Safety vs. Trust
Time flies! It’s been more than 25 years since Professor Amy Edmondson wrote her academic paper on psychological safety in teams, and by doing that she provided organisations with very valuable input for group development.
Is it ok challenge this outcome nowadays? I think so.
Image by Vash Project on Pexels.com
I see leaders feeling helpless when they’re not able to provide a feeling of safety for their direct reports, let alone themselves. And I think this whole psychological safety thing is missing an important point. It’s not the feeling of safety that is the pot of gold for human management. It’s trust. This invites for more reflections, I think.
Safety and trust are often lumped together in leadership talk, but they are not the same. They are different layers of human experience, and in the workplace this distinction is crucial.
Here's how I see it:
Psychological safety says "I won't get punished for being human."
- I can speak up without fear of humiliation.
- I can ask questions, take risks, admit my mistakes.
- My status, belonging, or job doesn't feel threatened by honesty.
Safety is about reducing fear.
Trust says "I believe you will act in my best interest."
- I rely on my leaders to follow through.
- I believe my leaders are competent and fair.
- I expect consistency and integrity.
Trust is about building and maintaining confidence.
In other words - safety is about absence of harm, trust is about presence of positive expectation.
But watch out, one can exist without the other:
You can feel safe but not trust someone: "I can speak freely, but I don't count on you."
You can trust someone but not feel safe with the team: "I rely on my boss, but I still keep my ideas to myself in meetings."
There is a model by Mayer, Davis & Schoorman I like (link below) which breaks trustworthiness in leaders into three distinct components:
ability (can you actually do what you say?),
benevolence (do you have my interests at heart?),
integrity (do your actions match your principles, consistently?).
This matters because trust can break down in different ways depending on which of these three components fails. And it takes different remedies depending on the context. But it can be restored!
Our reactions to safety and trust are wired in to our DNA.
Neurologically speaking lack of safety activates the threat system. (I know you know this already.)
When safety is absent, the brain is constantly scanning for social danger - rejection, humiliation, loss of status. This is a real physiological response, not a metaphor.
Trust engages social prediction - the brain is constantly assessing whether another person's future behaviour can be anticipated. The brain hates uncertainty. But this is another blog.
This whole differentiation matters because leaders often think:
"We did a training on psychological safety - now people should trust each other."
No! Those are different matters requiring different solutions.
So what am I trying to say? Just by reflecting on the difference between these two states there is information to be gained. I want to suggest some questions for leaders who feel something is off in their teams.
"What would your team say they can rely on you for - every time?" (Ask!)
"Where does fear still govern behaviour in your team?"
"Where do you confuse being liked with being trusted?"
I’d be happy to hear some of your powerful questions to tackle the safety/trust balance in teams and individuals. Welcome to get in touch!
All the best, and more,
//Mirjam
Link to the Mayer, Davis & Schoorman model:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13662716.2019.1632695#d1e450
