Psychological Safety Without Niceness
Written by Adrian Maharaj
(Views mine, not Google’s.)
Why this matters
Let’s be honest: a lot of teams confuse being nice with being safe. Niceness keeps meetings tidy; psychological safety makes them productive. The goal is to get the truth on the table early so we can fix what matters. The research keeps pointing the same way safety links to performance and “citizenship” behaviors (meta analysis); it was the #1 factor in Google’s Project Aristotle (overview); and DORA shows generative, blame‑light cultures ship more and recover faster (2023 report). I wrote more about how to move teams past this by demanding authored “points of view” in my article Clarity over Alignment.
A quick personal note
I’ve struggled with saying the hard thing without people feeling attacked. Intent isn’t impact. Earlier in my career I treated bluntness as integrity. I didn’t get softer I got clearer about how we tell the hard truth: ask permission for candor, anchor feedback to agreed standards (not personalities), state uncertainty out loud (“I might be wrong; here’s what doesn’t compute”), and repair quickly when I miss. I care about people and the outcome. The cost of silence is higher than the discomfort of candor our job is to make that discomfort useful.
Team moves (not just personal)
Here’s how to drive this as a team:
Consent to candor cue: “Okay if we go blunt for five minutes?” (Opt-in matters.)
Standards‑first feedback: “Against our launch criteria, here’s the gap and risk.”
Roles that surface dissent: Rotate a Red Team lead with a checklist on major decisions.
Airtime + attribution: Track who speaks and who gets credit; facilitators invite “last voice.”
Decision hygiene: Run a pre‑mortem before big bets; list top 3 assumptions, owners, and dates to test.
Public repair: Add a one line “What I missed” section to post mortems.
Guardrail: No “nice” veto the mission decides. Pair candor with compassion (no ad hominem).
Make it part of the operating system
If you can’t measure it, you won’t manage it. Set Candor KPIs: dissent rate in docs, pre mortems per major bet, and post mortem follow through (actions closed vs. promised). Add a one‑question weekly pulse “It’s safe to take a risk on this team” (1–5) and review it in retro. Publish a monthly Failure Learning Log (3 failures, 3 fixes, 3 follow ups). Keep a visible rotation for the Red Team role so dissent isn’t personality dependent.
Start this month team edition
Week 1: Agree on the consent to candor cue and your standards checklist.
Week 2: Run one pre mortem and assign a Red Team lead for the next big decision.
Weeks 3–4: Ship your first Failure Learning Log and start the 1 question pulse; review trends in retro.
Key takeaway: Psychological safety isn’t about being agreeable; it’s about making truth‑telling routine so teams move faster with fewer surprises.
Adrian Maharaj is the Global Managing Director for Channel Partnerships at Google (views his own). He writes about modern GTM, operating systems for teams, and decision quality.
