University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Leadership Psychological Safety: Exploring Its Development and Relationship With
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Martin R. Payne
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Martin R. Payne 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Martin R. Payne certifies the approval of this Dissertation.
Anthony Maddox
Eric Canny
Raj Ramachandran
Douglas Lynch, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This dissertation explores leader psychological safety, specifically examining how organizations
can create psychologically safe environments for their leaders. Utilizing a mixed-methods
design, this study integrates findings from 20 qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey of
311 leaders from organizations with more than 500 employees. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
model is employed as a conceptual framework to explore the multi-layered influences on
leadership practices. Research centered on understanding the dynamics of leader-member
exchange (LMX) relationships in relation to psychological safety and strategies for cultivating
psychological safety at the leadership level. Results demonstrated a significant positive
correlation between high-quality LMX relationships and psychological safety, highlighting the
role of trust-based interactions and inclusive leadership. Key leadership behaviors, including
active listening and empathy, alongside structured organizational practices, including leadership
development and transparent communication, emerged as necessary for enhancing psychological
safety. The study proposes prioritizing leadership development focused on trust and supportive
interactions, advocating for inclusive leadership training and comprehensive policies to bolster
psychological safety. These recommendations offer strategic tactics for enhancing leader and
team well-being. This research contributes to the psychological safety and LMX theory
literature, emphasizing the significance of leadership and organizational practices in nurturing a
safe and inclusive workplace culture.

v
Dedication
To my exceptionally patient and loving wife, Jackie Payne, this dissertation would not exist
without your support. My ability to return to school and complete this process directly reflects
how much you took the wheel at home and allowed me the freedom to study and write. I owe
you so much love and support in return!

vi
Acknowledgments
There are so many people to thank and acknowledge as a part of this process. I will start
with my dissertation chair, Dr. Doug Lynch. When I was frustrated and ready to leave the
program, he encouraged me and stepped up to be my replacement chair. He is a true mensch –
supportive, demanding, and thoughtful. This dissertation would not exist without him.
My committee, consisting of Dr. Anthony Maddox, Dr. Eric Canny, and Dr. Raj
Ramachandran, has been wonderfully supportive, helping me to create a more substantial study
and presentation through their suggestions and feedback. A special acknowledgment for Dr.
Canny is in order, as he has truly gone the entire distance with me in this program. He taught my
first course at USC and is now ending the process with this dissertation. His initial suggestion of
“trust the process” resonates more now than four years ago.
I am forever thankful for my Cohort 17 members. As the initial COVID-19 cohort, we
had a particularly interesting journey. Thank you all for your support and encouragement. I am
also very appreciative of Dr. Lynch’s dissertation support group, AKA the Island of Misfit Toys.
Together, we all made each other better—Fight ON!
My best friend Abbas Meghjee provided constant quiet support and a sounding board. He
is the man of a thousand different “Hmmms.” His friendship and connection have been essential
during this process. Thank you, Brother!
To my friends and family, thank you for your patience while I have been preoccupied
with this project. I promise I have more time for dinner, drinks, sailing, catching up, and hanging
out now. I am looking forward to spending time with you.

vii
My wife, Jackie, this dissertation is dedicated to you, but I cannot possibly thank you
enough for your partnership during this process, every day before, and those to come. Your love
and support have allowed me to complete this journey.
My past supervisors and leaders—all the great leaders and the horrible bosses—yes, you
know which category you fall in. I have been fortunate to work with several exceptional leaders
who have shown me how to lead with courage and resiliency. I am a better leader because of
your examples. I have also been tasked to work with some leaders who were poor at best and
malevolent at worst. I am an even better leader because of your examples. This work emerged
from my desire to help other leaders create high-performing work environments where everyone
is valued and can thrive.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions.................................................................. 3
Scope of the Study .............................................................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
Psychological Safety........................................................................................................... 9
Individual, Group, and Organizational Considerations .................................................... 10
Related Ideas..................................................................................................................... 14
Measurement..................................................................................................................... 17
Antecedents....................................................................................................................... 18
Moderating Factors........................................................................................................... 21
Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 22
Leadership and Psychological Safety ............................................................................... 23
Leadership Training and Development............................................................................. 27
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)....................................................................... 28

ix
Fostering Psychological Safety in Leaders....................................................................... 31
Conceptual Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model ......................................... 32
Bronfenbrenner’s Model Applied to Organizational Psychological Safety and LMX..... 34
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 37
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 38
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 38
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 39
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 40
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 40
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 41
Participants........................................................................................................................ 41
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 41
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 42
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 43
Validity and Reliability..................................................................................................... 44
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 45
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 47
Quantitative Results.......................................................................................................... 48
Qualitative Findings.......................................................................................................... 75
Synthesis and Summary.................................................................................................... 87
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 90
Recommendations............................................................................................................. 92
Discussion of Theoretical Concept ................................................................................... 99
Economics of Psychological Safety................................................................................ 103

x
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 105
Limitations...................................................................................................................... 108
Suggestions for Future Research .................................................................................... 110
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 112
References................................................................................................................................... 116
Appendix A: Quantitative Protocol ............................................................................................ 140
Demographic and Contextual Questions ........................................................................ 140
Leader-Member Exchange 7 (LMX-7) Scale ................................................................. 141
Psychological Safety Scale (PSS)................................................................................... 143
Organizational Questions................................................................................................ 143
Appendix B: Qualitative Protocol............................................................................................... 145
Demographic and Contextual Questions ........................................................................ 145
Interview Questions ........................................................................................................ 145
Appendix C: Demographic Characteristics of Qualitative Study Participants ........................... 149
Appendix D: Demographic Characteristics of Quantitative Study Participants......................... 151

xi
List of Tables
Appendix C: Demographic Characteristics of Qualitative Study Participants........................... 149
Appendix D: Demographic Characteristics of Quantitative Study Participants......................... 151

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Psychological Safety Using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model ......................... 36

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Psychological safety has journeyed from its introduction as an interpersonal risk-taking
factor within teams (Edmondson, 1999) to a critical construct in contemporary organizational
discourse. Building upon Lewin’s (1948) foundational studies on group dynamics and
interpersonal relationships in organizations, the seminal works of William Kahn (1990) and Amy
Edmondson (1999) propelled the concept into the spotlight, establishing its role in promoting
employee well-being, learning, and performance. Today, the interest in psychological safety has
significantly escalated, reflecting the shifting organizational landscapes that increasingly value
employee well-being, engagement, and innovation (Frazier et al., 2017; Hirak et al., 2012;
Newman et al., 2017). Modern organizations acknowledge the role of psychologically safe
environments in enabling employees to freely express opinions, share ideas, and admit mistakes,
cultivating innovation, collaboration, and adaptability (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; O’Donovan &
McAuliffe, 2020; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).
This study explored the importance of psychological safety for organizational leaders,
focusing on methods that foster it and how leaders create psychological safety for their teams.
Additionally, the study examined the perceived positive impacts of psychological safety on
organizational outcomes through the lens of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, using
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model as a theoretical framework.
Context and Background of the Problem
Psychological safety is rooted in the early research on group dynamics and organizational
interpersonal relationships (Lewin, 1948). It gained prominence through the seminal works of
Kahn (1990) and Edmondson (1999), who emphasized the importance of psychological safety in
promoting employee well-being, learning, and performance. Psychological safety is the shared

2
belief that one can take interpersonal risks within a group without fear of negative consequences
(Edmondson, 1999; Newman et al., 2017). In psychologically safe environments, employees feel
comfortable expressing their opinions, sharing ideas, and admitting mistakes, leading to more
significant innovation, collaboration, and adaptability (Edmondson, 2018; Edmondson & Lei,
2014).
Despite the growing body of research on psychological safety, more research still needs
to be conducted on how organizations foster psychological safety in their leaders and how they
train them to create psychologically safe environments for their teams (Edmondson, 2018). This
gap in the literature is significant, as leaders play a crucial role in shaping the psychological
safety of their teams through their actions, behaviors, and communication styles (Iqbal et al.,
2020; Newman et al., 2017). Understanding how leaders can create and maintain psychological
safety within their teams is essential for promoting employee well-being, engagement, and
performance at the organizational level (Carmeli et al., 2009; Edmondson & Lei, 2014).
Moreover, there is limited research on the overlap between leader-member exchange
(LMX) theory and psychological safety (Carmeli et al., 2009; Premru et al., 2022). LMX theory,
which focuses on the dyadic relationships between leaders and their team members, has
influenced various work outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job
performance (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hughes et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2016). However, the
specific ways LMX relationships contribute to developing and maintaining psychological safety
still need to be explored. Addressing this gap in the literature would provide invaluable insights
into how to utilize LMX dynamics to enhance psychological safety within organizations.
In this study, the context and background of the problem were grounded in the need to
understand better the importance of psychological safety for organizational leaders, particularly

3
concerning LMX relationships. By examining the development and maintenance of
psychological safety in leaders and their teams, as well as the corporate practices, strategies, and
interventions that support psychological safety, this research aimed to contribute to the literature
on psychological safety and LMX while also providing practical implications for organizations
seeking to enhance employee well-being, performance, and overall success.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This research project explored the importance of psychological safety for organizational
leaders, focusing on the role of leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships in fostering
psychological safety for leaders and their teams. This study aimed to address the gaps in the
literature concerning how organizations promote psychological safety in their leaders and how
they train them to create psychologically safe environments for their teams, as well as the
interplay between LMX and psychological safety. The following research questions guide the
study:
1. How do leaders perceive LMX relationships contributing to developing and
maintaining psychological safety in leaders and their teams?
2. What organizational practices, strategies, and interventions do leaders perceive as
effective in fostering psychological safety among leaders, and how do these practices
influence their ability to create psychologically safe environments for their teams?
3. How do organizations foster psychological safety in their leaders?
By addressing these research questions, this study sought to provide a deeper
understanding of the importance of psychological safety in organizational leaders, the role of
LMX relationships in shaping psychological safety, and the corporate practices that support
developing and maintaining psychologically safe environments. The findings of this research

4
have practical implications for organizations seeking to enhance employee well-being,
performance, and overall success by fostering psychological safety and promoting positive LMX
relationships.
Scope of the Study
The past few years have presented an array of challenges and transformations in the
workplace, significantly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in the political
landscape, and a profound societal awakening regarding racial justice issues. These phenomena
have reshaped organizational structures and profoundly affected the psychological landscape in
which leaders and subordinates operate.
As organizations shifted to remote work due to the pandemic, leaders were thrust into
managing teams across digital divides, accentuating the need for a psychologically safe
environment where employees feel comfortable sharing concerns and challenges (Rigotti et al.,
2020; West & Lyubovnikova, 2021). The stress, isolation, and burnout experienced by many
have highlighted psychological safety not as a luxury but as a necessity for maintaining
productivity and employee well-being (Kniffin et al., 2021; Lee, 2021).
Parallel to these challenges has been a heightened focus on diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI), invigorated by the global response to racial injustice following the murder of
George Floyd (Bray, 2023). The movement has forced organizations to re-evaluate their
commitment to creating a work environment that is diverse but also inclusive and equitable—one
where psychological safety is paramount to allowing all employees to thrive (Balakrishnan et al.,
2023).
In light of these shifts, this dissertation recognizes the interconnectedness of these issues
with the broader concept of leadership psychological safety. This dissertation deliberately

5
maintains a broad scope. While acknowledging the significance of the current zeitgeist, this
research intends to probe deeper into the foundational aspects of leadership and psychological
safety that underlie these specific concerns. The rationale is that by understanding and improving
the core elements of leadership psychological safety, we inherently address the broader array of
challenges—including those posed by remote work dynamics and the call for racial justice
(Edmondson & Lei, 2014). The researcher believes that once these foundational items are more
broadly addressed, the specific gaps in practice related to the pandemic, changing work
environments, and DEI can be more directly addressed by future research.
Thus, the study does not focus exclusively on the specificities of the pandemic or the
racial equality movement. Instead, it aims to develop a foundational understanding applicable
across various contexts. The intent is to cultivate a bedrock of knowledge that can support
leaders in navigating challenges, whether they stem from a public health crisis, a societal demand
for justice, or other unforeseen events. This foundational knowledge can then equip leaders with
the tools to create and sustain an environment of psychological safety, which can be adapted to
address the unique challenges of any given moment (Choi et al., 2021; Edmondson, 2018).
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study lies in its potential to contribute to the existing literature on
psychological safety and LMX by exploring their intersection and examining how they impact
organizational leaders and their teams. By investigating the factors contributing to the
development and maintenance of psychological safety in organizational leaders, this research
could offer insights into the conditions that enabled leaders to create psychologically safe
environments for their teams, ultimately leading to improved employee well-being, engagement,
and performance.

6
This study also sought to address the gaps in the literature concerning how organizations
foster psychological safety in their leaders and train them to promote psychological safety within
their teams. By identifying effective organizational practices, strategies, and interventions that
support psychological safety, this research could provide practical guidance for organizations
seeking to enhance their leadership development programs and foster positive work
environments.
Overall, this study's importance lies in its potential to expand the understanding of the
significance of psychological safety and LMX relationships in organizations while offering
practical implications for leaders and organizations seeking to improve employee well-being,
performance, and overall success.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, offering a comprehensive perspective on the
complex interplay of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors, forms the theoretical
context of this study. It clearly explains these factors’ impact on psychological safety and LMX
relationships. The model comprises four interacting systems: the microsystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, and macrosystem. These systems help explain the dynamic and reciprocal
interactions between individuals and their environments, which shape their development over
time.
In this study, the microsystem comprises the immediate relationships between leaders and
their team members, influenced by LMX dynamics. The mesosystem encompasses the
interconnections between various microsystems, such as the interactions among different teams
within the organization. The exosystem includes broader organizational structures, policies, and
practices that influence the creation and maintenance of psychological safety. Finally, the

7
macrosystem refers to the broader cultural, social, and economic contexts in which the
organization operates, which impact psychological safety and LMX relationships.
This research sought to provide a more nuanced understanding of the factors contributing
to developing and maintaining psychologically safe environments for leaders and their teams by
applying Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model to the study of psychological safety and
LMX.
The methodology of this study employed a mixed-methods approach, which incorporated
both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the research problem. The quantitative component used
validated and reliable instruments, such as Edmondson’s Psychological Safety scale (1999) and
the LMX-7 scale, to measure psychological safety and LMX relationships among a sample of
leaders and their team members.
The qualitative component of the study involved semi-structured interviews with a
subsample of leaders and their team members, focusing on their experiences with psychological
safety, LMX relationships, and organizational practices and training programs that promote
psychological safety. Thematic analysis of the interview data identified patterns, themes, and
insights that enriched the quantitative findings and offered a deeper understanding of the
research problem.
By employing a mixed-methods research design, this study sought to generate a more
comprehensive understanding of the importance of psychological safety in leaders and its
potential positive impacts on organizational outcomes through the lens of leader-member
exchange theory while also shedding light on the various factors that contribute to the
development and maintenance of psychologically safe environments in organizations.

8
Definition of Terms
Psychological safety: The shared belief that one can take interpersonal risks within a
group without fear of negative consequences (Edmondson, 1999).
Leader-member exchange (LMX): A leadership theory focused on the dyadic
relationships between leaders and their team members (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model: A theoretical framework that examined the complex
interplay of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors influencing human development
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation comprises five chapters: Chapter 1 introduces the study, including the
context and background of the problem, the purpose of the project, research questions, the
importance of the study, the theoretical framework and methodology, and definitions of key
terms. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature, focusing on psychological safety, LMX, and
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model. Chapter 3 details the research methodology, including the
research design, sample selection, data collection, and data analysis procedures. Chapter 4
presents the study’s findings, while Chapter 5 discusses the findings, implications for practice,
limitations, and recommendations for future research.

9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter comprehensively reviews the literature on psychological safety, leadermember exchange (LMX) theory, and the importance of fostering psychological safety among
leaders and their teams. This review aimed to establish a theoretical foundation for the study,
identify gaps in the existing research, and highlight the need for the current investigation. The
chapter contains the following sections: psychological safety, LMX theory, the role of leaders in
fostering psychological safety, organizational practices for promoting psychological safety, and
training programs for leaders. The chapter concludes with a summary of the literature review and
its implications for the present study.
Psychological Safety
Psychological safety is the emotional and interpersonal condition within a group or
organization that allows individuals to freely speak up and share ideas or concerns without fear
of negative consequences, including criticism, ridicule, or punishment (Kahn, 1990; Edmondson,
1999). Research shows that psychological safety is a critical factor in the success of teams and
organizations, as it fosters creativity, innovation, and collaboration (Zeng et al., 2020).
Social psychologist Kurt Lewin’s work in the 1940s originated the idea of psychological
safety by highlighting the importance of creating a positive and supportive social environment to
facilitate group learning and productivity. Schein and Bennis (1965) contributed to the
foundation of psychological safety and the role of leaders in their seminal work Personal and
Organizational Change Through Group Methods by emphasizing the role that leader behavior
and values play in creating a shared set of values and beliefs within the organization. Their
arguments for a positive and trusting environment laid the groundwork for later research in the
field.

10
Early research on psychological safety specifically focused on its role in teams and
organizations. One of the key pioneers in this field was psychologist Amy Edmondson, who
defined psychological safety as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe
for interpersonal risk-taking” (Edmondson, 1999, p. 350). Edmondson’s work has helped to
establish psychological safety as an essential factor in team effectiveness and performance.
This research has consistently found that psychological safety predicts team performance
and effectiveness. For example, a meta-analysis found that psychological safety was significantly
related to team performance, effectiveness, and citizenship behaviors (Newman et al., 2019).
Other studies have similarly found that psychological safety is related to increased job
satisfaction, motivation, mental health, and well-being among team members (Edmondson, 2018;
Miao et al., 2019; Newman et al., 2017).
In addition to impacting team outcomes, several studies have found that individual
psychological safety is related to increased job satisfaction and motivation (Edmondson, 2018),
reduced absenteeism and turnover (Christian et al., 2009; Javed et al., 2019), and has a positive
impact on employee performance (Frazier et al., 2017). These findings imply that psychological
safety benefits teams and organizations and yields positive outcomes for individual employees.
Individual, Group, and Organizational Considerations
At the individual level, psychological safety refers to the perceived ability of an
individual to speak up and voice concerns, ideas, and thoughts without fear of retribution or
negative consequences (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Individual psychological
safety is related to a range of positive outcomes, including increased job satisfaction,
commitment, and performance (de Jong et al., 2007). Factors that impact individual

11
psychological safety include leadership behaviors, organizational justice, feedback practices, and
emotional intelligence (Carmeli et al., 2009).
At the group level, psychological safety refers to the perceived ability of group members
to speak up and voice concerns, ideas, and thoughts without fear of retribution or negative
consequences (Edmondson, 1999). Group psychological safety is related to a range of positive
outcomes, including increased innovation, creativity, and performance (Marks et al., 2001).
Factors that may impact group psychological safety include team processes, such as
communication and decision-making (Edmondson, 1999; Newman et al., 2017); diversity, which
can bring new perspectives and ideas but also lead to misunderstandings and conflicts (Jackson,
1992); and group dynamics, which refer to the processes and patterns of interaction within a
group or team (Tuckman, 1965).
At the organizational level, psychological safety refers to the organization’s overall
culture, including the norms, values, and expectations that shape how employees interact and
communicate (Schneider et al., 2017). Organizational psychological safety is related to several
positive outcomes, including increased innovation, creativity, and performance (Edmondson,
1999; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Javed, 2019). Organizational psychological safety factors
include corporate culture, technology, organizational climate, and feedback practices (Anderson
et al., 2014; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Several factors contribute to psychological safety within teams and organizations. One of
the most important is leader behavior. Research has shown that leaders who create an open and
inclusive work environment, encourage open communication and dialogue, and provide support
and feedback to team members can help to foster a sense of psychological safety within their
teams (Edmondson, 2018; Javed et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020). Other factors influencing

12
psychological safety include team composition, size, and diversity (Carmeli et al., 2009;
Edmondson, 2018).
Cultural factors also play a role in psychological safety. Collectivistic cultures, cultures
that value interdependence and group harmony, tend to have higher levels of psychological
safety (Zhang et al., 2023), while masculinity—the degree to which a culture values traditionally
masculine traits like aggression and competitiveness—is negatively related to psychological
safety (Eagly et al., 1995).
Psychological safety is vital in virtual teams for trust, communication, and team
effectiveness (Eisenbeiss & Boerner, 2013). Zhang et al. (2023) demonstrated how collectivism
and power distance—the degree to which a culture values hierarchy and unequal power
distribution (Hofstede, 1980; Khan et al., 2022)—impacted psychological safety and innovation
in teams.
Several other considerations may impact psychological safety within organizations. One
factor is the role of organizational justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of organizational
policies, procedures, and practices (Colquitt, 2001; Khan et al., 2022). Research has shown that
organizational justice is related to psychological safety, with perceptions of fair treatment
positively associated with increased psychological safety (Colquitt et al., 2013). Perceptions of
fairness and justice can contribute to a sense of trust and respect within an organization, fostering
psychological safety.
Research has demonstrated that applying feedback within organizations can influence the
perception of psychological safety. Feedback can be a powerful tool for promoting learning and
development, but it can also be a source of stress and anxiety if not handled effectively (de Jong
et al., 2007). Research has shown that the way feedback is delivered and the level of support and

13
guidance provided can significantly impact the impact of feedback on psychological safety
(Batista, 2014; de Jong et al., 2007). Therefore, organizations need to consider the role of
feedback in fostering psychological safety to establish effective practices for providing feedback.
In addition to these factors, organizational climate – the shared perceptions, attitudes, and
values that characterize an organization may also impact psychological safety (Schneider et al.,
2017). A positive organizational climate, characterized by supportive leadership, open
communication, and a sense of community, can foster psychological safety (Carmeli et al., 2009;
de Jong et al., 2007). On the other hand, an adverse organizational climate, characterized by
conflict, competition, and a lack of trust, can undermine psychological safety. Therefore, it is
necessary for organizations to consider the impact of organizational climate on psychological
safety and to work to create a positive and supportive environment.
As awareness of the impact of psychological safety on team and organizational
effectiveness has grown, there has been increased interest in interventions to improve
psychological safety. Interventions can take several forms, including training programs for
leaders and team members, team-building activities, and organizational policy and practice
changes. Research suggests these interventions can effectively improve team performance and
well-being (Carmeli et al., 2012; Edmondson, 2018).
In conclusion, psychological safety is a critical factor in team and organizational
effectiveness, with many positive consequences for both teams and individual team members.
Psychological safety has been linked to various positive outcomes, including increased
innovation, creativity, and learning (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009; Edmondson, 1999), as well as
improved performance, job satisfaction, and employee retention (Newman et al., 2017;
Schaubroeck et al., 2017). Leaders play a crucial role in fostering a sense of psychological safety

14
within their teams, and interventions aimed at increasing psychological safety can effectively
improve team performance and well-being. Future research should explore the factors
contributing to psychological safety and the most effective interventions for increasing it within
teams and organizations.
Related Ideas
Psychological Empowerment
Psychological safety and psychological empowerment are related but distinct concepts
regarding a group or organization’s emotional and interpersonal environment. Psychological
safety refers to the extent to which people feel safe to speak up and express their ideas, thoughts,
and feelings without fear of negative consequences. It is a critical factor in team and
organizational effectiveness. It is related to a range of positive outcomes for teams and individual
team members, including increased job satisfaction, motivation, and well-being (Edmondson,
2018; Edmondson & Lei, 2014).
Psychological empowerment, on the other hand, refers to the extent to which individuals
feel a sense of control and ownership over their work and can make decisions and take actions
that impact their work environment. It is related to increased job satisfaction, motivation, and
improved performance (Spreitzer, 1995).
While there is some overlap between these concepts, they are distinct in several important
ways. Firstly, psychological safety focuses on the interpersonal environment within a group or
organization, while psychological empowerment focuses on the individual’s sense of control and
ownership over their work. Secondly, psychological safety is related to various positive
outcomes for teams and individual team members. In contrast, psychological empowerment
focuses more on individual outcomes such as job satisfaction and motivation.

