Protect Their Dignity.

By Julia Weingartner | Founder & Editor-in-Chief, Healthcare Leadership Review™

“Protect your people” is one of leadership’s most repeated pieces of advice.

It is also one of its most misunderstood.

Protection matters. When someone is unfairly blamed, publicly humiliated, disrespected, or caught in organizational politics they cannot reasonably navigate alone, leadership should show up. When a decision belongs to the leader, the leader should own it. When a team member has done good work and someone else takes the credit, the leader should correct the record.

People remember who stood beside them when doing so carried a cost.

But protecting people is not the same as protecting them from accountability.

Protect their dignity, not their immunity.

That distinction is harder to practice than it sounds.

Protection without accountability can become favoritism. Accountability without dignity can become fear.

Leadership requires enough judgment to know the difference.

Psychological Safety Is Not Immunity

Consider what happens when someone makes a significant mistake.

One manager immediately distances themselves:

“That wasn’t my decision.”

Another rushes to shield the employee from every consequence:

“Don’t worry. I’ll handle it.”

Neither response creates a healthy organization.

The first protects the leader at the employee’s expense. The second protects the employee at accountability’s expense.

There is a third response:

“We made a mistake. We are going to understand what happened, fix what needs to be fixed, and learn from it. I will not allow you to be publicly humiliated for it—but I will expect you to take responsibility for your part in it.”

That is protection with standards.

Amy Edmondson defined psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. In practice, that means people are more able to speak up, ask questions, admit uncertainty, raise concerns, and acknowledge mistakes.

Psychological safety is not a substitute for high standards.

It creates conditions in which candor, learning, and accountability can actually work—because people are more likely to surface problems before those problems become larger.

The goal is not to make accountability disappear.

It is to make truth-telling possible.

Healthcare Learned This Lesson Early

Healthcare offers one of the clearest illustrations of why this distinction matters.

In Amy Edmondson’s earlier research involving hospital nursing units, higher-performing teams appeared to report more medication errors. The counterintuitive finding did not necessarily mean those teams made more mistakes. It suggested that people in better-functioning units were more willing to acknowledge and discuss errors when they occurred.

That observation helped inform Edmondson’s later work on psychological safety, which she defined as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.

In healthcare, that distinction carries consequences far beyond culture.

A clinician who can say, I made a mistake, I need help, or something here does not look right gives the organization information it can act on.

Silence removes that opportunity.

A culture that humiliates people for surfacing problems can teach them something much more dangerous:

Silence is safer than honesty.

This does not mean every error should be treated the same way.

An honest mistake made while exercising reasonable judgment is different from a capability gap. A capability gap is different from repeated negligence. Repeated negligence is different from reckless behavior or deliberate misconduct.

Good accountability recognizes those distinctions.

Healthcare’s concept of Just Culture offers an operational model for that balance. Rather than choosing between blame and a consequence-free environment, Just Culture asks organizations to examine both the system and the behavioral choices involved. Organizations remain responsible for the systems and conditions they create; individuals remain accountable for choices they could reasonably control.

The leadership translation is straightforward:

Protect the person’s dignity. Examine the system honestly. Hold people appropriately accountable for what they could reasonably control.

The standard should not be:

“Nothing bad happens when you make a mistake.”

It should be:

“You can tell us the truth about what happened, and we will respond fairly.”

That is a much more demanding culture to build.

Your Team Is Watching

Trust is easy to talk about when everything is working.

Its real test arrives when something breaks: a deadline is missed, a customer complains, a patient experience goes poorly, an executive is angry, or someone simply makes the wrong call.

People notice what leadership does next.

If the immediate response is to find someone to blame, employees learn that bad news should be managed before it travels upward.

If leaders rewrite their involvement in decisions once those decisions become unpopular, employees learn that ownership is conditional.

If initiative is celebrated when it succeeds but punished whenever reasonable judgment produces a bad outcome, people learn to wait for permission.

Organizations teach people what is safe through consequences, not slogans.

