Beyond Psychological Safety: Towards a Theory of Relational Safety in Leadership

Contemporary leadership literature places considerable emphasis on the concept of safety, particularly psychological safety. Originally coined by William Kahn:

"Psychological safety is the sense of being able to show and employ one's self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career." (Kahn, 1990, p. 705)

This concept was later refined by Amy Edmondson, who shifted the focus from individual psychological experience to the collective dynamics of teams and organisations:

"a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking." (Edmondson, 1999).

This article fully recognizes the significance of psychological safety, both as a theoretical construct, and as a foundation for exploring practical approaches to leadership. Leaders seek to create cultures characterised by trust, connection and belonging (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Edmondson, 1999). But this article argues that an understanding of psychological safety is not enough. If the discourse stops here, we are not fully exploring what effective leadership is, or could be, because we are missing the next step: What happens when people disagree? What are the conditions for effective disagreement and how do we create them? This is where the concept of relational safety becomes essential.

For clarity, this article defines relational safety as:

A secure emotional and physiological state in which a person can express vulnerability and remain connected during conflict without fear of judgement, rejection, or harm (adapted from Bhasin, 2026; Bowlby, 1988; Porges, 2011; Siegel, 1999).

The concept of relational safety sits at the intersection of psychology, neurobiology, and sociology (Bhasin, 2026; Porges, 2011; Siegel, 1999), and this paper will section out accordingly.

Contributions from Psychology – Attachment Theory, Psychological Safety, Belonging Research

Attachment Theory

Attachment theory first came to the global fore when John Bowlby was commissioned by the WHO to explore the impact of maternal deprivation. This was controversially defined by Bowlby as:

‘… the emotional and intellectual damage that can result when a child is deprived of a continuous, warm, and loving relationship with their mother (or primary caregiver)’ (Bowlby, 1951).

Bowlby’s WHO report, Maternal Care and Mental Health (1951), laid the foundations for his later attachment theory, first formally articulated in 1958, and developed further in 1969. His core premise was that attachment was an innate biological process that promotes survival by ensuring proximity between the infant and caregiver (Bowlby, 1969). From a physiological perspective, human infants are surprisingly poorly equipped to survive their formative years. From an evolutionary perspective, if we compare ourselves to other species and their offspring, it is striking to consider that our infants cannot support their own bodies. However, our superiority in the food chain is largely linked to our cognitive development (the cerebral cortex), and the other parts of the human body have yet to catch up to our cognitive prowess. Due to our physical limitations, Bowlby argued that attachment serves as an essential survival mechanism. If an infant can establish attachment to a caregiver that responds effectively to its needs, the chances of survival are greatly increased, because it cannot meet its needs otherwise. Bowlby introduced the concept of monotropic attachment (mono= one, tropic= moving towards). In this, Bowlby proposed that infants form a primary attachment relationship, usually with their biological mother, although contemporary research recognises that children typically form multiple meaningful attachments (Schore, 2001). Given that this theory was published in 1969, one can understand the social context and subsequent gender bias behind this assumption (it has since been revised). Bowlby proposed that in order to form attachment with our primary caregivers, infants elicit social releasers, such as crying and the rooting reflex, to signal to our carers that we have needs that need to be satisfied in order to ensure survival (Bowlby, 1969). Bowlby believed that the caregivers that responded most effectively to those social releasers during the critical period (0-3 years) developed deeper and more secure attachment bonds with their infants (Bowlby, 1969). If, however, this bond was not securely established in this period, the infant would suffer from maternal deprivation (and its associated negative consequences) (Bowlby, 1951; Bowlby, 1969). He surmised that whatever bond/s were formed (or not) in this time, which would create an internal working model for the infant; a mental framework of expectations of what attachment should look like (Bowlby, 1969). This would often play out in what Bowlby termed his continuity hypothesis, that a child (later adult) would then seek to replicate this style of attachment in their future relationships because of familiarity of social patterns, be they secure or not (Bowlby, 1969; Bowlby, 1988).

This theory has profound implications for adult relationships and relational safety. Bowlby's concepts of secure base and secure haven can be applied to relational safety in the following ways (Bowlby, 1988):

1.      Secure Base: ‘I can explore differing ideas and disagree with you and our connection will survive’

2.      Secure Haven: ‘I can be vulnerable with you, and be authentic in who I am, what I believe, and how I feel’

3.      Emotional regulation: When conflict arises, this is managed through communication and connection, not withdrawal (Bowlby, 1988; Siegel, 1999).

4.     Attachment figure is available and does not leave, the relationship remains (Bowlby, 1988).

George Kohlrieser (2012) has extended attachment theory into organizational contexts by suggesting that effective team leaders often act as secure bases for their team (Kohlrieser et al., 2012). By combining both care and challenge in their approach, team leaders nurture their team members by supporting them to realise their potential by treating them with care, respect, listening, and encouraging them to take risks (Kohlrieser et al., 2012).

