Blog

Psychological Safety Can Backfire

There is a quiet assumption sitting underneath much of the current conversation about workplace culture. If people feel safe to speak… then the workplace must be safe.

It’s an appealing idea, but a mirage. In practice, something else may be happening.

People are being encouraged to speak up in systems that are not designed to protect them when they do.

And that distinction matters more than we are willing to admit.

I am a fan of psychological safety, but I worry about the way it is being spoken about. It is becoming an endpoint in itself.

On one hand, we are finally naming something that has long been present but rarely acknowledged: people do not feel safe to speak.

Not safe to say they are struggling. Not safe to question decisions. Not safe to disclose disability, neurodivergence, or health needs. Not safe to ask for what they need to do their best work.

The rise of psychological safety as a concept is, in many ways, a response to that silence. Yet, there is a risk quietly building beneath it. Because if we encourage people to speak, without changing what happens when they do… we may not be creating safety.

We may be increasing exposure.

We Have Seen This Pattern Before

The veterinary profession is not new to this. We have a history of recognising systemic strain and responding at the level of the individual.

When burnout rose, we spoke about resilience. We asked people to cope better, regulate themselves and build personal capacity. We responded with resilience training and wellbeing workshops.

The system remained largely unchanged.

So the pressure did not disappear. It was redistributed. From the organisation to the individual.

These interventions were not malicious. Many were well-intentioned. But structurally, they shared a common feature: they left the underlying conditions largely intact.

Psychological safety risks becoming the next iteration of that pattern. Not identical. But structurally familiar.

Psychological Safety: What It Is - and What It Isn’t

Psychological safety, as described by Amy Edmondson, is about creating environments where people feel able to take interpersonal risks. To speak. To question. To disclose.

What we forget - is that psychological safety is not a safeguard.

It does not:

• change workload

• rebalance power

• guarantee protection

• ensure follow-through

It creates the conditions for disclosure. It does not determine the consequences of it.

The Moment After Speaking Up

Most organisations focus on the moment of speaking up. Fewer examine what happens immediately after. That moment is where risk is defined.

Because once someone has spoken, several things become true:

• Their internal experience is now external

• Their needs are now visible

• Their position within the system has shifted

And from that point forward, they are relying on the system to respond. If the system does not change, they are the only thing that has.

Scenario: The Cost of Visibility

A vet discloses that they are nearing burnout. They are met with empathy. Their manager thanks them for being open, and reinforces that the clinic values psychological safety.

Nothing else changes. The roster remains the same. The case load remains the same. The expectations remain the same.

But something has still shifted. The vet now knows:

• they have named their limits

• those limits have not altered expectations

• they are being observed through a new lens

They are no longer just coping. They are coping while known to be struggling.

That is a different psychological position. Not safer. More exposed.

Exposure Without Protection

This is the core problem. Psychological safety increases willingness to disclose. But without structural change, it does not increase protection after disclosure.

So the organisation gains:

• information

• insight

• awareness

While the individual carries:

• vulnerability

• visibility

• risk

This is not a neutral exchange. It is an uneven, potentially extractive one.

The danger is that psychological safety begins to lose credibility. Not immediately, or loudly - but gradually. It becomes something people no longer fully trust. Something they nod along to… but no longer believe in. Something they quietly scoff at. Just like resilience.

And once trust is gone, it is significantly harder to rebuild than it was to get right the first time.

The Redistribution of Risk

When systems do not change, risk does not disappear. It moves. From workload design, staffing models and leadership accountability - to the individual who spoke, who disclosed, or who asked for change.

This is the same structural pattern we saw with resilience. Only now, the mechanism is relational rather than internal.

Why This Feels Like Progress (Even When It Isn’t)

Psychological safety feels like progress because:

• conversations are happening

• leaders sound supportive

• language has shifted

Yet language without infrastructure creates a dangerous illusion. Because it suggests that the problem has been addressed - when in reality it has only been surfaced.

Surfacing without redesign increases exposure. It feels like progress, but structurally nothing has moved.

Silence Is Not the Problem

We often frame silence as the issue. People are not speaking up, being open, or asking for help. Silence is often a rational response to unmanaged risk.

If speaking up does not change conditions, increases visibility, or carries relational or career consequences - then silence is not failure. It is rational.

What Protection Actually Looks Like

If we are serious about psychological safety, we need to shift our focus. From encouraging disclosure to guaranteeing response. Protection is structural.

It looks like:

• Defined pathways for what happens after disclosure

• Documented adjustment processes that do not rely on negotiation

• Time-bound responses to concerns raised

• Work design changes triggered by repeated signals

• Leadership accountability for outcomes, not intentions

Why Culture Alone Cannot Hold Risk

Culture is often positioned as the solution, and so organisations respond by focusing on culture - communication, leadership tone, and values.

But culture cannot:

• enforce accountability

• redesign workload

• protect against bias

• guarantee follow-through

Without systems, culture becomes inconsistent, personality-dependent and fragile under pressure. When conditions tighten, it is systems, not culture, that determine outcomes.

Culture signals intent. Systems determine reality.

The Vetquity Position

At Vetquity, we do not see psychological safety as the goal. We see it as an entry point. A signal that people are willing to engage.

Engagement without structural response is extraction. The organisation gains insight, while the individual carries the cost.

Inclusion, if it is to mean anything, must be built into infrastructure, not left to culture.

The Shift the Profession Needs

We do not need less psychological safety. We need more of what comes after it.

We need systems that:

• absorb the risk of disclosure

• redistribute responsibility

• translate speaking into change

Without that psychological safety does not remove risk. It reveals it, while leaving it unchanged.

The Bottom Line

Psychological safety is not protection. Confusing the two places people in harm’s way.

Psychological safety invites people to speak. Structures determine whether it is safe when they do.

Until those two move together, we will continue to identify systemic problems - and individualise how we respond. We dress it up with better language, but end up with the same outcome.

If nothing changes, “speak up” becomes the new “cope better.”