Psychological Safety in Athletic Team Environments.

Team climate has been the subject of substantial research within sport psychology and coaching science (Cronin & Allen, 2015, 2018; Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010; Hogue et al., 2013; Into et al., 2020; Strobel et al., 2018) and has also garnered recent mainstream media attention which has heightened its relevance (Beideck, 2019; Boboltz, 2019; Eldridge, 2020; McCarriston & Bengel, 2020; Ortegon, 2021; Quezada & Schlabach, 2019; Williams, 2019).

Auburn University swimmer, Anna-Julia Kutsch, quit her team due to the team environment and released this statement in January 2021 following her departure:

"The existing culture of the Auburn swim program-in terms of both the athletic and psychological climate- was not allowing me to maximize my potential as an athlete and person. The [coaches] lack fundamental traits which prevent them from connecting with their athletes, having positive communication and creating an environment of trust and understanding. This made it increasingly difficult to grow as a person and athlete" (Ortegon, 2021).

The aforementioned statement outlines the importance of the team climate from an athlete's perspective. Additionally, it highlights the role leaders have in shaping the team environment. Extant research on the sport team climate demonstrates the critical impact team climate has on athletes' experiences and performance. Climates characterized by care have demonstrated heightened athlete performance and experience (Scott et al., 2021). A caring climate is one that is perceived to be "interpersonally inviting, safe, supportive, and able to provide the experience of being valued and respected" (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010, p. 296). Sport climate research is prolific, but it has not yet considered psychological safety and its impact in the athletic team environment.

Caring climates bear similarities to psychological safety, however, psychological safety is distinct and needs to be explored and incorporated in the sport climate literature. The purpose of this manuscript is to explore the construct of psychological safety, its antecedents and outcomes, and apply this construct to the sport domain to stimulate further research in this area.

The Psychological Safety Construct

One of the potential emergent states of team climate is psychological safety. Psychological safety is an environment where team members perceive that it is safe to take interpersonal risks (voicing concerns, seeking feedback, experimenting with new ideas) without fear of punishment or embarrassment (Edmondson, 1999; Newman et al., 2017; Pearsall & Ellis, 2011). It is one's perception of the team environment and how they will be received by the group (Edmondson, 2004; Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017). A psychologically safe team depicts an environment where team members feel safe to learn, grow, interact honestly, and make mistakes without fear of retribution (Frazier et al., 2017; Schein & Bennis, 1965).

Psychological safety is an emergent state that can grow when it is rooted in the team's culture and climate. Team culture refers to the team's underlying values, attitudes, and beliefs which underpin their everyday actions representing the team climate (Baer & Frese, 2003). Team climate is the shared perception of the team environment which is shaped through interpersonal exchanges and team practices (Soomro et al., 2016). Decision-making practices, communication flow, goal emphasis, leadership, group processes, and job conditions coincide to shape the team climate (Hansen & Wernerfelt, 1989). A team climate with psychological safety includes behaviors that support and reinforce its importance through daily interactions. In a psychologically safe team environment, the daily actions and words of coaches, staff, and teammates send the message that "this team provides a safe space for you to show up as your authentic self and make mistakes as you strive to achieve your highest potential."

Antecedents to a Psychologically Safe Environment

Kahn (1990) initially identified four antecedents to psychological safety: (a) interpersonal relationships; (b) group dynamics; (c) management style and process; and (d) organizational norms (Frazier, et al., 2017). Additionally, Kahn (1990) called for further work regarding individual disposition traits that could affect a person's perception of psychological safety. Antecedents to psychological safety have been further specified and have evolved to encompass: (a) high-quality interpersonal relationships; (b) supportive leadership behaviors; (c) supportive team processes and practices; (d) individual differences; and (e) contextual demands (Frazier, 2017; Kahn, 1990; Newman et al., 2017).

High-Quality Interpersonal Relationships

High-quality relationships include shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009). High-quality relationships should be cultivated throughout the hierarchy, not just on the same hierarchical level. A high-quality relationship between the leader (coach) and subordinate (athlete) is vital. This concept reverberates throughout the sport psychology and coaching science literature (Davis & Jowett, 2014; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Schaubroeck et al. (2011) posited "when members have a strong and favorable emotional connection with the leader ... this positively influences the team's performance through the mediating influence of team psychological safety" (p. 865). However, if the leader has a punitive response to a question or challenge, this corrodes the relationship and psychological safety within the team.

