efrenchaux.com

Summary: Psychological safety – the ability to speak candidly without fear – is essential to team performance. But in cross-cultural, distributed teams spanning the Philippines, Colombia, Australia, the U.S., the U.K., and New Zealand, its expression is shaped by local norms around authority, communication, and feedback.

Leaders often misread cultural signals. Silence or indirectness may be misinterpreted as disengagement, when in fact they reflect respect or caution in high-context or hierarchical cultures. Without local adaptation, global teams risk eroding trust and performance through well-intentioned but culturally mismatched management practices.

To operationalize psychological safety across borders, leaders must:

• Localize onboarding to explain expectations for participation and dialogue within a culturally relevant frame.
• Adapt interviews and performance evaluations to avoid bias toward dominant communication styles.
• Equip managers with cultural intelligence to interpret behaviors accurately and lead across divergent norms.
• Use structured communication practices – such as turn-taking and anonymous input channels – to equalize voice.
• Embed psychological safety into systems by aligning hiring, onboarding, and feedback processes with both global standards and local realities.

Psychological safety – the confidence to speak up, make mistakes, and challenge ideas without fear – has become a widely endorsed pillar of high-performing teams. Yet in global and culturally diverse environments, psychological safety cannot be universally assumed or standardized. Its signals, expectations, and norms vary significantly across geographies and cultures.

---

In globally distributed organizations, psychological safety is not an abstract principle. It is a practical leadership discipline – critical to performance, innovation, and sustainable cross-border integration.

Below, I outline what I believe psychological safety truly entails, dismantle common misconceptions, and offer practical guidance for leaders managing distributed teams – particularly those employing team members in the Philippines and Colombia, and managers in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

Rethinking Psychological Safety in a Global Context

Psychological safety is not cultural uniformity; it is contextual permission. While Western organizations often equate safety with visible candor and open dissent, these behaviors may not translate across borders.

As outlined in Erin Meyer’s Culture Map, cultures vary in how they express disagreement, give feedback, and relate to authority.

• In egalitarian, low-context cultures such as Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, challenging leadership openly may signal trust.
• In hierarchical or high-context cultures like the Philippines and Colombia, indirectness or silence may convey professionalism and respect – not fear or disengagement.

Managers based in the US or Australia, for example, may interpret a lack of verbal contribution as disengagement. But for employees in Manila or Bogotá, deference to hierarchy or avoidance of direct contradiction may reflect a desire to preserve harmony.

Misreading these behaviors can distort trust and performance. Leaders must decouple behavioral visibility from psychological risk.

Misconceptions that Undermine Psychological Safety

According to a recent HBR article by Harvard professors Amy Edmondson and Michaela Kerrissey, six myths frequently distort how organizations operationalize psychological safety:

• Myth 1: Psychological safety means being nice. In fact, safety allows for discomfort in pursuit of learning. Being honest may feel tense, but is essential to growth.
• Myth 2: Psychological safety guarantees your views are accepted. It ensures you can express them – but not that they will prevail.
• Myth 3: Psychological safety means job security. It means you can raise difficult issues candidly, not that employment is guaranteed.
• Myth 4: Psychological safety and performance are trade-offs. In reality, accountability and safety are complementary when well-managed.
• Myth 5: Psychological safety is a policy. It is built interaction by interaction, not by mandate.
• Myth 6: Psychological safety starts at the top. Leadership matters – but it must be enacted across every team layer.

For distributed teams, these myths are compounded by cultural variation. A manager in Sydney may unintentionally reward direct communicators while undervaluing quieter contributors in Cebu or Medellín.

Practical Considerations for Global Hiring and Integration

When hiring across countries and cultures, building psychological safety requires deliberate effort across three domains:

• Localized Onboarding: Teams in the Philippines and Colombia benefit from onboarding processes that clarify expectations around idea sharing and respectful disagreement. Instead of importing communication norms from headquarters, onboarding should reflect local preferences while reinforcing the importance of inclusion and open dialogue.
• Cultural Calibration in Interviews: Behavioral interviews often reflect Anglo-American assumptions about confidence and verbal assertiveness. These must be carefully adapted or supplemented when assessing candidates from more hierarchical or indirect communication cultures. For example, interviewers should not mistake humility for a lack of initiative.
• Standardized Evaluation, Culturally Applied: Managers in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand should be equipped with training to avoid interpreting cultural behaviors through a narrow lens. Standardized criteria help reduce misalignment, but they must be applied with cross-cultural awareness. Feedback and performance conversations should reflect both global consistency and local sensitivity.

What Today’s Employees Expect

The 2024 Mercer Global Talent Trends Report identifies psychological safety as one of the most important factors for employee engagement and retention – alongside autonomy and purpose. In globally distributed teams, this is especially true.

Employees increasingly expect:

• “I can voice my opinion openly without fear.”
• “I am empowered to act independently.”

For teams based in the Philippines and Colombia, where hierarchical norms may shape communication, and for managers in countries like Australia, the US, and the UK, where candor is often encouraged, this expectation creates an operational mandate: organizations must make it safe for all team members to contribute – regardless of cultural background or communication style.

Psychological safety, when properly embedded, is not a cultural overlay. It is a structural and behavioral requirement that supports high performance across borders.

Building Psychological Safety in Distributed Teams

Strengthen Cultural Intelligence

Managers based in Australia, the US, or the UK must understand how culture shapes workplace behavior. Frameworks like Meyer’s Culture Map are essential for identifying potential communication and leadership mismatches.

For example, team members in Colombia may expect more relational engagement before raising concerns, whereas US-based managers may prioritize efficiency and directness. Bridging these styles requires intentional calibration.

Promote Inclusive Communication

Adopt team practices that normalize participation and reduce hierarchical barriers:

• Use structured turn-taking in virtual meetings.
• Explicitly invite contributions from quieter team members.
• Create asynchronous input channels where team members can share thoughts without speaking in real-time.

Operationalize Through Systems

Psychological safety must be embedded through:

• Hiring protocols that avoid over-reliance on verbal fluency.
• Onboarding experiences that establish norms of voice, respect, and curiosity.
• Manager development programs that emphasize culturally sensitive performance dialogue.

It is essential that local HR or people leads in countries like the Philippines and Colombia are equipped not just to implement policies, but to coach managers on creating trust within their cultural contexts.

Conclusion

Psychological safety is culturally shaped, not universally expressed. In distributed teams spanning the Philippines, Colombia, Australia, the US, the UK, and New Zealand, assuming uniform behavioral norms risks misalignment and disengagement.

Leaders must be trained to read contextual cues accurately, build communication scaffolds across cultures, and embed safety not as an ideal, but as an operating principle. In globally distributed organizations, psychological safety is not a “nice-to-have” – it is a prerequisite for performance, innovation, and sustainable talent integration.

---

At Filta, where teams operate across the Philippines and Colombia, for Australian, the U.S., the U.K., and New Zealand organizations, embedding psychological safety is not theoretical – it is operational. By equipping managers with cultural context, aligning onboarding with local expectations, and standardizing hiring practices without erasing regional nuance, Filta creates the conditions for high performance in distributed environments. Psychological safety, thoughtfully applied across cultures, underpins Filta’s ability to attract, integrate, and retain top global talent.