Premium
Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension
Author(s) -
Frazier M. Lance,
Fainshmidt Stav,
Klinger Ryan L.,
Pezeshkan Amir,
Vracheva Veselina
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/peps.12183
Subject(s) - nomological network , psychology , psychological safety , organizational citizenship behavior , industrial and organizational psychology , social psychology , empirical research , applied psychology , test (biology) , structural equation modeling , organizational commitment , paleontology , philosophy , statistics , mathematics , epistemology , biology
Although psychological safety research has flourished in recent years, and despite the empirical support for the important role of psychological safety in the workplace, several critical questions remain. In order to address these questions, we aggregate theoretical and empirical works, and draw on 136 independent samples representing over 22,000 individuals and nearly 5,000 groups, to conduct a comprehensive meta‐analysis on the antecedents and outcomes of psychological safety. We not only present the nomological network of psychological safety but also extend this research in 4 important ways. First, we compare effect sizes to determine the relative effectiveness of antecedents to psychological safety. Second, we examine the extent to which psychological safety influences both task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors over and beyond related concepts such as positive leader relations and work engagement. Third, we examine whether research design characteristics and national culture alter validities within the nomological network, thus promoting a more accurate and contextualized understanding of psychological safety. Finally, we test the homology assumption by comparing the effect sizes of the antecedents and outcomes of psychological safety across individual and group levels of analysis. We conclude with a discussion of the areas in need of future examination.