A Practical, Human Way To Measure Psychological Safety
If you’ve ever left a meeting thinking, “People had thoughts, but nobody said them,” you already understand why psychological safety matters. It’s not a buzzword. It’s the difference between hearing problems early or hearing about them after they become expensive.
If psychological safety shapes what gets raised (and what stays quiet), the next step is figuring out how to spot it sooner. So how do you measure psychological safety?
Many organizations start by searching for a survey, and they’re not wrong to do that. If you’ve researched this question before, you’ve probably seen the same recommendations repeatedly. Many articles point to Amy Edmondson’s survey items as a common starting place, and broader evidence reviews (including CIPD’s) reinforce themes like anonymity, acting on results, and pairing surveys with follow-up listening. Practical guides echo these points as well, emphasizing anonymity, visible action on feedback, and blending survey data with conversation-based follow-up.
But the better approach is to treat measurement as a complete picture. You need a baseline, a pattern, and a way to learn what’s behind the numbers.
This blog builds on what’s already out there but takes it one step further, recommending a quantitative baseline, qualitative “why” data, and a leader gut check that turns measurement into action.
The Simplest Framework That Actually Works: Quantitative Plus Qualitative
Psychological safety is measurable, but not with a single number. The most useful approach is to combine two sources of truth.
Quantitative measurement tells you where psychological safety at work is strong or weak across teams, functions, and levels. Qualitative measurement tells you why it is happening, what it feels like on the ground, and what needs to change Monday morning.
This is not about perfection. It is about patterns.
If you track the same core questions consistently, you can see whether your culture is trending toward openness or toward silence.
Quantitative Measurement: Use A Short, Consistent Pulse Survey You Can Repeat
A short pulse survey is often the most practical starting point for mid-sized and enterprise employers. It can be anonymous, quick, and allow you to compare results over time.
Our recommendation: do not treat the survey as an annual event. Instead, look at it as a quarterly or semiannual opportunity to measure psychological safety, with follow-up actions that are visible to the people who took it.
Also, be thoughtful about how you segment results. If your teams are small, grouping at too granular a level can make responses feel identifiable. That hurts the very thing you are trying to measure.
Qualitative Measurement: Ask Questions That Reveal the Lived Experience
Surveys tell you what people feel. Open-ended questions tell you what people fear, what they have learned not to say, and what they wish leadership understood.
Think of qualitative measurement as your “context layer.” It is how you can learn whether low scores on the Pulse Surveys are about meeting dynamics, inconsistent leadership behavior, past retaliation, or simply a lack of follow-through.
Below are a few open-ended prompts you can use in a focus group, manager roundtable, or anonymous follow-up form:
- Think about the last time you disagreed with a decision. What made it easy or hard to speak up?
- When someone raises a concern here, what typically happens next?
- Where do you see people holding back, and what do you think they’re trying to avoid?
- What does ‘safe to speak up’ look like on a good day on your team? What does it look like on a hard day?
- In meetings, what helps people contribute, and what shuts the conversation down?
- What topics feel easiest to raise here? What topics feel risky?
- What’s one thing you wish leaders understood about how their reactions affect whether people speak up?
- If you could change one leadership habit to improve trust and candor, what would it be?
- What would make you more confident that feedback leads to action?
- What’s a small change that would make it easier to raise problems earlier?
How to Ask Safely (So People Actually Answer)
Qualitative listening only works when people believe it’s safe and worth the effort. A few guardrails help:
- State the purpose upfront. “We’re looking for patterns, not names. This is about improving how work happens here.”
- Protect anonymity by design. Use an anonymous form when possible, keep groups small, and avoid collecting identifying details unless absolutely necessary.
- Ask for themes, not incidents. Invite “what tends to happen” instead of “tell us what happened to you,” unless you’re running a formal investigation channel.
- Set a no-retaliation expectation clearly. Remind leaders and participants that raising concerns is protected and valued, and that retaliation is not tolerated.
- Close the loop fast. Share what you heard, what you’re changing, and what you’re not changing (and why). Silence after listening is one of the fastest ways to erode trust.
