Why Fear Crushes Your Culture

Abstract

Fear is defined as a normal reaction to a real or imagined threat and is an integral and adaptive aspect of development. Individuals react to fear during moments of social, political, and economic upheaval like those in recent years. But how do collective groups manifest and respond to the internal and external factors that promote fear? More pointedly, how do working professionals experience a long-term, organizational culture of fear? To respond to these questions, this chapter will offer new perspectives on how fear is operationalized in the workplace. By interpreting the role of fear in common workplace norms like feedback, collaboration, management, and hiring, we offer a better understanding of how organizational culture might promote the negative consequences of fear: avoidance, withdrawal, and physical/emotional pain.

1. Introduction

It is common for an individual—as experienced as they might be—to feel a sense of nervous excitement walking into work on the first day of a new job. Many workers wake up on the day of an important meeting or high-stakes presentation feeling an acute worry gnawing at their confidence. These are familiar emotions, no matter what industry or social context an individual works within. They might even be reasonably viewed as part of the “everyday fabric” of contemporary work—the quotidian grievances and awkward anxieties that workplace sitcoms tend to use for comedic effect.

But beyond laughable clichés, there’s nothing funny about the presence of intense or overwhelming fear at work, particularly in the context of negative outcomes for workers and employers alike. These feelings, which transcend the minor strains refenced above, can be intense and distressing, leaving emotional scarring and unease that can last for months or even years. These fears can be the source or symptom of traumatizing challenges that leave work a social context to dread and avoid.

While it is difficult to pin down what exactly qualifies as “fear,” it is easy to see and experience instances in which the manifestations of this emotional response appear in the workplace. All workplaces have what Barsade & O’Neill call “an emotional culture”—the shared psychology of a group collaborating together on various aims [1]. Such “shared affective values, norms, artifacts, and assumptions” underpin the way that people experience meaning and satisfaction at work, or, on the other hand, how they experience negative emotional states that leave them feeling ambivalent about their work accomplishments [1].

Reasons for fear are ubiquitous—constant warnings about terrorism, international conflict, weakening economies, global warming, crime, infectious disease, and political uncertainty—cause a feeling of trepidation to pervade contemporary life. The social fabric of fear is visible in how groups perceive others, act in response to risk and uncertainty, and even bond together through shared distress. Fear shapes organizational culture in many aspects, as workers’ relationships with their colleagues and leaders are often formed around real and perceived fears about power dynamics in the workplace. Companies might act strategically out of a fearful disposition—holding the line against an assumed threat that may not materialize. Running through a work culture of fear are fractures that divide and disable the collaborative relationships and meaningful well-being that organizations require to be successful.

On the individual level, neuroscientists often frame the emotion of fear in its most general sense as a psychological response to a perceived threat—what Joseph LeDoux has called “a conscious awareness that you are in harm’s way” [2]. Such a response manifests itself biologically (sweating, rapid heartbeat, eye movement, etc.) and cognitively, as in racing thoughts or a kind of frozen panic. These individual responses often remain private and even suppressed, as such manifestations of distress tend to be perceived as inappropriate or off-putting in a professional context.

Whether visibly manifested or not, fear is “at work” in the lives of many employees, managers, and participants in the complex social dance that is work. While fear is certainly not a strictly-contemporary phenomenon (one has only to think of the dangers of many nineteenth-century pre-reform workplaces to consider the ubiquity of workplace anxiety) there is good reason to carefully study the role it plays in today’s world of work. Even in the global “knowledge economy”, where work is more distributed and digital than ever before, new fears arise that need to be considered for their social, economic, and psychological implications. Understanding how fear is operationalized through key workplace norms will reveal psychological barriers to productivity and meaning-making at work. Such analysis also lay foundational principles and practices for reducing and reframing fear.

We begin this chapter by defining fear as a psychological phenomenon that manifests at work and summarizing how several generations of researchers in organizational psychology and behavior management disciplines have understood the impact of fear on employees and managers alike. The chapter then applies this research to one common workplace norm by considering feedback as an essential activity that is nevertheless deeply shaped by fear and the way that it limits trust. To conclude, the chapter presents the concept of psychological safety as a response to workplace fear, drawing on two examples from well-known corporations to understand the potential of this key principle.

