Enjoy our articles? Subscribe to our bi-weekly newsletter for exclusive insights delivered straight to your inbox.
Leadership Development Team Excellence International Sales Teams About Contact us Blog Log in

The Dangers of Psychological Safety Programs: The Hidden Dangers of a Cut-and-Paste Approach in Global Companies

cultural competence high-performing teams

By Lisa DeWaard, Ph.D. and Pia Kähärä, first published on LinkedIn 11.3.2025.

There has been a recent rise in psychological safety initiatives in global corporations. The term “psychological safety” was first coined in 1954, but interest at the organizational level really took off in 1990 with the publication of William Kahn’s paper, “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work,[1]”  and with Amy Edmundson’s later work on “Teaming,”[2] which helps leaders foster psychological safety within their teams. Interest skyrocketed when Google published The Aristotle Project Results in 2012.[3] The purpose of work in psychological safety is to recognize that, even at work, we are human beings first and employees second, and that we should not have to hide the aspects of ourselves that are distinctly human. For the purposes of this article, we will use the model developed by Timothy R. Clark, which conceptualizes psychological safety’s role in innovation on teams:

"Just like humans need water, food, and shelter to survive, teams that want to innovate need four things in order to thrive: they need to feel included and safe to learn, contribute, and challenge the status quo. Teams progress through these four stages as they intentionally create cultures of rewarded vulnerability [emphasis added]."[4]

The four things listed function as successive stages of increasing safety that are designed to allow everyone to work in an environment that encourages them to be their true self, to be free to say they don’t know how to do something and given the opportunity to learn about it, to contribute, and to challenge the status quo and the authorities above them. It is a model whose objective is to create environments in which people can thrive in all ways. This is an admirable and practical goal and, after the workaholic expectations of the US corporate workplace in the 1970s and 1980s, a breath of fresh air.

So far, so good.

As anyone who has worked for a global company or on a global team knows, people from distinct cultures bring differing expectations, processes, and behaviors to the workplace. These are often in conflict, making cross-cultural work at best complex and at worst disastrous as evidenced by the following:

  • Failed M&As due to cultural differences are costly. For example, the Daimler-Chrysler merger led to a write-down of $27.6 billion over just 9 years.[5]
  • Walmart recorded losses of $1B when they tried to enter the German market, not realizing that Germans tend to prefer quality and service over discounted prices.[6]
  • High employee turnover / low morale can significantly increase recruitment and training costs. Gallup estimates that a 10,000 member company can save $16M a year by reducing employee turnover.[7]

These differences in expectations come somewhat from the unique personalities of all individuals, but in large part from the cultural values we’re socialized into. For example, the four stages in Timothy R. Clark’s model reflect prized values in the US and the UK:

1.     Asserting individuality

2.     Not feeling pressured to know everything and feeling free to learn more

3.     Contributing one’s own perspective and ideas

4.     Having the right to challenge any system or authority and suggest a solution.

Let’s look at two of these cultural dimensions: Power Distance (or hierarchy versus egalitarianism) and Individualism (independent individuals versus interdependent groups). In the map below[8], we see that hierarchical cultures (large power distance) make up roughly 85% of the world’s population and egalitarian cultures (small power distance) roughly 15%. The vast majority of the world, then, holds the view that top-down systems with clear hierarchies are the best and most logical way to structure a society.

 

When we look at Individualism, we see a similar distribution. Individualist cultures (high scores) make up roughly 20% and collectivist cultures (low scores), roughly 80%.

 

 

If you think you’ve spotted a correlation between these dimensions, you’re correct: egalitarian cultures tend to be individualist and hierarchical cultures tend to be collectivist.[9] Using these scores and the deep expertise of many specialists in the field, we are correct that Clark’s Four Stages of Psychological Safety are appropriate in the cultures here that are egalitarian/individualist. We are also correct in suggesting that they go against what is psychologically safe for individuals in hierarchical/collectivist cultures.

Why is this?