High quality interpersonal relationships also need to be cultivated within peers. The relationship networks on this level need to be strong to cultivate psychological safety. Relationship networks indicate the level of interaction between team members and the quality of these relationships. Therefore, the higher the levels of interaction and the higher the quality of these relationships, the greater the level of psychological safety within the team (Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017).

Supportive Leadership Behaviors

Supportive leadership behaviors include coaching, inclusiveness, trustworthiness, behavioral integrity, and support. Additionally, certain leadership styles fall under supportive leadership behaviors. These leadership styles include transformational leadership, ethical leadership, change-oriented leadership, shared leadership, and benevolent leadership (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014; Edmondson, 1999, 2002; Huang et al., 2008; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Nicolaides & Poell, 2020; Shaubroeck et al., 2011). The leader is a key figure in establishing the team environment with psychological safety since the leader's behaviors are particularly salient to the team members and they set the expectation for behavior (Edmondson, 1999, 2002; Huang et al., 2008; Nicolaides & Poell, 2020). Team members are likely to conclude a safe environment exists "if the leader is supportive, coaching-oriented, and has non-defensive responses to questions and challenges" (Edmondson, 1999, p. 356).

Leader inclusiveness is a key aspect of supportive leadership behaviors. Leader inclusiveness designates the words and behaviors a leader shows that indicate an appreciation and invitation for others' input (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Both invitation and appreciation need to be present in order to cultivate leader inclusiveness. Team members "are likely to feel greater psychological safety within the team if a leader is democratic, supportive, and welcomes questions and challenges" (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006, p. 947). Authoritarian managers can cultivate fear, and this type of leadership style stifles dialogue within leaders and subordinates (Edmondson, 1996). Therefore, leadership and the elements therein have a strong relationship with psychological safety.

Supportive Team Processes and Practices

Another antecedent to psychological safety is supportive team processes and practices (Newman et al., 2017; Carmeli & Zisu, 2009; Singh et al., 2013). Supportive team processes are the systems in place to promote a supportive team environment. The processes are rooted in the values and policies of the team. Therefore, if the team values diversity, there should be policies, processes, and practices in place that reflect this value. More practically, supportive team processes and practices can include structured mentoring programs and inclusion education (Singh et al., 2013; Newman et al., 2017). Examples of this in the sport team environment include: big sister programs (i.e. freshman paired with upperclassman), systematic team building efforts, and systematic support for athletes as they transition into and out of the team. Supportive team practices contribute to the creation of psychological safety which serves as the mediator for important outcomes such as organizational commitment and job performance (Newman et al., 2017).

Individual Differences

Individual differences may contribute to the perception of whether an environment is psychologically safe or not (Kahn, 1990; Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017). The key individual traits that emerged with a relationship to psychological safety include proactive personality, emotional stability, and learning orientation. This manuscript is focused on the team level of analysis, but it is important to recognize that the individual differences within the team members can precede perceptions of psychological safety. However, it is also important to refer back to the concept of a person in an environment (Pervin, 1989). A person's characteristics are not the sole determining factor of behavior. Rather the environment plays an important role in determining the behavior of an individual (Pervin, 1989). Therefore, if an athlete enters an environment that is ripe with psychological safety, they may be more prone to perceive it as psychologically safe, even if their personality is not prone to perceiving psychological safety.

One's professional standing within a team can also alter perceptions of psychological safety (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). For example, those with a higher status may be more inclined to feel psychological safety (seniors) while those with less status may be less inclined to perceive psychological safety (freshman; Bienefeld & Grote, 2014; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). This difference is important to note within a sports environment where power differences are pervasive between individuals who direct the work (coaches) and those who do the work (athletes). Therefore, leaders need to have a heightened awareness regarding the power dynamics when eliciting engagement from team members.

Additionally, gender (or other salient demographic characteristics such as ethnicity) can serve as an individual factor which affects perceptions of team psychological safety. For example, if the team is led by a man and all subordinates are women, this can create a more pronounced demand for the cultivation of psychological safety (Smittick et al., 2019) because this demographic difference creates an initial chasm in the relationship that needs to be overcome.