2. Literature review

Fear is a human emotion that is activated automatically and typically very quickly. Conceptualized as an affective state protecting one against danger or a motivational state leading one away from something, fear yields a reaction to an immediate threat—that can be physical, emotional, or psychological—and may be directed to external sources. An example of a physical reaction might include sweating palms whereas an emotional reaction may emerge as worry and rumination. Further, a psychological reaction may be indicated by an upset stomach or nervous jitters.

As a type of emotion, fear, an intervening variable, is closely related to stimulus events as well as response events. Fear encourages avoidance behavior, a narrowed perceptual and cognitive focus on and pessimistic judgment about risks and the future. Fear is a driver of action—not only psychological but also physical as our body kicks into overdrive. In other words, fear motivates withdrawal and avoidance of harmful events. Additionally, fear has been considered a relational construct, aroused in response to a situation that is judged as dangerous and toward which protective action should be taken. From this perspective, fear shaped human behavior and it continues to do so today.

Fear can be explained through protection motivation theory. Drawing from previous research by Lazarus, Rogers sought to better understand fear appeals and how people cope with them [3]. Protection motivation theory (PMT) centers on three critical components: the magnitude of noxiousness of a depicted event, probability of that event’s occurrence, and efficacy of a protective response [3]. PMT proposes that people protect themselves from fear based on two factors: threat appraisal and coping appraisal. Threat appraisal assesses the severity of the situation and examines how serious the situation is, while coping appraisal explains the response to the situation. These processes mediate attitude change—in other words, these processes help explain how the emotion of fear motivates action.

Fear, in particular, evolved to protect us against threats to our survival, and its evolutionary-based effects continue to influence us despite the changed nature of the threats we face [4]. Since the average person spends approximately one-third of their waking hours at work, it is safe to assume that work-related fear can in periods also be a significant influence upon the general well-being of individuals. At work, fear can be seen through physiological and emotional responses, as well as those that are relational and interpersonal. Fear is also manifested through organizational action—collective manifestations of fear with company- and market-wide effects. Researchers have tracked fear at work as manifested through feelings and behavior related to insecurity, avoidance, as well as a lack of psychological safety and trust. Gibaldi & Cusack sought to understand the factors and conditions that make employees fearful [5]. They found the following sources of fear that people experience in their daily work lives: fear of reprisal, reprimand, making mistakes, failure, giving voice/speaking up, termination, and feedback among others [6].

Fear is psychological but it has physical effects as well. Stress and anxiety resulting from workplace fear can cause increased heart rate, sweating, adrenaline rush and even a fight or flight response. Fear spreads from the mind to the body. This feeling often leads to employees being paralyzed with fear and unable to work effectively. An individual that is experiencing fear may have an increased heart rate, faster breathing, shortness of breath, digestive changes, sweating, chills, or even trembling muscles. Adrenaline and cortisol flood our system, we breathe faster and our blood flows away from our hearts and into our limbs. Our body is preparing for “fight or flight” [7]. In addition, from a physiological and emotional lens, fear may manifest as fatigue, irritability, negative attitude and affect, frustration, indecisiveness, loss of confidence, forgetfulness, and rumination. Perhaps you have seen an employee that is present, but only in the physical sense—not bringing their best selves to work and not fully contributing. Fear may also be evident in the way that employees work together, collaborate, and compete. Some individuals experience fear leading to fatigue—a 2019 ComPsych Survey showed that 61% of workers reported a high level of stress that caused fatigue and feelings of not being in control [8]. Though fearful, out-of-control feelings may be intense in the short term, such exhaustion-inducing stresses can also be paralyzing over a significant time period [9].

Beyond being an individual inevitability, it is important to recognize that fear in the workplace is an organizational problem for both employers and employees, making a workplace uncomfortable (or even intolerable). Fear can also have a negative impact on revenue, profits, and other metrics of success. A constant state of fear negatively impacts an employee’s ability to speak their mind, admit a mistake, or feel safe giving honest feedback. This can cause employees and companies alike to make decisions from a place to not lose instead of to win. In fact, previous research by O’Donovan discusses competition as a useful mechanism for creativity and innovation within an organization as well as an instrument of repression as employees are sometimes pitted against one another [10]. For individuals, the stress of competition can be physically and psychologically destructive leading to lower morale and reduced productivity. In this way, competition harms the levels of inter-communication of ideas, coordination of efforts, friendliness and pride in the group, and ultimately the level of harmony and cohesion in the group [11]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, competition that breeds rivalry has been suggested to lead to the development of negative interdependence, distrust, lack of harmony, and opportunistic behavior that prioritizes self-interests over collective interests [11, 12].

