Psychological safety is a term that refers to the climate or atmosphere within a group, team, or organization where individuals feel comfortable being themselves. In a psychologically safe environment, people feel secure enough to express their views, share their concerns, ask questions, and even make mistakes without fear of ridicule, humiliation, or punitive consequences.
Read our in-depth article on psychological safety to learn more.
Let's see some of the practices that have happened in many orgs which have led to decreased psychological safety.
1. Stack Ranking
Stack ranking, also known as "forced ranking" or "rank and yank," is a performance appraisal method that requires managers to evaluate their employees against each other. Typically, this system divides employees into different categories, such as top 20%, middle 70%, and bottom 10%. While it may seem like an objective way to identify top performers and eliminate low performers, stack ranking has come under heavy criticism for its detrimental impact on organizational culture, collaboration, and psychological safety.
Negative Impact on Psychological Safety
At its core, psychological safety is about creating an environment where employees can express themselves openly, take risks, and learn from their experiences without fear of negative repercussions. Stack ranking undermines this on multiple levels:
Competition Over Collaboration
Stack ranking breeds a culture of competition rather than collaboration. In this setup, helping a colleague could mean lowering one's own chances of being in the top bracket. This stifles teamwork and mutual assistance, two critical elements for a psychologically safe environment.
Fear of Failure
The system makes individuals afraid to make mistakes or take calculated risks, knowing that one wrong move could put them in the bottom tier. This fear is antithetical to the idea of learner safety, where employees should feel secure enough to learn through trial and error.
Decreased Morale and Engagement
Knowing that a certain percentage of employees will inevitably be categorized as low performers can result in decreased morale. This is counterproductive to fostering a sense of belonging or inclusion safety, the basic level of psychological safety.
Reduced Trust and Openness
The knowledge that colleagues are also competitors for rankings can lead to reduced trust, another key component of psychological safety. Open communication is compromised, as employees may become guarded or strategic in what they share, diminishing the team's collective intelligence and problem-solving capabilities.
Microsoft in the Late 90s and Early 2000s
Microsoft serves as a classic example of how stack ranking can harm an organization. Under this system, Microsoft found itself fostering a toxic, competitive culture during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Skilled employees were pitted against each other, creating an environment filled with animosity and guarded communication. Managers found it difficult to put together teams of top talent, as employees were less willing to collaborate and more inclined to focus on individual tasks that would favorably impact their own rankings. The adverse effects were palpable: decreased productivity, stalled innovation, and talent drain.
The repercussions were severe enough to contribute to Microsoft's difficulties in keeping up with competitors like Apple and Google. Recognizing the negative impact, Microsoft eventually abandoned stack ranking in 2013, acknowledging that it was inconsistent with their objectives of fostering teamwork and collaboration.
Other Companies and Alternatives
Several other companies, such as General Electric and Yahoo, have experimented with stack ranking with similar detrimental effects. General Electric, once a major proponent, moved away from the stack ranking system. Modern organizations are increasingly leaning towards continuous performance management, peer reviews, and a greater focus on individual development rather than comparative ranking. These methods are more in line with the principles of psychological safety, encouraging openness, and mutual growth.
Stack ranking imposes a structure that is fundamentally at odds with the creation of a psychologically safe environment. By turning colleagues into competitors and discouraging risk-taking and open communication, it erodes the very foundation on which innovative and high-performing teams are built. Organizations aiming to foster a culture of psychological safety should carefully consider the long-term implications of implementing a stack ranking system, taking into account not just the immediate metrics it might improve, but the far-reaching negative impact it could have on organizational culture and employee well-being.
2. Zero-Tolerance for Mistakes
A culture that punishes errors without considering context creates a climate of fear. Employees in such environments are less likely to take risks or think outside the box, crippling innovation and creativity. They will avoid admitting mistakes, which prevents learning opportunities and can cause small errors to snowball into major issues.
Additionally, a zero-tolerance policy hampers learning and personal growth. Mistakes are an inevitable and valuable part of the learning curve. They provide unique learning opportunities that cannot be replicated through success alone. When individuals cannot make mistakes, they miss out on these growth experiences, and their development is stunted. This can lead to stagnation within teams and can demotivate individuals who are looking to improve and climb the career ladder.
This draconian approach can corrode team dynamics and cultivate a toxic work environment. In a zero-tolerance setting, colleagues may become hesitant to support one another, fearing that they'll be associated with any mistake. This lack of mutual trust undermines collaboration and can result in a silo mentality where information and expertise are hoarded rather than shared. Such an environment is the antithesis of a psychologically safe space, leading to disengagement, high turnover, and ultimately, a decline in organizational performance.
3. Excessive Surveillance and Micromanagement
When employees feel they are constantly being watched or controlled, it creates a sense of mistrust. This lack of autonomy impacts their confidence and willingness to make decisions, leading to a stifling environment where people are afraid to take the smallest step without managerial approval.
In a workplace where surveillance is pervasive and managers hover over employees' every action, people often refrain from taking even the slightest risks. This can kill creativity and innovation, essential ingredients for business growth and problem-solving. Under such conditions, the focus shifts from collaboration and achieving collective goals to individual self-preservation.
