Measuring psychological safety: Which instruments are truly useful?
- Aurelia Hack
- 3 days ago
- 5 min read
Reading time: approx. 6–8 minutes
How do you measure something that you can't see, but can feel in every meeting?
Psychological safety is not a "soft skill". It is a performance factor.
And yet, I repeatedly encounter two extremes in organizations: Either it's romanticized ("We have an open culture, so it's fine") – or it's confused with employee satisfaction. Both approaches fall short.
If psychological safety is the driver of innovation, a healthy error culture, and high performance, then you should measure it seriously. Not to control the employees in your team or organization, but to proactively develop psychological safety.
In this article, I'll show you which scientifically sound tools are truly useful – and what's important when using them in companies.
Why you should measure psychological safety – especially in high-performance environments
The term is largely based on the research of Amy C. Edmondson. In her seminal study of clinical teams (1999), she showed that teams with high psychological safety report more errors—not because they perform worse, but because they are more open about them. This very openness is the breeding ground for learning and quality.
Later, Google's research project "Project Aristotle" took up these findings. The result? The strongest predictor of team performance was not intelligence, seniority, or personality mix – but psychological safety.
Meta-analyses also confirm the relevance: A large-scale study by Frazier et al. (2017) showed significant correlations between psychological safety, learning behavior, engagement and performance.
Newman et al. (2017) found similar effects on creativity and knowledge sharing.
In short: If you want innovation, adaptability and sustainable performance, you should know the state of psychological safety in your company.
What exactly are you measuring?
Psychological safety describes the shared belief within a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks.
Specifically, this means:
Being able to admit mistakes without fear of losing status
Being allowed to ask critical questions
sharing unfinished ideas
Managers can disagree
Give feedback – also to those above
Important: This is not about harmony. It's about courageous openness.
1. The Edmondson Scale: The scientific gold standard
Amy Edmondson's (1999) 7 -item scale remains the most frequently validated instrument for measuring psychological safety at the team level.
Example items:
"If you make a mistake in this team, it's often used against you." (reverse coded)
"It's safe to take a risk in this team."
"In this team, you can openly address problems and difficult topics."
Why it makes sense:
Theoretically securely anchored
Replicated in numerous studies
Short and practical
Focus on team level (crucial!)
However, the scale measures team climate. If you hide it as a single indicator in an engagement survey, you lose context.
Practical recommendation: Do not use them in isolation, but combine them with team dialogues or workshops for joint interpretation of the results.
2. Psychological Safety Index (PSI)
A somewhat less well-known, but interesting and also scientifically sound approach is the Psychological Safety Index by Liang et al. (2012) . It differentiates more strongly between "speak-up behavior" and perceived safety.
This is relevant because: people can perceive psychological safety – and still remain silent. For example, out of political caution or cultural norms.
This differentiation is particularly helpful in international organizations or highly hierarchical contexts.
3. Voice Climate & Speak-Up Climate
Research on “employee voice” complements the traditional perspective. Work by Morrison (2014) shows that not only safety, but also perceived effectiveness is crucial: Do employees believe that their voice makes a difference?
Detert & Burris (2007) were able to show that leadership behavior has a strong influence on whether employees make suggestions for improvement.
Therefore, when measuring psychological safety, you should check:
Is anyone speaking?
Are people listening?
Will any action be taken?
Because psychological safety without effect leads to cynicism in the long run.
4. High Reliability Organization (HRO) Approaches
In high-risk industries (e.g., aviation, medicine), psychological safety is often measured indirectly via incident reporting systems or safety climate scales.
Studies show clear correlations between safety climate, error messages and actual accident rate.
Even outside of traditionally high-risk industries, this change of perspective is worthwhile: How do you deal with near misses? Are lessons learned documented? Are there non-punitive reporting systems in place?
5. Network and communication analyses
An innovative, data-based approach is the analysis of communication patterns (e.g., using Organizational Network Analysis).
Research by Pentland (2012) shows that equal speaking time and high interaction density correlate with team performance.
Teams with dominant individual voices and little mutual exchange demonstrate lower innovative capacity.
Psychological safety leaves its mark on communication behavior.
This opens up new possibilities:
Meeting analyses
Speaking time patterns
Cross-functional networking
Important: Transparency and data protection are essential here.
Typical measurement errors – and how to avoid them
Confusing psychological safety with well-being: Satisfaction ≠ safety. A team can be satisfied – and still avoid conflict.
Don't just look at averages . What's crucial is the dispersion. Large variance within a team often indicates unspoken tensions.
No qualitative supplement. Quantitative data shows the "what". Focus groups and interviews show the "why".
Studies clearly show that leadership is the most powerful lever. Without involving management, any measurement is meaningless.
From measurement to intervention: The crucial step
Measurement is not an end in itself. It is a diagnostic and action-oriented tool.
Intervention approaches with empirical evidence include:
Inclusive Leadership (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006)
Leader Humility (Owens & Hekman, 2012)
Structured debriefs & after-action reviews
Mistake storytelling at the leadership level
An intervention study by Edmondson et al. (2014) showed that targeted team reflections can significantly increase psychological safety – and consequently performance.
Psychological safety as a strategic KPI
If you take psychological safety seriously, it includes:
in leadership programs
in change projects
in innovation initiatives
in performance dashboards
According to studies, companies that systematically measure and develop psychological safety report significantly higher learning agility, adaptability, and innovation rates.
In a world of constant transformation, this is precisely your competitive advantage.
Conclusion: Measuring means taking responsibility
Psychological safety is not a feel-good concept. It is a hard performance factor.
By measuring them, you send a clear signal: We take mental safety seriously. We want to learn. We want to improve.
And perhaps the most important finding from over two decades of research: Psychological safety does not arise by chance. It can be shaped.
If you want to know,
how psychological safety really stands in your company
which instruments are useful for your industry,
and how you can develop concrete performance levers from that,
Then let's talk.
I help companies not only to measure psychological safety, but also to strategically anchor it as a performance driver – scientifically sound, practical and with measurable impact.
Book me as a speaker for your next leadership event or let's develop a customized diagnostic and development program for your company.
Because mental security is not a "nice-to-have".
It is the foundation for everything that is to grow.
Comments