Oftentimes, when I raise the topic of psychological safety in conversation, I receive one of two reactions: a gentle eye roll or an enthusiastic nod (then accompanied by a story about a workplace behavior that supposedly demonstrates a lack of psychological safety).
The eye roll usually comes from people who view psychological safety as another management buzzword; a call to make everyone comfortable all the time, to shirk difficult conversations and accountability, and to keep the peace. The enthusiastic nod often comes from people who have experienced unhealthy workplace dynamics and are eager to put a name to them. Ironically, both reactions stem from a misunderstanding of what it truly means and misses what decades of research reveals about the role of psychological safety in team performance.
Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson introduced the concept through research on team effectiveness. Her work examined why some teams consistently outperformed others, even in high-risk environments where mistakes could have serious consequences. What she found challenges several common assumptions:
Myth 1: Diverse teams perform better
Reality: Diverse teams with psychological safety perform best
Several high-profile reports concluded that assembling a diverse team automatically improves performance. Subsequent research suggests the relationship between team diversity and performance is more nuanced. Diverse teams can experience more conflict, communication challenges, and misunderstanding than homogeneous teams. Left unresolved, those challenges can hinder performance. However, when psychological safety is present (team members feel comfortable asking questions, sharing concerns, and offering different perspectives) diverse teams are better able to leverage the benefits of their varied experiences and expertise. In these environments, diversity becomes a source of innovation, better decision-making, and stronger performance rather than solely a source of friction.
Myth 2: Too many errors = a struggling team
Reality: Reporting and sharing mistakes can be a sign of high trust
Another misconception is that a high number of reported errors or issues is symptomatic of a struggling team. In reality, teams with strong psychological safety are often more willing to surface concerns, admit mistakes, and identify risks before they become larger problems. A willingness to speak up is frequently a sign of trust, not dysfunction. Amy Edmondson’s early research in hospital settings found that the nursing teams reporting the highest numbers of errors were often the highest-performing teams. Rather than making more mistakes, these teams appeared to be more willing to discuss and report them. This insight helped reveal an important characteristic of psychologically safe teams: problems are brought into the open where they can be addressed, rather than hidden until they become more serious.
Myth 3: Psychological safety and accountability can’t coexist
Reality: Psychological safety + accountability = Innovation unlocked
One of the most persistent myths about psychological safety is that it is incompatible with accountability or high standards. In reality, psychological safety is not the absence of expectations, feedback, or difficult conversations. Instead, it creates an environment where people trust each other enough to take creative risks, knowing that they will not be punished for less-than-stellar outcomes.
Teams with psychological safety are not protected from disagreement, critique, or responsibility. Instead, team members feel more comfortable asking questions, admitting mistakes, raising concerns, and sharing new ideas without fear of embarrassment or retaliation. High expectations and psychological safety are not opposing forces. Learning and innovation can be unlocked when they work together.
To help members better understand these concepts, ACS recently released the ACS Quick Guide: Psychological Safety in Scientific Workplaces, which introduces research-based definitions of psychological safety, addresses common myths, and explores Timothy Clark’s Four Stages of Psychological Safety: Inclusion, Learner, Contributor, and Challenger Safety. These stages illustrate how psychological safety develops over time and why it is more nuanced than simply asking whether a workplace “has it” or “doesn’t.”
If your schedule allows, we invite you to join us during the ACS Fall 2026 Digital Meeting’s offering of Psychological Safety for All Levels on Thursday, August 27, from 9:00–11:00 a.m. Central Time. During this interactive session, we’ll explore research-based definitions of psychological safety, examine common misconceptions, discuss the Four Stages of Psychological Safety, and share practical approaches to foster environments where people can contribute, learn, and challenge ideas productively.
Racquel Jemison is Assistant Director in the American Chemical Society’s Office of Inclusion and Belonging, where she leads initiatives focused on inclusive leadership, accessibility, and fostering a stronger sense of belonging across the scientific enterprise. She holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Carnegie Mellon University and is based in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
