An interview of Harald Lederer with Katalin Pallai
Katalin, in a recent conversation you pointed out the difference between the terms psychological safety and safe space, which you also address in your article. In short: what distinguishes these two concepts?
The term safe space originates from the human rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It initially described environments where people affected by discrimination could come together to share experiences in a protected setting. Today, the concept is widely used in mediation and dialogue processes. A safe space is intentionally created to allow people to speak freely—withpout fear of judgment or attack. It is a space for respectful, non-judgmental communication, active listening, understanding, and connection.
Psychological safety, by contrast, is a more recent concept created for workplace climate. It gained prominence through the work of by Amy Edmondson. It refers to a stable, dynamic, and productive relational climate within a team or organization. The expected behaviors here differ from those in a safe space. It is not primarily about protection from harm or attack; rather, the focus is on challenge and constructive, co-creative collaboration.
So, psychological safety describes a culture where people can also give critical feedback—for example, when agreements aren’t upheld or when individuals prioritize personal needs over shared goals?
Yes. But it also applies when team members question each other’s ideas or seek to broaden the scope of a discussion. In this context, safety means feeling secure enough to contribute boldly to shared goals—and being invited to challenge others. This requires a level of trust and relational quality within the team that supports risk-taking, asking questions, offering ideas, expressing dissent, experimenting, and making mistakes visible—without fear of negative consequences.
It’s a space energized by curiosity, contribution, and momentum, enabling continuous learning and improvement. It’s not about being gentle, protective or avoiding discomfort—it’s about fostering co-creative tension.
What are the risks of confusing or using these terms interchangeably?
Over the past decade, extensive research has shown that psychological safety is the single most important factor in high-performing teams. These insights have helped us better understand the conditions and leadership behaviors that enable truly productive collaboration.
If people simply agree to maintain polite relations and the appearance of harmony—avoiding disagreement or conflict—teams miss out on new ideas and valuable learning. In other words, psychological safety is a distinct and powerful concept. If we reduce it to a familiar but different idea, like safe space, we lose the opportunity to fully understand and apply it.
Why is psychological safety especially important for organizations today?
In times of rapid change, success doesn’t depend on having the best plans or the most talented individuals—it depends on learning faster than others. That requires energy, openness, and engagement within teams.
Organizations that foster psychological safety create environments where challenges can be addressed honestly and from multiple perspectives. Failures are examined openly as learning opportunities. Solutions emerge and are implemented more quickly. In fact, a culture of open dialogue is also one of the most effective safeguards against major mistakes.
At the same time, increasing complexity and constant disruption demand new ways of thinking. Organizations need people who question outdated norms, challenge assumptions, and test whether long-standing answers still hold. This requires a culture where uncomfortable questions are not only allowed but encouraged—where teams can sustain both pressure and creative tension.
For individuals, this means experiencing work as meaningful and developmental. For organizations, it leads to greater adaptability, speed, and competitiveness.
What does this imply for leadership? How can leaders contribute to creating a climate of psychological safety?
Shifting toward psychological safety is not easy for most organizations. There is often a tendency toward conformity in thinking, whereas what’s needed is cognitive diversity. Psychological safety creates the conditions for diverse perspectives to engage in meaningful dialogue and generate better outcomes.
This requires a shift in mindset: differences in thinking are not a problem—they are an asset. Leaders play a crucial role here. They need the courage to encourage participation, invite challenge, and model openness.
Psychological safety is a collective achievement—it emerges through relationships. Some employees, particularly those shaped by traditional hierarchies, may be less accustomed to active participation, while others are more comfortable contributing. Leadership must create an inclusive culture where everyone feels able to engage and contribute.
Leaders themselves are not outside the system—they are shaped by the same norms, structures, and beliefs. So what helps them take meaningful steps toward this kind of culture?
It starts with humility and trust in the team’s potential. Leaders need to acknowledge that they don’t have all the answers, let go of the need to appear perfect, and remain open to changing their views. They must actively create space for others’ contributions, welcome new and unconventional ideas, and even embrace intelligent failure as part of the learning process.
How do you work with leaders on this in practice?
There are no one-size-fits-all solutions. The work happens on multiple levels. At the organizational level, I begin by understanding the existing culture—often through conversations with CEOs and HR leaders. We explore questions like: How do people collaborate? What leadership models are in place? How do communication and decision-making work?
From there, I typically work with groups of leaders or teams in training settings where we actively co-create an experience of psychological safety. These sessions involve reflection, dialogue, and real-life scenarios. It’s a co-creative process, supported by frameworks, tools, and thoughtfully designed experiential exercises.
A key part of the work is helping participants recognize their own fears, assumptions, and patterns. This self-awareness enables them to adopt new perspectives and take concrete actions back into their teams. They also experiment with practical tools and team rituals that reinforce psychological safety.
What first steps would you recommend to organizations?
Leaders should approach this journey with openness, curiosity, and presence. One of the most important early steps is self-reflection: Where might my own beliefs or fears be limiting others? Where do I struggle to give space?
Those who engage in this process often discover that collaboration at eye level is not a threat to structure or authority—it strengthens both. When psychological safety is present, engagement and collective energy increase, and people take greater ownership of their roles and responsibilities.
Ultimately, organizations that cultivate this environment become more resilient and better equipped to navigate uncertainty. They build the capacity not just to respond to change—but to transform with it.