Psychological Safety

As mentioned earlier in this article, the term ‘psychological safety’ was first coined by William Kahn in 1990 and later developed by Amy Edmondson in 1999. An incredibly significant concept both in theory and practice, Edmondson’s operationalization of the idea and application to team-leadership shifted the discussion away from the belief that organizational success hinged on individual traits and talent, instead highlighting the role of interpersonal climate in enabling learning, innovation, and performance. This reframed concept has made a substantial contribution to the discussion on leadership and organizational practice, by addressing the conditions needed for professional voice, but Bhasin has posed the question, what happens when voices disagree? (Bhasin, 2026).

Bhasin distinguishes between psychological and relational safety:

‘Psychological safety asks whether people feel safe to speak. Relational safety asks whether people can stay in relationship with someone they genuinely disagree with, whose values differ, whose experience of this moment looks nothing like their own, whose history with institutions and power has shaped what they trust, and what they fear in ways that may be completely invisible to the person sitting across from them’  (Bhasin, 2026).

Psychological safety is a concept that focuses on the conditions in an organization and how these affect the willingness to take interpersonal risks in the workplace. But relational safety focuses on the conditions of a connection; can two people stay in a connection where disagreement or conflict arises, or where there is a difference in values, identity or experience (Bhasin, 2026).

Bhasin’s distinction is significant because effective leadership cannot rely solely on creating psychological safety; it must also cultivate relational safety. The two are deeply interconnected. Psychological safety often provides the foundation for relational safety, while relational safety enables people to engage in meaningful dialogue, navigate disagreement, and maintain connection across differences (Edmondson, 1999; Bhasin, 2026). If we are going to discuss belonging in education, or in any sector, we need to examine how people can navigate conflict or disagreement in way that encourages vulnerability, where this can be expressed without fear of judgement, rejection, or abandonment. In short, psychological safety helps people to use their voice, whereas relational safety helps people to stay connected when voices differ (Bhasin, 2026; Baumeister and Leary, 1995).

Belonging Research

Belonging has many different definitions, but this article understands it to be a perceived sense or feeling of being accepted, respected, valued, and included (Allen et al., 2021; Baumeister and Leary, 1995). So, what is the link between belonging, psychological safety, and relational safety? A simple way of understanding the relationship is that belonging is the outcome, whilst relational safety is one of many conditions that makes this possible (Allen et al., 2021; Baumeister & Leary,1995). This leads on from the concept of psychological safety. If psychological safety is about using voice, relational safety is about staying connected when voices differ, then belonging is the outcome when people consistently experience both. Baumeister and Leary's (1995) foundational belonging theory argues that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation. Indeed, this links in to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, where ‘Love and Belonging’ are the third most important category of needs for human development (Maslow, 1943). It must be noted that belonging is not an ideal by-product of social interaction, it is a significant and essential outcome. To belong and feel part of a group, where you are accepted for your authentic self and voice, to be able to meaningfully contribute, is an innate part of the human condition. This author believes research into belonging is one of the most important discussions in education, but relational safety must be part of that discussion for it to be realized in educational settings.

     Contributions from Neurobiology – Polyvagal Theory, Interpersonal Neurobiology

While belonging research explains why connection matters psychologically, neurobiology helps explain how safety is experienced physiologically (Porges, 2011; Siegel, 1999).

Polyvagal Theory

While attachment theory explains why secure relationships matter, polyvagal theory helps explain how safety is experienced physiologically in the body. To understand relational safety, we need to appreciate that it is not merely a psychological concept, it also has a physiological dimension. If psychological safety  asks ‘Am I safe to take risks?’ and relational safety asks ‘Can I remain connected if I speak honestly and disagree?’ Polyvagal theory asks ‘Does my nervous system perceive this interaction as safe enough for connection?’ Polyvagal theory, as developed by Stephen Porges (2011) adds a great deal to our understanding, and the lived experience, of relational safety (or lack thereof). Porges’ theory focuses on the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and how this functions. Porges argues that our ANS shifts between three primary states, decided by a process that he termed ‘neuroception’:

‘Neuroception evaluates risk in the environment without awareness. Perception implies awareness and conscious detection. Neuroception is not a cognitive process; it is a neural process without a dependency on awareness.” (Porges, 2011)

When presented with a stressful stimulus or situation, our ANS may activate the sympathetic state, which Porges characterises as a mobilisation response commonly associated with fight-or-flight behaviour (Porges, 2011; Porges, 2022).

