1. 1
Dissertation
The influence of perceptions of societal norms on perceptions of organisational norms:
Testing a model of power distance, psychological safety, team processes, and team
performance.
2. 2
Abstract
Organisations today are faced with an increasingly competitive environment and complex
issues that have conventionalised the use of workplace teams. In turn, understanding what
makes these teams effective has been a central area of research for organisational
psychologists. Psychological safety has received growing attention for its positive influence
on team learning and participative climate, two team processes consistently shown to
enhance performance. Although researchers have begun investigating antecedents of
psychological safety, no study has looked beyond the organisational context. In particular,
none have considered the role perceptions of societal norms may play in influencing team
member’s psychological safety and, in turn, team processes.
The aim of this study is to examine the relationships between power distance, psychological
safety, team learning, and participative climate, as well as examine their potential effects on
team performance. A model consisting of four indirect pathways is proposed, whereby team
learning and participative climate are each expected to partially mediate between
psychological safety and team performance (pathways 1 and 2), and psychological safety is
expected to mediate between power distance and team learning/ participative climate
(pathways 3 and 4).
Quantitative and qualitative data was collected using a cross-sectional survey design. In
total, 122 employees from a multinational IT, business solutions and consulting services
organisation participated, all of whom worked in either functional or cross-functional teams.
Overall, the data provided support for the proposed model: High power distance employees
experienced lower psychological safety, which was negatively associated with team
learning/ participative climate and, ultimately, team performance. Therefore, this study is the
first to show that perceptions of societal norms influence perceptions of organisational
norms and that this may have consequences for workplace teams.
3. 3
Tables of Contents
List of figures.......................................................................................................................5
List of tables.........................................................................................................................5
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................6
2. Literature review and model development ......................................................................7
2.1 Psychological safety, team processes, and team performance...................................7
2.1.1 Defining workplace teams, team processes, and team performance.............. 7
2.1.2 Psychological safety as perceptions of organisational norms.........................8
2.1.3 Team learning.................................................................................................9
2.1.4 Participative climate......................................................................................10
2.1.5 Psychological safety as antecedents of team processes................................10
2.2 The influence of perceptions of societal norms.......................................................12
2.2.1 Power distance as perceptions of societal norms..........................................12
2.2.2 Power distance and team processes..............................................................13
2.2.3 Power distance as an antecedent of psychological safety.............................15
3. Methodology..................................................................................................................17
3.1 Research design.......................................................................................................17
3.2 Setting......................................................................................................................18
3.3 Procedure.................................................................................................................18
3.4 Participants..............................................................................................................19
3.4.1 Quantitative sample......................................................................................19
3.4.2 Qualitative sample........................................................................................20
3.5 Measures..................................................................................................................21
4. Results...........................................................................................................................23
4.1 Quantitative results..................................................................................................23
4.1.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations..........................................................23
4.1.2 Data analysis.................................................................................................25
4.1.3 Hypothesis testing.........................................................................................26
4.1.3.1 Testing hypotheses 1.1-1.7..............................................................26
4.1.3.2 Testing hypotheses 2.1-2.5..............................................................28
4.2 Qualitative results...................................................................................................30
5. 5
List of Figures
Figure 1. Proposed mediation model .................................................................................17
Figure 2. Results: Mediation model.................................................................................. 30
List of Tables
Table 1. Demographic information....................................................................................20
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate information .......................................24
6. 6
1. Introduction
Within the last few decades, technological advancement and international expansion has led
to a rapidly changing environment and significant external pressure for organisations (Cohen
& Bailey, 1997). In order to sustain a competitive edge, the use of teams has become
common practice. This shift in working environments has enabled companies to compile
expertise and harness the power of multiple perspectives (Landy & Conte, 2007, p. 540). In
turn, practitioners and researchers have become increasingly interested in what makes these
teams effective. In particular, influences posed by the organisation, such as job design,
management support, and group composition have been thoroughly examined (Campion,
Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). However, limited research has investigated influences on team
members that move beyond the organisational setting.
According to Levine and Moreland (1990), teams are often studied as if they exist in “social
vacuums.” Most research ignores the role that society plays in shaping members’
perceptions of norms for what to believe and how to behave. According to social schema
theory, we perceive our social world based on our predetermined expectations (Augoustinos
& Walker, 1996). These expectations arise from the norms we have observed and act as a
“mental programming” to guide us and make sense of our future experiences (Hofstede,
Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). Through this mental programming, our macro-level perceptions
trickle down and effect our perceptions of micro-level environments, such as workplace
teams.
Psychological safety, or team members perceptions of organisational norms for interpersonal
risk taking (Edmondson, 1999), is of particular relevance for teamwork research. This belief,
that members will not be punished for honesty and engagement, is necessary for important
team processes (i.e. team learning and participative climate) to take place. Although research
has investigated structural features of the organisation, such as leadership style (Edmondson,
1999; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), as antecedents of psychological safety, no study
has looked at possible societal influences. Therefore, the main theoretical and substantive
contribution of this study is to examine whether perceptions of societal norms influence
7. 7
psychological safety. In particular, it will be the first to investigate whether the societal
construct power distance is negatively associated with psychological safety. As well, it will
examine the implications these constructs hold for team processes (i.e. team learning and
participative climate) and team performance. The study uses a mixed methods approach.
First, it tests an integrated model of power distance, psychological safety, team learning,
participative climate, and team performance. Second, open-ended vignette questions are
used to further explore the newly proposed relationship between power distance and
psychological safety within realistic teamwork scenarios.
This dissertation is comprised of five parts:
1. Theoretical background and past research to support the proposed model.
2. Methodology of the current study and the reported results broken down based on
quantitative and qualitative data.
3. An integrated discussion of the results.
4. Practical implications of the research findings.
5. Limitations and future directions.
2. Literature Review and Model Development
2.1 Psychological safety, team processes, and team performance
In section 2.1, I will outline the previously established relationships between psychological
safety, team processes (i.e. team learning and participative climate), and team performance. I
will begin by defining some of the key terms used throughout the paper. Next, I will develop
a shared understanding of psychological safety and its implications for team performance.
Finally, I will discuss the mediating roles of team learning and participative climate.
2.1.1 Defining workplace teams, team processes, and team performance
Before continuing the literature review, it is important that I clarify some of the key terms
under investigation. Workplace teams have taken on numerous definitions due to their
varying nature in organisations. For example, Sundstrom (1999) proposes that teams should
8. 8
be defined based on six categories: project, production, service, action/performing,
management, and parallel (as cited in Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). For the current
study, the social psychological phenomena under investigation are evoked when people
interact with each other and, thus, are not a product of the nature of their work or their
specific team structure (Edmondson, 1999). Therefore, I use general definitions for the
following terms: First, I define workplace teams as interdependent collections of employees
who are jointly responsible for producing specific results for their organisation (Sundstrom,
De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Second, I define team processes as the cognitive, verbal, and
behavioural activities of team members directed toward the completion of team goals
(Marks et al., 2001). Finally, I define team performance as the quality of the results (i.e.
team products, services, information, or decisions) produced by teams for customers who
may be external or internal to the organisation (Sundstrom et al., 1990).
2.1.2 Psychological safety as perceptions of organisational norms
Psychological safety was first mentioned within organisational change literature as a
necessary state among employees for change to occur (as cited in Schein, 2004). Edmondson
(1999) was the first to define the phenomenon and emphasize its importance within teams.
According to Edmondson’s definition, psychological safety refers to team members’ implicit
beliefs about organisational norms regarding interpersonal risk taking. In other words, how
safe they perceive the organisation to be for providing input, asking questions, and admitting
errors within teams. The construct goes beyond interpersonal trust to include mutual respect
among team members that ensures speaking one’s mind will not lead to humiliation or
rejection. Past research has provided strong support for the importance psychologically
safety holds for team performance. For example, it has been shown to be necessary for the
successful implementation of new technology within operating room teams (Edmondson,
2003). As well, when members feel comfortable asking questions, admitting mistakes, and
expressing opinions, teams produce fewer errors (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001) and
receive better performance evaluations from clients and managers (Edmondson, 1999).
Therefore, this leads to the study’s first hypothesis:
9. 9
Hypothesis 1.1 (H1.1): Psychological safety is positively associated with team performance.
However, as psychological safety is a state of mind among individuals, its relationship with
performance is not direct. Thus, we must consider the team processes (i.e. team learning and
participative climate) that act as vehicles for its influence.
