Team psychological safety is an inherently multilevel interpersonal phenomenon, yet its relational microfoundations remain unexplored. Building on the social relations model, we propose a three-level model of psychological safety that originates in members’ lower-level dyadic psychological safety perceptions. Our findings demonstrate that team members’ higher-level (un)shared perceptions of team psychological safety are shaped by their consistent levels of dyadic safety (relational uniformity) and their perceptions of safety toward salient teammates, such as the leader and high task-dependent teammates (relational nonuniformity). In doing so, we both affirm and nuance the implicit uniformity assumptions underlying current research practices.
AfshanG.Serrano-ArchimiC.RiazA.KashifM.KhuhroM. A. (2022). It’s not justice if it’s not for all: Cross-level interaction of interactional justice differentiation and supervisory justice on psychological safety and conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 33(5), 782–811. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-08-2021-0124
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
4.
BasitA. A. (2017). Trust in supervisor and job engagement: Mediating effects of psychological safety and felt obligation. Journal of Psychology, 151(8), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1372350
5.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2016). CLME: An R package for linear mixed effects models under inequality constraints. Journal of Statistical Software, 75(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
6.
BienefeldN.GroteG. (2014). Speaking up in ad hoc multiteam systems: Individual-level effects of psychological safety, status, and leadership within and across teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(6), 930–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2013.808398
7.
BoyrazM. (2019). Faultlines as the “earth’s crust”: The role of team identification, communication climate, and subjective perceptions of subgroups for global team satisfaction and innovation. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(4), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919860799
BurrisE. R.RodgersM. S.MannixE. A.HendronM. G.OldroydJ. B. (2009). Playing favorites: The influence of leaders’ inner circle on group processes and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1244–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209338747
10.
CarmeliA.BruellerD.DuttonJ. 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
11.
CartonA. M.CummingsJ. N. (2013). The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 732–758. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033593
12.
CastroD. R.AnseelF.KlugerA. N.LloydK. J.Turjeman-LeviY. (2018). Mere listening effect on creativity and the mediating role of psychological safety. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 12(4), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000177
13.
ChanD. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.83.2.234
14.
ChughtaiA. A.BuckleyF. (2013). Exploring the impact of trust on research scientists’ work engagement: Evidence from Irish science research centres. Personnel Review, 42(4), 396–421. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-06-2011-0097
15.
ColeM. S.BedeianA. G.HirschfeldR. R.VogelB. (2011). Dispersion-composition models in multilevel research: A data-analytic framework. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 718–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110389078
16.
CoultasC. W.DriskellT.BurkeC. S.SalasE. (2014). A conceptual review of emergent state measurement: Current problems, future solutions. Small Group Research, 45(6), 671–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414552285
17.
CourtrightS. H.ThurgoodG. R.StewartG. L.PierottiA. J.ConsultingD. (2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1825–1846. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000027
18.
CoutifarisC. G. V.GrantA. M. (2022). Taking your team behind the curtain: The effects of leader feedback-sharing and feedback-seeking on team psychological safety. Organization Science, 33(4), 1574–1598. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1498
19.
CrawfordE. R.LePineJ. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0206
CummingsT. G.WorleyC. G. (2019). Organization development & change. Cengage Learning.
22.
DawsonJ. F. (2003). Do we have enough? The accuracy of incomplete data from small groups. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2003(1), A1–A6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2003.13792311
23.
De JongB. A.DirksK. T. (2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: Implications of asymmetry and dissensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026483
24.
de JongS. B.Van der VegtG. S.MollemanE. (2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1625–1637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1625
25.
DetertJ. R.BurrisE. 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
26.
EdmondsonA. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
27.
EdmondsonA. C. (2003). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. In WestM. A.TjosvoldD.SmithK. G. (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 255–275). John Wiley & Sons.
28.
EdmondsonA. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In KramerR.CookK. (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). Russell Sage Foundation.
29.
EdmondsonA. C.BransbyD. P. (2023). Psychological safety comes of age: Observed themes in an established literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055217
30.
EdmondsonA. C.LeiZ. (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
31.
EdmondsonA. C.RoloffK. S. (2009). Overcoming barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and learning in diverse teams. In SalasE.GoodwinG. F.BurkeC. S. (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 183–208). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
32.
EdmondsonA. C.MogelofJ. P. (2006). Explaining psychological safety in innovation teams: Organizational culture, team dynamics, or personality? In ThompsonL. L.ChoiH. S. (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizational teams (pp. 109–136). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33.
