Why Psychological Safety Fails: A Better Way to Talk About Mistakes

By Ethan Nash, CEO

It’s time we start getting more precise about how we talk about and foster “psychological safety” on teams. Because our efforts can backfire if we don’t.

First, for the record, I’m a big fan of psychological safety, and I consult with dozens of organizations and leaders on how to develop it.

Amy Edmondson, the leading researcher on psychological safety in teams, defines it as the ability to make mistakes, disagree, dissent, and be vulnerable without fear of rejection, embarrassment, or punishment.

A plethora of research shows that psychological safety, in many types of teams, generally leads to higher performance. In other words: psychological safety = good.

Let’s focus on one critical element of that definition—the freedom to make mistakes without fear of being punished.

I’ve observed that some teams lump all mistakes together. The result? A confused culture that becomes either too harsh or too lenient.

While I was watching the Seattle Seahawks (whom I love dearly), a simple football analogy came to mind that makes this distinction clear.

Two Types of Mistakes (and Why They Matter)

1. Field Errors (Performance Mistakes)

Think of throwing an interception. The quarterback is reading the field, taking a risk, trying to make a play…and it goes wrong.

These mistakes happen in motion while someone is trying to perform, take initiative, or exercise judgment.

In everyday work terms, this looks like:

• A facilitator trying a pivot in a workshop that doesn’t land

• A manager attempting a new coaching approach that backfires

• A team member taking initiative and misreading the situation

These are errors rooted in effort, not negligence. This is exactly where psychological safety matters.

People need the freedom (or “safety”) to try, learn, adjust, and take risks intended to help the team succeed. That’s how we innovate and improve.

2. Operational Errors (Preventable Process Mistakes)

Now think of a false-start penalty. Or having twelve people in the huddle (you’re only allowed eleven). Or mismanaging the play clock (all mistakes the Seahawks happened to make over the course of one quarter).

These errors aren’t about judgment or risk, they’re about systems, preparation, and discipline:

• Missing key due dates without notice

• Not reading crucial communications

• Failing to follow basic procedures

• Dropping predictable handoffs

Often, there’s not much “learning” here besides: do the thing you already know how to do.

These mistakes require tight accountability.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t allow some room for humans to have human moments, or that we shouldn’t have grace for people occasionally dropping the ball. It’s just that these are a very different kind of mistake than “field errors” and should be treated as such.

Where Teams Go Wrong

Some leaders and teams treat “field errors” and “operational errors” as the same.

They offer unending tolerance for operational errors in the name of “creating psychological safety” and then wonder why accountability erodes.

Or they punish field errors harshly and then wonder why innovation and open communication dry up.

Psychological safety does not mean all mistakes are treated equally. It means people feel safe taking smart risks in pursuit of performance, not skipping basic expectations.

The Leadership Takeaway

If you want a high-performing, psychologically safe team:

• Be generous with field errors. Encourage judgment, experimentation, and initiative, even when it leads to mistakes. Create an environment where people feel safe talking about and learning from these mistakes.

• Be firm(er) with operational errors. These require, first and foremost, upfront clarity around expectations, as well as consistent standards and accountability. (By the way, firm doesn’t mean cold – you can uphold standards with empathy, understanding, and a healthy tolerance for humans being human.)

Psychological safety thrives when people know the difference.