Psychological Safety

Psychological Safety Training: What Actually Builds Trust in Teams

• Methodology developed with Professor Anne Lytle (Cornell, Kellogg PhD, Monash Business School)*

The research behind this article

• 14,000+ team culture reflections analysed

"Clicky... in need of review... piecemeal approach to team work... untrustworthy staff members... not safe environment."

That's how one leader described their team culture when we asked. They're not alone.

We've collected over 4,400 responses from emerging leaders describing their team cultures. The language splits into two distinct categories: how teams actually work, and how leaders wish they worked.

• The reality:* "fractured," "cliques," "gossip," "segregation," "separately," "individually," "competitive."
• The aspiration:* "honest," "transparent," "non-judgemental," "trust and respect," "safe to speak up."

The gap between these two is psychological safety—and closing it is one of the highest-leverage investments an organisation can make.

What Is Psychological Safety?

It's not about being "nice." It's not about avoiding conflict. It's about creating conditions where people can be professionally vulnerable—where they can admit uncertainty, ask questions, challenge ideas, and flag problems without fear.

Google's Project Aristotle—their multi-year study of what makes teams effective—found psychological safety was the single most important factor. More than individual talent. More than having the right skills. More than clear goals or dependable colleagues.

Why? Because without psychological safety, everything else breaks down. People don't share information. Problems stay hidden. Ideas don't surface. Feedback becomes performative. And accountability disappears—because no one wants to own a mistake in an environment where mistakes are punished.

One leader in our program captured the dysfunction perfectly:

That's the paradox. You can have people who technically deliver, while the team itself slowly erodes.

Amy Edmondson's Psychological Safety Research

Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson first defined psychological safety in 1999, studying hospital teams and discovering that the best teams didn't make fewer mistakes—they reported more. Why? Because they felt safe admitting errors and learning from them.

Her research sparked Google's Project Aristotle, which analysed 180 teams to understand what made some succeed while others struggled. The finding was clear: psychological safety was the foundation. Teams with high psychological safety consistently outperformed those without it—regardless of who was on the team.

The 7-Question Psychological Safety Survey

Edmondson developed a survey to measure psychological safety. These seven statements reveal how safe your team actually feels:

1. If you make a mistake on this team, it is held against you. (reverse scored)
2. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.
3. People on this team sometimes reject others for being different. (reverse scored)
4. It is safe to take a risk on this team.
5. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help. (reverse scored)
6. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.
7. Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilised.

Team members rate each statement on a scale of 1-7. The pattern of responses reveals not just whether safety is high or low, but where it's breaking down—whether the issue is fear of mistakes, difficulty asking for help, or feeling undervalued.

In our own data, we see these themes constantly. Leaders describe teams where "good accountability in getting the job done" coexists with "very low trust between individuals." Edmondson's research explains why: you can have compliance without psychological safety, but you can't have high performance.

The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety

Timothy Clark's model describes how psychological safety develops progressively through four stages:

• Stage 1: Inclusion Safety*

Team members feel accepted and included. They belong. This is the foundation—without it, nothing else can develop. Signs it's missing: cliques, gossip, people feeling like outsiders.

• Stage 2: Learner Safety*

Team members feel safe to learn—to ask questions, make mistakes, and admit what they don't know. Signs it's missing: people pretending to understand, hiding errors, not asking for help.

• Stage 3: Contributor Safety*

Team members feel safe to contribute ideas and participate meaningfully. They can add value without fear. Signs it's missing: the same people always speak, quieter members disengage, ideas only come from senior people.

• Stage 4: Challenger Safety*

Team members feel safe to challenge the status quo—to disagree, push back, and question decisions. This is the highest level. Signs it's missing: groupthink, performative agreement, real conversations happening after meetings.

Most struggling teams are stuck at Stage 1 or 2. They've never built the foundation of inclusion and learner safety that makes contribution and challenge possible.

In our data, we see this clearly. Leaders describe wanting teams that are "honest, transparent, non-judgemental"—Stage 4 aspirations. But they describe current cultures of "cliques, gossip, segregation"—Stage 1 failures.

Why Psychological Safety Training Works: The Neuroscience

Psychological safety isn't just a nice-to-have. It's neurological.

When people feel unsafe—when they sense a threat to their status, certainty, autonomy, relationships, or sense of fairness—their brain shifts into what we call a Red Brain state. The limbic system takes over. Heart rate increases. The capacity for complex reasoning diminishes. People become reactive, defensive, unable to think clearly.

