This post was created based on the insights and experiences shared with me by my fellow trainer and peer coach for (para)medics Elles Bindels regarding psychological safety, and is based on the work of scientist and author Amy Edmondson on psychological safety in teams and organizations. Nonviolent communication, or Nonviolent communication as we will show in this post, proves to be an important skill that makes increasing psychological safety in teams very concrete.
Why is psychological safety important for teams?
To function well, psychological safety in teams and organizations is an essential basic requirement and, in many sectors (such as the medical world, emergency services, and aviation), quite literally a matter of life and death. Team members must feel free to ask questions, share ideas, and express their doubts. If this does not happen, mistakes are not learned from, which can lead to serious incidents.
But psychological safety is also important in other sectors, such as the creative sector and the performing arts. Research shows it is the most important prerequisite for innovation and creativity. When there is psychological safety, conversations become more honest, decisions become more careful, and teams learn faster.
Psychological safety does not mean that everyone always agrees with each other. It means that people can speak up without fear of negative consequences for their position, reputation, or relationships. That difference may seem small, but in practice, it is huge. In a fast-changing world, this quality of collaboration is becoming increasingly important. Work is becoming more complex and issues are rarely straightforward, which is why it is necessary for different perspectives to be given space.
What is psychological safety in teams?
In almost every team, there are differences of opinion and insight, doubts about a decision, different perspectives, or a feeling that a different or better solution is possible. Whether or not we speak up at these moments says a lot about a team’s culture. Do we feel that our input is welcome, or does it feel safer to keep it to ourselves?
Psychological safety is about whether people feel free to speak when it matters. The importance of psychological safety became visible through the work of Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson, among others. In her research on team dynamics in hospitals and other settings, she discovered something that seems contradictory at first glance: in the best-performing teams, more errors were reported than in other teams. Because there was a culture in which people dared to name mistakes, problems came to light faster and the team could learn from them. That insight reveals something essential: learning in teams starts with someone saying out loud what they see.
How is psychological safety created in a team?
Psychological safety is sometimes seen as an environment where everything feels comfortable and harmony is pursued. But openness actually requires courage. Speaking up means taking a social risk. If you share your doubt, admit a mistake, or bring in a different perspective, you don’t know exactly how others will react.
Therefore, a balance is needed between caring and daring. Caring refers to care and respect—to the experience of being seen as a person and being taken seriously. Daring refers to the willingness to take risks.
When only caring is present, a team may appear friendly and harmonious, but difficult issues are avoided. When there is only daring without care, tension or competition is more likely to arise. Psychological safety arises when both qualities are present.
What is the difference between social and psychological safety?
Sometimes different forms of safety are confused. Social safety is about protection against undesirable behavior. It concerns policies, agreements, and structures that ensure people can work safely, such as codes of conduct, confidential counselors, and grievance procedures.
Psychological safety operates on a different level. It arises in the daily interactions between people, in the way team members react when someone names a mistake, and whether a dissenting perspective is listened to. Both forms of safety are important.
Jorine Beks created a great overview of situations with different scenarios of Social and Psychological safety in an organization. If a place is Socially unsafe and Psychologically unsafe (situation 1), then organizational measures (rules and procedures) are either not present or not in order, and no one dares to speak up about it. A culture of fear prevails.
If a place is Socially safe (so the measures are there) but not Psychologically safe, then there is a False Sense of Security (situation 2). In this case, management believes everything is well-organized, but in reality, no one dares to go to a confidential counselor or speak up honestly. This can be due to past experiences or, for example, the attitude of a manager.
If an organization is Socially unsafe but Psychologically safe within the team, then we retreat into our team or department (situation 3). A silo culture then prevails, and teams with a good atmosphere may be hostile or closed off toward other teams.
What we want is a work environment where both Psychological and Social safety are in order (situation 4). Formal measures are in place, and there is also informal space for mistakes, differences of opinion, and friction.
How can Nonviolent Communication strengthen psychological safety?
When people collaborate on complex issues, differences of insight are inevitable. Yet teams often avoid conflict, leaving important insights untapped and allowing tensions to grow beneath the surface. Teams become more psychologically safe when they become more ‘conflict-competent’: not by seeking out conflict, but by practicing tense and uncomfortable conversations.
For this reason, Nonviolent Communication can be a valuable skill to develop within the team. Nonviolent Communication focuses on how people speak and listen: first truly listening to understand, then becoming clear about your own concerns and needs, and speaking up in an honest, non-blaming way. By practicing this as a team, conversations change: differences are less likely to lead to struggle, and judgments more often give way to curiosity. A kind of common language emerges through which team members can connect with one another.
Psychological safety grows in these moments of attention and reflection. Teams can ask themselves: when do we speak up and when do we not? How do we react to mistakes or doubt? Can differences be explored without polarization? Exploring such questions creates a ‘brave space’: an environment where people feel safe enough to disagree, to find things strange, and to be willing to put in the effort to engage in and resolve conflicts.
Want to know more?
Would you like to explore what Equanimity can do for your team or organization regarding Psychological safety and Nonviolent Communication? Feel free to contact Boris Nauta (boris@equanimity.nu).