Psychological safety has become one of those terms that shows up everywhere: in leadership trainings, HR strategy decks, and countless articles on team performance. That doesn’t mean it’s just a buzzword.
In a recent episode of The MindScience Playbook, I sat down with my co-host, Dr. Dave Gosselin, and talked about how trust happens. The two of us have decades of experience in neuroscience, education, and organizational leadership, and know firsthand the power of psychological safety. It can transform groups into thriving, innovative teams.
Here’s what that looks like in practice.
The starting point is simple but uncompromising: mutual respect and trust are not optional team qualities; they are the bedrock of any functioning group. Without them, purpose and belonging are fragile, and collaboration collapses under stress.
Dave began his work with an almost naïve optimism, believing he could bridge the divides between university researchers and classroom teachers in a single year. Instead, he ran headlong into deeply entrenched distrust. The gap couldn’t be solved with quick fixes or cheerful slogans. It required long-term, intentional work to even begin rebuilding relationships.
His experience underlines a crucial point: psychological safety is not a switch you flip. It’s a commitment you sustain. Leaders must model the behaviors they want to see in their teams. It’s up to them to set the tone of interactions and create a space that’s safe for expression, experimentation, and authenticity.
When considering the concept of psychological safety, you must think about the role of personal baggage. Coming from a research science background, I used to carry the assumption that I was “a real scientist,” but I also felt like an outsider in educational circles. The tension between those two feelings left me feeling isolated and shaped the way I communicated with others.
That barrier wasn’t created by others! It was rooted in my own internal assumptions. Leaders can learn from a truth they often miss; our unconscious assumptions can sabotage belonging before the first conversation even happens.
To build safe environments, we must first become aware of our own biases, insecurities, and blind spots. I’ve found it helpful to ask, “What are the stories we tell ourselves?” Then, extend that further. “What is the story of this team?” By putting conscious thought and effort into defining that story, you can then make it true.
Trust is the foundation, but communication is the structure that rests upon it, and communication in safe teams doesn’t just come from top-down directives or bullet-point memos. It’s a genuine two-way exchange, deliberately designed to invite contribution.
Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson defines psychological safety as the belief that you won’t be punished, humiliated, or ignored for speaking up, asking questions, or—even more importantly—making mistakes. That definition captures the heartbeat of effective communication on teams: it opens the door to risk-taking, learning, and innovation.
Too often, leaders assume that psychological safety means everyone smiles, agrees, and avoids conflict. In reality, the opposite is true. Diversity of thought is essential, and diversity naturally brings friction. The key is to make that conflict constructive.
We’ve seen this play out in real life. Dave and I were the principal investigators for a National Science Foundation grant that supported collaboration between researchers and student teachers at the University of Nebraska. The program was meant to show the teachers hands-on science and teach the researchers how to teach their work, but the groups were at odds with each other.
The researchers assumed hierarchy: they were the “experts,” while educators became assistants. After running assessments and establishing a baseline understanding with the group, we implemented a ‘red team’: a group tasked specifically with challenging ideas, exposing flaws, and strengthening understanding.
With this group in place, the participants refined their processes and learned from one another, achieving better synergy and a deeper understanding of each other’s roles and experiences, based on an understanding of their strengths and motivations.
Team building will inevitably include conflict. Embracing it with the right tools can spark innovation, but that requires trust. It all circles back to the environment: only safe spaces can turn conflict into growth.
Neuroscience adds another dimension to psychological safety in the team building process. Healthy teams balance oxytocin (the hormone of trust and connection) with just enough cortisol (the stress hormone) to sharpen focus. Too much comfort, and teams stagnate. Too much stress, and they break.
This delicate balance mirrors Peter Senge’s concept of “creative tension”—stretching like a rubber band between where you are and where you want to be. In the right conditions, that stretch fuels progress. In unsafe environments, it snaps.
One of the most crucial elements of psychological safety in a team comes from how it begins. Years ago, I had the pleasure of running a workshop with the Alaska Federation of Natives, a tribal council. We were collaborating to explore scientific phenomena from two different cultural perspectives: Western science and the indigenous tribe’s understanding of the natural world. At our first meeting, the agenda allowed ten minutes for introductions. In reality, it took four hours.
Why? Because those hours were devoted to trust-building, context-sharing, and establishing respect before moving to the “real” work.
To business people with eyes trained for efficiency, that time spent might seem wasteful. But in truth, it redefined relationship-building. It demonstrated that slowing down to connect can be the fastest path to relationships that last.
Pulling these threads together, the conclusion is inescapable: safety is not a “nice to have.” It’s a strategic imperative.
Legendary basketball coach John Wooden once said that the teams making the most mistakes often win. Why? Because mistakes signal risk-taking. In safe teams, errors aren’t hidden—they’re mined for learning. That freedom allows brains to focus on solving real problems rather than on self-preservation.
The payoff is immense: more creativity, faster problem-solving, and deeper resilience.
Creating psychological safety is not extra work. It is the work. It requires leaders to build trust intentionally, to design communication for openness, to embrace diverse viewpoints, and to hold tension in a healthy balance.
Teams that thrive in safety don’t just hit their goals—they also grow as people. At the deepest level, psychological safety is good for the brain, good for relationships, and good for the collective future.