Characteristics of Maturity Model levels
The following descriptions outline the characteristics, behaviours, systems, and artefacts you would expect to see at each level of the Maturity Model. They are written to help leaders diagnose where they are today and what “better” looks like in practice.
Level 1 - Absent
At this level, psychological safety is not part of the organisational operating system. Positive experiences are dependent on individual leaders.
Behaviours
- Leadership behaviours vary wildly; some are supportive, others are unsafe.
- People self censor because speaking up feels risky.
- Conflict is avoided, often escalating into blame or silence.
- Mistakes are hidden, minimised, or punished.
Systems
- Standard processes, rituals, or governance structures do not support psychological safety.
- Meetings, decision making, and delivery rhythms do not protect or encourage speaking up on difficult subjects.
- No training or shared language on psychological safety, with no expectations and no escalation paths.
Artefacts
- No formal tools, frameworks, or guidance exist that focus on psychological safety
- Organisation relies on intuition or hearsay.
- Staff describe the environment as unpredictable or unsafe.
This level is defined by absence, inconsistency, and fragility.
Level 2 - Emerging
The organisation begins to recognise the value of psychological safety, but progress is local, inconsistent, and personality driven.
Behaviours
- Some leaders show intent and model empathy, but inconsistently.
- Teams experience “pockets” of safety around certain individuals.
- People speak up selectively, depending on who is in the room.
- Conflict is sometimes handled well, sometimes poorly.
Systems
- Basic training incorporating psychological safety and awareness sessions exist, but are generic and not embedded.
- Some teams experiment with rituals (e.g., check ins, retros), but nothing is standardised.
- Processes do not reliably hold under pressure or during conflict.
Artefacts
- Early language emerges (“safe space”, “speak up”), but without shared definitions.
- Tools are borrowed externally and used inconsistently.
- Surveys or feedback mechanisms exist but are not integrated into decision making.
This level is defined by intent without reliability.
Level 3 - Intentional
The organisation now treats psychological safety as a deliberate capability. Structures, expectations, and feedback loops begin to take shape.
Behaviours
- Leaders are trained and measured on how safe their teams feel.
- People experience more consistent behaviours across multiple teams.
- Constructive challenge becomes more normalised.
- Mistakes are discussed openly and used for learning.
Systems
- Clear expectations, escalation paths, and behavioural standards are defined.
- Key rituals (meetings, decision making, conflict processes) are designed to protect safety.
- Organisation wide surveys and indicators are reviewed and acted upon.
- Training pathways exist for all staff, not just leaders.
Artefacts
- Shared definitions and tools are used consistently.
- Conflict processes explicitly incorporate psychological safety.
- Feedback loops begin to influence governance and leadership behaviours.
This level is defined by structure, consistency, and early integration.
Level 4 - Embedded
Psychological safety is now part of the organisational operating system. It is reliable, resilient, and visible in how the organisation behaves under pressure.
Behaviours
- Leaders consistently model, reinforce, and hold others accountable for psychologically safe behaviours.
- Staff describe high trust, constructive challenge, and predictable interactions.
- Psychological safety holds even during conflict, change, or high pressure delivery.
- People proactively raise issues early because they trust the system.
Systems
- Psychologically safe processes and behavioural norms are integrated into governance and decision making.
- Training, coaching, and assessment are regular and expected.
- Accountability is fair, transparent, and culturally trusted.
- Feedback loops are reliable and influence operational rhythms.
Artefacts
- Tools and language are consistent across the organisation.
- Psychological safety is visible in documentation, rituals, and decision records.
- Evidence is used to guide improvements, not just to diagnose problems.
This level is defined by integration, reliability, and resilience.
Level 5 - Strategic
Psychological safety becomes a strategic capability; a differentiator that strengthens performance, innovation, and organisational resilience.
Behaviours
- Leaders actively coach and develop empathy as a core skill.
- Staff describe psychological safety as part of “how we do things here”.
- Conflict becomes a source of insight and learning, not a threat.
- People operate with confidence in all contexts, including the most challenging.
Systems
- Psychological safety metrics are reviewed at board level.
- Insights from lived experience feed back into strategy, governance, and delivery.
- The organisation continuously improves its tools, language, and practices.
- Psychological safety shapes decision making, culture, and long term planning.
Artefacts
- A shared vernacular is deeply embedded and culturally reinforcing.
- Tools are refined, extended, and contributed back to the wider community.
- Evidence is rich, multi layered, and used to drive strategic decisions.
- Psychological safety is treated as a strategic asset, not a cultural initiative.
This level is defined by mastery, continuous improvement, and strategic leverage.
The next section considers the Foundation Processes that ensure empathy, psychological safety, and clarity are not left to chance, but are enacted through consistent, reliable, and evidence based practice.
You can always return to the contents page by clicking the 'Structured Empathy Framework' title at the top of the page.