2.1.3 Team learning
Within the literature, team learning has been portrayed as either an outcome (Levitt &
March, 1988) or a process (as cited in Argyris & Schon, 1999). For this paper, I take the
perspective of learning as a process through which teams develop performance capabilities,
adapt to external pressures, and continuously improve and maintain their performance over
time (Kozlowski, 2012, p. 734). Although many definitions have been proposed, most
conceptualise learning as a relatively stable change in attitude, cognition, and/ or behaviour
that is a product of practice and experience (Landy & Conte, 2007, p. 294). Within working
teams, informal learning is continuously occurring through members’ interactions
(Kozlowski, 2012, p. 746). Employees are brought together for their individual expertise,
experience and diverse skills that inadvertently transfer to the group as they work toward
team goals. Of particular relevance to performance are the behaviours that bring about
awareness of issues and possible solutions. Although sometimes referred to in the literature
as employee voice behaviour (e.g. Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), this study follows
Edmondson’s (1999) approach and labels these behaviours team learning. According to
Edmondson, asking questions, admitting mistakes, and expressing disagreement are learning
behaviours because they allow the team to improve their performance capabilities. In
support of this claim, he found that the degree of learning behaviours reported by a variety
of types of manufacturing teams positively predicted management and client reports of team
performance. This motivates the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.2 (H1.2): Team learning is positively associated with team performance.
10. 10
2.1.4 Participative climate
The concept of climate has taken on multiple meanings within the organisational literature.
However, two dominant perspectives have emerged: cognitive schema perspective and
shared perceptions perspective (Anderson & West, 1998). The former understands climate
as individual’s subjective perceptions, or cognitive schema, of their proximal work
environment. The latter views climate as the collective meanings, or shared perceptions,
group members attribute to their surroundings. Thus, the two perspectives are interested in
individual and group level perceptions, respectively. For the current study, a cognitive
schema perspective is adopted that views team climate as individual team members’
perceptions of the practices within their team. According to symbolic interactionism theory
(Blumer, 1969, p.2), meaning is not inherent in our environment. We are the sense-makers
that interact with and form understandings of our surroundings. Thus, climate perceptions
form as we engage with our environment and interpret our experiences (Schneider &
Reichers, 1983; Ashforth, 1985). In turn, these perceptions influence our behaviour.
For this study, I focus on participative team climate, or the degree to which employees
perceive equal contribution among members within their team (Huang, Vliert, & Vegt,
2005). How participative members view their team climate determines the extent to which
they themselves contribute to decision-making, share information, and interact with others
(Anderson & West, 1998). In turn, the more team members work together, the more creative
and useful the output is that they produce (e.g. Paulus & Yang, 2000). Participative climate
is conceptually similar to group cohesion that, although capable of producing a groupthink
mentality (Janis, 1982), has been shown to have a stable and positive relationship with
performance (see Evans & Dion, 2012 for a meta-analysis). As well, active participation by
all team members is likely to facilitate shared cognition, a driving force in team performance
(Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008). This motivates the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.3 (H1.3): Participative climate is positively associated with team
performance.
2.1.5 Psychological safety as antecedents of team processes
11. 11
Psychological safety should lead to more learning behaviours and a participative climate
within teams because it means that employees are not afraid to be heard. For example, if a
team member feels psychologically safe, they are likely to provide feedback and point out
issues within the team that can facilitate performance-enhancing changes. As well, they will
interpret the team environment as a place where everyone can contribute and work together
towards the team’s goals. Research consistently shows psychological safety to be related to
learning behaviours, such as asking for help, expressing dissent, or admitting errors
(Edmondson, 1999; Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006; Detert & Burris, 2007; Tucker,
Nembhard, & Edmondson 2007; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). For example, one
study, using survey and observational data, found error rates to be higher for hospital unit
teams whose members indicated a lack of willingness to discuss mistakes (Edmondson,
1996). The qualitative data showed that teams were more willing to report errors when a
“nonpunative environment” was promoted and team members helped each other check for
mistakes. Taken together, psychological safety seems to be an important determinant of the
learning behaviours displayed within teams.
Hypothesis 1.4 (H1.4): Psychological safety is positively associated with team learning.
Psychological safety has also been shown to create a participative climate by facilitating
employee engagement (Kahn, 1990; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004) and vitality for
contributing to collective goals (Kark & Carmeli, 2009). Nembhard and Edmondson (2006)
provided support for this claim based on a mix of interview and survey data collected from
1,440 healthcare professionals within 23 neonatal intensive care units (NICU). They found
that, across units, psychological safety was a better predictor of engagement in quality
improvement efforts in comparison to workload and competing demands. Thus, when
employees feel safe and respected by the organisation, this transfers to their team and creates
a climate of participation.
Hypothesis 1.5 (H1.5): Psychological safety is positively associated with participative
climate.
12. 12
If psychological safety is positively associated with team learning/ participative climate and,
in turn, team performance, the following hypotheses apply:
Hypothesis 1.6 (H1.6): Team learning partially mediates the relationship between
psychological safety and team performance.
Hypothesis 1.7 (H1.7): Participative climate partially mediates the relationship between
psychological safety and team performance.
Thus far, I have outlined a model of team performance that includes psychological safety,
team learning, and participative climate. Although no study has tested a model with both
team learning and participative climate together, past research indicates that both may play a
role in mediating the relationship between psychological safety and team performance.
Section 2.2 below introduces theory and research to justify the newly proposed relationships
between power distance, psychological safety, and team processes.
2.2 The influence of perceptions of societal norms
2.2.1 Power distance as perceptions of societal norms
The term power distance was coined by the well-known social psychologist, Geert Hofstede
(1980). Based on data from 117,000 International Business Machines (IBM) employees in
72 different countries, Hofstede was the first to provide evidence that national culture
influences organisational culture (Hofstede, 2001). Although originally defined at the
national level, power distance can also be used to measure important within-country
differences that are essential for understanding organisational phenomena (Daniels &
Greguras, 2014; Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010). From this perspective, power distance
refers to individual’s perceptions of societal practices/ values regarding the extent to which
power inequalities are necessary and useful (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). Although
hierarchical power structures are universal, people who are high on power distance tend to
view them as a natural entity and see superiors as inherently greater human beings. In
13. 13
contrast, those low on power distance generally see these structures as convenient and
unavoidable.
House et al. (2004) differentiated between two aspects of power distance: First, power
distance (practices), which refers to individuals’ perceptions of societal norms regarding the
acceptance of power inequalities (i.e. how things are). Second, as power distance (values),
which refers to individuals’ personal beliefs about the moral nature of these practices (i.e.
how things ought to be). When comparing their influence, research shows that organisations
are more or less effective based on the practices, not values, of their members (Hofstede,
Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990). An employee may not agree with the values of their
company but it is their actions, not beliefs, which contribute to its success. As well, it is not
possible to fully separate knowledge from practices (Nicolini, 2011), which may make
reflecting on power distance (values) a dubious approach. For the current study, I am
interested in organisational practices that influence team performance and, thus, suspect that
power distance (practices) will be a better predictor. However, although the hypotheses
pertain to power distance (practices), power distance (values) will also be tested to
substantiate the results.
2.2.2 Power distance and team processes
Within organisations, obvious power inequalities emerge through superior-subordinate
relationships (Hofstede, 2001). Organisations operate smoothly by compartmentalizing
members based on their positions, functions, and roles (Matsumoto & Juang, 2008, p. 399).
These power divisions become a part of members’ identity and are carried with them into
their workplace teams (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Although the term “team” infers equal
contributory power, members vary in level of authority, which can have an effect on team
interaction. This makes power distance an intriguing construct within teamwork research.
According to Hofstede (2001), power distance determines the extent to which members feel
they must unquestioningly obey superiors and disregard subordinates’ opinions when
making decisions. People with high power distance view those with more power as more
knowledgeable and expect them to lead autocratically (Daniels & Greguras, 2014). As well,
14. 14
high power distance is associated with being more task oriented as opposed to people
oriented, which perpetuates these power divisions (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). This can be
problematic for workplace teams, which are formed to compile unique perspectives and
skills for achieving difficult goals.
Since high power distance employees expect to be handed down knowledge and expertise
(Rao, 2011), this construct is likely to have major implications for team learning and
participative climate. For the former, a study investigating Korean Airline’s high accident
rate found that high power distance might indirectly increase the likelihood of accidents by
promoting a unidirectional flow of information (as cited in Gladwell, 2008). Based on audio
recordings leading up to these accidents, the study found that co-pilots unquestioningly
followed their pilot’s orders, even though they were aware that they jeopardized safety.
Reader, Noort, Shorrock, & Kirwin, (2014) also found power distance to have a negative
association with safety culture in the air traffic management industry. They suggested that
high power distance might prevent subordinates from giving input, challenging authority, or
admitting mistakes, all of which are characteristic of a positive safety climate. Given that
variation in status, and consequently power divisions, exist within teams, high power
distance team members may not want to contradict the opinions of those they deem superior.
As well, they may think that asking questions or admitting mistakes will get them in trouble.
