PSYCHOLOGICAL

SAFETY
TOOLS FOR
INTERNAL AUDIT
TITLE
Psychological safety - handles for Internal Audit

AUDITOR
IIA Netherlands

AUTHORS
Jop Adriaans (Alliander)
Peter Hartog (IIA Netherlands)
Manja Knevelbaard (ACS Insight)
Ignatia Mannoe (I.K. BOOST)
Keetie Polderman (I.K. BOOS)
Marijn Oudshoorn (Auditdienst Rijk)
Erik Pothast (Auditdienst Rijk)

© IIA Netherlands, 2024

Use of the text is permitted provided the source is acknowledged.
Summary
In the dynamic world of internal auditing, there is safe and are without fear are more likely to pursue
a crucial element of the business operations that ambitious goals and challenge themselves. This
still receives little attention in audits: psycholo­ improves performance and promotes growth,
gical safety. Despite the fact that psychological which ultimately benefits the organization.
safety has already proven its importance for the
success of organizations. For instance, Google’s Psychological safety is not the same as social
widely cited study on team effectiveness revealed safety. Social safety focuses on protection
psychological safety as the most significant against undesirable behavior such as intimidation
­­factor (project Aristotle). and discrimination, while psychological safety is
about promoting team effectiveness in an envi-
As internal auditors, we look at the assurances ronment where employees feel seen, heard and
that an organization (unit) will achieve its goals, or valued. These are two different forms of safety
be effective. If psychological safety is one of the that are closely related and add value to the
most significant factors of effectiveness, it should organization in different ways.
be included in many internal audits. In this pub-
lication, IIA Netherlands provides the tools and
explains the concept and importance of psycho- Psychological safety in audits
logical safety, followed by a concrete description As internal auditors, we can link psychological
of how psychological safety can be researched in safety to various topics that are usually part of the
various types of audits. In addition, guidance is audit universe and risk analyses. Including psy-
provided on how to establish psychological safety chological safety in audits can be done in several
in the audit team and in the conduct of audits. All ways, both as an audit variable in a regular audit,
this aims to enhance the added value of the inter- as a separate research or as part of a root cause
nal audit function (IAF) in a positive and construc- analysis. Within these audits, both the psycholo­
tive working environment. gical safety experienced by those involved and its
assurance can be examined. Both have specific
models and techniques. Well- known models such
What is psychological safety? as those of Amy Edmondson, Timothy Clark, Hans
Amy Edmondson, one of the most influential van der Loo and Joriene Beks, Elmira Nijhuis pro-
voices and researchers in the field, describes psy- vide a framework for measuring various dimen-
chological safety as a work environment that is sions and levels of psychological safety.
safe enough to take interpersonal risks, such as
voicing opinions, contributing new ideas and dis-
cussing mistakes in order to learn from and with
each other and be more effective.
When employees feel safe to share ideas and take
risks, they can develop themselves and reach
their full potential. This leads to increased pro-
ductivity, commitment and satisfaction. Thereby,
psychological safety has a direct relationship with
­setting challenging goals and fostering a high-
performance organization. Employees who feel

3
Several techniques can be used in psychological the planning phase: open dialogue and the
safety research, including document research, in- sharing of different perspectives are
terviews, surveys and observations. For each of encouraged;
these techniques, this publication explains the the fieldwork phase: auditees feel
specific advantages and concerns in analyzing comfortable communicating openly and
psychological safety and provides many practical honestly about any challenges or concerns;
tools. Find out which approach, models and tech- the reporting phase: feedback is valued and
niques are best suited to which issues. taken seriously;
the follow-up phase: auditees feel supported
in implementing recommendations and
Psychological safety within the IAF sharing feedback on the progress.
Psychological safety is also important within the
IAF itself. First, there is the role of the CAE and This contributes to fostering a culture of con-
other managers; they play a key role in creating tinuous learning and improvement within the
an environment in which psychological safety organization.. In short, there are plenty of points
thrives and all team members feel valued and of reference for everyone in and around the
respected. Practical examples and aspects are ­audit profession to thoroughly read this publi-
described, such as encouraging active participa- cation and get started with the tools. Psycholo­
tion in team meetings and showing vulnerability gical safety can be incorporated in the internal
by sharing personal mistakes. audit team and in many audits to help create a
­successful, high-performance organization. This
This does not mean that only the departmental also ­addresses the performance component so
and team leaders within the IAF are responsible prominently mentioned in the Global Internal
for psychological safety, because everyone in the ­Audit Standards (GIAS).
department has to contribute to this. This is also
evident in the audit process: psychological safety Good luck and professional fulfillment with this
enhances each phase, from planning to follow- up. publication.
Each phase has its own specific considerations
in order to create a suitable environment for the
audit team to work in:

This contributes to a culture of

continuous learning and improvement
within the organization.

4
Contents
Summary 3

1. Introduction 6

2. What is psychological safety? 7

2.1 The concept of psychological safety 7
2.1.1 Definition 7
2.1.2 Psychological safety versus social safety 7
2.1.3 Misunderstandings surrounding the concept of psychological safety 8
2.2 The importance of psychological safety 8
2.3 Organizational issues in which psychological safety can play
an important role 11
2.4 Models of psychological safety 12
2.4.1 Amy Edmondson – four variables 12
2.4.2 Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks – five characteristics 13
2.4.3 Timothy Clark – four phases 13
2.4.4 Elmira Nijhuis – twelve interactions 15

3. How to audit psychological safety 16

3.1 Types of audits of psychological safety 16
3.2 Research models of psychological safety 17
3.2.1 Amy Edmondson 18
3.2.2 Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks 19
3.2.3 Timothy Clark 21
3.2.4 Elmira Nijhuis 22
3.2.5 PDSA cycle around psychological safety 23
3.2.6 Behavioural auditing 25
3.3 Research techniques 25
3.4 Case descriptions DELA, Univé, Production company, Sure bv 31

4. Psychological safety within one’s own audit department 42

4.1 Psychological safety within the IAF itself 43
4.1.1 Psychological safety within the IAF itself: the role of the leader 43
4.1.2 Psychological safety within the IAF itself: the role of the team 44
4.2. Psychological safety in the audit process for team members 46
4.3. Psychological safety in the audit process for the auditee 48

Appendix 1. Literature List 50

5
1. Introduction
In the dynamic world of internal auditing, there This publication takes you into the world of psy-
is a crucial element in the business operations chological safety. It describes why psychological
that receives relatively little attention in audits: safety is an absolute must in any organization
psychological safety. Meanwhile, psychological striving for high performance, growth, and re-
safety is attracting strong interest from society silience to move with the ever-changing, often
and organizations. And for good reason! Various complex environment. And why it therefore makes
studies have shown that psychological safety is sense to pay attention to this as an auditor.
the determining factor for successful teams.
Chapter 2 explains the concept of psychological
As internal auditors, we look at governance and safety: what is it and what is its importance? It
control. In other words, at the assurances that also discusses what psychological safety is not
an organization(-al unit) will achieve its goals, or and in which organizational issues psychological
be effective. If psychological safety is one of the safety plays a role. Chapter 3 describes the tools
most significant factors of effectiveness, it is a for auditing psychological safety: the types of
factor that should be included in many internal audits and their grounds, the models to be used,
audits. the techniques for mapping it out and a several
of concrete cases to learn from past experiences.
For IIA Netherlands, this prompted a closer study Chapter 4 concludes this publication with the
into what psychological safety precisely entails application of psychological safety to the work
(and what it does not), and especially how the in- processes of the internal auditor. Including con-
ternal auditor can incorporate it into audits given crete tips on how to achieve psychological safety
its importance. This report aims to provide tools and thus create a work environment that allows
for properly researching psychological safety the audit department to thrive even more in the
and thus contributing to the effectiveness of the dynamic work environment.
organization. As the IAF is a team, psychologi-
cal safety is also an important factor for the IAF
itself to function effectively. Thus, guidance is
also provided for a psychologically safe IAF and
conduct of audits. This benefits both auditors and
auditees.

Psychological safety is a determinant

of successful teams and thus should be
included in many internal audits.

6
2. What is psychological safety?
In this chapter we describe what psychological First, we mention the practical elaborations by
safety is, but also what it is not. The following are Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks in the book
discussed in turn: Psychologische veiligheid, zo vorm je vrijmoedige
The concept of psychological safety; teams. Timothy Clark complements the founda-
its importance to teams and organizations; tion of psychological safety with four phases of
organizational issues where psychological psychological safety,ranging from a low to a high
safety can play an important role. degree of mutual respect and consent that team
members grant each other. Elmira Nijhuis adds a
We conclude with a brief description of several new dimension. She defines psychological safety
models on psychological safety. These models are as follows: “The practice of psychological safety
further elaborated in Chapter 3 for use in an audit. consists of feeling free from interpersonal anxie-
ty as well as the willingness to contribute to the
well-being and development of the team and its
2.1 The concept of psychological team members.
safety
2.1.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY
2.1.1 DEFINITION VERSUS SOCIAL SAFETY
There are different definitions of psychological The terms psychological safety and social safety
safety. The most influential voice in the field of are often mistakenly used interchangeably. Both
psychological safety is professor Amy Edmondson relate to the topic of safety, but the direction and
(Harvard Business School) who has been research- approach differ. Social safety primarily focuses
ing psychological safety within teams in organiza- on protection against undesirable behavior such
tions for more than thirty years. Amy Edmondson as intimidation, discrimination and bullying. The
defines psychological safety in her book The Fear- Nederlandse Instituut van Psychologen (NIP) and
less Organization as follows: ‘’Shared belief held the Orde van Organisatiekundigen en -adviseurs
by members of a team that the team is safe for (OOA) define social safety as follows: “There is
interpersonal risk-taking. Psychological safety social unsafety in cases of undesirable ­behavior,
is a sense of confidence that the team will not such as bullying, harassment, intimidation and
embarrass, reject or punish someone for speak- verbal or physical violence. This undesirable be-
ing up. It describes a team climate character- havior can come from managers, colleagues,
ized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in but also from citizens or patients. Care for social
which people are comfortable being themselves.’’ safety focuses on minimizing or even completely
(Edmondson, 2018). eliminating undesirable behavior (Koetsenruijter
and Van der Loo). Being a victim of prolonged
In addition to Amy Edmondson, other researchers social unsafety can lead to stress complaints,
are also concerned with the subject. They often depression and absenteeism from work.’
take the aforementioned definition as a starting
point and then work it out in more practical terms
or add a new dimension to it. In doing so, they also
offer useful angles and tools to audit psychologi-
cal safety. These are described in section 2.4.

