Are You Psychologically Safe at Work?

3 days ago
12 min read

Let’s do a pulse check!

Throughout my career, I have taken on long‑term projects across many organizations, motivated by a desire to strengthen my organizational psychology and business administration skills. Along the way, I worked with a wide range of leaders, each with their own leadership style: transformational, transactional, democratic, autocratic — and, of course, occasionally the toxic kind that bullies seem to prefer.

Unsurprisingly, I thrived under inspiring leaders but withered when working for the bullies.

One experience from my late twenties stands out. A CEO hired me to build a marketing and sales department from scratch. At first, the CEO and I got on like a house afire. I was energized by his can‑do mentality, but it didn’t take long for the first signs of toxic leadership to surface.

Although he appeared to be doing an excellent job — everything seemed to be running smoothly and according to plan — I gradually became aware of something unsettling during management team meetings: the silence in the room. It was just a little too quiet. Not a single dissenting voice.

I remember wondering, Can it really be that this CEO has all the right answers?

At one point, when it was my turn to report on my work, I briefed the management team on the progress I had made and mentioned an upcoming meeting with the people who were going to round out the sales and marketing team. The CEO fixed his gaze on me, told me to stay after the meeting, and then calmly moved on to the manager sitting next to me.

What followed once the room emptied made it immediately clear: I was dealing with a bully — and one of the worst kinds.

The CEO and I were sitting at a large oval table that could easily seat twenty people. He was positioned at the head of the table, while ‘little old me’ remained seated at the far end.

He stayed quiet for a moment. Then, slowly, his facial expression shifted into a mixture of anger and disgust as he rose from his chair. He stared at me briefly — though it felt like hours — before finally speaking, his voice low and controlled.

“So, Anique,” he said, “you mentioned that you have been talking to the people who are going to man the sales and marketing department.”

“Uh, yes, I have,” I replied, surprised, with a flicker of apprehension crossing my face as I began to explain the conversation we’d had.

Out of nowhere, the CEO cut me off, slammed his fist on the table, and shouted:

“Those people are soldiers! You don’t discuss anything with them! You give them orders!”

I sat frozen, stunned into silence. After a long pause, all that came out of my mouth was a tentative, “Oookay.”

He stormed out of the room, and I went straight to Human Resources to report the incident.

The HR manager didn’t sugarcoat it: The organization had a serious problem with the CEO’s leadership style. They had already lost an unusually high number of colleagues because of him. The HR manager asked whether I was considering leaving the organization. My response was immediate — I didn’t feel comfortable staying.

He then asked whether I would reconsider if measures could be put in place to help me cope with the CEO’s toxic leadership style. I was hesitant at first, but the safeguards that we designed together felt solid, especially the proposal to install a manager between the CEO and me as a buffer. Knowing I could always choose to leave if things didn’t work out, I decided to give it a try.

Looking back on the experience, I’m glad I stayed— although it remained challenging at times. The new arrangements allowed me to complete the project without getting drawn into the drama. From a safe distance, I was also able to observe the social dynamics that this type of leadership created, including the profound psychological toll it took on several colleagues, especially the manager who had been installed as a buffer.

It wasn’t until a year and a half into the project that the board was finally able to remove the CEO. Almost immediately, a sense of calm settled over the organization.

Psychological safety — a modern concept that makes work easier

Over the years, toxic leadership has become easier to discuss as research increasingly highlights the serious consequences of keeping toxic leaders in place. Today, employees expect work environments that inspire them to do their best, enable them to learn from their leaders, and feel safe enough to experiment and take risks. Achieving this requires a leadership style that is favorable to a high level of psychological safety.

Psychological safety means that people within an organization or team feel like they can address issues and take risks without fear of punitive action from others — especially their leaders. This type of safety is achieved through the implementation and communication of norms that sustain a safe climate, and values that promote positive engagement and a sense of thriving.

Even though this sounds self‑evident, a surprisingly high percentage of work environments still lack psychological safety. This is particularly true in high‑pressure, low‑autonomy contexts, often found in blue‑collar work environments. Highly competitive environments are another common example.