15
Teams and organizations that foster psychological safety and empowerment create a
positive and productive work environment. Research suggests that psychological safety and
empowerment interventions can effectively improve team performance and well-being
(Edmondson, 2018; Javed et al., 2019).
Trust
Trust is a complex and multifaceted concept widely studied in psychology, sociology,
and organizational behavior. It refers to the belief in another person or entity’s reliability,
integrity, and benevolence. Trust is central to shaping behavior and decision-making within
groups and organizations and is essential to social and interpersonal relationships.
While related, trust and psychological safety are distinct concepts that significantly
influence the emotional and interpersonal environment within groups or organizations. Trust
encapsulates the belief in another person or entity’s reliability, integrity, and benevolence,
shaping behavior and decision-making in both groups and organizations. In contrast,
psychological safety refers to the freedom to express ideas, thoughts, and feelings without fear of
adverse consequences (Edmondson, 2018; Kahn, 1990).
A rich body of research underscores the influence of trust on various positive outcomes
for individuals and groups. For instance, trust fosters increased cooperation, teamwork, and
collaboration (Carmeli et al., 2012; Ferres et al., 2004; McAllister, 1995). It is particularly
crucial in scenarios involving uncertainty or risk in leadership or decision-making contexts
(Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012; Mayer et al., 1995).
Simultaneously, psychological safety is associated with a spectrum of positive outcomes
for teams and individual team members, including heightened job satisfaction, motivation, and
overall well-being (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Communication plays a pivotal role in shaping

16
trust within relationships and groups. Evidence suggests that open, honest, and transparent
communication is indispensable in cultivating and sustaining trust (Colquitt et al., 2007).
Notably, organizations characterized by high levels of trust tend to be more innovative
and adaptable, further influencing organizational outcomes like performance and effectiveness
(Leroy et al., 2013; Nyhan & Marlowe, 1997). Despite their differences, trust and psychological
safety are integral to the functioning and effectiveness of teams and organizations, thus
underlining their significance in organizational behavior and psychology.
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is another factor that may impact psychological safety.
Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to recognize and manage one’s own emotions and the
emotions of others (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). There is evidence that individuals with high levels
of EI are more likely to create a supportive and inclusive environment that promotes
psychological safety (Javed et al., 2019; Lopes et al., 2003). Carmeli et al. (2009) focused on the
role of emotional intelligence in fostering psychological safety within organizations. They argue
that emotional intelligence is related to psychological safety, with individuals high in EI being
more likely to create a supportive and inclusive environment promoting psychological safety. In
their work, Carmeli and colleagues highlight the importance of emotional intelligence in
developing effective communication, trust, and respect within teams. Individuals with high EI
may be more attuned to the emotions of others and more likely to respond in a supportive and
empathetic manner, fostering a sense of trust and safety within the team. On the other hand,
individuals low in EI may be more likely to act self-centered or dismissively, undermining
psychological safety.

17
In addition to individual differences in EI, a team’s overall EI can also impact
psychological safety. Research has shown that teams with high levels of EI tend to have better
communication, trust, and collaboration, leading to increased psychological safety (de Jong et
al., 2007; Miao et al., 2019). Therefore, organizations need to consider the role of EI in fostering
psychological safety and strategies for promoting EI within teams.
Measurement
The measurement of psychological safety allows researchers and practitioners to assess
the level of psychological safety within a group or organization and track changes over time.
Researchers have developed several different methods and measures to assess psychological
safety.
Self-report surveys, which ask individuals to rate their perceptions of the level of
psychological safety within their group or organization, are the most common methods for
measuring psychological safety. The most widely used measure of psychological safety is the
Team Psychological Safety scale (PSS), developed by Edmondson (1999). Consisting of seven
items, the PSS can assess different aspects of psychological safety, including the ability to speak
up, the openness of communication, and the willingness of team members to help each other.
May et al. (2004) built a model based on the work of Edmondson (1999) and Kahn (1990) for
their model, but it has yet to be widely accepted. Other measures of psychological safety focus
on voice or fear, like Milliken, Morrison, and Hewlin’s (2003) Fear Reprisal scale or the Voice
Climate scale by Detert and Edmondson (2011).
Other methods for measuring psychological safety include observation, focus groups, and
interviews. These methods can provide more in-depth and nuanced information about the level of

18
psychological safety within a group or organization. However, they may be more timeconsuming and resource-intensive to implement.
It is important to note that psychological safety is a multifaceted concept, and different
measures may focus on different aspects. For example, some measures may concentrate more on
the interpersonal dynamics within a group. In contrast, others may focus more on the individual’s
sense of safety and comfort in expressing their ideas and feelings.
In conclusion, many different methods and measures are available for assessing the
psychological safety level within a group or organization. These methods include self-report
surveys, observation, focus groups, and interviews and may focus on different aspects of
psychological safety. Choosing an appropriate measure based on the research question and
context is essential.
Antecedents
Antecedents of psychological safety refer to the factors that precede and contribute to
developing a sense of psychological safety within a group or organization. Research on
psychological safety has identified several different antecedents that can influence the
development of psychological safety, including leader behavior, team composition, team
processes, and organizational culture.
One of the most important antecedents of psychological safety is leader behavior.
Research has consistently shown that leaders who create an open and inclusive work
environment, encourage open communication and dialogue, and provide support and feedback to
team members can help foster a sense of psychological safety within their teams (Edmondson,
2018). Leaders who create a supportive and inclusive work environment where employees feel
valued and respected are likelier to foster psychological safety within their teams (Edmondson,

19
1999; Schaubroeck et al., 2017). Conversely, leaders who are autocratic, unapproachable, or
discourage open communication can create a culture of fear and undermine psychological safety
(Schyns & Schilling, 2013).
Other factors influencing psychological safety include team composition, size, and
diversity. Research has suggested that teams with diverse perspectives and backgrounds may be
more likely to have a sense of psychological safety, as these teams may be more open to different
ideas and viewpoints (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Team dynamics and norms also play a
significant role in creating a psychologically safe environment. Teams that encourage open
communication, respect diverse perspectives, and are willing to learn from mistakes are likelier
to foster psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
Diversity can bring new perspectives and ideas, increasing creativity and innovation. A
meta-analytic review by Horwitz and Horwitz (2017) confirmed that team diversity is related to
improved team performance in problem-solving tasks. However, they also discussed the
potential for diversity to lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, which can undermine
psychological safety and create the need for organizations and leaders to actively manage
diversity initiatives.
Research has shown that diversity and inclusion initiatives can positively impact
psychological safety, increasing team trust and collaboration (de Jong et al., 2007). Hirak et al.
(2012) examined the role of diversity in psychological safety, arguing that diversity can have
positive and negative effects on psychological safety. In their work, Hirak and colleagues
highlight the importance of diversity in bringing new perspectives and ideas to the table and the
challenges that may arise when dealing with diversity in the workplace. Therefore, organizations

20
must address diversity proactively and inclusively to maximize the benefits and minimize
potential adverse effects.
Team and organization size and composition may also influence psychological safety, as
larger teams may be more challenging to manage and less likely to foster a sense of intimacy and
trust (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). A related factor that may impact psychological safety is the role
of group dynamics within organizations. Group dynamics refers to the processes and patterns of
interaction within a group or team (Tuckman, 1965). Research has shown that group dynamics
can significantly impact psychological safety, with specific patterns of interaction being more
conducive to psychological safety than others (Marks et al., 2001).
Research has shown that groups characterized by high levels of trust and openness tend to
have higher levels of psychological safety (Carmeli et al., 2012; Edmondson, 1999).
Organizational justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of organizational policies,
procedures, and practices (Colquitt, 2001); feedback practices, which can be a powerful tool for
promoting learning and development but can also be a source of stress and anxiety if not handled
effectively (de Jong et al., 2007; Kolbe et al., 2020); and organizational climate, which refers to
the shared perceptions, attitudes, and values that characterize an organization (Schneider et al.,
2017) which all impact psychological safety as well.
Organizations can address group dynamics by implementing team-building and conflictresolution strategies. These strategies may include training programs and team-building activities
to promote trust and collaboration. Research has shown that these strategies can positively
impact group dynamics and psychological safety (de Jong et al., 2007).

21
Moderating Factors
Team size is one factor that may moderate the relationship between psychological safety
and team outcome. One study by Edmondson and Mogelof (2006) found that teams with fewer
than ten members were more likely to exhibit higher levels of psychological safety, as they felt
more connected and were more likely to share their thoughts and ideas openly. Research
suggests that larger teams may be less likely to foster a sense of psychological safety, as they
may be more challenging to manage and less likely to foster a sense of intimacy and trust
(Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Newman et al., 2017). These challenges may be especially true in
teams with high levels of diversity, as these teams may be more prone to misunderstandings and
conflicts (Edmondson, 2018).
Team composition is another factor that may moderate the relationship between
psychological safety and team outcomes. Research has suggested that teams with diverse
perspectives and backgrounds may be more likely to have a sense of psychological safety, as
these teams may be more open to different ideas and viewpoints (Edmondson, 2018; Edmondson
& Lei, 2014). However, research has also suggested that diversity may have negative
consequences for psychological safety in some cases, mainly when there is a lack of social
integration or high levels of intergroup conflict (Harrison et al., 1988). Moreover, organizations
that promote inclusive climates are more likely to reap the benefits of diversity in fostering
psychological safety, as inclusion can help mitigate the potential adverse effects of diversity on
psychological safety (Nishii, 2013)
Organizational culture may also moderate the relationship between psychological safety
and team and individual outcomes. Research has suggested that organizations with a culture of
trust, openness, and support may be more likely to foster a sense of psychological safety among

22
their employees (Newman et al., 2017). Conversely, organizations with a culture of fear and
mistrust may undermine psychological safety (Edmondson, 2018).
In conclusion, research has identified several factors that may moderate and precede the
relationship between psychological safety and team and individual outcomes. These include team
size, team composition, and organizational culture. Understanding these moderating factors can
help identify potential interventions for increasing psychological safety within teams and
organizations.
Outcomes
Many researchers recognize psychological safety as a pivotal element of thriving work
environments. It catalyzes many positive outcomes, including innovation, creativity,
performance, job satisfaction, employee retention, and overall employee wellness, while
significantly reducing burnout (Burris et al., 2008; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Hülsheger et al.,
2009).
Innovation is a key outcome of psychological safety. Organizations fostering a
psychologically safe climate enable their employees to freely express and exchange ideas, take
intellectual risks, and engage in collaborative problem-solving. This openness generates
innovative ideas and strategies (Frazier et al., 2017; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).
Similarly, environments with high psychological safety amplify creativity. Without fear
of backlash or ridicule, employees feel comfortable sharing unique perspectives and thoughts,
thereby promoting a rich exchange of ideas that stimulate creativity (Carmeli et al., 2009;
Diliello et al., 2011).
Moreover, psychological safety enhances overall job performance. Employees who feel
psychologically safe are more likely to engage in their tasks fully, express their concerns, and

23
contribute effectively to their teams, thereby improving individual and team performance
(Newman et al., 2017; Walumbwa et al., 2009).
Psychological safety also positively influences job satisfaction and employee retention.
Employees who perceive their work environment as psychologically safe report higher job
satisfaction and a greater propensity to stay with the organization, thus reducing turnover rates
(Chughtai et al., 2015).
Additionally, psychological safety plays a crucial role in reducing burnout and promoting
overall employee wellness. A psychologically safe work environment aids in alleviating workrelated stress and anxiety, often precursors to burnout. This alleviation improves mental health
and employee wellness (Burris et al., 2008; Hu & Hirsh, 2017; May et al., 2004).
Leadership and Psychological Safety
Leadership has been identified as a critical factor in creating a culture of psychological
safety within organizations (Carmeli et al., 2012; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Hirak et al., 2012).
Psychological safety refers to the extent to which people feel safe to speak up and express their
ideas, thoughts, and feelings without fear of negative consequences. It is a necessary factor in
team and organizational effectiveness. It is related to a range of positive outcomes for teams and
individual team members, including increased job satisfaction, motivation, and well-being
(Edmondson, 2018). Hirak and colleagues (2012) have focused on the impact of leadership
inclusiveness power dynamics on psychological safety arguing that how leaders wield their
power within organizations can significantly impact psychological safety, with leaders who use
their power to foster inclusivity and openness being more likely to enhance psychological safety.
Abraham Carmeli has also contributed to the literature on psychological safety and leadership.
Carmeli and colleagues have focused on the role of emotional intelligence in fostering

24
psychological safety within organizations (Carmeli et al., 2009). They argue that emotional
intelligence is related to psychological safety, with individuals high in EI being more likely to
create a supportive and inclusive environment that promotes psychological safety. Amy
Edmondson has examined the role of diversity in psychological safety, arguing that while
diversity can have positive effects by bringing new perspectives and ideas, it can also lead to
misunderstandings and conflicts if not managed effectively. Organizations must address diversity
proactively and inclusively to maximize the benefits and minimize potential adverse effects
(Edmondson, 2018).
Research consistently shows leadership behavior shapes a group or organization’s
emotional and interpersonal environment. Approachable leaders create an open and inclusive
work environment, encourage open communication and dialogue, and provide support and
feedback to team members, which can help to foster a sense of psychological safety within their
teams (Edmondson, 2018). Conversely, leaders who are autocratic, unapproachable, or
discourage open communication can create a culture of fear and undermine psychological safety
(Schyns et al., 2013; Sherf et al., 2021).
Leadership styles and behaviors are particularly relevant in fostering psychological
safety. In recent years, there has been a shift in the way that leadership styles are viewed, with a
greater emphasis on the importance of adaptability and flexibility.
One leadership style that is particularly effective in fostering psychological safety is
transformational leadership. Transformational leaders set a clear vision, empower and develop
team members, and provide support and feedback (Javed et al., 2019). Research has consistently
shown that transformational leadership positively affects psychological safety (Antonakis et al.,
2003; Van Wart et al., 2017). For example, Carmeli and Gittell’s (2009) study found a positive

25
relationship between transformational leadership and psychological safety, and team
empowerment mediated this relationship. The study found that transformational leaders create a
work environment that empowers team members, leading to higher levels of psychological
safety.
Another leadership style positively related to psychological safety is servant leadership,
introduced by Robert Greenleaf in 1977. Servant leaders put the needs of team members before
their own and focus on developing their skills and abilities (Greenleaf, 2002; Van Wart et al.,
2017). Researchers (Sendjaya & Pekerti, 2010) have linked this leadership style to increased job
satisfaction and organizational commitment among followers. Research also suggests that
servant leadership is positively related to psychological safety (Liden et al., 2008; Bai et al.,
2023). For example, a study by Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) found that servant leadership was
positively related to employee well-being, job satisfaction, and team performance.
In recent years, the concept of authentic leadership, first introduced by Bill George in
2003, has developed traction. Authentic leaders are genuine, self-aware, and transparent,
prioritizing their followers’ well-being and development. Research has consistently shown that
authentic leaders are more effective at inspiring and motivating their followers (Avolio et al.,
2009). Avolio and Gardner (2005) found that authentic leadership was positively related to
employee well-being, job satisfaction, and job performance.
There has also been a move towards more collaborative and inclusive leadership styles.
Distributed leadership involves sharing decision-making and responsibilities among a group,
while shared leadership involves equal power distribution and influence within a team. Research
by Hannah et al. (2009) supports this approach, noting that such leadership styles are crucial in
extreme contexts, enhancing team adaptability and performance. Similarly, Ensley et al. (2006)

26
find that shared leadership within new venture top management teams significantly contributes to
improved problem-solving and overall startup performance. Overall, the link between
psychological safety and adaptive leadership suggests that creating a work environment that is
flexible, innovative, and supportive and that promotes open communication and collaboration
can positively affect both employee and organizational outcomes.
In addition to these leadership styles, leaders exhibit specific leadership behaviors that
impact psychological safety within teams. For example, research has shown that leaders who
provide clear goals and expectations, give constructive feedback, and show appreciation and
recognition are likelier to foster a sense of psychological safety within their teams (Edmondson,
2018). These behaviors may be especially important in contexts with high uncertainty or risk, as
they can help reduce fear and increase feelings of predictability and control (Edmondson, 2018).
Leaders who model openness and vulnerability and encourage open communication and
dialogue may also be more likely to foster psychological safety within their teams (Edmondson,
2018; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). These behaviors may be significant in diverse or highly
interdependent teams, as these teams may be more prone to misunderstandings and conflicts
(Edmondson, 2018).
Overall, the research on leadership and psychological safety suggests that leaders play a
crucial role in shaping a group or organization’s emotional and interpersonal environment.
Leaders who adopt supportive and inclusive leadership styles and engage in behaviors that
encourage open communication and dialogue are likelier to foster a sense of psychological safety
within their teams. This sense of safety, in turn, is related to a range of positive outcomes for
both teams and individual team members.

27
It is worth noting that while transformational and servant leadership styles are positively
related to psychological safety, leaders should also consider their teams’ specific contexts and
needs. Different teams may have different needs and preferences, and leaders should be mindful
of this when seeking to foster psychological safety within their teams.
It is also necessary for leaders to be aware of their own biases to create an inclusive and
diverse work environment. Research has shown that diversity can improve team performance
(van Knippenberg et al., 2004), though it is essential for leaders to ensure that all team members
feel included and valued. Inclusion can involve actively seeking out diverse perspectives,
creating opportunities for open communication, and promoting a culture of inclusivity and
respect.
Leadership Training and Development
One of the primary goals of leadership development and training is to improve
individuals’ leadership skills and abilities within an organization. Formal training programs,
mentorship, coaching, and on-the-job experiences are all standard components of effective
leadership development. When tailored to the needs and goals of the individual or organization,
these programs can effectively improve leadership behaviors (Bolden, 2016).
Formal leadership development programs are structured to teach specific leadership
skills. These programs take various formats, including classroom-based training and experiential
learning opportunities (Lindsey et al., 2015). Leadership development programs generally focus
on a wide range of topics, including communication, decision-making, conflict resolution, and
team building (Northouse, 2019).
Mentorship can be a valuable source of support and guidance for individuals looking to
develop their leadership skills, allowing them to learn from someone with more experience and

28
expertise. Mentorship involves a more experienced leader providing guidance and support to a
less experienced individual. Mentorship can take the form of one-on-one interactions or more
formal mentorship programs. Research has shown that mentees can improve leadership skills and
behaviors (Northouse, 2019).
Coaching is the structured process of goal setting and skill development typically
delivered by a trained coach. Coaching can focus on leadership development, career
advancement, and personal growth. Like mentorship, coaching can effectively improve
leadership skills and behaviors, particularly when it is focused on specific goals and provides
ongoing support and feedback (Northouse, 2019).
On-the-job experiences can also lead to leadership development and training, including
taking on new responsibilities or leading a team. These experiences allow individuals to apply
and develop their leadership skills in a real-world setting. On-the-job experiences can be
instrumental for individuals looking to gain practical experience and build their leadership skills.
Research shows that on-the-job experiences effectively develop leadership skills, particularly
when accompanied by support and feedback (Gronn, 2002).
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)
Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) is a model that describes the relationship
between a leader and their subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The theory suggests that
leaders form different types of relationships with their team members, which can influence job
satisfaction, commitment, and performance outcomes (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Javed et al., 2019;
Martin et al., 2016). According to the theory, leaders form high-quality exchanges, or in-groups,
with some team members referred to as in-group members (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). These
team members typically receive more resources, support, and opportunities for advancement

29
(Anand et al., 2011). Other team members, called “out-group members,” do not form highquality exchanges with their leaders and may receive fewer resources and opportunities (Graen
& Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Various factors, including leader behaviors and team member characteristics, influence
the development of high-quality exchanges between leaders and team members (Graen & UhlBien, 1995; Martin et al., 2016). Research has identified several leader behaviors related to
forming high-quality exchanges, including trustworthiness, supportiveness (Liden et al., 2000;
Martin et al., 2016), and inclusivity (Eisenbeiss & Boerner, 2013). Trustworthy leaders are
perceived as honest, reliable, and ethical, which can foster a sense of trust and respect within
their team (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Supportive leaders provide their team members with the
resources and guidance needed to succeed (Erdogan et al., 2012). Inclusive leaders value
diversity and encourage the participation and contribution of all team members (Hiller et al.,
2011; Javed et al., 2019).
Team member characteristics, such as competence and motivation (Gottfredson &
Aguinis, 2017), may also influence the development of high-quality exchanges. Leaders may
form high-quality exchanges with competent team members as they perceive them to be skilled
and knowledgeable (Liden et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2018). Motivated team members are eager
and willing to contribute to the team, which may also lead to the formation of high-quality
exchanges (Rockstuhl et al., 2012).
Research has consistently demonstrated the impact of LMX on various organizational
outcomes (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). High-quality exchanges between leaders and team
members are related to higher job satisfaction (Martin et al., 2016), commitment (Anand et al.,
2011), and performance (Eisenbeiss & Boerner, 2013). On the other hand, low-quality exchanges

30
are related to adverse outcomes, including lower job satisfaction (Liden et al., 2000) and
commitment (Dulebohn et al., 2012).
The intersection of psychological safety and LMX theory concerns the impact of the
leader’s behavior on developing psychological safety within the team. LMX theory suggests that
leaders develop different and unequal relationships, or exchanges, with each team member
(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Several studies have found that high-quality exchanges between
leaders and team members are related to higher levels of psychological safety (Frazier et al.,
2017; Newman et al., 2017). These high-quality relationships can also positively affect employee
well-being, job satisfaction, and organizational outcomes, which are closely related to
psychological safety (Volmer et al., 2012).
Other studies have found that psychological safety is related to forming high-quality
exchanges between leaders and team members (Edmondson, 1999; George, 2010). For instance,
Edmondson (1999) found that psychological safety was related to forming high-quality
exchanges. Similarly, George (2010) found that psychological safety predicted high-quality
exchanges between leaders and team members. Subordinates rated leaders who scored higher in
psychological safety as having higher quality leader-member exchanges, as found by Nembhard
and Edmondson (2006).
High-quality leader-member exchanges are positively associated with psychological
safety (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). When leaders treat their team members as valuable and
trustworthy, team members feel comfortable speaking up and taking risks, contributing to a more
psychologically safe work environment. The ability to speak up and take risks can lead to
improved team performance and innovation (Carmeli et al., 2010).