7
Psychological safety, on the other hand, is aimed Lowering performance standards - Not an
primarily at creating an environment in which attitude of: everything is fine. Psychological
people feel seen, heard and valued, with organi- safety is specifically about improving the
zational effectiveness as the goal. ‘Psychological performance of the team.
safety manifests itself in the belief that people
can - or even should - be candid. A work climate
that employees perceive as psychologically safe 2.2 The importance of
provides a favorable breeding ground for inno- psychological safety
vation, effectiveness and learning (free from
Edmondson).’ The importance of psychological safety for
the organization
These two types of safety are related and over­ Several scientific studies have been conducted
lapping. However, they are grounded in differ- on the effectiveness of teams, demonstrating the
ent disciplinary backgrounds. Social safety has a importance of psychological safety.
crimi­nological and legal perspective, while psy-
chological safety has an organizational perspec- In 2012, Google initiated a broad two-year study
tive derived from studies of culture and teams called Project Artistotle to identify the most deter-
(Hans van der Loo). In auditing, there is often a mining factors for team effectiveness. Its results
focus on the first perspective (social safety): how are known as “The five keys to a successful team.
are risks mitigated and undesirable situations pre- This study revealed the following: ‘Psychologi-
vented? We believe that the second angle (psy- cal safety was far and away the most important
chological safety) can increase the added value of of the five key dynamics [...] - it’s the underpin-
auditing by looking at the guarantees of success. ning of the other four.’ Thus, psychological safety
is more important than clear goals (structure &
2.1.3 MISUNDERSTANDINGS clarity), trustworthy colleagues (dependability),
SURROUNDING THE CONCEPT OF meaningful work for the team and the individual
PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY (meaning) and the belief that the work has influ-
What is psychological safety not? In practice, ence (impact).
there may be a number of misunderstandings
surrounding the concept of psychological safety In 2018, Amy Edmondson published the book
that lead to misperceptions. Psychological safety The Fearless Organization. creating Psychological
is not (Edmondson, 2018): Safety in the Work- place for Learning, Innovation,
Being nice - It is being candid, providing space and Growth. In this book, she substantiates her
for productive disagreements, free exchange insights through various conducted studies on
of ideas. the team effectiveness and provides the tools for
A personality trait - There is no correlation psychological safety. She even lists the benefits
with personality traits such as introversion or in the title of the book: learning, innovation and
extraversion. It is a characteristic of a team’s growth.
work climate or work environment.
Another word for trust - Trust often occurs
between two individuals/ parties and is
focused on the future. Psychological safety
is experienced at the group level.‘

8
The studies show that psychological safety is the Environments with increased risks related to
foundation on which a team functions optimally. (physical) safety, social interest or political
This has a positive effect on the (improvement) pressure, among others.
realization of team goals and, consequently, on The impact of circumstances such as
achieving organizational goals. This translates volatility, uncertainty, complexity and
into concrete advantages such as: ambiguity that need to be mitigated.
More (incident) reports and therefore more Interdependence of work between colleagues.
insight into risks, challenges and changes
therein. Consequently, the teams and the The importance and benefits of psychological
organization align better with each other, safety are thus less effective when teams perform
with the expectations and with realistic routine or predictable work (Edmondson, 2018).
possibilities within the organization and in However, even for such teams, specific proble­
relation to the environment. matic issues may (temporarily) arise where atten-
Increased productivity through higher input tion to psychological safety does offer benefits.
and engagement due to improved collabo- For example, to increase the team’s involvement
ration within a team (and between teams) in achieving organizational goals or in a change
through transparency and focusing on the process.
collective interest. Especially when there are
differences in e.g. backgrounds, disciplines. The importance of psychological safety and
Improved learning ability and greater creati­ setting ambitious performance standards
vity thanks to mutual feedback and exchange In Edmondson’s model of the four dimensions of
of ideas and knowledge. This leads to greater psychological safety, she indicates that psycho-
flexibility and professionalism in dealing with logical safety is not an isolated issue. As already
(unexpected) challenges or changes. indicated, the goal is to create effective teams.
However, only high levels of psychological safe-
The importance of psychological safety depends ty are not necessarily always good for increas-
on the nature of the organization ing team effectiveness. It is important to also
The aforementioned also raises the question of pay attention to setting ambitious performance
whether psychological safety is equally important standards. See Figure 1 in which the degree of
to all teams (and organizations) or and provides psychological safety is related to the degree of
the same benefits. The answer to this is no. The setting ambitious performance standards. Four
benefits of psychological safety are particularly dimensions are distinguished here: apathy, anxie-
crucial for teams (and therefore organizations) ty, comfort and learning zone.
dealing with:
Low standardization, such as in innovative
processes or processes with a many changes,
complexities and uncertainties.
Ambitious goals, striving for learning and
better performance.
Diversity in background (e.g., culture,
knowledge and skills) and interdependencies
among team members.
Situations where higher employee engage-
ment is sought, such as in change processes.

9
 Figure 1. Four dimensions of psychological safety (based on Edmondson).

1. Apathy Zone – A low level of psychological The team works together and co-workers in-
safety and unambitious performance goals. teract easily. The work environment stimulates
Employees are physically present but seem growth and innovation.
mentally absent and do not feel engaged in
the work and its results. There is resistance to If an organization only works to increase the level
change, little effort, and uncollegial behavior. of psychological safety it does not automatically
Employees choose self-protection over effort. lead to an improvement in team performance.
2. Anxiety Zone – A low level of psychological To get into the learning zone, it is important to
safety with ambitious performance goals. Em- pay attention to ambitious performance goals in
ployees feel they are on their own, do not ask addition to paying attention to psychological
for help, are afraid to make mistakes, do not safety within the team.
propse new ideas and avoid risks.
3. Comfort Zone – A high level of psychological
safety but there are few ambitious perfor-
mance goals. The team is collegial, works at a
steady pace, the work is pleasant, but there are
no real challenges. Teams struggle to make sig-
nificant progress.
4. Learning Zone – A high level of psychological Team effectiveness requires
safety and ambitious performance-goals. The a combination of psychological
team’s working atmosphere is characterized
by openness. There is creativity, mistakes are
safety and ambitious
learned from, employees dare to take risks. performance standards

10
2.3 Organizational issues in share ideas, give feedback and work construc-
which level psychological safety tively together toward common goals.
can play an important role Undesirable behavior - Undesirable behavior
relates particularly to the topic of social safe-
Psychological safety affects team effectiveness ty. However, investigations into undesirable
and the team’s achievement of performance behavior within organizations can also touch
goals. Thus, psychological safety can play an im- on the subject of psychological safety. An ex-
portant role in achieving the themes on which a ample is the research report Strength without
team is working. For the auditor, this means that Counterforce, which deals with an investiga-
including psychological safety in audits of other tion in response to signals about undesirable
themes can also add value. For inspiration, here behavior in the House of Representatives. This
are a number of organizational issues: also addressed signals related to perceived
Integrity and compliance - Audits into inte­ psychological safety. Attention to psychologi-
grity and compliance generally look not only cal safety can affect how quickly people speak
at (ensuring) compliance with rules, but also at up about undesirable behavior.
the way employees make decisions in difficult
situations, and how they account for them. In conversations within organizations, we notice
A psychologically safe environment in which that the term psychological safety and its mean-
employees share their dilemmas and doubts is ing are not always well understood and can evoke
important. Insight into and the understanding various interpretations. It can feel like a catch-all
of this can be obtained by including psycho- term or threatening. This creates the risk of resist-
logical safety in the audits. The importance of ance when researching psychological safety. As
psychological safety in the context of integrity an auditor, it is therefore important to take into
and compliance was confirmed by the Dutch account the possible sensitivity surrounding the
Compliance Institute’s award of the National terminology. It is essential to explain and describe
Compliance Award 2023 to Amy Edmondson. the term well, for example in the annual plan, in
Inclusion - An audit into inclusion can also the title of the audit or in the communication to-
touch on the topic of psychological safety by wards the client and the auditee. In such cases,
examining whether all individuals, regardless the explanation of the concept of psychological
of background, feel free to express their opi­ safety from this publication may possibly help.
nions, share ideas and be themselves without
fear of negative consequences. An environ- Alternatively, another references can be used. For
ment that is psychologically safe promotes example, consider the themes described above.
diversity and inclusion because all voices are Figure 2 shows a number of topics and terms for
heard and everyone has an equal opportunity inspiration that have a relationship to the term
to contribute and thrive within the organiza- psychological safety, which we gathered in con-
tion. versations with researchers and auditors in var-
Effective collaboration - Psychological safety ious organizations. The auditor can use these
is relevant to (an audit on) effective collabora- terms when communicating about conducting
tion because it affects the of openness, trust an investigation into psychological safety. These
and respect within a team or organization. terms also illustrate the broad relevance of psy-
An environment that is psychologically safe chological safety across various domains.
encourages open communication and fosters
a culture in which team members feel free to

11
 Figure 2. Collected topics related to psychological safety

2.4 Models of psychological 2.4.1 AMY EDMONDSON –

safety FOUR VARIABLES
Amy Edmondson has been researching psycho-
The following describes a number of models or logical safety in the context of organizations for
frameworks that, on the one hand, have proven more than 30 years. Her book The Fearless orga­
their value in the field of implementing and inves- nization is influential. She identifies four variables
tigating psychological safety and, on the other surrounding psychological safety:
hand, are also useful to an internal auditor. This willingness to help and teaming;
section briefly describes the design and back- inclusion and diversity;
ground of each model. Then section 3.2 further attitude about taking risks and making
discusses the possible use of these models in an mistakes;
audit. They will be further operationalized there. open conversations.

Following the definitions in Section 2.1, the follow- Amy Edmondson shares in her book a commonly
ing models are discussed: used survey that can be used to measure these
Amy Edmondson; four variables. These variables can also be found
Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks; in section 3.3.3.
Timothy Clark; In addition, she provides tools for building psy-
Elmira Nijhuis. chological safety. These are tasks for leadership:
prepare the way;
invite participation;
productive response.

12
 Figure 3. The Big Five framework by Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks

2.4.2 HANS VAN DER LOO AND clude, listen and ignore, heal and abuse, sanctify
JORIENE BEKS - FIVE CHARACTERISTICS and scar.” Clark links the spectrum of human
Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks’ Big Five frame- needs and behavior to psychological safety. He
work (see Figure 3) consists of five characteristics ­describes four phases by which a social unit (e.g.,
of psychological safety: a team) can measure psychological safety. The
Inclusion - People feel at home on their team, framework consists of two axes: degree of re-
they belong and all talents are utilized. spect and degree of consent. This refers to the
Sharing - The team communicates openly respect or permission you receive from the other
about mistakes, opinions and ideas. person to participate. If you do not receive both,
Deliver - Everyone on the team participates, you are excluded (see figure 4). You are not seen
takes initiative and is committed to the (exclusion).
common outcome.
Challenge - Asking critical questions relative Let’s take a soccer player in a soccer team as an
to the status quo is not foreign for the team example to go through the different steps of the
and this is accepted and used to improve framework. If you are not part of the team, you are
every day. in the lower left-hand corner of the framework (ex-
Positivity - In the team, colleagues support clusion). The moment you can become part of the
each other, successes are remembered and team, you go to phase 1 (inclusion safety): you are
celebrated regularly, emotions are seen as a admitted to the team. Not once, but structurally,
signal and discussed together. you are involved in training sessions, consulta-
tions, etc.
2.4.3 TIMOTHY CLARK – FOUR PHASES Then comes phase 2 (learner safety), where you
Timothy Clark writes widely on human interaction feel safe to learn, ask questions, experiment and
and innovation. He wrote the book The 4 stages maybe even dare to make a mistake. You no longer
of psychological safety in 2020, in which he ar- stand on the sidelines, but participate. You may
gues that the modern challenge is not artificial be able to fill in, or sometimes play a whole match,
intelligence, but emotional and social intelligence. though you might still spend some time on the
“People invite and disinvite, include and ex- bench. The group allows you to participate more

13
 Figure 4. The path from inclusion to innovation. Framework Timothy Clark - psychological safety

even though you are not yet contributing fully to Do you get respect but not permission? Then you
the team’s performance. fall into the category of limiting your freedom or
The moment you do, you are in phase 3 (contribu- autonomy (paternalism), a breeding ground for
tor safety). As a soccer player, you are then in the cynicism and disconnection rather than con-
starting lineup, you are a valuable force. As you nection. Then you are the soccer player who is
show more of yourself, you get more autonomy to told that you will soon be in the starting lineup
contribute. but must always sit on the bench. The other way
around is also possible, that you get the permis-
To achieve innovation with a group, you must sion but not the respect of the other. Then you are
reach stage 4 (challenger safety): be able to chal- in the category of exploitation, in which the val-
lenge the status quo without risk of losing your ue you provide is demanded but not appreciated.
position or reputation. In other words, an open Then you are the soccer player who is in the start-
and safe climate to engage with each other about ing lineup, but never appreciated for your efforts.
the way things are going. The soccer player who Timothy Clark argues that the most important
dares to challenge the coach on choices made, or task of a leader - besides creating a vision and
dares to tell his captain or team member the truth setting a strategy - is to take on the role of social
in a constructive manner. “Challenger safety is a architect and give people the respect and per-
license to innovate,” says Timothy Clark, inviting mission to: 1) feel welcome, 2) be allowed to learn,
leaders to make Stage 4 the norm in organiza- 3) contribute, 4) innovate.
tions and teams.

