Psychological Safety in The Boardroom


  • Biland Sadek SDA Bocconi School of Management


psychological safety, board directors, CEO, boardroom, board governance


This study explores the importance and implications of psychological safety for board dynamics and decision-making processes and emphasizes the benefits of psychological safety, including improved team performance, a culture of learning, innovation, and enhanced company performance. The role of boardroom dynamics and biases in shaping board effectiveness is also highlighted. Dysfunctional dynamics and biases can hinder constructive dialogue and decision-making, underscoring the need for psychological safety in the boardroom. To manage psychological safety at the board level, this study introduces the Closed Loop Management System, which provides a framework for maintaining "always-on" psychological safety. By following the prescriptive framework provided, boards can enhance their performance, act in the best interests of their company and shareholders, and contribute to organizational effectiveness.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Biland Sadek, SDA Bocconi School of Management

    Biland Sadek is an Academic Fellow bridging practice and academia in the subject of Corporate Transformations among non-digital-native companies.

    He is a well-rounded commercial executive with more than 20 years of international experience encompassing strategy, data analytics, organizational behavior, and performance optimization in the Consumer Goods industry. He is also a Non-executive Board Member.

    Biland holds an MBA from London Business School and a DBA from SDA Bocconi.   


Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.

Boivie, S., Bednar, M. K., Aguilera, R. V., & Andrus, J. L. (2016). Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 319–407.

Cave, D., Pearson, H., Whitehead, P., & Rahim‐Jamal, S. (2016). CENTRE: creating psychological safety in groups. The Clinical Teacher, 13, 427–431.

Cossin, D. (2020). High performance boards: Improving and energizing your governance. John Wiley & Sons.

Cremer, A., & Bergin, T. (2015, October 10). Fear and respect: VW’s culture under Winterkorn. Reuters.

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

De Smet, A., Rubenstein, K., Schrah, G., Vierow, M., & Edmondson, A. (2021, February 11). Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development. McKinsey and Company.

Deutsch, Y. (2007). The influence of outside directors’ stock‐option compensation on firms’ R&D. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 816–827.

Dowley, A. (2006). Learning behaviors and psychological safety in nonprofit organization boards of directors: An exploratory study, Alliant International University.

Duhigg, C. (2016, February 25). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82, 139–146.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

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

Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.

Gallo, A. (2016, March 17). How to disagree with someone more powerful than you. Harvard Business Review.

Hambrick, D. C., Misangyi, V. F., & Park, C. A. (2015). The quad model for identifying a corporate director’s potential for effective monitoring: Toward a new theory of board sufficiency. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 323–344.

Irving, J. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review.

Lingham, T. (2005). Conversations as core to team experiences: A JIT measurement and mapping system to facilitate team directed learning and development, ESADE.

Lorsch, J., & Young, J. (1990). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Academy of Management Perspectives, 4(4), 85–87.

Meynell, L., & Sedel, R. (2012). What Makes for a High-Performing Board? In Touch with the Board.

Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P., & Amason, A. C. (2007). An Alternative Approach to Understanding Conflict Management: Exploring the Mutation from Cognitive to Affective Conflict. Project Management Institute.

National Association of Corporate Directors (2018). Adaptive Governance: Board Oversight of Disruptive Risks. 2018 NACD Blue Ribbon Commission Report.

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.

Proudfoot, J., Jayasinghe, U. W., Holton, C., Grimm, J., Bubner, T., Amoroso, C., Beilby, J., & Harris, M. F. (2007). Team climate for innovation: what difference does it make in general practice? International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19, 164–169.

Rhodes, D., Carter, C., & Sutherland, S. (2016). Looking for smoke under the door: The case for an actively engaged board. BCG Perspective.

Roos, A., Pidun, U., & Stange, S. (2018). Learning from the best supervisory boards. BCG Perspective.

Schein, E., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Shuffler, M. L., Diazgranados, D., Maynard, M. T., & Salas, E. (2018). Developing, sustaining, and maximizing team effectiveness: An integrative, dynamic perspective of team development interventions. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 688–724.

Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan Co.

Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2002). What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review, 80, 106–113.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1978). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In P. Diamond, & M. Rothschild (Eds.), Uncertainty in economics. Academic Press.

Veltrop, D. B., Bezemer, P.-J., Nicholson, G., & Pugliese, A. (2021). Too unsafe to monitor? How board–CEO cognitive conflict and chair leadership shape outside director monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 207–234.

Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2016). Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(1), 9–51.

Westphal, J. D., & Khanna, P. (2003). Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(3), 361–398.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2013). A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 607–661.

Xie, X.-Y., Wang, W.-L., & Luan, K. (2014). It is not what we have, but how we use it: Reexploring the relationship between task conflict and team innovation from the resource-based view. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(2), 240–251.

Zhu, D. H. (2013). Group polarization on corporate boards: Theory and evidence on board decisions about acquisition premiums. Strategic Management Journal, 34(7), 800–822.

Additional Files



How to Cite

Biland Sadek 2024. Psychological Safety in The Boardroom. Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research. 3, 1 (Jan. 2024), 1–5. DOI:

Most read articles by the same author(s)