31
Conversely, leaders who undermine psychological safety through behaviors such as
micromanaging or being overly critical can negatively impact the quality of leader-member
exchange (Atmaji et al., 2023). These negative impacts can contribute to a lack of trust and a
tense work environment, undermining psychological safety and team effectiveness (Detert &
Burris, 2007).
The literature suggests a strong relationship between LMX and psychological safety
(Edmondson, 1999; George, 2010; Zeng et al., 2020). High-quality exchanges between leaders
and team members are related to higher levels of psychological safety (Frazier et al., 2017;
Newman et al., 2017), and psychological safety is associated with the formation of high-quality
exchanges between leaders and team members (Edmondson, 1999; George, 2010).
Fostering Psychological Safety in Leaders
Research has shown that psychological safety is a critical factor in the success of teams
and organizations, fostering creativity, innovation, and collaboration (Zeng et al., 2020). Leaders
are essential in creating and maintaining psychological safety within a team or organization
(Zeng et al., 2020). However, the available research suggests that leaders may struggle with
creating and maintaining psychological safety for themselves and their team members
(Edmondson, 1999). This struggle is especially true in high-stress or high-stakes environments
where leaders may feel pressure to perform or meet certain expectations (Kahn, 1990).
To foster psychological safety in leaders, it is necessary to consider the behaviors and
qualities that contribute to a safe and supportive environment (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). These
behaviors and qualities include authenticity (George, 2010), empathy (Goleman et al., 2002),
inclusivity (Kark & van Dijk, 2007), transparency (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2015), and feedback
(Liden et al., 2000).

32
In addition to these behaviors and qualities, leaders can use several strategies to foster
psychological safety within their teams (Edmondson, 1999). These strategies include
encouraging open and honest communication (Zeng et al., 2020), providing support and
resources (Kark & van Dijk, 2007), modeling positive behaviors (Goleman et al., 2002), and
encouraging teamwork and collaboration (Liden et al., 2000).
Overall, the literature suggests that psychological safety is a critical factor in the success
of teams and organizations (Edmondson, 1999) and that leaders play a crucial role in creating
and maintaining a safe and supportive environment (Zeng et al., 2020). By exhibiting certain
behaviors and qualities and implementing strategies to encourage open communication and
collaboration (Kark & van Dijk, 2007), leaders can foster psychological safety within their teams
(Liden et al., 2000). The literature is more limited regarding how organizations create
psychological safety for their leaders and train them to do the same for their teams. While the
literature is still evolving, it does suggest that creating organizational psychological safety
involves a combination of structural, cultural, and leadership-related factors through encouraging
open communication, promoting diversity and inclusion, fostering a learning culture, and
encouraging feedback and collaboration.
Conceptual Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, an influential theory in developmental psychology,
offers a robust framework for examining the interplay between individuals and their different
environments. Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed that the dynamic interactions between four
environmental systems influence an individual’s development, and there is an interplay between
each system. When applied to organizational studies, these systems provide a holistic approach

33
to understanding the complex dynamics and exchanges that shape work environments and
influence organizational behaviors and relationships.
Microsystem
In the context of an organization, the microsystem refers to the immediate work
environment of an individual, including their relationships with colleagues, supervisors, and
subordinates. The quality of these relationships can significantly impact psychological safety and
LMX relationships. For instance, positive LMX relationships, characterized by trust and mutual
respect, can foster a sense of psychological safety within the microsystem (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995).
Mesosystem
The mesosystem represents the interactions between various microsystems, including the
dynamics between different teams or departments in an organizational context. Interactions and
collaborations between these units can contribute to an organization’s overall climate of
psychological safety, and previous studies have shown that a supportive mesosystem can
enhance LMX relationships (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011).
Exosystem
The exosystem encompasses the broader organizational structures and processes that
indirectly influence an individual’s work environment. These can include organizational policies,
leadership practices, and the organization’s culture, which can significantly impact the sense of
psychological safety in the workplace (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). For example, leadership
practices encouraging openness and employee participation can enhance psychological safety
and LMX relationships (Detert & Burris, 2007).

34
Macrosystem
Lastly, the macrosystem represents the larger societal context, encompassing cultural,
economic, and political influences. These factors can indirectly shape organizational norms and
practices, influencing psychological safety and LMX relationships. For instance, societal norms
around power distance and hierarchy can affect the quality of LMX relationships and the level of
psychological safety experienced by employees (Taras et al., 2010).
Bronfenbrenner’s Model Applied to Organizational Psychological Safety and LMX
Applying Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model to the study of psychological safety and
LMX provides a comprehensive understanding of the various factors contributing to these
phenomena. Each system in the model provides a lens through which we can examine the
different environmental influences on psychological safety and LMX relationships. The
immediate relationships between leaders and team members at the microsystem level are
particularly relevant. The quality of these relationships, shaped by LMX dynamics, significantly
impacts the psychological safety experienced by team members (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
The mesosystem offers insights into how relationships between different organizational
teams can influence the overall perception of psychological safety. For instance, if teams within
an organization observe a lack of psychological safety in other teams, this could affect their
perception and behavior (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Examining the exosystem allows us to understand how organizational policies,
procedures, and culture can create an environment that promotes or hinders psychological safety.
For instance, an organization that promotes open communication and values feedback will likely
foster psychological safety (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

35
Finally, the macrosystem allows for understanding how broader societal and economic
factors can influence psychological safety and LMX relationships. For example, organizations
operating in highly competitive industries might prioritize performance over employee wellbeing, potentially undermining psychological safety (Alvesson, 2012).
In this dissertation, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model will explore how various micro-,
meso-, exo-, and macro-system factors contribute to psychological safety and LMX relationships
within organizations. By integrating these different perspectives, this study aims to provide a
nuanced understanding of these complex phenomena and inform strategies to enhance
psychological safety and LMX relationships in the workplace. See Figure 1.

36
Figure 1
Psychological Safety Using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model
Note. Adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model in The ecology of human
development: experiments by nature and design (1st ed.) by U. Bronfenbrenner, 1979, Harvard
University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26071r6. Copyright by Harvard University Press.

37
Conclusion
The literature reviewed in this chapter underscores the importance of psychological
safety for leaders and their teams, as well as the central role of leaders in fostering psychological
safety within their teams. The LMX theory provides a helpful framework for understanding the
relationship between leaders and their followers and how this relationship can influence
psychological safety. The review also highlights the need for organizations to prioritize
psychological safety in their cultures, policies, and procedures and the value of leadership
training programs that specifically address psychological safety. This study aims to fill the gaps
in the literature by examining the relationships between LMX, psychological safety, and
leadership practices and exploring leaders’ experiences in fostering psychological safety for
themselves and their teams.

38
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods approach to investigate the impact of
psychological safety and leader-member exchange. It focused on leaders and the importance of
creating psychological safety for them and teaching them how to create it for their teams. The
rationale for using a mixed-methods design lies in its ability to comprehensively understand the
phenomenon under investigation by combining the strengths of quantitative and qualitative
research methods (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). This approach
allowed for a deeper exploration of the relationships between LMX, psychological safety, and
leadership practices while also providing insights into the experiences and perspectives of
leaders (Bergin, 2018; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).
Research Questions
This research study sought to address the following research questions designed to
explore the relationships between leader-member exchange (LMX), psychological safety, and
organizational outcomes in enterprise-level organizations:
Research Question 1: How Do LMX Relationships Contribute to Developing and
Maintaining Psychological Safety in Leaders and Their Teams?
Drawing from the literature on LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and psychological safety
(Edmondson, 1999), this research question aimed to investigate the role of LMX relationships in
establishing and sustaining psychological safety within leaders and their teams. It examined how
high-quality LMX relationships promote trust, open communication, and a supportive work
environment (Carmeli et al., 2009), thus fostering a sense of psychological safety among team
members.

39
Research Question 2: What Organizational Practices, Strategies, and Interventions Are
Effective in Fostering Psychological Safety Among Leaders, and How Do These Practices
Influence the Leaders’ Ability to Create Psychologically Safe Environments for Their
Teams?
Building on the work of scholars such as Edmondson and Lei (2014) and Nembhard and
Edmondson (2006), this research question seeks to identify specific organizational practices,
strategies, and interventions that contribute to cultivating psychological safety in leaders. It also
explored potential factors, such as training and development programs, performance
management systems, and organizational culture, that might impact leaders’ psychological safety
and capacity to create psychologically safe team environments (Detert & Burris, 2007).
Research Question 3: How Do Organizations Foster Psychological Safety in Their Leaders?
Focused on the organizational factors contributing to developing psychological safety in
leaders, this research question explored the roles of organizational culture, policies, procedures,
and support systems in shaping behaviors and attitudes related to psychological safety (Schein,
2010; Schein & Bennis, 1965). This question also investigated how organizations can effectively
create an environment encouraging leaders to prioritize psychological safety and model these
values for their teams (Kahn, 1990).
Overview of Design
The research design comprised two phases. The first phase was a quantitative survey,
utilizing Edmonson’s (1999) psychological safety measurement tool (Mazzucca et al., 2019) and
the LMX-7 scale from Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) to assess psychological safety and leadermember exchange. The second phase was a qualitative investigation involving semi-structured
interviews with participants to better understand their experiences and perceptions.

40
The mixed-methods research design for this study effectively explored the relationships
between psychological safety, leader-member exchange (LMX), and employee performance in
enterprise-level organizations. By combining quantitative and qualitative data collection and
analysis methods, this design provided a comprehensive understanding of the research problem
from multiple perspectives (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
The quantitative component of the study used a survey to gather data on psychological
safety, LMX, and employee performance. This approach allowed for the measurement of these
variables and the examination of potential relationships among them. The qualitative component
of the study involved semi-structured interviews, offering the opportunity to delve deeper into
the experiences and perspectives of participants, uncovering the nuances and complexities of the
research problem that quantitative data alone cannot capture (Morse, 2016).
Research Setting
The research aimed to involve leaders employed by enterprise-level organizations
selected through random outreach and online calls for participants. The study conducted
interviews via Zoom meetings in a virtual setting. Each interview was recorded and transcribed
to allow for thematic coding using Atlas.ti. The organizations represented various industries to
ensure a diverse sample. This selection criterion ensured that the study’s findings have broader
applicability across different organizational contexts.
The Researcher
The primary researcher is a doctoral candidate at The University of Southern California
and a veteran sales and marketing executive in human resources. The researcher’s role was to
ensure the integrity of the research process, adhere to ethical considerations, and provide a
comprehensive analysis of the data collected.

41
Data Sources
Data sources for this study included quantitative data obtained from the administration of
online survey responses from organizational leaders measuring psychological safety and LMX-7
scales and qualitative data collected through semi-structured Zoom interviews with
organizational leaders of large enterprise-level organizations.
Participants
The participants in this study consisted of organizational leaders from enterprise-level
organizations with a minimum of 500 employees across various industries and organizations.
Participants were recruited through random outreach, utilizing standard procedures for
contacting and inviting potential participants. Participation was voluntary, and all participants
provided informed consent. Given that the sample population of leaders in enterprise-scale
organizations is well above 100,000, the quantitative sample size target was 384 (Cochran, 1997;
Cohen, 1992) to ensure the results are statistically significant and generalizable (Salkind & Frey,
2019). The final number of fully completed surveys was 311. Consistent with recommendations
by Creswell and Creswell (2017) and Guest et al. (2006), the study conducted semi-structured
interviews with 20 leaders. This sample size allowed for adequate exploration of diverse
experiences and perspectives while ensuring data saturation.
Instrumentation
The study employed three primary instruments to investigate the research questions.
Firstly, Edmondson’s PSS (Edmondson, 1999), a well-established and widely used measure of
psychological safety, is utilized. Comprising seven items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, the PSS
allowed for assessing psychological safety, with higher scores indicating greater levels of

42
psychological safety. The scale has demonstrated reliability and validity across various
organizational contexts (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).
Secondly, the LMX-7 scale (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) measures the quality of leadermember exchange (LMX) relationships. This scale, extensively validated and widely used in
LMX research (Dulebohn et al., 2012), consists of seven items rated on a 5-point Likert scale.
Lastly, a subsample of leaders was interviewed through semi-structured interviews to
collect qualitative data. The researcher developed the qualitative interview protocol, informed by
the literature on psychological safety, leader-member exchange, employee engagement,
innovation, and retention (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). These interviews explored the participants’
experiences with psychological safety, LMX relationships, and organizational practices and
training programs that promote psychological safety.
Using these three instruments, the study aimed to comprehensively understand the factors
influencing psychological safety and LMX relationships in the examined organizational contexts.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection procedures for this study involved two main approaches: administering a
quantitative survey and conducting qualitative interviews. First, participants completed the
quantitative survey through the Qualtrics online platform, including Edmondson’s psychological
safety measurement tool and the LMX-7 scale from Graen and Uhl-Bien (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). The survey was distributed by email, and participants had a specified completion period.
Responses and data were stored securely following research ethics guidelines (Glesne, 2011).
The qualitative interviews took place through Zoom meetings. Before the interview,
participants received information about the research’s purpose, their rights, and the voluntary
nature of their participation. A semi-structured interview approach guided the conversation, with

43
20 open-ended questions (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Patton, 2002). Each interview was recorded
and transcribed for analysis, maintaining confidentiality and anonymity.
Data Analysis
The data analysis for this mixed-methods research study involved a concurrent
triangulation strategy, which entails collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data
simultaneously (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). This approach allowed for integrating both
datasets, providing a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between psychological
safety, leader-member exchange, and employee performance.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive
statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequencies, provided an overview of the
data’s general tendencies (Field, 2013). Inferential statistics, consisting of chi-squared and
ANOVA tests, were used to investigate the relationships between psychological safety, leadermember exchange, and organizational performance (Pallant, 2013).
Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data collected from interviews was analyzed using thematic analysis, a widely
used method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within qualitative data (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). This approach involved a six-phase process: familiarizing oneself with the data,
generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes,
and producing the report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The researcher used Atlas.ti software to assist
in organizing and managing the qualitative data (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013).

44
Data Integration
A side-by-side comparison aligned the qualitative and quantitative data, examining the
results obtained from both datasets (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). This process involved
comparing the quantitative statistical findings with the qualitative themes that emerged from the
interviews to identify areas of convergence, divergence, or complementarity (O’Cathain et al.,
2010). This integrative approach provided a more comprehensive understanding of the
relationships between psychological safety, leader-member exchange, and employee
performance, addressing potential limitations and offering insights that may not have been
apparent if only one method had been employed (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Fetters et al.,
2013).
Validity and Reliability
Several strategies were implemented to address the concerns of validity and reliability of
this mixed-methods study. Firstly, using established measurement tools, such as Edmondson’s
PSS and the LMX-7 scale, ensures the accurate measurement of the constructs under
investigation (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Secondly, incorporating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods
allowed for triangulation. Examining the research problem from different angles achieved a more
comprehensive understanding, enhancing the credibility of the study’s findings (Luthans et al.,
2015).
Furthermore, member checking is implemented during the qualitative interviews,
allowing participants to review and confirm the accuracy of the data collected. This process
helps ensure the qualitative findings’ trustworthiness and credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).

45
Ethics
In this mixed-methods research, the investigator took several measures to ensure the
ethical conduct of the investigation. All participants were provided informed consent and
received information about the research purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and
their rights before their involvement in the study (Glesne, 2011). To maintain confidentiality and
protect participants’ privacy (Glesne, 2011), the collected data had any identifying information
removed, and all data was securely stored. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary,
allowing participants the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any negative
consequences (Glesne, 2011). After completing the survey or interview, participants were
debriefed and allowed to ask questions about the study, ensuring their complete understanding of
the research and its implications (Sieber, 1992).
The study’s research design, instruments, and procedures were submitted for ethical
review and approval by the appropriate institutional review board (IRB) before data collection
began, confirming adherence to established ethical guidelines and standards (Sieber, 1992). The
researchers also engaged in reflexivity throughout the study, remaining aware of their beliefs,
biases, and assumptions and how these may influence the research process and findings
(Creswell & Miller, 2000).
Summary
This chapter outlined the mixed-methods research design and methodology employed in
the study, including the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis procedures. The mixed-methods approach enabled a comprehensive examination of the
relationships between LMX, PSS, and leadership practices while also capturing the experiences
and perspectives of leaders. The subsequent chapters will present the data analysis findings,

46
discuss their implications, and offer recommendations for organizations seeking to foster
psychological safety among leaders and their teams.

47
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents the empirical findings from a comprehensive mixed-methods
investigation into the constructs of psychological safety (PS) and leader-member exchange
(LMX) within organizational leadership. The quantitative research engaged with 311 leaders
across a variety of industries, each operating within large-scale organizations, to quantitatively
assess the dynamics of leader-member interactions and their influence on psychological safety.
Complementing this, qualitative insights from 20 in-depth interviews with senior leaders were
used to contextualize and deepen the understanding of these relationships.
The survey targeted leaders within large organizations with 500+ employees. Participant
recruitment was from my and the dissertation committee’s professional LinkedIn network,
ensuring a sample reflective of as wide a range of demographics as possible. The quantitative
study (Appendix A) utilized Qualtrics to capture anonymous survey data consisting of
Edmondson’s PSS, Graen and Uhl-Bien’s leader-member exchange (LMX), and three new
questions exploring how organizations emphasize PS. The qualitative study (Appendix B)
employed semi-structured interviews to ascertain insight into leaders’ personal experiences and
perceptions regarding PS and LMX.
The findings are structured into two main sections. Initially, the chapter delves into the
quantitative data analysis, exploring the relationship between the quality of LMX and the levels
of perceived psychological safety among team members. This includes a statistical examination
of the impact of different leadership behaviors, such as openness, supportiveness, and
trustworthiness, on the employees’ psychological safety. Specific attention is given to how these
behaviors correlate with higher levels of psychological safety, suggesting mechanisms through
which leaders can foster a more inclusive and secure organizational climate.

48
Following the quantitative analysis, the chapter transitions to a qualitative examination of
how leaders perceive and enact practices contributing to psychological safety. This section draws
from thematic analyses of interview data, presenting narratives that illustrate how leaders
integrate psychological safety into their daily interactions and decision-making processes. It
highlights specific strategies leaders employ to enhance psychological safety, such as facilitating
open communication, actively engaging with team members’ concerns, and promoting an
inclusive culture that respects diverse perspectives.
The qualitative findings also uncover leaders’ challenges and barriers to sustaining
psychological safety. These include organizational resistance, cultural norms stifling open
dialogue, and leaders’ challenges in balancing authority with approachability. The insights
gathered here are critical, as they complement the quantitative data and provide a deeper, more
nuanced understanding of the practical complexities involved in enhancing psychological safety.
This chapter synthesizes both strands of data to provide a holistic view of the factors that
influence psychological safety within leadership contexts. The analysis here sets the stage for a
detailed discussion in Chapter Five, where these findings will be interpreted through
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1979) and previous studies in the field. This approach
ensures that the conclusions are grounded in empirical data and resonate with broader theoretical
and practical implications in organizational psychology and leadership studies.
Quantitative Results
The study recorded a total of 387 survey responses. It requested respondents to furnish
demographic details, encompassing age, gender, organizational role, seniority level, tenure in the
current position, number of direct reports, organizational size, industry sector, and highest
educational attainment. To assess the constructs of psychological safety (PS) and leader-member

49
exchange (LMX), the survey utilized Edmondson’s PS measurement tool and the LMX-7 scale,
respectively. Three original organizationally focused questions were added to the existing
protocols to understand better how organizational behavior impacts the PSS and LMX
experience. The study recorded 387 survey responses but only scored and included the 311 fully
completed responses in this data set.
The study included diverse participants with varying ages, gender representation,
functional roles, seniority levels, educational backgrounds, tenure, team management
responsibilities, and organization sizes and industries. Most participants were between 35 and 54,
with a balanced gender distribution. The largest population came from the sales and marketing
functions, and there was a reasonably even distribution among the middle and upper echelons of
organizational leadership. A significant portion of the respondents held advanced degrees, and
the tenure in current roles ranged broadly. The organizations represented predominantly had
more than 500 employees, but the survey also captured participants from organizations with
fewer than 500 employees, providing an interesting contrast in the data. The industry sectors of
the respondents encompassed a wide array (Table 1).
It is important to note that while the demographic data primarily represented a diverse
leadership group, there were some skewed elements. For instance, despite the representation of
participants from 20 unique industry classifications, a more significant proportion of respondents
came from specific white-collar industry sectors (professional services, finance, IT, education,
and healthcare), which might influence the generalizability of the findings across all industries.
Additionally, the higher representation of respondents with advanced degrees could reflect a bias
towards more educated leaders, potentially skewing perspectives on organizational dynamics.