Since these behaviours are a necessary part of the learning process, I present the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.1 (H2.1): Power distance is negatively associated with team learning
For participative climate, research shows that high power distance is associated with
remaining silent in groups (Sagie & Aycan, 2003; Huang, Vliert, & Vegt, 2005) or
complying to share knowledge only with fear of punishment as opposed to autonomously
participating (Jiacheng, Lu, & Francesco, 2010). As well, power distance moderates the
relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction, such that it is weaker for high,
compared to low, power distance employees (Robert et al., 2000). In turn, high power
distance employees are less likely to show decreased organisational commitment when they
15. 15
are not given a role in decision-making (Brockner, et al., 2001). Taken together, it seems
that employees with high power distance expect and accept the opinions of less powerful
members to go unheard. Thus, it may be that high power distance employees are less likely
to perceive their team environment as conducive for participation.
Hypothesis 2.2 (H2.2): Power distance is negatively associated with participative
climate.
Thus far, we have determined that psychological safety and power distance are two likely
antecedents of team learning/ participative climate. However, we have yet to explore the
relationship that power distance and psychological have with one another.
2.2.3 Power Distance as an antecedent of psychological safety
Superior-subordinate relationships have been thoroughly examined for their effects on
psychological safety. Leader’s behaviours act as important cues for team members about
how safe it is to speak up and display honesty. For example, Walumbwa and Shaubroeck
(2009) found that psychological safety partially mediated the relationship between ethical
leadership and employee voice behaviour. As well, Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) found
that professional status influences NICU member’s sense of psychological safety. However,
the strength of the association between status and psychological safety differed across
groups. For some groups, members with high and low status positions reported similar
levels, whereas others had high and low status members with large discrepancies. This
indicates that professional status, in and of itself, is not the determining factor. It may be that
how members interpret these power symbols is what truly influences their feelings of
psychological safety.
Blending the works of social and cognitive psychology, social schema theory has been used
to provide an explanation for the biases in people’s perceptions of social situations
(Augoustinos & Walker, 1996, pp. 33-43). According to this theory, when we interpret our
surroundings, relevant information we have learned about our social world is unconsciously
brought forward. This information forms schemas that act as general guidelines for
16. 16
interpreting specific situations. As a result, perceptions are formed that extend beyond the
information presented and, in turn, affect our attitudes and behaviour. This holds important
implications for organisations because employees alter reality to fit their schemas
(Rousseau, 2001). As previously stated, power distance is a result of our perceptions of
societal norms regarding power inequalities. Based on this theory, I propose that our power
distance orientation is elicited when we interpret information related to the distribution of
power in organisations and, thus, holds consequences for psychological safety. It may be
that team members with high power distance are more likely to perceive organisational
norms as perpetuating power inequalities. In turn, they may feel that it is inappropriate to
take the interpersonal risks necessary for team learning to occur and a participative climate
to form. This leads us to the final set of hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2.3 (H2.3): Power Distance is negatively associated with psychological
safety.
Hypothesis 2.4 (H2.4): Psychological safety mediates the relationship between power
distance and team learning.
Hypothesis 2.5 (H2.5): Psychological safety mediates the relationship between power
distance and participative Climate.
In summary, the following model is proposed:
17. 17
Figure 1.
Proposed Mediation Model
Note: H1.1 tests for the direct effect of psychological safety on team performance. Hl.6 and H1.7 account for the mediating
role of team learning/ participative climate, respectively. H2.1/ H2.2 test for the direct effects of power distance on team
learning/ participative climate and H2.4/H2.5 account for the mediating role of psychological safety.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
The study used a cross-sectional mixed method survey design. The mixed method
approach was chosen in order to provide a more in-depth understanding of the research
questions outlined above. By mixing both quantitative and qualitative data, the researcher
is able to account for some of the biases, as well as benefit from the strengths, inherent in
each approach (Creswell, 2014, p. 215). This approach is useful for both validating and
gaining a richer understanding of the findings, processes referred to as triangulation and
complentarity, respectively (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). For the purpose of this
research, a convergent parallel mixed methods design was employed (Creswell, 2014, p.
219). This entailed collecting quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously, analysing
each separately, and, finally, comparing the results.
The purpose of the quantitative research was to test the theoretical and empirical
relationships between power distance, psychological safety, team learning, participative
18. 18
climate, and team performance. Whereas, the qualitative research focused more
specifically on how employees’ everyday practices are influenced by psychological
safety. To the researcher’s knowledge, no study has investigated how perceptions of
societal norms (power distance) influence perceptions of organisational norms
(psychological safety). Therefore, the qualitative data was also analysed quantitatively in
order to test whether the data supports the relationship between these two constructs.
3.2 Setting
The study was conducted with 122 employees from a multinational information
technology (IT), business solutions and consulting services organisation, which will be
referred to as company A. The company operates in 46 countries and has over 315,000
employees, 33% of whom are female. The organisation is headquartered in Mumbai,
Muharashtra and 92% of its employees are Indian nationals. For the purpose of this study,
employee roles at company A have been categorised into operational (e.g. test analyst or
developer) or managerial (e.g. team leader or operational director). Although all members
operate within functional or cross-functional teams, the data was not sufficient for
categorising employees based on team membership. Company A employs highly skilled
and educated individuals, who are provided with further training and education
throughout the trajectory of their careers.
3.3 Procedure
Permission to carry out this research was granted through the London School of
Economic’s Institute of Social Psychology (LSE ISP) Ethics committee. Access to the
company was obtained through the human resources department of their London location.
Access to the organisation and conditions of the research were negotiated over a six-week
period. During this time, five phone meetings and one in-person meeting were set up
between the researcher and an HR manager. This ensured that the organisation had full
knowledge of the data being collected and could provide input for the various measures.
The purpose of the research was two-fold: first, to investigate whether perceptions of
societal norms influence perceptions of organisational norms. Second, if (and how) these
perceptions affect team processes. From a practical perspective, this research will
contribute to the organisation’s understanding of the psychological factors that influence
19. 19
performance within their teams. This is particularly relevant for a large multinational
organisation that employs individuals located throughout the world who likely have
varying conceptions of societal and organisational norms.
Questionnaires were administered electronically to 90 learning ambassadors with the
purpose of having them distributed to employees on each of their teams. As well, it was
available to employees on company A’s internal communication network. For anonymity
reasons, the task of distributing the survey was undertaken by the HR manager and the
team representatives. This ensured that the researcher had no direct contact or means of
connecting individual employees to their data. A snowball sampling method (Goodman,
1961) was used, whereby the survey was sent to particular employees within company A
to be completed and distributed internally. Questionnaires were available for completion
over the period of two months (April-June, 2015). During this time, the HR manager sent
out three reminder emails to each of the learning ambassadors. The questionnaire could
be completed at any time or location, provided the participant had access to a computer,
and did not have to be completed in one sitting. Participants had up to one month to
complete the questionnaire before the link would expire and any existing data would be
recorded.
3.4 Participants
3.4.1 Quantitative sample
For the current study, questionnaires were completed by employees located
predominantly in the UK (62%). In total, 122 fully completed questionnaires were
submitted. Based on these questionnaires, 96 (79%) participants reported operational
positions and 26 (21%) reported managerial positions within the company. Gender
information was not collected in order to protect the anonymity of the employees because
of the over representation of males within the company (67%). Due to the snowball
sampling method employed, the sample disproportionately represented employees
currently living in the UK. As well, 83% of the sample were Indian nationals. Although
this poses issues for generalisation purposes, this proportion is a fairly accurate
representation of company A’s demographic (92% Indian Nationals). Limitations of the
20. 20
sample will be further addressed in the discussion section. See Table 1 below for an
overview of the demographic information collected.
3.4.2 Qualitative sample
The two open-ended questions in the survey were made optional with the intention of
sacrificing quantity for quality. Although this is a limitation, the response rate was still
relatively high. In total, 101 (83%) and 97 (80%) participants provided answers for
vignettes one and two, respectively.
Table 1.
