Introduction
Imagine a multinational company where employees from different cultural backgrounds collaborate daily. A Western manager, trained in the principles of psychological safety, encourages employees to speak up, challenge ideas, and take risks. Yet, despite these efforts, the team remains reserved, hesitant to share concerns or new ideas. What went wrong?
Irina Prosviriakova, a recognized expert in Psychological Safety, a PhD Candidate, and the founder and CEO of the International Training and Consulting Company, provides valuable insights into how psychological safety is experienced and built in different cultures.
Psychological safety, defined as the belief that one can take interpersonal risks without fear of punishment or humiliation, has become a cornerstone of high-performing teams (Edmondson, 1999).Organisations that foster it have been shown to experience increased innovation, better collaboration and stronger employee engagement (Frazier et al., 2017). However, the majority of research and leadership practices concerning psychological safety are firmly rooted in Western cultural norms, where direct communication, speaking up, and challenging authority are encouraged. In collectivist and high power-distance cultures, such behaviours may not be the primary indicators of a psychologically safe workplace.
Recent studies suggest that psychological safety in relationship-driven cultures may differ. In many parts of Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, safety is not just about the absence of fear but about the presence of strong human connections (Gelfand et al., 2017; House et al., 2004). Employees feel safe when they experience trust, personal relationships and emotional acceptance. Our research, conducted across companies in Dubai, Serbia, and Russia, aligns with Edmondson’s seven dimensions of psychological safety, but we also highlights an additional, critical element: human connection.
The Traditional View of Psychological Safety
The concept of psychological safety was first introduced by Schein and Bennis (1965) as a crucial factor in organisational learning, but it was Amy Edmondson (1999) who provided the most widely accepted definition:
“A shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.”
This concept enables individuals to voice their thoughts, share ideas, acknowledge mistakes, and challenge authority without the fear of embarrassment, rejection, or punishment. Over the past two decades, Edmondson’s framework has garnered significant recognition, particularly in Western corporate cultures, where direct communication and constructive debate are highly valued. Research has consistently shown that teams with high psychological safety experience greater innovation, stronger collaboration, and higher engagement (Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017).
Western Focus: Voice Behaviour as a Core Element
One of the central assumptions in traditional psychological safety research is that “voice behaviours” — the willingness to express ideas, concerns, and dissent — is a key indicator of a psychologically safe workplace (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). In Western business environments, employees are encouraged to speak up, take initiative, and engage in open discussions. Many leadership development programs place a strong emphasis on fostering a “speak-up culture,” where employees are encouraged to challenge the status quo and provide feedback to leaders that is both honest and direct. For example, Google’s Project Aristotle, a seminal study on team effectiveness, identified psychological safety as the most critical factor in high-performing teams (Duhigg, 2016).Their findings underscored the notion that employees should feel comfortable doing the following: asking questions, admitting mistakes, and voicing concerns without fear of negative repercussions. It is encouraging to note that this model has since been adopted in leadership training programmes across North America and Europe.
Cultural Limitations: When “Speaking Up” is Not the Norm
While the traditional model of psychological safety has been highly effective in low power-distance, individualistic cultures, its applicability in collectivist, high power-distance societies is less straightforward. Research in Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe suggests that psychological safety in these contexts is not necessarily about speaking up but rather about trust, interpersonal relationships, and emotional support (Gelfand et al., 2017; House et al., 2004).
In cultures where harmony and respect for hierarchy are deeply ingrained, employees may avoid open disagreement, not because they feel unsafe, but because it is considered culturally inappropriate (Hofstede, 2001).In China, for instance, direct confrontation is often avoided to preserve “face” and maintain social cohesion (Zhang et al., 2020). Similarly, in Japanese corporate culture, employees may not openly challenge authority figures, but they engage in “nemawashi”, an informal consensus-building process that ensures decisions are made collectively in a psychologically safe manner (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Psychological Safety in a High Power-Distance Culture
Consider a multinational company operating in Dubai, where employees come from diverse cultural backgrounds. A Western manager applies traditional psychological safety principles, encouraging employees to openly discuss mistakes and challenge leadership decisions. However, employees from Indian, Chinese, and Middle Eastern backgrounds remain reluctant to speak up, even in a “safe” environment. They seek psychological safety through trust-based relationships, private discussions, and leader approachability rather than public voice behaviour.
This highlights a fundamental gap in the traditional psychological safety framework: speaking up is not the only indicator of a safe workplace. In relationship-driven cultures, employees may feel deeply psychologically safe without ever openly challenging authority.
While Edmondson’s definition remains a gold standard, it does not fully capture how psychological safety manifests in different cultural contexts. In collectivist, high power-distance cultures, psychological safety is more about strong interpersonal bonds, leader accessibility, and emotional trust than direct voice behaviour.
This observation highlights the importance of adapting traditional models of psychological safety to reflect the diverse cultural realities that exist today. In the next section, we will explore how human connection plays a crucial role in psychological safety in cultures that prioritize relationships.
Why Psychological Safety is Different in Relationship-Oriented Cultures
While traditional models of psychological safety emphasise voice behaviour, research suggests that in relationship-oriented cultures, safety manifests differently. Instead of prioritizing open expression and challenging authority, employees in these contexts seek security through trust, emotional connection, and interpersonal relationships (Gelfand et al., 2017; Triandis, 1995).
