Article

Psychological Safety and Creating Open Dialogue

September 14, 2020

Psychological Safety and Creating Open Dialogue


Good communication is vital for effective functioning of any team. However, if you have ever been on a team where the team leader openly criticizes team members, aggressively interrogates them to pick holes in their ideas, dismisses member’s contributions or plays one off against the other, you have witnessed how a leader can stifle open communication and create an atmosphere where people feel unsafe to say what they really think. A leader can destroy trust and openness by reducing the level of psychological safety and in turn, weakening the overall performance of the team. In the absence of psychological safety, people learn to keep quiet and avoid disagreeing with the leader and are reluctant to be honest and direct about their views, concerns and mistakes. We know from decision-making research that decisions are enhanced when all the facts and all the views of team members are given a fair hearing. However, when the leader has strong views and is unwilling to listen to alternative perspectives, the leader’s biases will go unchallenged and decisions will be less objective and often flawed. Confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, optimism bias, status quo bias and many others have been identified by researchers as the sources of bad decisions that can lead to fatal organizational errors. Team leaders need to learn to be open to and supportive of new ideas, to listen carefully, invite challenges and let the facts win. They need to ask questions to “disconfirm” their own views, opinions and mental models. They need to build the team’s willingness to share information, focus on the facts and engage in open and honest dialogue rather than suppressing open dialogue. Team members need to feel safe, comfortable and encouraged to bring up their concerns, address difficult issues and problems and challenge how the leader, the team or the organization does things. 

 

The importance of psychological safety.

 “Psychological safety” is a term created by Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson in the late 1990s. Essentially, it is “a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes.” Edmondson found, to her surprise, that teams that admitted to making many mistakes were more effective than those claiming few mistakes. The reason, she discovered, was that the teams that appeared to be making more mistakes were more likely to admit where they had gone wrong, and were then able to discuss it, fix it, and avoid similar errors in future. But in order to admit and discuss mistakes, conflicts and problems, team members needed to feel safe. 


Google’s large-scale study of teamwork in the mid-2010s, code-named “Project Aristotle,” corroborated Edmonson’s work. It found that of five critical factors behind effective teamwork, psychological safety was #1. “Psychological safety refers to an individual’s perception of the consequences of taking an interpersonal risk or a belief that a team is safe for risk taking, in the face of being seen as ignorant, incompetent, negative, or disruptive.” 


When there is psychological safety on a team, teammates feel it is okay to admit they’ve made a mistake, or don’t understand something and need it clarified. Team members feel that they can bring up a topic and feel comfortable that they can share their concerns or mistakes without fear of humiliation or retribution. They feel confident that they will not be judged, punished, or embarrassed. A sense of psychological safety sets people free to take risks, to speak their minds and offer their ideas, so it forms a solid basis for open participation and collaboration. It fosters creativity, confidence, and open-mindedness. ‘‘It describes a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect,” Edmondson wrote, “in which people are comfortable being themselves.’’ 


Call out negative behavior .

 On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that “anything goes.” When members exhibit behavior that isn’t collaborative, or in some way is not conducive to a safe, supportive team environment, it is the leader’s responsibility to let the member know that this behavior is unacceptable. Leaders must create an atmosphere where everyone gives candid feedback. This may mean challenging inappropriate comments or aggressive, competitive behavior, either in the group or individually. It is also important to call out behaviors that reflect a “silo mentality,” where members focus on their own self-interest or their group or team’s agenda, rather than the interests of the entire team. Do this as soon as possible after the incident occurs. But be careful and don’t just focus on pointing out the holes in the logic of team members’ suggestions or ideas. In your effort to get to the truth, you may be intimidating a valued team member. Calling out negative behavior is important, but it is equally vital for the team leader to reinforce, recognize, and acknowledge behavior that is supportive and collaborative. “I really liked the way that you did …x.” Team members see and appreciate it when the leader does this.


“In his position it is absolutely critical to build strength and camaraderie among team members. Louis does this VERY well. Not only through his words, but, more importantly, through his actions. When asking for team support, he is first to volunteer his time and effort, and rewards those who help with praise and genuine accolades.”


 Treat team members with respect.

