Maybe Psychological Safety Isn’t a Feeling, But a Process to Be Measured

THE PROBLEM

It seems to me that I see psychological safety a lot differently than most.

Team members often don’t stay silent because they have nothing to say, but because they’re concerned they won’t receive the respect they deserve for contributing. Not because they are weak, but because they don’t know how to address objectionable behavior without exasperating the situation.

One bad reaction, a dismissive comment, an overly dogmatic tone, or even a subtle eye roll, can shut potential contributions down during important decision-making situations.

We talk endlessly about encouraging people to “speak up” and “treat each other with respect,” yet we rarely talk about what happens after they do and it doesn’t go so well. The real issue isn’t just the fear of speaking up, but the lack of a fair process for addressing what comes next, the unfair responses that discourage contribution in the first place.

THE SOLUTION (Paradigm shift)

So why not focus on creating a system that helps team members address and resolve any perceived unfair responses to their contributions?

This seems both reasonable and practical to me. Such a system could also allow organizations to track these controlled interactions (what I call Spatz), and measure how quickly they’re resolved, as well as the sequence of steps required to reach resolution.

Imagine if every team had a way to turn their minor spats into structured learning encounters, with data that shows: where, when, and how fairness was restored. Over time, those small interactions could reveal patterns of trust, respect, and behavior that no survey ever could.

The data could be invaluable, not just for preventing toxic conflicts, but for understanding how fairness actually operates inside teams.

Maybe psychological safety isn’t a feeling to be nurtured, but a process to be measured.