FrazierM. L.FainshmidtS.KlingerR. L.PezeshkanA.VrachevaV. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
34.
FyhnB.BangH.EgelandT.ScheiV. (2023). Safe among the unsafe: Psychological safety climate strength matters for team performance. Small Group Research, 54(4), 439–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221121273
35.
GazzoliG.ShabazzS. M.ArnoldT. J.KimP. B. (2023). Why do frontline employees speak up on behalf of customers? The influence of supervisors versus coworkers and the role of intrapersonal factors. Journal of Business Research, 156, 113514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113514
36.
GelmanA.CarlinJ. B.SternH. S.DunsonD. B.VehtariA.RubinD. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
37.
GillP. S.SwartzT. B. (2001). Statistical analyses for round robin interaction data. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 29(2), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.2307/3316080
GriffinD. J.SomarajuA. V.DishopC.DeShonR. P. (2023). Evaluating interdependence in workgroups: A network-based method. Organizational Research Methods, 26(3), 459–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211068179
GunasekeraG.LiyanagamageN.FernandoM. (2021). The role of emotional intelligence in student-supervisor relationships: Implications on the psychological safety of doctoral students. International Journal of Management in Education, 19(2), 100491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100491
42.
GuoG.GongQ.LiS.LiangX. (2021). Don’t speak ill of others behind their backs: Receivers’ ostracism (sender-oriented) reactions to negative workplace gossip. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S288961
43.
HaoQ.ZhangB.ShiY.YangQ. (2022). How trust in coworkers fosters knowledge sharing in virtual teams? A multilevel moderated mediation model of psychological safety, team virtuality, and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 899142. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.899142
44.
HarveyJ.-F.JohnsonK. J.RoloffK. S.EdmondsonA. C. (2019). From orientation to behavior: The interplay between learning orientation, open-mindedness, and psychological safety in team learning. Human Relations, 72(11), 1726–1751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718817812
HumphreyS. E.AimeF. (2014). Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 443–503. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.904140
47.
JendryczkoD.NussbeckF. W. (2024). Estimating and investigating multiple constructs multiple indicators social relations models with and without roles within the traditional structural equation modeling framework: A tutorial. Psychological Methods, 29(5), 919–946. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000534
48.
JorgensenT. D.ForneyK. J.HallJ. A.GilesS. M. (2018). Using modern methods for missing data analysis with the social relations model: A bridge to social network analysis. Social Networks, 54, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.11.002
49.
KahnW. 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
50.
KennyD. A. (1995). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Elsevier.
51.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Publications.
52.
KennyD. A.La VoieL. (1984). The social relations model. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 141–182). Academic Press.
53.
KoopmannJ.LanajK.WangM.ZhouL.ShiJ. (2016). Nonlinear effects of team tenure on team psychological safety climate and climate strength: Implications for average team member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 940–957. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000097
54.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2012). Team learning, development, and adaptation. In SessaV. I.LondonM. (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 15–44). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T. (2018). Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: Challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods. American Psychologist, 73(4), 576–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000245
56.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493119
57.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2016). Capturing the multilevel dynamics of emergence: Computational modeling, simulation, and virtual experimentation. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614547955
58.
KozlowskiS. W. J.KleinK. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
59.
LabiancaG.BrassD. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596–614. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318920
60.
LehmannM.PeryS.KlugerA. N.HekmanD. R.OwensB. P.MalloyT. E. (2023). Relationship-specific (dyadic) humility: How your humility predicts my psychological safety and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001059
61.
LemoineG. J.KoseogluG.GhahremaniH.BlumT. C. (2020). Importance-weighted density: A shared leadership illustration of the case for moving beyond density and decentralization in particularistic resource networks. Organizational Research Methods, 23(3), 432–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118792077
62.
LiuW.SongZ.LiX.LiaoZ. (2017). Why and when leaders’ affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 238–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1082
63.
LiuW.TangiralaS.LamW.ChenZ.JiaR. T.HuangX. (2015). How and when peers’ positive mood influences employees’ voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 976–989. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038066
64.
LondonM.VolmerJ.ZyberajJ. (2023). Beyond LMX: Toward a theory-based, differentiated view of leader–member relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 38(4), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-10-2022-0513
65.
