When these are strong, performance accelerates. When they’re weak? Even the smartest teams stall.
That’s why we created Team Accelerator.
It’s a science-backed, psychology-driven program that helps teams build the kind of psychological safety that welcomes challenge—not avoids it. Where hard conversations aren’t feared, but expected—because they come from purpose, not punishment.
This isn’t about being nice. It’s about being real.
Because when your team can give and receive feedback without fear, regulate emotions under pressure, and resolve conflict without toxicity—you don’t just build a better culture. You build a better team.
Curious how psychologically safe your team really is?
We’re offering a limited number of free Team Quotient Assessments for teams of 5–20 people. No jargon. No fluff. Just insight.
Reply to this email and I’ll send you the details.
Let’s build teams where our people feel safe enough to challenge and strong enough to be challenged.