Speaking Up Was the Risk: A Governance Specialist’s Experience of Psychological Safety Failure

By Rose Byass Founder of Robust Leaders

I have spent my career working in governance, risk and compliance. I am legally qualified. I specialise in governance frameworks, workplace health and safety obligations, and the intersection between leadership behaviour and human performance. I also have formal training in psychology and neuroscience — which means I understand not only what the law requires, but how the human nervous system responds when safety fails. What I did not expect was that, within three weeks of commencing a senior governance role, I would experience firsthand the very psychosocial risks I have spent years helping organisations identify and prevent. I resigned on day 23 to preserve my mental health. I am sharing this experience not to name or shame, but because silence is how these failures continue.

The first red flag appeared before my start date

During my interview, I asked a question I ask every organisation: How do you support psychological safety, and how do leaders know when it is declining? Before the Chief Executive Officer who I directed the question to could respond, the HR representative interjected and said words to the effect of:

“When things get tough, you’ll need to pull on your big girl pants and be resilient.”

That comment stayed with me. Psychological safety is not resilience. It is not toughness. It is not endurance. Psychological safety is a workplace condition — not a personality trait. It reflects whether people feel safe to speak up, challenge decisions, raise concerns, or admit mistakes without fear of humiliation or retaliation. At the time, I noted the comment as a concern — not a conclusion. In hindsight, it was an early indicator.

No induction, no handover, no structure

From my first week, it became apparent that there was no structured induction or handover process.There was no meaningful orientation to systems, governance frameworks, reporting lines or WHS processes. I was provided with documents and told to “read through them.”In a governance role, this is not merely inefficient — it creates risk.I made multiple requests for guided handover and system walkthroughs. I also disclosed that I had previously sustained a traumatic brain injury and explained what learning methods supported safe performance in my role.Those requests were not accommodated.Within days, the outgoing employee ceased attending the office and no further handover occurred.From both a governance and WHS perspective, lack of role clarity, training and supervision is a recognised psychosocial hazard.Uncertainty creates stress. Stress impairs cognition. Impaired cognition creates error.This is not theory — it is neuroscience.

What I observed in the workplace

As the days progressed, patterns became increasingly visible.I observed employees being spoken to sharply and dismissively by HR. I witnessed tension, guarded communication and a noticeable fear of saying the wrong thing.More concerning was the level of turnover.Within my three weeks of employment, three employees resigned. Two of the three shared with me that the HR manager was the problem and they had provided the CEO with formal complaints. The CEO failed to act accordingly.Over two months prior to my employment, two other employees resigned. I would make sixth employees within three months....Not over years. Not gradually. But in rapid succession.High turnover — particularly when associated with psychological stress — is a recognised indicator of psychosocial risk. Regulators consistently view it as a red flag of deeper cultural failure.People do not leave organisations. They leave environments.

When personal ideology enters the workplace

In the lead-up to Australia Day, a workplace communication was circulated expressing strong ideological views about the public holiday and indicating it was “not appropriate” to acknowledge the day in customary ways.While diversity of views must always be respected, the framing of this communication caused discomfort among staff.Several employees approached me asking whether I was working that day — not out of operational necessity, but seemingly out of concern about how their choice might be perceived.Australia Day is a gazetted public holiday.Under workplace law, employees are entitled to take that day without justification unless lawfully required to work.When personal beliefs are expressed by leaders in a way that may influence employee behaviour, it creates psychological pressure — particularly in environments where safety is already fragile.Psychological safety requires neutrality in the exercise of authority.

Raising psychological safety concerns

Eventually, the accumulation of issues reached a point where I felt ethically and professionally obligated to speak.In a meeting with senior leadership and HR, I raised that I was experiencing psychological unsafety in the workplace.I referenced:

• repeated staff departures
• lack of structure and induction
• dismissal of professional advice
• leadership behaviours driven by authority rather than risk assessment

My concerns were spoken over.I was told I was “digressing”.The conversation continued as though nothing had been raised.No follow-up occurred. No risk assessment was initiated. No support was offered. No referral to employee assistance was made.Psychological health is expressly included in the definition of “health” under WHS legislation.Once raised, it must be acknowledged and assessed.That did not occur.

The moment everything shifted

Within 24 hours of raising psychological safety concerns — and after notifying the Board of governance and WHS risks — a complaint was raised against me by HR.Staff were directed not to communicate with me.The timing was impossible to ignore.Raising safety concerns is a protected workplace right.Yet suddenly, I was isolated.This is how psychological safety collapses — not through one dramatic moment, but through retaliation that teaches silence.

Escalation and breakdown

What followed was deeply confronting.I was contacted while on sick leave. During that conversation, the Acting CEO raised his voice at me. When I referenced my legal and WHS qualifications, I was told:

“I know the law — you don’t.”

When I advised that I had contacted the Board, the call was terminated abruptly by him.The following day, I attended the workplace.I was accused of dishonesty. I was repeatedly called a liar. I was told that I was “the problem" by the A/CEO.The interaction escalated rapidly and became aggressive.When I stated I would be making a formal complaint — but not to the person whose conduct was involved — I was pressured to provide it immediately and directly to him.At that point, my nervous system was overwhelmed.I had been in the organisation for three weeks.I had followed governance processes. I had raised concerns respectfully. I had acted in good faith.Yet the environment had become psychologically unsafe.I resigned on the spot.

The neuroscience behind what happened

Neuroscience explains what policy often ignores.When people experience sustained threat — unpredictability, hostility, humiliation or exclusion — the brain shifts into survival mode.The prefrontal cortex, responsible for reasoning, judgement and regulation, becomes compromised. The amygdala takes over.This is not weakness. It is biology.No amount of resilience training can override an unsafe nervous system.This is why toxic cultures cannot be coached away.They must be interrupted.

Why I am sharing this

I am sharing this experience not as a complaint, but as a case study.Because psychological safety failures rarely occur due to lack of policy.They occur when:

• early warning signs are dismissed
• HR becomes enforcement rather than protection
• leadership equates authority with correctness
• governance advice is viewed as challenge
• speaking up results in harm

This is not an isolated story.It is one that plays out quietly across workplaces every day.

A final reflection

Toxic cultures do not announce themselves loudly.They reveal themselves through:

• turnover
• silence
• fear
• and who leaves first

As a governance specialist, I know this to be true:You cannot build performance on fear. You cannot demand trust through control. And you cannot regulate psychological safety after harm has occurred.It must be led. It must be protected. And when it fails — it must be interrupted.That is not weakness.That is leadership.