The observation
Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety, based on a field study of manufacturing work teams, found that team psychological safety — a shared belief that it is safe to raise concerns, admit mistakes or challenge a decision without fear of punishment or embarrassment — predicted team learning behaviour, and that learning behaviour in turn predicted team performance, independent of the team’s general sense of confidence in its own capability. The specific finding worth noting for restructuring is what Edmondson’s research implies about disruption: psychological safety is not a fixed trait of a team or an organisation; it is built through repeated experience of raising something and having it received reasonably, and it can be measurably damaged by events that disrupt that pattern, of which restructuring is a common example.
Michael Beer and Russell Eisenstat’s research into what they termed the “silent killers” of strategy implementation adds a directly relevant mechanism: they identified a pattern in which senior teams do not surface what they collectively know is going wrong, often because raising it would require contradicting a decision — such as a restructuring — that leadership has already visibly committed to, and doing so carries real social and political risk that individuals reasonably weigh against staying quiet.
What it means in practice
Restructuring, by its nature, changes reporting lines, redefines roles, and often signals, implicitly if not explicitly, that the previous structure was judged inadequate. Even when a restructuring is well justified and well communicated, it disrupts the accumulated pattern of experience that psychological safety depends on: people who previously knew, from repeated experience, that raising a concern with their manager would be received reasonably now report into someone new, with an unestablished track record, in a structure whose own stability may itself feel uncertain in the immediate aftermath.
This matters beyond the discomfort of change itself, because Edmondson’s research links psychological safety directly to learning behaviour and performance — meaning a restructuring that damages psychological safety, even temporarily, is not merely an emotional cost to be managed sensitively; it is a functional one, with a plausible link to reduced information-sharing, slower error correction and weaker performance in the reorganised structure, independent of whether the new structure is well designed on paper. A structurally excellent reorganisation that leaves psychological safety depleted may underperform a less elegant structure that preserves it, because much of what makes any structure actually function well depends on people being willing to surface problems within it.
Where it varies
How much psychological safety is disrupted, and how quickly it recovers, appears to depend significantly on factors within leadership’s influence rather than being simply an unavoidable cost of restructuring itself. Beer and Eisenstat’s research suggests that senior teams which actively and visibly invite disagreement and difficult feedback during and after a restructuring — rather than treating the restructuring as a settled decision not open to challenge — see meaningfully less of the “silent killer” dynamic than teams which, even unintentionally, signal that the decision is closed and further concerns are unwelcome.
The scale and nature of the restructuring also matters. A restructuring that changes reporting lines without materially changing the people involved — the same colleagues, working under a different structure — tends to disrupt psychological safety less severely than one that also involves significant headcount change, since the latter compounds structural uncertainty with a more direct, personal signal about risk and security that makes people additionally cautious about what they say and to whom. Restructurings driven by clear, well-communicated external necessity — a genuine market shift, a regulatory change — tend to be somewhat better tolerated than those perceived as driven by internal politics or an unexplained change in direction, likely because the former offers people a coherent external narrative that does not implicate anyone’s individual judgment or performance in quite the same way the latter can.
Time since the restructuring is a further relevant variable, though the research does not point to a fixed recovery period. Edmondson’s broader body of work on psychological safety suggests it rebuilds gradually, through repeated positive experience — instances where someone raises a concern within the new structure and it is received well — rather than recovering automatically once enough calendar time has passed. This implies that leadership’s specific behaviour in the weeks and months immediately following a restructuring plays a disproportionate role in how quickly trust rebuilds, since those are the moments generating the early evidence people use, consciously or not, to update their sense of whether the new structure is actually safe to be honest within.
There is a further contextual variable worth naming: how the restructuring is explained matters at least as much as what the restructuring actually changes. Beer and Eisenstat’s research on silent killers points specifically to unclear or conflicting explanations of a strategic decision as one of the recurring, mutually reinforcing barriers that prevent organisations from surfacing what they collectively know. A restructuring explained with a single, consistent rationale that holds up under scrutiny tends to generate less of the quiet scepticism that erodes psychological safety than one explained inconsistently by different leaders, or explained in terms that do not fully match what people can observe is actually happening — since inconsistency of this kind tends to be read, reasonably, as a sign that the full story is not being told, which is itself corrosive to the sense of safety Edmondson’s research identifies as foundational to open communication.
For how this pattern presents in other kinds of organisation, see other sectors.
Questions worth considering
- Since the most recent restructuring, has anyone actively and visibly invited disagreement or difficult feedback about how it is working, or has the restructuring been treated implicitly as a closed decision?
- Are there early, visible instances — since the restructuring — of someone raising a concern and having it received well, which people across the organisation would have had genuine opportunity to notice?
- Is there any indication that information which would previously have surfaced quickly — a problem, a concern, an early sign something isn’t working — is now travelling more slowly or not at all within the new structure?
This perspective is part of Growth.
Your team is facing similar challenges?
Subscribe to The Riddle Ledger
Perspectives are sent as they are published, with no promotional email, and you can unsubscribe at any time.