Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension

Abstract

Although psychological safety research has flourished in recent years, and despite the empirical support for the important role of psychological safety in the workplace, several critical questions remain. In order to address these questions, we aggregate theoretical and empirical works, and draw on 136 independent samples representing over 22,000 individuals and nearly 5,000 groups, to conduct a comprehensive meta‐analysis on the antecedents and outcomes of psychological safety. We not only present the nomological network of psychological safety but also extend this research in 4 important ways. First, we compare effect sizes to determine the relative effectiveness of antecedents to psychological safety. Second, we examine the extent to which psychological safety influences both task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors over and beyond related concepts such as positive leader relations and work engagement. Third, we examine whether research design characteristics and national culture alter validities within the nomological network, thus promoting a more accurate and contextualized understanding of psychological safety. Finally, we test the homology assumption by comparing the effect sizes of the antecedents and outcomes of psychological safety across individual and group levels of analysis. We conclude with a discussion of the areas in need of future examination.

Culture, Burnout, and Engagement: A Meta‐Analysis on National Cultural Values as Moderators in JD‐R Theory

“…Hofstede (2001) predicts that individuals from higher UA cultures seek greater security and stability in their professional careers and therefore tend to have longer job tenure and less turnover intention (see also Debus, Probst, König, & Kleinmann, 2012;García-Cabrera, & García-Soto, 2011;Staufenbiel & König, 2010). In a similar vein, Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan, and Vracheva (2017) also found that work design characteristics and supportive work contexts showed significantly stronger effects on psychological safety in high UA cultures. Furthermore, examining participation in decision-making and organisational commitment, Singh, Bhagat, and Mohanty (2011) empirically supported a moderating impact of UA on the participation-affective commitment relationship.…”

Humble Leadership, Psychological Safety, Knowledge Sharing, and Follower Creativity: A Cross-Level Investigation

“…Therefore, a work environment that it is safe to take interpersonal risks and express new ideas is critical for follower creativity, because the environment can motivate and increase one’s willing to show creativity (Carmeli et al, 2010). Specifically, in a psychologically safe environment, they are more likely to take risks and express new ideas because the perception of safe climate allows them to overcome the anxiety and fear of failure (Frazier et al, 2016). In contrast, in a psychologically unsafe environment, they are more likely to develop defensive orientation and are less likely to show creativity at work (West and Richter, 2008).…”

High‐performance work systems and creativity implementation: the role of psychological capital and psychological safety

“…As job resources are typically drawn from the organisation and interpersonal relations that stimulate personal growth, learning and development (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), HPWSs create a supportive work environment that makes it easy for employees to discharge any insecurities and anxieties (Edmondson, 1999;Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006). A metaanalysis by Frazier et al (2017) reveals that autonomy, interdependence, role clarity, leader relations and supportive work context are all significant and positive predictors of psychological safety; all of which are core components of HPWSs. Employee skills and knowledge are valued, and problem-solving is used to resolve mistakes, consequently leading to increases in employee psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999).…”