Trust and Psychological Safety
The Two Essential Ingredients of High-Performing Teams
I’ve recently gotten into sourdough.
I was gifted a starter with instructions to feed and care for it, and for a while, it thrived—bubbling, rising, and behaving exactly as it should. Then something changed. It wasn’t rising like before, and its texture seemed off.
After digging into the research, I realized that sourdough starters are both resilient and delicate.
With the right care, they flourish. But small missteps compounded over time, or major disruptions, can cause them to stagnate or die.
Teams are the same way.
For sourdough, the critical ingredients are flour and water.
For teams, they are trust and psychological safety.
David Maister, Charles Green, and Robert Galford, in “The Trusted Advisor,” identify four components of trust: credibility, reliability, intimacy, and self-orientation. Of these, self-orientation—the extent to which someone prioritizes their own interests over others—is the most critical.
In highly individualistic teams (i.e. teams with low task interdependency), trust often takes a backseat because systems reward personal achievement. Paradoxically, these teams are resilient in low-trust environments because performance isn’t as dependent on collaboration.
By contrast, teams with strong group orientation thrive on trust and interpersonal connection. They are more cohesive but also more susceptible to disruption when trust is damaged.
Put simply: the more dependent team members are on each other to achieve success, the more vital—and fragile—trust becomes.
Trust is the foundation that makes psychological safety possible.
Amy Edmondson defines psychological safety as the belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. It enables openness: mistakes are acknowledged and learned from, questions are welcomed, and ideas are explored without fear of judgment. Without psychological safety, individuals protect themselves—staying silent, avoiding risk, and working in isolation. Fear replaces growth, and the team’s potential diminishes.
As leaders, fostering trust and psychological safety requires intentional action:
Model vulnerability: Admit mistakes, share uncertainties, and ask for help. When leaders do this, others feel safe to follow.
Respond constructively to mistakes: Shift the focus from blame to growth. Ask, “What can we learn?”
Invite input: Regularly seek ideas, feedback, and concerns from team members. Feeling heard deepens trust.
Reinforce positive behaviors: Recognize team members who take risks, speak up, and contribute to solutions.
Small, consistent actions like these signal that this is a team where it’s safe to be honest, safe to take risks, and safe to grow through failure.
Teams that operate with trust and psychological safety are more resilient.
They recover faster from setbacks, adapt to change, and perform at a higher level. As Edmondson puts it, they are “not afraid to fail, because they know failure is a part of learning.”
But teams are living systems, constantly responding to internal and external disruptions. Leaders must regularly assess their team’s trust and psychological safety—and, as we discussed last month, evaluate the norms driving team behavior.
Questions for reflection:
Does your team operate as if the team’s success is more important than any individual? (If not, trust will be absent.)
Do team members feel comfortable asking questions, admitting errors, and approaching others for help? (If not, your culture is not conducive to psychological safety.)
Do your norms around team communication, rewards and recognition, and achievement promote trust and psychological safety? (If not, trust and psychological safety cannot exist.)
Trust and psychological safety require care, attention, and intention.
And just like a sourdough starter, when you get the ingredients and conditions right, your team doesn’t just survive—it thrives.
