In a laboratory, failure is part of the process. Experiments do not always go as planned, protocols need revising, and sometimes a critical mistake reveals a gap in training or understanding. What happens next—how team members respond, how managers react, and whether people feel safe to speak up—has everything to do with one factor that is often misunderstood: psychological safety.

Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, who coined the term team psychological safety, defines it as “a shared belief that it’s okay to take risks, express ideas and concerns, speak up with questions, and admit mistakes in the workplace—without fear of negative consequences.” Importantly, Edmondson clarifies that psychological safety at work is not about being nice or soft. Instead, it is about creating a climate of candor, where transparency and accountability are encouraged because team members trust that they will not be punished for being honest.

Advanced Lab Management Certificate

The Advanced Lab Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.

Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.

In a laboratory setting, where accuracy, safety, and collaboration are paramount, this concept becomes even more critical. Without psychological safety, teams are less likely to report near misses, raise concerns about protocols, or share unconventional ideas. The consequences can range from missed opportunities for innovation to serious safety incidents.

Why psychological safety matters in laboratories

Edmondson’s research shows that psychological safety in the workplace is strongly linked to better team performance, higher engagement, and more innovation. In her foundational paper, “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams” (Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 2, 1999, pp. 350–383), Edmondson examined hospital teams and found a surprising result: high-performing teams reported more errors, not because they made more mistakes, but because they felt safe enough to acknowledge them. Rather than hiding errors to protect themselves, they shared them openly, leading to better learning and improved performance.

That insight applies directly to lab environments, especially those handling complex research or hazardous materials. If staff members fear blame or embarrassment, they may stay quiet about problems that could otherwise be addressed early. This silence can lead to repeated errors, reduced morale, and even safety violations.

Conversely, when psychological safety is present, lab teams are more likely to:

• Proactively share concerns and ideas
• Learn from failures instead of hiding them
• Ask questions that clarify procedures and avoid misunderstandings
• Engage in open discussions that lead to better scientific outcomes

How to assess psychological safety in your lab

So, how can you tell whether your team feels psychologically safe?

Edmondson developed a seven-question scale to help managers reflect on their team’s climate. Team members rate the following statements:

1. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.
2. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.
3. People on this team sometimes reject others for being different.
4. It is safe to take a risk on this team.
5. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help.
6. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.
7. Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized.

There is no single cutoff score, but the responses can serve as a starting point for deeper conversations. As Edmondson notes, the goal is not measurement for its own sake—it is curiosity and improvement.

For lab managers, this may mean adapting the questions for lab-specific scenarios, such as:

• Can team members raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal?
• Are technicians comfortable telling a principal investigator (PI) they do not understand a procedure?
• Do junior staff feel empowered to offer process improvements?

How lab managers can create psychological safety at work

There is no magic wand for building psychological safety in the workplace, but Edmondson’s research offers a clear framework for managers to create a more open and trusting environment. Here’s how lab managers can put these practices into action:

1. Solicit feedback and criticism

At the end of one-on-one meetings or team discussions, actively invite team members to share what could be improved. Use open-ended questions like:

• “What could I do—or stop doing—to make it easier to work with me?”
• “What’s working, and what could be better?”

These questions encourage honest dialogue and show that you are willing to listen. Receiving feedback can feel uncomfortable, but managing your defensiveness is key. Focus on understanding rather than reacting. Once feedback is shared, reward the candor: if you agree, make changes and share them openly, acknowledging the person who helped you see it. If you disagree, find an aspect on which you can agree and discuss it respectfully.

2. Give praise genuinely and publicly

Encouragement and recognition are critical for creating psychological safety. When people know their good work is recognized and appreciated, they become more receptive to feedback and more comfortable taking risks. In the lab, this could mean identifying a technician’s careful handling of a tricky assay or a junior scientist’s creative troubleshooting on a project.

3. Give criticism clearly and with care

It is equally important to provide honest criticism when mistakes occur, or improvements are needed. Avoid vague comments—be specific about what went wrong and why. Clear, direct feedback helps team members understand what they need to adjust and how to grow. In a lab, this could mean explaining how a procedure was mishandled, the impact it had, and how to prevent it in the future. Done well, criticism fosters learning and improvement, not fear.

4. Gauge how your feedback lands

Whether you are offering praise or criticism, pay attention to how it is received. If someone appears defensive or demoralized, adjust your approach accordingly. It is not enough to have good intentions—what matters is how your feedback impacts your team. In a lab setting, this means observing not just what is said in response but also how people behave afterward—are they withdrawing, or are they engaging more? Psychological safety depends on this constant calibration.

Safety, innovation, and performance go hand in hand

Psychological safety is not a “nice to have” in labs—it is foundational to scientific progress, compliance, and team cohesion. From academic research groups to pharma QA teams, labs that support open dialogue and learning are better equipped to navigate challenges and adapt to change.

Creating that culture takes intention, consistency, and vulnerability—but the payoff is a team that speaks up, supports one another, and drives better results.

As Edmondson explains, a psychologically safe workplace is not one where everything is smooth and comfortable—it is a place where team members feel secure enough to voice concerns, ask questions, and share challenges when things get tough. For lab managers, this commitment to open communication and honesty may be the most critical safety protocol of all.