Effectiveness of Psychological Safety on Employees Productivity

Abstract

This conceptual study has looked at the intricate relationship between psychological safety and employee productivity, shedding light on the considerable impact that psychological safety has on organisational success. It is now acknowledged that psychological safety, which is defined as the notion that people can communicate their thoughts, concerns, fears, and mistakes without fear of reprisal or humiliation, is a fundamental cognitive state that influences how employees interact with their jobs. It encourages taking chances, working together, and being open with one another, which enhances creativity and problem-solving abilities and ultimately increases productivity.

Full text

International Journal of Scientific and Management Research
Volume 06 Issue 10 (October) 2023
ISSN: 2581-6888
Page: 37-42
Effectiveness of Psychological Safety on Employees Productivity
Khalid Salim Almahri & Sazali Abd Wahab
Infrastructure University Kuala Lumpur (IUKL), Malaysia
DOI - http://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2023.61004
Abstract
This conceptual study has looked at the intricate relationship between psychological safety
and employee productivity, shedding light on the considerable impact that psychological
safety has on organisational success. It is now acknowledged that psychological safety, which
is defined as the notion that people can communicate their thoughts, concerns, fears, and
mistakes without fear of reprisal or humiliation, is a fundamental cognitive state that
influences how employees interact with their jobs. It encourages taking chances, working
together, and being open with one another, which enhances creativity and problem-solving
abilities and ultimately increases productivity.
Keywords: Psychological safety, Employee productivity
1. Introduction
Continuous improvements by innovation and learning are very importance in success of any
organization in this fast paced dynamic and hypercompetitive markets as there is a lot of
space for cooperating, experimenting and speaking up at organization levels (Grant &
Ashford, 2008; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2011). Employees are thus expected to participate
more actively at work, which has led organizational experts to try and pinpoint the elements
that encourage employees' willingness to take interpersonal risks and devote their energy to
their jobs (Kahn, 1990). Psychological safety, or the conviction that interpersonal risk-taking
is safe at work, has been identified as a fundamental cognitive state that supports the process
of learning, organizational transformation, and employee engagement (Edmondson, 1999;
Kahn, 1990).
Psychological safety is the conviction that you will not endure fallouts or face embarrassment
for voicing your viewpoints, inquiries, stresses, or mistakes. It is a typical presumption
among colleagues at work that they will not be embarrassed, dismissed, or punished for
giving suggestions, taking risks, or requesting criticism. Workers are more disposed to
partake effectively in their work, which helps efficiency, when they feel that their
contemplations and commitments are perceived and that they will not languish over standing
up or making mistakes.
The productivity of the company is now highly valued in the workplace culture. In its widest
definition, productivity refers to the process through which inputs like labor, capital, as well
as time are converted into outputs. In today's evolving workplace, organizations struggle to
comprehend employee sentiments. According to their study, several authors have explained
the concept of employee productivity. Although there were numerous research on employee

38 | International Journal of Scientific and Management Research 6(10) 37-42
Copyright © The Author, 2023 (www.ijsmr.in)
productivity, only those that demonstrated how different factors influenced employee
productivity were considered. Nowadays, organizations are putting more and more effort into
finding strategies to increase employee productivity (Burke and Hsieh, 2006).
According to widely accepted studies, there is a correlation between employee productivity
and organizational performance; the more productive the workforce, the more successful the
business will ultimately be (Iqbal, Ahmed, and Allen, 2019). According to Yunus and
Ernawati (2017), employee productivity is the ability to produce goods and services
efficiently in order to achieve organizational goals. Accordingly, a lack of trust among
employees and employers can result in lower employee productivity, which impedes the
development of the business. Iqbal, Ahmed, and Allen (2019) described employee
productivity in the context of interpersonal trust. Additionally, by concentrating on the lower-
level needs that lead to higher order needs like physiological needs, security or safety needs,
social demands, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization needs, employees may be motivated
by Maslow's hierarchy of needs to become productive at work. The work environment is the
most important factor, but there are still other factors that have an impact on employee
productivity (Awan and Tahir 2015; Serhan and Shammari 2015).
Employee productivity and psychological safety are closely related because they provide an
atmosphere where workers may take chances, share ideas, and give their all without worrying
about being judged or facing consequences. This feeling of security and trust promotes open
dialogue, teamwork, and invention, which boosts creativity and problem-solving abilities.
Additionally, when workers feel psychologically safe, they are less stressed and anxious,
which might improve their general well-being and ability to concentrate on their work.
Therefore, more psychological safety at work contributes to better morale, job satisfaction,
and eventually higher performance and productivity. Employees are more likely to take
responsibility for their job, experiment with new concepts, and devote their time and abilities
to accomplishing corporate goals in such a setting. The aim of this study is to investigate the
impact of psychological safety in the workplace on employee productivity and its underlying
mechanisms, with the aim of providing insights for organizations seeking to enhance
productivity and well-being among their employees.
2. Literature review
Collaboration is a common strategy employed in today's business environment to achieve
tasks inside firms. Due to limited information and challenging jobs, people must collaborate
across institutional and other obstacles to achieve organizational goals. Product development,
medical care, strategy development, and search and rescue missions are just a few of the
numerous responsibilities that call for cooperation. Since research on organizations has
identified psychological safety as a critical element in understanding how people cooperate to
achieve a common objective, it is an important concept that needs further examination
(Edmondson 1999, 2004).
In a specific environment, such as the workplace, psychological safety refers to beliefs about
the effects of taking interpersonal risks (e.g., Edmondson 1999). The idea that psychological
safety facilitates willing involvement in a shared undertaking has been a recurrent theme in
psychological safety studies throughout years and levels of study. For instance, psychological
safety helps explain why staff members share information and knowledge (Collins & Smith
2006, Siemsen et al. 2009), communicate up when suggesting improvements to the

