Psychological Safety, Team Effectiveness, and the Future of Leadership
A senior executive at a global firm is sitting through a critical strategy meeting, sensing tension in the room. The numbers looked promising, but something feels off. Later, in a private conversation, a mid-level manager quietly admits that the projections were flawed. Concerns had been raised, but no one felt comfortable challenging the dominant view in the boardroom.
Across industries, research consistently shows that fear of speaking up is one of the biggest barriers to organizational success. Whether it’s a junior employee hesitating to question a process or a senior leader suppressing doubts about strategy, silence in the workplace comes at a cost.
Stephen Shedletzky, joined us in London and Toronto recently to discuss his work ‘Speak Up Culture’, his case: “People will give you their best when they feel safe, valued, and heard.” Yet, many workplaces fail to foster this kind of openness, prioritizing efficiency over effectiveness.
The Challenge of Efficiency
Why Effectiveness is the True Competitive Advantage
Recent research argues that efficiency-driven cultures often undermine psychological safety. When organizations prioritize speed and output over thoughtful collaboration, people become hesitant to challenge decisions or offer alternative perspectives.
This results in:
Risk-avoidant behaviour, where employees withhold valuable insights.
Lack of innovation, as new ideas struggle to surface in rigid structures.
McKinsey studies reinforce this point, showing that organizations with high psychological safety are 76% more likely to retain top talent and 50% more likely to foster innovation. Why? Because they focus on team effectiveness over pure efficiency, recognizing that long-term success depends on how well teams work together, not just how fast they move.
The Silent Epidemic in Leadership
Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, a leading expert on psychological safety, has spent decades researching why some teams thrive while others stagnate. Her findings are clear: high-performing teams encourage openness, while dysfunctional ones suppress it.
Yet, in a 2023 study by MIT Sloan, 68% of executives admitted they hesitate to share concerns at work, fearing that it might be perceived as a weakness. The irony? These same leaders are expected to cultivate cultures where employees feel comfortable speaking up.
When senior executives struggle with psychological safety themselves, it sends an unspoken message throughout the organization, one that says, stay quiet. Play it safe. Don’t rock the boat.
The Leadership Paradox
Why Even C-Suite Leaders Hold Back
One might assume that leaders who operate at the highest levels of decision-making would have no problem speaking their minds. Yet, evidence suggests the opposite.
Many senior leaders report feeling pressure to project certainty, align with stakeholders, and avoid the appearance of doubt. But certainty is a dangerous illusion, especially in an era where agility and adaptability define success.
Consider the fate of companies that have struggled with internal silos, where dissenting voices were ignored, either through hierarchy, culture, or fear. The collapse of Enron for example.
High-performing teams only challenge each other constructively when leaders signal that disagreement is not a threat but an asset.
The Business Case for Kind Leadership
Kindness in leadership is often dismissed as soft or idealistic. In reality, it is a powerful strategic advantage. Studies from McKinsey and Google’s Project Aristotle reveal that organizations with strong psychological safety:
Reduce costly mistakes by catching risks earlier.
Unlock innovation by encouraging diverse perspectives.
Retain top talent by fostering trust and engagement.
Kindness does not mean avoiding hard conversations or shielding people from challenge, it means creating an environment where people feel safe enough to engage in those conversations honestly.
Shedletzky puts it simply: “People don’t need to be right; they need to be seen.”
What Kind Leadership Looks Like in Practice
Rather than prescribing a checklist, I would like to consider a few questions:
Do you assume silence means agreement?
When was the last time someone on your team changed your mind?
What would happen if you encouraged more dissenting views?
Kind leadership is ultimately about creating space for better answers to emerge.
This requires a fundamental shift:
From certainty to curiosity
From perfection to progress
From hierarchy to collaboration
Psychological safety isn’t just about making people comfortable, it’s about keeping them engaged, challenged, and invested in the organization’s success.
Are you actively creating environments where it can thrive?
Comments