That does not mean a leader should defend everything their team does. Sometimes the employee is wrong. Sometimes criticism is justified. Sometimes a hard conversation is exactly what leadership requires.

The question is whether that conversation preserves the person’s dignity while addressing the behavior honestly.

Sometimes Protection Is the Hard Conversation

There is a version of leadership that confuses kindness with avoidance.

A manager sees a performance problem but wants to preserve the relationship, so the conversation gets postponed.

Then postponed again.

The employee assumes everything is fine.

Eventually, the problem becomes serious enough that what could have been developmental feedback becomes a consequential performance conversation.

That was not protection.

It was avoidance disguised as kindness.

Sometimes one of the most protective things a leader can do is tell someone something they do not particularly want to hear while there is still time to do something about it.

“I believe you are capable of better than this.
Here is where you are falling short.
Here is what needs to change.
And I am going to help you get there.”

Accountability delivered with dignity is not the enemy of psychological safety.

Done well, the two reinforce one another: people understand where the standards are, and they know that falling short does not automatically cost them their standing as a human being.

Trust Has Reciprocal Responsibilities

There is an obvious danger in talking about loyalty running both ways.

A bad manager can turn loyalty into a demand for silence.

Protect the team becomes don’t challenge me.

Have my back becomes hide what happened.

That is not loyalty.

It is coercion.

No employee owes a leader silence about unsafe behavior, misconduct, unethical decisions, patient-safety concerns, harassment, discrimination, or abuses of authority.

Loyalty does not supersede integrity.

In fact, sometimes the person willing to tell a leader an uncomfortable truth is demonstrating more commitment to the team than the person who quietly agrees.

Healthy reciprocity asks something different.

When a leader consistently advocates for people, gives them credit, owns decisions that belong to them, provides honest feedback, creates opportunities, and protects them from unfair treatment, team members carry responsibilities to the relationship too: honesty, good faith, accountability, and regard for the collective.

High-trust teams eventually move beyond asking:

“Will my manager protect me?”

They begin asking:

“How do we protect the integrity of this team?”

That is a more mature form of loyalty.

Protect Their Dignity

Perhaps the leadership principle was never really protect your people.

It was:

Protect their dignity.

Protect them from unnecessary humiliation.

Protect them from organizational politics they cannot reasonably navigate alone.

Protect them from blame for decisions they did not make.

Protect their ability to tell you uncomfortable truths.

Protect their opportunity to recover from honest mistakes.

Protect their right to receive credit for their work.

Protect them from abusive behavior.

But do not protect them from feedback.

Do not protect them from standards.

Do not protect them from responsibility.

Do not protect them from fair, proportionate accountability when their choices warrant it.

And do not confuse loyalty with pretending something did not happen.

The objective of leadership is not to create an environment where nobody experiences discomfort.

It is to create one where people can take risks, tell the truth, make mistakes, receive difficult feedback, take responsibility, improve—and still know they will be treated with dignity.

That is a stronger promise than:

“I’ve got your back.”

It says:

“I’ve got your back. And I expect you to have ours.”

That is how trust becomes culture.

Sources & Further Reading

Edmondson, Amy C. (1999). “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Foundational research defining psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking and examining its relationship with learning behavior.

Association of American Medical Colleges — “Amy Edmondson: Psychological safety is critically important in medicine.”
Used for historical context on Edmondson’s hospital medication-error research and the interpretation of differences in error reporting among nursing units.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality — Apply CUSP / Just Culture materials.
Used for the healthcare concept of shared accountability, including organizational responsibility for systems and individual accountability for behavioral choices.

AHRQ Patient Safety Network — “Culture of Safety.”
Used for healthcare-specific context on Just Culture, transparency, accountability, and organizational responses to safety events.

Editorial note: The leadership interpretations, examples, and conclusions in this article are Healthcare Leadership Review™ editorial analysis informed by established research on psychological safety and healthcare Just Culture.

Healthcare Leadership Review™
Ideas That Shape Healthcare Leadership