14
Auditors can use Timothy Clark’s framework to 2.4.4 ELMIRA NIJHUIS –
understand the level of psychological safety in TWELVE INTERACTIONS
teams. By asking auditees and involved stake- Elmira Nijhuis’ interaction model focuses on open
holders about the degree of respect and permis- communication and identifies 12 interactions that
sion they experience, the current level of psycho- promote psychological safety, adding dimensions
logical safety can be estimated. To what extent to psychological safety such as the will to contri­
do people feel the space to ask questions and do bute to the common good of the team (see Figure 5).
they do so? To what extent is the status quo be- The interaction model is based on board-level
ing challenged? Observing group discussions (e.g., (C-level) research, but useful for all teams.
team meetings, MT meetings, project team meet-
ings) can also provide many in- sights if you use
Clark’s framework.

Figure 5. Elmira Nijhuis’ interaction model.

15
3. How to audit psychological safety
This chapter discusses auditing (or researching) A problem identifying audit of psychological safe-
psychological safety.The goal is to provide practical ty can take place as part of a broader audit of the
guidance on various forms of auditing psycholo­ effectiveness of control (as one of the audit vari-
gical safety. Which audit is appropriate depends ables),or as a theme audit specifically focused on
on the situation and the contribution expected the topic of psychological safety.
from the audit. The type of audit is then in strong
determinant of the models and techniques that Within the problem identifying audits, two ob-
can best be used in the process. This chapter dis- jects can be distinguished:
cusses successively: employees’ perceived psychological safety;
the different types of psychological safety its control or assurance, that is, looking at
audits; the presence (design and functioning) of the
the reference models that can be used in the factors that determine (perceived) psycholo­
process; gical safety.
matching data collection techniques.
These two objects have their own models and
We conclude with some case descriptions that techniques. Incidentally, the same models and
can be seen as good practices. techniques can also be used in a descriptive study
of those objects. In that case, the actual situation
In this publication, we assume that internal au- is described without giving an opinion about it.
ditors will use the tools provided to arrive at an For example, this may be opportune if the internal
operationalization that fits the research question, auditor is asked to provide input for further dis-
the context and the specific need in the organi- cussion and decision-making by the client.
zation.
Diagnostisc audit
The diagnostic audit looks at the causes of an al-
3.1 Types of audits of ready identified problem. For example, examining
psychological safety the causes of a problem in team performance,
We distinguish two types when it comes to the learning ability or high turnover, and examining
question: why do you do the audit? Namely, the psychological safety as one of the possible cau­
problem identifying audit and diagnostic audit. ses. In terms of purpose, this is similar to the pos-
sible root cause analysis at the end of a problem
Problem identifying audit identifying audit. A diagnostic audit is appropriate
The problem identifying audit focuses on w ­ hether when a problem is evident, but the exact causes
the actual situation meets the criteria set for it, or are uncertain. Identifying these causes clearly is
whether it’s not and there is a problem. The rea- essential for effectively addressing the problem.
son for such an audit can be a signal, but it can
also be carried out “preventively”. In the latter
case, the audit is conducted because psycholo­
gical safety is a critical factor for the organization
and the board and/or management seek addi-
tional assurance regarding it.

16
Within the diagnostic audits, we distinguish two Psychological safety may be a subject that war-
forms: rants a person-centered research. These research-
A diagnostic audit with a predefined perspec- es require a specific approach and expertise. This
tive, with predefined evaluation criteria. In is not covered int his publication, we therefore
this case, the possible causes are specified look at psychological safety as an organizational
in the preparation. Then, first it is assessed or team characteristic.
whether these factors are present indeed, and
if they are, secondly whether these are the
deter­mining factors, meaning there is a causal 3.2 Research models
relationship between the factor(s) and the psychological safety
problem. In Chapter 2, in addition to the definition and
The advantage of this method of research is importance, several frameworks or models for
that you can quickly and specifically get psychological safety that are useful for internal
started with a model that has proven its value. auditors already were described. In this section,
Because you define in advance what you do these models are further elaborated, or operation-
(and therefore do not) take into account, the alized, to be used as evaluation criteria in audits.
choice of model is important. This audit can The following models are discussed in turn:
largely use the same models as in the problem four variables of psychological safety
identifying audit into the control or assurance according to Amy Edmondson;
of psychological safety. Big Five characteristics by Hans van der Loo
A behavioral audit, on the other hand, works and Joriene Beks;
without predetermined framework or evalua- four stages of psychological safety Timothy
tion criteria This is also known as a form of in- Clark;
ductive research. It’s used because predefined Interaction model by Elmira Nijhuis;
criteria can act as blinders, creating the risk PDSA cycle around psychological safety;
of overlooking the actual causes. This form behavioral auditing.
of research is especially important when the
causes are deeper and more difficult to deter- The first four models focus on measuring psycho-
mine. In the behavioral audit, there is a more logical safety itself, the PDSA model describes its
in-depth focus on behavior and its underly- control or assurance, and the last model outlines
ing factors: the underlying assumptions and a way of research without predefined evaluation
mental models such as unconscious thoughts, criteria.
beliefs, perceptions and feelings.
The models mentioned in this publication can be
Furthermore, it is important to consider whether used to define the evaluation criteria in an audit
a “judgment” about psychological safety is desi­ that is (entirely or in part) focuses on psycholo­
rable, necessary or productive. This may not gical safety, or to add some elements to regular
be the case, for example, if the purpose of the audits. When considering the latter as an audi-
research is primarily to provide input for a team tor, it is important that there is a substantiated
discussion, where the interpretation is done by hypothesis based on previous signals and the
the team itself. appropriate elements are added to it.

17
The models can serve both for a problem identi- 3.2.1 AMY EDMONDSON
fying audit and a diagnostic audit. When you want In her studies, Amy Edmondson uses a mix of dif-
to know from a strategic perspective whether ferent research methods to achieve neutral and
there is a problem with psychological safety, the reliable outcomes. These research methods are
models provide quick insight. When you already well-suited themselves to be operationalize into
know on the basis of signals that there is insuf- evaluation criteria or a research model for internal
ficient psychological safety, the models provide auditors. See Table 1 for a detailed description as a
you tools to discover with which variable the basis for an audit of psychological safety.
problem is mainly related to. This allows you to
give management and/or employees actionable
perspectives to improve performance organiza-
tion-wide.

Variable Interviews Surveys Observation

Willingness • When do you experience • It is difficult to ask other • Offers help
to help and willingness from others members of the team for help
teaming to help?
• No one on this team would
deliberately act in a way that
undermines my efforts

Inclusion and • How do you make sure • People on this team some- • Provides guidelines for
diversity others are appreciated? times reject others because discussion
they are different
• How do you feel about • Ensures everyone has the
diversity and inclusion within • Working with members of this opportunity to contribute
this organization? team my unique skills and ta-
lents are valued and utilized.

Attitude • What makes you dare to take • If you make a mistake on this • Acknowledges gaps
about taking risks or make mistakes? team, it is often held against
• Offers apologies
risks and you.
making • Seeks for opinions and
• It is safe to take a risk in this
mistakes suggestions from others
team
• Shows lack of knowledge

Having open • When are you able to bring up • Members of this team are • Corrects when someone
conversations problems and difficulty issues? able to bring up problems interupts the other person
and tough issues. while speaking
• Have you ever expressed your
own (different) opinion? • People in this department
• Acknowledges the other
prefer not to share
• How is that handled?
information about what
• Thanks the other for input
• What was the effect of that? doesn’t work and what
• Compliments
does work
• Can you give an example?
• Asks good questions (open,
If not, why not?
asks for information, without
judgment, seeks clarification)

• Demonstrates ‘real listening’

Table 1. Elaboration of evaluation criteria based on Amy Edmondson

18
In addition, as an internal auditor, you can re-
search whether leaders are using the indicated
tools for building psychological safety in practice,
and identify where they still have opportunities to
enhance psychological safety (see Table 2).

Category Preparing the way Inviting participation Reacting Productively

Leadership Create a framework for work Show humility in situations Expressing your appreciation
tasks
• Share expectations about • Acknowledge gaps • Listen
failure, uncertainty and
• Acknowledge and thank
interdependence to clarify
the need to speak up Ask questions
• Ask good questions Avoid stigmatizing failure
Emphasize the goal • Show that you are truly • Look Ahead
listening
• Highlight what is at stake, • Offer help
why it is important and for
whom • Discuss, consider and
Bring structure and put brainstorm further steps
processes in place
• Create forums for input
Punish clear violations
• Provide guidelines for
discussion
Processes Shared expectations and Ther is turst that speaking up Orientation towards
meaning is welcomed continuous learning

Table 2. Tools for building psychological safety (Amy Edmondson)

3.2.2 HANS VAN DER LOO AND In section 3.4 there are two case studies de-
JORIENE BEKS scriptions that used the Big Five characteristics
The 2020 book Field Guide to Psychological Safe- through a growth model.
ty provides many tools for designing evaluation
criteria based on the Big Five characteristics of
psychological safety appropriate for the orga­
nization. See Table 3 for an example, including the
elaboration to various research methods.

The models are useful in problem

identifying and diagnostic audits.

19
Variable Variables Observation points Possible interview questions
(Big five)

Inclusion • Collaborate • Diversity of the group • Does everyone feel at home?

• Participate • Respect and consideration • Is everyone accepted as they/
• Being valued for each other they are?
• Involvement • Degree of listening to each • ...?
other • ...?
• Engagement
• Equality in the group
• Distribution of speaking time

Share • Openness • Atmosphere of sharing • Can you freely express

• Curiosity • Degree of sharing opinions your opinion on issues and
problems?
• Sharing of opinions • Dealing with mistakes
• Are mistakes seen as learning
• Acknowledgement and • Feedback methods and
oppertunities?
discussing mistakes dealing with disagreements
• ...?
• Continuously wanting
to improve • ...?

Delivering • Performing • Clarity about guidelines • Does it feel safe to take risks?
• Results and goals • Are your unique qualities being
• Full participatetion • Everyone’s contribution utilized and appreciated?
• Commitment • Discussing progress • ...?
• Involvement • Achieving goals individually • ...?
or together
• Wanting to make a
difference

Challenge • Challenging the status quo • Degree of introducing new • Is it appreciated when you
• New ideas ideas, feedback and solutions suggest new ideas?
• Naming problems • Response to contributions • Is it encouraged to push
• Way of giving and receiving through existing boundaries?
• Offering solutions
feedback • ...?
• Opportunities for change/
innovation • Creativity • ...?

Positivity • Work happiness • Discussing emotions • Is there a positive

• Job satisfaction • Degree of cheerfulness and atmosphere?
• Resilience enthusiasm • Can you easily ask others for
• Atmosphere amongst team help?
• Support
members • ...?
• Celebrating successes • ...?
• Compliments each other
• Positive communication

Table 3. Elaboration of evaluation criteria based on the Big Five characteristics

20
3.2.3 TIMOTHY CLARK ty, the corresponding central question and Top 5
Timothy Clark’s model is a good starting point behaviors appropriate to the stage, and the cor-
if, as an auditor, you want to provide insight into responding research method. The behaviors in-
the stages of psychological safety in a team. See dicate whether they pertain to an individual (I),
Table 4 for the four stages of psychological safe- team (T), or leader (L).

