Should we stop talking about psychological safety… 

This year, I've had the opportunity to work alongside colleagues involved in the Wellcome Trust-funded Reimagining Leadership project. Throughout the project, we've spent a lot of time talking with colleagues about psychological safety through focus groups, leadership development sessions, follow-up interviews, and conversations with researchers, professional services colleagues and leaders from across the university.  

Reflecting on these conversations I think we should probably stop talking about psychological safety. 

Not because it isn't important, but because the term itself is getting in the way. 

For some colleagues, it is a useful framework through which to understand team experiences and interactions. For others, it feels like one of those phrases that appears regularly in strategy documents; useful shorthand for something complex, but disconnected from day-to-day working life. More than once, it was described as a "buzzword". 

What's interesting is that when we stop talking about psychological safety and instead ask people about times they felt able to contribute, ask questions, challenge ideas or raise concerns, the conversation changes. People talk about relationships, trust and whether they feel listened to. 

Colleagues involved in another Reimagining Leadership workstream were exploring how different practices and processes could create more meaningful opportunities for participation across a diverse range of roles, backgrounds and experiences. Many later described the space that emerged as highly psychologically safe, despite that never being the stated goal. 

Not psychological safety as a concept. Psychological safety as lived experience. 

Across our interviews, focus groups and survey data, one theme appeared consistently. 

People rarely described feeling able to speak up because of a policy or organisational commitment. 

They described feeling able to speak up because of people.  A trusted colleague, a supportive manager, a leader who listened, a team where challenge was encouraged and conversations demonstrated curiosity. 

Insights from focus group stories explored how people experience the same environment differently, depending on their job role, identify and lived experience, confidence, relationships and level of precarity.  What feels safe for one person may not feel safe for another and what feels safe today may not feel safe tomorrow. 

The more we explored, the more it became clear that we’re all gathering evidence, these observations of everyday interactions tell us: 

• Who gets listened to 
• Who gets interrupted 
• What happens when somebody disagrees 
• Whether uncertainty and vulnerability are welcomed or bravado and bluster are the norm 

Over time, these experiences shape expectations. They influence whether people feel able to contribute fully or decide it's safer to stay quiet. 

Yet the stories people shared weren't only about relationships, while relationships clearly shaped how work was experienced, they existed within a wider organisational context.

People spoke about hierarchy and workload pressures, funding uncertainty, power dynamics and organisational change. 

Many described environments where status, role or seniority influenced who felt able to contribute and whose voices carried weight. 

While these factors matter and can have a powerful influence, we also heard stores of teams creating very different experiences despite operating within the same organisation and facing many of the same pressures. 

A clear message emerging from our leadership evaluation work is that leaders can make a meaningful difference within their immediate sphere of influence.

Not by removing every organisational uncertainty and challenge but through the small choices they make every day. Though, conversations shared were less about leadership techniques and more about the experience of working with someone who

• created opportunities for contribution  
• listened to different perspectives and  
• made people feel their input mattered.  

These leadership practices aren’t changing the wider system, but they are changing how people experience work within their teams. 

While we recognise the complexity of the wider system, we've also seen the impact of small, everyday interactions. 

Perhaps that's where the conversation starts. Not with psychological safety as a concept, but with the everyday experiences we're creating for one another. Because while we're all gathering evidence from those around us, the way we practice is also creating that evidence for others. 

As the Reimagining Leadership project draws to a close, we're bringing together a range of resources and reflections from across the different work streams. We hope they provide useful prompts for anyone interested in creating environments where people can contribute, learn and thrive.