50
Following the demographic section, participants responded to items designed to measure
their perceptions of PS and LMX within their organizations. The survey included Likert-scale
items and open-ended questions to capture a broad range of data.
LMX-7
In this section of Chapter 4, I explore the LMX-7 component of the quantitative survey,
which is crucial in understanding the nuances of leader-member relationships among the
participants. These questions directly relate to Research Question 1: How do leaders perceive
relationships contributing to developing and maintaining PS in leaders and their teams?
Question 10 (I know where I stand with my leader. ... I usually know how satisfied my
leader is with what I do) revealed a majority of people experience positive leader-member
relationships. The majority indicated positive leader-member relationships: 36.7% said “fairly
often,” and 25.1% chose “very often.” However, a noticeable portion expressed less clarity,
indicating room for improvement in communication and understanding within some teams.
18.3% answered “sometimes,” showing a less consistent understanding. The remaining
responses (occasionally = 12.2% and rarely = 7.7%) suggest participants experience less clarity
and less frequent positive affirmations in their leader-member dynamics.
Question 11 (My leader understands my job problems and needs) indicated a varied
perception of empathy and support from leaders. 27.3% of respondents felt their leaders
understand “a fair amount,” 25.1% “quite a bit,” and 21.2% believe their leaders understand “a
great deal.” However, 20.3% only feel their leaders understand “a little,” and 6.1% feel “not a
bit” understood, indicating areas where leader understanding could improve.
Question 12 asked participants to respond to the statement: My leader recognizes my
potential. The responses also showed varied perceptions of leader recognition. A significant

51
portion, 38.6%, felt their leaders mostly recognized their potential. An additional 21.2% felt fully
recognized, indicating a solid level of acknowledgment. A smaller group, comprising 19.9%, felt
only moderately recognized, 13.8% felt recognized a little, and 6.4% felt not recognized. This
data suggests a range of experiences regarding how well leaders identify and appreciate their
team members’ potential.
Question 13 (Regardless of how much formal authority my leader has built into his or her
position, what are the chances that he or she would use his or her power to help me solve
problems in my work?) asked about leaders’ intervention in problem-solving. Responses varied,
with a majority expressing confidence in their leaders’ willingness to assist, while others
perceived only a moderate or low likelihood of such support. A combined 63.7% of respondents
believe the chances are “high” or “very high” that their leaders would use their power to help,
and 22.8% rated this likelihood as “moderate.” On the lower end, 10.9% perceive only a “small”
chance, and a minimal 2.6% think there is “none.” This spread of responses highlights differing
perceptions of leaders’ willingness to use their authority for problem-solving support.
This theme continued in Question 14 (Again, regardless of the amount of formal
authority my leader has, what are the chances that he or she would ‘bail me out’ at his or her own
expense?) The highest percentage rated the likelihood as “moderate” in 28% of the responses.
However, 23.2% considered it “small,” and 16.7% thought there was “none.” More positively,
22.5% rated the likelihood as “high” and 9.6% as “very high.” This spread indicates differing
perceptions of leaders’ willingness to intervene personally on behalf of team members.
Question 15 (I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his
or her decisions if he or she were not present to do so?) indicated the majority, 63.6%, agreed
(39.5%) or strongly agreed (24.1%) they would defend their leader’s decisions, indicating a high

52
level of confidence in leadership. However, 13.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 23.2%
remained neutral, suggesting some uncertainty about their leaders’ decision-making. This spread
reflects varying degrees of trust and confidence in leaders among the respondents.
Lastly, Question 16 (How would you characterize your working relationship with your
leader?) revealed diverging perceptions among the 311 respondents. While many reported
positive dynamics, 37.9% described their relationship as “better than average” and 22.2% as
“extremely effective,” a segment of respondents indicated less effective relationships, pointing to
varied experiences in leader-member interactions. 3.5% rated their relationship as “extremely
ineffective,” and 10.6% as “worse than average,” suggesting areas of concern. A quarter of the
participants (25.7%) viewed their working relationship as “average,” reflecting a neutral stance.
The LMX-7 survey results from 311 participants show a median score of 26.0 and a mean
score of 24.50, with a confidence interval of 23.76 to 25.24 and a standard deviation of 6.63. The
scores ranged from a minimum of 9.0 to a maximum of 35.0. The percentile table indicates a
distribution across different levels of LMX, with the majority falling in the “very high” (28.3%)
and “high” (26.4%) categories. This suggests that a significant number of respondents perceive a
strong leader-member relationship. The lower end, “very low,” constituted 8.7%, indicating a
smaller group with less favorable perceptions of their LMX.
Edmondson’s Psychological Safety Scale
In exploring the PSS within teams, we delve into key questions illuminating various
aspects of team dynamics and leader-member relationships. Starting with error tolerance,
Question 17 (If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.) showed a mixed
response. 17.7% agreed a little bit, and 9.3% agreed that mistakes are often held against them.
Conversely, a significant 31.8% disagreed, and 10.9% strongly disagreed, indicating a more

53
forgiving team environment. These responses highlight varied team cultures regarding mistakes
and error handling in the workplace.
Question 18 (Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.)
revealed that 58.6% either agreed (36.7%) or strongly agreed (21.9%), suggesting an open
environment for discussing challenges within their teams. However, a notable 16.4% only
somewhat agreed, indicating some reservations. Those who disagreed (9.0%) or strongly
disagreed (5.5%) represent a segment where open communication might be less prevalent,
suggesting areas for potential improvement in team dynamics and openness.
Question 19 (People on this team sometimes reject others for being different.) revealed
that in this study, 27.3% disagreed and 23.8% strongly disagreed, indicating a prevalent
acceptance of diversity within many teams. However, 14.1% somewhat agreed, 9.3% agreed, and
7.1% strongly agreed with the statement, suggesting exclusion or lack of acceptance in some
teams. This highlights a mix of experiences regarding inclusivity and diversity in team dynamics.
Question 20 addressed risk-taking attitudes (Is it safe to take a risk on this team?) with
varying levels of comfort with risk-taking. 10.0% of participants strongly agreed it was safe, and
33.1% agreed. However, 21.5% only somewhat agreed, and a combined 22.7% (disagreed or
strongly disagreed), indicating some teams may not fully support risk-taking. This range in
responses highlights differing team cultures regarding innovation and risk.
When asking for help, Question 21 (It is difficult to ask other members of this team for
help?) showed 33.1% of participants disagreed, and 25.7% strongly disagreed, indicating a
comfortable environment for seeking help in most teams. However, 13.2% (agree or strongly
agree) expressed difficulty asking for help, suggesting team collaboration and support
challenges.

54
Regarding undermining efforts, Question 22 (No one on this team would deliberately act
in a way that undermines my efforts.) elicited responses indicating varied perceptions of
teamwork and support. 43.4% (17.7% strongly agree and 25.7% agree) believe team members do
not undermine their efforts. A significant 39.8% (17.0% disagree and 9.6% strongly disagree)
feel the opposite, suggesting issues with trust and collaboration within some teams. This split in
responses highlights differing experiences and levels of confidence in team dynamics.
Question 23 (Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued
and utilized.) showed that most participants perceived positive recognition of their abilities.
23.5% strongly agreed, and 33.4% agreed that their unique skills and talents are valued.
However, 17.0% only somewhat agreed, while 10.3% disagreed, and 5.5% strongly disagreed,
indicating that not all team members feel their contributions are adequately recognized or
utilized. These findings suggest variability in how different teams value individual skills and
talents.
The overall PSS Index for the 311 participants showed a median score of 37.0 and a
mean of 33.78, with a standard deviation of 9.90. Scores ranged from a minimum of 7.0 to a
maximum of 49.0. The percentile table indicates a broad distribution of scores, with the lower
quartile at 28, the median at 37, and the upper quartile at 41. This distribution reveals varied
perceptions regarding the PSS index, with a significant number of scores leaning toward the
higher end of the scale.
The lowest-scoring question is Question 17 (If you make a mistake on this team, it is
often held against you.) Many respondents agreed to some degree that mistakes are held against
them (8.4% strongly agree, 9.3% agree, and 17.7% agree a little bit). This response indicates a

55
potential error tolerance and PS issue in some teams, as many participants feel that mistakes
might lead to negative consequences.
The question with the second-lowest scores among those provided in Question 19 (People
on this team sometimes reject others for being different) had a notable number of participants
agreeing to varying degrees that there is a lack of acceptance for differences within their teams
(7.1% strongly agree, 9.3% agree, and 14.1% agree a little bit). This response suggests issues
with inclusivity and acceptance in some team environments.
Question 20 (It is safe to take a risk on this team?) had the third-lowest score and elicited
mixed feelings about risk-taking. While some participants feel secure in taking risks, with 10.0%
strongly agreeing and 33.1% agreeing, a considerable segment is hesitant, as reflected by the
21.5% who only somewhat agree. The disagreement or strong disagreement of 22.7% of
respondents indicates that a significant number of teams do not fully embrace risk-taking,
pointing to a potential area for development in cultivating a culture of innovation and risk
tolerance. These three questions relate broadly to team behavior and less to leader behavior.
Organizational Questions
This research’s core dependent variable questions examine how participants perceive
their organizations’ efforts in three key areas: training in emotional and PS, concern for PS, and
fostering positive leader/subordinate relationships, are the final three questions.
For Question 24 (My organization has provided me with training about emotional and
psychological safety.) participants offered mixed responses. A minority of 4.8% strongly agreed,
while 19.6% agreed, and 13.2% agreed a little bit, indicating that some organizations are taking
steps to educate their employees. However, a notable 50.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed with
the statement, while 4.2% disagreed a little bit. These figures highlight a perceived lack of PS

56
training in many organizations. The remaining participants, 7.7%, who neither agreed nor
disagreed, reflect uncertainty or lack of awareness about such training. These results suggest that
while some organizations proactively provide training focused on PS, a considerable proportion
currently do not prioritize it.
Question 25 (In general, my organization cares about how psychologically safe I feel in
my role.) yielded a spectrum of views. 7.1% of participants strongly agreed, 21.5% agreed, and
16.7% agreed a little bit that their organization cares about PS, totaling 45.3% leaning towards
agreement. However, 31.5% (17.7% disagree, 17.4% strongly disagree, and 6.4% disagree a little
bit) indicated disagreement. With 13.2% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, there is a notable
disregard or ambivalence for PS in these participants’ organizations. While almost half of the
respondents feel some level of care from their organizations, many do not feel this care or
believe their organizations are ambivalent about it.
Question 26 (My organization makes an effort to foster positive leader/subordinate
relationships.) skewed positively, with 13.5% strongly agreed, 28.9% agreed, and 18% agreed on
a little bit, cumulatively showing 60.4% leaning towards agreement. However, 29.3% expressed
disagreement (11.3% disagreed, 10% strongly disagreed, and 8% disagreed a little bit), reflecting
a notable segment of dissatisfaction. Additionally, 10.3% remained neutral. While a majority
perceive efforts to foster positive relationships, a significant proportion do not perceive these
efforts or are ambivalent about their organization’s commitment to such relationships.
In conclusion, the descriptive statistics from this study unveil a complex landscape of
organizational dynamics regarding psychological safety. Although efforts exist to foster positive
environments and prioritize PS, a significant portion of participants perceive a shortfall in

57
commitment to these areas. This dichotomy underscores the need for a deeper understanding and
more concerted efforts to promote PS within organizational structures.
Inferential Statistics
To understand the correlational relationships among questions in this quantitative study,
each question was tabulated against others using appropriate Chi-Squared or ANOVA tests. The
participants’ demographic and industry information responses demonstrated very little statistical
significance. There was a slight degree of statistical significance in the correlation between
education and the questions related to Gran and Uhl-Bien’s LMX questions. The seniority and
ages of the respondents are likely more attributable to this result than any effect that should be
recognized.
Graen and Uhl-Bien’s LMX questions highly correlated with each other. The same was
true for the questions from Edmondson’s PS protocol. The correlation strength within these two
protocols is also unsurprising, given these measurement tools’ high internal validity and wide
previous acceptance.
LMX-7 Relationship With PSS
What was interesting, and where further investigation is needed, is the high degree of
statistical significance in the correlation between the composite scores for Edmondson’s PSS and
Graen and Uhl-Bien’s LMX-7 protocol. The findings support the hypothesis that a higher quality
of LMX is associated with higher levels of perceived PS. The significant p value and large effect
size (Cohen’s F) highlight the robustness of this relationship. The pairwise tests, particularly the
substantial effect sizes (Cohen’s d) between groups, reinforce the importance of nurturing highquality leader-member relationships to foster an environment of PS.

58
The analysis utilized ANOVA to examine the differences between groups categorized by
their LMX-7 scores (very high, high, moderate, low, very low) with their PSS Index scores. The
ANOVA results indicate a p value of < .001, suggesting a strong statistically significant
relationship between LMX-7 scores and the PSS Index. The effect size, measured by Cohen’s F,
is 0.942, indicating a large effect size according to Cohen’s conventions. This effect size
suggests that the quality of LMX correlates strongly with employees’ perceptions of PS.
Pairwise comparisons further compare the relationship between different levels of LMX7 and PSS Index scores. For instance, the difference in averages between the very high and very
low LMX-7 groups is 21.14, with a p value < 0.001 and a Cohen’s d effect size of 3.16,
underscoring a significant difference in perceived PS between these groups. The descriptive
statistics provide insight into the distribution of PSS Index scores across LMX-7 categories.
Employees with very high LMX-7 scores reported the highest average PSS Index (40.55), while
those with very low LMX-7 scores reported the lowest average PSS Index (19.41). The standard
deviation and confidence intervals indicate variability within groups, with lower LMX-7 scores
associated with more significant variability in PSS Index scores.
The literature has not previously documented this strong correlation. These findings have
potentially profound implications for organizational leadership and development. Future research
should explore the mechanisms through which LMX influences PS and identify strategies for
leaders to enhance this aspect of their organizational culture. Chapter five will address the
implications of the correlation between LMX-7 and PS, including suggestions for future
research.

59
Research Questions Addressed
This section will focus most closely on the correlations between the individual questions
in the two established protocols, how they correlate with the three unique questions posed by this
research, and how they address the research questions presented in the study.
Research Question 1: “How Do Leaders Perceive Relationships Contributing to Developing
and Maintaining PS in Leaders and Their Teams?”
RQ1 is closely tied to the seven questions from Graen and Uhl-Bien’s LMX-7 protocol.
These questions specifically explore the dynamics of the relationship between leaders and their
team members in the context of PS. There were five questions with notably high statistical
significance across the possible interactions.
For the questions tied to the LMX-7 protocol, Question 13, about leaders’ willingness to
use their power to aid employees, and Question 16, focused on the working relationship with the
participant’s leader, indicated five strongly statistically significant correlations and two
moderately significant correlations against the PSS. The study revealed an extremely high level
of statistical significance (p value < .001) across all factors.
In examining the results from Question 13, there was a strong correlation (effect size:
0.303) between leaders’ willingness to use their authority to help employees and the likelihood
of mistakes being held against team members, suggesting that leaders willing to use their social
capital tend to foster a culture where mistakes are not heavily penalized. Similarly, a strong
correlation was observed (effect size: 0.31) between leaders’ support in problem-solving and the
team’s ability to raise problems and tough issues, indicating that supportive leaders encourage
open communication of challenges. The study also found a medium correlation (effect size: 0.28)
between leaders’ use of authority and the rejection of team members for being different,

60
implying that effective use of authority can reduce feelings of rejection due to differences. Still,
there may be other factors at play. A high correlation (effect size: 0.38) was noted between
perceived leader support and the team’s feeling of safety in taking risks, highlighting that
supportive leaders encourage risk-taking and innovation.
Additionally, the significant effect size (0.30) concerning the difficulty in asking for help
indicates that leaders’ positive use of authority can facilitate a supportive environment for
seeking assistance. The relationship between leaders’ use of authority and the occurrence of team
members undermining each other’s efforts also showed a significant correlation (Effect Size:
0.25), suggesting that effective leadership can diminish negative behaviors. Lastly, the research
found a strong correlation (effect size: 0.35) between leaders’ use of authority to leverage team
skills and participants’ feelings that their unique skills and talents are valued, underscoring the
importance of leaders recognizing and utilizing individual talents to enhance team effectiveness
and morale. Overall, these findings highlight the critical role of leadership in shaping team
dynamics and PS, with significant correlations and large effect sizes in most factors emphasizing
the impact of how leaders use their authority.
Question 16 also showed significant results in examining the strength of the respondents’
relationship with their leader compared to Edmondson’s PSS protocol. The data suggests a
connection between solid leadership relations and PS.
The question concerning whether mistakes are held against team members showed a
significant effect size (Cramér’s V = 0.34) with Question 16. This result suggests that when
leaders perceive strained or ineffective relationships with their managers, mistakes will likely be
held against team members, fostering a culture of fear and blame rather than learning and
improvement.

61
The ability to bring up problems and challenging issues, with an effect size of 0.31,
highlighted that positive perceptions increase with better leadership relationship quality. This
underscores the importance of leadership connection and the ability to raise concerns without
fear of retribution.
Rejecting team members for being different had a medium effect size of 0.27, suggesting
that stronger leadership connections, characterized as better than average or extremely effective,
correlate with higher acceptance and lower discrimination, fostering a diverse and inclusive team
environment.
The safety of taking risks within the team, which had the most significant effect size of
0.37, emphasized the role of leadership in creating environments where innovation and risktaking are supported. This impact is particularly evident in teams with extremely strong
leadership connections, where team members feel safe to experiment and fail as part of the
learning process.
Difficulty in asking for help, with an effect size of 0.24, revealed a medium impact,
indicating that leadership relationship quality significantly affects the ease with which team
members perceive they can seek assistance. This factor is crucial for collaborative problemsolving and learning, especially in teams with better-than-average or highly effective leadership.
Question 22, which explored whether efforts are undermined by others within the team,
showed an effect size of 0.30. It highlighted the negative impact of poor leadership connections
on team cohesion and support. Conversely, better-than-average and highly effective leadership
connections are associated with recognizing and supporting members’ efforts.
Lastly, the valuation and utilization of unique skills and talents, with an effect size of
0.35, underscored the importance of leadership in recognizing and leveraging the diverse

62
capabilities of team members. This correlation is particularly pronounced in teams with betterthan-average or highly effective leaders, where individuals feel most valued and utilized.
Looking at the PSS questions and their correlation to the LMX-7, there is a pattern of
strong statistical significance (p value < .001) for questions that aligned leader behavior
compared to team behavior. Study participants indicated that six intersecting questions were
significantly significant on Question 20 (It is safe to take a risk on this team.) Question 17 (If
you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.) and Question 23 (Working with
members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized.) had strongly
significant correlations against all 7 PSS questions.
Question 20 revealed compelling insights into the relationship between team members’
perception of safety in risk-taking and various aspects of leadership and team dynamics. The first
question, the relationship with a leader’s satisfaction, showed a significant effect size (Cramér’s
V = 0.30). This correlation indicates a pronounced trend where individuals who strongly believe
it is safe to take risks also tend to clearly understand their standing with their leader and
satisfaction with the participant’s work. Conversely, there is a significant drop in this perception
among those less confident about their leader’s satisfaction.
Similarly, their perceptions of how well their leader understands their job problems and
needs was another factor, with a medium to large effect size (Cramér’s V = 0.28). A strong
correlation was observed between team members feeling safe to take risks and their perception
that their leaders understand their job challenges. This correlation diminishes notably among
those who perceive a lower level of understanding from their leaders.
The recognition of potential by leaders (Cramér’s V = 0.36) also emerged as a significant
factor. There was a clear association between feeling safe to take risks and the extent to which

63
team members felt their potential was recognized. The sense of safety in taking risks decreased
as the perceived recognition of potential by the leader declined.
Leader willingness to help respondents solve problems (Cramér’s V = 0.38) showed a
very high correlation with the perception of safety in taking risks. The perception of safety
significantly declined when participants perceived leaders as less likely to use their power to
assist. Similarly, a strong link existed between leaders’ willingness to “bail out” team members
(Cramér’s V = 0.33) and the perception of risk-taking safety. This belief was markedly lower
among those who felt their leaders were less willing to make personal sacrifices.
Confidence in a leader’s decisions (Cramér’s V = 0.35) correlated strongly with a sense
of safety in taking risks. Lack of confidence correlated with a decreased perception of risk safety.
Lastly, the characterization of respondents’ working relationship with their leaders (Cramér’s V
= 0.37) correlated highly with feeling safe to take risks. Negative perceptions of this relationship
indicated a substantial decrease in the sense of safety in risk-taking.
Question 17 revealed insights into the relationship between team members’ perceptions
of whether mistakes are held against them and the LMX-7 questions about leadership dynamics.
One of the key findings is the strong association between team members feeling that mistakes are
held against them and their clarity on where they stand with their leader, with a large effect size
of 0.33. Respondents felt mistakes are more likely to be held against them when uncertain of the
leader’s satisfaction with their performance. Similarly, a substantial relationship emerged
between the perception of a punitive approach to mistakes and the belief that leaders do not
adequately understand their job challenges and needs, with an effect size of 0.29. This
relationship could imply a lack of empathetic leadership or insufficient leader-team member
interaction regarding job roles and challenges.

64
The data revealed a robust correlation between team members feeling their mistakes are
held against them and a perception that their leaders do not recognize their full potential, with
one of the most significant effect sizes in the data (0.35). This perception might suggest a culture
that does not view mistakes as learning opportunities, potentially stifling employee growth.
Additionally, participants’ negative perceptions of how mistakes are handled correlated with
lower expectations of leaders using their authority to help solve work-related problems, with an
effect size of 0.30, reflecting a lack of trust in the leader’s willingness to intervene positively.
The highest effect size in this dataset, 0.36, was observed in the relationship with feeling
penalized for mistakes and the expectations of leaders to support or “bail them out” at the
leader’s own expense. This result suggests a perceived need for more supportive leadership in
crises. Negative perceptions of mistake handling are also correlated with a lack of confidence in
defending the leader’s decisions, denoted by an effect size of 0.33, pointing to broader issues of
trust and respect when leader confidence is low. Lastly, the perception of mistakes being held
against team members is strongly associated with a negative characterization of their working
relationship with the leader, indicated by an effect size of 0.35, which might signal negative team
dynamics and poor leader-member relations.
Question 23 explores the correlation between respondents’ perceptions of whether their
unique skills and talents are valued and utilized within their organizational roles. As with
Question 17, there was a consistent pattern of statistical significance across all LMX factors,
underscoring the profound impact of leadership recognition on PS.
The effect size for the correlation between team members feeling their skills are valued
and their assessment of how satisfied their leader is with them is 0.30. This correlation is closely
followed by the effect size of 0.30 for the factor assessing leaders’ understanding of their job

65
problems and needs, suggesting empathy and awareness from leaders influence their sense of
being valued.
The most significant effect size observed is 0.40, related to the leader’s recognition of the
respondent’s potential. It highlights a robust relationship between the valuation of team
members’ skills and leaders’ acknowledgment of their future capabilities, suggesting that
recognizing and valuing unique skills is pivotal for fostering a supportive work environment.
The analysis also reveals a large effect size of 0.35 for the factor examining leaders’
willingness to use their power to solve team members’ problems. This result suggests that
leaders who value their team members’ skills demonstrate greater proactivity in offering support
and assistance. Similarly, the effect size of 0.32 for leaders “bailing out” employees at their own
expense demonstrates the trust and commitment perceived by team members when their skills
are valued, reinforcing the importance of a supportive leadership approach.
Respondents’ confidence in leaders’ decisions, with an effect size of 0.39, further
underscores the strong association between feeling valued for one’s skills and having faith in
leadership’s judgment and decision-making. Lastly, the overall characterization of the working
relationship with the leader, with an effect size of 0.35, indicates that feeling valued by leaders
significantly contributes to an effective and positive working relationship. This feeling
emphasizes the role of mutual respect, recognition, and support in enhancing organizational
dynamics.
The analysis of Research Question 1 underscores a significant correlation between
leadership behaviors and the cultivation and sustenance of PS within teams. The findings reveal
an exceptionally high statistical significance across all examined factors, with a p value < .001,
highlighting a robust connection between leadership practices and team members’ PS.

66
Research Question 2: “What Organizational Practices, Strategies, and Interventions Do
Leaders Perceive As Effective in Fostering PS Among Leaders, and How Do These Practices
Influence Their Ability to Create Psychologically Safe Environments for Their Teams?”
RQ 2 is most closely aligned with the three original questions in this quantitative study.
Question 24 explored the impact of training on emotional and PS within large
organizations and demonstrated different levels of significance between the LMX-7 questions
and those from the PSS. The LMX-7 questions all demonstrated a moderate level of statistically
significant correlation with providing emotional and PS training. In contrast, only four PSS
questions showed statistical significance when correlated with training.
Training on emotional and PS correlates with enhanced clarity in the leader-member
relationship, as evidenced by a p value of < .001 and a medium effect size (Cramér’s V = 0.22).
This effect suggests that PS training may improve mutual understanding and expectations
between leaders and their team members. Similarly, the leader’s comprehension of job problems
and needs was significantly associated with PS training (p < .001, Cramér’s V = 0.22), indicating
that training potentially equips leaders with the empathy and insight necessary to grasp the
challenges faced by their subordinates.
The analysis highlighted a significant relationship between training and the leader’s
recognition of an individual’s potential, with a p value < .001 and an effect size of 0.23. This
finding suggests that training can foster a culture where leaders are more attuned to and
supportive of the growth and development of their team members. The data also revealed that
training influences leaders’ propensity to use their authority to assist team members in solving
work-related problems, as indicated by a p value of < .001 and an effect size of 0.19.