In Red Brain, people protect themselves. They withhold information. They avoid risks. They don't speak up when they see problems. They definitely don't admit mistakes.

• Green Brain* is the opposite. When people feel safe, the prefrontal cortex works well. They can think clearly, consider other perspectives, take creative risks, and engage in the kind of productive conflict that leads to better outcomes.

Psychological safety is what keeps teams in Green Brain. It's not the absence of pressure—it's the presence of trust. The knowledge that you can be honest without being attacked.

This is why team culture directly affects performance. Research from Queen's University found that organisations with engaged cultures enjoyed 15% higher productivity, 26% lower turnover, and 30% higher customer satisfaction compared to disengaged cultures. The culture—not the individual talent—was the differentiator.

Psychological Safety Legislation in Australia

As of 1 December 2025, Victorian employers have specific legal duties around psychological health in the workplace—and similar requirements are emerging across Australia.

The new Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025 require employers to:

• Identify psychosocial hazards* in work design, systems of work, management of work, and workplace interactions
• Control risks* by eliminating or reducing them so far as reasonably practicable
• Review and revise controls* when circumstances change or incidents occur

This isn't optional guidance. It's enforceable regulation with a dedicated compliance code.

What counts as a psychosocial hazard? According to WorkSafe Victoria, it's any factor in work design, systems, management, or interactions that may cause negative psychological responses creating a risk to employee health or safety.

The examples in the compliance code read like a summary of what we see in our leader reflection data: high job demands, low job control, poor support, low role clarity, remote or isolated work, and—critically—aggression, violence, or harassment in workplace interactions.

• The hierarchy of control matters.* Employers must first try to eliminate the risk. If that's not reasonably practicable, they must reduce it through changes to:
• Management of work
• Systems of work
• Work design
• Workplace environment

Training alone is explicitly not sufficient as the primary control. The regulations state that information, instruction, or training "may only be exclusively used as a risk control where none of the other risk controls are reasonably practicable" and "must not be the predominant control."

This has implications for how organisations approach psychological safety. A one-day training workshop doesn't meet the regulatory standard. Building psychological safety requires systemic changes to how work is managed, designed, and led—exactly what the research has always shown.

For Victorian employers, psychological safety training is now part of a broader compliance obligation. For employers elsewhere in Australia, this regulatory direction signals where workplace health and safety is heading nationally. Similar psychosocial hazard requirements already exist under model WHS laws in other states and territories.

Examples of Low Psychological Safety in the Workplace

We asked 3,355 leaders to reflect on their own behaviour and name actions they wouldn't want their team to replicate.

The responses reveal exactly what destroys psychological safety at work.

• Emotional dysregulation:*
• "Defensiveness when provided with constructive criticism"*
• "Frustration/anger over matters that aren't a big deal"*
• "I let my emotions show when I was annoyed"*
• "Short temper"*
• "Emotional outburst. Negative comments."*

When leaders can't regulate their own emotions, their teams learn to avoid triggering them. Information stops flowing. Problems stay hidden.

• Shutting people out:*
• "Shutting people off and being direct"*
• "Being dismissive of a team member, not including a team member"*
• "Working in isolation to the team / people have to come to me"*
• "Trying to limit time to discuss things with me openly"*
• "Not paying attention and being distracted. Dismissive."*

When leaders signal they're too busy or too important to engage, team members stop trying.

• Gossip and blame:*
• "Gossiping and talking negative about someone else's performance"*
• "Being vocal about issues to people not involved"*
• "Blamed another department"*
• "telling the team the boss said we have to do it this way"*

Gossip destroys trust faster than almost anything else. When people see their leader talking about others behind their backs, they assume the same happens to them.

• Modelling unsustainable work:*
• "leaving phone on and responding to emails after hours"*
• "Not having a lunch break. Working too many hours"*
• "Staying at work late"*
• "Overworking, not taking breaks"*

Leaders who model overwork signal that boundaries aren't safe. Team members learn that protecting their wellbeing isn't valued—even if the leader says otherwise.

The pattern is clear: psychological safety breaks when leaders demonstrate that honesty has consequences, that emotions are contagious hazards, and that self-protection is more important than collaboration.

The Culture Gap: What Leaders Actually Want

When we ask leaders what words they'd like to use to describe their team, the language shifts dramatically:

• "Honest, transparent, kind, understanding"*
• "Trust and respect"*
• "non-judgemental"*
• "Together regularly, open, sharing"*
• "clarity, supportive, develop each other, use strengths, value, collaborative"*
• "Motivated, happy, confident, capable, empowered"*

Almost nobody aspires to a culture of gossip, cliques, or fear. The gap isn't intention—it's execution.

