When the board of Company X approved a disastrous merger, at least three directors harboured serious reservations. None of them spoke up. In the aftermath, what appeared to be incompetence was revealed to be something far more common and far more dangerous: a systemic failure of psychological safety.
The most catastrophic governance failures share this same thread. Critical information existed within the organisation, but the conditions for honest dialogue were absent. This is a breakdown of what scholars describe as "heedful interrelating", the capacity for directors to think and act with careful respect for others, enabling candid conversation about complex challenges. When heedful interrelating breaks down, boards lose access to the very information they need to govern. As The Boston Consulting Group notes, boards must foster cultures that enable, rather than constrain, difficult conversations.
For directors to feel confident speaking up, honest dialogue must be embedded in the DNA of the organisation. Making open communication part of the organisation’s core identity ensures every voice is heard and directors are equipped to raise issues before risks escalate.
Amy Edmondson's foundational research on psychological safety reveals its neurological basis. When individuals perceive social threat such as fear of embarrassment, criticism, or exclusion - the brain's threat-detection system activates, suppressing the cognitive networks responsible for creative thinking, pattern recognition, and complex analysis.
Brain imaging studies show that psychologically unsafe environments literally reduce directors' capacity for the higher-order thinking that governance requires. The amygdala hijacks processing power from the prefrontal cortex, shifting focus from strategic reasoning to social survival.
Conversely, a psychologically safe environment activates the brain's "approach system," which is associated with curiosity, collaboration, and creative problem-solving. In these settings, directors demonstrate sharper pattern recognition and a greater willingness to share the minority perspectives that are often crucial for spotting risk.
Its a compelling argument for cultivating candid conversation.
Psychological safety is the soil in which leadership wisdom grows. As my research with Kate Norbury and David Rooney into "Coaching for Leadership Wisdom" found, wise leaders integrate both rational analysis and intuitive concerns. This requires an environment where directors feel safe enough to be vulnerable. As we noted, "to be wise, one must first of all have been unwise." A board cannot learn if its members do not have the safety to get it wrong.
This principle is battle-tested in the most extreme environments. Studies of high-reliability organisations (HROs) by Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe show that psychological safety is a non-negotiable requirement for effective risk oversight. HROs are preoccupied with failure and refuse to simplify complex interpretations. They create cultures where reporting problems and questioning assumptions are actively rewarded, enabling the weak signal detection that prevents crises.
Drawing from these principles, we can outline a maturity model for boards to build psychological safety as a core asset.
Building this culture of "heedful interrelating" can begin immediately.
Psychological safety is about comfort, which in turn leads to enhanced cognitive performance. It is the bedrock of the "heedful interrelating" that allows a board to transform risk from a threat to be feared into an opportunity to be navigated with wisdom.
Psychological Safety Assessment
Next article:
Purpose-to-Agenda Line-of-Sight: ensuring board time aligns with organisational mission and strategic priorities.
Dr E. King researches mindful governance practices and co-authored "The Wheel of Mindfulness." Additional resources available at www.drlizking.com.