Team members may avoid sharing ideas, constructive criticism, or feedback, which are critical for collective learning and improvement, out of fear that their words will be used against them.
Excessive oversight disrupts the natural workflow and puts undue pressure on employees, leading to mistakes and reduced efficiency. The psychological burden of being constantly watched and directed in minute detail can cause mental fatigue and disengagement.
Over time, this creates an unhealthy power dynamic that erodes the sense of community and shared purpose, turning the workplace into a setting for control and surveillance rather than innovation and collaboration. This atmosphere is not conducive to fostering psychological safety, making it difficult to attract and retain top talent who value autonomy, trust, and a sense of purpose in their work.
Examples
Amazon, for example, has faced criticism for its surveillance practices within its warehouses. Workers were allegedly monitored for their "time off task," and those who fall short of expectations faced repercussions. While such practices aim to optimize productivity, they can create a high-stress environment where employees feel like they're constantly under watch.
Amazon argued that this technology improves worker efficiency and safety, but critics say it adds unnecessary stress and leaves little room for human error, contributing to a challenging work environment.
Similarly, the practice of installing cameras in workspaces, a method used by various organizations, can also be seen as excessive surveillance. While the purported aim may be security or quality control, constant video monitoring can make employees feel like they're under scrutiny all the time, affecting their comfort and freedom to work independently.
Many companies employ the use of Bossware or TattleWare - employee monitoring software that automatically tracks employee activity. Some of these monitoring programs log keystrokes, screenshots, screen videos, camera and mic input, mic etc.
4. Lack of Transparency
A lack of transparency within an organization can severely undermine psychological safety by fostering an atmosphere of uncertainty and suspicion. When information is withheld or inconsistently shared, team members may begin to question the motives behind decisions, the stability of their roles, or the overall direction of the company.
This lack of clarity can create anxiety and insecurity, leading employees to be more guarded and less open in their interactions with both peers and leadership. In such an environment, people are less likely to speak up, share new ideas, or raise concerns, as they may fear negative consequences or simply believe their input is not valued.
The absence of transparent communication also stifles collaboration and collective problem-solving. Team members might hesitate to share valuable insights or resources if they feel that the organization isn't forthcoming. This reluctance can lead to siloed behavior, where departments or individual contributors hoard information for fear of losing a competitive edge within the organization. Such a situation erodes the sense of unity and common purpose, which are fundamental to psychological safety and overall team performance.
Moreover, a lack of transparency can lead to the spread of rumors and misinformation, which further corrodes trust and psychological safety. In the vacuum created by a lack of clear, trustworthy information, employees often fill the gap with speculation and gossip. This can result in a toxic workplace culture where assumptions and innuendos replace facts and direct communication.
Employees might become increasingly cynical and disengaged, which not only affects their well-being but also has a tangible impact on productivity and business outcomes. In essence, transparency is not just a management best practice but a cornerstone of psychological safety and organizational success.
5. Overemphasis on Hierarchies
An overemphasis on hierarchies can significantly dampen psychological safety by creating an environment where power dynamics overshadow open communication and mutual respect.
In such settings, individuals lower in the hierarchy may feel their opinions are undervalued or outright ignored. The fear of stepping out of one's 'designated lane' can suppress important dialogues, hinder the flow of ideas, and discourage individuals from pointing out problems or suggesting improvements.
When there is an excessive focus on rank, team members may become more concerned with impressing superiors than with delivering genuinely effective solutions. This mindset can create a culture of 'passing the buck,' where the blame for failures is pushed downward and the credit for successes is claimed upward.
The lack of collective responsibility can demotivate team members, creating a cycle of disengagement and reduced productivity that erodes psychological safety over time.
Strong hierarchical structures often also lead to 'gatekeeping,' where access to important information and decision-making is restricted to those at the top. This lack of inclusivity can engender feelings of alienation among team members, making them feel disconnected from their work and its impact.
The result is a workforce that's disempowered, less invested in outcomes, and less likely to contribute to a psychologically safe and positive work environment.
6. Public Humiliation or Criticism
Some managers believe in “making an example” out of someone to ensure others don’t make the same mistake. This management style, far from being a motivator, only serves to create a toxic atmosphere where people are too scared to be themselves, express their opinions, or admit to lapses.
Public humiliation or criticism in a team setting can be a severe blow to psychological safety. When an individual is openly criticized or shamed, it sends a chilling message to the entire team: "Step out of line, and this could happen to you." Such experiences can traumatize not just the person on the receiving end, but also others who witness the event.
This fear stifles open communication, inhibits creativity, and discourages team members from taking risks or proposing new ideas. People become exceedingly cautious in their actions and words, opting for self-preservation over collective growth and innovation.
Public criticism tends to fixate on blame rather than on constructive solutions. When mistakes or failures are treated as opportunities to shame rather than learn, it becomes nearly impossible to foster a culture of continuous improvement.
Instead of analyzing what went wrong and how to avoid it in the future, team members become focused on avoiding blame. This shift in focus detracts from problem-solving and can lead to repeated errors, perpetuating a cycle of poor performance and decreasing psychological safety.
