Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

Thesis Format

Integrated Article

Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Program

Psychology

Supervisor

Allen, N.

Abstract

Psychological safety has been defined by Edmondson (1999) as “a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (p.354). Psychological safety has been found to predict a host of beneficial outcomes for teams and organizations. However, the items in the most used measure of psychological safety developed by Edmondson (1999) demonstrates inconsistency in terms of mixing referents at both the individual and team level. Individual referent (IR) psychological safety appears to be more likely to reflect individuals’ perceptions of psychological safety rather than encompassing the psychological safety of a team as a whole. On the other hand, team referent (TR) psychological safety appears to be an appropriate conceptualization of team psychological safety that aligns more closely with Edmondson’s (1999) definition of team psychological safety as a shared climate of the team.

I examined the validity of an IR measure and TR measure of psychological safety by modifying the items used in Edmondson’s (1999) measure. Overall, the findings suggested that although IR psychological safety and TR psychological safety are related, they demonstrate distinctiveness in their level of within-group agreement, in how they relate to other variables, and in evidence of incremental validity when the referent is aligned with the level of analysis. Study 1 and 2 both revealed that consistent across both studies, CSE appears to be an antecedent of IR psychological safety at the individual level, but not for TR psychological safety. At the group level, the findings relating to the relationship between CSE and TR psychological safety were unexpected but interesting. The findings suggested that higher CSE predicts lower TR psychological safety when accounting for the effect of CGE at the team level. CGE appears to be a robust predictor of IR and TR psychological safety at both the team and individual level.

In general, IR psychological safety appears to be a stronger predictor of individual-level team members’ behaviour (task performance, citizenship behaviour) whereas TR psychological safety appears to be a more potent predictor of behaviours at the team level (task performance, citizenship behaviour, counterproductive work behaviours). There were two team outcomes examined: perceived team performance (which was reported by team members) and graded team effectiveness (which was the final grade on a team project). For perceived team performance, TR psychological safety did not demonstrate incremental validity in perceived team performance above and beyond IR psychological safety as predicted. No relation was found between IR psychological safety and TR psychological safety and graded team effectiveness.

The roles of IR and TR psychological safety as a mediator were also examined. At the individual level, IR psychological safety plays a mediating role in the relationship between CSE and both task performance and citizenship behaviors. TR psychological safety plays a mediating role in the relationship between CGE and both task performance and citizenship behaviors at the individual level. Additionally, TR psychological safety mediates the relationship between CGE and both counterproductive behaviours and perceived team performance ratings at the team level.

Summary for Lay Audience

Psychological safety describes a team environment where members feel safe taking risks, such as sharing dissenting opinions, proposing a new idea, asking for help, or making suggestions, without fear of harsh judgment, rejection, or negative repercussions. When team members feel psychologically safe, it often leads to better outcomes for both individuals, teams, and the organization. However, how we measure psychological safety has been a bit thorny, as it is typically measured by mixing questionnaire items that refer to the self with those that refer to team members as a whole.

In my research, I explored two different ways to measure psychological safety: one that references the self (IR - Individual Referent) and one that references the team as a whole (TR - Team Referent). The individual measure (IR) tends to reflect personal feelings, meaning it might not fully capture the team’s shared sense of safety. On the other hand, the team measure (TR) better aligns with the idea of psychological safety as something the entire team experiences together.

The findings suggest that individuals who view themselves more highly (CSE - Core Self-Evaluations) were more likely to report higher IR and TR psychological safety. It was also found that the team’s shared views about their value or capabilities as a team (CGE - Core Group Evaluations) are crucial in predicting both IR and TR psychological safety, regardless of whether the data was examined individually or by groups. When looking at the group as a whole, teams with members who had higher CSE (sense of worth and confidence in themselves and their abilities) tended to rate their team as being less psychologically safe when we also took into account the influence of CGE. This could mean that when there are very confident people on a team, it might create pressure for others to conform or hold back their opinions, making the team less safe.

When it comes to team behaviours and performance, the individual-focused measure (IR) is a better predictor of how team members perform tasks and engage in helpful behaviors when the data is examined at the individual level, while the team-focused measure (TR) is more predictive of higher incidences of the same behaviours and lower incidences of unhelpful behaviours that harm the team. While psychological safety influenced how teams perceived their performance, it didn’t significantly impact the actual grades teams received on their projects. Overall, my research showed that IR and TR safety, while connected, are distinct concepts that need to be considered separately.

I also looked at how feeling safe (psychological safety) acts as a link that explains how CSE and CGE influences team member behaviours and performance. For individuals, IR psychological safety helps explain how their view of themselves (CSE) leads to better performance on tasks and the likelihood they will engage in more helping behaviors. In other words, CSE predicts higher levels of IR psychological safety, which in turn, predicts better task performance and helping behaviours. Moreover, TR psychological safety helps explain how CGE leads to better performance and helpful behaviors among individuals. That is, CGE predicts higher levels of TR psychological safety, which in turn predicts better task performance and helping behaviours. For teams, TR psychological safety helps explain how the level of CGE predicts unhelpful behaviours and team performance. That is, CGE predicts higher levels of TR psychological safety, which in turn, predicts lower unhelpful behaviours and higher team performance.

Download

Share

COinS