LöschT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.KelavaA.NagengastB.TrautweinU. (2017). A well-rounded view: Using an interpersonal approach to predict achievement by academic self-concept and peer ratings of competence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.07.003
66.
LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.KennyD. A.TrautweinU. (2013). A general and flexible approach to estimating the social relations model using Bayesian methods. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029252
67.
LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.TrautweinU. (2018). Integrating covariates into social relations models: A plausible values approach for handling measurement error in perceiver and target effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(1), 102–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1406793
68.
LuG.LiangY.DingY.TangH.ZhangY.HuangH.ChenC. (2022). Nurses’ feeling trusted and knowledge hiding: The role of psychological safety, felt obligation and traditionality. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1034882. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1034882
69.
LunnD. J.ThomasA.BestN.SpiegelhalterD. (2000). WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing, 10, 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008929526011
70.
MarcusD. K. (2021). Studying group dynamics with the social relations model revisited. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000165
71.
MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.SalasE. (2025). Examining how psychological safety consensus emerges over time. Small Group Research, 56(2), 175–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241288221
72.
Martínez-BeneitoM.Vergara-HernándezC. (2023). pbugs: Run WinBUGS or OpenBUGS Models in parallel (Version 1.0.6) [Computer software]. https://github.com/fisabio/pbugs.
73.
MartinsL. L.SchilpzandM. C.KirkmanB. L.IvanajS.IvanajV. (2013). A contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: The moderating roles of team psychological safety and relationship conflict. Small Group Research, 44(2), 96–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412466921
74.
MathieuJ. E.TannenbaumS. I.DonsbachJ. S.AlligerG. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503014
75.
MayfieldM.MayfieldJ. (2021). Sound and safe: The role of leader motivating language and follower self-leadership in feelings of psychological safety. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020051
76.
MuraseT.DotyD.WaxA.DeChurchL. A.ContractorN. S. (2012). Teams are changing: Time to “think networks. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01402.x
77.
MyersC. G. (2020). Performance benefits of reciprocal vicarious learning in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0875
78.
NellenL. C.GijselaersW. H.GrohnertT. (2020). A meta-analytic literature review on organization-level drivers of team learning. Human Resource Development Review, 19(2), 152–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319894756
79.
NembhardI. M.EdmondsonA. 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
80.
NestlerS.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA. (2020). Maximum likelihood estimation of a social relations structural equation model. Psychometrika, 85(4), 870–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-020-09728-z
81.
NewmanA.DonohueR.EvaN. (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
82.
OcampoA. C. G.GuJ.LiQ.KoseogluG.WangL.AshkanasyN. M. (2025). A multimethod investigation of the interpersonal effects of leader perfectionism and anger expression on employee psychological safety and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 46(1), 108–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2822
83.
O’DonovanR.De BrúnA.McAuliffeE. (2021). Healthcare professionals experience of psychological safety, voice, and silence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626689
84.
O’DonovanR.McAuliffeE. (2020). Exploring psychological safety in healthcare teams to inform the development of interventions: Combining observational, survey and interview data. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 810. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05646-z
85.
O’DonovanR.Van DunD.McAuliffeE. (2020). Measuring psychological safety in healthcare teams: Developing an observational measure to complement survey methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01066-z
86.
PloyhartR. E.HendricksJ. L. (2019). The missing levels of microfoundations: A call for bottom-up theory and methods. In HumphreyS. E.LeBretonJ. M. (Eds.), The handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 141–162). American Psychological Association.
87.
Posit Team. (2024). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R [Computer Software]. Posit Software, PBC. http://www.posit.co/
88.
PuderD.DominguezC.BoreckyA.IngA.IngK.MartinezA. E.PereauM.KashnerT. M. (2022). Assessing interpersonal relationships in medical education: The connection index. Academic Psychiatry, 46(6), 683–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-021-01574-0
89.
RaverJ. L.EhrhartM. G.ChadwickI. C. (2012). The emergence of team helping norms: Foundations within members’ attributes and behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 616–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.772
90.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
91.
RegoA.MeloA. I.BluhmD. J. ECunhaM. P.JúniorD. R. (2021). Leader-expressed humility predicting team psychological safety: A personality dynamics lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 174(3), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04622-1
92.
RichterA. W.WestM. A.van DickR.DawsonJ. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1252–1269. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478720
93.
RichterN. F.MartinJ.HansenS. V.TarasV.AlonI. (2021). Motivational configurations of cultural intelligence, social integration, and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Business Research, 129, 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.012
94.