Contextual Demands

Contextual demands encompass team characteristics and work design characteristics (Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017). Team characteristics refer to the unique characteristics of a contextual team environment that may help create and demand psychological safety. Work design characteristics refer to the structural features and resources within a job (Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017). Different contextual factors such as formal team structures (hierarchy), team engagement in boundary work, team interdependence (team sport vs. individual sport), and shared team rewards (team championship vs. individual championship, team bonus structures) can influence the desire to create psychological safety on the team (Bresman & Zellman-Bruhn, 2013; Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010; Chandrasekaran & Mishra, 2012; Edmondson, 2004). Psychological safety may not play as large of a role in team performance if there is not a need to work together and depend on each other through team interdependence. However, it is important to note that there is a level of interdependence present in sport at both the individual sport and the team sport level. While in a corporate setting, a manager can do the work for the employee if it is not satisfactory. However, a coach can never compete for an athlete. Therefore, the coach and the athlete are interdependent in this scenario and this demonstrates interdependency in both team and individual sports. Psychological safety could play a larger role in teams that rely on learning and innovation as a part of their performance. Athletes need to learn plays, scout opponents, adapt to opponents during competition, integrate into a new system of play, and innovate skill mechanics. Some teams may rely on learning behavior more heavily and psychological safety is even more important to cultivate when these contextual demands are present within the team (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

Outcomes of Psychological Safety

The outcomes of psychological safety are (a) performance, (b) communication, (c) learning behavior, (d) job attitudes, (e) creativity and innovation, and (f) wellness (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016; Fransen et al., 2020; Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017).

Performance

Performance is an outcome that has historically driven the nature of sport (Coakley, 2009) and psychological safety has consistently shown a positive relationship with performance in other industries (Baer & Frese, 2003; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Faraj & Yan, 2009; Tucker et al., 2007) and recently in sport (Smittick et al., 2019). Employees who thrive at work are more likely to have meaningful contributions, which then results in a positive impact on performance (Frazier & Tuper, 2018). Psychological safety was the most critical factor for high performance in an examination of work teams within Google's organization (Rozovsky, 2015). Therefore, with such a strong and consistent relationship between psychological safety and performance within business, it is likely that this relationship will exist within the sports team environment as well (Rozovsky, 2015).

Communication

Psychological safety consistently leads to positive communication outcomes. Communication outcomes include knowledge sharing, voice behavior, and information sharing. Edmondson and Lei (2014) posited:

"Upward communication can be a vital force in helping contemporary organizations learn and succeed; by speaking up to those who occupy positions to authorize actions, employees can help change the status quo, identify problems or opportunities for improvement, and offer ideas to improve their organizations' wellbeing" (p. 37).

An example of this is feeling safe while reporting errors to supervisors. Edmondson (1996) specifically found that higher performing teams in the hospital reported more mistakes. This was the opposite relationship she had hypothesized. Therefore, upon conducting further research, she began to realize that in higher performing teams, the errors were being reported and addressed; whereas in the teams with a fear-driven culture, errors were not reported because of the fear of making a mistake, and therefore, could not be addressed properly (Edmondson, 2019). Many teams operate in a fear-based motivational climate; however, "fear inhibits learning" (Edmondson, 2019, p. 14). Therefore, the teams that are operating in a fear-based climate may be limiting the impact a talented employee can contribute to the team by silencing that person thereby limiting the potential team performance. Psychological safety tends to deter self-protective silence among employees (Burris et al., 2008; Detert & Edmondson, 2011). Therefore, psychological safety allows for greater levels of discussion across the hierarchy to improve the amount of communication and ideas that flow within a team.

Learning Behavior

The ability to have open communication and share information is also heavily tied to the ability to learn from mistakes and improve. Learning opportunities are minimized "when participants fear the repercussions of speaking up about failure and its underlying causes" (Carmelli & Gittell 2009, p. 710). Learning behavior allows employees to ask questions, seek feedback, and engage honestly which thereby helps them learn from mistakes and failures rather than avoiding them altogether (Edmondson, 1999). Psychological safety acts in a way that alleviates this threat and allows space for learning behavior to occur without the threat of embarrassment (Edmondson, 1999). An important aspect of learning behavior is feeling safe to ask for and give feedback to peers, supervisors, and subordinates. However, not all feedback is equal and feedback intentions are perceived differently on teams with psychological safety. Feedback is only useful if it is heard and responded to appropriately. When a team member perceives good intentions in the feedback, the feedback is heard and responded to with proclivity for self-awareness rather than self-defense (Edmondson, 1999). Psychological safety is also imperative in creating the environment where this feedback is welcome. Edmondson (1999) added "by believing others' intentions to be helpful rather than critical, the team is more likely to interpret negative feedback as friendly rather than unfriendly data" and thereby take this information and learn from it (p. 371).

