PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY IN ORCHESTRAS AND OTHER CULTURAL ENTERPRISES
What does all this have to do with
the serious plane crash at Los Rodeos in Tenerife in 1977?
For some time now, I’ve been reflecting on a concept I know from the private sector, but which I rarely see discussed among professionals in creative and cultural organisations: psychological safety in the workplace.
A workplace is psychologically safe when employees know they can freely express opinions, ideas and needs without fear of being reprimanded. Likewise, they know they can take risks, make mistakes or even fail without receiving hurtful comments about their performance. In psychologically unsafe workplaces, people feel blocked by interpersonal fear generated within the organisation. In short, we’re talking about companies where employees feel comfortable speaking up or simply being themselves.
Now, knowing that such an environment is key to fostering innovation, creativity, productivity and effective collaboration, I wonder: How is it possible that this topic is hardly ever discussed in the cultural sector—the very sector defined by creativity?
In cultural institutions and orchestras, psychological safety should play a vital role. These workplaces are made up of highly qualified professionals who also face complex power dynamics and constant pressure to meet high performance standards. Orchestras and cultural organisations often have deeply hierarchical cultures where the authority of the artistic director or section leaders is virtually unquestionable. But I’m not only referring to conductors—I’m also talking about work processes that have remained unchanged for decades because nobody (usually out of personal comfort) dares to challenge them. I’m also referring to middle management and technical direction that suffocate their teams, and above all, colleagues—both musicians and administrators—who judge or exclude others for being more creative or proactive.
This severely limits any attempt to open the organisation to psychological safety. The pressure to deliver outstanding artistic results also contributes to an atmosphere where musicians and administrators don’t feel free to express concerns or make mistakes without fear of being judged or ostracised. This creates an emotionally difficult environment where people, already subjected to constant and demanding workloads, also face high levels of stress, anxiety and exhaustion.
Overall, I believe that fear of being judged or rejected—however effective it may be as a short-term motivator—is not the right path to achieve creative, efficient and excellent results. A leadership style based on emotional or hierarchical penalties will inevitably stifle the organisation in the long run.
“I didn’t say anything, just in case” can be deadly
In fact, the lack of psychological safety at work has caused serious harm to organisations, their employees, and even third parties. As Amy Edmondson shows in her powerful book The Fearless Organization – Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth, the fear of speaking up has literally cost innocent lives.
Edmondson has analysed various corporate failures through the lens of psychological safety, showing how just a bit of courage from individuals at different organisational levels—calling things by their name—could have at least mitigated the consequences of human and technical errors.
There are many well-known cases of business failure in which a psychologically unsafe environment played at least a supporting role. Amy’s book gives many examples, but I’ll mention just three: Volkswagen’s Dieselgate scandal [1], the 2003 Columbia Space Shuttle disaster [2], and the 1977 KLM air disaster in Tenerife [3].
I highly recommend Edmondson’s book. For readers of this blog, I’ve looked further into the Tenerife case. Two Boeing 747s—one from KLM and one from Pan Am—collided during takeoff and landing amid communication errors and dense fog. The crash claimed 583 lives.
Transcripts of cockpit voice recordings reveal [4] that the first officer on one aircraft had noticed the plane accelerating too quickly and warned the captain, who dismissed him irritably. Minutes later, after requesting takeoff clearance, the air traffic controller used the word “takeoff” when referring to the route to be followed once airborne. But formal clearance had not yet been granted. At that moment, the first officer—hesitant after being shut down earlier—remained silent. No one said “we’re still waiting for clearance.” The plane took off—and the fatal crash occurred.
Had the first officer voiced his objection more firmly, the disaster could have been averted. The absence of psychological safety was a conditio sine qua non in this tragedy.
To be clear, I’ve simplified the events for the sake of this article. I’m not saying the officer’s silence was the sole cause. But it’s evident that speaking up could have dramatically changed the outcome. For more detailed information, consult the official sources from the Government of the Canary Islands [5].
