Although numerous studies have increasingly examined psychological safety at individual and unit levels of analyses, few have disentangled their distinct moderating effects. Thus, it remains unclear whether the impact of unit psychological safety derives primarily from individuals’ perceptions of the unit, or from members’ shared unit perceptions. We test whether psychological safety—either as an individual-driven (within-unit) force or as a unit-driven (cross-level) force—moderates the relationship between psychological empowerment and individual performance. Using a sample of 478 healthcare professionals from 78 hospital units, we found that psychological empowerment exhibited a positive relationship with subsequent individual performance at relatively high levels of psychological safety, whereas it exhibited a negative relationship at relatively low levels of psychological safety. We found that the interaction was strictly a cross-level effect after differentiating psychological safety effects across levels. Our results show it is not enough for individuals to perceive unit psychological safety for themselves, but those perceptions need to be shared with other members of the unit for psychological empowerment to yield individual performance benefits. We discuss the implications for future theory, research, and practice.
AmerF.HammoudS.KhatatbehH.LohnerS.BonczI.EndreiD. (2022). The deployment of balanced scorecard in health care organizations: Is it beneficial? A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07452-7
2.
AryeeS.ChenZ. X. (2006). Leader–member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59(7), 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.03.003
3.
AshforthB. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2), 207–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90051-4
4.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using eigen and S4. R package version, 1(1), 1–7.
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 & Organizational Psychology, 23(6), 930–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.808398
7.
BlieseP. D.MaltarichM. A.HendricksJ. L. (2018). Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9491-z
BulusM.DongN.KelceyB.SpybrookJ. (2021). PowerUpR: Power analysis tools for multilevel randomized experiments (R package version 1.1.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=PowerUpR.
10.
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
11.
ChamberlinM.NewtonD. W.LePineJ. A. (2018). A meta-analysis of empowerment and voice as transmitters of high-performance managerial practices to job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1296–1313. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2295
12.
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
13.
ChenG.BlieseP. D.MathieuJ. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8(4), 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105280056
ChenG.MathieuJ. E.BlieseP. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multi-level construct validation. In YammarinoF. J.DansereauF. (Eds.), Research in Multi-Level Issues3, pp. 273–303.
16.
CheongM.SpainS. M.YammarinoF. J.YunS. (2016). Two faces of empowering leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.006
17.
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
18.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1985). Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. In DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (pp. 11–40). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7_2
19.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
20.
DyerN. G.HangesP. J.HallR. J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.009
21.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
22.
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
23.
EdmondsonA. C.HigginsM.SingerS.WeinerJ. (2016). Understanding psychological safety in health care and education organizations: A comparative perspective. Research in Human Development, 13(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2016.1141280
24.
EdmondsonA. C.LeiZ. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, Renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
25.
ErkutluH.ChafraJ. (2016). Benevolent leadership and psychological well-being: The moderating effects of psychological safety and psychological contract breach. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(3), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0129
26.
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
27.
GardnerR. G.HarrisT. B.LiN.KirkmanB. L.MathieuJ. E. (2017). Understanding “it depends” in organizational research: A theory-based taxonomy, review, and future research agenda concerning interactive and quadratic relationships. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 610–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117708856
28.
GistM. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472–485. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306562
29.
GistM. E.MitchellT. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279530
30.
GuenoleN. (2016). The importance of isomorphism for conclusions about homology: A Bayesian multilevel structural equation modeling approach with ordinal indicators. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(7), 289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00289
31.
HafeziA.BabaiiA.AghaieB.AbbasiniaM. (2022). The relationship between patient safety culture and patient safety competency with adverse events: A multicenter cross-sectional study. BMC Nursing, 21(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01076-w
32.
HanY.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
33.
HarrisK. J.WheelerA. R.KacmarK. M. (2009). Leader–member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.006
34.
HarrisM. M.SmithD. E.ChampagneD. (1995). A field study of performance appraisal purpose: Research-versus administrative-based ratings. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01751.x
35.
HillA. D.JohnsonS. G.GrecoL. M.O’BoyleE. H.WalterS. L. (2021). Endogeneity: A review and agenda for the methodology-practice divide affecting micro and macro research. Journal of Management, 47(1), 105–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320960533
36.
HobfollS. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
37.
HofmannD. A.GavinM. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504
38.