It is important that when team members speak, they need to feel that their ideas or views are valued and will be given consideration. Dismissive comments from the leader or other team members shows disrespect. The leader needs to model respect but also be willing to confront members who show disrespect. When team members make a mistake, it is important to avoid judgmentalness or blame and focus on helping them improve or learn. From your side as the leader, show your respect by:


 

  • Valuing the competence and contributions of all team members and functions, and building trust in members’ skills and their ability to do the job assigned to them 
  • Willingness to give credit to others for their contributions and accomplishments
  • Being supportive of calculated risks, and viewing mistakes as opportunities for growth and learning 
  • Never criticize individuals in team meetings or in other public forums.
  • Never be dismissive of the ideas, comments, and contributions of team members
  • Never attack team members or allow yourself to engage in frequent outbursts of anger
  • Never use language that members may find offensive or insensitive

 

As the leader, look for ways to foster empathy between team members. This is essential for building bonds of trust and gives people insight into what other team members are thinking and feeling and why they are reacting the way they are. Empathy helps team members relate thoughtfully and compassionately to one another. It is the ability to identify and understand another's situation, thoughts, feelings, concerns and motives. It is the capacity to recognize the concerns other people have, no matter how different from your concerns. It means putting yourself in the other person's shoes or seeing things through someone else's eyes. Sharing information, telling the truth, admitting mistakes, giving and receiving honest feedback, and maintaining confidentiality all contribute to an atmosphere of openness and trust. 


 Following are key points for establishing and maintaining good communication and open dialogue among team members. 


 

  1. Team discussions need to be open. Everyone must say what they think and mean what they say. Good ideas and honest sharing of views are the basis for decisions that help the organization get results. Effective dialogue is interactive and requires that all members actively participate. 
  2. Members must be willing to disagree with each other and with the leader, but in a constructive manner. Trust is crucial: members must feel safe to express opinions without fear of attack, humiliation or retribution.
  3. When both the leader and team members feel free to give each other honest feedback, this helps everyone understand how their strengths and weaknesses are impacting their performance and shows where they might need to adjust their behavior to be more effective.
  4.  Be careful of people’s feelings. Encourage everyone to listen to each other and seek to understand before judging and being understood. Discourage social competitiveness and trying to win debates. By your example, show people how to build on each other’s ideas. 
  5.  As the leader, when you express your own ideas and opinions, pay attention to everyone’s reactions to make sure you are not intimidating team members. You need to show them that openly sharing their ideas, perspectives and opinions is both encouraged and respected. Putting a variety of ideas on the table is a vital step in problem solving and decision making. So be sure to invite everyone’s participation in brainstorming sessions, and encourage them to bring up all ideas, even half-formed, intuitive hunches. 
  6. One of the rules of brainstorming is to withhold judgment and criticism until everyone’s ideas have been heard and considered. Brainstorming is about generating as many ideas as possible and creating an atmosphere of unrestrained and spontaneous participation in discussion. Evaluation of ideas comes later. Obviously, some ideas will be better than others, but the leader must get members to think about possibilities rather than constraints, problems or difficulties in implementation. The goal is divergent thinking. Later, convergent thinking will narrow the focus and consider problems, constraints, and practicality.

 


