Psychological Safety Hits Differently When You're the Outsider in the Room

You know I like to quote science ;) so here it goes...

Amy Edmondson, professor at Harvard Business School, has spent decades studying what makes teams perform. Her foundational research — originally conducted in hospital settings, later expanded across industries — defines psychological safety as the shared belief that a team is a safe place for interpersonal risk-taking. In plain terms: the belief that you can speak up with an idea, a concern, a mistake, or a challenge without being punished or humiliated for it.

Her work, and the body of research that has followed it, shows that psychological safety is not a 'nice to have.' It is a performance variable. Google's Project Aristotle, a large-scale internal study completed in 2016, found psychological safety to be the single most important factor in distinguishing high-performing teams from average ones — above skill, above structure, above individual talent.

It has, rightly, become one of the dominant conversations in learning and development. Teams need it. Leaders need to create it. Organisations need to measure it.

But here is the problem most psychological safety training doesn't address: the research base is almost entirely built on culturally homogeneous teams, or on models that treat "the team" as a culturally neutral unit. The experience of being the only person in the room who learned to communicate, challenge, defer, or dissent in a different cultural register — that experience is largely absent from the framework.

And when you build a tool without accounting for who will be trying to use it, you end up with a tool that works for some people better than others.

Let me be specific about what makes psychological safety on international teams harder to access than the standard model suggests.

I think of a particular kind of meeting I've experienced more than once over the years: arriving well-prepared, reading the room carefully, waiting for the right opening, and then watching the conversation move on before I'd found my footing in it :( Not because the idea was wrong. Because I was still figuring out how this room wanted to be spoken to.

The praise that often follows this experience — "you're so adaptable," "you handle everything so well" — is kindly meant. And I understand it. But international professionals are often celebrated for their resilience, their self-reliance, their ability to 'just get on with it', precisely at the moment when the system they are navigating should be doing more work. Resilience is a genuine quality. But resilience that compensates for a broken container is exhausting. And naming that distinction matters.

For organisations, this is not only a well-being issue. It is a business issue, and it carries a measurable cost.

Research consistently shows that diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones — when psychological safety is genuinely present. McKinsey, Deloitte, and Edmondson's own work all point in the same direction: cognitive diversity, cultural range, and varied professional backgrounds drive better decisions, more creative solutions, and stronger outcomes. But that advantage only materialises when the diverse team member can actually contribute what they bring.

When psychological safety on international teams is culturally unaware, diversity becomes a liability rather than an asset. You have invested in bringing different perspectives into the room. But if the conditions in the room don't allow those perspectives to surface safely, you are not accessing what you paid for. The international team member is present but not fully heard. Engaged but not fully contributing. That gap has a cost.

Most psychological safety training as currently designed does not close it. A standard intervention that teaches people to speak up, invites everyone to share, and celebrates open dialogue is valuable — but it assumes a level playing field that international teams rarely have. Without addressing language asymmetry, cultural scripts, and reference point exclusion, you are asking some team members to simply try harder within a system that was not designed with them in mind.

Building resilience at work, at an organisational level, means designing team environments where individual self-reliance does not have to substitute for structural safety. That is where resilience training for professionals shifts from being a personal development exercise to a genuine systemic investment: not making people more resilient to a problem that shouldn't exist, but addressing the conditions that make the problem exist in the first place.

The good news is that culturally-aware psychological safety work is not a 'specialist niche'. It makes the whole team better — because the practices that help your international team members speak up also slow the room down, reduce groupthink, and create more genuine space for everyone.

So what does it look like in practice to design for the outsider in the room? :)

Slow the room down deliberately. Structured approaches — writing ideas before speaking, taking timed turns, inviting specific input from those who haven't spoken — reduce the advantage held by people who are most fluent in the room's dominant communication style. This is not about making meetings longer. It is about making them more honest.

Invest in belonging, not just inclusion. Inclusion is structural — it is about access and representation. Belonging is the felt experience — the sense that you are genuinely welcome, that your way of being in the room is not a problem to be managed. The two are not the same, and treating them as interchangeable is where a lot of well-intentioned diversity work falls short. Belonging takes more time, more attention, and more willingness to notice who is quietly adapting so that everyone else doesn't have to.

In my coaching work with international professionals, executives, and teams, I see this gap at close range. I work with people who have built formidable self-resilience over years of quietly navigating rooms that weren't built for them. What I notice consistently is how much changes — in confidence, in clarity, in output — when they no longer have to put that energy into simply belonging, and can turn it towards the work they actually came to do.

If you are reading this as someone who has sat in that meeting — who has recalibrated, waited, softened, stayed quiet — I want to say clearly: the difficulty you experienced was not a measure of your capability. It was a measure of the design.

Psychological safety at work is a design choice. And every design encodes assumptions about who the user is.

When those assumptions are built around a culturally homogeneous norm, the tool works well for some and not as well for others. The fix is not to make the outsiders more resilient. The fix is to widen the design.

For international professionals, naming this matters — not as a grievance, but as a reorientation. What you have experienced in those rooms was structural, not personal. And the skills you have built navigating them are real. You deserve an environment that works with you, not one you must perpetually overcome.

For organisations, the practical question is straightforward: are you actually accessing what your international talent brings? If your psychological safety training hasn't grappled with the cultural dimension, it probably isn't.

This is work I care about deeply — because I have been that person in the room, and because I have seen what changes when the room is built for everyone in it.

If this resonated — if you recognise yourself in that meeting, or if you've spent years building self-reliance in rooms that didn't quite fit — I'd love to have a conversation. My coaching work is built around exactly this: helping international professionals find their footing, use their voice, and redirect the energy they've been spending on adaptation toward what they actually came here to do.

If you're an HR director, L&D manager, or team leader wondering whether your current approach to psychological safety accounts for cultural difference, I'm equally happy to talk about what that could look like in your organisation.

Book a free Strategy Call here and let's find out what's possible. 

And if this kind of thinking is what you want landing in your inbox on a regular basis, you're very welcome to subscribe to my newsletter at  natalia-leal.com/newsletter :)