Building Psychological Safety in High-Performing Engineering Teams
Navigating Common Obstacles
Books for Improving Psychological Safety at Work
The Authentic Organization: How to Create a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Gina Battye (Amazon)
The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth by Amy C. Edmondson (Amazon)
The irony. The most intellectually gifted teams often stumble, not from a lack of talent, but from a deficit of openness. In the quiet corners of engineering, where innovation should flourish, there is fear. The risk of speaking up, of asking "what if," of daring to be vulnerable, overshadows the potential reward. Google's Project Aristotle, in their quest to understand team excellence, discovered that psychological safety, the belief that you won't be punished for speaking your mind, is the single most important factor, dwarfing everything else.
For engineering leaders, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Technical excellence alone will not deliver exceptional results if team members hesitate to point out potential flaws, share unconventional ideas, or acknowledge knowledge gaps. Yet when psychological safety flourishes, it unlocks collective intelligence and creative potential that no amount of individual brilliance can match.
A Business Case Beyond Sentiment
Let's establish why psychological safety warrants serious attention from pragmatic engineering leaders focused on outcomes.
Engineering work involves uncertainty, complexity, and interdependence. Conditions where psychological safety delivers measurable advantages:
Accelerated Learning Cycles: Teams with high psychological safety identify and address errors 25-30% faster than their counterparts, according to research from Amy Edmondson at Harvard Business School. In environments where admitting confusion or mistakes carries no stigma, course correction happens near real-time rather than after catastrophic failure.
Improved Innovation Metrics: Google's internal studies revealed that psychologically safe teams implemented approximately 18% more successful innovations annually, largely because members felt comfortable proposing unproven ideas without fear of ridicule.
Enhanced Problem-Solving Quality: Research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrated that teams with high psychological safety consider 34% more alternatives when solving complex problems, leading to more robust solutions that anticipate edge cases and failure modes.
Reduced Implementation Costs: McKinsey analysis of software projects found that psychologically safe teams experienced 27% fewer implementation defects, primarily because team members freely raised concerns during planning rather than remaining silent about potential issues.
Beyond these performance indicators, psychological safety significantly influences retention and recruitment. In an industry where acquiring and keeping top talent often determines organisational success, this factor alone justifies serious investment.
The Dimensions of Psychological Safety Engineering
While psychological safety appears simple in concept, in practice it has distinct dimensions that require separate consideration, particularly in engineering contexts:
1. Technical Vulnerability Safety
This dimension concerns whether engineers feel secure admitting knowledge gaps, technical uncertainty, or confusion. In environments lacking this safety, you'll observe phenomena like:
Junior engineers nodding in understanding when they're actually lost
Mid-level engineers implementing suboptimal solutions rather than asking questions
Senior engineers avoiding exploration of unfamiliar technologies where they lack expertise
2. Process Critique Safety
This dimension addresses whether team members feel comfortable questioning established practices, workflows, or methodologies. Without this safety, teams experience:
Silent compliance with inefficient processes
Persistent technical debt from "the way we've always done things"
Resistance to process experimentation regardless of potential benefits
3. Interpersonal Risk Safety
This dimension concerns whether engineers can raise difficult interpersonal issues, disagree with colleagues (particularly those with more seniority), or advocate for their needs. Deficits here manifest as:
Unaddressed destructive behaviours that everyone knows about but nobody mentions
Decisions made based on who has the highest title rather than the strongest reasoning
Team members burning out because they cannot establish reasonable boundaries
4. Creative Proposal Safety
This dimension involves whether people feel secure suggesting unconventional approaches or partial ideas that require team refinement. When this safety is absent, teams display:
Incremental thinking even when step-changes are needed
Ideas presented only when they're fully formed and defensible
Similar solution patterns applied repeatedly despite changing contexts
Practical Implementation Strategies
Engineering leaders seeking to build psychological safety can employ specific, concrete practices tailored to their context. The following approaches are organised from foundational to advanced, allowing progressive implementation:
Foundation: Modelling Vulnerability as Leadership
The single most powerful lever for psychological safety is leadership behaviour. When leaders model appropriate vulnerability, they establish unmistakable norms:
Specific Practices:
Knowledge Gap Acknowledgement: Regularly use phrases like "I don't know the answer to that, but I'm eager to learn," or "That's outside my expertise, can someone who knows more explain?"
Mistake Narration: When errors occur, describe your thinking process that led to them, creating what Amy Edmondson calls "narrative transparency." For example: "I missed this edge case because I was focusing on optimisation and didn't consider the authentication flow. Here's what I learned..."
Learning Journals: Maintain team-visible notes on what you're currently learning, including struggles and breakthroughs, demonstrating that growth is an ongoing process even at leadership levels.
Technical Environment: Safety by Design
Engineering teams can embed psychological safety into their technical processes and tooling:
Specific Practices:
Blameless Postmortems: Implement structured incident reviews that focus exclusively on systemic factors rather than individual error. Document and share these widely, emphasising learning opportunities discovered through failure.
Architectural Decision Records (ADRs): Maintain documents that capture not just technical decisions but the context, constraints, and alternatives considered. This normalises the understanding that all technical choices involve tradeoffs rather than obvious "right answers."
Designated Disagreement Roles: In technical reviews, assign rotating roles where certain team members are explicitly tasked with constructive criticism of proposals, removing the interpersonal burden from the critique.
