Most organisations run many meetings. The real question is how many of those meetings feel safe for people to say what they really see.

Psychological safety describes that shared sense of safety. In a widely cited 1999 study in Administrative Science Quarterly, Harvard Business School Professor Amy Edmondson defined team psychological safety as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Her study of 51 work teams found that higher psychological safety linked with more learning behaviour and better performance.

A 2024 CIPD evidence review on trust and psychological safety reaches a similar conclusion. Teams with stronger trust and psychological safety report better wellbeing, stronger learning, and more innovation. The review highlights leadership behaviour and local team norms as key drivers.

Meetings are one of the clearest places where these norms appear.

Signs that meetings feel unsafe

You may recognise patterns such as:

• The same few people speak in every discussion

• People agree quickly, then raise concerns afterwards

• Questions are carefully worded to avoid sounding critical

• Difficult topics move on without real examination

These are all signs of a Hidden Operating System that encourages caution.

Setting a behavioural frame

Agendas describe what you will talk about. Behavioural frames describe how you intend to work together.

At the start of a meeting, you might say:

• “We are here to understand the real risks in this project. I welcome questions and doubts.”

• “If something is unclear, please ask. If you are uncertain, others probably are as well.”

Harvard Business School teaching on psychological safety suggests that leaders who explicitly frame work as learning, and invite input, create conditions where people contribute more openly.

The words matter less than the consistency. People test whether you mean what you say.

Modelling curiosity

Curiosity from leaders reduces fear.

Instead of moving straight to judgement, you can:

• Ask what information you may be missing

• Invite one or two people closest to the work to describe what they are seeing

• When someone challenges a view, explore it before responding

CIPD’s 2024 review notes that leaders who respond constructively to questions and challenge strengthen psychological safety and trust over time.

Curiosity does not remove accountability. It simply improves the quality of the information you base decisions on.

Sharing selective uncertainty

Leaders do not need to present complete certainty at all times. Careful acknowledgement of uncertainty can increase credibility.

In her 2018 book The Fearless Organization, Edmondson describes how leaders who admit they do not have all the answers and who ask for input help teams speak up, notice risks earlier, and adapt more quickly.

Examples in meetings:

• “I can see several possible routes here, and I would like your view on the trade offs.”

• “There are risks in each option, so let us list them clearly before we choose.”

This signals that honest information is more valuable than quick agreement.

Making space for quieter voices

Silence often reflects calculation rather than comfort.

You can widen participation by:

• Asking directly for views from people who have not spoken

• Using short written reflections before a sensitive discussion

• Occasionally beginning with those closest to the frontline, rather than senior voices

Research summaries on voice and speaking up from CIPD highlight that power dynamics often suppress contribution. Deliberate invitation helps to balance this.

Protecting those who raise hard issues

Every team watches how leaders respond when someone names a difficult risk.

Helpful responses include:

• Thanking the person for raising the point

• Clarifying the issue before discussing solutions

• Avoiding jokes or side comments that undercut the seriousness

Harvard Business Impact Insights describes productive responses to feedback as one of the core leadership behaviours that support psychological safety.

Over time, people learn whether speaking up leads to progress or discomfort. That learning shapes future behaviour.

Closing meetings in a learning posture

The final minutes of a meeting are an opportunity to improve the next one.

Simple questions:

• “What helped this conversation work well”

• “What should we adjust next time so people can contribute more easily”

Short reflections like this support a culture where you pay attention to how you work together, as well as what you deliver.

OPDEV uses the ONN audit to see how communication, trust, and influence actually move through your organisation. HPI and leadership workshops then work directly with real meeting patterns, practising behaviours that make honest contribution easier. When meetings feel safer to speak in, teams surface issues earlier, make clearer decisions, and carry less unspoken strain.