share this

Related Articles

Related Articles

Why Successful Founders Win—and Others Crash and Burn
By Rich Hagberg June 9, 2025
Startup founders represent the ultimate paradox: celebrated for their innovative brilliance yet notoriously susceptible to failure. In reality, the difference between astronomical success and dismal failure boils down to a surprisingly consistent set of behaviors and personality traits. Drawing from extensive 360 feedback studies, personality assessments, and deep insights from Founders Keepers, we've unraveled exactly what separates winners from losers in the startup world. Myth-busting: Genius Jerks Rarely Prevail A common myth persists that successful founders must be narcissistic, domineering, and abrasive—the stereotypical "genius jerk." Yet, our rigorous analysis of data from 122 founders, comparing the top performers (at least 10X returns) with bottom performers (zero returns), decisively shatters this myth. Successful founders, contrary to popular belief, rarely succeed because of egocentric ruthlessness. Instead, they thrive due to their extraordinary adaptability, relationship-building skills, disciplined execution, and deep personal grounding. Meanwhile, unsuccessful founders often implode because of their rigidity, isolation, impulsivity, and inability to truly lead teams. Adaptability: The Endless Pursuit of Product-Market Fit Successful founders understand one critical truth: product-market fit isn't a finish line; it’s a continuous process. They show an exceptional ability to: Remain open to input, eagerly soliciting and integrating team feedback. Effectively manage resistance, empathetically addressing team concerns. Skillfully create buy-in, building commitment through transparency and genuine engagement. In contrast, unsuccessful founders typically fail due to rigidity. They stubbornly anchor themselves to outdated strategies, ignore valuable feedback, and react defensively to challenges, eventually becoming roadblocks in their own companies. Relationship Building: From Loners to Leaders A pivotal distinction lies in the ability to work effectively through others. Successful founders consistently excel in empowering their teams. They: Delegate effectively, granting autonomy while clearly defining expectations. Maintain trust through consistent behavior, integrity, and transparency. Develop robust emotional intelligence, adeptly managing conflict and strengthening team cohesion. Unsuccessful founders, on the other hand, struggle profoundly with delegation. Their chronic micromanagement erodes trust and morale, creating environments of fear and resentment. They often isolate themselves, failing to build genuine relationships, thus missing critical insights and innovations their teams could provide. Execution: Discipline Over Charisma Execution—arguably the most underrated pillar of startup leadership—truly separates winners from losers. Successful founders meticulously: Set clear, measurable, and achievable goals. Follow through relentlessly, holding themselves and others accountable. Create robust systems and processes to scale effectively. Conversely, unsuccessful founders typically suffer from chronic disorganization and impulsivity. Their inability to prioritize, constant pivots without strategic clarity, and poor follow-through generate chaos and stifle growth. Personal Grounding: Stability Amidst Chaos Perhaps most counterintuitively, successful founders exhibit deep personal grounding—a trait seldom highlighted in sensational startup narratives. They: Demonstrate emotional resilience, remaining composed under extreme stress. Exhibit patience, tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty with grace. Maintain optimistic yet realistic perspectives, avoiding destructive cycles of anxiety or panic. Unsuccessful founders, however, often spiral under pressure. Their volatility and emotional reactivity exacerbate crises, leading to poor decision-making and destructive interpersonal dynamics. Self-Awareness: The Hidden Driver of Success Underpinning all these traits is profound self-awareness—arguably the most critical competency of all. Successful founders consistently seek self-improvement, humbly recognizing their weaknesses and proactively addressing them. They actively solicit honest feedback, never fearing the vulnerability required for growth. Unsuccessful founders, conversely, often display a tragic lack of self-awareness. Their denial of shortcomings, defensiveness to feedback, and unwillingness to evolve ultimately doom their startups. Real-World Wisdom: Voices from the Trenches Beyond the data, the human stories captured in 360 feedback illustrate these differences vividly: Successful founders receive praise like, “He constantly solicits input, adapts swiftly, and builds deep trust. His humility makes everyone want to follow him.” Unsuccessful founders, by contrast, earn harsh critiques: “He ignores input, reacts defensively, and insists on controlling every detail. The team is disengaged and demoralized.” These narratives underscore the simple but powerful truth that the best founders aren't isolated geniuses—they’re skilled leaders who build environments where everyone can thrive. The Path Forward: Turning Insights into Action If you're a founder, investor, or leader within the startup ecosystem, confront these truths head-on. Assess yourself and your organization rigorously: Are you truly adaptable, or merely superficially agile? Are you empowering your team, or stifling their potential? Are you executing with discipline, or flailing with chaos? Are you grounded emotionally, or reactive and volatile? Are you genuinely self-aware, or defensively delusional? Final Thoughts Ultimately, founder success isn’t about flashy charisma or ruthless ambition. It’s about a disciplined commitment to growth—both personal and organizational. Embrace adaptability, deepen your self-awareness, and master the art of leadership grounded in trust and integrity. This is not merely good advice—it’s the proven difference between a startup’s spectacular success and its avoidable failure.  What traits do you see defining successful and unsuccessful founders in your experience? Let's discuss!
Why Do So Many Founders Cross Ethical Lines? A Guide for Investors
By Rich Hagberg May 9, 2025
