This is a sample report. It shows what you'll receive after completing the assessment. Your real report will be personalised to your answers.

Psychological Safety Index

Your Profile Report

Primary Style:

Speaking Up

Speaking Up as your team's strongest dimension means concerns, disagreement, and ideas flow freely.

Your Psychological Safety Index shape Further from the centre = higher score on that dimension.
Speaking Up: 70% (High) Error Tolerance: 55% (Moderate) Risk Taking: 50% (Moderate) Inclusion: 55% (Moderate) Learning Orientation: 60% (Moderate) Speaking Up 70% Error Tolerance 55% Risk Taking 50% Inclusion 55% Learning Orientation 60%

Dimension Scores

  • Speaking Up High
    70% Voice-Restricted Culture — Strong Speaking-Up Culture

    Comfort raising concerns, disagreeing, and sharing ideas

  • Error Tolerance Moderate
    55% Blame-Oriented Error Culture — Learning-Oriented Error Culture

    How mistakes and failures are treated

  • Risk Taking Moderate
    50% Risk-Averse Culture — Experimentation-Friendly Culture

    Willingness to try new approaches and experiment

  • Inclusion Moderate
    55% Exclusion-Prone Culture — Deeply Inclusive Culture

    Feeling valued, respected, and able to be authentic

  • Learning Orientation Moderate
    60% Execution-Only Culture — Strong Learning Culture

    Focus on growth, feedback, and continuous improvement

Your profile in depth

A detailed read of each dimension at your score band, with what's likely a strength, what to watch, and where to invest.

Speaking Up

High · 70%

Voices freely. The most visible marker of safety — easiest to lose under pressure.

Strengths

  • Risk detection
  • Fast learning

Watch for

  • Can erode under pressure

Try this

  • Protect deliberately — not self-sustaining

From the research: Voice behaviour predicts team performance and innovation (Morrison, 2014).

Error Tolerance

Moderate · 55%

Reasonable on routine; slips under high stakes.

Strengths

  • Functional

Watch for

  • High-stakes failures harder

Try this

  • Practise on low-stakes failures first

From the research: Learning-oriented error culture predicts improvement and innovation (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005).

Risk Taking

Moderate · 50%

Risk-taking on small issues, not big.

Strengths

  • Balanced

Watch for

  • Big-bet paralysis

Try this

  • Practise reversible bets at larger scale

From the research: Experimentation culture predicts innovation output (Thomke, 2020).

Inclusion

Moderate · 55%

Works for central members, slips for edges.

Strengths

  • Functional core

Watch for

  • Edges vulnerable

Try this

  • Pay explicit attention to non-majority voices

From the research: Inclusion predicts retention, engagement, creativity in diverse teams (Shore et al., 2011).

Learning Orientation

Moderate · 60%

Learning on major events only.

Strengths

  • Functional

Watch for

  • Slow compounding

Try this

  • Build learning into cadence

From the research: Learning orientation predicts adaptation rate (Edmondson, 2012).

Strengths

  • Speaking Up

Growth Areas

No low-scoring dimensions — nothing stands out as a growth area from this assessment.

Overall Safety Reading

Your team's composite psychological-safety score across the five dimensions, framed through Amy Edmondson's (1999) construct and The Fearless Organization (2018). Safety isn't comfort — it's the willingness to be candid because the social cost of candour is low.

58 / 100 Developing

Your team has a workable foundation of psychological safety, with room to grow. The thinnest dimension is Risk Taking — that's where small, visible leader behaviours earn disproportionate returns in the next quarter.

The Four Stages of Psychological Safety

Timothy Clark's progression (2020): each stage builds on the one before. Inclusion Safety is the foundation; Challenger Safety is where innovation actually lives. Your scores map our five dimensions onto the four stages — thin foundations cap the ceilings above them.

  1. 1

    Inclusion Safety

    55%

    Developing

    The foundation: do I feel welcomed here as I am? Without this, none of the stages above it hold. People bring a smaller version of themselves to work.

    Looks like

    • People are greeted warmly and introduced by name
    • Difference is treated as data, not friction
    • Everyone is invited in, not left to opt in

    From: Inclusion

  2. 2

    Learner Safety

    57%

    Developing

    Safe to ask, experiment, and get it wrong. Mistakes are treated as material to work with, and questions aren't penalised as signs of weakness.

    Looks like

    • Beginner questions are answered without eye-rolls
    • Post-mortems focus on systems and learning, not individual blame
    • Time is explicitly protected for learning and practice

    From: Learning Orientation + Error Tolerance

  3. 3

    Contributor Safety

    62%

    Developing

    Safe to participate fully and own work. People speak up about problems they're close to, and ownership is paired with autonomy rather than surveillance.

    Looks like

    • People raise concerns in the meeting, not after it
    • Ownership is handed off with authority to make the calls
    • Early-stage work is shared before it's polished

    From: Speaking Up + Error Tolerance

  4. 4

    Challenger Safety

    60%

    Developing

    Safe to push back on the status quo — including on leaders. This is where innovation actually lives: the freedom to say 'the plan is wrong' without career cost.

    Looks like

    • Unconventional ideas are tested, not dismissed
    • Leaders actively invite disagreement
    • Post-decision dissent is heard, not punished

    From: Speaking Up + Risk Taking

Retro Questions for the Team

Five prompts tuned to the stage where your team has the most room to grow. Drop them into your next retrospective — the quickest way to move this score is to make safety itself discussable.

  1. When was the last time you felt genuinely welcomed in this team — and what made it land?
  2. Who in the team do you know least well, and what's one thing you could do to learn more about them this month?
  3. Where does the team's culture quietly reward sameness — and what would it cost to let that go?
  4. Is there anyone who joined recently who still feels like a guest? What's the small thing that would shift that?

About this assessment

Edmondson's (1999) research defined psychological safety as 'a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.' Two decades of research — including Google's Project Aristotle — have confirmed it as the strongest predictor of team performance on complex knowledge work.

Psychological safety is not the same as comfort. Safe teams have MORE conflict, not less — disagreement is surfaced. Edmondson's Fearless Organization (2018) is the authoritative treatment.

Sign Up to Take This Assessment View Pricing