Assessing Psychological Safety

Assessment Frameworks

We have identified two assessment frameworks to assist you in determining to what degree psychological safety is operative within the team(s) or work group(s) that you are responsible for leading:

  • Assessment Framework #1: The Snapshot Assessment—Rate Your Team Intuitively
  • Assessment Framework #2: The Initial Scan

Before you investigate one of the assessment frameworks in more detail, the following is a list of observable and concrete indicators that can signal the presence or absence of psychological safety. The more indicators a group exhibits, the more it is worth assessing more diligently the degree to which psychological safety is an issue. Garvin, Edmondson & Gino (2008, p. 112) looked at psychological safety as a prerequisite for individuals to learn effectively in organizations and to adapt more effectively to change. The following indicators are from the Is Yours A Learning Organization inventory, with quotes from the literature to support them:

1)    On this team, it is easy to speak up about what is on your mind.

“The risk of being seen as negative often stops people from delivering critical assessments of a group or individual’s performance, which limits the thoroughness and accuracy of collective reflection” (Edmondson, 2002).
“Removing the fear of speaking up can promote innovation by freeing people up to suggest novel or unorthodox ideas” (Edmondson, 2002, p. 12).
“When there is a low level of trust in a group, contributions of group members were limited to achieving personal rather than cooperative goals” (Dirks, 1999).

2)    If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.

“Reluctance to report mistakes in the health care setting is widely reported. In a punitive environment, people report only those errors that they cannot hide” (Leape et al., 1991).
“In psychologically safe environments, people believe that if they make a mistake others will not penalize or think less of them for it. They also believe that others will not resent or penalize them for asking for help, information, or feedback” (Edmondson, 2002, p. 5).
“To create psychological safety, team leaders can demonstrate tolerance of failure, such as by acknowledging one’s own fallibility, taking interpersonal risks, and religiously avoiding punishing others for well-intentioned risks that backfire. Self-disclosure by team leaders is one way to do this” (Gabarro, 1987).

3)    People on your work team are usually comfortable talking about problems and disagreements.

“Psychological safety can increase the chances of effortful, interpersonally risky, learning behaviour, such as help seeking, experimentation and discussion of error” (Edmondson, 2002, p. 10).
“When team leaders are selected solely on the basis of technical expertise, such as skill and knowledge about a topic, they may lack the interpersonal skills necessary to seek others’ input, invite feedback and ideas, and create an interpersonal climate in which others are willing to speak up with ideas and concerns” (Edmondson, 2002, p. 20).
 “Creating safe places to talk about safety creates systems of trust and community versus systems of control” (Morath & Leary, 2004, p. 351).

4)    People on this team are eager to share information about what does and does not work.

“The belief that others see one as competent (an aspect of respect) is particularly salient—those who feel that their capability is in question are more likely to feel judged or monitored and thus may keep their opinions to themselves for fear of harming their reputation” (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1998).
“Research has found that psychological safety can stimulate innovation by fostering ”participative safety” and participation, which led to proposing more innovations” (West & Anderson, 1996).
“Leaders can manage power from both directions, first by empowering those in lower-status positions to speak up and second by minimizing the domineering tendencies of high-power individuals” (Edmondson, 2002, p. 23).

5)    Keeping your cards close to your vest is the best way to get ahead on this team.

 “When people in power demonstrate through their own behaviour a willingness to entertain alternative points of view, employees feel emboldened to offer new ideas and options” (Garvin, Edmondson & Gino, 2008).
“Team psychological safety is distinct from group cohesiveness, as research has shown that cohesiveness can reduce willingness to disagree and challenge others’ views, such as in the phenomenon of groupthink” (Janus, 1982).
“Psychological safety describes a climate in which the focus can be on productive discussion that enables early prevention of problems and the accomplishment of shared goals because people are less likely to focus on self-protection” (Edmondson, 2002, p. 7).

These five indicators will help to assess a team’s comfort, effectiveness and ability to communicate issues effectively with each other. A common underlying issue that prevents people from speaking out or feeling safe is the fear of expressing their point of view and feelings about aspects of their work.
Even if you assess a team as exhibiting a high degree of psychological safety, the following tools and interventions should be used regularly as a way to promote safety in the team’s day-to-day functioning:

  • Checking-In Guidelines
  • Review Meetings
  • “Mistake of the Month” Ritual