Job Attitudes

Job attitudes include states such as satisfaction and engagement. These two job attitudes in particular have shown a strong positive correlation with a psychologically safe environment (Detert & Burris, 2007; Frazier et al., 2017; Kahn, 1990; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). However, job attitudes also include negative states such as burnout and emotional exhaustion. Job attitudes are leading indicators of behavioral intentions such as turnover or motivation which can be facilitative or debilitative to performance (Cropanzano et al., 2003). Emotional exhaustion is linked to higher levels of turnover intentions and lower levels of organizational commitment (Cropanzano et al., 2003). Since job attitudes serve as a leading diagnostic tool, it is important to recognize their relationship with desired outcomes such as team performance and employee tenure and wellbeing (Cropanzano et al., 2003) and cultivate team climates that elicit the desired job attitudes.

Creativity and Innovation

Creativity and innovation are highly regarded resources within many teams because of the constant change and demand to adapt to this change (Liu et al., 2016). Teams "are more likely to come up with innovative solutions and engage in initiative and proactive behavior" in an environment that fosters psychological safety (Han et al. 2019, p. 163). This outcome is dependent on the aforementioned outcome of communication. Environmental demands can change rapidly due to external forces such as COVID-19 and innovation is vital in a team's response to these changes. Theoretically, a team with psychological safety is better equipped to adapt to the demands of the external environment with more innovative solutions (Han et al., 2019).

Wellness

An emerging outcome of psychological safety is wellness (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016; Fransen et al, 2020). Employees have the vitality to offer meaningful contributions toward team goal achievement when they exhibit a high level of wellness (Frazier & Tupper, 2018). Fransen et al. (2020) found wellness as an outcome of an environment with psychological safety. Additionally, Erkutlu and Chafra (2016) found that benevolent leadership and personal well-being were positively correlated. There still needs to be further research regarding this outcome, but it is important to recognize this as an outcome, specifically for the sport domain. See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of the antecedents and outcomes of psychological safety.

Discussion

The sport literature has focused on the idea of the holistic experience of an athlete, but industry practice is still heavily rooted in a siloed experience (Dowell et al., 2021; Stewart, 2014; Waller et al., 2016). The current athletic system is structured to have support on the outside of the team environment (nutritionist, mental performance consultants, athletic trainers) to meet the demands of the stressors athletes face. However, research demonstrates the importance of the coach and the team environment to facilitate high levels of team performance and positive athlete experiences (Hague et al., 2021). Additionally, coaches are constantly searching for strategies and tactics to improve the team and its performance; however, those strategies and tactics are only as strong as the environment in which it is taught. Coaches, administrators, and other stakeholders in the sport domain need to understand what psychological safety is and how to cultivate it in their environments to facilitate peak performance among other outcomes.

Practical Application of Psychological Safety in Sport

The largest gap in research up until this point regarding psychological safety is what does this look like in practice? How can an environment with psychological safety actually be cultivated? This section offers practical applications to develop psychological safety as well as demonstrate what behaviors degrade psychological safety in an athletic team environment.

What Does a Team with High Psychological Safety Look Like?

Psychologically safe teams "are characterized by interpersonal trust, respect for the competence of all team members, and care and concern about members as people" (Schaubroeck et al. 2011, p. 864). This is not just subordinates showing respect and trust to the leader. It is also the leader (or those with higher social status) showing respect and trust to the subordinators or those with lower social status. The head coach of the San Antonio Spurs, Gregg Popovich, and longtime player, Tim Duncan, exemplify this element of interpersonal trust and respect. Duncan gave a statement regarding how Poppovich began instilling trust in their relationship. Duncan said:

"It started with him going out of his way to want to know who I was as a person, wanting to meet my friends, wanting to meet my father, sit down and speak with him ... And he built that trust from early on, just trying to understand who I was--not just as a basketball player, but as a person and beyond (NBA, 2021, para 5)."

