Teams often confuse psychological safety with everyone getting along perfectly. I see leaders bragging about teams where nobody ever raises their voice, where meetings wrap up with everyone nodding along, and where disagreements are rare. Some even think their team is āpsychologically safeā because nobody ever argues.
But hereās the truth: real psychological safety isnāt about avoiding conflict. Itās about creating an environment where challenging ideas makes the team stronger, not weaker.
Amy Edmondson from Harvard Business School defines psychological safety as āa belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.ā
Again, itās not about avoiding (sometimes, heated) discussions at allāitās about creating a space where:
- You can say āI think thatās wrongā without worrying about getting sidelined
- Ideas get challenged based on what they are, not who said them
- People can admit when they screw up and learn from it
- Different viewpoints arenāt just tolerated; theyāre encouraged
From what Iāve seen, teams that truly embrace productive disagreement show these traits:
- Issues get flagged early: Engineers speak up about problems without waiting until things are on fire.
- Ideas get proper debate: Iāve watched two senior devs argue intensely about architecture, next day they were pair-programming like nothing happened.
- The focus stays on the problem: āThis approach might not scaleā instead of āYour idea sucks.ā
- Mistakes become learning opportunities: After our last outage, the engineer who made the mistake led the postmortem discussion herself.
continue reading on terriblesoftware.org
ā ļø This post links to an external website. ā ļø
If this post was enjoyable or useful for you, please share it! If you have comments, questions, or feedback, you can email my personal email. To get new posts, subscribe use the RSS feed.