67
The likelihood of leaders “bailing out” team members at their own expense was
significantly related to training (p < .001, Cramér’s V = 0.21), suggesting that such interventions
may encourage leaders to take risks for the benefit of their team members. Confidence in the
leader’s decisions and the characterization of the working relationship with the leader were also
significantly associated with training, with p values of < .001 and effect sizes of 0.20 and 0.22,
respectively. These findings highlight the impact of training on strengthening trust, support, and
mutual respect within leader-member dynamics.
In evaluating the PSS factors, only four showed statistically significant relationships to
emotional and PS training. The perception that mistakes are not held against team members is
significantly related to safety training (p value < .001and Cramér’s V = 0.21). The ability to bring
up problems and challenging issues within the team also significantly correlated to training,
reflecting the role of such interventions in promoting open and honest communication. However,
the study found no significant relationship between training and the acceptance of diversity in the
team, as evidenced by a p value of < .001 and a small effect size (Cramér’s V = 0.13). This small
result suggests that while emotional and PS training is important, it may not directly address or
improve diversity acceptance, pointing to the need for targeted diversity and inclusion initiatives.
The safety to take risks was another area where training showed a significant positive
impact (p < .001, Cramér’s V = 0.21), underscoring the importance of training in creating a
supportive environment that encourages innovation and experimentation. Conversely, the ease of
asking for help from the team did not significantly correlate with training (p < .001, Cramér’s V
= 0.16), indicating that other factors may influence this aspect of team dynamics.
Additionally, the perception that colleagues do not undermine team efforts showed a
marginal relationship with training (p < .001, Cramér’s V = 0.16), suggesting that while training

68
may contribute to a positive team environment, it may not suffice to eliminate competitive or
undermining behaviors. Finally, the valuing and utilization of unique skills and talents within the
team were significantly correlated with training (p < .001, Cramér’s V = 0.20), highlighting the
effectiveness of such interventions in recognizing and leveraging the diverse capabilities of team
members.
The questions associated with the PSS that correlated significantly with an organization’s
decision to offer training on emotional and PS are those noted previously that overlap with leader
behavior and the tone leaders set versus the behavior and attitudes of the broader team members.
While training significantly enhances communication, mutual support, and the recognition of
individual contributions, it appears less effective in addressing diversity acceptance and the ease
of seeking help. These insights suggest that while training on emotional and PS may form a
foundation for fostering a positive organizational culture, additional targeted strategies may be
necessary to address the full spectrum of workplace dynamics and challenges related to PS.
Question 25, focusing on participants’ belief that the organization cares about their PS,
showed statistically significant correlations with all 14 questions in the LMX-7 and PSS
protocols, with each factor demonstrating a p value of < .001. The effect size, however, varied,
with four of the LMX-7 questions having large Cramer’s V scores, while only two of the PSS
questions met that standard.
The LMX-7 begins with the clarity of employees’ standings with their leaders, associated
with a medium effect size of 0.27. It suggests that transparent and predictable LMX relationships
are necessary to establish an environment supporting employees’ belief that their organization
cares about a psychologically safe environment. Leaders’ understanding of job problems and

69
needs also significantly correlates with a belief the organization fosters PS, with an effect size of
0.27, suggesting the importance of empathy and insight in leadership roles.
Recognition of an individual’s potential by their leader is highlighted by a large effect
size of 0.30, emphasizing the role of leadership in fostering an environment that supports PS.
The effect size of 0.29 for leaders’ willingness to use authority to solve problems further
supports the notion that proactive leadership correlates with organizational support for PS.
The factor concerning leaders’ willingness to “bail out” employees at their own expense
has an effect size of 0.27, indicating that leaders’ readiness to take personal risks benefits the
team’s sense of security. Trust and confidence in leaders, with an effect size of 0.30, and the
positive characterization of the working relationship with the leader, with an effect size of 0.30,
significantly contribute to the perception of the organization’s commitment to PS.
In the PSS protocol, the tolerance for mistakes within a team is characterized by an effect
size of 0.27, highlighting the significance of a forgiving culture in organizations where PS is
valued. The ability to discuss problems and tough issues, with an effect size of 0.25, also points
to the value of open communication channels for a safe work environment.
The acceptance of differences, with a medium effect size of 0.24, suggests that
organizations that value PS cultivate a culture of inclusivity. The encouragement of risk-taking,
with a large effect size of 0.30, illustrates the importance of a supportive atmosphere in
promoting innovation.
The ease of seeking help within the team, with an effect size of 0.26, and the assurance
that one’s efforts will not be undermined by colleagues, with an effect size of 0.25, emphasize
the importance of collaborative and supportive team dynamics. Finally, the appreciation and

70
utilization of unique skills and talents, with the most significant effect size of 0.32, indicates the
value of recognizing individual contributions in enhancing PS.
Question 26, regarding the organization’s focus on leader/subordinate relationships,
scored strongly significant correlations utilizing ANOVA to examine the relationship with all 14
LMX-7 and PSS questions, with each factor showing a highly significant p value of < .001. This
uniformity in statistical significance underscores the robustness of the relationships between
organizational efforts to foster positive leader/subordinate dynamics and the perceptions and
experiences of team members across multiple dimensions of leadership and PS.
The first LMX factor, which assesses clarity on where one stands with their leader,
revealed a significant Cohen’s F value of 0.55, suggesting that understanding one’s standing
with one’s leader correlates strongly with whether participants felt their organization works to
foster positive leader/subordinate relationships. Similarly, the second factor, concerning a
leader’s understanding of job problems and needs, showed a Cohen’s F value of 0.60. This
significant effect size highlights the critical importance of a leader’s empathy and comprehension
of subordinates’ challenges in perceptions of fostering positive relationships.
The third factor, leader recognition of potential, demonstrated an even larger effect size
with a Cohen’s F of 0.7. This large effect size emphasizes the significant impact that a leader’s
acknowledgment and encouragement of potential have on the leader/subordinate relationship.
Regarding a leader’s use of power to assist subordinates, the fourth factor showed a Cohen’s F of
0.63, indicating a large effect size and underscoring the value of supportive leadership behaviors
in positive leader/subordinate relationship building.
The fifth factor, a leader’s willingness to “bail out” subordinates, presented a Cohen’s F
of 0.60. This significant effect size signifies the importance of sacrifice and support from leaders

71
in cultivating trust and positive perceptions among subordinates. Confidence in a leader’s
decisions, the sixth factor, had a considerable effect size (Cohen’s F of 0.73). This result reflects
the crucial role of trust and confidence in the leader’s judgment for a positive leader/subordinate
relationship.
Lastly, the seventh LMX-7 factor, characterizing the working relationship with one’s
leader, had a Cohen’s F of 0.68. This significant effect size indicates the impact of overall
relationship quality on perceptions of organizational commitment to leader/subordinate
relationships.
Turning to the PSS, the first factor concerning the repercussions of making mistakes had
a Cohen’s F of 0.69. This significant effect size points to the negative impact of a non-forgiving
culture on PS. The ability to bring up problems, the second PSS factor, showed a Cohen’s F of
0.66, highlighting the importance of open communication for team PS with a large effect size.
The third factor, rejection for being different, had a Cohen’s F of 0.44, indicating a
moderate to large effect size and suggesting that inclusivity plays a significant but less impactful
role than other factors. Safety in risk-taking, the fourth factor, with a very large Cohen’s F of
0.77, underscores the critical importance of risk tolerance in team dynamics.
The fifth factor, difficulty in asking for help, presented a Cohen’s F of 0.50, showing a
moderate to large effect size and highlighting the need for supportive environments. The sixth
factor, undermining team members’ efforts, had a Cohen’s F of 0.51, emphasizing the
detrimental effect of lack of mutual support as it correlates to the organizational level of
commitment to PS and leader/subordinate relationships.

72
Valuing and utilizing unique skills and talents, the seventh PSS factor showed a very
large effect size with a Cohen’s F of 0.84. This underscores the impact of feeling valued on team
members’ perceptions of organizational commitment to leader/subordinate relationships.
This comprehensive analysis reveals the multifaceted nature of leader/subordinate
relationships and team PS, highlighting the significant influence of leadership behaviors, team
dynamics, and organizational culture on these critical aspects of workplace functioning. As with
prior examples, the effect size of factors that relate more specifically to leadership behaviors is
more significant than those attributed to team members’ interactions.
Research Question 3: “How Do Organizations Foster PS in Their Leaders?”
RQ3 is most closely aligned with the seven questions from Edmondson’s PSS. The seven
PSS questions addressed above have a history of strong internal validity. All correlated
statistically significantly, with 16 of 21 instances showing a high degree of internal statistical
significance.
The intersection of Edmondson’s PSS questions correlated with the LMX-7 in Research
Question 1 above showed varied levels of statistical significance. The questions that are aligned
more specifically with team behavior rather than leader behavior demonstrated a lower degree of
statistical significance overall. Question 18, the ability to bring up problems, correlated strongly
with only 3 of the LMX-7 questions. Question 21, difficulty in asking for help, and Question 22,
focusing on peer sabotage, were limited to only one strongly correlated relationship each. These
correlations were also covered in Research Question 1 in the discussion of Questions 13 and 16.
Question 19, the question least tied to leadership factors and whether people are rejected for
being different, was not strongly correlated with any LMX-7 questions.

73
As discussed in the detailed analysis for Research Question 2 above, Questions 24, 25,
and 26 also indicate how organizations strive to improve leaders’ PS. There is also a powerful
interrelated correlation between each of these questions. The relationship between Question 24,
the presence of PS training, and Question 25, the respondents’ belief in the organization caring
about their PS, is statistically significant, with a Chi-square test yielding a p value of < .001. The
effect size, measured by Cramér’s V, is large (0.41), indicating a substantial relationship between
these variables. A key observation is that most respondents who strongly agree with receiving
training also perceive a high level of organizational care for their PS, suggesting that training
initiatives may play a role in PS perceptions.
The analysis exploring the correlation between Question 24, the presence of training, and
Question 26, the organization focus on positive leader/subordinate relationships, also
demonstrates a statistically significant relationship, with an ANOVA yielding a p value of < .001
and an effect size (Cohen’s F) of 0.54. This connection between PS training and positive
leader/subordinate relationships suggests that training on emotional and PS may be significantly
related to organizations’ efforts to foster positive leader/subordinate relationships. Notably,
respondents who strongly agree with receiving relevant training tend to rate their organization’s
efforts to promote positive relationships, highlighting the potential impact of PS training on
improving leader/subordinate dynamics.
The statistical relationship between Question 25, perception of organizational
commitment to PS, and Question 26, fostering positive leader/subordinate relationships, further
underscores the importance of PS in organizational dynamics, with a p value of < .001 and a
Cohen’s F value of 1.10, indicating a very strong effect size. This correlation suggests that
employees’ perceptions of their organization’s care for their PS are strongly associated with the

74
efforts to foster positive leader/subordinate relationships. A critical observation is that
respondents who feel cared for regarding their PS also perceive more efforts towards positive
relationship building between leaders and subordinates, emphasizing the interconnectedness of
these aspects in creating a psychologically safe work environment.
These findings underscore the relationship between organizational training on PS,
perceptions of organizational care, and efforts to foster positive leader/subordinate relationships.
The statistical significance and effect sizes observed suggest that these factors are deeply
interconnected, with training playing a substantial role in shaping perceptions of care and efforts
to improve leader/subordinate dynamics.
All six correlations showed a statistically significant relationship when comparing the
three questions to the composite PSS and LMX-7 scores. Each instance demonstrated a
significance level with a p value < .001. As with other relationships in this study, Question 24,
compared to the composite indexes, showed a moderate effect level, while Question 25 and 26
demonstrated a significant effect value.
The investigation into Question 24 reveals a statistically significant relationship with the
PSS Index and an effect size (Cohen’s F) of 0.35. This moderate effect size suggests that while
training on emotional and PS contributes to the PSS Index, it does so to a lesser extent compared
to other factors. This finding indicates that training alone, although valuable, may not be as
impactful as the broader organizational culture and practices in fostering PS. Similarly, the
analysis of Question 24 with LMX7 demonstrates a very clearly significant relationship and a
medium effect size (Cramér’s V) of 0.24. This relationship underscores the positive impact of
emotional and PS training on LMX, suggesting that such training may enhance the quality of
these relationships, albeit less pronounced than other organizational efforts.

75
The correlation between Question 25 and PSS is notably strong, with a substantial effect
size (Cohen’s F) of 0.74. This effect size, more significant than that observed for Question 24,
indicates that the perception of organizational care profoundly impacts PS more than training
alone. The relationship between Question 25 and LMX7 further emphasizes the critical role of
organizational care, with a large effect size (Cramér’s V) of 0.32. This significant correlation
suggests that the perception of organizational care enhances PS and significantly improves the
quality of LMX, reinforcing the idea that organizational practices that demonstrate care for
employee well-being are fundamental in cultivating positive organizational relationships.
Question 26 exhibits a strong positive correlation with the PSS Index and a large effect
size (Pearson’s R) of 0.65. This robust relationship indicates that efforts to foster positive leadersubordinate relationships are highly effective in enhancing PS, suggesting that the dynamics of
these relationships play a crucial role in creating a psychologically safe environment. Lastly, the
analysis of Question 26 with LMX7 yields a significant effect size (Cohen’s F) of 0.78,
indicating a strongly significant relationship. This finding suggests that organizational efforts to
improve leader-subordinate relationships are directly associated with higher LMX7 scores,
highlighting the influence of such efforts on the quality of LMX.
The analyses collectively underscore the impact of organizational practices on PS and
LMX quality. Notably, the findings suggest that while emotional and PS training is important,
perceptions of organizational care and efforts to foster positive leader-subordinate relationships
profoundly impact PS and the quality of LMX.
Qualitative Findings
The qualitative data stems from semi-structured interviews conducted via Zoom with
senior leaders from various industries. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded for

76
thematic analysis to identify patterns within the data. The thematic analysis followed the six
phases outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), allowing for a rigorous data examination. This
analysis illuminated several key themes consistent with the overarching research questions.
Based on the interviews, most respondents felt that their relationship with their leader
contributed to PS. 85% of the respondents mentioned positive aspects of their relationship with
their leader contributing to their PS independent of how they felt about their company. These
positive aspects included open communication, trust, support, and the leader’s commitment to
creating a safe and inclusive environment. 35% of the respondents indicated a lack of trust
between leadership and employees. These respondents cited instances where communication
issues, inconsistent actions, or perceived insincerity from leadership had eroded trust. Only 45%
of the participants felt that their company actively valued PS and prioritized it. A few indicated
that their organization seemed to value it as a byproduct only of other performance-related
outcomes. It is important to note that the exact percentage may vary depending on how specific
responses are categorized and interpreted. There were also apparent differences between how
several participants felt about their direct leader and “organizational leadership” overall.
Nonetheless, most respondents emphasized the importance of leader-team relationships in
fostering PS.
Participants
Qualitative participants comprise 20 individuals from various industries. Their ages range
from 35 to over 65, with the majority falling between 45 and 54 years old. The participants hold
mostly advanced degrees, including MBA, EdD, MFA, MS, MA, MD, and PhD. Their job
positions range from middle management to C-suite executives and frontline leaders. They have
different numbers of direct reports, ranging from three to 49 people. The study participants

77
represent diverse professionals across various industries, ages, education levels, and job positions
(Table 2).
Research Question 1: “How Do Leaders Perceive Relationships Contributing to Developing
and Maintaining PS in Leaders and Their Teams?”
Theme 1: Trust and Open Communication
The importance of building trust through transparency and open lines of communication
was a recurring theme in all 20 interviews. Leaders highlighted that trust is foundational to PS.
As mentioned in 16 of the 20 interviews, trust in leadership was the most cited factor. One leader
stated, “Trust is the bedrock of team safety; without it, genuine dialogue ceases” (Participant 4).
Another remarked, “Open communication fosters an atmosphere where concerns are not just
heard but valued” (Participant 9). “Transparency builds trust; it is a two-way street” (Participant
13). “My trust in my leader was violated recently, and I do not feel strongly about the
relationship right now” (Participant 10).
Active and transparent communication was also cited in 14 of 20 interviews as a key to
PS. “Encouraging candid conversations is crucial. No one should feel their voice is suppressed”
(Participant 19). Respondents also cited regular communication and feedback. Establishing
routine communication channels where feedback is welcomed and acted upon was seen as vital.
“Our weekly check-ins are not just updates; they are a safe space for any concerns” (Participant
13). Participant 5 shared, “When you know you can speak up without retribution, you are in a
safe zone.” This focus on safe communication illustrates that PS correlates with a team’s
assurance that their voices are heard and valued. Additional emphasis was also placed on
understanding roles and responsibilities. Effective leaders communicate expectations, roles, and
responsibilities, reducing ambiguity and stress among team members. Participant 10 mentioned,

78
“Our leader sets clear expectations, which helps us know what is expected of us and reduces
uncertainty.”
Theme 2: Empathy and Understanding
Fifteen out of the 20 interviews acknowledged the crucial role of empathy and support
from leaders as essential components of PS. Leaders who demonstrated empathy and provided
support during challenging times were highly regarded. Showing genuine concern for
employees’ well-being and work-life balance was cited as an example of this behavior.
Participant 8 mentioned, “Our leader understands when we are facing personal challenges and
supports us by offering flexible work arrangements.”
“Supportive leaders make it easier for employees to take risks and be innovative”
(Participant 1). Participants consistently emphasized the significance of their relationship with
their leaders. “Our CEO is incredibly approachable. He is often seen walking around the office,
chatting with employees, listening to their feedback. It creates a sense of belonging” (Participant
13).
Relationships characterized by mutual support were also cited as critical for PS. Even
leaders who did not feel supported by their leadership expressed a desire to support their teams.
“Support goes both ways. I ensure my team knows I have got their back, and this fosters a sense
of security” (Participant 2). The role of empathy was also highlighted, with 12 participants
noting its significance. For instance, “Understanding the personal and professional challenges of
team members allows leaders to create a supportive environment” (Participant 9). “Empathy is
not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of leadership that cares” (Participant 6).
Patterns also emerged from the interviews highlighting how leadership interactions could
negatively impact PS in the workplace. These patterns reveal challenges and behaviors that can

79
erode trust and create an unsafe environment for employees. These patterns often need to be
included in the best practices noted above.
One recurring theme was the negative impact of leaders who did not encourage open and
honest communication. Nine of the 20 Participants brought up examples of situations when poor
or limited communication created workplace challenges. When leaders were not approachable or
failed to listen to their team members, it produced a sense of fear and reluctance to speak up.
Employees experienced frustration and diminished trust in leadership due to ignored concerns.
“Some leaders here do not really listen. You can tell them about an issue, but it feels like they are
not really interested. It is discouraging because you do not feel heard” (Participant 5).
This problem becomes even more significant when there is an unwillingness to speak up
because of a fear of retaliation. “Trust in leadership is directly related to the perception of PS”
(Participant 2). When employees feel risk in bringing up new ideas or identifying areas of
opportunity, the entire organization suffers. Participant 15 added, “We lost good people because
they did not feel safe reporting issues.” Participant 5 said, “Some employees fear speaking up
due to concerns about retaliation.” Retaliation and retribution examples were raised in 8 out of
the 20 interviews, with many indicating that they had kept quiet on issues rather than risk
retribution.
Micromanagement emerged as a significant issue in some organizations. When leaders
excessively control and scrutinize their employees’ work, it leads to feelings of mistrust and
anxiety. Employees felt their autonomy and expertise needed to be respected, micromanagement
was seen as undermining their confidence and sense of PS. “Our manager is constantly checking
in on our work, even the smallest details. It feels like they do not trust us to do our jobs. It is

80
suffocating” (Participant 11). “Micromanagement stifles our ability to lead effectively”
(Participant 16).
Inconsistency in providing feedback was another concern. When leaders were not clear or
consistent in their feedback, employees were left confused about their performance. This
inconsistency contributed to a lack of confidence and PS, as employees needed to know where
they stood or how to improve. “Our team lead gives feedback, but it is so inconsistent. One day,
they say one thing; the next, it is something else. It is hard to know what is expected of us.”
(Participant 20).
Some employees mentioned instances of favoritism or unfair treatment by leaders.
Certain team members receiving preferential treatment created a perception of bias and inequity.
Such situations eroded trust among team members and made it difficult for everyone to feel
psychologically safe. “It is clear that the manager has favorites. They get opportunities and
recognition that the rest of us do not. It is demoralizing and makes us question our worth”
(Participant 11). “Feeling excluded or alienated can shatter one’s sense of PS” (Participant 4).
Employees feel disillusioned in organizations where leaders do not hold themselves
accountable for their actions or decisions. When leaders did not take responsibility for or
acknowledge mistakes, it created a culture lacking accountability, and PS suffered. “When a
leader messes up, they should admit it. But some never do. It is frustrating because it feels like
there is a double standard” (Participant 15). Leaders also criticized practices that undermined
safety, with observations like “Inconsistent application of policies creates confusion” (Participant
10).
These patterns highlight how leadership behaviors and interactions can positively and
negatively affect PS in the workplace. A recurring theme in these interviews was the variability

81
of application of these principles across teams, even in a similar division, explaining how one
team might experience a wholly different work environment than their counterparts when not
uniformly applied. This disparity was most evident in the interviews where leaders
acknowledged that they did not feel their organization made PS a focus or priority. Addressing
these issues requires a commitment to open communication, trust-building, consistent feedback,
and a fair and equitable approach to leadership. Creating an environment where employees feel
safe to express themselves and contribute their best requires leadership that actively fosters PS.
Research Question 2: “What Organizational Practices, Strategies, and Interventions Do
Leaders Perceive As Effective in Fostering PS Among Leaders, and How Do These
Practices Influence Their Ability to Create Psychologically Safe Environments for Their
Teams?”
In contrast to the interpersonal relationships between leaders, their supervisors, and team
members, a few key themes emerged at the organizational level regarding PS and behaviors
organizations can foster companywide. These are more system-driven initiatives.
Theme 3: Inclusive Leadership and Diversity
Most respondents highlighted their organizations’ commitment to inclusivity and
diversity, which they felt contributed to PS. “Inclusivity breeds investment and ownership, which
enhances safety” (Participant 18). Inclusive leadership practices that value diversity and seek
diverse perspectives emerged as necessary, including diversity in hiring, promoting diversity in
leadership roles, and fostering an inclusive culture. Participants emphasized the influence of
diversity and inclusion efforts with comments like, “Our diversity and inclusion efforts have led
to a more inclusive culture” (Participant 9). Another commented, “Our leadership actively

82
promotes diversity, not just in words but in actions. This commitment to diversity is reflected in
our leadership team, and it trickles down to all levels of the organization” (Participant 13).
Fourteen participants cited the inclusion of diverse perspectives in decision-making as
vital. Inclusive leaders involve team members in decision-making processes whenever possible.
Participant 1 stated, “Making sure that different people get to have a seat at the table is
encouraged companywide.” These efforts gave employees a sense of ownership and encouraged
diverse perspectives and voices. Participant 6 shared, “Our leaders value diverse opinions and
often ask us to weigh in on important decisions.” Participant 20 mentioned that decisions in his
organization were often top-down and needed more clarity on how policy decisions happen.
“Exclusionary decision-making can erode trust and PS.” Despite many leaders acknowledging
DEI for making a difference in the level of PS, only a subsection of four participants indicated
the existence of Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) in their organization. While it was not one
of the most frequently mentioned themes, some leaders view ERGs as a potentially valuable tool
for promoting diversity, inclusion, and PS in their organizations. One of the leaders indicated
that her organization had a long way to go with DEI and that ERGs “would not be well received
here as diversity is not celebrated” (Participant 5).
Theme 4: Performance Management Systems
In 17 interviews, organizations that encourage feedback and act on it for continuous
improvement emerged as critical for PS. Regular, anonymous feedback mechanisms that allow
employees to voice concerns without fear of retribution increased positive perceptions of PS.
Fourteen participants discussed their organization’s use of culture surveys to understand the
company’s voice better. “We have a culture of feedback where our ideas are welcomed. When
leaders act on our suggestions, it reinforces our belief that our voices matter” (Participant 12).

