Time Is Not Enough: Exploring the Processes That Shape Team Psychological Safety
The best available evidence that team psychological safety goes down as well as up, and that time spent together determines neither direction. Fyhn, Egeland and Schei ran two multiple case studies: six short-term project teams in a student-run humanitarian aid organisation, surveyed daily across an eleven-day fundraising push, and three interdisciplinary teams in Norwegian public administration followed monthly across nine months, both combining repeated measurement with interviews. In each study the teams began at similar levels and then diverged, some rising, some falling, with no consistent trajectory across cases. The inductive analysis names four processes that account for the divergence: connecting (socialising, building relationships, avoiding subgrouping), clarifying (structure, shared expectations, predictability), supporting (encouragement, inclusion, humour, help across competence barriers) and, in the longer study only, performing. That last one is the theoretically interesting addition, because performance is almost always studied as an outcome of psychological safety rather than an input to it, and the authors argue on their evidence that the relationship runs both ways: seeing concrete results made people safer, and performing triggered what they call a virtuous circle, strengthening clarifying and supporting in turn. Three findings cut against the received account. Familiarity is not straightforwardly good: several participants valued not knowing one another at the outset because it put everyone on common ground, and pre-existing relationships in the longer study produced subgrouping that excluded the people who arrived without history. Autonomy helped only when it came with clarity, and mandates the teams were left to define for themselves produced confusion rather than freedom. And a team charter had limited impact where it was not actively applied, a point the practical implications compress into actions speak louder than words: living out the commitments of the charter proved far more difficult than drafting it. The limits are real and the authors state them. Nine teams in two Norwegian contexts, one of them students, prevents any causal or generalising claim; the design is exploratory and the quantitative half is descriptive rather than inferential; dropout means team-level movement may partly reflect who answered rather than what changed. The team-level averages also conceal substantial within-team variation, which the authors flag as a finding rather than as noise: one team reported a respectable overall level while containing members who perceived high psychological safety and others far less, which is the least safe person argument arriving from a longitudinal design.
Save this paper to a bibliography, keep notes on it, and export citations. Create a free account →
Neighbours (11)
- Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
- Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature
- The Dynamics of Team Learning: Harmony and Rhythm in Teamwork Arrangements for Innovation
- Emergence & Dynamics of PS
- Least Safe Person
- Paradise Lost (and Restored?): A Study of Psychological Safety over Time
- When Feeling Safe Isn't Enough: Contextualizing Models of Safety and Learning in Teams
- Rebuilding PS
- Team Charters
- The Coevolution of Network Ties and Perceptions of Team Psychological Safety
- Tuckman's Model