High quality relationships are synonymous with cultivating the foundational element of trust and respect into the team environment. Generally high-quality relationships include respect and trust and therefore, these can work together to cultivate psychological safety. Additionally, high-quality relationships, trust, respect, and communication may aid in the understanding and belief of another's intentions. An understanding of intentions is critical in receiving honest feedback constructively (Edmondson, 1999). Therefore, when giving feedback, it is important to demonstrate and reinforce underlying intentions. A coach can say, "I am giving you this feedback because I care about you reaching your highest potential." Another aspect of this is separating the person from the behavior the feedback is addressing. When there is genuine care and good intentions, honest feedback is better received. Geno Auriemma, longtime head coach of the University of Connecticut women's basketball team addressed this in an interview. Auriemma said, "I think the trick for any coach is to make sure the players understand we're being critical of that basketball play you just made, we're not being critical of you as a person" (Stacy, 2018, para 5). This clear delineation can aid in cultivating psychological safety and also eliciting more effective feedback interactions. If an athlete is distracted with fear, anxiety, and embarrassment, while a coach is providing them with feedback, this leaves limited attention to attend to the feedback being provided and limits opportunity for improvement (Middlemas & Harwood, 2017).

Additionally, the leader is salient to the cultivation of the team environment and the expectation of behavior, therefore, it is critical that the leader demonstrates the desired behavior. If the coach wants an athlete to be constantly trying to improve and open to feedback, the coach should be constantly trying to improve and remain open to feedback. These behaviors show athletes that the ultimate goal is the achievement of the team goal, not for the coach to be right and demonstrate authority and dominance. It also shows that mistakes are part of the process of improving. An interview with Pete Carroll, head coach of the Seattle Seahawks, provides an example of this. In a press conference in July 2021, Carroll said, "I'm going to tell you something flat out, I messed up last year" (Adams, 2021, para 2). Carroll is referring to when he conducted an end-of-season exit interview with one of his athletes. During this interview, the athlete expressed that he felt as though his ability to compete for his desired field position was stifled because Carroll assumed he would play the same position he played in college. Carroll owned this mistake to the athlete and the media and has made changes to allow the player to compete for his desired position during the 2021 season. He did this to stimulate competition among the team and remain true to one of his core team values. This example demonstrates that Carroll is open to the feedback of players (i.e., intentionally conducting exit interviews) and recognizes that mistakes are part of the process of reaching one's goals. However, tolerance for mistakes does not mean the absence of high expectations. Rather it is the ability to stumble and learn from the mistakes during the climb to reach the high expectations.

Additionally, psychological safety will not emerge in singular interactions. Consistency is key in building psychological safety. Consistent interactions build psychological safety over time, and "shared beliefs about how others will react are established over time" (Edmondson, 1999, p. 379). It takes consistent action to shape this theoretical construct into reality.

What Does a Team with Low Psychological Safety Look Like?

A team with low levels of psychological safety lacks learning behaviors such as asking questions, seeking feedback, and having an honest exchange of information (Edmondson, 1999). This is likely not from a lack of interest in learning or improving, but the risk of engaging in this behavior is too large to overcome. The leadership may be authoritarian and demonstrate an attitude of having all the answers and only allowing one way of operating (i.e., get with the program or get out; Remtulla et al., 2021). In this case, rather than trying to innovate or learn, the team members may just conform to the system out of fear of being outcast or embarrassed along with the need for self-preservation.

Leader incivility toward subordinates has a significant negative relationship with team psychological safety (Smittick et al., 2019). Leader incivility, a leader acting outside the norm of acceptable workplace behavior directed toward a subordinate, has been a fairly common, accepted, and sometimes celebrated practice in sport. Instances of leader incivility in sport have gained momentum in recent mainstream media (Smittick et al., 2019). Bobby Knight, longtime head coach of the Indiana University men's basketball team, was fired in 2000 for acts of incivility. However, it took multiple acts of misconduct followed by warnings and multiple chances to change behavior to finally elicit a firing (Gildea, 2000). It has become more common practice in the 2020s for coaches to be placed on administrative leave or fired when they display incivility toward their staff and athletes (Boboltz, 2019; McCarriston & Bengel, 2020).

These behaviors (incivility) can elicit self-protective behavior among team members. Therefore, instead of expending energy to learn and improve, that energy is redirected toward survival (not making coach mad, not making a mistake). This is likely especially true for those that are at the bottom of the hierarchy (i.e., rookies, freshman, transfers, assistant coaches, support staff; Remtulla et al., 2021). This environment lacks high-quality relationships and therefore honest communication. There may be an importance placed on winning at all costs; and the team members are merely a means to this end. This could emerge as a team that is playing not to lose, because of fear of what comes with a loss (coach yelling, physical punishment) rather than playing to win.

