What is psychological safety and how does it link to workplace safety and productivity? Practical steps for managers and HR to make mistakes speakable in teams.
On a production line, an operator notices the machine making an unusual noise but says nothing, because last month a colleague who gave a similar warning was told off for "slowing down the work". In a software team, a junior employee thinks the plan is flawed but stays silent in the meeting. In an accounting unit, a small mistake is hidden for weeks, growing all the while, for fear of being penalised if it comes to light. What these examples have in common is a lack of psychological safety. In this article, for business owners, managers, HR and occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals, I look at what psychological safety is and is not, its effect on business outcomes and how it can be developed step by step in a team.
What Is Psychological Safety?
Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson, who brought the concept into the academic literature, defines team psychological safety as team members' "shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking" (Edmondson, 1999). By interpersonal risk she means things like asking a question, admitting you do not know, saying you made a mistake, raising a problem, challenging the manager or proposing a new idea.
In a team with psychological safety, employees believe that these behaviours will not result in humiliation, exclusion or punishment. This belief is a perception shared at team level, not an individual one. Within the same company, the level of psychological safety can be very different in two departments, because what most determines this perception is the team's daily life and, in particular, the manager's behaviour.
What psychological safety is not
The concept is often misunderstood. For that reason its boundaries need to be made clear:
- It is not an atmosphere of comfort in which everyone says "yes" to everything. On the contrary, this climate allows objections and differing views to be voiced openly.
- It is not lowering performance expectations. High standards and a safe environment for speaking up can coexist; the most productive teams are generally those where the two are found together.
- It is not mistakes having no consequences. A rule violation, negligence or deliberate harm is different from an honest mistake made in the course of learning. Psychological safety makes it possible for honest mistakes to be talked about.
- It is not the same as personal trust or friendship. There can be teams that like each other but cannot discuss difficult subjects.
Why Does Psychological Safety Matter? Its Effect on Business Outcomes
Edmondson's foundational 1999 study was carried out in 51 work teams in a manufacturing company. In this study, psychological safety was found to be associated with the team's learning behaviour, meaning asking for feedback, talking about mistakes and trying new ways (Edmondson, 1999). For factory managers this detail matters: the concept is not a fashion specific to office culture, but a phenomenon studied directly in a production environment.
In Google's internal research on its own employees, known as "Project Aristotle", more than 180 teams were studied, and among the five dynamics that set effective teams apart, psychological safety was identified as first and most important. The other dynamics were listed as dependability, structure and clarity, and meaning and impact (Google re:Work). It should be noted that this research is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication but the internal study of a single company; even so, it points in the same direction as the academic findings.
From a business point of view, the effects of a team that can speak up can be summarised like this:
- Workplace safety: The reporting of near misses, early detection of equipment faults and the ability to object to unsafe practices depend largely on employees not being afraid to speak.
- Quality: Catching an error at source costs far less than noticing it after it has reached the customer.
- Innovation and process improvement: A worker on the shop floor being able to say "this would be easier done this way" is the foundation of a culture of continuous improvement.
- Mental health and early support: In a large survey in Europe, 50% of employees think that disclosing a mental health problem would harm their career; the proportion who say they would feel comfortable talking to their manager about it is 58% (EU-OSHA, 2022). A problem that cannot be spoken about comes back as absence or resignation.
Data from Turkey also show the importance of the subject. According to Gallup's 2026 report, the proportion of employees in Turkey who are truly engaged with their work is only 8%, and the proportion who say they experience stress daily is 66% (Gallup, 2026; 2025 data). It is not surprising that engagement falls in employees who feel they cannot make their voices heard.
Signs That Psychological Safety Is Low
Before running a survey, observation says a great deal about whether this trust is weak in a team:
- In meetings only the manager talks, and the others agree.
- Bad news reaches the top late or reaches it "softened".
- There are very few or no near-miss reports; this may indicate not that incidents are not happening, but that they are not being reported.
- When there is a mistake, the first question is "Who did this?", not "How did this happen?"
- Employees discuss problems in the corridor, on cigarette breaks or in messaging groups rather than through official channels.
- New employees hold back from asking questions and learn the job by trial and error.
- Disagreements within the team are not openly debated but continue as resentment and cliques.
In a survey covering workplaces across Europe, the biggest difficulty in managing psychosocial risks was reported, at 59%, as "reluctance to openly discuss these issues" (EU-OSHA, 2025). In other words, not being able to speak is not only a symptom but also the main obstacle to solving problems.
Causes That Damage Psychological Safety
What disrupts the climate of trust in a team is often not ill will but habits. The causes most often encountered in the field are these:
- Blame-focused handling of mistakes: Looking for someone "responsible" after every incident turns everyone's first reflex towards protecting themselves.
- Anger and humiliation: An employee who has been shouted at in front of everyone once, and the colleagues who watched it, will not easily speak again. This subject is covered separately in the article on toxic management.
- Inconsistent reactions: The same behaviour being rewarded one day and punished the next creates uncertainty.
- Hierarchical distance: In many organisations in Turkey, the idea that "you don't object to your elders" can turn differences in seniority and title into a barrier to speaking.
- What is said having no outcome: If employees see that the problems they raise are never addressed, they adopt silence not out of fear but as a choice born of weariness.
- Job insecurity: In times of economic uncertainty, the worry of losing one's job strengthens an attitude of "let me not get myself into trouble".
- Digital and dispersed working: In hybrid and remote teams, it becomes harder to notice an employee who is struggling when they stay quiet with their camera off. A harsh sentence written in a messaging group may stay in the mind longer than something said face to face, and can have the effect of criticism made in front of everyone. Tone and respect rules in written communication need to be discussed too.