Demographic Information
Demographic variable Quantitative Qualitative
Vignette 1 Vignette 2
Age
Under 30
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or older
50 (41%) 39 (38%) 38 (39%)
58 (48%) 50 (49%) 48 (49%)
9 (7%) 7 (7%) 7 (7%)
4 (3%) 4 (4%) 3 (3%)
1 (1%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%)
Country of Birth*
India
UK
Other
101 (83%) 81 (79%) 78 (80%)
11 (9%) 11 (11%) 10 (10%)
10 (8%) 10 (10%) 9 (10%)
Country of Residence
India
UK
Other
39 (32%) 32 (31%) 32 (33%)
75 (62%) 62 (61%) 58 (59%)
8 (7%) 8 (8%) 7 (7%)
Years living in Current Country of Residence
0-1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21 or more
37 (30%) 28 (28%) 25 (26%)
23 (19%) 21 (21%) 20 (21%)
11 (9%) 7 (7%) 7 (7%)
3 (3%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%)
48 (39%) 43 (42%) 43 (44%)
Job level*
21. 21
Operational
Managerial
96 (79%) 77 (76%) 23 (24%)
26 (21%) 24 (24%) 74 (76%)
Work Experience (years)
0-1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21 or more
7 (6%) 4 (4%) 5 (5%)
23 (19%) 19 (19%) 18 (19%)
45 (37%) 37 (36%) 35 (36%)
37 (30%) 31 (30%) 30 (31%)
10 (8%) 10 (10%) 9 (9%)
Length of Employment with company A (years)
0-1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21 or more
11 (9%) 8 (8%) 9 (9%)
51 (42%) 44 (43%) 40 (41%)
45 (37%) 38 (37%) 37 (38%)
15 (12%) 11 (11%) 11 (11%)
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0% (0%)
Total 122 (100%) 101 (100%) 97 (100%)
3.5 Measures
The questionnaire consisted of five separate scales that have been validated based on past
research (House et al., 2004; Anderson & West, 1998; Edmondson, 1999). The three
scales of psychological safety, team learning, and team performance were taken from
Edmondson’s model of team learning, which was validated through a multimethod field
study. The scale for participative climate was taken from Anderson and West, who
referred to it as ‘participation safety.’ Finally, the scale for power distance was taken
from the questionnaire used for the well-known GLOBE study conducted by House et al.
Along with these five scales, participants had the option of answering two open-ended
questions about two separate vignettes. Vignettes refer to hypothetical scenarios that
provide contexts for participants to ground their beliefs, norms, and values within (Finch,
1987). This makes it easier for participants to express these abstract phenomena in a
meaningful way. Researchers often use vignettes as a complementary technique to other
methods of data collection (Barter & Renold, 2000). Particularly, with open-ended
questions, vignettes are useful for supplementing quantitative survey data because they
allow participants to elaborate and move beyond general responses.
22. 22
All questionnaires were available only in English and, therefore, only English-speaking
respondents were able to participate.
Power Distance
The power distance subscales were adopted from House et al.’s (2004) Globe study of
culture and leadership. Separate four-item Likert scales were used in order to measure
employee’s perceptions of both “the way things are” (practices) and “the ways things
ought to be” in their organisation. Power distance (practices) was measured with such
items as “In this organisation, a person’s influence is based primarily on...” For power
distance (values), this exemplary item was instead worded “In this organisation, a
person’s influence should be based primarily on...” For this particular item, participants
answers ranged from 1 (one’s ability and contribution to the organisation) to 5 (the
authority of one’s position). For each subscale, items 2 and 4 were reverse coded. High
scores implied high levels of both power distance (practices) and power distance (values).
Cronbach’s alpha were .693 and .696, respectively.
Psychological Safety
The 7-item Likert scale was taken from Edmondson’s (1999) learning model. An
exemplary item is “It is safe to take a risk on this team.” Cronbach’s alpha was .646.
Team Learning
The 7-item Likert scale was taken from Edmondson’s (1999) learning model. For the
analysis, one item was dropped because of its poor intercorrelation (.31) with the other
items. Once the item was removed, Cronbach’s alpha increased from .824 to .839. An
exemplary item is “This team frequently seeks new information that leads us to make
important changes.”
Participative Climate
The 9-item Likert scale for participative climate was taken from Anderson and West’s
(1998) measure of participation safety. An exemplary item is “There are real attempts to
share information throughout the team.” Cronbach’s alpha was .931.
23. 23
Team Performance
The 4-item Likert scale was taken from Edmondson’s (1999) learning model. For the
analysis, one item was dropped because of its poor intercorrelation (.168) with the other
items. Once the item was removed, Cronbach’s alpha increased from .710 to .861. An
exemplary item is “This team meets or exceeds its customers’ expectations.”
Vignette 1
The first scenario had participants imagine they were new recruits who had just begun
working at company A within the last two years. The scenario and open-ended question
were as follows:
“During a team meeting for an account you are working on, a manager announces that he
is very happy that everyone agrees on the direction the project is going. However, you
have some specific concerns that you think would be important to consider.
How could you address these concerns in a way that you are comfortable with?”
Vignette 2:
The second scenario had participants imagine that they were a manager at company A.
The scenario and open-ended question were as follows:
“Since joining a new account, you’ve noticed that less senior people on the team have not
been giving a lot of input during meetings. It often feels like many of these employees
turn to you and other managers for direction without providing their own input. You think
that it would be beneficial to the team to hear more perspectives before making decisions.
What do you think is an appropriate way to address the issue?”
4. Results
4.1 Quantitative Results
4.1.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
24. 24
All of the variables showed correlations in the expected directions except for power
distance (values), which was not significantly correlated with any of the other construct
variables. Thus supporting my proposal that it is not significantly related to practices
within organisations. Out of the demographic variables, only country of birth and job
level were significantly correlated with construct variables. See Table 1 below for a
summary of the bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics.
Table 2.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 PD (p) -
2 PD (v) .00 -
3 Psyc Safety -.40** .07 -
4 Team
Learning
-.48** -.04 .40** -
5 Team
Climate
-.55** -.01 .56** .72** -
6 Team
Perform
-.44** -.04 .47** .66** .65*
*
-
7 Age .01 .12 .16 .09 -.02 .05
8 Country
Birth
-.02 .18* .27** .01 -.01 .04 -
9 Country
Residence
.01 .09 .11 .03 -.06 -.01 - -
10 Yrs Current
Country
.01 .01 .07 -.08 .05 .01 - - -
11 Job level .01 .05 .24** .21** .18* .15 - - - -
12 Work
Experience
-.01 .05 .12 .09 .01 .05 - - - - -
13 Tenure .07 -.09 .02 .03 .01 .06 - - - - - -
25. 25
Mean 12.08 7.66 23.52 19.27 36.60 11.50
SD 3.21 2.94 3.58 4.87 8.45 2.53
Min 4 4 5 6 10 3
Max 20 20 25 30 50 15
Note: * p < 0.05. **; Pearson correlation for variables 1-6; Kendall’s Tau correlation for 7-10; all two-tailed; PD (p)=
power distance (practices), PD (v)= power distance (values), Psyc Safety= Psychological safety, Team Climate=
participative climate, Team Perform= Team performance, Yrs Current Country= Number of years living in current
country; Tenure= Years working for company A.
4.1.2 Data Analysis
First, variables were examined for missing values and normality assumptions. The online
questionnaire was designed so that participants could not submit their answers without
completing all of the questions. Therefore, reviewing the data for missing values was a
secondary precaution that confirmed no values were missing. Normality was examined
graphically and analytically using the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, which is
recommended over the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for small to medium samples (up to
n=2000) (Field, 2009). The test indicated that power distance (values), psychological
safety, participative climate, and team performance are not normally distributed.
However, for hypothesis testing, normality of variance, as opposed to normality of the
sample distribution, is the more stringent requirement.
Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to evaluate the proposed model (H1.1-
H2.5). Significant demographic variables were entered into the model first (Field, 2009).
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression assumptions were assessed using tests for
linearity, multicollinearity, and misspecification, i.e. testing for outliers,
heteroscedasticity, and omitted variable bias. Six case values met the criteria for outlier
values, falling two or more standard deviations above or below the mean. However, this
number (5%) is reasonable to expect given the size of the sample. Therefore, our sample
appears to conform to what we would expect for a fairly accurate model.
Heteroscedasticity was tested for, first, by visual representation via histograms and
normal probability-plots, which indicated normality of variance. Second, using the
26. 26
Breush-Pagan test (1979) of heteroscedasticity that confirmed that the data was normally
distributed (χ2
= 4.69, p> .05). Although, as evident from the Pearson’s correlation
matrix, some of the predictors are moderately correlated, variance inflation factors (VIFs)
and tolerance values for the predictors indicate that multicolinearity is not an issue.
Finally, four mediation models were tested:
1. Psychological Safety, Team Learning, Team Performance (H1.6).
2. Psychological Safety, Participative Climate, Team Performance (H1.7).
3. Power Distance (practices), Psychological Safety, Team Learning (H2.4)
4. Power Distance (practices), Psychological Safety, Participative Climate (H2.5)
Mediation refers to the mechanism that explains the relationship between an independent
variable and dependent variable through the addition of a third variable (Baron & Kenny,
1986). The variable fully mediates the relationship if, when added to the model, the
original dependent variable is no longer significant. OLS regression was carried out to
test each model and regression diagnostics, as mentioned above, were applied. The
significance of the mediation effects were tested using the Sobel test.
