Psychological Safety is Not About ‘Cosiness’ – It’s About a Culture of Courage and Results

NEWTON University has once again come alive with international collaboration. At this year's International Week, the theme of psychological safety resonated deeply. Why is this concept the key to innovation, and why should leaders welcome mistakes as valuable data? Barbora Bělová and Simona Dosedělová provide the answers.

Psychological safety (PS) is often misunderstood as a "fluffy" environment where everyone is simply nice to each other. In reality, it is a shared belief within a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks: to ask questions, to disagree, to admit mistakes, or to flag issues without the fear of humiliation or retribution.

Where people remain silent, "information blindness" occurs. Errors are hidden, risks go unreported, and decisions are made based on incomplete data. Barbora Bělová and Simona Dosedělová, the workshop facilitators, discussed how to build this safety within and beyond the academic sphere.

What should we actually imagine under the term ‘psychological safety’, and why discuss it in society?

Bára: Psychological safety is the shared belief among team members that the team is 'safe' and that they can afford to be as open as possible—to speak with courage. In today's complex and fast-paced world, this is a crucial prerequisite for learning, innovation, and early error reporting. Without it, instead of working towards a common goal, people invest energy into defending or distancing themselves. Imagine a colleague bluntly interrupting you in a meeting, saying, 'That’s rubbish.' Would you feel like speaking up next time?

Sim: For me, it is a hallmark of the quality of the social environment. It fundamentally influences how people behave in groups—whether they can move with confidence or whether they remain silent and conform. During the workshop, we linked this to authenticity and integrity. Authenticity isn't about saying everything that pops into your head; it’s the ability to be genuine within social norms. Integrity then refers to staying true to one's values even under pressure, being able to say 'this is over the line' without self-denial.

Do you consider psychological safety to be a cornerstone of the modern academic environment?

Bára: Yes, because the goal of academia is learning and the development of critical thinking. This requires that students and academics can speak openly and bring different perspectives—that is the most vital part. Psychological safety supports inclusion, a sense of belonging, and the willingness to take intellectual risks.

Sim: I do, because academia contains several conditions that increase the likelihood of defensive strategies like silence or 'safe' agreement. These include reputational risk (where a mistake is read as incompetence), power asymmetry (titles, seniority), and evaluative pressure. It is essential to treat psychological safety as part of the management system—addressing it in strategy, during changes, and when conflicts of perspective arise.

foto: Barbora Bělová

What is one thing a leader or educator can do to help people in their team stop fearing mistakes?

Sim: They can react to a mistake as data for learning, not as evidence of incompetence. This means when someone makes a mistake, the educator frames it with questions like: "What happened? What does this tell us about the process? What will we do differently next time?" This reduces the evaluative threat and the urge to hide errors.

Bára: A leader or educator should be a role model, showing integrity and vulnerability—humanity, I would say. They should have a code of conduct and use every opportunity to speak openly about mistakes, showing what was learned from them. Psychological safety is not about everyone being "comfortable"; it’s about being able to develop in an environment that does not threaten you.

What is the difference between a student feeling safe and being in a ‘learning zone’ that requires high performance?

Bára: A student who feels safe has a sense of acceptance and can be themselves. Clark’s model describes this in stages: from inclusion and learning to contributing and eventually challenging the status quo. The "learning zone" (Amy Edmondson's model) combines this safety with high standards. Students feel safe but are simultaneously challenged to perform at a high level and receive rigorous feedback.

Sim: If we look at this through the lens of Eduardo Briceño, the learning zone and the performance zone are two different modes. In the learning zone, the goal is growth and mistakes are expected. In the performance zone, the goal is to deliver the best result based on what we already know, so we standardise procedures to minimise errors. Even there, PS is vital—a surgeon needs to feel safe enough to say "Stop, I'm not sure," to bring safety to a high-pressure situation.

Indicators of Psychological Safety 

• High PS: Questions, constructive disagreement, sharing opinions, asking for help, constructive feedback, respect for speaking space. 
• Low PS: Silence, nodding (conformity), hiding mistakes, avoiding meetings, passive-aggression, "I can handle it" as a defence, exhaustion.

foto: Simona Dosedělová

Why is it critically important for international teams to build trust?

Bára: International teams bring together different cultures, languages, and working habits. This increases the risk of misunderstanding and isolation. Psychological safety stands on trust and curiosity. When I feel respected, I can express my opinion openly, which reduces stress and prevents the risk of burnout or "quiet quitting".

Sim: Cultural and language differences increase the risk of assumptions. Without trust, people shift into defensive strategies—protecting their reputation and staying silent. Trust, on the other hand, creates a safe space for clarifying needs and asking for help.

What is the one thing participants should take away from the workshop?

Sim: I would like them to take away a mindset, not just a set of techniques. Psychological safety is an atmosphere and an interactional culture that arises from predictable, repeated experiences of trust and respect. Our daily micro-actions—how we respond to a mistake or a disagreement—are what strengthen it.

Bára: That even if I do my best, I can make a mistake and learn from it. And that differing opinions don’t have to escalate into conflicts, but can turn into innovation when we look for a way forward together.