7. Ignoring Work-Life Boundaries
Ignoring work-life boundaries can be detrimental to psychological safety by perpetuating an environment of chronic stress and burnout. When employers or team leaders don't respect the personal time of their staff, it signals a lack of regard for their well-being. This erodes trust and creates a power dynamic where employees feel obligated to prioritize work at the expense of their health, relationships, and personal growth.
The pressure to be perpetually "on" leaves little room for recovery or personal pursuits, causing stress levels to spike. Over time, this can lead to decreased job satisfaction, heightened anxiety, and even long-term health consequences.
Failure to respect work-life boundaries can also undermine team cohesion and individual engagement. When people are constantly stretched thin, their ability to collaborate, think creatively, and solve problems is compromised. Team members may become irritable, withdrawn, or less communicative, undermining the collective intelligence and synergy of the group.
This lack of engagement can be infectious, leading to a vicious cycle where team morale and psychological safety are progressively eroded. Ultimately, this can result in high turnover, absenteeism, and a significant decline in both individual and team performance.
Moreover, neglecting work-life boundaries often results in diminished quality of work. A fatigued mind is less effective at critical thinking, problem-solving, and maintaining focus. When employees are constantly pulled into work during their off-hours, they are less likely to be productive and more prone to make errors during their actual working hours.
This impacts not just the individual but also the team and the organization as a whole, perpetuating a cycle of underperformance and dissatisfaction. A culture that doesn't respect the whole person, including their need for rest and a life outside work, is ultimately unsustainable and antithetical to psychological safety.
Note: We've all experienced long-hours or even one-nighters at least occasionally in our career. However, if this becomes a regular or chronic occurrence, then its problematic and ultimately toxic.
8. The Scapegoat Mechanism
When things go wrong, some teams or managers look for a person to blame rather than examining the systemic issues that led to the problem.
The scapegoat mechanism, where one individual is unfairly blamed for failures or problems within a team, can profoundly damage psychological safety. When a scapegoat is chosen, it alleviates the group's immediate discomfort or sense of collective responsibility, but at the cost of creating a toxic environment.
Team members quickly realize that they, too, could become the next target of blame, leading to heightened levels of anxiety and self-preservation. The desire to avoid becoming the next scapegoat may lead employees to conceal mistakes, withhold information, or even engage in defensive or counterproductive behavior, all of which hamper teamwork and productivity.
9. Favoritism and Unfair Rewards
When rewards, promotions, or opportunities are doled out based on favoritism rather than merit, it undermines the principles of fairness and equality. Team members may start to question the value of their contributions and the transparency of the evaluation process.
Such doubts can lead to disengagement, decreased motivation, and a reluctance to fully invest in team projects. The belief that hard work and skill are not fairly rewarded can demoralize even the most committed professionals, leading them to either withdraw emotionally or seek opportunities elsewhere.
In a work environment where favoritism prevails, team dynamics suffer. Colleagues may become competitors, viewing each other with suspicion and jealousy rather than as collaborative partners. This can stifle the open communication and mutual trust that are critical for effective teamwork.
In such a hostile environment, team members are less likely to share information, offer constructive feedback, or support each other's ideas. Instead, they may hoard resources and information as a survival mechanism. The shift from a collaborative to a competitive mindset can severely impair the team's ability to solve problems, innovate, and adapt to new challenges.
Additionally, favoritism and unfair rewards create an unstable foundation for leadership. Leaders who engage in favoritism lose the respect and trust of their team, which are essential elements for establishing psychological safety. Team members are less likely to respect decisions or follow directions from leaders they perceive as biased or unfair.
Over time, this lack of trust in leadership can spill over into a general distrust among team members, as people question the integrity of the entire system. This distrust acts as a barrier to psychological safety, making it difficult for the team to function cohesively and efficiently, ultimately jeopardizing the success of the organization.
10. High Turnover Rates
When people are frequently leaving, it creates a sense of instability and uncertainty among remaining team members. The continuous flux can disrupt established relationships and erode the sense of community, making it difficult to build the mutual trust that's essential for psychological safety.
Team members may start to wonder about the reasons behind the high attrition rate and become anxious about their own job security. This environment of uncertainty hampers focus, engagement, and the willingness to take the calculated risks that drive innovation and improvement.
Additionally, high turnover rates often result in a loss of institutional knowledge and expertise, which puts extra pressure on remaining team members. They may find themselves stretched thin, covering the responsibilities of departed colleagues on top of their own tasks. This increased workload and pressure can exacerbate stress levels, leading to burnout and disengagement.
Moreover, the constant onboarding of new team members requires time and effort, distracting from regular tasks and project goals. In such a volatile setting, it becomes even more challenging to establish the norms of trust and open communication that are vital for psychological safety.
When people feel like they're on a sinking ship, self-preservation takes precedence over collective goals, further eroding psychological safety. In essence, high turnover doesn't just indicate a problem; it exacerbates existing issues, creating a cycle that is hard to break without addressing the root causes.