We all want to be treated with respect and care, and most of us are inclined to pay this kind of positive behavior forward. Why, then, is psychological safety so difficult to cultivate?

Psychological safety requires deliberate culture, structure, and leadership behaviors. All leaders need to be on board with this commitment, yet even when they are, they don’t necessarily share the same perspective on what good leadership looks like.

For many leaders, leadership styles such as “transformational,” “servant,” “coaching,” and “inclusive and authentic” go against their natural way of interacting with others. These leaders rely on punishment or blame to bring about what they believe to be positive behavioral changes.

Some leaders feel the need to be perceived as omnipotent and omniscient, afraid to share their mistakes or incompetencies, and create distance between themselves and their team members in the process.

Still others struggle to let go of control and end up micromanaging team members, creating a sense of mistrust, anxiety, isolation, and resentment — in other words, an unsafe environment.

The consequences of a psychologically unsafe work environment

Surprisingly, many organizations are still unfamiliar with the concept of psychological safety. The absence of this familiarity, however, carries deep and far‑reaching consequences for both individuals and the organization as a whole.

Individuals

Mental health issues: chronic stress and anxiety, burnout, depression, and withdrawal
Confidence and learning issues: fear of failure, imposter syndrome, feelings of invisibility or powerlessness

Teams

Poor collaboration and communication
Lower trust and cohesion

Organizations

Declining performance
Higher turnover and absenteeism
Reputational damage and increased risk exposure
Stunted innovation and growth

If you recognize one or more of these challenges in your work environment, there may be a leadership problem lurking beneath the surface.

But how can you tell for sure?

Two psychological safety pulse checks

The best way to assess an organization’s psychological safety level is by observing behavior during personal interactions. These observations should be recorded by describing both positive and negative interactions, and by calculating the ratio of positive interactions to negative ones.

Luckily, two scholars have done research on this matter. The first researcher is Dr. John Gottman, whose work inspired the research of the second researcher, Dr. Marcial Losada. I should give you a heads-up before we go further: The conclusions from both studies come with some important caveats.

Because we are focusing on organizational environments, we will start with Losada’s research, as Gottman’s research was done in the context of romantic relationships — the first caveat!

The Losada Ratio

Dr. Losada was a Chilean psychologist, consultant, and former director of the Center for Advanced Research (CFAR). He developed the Losada ratio (later expanded by Barbara Fredrickson). The Losada Ratio, or critical positivity ratio, calculates the ratio of positive-to-negative interactions in teams during real-time discussions.

Losada described positive and negative interactions as follows:

Behaviours that express appreciation, interest, encouragement, or constructive energy such as:“That’s a great idea.”“Thanks for clarifying that.”“I really appreciate your input.”“We’ve handled worse, we’ll get through this.”

and

Behaviours that express disapproval, cynicism, defensiveness, or withdrawal:“What the hell were you thinking?”“Everything is going wrong.”“You’re the reason this failed.”“They always mess this up.”

He divided these interactions into three categories:

1. Positivity vs. NegativityIs the emotional tone supportive (appreciation, encouragement), or critical (disapproval, blame)?

2. Inquiry vs. AdvocacyIs the communication mode exploring (curiosity, listening) or asserting (defending, persuading)?

3. Other-Focus vs. Self-FocusIs the interpersonal orientation other-focused (empathy, inclusion), or self-focused (ego, dominance).

In Losada’s studies¹ ² ³, behavior was coded minute by minute during team meetings, with observed interactions being classified as positive, negative, or neutral. The coding relied on overall frequency counts per team, rather than detailed micro-behavior coding. The aggregate results were then calculated as a positive-to-negative interactions (P/N) ratio as follows:

P/N = Number of positive statements ÷ Number of negative statements

The ratios for the other two categories were calculated in the same manner.

Based upon the aggregated results, Losada calculated one “critical-ratio” and argued that:

· Highly thriving and engaging teams would have a ratio of 2.9:1 or higher.