Additionally, team members may feel like they're "walking on eggshells" around those with authority because they don't know how they will react when a mistake is made. Erik Stevenson, a former Witicha State University men's basketball player, exemplified this notion when speaking with the media. Stevenson described how his relationship with his coach eroded when he felt like he had to look over his shoulder after every mistake and the coach's confidence in him was contingent on the absence of mistakes (Eldridge, 2020). The result of an environment with low psychological safety can lead to various outcomes. Team members may view "the environment as unsafe" and develop their own coping strategies, such as leaving the team or remaining isolated from the team (Edmonson, 1999). In Stevenson's case, he decided to transfer because of the erosion of the relationship with his coach. Team members may go into self-protection mode and begin to endorse the transactional aspect of the relationship. As long as the particular value/need is being met (such as winning), they will stay on the team. However, if this value/need is no longer met, this could lead to the team member choosing to exit the environment.

Conclusion and Future Directions

A psychologically safe team environment produces many desirable outcomes for athletic teams. However, there is limited research on this construct in sport. Future research should focus on incorporating this construct into the coaching science, sport management, and sport psychology literature. While this manuscript focused on its applicability to sports teams (baseball, basketball, gymnastics, tennis, etc.), psychological safety is also applicable inside the sporting industry offices (marketing, sales, C-suite, compliance, academic advising). Research is needed to assess the current levels of psychological safety in the greater sport culture from various perspectives (sport managers, coaches, athletes). Additionally, research is necessary to further describe how this construct manifests in team environments.

Additionally, a profound need within sport is the integration of wellness practices and destigmatization of mental health. Research demonstrates that heightened wellness and individual mental health are outcomes of a psychologically safe team environment (Fransen et al., 2020). Further research is needed to explore this connection and its applicability in sport teams.

There have been few studies that explore the potential negative impact of too much psychological safety within a team. Researchers need "to explore possible negative consequences of 'too much' psychological safety at the individual, team, and organizational levels and potential curvilinear effects of psychological safety on outcomes at different levels of analysis" (Newman, 2017, p. 532).

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Adams, J. (2021, August 8). Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll gets brutally honest about a mistake. Heavy. Heavy. https://heavy.com/sports/seattle-seahawks/pete-carroll-mistake-offensive-line/

Agarwal, P., & Farndale, E. (2017). High-performance work systems and creativity implementation: The role of psychological capital and psychological safety. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 440-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12148

Baer, M & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179

Beideck, S. (2019, August 30). Vast majority of of Nebraska softball team in protest of coach Rhonda Revelle's reinstatement. Omaha World Herald. https://omaha.com/sports/college/huskers/plus/vast-majority-of-nebraska-softball-team-inprotest-of-coach-rhonda-revelles-reinstatement/article_d07d9f01 -d2f4-555c-albb-b6d82511d158.html

Bienefeld, N., & Grote, G. (2014). Speaking up in ad hoc multiteam systems: Individual-level effects of psychological safety, status, and leadership within and across teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(6), 930-945. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.808398

Boboltz, S. (2019, April 19). UNC coach resigns amid allegations of racially insensitive remarks, injured players. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/unc-coach-resigns-over-alleged-racist-remarks-injuredplayers_n_5cb9d9e6e4b032e7ceb7a83c

Bresman, H. & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2013). The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120-1139. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0783

Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why "bureaucratic" teams can be better learners. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.), 21(3), 609-624. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0483

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912-922. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.93.4.912

Carmeli, A. & Gittell, J. H. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.932

Carmeli, A., & Zisu, M. (2009). The relational underpinnings of quality internal auditing in medical clinics in Israel. Social Science & Medicine, 68(5), 894-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.031

Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Gefen, D. (2010). The importance of innovation leadership in cultivating strategic fit and enhancing firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 339-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/jJeaqua.2010.03.001

Chandrasekaran, A., & Mishra, A. (2012). Task design, team context, and psychological safety: An empirical analysis of R&D projects in high technology organizations. Production and Operations Management, 21(6), 977-996. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2012.01329.x

Chen, C., Liao, J., & Wen, P. (2014). Why does formal mentoring matter? The mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of power distance orientation in the Chinese context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1112-1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816861

Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society. McGraw Hill.

