Have you ever faced misconceptions about ideas you’ve shared that you believe are positive, but others interpret very differently? I remember several such moments in my career. In the late 1980s, there was a strong focus on the importance of self-esteem. Many books were published on ways to boost self-esteem in ourselves, our children, or our students.
I wrote one of those books, The Self-Esteem Teacher, in which I described strategies for creating a classroom environment in which students felt valued, and where attributes such as self-discipline, responsibility, intrinsic motivation, and compassion were nurtured.
Shortly after its publication, the concept of self-esteem and the so-called “self-esteem movement” faced heavy criticism. Articles emerged that linked boosting self-esteem with letting children and adolescents do whatever they want without facing consequences, to avoid damaging their fragile self-esteem. Examples included inflated school and college grades and the practice of giving every child a trophy, whether earned or not. This was not my view of what self-esteem involved.
I decided to acknowledge at the start of my presentations on self-esteem that I was aware of the negative views that had emerged about this concept, noting that some of these criticisms were justified. I felt that if I didn’t address these criticisms, they would remain the proverbial elephant in the room and could undermine the message I was trying to convey. Soon, my focus shifted from self-esteem to a broader, and probably more acceptable, subject: resilience.
Closely linked to this first example was the emergence of the field of positive psychology, a topic I have discussed many times, including in one of my earlier website articles. Given my focus on resilience and on “strengths” or what I often refer to as “islands of competence,” the principles of positive psychology aligned with my own interests. However, I found that some people mistakenly believed that adopting a positive psychology framework meant downplaying or ignoring negative emotions and experiences.
To clarify this misconception, I added a slide to my PowerPoint that states subscribing to a strength-based model and focusing on positive emotions “should not be interpreted to imply that negative emotions or thoughts are minimized or ignored within” such a model. If anything, addressing the negative aspects of our lives enhances our ability to promote the positive ones.
A third misconception I have often heard arises when I talk about the importance of empathy in building positive relationships. Some people believe that if they are empathic, their children, coworkers, or employees might take advantage of them. In response, I make a distinction between being empathic and not holding others accountable. After my colleague Dr. Sam Goldstein and I published Raising a Self-Disciplined Child, I stressed to parents that if children aren’t listening or responding to our disciplinary efforts, it isn’t because of empathy. Instead, it shows a need for more effective techniques. I often point out that some of the best disciplinarians are also very empathic because, instead of worrying that their children won’t love them for setting limits, they ask, “How can I discipline my children in a way that makes them feel respected and helps them learn from me, rather than refuse to listen and resent me?”
Understanding Psychological Safety
I thought about these misconceptions while reading an article, “What People Get Wrong About Psychological Safety,” co-authored by Amy Edmondson, on the faculty of Harvard Business School, and Michaela Kerrissey, on the faculty of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. I’ve cited Edmondson’s pioneering work on psychological safety on several occasions, including my February, 2023 website article.
In my 2023 article, I wrote that Edmondson described a psychologically safe workplace in the following way: “Individuals feel they can speak up, express their concerns, and be heard. . . . People are not full of fear and are not trying to cover their tracks to avoid being embarrassed or punished. Psychologically safe employees are more interested in learning, excellence, and genuinely connecting with others than in looking good.”
Having shared Edmondson’s ideas about psychological safety in my writings and presentations, I wondered what misconceptions might arise about this concept. Edmondson and Kerrissey observed that as people have become more aware of the significant benefits of psychological safety, so too have misconceptions appeared, even from “ardent supporters,” that have contributed to “distorted or incorrect ideas and expectations surrounding it that get in the way of progress.”
Misconceptions about Psychological Safety
Edmondson and Kerrissey identified six misconceptions, noting that the more accurately we can identify them, the more we can prevent them. They include:
Psychological safety means being nice. Edmondson and Kerrissey reported hearing a common observation from clients, namely, “We have a psychologically safe team; we know this because we never argue.” These authors believe this comment lacks candor and often represents the not-so-hidden message, “Don’t say what you think (unless it happens to be nice).” In the absence of candor, a team’s success in the workplace or even at home will suffer. They proposed that psychological safety involved a “shared sense of permission for candor—to share hard truths that allow for good debates when needed.”
They added that such debates may make some people uncomfortable and emphasized they were “not advocating for insensitivity. Psychological safety is entirely consistent with kindness, but let’s distinguish between being nice and being kind.” They viewed kindness as associated with respect and honesty.
