Teamwork research has proposed that a safe interpersonal environment is an essential influence on innovation. However, the relationship between this environment and innovation is not clear-cut, as studies suggest that such an effect is neither strong nor generalizable across teams. Thus, this study argues that the positive relationship between psychological safety and innovation depends on team positive affective tone (TPAT). Accordingly, results showed that this relationship occurs only when TPAT is high. Therefore, we contribute to the teamwork and innovation literature by supporting the idea that the positive effects of psychological safety on innovation depend on the enhancing influence of positive affect.
AmabileT. M.BarsadeS. G.MuellerJ. S.StawB. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
2.
AndersonN.WestM. A. (1996). The team climate inventory: Development of the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414840
3.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
4.
BarsadeS. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094912
BarsadeS. G.WardA. J.TurnerJ. D. R.SonnenfeldJ. A. (2000). To your heart’s content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 802–836. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667020
7.
BradleyB. H.PostlethwaiteB. E.KlotzA. C.HamdaniM. R.BrownK. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024200
8.
CollinsA. L.LawrenceS. A.TrothA. C.JordanP. J. (2013). Group affective tone: A review and future research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(Suppl. 1), S43–S62. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1887
9.
De DreuC. K. W.WestM. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191–1201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191
10.
EdmondsonA. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2666999
11.
EldorL.HodorM.CappelliP. (2023). The limits of psychological safety: Nonlinear relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 177, 104255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104255
12.
EmichK. J. (2020). Well, I feel differently: The importance of considering affective patterns in groups. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(4), Article e12523. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12523
13.
EmichK. J.VincentL. C. (2020). Shifting focus: The influence of affective diversity on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.002
14.
ForgasJ. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 116, 39–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39
15.
ForgasJ. P.GeorgeJ. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2971
16.
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
GeorgeJ. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In WestM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 77–93). Wiley & Sons.
19.
GrawitchM. J.MunzD. C.KramerT. J. (2003). Effects of member mood states on creative performance in temporary workgroups. Group Dynamics, 7(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.7.1.41
20.
HuangL. C.LiuY.CheungG. W. H.SunJ. M. (2022). A multilevel study of group affective tone and team innovation: A moderated mediation model. Group & Organization Management, 47(6), 1259–1297. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211029411
21.
HulshegerU.AndersonN. R.SalgadoJ. (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
22.
KaneA. A.EmichK. J. (2024). The value of small samples to groups and teams research: Accumulating knowledge across philosophies of science. Group & Organization Management, 50(5–6), 1703–1735. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241282703
23.
KnightA. P.EisenkraftN. (2015). Positive is usually good, negative is not always bad: The effects of group affect on social integration and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1214–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000006
24.
KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.MannettiL.De GradaE. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113(1), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.84
25.
LeBretonJ. M.SenterJ. J. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810629664
26.
MadridH. P.NivenK.VasquezC. A. (2019). Leader interpersonal emotion regulation and innovation in teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(4), 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12292
27.
MadridH. P.PattersonM. (2023). Affect and creativity in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. In Reiter-PalmonR.HunterS. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 147–160). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91840-4.00020-7
28.
MadridH. P.PattersonM. G.AldayR. (2023). Group affect and creativity. In IvcevicZ.HoffmanJ. D.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity and emotions (pp. 540–558). Cambridge University Press.
29.
MadridH. P.PattersonM. G.BirdiK. S.LeivaP. I.KauselE. E. (2014). The role of weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1867
30.
MathieuJ. E.GallagherP. T.DomingoM. A.KlockE. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 15106. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
31.
MaynardM. T.ConroyS.LacerenzaC. N.BarnesL. Y. (2021). Teams in the wild are not extinct, but challenging to research: A guide for conducting impactful team field research with 10 recommendations and 10 best practices. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(3), 274–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620986597
32.
PearsallM. J.EllisA. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021503
33.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. In FiskeS. T.SchacterD. L.TaylorS. E. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 63, pp. 539–569). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
34.
RappT.MaynardT.DomingoM.KlockE. (2021). Team emergent states: What has emerged in the literature over 20 years. Small Group Research, 52(1), 68–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496420956715
35.
Reiter-PalmonR.MillierM. (2023). Psychological safety and creativity: The glue that binds a creative team. In IvcevicZ.HoffmanJ. D.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity and emotions (pp. 559–576). Cambridge University Press.
36.
ScheinE. H.BennisW. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods. Wiley.
37.
ShinY.KimM.LeeS. H. (2016). Positive group affective tone and team creative performance and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.166
38.
SundstromE.McIntyreM.HalfhillT.RichardsH. (2000). Work groups from the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990’s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 44–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.44
39.
TangheJ.WisseB.van der FlierH. (2009). The formation of group affect and team effectiveness: The moderating role of identification. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00656.x
40.
TsaiW.ChiN.GrandeyA.FungS. (2012). Positive group affective tone and team creativity: Negative group affective tone and team trust as boundary conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 638–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.775
41.
WarrP. B.BindlU.ParkerS. K.InceogluI. (2014). Job-related affects and behaviors: Activation as well as valence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 342–363. https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449
42.
WestM. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00951
