When organisations undergo retrenchments or significant cultural transformations, one of the first casualties is psychological safety - that fragile sense that people can speak up, take risks, and be themselves without fear of embarrassment or negative consequences. Rebuilding it requires intentional effort from leaders at every level, but the return is substantial: teams that weather uncertainty with resilience rather than paralysis.
The erosion is predictable, even when the changes are necessary
Retrenchments don't just affect those who lose their jobs. Remaining employees (“survivors”) watch how their colleagues are treated, how decisions are communicated, and whether leaders acknowledge the human cost. They recalibrate their understanding of what's safe. If retrenchments feel unnecessary or poorly explained, people start wondering if their own contributions matter. If cultural shifts come with vague justifications or inconsistent enforcement, employees retreat into self-protection mode - keeping their heads down, avoiding honest feedback, and hoarding information rather than collaborating.
This isn't dysfunction; it's survival instinct. The challenge for leaders is to interrupt this cycle before it becomes entrenched.
Transparency builds trust faster than perfection
Leaders often hesitate to communicate during turbulent times because they don't have all the answers. But waiting for certainty usually backfires. People fill information voids with worst-case scenarios, and the grapevine generates more anxiety than truth ever could.
What matters more than having perfect information is being honest about what you know and what you don't. Acknowledge the upheaval directly. If more changes are coming, say so. If you're uncertain about timelines or outcomes, admit it. This kind of transparency doesn't eliminate fear, but it does establish that leaders are trustworthy narrators of what's happening, which is the foundation for rebuilding safety.
Consistency matters more than you think
During periods of change, people scrutinise leadership behaviour intensely. If you say you value straight-talk but then react defensively to criticism, employees notice. If you claim the new culture prioritises work-life balance but then reward those who work weekends, the message lands clearly: the stated values aren't real.
Psychological safety depends on predictability. People need to know that the rules won't shift for no reason, that effort will be recognised consistently, and that speaking up won't be punished even when it's inconvenient for management. This requires leaders to align their actions with their words, especially when it's uncomfortable.
Create space for grief and frustration
Organisations often rush towards "the new normal" without acknowledging loss. Whether it's mourning retrenched colleagues, letting go of old ways of working, or processing anger about decisions that feel unfair, people need permission to feel what they're feeling.
This doesn't mean endless processing sessions, but it does mean recognising that emotional reactions to change are valid and expected. Leaders who make room for these conversations signal that it's safe to be human at work. Sometimes the most powerful thing a leader can say is simply, "This is tough, and it's okay to struggle with it."
Don't pretend everything is fine
Perhaps the most damaging thing leaders can do is ignore the elephant in the room. When retrenchments have just happened or significant changes are underway, acting as though it's business as usual sends a clear message: we don't acknowledge hard realities here.
This doesn't mean dwelling in negativity, but it does mean naming what everyone is experiencing. A simple acknowledgement in a team meeting - "I know the past few weeks have been difficult and uncertain, and I expect some of that uncertainty to continue" - can be more reassuring than false optimism. It tells people that their perceptions are valid and that honesty is valued.
Invite participation in the path forward
When people feel like they have some agency in shaping what comes next, they're more invested in making it work. This doesn't mean every decision becomes democratic, but it does mean creating genuine opportunities for input on how new processes will work, what the team needs to be successful, or how values will translate into daily practice.
The key word is genuine. Token surveys or feedback sessions where input is clearly ignored do more harm than no consultation at all. But when leaders ask for perspectives, implement good ideas, and explain why other suggestions can't be accommodated, it demonstrates that people's voices matter even in difficult circumstances.
Remember that rebuilding takes time
Psychological safety is built over months and years, but it can be damaged in moments. Leaders need to adjust their expectations accordingly. Don't expect immediate openness after a traumatic period. Don't be surprised if people are cautious about the new cultural values until they see them consistently enacted over time.
The most important thing is to keep showing up with integrity, even when progress feels slow. Every interaction is an opportunity to demonstrate that this team, this organisation, is a place where people's contributions are valued and their humanity is respected. Over time, with consistency and genuine care, psychological safety can not only be rebuilt but can emerge stronger for having been tested.
The path forward isn't about erasing what happened or pretending the damage wasn't real. It's about acknowledging the difficulty honestly whilst creating the conditions for trust to grow again. That's hard work, but it's the work that makes teams resilient enough to face whatever comes next.
References
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach. Wiley.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work, tough conversations, whole hearts. Random House.
Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 567-588.
Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521-535.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165.
Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 stages of psychological safety: Defining the path to inclusion and innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Dr Carin Bergh, Best of People Consulting (www.bestofpeople.co.za)