To understand these differences, we apply Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions, which help explain how power dynamics, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance shape psychological safety in non-Western settings.
Cultural Dimensions and Psychological Safety
High Power Distance: Deference to Authority
In cultures with high power distance, such as the Middle East, Latin America, and many parts of Asia, hierarchical structures are deeply ingrained. Employees tend to respect authority and may avoid directly challenging their superiors, even in environments where leaders claim to welcome open feedback. In example, in Japan, employees often refrain from openly disagreeing with their managers in meetings. Instead, they express concerns through indirect communication channels or private discussions, ensuring that authority remains respected while still contributing to decision-making (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Psychological safety in these cultures does not mean public disagreement or open dissent. Instead, it involves knowing that feedback will be welcomed through culturally appropriate channels, such as private conversations or structured group discussions.
Collectivism: Prioritizing Relationships Over Individual Expression
In collectivist cultures, such as those found in China, India, and the Middle East, group harmony takes precedence over individual expression. Employees in these cultures often prioritise relationships, loyalty, and social cohesion over personal opinions or confrontation. A study of Chinese companies (Li et al., 2020) found that employees rely on their relationships with managers and peers to gauge whether they can share ideas, rather than evaluating organisational policies alone. The study also found that employees are more likely to feel psychologically safe if their leader fosters trust and personal connection. Psychological safety in collectivist settings depends on strong interpersonal bonds rather than formal policies promoting openness. To create a safe team environment, leaders must actively invest in relationships, engage in informal conversations, and show care for employees’ well-being.
Uncertainty Avoidance: Risk-Aversion in Decision-Making
In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, such as Russia, South Korea, and Germany, employees tend to prefer clear rules, stability, and predictability. Taking interpersonal risks—such as speaking up with an unconventional idea—may be perceived as too risky if the potential consequences are unclear. Research by House et al. (2004) found that in high uncertainty-avoidance cultures, employees are more hesitant to admit mistakes because failure carries social and professional stigma. Psychological safety, therefore, must be reinforced by leaders who explicitly normalize learning from failure and create structured processes for feedback and idea-sharing. Psychological safety in these cultures requires clarity in expectations, explicit encouragement from leaders, and structured feedback mechanisms to ensure employees feel secure in taking risks.
A Relationship-Based Model of Psychological Safety
The Western model of psychological safety assumes that employees feel safe when they can express themselves freely and challenge authority without fear. However, in relationship-oriented cultures, psychological safety is more about trust, strong personal connections, and leader approachability. For organisations operating in diverse cultural settings, fostering psychological safety requires adapting leadership strategies to fit the cultural norms of their employees. Rather than solely promoting voice behaviour, managers must build interpersonal trust through authentic and caring relationships, recognise and respect hierarchical structures while creating safe spaces for feedback and provide clear and structured mechanisms to help employees manage uncertainty and feel secure in taking risks.
As we move toward more globally inclusive workplaces, it is critical to understand how psychological safety is culturally shaped to create environments where all employees—regardless of their cultural background—can thrive.
The Missing Dimension: Human Connection in Psychological Safety
Our research in Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe shows that psychological safety in relationship-oriented cultures extends far beyond the freedom to speak up. While traditional models of psychological safety focus primarily on voice behaviour — the ability to express ideas and take interpersonal risks without fear of retribution — our research demonstrates that psychological safety is also about relationship-oriented cultures. Employees in these contexts describe psychological safety not just as an absence of fear, but as the presence of human connection, a deep sense of being valued, seen, and emotionally secure in their teams. This perspective aligns with high-context cultural norms (Hall, 1976), where communication relies on interpersonal relationships, emotional expression, and trust-based interactions rather than direct verbal exchanges. This stands in contrast to Western workplaces, where psychological safety is often fostered through policies and structures encouraging open dialogue. In collectivist and high power-distance cultures, safety emerges through social bonds and relational security (House et al., 2004; Gelfand et al., 2017).Our findings indicate that in non-Western cultural contexts, psychological safety is not just about the ability to challenge ideas or speak up in meetings. Rather, employees emphasise the importance of feeling genuinely valued beyond their job roles, building trust through personal relationships with leaders and having the freedom to express emotions without judgment. This suggests that existing models of psychological safety may be incomplete when applied to diverse cultural settings. Our research identifies three core aspects of human connection that shape psychological safety in these environments.
Redefining Psychological Safety for a Global Workforce
As organisations become increasingly diverse, psychological safety must be redefined beyond Western-centric frameworks. In many cultural contexts, employees do not equate safety with speaking up alone — instead, they experience safety when they feel emotionally connected, valued, and supported by their colleagues and leaders.
For managers aiming to build truly inclusive workplaces, this means prioritising relational trust over procedural mechanisms, investing in personal connections with employees and recognising and respecting cultural differences in communication and emotional expression
By acknowledging the role of human connection in psychological safety, organisations can create work environments where employees thrive — not just because they can speak up, but because they feel deeply valued, seen, and supported.
