Skip to main content

Forget Building Trust, Focus on Psychological Safety

June 25, 2018

Imagine this, you are at the weekly company meeting in a room of 60 people. All of them are co-workers who you have been working with for several years. You feel engaged and committed to the goal set by your company. And there has always been a feeling of openness, respect and the ability to discuss new or other ideas. You feel there is safety! While the CEO is presenting a new idea, you feel this is not a good idea. You feel it is in conflict with the company culture. So, like you have always done, you raise your hand and speak up. Unlike similar earlier situations, your comment gets waved away, followed by a reprimande of the CEO in front of the entire group:

"I don't like your negative attitude , this idea has been thought of long and hard. I am sick of you constantly asking about 'why this decision is being made' and you proposing other ideas, reopening the discussion. Stop doing that!"

How would you feel?

Shocked, humiliated and heartbroken. That's how I felt. In complete shock because I was under the impression I worked in an psychologically safe environment. We were enabled - and even expected - to speak up when we had different ideas. That's what made it a great company. But somewhere along the way, things had changed and I hadn't noticed there was no longer a safe environment. Actually, there was psychological safety, from my own team. During the break right after the incident, while I was sitting at a table looking down, feeling embarrassed, humiliated and fighting against tears. My team sat down, forming a protective circle around me. No words were spoken, but it felt very safe. After that moment, safety was gone and hardly anyone spoke up with a different opinion during those company meetings for a very long time.

Feeling safe

A few weeks ago I found a movie shared by Simon Reindl, fellow Professional Scrum Trainer, about Psychological safety. This movie made an huge impact on me. I wasn't aware of the concept but I could relate it to my experience described above. Please take a few minutes to watch this video.

We have all been in a situation where it didn't feel right or safe to speak up. Or to ask a question. We all have had those gossip-ish discussions at the coffee machine after the presentation of the new 5 year strategy, while you had a 5 year strategy presented last year as well. Or one of those useless team retreats. Take the next step as a team, where a lot of post-its are spilled with 'world peace' like phrases. In the future we want to improve our communication, speak up and be proactive. A day not having to work, get a free lunch and go back to doing the same thing we were already doing. Not feeling safe to address the elephant in the room.

Psychological safety

Psychological safety is the belief that no one will be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes.

It is a group-level construct, meaning that is something experienced by the entire group. As a group, each individual perceives that the group will give them the benefit of the doubt when they take a risk. Opposed to trust, meaning that I as an individual give my fellow team members the benefit of the doubt when I take a risk. Do I trust my fellow team members enough they will back me up is an individuals. Basically making a 1-1 economic risk assessment trying to figure out how a certain action will impact my position in a group.

Trust is a “conscious calculation of advantages, a calculation that in turn is based on an explicit and internally consistent value system” (Schelling, 1960: 4; ref in Kramer, 1999). With trust we focus on others potential actions and trustworthiness to protect ourselves. When we look a psychological safety, it is slightly different. Do others give you the benefit of the doubt based on your actions?

Not trust but safety!

Over the last couple of years I have referred to the 5 dysfunctions of a team by Patrick Lencioni in many of our training courses and workshops. And when working with teams, one of the first items on the agenda was building trust. But trust is the wrong thing to focus on and more difficult to influence on a team level. Psychological safety is a group based characteristic based on the level on interpersonal safety each of the members of the team experience. They often hold similar perceptions of psychological safety. Because teams have many of the same influences and experiences together. For example, they often share the same manager, go though the same hiring and review procedures.

The presence or absence of psychological safety tends to be experienced at the group level of analysis (Edmondson, 1999a), unlike trust, which pertains primarily to a dyadic relationship –whether between individuals or collectives such as firms (as in supplier relationships).

Amy Edmondson, 2003

How to build psychological safety

Even Google has learned that their best teams had psychological safety. It's the first step towards great teams, it enables innovation, risk taking, group decision making and much more. Amy Edmondson described three things you can do as a leader to enable psychological safety.

  1. Frame the work as a learning problem, as opposed to an execution problem
    So the work we do nowadays is so complex that we cannot know the precise outcome and which path to follow upfront. However, we have been modeling our work is such a way. This is why in the past 10 years we are focus more on agility and this is why the Scrum Framework is so successful, since it accommodated collaboration in a complex environment. Acknowledging that we know less then we do know frames the work as a learning problem. Look into the Cynefin framework
  2. Acknowledge you own fallibility
    Acknowledge you don't know everything and inviting people to come to help. For example, when people use TLA's (Three Letter Abbreviations), ask what they mean instead of mindless nodding you pretend to understand. You'll be surprised how hard people need to think about what they actually mean.
  3. Model curiosity by asking a lot of questions
    The best model on the market to start modeling curiosity is the Scrum Framework. A lightweight framework with focussed events where asking questions and engaging in conversation is facilitated. Or like I did once with a team that tended to assume the customer thought of everything. I asked the team: "I can think of at least three things that are unclear and I will ask them, I expect at least three question from you." Worked great and over time they started asking question by themselves.

There are more steps to take but these are the first and very difficult to do. Start creating psychological safety in your organizations today! Or you might end up with an organization where bad things happen for you, for your team members or customers.

