What L&D Leaders Get Wrong When Measuring Psychological Safety (And How to Fix It)

After years of measuring and analyzing organizational data we have found that one of the most common (and growing) issues with psychological safety is how people are measuring it. 

We’ve seen this pattern play out in organizations time and time again. People leaders think they’re measuring psychological safety effectively, but they’re unknowingly making key mistakes that prevent them from getting real, actionable insights.

So what are the most common mistakes?

Mistake #1: Measuring Engagement Instead of Psychological Safety

L&D or HR leaders often rely on engagement surveys to assess workplace culture and assuming that is a proxy for psychological safety. Engagement and psychological safety are not the same thing.

• Engagement measures enthusiasm, motivation, and job satisfaction.

• Psychological Safety measures whether employees feel safe to speak up, challenge ideas, and admit mistakes without fear of punishment.

Here’s the problem: An employee can be engaged but still feel unsafe to speak up. They might love their work but hesitate to challenge leadership or admit a mistake.

The Fix: Use a dedicated tool like The Fearless Organization Scan, developed by Dr. Amy C. Edmondson, to measure psychological safety directly. Engagement surveys have value - just not for measuring psychological safety.

Mistake #2: Asking the Wrong Questions

Further to the challenge of measure engagement we are seeing a growing trend of engagement surveys with 1,2 or 3 questions about psychological safety. They typically lack enough context to be accurate (actionable) and they are very rarely validated questions.

Sometimes they are just vague, generic survey questions like:

-Do you feel comfortable sharing your thoughts at work?

-Do you feel valued in your organization?

These might seem relevant, but they fail to capture the nuance of psychological safety. People might feel comfortable speaking up in some situations but do they actually do it? Do they challenge leadership? Do they call out risks before they become disasters?

The Fix: Measure psychological safety in a way that provides more nuance and direction about behaviour and how you might address ongoing issues.

For example:

Open Conversation – Are tough topics addressed or avoided?

Attitude Toward Risk & Failure – Do people feel safe admitting mistakes?

Willingness to Help – Is there a culture of support and collaboration?

Belonging – Do all voices have equal weight in decision-making?

An assessment that enables specific and meaningful action is one that reveal the behaviour patterns that go beyond surface-level sentiment.

Mistake #3: Treating “Good” Results as a Win

One of the most misunderstood outcomes in psychological safety measurement is the relief that follows average-to-good results.

When scores come back as “fine,” “healthy,” or “generally positive,” leaders often exhale and move on. But this is precisely where complacency sets in.

When things are bad, the need for action is obvious.

When things are good, but not great the real risk becomes comfort.

Average results aren’t neutral. They’re unstable. They mean some people feel safe, some don’t and no one is sure which moments or leaders will invite their best thinking and which will shut it down. That inconsistency is often what leads to the very stagnation that costs you talent, innovation and performance.

The Fix: Treat “good” results with more scrutiny, not less. Use them to ask sharper questions:

• Where are we strong, and where are we merely getting by?

• Who feels safe consistently, and who only feels safe sometimes?

• What are people choosing not to bring forward?

Make the case that investing in “better” isn’t a luxury. You can frame it as “de-risking” or “optimizing” or however else you think it will land - but don’t settle - comfort kills growth. 

Strong psychological safety doesn’t just boost engagement; it protects decision quality, accelerates learning, and ensures that people bring their best thinking into the future of the organization.

Mistake #4: Collecting Data Without a Plan for Action

Many people leaders measure psychological safety… and then do nothing with the data. We started working with an organization lately that just release two year old data. Before you scoff - just know that this isn’t the first time we’ve heard this. It’s more common that they results are never shared at all and no action is taken.

It’s common for people leaders run a survey, present the findings in a leadership meeting, and assume awareness alone will drive change. But data without action is useless.

What gets measured must also be improved.

The Fix: Once you measure psychological safety, immediately take these three steps:

Discuss the results transparently – Share the findings openly and invite feedback.

Identify key areas for action – Don’t try to fix everything at once. Pick 2-3 areas for focused improvement.

Train leaders on behaviors that foster safety – In reality, leaders don’t need to know that much about psychological safety itself. They need to know about the opportunity of their leadership and the impact of their facilitation, coaching, decisions and the actions (or inactions) they take. They need tools - not a webinar about what psychological safety is. Awareness isn’t enough. Psychological safety isn’t an initiative; it’s built or broken by leadership habits. 

Mistake #5: Measuring Psychological Safety Once and Assuming It’s “Fixed”

Building psychological safety in a team or across an organization is an ongoing process.

Many organizations measure it once, see decent results, and assume the job is done. But culture shifts over time. Leadership changes, team dynamics evolve, and external pressures impact safety.

If you’re not measuring psychological safety consistently, you won’t catch when things are shifting or impacting teams before it turns into disengagement and turnover.

The Fix: Make psychological safety a continuous conversation with regular pulse checks and leadership reinforcement. We often recommend regular pulse checks that are built into the system of an organization - something that's measured two-four times a year by every team. This way you can avoid having people see it as punitive - and you can support leaders when things are shifting instead of waiting until problems are at a critical phase and much harder to manage.

The Bottom Line: Measuring Psychological Safety The Right Way

Leaders, not just people leaders, have an opportunity to create workplace cultures where people can contribute their best work. Measuring psychological safety can be a strategic advantage if it’s done correctly. But if you’re measuring psychological safety the wrong way, you’re missing critical insights that could transform your organization.

Use the right tool. Engagement surveys aren’t enough—use a research-backed tool like The Fearless Organization Scan.

Ask the right questions. Go beyond vague sentiments to assess real psychological safety behaviors.

Don’t treat good as good enough. Average means inconsistent and unpredictable.

Turn data into action. Measuring safety without improving it is a wasted opportunity.

Make it ongoing. Psychological safety isn’t a one-and-done effort. It changes depending on our situation and can change over time - like any kind of measurement of health - it needs a regular check-up not a one and done.