Team survey · Report · Plan
Measuring psychological safety
A survey you can tailor to your team, that comes back with a plan rather than a score, and tells you what’s already working so you can keep doing it.
Two ways in. The self-check is free, takes about three minutes, is for you alone and stores nothing. The team survey asks everyone anonymously and gives the whole team one shared picture — your first survey is free.
What you get
- You get a plan, not a score — a short, prioritised set of experiments chosen for what your team actually reported, ranked by fit and effort: things you can try now. The sample report shows exactly what a team receives.
- It tells you why people hold back — people stay quiet for different reasons, and each needs a different response.
- It shows you what’s already working — so you can do more of it. Most surveys only ask what’s broken.
- A survey shaped to your team — choose the statements that matter to you, and add your own.
- Anonymous by design — no report exists until enough people have answered, and nobody, including you, sees who said what.
- Measure as often as you like — unlimited surveys for every team on your plan. You pay for teams, not surveys, and each new survey shows what’s changed.
- See across your organisation — on the Organisation plan, a dashboard pools what your teams report, without ever showing a team’s own results. See a sample.
- Built around the calculus of voice and over ten years of practice — across technology, healthcare, aviation, heavy industry and more. We draw on what actually works.
Plans
Your first survey is free, and the whole report comes with it. The plans differ in how much you can measure, never in what you learn.
Free
£0
- One team, one full survey
- The whole report, including the plan
- Anonymous by design
Team
£60a year
- One team, surveyed as often as you like
- Reports that show what changed
- A fresh plan for each wave
- Everything in Free
Practitioner / Consultant
£260a year
- Up to ten teams, each with its own history
- Export your teams’ results as data
- Enhanced support
- 10% off all Psych Safety training
Organisation
Contact usinvoiced annually
- Multiple organisers, with administrative oversight
- An organisational dashboard
- Enhanced support
Prices include VAT.
What a survey can and can't tell you
Even a thermometer changes what it measures; a safety survey changes far more. It surfaces issues, teaches people what psychological safety is, makes the subject discussable and — done well — encourages the very behaviours it asks about. The survey is an intervention, not a gauge — its effect on the team isn't a side effect to minimise, it's the point. That's also its limit: a score tells you where to look, not what is happening or what to do. So this survey pairs every low score with questions about mechanism, and the output starts a conversation rather than becoming a number to monitor.
The spread is the finding
A team answering 3, 3, 3, 3 and a team answering 1, 2, 4, 5 share an average and need opposite conversations. The first has settled uniformity; the second contains someone having a very different experience from their colleagues — and a team can only be as psychologically safe as its least safe member. Every report shows the full spread, the lowest answer and the disagreement between team members — never a mean as the headline. See what that looks like in a real report.
Why we don't benchmark
Your results are never compared to other teams — no averages, no percentiles, no "teams like yours". Comparison turns a conversation-starter into a target: competition between teams, complacency when the number is high, anxiety when it's low, gaming in between. Interpretation here is about your team's own next conversation.
Beyond the score: the calculus of voice
Speaking up is the behaviour psychological safety enables, so we measure it directly. The other themes are the conditions that make it feel safe or risky; the voice and power questions read the mechanism underneath. This is why a single score is the wrong output. Two teams can sit at the same number for opposite reasons — one because speaking up is costly, another because the response is unpredictable.
Anonymity has to be architectural
Most tools promise anonymity. This one is built so the promise can't be broken.
No name, email, account or IP address. Answers are stored with a date, never a time, so nobody can correlate an answer with who was at their desk. No receipt or identifier ever goes back to a respondent.
Results are sealed until the survey closes and at least four people have answered — then released once, to everyone at the same time. Comments come back shuffled, detached from the answers their author gave.
When not to survey
Don't survey a short-lived team — a temporary project group hasn't had time together to answer honestly, and a conversation serves it better. Don't survey a team of fewer than four — the report won't unlock below that, because at those numbers anonymity becomes arithmetic rather than architecture. Talk instead. And don't survey a team in acute conflict expecting the survey to fix it. Measurement is a starting point for teams stable enough to act on what they learn.
Validated research, or practical intervention? Two different jobs
Comparable, validated measurement and context-fitted intervention are different jobs needing different instruments. The question bank here is adapted from Amy Edmondson's work (The Fearless Organization, 2018), extended with sensemaking items of our own. If you're doing research, or you need scores comparable across teams and studies, use Dr Edmondson's original validated 7-item scale, unmodified — validation is precisely the property that adaptation destroys, and her scale is excellent. Adapt (or use ours) when your purpose is intervention in one team: then the right criterion isn't comparability but whether the questions fit your context and start the right conversation. Seven of our questions are adapted from her 1999 scale, and the survey builder can tick all seven in one click — see them beside the originals.
What it costs
Your first team survey is free, and the whole report comes with it — the distributions, what people said holds them back, and a plan of actions matched to what your team reported. Nothing is held back for a paid plan.
Measuring the same team again is £60 a year. Running up to ten teams, for consultants and coaches, is £260 a year and includes 10% off our training. Organisations that want to roll it out across many teams are invoiced — talk to us.
Read more
- Psychological safety survey questions — the full bank we use, grouped by theme, with what each one measures and why it's worded that way.
- The psychological safety survey report — what a team receives, with a full example you can read.
- Privacy & terms — what is stored, what never is, and how the anonymity holds up.
Who made this
Measure is made by Psych Safety, drawing on over ten years of practice with teams in technology, healthcare, aviation, heavy industry, financial services and more.
Tom Geraghty is co-founder of Psych Safety. He started out in ecology, where his first job title was “Experimentalist”, and has been running experiments of one kind or another ever since. He was a CIO and CTO before moving into organisational change, and founded Iterum Ltd, the company behind Psych Safety. He holds an MBA and a postgraduate diploma in Global Health and Humanitarianism, and is studying for a PhD. Tom’s full bio
Jade Garratt is co-founder of Psych Safety and leads the design of its courses, workshops and toolkits. She read Physics at Oxford and has spent 18 years across education, the charity sector and business. She holds a Master’s in Educational Leadership and is completing a PhD in Education at the University of Nottingham. Jade’s full bio
Ready to look?
Three minutes for yourself, or build an anonymous survey for your team.