By Dr Sajed Al Abdali, MD

In today’s high-stakes business environment, an uncomfortable truth lurks in meeting rooms and Zoom calls across the globe: Brilliant ideas often die in silence. Not because they lack merit, but because people don’t feel safe enough to voice them. This phenomenon, which organizational psychologists call psychological unsafety, is costing companies far more than most leaders realize.

As a management consultant working with dozens of organizations, I’ve noticed a pattern: Companies that struggle with innovation and problem-solving often share a common issue — employees hesitate to speak their minds. It’s not due to a lack of intelligence or creativity; rather, talented individuals don’t feel secure enough to share their ideas.

Consider the research by Gallup, which found that only 3 in 10 US workers strongly agree that their opinions at work count. This disengagement alone costs companies between $450 billion and $550 billion annually in lost productivity.

The ripple effects of this silence are profound: Potentially game-changing solutions never surface, small problems snowball into major crises and innovative approaches die before they are even discussed. The cost of organizational silence isn’t just theoretical — it has real, measurable impacts on the bottom line. In psychologically safe environments, people feel comfortable taking interpersonal risks. They ask penetrating questions, admit mistakes openly, and challenge established practices without fear of repercussion. This isn’t about creating a soft environment where standards slip — it’s about fostering conditions where truth and innovation can flourish.

Google’s landmark Project Aristotle offers compelling evidence of the value of psychological safety. After studying 180 teams, the researchers found that psychological safety was the most critical factor distinguishing high-performing teams from others. Teams with high psychological safety outperformed others in terms of innovation, collaboration, and overall effectiveness.

A technology firm I recently consulted exemplifies this perfectly. Their meetings buzz with phrases like “I might be wrong, but here’s what I’m thinking” or “This might sound unconventional...” These tentative beginnings often lead to breakthrough solutions. Their secret? Leadership that treats every idea, even imperfect ones, as valuable stepping stones to better solutions.

Creating psychological safety isn’t about grand gestures or formal programs — it’s about consistent, deliberate actions that compound over time. Successful leaders focus on several key practices.

First, they model vulnerability. Research from Brené Brown highlights that vulnerability fosters trust and connection. When leaders acknowledge their own uncertainties and mistakes, it signals to others that it’s safe to do the same. One CEO I worked with transformed his organization’s culture by starting each meeting with a personal lesson learned from a recent mistake.

Second, they reframe failure. Instead of blaming individuals when things go wrong, they focus on what can be learned. According to the Harvard Business Review, organizations that adopt a “learning-oriented” approach to failure experience 23 percent fewer recurring issues and demonstrate higher employee engagement.

Third, they actively seek dissent. The most effective leaders understand that disagreement often holds the seeds of innovation. They deliberately draw out different perspectives, especially from quieter team members, and publicly appreciate those who raise concerns. While top leadership sets the tone, middle managers are the daily architects of psychological safety. Their reactions to ideas, concerns, and mistakes shape whether people feel safe to take interpersonal risks.

A study by McKinsey found that teams with psychologically safe environments were 12 times more likely to report positive work experiences than those without. However, fostering this environment requires managers to shift from command-and-control to coaching and curiosity. Departments transform when managers learn to respond with curiosity rather than judgment. Simple phrases like “Help me understand your thinking” or “What possibilities do you see here?” can open up conversations that lead to unexpected breakthroughs.

While psychological safety can seem intangible, certain indicators reveal its presence or absence: participation rates in meetings, the diversity of voices contributing to discussions, how quickly issues get reported, and the frequency of admitted mistakes. Take healthcare as an example. A study by Johns Hopkins found that improving psychological safety in hospitals could prevent up to 90 percent of medical errors, potentially saving 200,000 lives annually in the US alone. When staff feel secure enough to flag potential issues early, problems get solved before they escalate.

Some view psychological safety as a luxury they can’t afford in today’s competitive landscape. The evidence suggests the opposite — organizations can’t afford to ignore it. Research published in The Journal of Organizational Behavior found that teams with high psychological safety are 35 percent more likely to deliver high-quality outputs and 27 percent more likely to meet their performance goals.

In rapidly changing industries, psychological safety becomes even more crucial. Teams that can openly discuss challenges, experiment with new approaches, and learn from failures adapt faster than those constrained by fear. As work becomes increasingly complex and innovation more essential, psychological safety isn’t just a nice-to-have — it’s a strategic imperative. Organizations that thrive will be those where every team member feels secure enough to contribute their full potential.

Building this environment requires sustained effort and attention. But as countless examples demonstrate, the returns — in creativity, performance, and human dignity — make it one of the most valuable investments an organization can make. In a business landscape where competitive advantage increasingly flows from human ingenuity and collaboration, can any organization afford to maintain environments where people hold back their best ideas? The answer, increasingly, is no.