Learning-Oriented Code Reviews: Establish guidelines emphasizing that code reviews should include appreciation for good approaches alongside improvement suggestions, maintaining a 2:1 ratio of positive to constructive comments.
Communication Frameworks: Safety Through Structure
Carefully designed communication structures can create safety even when natural team dynamics might not:
Specific Practices:
Round-Robin Input: Before making significant decisions, explicitly request input from each team member in turn, starting with the most junior to prevent anchoring on senior opinions.
Pre-mortems: Before project kickoff, conduct sessions where the team imagines the project has failed and works backwards to identify what might have caused it. This normalises discussion of potential problems in advance.
Technical Uncertainty Scales: When discussing approaches, have team members rate their confidence in various assertions from 1-10, normalising the expression of uncertainty and preventing overconfidence.
Idea Incubation Channels: Create dedicated Slack channels or documentation spaces for "half-baked ideas" where the explicit norm is sharing incomplete thinking for collaborative refinement.
Feedback Systems: Safety Through Consistency
Regular feedback mechanisms create the predictability necessary for psychological safety:
Specific Practices:
Micro-feedback Routines: Establish extremely brief (2-3 minute) weekly feedback exchanges between rotating team member pairs, normalising both giving and receiving feedback as routine rather than exceptional events.
Safety Pulse Surveys: Implement anonymous bi-weekly single-question surveys asking "How comfortable did you feel raising concerns or questions this week?" Track trends over time and discuss results transparently.
Appreciative Inquiry Sessions: Hold quarterly team sessions focused exclusively on what's working well, creating space to recognise positive dynamics before addressing challenges.
Advanced: Cultural Reinforcement
Once foundational elements are established, more sophisticated approaches maintain and deepen psychological safety:
Specific Practices:
Safety Incident Reviews: When psychological safety breaks down (someone is belittled for a question, an idea is dismissed without consideration), conduct lightweight reviews focused on systemic contributing factors rather than individual blame.
Learning Celebration Rituals: Create structured team moments that celebrate learning from failure rather than just successes. Example: monthly "What I Learned The Hard Way" lightning talks where engineers share valuable insights gained through mistakes.
Safety Onboarding Buddies: Pair new team members with established engineers specifically tasked with helping them navigate team dynamics and unwritten norms during their first months.
Navigating Common Obstacles
Even with best intentions, specific challenges often arise when building psychological safety in engineering environments:
Challenge 1: The "Brilliant Jerk" Paradox
Many engineering organisations tolerate technically brilliant individuals whose behaviour undermines team psychological safety, creating a persistent challenge for leaders.
Approach: Address the economic reality, research shows that a highly talented individual who damages team psychological safety creates a net negative contribution when measured at team level. Make this explicit in performance evaluations by incorporating team impact metrics alongside individual technical contributions.
Challenge 2: Urgency vs. Safety Tension
Delivery pressure often leads to communication shortcuts that damage psychological safety precisely when it's most needed.
Approach: Create "pressure safety valves" such as designated team members who monitor communication during high-stress periods, with explicit permission to call timeouts when interactions begin undermining safety. Establish abbreviated but structured formats for raising concerns during crunch periods.
Challenge 3: Remote/Distributed Disadvantages
Distributed teams face additional hurdles in building psychological safety due to reduced social cues and communication bandwidth.
Approach: Implement "connection before content" rituals where the first minutes of virtual meetings include structured sharing unrelated to technical content. Create asynchronous vulnerability opportunities through documentation templates that explicitly prompt for uncertainties and alternative perspectives alongside solutions.
Measuring Progress
Engineering leaders should track psychological safety as rigorously as they track technical metrics:
Leading Indicators:
Question frequency and distribution across team members
Time gap between problem detection and escalation
Diversity of voices in technical discussions
Frequency of documented constructive disagreement
Lagging Indicators:
Implementation defect rates
Innovation adoption speed
Talent retention metrics
Cross-functional collaboration effectiveness
The Performance Paradox
Perhaps the most counterintuitive aspect of psychological safety is that it doesn't require sacrificing high standards. Research consistently demonstrates that the highest-performing teams combine psychological safety with ambitious performance expectations.
When team members understand that high standards apply to everyone, but failure in pursuit of excellence is acceptable, they unlock their full capabilities without the performance-limiting effects of fear. This creates what Amy Edmondson calls the "learning zone", where teams can take smart risks, innovate rapidly, and hold themselves accountable without destructive pressure.
A Culture of Continuous Reinvention
The ultimate manifestation of psychological safety in engineering teams is continuous reinvention, the ability to regularly question fundamental assumptions about technology choices, architecture, processes, and even product direction. This capacity for collective self-examination and adaptation represents the highest expression of engineering excellence.
In environments with true psychological safety, no practice is beyond question, no technology beyond reconsideration, and no idea too radical for thoughtful exploration. Team members bring their complete intellectual capabilities to work each day rather than the carefully filtered subset that feels professionally safe.
For engineering leaders, the imperative is clear: technical excellence requires human excellence, and human excellence flourishes only where vulnerability is treated as a source of strength rather than weakness. By building psychological safety systematically, we create not just better code, but better engineering cultures capable of sustained innovation in an industry defined by relentless change.
Lets Talk!
If you have ideas and want to collaborate ( I do! ) on a particular topic you would like to read, find me on LinkedIn, or send me a Message on here!
Creating psychological safety is so critical, both for the mental wellbeing of employees but also for innovation in a team. If people fear speaking up, they will not. This will stifle growth.