Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.¶
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Cited by¶
17 citations across 17 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Antifragility
- Organizational learning (non-obvious): Teams that run frequent small failures and blameless post-mortems convert disorder into accumulated capability, while error-suppressing organizations grow brittle; the hidden cost of stability is that suppressed small failures aggregate into rare catastrophic ones.
This sourceShows team psychological safety enables learning behavior — surfacing, discussing, and learning from errors rather than suppressing them; The empirical core (learning-from-errors vs suppression) is Edmondson's; the antifragility framing is the prime's gloss but is consistent with it.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Abstract finds psychological safety predicts learning behavior in 51 manufacturing teams; it says nothing about blameless post-mortems, brittle error-suppressing orgs, or catastrophic aggregation.
“Results of a study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, measuring antecedent, process, and outcome variables, show that team psychological safety is associated with learning behavior, but team efficacy is not, when controlling for team psychological safety.”
- Organizational learning (non-obvious): Teams that run frequent small failures and blameless post-mortems convert disorder into accumulated capability, while error-suppressing organizations grow brittle; the hidden cost of stability is that suppressed small failures aggregate into rare catastrophic ones.
- Echo Chamber
- The interventions share form across domains even where their implementation differs. Audit the input filter — measure source diversity at the boundary, not just within, via network analyses, cross-citation measures, or supplier diversity in advisor pools. Reduce dissent cost — psychological safety, anonymous channels, designated devil's advocates, structured pre-mortems, red teams.
This sourceEstablishes psychological safety as the condition under which dissent can be voiced, lowering the in-group cost of disagreement.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Abstract gives team psychological safety as a shared belief the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking, but never states that it lowers the cost of dissent or the other remedies listed.
“It introduces the construct of team psychological safety—a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking”
- The interventions share form across domains even where their implementation differs. Audit the input filter — measure source diversity at the boundary, not just within, via network analyses, cross-citation measures, or supplier diversity in advisor pools. Reduce dissent cost — psychological safety, anonymous channels, designated devil's advocates, structured pre-mortems, red teams.
- Epistemic Humility
- She acknowledges the limits of her own knowledge, treats disagreement as information, and structures experimentation to reduce uncertainty—the team-learning dynamic Edmondson (1999) shows is enabled by psychological safety.
This sourceIntroduces team psychological safety (shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking) and shows it enables learning behavior. SUPPORTS marker 224 (team-learning dynamic enabled by psychological safety).
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract backs a team-level link between psychological safety and learning behaviour, but says nothing about an individual acknowledging her own limits, treating disagreement as information, or designing experiments.
“Results of a study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, measuring antecedent, process, and outcome variables, show that team psychological safety is associated with learning behavior, but team efficacy is not, when controlling for team psychological safety. As predicted, learning behavior mediates between team psychological safety and team performance.”
- She acknowledges the limits of her own knowledge, treats disagreement as information, and structures experimentation to reduce uncertainty—the team-learning dynamic Edmondson (1999) shows is enabled by psychological safety.
- Organizational Culture
- Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
- Psychological Safety
- Psychological Safety is the shared belief in a team or group that interpersonal risk-taking is safe—that members can speak up with questions, concerns, ideas, or admissions of error without fear of ridicule, rejection, punishment, or retaliatory consequences
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Edmondson's own abstract defines team psychological safety as a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking, which is the core of the claim but not its enumerated examples.
“It introduces the construct of team psychological safety—a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking—and models the effects of team psychological safety and team efficacy together on learning and performance in organizational work teams.”
- Psychological Safety is the shared belief in a team or group that interpersonal risk-taking is safe—that members can speak up with questions, concerns, ideas, or admissions of error without fear of ridicule, rejection, punishment, or retaliatory consequences
Mechanisms¶
- After-Action Repair Circle
- The discipline that guards against this is protecting psychological safety in the room
This sourceDefines psychological safety as confidence that a team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up, and links it to learning behavior.
- The discipline that guards against this is protecting psychological safety in the room
- Calibration Conversation
- It depends on — and builds — psychological safety, the shared sense that being candid about a gap won't be punished, which is the precondition for honest self-report in the first place.
This sourceDefines team psychological safety as a shared belief that speaking up and taking interpersonal risks will not bring embarrassment, rejection, or punishment.
- It depends on — and builds — psychological safety, the shared sense that being candid about a gap won't be punished, which is the precondition for honest self-report in the first place.
- Context-Fit Feedback Session
- Cooperation Retrospective
- Without psychological safety
This sourceFinds that team psychological safety supports learning behavior and open discussion of errors that might otherwise remain hidden.
- Without psychological safety
- Dissonance-Safe Dialogue
- Its effect rests on the same principle as psychological safety: people update honestly only when doing so won't cost them standing.
This sourceLinks team learning behavior to psychological safety, a shared belief that interpersonal risk taking is safe.
- Its effect rests on the same principle as psychological safety: people update honestly only when doing so won't cost them standing.
- Facilitator Domination-Interrupt Script
- Interrupting the put-down and the loyalty test is precisely what preserves psychological safety — the shared sense that it is safe to speak up, disagree, or ask the "rookie" question without being punished.
This sourceDefines team psychological safety as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, including speaking up or asking for help without fear of negative consequences.
- Interrupting the put-down and the loyalty test is precisely what preserves psychological safety — the shared sense that it is safe to speak up, disagree, or ask the "rookie" question without being punished.
- Layered Reframing Workshop
- Path Redesign Workshop
- The enabling condition is psychological safety
This sourceDefines team psychological safety as a shared belief that interpersonal risk taking, including speaking up with concerns and dissent, is safe.
- The enabling condition is psychological safety
- Peer Accountability Check-In
- Pilot Forum or Discussion Sandbox
- It works because it deliberately manufactures psychological safety — the shared belief that the setting is safe for interpersonal risk-taking — around a topic that normally punishes it.
This sourceDefines team psychological safety as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking.
- It works because it deliberately manufactures psychological safety — the shared belief that the setting is safe for interpersonal risk-taking — around a topic that normally punishes it.
- Role Play
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 4 of 17 citations: 4 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:ce668770548c · see in the full table