Creating psychological safety in extension

In this episode, we’re diving into the concept of psychological safety and how it can help us as enablers of change. When we’re in the thick of change, helping people navigate complex issues, people need to feel safe to speak up, share ideas, and admit mistakes without fear. That’s where psychological safety comes in.

Psychological safety is the belief that we can take personal risks—like voicing concerns or admitting we don’t know something—without fear of embarrassment or punishment. In our work, it’s about creating environments where farmers, stakeholders, and colleagues feel comfortable expressing their ideas, asking questions, or even disagreeing with us. As Edmondson (2023) points out, when people feel safe, they’re more likely to explore new ideas and challenge conventional thinking, both of which are crucial for innovation. 

But psychological safety is often misunderstood. It isn’t about being nice all the time or avoiding difficult conversations. In fact, one of the most common misconceptions is that psychological safety means no one is ever uncomfortable (Edmondson & Kerrissey, 2025). The reality is that psychologically safe environments still involve accountability and challenge—but they’re environments where people feel respected and supported in taking those risks.

This is particularly important in extension, where we work with farm advisors and producers to support adoption of new practices. If people are worried about being judged or getting it wrong, they may stay silent or stick with the status quo. But if we foster an environment where it’s okay to say “I don’t know” or “this might not work, but let’s try it,” we create opportunities for real experimentation and learning. So how do we foster this kind of environment? Let’s explore some practical ways we can support psychological safety in our work.

First, we can model curiosity and invite feedback explicitly. For example, after a field day or workshop, we might ask, “What’s one thing you found useful today, and what’s one thing we could do better next time?” This can be kind of scary, especially for early-career practitioners, but this type of invitation not only signals that we’re open to improvement, but also reinforces the idea that constructive feedback is valued (Edmondson, 2023).

Another helpful strategy is to use small group discussions. People are often more comfortable sharing their thoughts in pairs or trios than in a full-room setting. A technique like “Think, Pair, Share” can be particularly effective—first asking participants to reflect individually, then discuss with a partner, and finally share insights with the wider group. Edmondson (2018) notes that this sort of structured process helps lower the fear of being exposed and increases the likelihood that more voices will be heard.

We can also build trust by being honest about our own missteps. If, for example, a new facilitation approach we tried didn’t have the expected results, we can acknowledge it openly and invite discussion about what could be done differently. Practitioners who model this kind of vulnerability are more likely to create a culture where others feel safe to do the same (Edmondson & Kerrissey, 2025). In New Zealand we know this approach worked really well in a project focused on using plantain in pastures. When the researchers admitted when things went wrong, it built confidence amongst the farmers involved to talk honestly about their practices (Gray et al., 2016, Sewell et al., 2014). 

Setting ground rules is another useful tool. At the beginning of a meeting or workshop, we might say, “There are no wrong questions here. Let’s respect each other’s contributions and be open to different ways of thinking.” This helps establish shared expectations and makes it easier for people to participate fully. Traditionally, facilitators would set ground rules unilaterally and state them at the start of an activity. However, current good practice is to co-develop these rules with participants as this helps foster ownership and commitment. A collaborative process not only clarifies expectations but also enhances psychological safety by involving everyone in setting the norms for interaction.​ The terminology has also evolved, so we tend to use terms like “ways of working”, as they convey a sense of being in this together rather than having something imposed on us. 

It’s also worth remembering that psychological safety isn’t built in a single moment—it takes ongoing effort. In groups with a mix of experience or status, we might need to make a special effort to hear from quieter voices. A simple prompt like, “We haven’t heard from everyone yet—anyone want to add their view?” can help draw out a diversity of perspectives.

​Following up after an event is another way of reinforcing psychological safety. When we acknowledge a participant’s suggestion or build on their idea in follow-up communications, it signals that their contribution was valued. This recognition not only validates their input but also encourages continued engagement and openness in future interactions.​ By highlighting specific contributions and integrating them into ongoing discussions or plans, we show that every voice matters, strengthening trust within the group.​ When participants see that their ideas have a tangible impact, they are more likely to share insights and take initiative, because they can see their efforts contribute to the collective goals.

Ultimately, psychological safety isn’t just a “nice to have”—it’s foundational to learning, innovation, and successful change. In our extension work, it’s essential. When people feel safe to question, to experiment, and to learn from failure, that’s when we see real progress.

So, what about you? Have you seen psychological safety in action as part of your work? Or have you tried something that helped build it in your team or with farmers? We’d love to hear your experiences—share them in the comments below so we can all learn from each other.

Thanks for reading this episode of Enablers of Change. Don’t forget to subscribe to stay updated on future episodes. And if you found this helpful, feel free to share it with others. 

Resources

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. Available online 

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons. 

Edmondson, A. C., & Kerrissey, M. J. (2025). What people get wrong about psychological safety. Harvard Business Review. Available online 

Gallo, A. (2023). What is psychological safety? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2023/02/what-is-psychological-safety 

Gray, D. I. S., Sewell, A. M., Hartnett, M., Wood, B. A., Kemp, P. D., Blair, H. T., Kenyon, P. R. & Morris, S. T. (2016). Improved extension practices for sheep and beef farmers. In Hill Country Symposium. NZ Grassland Association Research and Practice Series, 16: 61-66. Available online 

Sewell, A. M., Gray, D. I., Blair, H. T., Kemp, P. D., Kenyon, P. R., Morris, S. T., & Wood, B. A. (2014). Hatching new ideas about herb pastures: Learning together in a community of New Zealand farmers and agricultural scientists. Agricultural systems, 125, 63-73.