Leaders know what good looks like. They just don't know how to build it. Or more precisely, they don't see how their own behaviour either creates or undermines it.

One leader put the tension perfectly: their team had "good accountability in getting the job done but very low trust between individuals and of the company itself. Strained camaraderie."

That's what happens when psychological safety is missing. The work gets done—but the team doesn't grow. And eventually, the work suffers too.

What Kills Accountability (And Why Safety Matters)

Many leaders assume accountability and psychological safety are in tension—that you need to be "tough" to hold people accountable, and being safe to speak up means letting people off the hook.

The opposite is true. Without psychological safety, accountability collapses.

We asked 885 leaders to reflect on times they struggled to feel accountable. The responses reveal what's actually needed:

• Not being included:*
• "I wasn't involved in the why"*
• "Decisions were made without consideration on the impact it will have on the way my team functions nor was I consulted"*
• "this was just added to our task without consultation"*
• Being set up to fail:*
• "It becomes demoralising very quickly... almost as though you are being set up to fail"*
• "I was given to manage a very important task. However, I was not included in progress meetings... This made me feel undervalued and unappreciated"*
• No feedback:*
• "without feedback from your manager, it is easy to get lost in the task"*
• "difficult to be accountable when not sure how to be measured"*
• "There is not a lot of feedback from team leaders"*
• Unclear expectations:*
• "I felt lost — I wasn't sure what was required of me"*
• "Unclear expectations are the very worst"*
• "No clear road map to approach the task"*

Notice what's missing from this list: people saying they weren't held accountable enough. The issue isn't insufficient pressure. It's insufficient clarity, inclusion, and support.

Defense Mechanisms: How People Protect Themselves

When psychological safety is low, people develop defense mechanisms. These are instinctive responses to perceived threat—and they're almost always counterproductive.

• Denial:* Refusing to acknowledge a problem exists.
• Avoidance:* Staying away from situations that might be unpleasant or difficult.
• Withdrawal:* Escaping psychologically or physically from emotional situations.
• Justification and rationalisation:* Finding reasons or excuses instead of admitting faults.
• Blame:* Finding others who are at fault for the problem.
• Projection:* Taking your anxieties about yourself and accusing others of having those issues.
• Acting out:* Getting aggressive, showing strong negative emotions like crying or yelling.
• Passive aggression:* Appearing to cooperate while finding indirect ways to undermine or get revenge.

If you see these behaviours on your team, the question isn't "how do I fix this person?" The question is "what's threatening them?"

7 Steps to Building Psychological Safety in Your Team

Psychological safety isn't built through a single workshop or team-building exercise. It's built through consistent leader behaviour over time.

• 1. Model vulnerability first.* Admit when you don't know something. Acknowledge mistakes openly. Ask for feedback—and receive it without defensiveness. Your team will only be as vulnerable as you are.
• 2. Make it safe to speak up.* When someone raises a concern or flags a problem, your response determines whether they'll do it again. Thank them. Ask questions. Never punish the messenger.
• 3. Separate the person from the problem.* When things go wrong, focus on what happened and why—not who's to blame. "What can we learn from this?" creates safety. "Who's responsible for this?" creates fear.
• 4. Manage your emotional state.* Your mood is contagious. If you're reactive, defensive, or irritable, your team will mirror that—or protect themselves from it. Emotional regulation isn't just a personal skill. It's a leadership responsibility.
• 5. Create space for dissent.* Actively invite disagreement. Ask "what am I missing?" or "who sees this differently?" Make it clear that challenging ideas is valued, not punished.
• 6. Be consistent.* Psychological safety erodes quickly when people can't predict how you'll respond. Consistency creates trust. Unpredictability creates vigilance.
• 7. Build mutual appreciation.* Take time to understand each team member's strengths, working style, and unique contribution. When people feel known and valued for who they are, they're more willing to be professionally vulnerable.

Psychological Safety Training Activities You Can Use Today

Building psychological safety requires practice, not just awareness. Here are activities we use in our programs that you can adapt for your team:

Team Culture Assessment

Ask each team member two questions:

• What words describe how our team works together right now?*
• What words would you like to be able to use?*

Collect responses anonymously. The gap between current and aspirational language reveals exactly where psychological safety is breaking—and gives the team shared ownership of improvement.

When we run this exercise, we see patterns: current descriptions like "fractured," "cliques," "separately" alongside aspirations like "trust," "transparent," "supportive." The contrast creates urgency without blame.