83
“Anonymous surveys have been a game-changer, giving voice to even the quietest team
member” (Participant 17).
Encouraging a culture where learning from mistakes is embraced was noted. When
employees are not punished for errors but instead encouraged to learn and improve, it supports
PS. Several leaders (11 references) discussed strategic error and performance management
systems emphasizing learning and growth over punishment. “When errors are treated as learning
opportunities, teams are more resilient and adaptive” (Participant 13). The approach to handling
mistakes, focusing on system errors and root cause analysis rather than individual blame, fosters
PS by promoting a learning culture and improvement over punishment. “Regular positive and
constructive feedback is essential for growth and safety” (Participant 3). Leaders who
constructively resolve conflicts prevent issues from escalating and damaging team cohesion.
Participant 12 stated, “Our leader’s approach to conflict resolution sets a positive example for the
team. “Not all leaders felt their organization did well in this area. The need for constructive
feedback was expressed, with one leader indicating, “Without proper feedback, we cannot learn
and grow” (Participant 19).
Closely related to performance management is feedback and recognition for work well
done. “We celebrate successes and learn from failures together” (Participant 17). The importance
of recognition for a job well done was evident in statements such as, “Acknowledging
achievements publicly boosts morale” (Participant 6). Almost half (45%) of the participants felt
that leaders who recognize and appreciate their employees contributed to an environment of PS.
“Our leaders take the time to appreciate our efforts. They send personalized thank-you notes and
publicly recognize employees who go the extra mile. It boosts morale” (Participant 12). Simple
gestures of recognition, like acknowledging a job well done, contribute to employees’ sense of

84
belonging. Participant 19 explained, “Our leader does not miss an opportunity to acknowledge
our hard work, which makes us feel valued.” In contrast, Participant 20 stated, “Leaders who
provide no feedback create uncertainty and anxiety,” further highlighting the need for feedback
and recognition systems.
Theme 5: Empowerment and Autonomy
Leaders who empower their employees and give them autonomy to make decisions
within their roles create positive perceptions in their employees. Empowerment, tied to feedback
mechanisms and error management, was perceived as a demonstration of trust in employees’
capabilities. “Our leadership trusts us to make decisions within our roles. This empowerment
boosts our confidence and makes us feel psychologically safe to take risks” (Participant 8).
Leaders who empowered their team members by granting them autonomy and trusting them with
responsibilities enhanced PS.
Theme 6: Clear Values and Mission
The cultivation of an organizational culture that values PS emerged in every interview –
even those who felt their organization was lacking. The recurring theme of organizational
mission and values was underlying much of the organizational content from the leaders who felt
strongly about their organization’s commitment to PS. One leader said, “The cultural fabric of
our organization is woven with threads of PS, and it starts at the top” (Participant 1). Another
leader stated, “Our shared mission unites us and creates a sense of belonging” (Participant 8).
Participant 15 said, “We actively combat bias, conscious or unconscious. It is non-negotiable.”
Participant 6 felt that “One of our key values is empathy. We are encouraged to understand each
other’s perspectives and provide support. It is a value that contributes to PS.” Participant 8

85
discussed his organization’s leadership philosophy of “model, coach, and care” and how those
values were central to leaders’ performance management ratings.
Research Question 3: “How Do Organizations Foster PS in Their Leaders?”
Many of the same themes and examples participants shared regarding how their
organization fostered PS across all employees came up during the conversations around how
they fostered PS for leaders. Empowerment, communication, and feedback were all examples of
ways the leaders interviewed felt their organizations provided them with a sense of safety.
Participant 12 said, “Our organization truly values PS for leaders. They encourage open
communication, provide coaching and support, and actively seek feedback. It is a core part of our
culture.”
One key differentiator throughout the communication was that only 45% of the
interviewees felt their organization was actively focused on PS, and an even smaller percentage
thought it was a focus of leadership development. PS was often seen as a byproduct of the
organization’s other focused training and norms. Participant 14 said, “I believe one of the
paramount considerations of our organization is PS, even if they do not call it that. They invest in
leadership development programs and promote a culture of trust and openness.”
Some felt more strongly that leadership PS was not a focus. Participant 5 stated, “I do not
think our organization cares much about PS for leaders. It is more about hitting targets and less
about the well-being of leaders.” Participant 20 said, “PS is not a focus here. Leaders are under
constant pressure, and there is no room for vulnerability or mistakes.” Participant 16 said, “We
are more transactional than we are transformational.” All the leaders interviewed indicated that
they saw value in fostering PS. They all felt their company could improve in this area and should
make it more of a focus.

86
Theme 7: Leadership Training and Development Programs
Organizational investment in leadership training was a common theme, with 16 mentions.
Some felt their training was tactical and needed more skills to grow leaders. Participant 20, for
example, shared an example of his organization’s “organizational change training,” which was
merely an introduction to a new companywide software program that all leaders needed to use.
Most, however, highlighted investments in leadership as critical for PS, with one remarking,
“Leadership development has become a cornerstone of our organization’s commitment to safety”
(Participant 15). Leaders described these programs as “critical for equipping leaders with the
skills to navigate complex team dynamics” (Participant 14). Participants perceived continuous
development programs for leaders as crucial in equipping them with the skills necessary to
cultivate PS. Participant 6 shared, “They invest in leadership development programs. It is not just
about technical skills; they emphasize soft skills, like empathy and active listening.” “Soft skills
training helped me become a more empathetic leader” (Participant 7). Another response was,
“Our leadership training focuses on emotional intelligence, which helps in nurturing a
psychologically safe space for our team” (Participant 13).
Theme 8: Executive Coaching, Mentoring, and Leadership Support Groups
The presence of coaching and mentoring for leaders was frequently mentioned (15 out of
20 interviews). “Having a mentor provided me a confidential sounding board to navigate
challenges” (Participant 7). Providing leaders with access to coaching enhanced self-awareness
and improved interpersonal dynamics. “My executive coach has been pivotal in helping me
navigate complex team dynamics” (Participant 17). Providing external executive coaches
reinforces that leaders have a confidential and unbiased platform for personal and professional
growth. Participant 11 shared, “Having a coach has been a tremendous growth opportunity. It is

87
not about fixing weaknesses but enhancing strengths and self-awareness.” Participant 1 said,
“Coaching provides a safe space to discuss challenges and leadership dilemmas. It is
confidential, which is important for PS.”
Nine of the 20 participants mentioned internal leadership support groups, both formal and
informal. Encouraging the formation of support networks among leaders allows for shared
experiences and strategies to deal with leadership challenges. Participants also viewed peer
networks as a supportive framework enabling low-risk learning opportunities. “The leader
support groups within our organization have provided a safe space for vulnerability and sharing
best practices” (Participant 2). These networks allowed leaders to learn from challenges without
fear of repercussions, “The emphasis was on growth and improvement rather than blame”
(Participant 15). The discussions also covered team-building activities and initiatives aimed at
reinforcing team bonds and trust, thereby enhancing psychological safety within the
environment. “They try to foster a sense of belonging” (Participant 10).
Synthesis and Summary
This chapter provides a detailed exploration of the empirical findings from a mixedmethods study investigating the dynamics of leader-member exchange (LMX) and psychological
safety (PS) within organizational leadership. Utilizing a comprehensive dataset comprising
responses from 311 leaders for the quantitative survey and insights from 20 in-depth qualitative
interviews, this chapter examines how leadership behaviors influence psychological safety
within teams.
The quantitative findings underscore a significant positive correlation between the quality
of LMX and the perception of psychological safety among team members. This relationship is
pivotal, indicating that higher-quality interpersonal exchanges between leaders and their

88
members are strongly associated with increased feelings of safety, openness, and mutual respect
within the team. Such findings highlight the critical role of leadership in facilitating
environments where team members feel secure and valued.
The qualitative analysis enriches these findings by providing contextual narratives that
depict the complexities of implementing and sustaining psychological safety in diverse
organizational settings. Leaders shared experiences and strategies contributing to psychological
safety, such as fostering open communication, demonstrating empathy, and actively supporting
team members. Additionally, the research has delved into organizational initiatives that foster PS
among leaders, including leadership training and development programs, executive coaching,
mentoring, and leadership support groups. These initiatives are instrumental in equipping leaders
with the necessary skills and providing a support network to navigate the complexities of
leadership roles effectively.
However, the study also highlighted challenges and negative patterns that can undermine
PS, such as poor communication, fear of retaliation, micromanagement, inconsistency in
feedback, and favoritism. These issues highlight the need for a concerted effort to address and
mitigate factors that erode trust and create an unsafe working environment.
These narratives reveal that while the intent to create a safe psychological environment is
clear, leaders often navigate significant challenges, such as existing organizational cultures that
may not fully support these ideals and the personal balancing act required to maintain authority
while being approachable.
Integrating both data sets provided a comprehensive view that corroborates the
quantitative results with qualitative evidence and offers deeper insights into the mechanisms
through which leadership behaviors impact psychological safety. This dual approach allowed for

89
a richer understanding of the practical applications and implications of fostering psychological
safety through effective leader-member exchanges.
Chapter Five will further discuss these findings in the context of existing literature on
psychological safety, LMX theory, and leadership studies. It will also explore the practical
implications of these findings for organizational leaders, providing recommendations on how
leadership practices can be strategically altered to enhance psychological safety. Moreover,
potential limitations of the current study will be addressed alongside proposed future research
that could explore additional variables influencing the leader-member dynamics and
psychological safety in varying organizational contexts.
In summary, Chapter Four successfully demonstrates the essential role of high-quality
leader-member exchanges in fostering psychological safety within teams. The findings from this
comprehensive mixed-methods approach provide empirical support for targeted leadership
behaviors that promote an open, inclusive, and supportive work environment. These insights set
the stage for a detailed discussion in Chapter Five, where these results will be synthesized within
the broader academic and practical landscapes, aiming to contribute to theoretical advancements
and actionable strategies for enhancing leadership effectiveness and organizational health.

90
Chapter Five: Discussion
In the evolving organizational behavior and leadership landscape, psychological safety
and leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships have become necessary elements influencing
team dynamics, employee engagement, and organizational innovation. This study explores the
complex interplay among various constructs to understand how leadership practices and the
quality of leader-member exchange (LMX) contribute to creating an environment that fosters
leadership psychological safety within organizations. The research offered a nuanced
understanding of how leadership behaviors and organizational policies impact leaders’
psychological safety through a mixed-methods approach, combining in-depth qualitative
interviews with comprehensive quantitative surveys.
Building on this, psychological safety (PS) and leader-member exchange (LMX) are
recognized as pivotal elements that impact team dynamics, employee engagement, and
organizational innovation. An integrated understanding of PS and LMX strengthens existing
research and opens new dimensions for application and study. High-quality LMX relationships
enhance psychological safety, echoing the foundational work of Edmondson (1999) and Graen
and Uhl-Bien (1995), who emphasized the significance of trust and mutual respect in fostering
innovative and engaged teams. These relationships are characterized by inclusivity, empathy, and
active listening, which improve team performance and promote a culture of equity and fairness
(Hollander, 2012; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Authentic leadership and trust in supervisors
have been shown to indirectly affect work engagement through psychological safety (Maximo et
al., 2019).
Furthermore, the interplay between transformational leadership, personality traits, and
psychological safety that leads to employee engagement is well documented (Mat et al., 2019).

91
Recent studies add depth to this discourse, demonstrating how authentic leadership correlates
with employee resilience (Mao et al., 2022) and how a shift toward authentic leadership practices
can positively impact organizational outcomes (Gardner et al., 2022). This body of work
collectively illustrates the essential role that leadership practices play in fostering inclusive
environments critical to organizational success.
The primary purpose of this study was to explore the dynamics between leadership
practices, LMX quality, and their collective influence on psychological safety within
organizations. The following questions guided the research:
1. How do leaders perceive LMX relationships contributing to developing and
maintaining psychological safety in leaders and their teams?
2. What organizational practices, strategies, and interventions do leaders perceive as
effective in fostering psychological safety among leaders, and how do these practices
influence their ability to create psychologically safe environments for their teams?
3. How do organizations foster psychological safety in their leaders?
The mixed-methods design of this study, combining qualitative insights with quantitative
data, provided a richer, more nuanced understanding of how psychological safety and LMX
relationships operate within organizational contexts. Qualitative data was collected through
semi-structured interviews with organizational leaders and team members to capture personal
experiences and perceptions of psychological safety and leader behavior in their organizations.
Quantitative data were gathered via surveys measuring LMX quality, psychological safety
perceptions, and the prevalence of inclusive leadership behaviors, providing a statistical
foundation to support and extend the qualitative insights.

92
This research is grounded in the theoretical framework of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
model (1979), providing a lens through which to examine the multi-layered influences on
psychological safety. Bronfenbrenner’s model offers a comprehensive perspective on the various
systems affecting individual behavior and development, providing a robust foundation for
understanding the complex interplay between individual behaviors, interpersonal relationships,
and broader organizational practices in shaping psychological safety.
Recommendations
This study explored the dynamics between leader-member exchange (LMX)
relationships and leadership practices and their collective influence on leadership psychological
safety within large organizations. The research utilized a mixed-methods approach to uncover
nuanced insights into how these elements interact to foster an environment conducive to open
communication, risk-taking, and innovation.
The findings in Chapter Four illuminated several vital insights. Firstly, a significant
positive correlation was found between the quality of LMX relationships and the level of
psychological safety perceived by employees, underscoring the importance of trust-based,
supportive interactions. Secondly, leadership behaviors characterized by active listening,
empathy, and valuing diversity were crucial in promoting psychological safety. Thirdly,
structured organizational practices promoting psychological safety significantly impacted the
organizational climate. Additionally, a novel finding emerged, indicating that while the prestige
of working for a large organization holds value, leaders who foster supportive and cohesive
environments are more pivotal to high-performing employees. The value of the
leader/subordinate relationship aligns with the broader literature emphasizing the role of
effective leadership in enhancing team dynamics and organizational outcomes (Edmondson,

93
2018; Javed et al., 2019; Newman et al., 2017). The findings fall into three main areas, each
addressing the study’s core research questions.
Research Question 1: How Do Leaders Perceive LMX Relationships Contributing to
Developing and Maintaining Psychological Safety in Leaders and Their Teams?
The first research question explores how leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships
influence psychological safety within organizational settings. The findings demonstrate a robust
positive correlation between the quality of LMX relationships and employees’ perceived levels
of psychological safety. This pivotal relationship underscores the essential role of trust-based,
supportive interactions in fostering a safe and inclusive workplace environment.
Enhancing Leadership Development Programs
The results strongly advocate for enhancing leadership development programs designed
to cultivate trust and support through training in emotional intelligence and practical conflict
resolution skills. Such programs should equip leaders with the necessary tools to engage
empathetically and manage conflicts constructively, thereby strengthening LMX relationships.
The relevance of emotional intelligence in nurturing effective leadership is well documented
(Kim & Kim, 2017; Owens & Hekman, 2016), and the foundational role of trust in high-quality
LMX relationships is emphasized in recent studies (Lopes, 2016; Newman et al., 2017).
Additional evidence from Vieira et al. (2024) supports this by emphasizing the importance of
employer branding in attracting and retaining Generation Z employees, which is a key aspect of
sustainable leadership development. These competencies are crucial for leaders to effectively
create a psychologically safe organizational climate and enhance employee well-being.

94
Structured Feedback Mechanisms
Implementing structured feedback mechanisms is also recommended to facilitate open
dialogue and continuous communication between leaders and team members. Such mechanisms
are critical in building trust and making employees feel valued and heard, contributing
significantly to the psychological safety of the workplace. This aligns with Edmondson and Lei’s
(2014) findings on the importance of feedback in creating safe environments and is supported by
research on the positive effects of transparent communication practices (Men & Stacks, 2013;
Sfantou et al., 2017). Furthermore, the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation
Research underscores the central role of user feedback in organizational change and
improvement (Damschroder et al., 2022).
Beyond Organizational Prestige
An intriguing aspect of the study reveals that while the prestige of working for a large
organization has its merits, the ability of leaders to foster supportive and cohesive environments
is crucial for retaining high-performing leaders. This insight extends the discussion beyond
conventional LMX dynamics to highlight the paramount importance of interpersonal leadership
qualities and the work environment in attracting and retaining top talent. This finding is
corroborated by Breevaart et al. (2015), who demonstrated how supportive leadership enhances
employee engagement, and is further supported by research by Shore et al. (2011), which
underscores the benefits of inclusive leadership on team performance and creativity. Moreover,
research by Tamtik and Guenter (2019) on equity, diversity, and inclusion strategies in Canadian
universities suggests that organizational prestige is also influenced by the internal dynamics of
power and leadership, affecting talent retention.

95
Organizational Recommendations
Organizations are thus encouraged to prioritize investment in leadership development and
effective communication mechanisms. These initiatives enhance the psychological safety and
inclusivity of the workplace and elevate the organization’s attractiveness to high-performing
employees. The underlying principles of social exchange theory (Blau, 2017) suggest that
reciprocal, high-quality interactions foster stronger relationships and lead to positive
organizational outcomes. Emphasizing this holistic view, our study advocates for leadership
practices prioritizing psychological safety as a key driver of organizational success and employee
satisfaction.
Research Question 2: What Organizational Practices, Strategies, and Interventions Do
Leaders Perceive As Effective in Fostering Psychological Safety Among Leaders, and How
Do These Practices Influence Their Ability to Create Psychologically Safe Environments
for Their Teams?
The second research question focused on identifying the leadership practices most
conducive to fostering psychological safety within organizations. The study conclusively
identifies key leadership behaviors such as active listening, empathy, and valuing diversity as
critical in promoting a safe and inclusive work environment. Leaders who employ active
listening, a practice where they are fully present and engaged with their team members, create an
environment where employees feel respected and heard, thereby contributing significantly to a
supportive work environment (Kluger & Itzchakov, 2022; Lloyd et al., 2017)
Key Leadership Behaviors
Essential leadership behaviors identified in the study emphasize the importance of active
listening, empathy, and diversity appreciation within organizational settings. Leaders adept in

96
active listening are viewed as more competent. They are pivotal in cultivating high-quality
leader-member exchanges and creating a workplace culture where team members feel
acknowledged and respected (Lloyd et al., 2017). Empathy is equally pivotal; when leaders
demonstrate genuine concern and understanding for their team members’ experiences and
emotions, it significantly enhances interpersonal relationships and builds trust across the team.
Lastly, valuing diversity is fundamental for creating a richer, more creative, and inclusive
workplace. Leaders who appreciate and leverage diverse perspectives and backgrounds enrich
the organizational culture and drive innovative outcomes. Collectively, these behaviors lay the
foundation for effective leadership practices that are instrumental in establishing and maintaining
psychological safety in the workplace, as supported by the work of Byrd (2022).
Inclusive Leadership
These findings are consistent with the extant literature on inclusive leadership, which
emphasizes the importance of such behaviors in enhancing psychological safety (Brown et al.,
2005; Brown & Treviño, 2014). More recent studies reinforce these insights, with Shore et al.
(2018) discussing how inclusive leadership fosters team creativity and performance by
cultivating an environment supportive of diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, Hirak et al.
(2012) underscore the critical role of leader inclusiveness in promoting psychological safety and
facilitating organizational learning, illustrating the broader impacts of these practices.
Organizational Recommendations
Organizations should invest in comprehensive leadership development programs that
emphasize the skills necessary for inclusive leadership, such as empathy, active listening, and
diversity appreciation. These programs should aim to educate and transform leadership
approaches to be more inclusive and psychologically safe.

97
Extending beyond leadership, organizations are encouraged to implement organizationwide diversity and inclusion training. These initiatives should focus on cultivating an
understanding and appreciation of diversity, equipping all employees with the skills to contribute
to a psychologically safe work environment (Roberge, 2013).
Leadership practices, particularly inclusive and empathetic ones, play a crucial role in
establishing and maintaining psychological safety in organizational settings. By adopting and
rigorously implementing the recommended practices, organizations can create environments that
foster psychological safety and enhance overall employee satisfaction and organizational
performance. This aligns with the broader conceptual framework of the study, emphasizing the
transformative impact of effective leadership on organizational culture and employee well-being.
Research Question 3: How Do Organizations Foster Psychological Safety in Their Leaders?
Research Question 3 investigates how organizational practices and policies contribute to
workplace psychological safety. The findings highlight that structured organizational initiatives
such as leadership development programs, transparent communication channels, and clear
organizational standards are pivotal in enhancing psychological safety.
Leadership Development Programs
Leadership development programs are essential for fostering an organizational climate
supporting psychological safety. These programs, which emphasize empathetic leadership, active
listening, and inclusivity, equip leaders with the necessary tools to nurture and sustain a
psychologically safe environment. The importance of these programs is corroborated by Leroy,
Palanski, and Simons (2012), who assert that clear organizational directives are instrumental in
cultivating a culture of safety and openness. Furthermore, the study by Maximo et al. (2019)
highlights the role of authentic leadership in enhancing work engagement through the

98
mechanisms of psychological safety and trust in supervisors, further demonstrating the critical
impact of leadership development programs in promoting these essential organizational values.
This underscores the vital role that such training plays in leadership competence and fostering an
environment where psychological capital is developed and maintained, contributing significantly
to organizational well-being and employee engagement.
Transparent Communication Channels
The establishment of transparent communication channels is paramount. These channels
ensure that information and feedback flow freely across all levels of the organization, enhancing
employee engagement and fostering a sense of belonging. Such practices are essential for
building trust and psychological safety, as employees who feel informed and involved are more
likely to feel secure and valued. Men (2014) emphasizes the significance of transparent
communication in enhancing organizational reputation and employee engagement. Additional
support is provided by Grailey et al. (2021), who discuss how transparency in communication
channels contributes significantly to psychological safety in healthcare settings.
Clear Policies on Psychological Safety
Organizations must develop clear and comprehensive policies that specifically target
psychological safety. These policies should explicitly define what constitutes a psychologically
safe environment and outline the behaviors expected of all employees to maintain this safety.
Clear policies serve as a foundation for all other initiatives, ensuring that there is no ambiguity
about the organization’s commitment to protecting and promoting psychological safety at all
levels (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2011). Kolbe et al. (2020) further illustrate the importance of
setting a clear and appropriate tone at the beginning of team interactions to foster a safe and
inclusive atmosphere.

99
Organizational Recommendations
Organizations are encouraged to implement comprehensive policies that actively promote
psychological safety. These policies should detail expected behaviors and establish robust
mechanisms for reporting safety concerns, demonstrating the organization’s dedication to
maintaining a secure working environment. Additionally, fostering transparent communication
channels is essential. These channels should include structured feedback mechanisms and
performance management systems that encourage open dialogue and continuous feedback, thus
involving employees actively and fostering a sense of safety and belonging. This
recommendation is aligned with the significance of transparent communication outlined by Men
(2014) in enhancing organizational reputation and employee engagement.
By integrating these policies and practices, organizations can create supportive
environments that enhance psychological safety, facilitating a more inclusive, innovative, and
productive workplace. This strategic approach ensures that psychological safety is woven into
the fabric of organizational culture, driving continuous improvement and employee well-being.
Discussion of Theoretical Concept
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model, which posits that various environmental
systems influence human development, anchors the theoretical foundation of this research
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This framework offers a comprehensive lens for examining the intricate
relationship between individuals and their environments. It is particularly pertinent for
investigating the dynamics of psychological safety and leader-member exchange (LMX) within
organizational contexts. Through the prism of Bronfenbrenner’s model, the study unveils
insightful revelations about the complex nature of organizational environments and their
consequential impact on employee well-being and performance.

