Psychological Safety Playbook

Cultivating Team Cohesion: Strengthening Psychological Safety in the Workplace

If you have ever worked on a group project, played on a sports team, served in the military, or started a new job, you’ve probably felt comfortable speaking up in some situations but not in others.

Team cohesion is a key element of psychological safety, and psychological safety is necessary in any workplace. Team cohesion and psychological safety overlap in the following ways:

  • Mutual respect: Both benefit from team members respecting and valuing one another.
  • Strong relationships: Both contribute to an environment where team members feel connected, supported, and willing to collaborate. 
  • Team effectiveness: Both can support team performance, although through different mechanisms. Cohesion helps teams stay united, while psychological safety supports learning and honest communication. 

Although team cohesion and psychological safety are related, it is important to keep in mind that they are also distinct concepts. Both can contribute to stronger relationships, teamwork, and performance. However, a highly cohesive team is not necessarily a psychologically safe team. Team cohesion and psychological safety differ in the following ways:

  • Focus: Team cohesion is about how connected, united, and committed team members feel toward one another and their shared goals. Psychological safety is about how comfortable team members feel speaking up and taking interpersonal risks. 
  • Emphasis: Team cohesion emphasizes unity, belonging, cooperation, and shared commitment. Psychological safety emphasizes candor, openness, constructive disagreement, and learning. 
  • Potential Limitation: Team cohesion’s aim to preserve relationships and harmony among team members can discourage discussion or lead to groupthink. Psychological safety enables a climate where team members can challenge assumptions, acknowledge mistakes, and raise concerns without fearing negative consequences. 

Team cohesion is about sticking together, while psychological safety is about feeling safe enough to speak up, even when it means disagreeing. The difference isn’t how much members care about one another. The difference is whether team members feel comfortable being candid with one another, particularly when the conversation is uncomfortable. 

Over time, you have likely seen a pattern with situations where you feel more comfortable speaking up. These experiences shape how psychological safety is experienced within a team. The good news is that psychological safety can be intentionally established and strengthened.

How to Maximize the Benefits of HPRC's Cultivating Team Cohesion Guide: Strengthening Psychological Safety in the Workplace

The information in HPRC's Cultivating Team Cohesion Guide: Strengthening Psychological Safety in the Workplace is most helpful when you approach it with a growth mindset. A growth mindset means understanding that trust, communication, relationships, and team culture are things that can improve through effort, learning, and practice. It recognizes that creating an environment where people feel comfortable speaking up is an ongoing process and not a one-time event.

 

infographic

References

plus icon minus icon

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999

Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00386

Edmondson, A. C., Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, 12(2004), 239-272.

Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001