Regular readers will know that psychological safety has long been one of my favourite topics; this is because many of the most powerful drivers of culture and performance cannot flourish when psychological safety levels are low. Over time, though, I’ve noticed that the way we think about and frame psychological safety has created some common misconceptions. Too often, it’s seen as binary – you either have it or you don’t. It’s also perceived to be fixed or stable, rather than something that is fluid, shifting, and continually recalibrating. And it is frequently seen as synonymous with comfort, when in fact psychological safety is about creating the conditions for openness, risk-taking and growth by increasing our tolerance for discomfort.
Perhaps the biggest limitation, however, is that psychological safety is seen primarily from the perspective of personal psychology which focuses on whether an individual feels safe to speak up, take risks, and express themselves without fear of negative consequences. This framing can subtly place the responsibility on the individual’s psychology, whilst allowing others to sidestep accountability for the culture they have a hand in co-creating. In other words, “psychological safety” can unintentionally make safety feel like a personal issue rather than a shared responsibility.
It’s time to reframe how we think about safety in teams and organisations. This shift requires not only a change in mindset but also a change in language. Going forward, I’ll be talking about this in terms of Adaptive Safety.
What is Adaptive Safety?
Adaptive Safety is the shared capability of a team to continuously create conditions of trust, connection, and inclusion – adjusting together as contexts and challenges evolve. It frames safety as an ongoing, adaptive process, not a fixed state, and recognises that teams must keep re-creating the conditions for safety as their environment shifts.
How is Adaptive Safety Different from Psychological Safety?
Adaptive Safety highlights the collective responsibility for cultivating safety, rather than focusing only on the individual’s experience. While psychological safety asks whether someone feels safe to speak up or take risks, Adaptive Safety emphasises the team’s ongoing ability to generate and sustain trust, connection and inclusion in changing conditions.
The word “adaptive” is crucial – it signals that safety must be actively maintained through flexibility, responsiveness, and shared accountability. In practice, this means team members recognise their interdependence and take responsibility for shaping a culture where the key drivers of optimal performance can flourish. Adaptive Safety integrates the personal aspects of psychological safety with the collective dimensions of cultural safety and inclusion, ensuring that the environment remains both supportive and high performing, even as circumstances change.
In essence, Adaptive Safety is less about a static sense of confidence and more about a team’s capability to co-create safety as conditions shift – a living practice of resilience, trust, and mutual care. So, while psychological safety is felt; Adaptive Safety is built.
I recognise that this represents a significant shift in how many of us think about safety in the context of teams and organisations. For now, I suggest that you sit with the idea and let it percolate – give it time to be considered and absorbed. I’m currently working on a more detailed piece that explores why Adaptive Safety is the holy grail of culture when it comes to driving performance, so please stay tuned…