· Low-performing toxic teams would have a ratio of 1:1 or smaller.

Losada also claimed that above roughly 11.6 : 1, benefits plateau or even decline. The work environment was said to become too positive to the extent that it was no longer grounded in reality.

The second caveat!

I don’t like to disappoint my readers, but there is also one major problem with the Losada studies. Scholars who tried to replicate Losada’s analyses — especially Brown, Sokal, and Friedman⁴ — concluded that the math was invalid, and the “critical ratio” was not empirically or mathematically supported.

So, is there no ratio by which we can judge positivity?

Okay, let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The idea that experiencing more positive than negative interactions creates a healthier work environment not only seems self-evident, but this idea has been substantiated by research that is empirically sound.

Remember, Losada’s research on team performance was heavily influenced by Gottman’s work on relationships. Losada cited Gottman’s “magic ratio” of positive to negative interactions, which was built on strong empirical research, as the foundation for his own model.

The Gottman Ratio

Psychologist Dr. John Gottman studied romantic relationships, particularly in connection with marriage stability, using a highly controlled observational approach⁵, and found that a higher ratio of positive to negative interactions predicted success. His early results closely matched Losada’s later model, around 5:1.

His research would later take place in what became famously known as the “Love Lab.” Couples were invited to discuss various topics while wearing physiological sensors to measure stress responses.

At the same time, their verbal and nonverbal behaviors were meticulously coded, providing rich longitudinal data on the dynamics that predict relationship success.

This approach allowed Gottman to identify patterns like the “magic ratio.” He found that couples with a 5:1 ratio during conflict were most likely to stay together. Ratios lower than 5:1, especially approaching 1:1 or worse, were strongly predictive of divorce.

Unlike the Losada ratio, the Gottman Ratio was derived from robust, longitudinal empirical data. Another difference is that the Gottman Ratio was descriptive (qualitative), rather than being derived from mathematical modeling (quantitative), as Losada’s ratio was.

But can we actually use these ratios in the workplace?

Having discussed both ratios, I have to admit that applying them in organizations is not as straightforward as I initially hoped. One ratio lacks solid scientific support, while the other is empirically grounded, but has not been extensively tested in workplace settings. What has been consistently shown, however, is that maintaining a similar positivity buffer provides tangible benefits for team dynamics and performance.

On this basis, I propose that when you want to pulse-check psychological safety between dyads (e.g., manager and employee, or two peers), the Gottman ratio can be used as an exploratory guide. For teams and organizational culture, the Losada ratio is more appropriate for conducting a preliminary psychological safety pulse check.

Psychological safety in work dyads, Gottman-style exploration

Here we can use the qualitative-oriented method of Gottman by analyzing moments of conflict or silence between pairs of people for:

Emotional tone (e.g., contempt vs. curiosity)
“Repair behaviors” and responses to mistakes
Instances of speaking up and reactions from others

Of course, not every insight from Gottman’s research on romance translates perfectly to the workplace, but many can be adapted:

Romantic interaction → Professional Equivalent

Compliment → Recognition of work, gratitude
Affection → Friendly tone, supportive gestures
Humor → Light-hearted banter or icebreakers
Criticism → Constructive feedback or harsh criticism
Contempt → Dismissiveness, sarcasm, belittling, condescension
Stonewalling → Ignoring, not responding, withholding info

It is important to focus on intent and effect rather than just words. For instance, receiving negative feedback can still feel safe, while conversely, affection can make a person feel unsafe. It is about the reasons you attach to the other’s behavior and how the other’s behavior makes you feel.

I have created a form as an example of a tally sheet on which the who, what, when, where, how, and interpretation of the end result can be described. Feel free to download and use the form via the link provided below.

