Psychological Safety and Creating Open Dialogue

A yellow sticky note with the words psychological safety written on it

Good communication is vital for effective functioning of any team. However, if you have ever been on a team where the team leader openly criticizes team members, aggressively interrogates them to pick holes in their ideas, dismisses member’s contributions or plays one off against the other, you have witnessed how a leader can stifle open communication and create an atmosphere where people feel unsafe to say what they really think. A leader can destroy trust and openness by reducing the level of psychological safety and in turn, weakening the overall performance of the team. In the absence of psychological safety, people learn to keep quiet and avoid disagreeing with the leader and are reluctant to be honest and direct about their views, concerns and mistakes. We know from decision-making research that decisions are enhanced when all the facts and all the views of team members are given a fair hearing. However, when the leader has strong views and is unwilling to listen to alternative perspectives, the leader’s biases will go unchallenged and decisions will be less objective and often flawed. Confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, optimism bias, status quo bias and many others have been identified by researchers as the sources of bad decisions that can lead to fatal organizational errors. Team leaders need to learn to be open to and supportive of new ideas, to listen carefully, invite challenges and let the facts win. They need to ask questions to “disconfirm” their own views, opinions and mental models. They need to build the team’s willingness to share information, focus on the facts and engage in open and honest dialogue rather than suppressing open dialogue. Team members need to feel safe, comfortable and encouraged to bring up their concerns, address difficult issues and problems and challenge how the leader, the team or the organization does things.

The importance of psychological safety.

“Psychological safety” is a term created by Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson in the late 1990s. Essentially, it is “a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes.” Edmondson found, to her surprise, that teams that admitted to making many mistakes were more effective than those claiming few mistakes. The reason, she discovered, was that the teams that appeared to be making more mistakes were more likely to admit where they had gone wrong, and were then able to discuss it, fix it, and avoid similar errors in future. But in order to admit and discuss mistakes, conflicts and problems, team members needed to feel safe.

Google’s large-scale study of teamwork in the mid-2010s, code-named “Project Aristotle,” corroborated Edmonson’s work. It found that of five critical factors behind effective teamwork, psychological safety was #1. “Psychological safety refers to an individual’s perception of the consequences of taking an interpersonal risk or a belief that a team is safe for risk taking, in the face of being seen as ignorant, incompetent, negative, or disruptive.”

When there is psychological safety on a team, teammates feel it is okay to admit they’ve made a mistake, or don’t understand something and need it clarified. Team members feel that they can bring up a topic and feel comfortable that they can share their concerns or mistakes without fear of humiliation or retribution. They feel confident that they will not be judged, punished, or embarrassed. A sense of psychological safety sets people free to take risks, to speak their minds and offer their ideas, so it forms a solid basis for open participation and collaboration. It fosters creativity, confidence, and open-mindedness. ‘‘It describes a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect,” Edmondson wrote, “in which people are comfortable being themselves.’’

Call out negative behavior .

On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that “anything goes.” When members exhibit behavior that isn’t collaborative, or in some way is not conducive to a safe, supportive team environment, it is the leader’s responsibility to let the member know that this behavior is unacceptable. Leaders must create an atmosphere where everyone gives candid feedback. This may mean challenging inappropriate comments or aggressive, competitive behavior, either in the group or individually. It is also important to call out behaviors that reflect a “silo mentality,” where members focus on their own self-interest or their group or team’s agenda, rather than the interests of the entire team. Do this as soon as possible after the incident occurs. But be careful and don’t just focus on pointing out the holes in the logic of team members’ suggestions or ideas. In your effort to get to the truth, you may be intimidating a valued team member. Calling out negative behavior is important, but it is equally vital for the team leader to reinforce, recognize, and acknowledge behavior that is supportive and collaborative. “I really liked the way that you did …x.” Team members see and appreciate it when the leader does this.

“In his position it is absolutely critical to build strength and camaraderie among team members. Louis does this VERY well. Not only through his words, but, more importantly, through his actions. When asking for team support, he is first to volunteer his time and effort, and rewards those who help with praise and genuine accolades.”

Treat team members with respect.

It is important that when team members speak, they need to feel that their ideas or views are valued and will be given consideration. Dismissive comments from the leader or other team members shows disrespect. The leader needs to model respect but also be willing to confront members who show disrespect. When team members make a mistake, it is important to avoid judgmentalness or blame and focus on helping them improve or learn. From your side as the leader, show your respect by:

Valuing the competence and contributions of all team members and functions, and building trust in members’ skills and their ability to do the job assigned to them
Willingness to give credit to others for their contributions and accomplishments
Being supportive of calculated risks, and viewing mistakes as opportunities for growth and learning
Never criticize individuals in team meetings or in other public forums.
Never be dismissive of the ideas, comments, and contributions of team members
Never attack team members or allow yourself to engage in frequent outbursts of anger
Never use language that members may find offensive or insensitive

As the leader, look for ways to foster empathy between team members. This is essential for building bonds of trust and gives people insight into what other team members are thinking and feeling and why they are reacting the way they are. Empathy helps team members relate thoughtfully and compassionately to one another. It is the ability to identify and understand another's situation, thoughts, feelings, concerns and motives. It is the capacity to recognize the concerns other people have, no matter how different from your concerns. It means putting yourself in the other person's shoes or seeing things through someone else's eyes. Sharing information, telling the truth, admitting mistakes, giving and receiving honest feedback, and maintaining confidentiality all contribute to an atmosphere of openness and trust.

