Together in the sandbox

Psychological safety it is generally defined as freedom from interpersonal fear. Edmondson (1999) defines it as a process-oriented construct at team level. It is operationalised in a scale of seven items. Only rare, the construct has been defined as a team’s capacity to engage all its members by being open to minority opinions and unique forms of expression. The most dominant approach to research is quantitative. There are positive correlations between psychological safety and team learning and team performance. Existing quantitative research dominates perceptions of psychological safety, while it does not do justice to the process-oriented character of the construct. There is epistemological drift. This undermines the clarity of the construct. The limited existing qualitative research uses different ‘sensitising concepts’ for the operationalisation of the construct, that are not based on research. They lack a scientific basis. To conclude, existing literature is insufficient to give a clear, cohesive and insightful understanding of the construct. This research focuses on the meaning of psychological safety, what it is influenced by its consequences and how it can be increased. This aim will be achieved utilising four key research questions. It is embedded in a process-oriented ontology and in a social constructionism epistemology. The research methodology is qualitative. Discussion Psychological safety is an emerging characteristic of an interactive process within a team. It can best be described as a practice; the psychological safety practice. At its core is the absence of interpersonal fear and the focus on the wellbeing and development of the team and its members. In the operationalisation of the construct, open communication is key. The outcomes indicate that the level of psychological safety within the board of management teams directly influences the functioning and development of the entire organisation, and that loyalty is a factor in this. A low level of psychological safety leads to less loyalty to the board of directors or senior management team and can dissolve a unified discourse aimed at the organisation. In turn, this can cause confusion, discomfort and stagnation of productivity within the organisation. The following aspects impact negatively the practice of psychological safety - prioritising self interest, being too emotional and not being answerable for one’s own behaviour. On the other hand, reliability, integrity, empathy and kindness have a positive influence. The data indicate that a high level of psychological safety practice leads to job satisfaction, whereas a low level has more impact on personal feelings and causes insecurity, lack of purpose, boredom, anger and unhappiness. It shows that investing time and energy in each other pays off in terms of the psychological safety practice. Conclusions How do the respondent teams interpret psychological safety? Interactions are aimed at the level of being free from interpersonal fear and the wellbeing and development of the team and its members. Open communication is crucial throughout. Which factors foster or impede psychological safety? Knowing each other well, maintaining good interpersonal relationships and adjusting team members to their roles and tasks and vice versa. Key impediments are lack of open communication, letting individual interests prevail over team interests and spending too little time and energy on each other. What are the consequences of psychological safety and the lack of it? A high level of psychological safety results in prosocial behaviour, as well as job satisfaction, open communication and high performance. Low levels of psychological safety lead to less social behaviour, opaque communication, negative personal feelings and low performance. Which interventions can assist in increasing psychological safety? Interventions aimed at improving communication on collaboration and creating an environment that facilitates this can increase psychological safety.