Hierarchical cultures are based on top-down chains-of-command and selective sharing of information. To keep your status in a hierarchy, it’s essential to view knowledge as power and to share it only when absolutely necessary. Transparency, then, is not a value. Employer-employee expectations also differ greatly: the role of the boss is to assign work, give clear instructions on exactly what procedures should be used and how, to set due dates, and to check in on the progress of projects quite often. Employers have a very high-touch role. A boss that asks for feedback on a task or suggestions on how to complete it risks appearing incompetent to subordinates, since their task is only to execute work exactly as instructed.

To US ears, this is micromanagement and signals to the employee that the boss doesn’t trust them to be competent or reliable to complete their work well and on time. If you’re from an egalitarian/individualist culture, please understand that if that sounds strange—or even awful—to you, our approach in which the boss asks for ideas, assigns tasks, and then disappears until the due date sounds just as strange—or even awful—to those raised in hierarchical/collectivist cultures.

If we consider egalitarian/individualist cultures, the boss is viewed as “just another one of us” and not inherently superior in any way. Each subordinate’s ideas are to be taken as seriously as those of the boss. Subordinates expect to be able to interrupt their boss, disagree, and challenge them in front of others, and this is not considered disrespectful. To those from a hierarchical/collectivist system, this can be career suicide. It is also interpersonally damaging because, for those in collectivist cultures, work and life aren’t separate, so personal loyalty to your boss and work team and sharing of personal news within that team are expected.

Let’s connect the dots. We will use the US as our example of an egalitarian/individualist society and Mexico as our example of a hierarchical/collectivist society. Look at the chart of what is psychologically safe where to get a better idea:

 

While the two behaviors marked with a red ❌ in the US column could be described as awkward rather than unsafe, the behaviors marked as unsafe in the Mexico column will all cause interpersonal stress at best and job problems (even up to being fired) at worst.

We include the comment about sharing about one’s sexuality deliberately for a very important reason. Different cultures have very distinct ideas about which types of diversity are permissible. When it comes to sexuality, speaking openly about being gay or showing the rainbow flag can lead to fines or incarceration in Russia, where homosexuality was outlawed over a decade ago, the LGBT Movement was banned in November 2023 and designated an extremist group.[10] So sharing your true, authentic self can be more than just psychologically unsafe, it is unsafe in many ways. We recommend extreme caution with the topic of sexuality in general in cross-cultural environments.

In the workplace, making a suggestion on how to proceed with something publicly without running it by the boss first can cause both you and the boss to lose face. For example, if you find out later that what you suggested conflicts with the boss’s preference (after all, it’s not your job to come up with ideas, it’s your job to execute them), you can get in trouble. And 360 evaluations in hierarchical/collectivist cultures can be so intimidating that it can be difficult for subordinates to speak honestly about anything negative, so they tend to write superlative reviews (even of terrible bosses) to stay out of trouble.

What is psychologically safe then?

In hierarchical/collectivist cultures, the people at the top of the hierarchy are supposed to protect those at the bottom and those at the bottom support those at the top by being loyal. Being part of a collective in-group (such as a group of extended family or friends) provides enormous protection in all aspects of life. Inclusion is automatic within your in-groups as long as you take care not to let any “dangerous” personal beliefs or actions harm its reputation. In this way, the in-group has plausible deniability and staunchly protects its members. In-groups also prioritize the interests and reputation of the group over the interests of the individual. Quite often, in-group members know or suspect things about each other regarding sexuality, infidelity, negligence, diversive political opinions, etc, but they don’t turn one another in because they want to preserve the security and harmony of the group.

So, if you are a leader of a team with members from all over the world, remember that speaking up, sharing personal information, saying no to your boss, and other such actions are not necessarily safe things where they live. Efforts to encourage people to share things about themselves that they don’t want to can create situations in which anxiety and stress are created, not relieved. And in certain cultures, even physical violence can be used against those who are suspected of countercultural actions.