- Don’t over-promise. If you can’t act on something quickly, say so, and still explain what you can do next (timelines matter).
- Use a neutral facilitator when stakes are high. If trust is fragile or leadership is part of the concern, a third party or a cross-functional facilitator can reduce fear and increase candor.
Even with strong employee measurement, one piece is often missing: a structured way for leaders to examine their own behaviors. Surveys and listening sessions tell you what employees are experiencing. A leadership gut check helps you understand what leaders are signaling day to day, and where intent may not match impact.
Getting a Gut Check: Test the Culture with Leader Questions
Quantitative and qualitative measurements are primarily employee-facing: they help you understand what people are experiencing and why. A gut check is different. It’s leader-facing. It’s a quick self-audit that helps managers pressure-test the behaviors that either build psychological safety or quietly drain it.
In SHIFT’s webinar, The Psychological Safety Advantage: Building High-Performing Teams, David Hare (Senior Director of Learning and Development at Waystar) offered a practical leader self-check rooted in enterprise leadership development: the way leaders respond in everyday moments often determines whether people share dissent or stay quiet.
Hare’s core gut check question is simple:
“When was the last time someone disagreed with me and I didn’t disagree or try to defend myself.” Not “Would I be fine with it?” but “Would they believe it’s safe based on what they’ve seen from me before?” If the leader can’t think of a time, then there may be an opportunity to improve psychological safety.
That’s why his gut check approach is useful: it gives leaders a questions they can ask themselves to confirm they’re building psychological safety at work, not unintentionally undermining it.
SHIFT recently created a Psychological Safety Toolkit that includes gut check-style statements that function the same way. They’re framed as leader behaviors and team dynamics, which makes them measurable and actionable. They also invite honesty without forcing anyone to “confess” something personal.
Here are a few that are especially revealing as a leadership self-audit:
- “I deliver bad news directly, not through the grapevine.”
- “I encourage open, constructive debate.”
- “Team members feel comfortable admitting when they don’t know something.”
- “When mistakes happen, we focus on learning, not blame.”
If you want to expand the gut check beyond a few statements, you can also add leader self-reflection prompts that map to the moments that matter most: disagreement, mistakes, bad news, and follow-through. The goal is to make leadership behaviors visible and consistent, then compare that with employee feedback over time.
Additional Gut Check Questions for Leaders (Self-Audit)
- If someone disagreed with me today, would they expect it to go well?
- If someone brought me bad news today, would they expect appreciation or punishment?
- If someone admitted a mistake today, would they expect support and learning, or blame and consequences?
- If someone raised a concern about workload or burnout, would they expect action or dismissal?
- If someone challenged a decision in a meeting, would I stay curious, or would my tone shut it down?
- Have I recently asked for dissenting views before sharing my own opinion?
- When feedback came in last time, did I close the loop with what I heard and what changed?
- If my team described my leadership in one word after tough conversations, what would it be and why?
Once leaders can see the gap between intent and impact, the next step is to choose one or two observable behaviors to practice consistently, then measure whether the experience changes over time.
A Measurement Plan You Can Implement Without Making It Complicated
If you want a practical plan, here is a way many employers can start to measure Psychological Safety without overwhelming their team.
Step One: Baseline Measurement
Use a short pulse survey that you can repeat, then commit in advance to sharing themes and next steps.
Step Two: Targeted Listening
Run small focus groups, manager roundtables, or an anonymous follow-up survey using more open-ended qualitative questions, like those that can be found in our Psychological Safety Toolkit.
Step Three: Leadership Gut Check (Self-Audit)
Before you act on the data, ask leaders to complete a quick set of self-reflective questions to assess whether their day-to-day behaviors align with the culture they intend to create. This is not a substitute for employee input. It helps leaders spot the gap between intent and impact and identify the behaviors most likely to influence whether people speak up or stay quiet.
Step Four: Behavior-level Action
Pick one or two leadership behaviors to practice consistently across the next quarter. Focus on observable actions such as modeling vulnerability, responding constructively to dissent, and creating space for every voice.
