Psychological safety, which means having an environment where people feel safe to speak up, was once an obscure term in psychology and management research. Today the concept is downright popular. Countless managers, consultants, and training companies have worked hard to create psychologically safe workplaces, and thousands of articles have been devoted to the topic.

As researchers with considerable expertise in this area, we celebrate organizations’ recognition that their ability to increase quality, spur innovation, and boost performance depends on their employees’ input. Indeed, the research evidence that psychological safety improves performance is extensive and robust. However, as the popularity of psychological safety has grown, so too have misconceptions about it. As a result, many executives and consultants, even those who are ardent supporters of psychological safety, have become frustrated by distorted or incorrect ideas and expectations surrounding it that get in the way of progress. For instance, leaders have told us about constructive debates that were stymied when participants whose ideas received pushback labeled the process psychologically unsafe. This kind of misinterpretation of the term can harm organizations. And if it persists, it can undermine the very purpose of psychological safety: to enhance learning and performance.

Leaders who truly understand what psychological safety is—and isn’t—communicate the concept to their teams clearly, stop incorrect assumptions before they gain destructive force, and keep people focused on the value to be gained from candor. We’ve written this article to aid leaders in that effort. We describe six misconceptions, explaining why each gets in the way and how to counter it, and then offer a blueprint for building the kind of strong, learning-oriented work environment that is crucial for success in an uncertain world.

Nicole, a consultant in the Netherlands, recently told us that she kept hearing clients say things like “We have a psychologically safe team; we know this because we never argue.” As an expert in psychological safety, she recognized this as a red flag. Indeed, thinking that psychological safety is about being nice or feeling comfortable is one of the most common misconceptions. We see it in companies and schools alike. For instance, a graduate student we know asked to shift from in-person to virtual attendance because she found participating in a large class uncomfortable. The accommodation, she said, was important for her psychological safety.

Here’s the problem: Nice in this context is code for “Don’t say what you really think (unless it happens to be nice).” It’s essentially the opposite of candor. Of course, if you think your colleague’s presentation was brilliant and compelling, say so! It will unquestionably be appreciated and foster a positive climate. But if the presentation fell short, it’s important that you say so as clearly and constructively as possible. For organizations to succeed today, their people must be continually learning, and that process is often uncomfortable.

Safety and comfort are not synonymous. Safety is the condition of being protected from danger, harm, or injury. Comfort is a state of ease and freedom from pain. Wanting to be nice, people avoid being honest and, whether they realize it or not, collude in producing ignorance and mediocrity. Because without candid feedback and open sharing of information—bad and good—coordination, quality, and learning on a team or a project suffer. Teams that don’t surface hard truths perform worse than those that do. Consider the Kennedy administration’s disastrous Bay of Pigs decision, which approved an invasion of Cuba by a brigade of Cuban exiles in 1961. Although some experts working for President Kennedy had grave concerns about the plan, they didn’t speak up for fear of appearing unsupportive. The resulting catastrophe led Kennedy to insist on a structured process to ensure candor and rigorous debate the next time he faced a serious foreign policy decision. That process contributed to his administration’s impressive performance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in 1962. (See “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions,” HBR, September 2001.) Studies of less dramatic work environments show a similar contrast: When people withhold their ideas, questions, and doubts, their team’s risk of making mistakes and experiencing failure increases.

We find it helpful to think of psychological safety as a shared sense of permission for candor. It’s a belief that it’s OK to take the interpersonal risks that come with asking questions, admitting mistakes, and disagreeing with a colleague. When psychological safety exists, people believe that sharing hard truths is expected. It allows good debates to happen when they’re needed. But it doesn’t mean that participants find debates comfortable.

To be clear, we are not advocating for insensitivity. Psychological safety is entirely consistent with kindness, but let’s distinguish between being nice and being kind. Nice is the easy way out of a difficult conversation. Kind is being respectful, caring, and honest.