Leader Behaviour Reflection

Ask leaders to list two behaviours from the past week they wouldn't want their team to replicate.

This isn't about shame. It's about awareness. In our data, leaders consistently identify: defensiveness to feedback, visible frustration, shutting people out, gossip about colleagues, modelling overwork.

Naming these patterns is the first step to changing them. The activity works because leaders choose what to share—building psychological safety in the process.

Accountability Conditions Audit

Have team members reflect on a time they felt fully accountable versus a time they didn't. What conditions were present or missing?

Common themes from our 885 responses:

• "I wasn't involved in the why"*
• "Unclear expectations"*
• "No feedback from my manager"*
• "Felt like I was being set up to fail"*

This reveals that low accountability usually isn't a character flaw—it's a safety and clarity problem.

Code of Conduct Creation

Have the team co-create ground rules for how they'll work together. Cover:

• How decisions get made
• How disagreements get handled
• How feedback gets delivered
• What behaviours are expected

The power isn't in the document—it's in the conversation. Teams that create their own norms take ownership of psychological safety.

Psychological Safety Training for Leaders: How Our Course Works

Psychological safety is central to our Emerging Leaders Program. Our psychological safety training course addresses it directly in two structured journeys—Team Building Basics and Build Team Culture—and it underpins everything else we teach.

• The science behind our approach:* Leda's methodology was co-developed with Professor Anne Lytle, who spent 30 years teaching leadership at Kellogg, Melbourne Business School, and Monash University. Her research background—neurobiology and behaviour (Cornell), organisational behaviour (Kellogg PhD)—shaped the science-based approach that underpins the platform today. The methodology was recognised by AACSB's Innovations That Inspire*—the global standard-setting body for business education.
• Why our approach works:* You can't build psychological safety through content alone. Leaders need to examine their own behaviour, identify patterns, and practice new approaches in real situations with real teams.

Our completion rates of 88-93% (compared to the industry average of 3-15% for digital learning) come from this model: daily activities applied to real work, not role plays in a workshop.

In Team Building Basics, participants:

• Understand psychological safety and mutual appreciation
• Learn how diverse team dynamics affect performance
• Identify personality, conflict, and defense styles in their team
• Set ground rules through a team Code of Conduct
• Practice effective delegation and decision-making

In Build Team Culture, participants:

• Assess their current team culture and identify gaps
• Build accountability through structured conversations
• Develop trust and respect through specific behaviours
• Identify emotional intelligence gaps in their team
• Create action plans for culture improvement
• Monthly mentor sessions* create accountability. Participants work through real challenges with an experienced facilitator and a cohort of peers facing similar issues.

The journeys are part of our 6 or 9-month cohort-based program. Participants develop psychological safety skills alongside peers—not alone in a self-paced course that quietly gets abandoned.

Signs Your Workplace Needs Psychological Safety Training

How do you know if psychological safety training should be a priority for your leaders and managers?

• Problems stay hidden until they're crises.* Issues that could have been caught early explode because no one felt safe raising them.
• Meetings are performative.* People agree in the room, then disagree in the hallway. Real conversations happen after the meeting, not during it.
• The same people always speak.* Quieter team members have stopped contributing. Ideas come from a predictable few.
• Blame is the default response to problems.* When something goes wrong, the first question is "who did this?" not "what happened?"
• Turnover is concentrated.* Good people leave, citing "culture" or "management" in exit interviews. The team keeps the wrong people.
• Feedback doesn't flow.* Leaders avoid giving honest feedback. Team members avoid raising concerns. Everyone protects themselves instead of improving.
• Gossip is rampant.* Information travels through back channels. People talk about each other more than to each other.

None of these are character judgments. They're symptoms of low psychological safety—and psychological safety can be built.

Key Takeaways

• Psychological safety is the foundation of high-performing teams.* Without it, information doesn't flow, problems stay hidden, and accountability collapses.
• It's not about being "nice."* It's about creating conditions where people can be honest, take risks, and admit mistakes without fear of punishment.
• Leader behaviour is the primary lever.* Your emotional regulation, your response to problems, your willingness to be vulnerable—these determine whether your team feels safe.
• The gap between current and aspirational culture is real.* Leaders know what good looks like. The challenge is closing the gap through consistent behaviour change.

• Psychological safety enables accountability.* People take ownership when they feel included, supported, and clear on expectations—not when they fear punishment.
• Ready to build psychological safety in your teams?*

Explore the Emerging Leaders Program →

Learn how our Team Building journeys work →