International Conference on Social Science and Technology Education (ICSSTE 2015)

A Review on Psychological Safety: Concepts, measurements,

antecedents and Consequences variables

Ming CHEN1,a,*, Xiaoying GAO2,b, Huizhen ZHENG1,c

and Bin RAN3,d
1
School of Business, Beifang University of Nationalities, Yinchuan 750021, China
2
School of Marxism, Beifang University of Nationalities, Yinchuan 750021, China
3
School of Business, Jilin University, Changchun130012, China

Abstract. As an important indicator of den Bos, 2002), the employee needs to deal with
employees’ psychological contract and various aspects of uncertainty and interpersonal
organizational trust, psychological safety is a
risk in the work environment. Uncertainty
kind of safety awareness based on the
experience influences individual's cognition,
psychological climate of certain events in
organization, current scholars generally divided emotion and behavior, even restricts to the
it into three levels: individual, group, individual's self-consciousness. Uncertainty and
organizational psychological safety. Its interpersonal risk experience is weary and
influencing factors can be divided into worried, it will cause the individual to reduce
individual factors, interpersonal factors, the need and motivation of uncertainty and risk,
leadership features and organizational context
and create interpersonal trust and safety on this
four aspects;its main outcome variables
conclude the knowledge sharing, voice, basis (Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009).
innovation, job involvement and job Psychological safety is a cognitive construct
performance. Finally, the study points out the (Edmondson, 2002a), then we might argue
shortcomings of existing research and future about its concept.
research directions.
2. The concept of psychological safety
Keywords:Psychologicalsafety,Psychological
The formal definition of psychological
contract, Organizational trust
securitywas first described by Maslow in his
1. Introduction hierarchy of needs as "a kind of feeling of
confidence, safety and freedom detachment out
In the field of organization management
fear and anxiety, in particular, it contains the
and social psychology, how to cope and reduce
feeling a person meet current and future needs
organizational uncertainty and interpersonal risk
"(Maslow, 1945).
from the individual psychological is a very
Psychological safety perception in
important research topic. According to the
organization field originated in psychological
uncertainty management theory (Lind & van
climate(Wang Meiling, Li Shantian, 2007).

© 2015. The authors - Published by Atlantis Press 433

Schneider(1975) put forward “climate is the psychological safetyas"employees do not worry
individual abstract psychological perception for about self-image, position and negative impact
a particular event, condition and experience”. of work, truly express themselves and show the
James & James(1989) thought that different egos of different contexts". Then,
psychological climate refers to employees how Edmonson(1999) introduced psychological
cognize the influence work environment on their safety from the individual level to the group
own welfare in psychology area. Yang Minxi level, called as "team psychological safety", and
(2002) viewed the psychological climate as defined as "when members engage in any risky
individual level variables, “the process reaction action in a team, the implementation of these
of individual characteristics, involved in actions is safe, can be accepted by colleagues",
cognition, concept formation and the work she points out, psychological safety of staff is
environment”. Employees might explain things, high when:(1)organizational members can speak
predict the possible results, and even take the one's mind freely; (2) the organization
next appropriate behavior according to their encouraged and allowed risk-taking; (3)
perceived psychological climate(Jones & James, organizational members trust and respecteach
1979). When employees see working other; (4) organization members have the same
environment be help for their own well-being, beliefs and opinions for things. Team
we can call it psychological safety, further, psychological safety emphasized team but team
psychological safety refers to employees are members, based on trust, similar cognitive and
aware of the high freedom to show themselves, similar beliefs (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994;
don’t worry about damage self-image, Walsh, 1995). Brown & Leigh(1996) rise
organizational status or career psychological safety from the individual level to
development.(Brown & Leigh, 1996). the organizational level, he see"organizational
Schein & Bennis(1965) earlier discussed psychological safety is a kind of employees'
psychological safety in workplace, main perceptions about organizational environment
analyzed employees’psychological safetyduring characteristics, including three aspects of
organization change, pointed out"when perception: the support of management, clear
organization changes, if members possessthe job roles and allow for self-expression". Ling
ability of change, they will feel safe" (quoted in Bin (2010) thought psychological safety is a
Yang Minxi, 2002). In the study of employee multi-hierarchy construct, namely individual,
engagement, Kahn(1990) also defined group and organizational level.