100
Microsystem and Psychological Safety
The microsystem, delineating the immediate environment wherein an individual operates,
encapsulates direct interactions within proximate contexts, such as relationships with leaders and
team members in the workplace. This research illuminates the pivotal role of high-quality LMX
relationships in cultivating psychological safety, where leaders’ behaviors characterized by
empathy, active listening, and genuine concern for team members’ well-being foster an
environment conducive to open expression without fear of retribution. This finding resonates
with Kahn’s (1990) emphasis on the significance of interpersonal relationships and individual
perceptions in molding feelings of safety and engagement at work. It aligns with Edmondson’s
(1999) assertion that psychological safety is foundational for team learning and performance.
The influence of the microsystem on psychological safety underscores the criticality of
individual relationships and interactions in shaping employees’ perceptions and experiences
within the organization.
Mesosystem and Organizational Practices
The mesosystem, representing the interconnections between various microsystems,
highlights the interaction between interpersonal relationships and broader organizational
practices and policies. This study reveals that leadership development programs, safety in risktaking, transparent communication policies, and participative decision-making processes bolster
the psychological safety established in the microsystem and bridge individual experiences with
the organizational culture. This observation is in harmony with Schein’s (2010)
conceptualization of organizational culture as a complex system of shared beliefs and values that
govern individual behavior. The mesosystem’s capacity to enhance psychological safety by

101
integrating and aligning individual and group experiences with organizational objectives and
practices fosters a cohesive and supportive work environment.
Exosystem and External Influences
The exosystem encompasses environmental settings that indirectly influence the
individual, such as organizational policies, structure, training practices, and executive and
shareholder expectations. The findings underscore how external policies and management
practices, especially those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), sculpt the
organizational climate and norms surrounding psychological safety. Even though employees may
not directly engage with these broader policies, their effects permeate the organizational culture,
influencing perceptions of inclusivity and safety. This construct aligns with Fernandez and
Moldogaziev’s (2013) discussion on the impact of external policies on organizational change,
accentuating the ecosystem’s role in creating conducive conditions for psychological safety.
Macrosystem and Cultural Context
The macrosystem, embodying the overarching cultural and societal norms, government
regulations, and industry standards, offers the broadest context for understanding psychological
safety within organizations. Leadership practices that foster psychological safety also lead to
positive organizational outcomes and resonate with broader societal values of equity and justice.
This active flow between culture and leadership practices reflects the transformative leadership
theory (Shields, 2010), advocating for leadership that challenges existing inequalities and
promotes positive social change. The macrosystem’s influence on psychological safety illustrates
the interconnectedness of organizational practices with broader cultural and societal values,
highlighting the potential of inclusive leadership to contribute to societal progress.

102
Chronosystem and Historical Context
The chronosystem, which includes the dimension of time and historical context,
acknowledges the influence of historical changes and transitions on individuals and their
environments, impacting the evolving nature of psychological safety and LMX relationships.
The shift towards remote work, accelerated by global events like the COVID-19 pandemic,
underscores the importance of considering temporal factors in research on psychological safety,
suggesting the need for adaptive leadership and organizational practices to navigate the
complexities of a changing work landscape (Kniffin et al., 2021). The ability to change
organizations for one with an improved culture, particularly in light of the current focus on
positive mental health and wellness, plays a direct role in an employee’s decision to stay or
leave. This becomes even more impactful when competitors continuously recruit leaders with
tenure and education. The chronosystem’s role in this research underscores the dynamic nature
of psychological safety, influenced by historical events and societal shifts. It highlights the
importance of flexibility and resilience in organizational strategies.
In conclusion, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model provides a valuable theoretical
framework for understanding the factors influencing psychological safety and LMX relationships
within organizations. This study’s findings, viewed through the ecological lens, contribute to a
deeper comprehension of how organizational environments can be structured to promote wellbeing, engagement, and social justice. Future research should continue to explore these
dynamics, incorporating the temporal and historical dimensions of the chronosystem to capture
the evolving nature of work and organizational life.

103
Economics of Psychological Safety
The economic rationale for investing in psychological safety, particularly for leaders,
encompasses a comprehensive examination of the multifaceted benefits this investment yields
for organizations. By nurturing a culture of psychological safety, organizations can realize
significant cost savings, bolster their competitive edge in talent acquisition and retention, and
enhance long-term financial performance through heightened productivity, risk mitigation, and
innovation.
Cost-Effectiveness in Mitigating Turnover Costs
Psychological safety enables leaders to voice ideas, challenge the status quo, and
acknowledge mistakes without fear of negative repercussions, fostering a culture of trust and
respect. This culture boosts job satisfaction and strengthens leaders’ commitment to the
organization, diminishing the likelihood of turnover. Gallup’s research indicates that executives
who perceive themselves as supported and valued are 3.2 times likelier to stay with their
employer (Harter et al., 2013). Edmondson (1999) also underscored the significance of
psychological safety in team learning and performance, suggesting that such environments
contribute to leader retention by instilling a sense of belonging and purpose.
The financial implications of losing and subsequently replacing a leader are considerable.
The Center for American Progress reported that the cost of replacing a highly qualified executive
could reach up to 213% of the position’s annual salary (Boushey & Glynn, 2012). For an
executive earning $250,000 annually, this equates to an approximate cost of $532,500, with the
potential for even higher costs due to the significant impact on strategic direction and
organizational culture.

104
Enhancing Recruitment and Retention
In the current job market, where talent is notably mobile and discerning, an
organization’s reputation for fostering a psychologically safe work environment is a crucial
differentiator. Prospective leaders seek organizations committed to transparency, employee wellbeing, and inclusive leadership practices. Google’s Project Aristotle, which identified
psychological safety as a critical factor in team effectiveness, exemplifies this, enhancing
Google’s attractiveness to top talent seeking an innovative and supportive work culture.
Financial Benefits and Productivity
Quantifying the benefits of psychological safety presents challenges, yet research
indicates that the return on investment is substantial. For instance, the Harvard Business Review
found that companies with high levels of psychological safety experience a 27% reduction in
turnover, a 76% increase in engagement, and a 50% decrease in safety incidents (Edmondson &
Lei, 2014). These improvements translate into significant financial advantages for large
corporations, potentially saving millions of dollars.
Moreover, maintaining experienced leaders within a psychologically safe environment
reduces the need for frequent leadership development initiatives, which can be costly. By
retaining experienced leaders, organizations can more efficiently allocate resources, focusing on
strategic initiatives rather than recurrent costs associated with leadership turnover.
Long-Term Economic Impact
The long-term economic impact of investing in psychological safety extends beyond
recruitment and retention costs. Leaders in psychologically safe environments are more inclined
to foster innovation and employee engagement, enhancing productivity and organizational
performance. Gallup’s study revealed that companies in the top quartile for employee

105
engagement outperform their peers in profitability by 21% and in productivity by 17%
(Edmondson, 2018). Such environments encourage risk-taking and innovation, contributing to
breakthrough ideas and improvements in processes and products.
Litigation Costs and Organizational Risk
Investing in psychological safety also serves as a preventative measure against behaviors
that often lead to litigation, such as harassment, discrimination, and other forms of misconduct.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) secured $486 million for victims
of discrimination in 2019, highlighting the potential financial burdens of legal challenges (U.S.
EEOC, 2019). Organizations can mitigate these risks by fostering a psychologically safe
environment, demonstrating a commitment to equity and respect that transcends the immediate
financial benefits.
In conclusion, the economics of psychological safety underscore its value as a strategic
investment for organizations, contributing to enhanced financial performance, competitive
advantage, and organizational resilience. The evidence suggests that the benefits of fostering a
psychologically safe work environment are substantial and multifaceted, extending from direct
cost savings to broader organizational and societal impacts.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this research offer compelling implications for a broad spectrum of
stakeholders within the organizational ecosystem, including organizations themselves,
practitioners in the field of organizational development and human resources, and organizational
leaders at all levels. This section delineates specific recommendations that can inform practice
and policy based on the insights gleaned from applying Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model to
understand psychological safety and leader-member exchange (LMX) dynamics.

106
For Organizations
Organizations stand at the nexus of change, possessing the capacity to shape the
microsystem and mesosystem environments that directly impact employee experiences. The
research underscores the necessity for organizations to cultivate high-quality LMX relationships
and foster environments of psychological safety as foundational elements for innovation,
employee engagement, and overall organizational health. Organizations should integrate
psychological safety into their core values and operational strategies to achieve this.
Policies promoting transparent communication, participative decision-making, and
recognition of diverse perspectives should be embedded into the organizational culture to ensure
a sustained impact on psychological safety. This move towards improved communication
involves creating structured opportunities for leaders and team members to engage in open
dialogue and feedback, enhancing mutual understanding and trust. Furthermore, organizations
should prioritize inclusive leadership development, ensuring that leaders across all levels develop
the skills to engage in empathetic, active listening and to value diverse perspectives.
Organizations must commit to creating an environment where all employees feel valued and
included, leveraging the full potential of their diverse workforce. This focus on inclusivity aligns
with the literature emphasizing the role of organizational culture in promoting psychological
safety (Edmondson, 1999; Schein, 2010).
For Practitioners
Practitioners in organizational development, human resources, and related fields are
critical in translating research findings into actionable strategies. The emphasis on inclusive
leadership and high-quality LMX relationships as drivers of psychological safety suggests that
practitioners should focus on designing and implementing leadership development programs that

107
prioritize these elements. The findings of this study also indicate that policies promoting
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within workplaces can significantly impact psychological
safety. Practitioners should consider developing programs that encourage or require
organizations to implement DEI initiatives and leadership development programs focused on
inclusive practices and mechanisms for ensuring transparent communication and feedback within
organizations. Such programs could include workshops on empathetic communication, diversity
and inclusion training, and team-building activities reinforcing trust and mutual respect.
Additionally, practitioners should advocate for and facilitate the establishment of feedback
mechanisms that allow for the continuous exchange of ideas and concerns between employees
and leaders, further reinforcing a culture of psychological safety.
For Organizational Leaders
Organizational leaders, from frontline supervisors to top executives, are pivotal in
actualizing the principles of psychological safety within their teams and departments. This
research highlights the direct impact of leaders’ behaviors on fostering an environment where
employees feel safe to express themselves and take risks. Leaders should strive to model
inclusive behaviors, actively seek out and value diverse perspectives, and demonstrate
vulnerability and openness in their interactions with team members. By doing so, leaders
enhance psychological safety and build a culture of trust and respect that permeates the
organization. This recommendation is supported by literature that identifies leadership behavior
as a critical factor in promoting psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Kahn, 1990).
The implications of this research for organizations, practitioners, organizational leaders,
and policymakers are far-reaching. By applying the insights derived from the study, stakeholders
across the organizational ecosystem can contribute to creating work environments that are

108
psychologically safe and conducive to innovation, engagement, and social justice. The
recommendations, grounded in the research findings and the existing literature, offer a roadmap
for achieving these outcomes.
Limitations
Reflecting on the limitations of this study is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of
its scope and impact. Despite the rigorous research design and robust findings, several potential
limitations merit attention:
Sampling and Generalizability
The study engaged 311 participants for the quantitative survey and conducted qualitative
interviews with 20 senior leaders. While these figures are appropriate for mixed-methods
research, they may need to be more extensive to allow for generalization across all large
organizations or industries. The demographic data revealed a diverse leadership group, yet
specific sectors such as professional services, education, and healthcare were overrepresented.
This disproportion could limit the findings’ applicability across different industries. Additionally,
the prevalence of leaders with advanced degrees in the sample might introduce a bias, potentially
skewing the insights on organizational dynamics (Bryman, 2016).
Statistical Power
Reported effect sizes, including Cohen’s f and Cramér’s V, were derived from the
available data. Although many significant effect sizes indicated robust relationships, the
constrained sample size could impact the statistical power, possibly overlooking minor,
meaningful effects. This limitation underscores the need for caution in interpreting the strength
and significance of reported relationships (Cohen, 2013).

109
Internal Validity
While validated instruments like Edmondson’s Psychological Safety scale and the LMX7 scale were employed to mitigate threats to internal validity such as selection bias or
measurement error, the study’s capacity to assert confidently that variations in psychological
safety and LMX result from the identified factors—rather than unmeasured variables—may be
restricted. The cross-sectional survey design limits the ability to establish causal relationships
(Cook et al., 2002).
External Validity
Participants were recruited from the researcher’s and the dissertation committee’s
professional networks, potentially not representing large organizations’ full spectrum of leaders.
This recruitment strategy might introduce bias and affect the results’ generalizability. `The
overrepresentation of specific sectors and educational levels and factors like organizational
culture, geographical location, and industry-specific dynamics could constrain the findings’
applicability to different organizational contexts. Generalizability in research should be
considered cautiously, as noted by (Thomas and Myers, 2015).
Measurement Techniques
The reliance on established scales ensures reliability, yet the self-reported nature of the
data may introduce bias. Social desirability or subjective interpretations of the questions could
influence participants’ responses. The interpretation of Likert-scale responses and qualitative
assessment of open-ended answers depends on subjective judgment, potentially introducing
variance in data interpretation (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

110
Researcher Bias
Efforts to reduce bias through reflexivity and member checking notwithstanding, the
researcher’s perspectives and interpretations might have influenced the analysis and presentation
of the findings. Malterud (2001) highlights the importance of acknowledging the potential for
subjective influence in qualitative research.
Despite these limitations, the study significantly contributes to the field of organizational
psychology by examining the complex dynamics of psychological safety and leader-member
exchange. It provides a foundation for future research, suggesting the value of longitudinal
studies, diversified sampling strategies, and intervention-based research to enhance our
understanding of psychological safety in organizational settings.
Suggestions for Future Research
The exploration of psychological safety and leader-member exchange (LMX) within
organizational contexts, as informed by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, has illuminated the
intricate interplay between individual, interpersonal, and systemic factors in the workplace. This
study has laid a foundational understanding but also underscores the necessity for further inquiry
to deepen and expand our comprehension of these constructs. The following sections propose
avenues for future research, integrating relevant literature to guide these endeavors.
Longitudinal Studies
Future research should adopt longitudinal study designs to address the dynamic nature of
psychological safety and LMX relationships. Longitudinal research can unravel how these
constructs evolve over time and in response to specific organizational changes, leadership
development interventions, or external pressures. Such studies are pivotal for elucidating the
causal pathways between leadership behaviors, organizational practices, and the cultivation of

111
psychological safety. For instance, Breevaart et al. (2012) demonstrated the value of longitudinal
designs in capturing the fluctuating nature of LMX relationships, suggesting that a similar
approach could yield insights into the temporal dynamics of psychological safety.
Impact of Remote Work
The shift towards remote and hybrid work models, accelerated by the COVID-19
pandemic, presents a novel context for examining psychological safety and LMX. Future studies
should explore how virtual environments influence the establishment and maintenance of highquality LMX relationships and psychological safety. Research could focus on identifying
effective leadership practices and organizational policies that support psychological safety in
remote settings. Gilson et al. (2015) offer a starting point by discussing the challenges and
opportunities of virtual teams, emphasizing the need for adaptive leadership strategies in remote
work contexts.
Cross-Cultural Comparisons
Investigating psychological safety and LMX across diverse cultural backgrounds can
shed light on the influence of cultural norms and values on these constructs. Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions theory (Hofstede, 1984) provides a framework for understanding how cultural
differences impact organizational behavior and leadership practices. Future research could
leverage this theory to explore variations in psychological safety perceptions and LMX quality
across cultures, contributing to a more globally inclusive understanding of these constructs.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
A critical area for future research is the intersection of psychological safety, LMX, and
DEI initiatives within organizations. Studies should examine how leadership practices that
prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion contribute to the development of psychological safety

112
and the quality of LMX relationships. This research could identify the most effective DEI
practices in promoting an inclusive organizational culture where all members feel valued and
supported. Mor Barak (2015) provides a comprehensive overview of managing diversity and
fostering inclusion, which could be a reference for identifying DEI practices that enhance
psychological safety. Research should also consider the impact of systemic biases and structural
inequalities on psychological safety, referencing the critical perspectives offered by scholars like
DiAngelo (2018) on white fragility and its effects on organizational dynamics. By integrating
DEI more deeply into psychological safety and LMX study, future research can offer actionable
insights for creating more equitable and inclusive workplaces.
These suggestions for future research will build upon this study’s findings and contribute
to the broader body of knowledge on psychological safety, LMX, and organizational behavior.
By addressing these areas, scholars can develop more nuanced and effective strategies for
fostering environments that support innovation, engagement, and equity.
Conclusion
This dissertation has explored the dynamics of psychological safety and leader-member
exchange (LMX) within organizational settings, employing Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
(1979) as a foundational framework. The study’s findings illuminate the profound impact of
high-quality LMX relationships and inclusive leadership practices on fostering an environment
of psychological safety, which, in turn, can significantly enhance innovation, employee
engagement, and overall organizational health. By integrating psychological safety into their
core values and operational strategies, organizations have a productive means of unlocking the
full potential of their workforce, driving long-term success and sustainability.

113
This dissertation finds a significant positive correlation between the quality of leadermember exchange (LMX) relationships and psychological safety, highlighting the pivotal role of
trust and mutual respect in enhancing team dynamics. The findings reveal that leaders who foster
trust and engage in respectful interactions with team members significantly boost the team’s
sense of security, encouraging open communication and risk-taking behaviors essential for
innovative outcomes. This research underscores the profound influence of robust leader-member
interactions on establishing and maintaining a psychologically safe workplace.
Furthermore, the study provides novel insights into the relative importance of leadership
relationships over organizational prestige in attracting and retaining high-performing leaders. It
finds that the interpersonal skills of leaders and the quality of the work environment they
cultivate hold more sway than the organization’s external reputation in influencing leader
retention and effectiveness. Additionally, the research identifies essential leadership behaviors—
active listening, empathy, and a genuine appreciation for diversity—as crucial elements for
creating an inclusive and psychologically safe work environment. These behaviors are
fundamental for leaders aiming to foster a supportive atmosphere that upholds high levels of
psychological safety, thereby enhancing overall team performance and organizational health.
These findings underscore substantial implications for organizational policy and
leadership practices, illustrating that integrating psychological safety and high-quality leadermember exchange (LMX) relationships into organizational culture is imperative. By fostering
these elements, businesses can significantly enhance employee engagement, stimulate
innovation, and sustain a competitive edge. Crucially, the role of leaders in this transformative
process is paramount. Leaders who exhibit empathy, actively listen, and value diversity
effectively nurtures an organizational climate where psychological safety is deeply embedded.

114
This approach boosts individual performance and fosters a collective sense of security and
openness, which is essential for organizational resilience and adaptability.
Moreover, the research emphasizes the need for organizations to establish policies that
promote transparent communication, participative decision-making, and the recognition of
diverse perspectives. These practices are fundamental in building a psychologically safe
workplace, resonating with broader societal values of equity and justice. The influence of
leadership in this context cannot be overstated; leaders’ behaviors and attitudes play a critical
role in establishing trust and respect within teams. Leaders adept in practicing empathy and
active listening and who cherish diversity are key to cultivating an inclusive culture where all
employees feel respected and motivated to give their best.
The implications of these findings extend into the realms of organizational development
and human resources. The study advocates for a strategic emphasis on designing and
implementing leadership development programs prioritizing psychological safety and robust
LMX relationships. It also highlights the importance of incorporating diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives into workplace policies, which are instrumental in enhancing psychological
safety and, consequently, organizational performance. These initiatives align with ethical
business practices, enhance the firm’s attractiveness to top talent, and improve overall business
outcomes.
In conclusion, this dissertation delineates the critical role of leader-member exchange in
fortifying psychological safety within organizations. The insights and actionable
recommendations enrich academic discussions and offer pragmatic strategies for organizational
leaders and HR practitioners. As organizations navigate an increasingly complex and volatile
business environment, the principles of psychological safety and inclusive leadership stand out

115
as fundamental pillars for building resilient and adaptive organizations. The guidelines suggested
herein furnish a comprehensive roadmap for cultivating these environments, emphasizing the
ongoing necessity for research to explore further and refine these dynamics. This ongoing
inquiry will undoubtedly continue to reveal deeper insights into the effective management of
human capital in diverse organizational contexts.

116
References
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture (1st ed.). SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446280072
Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader-member exchange: Recent
research findings and prospects for the future. The Sage handbook of leadership, 311-
325.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A
state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
Atmaji, Sawitri, H. S. R., Suyono, J., Sarwoto, & Sunaryo, S. (2023). Interpersonal justice,
leader-member exchange, and employee negative behaviors: A proposed model and
empirical test. International Journal of Business, 28(4), 73–98.
https://doi.org/10.55802/IJB.028(4).005
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research,
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: an
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4

117
Bai, M., Zheng, X., Huang, X., Jing, T., Yu, C., Li, S., & Zhang, Z. (2023). How serving helps
leading: mediators between servant leadership and affective commitment. Frontiers in
Psychology, 14, 1170490–1170490. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1170490
Balakrishnan, K., Copat, R., De la Parra, D., & Ramesh, K. (2023). Racial diversity exposure
and firm responses following the murder of George Floyd. Journal of Accounting
Research, 61(3), 737–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12484
Batista, E. (2014). Make getting feedback less stressful. Harvard Business Review.
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2011). Organizational socialization: The effective onboarding of
new employees. In APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 3:
Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. (pp. 51–64). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-002
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. SAGE Publications
Limited. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14780887.2014.992750
Bergin, T. (2018). An introduction to data analysis: quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methods (1st ed.). Sage Text UK. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682854
Blau, P. M. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.) (pp. 82–112). Allyn and
Bacon.
Bolden, R. (2016). Leadership, management and organisational development. In Gower
handbook of leadership and management development (pp. 117–132).
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315585703-18

118
Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. J. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing employees.
Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2015/08/CostofTurnover0815.pdf
Byrd, M. Y. (2022). Inclusive leadership: critical practice perspectives from the field. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 24(4), 223–224.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223221120180
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bray, C. E. (2023). Diversity, equity, and inclusion post George Floyd and COVID-19:
reflections from global business leaders on a changing paradigm. Pepperdine University.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement of state
work engagement: a multilevel factor analytic study. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment: Official Organ of the European Association of Psychological
Assessment, 28(4), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000111
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and
design (1st ed.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26071r6
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role
modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,
122(4), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1769-0

119
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating
effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(4), 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role
of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research
and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.932
Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High‐quality relationships, psychological safety, and
learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6),
709–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.565
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee
involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological
safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654
Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2012). CEO relational leadership and strategic
decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from
failure. Strategic Organization, 10(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127011434797
Carmeli, A., Yitzhak-Halevy, M., & Weisberg, J. (2009). The relationship between emotional
intelligence and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(1), 66–
78. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910922546
Choi, S. B., Ullah, S. E., & Kang, S. W. (2021). Proactive personality and creative performance:
mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and moderated mediation role of psychological
safety. Sustainability, 13(22), 12517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212517

120
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A
meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(5), 1103–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016172
Chughtai, A., Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being:
The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 653–663.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2126-7
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3d ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science : A
Journal of the American Psychological Society, 1(3), 98–101.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of
a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.86.3.386
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
A meta-snalytic yest of their unique relationships with risk taking and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson,
M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social
exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Shadish, W. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference (Vol. 1195). Houghton Mifflin.