What’s worse is that there is a great concern in the sense that fear is contagious and can travel quickly throughout an organization. And this contagion helps to foster a culture of fear whereas individuals catch the emotions of others. This emotional catching process is better described as a cognitive, either nonconscious or conscious, process of emotional contagion where people imagine how they would feel in the position of another and, consequently, experience the same feelings. Other costs that organizations bear include low employee morale, reduced productivity, and high employee turnover. The costs of rampant workplace fear create a significant incentive to ameliorate this condition. In the current context of work, these conditions can lead to devastating financial costs for a business and require that leaders and organizations protect against a culture of fear.

3. Fear of feedback

Rather than speculating about external social forces like natural disasters or political disruptions and their influence on individuals’ perceptions of their workplace safety, we choose to focus on one internal workplace norm that is common across sectors and roles: feedback. As a workplace norm that most if not all employees experience, feedback is a particularly valuable case study for understanding potential reasons and effects of psychological unease at work.

Just as it is challenging to generalize a conclusive list of ways that individuals might experience fear at work, it is difficult to narrowly define work-related feedback—it is a complex social dynamic. Even defining this activity as “language used for the purpose of assessing and improving behavior” overlooks the reality that much feedback can be nonverbal, presented in the form of gestures, looks, or even silence. Definitions of feedback as “a reinforcer,” “an instruction,” or “a guide” are often tempered with caveats about the malleability of feedback practices and their application across different work environments (see [13] for a helpful review of “behavior analytic” definitions of feedback). In one influential essay, Peterson even went so far as to argue that “feedback” should be abandoned by behavior analysists as a term, arguing that in its universal ambiguity the term has become nothing more than “professional slang” [14].

Even though it may be difficult to unambiguously define, feedback has remained one of the most widely-studied functional motivational practices in the organizational behavior management literature [15, 16]. Even Peterson’s general critique of the term includes an underlying assumption of its potential: that analysis can improve feedback to be maximally effective for changing behavior as an “effective conditioned reinforcer, or a discriminative stimulus, or an establishing stimulus” [14]. Feedback offers employees directed motivation and improved overall job satisfaction [17]. In particular, research indicates that satisfaction with feedback is likely to improve workers’ commitment to their organization and decrease the likelihood of employee turnover [18].

The research literature on this topic has generally focused on the benefits of feedback. What is less well-understood is the psychological intensity and the deeply-held feelings of fear that accompany this workplace norm. In other words, while there seems to be ample research evidence to feedback’s overall benefits, much less is understood then about the demotivating fears that accompany feedback or prevent feedback from happening in an organization. How does fear inform professionals’ view of evaluation? And how do professionals experience fear in the moment of providing or receiving feedback? These two questions focus both on mindset and behavior—they seek to understand the mechanics of feedback fear, avoidance, and general negativity and to clarify the disfunctions that arise in fear-based work environments.

Some individuals may look forward to the direction that evaluation from supervisors provides. In fact, some research indicates that some individuals reported negative or corrective feedback as being more valuable over positive response, in part due to the way that it helps recipients improve more efficiently [19]. Another way of understanding the influence of fear in the context of feedback is to suggest that most people see this workplace norm as a “necessary evil” or “bitter pill”—an experience that holds benefits but is in large measure to be endured, not enjoyed. This negative perception of feedback fosters a culture of fear around feedback, as individuals’ relationship with feedback tends to feed off of each other. As Jackman & Strober argue, this amplification of fears over feedback often results in the organizational equivalent of “psychologically maladaptive behaviors such as procrastination, denial, brooding, jealousy, and self-sabotage” [20].