RiveraA. E.Rodríguez-AcevesL.Mojarro-DuranB. I. (2021). Enabling knowledge sharing through psychological safety in inter-organisational arrangements. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(5), 1170–1193. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-04-2020-0241
95.
RoussinC. J.MacLeanT. L.RudolphJ. W. (2016). The safety in unsafe teams: A multilevel approach to team psychological safety. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1409–1433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525204
96.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley.
97.
SackettE.CummingsJ. N. (2018). When team members perceive task interdependence differently: Exploring centrality asymmetry and team success. Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, 22(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000079
98.
SalancikG. R.PfefferJ. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563
99.
SalmanK.Hussain AwanS.HabibN. (2020). Link between employee voice and organizational citizenship behavior: Moderating role of psychological safety. International Review of Management and Business Research, 9(3), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.30543/9-3(2020)-19
100.
SannerB.BundersonJ. S. (2015). When feeling safe isn’t enough: Contextualizing models of safety and learning in teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(3), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614565145
101.
SasakiN.InoueA.AsaokaH.SekiyaY.NishiD.TsutsumiA.ImamuraK. (2022). The survey measure of psychological safety and its association with mental health and job performance: A validation study and cross-sectional analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 9879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169879
102.
SchaubroeckJ.LamS. S. K.PengA. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022625
103.
SchulteM.CohenN. A.KleinK. J. (2012). The coevolution of network ties and perceptions of team psychological safety. Organization Science, 23(2), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0582
104.
ShahP. P.PetersonR. S.JonesS. L.FergusonA. J. (2021). Things are not always what they seem: The origins and evolution of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 426–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220965186
105.
SiasP. M.TsetsiE.WooN.SmithA. D. (2020). With a little help from my friends: Perceived task interdependence, coworker communication, and workplace friendship. Communication Studies, 71(4), 528–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1749863
106.
SiemsenE.RothA. V.BalasubramanianS.AnandG. (2009). The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(3), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1080.0233
107.
SiyalS. (2023). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Exploring the role of psychological safety and trust in leader in multiple organizational context. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 32(4), 1170–1184. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12556
108.
TangY.XuE.HuangX.PuX. (2023). When can display of authenticity at work facilitate coworker interactions? The moderating effect of perception of organizational politics. Human Relations, 76(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211031834
109.
ThompsonP. S.KlotzA. C. (2022). Led by curiosity and responding with voice: The influence of leader displays of curiosity and leader gender on follower reactions of psychological safety and voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 172, 104170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104170
110.
TynanR. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic psychological safety and upward communication1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02119.x
111.
Van Der VegtG.EmansB.Van De VliertE. (2000). Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600403
112.
WangJ.LeungK.ZhouF. (2014). A dispositional approach to psychological climate: Relationships between interpersonal harmony motives and psychological climate for communication safety. Human Relations, 67(4), 489–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713495423
113.
WangX.LiuS.FengW. (2022). How leader humor stimulates subordinate boundary-spanning behavior: A social information processing theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 956387. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.956387
114.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL.FrançoisR.GrolemundG.HayesA.HenryL.HesterJ.KuhnM.PedersenT.MillerE.BacheS.MüllerK.OomsJ.RobinsonD.SeidelD.SpinuV., . . . YutaniH. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
115.
WongM.-N.KennyD. A.KnightA. P. (2024). SRM_R: A web-based shiny app for social relations analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 27(1), 114–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221134104
116.
XuM.QinX.DustS. B.DiRenzoM. S. (2019). Supervisor-subordinate proactive personality congruence and psychological safety: A signaling theory approach to employee voice behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 30(4), 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.03.001
117.
YiH.HaoP.YangB.LiuW. (2017). How leaders’ transparent behavior influences employee creativity: The mediating roles of psychological safety and ability to focus attention. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816670306
118.
ZengH.ZhaoL.ZhaoY. (2020). Inclusive leadership and taking-charge behavior: Roles of psychological safety and thriving at work. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 62. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00062
119.
ZhangY.WanM. (. (2021). The double-edged sword effect of psychological safety climate: A theoretical framework. Team Performance Management, 27(5/6), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-01-2021-0005
120.
ZhangZ.SongP. (2020). Multi-level effects of humble leadership on employees’ work well-being: The roles of psychological safety and error management climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 571840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.571840
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
