Quotes from Amy C. Edmondson

I have defined psychological safety as the belief that the work environment is safe for interpersonal risk taking.6 The concept refers to the experience of feeling able to speak up with relevant ideas, questions, or concerns. Psychological safety is present when colleagues trust and respect each other and feel able – even obligated – to be candid.

The other possibility is that you're learning something about your colleagues or your organization that suggests that you're not in a job that is a good fit with your personal values and goals. If you're sharing sincere concerns, ideas, and ambitions for the organization, and others are indifferent, turned off, or disparaging, then you may want to look for an opportunity where you will have colleagues who appreciate your commitment to making a positive difference at work.

We now know that psychological safety emerges as a property of a group, and that groups in organizations tend to have very interpersonal climates. Even in a company with a strong corporate culture, you will find pockets of both high and low psychological safety. Take, for instance, the hospital where Christina works.

Creating psychological safety is a constant process of smaller and larger corrections that add up to forward progress. Like tacking upwind, you must zig right and then zag left and then right again, never able to head exactly where you want to go and never quite knowing when the wind will change.

overlapping"—like generations. My lifetime overlaps my grandmother's and hers overlaps the life of her grandmother, but I was born long after the death of both my great- and great-great-grandmothers. Such are the events of Universe; every experience overlaps some but not all other experiences.

With survey data from 170 research scientists working in six Irish research centers, the authors showed that trust in top management led to psychological safety, which in turn promoted work engagement.

Jazz at Lincoln Center, says of his work with other jazz musicians: "There are always tensions that come up. Part of working is dealing with tensions. If there's no tension, then you're not serious about what you're doing.

My short answer? No. I don't think you can have too much psychological safety. I do think, however, that you can have not enough discipline. Psychological safety is about reducing interpersonal fear. Making it less heroic to ask a question or admit an error. It doesn't mean you automatically have a good strategy for getting the work done. It also doesn't mean

Framing the work is not something that leaders do once, and then it's done. Framing is ongoing. Frequently calling attention to levels of uncertainty or interdependence helps people remember that they must be alert and candid to perform well.

This is why Fuller's definition depends upon consciousness. Our awareness of energy events defines their existence; we cannot go beyond the limits set by our understanding.

Two essential behaviors that signal an invitation is genuine are adopting a mindset of situational humility and engaging in proactive inquiry. Designing structures for input, another powerful tool I discuss in this section, also serves as an invitation for voice.

no one wants to take the interpersonal risk of imposing ideas when the boss appears to think he or she knows everything. A learning mindset, which blends humility and curiosity, mitigates this risk. A learning mindset recognizes that there is always more to learn.

There is no such thing as a straight line, the sun does not go down, and it is time we updated our language. A more mesmerizing discourse I have never heard.

Frankly, adopting a humble mindset when faced with the complex, dynamic, uncertain world in which we all work today is simply realism.

Confidence in one's abilities and knowledge, when warranted, is far preferable to false modesty. But humility is not modesty, false or otherwise. Humility is the simple recognition that you don't have all the answers, and you certainly don't have a crystal ball. Research shows that when leaders express humility, teams engage in more learning behavior.

We now know that psychological safety emerges as a property of a group, and that groups in organizations tend to have very interpersonal climates. Even in a company with a strong corporate culture, you will find pockets of both high and low psychological safety.

The good teams, I suddenly thought, don't make more mistakes; they report more.

people are more likely to believe they'll be given the benefit of the doubt – a wonderful way to think about psychological safety – when they experience trust and respect at work.

Teaming is the art of communicating and coordinating with people across boundaries of all kinds – expertise, status, and distance, to name the most important.

A key insight from this work was that psychological safety is not a personality difference but rather a feature of the workplace that leaders can and must help create.

Let's look more closely at what was accomplished here with very few, very precise words. Although clearly an extreme case, the human interactions in this extraordinary situation provide a compelling demonstration that clarity and candor do not necessarily mean getting bogged down in endless discussions. Psychological safety does not imply excessive talking and over-processing.

psychological safety has been found to differ substantially across groups. Nor was psychological safety the result of a random or elusive group chemistry. What was clear was that leaders in some groups had been able to effectively create the conditions for psychological safety while other leaders had not.

What we can learn from this extreme case, as well as from many cases of normal business conversation, is that psychological safety must be paired with discipline to achieve optimal results efficiently.

When a work environment has reasonably high psychological safety, good things happen: mistakes are reported quickly so that prompt corrective action can be taken; seamless coordination across groups