Over the past few months, I’ve had several conversations with leaders who shared a concern about their transformations that, at first glance, sounds surprising:
“I think we may have too much psychological safety.”
I understand where it comes from. But it often reveals a misunderstanding of what psychological safety actually is.
What these leaders are usually describing is an environment where performance issues go unaddressed, deadlines are repeatedly missed, difficult conversations are avoided, and nobody seems willing to challenge poor performance, address emerging risks, or hold others responsible for delivering on commitments.
That is not psychological safety.
In fact, it is often the absence of the very conditions that psychological safety is meant to create.
Psychological safety is not about being nice. It is not about lowering standards. It is not about avoiding conflict to keep everyone comfortable.
Psychological safety is about creating an environment where people can have honest conversations, raise concerns, challenge ideas, admit mistakes, and discuss difficult issues without fear of embarrassment, punishment, or exclusion.
And during a transformation, those conversations become even more important.
The Missing Link: Accountability
One of the most valuable insights from Amy Edmondson’s research is that organizations need both psychological safety and accountability.
Many organizations struggling with execution, performance, or change are not suffering from an excess of psychological safety.
They are suffering from insufficient accountability.
When accountability is low, difficult conversations are often postponed in the name of being supportive.
Leaders postpone addressing underperformance. Team members hesitate to challenge colleagues. Problems stay hidden longer than they should.
What Accountability Looks Like in Everyday Work
Accountability is rarely about grand gestures. It shows up in small, everyday behaviors.
It looks like:
- Explaining not only why a target was missed, but proposing a plan to get back on track.
- Raising risks before they become problems.
- Voicing disagreement when assumptions, expectations, or priorities seem unclear.
- Giving uncomfortable feedback when it is needed.
- Speaking up early, even when all the facts are not yet available.
- Asking for help instead of struggling in silence.
- Challenging ideas respectfully when risks or blind spots are overlooked.
- Addressing tensions directly rather than allowing frustration to build.
- Questioning unrealistic timelines, workloads, or resource constraints.
- Holding peers accountable with the same respect expected from leaders.
- Taking responsibility for finding solutions, not just highlighting obstacles.
None of these actions are particularly easy. In fact, they are often far more uncomfortable than doing nothing.
The Comfort Tax Organizations Pay
This is why many organizations pay what I call a “comfort tax” – a hidden price because people avoid the discomfort that accountability requires.
- Difficult conversations are postponed.
- Performance concerns remain unspoken.
- Problems are discussed privately rather than openly.
People protect relationships by avoiding candor, only to damage those same relationships later when unresolved issues accumulate.
Even more concerning, some organizations unintentionally create cultures where making others uncomfortable, even for the right reasons, is discouraged.
The result is a workplace where everyone appears supportive, yet critical issues remain unresolved.
To be clear, this is not an argument for being harsh, reckless, or insensitive.
Accountability without respect and caring is not effective leadership.
The goal is to build enough trust that team members can challenge, disagree, and hold one another accountable, even when those conversations feel uncomfortable.
Psychological Safety during Transformations Makes Accountability Possible
Kim Scott’s concept of Radical Candor encourages leaders to “care personally and challenge directly.”
Radical Candor. Be a Kick-Ass boss without loosing your humanity.
Amy Edmondson’s work helps explain what makes that possible, because Psychological safety creates the conditions for candor.
Or, as Edmondson puts it:
“Psychological safety is a sense of permission for candor.”
Without psychological safety, people stay silent. Without accountability, people stay comfortable.
Todays Organizations, fighting on many fronts and dealing with geopolitical, market-related and technological challenges at the same time, need both to be successful.
Building Courage One Step at a Time
One common misconception is that once psychological safety exists, people will automatically speak up.
In reality, speaking up requires courage.
And courage is a skill that develops through practice.
In The Psychological Safety Playbook, Karolin Helbig and Minette Norman suggest five so-called plays for practicing psychological safety. The first: “Communicate Courageously”. Here they refer to the concept of the Courage Ladder, as described by Jim Detert in his book Choosing Courage. The everyday guide to being brave at work.
The principle is simple:
Just like climbing a ladder, courageous behavior develops one step at a time.
People rarely go from staying silent to challenging a major strategic decision overnight.
Instead, they start with smaller acts of courage:
- Asking a critical question.
- Sharing an opposing opinion.
- Admitting a mistake.
- Providing constructive feedback.
- Raising a concern earlier than they normally would.
- Defining clear boundaries in cooperating with their colleages or bosses
Each step builds confidence for the next one.
A Practical Reflection Exercise for Your Team
Try this with your team:
Ask everyone to reflect on courageous acts they encounter in their daily work and rank them from easiest to most difficult.
Once everyone has created their own Courage Ladder, discuss the results in small groups before sharing insights with the broader team.
Then ask one simple question:
“What is one small step up the Courage Ladder that I can take this week?”
The goal is not perfection. The goal is progress.
When people consistently move one step higher, teams become more open, issues surface earlier, and performance improves.
Closing Thoughts
When leaders are afraid they may have “too much psychological safety,” I rarely find evidence of excessive psychological safety. Much more often, I find a lack of accountability.
The challenge is not becoming less psychologically safe.
The challenge is creating an environment safe enough for people to demonstrate the courage that accountability requires.
So I’ll leave you with one question:
“What conversation are you avoiding because it feels uncomfortable?“
That conversation might be exactly where the next step in your transformation begins.
Author note: For more info on Psychological Safety during Transformations you can also read “Leading throught the safety paradox”.
