23/03/2026
I’m reading Amy Edmondson’s book - The Fearless Organization at the moment. It is about her work in psychological safety. Creating workplaces where people feel safe to speak up, share ideas, and admit mistakes without fear of embarrassment or punishment. Psychological safety provides the foundation for improvement, innovation, taking risks, and learning in a team.
One of the myths Amy Edmondson busts is that psychological safety is not about being “nice.” A psychologically safe culture isn’t one where we avoid conflict, agree for the sake of harmony, or offer unconditional praise. It’s one where people can give honest feedback, raise concerns, admit mistakes, and disagree respectfully – even when it’s uncomfortable. In other words, it’s less about comfort and more about courage and fairness: making sure people can tell the truth without being punished for it.
One idea that really struck me is what she calls “discounting the future.” It's about staying silent to avoid an awkward conversation today, even when speaking up could prevent harm or lead to much healthier outcomes down the track. We over‑weight the immediate risk (conflict, disapproval, looking silly) and under‑weight the slower, less visible consequences (unhealthy cultures, burnout, safety issues).
This connects deeply with organisational justice and voice. When people don’t expect to be treated fairly if they raise concerns – when decisions feel biased, processes opaque, or responses dismissive – the future benefit of speaking up looks small and uncertain, while the relational and reputational costs feel large and immediate. Over time, that combination produces silence: not because there’s nothing to say, but because it no longer feels safe or worthwhile to say it.
Though I am reading the book for my own thinking and application as a leader, it did start me to think about a few things in the church environment:
We are often biased towards simply being “nice” to one another, confusing kindness with avoiding discomfort or disagreement.
Institutional and positional power are always at play. That can leave us feeling we must be nice and “play nice” with leaders, not rock the boat, and protect relationships or reputation rather than raise concerns.
Over time, the combination of “being nice” and power dynamics can lead us to second‑guess or downplay our own perceptions. We start to undermine and dismiss our own evaluations of what is not right.
We may even build systems and norms that actively promote discounting the future – rewarding those who keep the peace now, while sidelining those who name problems that could protect people and the church in the long run
Which prompted me to ask - are churches psychologically safe, or are they nice?