121
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39(3),124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Sage Publications.
Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user
feedback. Implementation science, 17(1), 1–75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-
01245-0
de Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative
behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41–64.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710720546
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really
open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of
self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925
DiAngelo, R., & Dyson, M. E. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk
about racism (1st ed.). Beacon Press.

122
Diliello, T. C., Houghton, J. D., & Dawley, D. (2011). Narrowing the creativity gap: The
moderating effects of perceived support for creativity. The Journal of Psychology,
145(3), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.548412
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A metaanalysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the
past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.117.1.125
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: creating psychological safety in the
workplace for learning, innovation, and growth (1st ed.). Wiley.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future
of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-
091305

123
Edmondson, A. C., & Mogelof, J. P. (2006). Explaining psychological safety in innovation
teams: organizational culture, team dynamics, or personality? In creativity and innovation
in organizational teams (pp. 129–156). Psychology Press.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double‐edged sword: Transformational leadership and
individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54–68.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00786.x
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared
leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance
of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., & Mansfield, L. R. (2012). Whistle while you work:
A review of the life satisfaction literature. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1038–1083.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311429379
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013). Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and
performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 490–506.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12049
Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). Co‐worker trust as a social catalyst for
constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 608–622.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410551516
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods
designs-principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.

124
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017).
Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology,
70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across
multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327
Gardner, A. S., Courtney, P., Burton, L., Baker, C. M., Malekinezhad, F., & Jones, C. (2022).
Insights into the Gem journey: A summary evaluation report.
George, B. (2010). True north: Discover your authentic leadership (Vol. 143). Hoboken, NJ.
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015).
Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of
Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of
leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Gottfredson, R. K., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Leadership behaviors and follower performance:
Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying
mechanisms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 558–591.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2152
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development
of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

125
Grailey, K. E., Murray, E., Reader, T., & Brett, S. J. (2021). The presence and potential impact
of psychological safety in the healthcare setting: an evidence synthesis. BMC health
services research, 21, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06740-6
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. Paulist Press.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4),
423–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for
examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897–919.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.006
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the
effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of
Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/256901
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S. K., & Blue, A. (2013). The relationship
between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Gallup Poll Consulting
University Press.
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools
and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.

126
Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of
leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1137–1177.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310393520
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2015). Leader reinforcement, behavioral integrity, and
subordinate outcomes: A social exchange approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6),
991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.006
Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness
to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from
failures. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 107–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.009
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values (Vol. 5). Sage.
Hu, J., & Hirsh, J. (2017). The benefits of meaningful work: A meta-analysis. In Academy of
Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 13866). Academy of Management.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.13866abstract
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity,
and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 29(5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001
Hollander, E. P. (2012). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship.
Routledge.
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A
meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587

127
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at
work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
Iqbal, Q., Ahmad, N. H., Nasim, A., & Khan, S. A. R. (2020). A moderated-mediation analysis
of psychological empowerment: Sustainable leadership and sustainable performance.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 262, 121429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121429
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Diversity in work groups: Research paradigms for a changing workplace.
In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 269–313). Consulting Psychologists Press.
Javed, B., Naqvi, S. M. M. R., Khan, A. K., Arjoon, S., & Tayyeb, H. H. (2019). Impact of
inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety.
Journal of Management & Organization, 25(1), 117–136.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.3
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Khan, A. K., Bell, C. M., & Quratulain, S. (2022). Interpersonal justice and creativity: testing the
underlying cognitive mechanisms. Management Research Review, 45(12), 1627–1643.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2021-0206
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the selfregulatory focus in leadership processes. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2),
500–528. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24351846

128
Kim, H., & Kim, T. (2017). Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: A review of
empirical studies. Human Resource Development Review, 16(4), 377–393.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317729262
Kluger, A. N., & Itzchakov, G. (2022). The power of listening at work. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 121–146.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091013
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B.,
Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn,
F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., …
Vugt, M. van. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights
for future research and action. The American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
Kolbe, M., Eppich, W., Rudolph, J., Meguerdichian, M., Catena, H., Cripps, A., Grant, V., &
Cheng, A. (2020). Managing psychological safety in debriefings: a dynamic balancing
act. BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(3), 164–171.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000470
Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.
Psychological Science, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multi-level approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.

129
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Chapter 3: Developing a questioning route. In Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.; pp. 35–61). Sage.
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership,
creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837
Lee, H. (2021). Changes in workplace practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: the roles of
emotion, psychological safety and organisation support. Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, 8(1), 97–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-
2020-0104
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic functioning,
and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
82(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.012
Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as
drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 255–
264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1036-1
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics. Harper &
Row.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,
and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407–416.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407

130
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development
of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
Lindsey, A., King, E., Hebl, M., & Levine, N. (2015). The impact of method, motivation, and
empathy on diversity training effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, pp. 30,
605–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9384-3
Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). From listening to leading: Toward an
understanding of supervisor listening within the framework of leader-member exchange
theory. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(4), 431–451.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415572778
Lopes, P. N. (2016). Emotional intelligence in organizations: Bridging research and
practice. Emotion Review, 8(4), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916650496
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and the
perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(3),
641–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00242-8
Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2015). Positive Organizational
Behavior: Framework for Psychological Capital. In Psychological Capital and Beyond.
Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet,
358(9280), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6
Mao, Y., Lai, Y., Zhai, Y., Xie, M., Yu, J., Wang, Q., Lu, S., Ma, J., & Bonaiuto, M. (2022).
Authentic leadership and employee resilience: A moderated mediation analysis. Frontiers
in Psychology, 13, 901085–901085. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901085

131
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member
exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology,
69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100
Martin, R., Thomas, G., Legood, A., & Dello Russo, S. (2018). Leader–member exchange
(LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2202
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety, and availability, and the engagement of the human spirit at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892
Mat, N., Jansriboot, P., & Mat, N. (2019). Big five personality, transformational leadership,
psychological safety, and employee engagement of private sector employees in southern
Thailand. Jurnal Pengurusan, 56, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.17576/pengurusan-2019-56-
02
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
Maximo, N., Stander, M. W., & Coxen, L. (2019). Authentic leadership and work engagement:
The indirect effects of psychological safety and trust in supervisors. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 45(1), 1–11 http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1612

132
Mazzucca, S., Parks, R. G., Tabak, R. G., Allen, P., Dobbins, M., Stamatakis, K. A., &
Brownson, R. C. (2019). Assessing organizational supports for evidence-based decision
making in local public health departments in the United States: Development and
psychometric properties of a new measure. Journal of Public Health Management and
Practice, 25(5), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000952
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256727
Men, L. R. (2014). Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership,
communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management Communication
Quarterly, 28(2), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914524536
Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). The impact of leadership style and employee empowerment
on perceived organizational reputation. Journal of Communication Management, 17(2),
171–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541311318765
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., & Cooper, B. (2019). CEO entrepreneurial leadership and
performance outcomes of top management teams in entrepreneurial ventures: The
mediating effects of psychological safety. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3),
1119–1135. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12465
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee
silence: issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of
Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387

133
Mor Barak, M. E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is inclusion?
Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(2), 83–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1035599
Morse, J. M. (2016). Mixed method design: principles and procedures. Taylor and Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315424538
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness
and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care
teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Psychological safety: A foundation for speaking
up, collaboration, and experimentation in organizations. In The Oxford Handbook of
Positive Organizational Scholarship. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0037
Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the
literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Sage Publications.
Nyhan, R. C., & Marlowe Jr, H. A. (1997). Development and psychometric properties of the
organizational trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21(5), 614–635.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9702100505

134
O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed
methods studies. BMJ, 341(7783), 1147–1150. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587
O‘Donovan, R., & McAuliffe, E. (2020). A systematic review exploring the content and
outcomes of interventions to improve psychological safety, speaking up and voice
behaviour. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 101–101.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4931-2
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence team performance?
Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of
Management Journal, 59(3), 1088–1111. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0660
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X0300300213
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Premru, M., Černe, M., & Batistič, S. (2022). The road to the future: A multi-technique
bibliometric review and development projections of the leader–member exchange (LMX)
research. Sage Open, 12(2), 21582440221097688.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221097688

135
Rigotti, T., De Cuyper, N., & Sekiguchi, T. (2020). The corona crisis: What can we learn from
earlier studies in applied psychology? Applied Psychology, 69(3), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12265
Roberge, M. É. (2013). A multi-level conceptualization of empathy to explain how diversity
increases group performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(3),
122. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n3p12
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange
(LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029978
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2021). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using
Microsoft Excel. Sage publications.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. (2017). A dual-stage moderated mediation model
linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group
methods: The laboratory approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., González-Romá, V., Ostroff, C., & West, M. A. (2017). Organizational climate
and culture: Reflections on the history of the constructs in the Journal of Applied
Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 468–482.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000090

136
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of
destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in
organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643–663.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011079673
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application
in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57–64.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900205
Sfantou, D. F., Laliotis, A., Patelarou, A. E., Sifaki-Pistolla, D., Matalliotakis, M., & Patelarou,
E. (2017). Importance of leadership style towards quality of care measures in healthcare
settings: A systematic review. Healthcare (Basel), 5(4), 73.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare5040073
Sherf, E. N., Parke, M. R., & Isaakyan, S. (2021). Distinguishing voice and silence at work:
Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological safety, and burnout. Academy
of Management Journal, 64(1), 114–148. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1428
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375609
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.
(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.
Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943

137
Sieber, J. E. (1992). Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal
review boards (1st ed., Vol. 31). SAGE Publications Inc
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
Tamtik, M., & Guenter, M. (2019). Policy analysis of equity, diversity and inclusion strategies in
Canadian universities–How far have we come? Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 49(3), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v49i3.188529
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: a
three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020939
Thomas, G., & Myers, K. (2015). The anatomy of the case study. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920156
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6),
384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2019). EEOC secured $486 million
for victims of discrimination in FY 2019.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group
performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X., & Liu, C. (2017). Integrating ICT adoption issues into (e-)
leadership theory. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 527–537.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.003

138
Vieira, J., Gomes da Costa, C., & Santos, V. (2024). Talent management and Generation Z: A
systematic literature review through the lens of employer branding. Administrative
Sciences, 14(3), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030049
Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy,
and creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456–465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.005
Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary
learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification
and leader‐member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103–1126.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.611
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.
(2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member
exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002
West, M. A., & Lyubovnikova, J. (2013). Illusions of team working in health care. Journal of
health organization and management, 27(1), 134–142.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14777261311311843
Zeng, H., Zhao, L., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Inclusive leadership and taking-charge behavior: roles of
psychological safety and thriving at work. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 509644.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00062

139
Zhang, W., Zeng, X., Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Cao, X. (2023). Understanding How Organizational
Culture Affects Innovation Performance: A Management Context
Perspective. Sustainability, 15(8), 6644-. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086644

140
Appendix A: Quantitative Protocol
Thank you for participating in this survey. The aim is to understand better the nature of
relationships within teams and how psychological safety and leader-member exchange influence
team dynamics. Your responses will remain confidential and used solely for research purposes.
Demographic and Contextual Questions
1. What is your age? (options: under 25, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65 and over)
2. What is your gender? (options: male, female, prefer not to say, other)
3. What business function is your current role assigned to? (options: sales and
marketing, operations, finance, human resources, production, information technology,
other)
4. What is your level of seniority? (options: C-suite, executive, middle management,
front line manager, other)
5. How long have you been in this role? (options: less than 1 year, 1–3 years, 3–5 years,
more than 5 years)
6. How many people directly report to you? (options: none, 1–5, 6–10, more than 10)
7. What is the overall size of your organization (number of employees)? (options: less
than 500, 500–1,000, 1,000–5,000, 5,000–10,000, 10,000–20,000, 20,000–50,000,
above 50,000)
8. In what industry sector does your organization operate? (open-ended response)
9. What is your highest level of education? (options: high school diploma, bachelor’s
degree, master’s degree, doctorate or professional degree, other)

141
Leader-Member Exchange 7 (LMX-7) Scale
The following seven items ask about your relationship with your immediate supervisor or
team leader. For each of the items, indicate the degree to which you think the item is correct for
you by choosing one of the responses that appear below the item.
10. Do you know where you stand with your leader and do you usually know how
satisfied your leader is with what you do?
1. rarely
2. occasionally
3. sometimes
4. fairly often
5. very often
11. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?
1. not a bit
2. a little
3. a fair amount
4. quite a bit
5. a great deal
12. How well does your leader recognize your potential
1. not at all
2. a little
3. moderately
4. mostly
5. fully

142
13. Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has built into his or her
position, what are the chances that your leader would use his or her power to help you
solve problems in your work?
1. none
2. small
3. moderate
4. high
5. very high
14. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the
chances that he or she would “bail you out” at his or her own expense?
1. none
2. small
3. moderate
4. high
5. very high
15. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her
decision if he or she were not present to do so.
1. strongly disagree
2. disagree
3. neutral
4. agree
5. strongly agree
16. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader?

143
1. extremely ineffective
2. worse than average
3. average
4. better than average
5. extremely effective
Psychological Safety Scale (PSS)
The next 7 items ask about the psychological safety within your team. Please rate your
agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 7 = strongly
disagree).
17. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.
18. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.
19. People on this team sometimes reject others for being different.
20. It is safe to take a risk on this team.
21. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help.
22. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.
23. Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and
utilized.
Organizational Questions
These last three questions are interested in your perceptions about your organization.
Please rate your agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 7
= strongly disagree).
24. My organization has provided me with training about emotional and psychological
safety.

144
25. In general, my organization cares about how psychologically safe I feel in my role.
26. My organization makes an effort to foster positive leader/subordinate relationships.
Thank you for your time and participation in this survey. Your responses are valuable to
our research. Please feel free to reach out if you have any additional comments or questions
about this study.

145
Appendix B: Qualitative Protocol
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. We aim to understand your
perspective on leader-member exchange, psychological safety, and sense of belonging within
your team and the broader organization. All your responses will remain confidential and solely
be used for this research.
Demographic and Contextual Questions
1. What is your age? (options: under 25, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65 and over)
2. What is your gender? (options: male, female, prefer not to say, other)
3. What is your current role within the organization? (open-ended response)
4. How long have you been in this role? (options: less than 1 year, 1–3 years, 3–5 years,
more than 5 years)
5. How many people directly report to you? (options: none, 1–5, 6–10, more than 10)
6. What is the overall size of your organization (number of employees)? (options: less
than 500, 500–1,000, 1,000–5,000, 5,000–10,000, 10,000–20,000, 20,000–50,000,
above 50,000)
7. In what industry sector does your organization operate? (open-ended response)
8. What is your highest level of education? (options: high school diploma, bachelor’s
degree, master’s degree, doctorate or professional degree, other)
Interview Questions
9. Could you describe how your organization cultivates psychological safety among its
leaders?
10. How does your organization foster a sense of belonging among its leadership?

146
11. Can you share any specific training or development initiatives to promote
psychological safety and effective leadership in your organization?
12. How does your organization handle mistakes or setbacks, particularly at the
leadership level?
13. Could you provide an example of a situation where you or another leader took a
significant risk? What were the outcomes?
14. How would you describe the dynamics of trust between leaders and their teams
within your organization?
15. What does your organization do to encourage leaders to remain approachable and
open to feedback?
16. Can you share a situation where the organization’s actions significantly influenced
how you express yourself within your team?
17. How does your organization address disagreements or conflicts among leaders or
between leaders and their team members?
18. Can you provide an example of a situation where you felt your organization
contributed to fostering psychological safety within your team?
19. How does your organization encourage leaders to promote diversity and inclusion
within their teams?
20. How does your organization handle feedback from leaders about the work
environment or organizational culture?
21. Could you share an example of a time when the organization’s culture or policies
significantly affected team morale or motivation?

147
22. What more or less could your organization do to enhance psychological safety among
teams and leaders?
23. How does your organization demonstrate appreciation for its leaders’ work?
24. Can you share an example of a positive outcome from your organization’s efforts to
foster psychological safety?
25. Have any negative outcomes or challenges arose from the organization’s approach to
psychological safety and leader-member exchange?
26. How has the quality of leader-member exchange impacted your sense of belonging
and psychological safety within the organization?
27. How does your organization support leaders in handling personal or professional
issues affecting their team’s performance?
28. Can you describe any mechanisms in place within your organization that allow
leaders to voice their concerns or issues?
29. How does your organization promote open communication and transparency between
leaders and their teams?
30. Can you describe an instance where the organization’s approach to psychological
safety has influenced its decision-making process?
31. How does your organization handle situations where a leader or a team does not
adhere to the values of psychological safety and positive leader-member exchange?
32. Could you share an example of a time when your organization made significant
changes to promote psychological safety and leader-member exchange?

148
Thank you for sharing your experiences and insights. Your input is invaluable to our
research. If there are any additional thoughts or comments you would like to share or if you have
any questions about this study, please feel free to share now.

149
Appendix C: Demographic Characteristics of Qualitative Study Participants
Characteristic n %
Age
35–44 6 30
45–54 7 35
55–64 6 30
Over 65 1 5
Gender
Male 11 55
Female 9 45
Seniority level
C-suite 4 20
Executive 5 25
Middle management 10 50
Frontline leader 1 5
Years in role
1 year 2 10
1.5 years 1 5
2 years 3 15
3 years 6 30
4 years 3 15
5 years 3 15
6 years 1 5
8 years 1 5
Direct reports
3 1 5
4 2 10
5 2 10
6 3 15
7 2 10
8 1 5
9 1 5
10 4 20
12 2 10
14 1 5
49 1 5
Organizational size
Under 500 2 10
500–1,000 1 5
1,000–5,000 6 30
5,000–10,000 2 10
20,000–50,000 1 5
50,000+ 8 40
Industry

150
Characteristic
n
%
Financial services
1
5
Technology
3 15
Food manufacturing
1
5
Higher education
4 20
Meatpacking
1
5
Logistics
1
5
Healthcare
4 20
Aerospace
2 10
Insurance
1
5
Education staffing
1
5
Industrial machinery
1
5
Education
MBA
2 10
EdD
8 40
MFA
1
5
MS
1
5
MA
5 25
M
D
1
5
PhD
1
5
BA
1
5
n = 20

151
Appendix D: Demographic Characteristics of Quantitative Study Participants
Characteristic n %
Age
Under 25 0 0
25–34 14 4.5
35–44 112 36
45–54 112 36
55–64 67 21.5
Over 65 6 1.9
Gender
Male 139 44.7
Female 169 54.3
Other 3 1
What business function is your current role assigned to?
Sales and marketing 92 29.6
Operations 58 18.6
Finance 10 3.2
Human resources 49 15.8
Production 3 1
Information technology 23 7.4
Other 76 24.4
What is your level of seniority?
C-suite 38 12.2
Executive 109 35
Middle management 110 35.4
Front line manager 33 10.6
Other 21 6.8
How long have you been in this role?
Less than 1 year 39 12.5
1–3 years 108 34.7
3–5 years 58 18.6
5–10 years 56 18
More than 10 years 50 16.1
How many people report to you directly?
None 52 16.7
1–5 employees 106 34.1
6–10 employees 73 23.5
11–15 employees 28 9
15+ 52 16.7
What is your overall size of your organization (number of employees)?
Fewer than 500 97 31.2
500–1,000 39 12.5
1,000–5,000 56 18
5,000–10,000 32 10.3

152
Characteristic n %
10,000–20,000 26 8.4
20,000–50,000 25 8
50,000+ 36 11.6
In what industry sector does your organization operate?
Agriculture, forestry,
fishing, and hunting
2 0.6
Mining, quarrying, and oil
and gas extraction
3 1
Utilities 4 1.3
Construction 2 0.6
Manufacturing 15 4.8
Wholesale trade 3 1
Retail trade 7 2.3
Transportation and
warehousing
4 1.3
Information technology 30 9.6
Finance and insurance 27 8.7
Real estate 9 2.9
Professional, scientific,
and technical services
51 16.4
Management of companies
and enterprises
5 1.6
Administrative and support
and waste management
1 0.3
Education services 47 15.1
Health care and social
assistance
38 12.2
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation
4 1.3
Accommodation and food
service
2 0.6
Other services 46 14.8
Public administration 11 3.5
What is your highest level of education?
High school diploma 7 2.3
Some college 13 4.2
Bachelor’s degree 86 27.7
Master’s degree 125 40.2
Doctoral or professional
degree
77 24.8
Other 3 1
n = 311

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation explores leader psychological safety, specifically examining how organizations can create psychologically safe environments for their leaders. Utilizing a mixed-methods design, this study integrates findings from 20 qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey of 311 leaders from organizations with more than 500 employees. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model is employed as a conceptual framework to explore the multi-layered influences on leadership practices. Research centered on understanding the dynamics of leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships in relation to psychological safety and strategies for cultivating psychological safety at the leadership level. Results demonstrated a significant positive correlation between high-quality LMX relationships and psychological safety, highlighting the role of trust-based interactions and inclusive leadership. Key leadership behaviors, including active listening and empathy, alongside structured organizational practices, including leadership development and transparent communication, emerged as necessary for enhancing psychological safety. The study proposes prioritizing leadership development focused on trust and supportive interactions, advocating for inclusive leadership training and comprehensive policies to bolster psychological safety. These recommendations offer strategic tactics for enhancing leader and team well-being. This research contributes to the psychological safety and LMX theory literature, emphasizing the significance of leadership and organizational practices in nurturing a safe and inclusive workplace culture.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Disclosure of abuse to empowerment: exploring psychological safety as a leadership tool to support women struggling with workplace performance

PDF

Developing rates of psychological safety in Army Officer Candidates

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

What university equity and diversity leaders are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion

PDF

IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice

PDF

Senior leadership response to campus flashpoints

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on persisting leadership demographics in a military organization: perspectives on diversity and inclusion from minority female officers

PDF

The role of psychological safety in medical device quality

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

At the table, on the menu, and under the bus: are Black local health department employees psychologically safe?

PDF

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

Ambient anxiety within leadership teams and its impact on organizational efficiency in mental health organizations

PDF

Leave no leader behind (LNLB): leadership development for K-12 operations leaders

PDF

Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

PDF

Navigational leadership - a robust framework for leading in dynamic conditions

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

Leadership of ports and terminals in the global south and Oceania and the use of technological innovation during the crisis

Asset Metadata

Creator Payne, Martin R. (author)

Core Title Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 05/28/2024

Defense Date 04/12/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Communication,diversity equity and inclusion,emotional intelligence,Empathy,employee engagement,innovation,leader-member exchange,leadership development,leadership psychological safety,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational climate,organizational practices,psychological safety,Trust

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Lynch, Douglas (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Ramachandran, Raj (committee member)

Creator Email martin@pipeline.com,mrpayne@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113968291

Unique identifier UC113968291

Identifier etd-PayneMarti-13035.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PayneMarti-13035

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Payne, Martin R.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240529-usctheses-batch-1163 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu