CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,593Team Dynamics and PerformanceJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorOrganizational Learning and Leadership

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct

Edmondson, Amy C., Lei, Zhike·2014·Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Psychological safety describes people’s perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context such as a workplace. First explored by pioneering organizational scholars in the 1960s, psychological safety experienced a renaissance starting in the 1990s and continuing to the present. Organizational research has identified psychological safety as a critical factor in understanding phenomena such as voice, teamwork, team learning, and organizational learning. A growing body of conceptual and empirical work has focused on understanding the nature of psychological safety, identifying factors that contribute to it, and examining its implications for individuals, teams, and organizations. In this article, we review and integrate this literature and suggest directions for future research. We first briefly review the early history of psychological safety research and then examine contemporary research at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. We assess what has been learned and discuss suggestions for future theoretical development and methodological approaches for organizational behavior research on this important interpersonal construct.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Gong Y, 2012, J. Manag., 38, 1611
  2. Schein EH, 1993, Sloan Manag. Rev., 34, 85
  3. Schein EH, 1965, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • European School of Management and Technology (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2014-03-21
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
23-43
ISSN
  • 2327-0608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-0616
DOI
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
OpenAlex
W2116544216
Semantic Scholar
39c1a2ff3ad746c8c9d4b630a60633ee2aeb4af2
Cited by
2,577
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 481 · 2025: 463 · 2024: 290 · 2023: 271 · 2022: 286 · 2021: 248 · 2020: 214 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 2
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Funders
Harvard Business School
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Learning and Leadership
Keywords
psychological safety, interpersonal risk, workplace safety climate, voice, teamwork, team learning, organizational learning, organizational behavior theory, future research directions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review