Fear, as a response to a psychologically straining stimulus perceived as being uncontrollable, can be experienced in an anticipatory mode in the context of feedback. This is especially true when feedback is framed as an antecedent to change [13, 14]. A sense of dread is often present for individuals’ in advance of their either giving or receiving feedback—an anticipatory anxiety over the likelihood of conflict, embarrassment, or mis-characterization. This can be as true for the giver of feedback, as for the receiver; therefore, much feedback is never given at all due to the anticipated likelihood of creating a strained or awkward relationship with a managed colleague or employee. To offset this negative outcome, several researchers have recommended that feedback be iterative and frequent, becoming a practice that is consistent and expected [21, 22, 23, 24].

“Fear during” (as in a more immediate or of-the-moment phenomenon) is also present in the feedback scenario. Recipients’ emotional response to feedback in the moment may in part be due to the cultural valences of words commonly used while giving feedback (i.e., “excellent” or “ineffective”) that carry psychosocial associations and even physiological responses [16]. These responses can be especially present during evaluative feedback, as in the case of the annual review. Research has shown that these situations are as psychologically challenging for managers as they are for employees, largely due to the perceived likelihood that an employee would respond negatively to the feedback [25]. In addition to increasing the chance of over-rating or being lenient with employees [26], this management anxiety can corrode trust within organizations [27]. In response, some have argued that correctives to the anxiety surrounding performance appraisal are to present the manager less as a judge and more as a coach or servant [28] and to build in additional iterations of feedback outside of an annual or more isolated review [25].

One somewhat surprising outcome of fear of feedback is that many professionals never request or receive feedback from supervisors or colleagues. By understanding the negative inputs that inform the experience of feedback, including the anxieties that motivate the avoidance of feedback, researchers can better understand the way that productive dialog is hindered from fear-based psychosocial drivers. This understanding has implications for leadership development training, as well as for understanding the psychology and culture of professional organizations—everything from corporate, education, medical, and even athletic contexts.

4. Trust

Effective feedback is not possible in the absence of trust, in part because it’s truly challenging for an individual to listen in an “open” way to feedback given by someone they do not trust or respect. On the other hand, evaluative feedback that is perceived as being accurate and offered in a spirit of genuine goodwill is likely to improve trust between managers and their employees [17]. Organizations are defined by the sum of their parts; and the foundation of the social cohesion that holds them together is supported by trust, safety, and respect. Yet when an organization fosters a culture of fear, critical factors—trust, accountability, safety, and respect—are all too often the casualties. Similarly, when negative feedback arises, research suggests that teams that have not established meaningful trust are more likely to see this feedback as indicative of unavoidable failure and are especially likely to experience major team conflict [29].

Trust is foundational in all relationships, including the employment relationship. Organizations with high levels of intra-group trust have been shown to be more likely to avoid the pitfalls of conflict and divisiveness that hinder important workplace collaborations [30]. When employees feel that their leader is not trustworthy, safety and trust diminish [31]. Trustworthiness is built from three factors: ability, benevolence, and integrity. If employees perceive their leader as competent, honest, and benevolent—or interested in their overall well-being, as a person who can help in the task or relationship, and as possessing integrity, they will feel safe and will be less likely to engage in self-protective defenses at work. In fact, transparency and vulnerability in relationships between leaders and employees contribute to both a feeling of efficacy and clarity that drives fear out of the relationship [32]. These types of high-quality relationships breed collegiality, productive conflict, trust, and psychological safety.

5. Psychological safety

In her article, “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams,” Amy Edmondson defines “psychological safety” as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking [33]. It means that colleagues, regardless of who is sitting around the table, can share their ideas without judgment. The culture cultivated in teams with high psychological safety is one where people feel obligated, not fearful, to be candid.