Phase Central question Top -5 behaviors Research method

Inclusion How do you ensure • Listen and pause (I) Interview (questions
safety others feel involved? • Ask twice as much as you talk (L) focused on phase 1) and
observation of the team
• Express gratitude and appreciation
(using an observation
(I) (T) (L)
scheme)
• Avoid comparison and competition (T)
• Practice inclusion as a human need and
right (L)

Learner How do you ensure • Share what you learn (I) Interview (questions
safety others feel safe and • Frame problems before you solve them focused on stage 2) and
motivated to learn? (T) (L) observation of the team
(using an observation
• Share past mistakes with each other
scheme)
(I) (T) (L)
• Spend time and resources on learning (L)
• Foster a student mentality (I) (L)

Contributor How do you ensure • Celebrate small wins (I) (T) (L) Interview (questions
safety others feel safe to • Ask people what they think (I) (T) (L) focused on stage 3) and
contribute and make observation of the team
• Shift from telling to asking (L)
a difference? (using an observation
• Help others see their strengths (I) (T) (L) scheme)
• Acknowledge achievements (L)

Challenger How do you ensure • Take the last turn in speaking (L) Interview (questions
safety others feel safe to • Encourage others to think beyond their focused on stage 4) and
innovate and make roles (T) (L) observation of the team
improve things? (using an observation
• Address the fear button (L)
scheme)
• Respond constructively to disruptive ideas
and bad news (I) (T) (L)
• Model the art of disagreement (L)

Table 4. Elaboration of evaluation criteria based on Timothy Clark

21
3.2.4 ELMIRA NIJHUIS [team x] feel free from interpersonal fear, and is
In Elmira Nijhuis’ model, the twelve interactions there a willingness to contribute to the well-being
provide a good starting point to operationalize and development of the team and its members?
and design evaluation criteria. A central question See Table 5 for further elaboration of the model
based on Elmira Nijhuis’ definition (see section 2.1.) into variables and sub-variables.
can be: to what extent do the team members in
Variable Definitionof interaction according
Possible sub-variables
(interaction) to Elmira Nijhuis
Prosocial Supporting each other during vulnerable life phases, • Supports
behavior collaborating effectively, willingly taking over each • Collaboration within the team,
other’s work, celebrating successes together, stan- • Celebrating successes
ding up for each other in the team, helping each • Dealing with problem solving
other with solutions, and treating each other as you • Presence of group norms
would like to be treated.

Common Prioritizing the common good, focusing on the • Common and individual interest
interest collective ambition, being willing to see the broader • Presence of common ambition
perspective, personal problems are addressed as • Solving individual problems together
collective problems.

Loyal behavior Standing up for each other outside the team, • Standing up for each other,
trusting each other’s discretion, not letting including outside the team
themselves be played off against each other • Having trust in the team
• Dealing with information

Valuing Appreciating each other’s individuality, utilizing each • Dealing with each other’s skills, talents
diversity other’s skills, encouraging the other to express a and knowledge
differing opinion, exploring differences in opinions • Inviting and incorporating different
together perspectives

Showing Personal identity, being authentic, being oneself, • Space for personal identity and authenticity
authenticity embodying values/norms • Room to be yourself in the team
• Presence of norms and values
Knowing skills Recognizing and valuing talents and skills • Dealing with talents and skills
• Valuing talents and skills

Learning Discussing mistakes to learn from them, showing • Discussing and addressing mistakes
orientation self-reflection, being accountable for mistakes, • Presence of and degree of self-reflection
giving advice with space for the other person, • Giving mutual advice
evaluating together afterward why things were not • Speaking up and evaluation in the team
expressed, and resolving to speak up next time.
Daring to Room to make mistakes, openly discuss • Room for mistakes
make mistakes, and view mistakes as part of growth. • Room for discussing mistakes
mistakes • Making mistakes and discussing them
as part of growing
Knowing each Building personal relationships with each other, • Forms of interactions and contacts within
other well maintaining informal contact, knowing each other’s the team, including on a personal level
private settings, and spending time together.
Interpersonal Having a mutual bond, sharing the same • Mutual ties in the team
relationships back­ground, having mutual trust, no tension in • Degree of confidence
the relationship, group pressure, becoming less • Degree of tensions
critical. • Presence of peer pressure
• Room for feedback
Taking risks Daring to take interpersonal risks • Degree of interpersonal risk-taking

Asking for Feeling free to ask for help, accepting help, • Room to ask for help and accept help
help feeling comfortable admitting when you don’t know • Room to be vulnerable
something and asking for assistance.

Table 5. Elaboration of evaluation criteria based on Elmira Nijhuis

22
3.2.5 3.2.5 PDSA CYCLE AROUND on shared values, and elaborating them into
PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY other (instrumental) measures. This requires
The aforementioned models are aimed at meas- the attention of an organization’s manage-
uring the (perception of) psychological safety. ment.
The PDSA model focuses on guiding and Measuring and evaluating the degree of psy-
­securing the governance of psychological safe- chological safety to gain insight into its the
ty. This model was developed by Erik Pothast, presence and any potential problems or risks.
based on his experiences conducting inves- Implementing additional and/or compensating
tigations into various governance issues. An measures at the team level and organization-
­audit of governance can be conducted inde- al measures to support psychological safety
pendently, but also in combination with a study within teams or adjusting goals.
on the perception of psychological safety based
on one of the previously mentioned models. See Table 6 for conducting an audit on the
governance of psychological safety within an
PDSA is defined by Deming as the successor to organization, with the relevant criteria for each
the well-known PDCA cycle: a continuous process phase of the PDSA cycle.
of Preparation (Plan), Execution (Do), Measuring
and Evaluation (Study) and Adjustment (Act). The The auditor assessing governance will include
premise is that the (sustained) effective function- all four phases in the examination. From the
ing of psychological safety within a team and the organization’s perspective, the audit can be an
presence of psychological safety are not a coinci- important part of the STUDY phase. For example,
dence. Achieving this requires continuous atten- by assessing whether all measures are actually
tion, steering, and the establishment of govern- effective and what the actual perception of psy-
ance measures around psychological safety. This chological safety is amongst the employees.
includes:
Setting (ambitious) goals regarding the desired
level of psychological safety. But also working

The premise is that the

(sustained) effective
functioning of psychological
safety within a team and the
presence of psychological
safety are not a coincidence.

23
Phase Evaluation criteria

PLAN • There is a goal and principles and success factors have been identified regarding psychological safety.
For example:
- The need to speak up is clearly stated
- This is known to the employees
• Psychological safety is included in the risk analysis and measures are identified
• There is a plan and elaboration of concrete measures focusing on realizing psychological safety within
teams and achieving a psychologically safe environment. For example:
- The organization and teams have worked out the characteristics of a psychologically safe work
environment specifically for the workplace and/or team
- Appropriate measures have been developed to support a psychologically safety work environment,
focusing on; organizing meetings, effective meetings, working together, encouraging speaking up
HR measures have been developed that support the psychologically safe work environment,
focused on the development of leaders
- A framework for failures has been developed that distinguishes between undesired failures and
failures seen as learning opportunities, to share with each other
- There is sufficient expertise on psychological safety within the organization or this is organized in
another way
- There is a complaints procedure for internal and external complaints

DO • The measures taken have actually been implemented and are being carried out
• The direct supervisor is aware of their role, knows what actions to take and receives coaching in it.
• Within HR processes, attention is paid to achieving a psychologically safe environment
• There are several opportunities for the team to meet (including physically) and to interact with each
other
• The direct supervisor leads by example
• Meeting discipline is monitored
• Employees are motivated to participate
• Team members speak up and ask each other questions
• Mistakes, learning opportunities and successes are shared with each other

STUDY • The effectiveness of the measures taken is being examined

• Alongside measuring the effectiveness of the measures taken, an evaluation is conducted to
determine if the established goals have been achieved. The team evaluates the levelof psychological
safety perceived. For example, this can be part of a broader employee survey.
• Signals derives from other processes, reports and complaints are examined for possible indications
related to psychological safety.

ACT • Based on the results of the STUDY phase, adjustments are made to the measures and goals of
psychological safety.
• In the adjustment, consideration is given to the impact of possible actions on psychological safety
• In addition to setting substantive (ambitious) goals in the organization’s policy and strategy, there is
also an emphasis on setting goals for psychological safety within teams.
• Leadership takes timely action on signals regarding psychological safety within the organization.

Table 6. Elaboration of evaluation criteria based on PDSA model

24
3.2.6 BEHAVIOURAL AUDITING 3.3 Research techniques
The research models mentioned above provide a In this section, we describe the techniques that
starting point when you want to conduct a prob- are suitable for a study of psychological safety.
lem identifying audit via a deductive inquiry. Your We focus particularly on the specific points of
starting point is then a standard, a frame of refer- consideration, both in selection (when is what
ence or a hypothesis. This approach is straightfor- applicable) and in application. The following tech-
ward and relevant if the model is robust, but there niques are discussed:
is also a risk: you put on certain blinders. As Burke document research;
writes, “A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing.” interviews;
Inductive research is used when you want to de- surveys
velop a theory. It is a bottom-up research method observation;
and can help auditors learn more about some- reporting.
thing by looking at it more deeply and identifying
patterns. This method reveals complex phenome- Each technique has advantages and disadvantag-
na like psychological safety that may not become es, for which we to refer to more general literature
apparent if you use a deductive design. on the subject. Here, we specifically indicate how
the various techniques can be used for research-
Behavioural auditing is an auditing method with ing psychological safety.
roots in the social sciences. It enables internal Measuring behavior and experiences (reliable and
auditors to uncover mental models, assumptions valid), including psychological safety, is not easy.
and motives within organizations. It aims to be a Therefore, for psychological safety, the general
tool for reflection, deep learning and evaluation “research measures” to do it properly apply: the
of root causes, striving for ‘double loop learning’ operationalization of behavior into practical as
(Otten & Van der Meulen, 2013). It reveals what well as valid indicators and using both source and
is truly happening in organizations, explaining method triangulation. By method triangulation,
why people act and think as they do. Section 3.4 we mean using two or more methods to assess
provides an example of a behavioral audit in the the same behavioral aspect, drawing a conclusion
casus Sure bv. only when the results of these methods confirm
each other.

3.3.1. DOCUMENT RESEARCH

Organizations have documents available that
can provide insights into psychological safety in
teams. An important source of information, for
example, is the outcome of an employee satis­
faction survey (ESS).
No ESS is the same, so it is important to select
questions that address themes related to psy-
chological safety, such as the willingness to help
each other, inclusion and diversity, attitudes to-
ward risk-taking and making mistakes, and open
communication. These four variables are derived
from Amy Edmondson (2018). What do the over-
all outcomes indicate? Are there open-ended

25
responses that touch on these themes, and is are being investigated in the organization, you can
there a common thread to be found? It is also conduct a common-thread ana­lysis and apply the
important to analyze the differences between theory of psychological safety to discover wheth-
teams or organizational units, as that psycho- er the common thread reveals signals about the
logical safety can vary by team/organizational degree of psychological safety.
unit. Pay attention to the response rate of com-
pleted surveys. Examine what causes this. A low Consider also reports from confidential advi-
response rate, for example, can indicate an issue sors, record exit interviews or news reports in the
with psycho-logical safety, but it may also have media (about your own organization or from the
other causes. A risk is that the outcomes may re- industry). This documentation and similar records
flect ‘strategic’ responses, especially when there can provide an indication of whether there are
is a high degree of traceability to an employee. issues related to psychological safety, but they
often do not provide insight into the deeper un-
Absence and turnover rates from HR reports can derlying causes.
also provide interesting angles. If there is high
absenteeism or high turnover within the organi- 3.3.2. INTERVIEWS
zation, this may be a sign that people do not feel Interviewing is one of the most important ways to
heard and/or seen. Are there departments where collect data on psychological safety because you
absenteeism or turnover is significantly higher are researching people’s perceptions and beliefs.
than in other departments? What explanations Interviews have the advantage speaking to peo-
are there for this? There can be a difference be- ple face to face, asking follow-up questions, and
tween reported explanations and the actual simultaneously observing them.
experiences of the people involved. Of course,
there is no one-to-one relationship between There are different ways of conducting interviews.
these figures and psychological safety; there The most commonly chosen method by internal
can be many other factors contributing to high auditors is the semi-structured interview. This
absenteeism or turnover. Similarly, percentages method is especially suitable for an audit with
that meet the benchmark do not directly indicate predefined evaluation criteria. For interviews on
that everything is going well. In some sectors, psychological safety, you can derive the topics
psychological safety may be more compromised from the reference models mentioned in the pre-
by factors such as power versus dependence and vious section. From this you can build an interview
by high work pressure, such as in hospitals and in protocol in which you formulate opening ques-
the entertainment industry. An additional discus- tions per topic that are broad and open-ended
sion with HR, a confidential advisor or occupa- (how, why, what, when, who?).
tional physician can often provide more context
to the figures. Taking Amy Edmondson’s theory with the four
variables of psychological safety as an example,
In addition, findings from previous research and you could include questions such as: When do
audits may be valuable. Is there a common thread you experience a willingness from others to help?
to be found that touches on themes ­related to What makes you feel safe to take risks or make
psychological safety? Have internal auditors re- mistakes? How do you ensure that others feel
ceived “off the record” information or informally valued? How do you view diversity and inclusion
picked up insights during previous engagements? within this organization? When are you able to
If so, it is important to analyze this. If soft controls bring up problems and difficult issues?