 

 


What did you think about this post?

Comments (11)


Lukas
07:30 am August 1, 2018

This is an interesting perspective. Would you say that the issue of trust can be completely neglected? Teams consist of individuals that also have dyadic, that is, 1-to-1 relationships, and to me, it seems important that there is trust within these relationships. The concept of group psychological safety cannot fully replace the need for trust when team members engage in bilateral interaction. For instance, when two developers work together on a sprint backlog item, they must be able to trust each other. I fully accept the importance of psychological safety, but a sole focus on the group level may neglect the importance of inter-individual interactions, that may be risky, and hence, presume a certain amount of trust.
If there is no trust among the members of a group, the group itself will fall apart, sub-groups may form, in-group-out-group dynamics are likely to evolve.
I also think that both concepts overlap. Both, trust and psychological safety are likely to depend on a positive social identity. When team members identify with each other, and groups rest on feelings of we-ness, psychological safety and intra-group trust are most likely to evolve.
Just my two cents,
Best,
Lukas


Andrey Tolmachev
01:39 pm December 17, 2018

Hi Lucas, that's a good point you mention here.
I would like to rephrase Stephan's idea with Albert Einsten's quote "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it". Same about trust. Many problems of trust (if not all of them) result from lack of transparency - in many matters. Transparency is a hard thing to demonstrate when you are afraid of being punished or rejected. That's where phsycological safety helps. Creating the environment where people can openly share their concerns, provide honest feedback and show courage to speak out and bring tough problems on the table. An interesting fact is that psychological safety is used in group therapy for years - that's where we can learn a lot from!


Fritz Horsthemke
08:55 am February 21, 2019

I think safety is the first condition. 1:1 relationships depends more of the individuals. But safety makes it possible to improve the relationships in dependancy of the personality of the single members of the 1:1 relationship.


Fritz Horsthemke
08:56 am February 21, 2019

Very important puzzle for transforming in agile structures.


Ali
06:17 pm February 22, 2019

One of the most useful topics that I have studied in the resource section of this site. Simply because it was practical and specific not like general topics as an example: be honest, be motivated and...
That was great.
thank you.


Paula J. Reitan
06:33 pm September 23, 2019

Unfortunately, some workplaces are so dysfunctional and corrupt, they promote and reward apathy and silence and discourage and punish innovation and improvements.


Jean Paul Gueneau de Mussy
03:33 pm April 29, 2021

Great insights, Thx for sharing


Tom Benson
10:13 pm March 29, 2022

Great article. Thanks for sharing.


12:31 am December 9, 2025

@ScrumSupport, pushing through the Scrum master PSM 1 selfhosted curricula, many dead links. 

Dead link:
| The Table Group


08:01 pm December 9, 2025

Thank you for your feedback. This link has been fixed. 


12:19 am March 2, 2026

Thanks Lindsay!  I am rereading the through the content, Scrum Master Learning Path | Scrum.org and this page.. 

A couple things I must call out which are less than supportive to students trying to focus only on relevant PSM1 professional curricula. 

 "Developing Psychological safety" promotes a page, which is frankly, unprofessional, and honestly psychologically harsh on anyone trying to focus on Scrum only.  

This article is talking about Murder? What relevance does this have to do with PSM1 or Scrum values/curricula????  Cant your courseware moderators see this is NOT VIABLE to put on here?0
 

The article in the link" -hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making
 

-In January 1993, a gunman murdered seven people in a fast-food restaurant in Palatine, a suburb of Chicago. In his dual roles as an administrative executive and spokesperson for the police department, Deputy Chief Walter Gasior suddenly had to cope with several different situations at once. He had to deal with the grieving families and a frightened community, help direct the operations of an extremely busy police department, and take questions from the media, which inundated the town with reporters and film crews. “There would literally be four people coming at me with logistics and media issues all at once,” he recalls. “And in the midst of all this, we still had a department that had to keep running on a routine basis.”

Can I ask that your team keeps it aligned to business which we're working in? I tink the shock and awe, is a bit unsettling to me, and I think anyone would find the same. Safeguard the learning experience! We are here LEARNING = This is rather Psychologically damaging to read, further, the only thing you get out of this was a null value to the courseware, its a nothingburger cause I am not a HBR subscriber. On that page, it says CONTENT RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY"

I hate to call out the constant distrctions from the actual SCRUM.ORG CONTENT THAT STUDENTS MUST LOCK DOWN TO PASS  THE PSM-1 Cosntant redirections of the student to non SCRUM.ORG content.. buy this book, go here, do that.. unrelated to the actual curriculum.

Kindly, can you guys please focus the content on PSM-1 related, and beneficial sanctioned knowledge ONLY PERTAINING TO THE PSM-1 RELEVANCE CONTENT ONLY HOSTED ON SCRUM.ORG?

I hate to ask the basics.  It is tough enough with all the links, to know what content I should commit to my memory to be used in passing a ~$300 valued test.  Further, avoid the murder/polical edges.. the world is in enough trauna at 84 seconds to midnight?

Please!!!