4.1.3 Hypothesis Testing
4.1.3.1 Testing hypotheses 1.1-1.7
To test H1.1 – H1.5, three separate hierarchical regressions were conducted, controlling
for country of birth and job level (see Appendix 8.2.1, Tables 1-4). The regression
models provided support for the hypotheses, showing that psychological safety positively
predicted team performance (B=.531, p<.001), team learning (B=.471, p<.001), and
participative climate (B=.760, p<.001). As well, they showed, controlling for
psychological safety, a positive association between team learning/ participative climate
and team performance, B=.621, p<.001 and B=.578, p<.001, respectively. This indicated
that team learning/ participative climate remained significant predictors of team
performance, above and beyond the effects of psychological safety.
27. 27
The next steps were to test the partial mediating effects of team learning/ participative
climate on the relationship between psychological safety and team performance (H1.6-
H1.7). Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step process, the hierarchical
regressions reported thus far (see Appendix 8.2.1, Tables 1-4) have shown that:
1. Psychological safety positively predicts team learning (path c1
)/ participative
climate (path c2
).
2. Psychological safety positively predicts team performance (path a1,2
).
3. Team learning/ participative climate positively predict team performance
(paths b1
and b2
)
For the final step, the effect of psychological safety on team performance was examined
after individually controlling for each mediator: team learning and participative climate.
4. A reduced effect (B=.239 p<.05) and zero-order effect (B=.092, p>.05) of
psychological safety on team performance was found for team learning and
participative climate, respectively (paths c1
’ and c2
’).
Therefore, this analysis provides support for team learning and participative climate as
mediators. However, although both were hypothesized to be only partial mediators,
participative climate fully mediated the relationship between psychological safety and
team performance. Again, Sobel tests were performed, which statistically supported team
learning partially mediating (z=4.404, p<.001) and participative climate fully mediating
(z=5.73, p<.001) the relationship between psychological safety and team performance.
To test for the possibility of reverse causal effects, the models were tested with
psychological safety as the mediator for the relationships between team learning/
participative climate and team performance. These indirect pathways were shown to be
significant, which will be discussed in the limitations section.
For each model, there was a significant increase in R2
with the addition of psychological
safety and/or team learning/ participative climate. Based on these models, we can
conclude that psychological safety positively predicts team learning, participative
climate, and team performance. However, team learning partially mediates and
28. 28
participative climate fully mediates the relationship between psychological safety and
team performance.
4.1.3.2 Testing hypotheses 2.1-2.5
To test H2.1 – H2.3 (power distance is negatively associated with team learning,
participative climate, and psychological safety), three separate hierarchical regressions
were conducted, controlling for country of birth and job level (see Appendix__, Tables 1-
3). The regression models provided support for the hypotheses, showing that power
distance negatively predicted team learning (B=-.478, p<.001), participative climate (B=-
.588, p<.001), and psychological safety (B=-.339, p<.001). The next step was to ensure
that psychological safety could explain team learning/ participative climate above and
beyond the effects of power distance (practices). Therefore, psychological safety was
added to the models for both team learning and participative climate, controlling for
power distance (practices), country of birth, and job level. These models showed that
psychological safety remained a significant predictor of both team learning (B=.271,
p<.05) and participative climate (B=.553, p<.001).
The above information supports the plausibility of psychological safety mediating the
relationship between power distance (practices) and team learning/ participative climate
(H1.6-H1.7). Following, once again, Baron and Kenny’s four-step process for
determining mediation, the regressions have shown that:
1. Power distance (practices) negatively predicted psychological safety (path c3, 4
).
2. Power distance (practices) negatively predicted team learning/ participative
climate (path a3
and a4
).
3. Psychological safety positively predicts team learning/ participative climate (path
b3
and b4
).
For the final step, the effect of power distance on team learning/ participative climate was
examined after controlling for the mediator, psychological safety. This showed:
29. 29
4. A reduced, although not zero-order, effect of power distance (practices) on team
learning/ participative climate when controlling for psychological safety (path c3
and c4
).
Based on these steps, only partial support for the hypotheses (H2.4-H2.5) was shown-
controlling for psychological safety only led to a partial reduction in the effects of power
distance (practices) on team learning (B=-.387, p<.001) and participative climate (B=-
.401, p<.001). In order to test the significance of the indirect effects, Sobel tests were
performed and provided statistical support for psychological safety mediating the
relationship between power distance (practices) and team learning (z=-3.27, p<.001)/
participative climate (z=-4.03, p<.001). To test for the possibility of reverse causal
effects, the models were tested with power distance (practices) as the mediator. These
indirect pathways were also shown to be significant, and, therefore, will be discussed in
the limitations section.
For each model, there was a significant increase in R2
with the addition of power distance
(practices) and/or psychological safety. Based on these models, we can conclude that
power distance (practices) negatively predicts psychological safety, team learning, and
participative climate. However, psychological safety partially accounts for its effects on
both team learning and participative climate.
Overall, the results provided support for a model of team learning/ participative climate
and team performance with four indirect pathways. Taken together, the data showed that
psychological safety was indirectly related to team performance through team learning/
participative climate. In turn, power distance had an indirect negative association with
both learning and participative climate within teams through its effects on psychological
safety. See Figure 2 for a summary of the results.
30. 30
Figure 2.
Results: Mediation Model
Note: **<.001; each path controlling for country of birth and job level; standardized correlation coefficients; partial
mediators: Psychological safety and team learning; full mediator: Participative climate.
Part two of the study explores concrete examples of how perceptions of societal and
organisational norms influence employees’ behaviour
4.2 Qualitative results
The purpose of the vignettes was to explore concrete examples of how differences in
power distance (practices) affect employees’ behaviour in the workplace. By using
vignettes, the constructs under study were made more tangible and, thus, testable for their
applicability in the real world. Two vignettes were used in order to explore employee
behaviour within characteristically low power (new recruit) and high power (manager)
positions, separately.
Using the quantitative data collected, participants were split into high and low power
distance (practices) groups to compare their responses. In order to calculate the cut-off
scores for each group, the mean-score on power distance (practices) was calculated for
each sample. One standard deviation was added or subtracted from the mean for the high
and low groups, respectively. Therefore, participants with power distance (practices)
31. 31
scores ranging from 15-20 represented the high group and participants with scores
ranging from 4-9 represented the low group. However, the entire sample was used in the
thematic analysis. The themes will be discussed with reference to both the sample as
whole and any group differences that emerged.
4.2.1 Vignette 1:
The first vignette (see section 3.6) had participants imagine being a new recruit at
company A who must contradict their manager in order to express concerns they are
having.
4.2.1.1 Data Analysis
From the data, a thematic network for superior-subordinate relations (low power distance
perspective) emerged, with nine basic themes and three organising themes (See appendix
for details of the network and codes used). The organising themes will first be discussed
in regard to the sample as a whole. For organising themes I and II (feelings of
psychological safety and delivery of concerns) there is a separate section reporting group
differences (high versus low power distance participants).
4.2.1.2 Overall Sample
Organising theme I: Feelings of psychological safety
Overall, the majority of participants reported that they would speak up and address their
concerns as a new recruit. They stated that they would be direct and open with their
manager and/or team members. The majority of participants seemed to believe in the
value that their opinion brought to the team.
“If there are concerns related to work and project environment then it is better to specify
them as soon as possible because it can lead to non-completion of the work within the
32. 32
deadlines given by the client. It does not matter whether you are new to the organisation,
all the employees together have to work for the specified goal.”
Organising theme II: Delivery of concerns
Participants varied in their preferences for mode of delivery. Some stated that they would
address their concerns openly during the team meeting while others preferred to speak
with the manager one-to-one. A few participants reported that they would prefer to
express their concerns via email.
In terms of approaching and phrasing their concerns, some participants reported that they
would be straightforward and evidence-based whereas others exercised more caution.
Instead of addressing the issue directly, they would start by focusing on the positives,
compliment the team’s work, or frame their points of concern in a positive way. For
example, one participant wrote:
“I would bring those concerns up as an internal improvements proposal to deliver better
results.”
Emphasis was placed on being polite and suggestive instead of forceful when voicing
opinions and concerns.
Organising theme III: Validation of concerns
Many participants emphasized the need to validate their concerns. Participants reported
that they would look to colleagues or their immediate supervisors for input and consensus
before they raised the issues to higher management. One participant reported:
“I would share my thoughts with my colleagues and my project leader and after
discussion and getting a rational response that these are really concerns that need to be
addressed, we would convey the same concerns to the manager.”
33. 33
As well, both groups stated that they would provide facts and figures as evidence to
support their claims.
4.2.1.3 Group Comparison:
Group differences arose in relation to the two organising themes: feelings of
psychological safety and delivery of concerns.
Group comparison I: Feelings of Psychological Safety
In comparison to the low power distance group (??), high power distance members
provided more answers that directly implied low levels of psychological safety (27%). A
few participants stated that they would keep quiet because they felt too uncomfortable or
because that is what “the norm” is at company A. One high power distance participant
responded:
“I do not believe the culture within certain areas of [company A] would allow a new
recruit’s opinion to be heard and respected.”