JamesL. R.DemareeR. G.WolfG. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
KimS.LeeH.ConnertonT. P. (2020). How psychological safety affects team performance: Mediating role of efficacy and learning behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01581
41.
KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Multilevel theory, research. In: Methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions pp. 3–90.
42.
LaiX.LiF.LeungK. (2013). A monte carlo study of the effects of common method variance on significance testing and parameter bias in hierarchical linear modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112469667
43.
LayneD.NemethL.MuellerM.MartinM. (2019). Negative behaviors among healthcare professionals: Relationship with patient safety culture. Healthcare, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7010023
44.
LeBretonJ. M.SenterJ. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
45.
LeeS.CheongM.KimM.YunS. (2017). Never too much? The curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and task performance. Group & Organization Management, 42(1), 11–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116646474
46.
LiT.TangN. (2022). Inclusive leadership and innovative performance: A multi-level mediation model of psychological safety. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934831
47.
Llorente-AlonsoM.García-AelC.TopaG. (2024). A meta-analysis of psychological empowerment: Antecedents, organizational outcomes, and moderating variables. Current Psychology, 43(2), 1759–1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04369-8
48.
LoganM. S.GansterD. C. (2007). The effects of empowerment on attitudes and performance: The role of social support and empowerment beliefs. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1523–1550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00711.x
49.
MaoJ. Y.ChiangJ. T. J.ChenL.WuY.WangJ. (2019). Feeling safe? A conservation of resources perspective examining the interactive effect of leader competence and leader self-serving behaviour on team performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12233
50.
MathieuJ. E.AguinisH.CulpepperS. A.ChenG. (2012). Understanding and estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 951–966. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029358
51.
MathieuJ. E.ChenG. (2011). The etiology of the multilevel paradigm in management research. Journal of Management, 37(2), 610–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310364663
52.
MathieuJ. E.TaylorS. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1031–1056. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.406
53.
MaynardM. T.GilsonL. L.MathieuJ. E. (2012). Empowerment—Fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1231–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312438773
54.
MaynardM. T.LucianoM. M.D'InnocenzoL.MathieuJ. E.DeanM. D. (2014). Modeling time-lagged reciprocal psychological empowerment-performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1244–1253. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037623
55.
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
56.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. 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
57.
PotipiroonW.WongpreedeeA. (2021). Ethical climate and whistleblowing intentions: Testing the mediating roles of public service motivation and psychological safety among local government employees. Public Personnel Management, 50(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020944547
58.
RosseelY.JorgensenT.OberskiD.ByrnesJ.VanbrabantL.SavaleiV.ScharfF. (2019). Lavaan: Latent variable analysis (R package version 0.6-5). Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lavaan.
59.
ScheinE. H.BennisW. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach. Wiley.
60.
ScherbaumC. A.FerreterJ. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308906
61.
SeibertS. E.WangG.CourtrightS. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022676
62.
ShufflerM. L.DiazgranadosD.MaynardM. T.SalasE. (2018). Developing, sustaining, and maximizing team effectiveness: An integrative, dynamic perspective of team development interventions. The Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 688–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0045
SorraJ. S.DyerN. (2010). Multilevel psychometric properties of the AHRQ hospital survey on patient safety culture. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-199
65.
SpreitzerG. M. (1995a). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
66.
SpreitzerG. M. (1995b). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
67.
SpreitzerG. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.5465/256789
68.
SpreitzerG. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In BarlingJ.CooperC. L. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior (1, pp. 54–72): Sage. Micro Approaches.
TayL.WooS. E.VermuntJ. K. (2014). A conceptual and methodological framework for psychometric isomorphism: Validation of multilevel construct measures. Organizational Research Methods, 17(1), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113517008
71.
van den BergJ.AlblasA.BlancP. L.RommeA. G. L. (2022). How structural empowerment boosts organizational resilience: A case study in the Dutch home care industry. Organization Studies, 43(9), 1425–1451. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211030659
72.
WangD.GanC.WuC. (2016). LMX and employee voice: A moderated mediation model of psychological empowerment and role clarity. Personnel Review, 45(3), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2014-0255
73.
WitczakI.RypiczŁ.KarniejP.MłynarskaA.KubielasG.UchmanowiczI. (2021). Rationing of nursing care and patient safety. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.676970
74.
ZhouH.ChenJ. (2021). How does psychological empowerment prevent emotional exhaustion? Psychological safety and organizational embeddedness as mediators. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.546687
