As a Leader, How Do You Ensure Psychological Safety While Staying Direct?

I stumbled across this question in an unexpected place: a job application form. Tucked into the standard upload-your-CV workflow was the prompt: “As a leader, how do you ensure psychological safety within a team while staying direct?” To my surprise, only 280 characters to answer. I provided an answer, but it got me thinking.

I’ve always tried to build psychologically safe environments in the teams I’ve worked with and led. But I’ve never really approached it systematically. It’s something I’ve relied on gut instinct for rather than a clear method. After providing the answer, I started thinking, what does it really mean to create psychological safety? And how do you do that while giving clear, direct feedback?

Why Psychological Safety Matters

Psychological safety is the foundation for strong, adaptive teams. Without it, a team might perform, but it won’t improve. It won’t learn. Mistakes will be hidden. Ideas will be filtered. People will play it safe rather than push toward better outcomes.

Amy Edmondson first introduced the term in a 1999 study, defining psychological safety as “a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.” In her 2018 book The Fearless Organization, she expanded on this idea. Psychological safety isn’t about being nice. It’s about removing the fear of rejection or embarrassment so people can speak up, disagree and ask for help.

Edmondson also describes the “Learning Zone,” a matrix of psychological safety and accountability:

• Low safety, high accountability = anxiety zone
• High safety, low accountability = comfort zone
• High safety, high accountability = learning zone

This is the sweet spot. A space where people are challenged, but not afraid.

The Balance Between Candor and Care

Kim Scott’s Radical Candor framework complements this. She frames effective leadership as a balance between “challenging directly” and “caring personally.” Too much challenge without care becomes “obnoxious aggression.” Too much care without challenge becomes “ruinous empathy.” Most leaders oscillate between the two, but the goal is to hold the middle: clear, honest feedback delivered with real intent to support.

Google’s 2016 “Project Aristotle” backed this up with data: teams that reported more errors actually performed better. Why? Because they talked about their mistakes. They learned. They improved. The ability to be open, especially when things go wrong, is what drives long-term success.

Two Very Different Meetings

One of the clearest contrasts I’ve seen in my own career was during my time in strategy consulting. Case team meetings, weekly sessions where the partner and team reviewed work together, could go one of two ways.

In one version, the tone was set from the start. Everyone knew the format. Everyone, regardless of seniority, was encouraged to contribute. Feedback was sharp, but fair. People challenged each other’s thinking. And despite the heat of the discussion, everyone left the room with a stronger solution and a sense of shared ownership.

In the other, uncomfortable silence took over. The feedback, often sharp, was one-way. No guardrails, no context, no support. People left feeling defensive, frustrated or just relieved it was over. Same company. Sometimes even the same people. 

The difference? Leadership tone, culture and expectations. Whether the space was built for discussion or for teardown. These meetings taught me how much tone and framing influence whether people engage or shut down.

So How Do You Build It?

Psychological safety doesn’t happen on its own. It’s a leadership responsibility. Here’s what I’ve seen work in practice and what I try to bring into my own leadership:

• Explain what openness looks like. Don’t assume people know what “direct feedback” or “constructive criticism” really means. Spell it out. Help people see that pointing out flaws can be a contribution, not a personal attack. Make the intent clear, especially when giving hard feedback:
  “I believe you’ve put a lot of effort into this. I have some thoughts that might help us get to an even better solution.”
• Focus on the facts, not the person. Say: “We missed the issue because there was no alert in place.” Not: “Why didn’t you catch this?” People usually know when they’ve screwed up. You don’t need to shame them to make the point. Clarity is more effective than blame.
• Invite input, especially from quiet voices. Ask people to challenge your thinking. Admit when you’re unsure. Make space for disagreement. If someone hasn’t spoken up, ask what they think. The goal isn’t agreement, it’s engagement.
• The prime directive: Assume positive intent. Most people want to do a good job. If someone brings a flawed plan or misses something important, chances are they did the best they could with the time, information and resources they had. Don’t take it personally. Help them do better.

The Bottom Line

Psychological safety isn’t about being soft. It’s about building an environment where people aren’t afraid to speak the truth. That includes saying when something isn’t good enough. That includes tough conversations. The trick is to anchor that in trust, in clarity of intent and in shared ownership of the work.

So if I had 280 characters to answer that job application question? I’d say this:

“Lead with clarity and care. Set the tone. Focus on facts, not blame. Explain your intent. Invite challenge. And never forget: people do their best when they feel safe, not scared.”

PS: Well… this isn’t what I wrote in the application. Let’s see if what I did write gets me through.