Psychological Safety Survey Questions Template: Speak-Up Culture, Trust & Learning from Mistakes

This template turns “gut feeling” about team climate into hard data. With clear psychological safety survey questions, you see where people stay silent, where trust is fragile, and where your culture already works—so you can take targeted action instead of guessing.

Psychological safety survey questions

Ask people to rate each statement on a 1–5 scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree.

I can raise concerns or bad news in this team without fearing negative consequences.
I feel safe admitting when I made a mistake.
I can ask for help when I’m stuck, without worrying I’ll look incompetent.
I can point out risks or quality issues even if they slow us down.
I feel comfortable challenging how we do things today if I see a better way.
If I speak up about a problem, I trust it will be taken seriously.
People in this team treat each other with respect, even under pressure.
My manager behaves respectfully towards everyone, not just senior people.
Team members do not make jokes or comments that embarrass others.
I trust my colleagues to have my back when work gets difficult.
I can give honest feedback to my manager without fearing payback.
I believe my manager would protect me if I raised a serious concern.
When a mistake happens, we focus on learning, not on finding someone to blame.
People here can fail with a new idea without being labelled “not reliable”.
We regularly talk about what we learned from recent mistakes or failures.
If a project goes wrong, leaders look at systems and processes, not just individuals.
I can admit I don’t know something without being judged.
People here share bad news early instead of hiding it.
Different opinions are welcome in this team, even if they challenge leadership.
Disagreements are discussed openly and resolved in a fair way.
I can disagree with my manager on work topics without fearing negative consequences.
Meetings leave space for people to voice concerns or objections.
We can have tough conversations without personal attacks or sarcasm.
After conflicts, relationships in the team recover and move forward.
I feel like I belong in this team.
I do not worry about being excluded because of who I am.
Different backgrounds and perspectives are valued here.
I see people like me being listened to in important discussions.
Colleagues avoid stereotypes and biased comments about groups of people.
I believe I can grow and succeed here without having to “fit a mold”.
Leaders in this organization openly admit their own mistakes.
My manager invites honest feedback about their behaviour and decisions.
We have clear, safe ways to raise issues (e.g. anonymous channel, HR contact).
Leaders regularly communicate that retaliation for speaking up will not be tolerated.
We receive training or guidance on feedback culture and psychological safety.
Systems (processes, tools, policies) support open communication, not just “good intentions”.

How likely are you to recommend this team as a place where people can speak up and learn from mistakes? (0 = Not at all likely, 10 = Extremely likely)

What helps you speak openly and honestly at work?
What currently holds you back from speaking up or admitting mistakes?
What should we change to improve openness, trust and learning from errors?

Decision table

Area / question range	Score / threshold	Recommended action	Owner	Timeline
Speak-Up Culture (Q1–Q6)	Average score <3.0 or ≥20 % “1–2” responses	Run a team session on fears and barriers; agree 3 concrete “speak-up” norms; set up or promote an anonymous reporting option.	Team lead with HR support	Start within 14 days, first review after 60 days
Trust & Respect (Q7–Q12)	Average score <3.0	Address disrespectful behaviours 1:1; reset team ground rules; consider external facilitator for a workshop on respectful communication.	Department manager; escalation path via HR Business Partner	Behaviour talks within 7 days; workshop within 30 days
Handling Mistakes & Failure (Q13–Q18)	Average score <3.0 or strong “blame” comments	Introduce a simple “incident review” format focused on learning; leaders share at least one recent own mistake in the next team meeting.	Team lead; HR designs review template	Template ready in 10 days; first review held within 30 days
Conflict & Disagreement (Q19–Q24)	Average score <3.0	Train managers in basic conflict resolution; agree a clear escalation route for unresolved conflicts; test it with one real case.	HR / People Development; team lead applies learning	Training scheduled within 45 days; escalation route communicated within 21 days
Inclusion & Belonging (Q25–Q30)	Average score <3.0 or gap ≥0.5 vs company average	Run focus groups with affected groups; prioritize 2–3 inclusion actions (e.g. meeting practices, language guidelines, mentoring).	Diversity & Inclusion lead with local managers	Focus groups within 30 days; first actions launched within 60 days
Leadership & Systems (Q31–Q36)	Average score <3.0	Provide targeted manager coaching; review whether policies, tools and KPIs reward openness or silence; adjust at least one process.	People Ops / senior leadership	Coaching plan within 30 days; process change decided within 60 days
Overall safety (all questions + NPS)	Team average <3.5 or NPS <0	Select 2–3 focus areas, co-create an action plan with the team, publish actions and track progress with a short pulse survey.	Team lead, supported by HR Analytics	Action plan within 21 days; pulse survey after 90 days

Key takeaways

Use psychological safety survey questions to convert silence and rumours into measurable signals.
Group questions into six dimensions to pinpoint where safety breaks down.
Trigger clear actions when scores fall below agreed thresholds.
Involve teams in choosing 2–3 focus topics, not long wishlists.
Repeat short pulse surveys to check if actions change behaviour.