39 | International Journal of Scientific and Management Research 6(10) 37-42
Copyright © The Author, 2023 (www.ijsmr.in)
organization (Detert & Burris 2007, Liang et al. 2012), and take the initiative to develop new
products and services (Baer & Frese 2003). Numerous studies show that psychological safety
promotes learning in teams and organizations (Bunderson & Boumgarden 2010, Carmeli
2007, Carmeli & Gittell 2009, Tucker et al. 2007) and perform (Carmeli et al. 2012, Collins
& Smith 2006, Schaubroeck et al. 2011).
Psychological safety has become a widely researched and focused construct in today’s
literature due to rise in development of information economies and role of collaboration. Both
of these changes have resulted in the emergence of new working relationships where workers
are expected to integrate viewpoints, exchange knowledge and ideas, and work together to
accomplish common objectives.
Nowadays, it is difficult for businesses to guarantee customer pleasure. Employee
commitment and loyalty results in higher production and, more crucially, in the maintenance
of the greatest levels of harmony and mutual trust between those who work there (A. R. &
Xie, J. L., 2000). Encouragement of discussion and good communication between coworkers
as well as between workers and managers, as well as the workforce's encouragement to share
their thoughts, opinions, and concerns, are some of the greatest ways to promote relationships
and peace in the workplace. When there are no unwelcome behaviors that breach respect or
produce a climate of intimidation and insult among employees, there can be a significant
amount of peace in the workplace. Additionally, it may help the company create fair vacation
policies, flexible work schedules, and effective work-life balance procedures.
According to (Akum & Abdullahi, 2013), workplace harmony results from the parties
involved absorbing their interests that include comprehension of workers role and making
best working condition for them that result in higher satisfaction of employee which in turn
lead to high productivity. According to (Puttapalli & Vuram, 2012), workplace harmony
refers to the nature of the interaction between management and employees with reference to
the terms and circumstances of employment. Harmony in the workplace is important and
necessary for organizations because it is thought to be a motivating factor for teamwork,
results in happiness for working members in the workplace, and thus achieves high levels of
organizational performance. It creates a state of cooperation between the both staff and
leadership willingly aimed at accomplishing the objectives of the organization.
Self-determination theory is a widely used theory for human motivation and individual
personality which focus on interaction of people based on their environment (Ryan and Deci,
2000). A solid foundation for comprehending the deep influence of psychological safety on
worker productivity is provided by self-determination theory (SDT). SDT emphasizes the
inborn human demands for competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Employees are given the
freedom to express their thoughts and make decisions in settings where psychological safety
is fostered, which satisfies the desire for autonomy. In order to develop competence, mistakes
are viewed as learning opportunities. Additionally, psychological safety cultivates a sense of
trust, cooperation, and belonging that satisfies the desire for relatedness. Employees are more
intrinsically driven when they feel that their basic needs are being satisfied, which ultimately
results in more engagement, better well-being, and increased productivity. SDT illustrates
how psychological safety fosters a culture where workers flourish and give their all to the
success of the firm.

