Google initiated Project Aristotle in 2012 to investigate why some teams perform better than others within the company. The research focused on understanding team dynamics over individual contributions. Charles Duhigg highlighted in a 2016 article for the New York Times Magazine the findings from this project, with psychological safety emerging as the most significant one. Psychological safety refers to an environment where team members feel comfortable taking risks and being vulnerable with each other. The project revealed that psychological safety is not a trait but rather a characteristic of the work environment that leaders can actively foster. This kind of atmosphere encourages communication and free exchange of ideas without fear of judgment or negative consequences.

In our earlier blog post about the importance of psychological safety, we discussed how the fear of interpersonal risk and discounting future outcomes could lead to hesitancy in speaking up at work. We explored how this hesitation, driven by fear of repercussions, could have consequences in life-or-death situations. Tragic incidents, such as airplane accidents and organizational failures, have occurred due to individuals being influenced by their work environment and feeling too afraid to express their concerns.

In this article, we will explore the impact of fear on psychological safety within the workplace.

Throughout history, fear has been commonly used as a means of motivation in labor jobs. During the stages of industrialization, for instance, assembly line workers in factories were often driven by tactics that instilled fear. Managers would use the threat of job loss or other unfavorable consequences to push workers into maintaining speed during repetitive tasks. A perfect depiction of this approach can be seen in the assembly line scene featuring Charlie Chaplin in "Modern Times".

Unfortunately, many managers still believe in the power of fear as a motivational tool. They operate under the assumption that fear will compel workers to avoid negative outcomes, ultimately resulting in increased productivity and success. While this perspective may seem logical for straightforward tasks and unlikely to encounter problems or require solutions (e.g., textile sweatshops and call centers), relying on fear as motivation carries significant drawbacks.

However, using fear as a motivator is fraught with significant downsides. It often comes at the expense of worker well-being and morale, fostering a work environment marked by high stress and low job satisfaction. Moreover, this approach is only sustainable in the short run as it fails to promote loyalty, innovation, and employee engagement.

According to Harvard Professor Amy Edmondson, people tend to play it safe in a culture of fear rather than take risks or try things. They become reluctant to share their insights and ideas, sticking to approaches instead of proposing innovative alternatives.

So, how can we determine if fear creates an environment lacking psychological safety?

To assess the impact of fear on safety within an organization, it is crucial to understand that psychological safety is subjective. The perception of individuals plays a role in defining whether they feel safe or not. In other words, if individuals perceive themselves as unsafe, then practically speaking, they are indeed unsafe regardless of any arguments suggesting otherwise.

Some signs or red flags that may indicate the presence of fear within an organization are as follows:

- High turnover rate among employees
- A tendency to avoid giving or receiving feedback
- Increased conflict or tension among team members
- Decreased levels of engagement and productivity
- Reluctance to voice opinions or concerns
- Lack of innovation and creativity
- High levels of stress experienced by individuals

Why is conducting a "fear assessment” within your organization necessary?
‍

Feelings of fear, anxiety, and discomfort can significantly impact the well-being and effectiveness of individuals in the workplace. When people feel unable to express themselves without fear of consequences, they hesitate to speak up. This hesitancy can hinder progress in creating a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive work environment.

Fear proves to be a counterproductive motivator in roles where success relies on learning, creativity, or collaboration. Research in neuroscience has shown that fear triggers the amygdala, a part of the brain specialized in detecting threats. Physical reactions associated with fear, such as a racing heart, sweaty palms, or freezing up during stressful situations, like presentations or team meetings, directly result from an amygdala activation. Furthermore, fear not only manifests through these physiological responses but also significantly impairs learning processes. Various studies have indicated that when individuals experience fear, it will divert neurological resources away from learning functions. This can help explain why people often struggle to perform at their best when in a state of fear. It hampers their ability to think creatively, effectively solve problems, and absorb information – all of which are vital for success in environments that rely on these capabilities. You can find more about the neuroscience behind fear in our blog post titled "A Brain Massage".

Additionally, psychological safety plays a role in an individual’s willingness to engage in team learning-oriented behaviors like sharing information and seeking help from others or embracing approaches. Last but not least, it also impacts employee satisfaction levels.

"The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate." – Gruenter and Whitaker.

To illustrate this point further, let’s consider the case of a medical device manufacturing company that encountered challenges within its R&D department. Historically known for fostering a collaborative culture, the company began experiencing a shift towards an environment characterized by insecurity driven by fear. The synergistic and collaborative R&D teams started functioning within isolated silos. Similar products were developed by different teams at the same time, causing the company tens of millions in R&D losses. A pervasive culture of fear had taken hold among the teams due to concerns that if another team succeeded in developing a product, their own team might face consequences such as downsizing or even termination. This fear was rooted in a recent organizational restructuring and a series of layoffs that were perceived as a direct result of departmental underperformance. The company's management failed to recognize how important it is to create a sense of safety and trust in the workplace. Although the layoffs and restructuring were necessary for business reasons, they were not handled in a way that made employees feel secure. The lack of communication about where the company was heading and what criteria determined team success contributed to a culture driven by fear.

Many managers operate under the assumption that with the fear of negative consequences, people will push themselves more. However, this approach fails to acknowledge that although fear-driven motivation may give the impression of accomplishing objectives, it lacks effectiveness in fostering creativity, efficiency in processes, and the genuine passion required for complex goals in knowledge-oriented fields. Although it may be effective in the short run, fear fails to promote the innovative and committed work essential for success and growth in the long run.