Definition & scope

This survey measures psychological safety: how far people feel safe to speak up, disagree, and learn from mistakes without fear of punishment or exclusion. It works for all employees across teams, locations and levels. Results guide decisions about manager coaching, team workshops, communication habits and process changes. Used regularly, it complements broader engagement surveys such as your employee engagement survey questions.

Scoring & thresholds

You use a 1–5 agreement scale for all psychological safety survey questions. To make results actionable, define three clear bands and link them to follow-up steps.

Average score	Interpretation	Typical response
<3.0	Critical risk	Immediate follow-up, manager coaching, safe space conversation with team.
3.0–3.9	Needs improvement	Discuss in team meeting, pick 1–2 improvements, monitor with pulse survey.
≥4.0	Strong	Recognise good practice; capture and share what works with other teams.

For small teams (especially in DACH), protect anonymity: only show detailed results if at least 5 responses in a group. Combine very small teams where needed. Many organisations run a broad annual survey plus 2–3 short pulses per year; tools like Sprad Growth or other talent platforms help automate sends, reminders and follow-up tasks.

Document your scale labels and thresholds in every report (Owner: HR, before launch).
Flag any item with ≥30 % “1–2” answers as red, even if the average is higher (Owner: People Analytics, within 3 days of survey close).
Translate each red or amber area into a concrete action (what, who, by when) during follow-up meetings (Owner: Team lead + HR, within 21 days).
Track progress by comparing dimension scores between survey waves (Owner: HR Analytics, ongoing).

Follow-up & responsibilities

Survey data only builds trust if people see a response. Define clear owners and timelines before you ask the first question.

HR / People Ops prepares the survey, ensures GDPR-compliant handling and, in DACH, coordinates with the works council before launch (deadline: ≥30 days before go-live).
Team leads receive results and a short interpretation guide within 5 working days after survey close; they schedule a team discussion within the next 5 days.
Senior leaders review aggregated trends per area/function once per quarter and unblock structural changes (e.g. KPIs, escalation routes) within 60 days.
HR Business Partners support teams with very low scores or serious comments (e.g. “retaliation”, “bullying”) within ≤24 hours of detection.
Each team documents 2–3 agreed actions, owners and deadlines in a simple action log (Owner: Team lead, created within 21 days, reviewed quarterly).

Fairness & bias checks

Psychological safety is often uneven. Office teams might feel safe; shift workers might not. Always check results by meaningful groups, not just company averages.

Segment results by team, location, tenure, job family and (where legally and culturally appropriate) by gender or other diversity markers (Owner: HR Analytics, within 10 days).
If any group scores ≥0.5 points lower than the company average on a dimension, treat this as a fairness signal and investigate with qualitative methods, e.g. focus groups or structured interviews (Owner: HRBP + local manager, within 30 days).
Typical patterns: remote employees feel less safe to disagree; new hires fear speaking up in their first 6 months; women or minority groups report more fear of negative consequences. Respond with targeted actions like inclusive meeting rules, buddy systems for new hires or manager training on microaggressions.

Examples / use cases

Use case 1: Speak-up culture in a product team

A software product team scored 2.7 on Q1–Q6 (speak-up culture), while other teams were above 3.8. Comments showed fear of challenging the senior product manager. HR and the manager agreed on coaching plus a facilitated team workshop. In the workshop, they co-created “speak-up rules”, introduced anonymous risk reporting for releases and changed meeting formats so juniors spoke first. Six months later, speak-up scores rose to 3.9, release incidents dropped and more people volunteered to present new ideas.