In this state, the body is physiologically responding to perceived threat and will prepare to confront the danger or escape it. Individuals may demonstrate defensive behaviour, hypervigilance, anxiety, and heightened arousal as attention shifts from social connection towards survival (Porges, 2011; Dana, 2020). The focus is no longer on relationship-building but on managing perceived risk and threat. In the dorsal vagal state, which Porges associates with shutdown, freeze, or collapse responses, the perceived threat is experienced as overwhelming or inescapable (Porges, 2011; Porges, 2022). Consequently, the nervous system may shift into a state of immobilisation characterised by withdrawal, disconnection, emotional numbing, reduced energy, and disengagement from others (Dana, 2020). As with the sympathetic state, cues of safety are absent, limiting an individual's capacity for meaningful social interaction and connection.

Of the three ANS states that Porges outlined, the one that is most conducive to relational safety is the ventral vagal state (Porges, 2011; Porges, 2022). Porges argues that we enter this state when our nervous system detects cues of safety through secure relationships, facial expressions, vocal tone, predictability, and experiences of connection and belonging (Porges, 2011). Dana similarly contends that feelings of safety can arise through co-regulated relationships where individuals are able to remain connected and emotionally regulated (Dana, 2020).

Interpersonal Neurobiology

Interpersonal Neurobiology is a multidisciplinary approach that talks about healthy relationships and their role in shaping and regulating the brain and our psychological state. Leading proponent Dr Daniel J. Siegel proposes that the brain, the mind, and relationships, are all deeply connected and that our development, wellbeing and ability to emotionally regulate are shaped by our social interactions as well as our brain processes. (Siegel, 1999). Siegel's theory has three core tenets (Siegel, 1999; 2012):

1.   Relationships shape the architecture of the brain (by affecting neural pathways)

2.  Effective integration promotes wellbeing – healthy development occurs when different systems are effectively integrated (differentiation and linkage both exist simultaneously i.e.- Differentiation – people can hold different opinions and Linkage- those people can stay in the relationship) (Siegel, 1999; Siegel, 2012).

3.  Co-regulation comes before self-regulation – people learn to regulate through relationships with others (Siegel, 1999; Schore, 2001).

Central to this theory and the 3 core tenets are concepts that link directly to the idea of relational safety: ‘emotional attunement’, ‘mindsight’ (Siegel,1999), and ‘window of tolerance’ (Siegel, 1999):

-   Emotional attunement (the ability to accurately interpret and respond to another’s emotional state) is essential to relational safety, as it provides validation and understanding which indirectly allow the establishment of connection (Siegel, 1999; Schore, 2001).

-  Mindsight (as coined by Siegel) is the capacity to: "see and shape the internal world of the self and others." It can be described as a type of focused awareness that allows us to understand ourselves and others at a deeper level: we become more curious about thoughts/feelings/beliefs/intentions, and less reactive. This is key for relational safety because if we develop our mindsight, we can understand ourselves and others better, allowing us to build relationships where disagreement can be effectively navigated (Siegel, 2010; Siegel, 2012).

-  Window of tolerance (a term popularised by Siegel) "… is the optimal zone of arousal in which an individual can function most effectively, maintaining emotional regulation, flexible thinking, social engagement, and reflective capacity." (Siegel, 1999; Siegel, 2012). Relational safety is the interpersonal conditions that allows individuals to remain in this zone (Siegel, 1999; Porges, 2011).

                  Contributions from Sociology- Dialogue Theory, Relational Leadership Theory

Dialogue Theory

Dialogue Theory, at its heart, is a theory that focuses on shared understanding through conversation. Developed principally through the work of Buber (1923), Bohm (1996), and Isaacs (1999), the core themes that are explored: dialogue is relational, the value of difference, understanding precedes consensus, listening is equally important to speaking, and relationships shape thinking (Buber, 1923/1970; Bohm, 1996; Isaacs, 1999). The theory has proved pivotal in work in education surrounding oracy and effective classroom practices influencing the dialogic approaches, all of which emphasise the importance of purposeful talk, shared meaning-making, and collaborative thinking (Alexander, 2020; Mercer and Littleton, 2007; Nystrand, 1997; Wegerif, 2013). Dialogue Theory can be applied to relational safety because authentic and constructive dialogue requires individuals to engage openly with perspectives that may challenge their own beliefs, values or expectations. When relational safety is perceived, individuals are less likely to interpret difference as a relational threat, and are therefore more likely to remain open to listen, learn, and collaborate (Bhasin, 2026). In this social climate, individuals are more likely to flourish (Seligman, 2011; Ryff, 1989). In short, dialogue theory answers the question ‘what do people do when relational safety exists?’