How to embrace the spirit of psychological safety programs in other cultures:

Remember that psychological safety isn’t universal. What fosters trust and openness in one culture may create discomfort or even risk in another. The spirit of psychological safety—helping employees feel included, able to learn, contribute, and challenge the status quo—can and should be embraced globally. The key is to adapt the approach at all levels to align with cultural values rather than work against them.

 

Tips (Do’s and Don’ts) for Adapting Psychological Safety Across Hierarchical and Collectivist Cultures

Inclusion Safety Looks Different in Hierarchical and Collectivist Cultures

✅ Do: Recognize that belonging often comes from group harmony, not individual expression—avoid asking for personal opinions on divisive topics. 

✅ Do: Respect hierarchy—Recognize that employees may wait for a direct invitation before contributing. 

❌ Don’t: Assume that psychological safety always means public self-expression—privacy can be a form of safety. 

❌ Don’t: Expect employees to speak up spontaneously—encourage structured opportunities for input.

 

Learner Safety Requires a Safe Way to Acknowledge Gaps

✅ Do: Provide structure and preparation—share agendas and expectations in advance so employees feel more comfortable participating. 

✅ Do: Encourage vulnerability by modeling it: share about a time you learned something new and how helpful it was to a project’s success 

❌ Don’t: Expect employees to admit knowledge gaps publicly—it may harm their credibility. 

❌ Don’t: Accuse someone publicly of being wrong or not knowing something. If there is a serious concern, always address it privately.

 

Contributor Safety Must Align with Group and Hierarchical Norms

✅ Do: Encourage team-based contributions where employees can present ideas as a group rather than individually. 

✅ Do: Provide clear role-based expectations for contributions, as hierarchy influences how people engage. 

❌ Don’t: Assume that speaking up individually is the best way to contribute—some cultures prioritize collective decision-making. 

❌ Don’t: Overlook the importance of hierarchy in decision-making—ensure contributions align with the expected chain of command.

 

Challenger Safety Can Feel Risky in Hierarchical and Collectivist Cultures

✅ Do: Provide safe avenues for dissent, such as anonymous feedback, structured discussions, or designated intermediaries. 

✅ Do: Give explicit permission for challenging the leader and use structured dissent methods—such as Devil’s Advocate roles to allow for non-threatening challenges. 

❌ Don’t: Assume silence means agreement—create safe, indirect ways for employees to share their thoughts. 

❌ Don’t: Expect immediate, direct responses in meetings—allow time for collective processing before expecting input.

 

The Bottom Line for Global Leaders

Psychological safety is only truly safe when it aligns with cultural norms. Rather than applying a cut-and-paste approach, you need to build cultural competence—deepen your knowledge, adapt your approach, and actively listen and learn.

Local experts and intercultural consultants are available to help you create an environment where employees feel safe to engage in ways that reflect their values. That’s how you embrace the true spirit of psychological safety—by making it meaningful in every culture.

Reach out to Pia Kähärä at [email protected] or Lisa DeWaard, Ph.D. at [email protected] to schedule a 30-minute no-cost conversation. Subscribe to our email lists to learn more about how to customize your alignment.

[1] https://psychsafety.com/the-history-of-psychological-safety/

[2] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Teaming/wlnsR9i9b5cC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

[3] https://globalcoachgroup.com/googles-project-aristotle/

[4] https://www.leaderfactor.com/learn/psychological-safety-timothy-clark

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/14/motoring.lifeandhealth

[6] https://psico-smart.com/en/blogs/blog-how-does-cultural-understanding-impact-the-success-of-global-expansion-strategies-87997

[7] https://www.gallup.com/workplace/247391/fixable-problem-costs-businesses-trillion.aspx

[8] https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-hofstede/6d-model-of-national-culture/

[9] It must be noted that there is no “better” or “worse” score on any dimension; we simply end up with different looking cultures. Each individual, though, tends to have a strong preference for a particular point on the scale. The greater the difference in the scores on a particular dimension for two countries, the greater the impact of the cultural differences in practice.

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/russia-hands-out-first-convictions-in-connection-with-anti-lgbt-law

 
 
Close

50% Complete

Two Step

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.