Fortunately, cultural institutions are rarely exposed to such life-or-death risks. But I chose this example because it’s well known and illustrates what happens in thousands of workplaces daily: employees who can’t—or don’t know how to—speak openly with their superiors. People afraid to disagree. “I didn’t say anything, just in case.”
How can we create psychological safety in the workplace?
So here’s the million-dollar question: How can we create a workplace climate in creative industries that satisfies the demands of an artistic leadership—always somewhat authoritarian—while still meeting workers’ needs for autonomy, connection and purpose? How can we ensure that respect for authority doesn’t diminish creativity and effectiveness?
Risk management and controlling tools can help to a degree, but I’m really talking about institutionalising psychological safety—embedding it in our routines, revamping our communication styles and leadership practices, and dismantling the culture of silence that surrounds us.
Let’s not forget: this culture of silence not only discourages speaking up—it also prevents active, attentive listening. Those who do speak up are often labelled as intrusive or volatile because the dominant culture doesn’t want to hear the message. I speak from personal experience.
In recent years, the Anglo-Saxon world has introduced the role of Chief Happiness Officer [6], a figure who could potentially lead a transformation toward open, feedback-driven communication. But what if we don’t have someone in charge of employee well-being?
Most importantly, let’s not assume this is solely a leadership issue. It’s not just a management problem.
Each one of us can contribute to making our workplace more inclusive, more expressive, and more emotionally safe. We can foster a culture where people feel free to form meaningful connections, do meaningful work, and express doubts or fears without being labelled negatively. This often starts with how we treat our colleagues. Sometimes, it’s enough to withhold judgment—to refrain from making assumptions without knowing all the facts, or worse, spreading rumours.
Each of us can act with openness, honesty and courage—recognising that everyone is at a different stage of development and holds different positions in the organisational hierarchy. We must adapt to our audience without silencing ourselves or stifling our creativity.
1. “I don’t know.” “I need help.” “I made a mistake—I’m sorry.”
Three short phrases that are rarely spoken in today’s offices. Not knowing something is human—no manager, however brilliant, knows everything. We all need help sometimes. And of course, we all make mistakes, no matter how “cool” we think we are. Using these simple phrases would go a long way toward improving workplace relationships. I could write an entire article on this alone.
2. Conflict with a colleague or supervisor isn’t necessarily a bad thing
In my experience, the strongest professional bonds often emerge after a disagreement or dispute. Yes, conflict is uncomfortable—but it usually brings learning and insight once resolved. If we use conflict as a means of strengthening relationships, those relationships often come out stronger. If we shift our perspective, we can face the next disagreement with gratitude, even if it’s unpleasant at first.
I guarantee: the people who have most fiercely supported me at work were not my fans from the start. They were the ones who first mistrusted me, challenged me, provoked me—or even made my life difficult for a while.
Only in conflict do we truly get to know each other. Ever heard the saying, “You truly know your sibling when it’s time to divide the inheritance; your spouse, during the divorce; and your children, in old age”?
Exactly. And once we truly know each other, that’s when team building becomes possible. Not before. It depends entirely on how we handle conflict.
Yes, I admit it—this too deserves a full article.
3. Failure is an unavoidable reality
Truly successful people know that failure is part of the path to success. No one reaches the mountaintop without taking the wrong trail or wearing the wrong shoes. No one.
But society defines failure by the dictionary—and that’s a serious mistake. Failure isn’t defeat in learning; it’s a fundamental component of it. We must redefine failure, normalise it, and demystify it. Please—let’s give ourselves permission to fail. It’s the only way to succeed.
4. Always respond productively
What if we’re already in conflict? Then, after truly listening to the other person, let’s respond productively. That means replying not with blame or accusation, but with questions like “What makes you think that?” or “How do you feel saying that?” These shift the focus back to the speaker and their emotions. Because we rarely argue about what really matters—conflict is usually a cover for something deeper we don’t want to reveal[7].
