The Benefits of a Psychologically Safe Software Team

Introduction

In one of this series’ articles, we introduced psychological safety (PS), Beyond Tools and Processes: Psy-chological Safety as a Strategy for Successful Software Development Teams. PS refers to the shared belief among team members that it is safe to take interpersonal risks in the workplace (Edmondson, 1999). In the above-mentioned article, we discussed several strategies to promote a psychologically safe work environment. Some of these strategies are either team-level, individual-level, or leadership initiatives.

• Leadership Strategies:
  • Leadership Integrity: Leaders must “walk the talk,” authentically aligning their actions with the values of psychological safety. This includes avoiding blame, admitting their own mistakes, and fostering openness.
  • Modeling Psychological Safety: In order for PS to transcend hierarchies, leaders should set examples by showing PS values in their actions and behaviors. For example, by acknowledging their own mistakes and demonstrating how to approach problems constructively, they reinforce a psychologically safe culture throughout the team.

• Team-Level Strategies:
  • Autonomy: When teams have the freedom to operate independently with minimal external interference, trust and responsibility among members flourish. This autonomy allows teams to build their internal culture, make decisions, and innovate, contributing to a psychologically safe environment.
  • Collective Decision-Making: Involving all team members in decision-making processes promotes inclusiveness and shared responsibility. When individual members feel included and valued, they feel safe to take part in open dialogues and become invested in the team’s endeavors.
  • Slack Time: Allowing teams to allocate time for tasks outside core development activities—such as improving processes or discussing issues—helps reduce pressure and encourages collaboration. Slack time is seen as an organizational investment in the team’s well-being, development, and growth, which signals commitment to the team and its members. In return, team members become invested in what they do and feel safe to engage constructively and openly with their peers.

• Individual-Level Strategies:
  • Openness: Individual openness involves sharing information, accepting different viewpoints, and providing constructive feedback. This behavior fosters PS because team members feel valued and heard.
  • No Blame Culture: Mistakes and failures are viewed as learning opportunities rather than grounds for criticism and blame. Psychologically safe teams translate errors to learning opportuni- ties, which promotes shared accountability and a constructive approach to mistakes.

Most work concerned with the outcomes of psychological safety emphasizes its benefits for team learning [3, 4] and its effects on performance at the individual and team levels. Researchers have also examined other outcomes, such as knowledge sharing.

Learning

An atmosphere of safety and support, in particular, encourages team members to accept mistakes and seek feedback [3]. Team psychological safety promotes learning behavior in work teams by removing undue anxiety about how others will respond to activities that have the potential for guilt or risk, which learning actions often do [3]. Psychological safety has also been found to help people learn from failure [1, 2].

In our recent work [1] on the topic, The role of psychological safety in promoting software quality in agile teams, we found that psychological safety promotes learning behaviors in software teams by encouraging open communication and honesty, particularly when addressing software quality issues. When team members feel safe to speak up, they can share concerns about processes and practices without fear of retaliation, fostering trust and transparency. As demonstrated by the study findings, speaking up not only reveals problems but also initiates collective problem-solving, enabling teams to address and rectify issues quickly. By normalizing open discussions and constructive feedback, psychological safety cultivates an environment where mistakes are seen as opportunities for learning, helping the team to continuously improve software quality.

Psychological safety promotes effective learning behavior within software teams. When teams operate in a non-punitive environment where mistakes are openly acknowledged and discussed, they transform these errors into valuable learning opportunities rather than sources of blame. Our findings [1] indicate that psychologically safe teams not only correct mistakes but also use them as reference points for future improvements, significantly enhancing their ability to avoid similar errors. For example, mistakes are used as examples in meetings to foster collective learning and prevent recurrence. This approach fosters a culture of continuous improvement where mistakes are viewed as teachable moments [1].

