Before diving into today’s story, I want to remind you that the Psychological Safety for Teams Tool Kit is now available! This toolkit, created over the past few weeks, is designed to help leaders and teams establish an environment where trust and open communication thrive. If you’re looking to build stronger, more resilient teams, make sure to check it out on the website!
https://www.positiveintelligenceio.com/product-page/tool-kit-for-crafting-a-psychologically-safe-tea
The project deadline was fast approaching, and tension was running high in Sarah’s team. In recent weeks, she’d noticed that during meetings, her team members had grown quieter, more withdrawn. Ideas were no longer flowing freely, and when someone did speak up, it was usually to offer safe, unchallenging input. This wasn’t the innovative, collaborative team Sarah once led. Something had shifted, and as a leader, she needed to figure out what.
One afternoon, during a particularly strained meeting, Sarah realized the problem wasn’t the deadline or the workload—it was the environment. Her team no longer felt safe to share their honest thoughts. It wasn’t that they feared her as a leader, but somehow, the team had lost the psychological safety they once had, and without it, creativity and collaboration had ground to a halt. She knew that to get back on track, she needed to foster that sense of security again. But how?
Sarah turned to neuroleadership—the intersection of neuroscience and leadership practices—and found a roadmap for re-establishing trust and psychological safety in her team. She learned that psychological safety is rooted in how the brain perceives threat versus reward. When people feel safe, the brain’s reward system activates, opening the door for creativity, risk-taking, and honest communication. But when fear or uncertainty creeps in, the brain’s threat system takes over, leading to withdrawal and defensiveness.
The first thing Sarah did was acknowledge the stress that had been building within the team. She set up a meeting specifically to talk about how people were feeling—not just about the work, but about the dynamics of the team itself. Sarah knew that admitting vulnerability wasn’t always easy for leaders, but neuroscience had shown her that being open about her own challenges could help set the tone for her team. So, she started by sharing her own experience: the pressure she’d been feeling, and her realization that the team’s environment needed improvement. By doing so, she signaled to her team that it was okay to be vulnerable. This simple act of empathy sparked the beginning of change.
One of the key principles Sarah had learned from neuroleadership was the importance of inclusion. When individuals feel excluded or ignored, the brain interprets this as a threat, activating the same pain centers triggered by physical harm. Sarah realized that in recent weeks, some voices in the room had gone unheard, and she needed to correct that. At the next meeting, she intentionally called on each person, inviting their thoughts and creating space for those who typically stayed quiet. Slowly but surely, the discussions started to feel more balanced. Team members who had been silent were now contributing again, and the collective atmosphere began to shift toward inclusion and openness.
Sarah also applied the SCARF model, a neuroleadership framework that focuses on five domains that drive human behavior: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. She realized that in the rush to meet deadlines, her team’s sense of autonomy had been compromised. Without autonomy, people feel they have no control, triggering the brain’s threat response. Sarah decided to give the team more control over their tasks. Instead of assigning duties top-down, she encouraged each person to take ownership of their work and outline their preferred approach. This small shift restored a sense of autonomy, and with it, confidence and motivation.
Fairness, another crucial element of the SCARF model, also played a role in re-establishing psychological safety. Sarah noticed that some decisions had been made behind closed doors, leading to whispers and uncertainty among her team. People didn’t know why certain choices were made, and this ambiguity bred mistrust. To combat this, Sarah became more transparent in her decision-making, explaining the reasoning behind key choices and inviting input when appropriate. As a result, the team started to feel that things were not just being done to them, but with them. Fairness, it turns out, goes a long way in fostering trust and reducing team anxiety.
Sarah’s most powerful tool, however, was feedback. Neuroleadership emphasizes the brain’s reaction to feedback, especially when it’s delivered with care. Constructive feedback, framed in a way that focuses on growth and possibility, activates the brain’s reward system and encourages continued effort. Sarah made it a point to give frequent, positive feedback, highlighting progress, even in small areas. The team began to look forward to feedback sessions, as they knew it wasn’t about criticism but about learning and improving together.
Over time, Sarah’s efforts paid off. Her team grew more confident in expressing their ideas, even when they weren’t fully formed. Brainstorming sessions became vibrant again, with members feeling free to pitch bold, creative solutions. And perhaps most importantly, they had each other’s backs. If one idea didn’t work, the group would iterate and move forward without the fear of judgment. Psychological safety had returned, and with it, the team’s energy and innovation.
Through neuroleadership, Sarah learned that creating a psychologically safe environment isn’t just about being a kind leader—it’s about understanding the brain and the signals it responds to. By recognizing how people naturally react to stress, inclusion, autonomy, and feedback, she was able to shift her leadership approach and, in turn, reignite her team’s performance.
Psychological safety may start with the leader, but as Sarah’s story shows, it’s built through small, intentional actions that acknowledge both the cognitive and emotional needs of the team. With these principles in place, Sarah’s team wasn’t just surviving the project—they were thriving.
Commenti