Why the most important concept in teamwork needs a rebrand to save us from a culture of comfort.
Let's get this out of the way: the concept of psychological safety is not actually bullshit. It is one of the most important, validated, and transformative ideas in organizational behavior today. First identified by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, it was later cemented as the single most critical factor in high-performing teams by Google's extensive "Project Aristotle" study . The idea that teams thrive when members feel safe to take interpersonal risks—to admit mistakes, ask questions, and offer new ideas without fear of punishment or humiliation—is fundamentally correct.
But the term "psychological safety" is failing us. It’s a dangerously misleading phrase that has been co-opted and diluted into a justification for comfort. It implies a retreat from risk, a shield from discomfort, and a right to feel perpetually untroubled. This misinterpretation is creating a culture of coddling that prioritizes harmony over progress and ultimately stunts the very growth it was meant to foster. True innovation requires not safety, but the courage to be unsafe—to be vulnerable, to challenge the status quo, and to risk spectacular failure.
The Unbreakable Law: Growth Happens in the Discomfort Zone
At its core, every biological and psychological system grows through resistance, not comfort. This isn't a motivational platitude; it's a scientific principle. Your muscles don't get stronger from being comfortable; they get stronger when you subject them to the stress of lifting heavy weights, causing micro-tears that the body then repairs to be more resilient. Your immune system doesn't learn by being shielded from all pathogens; it learns when a vaccine introduces a small, controlled dose of a threat, training it to fight off the real thing.
This phenomenon is known as hormesis: the process by which a beneficial effect results from exposure to low doses of an agent that is otherwise toxic or lethal when given at high doses . A little bit of stress isn't just good for us; it's essential. Without it, we atrophy. Astronauts in zero gravity lose bone density because they lack the daily stress of Earth's pull . An organization without a healthy dose of stress—the pressure of a deadline, the friction of a dissenting opinion, the challenge of a new market—suffers the same fate. It becomes weak, complacent, and fragile.
Author and risk analyst Nassim Nicholas Taleb offers a more potent framework: antifragility. He argues that the opposite of fragile isn't robust; it's antifragile. A robust system withstands shocks and stays the same. An antifragile system, however, benefits from them; it thrives and grows when exposed to volatility, randomness, and stressors . The term "psychological safety," as it is often used, aims for robustness at best. It seeks to build a team that can weather a storm. But a truly great team doesn't just weather the storm; it uses the wind to sail faster. It is antifragile.
The Generational Red Flag: A Culture of Coddling
The corporate world's drift toward a culture of comfort mirrors a troubling trend in society at large. In their book The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that a wave of overprotection in parenting and education has created a generation of young people who are less resilient and more prone to anxiety and depression . The data is alarming. Between 2009 and 2017, rates of depression among young adults (ages 18-25) increased by 63% . Gen Z is now considered the most stressed generation, with 84% believing the U.S. has a mental health crisis .
Researchers have drawn a direct line from "helicopter parenting"—a style of over-involvement and control—to increased anxiety, depression, and lower self-efficacy in young adults . By shielding children from failure, discomfort, and risk, we have inadvertently robbed them of the very experiences needed to develop coping mechanisms and resilience. This serves as a stark cautionary tale for the workplace. When we misinterpret psychological safety as a mandate to eliminate all discomfort, are we not just creating a corporate version of helicopter parenting? Are we building a workforce that is less adaptable, less willing to take risks, and ultimately less capable of navigating the inherent pressures of a competitive world?
The Reframe: From Psychological Safety to a Culture of Courage
If we want to reclaim the power of this concept, we need to change the language. The goal is not to make people feel safe; the goal is to make them feel secure enough to be courageous. We need to stop talking about psychological safety and start building a Culture of Courage.
A Culture of Courage is an environment where vulnerability is a strength, constructive dissent is a duty, and failure is just data. It’s a place where the fear of holding back a game-changing idea is far greater than the fear of that idea being challenged. It re-calibrates our understanding of what a high-performing team looks like.
From: Misinterpreted "Psychological Safety" To: A Culture of Courage
From: The goal is to feel comfortable. To: The goal is to be brave enough to be uncomfortable.
From: It avoids conflict and difficult conversations. To: It normalizes constructive dissent and productive friction.
From: It protects people from failure. To: It encourages intelligent risk-taking and learns from failure.
From: It seeks consensus and harmony at all costs. To: It seeks truth and the best ideas, even if it creates tension.
From: It implies a right to not be offended. To: It implies a responsibility to speak and listen with candor.
The Real Work Is Daring, Not Hiding
The intent behind psychological safety was never to create a corporate sanctuary where everyone feels pleasant all the time. It was to build a launchpad for the messy, difficult, and often uncomfortable work of innovation. The language of "safety" has led us astray, turning a concept about candor into an excuse for comfort.
The challenge for leaders and team members today is to stop asking, "Do I feel safe?" and start asking, "Are we being courageous enough?" Are we challenging assumptions? Are we having the difficult conversations? Are we taking the risks that could lead to breakthrough success or valuable failure? The most innovative work and the most profound personal growth do not happen when we are hiding in a harbor. They happen when we dare to sail into the storm.
[4] Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Random House.
[5] Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.