434
 Table 1 Definitions of psychological safety
Levels Authors Definition
individual a kind of feeling of confidence, safety and freedom detachment out fear
Maslow(1945) and anxiety, in particular, it contains the feeling a person meet current
and future needs
Schein & Bennis when organization changes, if members possess the ability of change,
(1965) they will feel safe
Employees might explain things, predict the possible results, and even
Jones & James
take the next appropriate behavior according to their perceived
(1979)
psychological climate
James &James A kind of perceive when employees see working environment be help for
(1989) their own well-being
employees do not worry about self-image, position and negative impact
Kahn(1990) of work, truly express themselves and show the different egos of
different contexts
team Klimoski et al based on trust, similar cognitive and similar beliefs
(1994)
when members engage in any risky action in a team, the implementation
Edmonson(1999)
of these actions is safe, can be accepted by colleagues
Team member: (1) organizational members can speak one's mind freely;
(2) the organization encouraged and allowed risk-taking; (3)
Yang Minxi(2002)
organizational members trust and respect each other; (4) organization
members have the same beliefs and opinions for things.
Psychological safety is divided into self psychological safety
Tynan(2005) (self-perception of others is safe) and others psychological security
(communicating with others feel that they are safe)
organizational organizational psychological safety is a kind of employees' perceptions
Brown & Leigh about organizational environment characteristics, including three aspects
(1996) of perception: the support of management, clear job roles and allow for
self-expression
May et al (2004) Interaction with trust and openness in the work environment
A formal and informal organization management practices and
Baer & Frese (2003) procedures, guide and support an open atmosphere and trustworthy in the
work environment
Source: This study (Kahn, 1990). In the general level,
Psychological safety is often used as a index psychological safety perception is regarded as
of employee psychological contract, an intermediate link between the organization
organizational trust, when individuals feel characteristics and individual outcomes (such as
interpersonal environment is trustworthy, employee attitudes, motivation, performance)
psychological safety is also relatively strong (Edmondson, 2003; Li Rui, 2009).

435
3. The measurement of psychological safety psychological safety scale sample as enterprises
At present, the measurement of in Taiwan, a total of 19 items, five dimensions:
psychological safety is mainly the 7 item scale speak one's mind freely, common belief,
by Edmondson(1999), it was originally designed risk-taking behavior, respect each other and trust
for the measurement of team psychological each other.
safety: 1.If you make a mistake on this team, it But for the individual psychological safety,
is often held against you; 2.Members of this the fitnessof above scale can be inadequate.
team are able to bring up problems and tough Base on the related research of other scholars,
issues; 3.People on this team sometimes reject Li Ning, Yan Jin(2007) revised 5 item scale
others for being different; 4.It is safe to take a from May, Gilson & Harter (2004) and
risk on this team; 5.It is difficult toask other Edmonson (1999), reliability and validity is
members of this team for help; 6.No one on this good.
team would deliberately act in a way that
undermines my efforts; 7.Working with 4. The influencing factors of psychological
safety
members of this team, my unique skills and
talents are valued and utilized. Many studies For individual psychological safety, the
have referred this scale. existing researchs mainlydiscuss the influencing
Brown & Leigh(1996) developed the scale factors of psychological safety from different
of organizational psychological safety, mainly angles and different levels, it generally can be
expressed the degree that individuals perceived divided into the following several aspects.
psychological safety in the organizational 4.1 Individual factors
context. According to the dimensions, this scale Studies of this aspect are limited, and
included three subscales corresponding: support mainly focus on the individual state
of management, clear job roles and allow for characteristics.
self-expression. May et al(2004) shows that, the
Tynan (2005) also developed the scale of individual's self-consciousness and
psychological safety based on interpersonal psychological safety is negatively correlated,
interaction in workplace. It included two self-consciousness relates to how others
subscales, reliability is high. Among them, the perceive and evaluate us, this makes us cause an
self-psychological safety scale, a total of 7 items, external cue, they tend to pay too much
all positive scored, Cronbach alpha coefficient is attention to the impressions they leave others
0.93; others psychological safety scale, a total of and monitor social environment to take action,
5 items, are reversely scored, Cronbach alpha these often makes the individual psychological
coefficient is 0.82. safety drop.
Yang Minxi(2002) development team