26
Another suitable method is qualitative interview- 3.3.3 SURVEYS
ing (also called in-depth interviews). Here, the Surveys or questionnaires are also suitable tech-
interviewer aims to achieve greater depth and niques for studying psychological safety. You
uncover the personal motivations and principles can reach a large group, offer anonymity, and it
and values underlying the actual behavior. This is less of a burden for the auditee than an inter-
­method of interviewing is well-suited in ­behavioral view. Survey results can indicate whether there is
audits, diagnostic audits and other research with- a ­problem regarding the degree of psychological
out predefined evaluation criteria, such as root safety in teams. However, constructing a valid
cause analyses. By engaging in a reflective con- questionnaire is not an easy task, and proper data
versation, people become aware of why they do interpretation is essential. We advocate using vali­
what they do, think what they think, and why it is dated questionnaires, such as Amy Edmondson’s
important to them.. An additional benefit is that survey, (without making adjustments to it).
this can provide a basis for realizing improve-
ments. This technique is characterized by asking Amy Edmondson and her research team use
open-ended questions and probing further with- a scientifically validated survey with seven
out a specific direction.. It is important not to ask questions. In her studies, she used different
judgmental question or incorporate theme’s in questionnaires to assess psychological safety.
the line of questioning, but to listen and inquire The questions in Table 7 have been extensively
free from judgement. applied and tested and scientifically validated
(Amy ­Edmondson, 2018). The questionnaire in-
cluded both positively and negatively (R) framed
questions.

Question Variable

1. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you. (R) C. Attitude to risk and failure

2. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues. D. Open conversation

3. People on this team sometimes reject others for being different. (R) B. Inclusion and diversity

4. It is safe to take a risk in this team. C. Attitude to risk and failure

5. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help. (R) A. Willingness to help and teaming

6. N
 o one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my A. Willingness to help and teaming
efforts.
7. Working with members of this team my unique skills and talents are valued B. Inclusion and diversity
and utilized.

Table 7. Questionnaire Amy Edmondson

27
This questionnaire can be distributed by the in- To observe and report reliably , it is important to
ternal auditor within the organization, considering check if an observation scheme for the “target
(as with any survey) the size and representative- behavior already exists. Amy Edmondson (2018;
ness of any sample, along with a good invitation pp. 196/ 197) has included a self-assessment
and introduction to ensure representative re- questionnaire that can easily be converted to an
sponse rate. With a sufficiently large sample, you ethogram and observation form. If your goal is to
can analyze it. Which four themes score high or observe whether leaders exhibit behaviors from
low? Is there a difference between teams, busi- the set “Tools for Building Psychological Safety”,
ness units, gender, years of service? If you want you can use this set. Timothy Clark has also speci­
to include this analysis, make sure to include the fied very concrete behavioral characteristics for
relevant demographic questions. both leaders and employees for each stage that
can be easily converted to observation criteria.
3.3.4 OBSERVATION
Observation is a form of primary data collection An ethogram and an observation form based on
used to consciously, purposefully, and systema­ Amy Edmondson are shown in Table 8 and Figure 6.
tically observe behavior. It is the only method to In this example, the positive behaviors have been
gain firsthand knowledge of someone’s actual be- listed, but negative behaviors can also be impor-
havior. When it comes to psychological safety, the tant, such as interrupting people, being directive,
literature offers many tools for observation. one-way communication, dominating the conver-
sation or giving an opinion yourself first.
It is important to determine accurately in ad-
vance the objective of the observation, the main You can see in the form that we choose a struc-
and sub-questions you want to answer, and which tured observation method with a five minute time
behavioral categories you distinguish. There are interval, a department meeting as the measure-
also choices to be made regarding where, by ment moment and the leader as the focal person.
whom, when and for how long the observations
will be conducted. How do you want to record the
behavior (writing it down, tallying, filming)? And it
is important to choose between event sampling
(counting occurrences or rating – ‘often’, ‘some-
times’, ‘not’), or time sampling (which time inter-
val). There are structured and unstructured obser-
vation approaches. Furthermore, you can choose
participatory observation: observing while being
part of the situation yourself, or non-participa-
tory/descriptive observation: observing without
being part of the situation.

Observation is a form of primary

data collection used to consciously,
purposefully, and systematically
observe behavior.

28
Category Aspect Behavior Abbreviation
1. Preparing the way Create a framework • Shares expectations about failure, uncertainty, exp
for work and interdependence to clarify the need to speak
up

1. Preparing the way Emphasize the goal • Mentions what is at stake, why it is important gl
and for whom

2.Inviting Show humility in • Recognizes gaps ga

participation situations • Apologizes ap
• Asks for opinions and suggestions from others op/sug
• Shows lack of knowledge kno

2. Inviting Ask questions • Asks good questions (open, asks for information, que
participation without judgment, asks for clarification)
• Demonstrates genuine listening’ lis

2. Inviting Bring structure and • Provides guidelines for discussion gui

participation initiate processes • Ensures everyone has a chance to provide input inp

3. Responding Show appreciation • Acknowledges the other ack

productively • Thanks the other for input thank
• Compliments comp

3. Responding Prevent • Looks ahead loo

productively stigmatizing failure • Provides assistance he
• Discusses further steps ste
• Brainstorming br
• Considering con

3. Responding Punish clear • Corrects when someone does not allow the other corr
productively violations person finish speaking
(..)

Table 8. Ethogram based on Amy Edmondson

Figure 6. Observation form based on Amy Edmondson

29
3.3.5 REPORTING It is advisable to exercise caution in making over-
When the fieldwork phase is over, it is important arching judgments. It is difficult to demonstrably
to report the findings in a way that makes them establish that the entire organization is psycho-
understandable, accepted, and actionable. In logically safe or unsafe. For example, write, “Em-
short, the report, as in any audit, must add ­value. ployees in department X currently experience
Psychological safety is sometimes a sensitive psychological unsafety, the effect of which is...”.
subject, so there are several additional considera- Or stick to descriptions at the variable level, and
tions for reporting. provide evidence from your research data.

From experience, we know that a depiction of The description of reports in a behavioural audit
psychological safety is not always immediately are in Sure bv’s case study in section 3.4. In
recognized by the client. The perceptions of peo- pro­blem-signaling research in the deductive form,
ple with a certain level of power, status or posi- we recommend the following:
tion (read: the client or auditee) may differ on this Provide rich and detailed descriptions of

subject from those in a more dependent position. circumstances, situations, mechanisms.
As authors, we recognize the statement, “I can’t Report specifically based on the variables and
imagine that at all, because I’ve never experienced criteria defined in the preparation, avoiding
anything like that myself,” while your research general and meaningless terms such as culture,
data shows the opposite. The auditor must be attitude and behavior.
mindful of this during the audit preparation. If this Report value-free, without “moral” judgement.
is assessed as a real risk, the auditor can discuss Describe the risk or effect of the elements that
it and properly explain the significance of what is do not meet the criteria.
being researched.

Report factually and without being too asser-

tive. Especially with this subject, it is crucial to
­consider: how can I ensure that the information I
present, based on solid research, is accepted and
acted upon by the commissioning party?

The perceptions of people with a certain level

of power, status or position (read: the client or auditee)
may differ on this subject from those in
a more dependent position.

30
3.4 Case descriptions DELA, Univé, Production company, Sure bv
We conclude the chapter with a description of several practical studies. These provide
guidance and considerations in applying the models and techniques described above.

DELA – audit based on the model of Amy Edmondson

Rationale for the study of psychological safety

Our employees are engaged, integrity-driven and entrepreneurial. These values are
deeply rooted in the heart of our cooperative and emphasize how we treat each
other and our members.
Psychological safety at work is the belief that the team is safe to take interpersonal
risks. That you will not be punished or humiliated if you speak up. It gives employees
the freedom to express their ideas, questions and concerns, to make mistakes, and
is a prerequisite for growth and results. That is why we conducted a study commis-
sioned by the management on how psycho- logical safety is experienced by DELA
employees.

Research question and approach

We conducted a study to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms that en-
sure a psychologically safe working environment within DELA Nederland. For this
study, we conducted interviews with employees and executives spread across the
organizational units. These included not only colleagues who had signed up for this
study, but also participants we had randomly selected. We conducted these con-
versations based using examples of real-life dilemmas and then transcribed and
harmonized them with the participants.. Subsequently, we coded and analyzed all
these conversations using a qualitative data analysis tool.

The basis for the analysis was the mechanisms or tools for leaders described by
Amy Edmondson in her book The Fearless Organization:

Preparing • Create a framework for the work: share expectations about failure,
the way uncertainty and interdependence to clarify the need to speak up
• Emphasize the goal: highlight what is at stake, why it is important and for
whom

Inviting • Show humility in situations: acknowledge gaps

participation • Ask questions: ask good questions and show that you are genuinely
listening
• Establish structure and initiate processes : forums for input, guidelines
for discussion

Responding • Express your appreciation: listen, acknowledge and thank

Productively • Prevent stigmatizing failure: look ahead, offer help, discuss, consider
and brainstorm about next steps
• Punish clear violations

31
The Delphi study on risk factors and measures against internal undesirable behavior
by the Dutch Labor Inspectorate (October 2022) was also included in the analysis.
Consider:
Factors related in the organization of work, such as workload and hierarchical
culture or organization.
 Factors related to leadership style and role, such as tolerating undesirable
behavior or inconsistent leadership.

In addition, the interviews revealed factors specific to the situation at DELA.

This analysis provided insights into the mechanisms and risk factors that affect
psychological safety at DELA Nederland. We presented these insights to the DELA
Nederland executive team.

Our experiences
The in-depth conversations in this study offered valuable insights. The inquiry and
attention was also appreciated by the interviewees. In addition, using real- life
dilemmas helps to add depth to the conversation. The familiarity ensures that
employees can easily identify, which benefits the conversation. Given the sensitivity
of the topic, we decided to involve the entire internal audit team. This made it easier
to adjust the composition of the interview to suit the employee.

Points of attention
For the broadest possible research design, the plan was to conduct both indivi­
dual and group interviews. After evaluating the first group interview, it was decided
to proceed with only individual interviews because participants did not feel free
enough to share all their experiences in the presence of colleagues.

We are happy to share some additional tips:

Anonymity is often a prerequisite for open conversations on this topic.
Ensure a good sponsor within the organization. In our study, the sponsors were
the CEO and the director of HR. They also announced and explained the study
to all employees.
Take time to prepare interviews, select participants, and for scheduling the
interviews.
Come to an agreement in selecting the dilemmas within the organization
beforehand. We involved HR and the confidants in this process.
Discussing this sensitive subject can affect the involved employee. Ensure
support and a sounding board for participants who need it. Participants in
our study could contact confidential advisors or HR for this.
Regularly discuss the approach, progress, and initial findings with the sponsor.

This keeps the sponsor involved and minimizes surprises in the report.