In 2015, researcher Julia Rozovsky and her team were assigned by Google’s “People Operations Department” to Project Aristotle, a long-term study on team effectiveness- named for Aristotle’s belief that a team is greater than the sum of its parts [34]. The researchers first examined what distinguished a “team” from a work group, determining that the former is highly interdependent—a team needs each other to get work done [35]. Next, effectiveness was measured in four ways: executive evaluation of the team, team leader evaluation of the team, team member evaluation of the team, sales performance against quarterly quota [35]. Rozovsky’s team conducted over 200 interviews with Google employees and looked at more than 250 attributes of over 180 Google teams and concluded that there are 5 dynamics of high-performing teams: psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning of work and impact of work [36]. Psychological safety is an individual’s perception of taking an interpersonal risk, teams high in this are confident they will not be embarrassed or judged [35]. Dependability is about counting on teammates to do high quality work on time [35]. Structure and clarity are when goals, roles, and execution plans are clear [35]. The meaning of work is experienced when people feel their work is personally meaningful, drawing reasons which can vary among the team [35]. The impact of work is when there is a subjective judgment that an individual’s work is making a team fundamentally believe that the work they do matters [35]. Rozovsky’s team found that psychological safety was not just by far the most important of the five key dynamics, it was also the underpinning of the other four [36]. Teams with high psychological safety are not only less likely to develop interpersonal conflicts, they are also more likely to admit mistakes, to collaborate, to take on new roles and more likely to harness the power of diverse ideas [36]. Rozovsky’s conclusions are not simply predictors of improved contentment among colleagues; psychologically safe teams make more money and are rated twice as effective by executives [36].

Edmonson is very clear about what psychological safety is not: it is not about being nice or lowering standards. Psychological safety is about the climate of the team atmosphere; there is a focus on the personality of team more than any individual. Although trust is a part of psychological safety, Edmondson warns there are a few distinctions to be made. The first is that trust is between individuals where psychological safety is about a team. The second is that psychological safety is about mutual respect; people can be themselves. Creating a place where people can be themselves does not mean it is a place without accountability or standards. Lastly, trust is something that can indicate future actions—one may “trust” that their colleagues are going to do what they say they are going to do while psychological safety focuses on the moment, such as when one admits to a mistake or presents an unconventional idea in a discussion. We can see that psychological safety is defined by trust and respect but also by standards of excellence [37].

5.1 Why a lack of psychological safety hurts the culture

Rozovsky found that taking a risk around your team would be something simple, but she asks her readers to reflect on team experiences and how employees and team members err on the side of “playing it safe” for self-protection [36]. She states that individuals are reluctant to engage in behaviors that can negatively influence how others perceive their competence [36]. An individual might choose to not ask a clarifying question, or avoid challenging their boss with a different strategy because they fear negative judgment and retribution. This is only emphasized in hierarchies where the most influential and loudest voices are at the top. Research in neuroscience shows that fear consumes physiological resources, diverting them from parts of the brain that manage working memory and process new information [37]. This in turn impairs analytic thinking, creative insight, and problem solving. So not only is learning inhibited by fear but it also creates obstacles to asking for help and trying new things. Edmondson states it also affects employee satisfaction, hierarchy specifically, the fear it creates when not handled well, reduces psychological safety. Research shows that lower-status team members generally feel less safe than higher-status members as we are constantly assessing our relative status, monitoring how we stack up against others, again mostly subconsciously. Further, those lower in the status hierarchy experience stress in the presence of those with higher status [37].

Rozovsky and Edmondson highlight that psychological safety is imperative for effective teams and successful organizations. Two case studies will demonstrate the impact of psychological safety’s presence and absence.

5.2 Volkswagen

Volkswagen, a globally-recognized German automotive company founded in 1937 had a 2022 revenue of $295.7B and assets of $638B [38]. In 2015, in a scandal called “diesel dupe”, the United States Environmental Protection Agency reported that Volkswagen cars sold in America featured software known as “defeat devices” that could detect when they were being tested for emissions and subsequently change their performance to pass the tests. Over 480,000 cars in the U.S. featured these “devices,” workarounds that allowed emissions over forty times above standard regulations. Volkswagen eventually admitted that about 11 million cars worldwide were fitted with defeat devices [39].

How could a company with so much capital not start over but rather risk its reputation? Would not it appear inefficient to spend time cheating and risking fines? There was a massive marketing campaign in the United States that was touting low-emitting vehicles and this led to pressure that fostered an environment not where people felt safe to say they needed to start over to comply with the regulations but instead to cheat around them [39]. The resulting controversy has damaged Volkswagen’s reputation and financial standing as a major player in the automotive industry. In 2020, the company was fined upwards of $25B with not only more expected but also indictments of senior executives, including charges for the CEO, Martin Wilterkorn, in the U.S. and Germany. Volkswagen recalled 8.5 million cars in Europe, including 2.4 million in Germany, 1.2 million in the UK, and 500,000 in the U.S. [39]. How did a lack of psychological safety cause this automotive giant to post its first quarterly loss in 15 years of $2.6B? [39].