Use case 2: Blame culture in a manufacturing unit

In a manufacturing site, Q13–Q18 (handling mistakes) averaged 2.5. Comments mentioned “name-and-shame” on the shopfloor. Site leadership stopped public blame, introduced a simple incident-review template focused on process factors, and set a rule: no disciplinary action for self-reported near misses. Supervisors received short training on “just culture”. Within one survey cycle, the average score increased to 3.6, near-miss reporting doubled, and quality defects decreased measurably.

Use case 3: Inclusion gap in a shared service centre

A shared service centre had good overall scores but a 0.8-point gap on Q25–Q30 (inclusion & belonging) between local staff and international hires. HR ran two focus groups, then introduced inclusive language training, changed meeting times to respect time zones, and set up peer-mentoring across locations. Follow-up results showed the gap shrinking to 0.3 points, and retention among international staff improved.

Implementation & updates

Start small, then expand. Many organisations pilot psychological safety survey questions in one or two departments before rolling them out company-wide. In DACH, involve the works council early and clarify GDPR topics such as data storage, access rights and retention periods.

Pilot: Select 1–3 teams with different contexts (e.g. office, frontline). Run the full survey once, then a 6–8 question pulse 3 months later (Owner: People Ops, pilot cycle ~4 months).
Frequency: Company-wide survey once per year; focused pulses (10–12 items) 2–3 times per year for teams working on actions (Owner: HR, approved by works council where relevant).
Sample size: For any breakdown (team, location, demographic), only report results if there are ≥5 responses to protect anonymity (Owner: HR Analytics, applied automatically in reporting).
Result sharing: HR shares dashboards with managers, plus a short “how to read your report” guide. Managers share aggregated scores and 2–3 themes with their teams in a meeting, then agree actions together (Owner: Team lead, within 21 days).
Updates: Review item wording and thresholds annually. Keep the core blocks for trend comparison and only change 3–5 items per year, informed by learnings from your broader employee survey templates and performance management work.

Conclusion

Psychological safety is hard to see but easy to feel. With a focused set of psychological safety survey questions, you stop guessing why people stay quiet and start seeing where fear, mistrust or exclusion block performance. You also see what already works, so you can spread those habits instead of reinventing them in every team.

This template helps you spot problems earlier, improve the quality of conversations between managers and employees, and give HR and leadership clearer priorities for development. As next steps, choose a pilot area, agree scale and thresholds with your works council where needed, and set up the survey in your chosen tool. Then define who owns follow-up in each team and how you will track whether actions change behaviour. Treat each survey as one step in an ongoing dialogue, not a one-off project.

FAQ

How often should we run this psychological safety survey?
Many companies run a full survey once per year and 2–3 shorter pulses in between. The large survey shows structural patterns; the pulses track whether actions work. Avoid survey fatigue: only pulse teams that have concrete actions in place. Keep at least 8–10 weeks between surveys on the same topic so people can see and feel changes before you ask again.

What should we do if a team scores very low?
Treat very low scores (<3.0) as an early warning. Inform the manager confidentially, offer coaching, and have HR join the first team discussion if there are signs of retaliation, bullying or discrimination. Focus that meeting on listening and understanding, not defending or explaining. Then agree 2–3 specific actions with owners and deadlines, and schedule a short pulse survey after 3–6 months to check progress.

How do we handle critical comments in open answers?
Review comments with two people (e.g. HR + manager) to reduce personal bias. Cluster comments into themes instead of reacting to single statements. If a comment hints at severe issues (harassment, discrimination, data protection), escalate via your standard compliance or whistleblowing process. Summarise key themes back to the team without naming individuals and explain which actions you will take. That transparency builds trust for the next survey.

How do we connect this survey with other people processes?
Combine results with data from engagement, performance and 360° feedback. For example, check whether teams with high psychological safety also show higher engagement or better performance. Use those insights when planning manager training, leadership programmes or changes to your feedback culture. A structured employee survey framework, like the one described in Sprad’s guide on employee survey templates, helps you keep all surveys aligned.

Where can I learn more about psychological safety?
The concept was popularised by Amy Edmondson’s research. A good starting point is this article from Harvard Business Publishing: Why Psychological Safety Is the Hidden Engine Behind Innovation and Transformation. Use external research as inspiration, then adapt language and thresholds to your own context, legal environment and works council agreements.

Jürgen Ulbrich

CEO & Co-Founder of Sprad

Jürgen Ulbrich has more than a decade of experience in developing and leading high-performing teams and companies. As an expert in employee referral programs as well as feedback and performance processes, Jürgen has helped over 100 organizations optimize their talent acquisition and development strategies.