Another participant felt that even if they were to present their points of concern along
with facts and figures, “…chances are that they will be straight away rejected by the
manager.”
In contrast, each participant in the low power distance group provided a method for
addressing their concerns. Overall, low power distance participants (66%) reported more
behaviours that indicated high levels of psychological safety, such as raising their
concerns openly and directly within the team. They gave more of an impression that an
open environment at company A is encouraged.
Group comparison II: Delivery of concerns
34. 34
For participants who addressed delivery of concerns, the majority in both the high and
low power distance groups reported either raising issues within the team meeting or one-
to-one with the manager. However, whereas high power distance participants equally
reported team (54%) or one-to-one meeting (46%), the majority of low power distance
participants reported that they would bring their concerns up during the meeting (70%).
As well, high power distance participants used submissive words, such as “polite” and
“non-threatening,” when describing how they would deliver their concerns and opinions.
That being said, many of the high power distance participants did not fit into the passive
and obedient role. One participant stated that they would put forth their idea to the group
“…without any fear” and another said that they would “…raise [their] concerns to the
next level” if they were not addressed. At the same time, not all low power distance
participants reported confidently expressing their views. For example, one participant
stated that they would send their manager an email and label it as “private.”
4.2.2 Vignette 2
The second vignette (see section 3.6) had participants imagine being a manager at
company A who has to address a lack of participation within the team from less senior
employees.
4.2.2.1 Data Analysis
The global theme being explored was superior-subordinated relations (high power
perspective). A thematic network analysis revealed nine basic themes and three
organising themes. The organising themes represent three different approaches
participants would take as a manager in the presented situation. Again, each organising
theme will first be discussed in regard to the sample as a whole and then in terms of
group differences.
35. 35
4.2.2.2 Overall Sample
Organising Theme I: Enhancing psychological safety
Enhancing psychological safety was one approach that participants applied in order to
promote the input of less senior people. As a manager, participants stated that they would
try to empower and encourage subordinates. They would try to make their opinions feel
valued and build more trust within the team. One participant suggested:
“Conduct[ing] regular period informal events (outside of office environment), and
creating a theme with discussion and debate.”
They expressed that this could help:
“My team gain trust and understand[ing] that their opinions are being taken into
account and being implemented…”
Participants also mentioned alternate methods of providing input, such as anonymous
surveys, email, or blog posts.
“They might be intimidated to speak up in face-to-face meetings. Putting up a blogpost
on Knome before the meeting to get everyone’s views will help these associates speak up,
and can be used as points for discussion during the meeting.”
Organising theme II: Use of authoritative power
A second method participants employed was the use of authoritative power as a manager
in order to coerce less senior members to participate. Some suggestions were to make
these members responsible for providing input during meetings, incorporating this input
into their performance evaluation, and setting it is as an expectation before the meeting.
36. 36
One participant stated:
“Talk to them about the merits of contribution. [If] that won’t work, remind them. [If]
that won’t work either, confront them. That would spook them. Finally, set it as their goal
which determines their performance evaluation.”
Participants also reported more subtle ways of using their authoritative power. Many
suggested having one-to-one meetings with less senior members and asking for their
input directly. Participants suggested using silence or open-ended questions to “force”
members to respond.
Organising theme III: Transferring Responsibility
A final method revealed in the data, was the transfer of responsibility either to higher-
level management or the more senior members of the team. A number of participants
stated that they would turn to their managers in order to find the proper solution. Whereas
others passed along the responsibility of junior members to senior members of the team
in order to “…take some pressure off of [themselves].”
4.2.2.2 Group Comparisons
For the low power distance group, there was a relatively equal distribution of approaches
for addressing less senior members’ lack of input during team meetings. Out of the
solutions given by the 18 respondents with power distance scores of nine or less, seven
focused on enhancing psychological safety (39%), six used authoritative power (33%),
and five transferred responsibility (28%).
For the high power distance group, 13 out of the 18 solutions (72%), given by
respondents with power distance scores 15 or greater, involved enhancing less senior
members’ feelings of psychological safety. They emphasized making these members feel
comfortable and building confidence within the group. They described speaking with the
37. 37
members on a one-to-one basis in order to hear their point of view and emphasize that
their opinion is valued.
5. Discussion
An integrated model consisting of four indirect pathways was developed based on a
thorough review of the teamwork literature. The model encompassed both established
and newly proposed relationships between input, process, and output constructs. The
model was tested with employees from a multinational IT, business solutions, and
consulting services organisation. The newly proposed relationship between power
distance and psychological safety was also explored qualitatively using real workplace
scenarios. This section develops an integrated understanding of the quantitative and
qualitative results. As well, the study’s key theoretical contributions are discussed and the
practical implications are outlined.
In line with past research, the quantitative results indicate that team members with high,
compared to low, psychological safety engage in more learning behaviours and perceive
their team to be more participative, which, in turn, leads to greater team performance. As
well, they show that team learning partially mediates and a participative climate fully
mediates the relationship between psychological safety and team performance. In regard
to power distance, the results reveal that high, compared to low, power distance
employees have lower psychological safety, and experience lower levels of team learning
and a weaker participative climate. Furthermore, psychological safety partially mediates
between power distance and team learning/ participative climate.
First, the findings provide some support for previous research showing psychological
safety to have an indirect positive relationship with team performance through team
learning (e.g. Edmondson, 1999). They also provide support for the notion that
employees who feel psychological safe perceive their team as a place where everyone
participates (e.g. Edmondson, 2003), and that this sense of group cohesion ultimately
enables the team to perform better (Evans & Dion, 2012). However, the fact that
participative climate was found to fully mediate the relationship between psychological
38. 38
safety and team performance indicates that it is already accounting for what is being
explained by team learning. This may be because, along with a sense of group cohesion,
team members’ conceptualisation of participation includes speaking up about concerns,
mistakes and disagreements with the status quo (Lee, Diefendorff, Kim & Bian, 2014). In
other words, employee’s perceptions of a participative team climate may already
encompass learning behaviours.
For power distance, the findings support its negative association with speaking up in
teams (Sagie & Aycan, 2003) and actively participating toward team goals (Jiacheng, Lu,
& Francesco, 2010). However, this was the first study to indicate that power distance is
negatively associated with psychological safety and that psychological safety may be a
partial mediator between power distance and team learning/ participative climate. As
well, the results indicate that it is employees’ perceptions of societal norms related to
power distance (practices), not their moral beliefs about these norms (values) that are
associated with psychological safety and team processes. This supports Hofstede et al.’s
(1990) conclusion that it is the practices not values of members that impact organisations.
In line with the quantitative findings, the vignette results revealed that high, compared to
low, power distance employees of company A expressed lower feelings of psychological
safety as a new recruit. They felt that the company’s culture was unsympathetic toward
the opinions of less senior members and that expressing concerns would be futile. They
were also more likely to specify delivering concerns to a manager privately, whereas the
majority of low power distance participants stated they would address them within the
team meeting. Moreover, as new recruits, high power distance participants were more
likely to report using submissive language in their delivery. Taken together, the
qualitative findings seem to support the negative association between power distance and
psychological safety. However, it is important to note that, regardless of power distance
orientation, the majority of participants felt they would have no difficulty expressing
concerns as a new recruit. Therefore, it may be that a member’s power distance
orientation must be relatively salient in order to outweigh more proximal influences on
psychological safety.
39. 39
Interestingly, when employees at company A were asked to imagine themselves as a
manager, those with low power distance equally reported enhancing psychological safety,
using authoritative power or transferring responsibility as methods for increasing
participation among less senior team members. In contrast, high power distance
employees mainly focused on enhancing psychological safety to encourage participation.
One possible explanation, proposed by Reader et al. (2014), is that sociocultural traits
such as power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance could lead to a social-
desirability response bias. This is particularly relevant because the majority of
participants held operational roles within company A and, thus, a subordinate-level
identity. It may be that high power distance participants thought their responses would be
used to infer information about the actual practices of managers within company A.
Therefore, in order to protect the reputation of their superiors, they reported more positive
approaches to dealing with issues.
Although power distance is not a completely new construct within teamwork research,
this is the first study to investigate its relationship with psychological safety. Therefore, it
offers a number of theoretical contributions. First, drawing from social schema theory,
this study shows that employee’s perceptions of societal norms can shape how they
perceive norms within their organisation. This holds important implications for
understanding psychological safety, which in the past has been viewed as an outcome of
the structural features of organisations (Sundstrom, de Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Second,
it shows that this relationship may help explain why power distance affects interpersonal
processes within teams. It seems that when employees’ perceive societal norms to
endorse power inequalities, this belief negatively influences their perceptions of
organisational norms for interpersonal risk taking, which, in turn, decreases learning and
participation within teams. As well, this study is the first to test a model with both team
learning and participative climate as mediators between psychological safety and team
performance. The purpose was to disentangle the role of each of these constructs in
explaining the relationship between psychological safety and team performance.