As all information of “diesel dupe” came to fruition, it was clear that top-level officials were insistent on the cheating to happen and that the company culture lacked space for people to share their concerns or even to collaborate on ideas to fix a long-term problem. As CEO Winterkorn was, in the words of one journalist, “a notorious micromanager—he was known for carrying a micrometer with him, so he could personally measure VW parts and tolerances down to the hundredth of a millimeter—and an imperious martinet” [40]. Reuters interviewed five former VW executives that told of a management style under Winterkorn that fostered a climate of fear and authoritarianism that went unchecked partly due to a company structure. Professor Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, automotive expert at the University of Duisburg-Essen, shared that the culture and organizational structure of Volkswagen are not comparable to other German automotive companies, such as Daimler or BMW, and that employees at Volkswagen talked of a special pressure [41]. In a New York Times article, David Bach, of Yale School of Management, concluded that Volkswagen became a place where subordinates were not only fearful of contradicting their superiors but also afraid to admit failure which he attributes to a self-righteousness [42]. Emanuela Montefrancesco, a Volkswagen engineer, described a hard-charging work culture where highly educated and motivated engineers competed for approval and promotion culture, too often failing to stand up to say: “I won’t do this. I cannot. I am sorry” [42]. Such reticence to voice disagreement and thereby risk retribution indicates a lack of psychological safety at Volkswagen.

The new Volkswagen Chief Executive, Herbert Diess, plans to use more transparency, a more open culture of discussion, more accountability, and greater tolerance of errors [43]. You can simply look at Volkswagen’s current website “The Foundations of The Group’s Values”, which illustrates their desire to cultivate Diess’ desired culture. The first three values listed are responsibility, honesty and bravery [44]. Responsibility is defined by taking on social responsibility and paying attention to the environmental compatibility of the products and processes and dedication to improving them. Honesty is by doing the right thing when no one is watching, highlighting that they are not afraid of hierarchies and to share thoughts openly. Bravery demonstrates a focus on letting go and thinking afresh [44]. We can connect this articulation of Volkswagen’s values to Edmondson’s definition of psychological safety: interpersonal risk taking, sharing ideas without judgment, and a place where people are not fearful of being candid [33]. Volkswagen is searching to cultivate what they so deeply lacked before: psychological safety.

5.3 Pixar

Pixar Animation Studio, an American computer animation studio and successful subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, released its first movie, Toy Story, in 1995 and has grossed more than $14.7B globally [45]. In creative environments, which are demanding and high stakes, there needs to be a high quantity of ideas presented in order to have a blockbuster. CEO Ed Catmull cultivates a culture of transparency and feedback—benchmarks of psychological safety. Psychological safety is the antidote to fear and essential for creative environments. In order to come across an industry changing idea, there needs to be several ideas.

Catmull believes that in a fear-based, failure-averse culture, people will avoid risk, whether consciously or unconsciously. In this type of environment, innovative work cannot take place. One approach or remedy is to have leaders talk about mistakes which then makes it safe for others to do so. In his book, Creativity, Inc., Catmull explains that “in a fearless culture, (or as fearless as nature will allow), people will be much less hesitant to explore new areas, identifying uncharted pathways and then charging them down” which allows them to be decisive and know when to reboot [46]. Catmull believes the hallmark of a healthy creative culture is that its people feel free to share ideas, opinions, and criticisms. That decision-making is better when teams draw upon the collective knowledge and unvarnished opinions of the group. He states that candor is the key to collaborating effectively [46]. Lack of candor leads to dysfunctional environments. So how can a manager ensure that his or her working group, department, or company embraces candor? Catmull has integrated two feedback concepts at Pixar that are glowing examples of psychological safety in action: “the Braintrust” which takes place before a script is finalized and “postmortem” which takes place after a film is released.