Cronin, L. D., & Allen, J. B. (2015). Developmental experiences and well-being in sport: The importance of the coaching climate. The Sport Psychologist, 29(1), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0045

Cronin, L. D., & Allen, J. (2018). Examining the relationships among the coaching climate, life skills development and wellbeing in sport. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(6), 815-827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954118787949

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160

Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2014). Coach-athlete attachment and the quality of the coach-athlete relationship: implications for athlete's well-being. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1454-1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.898183

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183

Detert, J. R., Edmondson, A. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-488. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61967925

Dowell, T. L., Waters, A. M., Usher, W., Farrell, L. J., Donovan, C. L., Modecki, K. L., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Castle, M., & Hinchey, J. (2021). Tackling mental health in youth sporting programs: A pilot study of a holistic program. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 52(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-00984-9

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 Behavioral Science, 32(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886396321001

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128-146. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.128.530

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00386

Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(1), 66-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304263849

Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct.

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevorgpsych-031413-091305

Eldridge, T. (2020, March 14). Coach and I didn't have a great relationship: Erik Stevenson speaks on WSU transfer. The Wichita Eagle. https://www.kansas.com/sports/college/wichita-state/article241187251.html

Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2016). Benevolent leadership and psychological well-being: The moderating effects of psychological safety and psychological contract breach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(3), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0129

Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604-617. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014367

Fransen, K., McEwan, D., & Sarkar, M. (2020). The impact of identity leadership on team functioning and well-being in team sport: Is psychological safety the missing link? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51, 101763-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101763

Frazier, M. L. & Tupper, C. (2018). Supervisor prosocial motivation, employee thriving, and helping behavior: A trickledown model of psychological safety. Group and Organization Management, 43(4), 561-593. https://doiorg.proxy.lib.utk.edu/10. 1177/1059601116653911

Frazier, M. L, Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183

Fry, M. D., & Gano-Overway, L. A. (2010). Exploring the contribution of the caring climate to the youth sport experience. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(3), 294-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413201003776352

Gildea, W. (2000, September 11). Indiana U fires Knight. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/09/11/indiana-u-fires-knight/4b387072-6d73-45b1-b6680e63fc3aab3d/

Gu, Q., Wang, G. G., & Wang, L. (2013). Social capital and innovation in R&D teams: The mediating roles of psychological safety and learning from mistakes. R & D Management, 43(2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12002

Hague, C., McGuire, C. S., Chen, J., Bruner, M. W., Cote, J., Turnnidge, J., & Martin, L. J. (2021). Coaches' influence on team dynamics in sport: A scoping review. Sports Coaching Review, 10(2), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2021.1874096

Han, S. J., Lee, Y., & Beyerlein, M. (2019). Developing team creativity: The influence of psychological safety and relation-oriented shared leadership. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 32(2), 159-182. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21293

Hansen, G. S., & Wernerfelt, B. (1989). Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10(5), 399-411. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100502

Hogue, C. M., Fry, M. D., Fry, A. C., & Pressman, S. D. (2013). The influence of a motivational climate intervention on participants' salivary cortisol and psychological responses. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.1.85

Huang, X., Wright, R. P., Chiu, C. K., & Wang, C. (2008). Relational schemas as sources of evaluation and misevaluation of leader-member exchanges: Some initial evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 266-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.003

Into, S., Perttula, V.M., Aunola, K., Sorkkila, M., & Ryba, T. V. (2020). Relationship between coaching climates and student-athletes' symptoms of burnout in school and sports. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 9(3), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000180

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287

Liu, W., Zhang, P., Liao, J., Hao, P., & Mao, J. (2016). Abusive supervision and employee creativity: The mediating role of psychological safety and organizational identification. Management Decision, 54(1), 130-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2013-0443

Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21 (11), 883-904. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000140374

Kessel, M., Kratzer, J., & Schultz, C. (2012). Psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and creative performance in healthcare teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00635.x

Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(3), 385-415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111405985

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. https://doi.org/10.1348/09631790432291589

McCarriston, S. & Bengel, C. (2020, August 6). Texas Tech fires women's basketball coach Marlene Stollings amid player harassment allegations. CBS sports. https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/candid-coaches-what-are-thevacci nation-rates-in-college-basketball-heading-into-this-season/

Middlemas, S., & Harwood, C. (2018). No place to hide: Football players' and coaches' perceptions of the psychological factors influencing video feedback. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1302020

NBA. (2021, May 15). Gregg Popovich misses game to attend Tim Duncan's hall enshrinement. NBA. https://www.nba.com/news/gregg-popovich-misses-game-to-attend-duncans-hall-enshrinement

