PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY, NOT HARMONY, IS WHAT DRIVES HIGH-PERFORMING TEAMS

In boardrooms and executive suites, leaders often say they want strong teams. In practice, many still confuse harmony with performance — and silence with alignment.

According to leadership adviser Drew Povey, this misunderstanding is one of the most persistent reasons organisations struggle to innovate, adapt and retain engaged staff. Povey, whose consultancy works with the NHS and major blue-chip employers including Mitie, argues that high-performing teams are rarely comfortable — and almost never quiet.

“I’ve not come across a leader yet that doesn’t want a strong team,” Povey says. “But the problems can arise when they don’t understand what that strong team would look like.”

Too often, he adds, leaders mistake compliance for commitment.

“One thing it’s not is a team which is quiet or compliant,” he says.

In strong teams, disagreement is not a failure of leadership but a sign that people feel confident enough to test ideas, challenge assumptions and hold one another to account. That dynamic, Povey argues, is essential for innovation — even if it feels uncomfortable in the moment.

“Strong teams are made up of people who can challenge each other, challenge the accepted orthodoxy and who demand accountability – and that means things can get messy,” he says. “But if they feel confident in doing that, that’s when you can innovate and grow.”

This tension, he suggests, is not something leaders should fear.

“It’s the tension within teams which allows the trust to develop; where people can see that they can put their hand up and say ‘what about?’ and it won’t end up with them being sidelined.”

By contrast, teams that appear calm and compliant often mask deeper risks.

“It might sound like reverse logic, but in a quiet, compliant team with people who just keep their heads down, where do the new ideas come from?” Povey asks.

“Where do the challenges to an idea come from which could save your business from that public relations disaster when you launch or that avoidable glitch in a new product which lands you with negative reviews?”

When teams become disengaged or fragile, leaders frequently blame individuals. Povey disagrees.

“A lot of leaders I work with will often feel that their team is a bit stuck, disengaged and fragile. Personally I don’t think this is usually a people problem. I think it’s mainly a leadership issue.”

From his work across the public and private sectors, Povey identifies five common mistakes leaders make when trying to build strong teams.

The first is confusing physical proximity with collaboration. Sitting near one another — whether in an open-plan office or on a video call — does not automatically create teamwork. Performance, he argues, depends not on where people sit but on how they interact and whether disagreement is genuinely welcomed.

The second mistake is valuing comfort over courage. If everything feels smooth, Povey says, the real conversations are probably not happening. High-performing teams confront uncomfortable truths and address problems directly rather than avoiding them in the name of harmony.

Another widespread error is rewarding groupthink. Leaders often misread silence in meetings as consensus, when in reality it may reflect fear, disengagement or a desire to move on quickly. Povey advises leaders to observe what happens after meetings — whether conversations splinter into side-channels — as a signal that people did not feel safe to speak openly in the room.

Clarity, too, is frequently assumed rather than tested. Messages delivered once are rarely absorbed in the same way by everyone. Povey points to marketing’s “rule of seven” — the idea that people need to hear a message multiple times before it truly lands — and argues that internal communication is no different.

Finally, many leaders demand high performance without creating psychological safety. Without an environment where people feel safe to contribute, question and challenge, pressure alone becomes counter-productive.

“Pressure without safety doesn’t raise standards, it lowers them,” Povey says. “It sets people running for the hills because our brains are naturally wired to protect us.”

In volatile economic conditions, he adds, the inability to challenge the status quo can be more dangerous than internal friction.

“It’s increasingly important during tough times, when a fear to challenge the status quo could be a bigger risk to the sustainability of an organisation than letting things get a bit messy.”

Strong leadership, Povey concludes, is not about comfort — but about creating the conditions in which challenge is possible.

“Strong teams are built by leading people in a way where they feel empowered to challenge and to put forward new ideas.”