40 | International Journal of Scientific and Management Research 6(10) 37-42
Copyright © The Author, 2023 (www.ijsmr.in)
Mullen, Kessler, and Neubert's (2018) study examined how psychological safety affected
high-stress workplaces. They found that employees reported less stress and anxiety in
environments where they felt psychologically safe. Higher job performance and job
satisfaction were consequently linked to this. The study demonstrated how psychological
safety might protect against the detrimental impacts of stress, enhancing productivity in the
process.
Smith and Johnson (2017) looked into how psychological safety affected organizational
change initiatives. The results showed that employees were more likely to actively participate
in the change process, provide recommendations, and quickly acclimate to new processes
when they felt a high level of psychological safety during times of transition. During
organizational changes, this greater engagement and adaptability resulted in easier transitions
and maintained or even boosted production levels.
Chen and Wang's (2020) investigation of the effects of psychological safety in intercultural
teams. The study showed that psychological safety was essential for fostering productive
cooperation in diverse teams, whose members frequently had varied cultural backgrounds and
preferences for communication. Teams with higher psychological safety levels demonstrated
stronger cross-cultural collaboration and communication, which eventually led to superior
production results.
3. Conclusion
It is impossible to overestimate the importance of psychological safety in encouraging
employee productivity in today's continuously changing and competitive corporate context.
The complex link between psychological safety and worker productivity has been examined
in this conceptual study, illuminating the significant influence that psychological safety has
on organizational performance. It has become clear that psychological safety, which is
understood as the conviction that people may express their ideas, questions, worries, and
errors without fear of retaliation or shame, is a crucial cognitive state that affects how
workers interact with their job. It promotes risk-taking, cooperation, and open
communication, which improves creativity and problem-solving skills and eventually boosts
productivity. People who feel psychologically comfortable at work are less stressed, which
improves their attention and general well-being. Therefore, psychological safety helps to
improve overall performance, work satisfaction, and morale. The connection between worker
productivity and psychological safety has been underlined in this review. It has been
demonstrated that psychological safety fosters an atmosphere in which workers feel free to
share ideas, take responsibility for their job, and devote their time and skills to accomplishing
organizational goals. Additionally, psychological safety has been shown to play a critical role
in promoting organizational transformation and cross-cultural collaboration, both of which
lead to better productivity results by acting as a buffer against the detrimental impacts of
stress. This review has further clarified how psychological safety matches with intrinsic
human demands for autonomy, competence, and relatedness by drawing on Self-
Determination Theory (SDT). Employees become intrinsically motivated when these basic
requirements are addressed in psychologically secure work environments, which increases
engagement, well-being, and productivity. According to the reviewed study, it is obvious that
businesses must provide psychological safety a top priority if they want to increase employee
productivity and wellbeing. Sustainable success requires fostering an atmosphere where staff

41 | International Journal of Scientific and Management Research 6(10) 37-42
Copyright © The Author, 2023 (www.ijsmr.in)
members are empowered to give their best work without fear of criticism or retribution.
Furthermore, psychological safety benefits teams, businesses, and their combined capacity to
adapt, innovate, and survive in today's dynamic work environment, in addition to benefiting
individual individuals.
References
1) Akume, A. T., & Abdullahi, Y. M. (2013). Challenges and Prospects of Effective
IndustrialConflict Resolution in Nigeria. Journal of social sciences, 36(2), 199-208.
2) Almahri, K. S., & Abd Wahab, S. (2023). Mediating of Organizational Commitment
to Transformational Leadership on Job Performance. International Journal of
Scientific and Management Research, 06(10), 01–07.
https://doi.org/10.37502/ijsmr.2023.61001
3) Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), 45-68.
4) Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed
teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3),
609-624.
5) Burke, L. A., & Hsieh, C. (2006). Optimizing fixed and variable compensation costs
for employee productivity. International Journal of Productivity and performance
management, 55(2), 155-162.
6) Carmeli, A. (2007). Social capital, psychological safety and learning behaviours from
failure in organisations. Long range planning, 40(1), 30-44.
7) Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High‐quality relationships, psychological safety,
and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior:
The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology
and Behavior, 30(6), 709-729.
8) Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2012). CEO relational leadership and
strategic decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and
learning from failure. Strategic Organization, 10(1), 31-54.
9) Chen, H., & Wang, X. (2020). Psychological safety and cross-cultural teamwork in
multinational organizations. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management,
20(1), 33-52.
10) Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The
role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms.
Academy of management journal, 49(3), 544-560.
11) Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the
door really open?. Academy of management journal, 50(4), 869-884.
12) Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
13) Elangovan, A. R., & Xie, J. L. (2000). Effects of perceived power of supervisor on
subordinate work attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(6),
319-328.

42 | International Journal of Scientific and Management Research 6(10) 37-42
Copyright © The Author, 2023 (www.ijsmr.in)
14) Iqbal, N., Ahmad, M., & Allen, M. M. (2019). Unveiling the relationship between e-
HRM, impersonal trust and employee productivity. Management Research Review,
42(7), 879-899.
15) Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive
and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management journal,
55(1), 71-92.
16) Mullen, J., Kessler, S. R., & Neubert, M. J. (2018). The impact of psychological
safety on job performance and job satisfaction in the context of job insecurity. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 276-287.
17) Productivity. International Journal of Science and Research, 4(5), 1554-1558.
18) Puttapalli, A. K., & Vuram, I. R. (2012). Discipline: The tool for industrial harmony.
International journal of multidisciplinary educational research, 1(1), 146-151.
19) Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist,
55(1), 68.
20) Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based
trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of
applied psychology, 96(4), 863.
21) Serhan and Shammari, 2015, The Effect of Work Environment on Employees
22) Sheikh Ahmed, T. M., Oyagi, B., & Tirimba, O. I. (2015). Assessment of Non-
Financial Motivation on Employee Productivity: Case of Ministry of Finance
Headquarters in Hargeisa Somaliland. International Journal of Business Management
& Economic Research, 6(6).
23) Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., Balasubramanian, S., & Anand, G. (2009). The influence of
psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing.
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(3), 429-447.
24) Smith, A., & Johnson, L. (2017). The role of psychological safety during
organizational change: Employee perceptions and behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(12), 1517-1530.
25) Tucker, A. L., Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2007). Implementing new
practices: An empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care
units. Management science, 53(6), 894-907.