Following are key points for establishing and maintaining good communication and open dialogue among team members.

Team discussions need to be open. Everyone must say what they think and mean what they say. Good ideas and honest sharing of views are the basis for decisions that help the organization get results. Effective dialogue is interactive and requires that all members actively participate.
Members must be willing to disagree with each other and with the leader, but in a constructive manner. Trust is crucial: members must feel safe to express opinions without fear of attack, humiliation or retribution.
When both the leader and team members feel free to give each other honest feedback, this helps everyone understand how their strengths and weaknesses are impacting their performance and shows where they might need to adjust their behavior to be more effective.
Be careful of people’s feelings. Encourage everyone to listen to each other and seek to understand before judging and being understood. Discourage social competitiveness and trying to win debates. By your example, show people how to build on each other’s ideas.
As the leader, when you express your own ideas and opinions, pay attention to everyone’s reactions to make sure you are not intimidating team members. You need to show them that openly sharing their ideas, perspectives and opinions is both encouraged and respected. Putting a variety of ideas on the table is a vital step in problem solving and decision making. So be sure to invite everyone’s participation in brainstorming sessions, and encourage them to bring up all ideas, even half-formed, intuitive hunches.
One of the rules of brainstorming is to withhold judgment and criticism until everyone’s ideas have been heard and considered. Brainstorming is about generating as many ideas as possible and creating an atmosphere of unrestrained and spontaneous participation in discussion. Evaluation of ideas comes later. Obviously, some ideas will be better than others, but the leader must get members to think about possibilities rather than constraints, problems or difficulties in implementation. The goal is divergent thinking. Later, convergent thinking will narrow the focus and consider problems, constraints, and practicality.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Why smart leaders are the hardest to to work for.