Step Five: Repeat, Compare, and Close the Loop
Repeat the pulse survey on a consistent cadence and compare results over time to see what is shifting and where progress is stalling. Then report back what you heard, what you’re changing, and what leaders are being asked to do differently. Measurement earns trust when employees can see that feedback leads to visible action. A survey with no response teaches people that speaking up does not matter.
What To Watch for Beyond Surveys: The Signals That Matter in Real Life
If you are measuring psychological safety at work, you should also pay attention to operational signals. These do not replace surveys, but they often validate what your employees are telling you.
Look for changes in upward feedback volume, employee relations trends, internal mobility, regrettable turnover, and near-miss reporting. Watch meeting behaviors that are hard to fake, like whether junior voices speak first, whether disagreement is welcomed, and whether leaders react defensively when challenged.
If your culture is truly safe, you will see mistakes surface earlier. You will also see faster learning and fewer repeated issues, because problems are discussed instead of buried.
If The Data Points to Silence, Do Not Panic, Get Curious
Low psychological safety scores do not mean you failed. They mean people are telling you the truth, which is a strong sign you can improve.
Start with one change your employees will feel. Follow through on what you hear. Close the loop. When people see action, they start to believe that speaking up is worth it.
If You Want a Deeper Roadmap
If the leadership gut check questions sparked a few uncomfortable “we should tighten this up” moments, that’s a good sign. Those answers point to the specific leadership behaviors that either strengthen psychological safety or quietly chip away at it over time.
If you want a deeper, structured approach to building measurement into culture, SHIFT HR Compliance Training’s course Building Psychological Safety for High-Performing Teams helps leaders and teams recognize the behaviors that build trust, normalize healthy conflict, and create conditions where people share ideas and concerns earlier. You’ll learn what psychological safety looks like in day-to-day leadership moments, what to do when feedback is hard to hear, and how to create consistent, defensible practices that support speaking up.
Want to Pressure-Test What You’re Seeing and Preview the Course?
Contact SHIFT HR Compliance Training to talk through your goals, your team structure, and what your gut check results suggest you should focus on next.
We can help you map the right starting point, share how the course works, and walk you through a preview so you can decide whether it fits your leaders and culture priorities.
You can also explore our related guidance on psychological safety in the workplace, which outlines practical ways to strengthen safety through daily leadership and communication habits, including how leaders can close the gap between intent and impact.
Let’s turn your gut check into a plan your leaders can practice and your teams can feel.
Frequently Asked Questions About How to Measure Psychological Safety at Work
How do you measure psychological safety?
Psychological safety can be measured using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Start with a short pulse survey you can repeat, then follow it with focus groups, open-text responses, and manager listening sessions to understand what is driving the scores.
What are the best questions to measure psychological safety?
Use a consistent set of questions that assesses speaking up, learning from mistakes, and interpersonal risk. SHIFT’s toolkit’s reflection questions and gut check-style prompts are a strong practical complement to any pulse survey because they reveal daily behaviors and team dynamics.
How often should we measure psychological safety?
Quarterly or twice per year tends to work best for mid-sized and enterprise employers. The key is to repeat the same core questions so you can track trends, then communicate what you heard and what will change.
How do you measure psychological safety without hurting trust?
Keep the survey anonymous as much as possible, avoid segmenting results too granularly for small teams, and close the loop with visible actions. If employees do not see follow-through, measurement can reduce trust instead of building it.
What should we do if our results show low levels of psychological safety?
Treat low scores as direction, not failure. Pick one or two leader behaviors to improve, use the qualitative prompts to identify root causes, and show employees exactly what will change as a result of their feedback.
Summary
This article explains how to measure psychological safety using a balanced approach that respects the human side of culture change.
• It outlines why psychological safety is best measured through both quantitative pulse surveys and qualitative listening.
• It includes leader gut check questions and the reflection prompts from SHIFT’s toolkit to surface what is really happening on teams.
• It explains how to use measurement to drive visible action so employees see that speaking up leads to change.
• It shares a practical measurement plan designed for mid-sized and enterprise employers who need repeatable, scalable methods.
• It links to additional support through SHIFT HR Compliance Training’s Building Psychological Safety for High-Performing Teams course and related guidance.
