In today’s workplaces, the language of “safety” is everywhere. Leaders, HR professionals, and team members regularly refer to psychosocial safety, psychological safety, and team psychological safety—often interchangeably. But although these concepts sound similar, they refer to different levels of human experience at work and serve very different organisational purposes.
The concept of psychological safety has a long history in organisational research. It was first introduced in the 1960s by Edgar H. Schein and Warren G. Bennis[1], who used the term to describe a group climate that enables people to learn, experiment, and give honest feedback without fear of embarrassment or reprisal. Decades later, William Kahn (1990)[2] revived and refined the idea, framing psychological safety as a key psychological condition required for employees to fully engage at work. Amy Edmondson (1999)[3] further advanced the construct by defining team psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, laying the foundation for the modern research and organisational practices we see today. Together, these contributions reflect the evolution of psychological safety from a group-learning concept to a central pillar of engagement, collaboration, and high-functioning teams.
This document aims to bring clarity by briefly comparing three key constructs: Kahn’s original notion of psychological safety, Edmondson’s widely used team psychological safety, and the broader organisational concept of psychosocial safety found in standards such as ISO 45003. By understanding what each one means—and what it does not mean—we can better support engagement, collaboration, wellbeing, and mentally healthy workplaces.
Psychological Safety (Kahn’s Concept)
In Kahn’s original 1990 model, psychological safety is one of the three psychological conditions required for engagement (the other two are meaningfulness and availability). Kahn defines psychological safety as: “Feeling able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career.” Kahn’s safety is often called psychological safety, but some literature also refers to it as psychosocial safety because it emerges from social/relational factors in the workplace.
Team Psychological Safety (Edmondson’s Concept)
Edmondson expanded Kahn’s interpersonal concept into a team-level climate construct. In this regard team psychological safety is a shared belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes, and that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.
Psychosocial Safety (Workplace Health / Organisational Context)
This refers to the policies, practices, and organisational climate that protect employees’ mental health and mitigate psychosocial hazards[4] (stress, trauma, bullying, workload imbalance, poor leadership[5]). Dollard and Bakker[6] states that psychosocial safety refers to the organisational climate that prioritises workers’ psychological health and safety, reflected in policies, practices, and procedures for protecting mental wellbeing.
To make sense of how these three concepts differ in practice, the table below summarises their key features, core areas of focus, and the outcomes each one is designed to support.
| Approach | Key features | Focus | Outcome |
| Psychological safety as defined by Kahn | Interpersonal: Rooted in relationships with supervisors and colleagues. Intrapersonal experience: It is about a person’s internal sense of safety. | Showing up authentically Being oneself without fear | Enables engagement (bringing one’s full self to the role). |
| Do I feel safe enough to be myself at work? | |||
| Team Psychological Safety (Edmondson’s Concept) | Shared team-level belief (not just individual experience). Learning-oriented: Enables speaking up, voicing concerns, and experimenting. | Focused on behaviour in teams, not entire organisational systems. Interpersonal risks: Asking questions Admitting mistakes Offering new ideas | Improves team learning, innovation, and error reporting. |
| Do we as a team feel safe to speak up and take risks? | |||
| Psychosocial Safety (Workplace Health / Organisational Context) | Organisational-level construct | Identifying and managing psychosocial risks and hazards such as workload, role clarity, job demands, bullying, and support. Includes formal structures such as: Risk assessments Policies and reporting structures Mental health support systems OHS management systems (ISO 45003) | Reduces stress, burnout, harm, and psychological injury. |
| Does the organisation create a healthy environment that prevents psychological harm? | |||
Understanding the distinctions between Kahn’s psychological safety, Edmondson’s team psychological safety, and organisational psychosocial safety helps us see that “safety” at work is not a single idea, but a layered system of experiences and structures. Each construct plays a different role: individuals need psychological safety to bring their full selves to their work, teams need psychological safety to collaborate and learn, and organisations need psychosocial safety systems to protect wellbeing and prevent harm. When these three levels reinforce one another, workplaces become more human-centred, more resilient, and more capable of innovation. By using the right concept in the right context, leaders and HR practitioners can design environments where people not only feel safe—but are also empowered to speak up, grow, and thrive.
[1] Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach. New York: Wiley.
[2] Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
[3] Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
[4] WHO (World Health Organization) — Guidelines on Mental Health at Work (2022).
[5] ISO 45003:2021 Occupational Health and Safety — Psychological Health and Safety at Work
[6] Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 579–599.