32
  sk participants to identify areas for improvement. This not only increases
A
the effectiveness of the follow-up, but makes it easier to include these
recommendations in the report to the client.
After consulting with the client, also share the results with other interested
parties such as the works council.

Impact
We presented the results of the analysis and our insights to the DELA Nederland
executive team. The executive team is taking care to further embed psychological
safety in the culture and optimize it where necessary.

Univé – audit based on the model of Hans van der Loo

and Joriene Beks

The preparation (by Ilja Jacobs, audit manager at Univé)

Within Univé, we started to increasingly include behavior and culture as part of
audits years ago. Univé is a cooperative of ten independent companies and has no
head office/central management. We discuss behavior and culture in our regular
meetings with boards of directors and supervisory boards. These are valuable, but
sometimes challenging conversations. For example, we receive feedback like, What
does Audit have to do with behavior? That’s not your job! Just do your job first!’
From these sometimes difficult conversations comes the motto of this case study.
‘auditing psychological safety takes courage’.

In 2022, “integrity” was one of our audit themes. In preparing for this, we immediately
said: this audit must focus on behavior and culture. Perhaps we should “do some-
thing” with psychological safety. As an audit team, we were already studying the
subject of psychological safety ourselves, together with Joriene Beks. We ­wanted
to better understand what psychological safety is, what it contributes to and how
to talk about it.

Research question and approach

The theme we investigated was integrity. The research question: to provide insight
into the extent to which social and psychological safety contribute to acting with
integrity. The model for psychological safety of Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks
was our starting point. Inspired by the insights provided by the growth models, we
aimed to create a growth path for psychological safety.

For each of the newest five characteristics of the model of psychological safety
(inclusiveness and diversity, open communication, delivering, challenging, resil-
ience), we have described five stages of growth (from passive to intuitive). Think of

33
passive as doing nothing, reactive as ad hoc action, active as several formal agree-
ments, proactive as partially embedded, and intuitive as natural. We used appro-
priate wording for Univé, which should be customized for each organization. This
became our framework, alongside to the rules and agreements in the context of
social safety.

With a standard presentation, videos, et cetera, we went into the organization to

create awareness for the audit and to share how we defined psychological safety.
We practiced this presentation with each other in the audit team, to experience
how to start a conversation about psychological safety. After all, it’s different from
discussing, for example, processes.. It concerns people; experiences in the organiza-
tion and their interaction with each other.

We then asked each Board of Directors (BoD) that participated in the audit to plot
their organization on the stages of the growth path. This was to gain insight into
where the BoD felt they were currently at as an organization and where they want
to be.

We considered several techniques. We finally chose to conduct group interviews

(four to six employees at a time) with a representative selection of employees
(selected by internal audit). We then conducted the interviews with all team leaders
and finally with all managers and the BoD. This allowed us to have broad discussions
within the organization and talking about their experiences, what those experiences
mean, and how they affect the employees.
The group interviews were conducted using questions and cases we prepared in
advance. Occasionally, we made our own case study for an organization because a
theme clearly emerged (for example, from the employee satisfaction survey).

We collected, analyzed and processed the results of the group interviews in a re-
port: ‘what does the organization think, what do we see, what does the organization
want?’ Based on this, a discussion was held with the BoD and the management
team (MT), first to understand the results and then collaboratively develop possible
actions. These actions were diverse, depending on the results and management’s
ambition regarding the characteristics of psychological safety. Sometimes a discus-
sion about the results was sufficient, sometimes three conversations were n ­ eeded
to discuss the results of a report. It is crucial to understand what is stated and where
there are opportunities for improvement. If it required more than one conversation
to understand the results, we consciously took more time to get to the core.

The report was not a standard audit report so the reader needed to be thoroughly
engaged.. According to us, there is no standard approach for this, it is also really
about adapting to what the client needs.

34
Points of attention
We have now conducted the audit at six companies. The most important tip: realize
that an audit on psychological safety requires different preparation from the audit
team and different preparation with the client. We had multiple conversations with
the respective BoD before the audit about what we were going to do, what they
considered important, how we could conduct the audit properly, and what the right
timing was for this audit. As a team, prepare well for the preparatory conversations
and group interviews. These conversations can sometimes be tough, resistance can
arise, and colleagues may share intense experiences during the group interviews.
Accept that these conversations are sometimes uncomfortable, and does not flow
naturally. There are moments when you will face significant pushback. It was often
mentioned that this subject is not measurable or does not belong in internal audit.
In short, courage is what is needed from both an auditee and the auditor to study
the psychological safety in the organization.

Impact on the audit team

This audit cost us a lot of time and energy, but also gave us a lot. We got to know
each other better and needed each other as an audit team. In retrospect, we should
have set up intervision within the team. There were also conversations where we
had trouble sleeping afterwards because the conversations really affected us. The
conversation we had as a team after group sessions was sometimes too short to
really delve deeper into why something in the interviews touched us. From now on
we are going to organize this differently for these types of audits, by including in-
tervision directly with an experienced supervisor and scheduling it every few weeks.
The audit provided us with many insights into the organization. Insights that will
help us conduct audits better in the future and uncover the causes of findings more
quickly. This broadens our horizons and makes us better auditors.

Impact on the client (by Dorothé Beernink, director at Univé Oost)

This analyses gave us a good picture of the level of psychological safety experi-
enced by the employees. The group interviews were valuable because they allowed
for real conversation rather than just checking whether there is a policy. By also
discussing this with management, we arrived at a more broad supported view. We
take the results seriously and want to improve. This is shaped by a change program
that focuses on creating a safe and learning environment.

35
Production company - audit based on the models of
Amy Edmondson and Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks

Motivation for including psychological safety in the scope of another audit

The topic of psychological safety can be included as a sub-object in an audit on
another main object. In this case study, an audit was conducted on safety culture
in a production environment. In many industries physical safety is a focus, there is
often also a focus on safety culture.

Organizations that certify on the NEN Safety Culture Ladder (SCL) must include
safety awareness. The SCL is an assessment method to measure safety awareness
and conscious safe behavior in an organization. The levels rage from pathological
to progressive levels (see Figure 7). The SCL is not only about individual behavior, it
also refers to the safety culture that the employees shape together. Because the
scope of SCL also includes safety and proactive behavior, the organization thought
it would be good to broaden the definition of safety to include social and psycho-
logical safety as well.

Figure 7. The steps of the NEN Safety Culture Ladder (ScL).

Research question and approach

Specifically, this meant that SCL standard was supplemented with criteria from
Amy Edmondson’s research (leadership characteristics and behavior) and the Big
Five elements from Hans van der Loo and Joriene Beks. Based on this, a semi-struc-
tured questionnaire was created, setting the bar was at level 4, being proactive on
the SCL. To gain insight into safety behavior and assess how employees perceived
the company culture, group interviews were conducted. The interviews were
designed to ensure representation from all levels of the organization.

36
The content of the group interviews was prepared together with other relevant staff
departments and officials. The group interviews were structured as followed:
1. General section - With a basic inquiry about the existing knowledge about
safety. This inquiry was conducted using a live tool followed by a dialogue.
2. Social safety section - A basic set with yes-no statements about the extent
to which the auditees are familiar with the established social safety system
within the organization.
3. Presenting dilemmas - Using dilemmas to inquire about the different themes
of physical-, social- and psychological safety
(4 responses, linked to the 4 levels of SCL).
4. Dialogue on dilemmas - Dialogue on the dilemmas with room for participants
to share their own experience.
5. Improvements and strengths - Room to indicate strengths and improvements
on both physical, social and psychological safety.

This approach collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The results of the
group interviews were documented and then labeled to trac them back to Amy
Edmondson’s and the Big Five variables.

Our experiences
The group interviews provided insights that do not automatically surface during
a physical safety audit. For these interviews, the audit team spent considerable
attention to creating the right conditions so that the auditees felt no barriers in
sharing their input, experience and opinions. The auditees appreciated the opportu-
nity to speak openly and also emphasized the importance of the topic of health and
safety. The involvement of the auditees was significant, and they were interested in
the results.

The report was comprehensive and described from the SCL themes, supplemented
with other themes. The results of the audit were taken seriously and discussed
several times with relevant stakeholders. Be aware that some findings can be hard
to accept when put in black and white and may affect other staff departments.

Points of attention
Establish a multidisciplinary team that includes relevant experts such as a
confidential advisor and integrity officer.
The preparation takes more time than a normal audit in terms of planning,
organizing, inviting and communicating about the audit, as this audit sought
to represent a cross-section of the organization and teams.
Ensure a support system for the audit team. Sensitive issues may arise from
the conversations that can affect you personally. Establish a rhythm for this
that you can rely on each other and delve deeper into discussions.

37
  ngage various stakeholders in the preparation to identify themes and
E
dilemmas
Ensure a support system for the auditees and clear lines of communication
about the social safety system within the organization before, during and after
group interviews.
Don’t underestimate the analysis and reporting phase. Think in advance
about how you will process and label the information during group interviews.
Identify themes and labels beforehand and as you go along.
Process the results immediately after the group interviews. Also apply the
four-eye principle to minimize (mis)interpretation risks.
Throughout the audit, continue to update the sponsor and client on progress
and any dilemmas that arise.
Assume that sensitivities will surface; which requires good preparation and
communication from the IAF. Recipients of the report and/or findings may
need to go through a process of “ acknowledgment “ before they are ready
for the next steps.
Supplementing the SCL with variables from Amy Edmondson in the area of
leadership and the themes of the Big Five was very effective. It provided
further concreteness to the SCL model that was already familiar to the
auditees.

Impact of research
For some stakeholders, t was an adjustment to gain insights into safety in this way.
However, this approach connected various themes for follow-up. It created more
collaboration and insight.

38
Sure bv - behavioral audit into psychological safety

Rationale for a study of psychological safety

Due to the confidentiality of the commissioners, the content of this case study is an
amalgamation of several real-life cases. Therefore, the organization Sure bv in this
case is fictional.

The CEO of medium-sized insurance company Sure bv received signals through the
Works Council and confidential advisors that there might issues related to psycho-
logical safety. He commissioned a behavioral audit to gain in-depth insight into
what was happening and the underlying causes. Previous reports had not provided
sufficient insight, and there was a desire to have a dialogue with the organizational
members. Additionally, the CEO had been reading numerous news items about
psychological safety in recent years and wanted to prevent his company from
becoming the next headline. He asked the IAF to propose a plan. Besides being the
formal client, the CEO was also a sponsor and expressed his support for the auditors.

Research question and approach

We started with exploratory discussions with the client. These conversations resul­
ted in the following research questions:
Are we a psychologically safe organization?
 What are the hindering and facilitating factors in the culture to be a fearless
organization?
What is needed to improve the socio-psychological climate where necessary?

After aligning the rationale and research question, we created a list of ‘sensitizing
concepts’. These concepts were partly compiled based on a literature review
(including works of Amy Edmondson and Timothy Clark), supplemented with inter-
views with the client. The ‘noticeable results’ were also derived from information
available within the organization, such as employee satisfaction survey results,
absenteeism, and turnover.

Execution
The execution involved data collection from eighteen qualitative interviews with
strategically selected respondents, ranging from the receptionist to director. Some
of these interviews were focus groups. The advantages of group interviews with a
maximum of four people are that people are willing to take higher risks, there is a
higher reliability due to social control, and it is efficient as it quickly gathers different
perspectives. Reflective interviewing allowed all respondents to openly share their
stories during the interviews about their trust in colleagues, the degree of open-
ness they feel, and the risk of bringing up an idea, concern, or question during inter­
actions. More importantly, we achieved depth in the motivations and assumptions.

39
With the input of 320 pages of transcribed interview text, we conducted qualitative
data analysis. We did this with MaxQDA (software for qualitative data analysis) and
the principles of grounded theory, where theory is developed ‘from the ground up’
through systematic collection, coding, and analysis of qualitative data. The results
were incorporated into a narrative form using 187 quotes as building blocks. In total,
the research took 220 hours, with a lead time of three months.

