In-Depth: Why Psychological Safety Improves The Effectiveness Of Your Team
What it is and what it isn’t, what the science says, and how high psychological safety probably results in more conflicts
This post is part of our “in-depth” series. Each post discusses scientific research that is relevant to our work with Scrum and Agile teams. With this series, we hope to contribute to more evidence-based conversations in our community and a stronger reliance on robust research over (only) personal opinions. We also have an audio version of this post on our podcast if you prefer to listen.
When I was first introduced to the Scrum framework, somewhere between 2007 and 2008, I was struck by how little of the online conversation revolved around the influence of human factors on the success of Scrum teams. This surprised me because I knew from my training as an organizational psychologist that there was a lot to say about human factors. But except for a few pioneers in our industry, only a few people seemed to explore group dynamics, motivation, and — indeed — psychological safety.
Fast-forward to 2021, and everything has changed. These days, everyone and their uncle is talking about human factors, and how they shape the success of Scrum teams. A simple search on Google for Scrum and psychological safety results in over 1.3 million hits. And while that’s great news, I’ve also noticed skepticism among even highly experienced Scrum practitioners. Much of that seems to spring from a confusion about what psychological safety is, and why it matters so much.
In this post, Barry Overeem and I want to talk specifically about psychological safety. I want to share scientific research in this area, combined with our own research, and show what psychology is (and isn’t). We also offer practical interventions at the end.
This post was made possible by our patrons. With their financial support, we have the time to write and research areas where Scrum teams can be unleashed. For this post, they also offered invaluable input with ideas and their own experience.
The Science On Psychological Safety
Amy Edmondson re-introduced the concept of “psychological safety” in 1999 in a peer-reviewed paper in the journal “Administrative Science Quarterly”. She drew from earlier work by Edgar Schein (Edmondson & Lei, 2014) who proposed that psychological safety allows people to focus on shared goals over self-protection. Edmondson (1999) defined psychological safety as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking”, and shared a study of 51 teams that investigated the links between psychological safety, efficacy (the belief that you can do what you set out to do), learning behavior and performance. Following regression modeling, she was able to demonstrate that psychological safety is positively associated with team performance, but that this effect is mediated through the learning behaviors of a team. More simply; psychological safety makes it easier for teams to learn effectively, which in turn boosts their performance.
This initial work by Edmondson rekindled interest in psychological safety and resulted in many more studies investigating its effects on performance (see Edmondson, 2014 for a review). Other researchers connected psychological safety to Agile teams, specifically (e.g. Hennel and Rosenkranz, 2021). In a qualitative case study of 13 cases, they established that psychological safety has a strong enabling effect on performance through the use of social agile practices (Daily Scrums, Sprint Retrospectives, pairing, team building) and that those social practices in themselves boost psychological safety again.
In a large-scale quantitative study with a sample of 717 teams from the Scrum Team Survey, we also found that psychological safety has a strong and positive correlation with stakeholder satisfaction (r=.65) and team morale (r=.66). And just like Edmonson, we found that the positive influence is mediated by learning behavior; in our case, the ability of teams to learn and build what stakeholders need and the ability to learn how to ship fast(er). In other words; psychological safety boosts morale and stakeholder satisfaction by allowing teams to learn what their stakeholders need, and to learn how to ship faster. We are currently working with Daniel Russo on a detailed academic publication of these findings.
“Professionals don’t need psychological safety”
But many people still struggle with psychological safety despite the scientific evidence of its importance. This includes Scrum Masters, managers, and even professional trainers. The skepticism is often expressed in quotes like “professionals don’t need psychological safety”, “we are all wearing our big boy pants” and “nobody in the military talks about psychological safety either”.
The gist of the skepticism seems to be that you don’t need to invest in psychological safety if you’re working with professionals. Barry Overeem and I personally experienced a situation where even a group of professional trainers didn’t want to spend time building psychological safety but preferred to jump straight into the matter at hand, which involved a lot of tough decisions that needed to be made. Most of the people in this group had never met. Although most recognized the value of psychological safety, many also expressed the belief that “as professionals, we should be able to speak our mind”. Fortunately, the startup exercise did take place and the group was glad it did afterward.
This is just a microscopic example of what often happens in the workplace. It often feels like a waste of time even when everyone knows how important psychological safety is. I think that part of the problem lies in how it is often unclear what psychological safety is and how to develop it.
(Oh, and the armed forces are very much aware of psychological safety).
Psychological Safety In Practice
As I already outlined, psychological safety is defined by social scientists as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking”. Edmondson also added to this in her research (1999) that this “goes beyond interpersonal trust, (and) describes a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves” in the team.
Even though this definition is already helpful, it’s still fairly abstract. So we asked our growing community of patrons: “When do you know that there is psychological safety in a team? What is there, or what isn’t there? How would an outsider tell?”. These are some of the observations they shared from their own teams:
- “When new members join our team, they are jokingly warned about the openness and frankness of our Sprint Retrospectives. It sets the tone that you are encouraged to speak your mind.” (by Christopher Jones).
