These days, I have been developing a new business idea with a new partner. Launching a new venture in today’s world can feel incredibly frightening. In fact, experts call it a VUCA world—volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous—where AI is reshaping job roles, global crises are shifting priorities, and constant change is on the horizon. So, there are so many unknowns, and the temptation to have all the answers before taking a single step is strong. We’re working on business canvas or planning forms, getting consultancy etc. Yet, what I’ve found, and what has truly made this partnership not just viable but exciting, is the commitment to heart-to-heart conversations and open communication. It’s in those moments, where we openly admit our uncertainties and fears, that we build trust and find the courage to navigate the ambiguity together. This shared vulnerability and a sense of hope that we can figure it out together has proven to be far more effective than trying to tackle the unknown alone.
This experience has taken me to the concepts of organizational psychology; psychological safety and tolerance of ambiguity. Psychological safety[1] is described as a shared belief that the work environment allows for interpersonal risk-taking without fear of negative consequences by Amy Edmondson. It enables individuals to speak up, ask questions, acknowledge mistakes, and share new ideas without the risk of embarrassment or punishment.
While psychological safety focuses on creating a secure environment for interpersonal interaction, tolerance of ambiguity[2] reflects an individual’s ability to handle uncertainty. It is defined as the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as attractive rather than threatening by Stanley Budner. People with high tolerance of ambiguity are more at ease with complexity, unfamiliarity, and unpredictability, and are motivated to navigate such challenges effectively. It also serves as an internal resource, shaped by personality traits. However, a psychologically safe team environment can help those with lower tolerance of ambiguity by lowering interpersonal risk, which may allow them to interact with ambiguity more positively than they might in a less secure setting.
A psychologically safe environment, even with just two people, allows for the free flow of ideas and brings a richer, more creative approach to problem-solving. What I’ve learned in this micro-environment applies powerfully to larger organizations facing similar, or even greater, levels of uncertainty
Why do these two concepts matter for today’s organizations?
In organizations, psychological safety fosters a culture of learning, adaptability, and collaboration, particularly in fast-paced or uncertain environments while it reduces fear of failure and anxiety around learning, making employees more open to giving and receiving feedback, offering suggestions, and seeking support. Also, high TOA has been associated with positive outcomes like greater job satisfaction, enhanced performance, creative problem-solving, and innovation.
Leaders play an important role in creating psychological safety and helping employees deal with uncertainty. One key way they do this is by making uncertainty feel normal and encouraging curiosity. Good leaders lead by example. They admit when they don’t know something, ask questions to better understand, and show they are open to learning from their mistakes. This helps remove the fear or shame of not having all the answers. When leaders behave this way, it creates a safe space for others to do the same.
But having this is not always intuitive. Because it demands skills like emotional regulation, empathetic communication, and strategic foresight that many leaders haven’t traditionally been trained for. This is where psychologically informed executive coaching enters the picture. Zest believes that by investing in psychologically informed coaching, leaders can develop the skills to model vulnerability, encourage open dialogue, and ultimately foster the psychological safety and tolerance of ambiguity essential for their teams to thrive.
Leading with Clarity in Uncertain Times
In a world where uncertainty is the new normal, one thing is clear: we can’t wait for clarity to act. If we want workplaces where people can truly thrive, be honest and transparent, we need to build the conditions that make it safe to show up, speak up, and step into the unknown. Psychological safety gives us the courage to be real. Tolerance of ambiguity gives us the confidence to move forward—even when the path isn’t fully visible. Together, they’re not just nice-to-haves—they’re survival tools in today’s ever-changing world of work.
My time as a student intern at Zest has given me the opportunity to observe how an organization can bring these concepts in life. I’ve seen firsthand how a leader can be an example of fostering psychological safety by encouraging open communication and allowing to show vulnerability. In our weekly Zest meeting check-ins, Anna consistently encourages all of us to share our thoughts and bring new ideas, no matter how new or unshaped they might be. What I’ve observed at Zest is that with this psychologically safe environment, even the most uncertain times feel smoother because we are not walking through them alone; we are walking through them as a community. This collective approach and sense of shared safety is what truly sustains us.
The future of work is foggy. Let’s lead people through it—not with all the answers, but with the conditions that allow everyone to bring their best, even when nothing feels certain.
Author: Büşra Yilmaz Bahcecik, a University of Sussex student intern with Zest.
[1] Frazier, M., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2016). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70, 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
[2] O’Connor, P. J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bergin, A. J., Wiewiora, A., & McColl, L. (2021). Leader tolerance of ambiguity: Implications for follower performance outcomes in high and low ambiguous work situations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(1), 65–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211053676