Report
The narrative report served as input for the validation meeting. This was an interim
reporting event to which all interviewees were invited to collectively interpret the
findings. The validation meeting, designed by the auditors, lasted four hours. There
were eighteen attendees who engaged in dialogue with each other based on the
newly gained insights and added meaning to the narrative. The dialogue and inter-
pretation of the findings provided input for the final report that was presented to
the CEO.

Our experiences
For the audit team, it was intense, both for the external expert and the internal
auditor. The personal stories of people sometimes hit close to home and affected
us. We heard much more than managers typically hear from their own employees.
We were also proud that we could explicitly and respectfully identify and dis-
cuss the patterns, uncover what is truly happening, and to facilitate a meaningful
conversation about it. This way, we were of added value to the organization on this
strategic theme.

We noticed that people in powerful positions often really don’t notice how their
employees experience the same situation completely differently. The findings were
such a clash with some leaders’ perspectives that cognitive dissonance occurred.
“This can’t be true! The important thing is to acknowledge these feelings, and to
understand that this is normal.

Points of attention
When investigating psychological safety through a behavourial audit, it is even more
important to conduct value-free interviews and focus on the interviewee’s story,
as you want to follow the other person’s thought process and understand their
perspective. Train yourself in qualitative interviewing. Auditors often feel a loss
of control when they first interview without evaluation criteria and preconceived
questionnaire. This is normal and part of the learning process to master these in-
terview techniques. It is also important to realize that a lack of psychological safety
can be a contraindication for a behavioral audit. When people are afraid to speak
up and lack trust in an equal dialogue, a behavioral audit may not have the desired
impact and added value. In this case study, the sponsor’s support and learning
orientation were decisive in starting.

40
Impact of research
All participants recognized the situation as described in the ‘“story’. It was clear
that psychological safety was severely lacking and that changes were necessary for
the future. The dialogue created more understanding of each other’s perspectives.
The CEO of Sure bv was surprised and shocked by the findings. For the company’s
performance, but especially for the employees’ well-being, it is important to turn
the tide. During the validation meeting, a perspective for action emerged for the
future and several people volunteered to take concrete steps to improve psycho-
logical safety.

The in-depth conversations

provide valuable insights.

41
4. Psychological safety within one’s own
audit department
The previous chapters have described what psy- The organization must be able to trust that the
chological safety entails and how it can be audited. IAF performs its work diligently, objectively and
In this chapter, we focus on psychological safety in independently. Achieving this requires a safe
the IAF team and in the audit process. environment within the team and in its relation-
ships with all stakeholders.
The IAF typically operates in a knowledge-inten-
sive, dynamic, complex and sensitive context. As Psychological safety makes the IAF more efficient
outlined in Chapter 2, delivering high performance and effective, and the team more resilient and
in such a context makes psychological safety motivated. Conversely, a lack of psychological
crucial for achieving organizational objectives. safety within an IAF can pose risks, such as:
1. Errors - Fear of reporting errors can lead to in-
An IAF function usually consists of at least a chief accuracies and increase the risk of misconduct.
audit executive (CAE or another leading position) 2. Superficial audits - Barriers to sharing open
and one or more team members, thus forming a thoughts and opinions and participating in
team like any other. The IAF often includes unique discussions, which can reduce the depth of
team members who bring different experiences, audits.
perspectives, and expertise, contributing to team 3. Slowing down and inefficiency - A lack of open
dynamics and interactions. It is essential that all communication and collaboration can affect
IAF team members feel free to share ideas, ask efficiency and slow down the audit process.
questions, and provide feedback. This means, for 4. Lack of innovation - Feeling barriers to pro-
example, that: posing new ideas, which prevents possible im-
The youngest team member , who has just provements from emerging, can lead to tunnel
graduated, feels adequately empowered to vision and slow or stop innovative thinking.
participate fully and feels heard. 5. Limited feedback and learning ability - Hesi-
The team member who is inherently intro- tance to give constructive feedback can hinder
verted feels and is given the space to provide the improvement of work.
valuable input.
The team member with a more unconvention- So, in this chapter, we will focus on the IAF func-
al educational background than usual for the tion in relation to psychological safety, examining
audit field and with different perspectives and it from three perspectives:
ideas is appreciated and listened to. 1. psychological safety within the IAF itself;
2. psychological safety in the audit process for
Additionally, the IAF must adhere to the high qua­ the audit team;
lity standards as described in the International 3. psychological safety in the audit process for
Professional Practices Framework (IPPF). the auditee.

42
4.1 Psychological safety within the  romote open dialogue - Open dialogue is
P
IAF itself essential to creating trust within the team.
This section addresses the role of the leader and The CAE creates an environment where open
the role of the team. communication is the norm. An audit leader
also acts when open dialogue stalls by
4.1.1 PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY addressing it.
WITHIN THE IAF ITSELF: THE ROLE OF Acting on signals - It is important for the
THE LEADER CAE to be alert to signals indicating a lack of
Within an IAF, leaders play a crucial role in creating psychological safety and to respond ade-
a psychologically safe environment. This applies quately. For this, it is essential to recognize,
primarily to the CAE, as the person ultimately re- acknowledge and act on signals in a timely
sponsible within the IAF, but also to other leaders manner when necessary.
within the IAF who are responsible for the ‘per- Clearly outlining frameworks, expectations
sonnel function’ (the so-called direct supervisors). and boundaries - To minimize uncertainty
Hereafter, we will refer to the CAE. We provide and anxiety, there must be clarity about roles,
several guidelines for the CAE: responsibilities and behavioral norms.
Building and maintaining trust - Trust is the
 nsure diversity and inclusion in the team
E foundation of psychological safety. The CAE’s
(team composition) - The CAE ensures an task is to build and maintain trust, for exam-
environment where diversity and inclusion ple, by keeping commitments.
are present. This involves a balanced compo- Show vulnerability (share own mistakes) – By
sition of the team, considering both visible sharing own mistakes, making mistakes is
and less visible differences such as personal normalized, teaching the team that it is okay
preference styles, introversion, extroversion, to be imperfect and share mistakes.
neurodiversity, etc.It is essential that all team Show empathy, listening and understanding
members, regardless of their background, - Empathy is essential in leadership. It shows
feel valued and respected. Fostering diversi- team members that leaders understand and
ty and inclusion promotes the utilization of appreciate their challenges.
talent and incorporates all perspectives. This Room for making mistakes and room to learn
requires the CAE to invest in basic knowledge - Creating an environment where mistakes are
and skills in the areas of diversity, inclusion, seen as learning opportunities contributes to
and equity. the development of the team.
Exhibiting the right role model behavior - It is Celebrating successes - By recognizing and
important that desired behavior - as described celebrating successes, the CAE strengthens a
by the organization and in the IPPF code of positive team dynamic and motivation.
ethics –is actively demonstrated in the visible Challenging the status quo (giving and
actions of the CAE. ‘Leading by example’ also receiving feedback) - The CAE is willing to
applies to the characteristics of psychological question the current way of working and is
safety. open to both giving and receiving feedback.
Actively encouraging team contributions - The The CAE also supports others on the team
CAE invites all team members to contribute to who challenge the status quo.
explorations and discussions. Discuss the concept of psychological safety -
In this way, audit team members feel involved In order to optimize psychological safety and
and valued in their roles. recognize situations of unsafety, the CAE can

43
 help the team delve into the conditions for Table 9 is an overview of leadership traits that
and characteristics of psychological safety promote and hinder psychological safety, com-
and discuss signs of insecurity. piled by Elmira Nijhuis.

Leadership traits that promote psychological safety Leadership traits that hinder psychological safety

Open communication Closed communication

(Asking questions and listening) (Pretending to have all the wisdom, by association)
Prioritizing the common good Prioritizing self-interest

Integrity Lack of integrity

Empathy Low empathy

Reliability Unreliability

Friendliness Hostility and unfriendliness

Emotional stability Being overly emotional and showing unpredictability

Reflectivity Not being accountable for one's own behavior

Table 9. Leadership traits of Elmira Nijhuis.

4.1.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

WITHIN THE IAF ITSELF: THE ROLE
OF THE TEAM
Psychological safety is a shared responsibility Also within an IAF,
of the IAF team. In this section we look at the
department leaders
interaction within the audit team itself. Elmira
Nijhuis’s model is highly useful for this ­purpose, have a crucial role
as it clearly and practically illustrates daily in creating a
interactions through behavioral elements.
psychologically safe
See Table 10 for the twelve interactions that
provide insight into the extent to which the environment.
audit team realizes psychological safety. The
­
team can use this table for a quick scan (at an
individual or team level) or as a 360° feedback
tool.

44
Interactie Definitie Doorvertaling naar auditteam

Prosocial Supporting each other during • The audit team supports each other at (vulnerable) life
behavior vulnerable life phases, phases
collaborating effectively, willingly • The audit team works well together and is willing to to take
taking over each other’s work, over each other’s work.
celebrating successes together, • The audit team celebrates successes
standing up for each other in the • The audit team stands up for one another
team, helping each other with • The audit team helps each other come up with solutions
solutions, and treating each other • The audit team treats each other as how they want to be
as you would like to be treated. treated themselves

Common Prioritizing the common good, • The audit team prioritizes the common good.
interest focusing on the collective ambition, • The audit team focuses on the collective ambition
being willing to see the broader • The audit team can see the broader perspective
perspective, personal problems are • The audit team solves individual problems together
addressed as collective problems.

Loyal Standing up for each other outside • The audit team stands up for each other, also outside the
behavior the team, trusting each other’s dis- team
cretion, not letting themselves be • The audit team trusts each other and does not play off one
played off against each other against the other, handling information about each other
discreetly.
Valuing Appreciating each other’s indivi­ • The audit team values each other’s uniqueness and
diversity duality, utilizing each other’s skills, leverages each other’s skills
encouraging the other to express • The audit team encourages differing opinions.
a differing opinion, exploring
differences in opinions together
Showing Personal identity, being authentic, • Within the audit team there is room for personal identity
authenticity being oneself, embodying values/ and authenticity
norms • Everyone can be themselves within the audit team
• The audit team upholds and promotes norms and values.

Knowing Recognizing and valuing talents and • The talents and skills within the audit team are recognized
Skills skills and valued

Learning Discussing mistakes to learn from • Within the audit team, mistakes are discussed to learn
orientation them, showing self-reflection, being from them
accountable for mistakes, giving • Within the audit team, there is self-reflection
advice with space for the other per- • Within the audit team, people can talk about mistakes that
son, evaluating together afterward are made
why things were not expressed, and • Team members give advice with space for the other person
resolving to speak up next time. • Audit team evaluates why issues were not voiced

Daring Room to make mistakes, openly • Within the audit team, there is room to make mistakes
to make discuss mistakes, and view mistakes • Within the audit team, mistakes are openly discussed
mistakes as part of growth. • Within the audit team, mistakes are seen as part of growth.

Knowing Building personal relationships with • Within the audit team, members know each other
each other each other, maintaining informal personally and spend time together.
well contact, knowing each other’s • Audit team members maintain informal contact with each
private settings, and spending time other
together.

Interpersonal Having a mutual bond, sharing the • Audit team members have a mutual bond
relationships same background, having mutual • Within the audit team, there is mutual trust
trust, no tension in the relationship, • Within the audit team there is no tension in relationships,
group pressure, becoming less there is limited peer pressure and people are also allowed
critical. to be critical

Taking risks Daring to take interpersonal risks • Audit team members dare to take interpersonal risks

Asking Feeling free to ask for help, accep- • Audit team members feel free to as for and accept help
for help ting help, feeling comfortable ad- • Audit team members feel free to admit when they don’t
mitting when you don’t know some- know something and ask for assistance
thing and asking for assistance.

Table 10. Scan for audit team based on Elmira Nijhuis.