Performance

The establishment of trust between employees and their supervisors can lead to increased focus on work tasks, reduced distraction caused by uncertainty concerns, and a greater willingness to undertake risks, ultimately resulting in improved routine performance and creativity [5]. When employees perceive their organizational environment as psychologically safe, they exhibit a greater propensity to engage in prosocial behavior (i.e., the intent to benefit others) towards their colleagues and experience positive affect towards tasks, the organization, and co-workers [7]. Researchers have also reported that trust in the leader can serve as an explanatory mechanism that connects leadership-related antecedents to significant team psychological states and team performance [6]. This is achieved by instilling greater confidence in team members regarding their ability to perform at a high level and by fostering an environment that encourages the expression of divergent viewpoints [6]. Research has also demonstrated that psychological safety exerts an indirect influence on performance by promoting learning behavior [5].

Knowledge Sharing

Psychological safety has been reported to result in increased knowledge sharing among team members [9, 10]. Studies found a positive correlation between social interaction, team psychological safety, and synergistic knowledge development [8]. When team members feel safe and confident that the environment is free of blame and consequences, they are more inclined to share information. Synergistic knowledge development is observed when a group amalgamates the diverse perspectives of its individual members, thereby leveraging the collective knowledge of the group. The development of synergistic knowledge is influenced by two key factors, namely social interaction, enhanced by team psychological safety [9]. Social interaction serves to augment the level of discourse and exchange of ideas among individuals within a group, leading to the establishment of shared understanding, the promotion of constructive feedback, and the exchange of implicit knowledge that is crucial for the resolution of intricate issues [9], like in software development projects. Team members also trust each other when they feel psychologically safe, exerting a favorable influence on their inclination to persist in sharing knowledge within the group [10]. Furthermore, individuals who possess a strong sense of self-efficacy in their knowledge, experience a sense of contentment, and exhibit a propensity for knowledge sharing are more inclined to engage in knowledge sharing behaviors when they feel safe to do so [10].

In our recent study [1], mentioned above, we reported that psychological safety fosters knowledge sharing in software teams by creating an environment where individuals feel safe to ask for help and share insights without fear of judgment. In agile teams, this safety encourages team members to “lend a hand” and exchange knowledge, as seen in practices like pair programming and knowledge-sharing sessions. Team members openly share best practices, coach each other, and provide constructive feedback, improving both individual skills and overall software quality. This collaborative atmosphere transforms mistakes into learning opportunities, allowing teams to collectively grow their technical knowledge and enhance software outcomes.

Author: Adam Alami

Adam Alami is an assistant professor with Aalborg University, Denmark. He has broad experience in information technology practices. His career began in software development, before progressing to include business analysis and project management. Involvement in major IT transformation projects has for twenty years been the mainstay of his work. His chosen fields of research fit within the broad topic of cooperative, social, and human aspects of software engineering. He has a keen interest in business analysis and contemporary software development practices. He holds a PhD degree in Computer Science from the IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark, a Master degree in Computer Science from the University of Technology (UTS), Sydney, and a Bachelor degree in Software Engineering from the Université du Québec à Montréal. Email: [email protected]. Twitter: @AdamAlamiDK.

References/footnotes: 

1. A. Alami, M. Zahedi, and O. Krancher. The role of psychological safety in promoting software quality in agile teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 29(5):1–50, 2024.
2. A. Carmeli. Social capital, psychological safety and learning behaviours from failure in organisations. Long range planning, 40(1):30–44, 2007.
3. A. Edmondson. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2):350–383, 1999.
4. A. C. Edmondson, R. M. Kramer, and K. S. Cook. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, 12(2004):239–272, 2004.
5. N. Madjar and R. Ortiz-Walters. Trust in supervisors and trust in customers: Their independent, relative, and joint effects on employee performance and creativity. Human Performance, 22(2):128–142, 2009.
6. J. Schaubroeck, S. S. Lam, and A. C. Peng. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of applied psychology, 96(4):863, 2011.
7. B. Singh, D. E. Winkel, and T. Selvarajan. Managing diversity at work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(2):242–263, 2013.
8. X. Xu, W. Zhang, and R. Barkhi. It infrastructure capabilities and it project success: a development team perspective. Information Technology and Management, 11(3):123–142, 2010.
9. Y. Xu and Y. Yang. Student learning in business simulation: An empirical investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 85(4):223–228, 2010.
10. Y. Zhang, Y. Fang, K.-K. Wei, and H. Chen. Exploring the role of psychological safety in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5):425–436, 2010.