Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension
verifiedrich profile · Personnel Psychology · 2016
Frazier, M. Lance; Fainshmidt, Stav; Klinger, Ryan L.; Pezeshkan, Amir; Vracheva, Veselina
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
psychological safety climate → work engagement
psychological safety climate → organizational citizenship behavior ocb
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
psychological safety climate predicts task performance
psychological safety climate predicts work engagement
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
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.
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
supports “Psychological safety has been one of the most definitive and influential findings identified in the team and organizational psychological literature, having shown effects on team learning, team member engagement, information sharing, creativity, and task performance (Frazier et al., 2017).”
supports “Previous studies have found the effect of psychological safety on other key variables, such as commitment, satisfaction, and voice behavior [19,68].”
supports “A meta-analysis conducted by Frazier et al. (2017) confirmed that organizational citizenship behavior and information sharing were psychological safety outcome variables.”
supports “Researchers have studied psychological safety extensively in workplace contexts and linked it to both individual outcomes such as work engagement and group outcomes such as team performance (Edmondson and Lei, 2014; Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017).”
supports “Furthermore, psychological safety acts as a mediator between various antecedents, such as leadership styles and work design characteristics, and behavioral outcomes, such as team learning behavior and task performance [15, 38, 39, 42 – 44].”
supports “…in organizational management, which has been confirmed that psychological safety can encourage employees to work better (including more work participation) and generate positive behavioral outcomes [2], including learning behavior [1,3], innovation [4], work performance [5], and voice behavior [6].”
supports “Frazier et al. [21] agree, arguing that psychological safety, a result of participatory leadership, is critical for encouraging risk-taking and innovative behaviors in firms.”
supports “Meta-analytic research on psychological safety (Frazier et al., 2017) shows positive relationships with individual and team-level outcomes, such as team learning and performance.”
supports “This is consistent with Frazier and colleagues’ comprehensive meta-analytic review on the antecedents and outcomes of psychological safety, where psychological safety was found to be positively associated with task performance, as well as employee engagement, satisfaction and commitment [39].”
supports “…will perceive a higher level of psychological security, which will motivate them to initiate bootleg innovation as the perception of an organizational safety climate will enable them to overcome their fear of the unknown and to actively engage in self-accepted work behavior (Frazier et al., 2017).”
supports “A psychologically safe environment also brings benefits that influence work engagement and organizational commitment (Brimhall et al., 2017; Christian et al., 2011; Frazier et al., 2017; Singh & Winkel, 2012; Singh et al., 2013).”
supports “…to the Social Information Processing (SIP) theory, the mediating role of Followers’ Psychological Safety (FPS) highlights that employees’ perceptions of safety, shaped by organizational cues and leadership behaviors, have a significant impact on their work engagement and innovation [19, 21].”
supports “…literature by confirming the relationship between psychological safety and organizational commitment (e.g. Brimhall et al., 2017; Edmonson, 2018; Frazier et al., 2017) and add original contributions by differentiating such relationship in distinct forms of commitment (affective and normative).”
supports “Researchers have studied psychological safety extensively in workplace contexts and linked it to both individual outcomes such as work engagement and group outcomes such as team performance (Edmondson and Lei, 2014; Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017).”
supports “…fostering supportive workplace climates, and balancing hierarchical structures with inclusive decision-making, organiza-Int tions can cultivate environments where employees feel psychologically safe, ultimately leading to improved performance, well-being, and organizational resilience [56].”
supports “In other words, employees who felt high in psychological safety in workplace would trust, identify, and dedicate more to the organization, resulting in both personal and organizational growth that could reinforce their affective bonding to the organization (Chandrasekaran and Mishra, 2012; Frazier et al., 2017; Li et al., 2022).”
supports “A psychologically safe environment also brings benefits that influence work engagement and organizational commitment (Brimhall et al., 2017; Christian et al., 2011; Frazier et al., 2017; Singh & Winkel, 2012; Singh et al., 2013).”
supports “At the contextual level, low interpersonal trust and an absence of psychological safety reduce members’ willingness to voice concerns, admit errors, or propose novel solutions, behaviors that are central to team learning (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Bransby, 2023; Frazier et al., 2017).”
supports “Psychological safety plays a crucial role in shaping work-place behaviour, fostering collaboration, and enhancing work-related satisfaction (Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017).”
supports “In other words, employees who felt high in psychological safety in workplace would trust, identify, and dedicate more to the organization, resulting in both personal and organizational growth that could reinforce their affective bonding to the organization (Chandrasekaran and Mishra, 2012; Frazier et al., 2017; Li et al., 2022).”
supports “Psychological safety was included as it fosters a secure environment for open communication and trust, which are crucial for job satisfaction and mental health [25].”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
- 10.1177/10464964241274119
- 10.3390/su15043452
- 10.1177/21582440241254272
- 10.1057/s41599-024-04037-7
- 10.3389/ijph.2024.1607340
- 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25481
- 10.1186/s40359-025-02950-3
- 10.1080/1359432x.2025.2508178
- 10.3390/ijerph20010406
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1538584
- 10.1007/s10997-024-09721-z
- 10.3390/ijerph22060820
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1170490
- 10.1007/s12186-026-09382-z
- 10.3390/healthcare13091000
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.