Psychological Safety Examples: Signs, Patterns & Warning Signals
Understand psychological safety through practical examples. Learn to recognise the warning signs, defence mechanisms, and patterns that indicate your team's true level of safety.
Psychological safety is easier to understand through examples than definitions. This article explores what psychological safety looks like in practice, both when it's present and when it's absent, and examines the defence mechanisms that emerge when people don't feel safe.
These examples come from research, organisational case studies, and patterns observed across thousands of leaders in development programs.
What Psychological Safety Looks Like
In teams with high psychological safety, you'll observe specific behaviours that indicate people feel safe taking interpersonal risks.
In meetings
- People ask questions, including "basic" ones, without embarrassment
- Disagreement is expressed directly: "I see it differently because..."
- Mistakes are shared as learning opportunities: "Here's where I went wrong..."
- Junior team members contribute as freely as senior ones
- The leader's ideas are challenged constructively
In day-to-day work
- People ask for help without worrying about appearing incompetent
- Bad news travels fast to those who need to hear it
- Feedback is given directly rather than through back-channels
- Experiments and calculated risks are encouraged
- Different perspectives and approaches are genuinely explored
In conflict situations
- People address issues directly with those involved
- Disagreement focuses on ideas, not personal attacks
- Both parties listen to understand, not just to respond
- Resolution is collaborative, not win-lose
Everyone knew what we were trying to achieve. And we trusted each other enough to have hard conversations without it becoming personal.
— Leader describing a high-performing team
Warning Signs: Low Psychological Safety
Teams with low psychological safety often look fine on the surface. The warning signs are in what's NOT happening rather than what is.
The silence pattern
- Meetings are dominated by one or two voices
- Questions are only asked privately, after the meeting
- People agree in the room and disagree in the corridor
- Bad news is delayed, softened, or buried in data
- The leader always speaks first and last
The cover-up pattern
- Mistakes are hidden or blamed on others
- Problems are reframed as "challenges" or "opportunities"
- People work long hours to fix errors before they're discovered
- Near-misses are never discussed
The compliance pattern
- People do what they're told without questioning
- Innovation and initiative have disappeared
- "That's above my pay grade" is a common phrase
- Decisions are escalated rather than made
Defence Mechanisms in Unsafe Teams
When people don't feel psychologically safe, they develop predictable defence mechanisms. Understanding these helps identify underlying safety issues.
Withdrawal
People reduce their engagement to the minimum required. They attend meetings but don't contribute. They do their assigned work but no more. They stop offering ideas or taking initiative.
Signs of withdrawal:
- Camera off in video calls
- Minimal participation in discussions
- Declining discretionary effort
- "Quiet quitting" behaviours
Aggression
Some people respond to feeling unsafe by becoming aggressive themselves. They criticise others before they can be criticised. They position themselves as experts to avoid being questioned. They build coalitions against perceived threats.
Signs of aggression:
- Personal attacks disguised as "feedback"
- Territorial behaviour over information or resources
- Coalition-building against colleagues
- Preemptive blame-shifting
Rationalisation
People convince themselves that staying silent is the right choice. "It's not my place." "They already know." "Nothing will change anyway." These rationalisations protect self-image while enabling continued silence.
Common rationalisations:
- "Someone else will raise it"
- "It's not that important"
- "They won't listen anyway"
- "I don't have all the facts"
Real-World Examples
Healthcare: The wrong-site surgery problem
Wrong-site surgeries (operating on the wrong limb, wrong organ, wrong patient) still happen in modern hospitals. Research shows that in many cases, someone in the operating room noticed the error but didn't speak up.
Why? Hierarchical cultures where nurses felt they couldn't question surgeons. Time pressure that made speaking up feel like causing problems. Previous experiences where concerns were dismissed or punished.
Hospitals with strong psychological safety use pre-surgery checklists where everyone, regardless of seniority, is expected to verify and can halt the procedure. This normalises speaking up.
Aviation: The copilot problem
Multiple aviation disasters have been attributed to copilots who noticed problems but didn't assert themselves with the captain. The 1977 Tenerife disaster, the deadliest in aviation history, involved a junior crew member who questioned the captain's decision but didn't insist.
This led to Crew Resource Management (CRM) training, which explicitly creates psychological safety in cockpits. Junior crew are trained and expected to speak up, and captains are trained to invite and respond positively to challenge.
Technology: Google's Project Aristotle
Google expected to find that their best teams had the smartest people or the best technical skills. Instead, they found that psychological safety was "by far the most important" factor in team effectiveness.
Teams where people felt safe taking risks, admitting mistakes, and asking questions outperformed teams of individually brilliant people who didn't feel safe with each other.
The Stated Culture vs. Actual Culture Gap
Most organisations say they value open communication, innovation, and learning from mistakes. The gap between what's stated and what's actually experienced is often enormous.
What organisations say:
- "We encourage open dialogue"
- "Failure is learning"
- "All voices are valued"
- "We have a flat structure"
What people experience:
- Speaking up leads to being labelled "difficult"
- Failures are investigated and blamed
- The same few voices dominate every meeting
- Hierarchy determines whose ideas matter
Closing this gap requires more than words. It requires consistent leader behaviour over time that proves it's actually safe to speak up.
Psychological Safety in Australian Workplaces
Australian workplace culture has characteristics that both help and hinder psychological safety.
Helpful factors:
- Relative informality and directness in communication
- Less rigid hierarchy than some cultures
- Strong workplace health and safety frameworks
- Growing awareness of psychosocial risks
Challenging factors:
- Tall poppy syndrome can discourage speaking up
- "She'll be right" attitude can dismiss concerns
- Masculine cultures in some industries
- Hierarchical structures in traditional sectors
Moving from Examples to Action
Recognising these patterns is the first step. Building psychological safety requires sustained leader behaviour and team practice.
Learn what psychological safety is and why it matters →
Explore the research behind psychological safety →
About the author
Ashley Leach is Founder of Leda. Leda's leadership development methodology was co-developed with Professor Anne Lytle (Monash Business School, Kellogg PhD) and has been recognised by AACSB's Innovations That Inspire. The platform has supported thousands of emerging leaders across Australia and New Zealand, with completion rates of 88-98% compared to 3-15% for typical digital learning.
Frequently Asked Questions
Look for silence patterns: are meetings dominated by a few voices? Do people agree in the room but disagree afterwards? Are mistakes hidden rather than discussed? Is bad news delayed or softened? These are stronger indicators than what people say about the culture.
Assuming they have it because they have good intentions. Leaders often overestimate how safe their team feels. Anonymous surveys often reveal a significant gap between what leaders believe and what team members experience.
Yes. A single incident where someone is punished for speaking up can undermine months of trust-building. This is why consistency matters so much. One dismissive response to a concern can teach the whole team that speaking up is risky.
Thank them for sharing, focus on learning rather than blame, and discuss how to prevent similar issues in future. What you do in this moment teaches everyone watching whether it's actually safe to be honest.