436
4.2 Interpersonal factors The most typical is organizational innovation
The relationship between employees and and change, because in these situations,
other people in the organization will influence employee perceived external risk and threat
the perception of psychological safety, the increase, increasing the uncertainty, lead to
reason may be good interpersonal interaction is psychological safety reduce. Wang Meiling, Li
beneficial to reduce conflicts, eliminate the Shantian(2007) tested the relationship between
uncertainty, so that the psychological safety can organizational innovation and psychological
be ensured (Kahn, 1990). Such as Kahn (1990), safety, reached a similar conclusion.
May et al (2004) view that interpersonal trust
and support can improve employees' 5. The Consequences variables of
psychological safety. psychological safety
4.3 Leadership features About outcome variables of psychological
Tynan(2005) pointed out, leadership safety, Scholars discussed widely and deeply, it
behavior is the most effective predictor can be roughly divided into the following
variables for employee psychological safety. several aspects.
Kahn(1990) also believe that management style 5.1 Knowledge sharing
is correlatedwith individual psychological safety, Scholars studied the relationship between
supportive and open style may play a promoting psychological safety and knowledge sharing
role on the latter. May et al(2004) have come to behavior. Zhang Yongjun(2010) find
similar conclusions, supervisor support will psychological safety is significant positive
promote employees' psychological safety. correlation with knowledge sharing willingness
Walumbwa et al(2009) indicates that the moral of employees, and plays a mediating role
leadership has a positive effect on subordinates' between learning goal orientation and
psychological safety, the prediction effect is performance avoidance orientation and
very significant. They believed, moral knowledge sharing willingness. Zhang
leadership is often perceived as generous, Pengcheng(2011) found that psychological
subordinates’ adventure and error also can be safety not only has a positive effect on the
reasonable disposal, so the psychological safety employee's knowledge sharing behavior, but
will improve. Li Ning, Yan Jin(2007) and Li also mediates the relationship between
Rui (2009) focused on the negative leadership charismatic leadership and knowledge sharing.
impact on employees' psychological safety, 5.2 Voice
confirmed the negative effects of abusive Van Dyne et al(2008) confirmed the
supervision. mediating role of psychological safety between
4.4 Organizational contexts superior subordinate and employee voice
Some organizational contextual factors behaviorrelationship. Liang et al(2008) also
influence on individual psychological safety.

437
found that employees' psychological 5.5Job performance
safetymight predict significant effect on The relationship between psychological
promote and inhibit voice. Walumbwa & safety and job performance has been verified by
Schaubroeck(2009) verified the mediating effect many scholars. Brown et al(1996) proposed the
of psychological safety of the relationship first path between them, namely, psychological
between moral leadership and voice behavior. safety would improve employees' job
Zheng Renwei (2010) found that psychological involvement and then influence their work effort
safety plays a mediating role of positive and job performance. The study of
relationship between people-organizations fit Edmondson(1999) can be regarded as the
and voice behavior. Wu Weiku (2012) also second paths, namely psychological safety will
confirmed its intermediary role between abusive produce positive effect to enhance the learning
supervision and voice behavior. behavior of employees, and then improve job
5.3Innovation performance. Li Ning (2007) has also confirmed
The relationship between psychological this conclusion, they discovered two kinds of
safety and the employee's innovation behavior is path (improvement innovation and workfocus)
clear. Zhang Pengcheng (2011) found that exists in the above relationship at the same time.
employee psychological safety is positive
correlated with creativity. Long Jing and Wang 6. Conclusions
Li(2011) take the acquisition of enterprise Although the discussion of psychological
employees as the object, found that safety — — from definition, dimension
psychological safety plays a moderating role in classification, measurement to causal
the relationship perceived threat negative effect relationship——were quite thorough and deep,
employees creativity. but there are still some shortcomings in
5.4Job involvement thecurrent study.
Kahn(1990) pointed out that the (1) The study of individual level of
psychological safety is one of the three psychological safety is relatively few. The study
psychological conditions to improve employee of Edmondson(1999) is based on the team
engagement (the other two are psychological psychological safety, Brown & Leigh(1996)
meaning and psychological validity). May et discusses psychological safety climate in
al(2004) empirically found the psychological organization, this two scalesare the mainstream
safety positive impact on job involvement. Li of current measurement, so the scholar
Rui(2010) found that psychological safety and concentrated in the two aspects of team and
supervisor trust fully mediate the relationship organization level when explore psychological
between perceived supervisor supportand job safety. Some scholars also notice the level of the
involvement. individual psychological safety to be involved,