Pixar relies on a candor-based mechanism known internally as “the Braintrust” to push each other toward excellence and away from mediocrity. Catmull describes this institutional practice as “our primary delivery system for straight talk. Braintrust meets every few months or so to assess each movie we’re making. Its premise is simple: put smart, passionate people in a room together, charge them with identifying and solving problems, and encourage them to be candid. The Braintrust is not foolproof, but when we get it right, the results are phenomenal” [47]. Catmull is adamant this feedback system is different for two reasons—the group is composed of people who have been through the creative storytelling process themselves, and there is no hierarchical authority [46]. Unlike at Volkswagen, Pixar directors are able to independently determine the feedback they take—nothing is mandated. Catmull stresses the importance that candor is only valuable if the person is willing to hear it [46].

The trajectory of a film production changes multiple times over many years. In a high stress and high production environment, people move onto their next projects once a film is completed. But Catmull believes that at Pixar, “postmortems” are crucial for exploration of what did and did not work, and that companies, like individuals, do not become exceptional by believing they are exceptional but by understanding the ways in which they are not exceptional [46]. When teams are in the middle of production, it is hard to think about lessons learned from the process. Postmortems provide opportunities for those, both people embedded in the process and those on the outside, to get a high-level view on takeaways from the experience. Postmortems indicate that a commitment to transparent feedback does not just help motivate creativity, it also creates a safe place where personal frustrations can be shared so that resentment is not carried into other projects [46].

While Volkswagen is working to cultivate a culture where people will take employee feedback to innovate instead of succumbing to pressure to cheat, Pixar’s culture of psychological safety is seen throughout their entire process. Pixar does not only emphasize the importance of feedback during the production cycle with Braintrust but also works to capture post-production learning lessons in postmortems, which would allow project team members, and others, to play a part in honest feedback. This focus on psychological safety multiple times in a project cycle normalizes feedback and gives employees the ability to take learning lessons into future projects. This success is demonstrated in some of the world’s greatest movies such as Toy Story, Frozen and Finding Nemo—of which each had improvements to the initial script. These case studies demonstrate the negative impact of fear and its antidote: psychological safety.

6. Conclusion

We cannot escape this fact: fear is simply a part of life. While perhaps unavoidable, it is evident that the many contributory fear factors can be managed. Leaders and organizations control the conditions within the workplace that wreak havoc on employees. This control begets responsibility; a responsibility to reduce fear at work and to build psychological safety for their teams and organization. Leaders who express anger, frustration, and impatience may drive their employees into states of fear and survival. The dynamic twenty-first century workplace requires that we not only recognize and understand the role of fear but that we also work to overcome the embedded culture of fear that many organizations seemingly embrace. We have shown that though fear may be unavoidable, it is worth actively managing organizational culture. Specifically, leaders can embrace psychological safety, encourage effective feedback, and implement best practices that support learning and growth (for both employees and the organization). Candor, creativity, and reflective transparency can help to establish norms that work against the fears that contemporary workplace conditions often breed.

This chapter offers perspective on some of the norms that are both drivers of fear and driven by fear-based assumptions that employees and managers bring to work. Giving and receiving feedback is often feared. But we have argued that it is also essential—without the trust necessary to evaluate and assess each other, colleagues are unlikely to develop the psychological safety that makes teams and organizations successful. Similarly, fear at work not only minimizes the likelihood of “success” in terms of raw productivity, it (perhaps more importantly) diminishes the likelihood of work being meaningful for employees. In other words, fear inflicts avoidance, withdrawal, and emotional pains that negate the potential fulfillment of work.

While we have focused on feedback and psychological safety as key factors in understanding the role of fear at work, there are many other avenues and cases that need additional research. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated destabilization of life provides a tremendous case study for illuminating the antecedents and consequences of fear in the workplace. Future research should include more nuanced measures of employee well-being in the immediate context of workplace fear: how do workers offset or counterbalance fear factors that jeopardize their well-being? The study of fear in the context of organizational behavior also stands to benefit from better understanding how and why organizations collectively act out of fear, or even the impact of cumulative fear on corporations’ public perception, business strategy, and longevity in the market. Better understanding how fear informs individuals’ and groups’ experiences at work can generate opportunities for improving the workplace for all. As an antidote to fear, we recommend further study and implementation of psychological safety as a concept and practice.