Relational Leadership Theory

The provenance of this theory can be linked back to late 1990s/early 2000s. It is an approach that challenges the traditional leadership models based on personality traits, types of behaviours, or actions performed by an individual leader that had previously dominated the understanding of leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

"Relational Leadership Theory (RLT) [is] an overarching framework for the study of leadership as a social influence process through which emergent coordination... and change... are constructed and produced." (Uhl-Bien, 2006)

Relational leadership theory shares important common ground with ideas regarding emotional intelligence through its emphasis on empathy, authentic relationships, perspective-taking and mutual influence (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Relational safety theory focuses on the importance of maintaining connection through disagreement and difference, relational leadership theory reinforces this idea by conceptualising leadership as a relational process that is characterized by continual interaction, open dialogue, and mutual influence (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Bhasin, 2026). Whilst many leaders may feel this is self-evident, we must remember that for much of the twentieth century, leadership discourse has been dominated leadership theories that attributed effective leadership to individual personalities, traits, and talents, rather than their relationships with members of their team.

Conclusion

This paper set out to explore the current understanding of relational safety and its importance in conceptualizing effective leadership. With recent organizational and leadership discourse drawing on significant concepts such as psychological safety, this paper sought to recognize these contributions, but also to build on them with Bhasin’s concept of relational safety (Bhasin, 2026). Contemporary theories were explored from a variety of disciplines, all seeking to answer different, but related, questions about safety and security. Exploring relational safety through multiple theoretical lenses reveals that, although it may first appear to be a purely social construct, it is deeply rooted in human biology, psychology, and our evolutionary development. This article made a case that psychological safety is an essential foundation for effective leadership by asking, ‘what are the conditions necessary for authentic professional voice and organizational success?’, but that relational safety was the next step in discussion, as it asks, ‘what happens when differences and disagreement arise, and how do we maintain connection in those moments?’ The answer lies somewhere at the intersection of these theories, and in further research. In a world increasingly characterized by division and polarization, this discussion has never been more pertinent. For me, this concept is deeply personal, because I have always found it hard to stay in meaningful connection; it takes me a long time to feel relational safety. When I take a step back and reflect on my own relationships, and view them through the lens of these theories, I can see what I need to work on. But it is also clear that this is not something I can achieve alone. Relational safety is not something that an individual can single-handedly manifest, it is the work of everyone that enters your life, and it is often the work of a lifetime. My hope for you and me is one and the same: that when we encounter difference within a meaningful connection, we choose curiosity over certainty, understanding over judgement, and that we find the courage to stay in the conversation long enough to truly see each other.  For what is it to be human, if not to flourish in connection?

Author: Louise Marie Pickering

References

Alexander, R. (2020) A Dialogic Teaching Companion. Abingdon: Routledge.

Allen, K.A., Kern, M.L., Rozek, C.S., McInerney, D.M. and Slavich, G.M. (2021) ‘Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research’, Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), pp. 87-102.

Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995) ‘The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation’, Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), pp. 497-529.

Bhasin, K. (2026) ‘Relational safety: The leadership skill this moment is demanding’, Bhasin Consulting Inc., 24 June. Available at: https://bhasinconsulting.com/2026/06/24/relational-safety-the-leadership-skill-this-moment-is-demanding/ (Accessed: 27 August 2026).

Bohm, D. (1996) On Dialogue. London: Routledge.

Bowlby, J. (1951) Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Bowlby, J. (1958) ‘The nature of the child’s tie to his mother’, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, pp. 350-373.

Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and Loss. Volume 1: Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1988) A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. London: Routledge.

Buber, M. (1970) I and Thou. Translated by W. Kaufmann. New York: Scribner. (Originally published 1923).

Dana, D. (2020) Polyvagal Exercises for Safety and Connection: 50 Client-Centered Practices. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Edmondson, A.C. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350-383.

Isaacs, W. (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Currency.

Kahn, W.A. (1990) ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.

Kohlrieser, G., Goldsworthy, S. and Coombe, D. (2012) Care to Dare: Unleashing Astonishing Potential Through Secure Base Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Maslow, A.H. (1943) ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review, 50(4), pp. 370-396.

Mercer, N. and Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. London: Routledge.

Nystrand, M. (1997) Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Porges, S.W. (2011) The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Porges, S.W. (2022) Polyvagal Safety: Attachment, Communication, Self-Regulation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Ryff, C.D. (1989) ‘Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), pp. 1069-1081.

Schore, A.N. (2001) ‘Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health’, Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1-2), pp. 7-66.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2011) Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. New York: Free Press.

Siegel, D.J. (1999) The Developing Mind: Toward a Neurobiology of Interpersonal Experience. New York: Guilford Press.

Siegel, D.J. (2012) The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are. 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) ‘Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing’, The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), pp. 654-676.

Wegerif, R. (2013) Dialogic: Education for the Internet Age. London: Routledge.