Debunking the Myths of Psychological Safety -Part 1

As psychological safety continues to gain traction in workplace discussions, at executive meetings, and more, those conversations are often entangled with misunderstanding. 

Psychological safety is not a concept you can opt-in or out of. It is a term that describes our assessment of our social environment.

When we consider sharing what's on our mind we think “Should I?” “Shouldn’t I?” “How should I?” or “Maybe I better not…”

We ALL do this. We assess how we will be received and adjust our behavior accordingly. In the right situation we hardly do it at all. In the wrong situation this consumes most of our focus. 

But, a psychologically safe environment is not the end goal, it is a necessary means to a more important end. The goal is to create a learning organization and psychological safety is the first step. But, misconceptions about what psychological safety can hinder that process.

Among other clear issues, when decisions are kicked down the road, long term strategy keeps falling victim to short term wins, silos are persistent and timelines keep getting extended it is clear that the organization is struggling to learn. It’s in these environments that people aren’t asking for help or will hide mistakes. The reality? A bigger failure is waiting down the road. 

It’s inevitable and psychological safety is the first step to start winning again. Let's go through some of our favorite misconceptions that we’ve encountered through our work at Aristotle Performance.

#1 Psychological Safety Opposes Results

Another misconception is that psychological safety and results are on opposite ends of a spectrum—that creating a psychologically safe environment somehow sacrifices productivity and accountability. This perception is rooted in the belief that psychological safety promotes endless dialogue without action, leading to a lack of results.

Imagine a team where psychological safety is seen as a barrier to holding people accountable. Team members might avoid providing critical feedback to avoid tension, resulting in lower performance standards and missed goals. When psychological safety is misunderstood this way, it can appear to conflict with achieving tangible outcomes.

In truth, psychological safety and results aren’t opposites—they’re interdependent. A culture that values psychological safety empowers accountability by encouraging candid feedback and continuous improvement. When team members trust they can voice concerns and ideas without fear of blame, they engage more deeply and commit to higher performance standards. Psychological safety fuels results by creating a space where constructive feedback and accountability thrive.

#2 Psychological Safety Equals Comfort.

One of the most common misconceptions across many fields and industries is that psychological safety is about keeping everyone comfortable. Some leaders believe that to foster psychological safety, they need to avoid tough conversations, conflict, or any form of challenge that could cause discomfort.

Imagine a team that avoids discussing project delays because it’s an uncomfortable topic. Everyone is concerned about hurting feelings, so no one brings it up. As a result, deadlines are missed repeatedly, and issues are swept under the rug. 

In reality, psychological safety is about fostering candor, not comfort. A psychologically safe environment encourages people to speak up even when the conversation is difficult. For example, a team member should feel safe enough to say, “I think we’re falling behind on this project, and here’s why.” Discomfort is part of growth, and in a psychologically safe environment, it’s handled productively.

#3 Psychological Safety Means No Criticism. 

Some believe that criticism is unwelcome in a psychologically safe environment, assuming that fostering safety means avoiding feedback that could be perceived as negative.

Look at a team that might avoid giving feedback to a colleague whose performance is lagging, they chose to do this because they mistakenly think that calling out the issue would undermine psychological safety. Over time, the performance issues worsen, and the team struggles.

However, psychological safety doesn’t mean avoiding constructive criticism—it actually means delivering feedback in a way that supports learning and growth. For instance, instead of saying, “You always miss deadlines,” a team member might say, “I’ve noticed some delays in the last few projects. Let’s figure out what’s causing them and how we can support you.” Criticism, when offered constructively, helps teams improve, and in a psychologically safe environment, people feel comfortable both giving and receiving feedback with the intent to improve.

Psychological safety is far more than simply making people feel comfortable or avoiding tough conversations. It’s also much more than a temporary buzzword to come and go with the other trends. 

It is about creating an environment where people have a clarity on how to operate effectively and can predict that the response to their actions will be well received instead of punished.

When misunderstood, psychological safety can lead to poor communication and missed opportunities for growth, something I am sure most are trying to avoid. 

The misconceptions do go further than this too, so in part two of this series, we’ll explore more misconceptions that can hold teams back from fostering truly safe and high-performing environments. Keep an eye out for the follow up article.