Gottman-Style Dyad Pulse Check-In Form

Track interactions over a week or a project cycle. Include meetings, chats, emails, and casual conversations. Remember, leaders have more influence; a single negative interaction with a leader might carry more weight than multiple negative interactions with peers. Record the following:

Log interactions — write down positive and negative moments.
Rate intensity — not all negatives are equal; being “ignored once” isn’t the same as being publicly belittled. You can weight negative interactions as 1 (mild tension, e.g., light irritation), 2 (moderate tension, e.g., a noticeably cold reaction) and 3 (high tension, e.g. emotionally charged behavior, undermining)
Calculate approximate ratio — e.g., 10 positive: 2 negative = 5:1.

The resulting ratio may indicate the following:

5:1 or higher → Strong psychological safety (aligned with findings from John Gottman’s research on high-functioning relationships)

3–5:1 → Moderate safety

Below 3:1 → Psychological safety is likely fragile

1:1 or lower → High risk of conflict and low psychological safety

Important: Psychological safety is multidimensional — it’s not just about positive/negative ratio but also about being able to speak up, take risks and trust your leader or team. Use the Gottman ratio as a tentative indicator and just one data point, not the whole picture.

Psychological safety within your team or organization, Losada inspired exploration

Psychological safety can be gauged on a macro-level: focusing on group dynamics and communication culture. On this level, you look for patterns and frequencies by computing ratios of the following three dimensions¹ ²:

Positive: Negative
Inquiry: Advocacy
Other: Self

Over a period of several weeks, pay attention to short team meetings or organizational interactions (10–20 min). Focus not only on what is said (the content), but also on how it is said. Each “utterance” (a statement, question, comment) counts as one observation. Mark each utterance with the appropriate code (e.g., +/— , ?/!, O/S)¹ ². Tally utterances per dimension.

I have also created a form for Losada’s observational method. Again, feel free to download and use the form via the link provided below.

Losada-Inspired Team Observation Form

The resulting ratios of each of the three categories (positivity, inquiry and other-focus) may indicate the following:

P/N > 3:1 → generally supportive, safe, constructive
P/N 2:1–3:1 → Generally positive, moderately safe climate
P/N ~1:1–2:1 → Mixed signals; cautious or uneven trust
P/N ~1:1 → tension, low trust, fear (red flag)
Very high P/N → assess whether criticism is entirely absent (another red flag)

Looking at the entire picture, you can use the following guidelines¹ ²:

High positivity + high inquiry + high other-focus → likely high psychological safety; team feels heard, respected, and curious
Low positivity → risk of defensiveness or fear of speaking up
Low inquiry → discussions may be dominated by a few voices; less learning
Low other-focus → people may feel ignored or undervalued; psychological safety suffers

As with the Gottman ratio, the calculated Losada ratios are merely descriptive, not prescriptive. It is best to focus on patterns across dimensions, not individual parameters. Combine the verbal interactions with observed micro-behaviors (smiles, eye contact, gestures) for richer insight.

After repeating these exercises over an extended period of time, your sense of the organization’s level of psychological safety will begin to come into sharper focus.

Use the ratios to guide reflection and coaching, not for evaluation purposes. When you suspect a low (unhealthy) level of psychological safety, best practice is to engage an organizational development professional to conduct an assessment and support you in developing a plan to address psychological safety concerns.

What immediate steps can you take to cultivate psychological safety?

You don’t have to wait for an assessment or for professional assistance to promote psychological safety at work. There are a few behavioral adjustments that you can implement immediately.

In daily work dyads, try to maintain roughly five affirming or constructive interactions for each corrective or critical one. This builds an emotional buffer that allows people to handle negative or corrective feedback without reacting defensively.
In team meetings, aim for roughly three positive comments, acknowledgments, or supportive statements per criticism or challenge.
At the organizational culture level, promote a climate where constructive candor coexists with recognition and encouragement.

Together, these behaviors create a psychologically safe, but energetic, environment in which people feel valued enough to innovate, yet honest enough to confront problems.

CENTER FOR APPLIED
THEORY OF MIND

PERSPECTIVE TAKING, GAINING, SHIFTING & SHAPING

Are You Psychologically Safe at Work?

Let’s do a pulse check!

Psychological safety — a modern concept that makes work easier