Solving Team Underperformance: The Psychological Safety Approach

When teams underperform, executives typically try performance improvement plans, reorganization, or bringing in new talent.

Yet 60% of managers report their "high-potential" teams consistently underdeliver on critical projects.

Amy Edmondson's "Psychological Safety" from "The Fearless Organization" offers a proven alternative.

This approach aligns with what other experts like Brené Brown, Daniel Coyle, and Patrick Lencioni recommend, focusing on creating conditions where teams can perform at their peak rather than managing performance problems after they emerge.

When implemented correctly, it helps you:

Amy Edmondson discovered psychological safety almost by accident. Watch her explain the breakthrough research that revealed why capable teams underperform:

If you prefer reading, the key insights are covered below - but Edmondson's three opening stories (the nurse, pilot, and executive who stayed silent) perfectly illustrate why this framework matters for every leader.

Her research started with a puzzle: better hospital teams were reporting more medication errors, not fewer.

The obvious conclusion is that these teams were making more mistakes.

But Edmondson realized something game-changing: the "better" teams weren't making more errors. They were more willing to talk about them.

They had psychological safety. Their people felt safe speaking up about problems, mistakes, and concerns.

This insight transformed how we understand team performance.

Google spent two years analyzing what made their best teams excel.

They expected to find the perfect mix of talent, experience, or personalities.

Instead, they discovered something shocking: team composition mattered far less than how team members treated each other.

The #1 predictor of team performance wasn't technical skill, strategic thinking, or leadership experience.

It was psychological safety.

Edmondson defines it simply: "A belief that you can speak up without risk of punishment or humiliation."

But here's what trips up most executives: psychological safety isn't about being "nice" or avoiding tough conversations.

High-performing teams actually have MORE conflict, not less.

They just handle it completely differently.

Most approaches to team underperformance target individuals:

These assume the problem is capability or clarity.

But research shows that in 80% of underperforming teams, capable people are holding back their best thinking.

Your team has the talent. They just don't feel safe using it.

Nobody wakes up wanting to look stupid at work.

So we develop strategies:

This works great for self-protection. Terrible for team performance.

When psychological safety is low:

Psychological safety develops predictably. Most teams get stuck at Stage 1 or 2:

"Do I belong here?"

Low safety signs:

"Can I grow here?"

Low safety signs:

"Can I make a difference here?"

Low safety signs:

"Can I question how we do things?"

Low safety signs:

Most teams never reach Stage 4. That's where breakthrough performance happens.

When Pixar was developing "Monsters, Inc.," the film was struggling. Story wasn't working. Characters felt flat. Months behind schedule.

In most companies, this triggers crisis mode: longer hours, tighter deadlines, performance reviews.

Director Pete Docter tried something different. He created a "Brain Trust" meeting where the team could say anything about the film, no matter how critical.

The rules:

The result?

Team members surfaced fundamental story problems leadership hadn't seen. Junior animators suggested character changes senior writers had missed.

The film got completely restructured based on insights that only emerged when people felt safe to challenge everything.

"Monsters, Inc." became Pixar's most successful film to that point.

Key insight: This wasn't a one-time meeting. Pixar made psychological safety their operating system. Every film goes through multiple Brain Trust sessions. Every team member knows they're expected to speak up.

The culture didn't just save one film. It became Pixar's sustainable competitive advantage.

Most Psychological Safety Initiatives Fail Because Leaders Misunderstand the Core Problem

You think the issue is that people don't feel "safe" to speak up. The real issue is that your organizational incentives actively punish truth-telling while rewarding conformity. Until you address the incentive misalignment, all the psychological safety training in the world won't matter.

The Brutal Truth About Why Your Team Stays Silent

Your people are making rational economic decisions based on what actually gets rewarded in your organization. Edmondson's research shows that psychological safety works by removing the economic penalty for intellectual honesty.

Why This Framework Works When Others Don't

Edmondson's approach doesn't try to change people's psychology. It changes the system architecture so that speaking up becomes the smart career move instead of the risky one. First principles thinking: humans respond to incentives, so change the incentives rather than trying to change human nature.

You're dealing with a team that has the talent but isn't delivering results. Performance feels inconsistent, innovation is stagnant, or you suspect people are holding back their best thinking.

Use this AI-powered consultation to simulate a session with Amy Edmondson, focused on building psychological safety using her framework from "The Fearless Organization."

Use When:

What You'll Get: