Psychological Safety in Times of Scarcity: Protecting Minds, Building Trust

I once worked with a leader who appeared to be very consensus-driven. They would say things like "I want to know what everyone thinks" and "We all need to bring our own point of view." They emphasized showing up prepared and ready to contribute.

But if your perspective did not align with theirs, the environment shifted.

You were shunned. Ostracized. They would nitpick your work, make you feel less than, and sometimes belittle you in ways that were hard to name but impossible to miss. People would show up for meetings not knowing what kind of mood this leader would be in. They were on pins and needles wondering: Are they going to accept the work today, or are they going to find something to tear apart?

Over time, people adapted. They started anticipating what the leader might say and adjusted their contributions accordingly. But this leader was good at finding something to critique no matter what. So eventually, people just said the bare minimum to get past the nitpicking and move on.

That is what happens when leaders ask for honesty but respond poorly to it. Teams learn fast. They adjust their behavior based on what feels safe and what does not.

When scarcity meets silence

This kind of everyday defensiveness erodes psychological safety in normal times. But when layoffs hit, budgets shrink, and job security feels fragile, the damage multiplies. People who were already hesitant to speak become completely silent at the exact moment when you need them speaking up most.

Research shows that nearly 30% of employees feel silenced at work, with the sharpest gaps among individual contributors and hourly workers. One in four employees hesitate to speak up even when issues are critical. Only 13% of employees considering leaving due to mental health concerns inform their manager. The rest navigate stress silently while engagement and performance decline.

That silence is not passive. It is an active choice people make when speaking up feels riskier than staying quiet.

The cost shows up in ways most leaders miss. Decisions slow down because people do not surface problems early. Innovation weakens because ideas stay unshared. Burnout worsens because employees carry stress alone rather than addressing it openly. By the time the problem becomes visible, it has already caused damage.

I have seen organizations go through layoffs and then watch leadership go quiet at the exact moment when communication should increase. Remaining employees are left to figure things out amongst themselves. No proactive check-ins. No "we know this is hard" conversations. Just silence from the people who should be offering clarity and support.

The missed opportunity is obvious. Stress should trigger more transparency and support, not less. But too often, leaders retreat when they should be stepping forward.

Why we need to create environments where people can speak up

Psychological safety is not about avoiding accountability or lowering standards. It is about creating an environment where people can do their best work without unnecessary fear. The data is clear. Higher psychological safety means less burnout and better retention. That held true even during pandemic-level stress.

But those gains only happen when leaders align what they say with how they behave. Teams respond to actions, not intentions.

I had a direct report challenge me openly during a team meeting once. The way he came at it felt unprofessional. His passion was clear, but the venue was not right for the intensity he brought.

I had a private conversation with him afterward. I explained that there were things happening behind the scenes that I could not divulge at that moment, but that people were working to resolve the situation. I also let him know that while I valued his input, the way he raised it publicly put both of us in a difficult position.

Then I listened.

He told me he grew up being taught that if he was not passionate, it meant he did not care. For him, showing up with intensity and challenging authority was how he demonstrated that he was invested. He did not realize it came across as anger or overstepping.

That conversation changed things. We worked out that if he had passionate concerns in the future, we could take them offline and talk through what was going on. It opened the door for more candid conversations. He felt heard. I understood his intent. And we both adjusted how we approached tough topics going forward.

That moment taught me something important. Psychological safety is not avoiding hard conversations. It is creating the conditions where those conversations can happen productively. You do not need to share personal stories or vulnerabilities to create safety. You need to acknowledge reality. When I said "There are things happening behind the scenes I cannot share yet, but people are working to resolve this," I was not avoiding the conversation. I was being honest about the constraint while still engaging with his concern.

That kind of openness matters. Simple statements like "This quarter is demanding. I want your perspective on what will help us focus" signal that honest dialogue is welcome. When leaders admit workload or uncertainty exists, it makes discussion easier.

Consistency matters just as much. After layoffs or reorganizations, the organizations I have seen handle this well use structured check-ins. Weekly check-ins, even brief ones, help re-establish stability. Not performance reviews. Just check-ins. "How are you doing? What is working? What is not?" The length of the conversation matters less than showing up predictably.

When people work in areas where they feel capable, stress decreases. Strength alignment increases confidence and reduces unnecessary friction. Early intervention prevents avoidable disengagement. If someone is struggling, waiting to address it only makes the problem harder to solve. Creating safety means paying attention to where people are straining and adjusting before the strain becomes a breaking point.

Why this matters now

Psychological safety remains one of the most reliable buffers against performance decline during resource constraints. Teams that feel safe contribute better ideas, escalate issues earlier, and remain committed when workloads intensify.

The organizations that survive scarcity are the ones where people still feel safe enough to speak up, ask questions, and solve problems together. When silence becomes the norm, performance suffers quietly until the damage is irreversible.

Start with one action. Model openness or launch those check-ins. Small shifts compound. And in an environment where silence is already costing you performance, every conversation you create matters.

Sources

[1] Perceptyx – "The Psychological Safety Gap: Why 30% of Employees Stay Silent" (2025)

[2] Diversity.com – "Why 1 in 4 Employees Still Don't Feel Safe Speaking Up at Work" (2025)

[3] Harvard Business Review – "In Tough Times, Psychological Safety Is a Requirement, Not a Luxury" (Nov 2025)