Stop Blaming ‘Psychological Safety’—Start Leading: Tackle Systemic and Personal Failures in Your Senior Team.

Note: This article examines a key distinction in organizational dynamics: the difference between a team where psychological safety genuinely matters and one composed of senior peers who share equal responsibility and authority.  While a lack of safety is understandable in hierarchical contexts where subordinates fear managers, this analysis focuses on a senior leadership group with little or no power imbalance. For this audience of experienced leaders, framing their inability to speak and act as a “safety” issue is, I would argue, a cop-out.

My recent work with a senior leadership team offers a sobering lesson for executives everywhere.  While my report to the team highlighted a widespread lack of “psychological safety” among team members, it also revealed a deeper, more troubling issue: a collective failure by senior leaders to fulfil their fundamental duty to lead, challenge, and enforce standards, regardless of perceived safety.

For an audience of mature, experienced leaders, framing this entirely as a “safety” issue is a cop-out.  These individuals were brought onto the leadership body for their “senior leadership experience, their maturity and wisdom to govern a large complex professional organization.”

Their responsibility is not merely to wait for a safe forum; it is to demand one and actively model the required behaviour.

The Executive’s Failure to Insist on Process

How did this happen?  Well, the environment had become toxic due to informal channels and gossip.  Some team members reported feeling “isolated and unprotected” after repeatedly raising concerns about one team member’s behaviour, “no formal or documented action followed.”

The Team Member’s Failure to Adhere to Standards

The environment was significantly harmed by the inappropriate actions of at least one senior team member.  One individual was found to have repeatedly engaged in “inappropriate gossip and negative commentary” about leaders in private conversations.. This behaviour “eroded trust within leadership and contributed to a climate of tension and mistrust.”

(For more on this, see: Closing the Accountability Gap: Practical Steps for Real Results)

This behaviour was a breach of professional integrity. Team members are explicitly required to engage openly and honestly through “respectful dialogue.” When encountering a perceived issue, a leader’s duty is not to gossip with a peer but to address the matter constructively and respectfully via formal channels, such as a private session or an established process. A senior leader’s individual responsibility is to refuse to engage in informal back-channels.

Leadership’s Responsibility: Demand Transparency, Not Comfort

The most troubling observation was that many team members considered my consultancy work their “only outlet” to speak honestly.  This reveals a deep mistrust in the current leadership structure.

However, leaders are not chosen for comfort; they are selected for their wisdom and ability to lead.  The response is not to withdraw, but to demand the structured forums necessary for effective, high-stakes dialogue.

(For a deeper dive on leadership duty, read: The Tyranny Of Servant Leadership – 5 Things You Need To Do To Free Yourself)

The solution is to create a safe, accessible forum and develop “Rules of Engagement,” which should be an essential step for any leadership team.  Now is the time for each member to step up and uphold the culture they were hired to maintain, demonstrating that their experience and maturity outweigh any perceived safety concerns.

I ultimately advised removing the toxic individual from the leadership team and having the remaining members undergo training in conflict resolution and psychological safety to rebuild trust and strengthen the culture.

(To see how a toxic culture is addressed, see: From Breakdown to Breakthrough – How Steve Helped Rebuild a School’s Culture and a Leader’s Confidence)

Conclusion

The lesson here is that ‘psychological safety’ is not an excuse for failure but a result of mature, disciplined leadership.  Blaming a lack of safety is a cop-out for senior leaders. 

The responsibility to lead a well-functioning team is both personal and systemic.

The systemic failure to enforce formal processes and documentation is being addressed through the establishment of ” ules of Engagement’” and structured forums.

At the same time, addressing personal failures to uphold professional standards and to reject back-channels involves removing the toxic individual and implementing conflict-resolution training. 

Leaders were hired for their wisdom and ability to govern, and the correct response is not to withdraw but to demand transparency and structured forums for effective, high-stakes dialogue and to model the necessary leadership behaviours.