Is it okay to 'shut up' as a leader - and what does that mean for psychological security?

On Monday, I attended an insightful lecture organized by Econa with professor Henning Bang. The topic was psychological security, and what actually builds it - or undermines it.
The lecture hit home, especially because it challenges both managers and employees.

The point that really created reactions and discussion in the room was Bang's claim that:
"Sometimes you have to be able to speak clearly. 'Jeft' can be tolerated by adults - as long as it is not person-focused, not humiliating and the language is proper. When boundaries are broken, it must be allowed to react clearly - even if it creates legitimate discomfort."

For the record:
I don't strive to 'shut up' as a leader.
But I share the principle of clarity: management requires that you actually speak up when something doesn't work.

Another important point that was discussed was anonymous criticism.
Anonymous input can pick up signals - but they are rarely developmental. When the sender is unknown:
🔹 the dialogue stops before it starts
🔹 misunderstandings spread in the team
🔹 the wrong people can be associated with the criticism
🔹 the culture is moving from courage to caution

In short: anonymity can be a safety net, but not a tool for development.

My most important takeaways from the lecture:
🔹 Psychological security does not mean the absence of demands.
🔹 Learning requires us to tolerate discomfort - also when it comes to ourselves.
🔹 Safety is not only created by the manager - employees also have responsibility.
🔹 Inside-out reflection is maturity: "What could I have done differently?"
🔹 Too little security → silence, defense and anonymous criticism.
🔹 Too much security → buddy club, low accountability and little development.
🔹 Clear expectations and correction are not "shouting" when given respectfully.
🔹 Explain - Invite - Respond: Actions that can increase psychological security.

Henning also referred to Amy C. Edmondson, Harvard professor and global leader in psychological safety. Her research shows that teams with high confidence:
✔ perform better
✔ learn faster
✔ share errors earlier
But she is as clear as Bang:
Safety without responsibility gives comfort - not quality.

💬 What do you think?
1. When is clear feedback perceived as help - and when as criticism?
2. How do we balance psychological security with demands and responsibilities?
3. What are the characteristics of employees who take ownership - also when something goes against them?

I learn most when others think out loud with me.