However, it seems that, for employees, a participative climate may already ascertain that
40. 40
learning behaviours are taking place. Therefore, this study’s final contribution is to offer
participative climate as a broader explanation that more accurately captures why
psychological safety is important for team performance.
From a practical perspective, management should be aware that the messages they
portray about how safe it is to speak up and take interpersonal risks might not hold the
same meaning across employees. This is particularly true within multinational
organisations that are likely to hire employees with diverse experiences and cultural
backgrounds. Thus, encouraging team-building activities that reveal information about
worldviews (e.g. discussing questions from sociocultural assessment tools) could be
useful for understanding behaviour and attitudes within teams. In turn, this can help
identify what practices need to be put in place to promote equal participation and learning
across members. For example, using anonymous team message boards for members who
are uncomfortable providing input in front of superiors.
6. Limitations and directions for future research
This section addresses the theoretical and methodological limitations of the study and
directions for future research.
In regard to theory, this study only used one sociocultural factor as an antecedent of
psychological safety. However, collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and
short-term orientation are examples of other societal constructs that can influence
employees’ attitudes and behaviour (e.g. Reader et al., 2014). As well, it did not control
for personality traits, demographics, and cognitive ability that create individual
differences among team members (Taras et al., 2010).
Methodologically, there are a number of issues that threaten the external validity and
reliability of the findings. First, the sample of participants was relatively small, and did
not provide enough data for team-level analyses. Thus, it is controversial to compare
these results with past research that has measured psychological safety and teamwork
constructs at the group-level (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). Second, the sample was
41. 41
taken from one company and, representative of its demographics, consisted of
predominantly Indian-born participants. As a result, this limits the generalisability of the
findings. Third, the results are based on self-reported measures, which may be too
subjective for determining team performance. Finally, due to the cross-sectional method
employed, we must be cautious with interpreting causality in the model (Ilge,
Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). This is further supported by the quantitative
results, which revealed significant reverse causal relationships. This indicates that there
may be non-linear relationships that require further investigation.
Taken together, future research should include other societal perceptions (e.g. uncertainty
avoidance) as antecedents of psychological safety to differentiate their influence from
power distance. As well, these studies should try to control for other individual
differences in team members, such as personality traits, gender, and cognitive ability.
Furthermore, research should test this model with a larger sample and in multiple
organisations. This would ideally create more variation and increase the generalisability
of the findings. As well, a larger sample could allow for researchers to differentiate
participants by team membership, and, thus make comparisons at the team-level. In turn,
the model could be tested across various types of teams to see whether the relationships
still hold. Finally, collecting longitudinal survey data may be useful in order to gain a
more accurate portrayal of the causal-relationships in the model.
42. 42
7. References
Anderson, N. R. & West, (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation:
development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 19, 235-298.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and
Practice. Addison-Wesley: Wokingham.
Ashforth, B. E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. The Academy of
Management Review, 10(4), 837-847.
Ashforth, B.E. & Mael, F. (1989): Social Identity Theory and the Organization. The
Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Augoustinos, M., & Walker, I. (1996). Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction. Sage
Publications Ltd: London, UK.
Barter, C., & Renold, E. (2000). ‘I wanna tell you a story': Exploring the application of
vignettes in qualitative research with children and young people. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(4), 307-323.
Baron, M. B. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. 1994. Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job
related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 25, 233-257.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., ...
& Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power
distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4),
300-315.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.
Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823-850.
Cohen, S. G. & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness
43. 43
research from the top floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3).
239-290.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, & mixed methods
approach (4th
Ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Daniels, M. A. & Greguras, G. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance:
Implications for micro- and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes.
Journal of Management, 40(5), 1202-1229.
Detert, J. R. & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door
really open? The Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and
organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. The
Journal of Applied Science, 32(1), 5-28.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work
teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote
learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6),
1419-1452.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team
learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(4), 685-716.
Evans, C. R. & Dion, K. L. (2012). Group cohesion and performance. Small Group
Research, 42(6), 690-701.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS: (And Sex and Drugs and Rock’n’roll)
(3rd
Ed.). SAGE Publications.
Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21(1), 105-114.
Gladwell, M. (2008), Outliers: The Story of Success. Little, Brown and Company: New
York, NY.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for
mixed method evaluation designs. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3),
255-274.
Goodman, L.A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 31(1),
44. 44
148–170.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
Institutions and nations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organisations:
Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival (3rd
Ed.). McGraw
Hill: New York.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 286-316.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.).
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Sage publications.
Huang, X., Vliert, E. V., & Vegt, G. V. (2005). Breaking the silence culture: Stimulation of
participation and employee opinion withholding cross nationally. Management and
Organization Review, 1(3), 459-482.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations:
From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology,
56, 517-543.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jiacheng, W., Lu, L., & Francesco, C. A. (2010). A cognitive model of intra-
organizational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture.
International Journal of Information Management, 30(3), 220-230.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and
aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work
involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 785-804.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data
collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195-229.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Ed.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology,
45. 45
Volume 2. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.
Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2007). Work in the 2lst Century: An Introduction to Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (2nd
Ed.). Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA.
Lee, G. L., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim, T., & Bian, L. (2014). Personality and Participative
Climate: Antecedents of Distinct Voice Behaviors. Human Performance, 27(1),
25-43.
Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review
of Psychology, 41, 585-684.
Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14,
319-340.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
Matsumoto, D. & Juang, L. (2008). Culture & Psychology (4th
Ed.). Thomson-
Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
Nembhard, I. M. & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader
inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement
efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27(7), 941-966.
Nicolini, D. (2011). Practice as the Site of Knowing: Insights from the Field of
Telemedicine. Organization Science, 22(3), 602-620.
Paulus, P. B. & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76
87.
Rao, P. (2011). E-learning in India: the role of national culture and strategic
implications. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 5(2), 129-150.
Reader, T., Noort, M., Shorrock, S., & Kirwan, B. (2014). Safety san frontières: An
international safety culture model. Risk Analysis.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000).
Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland,
46. 46
and India: predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and
individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 643.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the
psychological contract. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74,
511-541.
Sagie A. & Aycan, Z. (2003). A cross-cultural analysis of participative decision making in
organizations. Human Relations, 56(4): 453-473.
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team
performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540-547.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd
Ed.). John Wiley & Sons:
San Francisco.
Schneider, B. & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology,
36(1), 19-39.
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and
effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120-133.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s
consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s
cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405-439.
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.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice
behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological
safety. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286.
47. 47
8. Appendix
8.1 Questionnaire
Demographic questions
Demographic Question Possible answers
1. Age 1= Under 30
2= 30-39
3= 40-49
4= 50-59
5= 60 or older
2. Country of Birth Open-ended question
3. Country of Residence Open-ended question
4. Length of time in current country of
residence.
1= 0-1 years
2= 2-5 years
3= 6-10 years
4= 11-20 years
5= 21+ years
5. Job role Open-ended question
6. Account Open-ended question
7. Years of work experience 1= 0-1 years
2= 2-5 years
3= 6-10 years
4= 11-20 years
5= 21+ years
7. Length of employment with company A 1= 0-1 years
2= 2-5 years
3= 6-10 years
4= 11-20 years
5= 21+ years
48. 48
Power distance (practices) scale
Adopted from the GLOBE study (House et al. 2004) Phase 2 Alpha Questionnaire: The
Way Things Are in Your Work Organization. Originally on a 7-point Likert scale, the
answers were adopted to a 5-point scale.
Power Distance (Practices) Question 5-point Likert Scale
1. In this organisation, a person’s influence
is based primarily on:
1= One’s ability and contribution to the
organisation.
5= The authority of one’s position.
2. In this organisation, subordinates are
expected to:
1= Obey their boss without question.
5= question their boss when in
disagreement
3. In this organisation, major rewards are
based on:
1= Only performance effectiveness.
3= Performance effectiveness and other
factors (for example, seniority or political
connections).
5= Only factors other than performance
effectiveness (for example, seniority or
political connections).
4. In this organisation, people in positions
of power try to:
1= Increase their social distance from less
powerful individuals.
5= Decrease their social distance from less
powerful people.
Power distance (values) scale
Adopted from the GLOBE study (House et al. 2004) Phase 2 Alpha Questionnaire: The
Way Things Should Be in Your Work Organization. Originally on a 7-point Likert scale,
the answers were adopted to a 5-point scale.
Power Distance (Practices) Question 5-point Likert Scale
1. In this organisation, a person’s influence
should be based primarily on:
1= One’s ability and contribution to the
organisation.
5= The authority of one’s position.