Psychological safety means getting your way. Edmondson and Kerrissey explained that a less common but still problematic misconception is when people believe that psychological safety implies their views should prevail. They offered an example of an employee who asserted, “You didn’t support my idea in that meeting, and that made me feel psychologically unsafe.”
I recall several times in my consultations when a leader asked for suggestions about a project and listened respectfully to staff ideas. If the leader’s final decision didn’t match the staff member’s opinion, even if the leader carefully explained their reasoning, the staff member felt the leader hadn’t truly considered their view. A staff member once told me, “My manager’s mind was made up even before I presented my position. I’m not going to offer my opinions in the future.” Although it may not be an easy task, it is important for leaders to listen and validate (as I’ve often said, validation doesn’t mean you agree with another person but that you are respectful and making an effort to understand their perspective).
Psychological safety means job security. In 2023, Google unexpectedly announced that it was laying off 12,000 employees. Many employees were taken aback by this news and posted on social media sites “that the action was counter to their company’s commitment to psychological safety.” Edmondson and Kerrissey stated, “But psychological safety doesn’t mean freedom from layoffs. It’s freedom to be constructively candid.”
Obviously, layoffs are almost always accompanied by strong emotions. These emotions will often become increasingly intense and angry when leadership has not been honest with employees and delivered their message with a seeming lack of caring and empathy.
Psychological safety requires a trade-off with performance. In explaining this misconception, Edmondson and Kerrissey noted that some leaders worried that reinforcing psychological safety would make it more challenging to “address weaknesses and assign accountability for achieving excellence.” This misconception arises when leaders assume that psychological safety and performance accountability are mutually exclusive.
These authors challenged this view, contending that the two variables are distinct dimensions and “superb performance requires a commitment to both high standards and psychological safety.” They reasoned, “That is because psychological safety enables learning—it helps surface information and knowledge vital for competing in a changing world.”
Psychological safety is a policy. Edmondson and Kerrissey asserted that this is a misconception rooted in the belief that organizations can mandate psychological safety. They cited a bill passed by the Rhode Island State Senate, the “Workplace Psychological Safety Act.” While the bill has passed in the State Senate, it has not passed in the House. The authors noted, “Telling people in a company or on a team that they must have psychological safety ‘or else’ will not produce it. In fact, it’s more likely to result in leaders being kept in the dark about what’s really going on.”
Instead, Edmondson and Kerrissey suggest that psychological safety has to be “built in a group, interaction by interaction. It takes intention and effort to create a climate of candor.”
I agree to a certain extent with this view, but I believe that in some cases, such as those involving civil rights or discriminatory practices, a clear law or policy is essential to create the foundation for positive change “interaction by interaction.” Laws alone won’t change negative mindsets, but they can play an important role by providing opportunities for these mindsets to be questioned and changed.
Psychological safety requires a top-down approach. I often posited that the emotional climate of an organization is shaped mostly by the leadership team. Edmondson and Kerrissey also recognized that leaders “have an enormous impact on a team or an organization’s culture.” However, they add, “But ultimately, psychological safety is built by everyone—at all levels of the company. . . . In small but important ways, everyone influences the environment. Anyone can call attention to the need for input or ask questions to draw others out, and anyone can respond to others in productive rather than punitive ways.”
I voiced a similar view in an article I posted more than five years ago when I wrote, “I believe that almost all members of an organization can play a role whether big or small in determining the emotional atmosphere that exists in their workplace.” I quoted leadership expert Kevin Kruse, who observed, “Half the battle is up to you. You can choose your attitude.” Many of my readers will recognize that Kruse’s words capture the notion of “personal control” that I have highlighted in my work.
Kruse also suggested we consider the following questions regardless of our position in an organization:
“What did I do today to improve communication in my organization?”
“What actions did I take today to learn and grow?”
“Whom did I thank today, and who recognized me?”
Concluding Comment
I would recommend that those interested in gaining a more in-depth view of the concept of psychological safety read Edmondson and Kerrissey’s article in its entirety. I would like to share their ending paragraph:
Timely input, candid feedback, and robust debate are as vital for ensuring innovation as for preventing strategic blunders. Leaders who create the kinds of teams that practice these ways of interacting will be poised to outperform those who do not. Utltimately, psychological safety is about changing the expectations for how we work together to successfully navigate the storms ahead.