We’ve all seen the headlines: visionary founders, celebrated one day, indicted for fraud the next. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX, Trevor Milton of Nikola—each a cautionary tale. But why does this keep happening? More importantly, how can investors and venture capitalists spot the red flags before disaster strikes? After decades coaching startup founders and executives, and through intensive psychological profiling research in my book, Founders Keepers, it’s clear that the qualities which make founders extraordinary can also lead them into ethical peril. Ambition Gone Rogue Ambition is the engine of innovation, but when unchecked, it can spiral into something destructive. Elizabeth Holmes, once hailed as the next Steve Jobs, turned ambition into deception, sacrificing integrity for the illusion of success. Her willingness to misrepresent Theranos's technology eventually led to fraud convictions and a 11-year prison sentence. Similarly, Trevor Milton fabricated demonstrations of Nikola’s hydrogen-powered trucks, deceiving investors and regulators alike. Ambition that isn’t tempered by reality becomes toxic, pushing founders to prioritize appearances over substance. Narcissism and the Cult of Personality A striking number of fraudulent founders exhibit narcissistic traits. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is disturbingly common among indicted entrepreneurs like Holmes, Adam Neumann, and Billy McFarland. These individuals have inflated self-worth, entitlement, and a troubling lack of empathy—traits that enable them to manipulate investors, employees, and markets. Adam Neumann’s charismatic leadership at WeWork masked a self-serving agenda. He leased his own properties to WeWork and indulged in extravagances funded by investor capital. His eventual downfall underscores a critical point: charisma and confidence, unchecked by accountability, can devastate companies. Pressure, Risk, and Rationalization Founders operate in pressure cookers. Investor demands, market competition, and internal expectations can distort ethical boundaries. Under such strain, founders rationalize questionable decisions—initially minor, then increasingly severe. Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX saga exemplifies this slippery slope. Praised for his effective altruism, he secretly diverted customer funds into his own hedge fund, creating one of history’s largest financial implosions. Under extreme pressure to perform, ethical lines blurred into oblivion. The Dark Triad and Founder Psychology Research identifies a psychological pattern—the Dark Triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Founders exhibiting these traits manipulate, charm, and dominate others effortlessly. Their moral compasses malfunction, viewing ethics as mere obstacles. Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals raised drug prices mercilessly, justified as smart business. He ultimately faced securities fraud charges. This combination of manipulative charm, moral disengagement, and ruthless pragmatism frequently ends in corporate ruin. Red Flags Investors Can’t Ignore VCs and investors must vigilantly recognize signals of potential ethical crises: Accountability Gaps: Founders who deflect blame, resist feedback, or evade responsibility when faced with failures. Deceptive Fluency: Founders who remain intentionally vague, changing narratives to fit different audiences, lack transparency, and dodge specifics. Weak Governance: Companies lacking robust financial controls, passive boards, or weak compliance protocols enable founder misconduct. Excessive Charm: Overly charismatic leaders who evade scrutiny, foster cult-like devotion, and dismiss ethical concerns as trivial. Case Study: When Good Intentions Go Bad Consider Charlie Javice the Frank founder. Desperate to sell her startup, she fabricated millions of fake users, deceiving JPMorgan into a $175 million acquisition. Ambition, pressure, and opportunity collided disastrously, underscoring that even well-intentioned founders can fall if ethical vigilance wanes. Prevention through Awareness and Systems To mitigate these risks, investors must foster cultures of accountability. This means: Rigorous Due Diligence: Deep vetting of founder histories, not just their pitch decks. Transparent Governance: Enforcing independent oversight, clear reporting, and stringent ethical guidelines. Balanced Teams: Encouraging founders to build leadership teams empowered to challenge decisions. Healthy skepticism, combined with robust systems, creates a strong firewall against unethical behavior. Redemption and Self-Awareness Not all troubled founders are irredeemable. Many need interventions—coaching, accountability partners, and structured feedback—to prevent ethical slippage. Self-awareness is key. Founders who reflect on their blind spots and acknowledge limitations have a far better prognosis. Investing Wisely Means Looking Deeper The stark truth for investors is this: brilliance without integrity is dangerous. Investing isn't merely betting on ideas; it's assessing character. The cost of ignoring red flags is staggering, not just financially, but reputationally and ethically. Ask yourself one simple question when evaluating founders: If they weren't successful, would their behaviors still seem acceptable? The answer reveals everything. The line between visionary and fraudster is thin. Vigilance, skepticism, and structured accountability are critical tools in protecting your investments—and ensuring the next headline isn't about your portfolio. 
A painting of a man in a lotus position with a plane in the background.
By Richard Fagan February 27, 2025
Founders live in a world of chaos. It’s exhilarating, intense, and downright terrifying. You’re constantly shifting between the thrill of new ideas and the crushing weight of responsibility. Every decision feels like a life-or-death moment for your company, and the stress is unrelenting. Yet, amid this madness, there’s one thing that determines whether you’ll thrive or crash and burn: personal grounding.
ALL ARTICLES

STAY UP TO DATE

GET PATH'S LATEST

Receive bi-weekly updates from the church, and get a heads up on upcoming events.

Contact Us

A close up of a man wearing a beanie and a grey shirt
A black and white logo that says `` beloved believe ''
A woman is sitting on the ground playing a guitar.