438
but on the whole, the degree of its attention and Acknowledgement
the richness of achievements are far less than This research was financially supported by the
the former two. National Social Science Foundation of China
(2) The study of the negativeinfluencing (Grant NO. 12AJY005) and the Fundamental
factors of psychological safety is few. The Research Funds for Beifang Univesity of
Nationalities (Grant NO.2014XYS33).
current study of influence factor of
psychological safety focuses on individual,
References
leadership, organizational factors, and to explore
[1]Baer M & Frese M. 2003. Innovation is not
the promotion to psychological safety from the
Enough: Climates for initiative and
positive point, and few studies consider from psychological safety, process, innovation and
negative angle. Especially for the leadership firm performance[J]. Journal of Organizations
behavior, the significance of negative leadership Behavior, 24: 45-68.
cannot be ignored, so it is very necessary to [2]Brown S P & Leigh T W. 1996. A new look at
explore the relationship between negative psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort, and performance[J]. Journal
leadership behavior and psychological safety of
of Applied Psychology, 81: 358-368.
subordinate. [3]Brown S P & Leigh T W. 1996. A new look at
(3) The intermediary role of the level of psychological climate and its relationship to job
the individual psychological safety is not involvement, effort, and performance[J]. Journal
enough. Corresponding with the previous two, of Applied Psychology, 81: 358-368.
although the current study mainly consider [4]Edmondson A. 1999. Psychological safety
and learning behavior in work teams[J].
psychological safety as the intermediate link of
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
organization related variables antecedents and
[5]Jones A P & James L R. 1979. Psychological
consequences relationship, but also more Climate: Dimensions and Relationships of
concentrated in the team and organizational Individual and AggregatedWork Environment
level, for the individual level,it is still not too Perceptions[J]. Organizational Behavior and
much. Human Performance, 23: 201-250.
In view of the above problems, the further [6]Kahn W A. 1990. Psychological conditions
of personal engagement and disengagement at
study should focused on the individual level of
work[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 33:
psychological safety perception, and discusses 692–724.
its passive effect on employees' psychological [7]Maslow A H, Hirsh E, Stein M & Honigmann
safetyfrom negative leadership angle, and to test I. 1945. A clinically derived test for measuring
intermediary effect of the psychological safety, psychological security-insecurity[J].Journal of
in order to further deepen and enrich the General Psychology, 33: 21-41.
[8]Tynan R. 2005. The effects of threat
empirical evidence related field.
sensitivity and face giving on dyadic
psychological and upward communication[J].

439
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35: (Eds.), International Handbook
223-247. ofOrganizational Teamwork (pp. 1–38). London:
[9]Walumbwa F O & Schaubroeck J. 2009. Blackwell.
Leader personality traits and employee voice [11]May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M.
behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership (2004). Thepsychology condition of
and work group psychological safety[J]. Journal meaningfulness, safety andavailability and the
of Applied Psychology, 94(5): 1275-1286. engagement of the human spirit atwork. Journal
[10]Edmondson, A. C. (2002a). Managing the of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology,
risk of learning:Psychological safety in work 77, 11–37.
teams. In West, M., Tjosvold,D., & Smith, K

440