2. In this organisation, subordinates should: 1= Obey their boss without question.
5= question their boss when in
disagreement
3. In this organisation, major rewards 1= Only performance effectiveness.
49. 49
should be based on: 3= Performance effectiveness and other
factors (for example, seniority or political
connections).
5= Only factors other than performance
effectiveness (for example, seniority or
political connections).
4. When in disagreement with superiors,
subordinates in this organisation should
generally go along with what superiors say
or want:
1= Strongly agree
3= Neither agree nor disagree.
5. Strongly disagree.
Psychological safety scale:
Adopted from Edmondson’s (1999) psychology safety subscale. 5-point Likert scale
ranging from “very inaccurate” to “very accurate.”
1. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.
2. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.
3. People on this team sometimes reject others for being different.
4. It is safe to take a risk on this team.
5. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help.
6. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.
7. Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and
utilized.
Team learning scale:
Adopted from Edmondson’s (1999) team learning scale. 5-point Likert scale ranging
from “never” to “always.”
1. We regularly take time to figure out ways to improve our team's work processes
2. This team tends to handle differences of opinion privately or off-line, rather than
addressing them directly as a group
3. Team members go out and get all the information they possibly can from others—such
as customers, or other parts of the organization
4. This team frequently seeks new information that leads us to make important changes…
5. In this team, someone always makes sure that we stop to reflect on the team's work
process
50. 50
6. People in this team often speak up to test assumptions about issues under discussion
7. We invite people from outside the team to present information or have discussions with
us.
Participative climate scale:
Adopted from Anderson and West’s (1998) participation safety climate scale. 5-point
Likert scale ranging from “a very little extent” to “a very great extent.”
1. How clear are you about what your team’s objectives are?
2. How worthwhile do you think these objectives are to your team?
3.We share information generally within the team rather than keeping it to ourselves.
4. We have a ‘we are in it together’ attitude.
5. We all influence each other.
6. People keep each other informed about work-related issues in the team.
7. People feel understood and accepted by each other.
8. Everyone’s view is listened to even if it is in a minority.
9. There are real attempts to share information throughout the team.
10. There is a lot of give and take.
Team performance scale:
Adopted from Edmondson’s (1999) team performance scale. 5-point Likert scale ranging
from “very inaccurate” to “very accurate.”
1. This team meets or exceeds its customers’ expectations.
2. This team does superb work.
3. This team keeps getting better and better.
51. 51
8.2 Hierarchical Regressions
8.2.1 Tables
Table 1
Hierarchical regression with team learning and psychological safety
Criterion Variable Team Learning
B SE B β
Step 1
Constant 2.931** .292
Country of Birth .207 .266 .076
Job Role .421* .203 .203
Step 2
Constant
Country of Birth
1.675**
-.034
.388
.251 -.012
Job Role .234 .191 .113
Psychological
Safety
.471** .105 .412
Note1
: Job role and country of birth were represented as dummy variables with operational role (versus
managerial) and India (versus other) as the reference categories, respectively.
Note2
: R2
= .056 for Step 1; ∆R2
= .206 for Step 2.
*P < 0.05. **P < .01
52. 52
Table 2
Hierarchical regression with participative climate and psychological safety
Criterion Variable Participative Climate
B SE B β
Step 1
Constant 3.407** .321
Country of Birth .163 .291 .056
Job Role .304 .222 .136
Step 2
Constant
Country of Birth
1.377**
-.226
.376
.243 .162
Job Role .002 .185 .001
Psychological
Safety
.760** .101 .617
Note1
: Job role and country of birth were represented as dummy variables with operational role (versus
managerial) and India (versus other) as the reference categories, respectively.
Note2
: R2
= .008 for Step 1; ∆R2
= .342 for Step 2.
*P < 0.05. **P < .01
53. 53
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression with team performance, psychological safety, and team learning
Criterion Variable Team Performance
B SE B β
Step 1
Constant 3.656** .306
Country of Birth .100 .278 .036
Job Role .374 .212 .174
Step 2
Constant
Country of Birth
2.239**
-.171
.399
.258 -.061
Job Role .163 .197 .076
Psychological safety .531** .108 .450
Step 3
Constant 1.200** .346
Country of Birth -.150 .207 -.054
Job Role .018 .159 .008
Psychological Safety .239* .094 .202
Team Learning .621** .079 .600
Note1
: Job role and country of birth were represented as dummy variables with operational role (versus
managerial) and India (versus other) as the reference categories, respectively.
Note2
: R2
= .018 for Step 1; ∆R2
= .191 for Step 2; ∆R2
= .481 for Step 3.
*P < 0.05. **P < .01
54. 54
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression with team performance, psychological safety, and participative
climate
Criterion Variable Team Performance
B SE B β
Step 1
Constant 3.656** .306
Country of Birth .100 .278 .036
Job Role .374 .212 .174
Step 2
Constant
Country of Birth
2.239**
-.171
.399
.258 -.061
Job Role .163 .197 .076
Psychological safety .531** .108 .450
Step 3
Constant 1.443** .357
Country of Birth -.041 .218 -.015
Job Role .162 .166 .075
Psychological Safety .092 .112 .078
Participative Climate .578** .086 .604
Note1
: Job role and country of birth were represented as dummy variables with operational role (versus
managerial) and India (versus other) as the reference categories, respectively.
Note2
: R2
= .018 for Step 1; ∆R2
= .191 for Step 2; ∆R2
= .426 for Step 3.
*P < 0.05. **P < .01
55. 55
Table 5
Hierarchical regression with psychological safety and power distance (practices)
Criterion Variable Psychological Safety
B SE B β
Step 1
Constant 2.669** .247
Country of Birth .512* .224 .215
Job Role .397* .171 .218
Step 2
Constant
Country of Birth
3.827**
.385*
.330
.206 .162
Job Role .390 .156 .214
PD (practices) -.339** .071 -.396
Note1
: Job role and country of birth were represented as dummy variables with operational role (versus
managerial) and India (versus other) as the reference categories, respectively.
Note2
: R2
= .106 for Step 1; ∆R2
= .256 for Step 2.
*P < 0.05. **P < .01
56. 56
Table 6
Hierarchical regression with team learning, power distance (practices), and
psychological safety
Criterion Variable Team Learning
B SE B β
Step 1
Constant 2.931** .292
Country of Birth .207 .266 .076
Job Role .421* .203 .203
Step 2
Constant
Country of Birth
4.567**
.028
.373
.233 .010
Job Role .411* .176 .198
PD (practices) -.478** .080 -.490
Step 3
Constant 3.531** .545
Country of Birth -.076 .231 -.028
Job Role .305 .177 .147
PD (practices) -.387** .086 -.396
Psychological Safety .271* .106 .237
Note1
: Job role and country of birth were represented as dummy variables with operational role (versus
managerial) and India (versus other) as the reference categories, respectively.
Note2
: R2
= .039 for Step 1; ∆R2
= .272 for Step 2; ∆R2
= .308 for Step 3.
*P < 0.05. **P < .01
57. 57
Table 7
Hierarchical Regression with participative climate, power distance (practices), and
psychological safety
Criterion Variable Participative Climate
B SE B β
Step 1
Constant 3.407** .321
Country of Birth .163 .291 .056
Job Role .304 .222 .136
Step 2
Constant
Country of Birth
5.418**
-.057
.391
.224 -.019
Job Role .291 .185 .130
PD (practices) -.588** .084 -.558
Step 3
Constant 3.303** .521
Country of Birth -.270 .221 -.092
Job Role .076 .169 .034
PD (practices) -.401** .082 -.381
Psychological Safety .553** .101 .448
Note1
: Job role and country of birth were represented as dummy variables with operational role (versus
managerial) and India (versus other) as the reference categories, respectively.
Note2
: R2
= .008 for Step 1; ∆R2
= .313 for Step 2; ∆R2
= .458 for Step 3.
*P < 0.05. **P < .01
58. 58
8.2.2 Exemplary SPSS output:
Testing mediating role of psychological safety between power distance (practices) and
team learning.
Path c
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .526
a
.276 .256 .61426
a. Predictors: (Constant), PD (practices), Job Role, Country of Birth
ANOVA
a
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 15.567 3 5.189 13.752 .000
b
Residual 40.750 108 .3771
Total 56.317 111
a. Dependent Variable: PsycSafety
b. Predictors: (Constant), PD (practices), Job Role, Country of Birth
Coefficients
a
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
Model
B Std. Error Beta
t Sig.
(Constant) 3.827 .330 11.588 .000
Job Role .390 .156 .214 2.497 .014
Country of Birth .385 .206 .162 1.867 .065
1
PD (practices) -.339 .071 -.396 -4.796 .000
a. Dependent Variable: PsycSafety
Path b
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .454
a
.206 .184 .73488
a. Predictors: (Constant), PsycSafety, Country of Birth, Job Role