Why Smart Leaders Struggle with People

By Rich Hagberg • March 30, 2026

Some of the smartest leaders you will ever meet are also some of the hardest people to work with. They are fast, perceptive, and unusually strong at solving hard problems. They see patterns others miss. They cut through ambiguity. They grasp systems, strategy, and complexity at a very high level. In many cases, those gifts are exactly why they became founders, technical leaders, or senior executives. And yet many of these same people leave a trail of strained relationships behind them. Their direct reports feel unseen or intimidated. Peers experience them as dismissive, impatient, or controlling. Their bosses admire their intellect but hesitate to trust them with broader leadership responsibility. At home, partners often feel emotionally alone. Over time, the leader becomes puzzled. They know they are smart, committed, and often right. So why do people keep pulling away, withholding the truth, or failing to fully follow them? The answer is that many high IQ leaders are working from an incomplete model of effectiveness. They assume that if they think clearly, argue logically, work hard, and produce results, the rest should take care of itself. That model can work for a long time in school, in technical roles, and in the early stages of a company. But eventually leadership becomes less about the quality of your own mind and more about your ability to work through the minds, emotions, motivations, and limitations of other people. That is where many smart leaders start to fail. The Core Problem Intelligence is not the problem. It is an asset. The problem is that intelligence often creates distortions. It can make a leader overestimate the power of logic, underestimate the importance of emotion, and develop habits that quietly damage trust. It can also create a subtle arrogance. Not always the loud kind, but the quieter assumption that if other people are slower, less rigorous, or more emotional, they must be the problem. Once a leader starts living inside that assumption, interpersonal trouble becomes almost inevitable. Five Common Patterns 1. Overreliance on reason Many bright leaders treat relationships as if they are mainly cognitive systems. If there is disagreement, they explain more. If someone is upset, they analyze the issue. If morale is low, they offer strategy. If a direct report feels discouraged, they give solutions. In their minds they are being helpful and efficient. But the other person often feels bypassed. Their emotional reality is treated as noise rather than information. Their need to be heard is mistaken for a need to be corrected. This is a major blind spot in analytical leaders. They often do not realize that understanding is not the same as persuasion, and problem solving is not the same as relationship building. A person can agree with your logic and still not trust you. They can accept your decision and still lose commitment because the relational cost was too high. 2. Impatience High horsepower people often process faster than the people around them. They see the answer early. They get bored by slower thinking, frustrated by repetition, and irritated when others need more context than they do. This can make them decisive and productive. It can also make them hard to work with. They interrupt. They jump ahead. They finish other people’s sentences. They push past concerns before others feel understood. They make those around them feel slow, clumsy, or not worth listening to. This teaches the organization something dangerous. It teaches people that the leader’s mind is the only one that really counts. The safest strategy becomes speaking briefly, deferring quickly, or waiting until the leader has already decided. Then the leader complains that the team is passive or not taking ownership. What they often do not see is that the culture has adapted to them. 3. Emotional underdevelopment hidden by cognitive strength Very bright people can use intellect as a defense against emotional discomfort. They can analyze instead of feel. They can explain instead of reflect. They can argue instead of absorb. They can move to abstraction when the deeper issue is shame, fear, insecurity, hurt, or loneliness. They are often unaware this is happening. They do not experience themselves as defended. They experience themselves as rational. But leadership requires emotional range. Not sentimentality. Not therapeutic language. Real range. The ability to notice your own reactions before they control your behavior. The ability to tolerate feeling wrong, uncertain, criticized, or less competent than you want to appear. The ability to stay present when another person is disappointed, anxious, or angry without immediately shutting it down, fixing it, or counterattacking. Leaders who cannot do this often become brittle. They look composed until challenged in just the wrong way. Then out comes defensiveness, coldness, contempt, withdrawal, or overcontrol. 4. Low interpersonal curiosity Smart leaders are often highly curious about ideas, products, markets, and strategy, but not necessarily about people. They know how to interrogate problems, but not always how to explore another person’s inner world. They ask what happened, but not what it felt like. They want the conclusion, not the hesitation. They want the output, not the psychology. People do not trust leaders simply because they are competent. They trust leaders who show that they are trying to understand them. Interpersonal curiosity communicates respect. A leader does not have to agree with someone to make that person feel seen. But when the leader skips that step, people feel reduced to functions rather than treated as human beings. 5. Weak awareness of impact Many smart leaders are genuinely surprised by how strongly people react to them. They tell themselves, “I was just being direct,” or “I was only asking a question.” In their own minds, intent carries most of the moral weight. If they did not mean harm, then the reaction seems excessive. But leadership does not work that way. Impact matters because power magnifies everything. A passing comment from a founder can ruin a weekend. A skeptical look from a senior executive can silence a room. A blunt critique can stick in someone’s head for months. High IQ leaders often underestimate this because they evaluate themselves from the inside while everyone else experiences them from the outside. That gap sits at the center of many 360 feedback problems. The Identity Trap There is another layer here. Some smart leaders have been rewarded for being exceptional for so long that they quietly build their identity around being the smartest person in the room. They may not say it out loud. They may even dislike arrogance in others. But inside, being quick, insightful, and right has become central to their sense of worth. Once that happens, other people’s competence can feel threatening. Feedback becomes harder to absorb. Collaboration becomes more performative than real. The leader listens selectively, especially when they believe the other person is less capable. They become invested in remaining the mental center of gravity. That is a dangerous place to lead from. It turns intelligence into status defense. It makes humility feel like loss. It makes genuine curiosity harder. And it makes the leader lonelier than they realize, because very few people feel close to someone who always has to occupy the top intellectual position. The Shift That Matters The good news is that these problems are workable. In fact, smart leaders often improve quickly once they see the pattern clearly. Their intelligence then becomes an ally rather than a shield. But improvement requires a shift in model. Leadership is not just about being right. It is about creating enough trust, clarity, and psychological safety that the best thinking of the group can emerge. Your job is not merely to contribute your intelligence. It is to increase the total intelligence of the system. That means treating emotions as information rather than interference. It means becoming curious about your own interpersonal signature. What happens to people in your presence when you are under pressure. Do they get more open or more cautious. More honest or more political. More energized or more tense. Those are not soft questions. They are the real scorecard of leadership impact. It also means slowing down your certainty just enough to make room for other minds. Ask one more question before concluding. Stay with the other person’s frame a little longer. Notice when you are moving to solution because you are uncomfortable with uncertainty or emotion. Let people finish. Reflect before rebutting. And it means understanding that warmth and strength are not opposites. Many analytical leaders fear that becoming more emotionally intelligent will make them softer or less respected. The opposite is usually true. Leaders become more effective when people experience them as both rigorous and fair, both clear and human, both demanding and safe enough to tell the truth to. Practical Experiments A few simple practices can help. In your next one on one, spend more time understanding than advising. In your next disagreement, summarize the other person’s view in a way they agree is accurate before stating your own. In your next leadership meeting, track how often you interrupt, redirect, or signal impatience. After a difficult conversation, ask yourself not only whether your point was valid, but what emotional residue you likely left behind. Ask two trusted people what it feels like to disagree with you, and listen without defending. Final Thought Human beings are not engineering problems. They are not solved by superior reasoning alone. They need respect, steadiness, dignity, trust, and emotional attunement. That is why so many smart leaders struggle. Not because they are too intelligent, but because they have leaned on the wrong part of themselves for too long. At a certain point in leadership, your mind stops being the main differentiator. Plenty of people are smart. What becomes rarer is the ability to combine intelligence with self awareness, candor with sensitivity, high standards with trust, and authority with emotional maturity. That is when a smart leader becomes someone people actually want to follow.