Another good topic for a thesis, by the way.
5. Show appreciation
You can never say thank you too often. In building psychological safety, small gestures of appreciation among colleagues are powerful:
Thank you for speaking up.
Thank you for naming the problem.
Thank you for being honest with me.
Thank you for your patience.
Thank you for helping me.
Thank you for your candour.
Thank you for standing by me.
Thank you.
6. Change is positive
The only certainty in life is change.
That’s why I propose we rethink how we assign responsibility in the workplace. Too often we blame a colleague’s incompetence when the real culprit is the complexity of the system, a lack of established processes, or insufficient guidance from management.
I discussed this in a previous article: Don’t judge too quickly. Ask first [8].
7. Share information
What’s mine is mine. What isn’t mine will never be.
Fearing a colleague might “take your job” is nonsense. Especially if we care about a safe workplace, sharing achievements and information is vital.
In the cultural field I’ve seen many people hoard information to absurd levels. All it did was hinder the team. It never actually protected them. If we want to feel secure, we must also create security for others. Sharing and helping are powerful ways to achieve that.
And no—I’m not talking about confidential information. That goes without saying.
8. Curiosity, compassion and commitment to the person in front of you
The three Cs of good communication: curiosity, compassion and commitment. This is how we inspire and influence others.
If we approach people with a desire to know who they are, what they think and how they feel, doors will open. If we act with compassion (especially because we’ll soon need compassion from others ourselves) and commitment, safe bonds inevitably form. These bonds are the foundation of psychological safety—and they don’t require management’s permission.
To conclude: Yes, to improve the overall well-being of an organisation, management is essential. Employees can contribute a great deal, but they can’t establish psychological safety on their own. It’s a long process. Management must first prepare the ground before inviting participation.
But that’s a topic for another article in this series.
Again. How many times have I said that today? With your permission, I’ll end here with a wink—until next time.
Nicole Martín Medina
June 2025
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
(Original in Spanish/ Translation ChatGPT/ Revision NMM)
******
TAKE NOTE:
This article is also available in
SPANISH (Original): https://nicolemartinmedina.com/disarmonia-en-la-sinfonia-parte-4/
GERMAN: https://nicolemartinmedina.com/de/disharmonie-in-der-symphonie-teil-4/
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Ewing, J. – “Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn Resigns Amid Emissions Scandal” – The New York Times, 23 de sepiembre de 2015 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/business/international/volkswagen-chief-martin-winterkorn-resigns-amid-emissions-scandal.html
[2] Bohmer, R.M.J., Edmondson, A.C., Roberto, M.A., Feldman, L., & Ferlins, E. (2004). Columbia’s Final Mission. Harvard Business School Case 304-090. (Revisado en mayo de 2010). https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/304090-PDF-ENG
[3] Government of the Canary Islands : https://www.transportes.gob.es/organos-colegiados/ciaiac/publicaciones/informes-relevantes/accidente-ocurrido-el-27-de-marzo-de-1977-aeronaves-boeing-747-matricula-ph-buf-de-klm-y-aeronave-boeing-747-matricula-n736pa-de-panam-en-el-aeropuerto-de-los-rodeos-tenerife-islas-canarias
[4] Air Line Pilots Association – Appendix 6 of the Research Report “AirCraft Accident report : Human factors report on the Tenerife accident” https://www.vliegrampfaro.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/1978-ALPA-Human-Factors-report-on-KLM-crash-Tenerife.pdf
[5] Government of the Canary Islands: please look at FN nº 3
[6] Teresa Trejo, Chief Happiness Officer: what are his functions (only Spanish) – https://edem.eu/el-rol-del-chief-happiness-officer/
[7] Jefferson Fisher – The next conversation/ Argue less, talk more (2025), https://www.jeffersonfisher.com/book
[8] Take a look at my article from April 2024: https://nicolemartinmedina.com/en/dis-harmony-in-the-symphony-part-2
One Response