Many leaders assume that psychological safety only thrives in democratic workplaces where challenging a manager is socially acceptable. But research shows something far more interesting. Psychological safety is not a democratic phenomenon. It is a human one. People everywhere want to prevent mistakes, ask for help, and contribute ideas. The difference lies not in the need, but the way that safety is expressed.
The concept of psychological safety gained popularity in the Western organizations. We can even find quite extreme examples of the situations where employees are encouraged to challenge the ideas of the boss publicly (see Erin Meyer and Reed Hastings, No Rules Rules). While one may feel this is limited to certain types of organizations and cultures, it turns out that teams everywhere perform better when people feel safe to contribute candidly. Some of the world’s hierarchical organizations, from Toyota factories to elite medical teams, demonstrate high levels of psychological safety and therefore high performance. Not because hierarchy disappears, but because psychological safety enables people to contribute to better outcomes within their specific context.
So how does psychological safety actually play out in non-democratic or strongly hierarchical cultures? And what should leaders in such environments do differently?
People use indirect voice instead of confrontation.
Challenging ideas openly might not be accepted and may even be treated as disruptive. However, employees still try to help and bring valuable doubts and concerns. Instead of saying “I don’t agree”, they might say “I have a small concern we may want to consider…” Psychological safety isn’t measured by the volume of voice, but by the presence of constructive contribution.
The threshold for interpersonal risk is higher and this requires stronger leadership signals.
In more hierarchical cultures people may be less eager to take interpersonal risks because the perceived cost is higher. As a result, leaders in such contexts must put extra effort into intentionally inviting employees to raise doubts, ask questions, and surface concerns.
Leaders play an even more important role in shaping psychological safety when democratic norms are not the foundation. And yes, it is possible to develop psychological safety even in environments where speaking up is counter-cultural. Professor Amy Edmondson cites the Toyota Production System, where continuous improvement and flawless execution emerged because people were encouraged to point out errors, even within a deeply hierarchical system.
Psychological safety may require permission to speak, not the assumption of the right to speak.
In democratic environments people often assume that they have the right to speak up. In highly hierarchical regions, they may feel that they need explicit permission. This is why leaders in such contexts must actively invite input, reward candor and pointing out errors. In doing so, they create a micro-climate for psychological safety.
In more hierarchical cultures, creating a psychologically safe environment can be more challenging, but it remains absolutely essential. Complex work depends on open communication, learning from mistakes, and asking for help when needed. When people don’t feel safe to speak up about errors, those errors persist and quality declines. When employees hesitate to ask for help, their performance suffers and the whole team’s ability to learn is constrained. That’s why leaders’ roles are crucial.
When leaders create a climate of respect, curiosity, and permission to contribute, teams can thrive anywhere, regardless of the political or cultural context.
If this aligns with what you experience, consider how people in your team signal concerns or ideas in your cultural setting, and reach out if you'd like help building a safer space for contribution.