If you’ve recently moved into a middle-management role and find yourself feeling uneasy or stretched thin, you’re not alone. A recent Harvard Business Review analysis finds that middle managers report the lowest levels of psychological safety in the workplace—a crucial factor for innovation, communication, and employee well-being. For laboratories, where managers bridge scientific execution and organizational strategy, this lack of safety can quietly undermine productivity and compliance.
The study, based on responses from more than 1,100 managers across industries, found that middle managers averaged 68 out of 100 on psychological safety—lower than both senior executives (72.7) and their own direct reports (72.2). Newly promoted managers, in particular, showed the steepest drop in confidence and openness.
Psychological safety, a term popularized by Harvard Business School’s Amy Edmondson, describes the belief that team members can speak up, share concerns, or admit mistakes without fear of punishment. In a lab environment where precision, collaboration, and continuous learning are essential, its absence can have serious ripple effects.
The cost of low psychological safety in labs
When lab managers feel unsafe to share feedback or mistakes, communication channels break down. The study links this to “error blindness at the top,” where bad news never reaches leadership, and to an “innovation slowdown,” where employees avoid risk or experimentation.
For laboratory operations, that silence can delay process improvements, increase quality-control issues, and weaken safety culture. Over time, teams become hesitant to question results or address equipment and procedural concerns—raising compliance and morale risks.
Why middle managers feel less psychologically safe
The report identifies five main causes:
- Promotion pressure: Moving into mid-level roles raises visibility and accountability, often without the psychological support needed to handle the change
- Leadership modeling gaps: When senior scientists and directors rarely admit mistakes, managers below them assume that vulnerability is unsafe
- Isolation: Middle managers lack peer communities—unlike executives or technicians—making it harder to seek help or share challenges
- Transition shock: New leaders face steep learning curves in managing other managers rather than individual contributors
- Perfection culture: Organizational systems that reward flawless performance discourage open discussion of setbacks or errors
How lab leaders can strengthen psychological safety
To rebuild trust and openness across lab teams, senior leaders should:
- Model transparency: Discuss failed experiments and lessons learned during team meetings
- Encourage “justified accountability”: Treat genuine mistakes as learning opportunities, not career-limiting events
- Create peer-learning networks: Establish leadership forums where lab managers can share insights safely
- Support new managers: Offer mentoring and “first 100 days” reviews that normalize open reflection
When middle managers feel empowered to communicate candidly, labs become more agile, innovative, and resilient. Building psychological safety in the lab is not only good for people—it’s essential for scientific progress.
This article was created with the assistance of Generative AI and has undergone editorial review before publishing.