- “When people ask for help, ask questions and admit that something isn’t ideal. When they discuss things not only in personal chats but in the common chat and there is no blaming happening” (by Diana Grishel).
- “When people accept others who are angry, sad, irritated and they are given the space to feel those emotions” (by Diana Grishel)
- “Psychological Safety is present when team members can admit that they need help to solve a task” (by Steffi)
- “It is certainly not there when people project invulnerability and draw up a shield” (by Robert Huberts)
- “You know there is psychological safety in a team when people say ‘OR you could do this…’, and not ‘No, do it this way …’. There is active inclusion of other views, and people listen to each other” (by Jonathan Dwyer).
These examples all allude to a team climate where members know that they can take risks — like proposing a new idea, admitting they don’t know something or disagreeing with others — without having to worry about their position in the group.
“[Psychological safety] is a team climate where members know that they can take risks without having to worry about their position in the group.”
Psychological Safety And Interpersonal Conflict
We also asked our patrons: “What is not psychological safety? Or what might look like it from a distance, but isn’t it really?”. This resulted in answers like “The illusion of harmony; a lack of conflicts/disagreements” (by Robert Huberts), “overly positive feel-good retrospectives” (by Christopher Jones), or “a desire to sweep disagreements under the rug” (by Guillaume Delépine).
This clearly illustrates one of the not-so-obvious signs of psychological safety: the willingness of teams to engage in interpersonal conflicts. If psychological safety is high, it is far more likely for members to take the interpersonal risk of disagreeing with each other. Or to raise difficult topics. Or to show raw emotions in front of each other — like anger, sadness, or frustration. Or even to accept an unresolvable difference of opinion, and move on.
“This clearly illustrates one of the not-so-obvious signs of psychological safety: the willingness of teams to engage in interpersonal conflicts.”
This closely ties psychological safety into our writing on the inevitably of conflicts when you work with others. For example, we wrote about how many teams struggle to address the elephants in the room or how some styles of conflict navigation are far more effective than others. I like to think of psychological safety as the buffer that allows teams “to constructively fight”. Without it, fights become destructive and destroy the foundations of trust within the team (and are thus avoided). But when psychological safety is high, fights can feature intense disagreements while at the same time strengthening the foundations of a team. I still remember a disagreement I once had with a colleague over a particular new feature, and how we ended up both raising our voices at each other until my colleague stormed out of the office. After giving each other a time-out to blow off steam, we talked things over and reached an agreement, and drank a beer together later that afternoon. This encapsulates the link between psychological safety and conflicts for me; you can still intensely disagree, but know that — at the end of the day — you respect each other.
How To Create Psychological Safety In Your Team
So how can you create a climate of psychological safety in your team? In our work with groups, Barry Overeem and I have found that it is all about making personal connections early and often.
- The Liberating Structure Appreciative Interviews is great at building psychological safety, even in large groups. We often use it as the start of workshops, or with new teams, to set a positive and appreciative tone and to make personal connections. We also created this do-it-yourself workshop, with a step-by-step facilitation guide.
- The Liberating Structure Heard, Seen, Respected is particularly powerful in creating a climate of mutual listening.
- All Liberating Structures contribute to psychological safety to some extent, simply by giving everyone a voice and by creating personal connections. Simple structures, like 1–2–4-ALL and Impromptu Networking, are useful in any gathering or meeting.
- In his book Think Again, fellow organizational psychologist Adam Grant encourages teams to use a “scientist mindset” when exploring new ideas. The goal is not to be right or wrong and trump the party line, but to test ideas together and (to challenge each other) to keep moving closer towards the truth.
- Sometimes, certain members can damage psychological safety in a team through persistent undesirable behavior (like personal attacks, hostility). Individual coaching can be useful to develop more constructive behavior, but in extreme cases, more direct interventions may be necessary to restore a climate of psychological safety (e.g. removing the member, forming new teams).
- Finally, you can show leadership by setting an example. Christopher Jones offers this example from his own teams: “I emphasize that nothing is sacred, and ask for opinions and feedback wherever I can.“
Closing Words
Psychological safety is not the same as working together as harmoniously as possible. In this post, we drew from scientific research and defined psychological safety as a team climate where team members can take risks without having to worry about their position in the group. These risks range from trying something new to asking for help but also to raise difficult topics or take the risk of disagreeing with each other. Contrary to what people sometimes believe, high psychological safety might actually lead to more (constructive) conflict in a team — and that’s great!
Resources
- Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
- Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 23–43.
- Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
- Hennel, P., & Rosenkranz, C. (2020). Investigating the “Socio” in Socio-Technical Development: The Case for Psychological Safety in Agile Information Systems Development. Project Management Journal, 8756972820933057.