Say that in a metalworking workshop an experienced master sees a newly arrived operator using protective equipment incorrectly but does not intervene because the shift supervisor says "everyone should mind their own business". A few weeks later a minor injury occurs, and in the investigation it emerges that everyone knew but no one said anything. The problem here is not individuals' indifference but an order in which speaking up is not valued.
Psychological Safety Within the Legislation and Standards Framework
The concept of psychological safety does not appear by name in Turkish legislation. However, the relevant provisions indirectly support a team culture in which people can speak up. Article 5 of Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 requires the employer to develop a coherent prevention policy covering the effects of factors such as work organisation and social relationships (Law No. 6331, Art. 5/f). The Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Regulation provides for psychosocial sources of hazard to be identified and recorded as well (Regulation, Art. 8). Whether near misses and employees' views can feed into this process depends on employees being able to say what they see.
Internationally, the ISO 45003:2021 guidance addresses psychosocial hazards in three groups: the organisation of work, social factors at work and the work environment. Among the social factors are communication, leadership and interpersonal relationships. ISO 45003 is not a certification standard but a guidance document containing recommendations. You can find the practical counterpart of this framework in the article on psychosocial risk assessment.
How Can Managers Develop Psychological Safety?
This climate cannot be built in a day by a training session; it is built through the manager's small behaviours repeated every day. The steps that can be put into practice are these:
1. Set the frame clearly. Tell the team openly that the work involves uncertainty and mistakes, and that is why everyone's observations are valuable. The sentence "If you see a problem, tell me first, and no one will come to harm for it" gains meaning only when it is backed up by behaviour.
2. Share your own mistakes. A manager being able to say "I made the wrong decision here, and this is how we are correcting it" is the strongest message showing the team that it is safe to talk about mistakes.
3. Ask questions and listen. End meetings with open-ended questions such as "What might we be overlooking in this plan?" rather than "Has everyone understood?" Give the least senior people the chance to speak first.
4. Thank people for bad news. Your first reaction to an employee who reports a problem determines whether later reports will come. Even if the news is not pleasant, the first sentence should be "Thank you for telling me."
5. Do error analysis with a systems focus rather than blame. In incident reviews, ask "what conditions allowed this error" before asking "who". Clarify with the team the distinction between deliberate violation and honest mistake.
6. Follow through on what is said. Give feedback on what has been done about the issues employees have raised and, if nothing could be done, why. The experience of "our voice was heard" makes speaking up sustainable.
7. Show zero tolerance for humiliation and angry outbursts. This rule should apply to managers too. One-to-one, concrete feedback should be preferred to criticism in front of everyone.
Psychological safety is measured not by a manager saying "my door is open to everyone", but by how the person who comes through that door with bad news is received.
HR and OHS units can contribute to this process as well: setting up anonymous reporting channels, developing practices that encourage and reward near-miss reporting, and equipping managers with feedback and difficult-conversation skills are some of the ways. In the WHO's guidelines on mental health at work, the recommendation with the strongest evidence is likewise providing mental health training for managers (WHO, 2022). For detailed information on this, you can read the article on mental health training for managers.
How to Start in Your Organisation
For organisations that want to take steps in this area, a three-stage roadmap works:
Needs analysis: With short, confidential employee surveys, measure how far teams agree with statements such as "I can say so when I make a mistake", "I can challenge my manager" and "It is easy to ask for help in this team". In addition, examine near-miss report numbers, use of the suggestion system, and turnover and absence data by department. Focus group discussions help in understanding the experience behind the figures.
Programme: According to the results of the analysis, plan practical workshops for managers (listening, feedback, conversations about mistakes), team-level work, and the transformation of incident review processes from a blame focus to a systems focus. Rather than a one-off seminar, a process reinforced at regular intervals, in which managers practise in the field and then come back, is more meaningful. You can look at how such programmes can be structured on the corporate services page.
Measurement: The survey used at the start is repeated after a few months. An increase in near-miss reports should be read in the first period not as a negative but as a positive sign, because it may indicate that reporting, not incidents, has increased. Among the monitoring indicators recommended by the International Labour Organization are absence, turnover, reports of violence and harassment, and employee surveys (ILO, 2026).
Frequently Asked Questions
Are psychological safety and comfort the same thing?
No. The concept means that, even in an environment with high expectations, employees can ask questions, report mistakes and raise objections. An environment where expectations are low but no one speaks may seem comfortable, but it is not psychologically safe.
How is psychological safety measured?
The most common method is surveys in which team members are presented with short statements in confidence. In addition, near-miss reports, use of the suggestion system and observations about who speaks in meetings also provide valuable information. Results should be used to assess teams, not individuals.
Are we never going to hold the person who makes a mistake responsible?
Responsibility does not disappear. What matters is distinguishing between an honest mistake, negligence and a deliberate rule violation. Talking about an honest mistake and turning it into learning reduces the likelihood of the same mistake being repeated; violations need to be handled with clear and consistent rules.
Where should a small business start with psychological safety?
In small businesses, the most decisive person is usually the business owner or the sole manager. Reviewing how you react to bad news, giving everyone a voice in regular short team meetings and following up on reported problems are strong starting points that need no budget. Getting outside professional support when needed is also an option.
Bu yazı genel bilgilendirme amaçlıdır; tanı veya tedavi yerine geçmez. Yaşadığınız güçlükler için bir ruh sağlığı uzmanına başvurmanız önerilir. Acil bir durumda lütfen 112'yi arayın.
Eda Erkan Alapala
Klinik Psikolog. İstanbul Kent Üniversitesi Klinik Psikoloji Tezli Yüksek Lisans mezunu; bilişsel davranışçı terapi, çocuk merkezli oyun terapisi ve çocuk-ergen psikoterapisi alanlarında eğitimlerini tamamlamıştır.
Eğitimler