An Exploration of The 5 Pillars of Psychological Safety (TM: Gina Battye)

Psychological safety is one of those concepts that’s deceptively simple. On the surface, it’s about whether people feel able to speak up without fear of negative consequences. But beneath that is a whole body of research, decades of empirical studies, and a well-established canonical definition rooted in the work of Amy Edmondson and others.

In recent years, however, a number of alternative models (and often overly simplistic ones) have emerged, some closely aligned with the research base, others less so. One such model is Gina Battye’s 5 Pillars of Psychological Safety. It’s being used by organisations around the world and has gained traction, particularly among practitioners who value practical tools and structured interventions.

So what exactly is it, and how does it hold up against the established research?

Gina Battye’s Definition of Psychological Safety

Battye defines psychological safety as:

“A workplace where every individual feels safe and confident to bring their authentic selves to work. Communication is clear, the environment is designed for collaboration, and people experience belonging. Regular reflection and creative exploration allow individuals to use their talents fully, driving innovation and problem-solving. Ultimately, this helps both individuals and teams thrive.”

This definition puts authenticity, belonging, creativity, and clarity at the centre. It’s a positive, aspirational vision of workplace culture. But it’s important to note: this is not the canonical definition. Edmondson’s definition focuses specifically on the absence of interpersonal fear when speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes. Battye’s framing is broader, encompassing wellbeing, innovation, and culture more generally.

The 5 Pillars Framework

Battye’s framework is structured around five “pillars”, each designed to support individuals and teams.

1. Self (Authenticity & Awareness) – Using the “Authentic Self Process” (Raise, Release, Reconnect), individuals examine what affects their performance, let go of limiting factors, and reconnect with personal goals.
2. Social (Communication) – Centred on the “Communication Cycle”, this pillar focuses on how people send and receive messages clearly and effectively.
3. Collaboration (Teamwork & Belonging) – Through the “CollabZen methodology”, teams build shared goals, trust, and a safe environment for effective collaboration.
4. Curiosity (Continuous Learning & Reflection) – “Curiosity Sessions” provide structured opportunities for reflection, experimentation, and learning.
5. Creativity (Problem-Solving & Innovation) – “Creativity Workshops” support problem-solving and creative thinking, encouraging novel approaches and innovation.

On the surface, it’s a neat package: personal authenticity, communication, teamwork, learning, and creativity. Each pillar comes with branded tools and workshops, making it straightforward for organisations to adopt.

Strengths of the 5 Pillars

There are several reasons why Battye’s framework has found an audience:

• Accessible and actionable – It’s easy to understand and comes with structured exercises that can be run in teams.
• Holistic – It integrates personal development (authenticity, resilience), interpersonal effectiveness (communication, collaboration), and innovation practices.
• Positive intent – It highlights belonging, wellbeing, and creativity — all things organisations increasingly say they want.
• Implementation-focused – While Edmondson’s model describes a state, Battye’s framework gives you a set of things to do. For many HR, L&D, or OD practitioners, that’s appealing.

Limitations and Critique

Despite those strengths, there are also significant limitations:

1. Conceptual drift
   Battye’s definition diverges substantially from Edmondson’s. By framing psychological safety as authenticity and belonging, the core issue of interpersonal risk when speaking up gets diluted. A workplace might run creativity workshops and encourage “authentic selves”, but that doesn’t mean people will challenge authority or raise safety-critical concerns.
2. Overextension
   The 5 Pillars risk being a “catch-all” for culture, communication, and innovation. It pulls in elements of employee wellbeing, DEI, and L&D, but wraps them in the language of psychological safety. That can confuse practitioners and leaders about what psychological safety actually is.
3. Individualisation of responsibility
   Pillar 1 places heavy emphasis on individuals bringing their authentic selves. But psychological safety is not simply about individual choice: it’s about whether the system, structures, and leadership behaviour allow it. By focusing on the individual, there’s a risk of individualised “victim-blaming”: if you don’t feel safe, maybe you haven’t “released” enough limiting beliefs.
4. Evidence gap
   Edmondson’s concept has decades of peer-reviewed evidence. Battye’s framework, while grounded in practice, lacks independent validation or published research showing that it reliably increases psychological safety (in the canonical sense).
5. Commercial packaging
   Each pillar is linked to proprietary branded processes — Authentic Self Process, CollabZen, Communication Cycle. That can feel more like consultancy IP than an evidence-based framework, and reduces credibility in academic and practitioner communities. It can also raise questions about data governance & protection.
6. Potential for harm through conflation
   The biggest risk is that leaders might believe they’ve “done psychological safety” by running curiosity and creativity workshops, while continuing to punish dissent or suppress whistleblowers. The term becomes stretched so wide that its most vital function — enabling people to raise concerns — gets lost.

When It Could Be Useful

• As an organisational development (OD) toolkit – The 5 Pillars offer structured interventions for inclusion, collaboration, and creativity. They may be particularly helpful for HR, OD, or team coaches who want tangible practices.
• For team-building or L&D programmes – The branded methods (e.g. curiosity sessions) can provide some useful scaffolding for group workshops.
• When the aim is cultural engagement – If the focus is “making work more engaging and innovative”, the framework provides positive, energising language and exercises.

When to Avoid or Use With Caution

• If your goal is canonical psychological safety – If you want to reduce the interpersonal risk in speaking up in teams and across the organisation, the 5 Pillars aren’t the right tool.
• In high-stakes, safety-critical environments – For healthcare, aviation, nuclear, or other domains where speaking up about risks and errors is vital, you need a framework firmly rooted in interpersonal risk reduction and systemic safety science, not one oriented around authenticity or creativity.
• If leadership wants a “quick fix” – The 5 Pillars could provide a false sense of security — leaders may think they’ve ticked the box without addressing systemic issues like power gradients, retaliation, or job insecurity.

Conclusion

Gina Battye’s 5 Pillars of Psychological Safety present an appealing, structured toolkit for organisations aiming to boost inclusion, communication, and creativity. It appeals as a practitioner-oriented culture change framework and some tangible practices that can support belonging and innovation.

However, as a model of psychological safety, it is conceptually misaligned with Edmondson’s canonical definition. By stretching the term to cover authenticity, wellbeing, and creativity, the framework risks diluting what psychological safety specifically addresses: the reduction of interpersonal fear so people can speak up about ideas, risks, mistakes, and concerns.

For practitioners, the 5 Pillars may be useful as a complementary OD framework, but it should be used with caution — and crucially, distinguished clearly from canonical psychological safety to avoid confusion. Otherwise, there’s a danger of rebranding general cultural development practices under a psychological safety label, which may obscure real risks and power imbalances in organisations.

References and Further Reading

• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley.
• Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
• Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81–98.
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
• Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43.
• Geraghty, T. (2024). Psychological vs. Psychosocial Safety: Untangling the Definitions. psychsafety.com (for a critique of conflation with wellbeing and legal requirements).
• Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197.