45
4.2. Psychological safety in the or are not involved. A diverse composition in
audit process for team members terms of expertise, background and experience
Psychological safety is reflected in the various contributes to a more complete picture of the
audit phases of the audit process. It helps build audit universe. It allows the audit team to get a
trust between auditors and auditees, which is more accurate picture of the risks, which is crucial
essential for a valuable audit process and, conse- for identifying the whole of the audit universe.
quently, for the performance of the IAF.
Guidelines for psychological safety:
The following guidelines apply to each phase of Ensure clear roles, tasks, and expectations so
the audit process: that team members know what contribution
Learn as an audit team to recognize and is expected from each person and when
address signals of psychological unsafety. This (ownership and responsibility).
can be done by familiarizing yourselves with Organize an (inclusive) workshop where all
the signs and characteristics of psychological team members are encouraged to share their
safety. view on strategic risks regarding key themes
Agree on a “process” for someone to fall back for the organization and organizational ele-
on if they do not feel safe carrying out the ments, as well as potential risks. In this phase,
audit and asking the necessary questions ensure a working format that encourages the
(agreements with the team, support from the sharing diverse perspectives.
team, and actions by the CAE). Rotate the role of chairperson/leader to con-
Regular open conversations are held to vey different perspectives and approaches.
evaluate the share insights. Invite feedback from various levels within the
Evaluations of the design, progress and organization to gain a broader perspective on
realization take place in a setting that values the audit universe and risks.
and encourages diversity of perspective and Organize feedback rounds, both live and in
input. writing, so that all team members have the
The audit team is alert to and addresses nay opportunity to provide input (a written
signs of psychological unsafety.. request might be more comfortable for intro-
verted audit team members than providing
Next, we will discuss the specific guidelines for ‘on the spot’ input).
each phase. After completing the audit universe and the
audit year plan, evaluate how the process
AUDIT UNIVERSE AND ANNUAL PLAN went from the perspective of psychological
Psychological safety plays a crucial role even in safety and identify areas for improvement
the phase of forming the audit universe and the points for in the future.
audit year plan. Important decisions are made in
this phase about which audit objects are relevant
to include. It is essential that open and honest
discussion is possible about potential risks, vul-
nerabilities, and the approach of the audit.
It is essential that open and honest discussion
is possible about potential risks, vul­nerabilities
and concerns within the organization. At this
stage, it is important which team members are

46
PLANNING FIELDWORK
During the planning phase of an audit, a deci- In the fieldwork phase, it is important that the
sion is made regarding the scope and approach audit team feels free to carry out the fieldwork
of an audit. Depending on the nature of the audit, according to the work program and, where neces­
it is more or less important to allow for open sary, delve deeper into observations and ask diffi­
dialogue during the planning stage. Especially for cult questions, even if they are sensitive. If the
non-standard or non-compliance-driven audits, it audit team notices that the audit is progressing
is important that audit team members feel free well, the work program could be better adjusted,
to openly and honestly share their perspectives or encounters other challenges, the audit team
and discuss the audit objectives and risks with- should be able to communicate this without hesi-
out fear of negative consequences. tation and obstacles. In fieldwork, it is crucial that
the it is crucial that the audit team can speak
Guidelines for psychological safety: freely, present ideas, and report finding.
When assembling the audit team, make sure it
is multidisciplinary. Guideline for psychological safety:
Actively invite all audit team members to Create moments for discussion during
provide their input during the audit prepa­ fieldwork so that perspectives, ideas and
ration phase. Regardless of educational possible mistakes, and signals of psycho­
background, expertise and experience. logical unsafety, can be discussed.
Implement check-ins and check-outs in the
meeting structures of the audit team. REPORTING
This way, new colleagues, less experience The reporting phase requires a setting in which
auditors, introverted auditors, et cetera, every audit team member can provide a pro-
are given explicit space to provide input. fessional judgment without reservation when
Experiment, encourage and be open to translating the findings into the report. All opin-
different and/or different approaches and ions within the audit team, including the differing
methodologies. ones, are valued and considered, resulting in a
Conduct a stakeholder analysis during this comprehensive and balanced report.
phase to assess potential sensitivities
regarding psychological safety among team Guidelines for psychological safety:
members or auditees. Discuss and agree on Create feedback loops in the reporting phase.
measures to be taken if such situations arise. Each team member’ has an own communica-
For example, you might agree that sensitive tion style, and feedback loops can ensure that
topics or difficult conversations should always things are presented and articulated properly
involve two auditors. in the report. In this phase, it is important for
Regularly refer to the IPPF, which outlines team members to openly discuss ideas and any
standards for conducting work as an auditor mistakes openly. During meetings with team
without fear, objectively, and independently. members, signs of psychological safety can be
Discuss how this is implemented within the discussed and evaluated.
IAF and whether it is sufficient. Establish an inclusive review process that
takes different perspectives into account and
ensures inclusive decision-making.
Actively invite members of the audit team to
provide input and be open to new suggestions.

47
 I n the reporting phase, it is important to 4.3. Psychological safety in the
reflect on the review process within the IAF. audit process for the auditee
How are review notes given back? Is there Psychological safety in the audit process for
room to disagree with review notes? Are the the auditee is about making him or her feel at
review notes constructive or do they feel like ease and handling the outcomes of the audits
an attack or as failure. Discuss with each other prudently (no retaliation or reprisals). A psycho-
what a comfortable way is to do reviews. logically safe environment enables auditees
In the reporting and review process, there can to communicate openly and honestly, which is
also be issues of ranking and power. Which essential for identifying real risks and opportu-
voice is decisive in the team and what is this nities for improvement. Moreover, psychological
based on? Do team members feel enough safety enhances trust and collaboration between
space to think differently and provide input the audit team and the auditees, which is crucial
on this? for effective and sustainable improvements with-
In the reporting phase, the auditee may possi- in the organization.
bly create psychological unsafety by reacting
in an unpleasant way. It is important to make In the next paragraphs we will examine each audit
agreements in advance about how to handle phase to see how psychological safety for the
such situations and how to discuss this with auditee can be optimized.
the person involved. In the moment itself, it is
important for the IAF - as an audit team and AUDIT UNIVERSE AND ANNUAL PLAN
possibly with the CAE - to support each other. It is crucial for the IAF to achieve a comprehen-
sive understanding of the audit universe and
FOLLOW-UP the (internal and external) developments. This
In the final phase, the follow-up, members of the involves gaining insight in to the (strategic) objec-
audit team can engage in open discussions about tives, developments within the organization and
the progress of implementing recommendations the corresponding risks, with management input
and address any feedback constructively. The (and also mandatory according to the standards).
audit team can speak openly about the progress A culture of psychological safety can be encour-
and is also willing to receive feedback from the aged by, for example, arranging regular meetings
auditee. with line managers to explore their perspectives
and remain open to their issues and concerns.
Guidelines for psychological safety:
Any feedback on implementation is discussed PLANNING
constructively and without reservation in the In preparing for an audit, it is important for
team. internal auditors to create an atmosphere of
The audit team is open to and actively seeks psychological safety so that auditees share their
feedback from the auditee ensuring two-way concerns and needs and are open to discussing
communication and mutual learning. risks and vulnerabilities, as well as the approach
to the audit. This can be facilitated, for example,
by starting the audit with an intake inter-
view in which the auditor, starting from what
has been established in the audit annual plan,
primary asks from the auditee’s perspective
­
The draft audit plan is also presented to and

48
discussed with the auditee, explicitly asking FOLLOW-UP
about the relevance and feasibility for the auditee. It is essential that auditees feel supported during
the follow-up phase. Auditees should not feel
FIELDWORK ­barriers to sharing both successes and challenges
During fieldwork, it is essential that internal in implementing the recommended actions. Inter-
auditors create an atmosphere of openness and nal auditors can play a proactive role by facilita­
dialogue for the auditees. Internal auditors should ting a dialogue in which auditees feel safe not only
emphasize as much as possible that the objective to provide updates, but also to ask for help when
of the fieldwork is not to find faults or hold indi- needed. This creates a collaborative approach,
viduals accountable, but to improve the company with continuous at its core, where both the IAF
and mitigate risks. During the audit, the progress and the auditee are seen as a valuable partners
of the audit should be regularly discussed with in the process.
the responsible manager, also to hear possible
experiences of psychological unsafety. At the be- PERIODIC MEETINGS AND
ginning and end of interviews, explicit questions KNOWLEDGE SHARING
can be asked about perceptions of safety, as In an environment where psychological safety is
experienced by the interviewees. a priority, both auditors and auditees can benefit
from regular conversations about developments
REPORT in the business and in auditing. This fosters an
The reporting phase is a time where open com- understanding of each other’s situation, which
munication and mutual trust are essential. It is contributes to a mutual understanding and will-
important that the internal auditor presents the ingness to collaborate toward the organization’s
findings in a way that promotes collaboration and goals.
improvement. By encouraging a constructive dia­
logue and ensuring that feedback on findings is Finally, ‘good example sets a good precedent’.
valued and taken seriously, a psychologically safe Be aware that in cases of psychological unsafe-
environment is created. When a root cause analy- ty, the opposite effect can occur. If bystanders
sis is conducted, auditees are actively involved. In witness behavior that undermines psychological
translating findings into action plans, the auditor safety, it affects their own sense of safety and
stimulates discussion about the relevants, priori- thus their actions. This detracts from the quality
ty and feasibility of the actions. and effectiveness of audits.

49
Appendix 1 Literature List
Beks, J., ‘Psychologische veiligheid – De 3 ingrediënten van psychologische veiligheid’,
Blog, 19 mei 2020, https://psychologischeveiligheid.net/cgblog/14/73/De-3-ingredi%C3%ABnt-
en-van-psychologische-veiligheid

Clark, T., The 4 stages of psychological safety, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2020.

Edmondson, A.C, Fearless organization. Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning,
Innovation, and Growth, Harvard Business School, 2018.

Koetsenruijter, C. and Van der Loo, H., Giftig gedoe op de werkplek. Van agressief gedrag naar sociale
veiligheid, Boom, 2023.

Loo, van der H. en Beks, J., Psychological Safety, Signpost to Fearless Performance, Boom, 2020.

Loo, van der H. en Beks, J., A Field Guide to Pscyhological Safety, Methods, Scripts and Tools for Fearless
Teams, Boom, 2020.

Loo, van der, H., ‘Gooi sociale en psychologische veiligheid niet op een hoop!’, Blog, 2023,
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hansvanderloo_socialeveiligheid-psychologischeveiligheid-activi-
ty-7054741650757046272-OETq/

Moen, R. and Norman, C., Circling back, ‘Clearing up myths about the Deming cycle and seeing how it
keeps evolving’, november 2010, https://www.apiweb.org/circling-back.pdf

Dutch Labor Inspectorate. Delphi-studie naar risicofactoren en maatregelen intern ongewenst

gedrag, october 2022, https://www.nlarbeidsinspectie.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2022/11/24/del-
phi-studie-naar-risicofactoren-risicofactoren-en-maatregelen-intern-ongewenst-gedrag

Nijhuis, E., Samen in de zandbak, proefschrift, January 2023. https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/por-

tal/188360073/elmiranijhuis-proefschrift-digitaal+-+638613c199a11.pdf

Otten, J., & Van der Meulen, I. Behavioural Auditing: het onderzoeken van gedrag in organisaties -
1. Audit Magazine, 1, 33–35, 2013.

Reijerse, C. en Reitsma, C., ‘Psychologische en sociale veiligheid: wat de NIP – Ooa samenwerking heeft
gebracht’, Aan de orde, August 2023, https://ooa.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Ooa_Magazine_Au-
gustus_2023_DEF.pdf

Rozovsky, J., ‘The five keys to a successful Google team’, November 2015, .https://www.michigan.gov/-/
media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Folder4/Folder10/Folder3/Folder110/Folder2/Folder210/Folder1/Fold-
er310/Google-and-Psychological-Safety.pdf?rev=7786b2b9ade041e78828f839eccc8b75

50