Nembhard, I.M., & Edmondson, A. (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 Behavior, 27(7), 941-966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 2 7(3), 521-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001

Nicolaides, A., & Poell, R. F. (2020). "The only option is failure": Growing safe to fail workplaces for critical reflection. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 22(3), 264-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320927296

Ortegon, K. (2021, January 18). 21.1 free relay leg Anna-Julia Kutsch quits Auburn swim and dive program. Swimswam. https://swimswam.com/21-1-free-relay-leg-anna-julia-kutsch-quits-auburn-swim-dive-program/

Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 401-411. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021503

Pervin, L. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 350-360. https://doi.org/10.2307/258172

Quezada, M. & Schlabach, C. (2019, December 20). Supportive coach-player relationships can lead to better results. Global Sport Matters. https://globalsportmatters.com/culture/2019/12/20/coaching-styles-affect-players/

Remtulla, R., Hagana, A., Houbby, N., Ruparell, K., Aojula, N., Menon, A., Thavarajasingam, S. G., & Meyer, E. (2021). Exploring the barriers and facilitators of psychological safety in primary care teams: A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 21 (1), 269-269. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06232-7

Rozovsky, J. (2015, November 17). The five keys to a successful google team. Re: Work. https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/ five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team/

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863-871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022625

Schein, E., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods: the laboratory approach. Wiley.

Schulte, M., Cohen, N. A., & Klein, K. J. (2012). The coevolution of network ties and perceptions of team psychological safety. Organization Science, 23(2), 564-581. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0582

Scott, C. E., Wineinger, T. O., Iwasaki, S., & Fry, M. D. (2021). Creating an optimal motivational team climate to help collegiate athletes thrive during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 12(2), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2021.1876194

Singh, B., Winkel, D. E., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2013). Managing diversity at work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 242-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12015

Smittick, A. L., Miner, K. N., & Cunningham, G. B. (2019). The "I" in team: Coach incivility, coach gender, and team performance in women's basketball teams. Sport Management Review, 22(3), 419-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.002

Soomro, A. B., Salleh, N., Mendes, E., Grundy, J., Burch, G., & Nordin, A. (2016). The effect of software engineers' personality traits on team climate and performance: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 73, 52-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjnfsof.2016.01.006

Stacy, K. (2018, December 11). Q&A: UConn coach Geno Auriemma talks managing players and expectations. Hartford courant. https://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-womens-basketball/hc-sp-q-and-a-geno-auriemma-player-management20181210-story.html

Stewart, R. H. (2014). Organizational silos within NCAA divison I athletic departments (Publication No. 1563976) [Master's Thesis/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Subhakaran, S. E., & Dyaram, L. (2018). Interpersonal antecedents to employee upward voice: Mediating role of psychological safety. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 1510-1525. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2017-0276

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. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc. 1060.0692

Waller, S. N., Huffman, L. T., & Hardin, R. L. (2016). The sport chaplain's role in the holistic care model for collegiate athletes in the United States. Practical Theology, 9(3), 226-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1756073X.2016.1221642

Wilkens, R., & London, M. (2006). Relationships between climate, process, and performance in continuous quality improvement groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 510-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.005

Williams, C. (2019, October 8). College athletes beginning to rebel against abusive coaches. Global Sport Matters. https://globalsportmatters.com/health/2019/10/08/college-athletes-beginning-to-rebel-against-abusive-coaches/

Kelsie Saxe (1), * & Robin Hardin (2)

(1) University of Tennessee, Knoxville; ksaxe@vols.utk.edu

(2) University of Tennessee, Knoxville; robh@utk.edu

* Correspondence: ksaxe@vols.utk.edu

Caption: Figure 1. Antecedents and Outcomes of Psychology Safety.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:	Review
Author:	Saxe, Kelsie; Hardin, Robin
Publication:	Journal of Sport Behavior
Article Type:	Report
Geographic Code:	1USA
Date:	Jun 1, 2022
Words:	6947
Previous Article:	Exploring How Urban Male Youth Athletes Understand and Value Their Own Identities.
Next Article:	Energy from "Softness": Exploring the Perspectives of Healthy Older Adults Participating in a Community-Based Tai Chi Exercise Program.
Topics:	Athletic ability Psychological aspects Psychological research Safety and security measures Sports Sports teams Psychological aspects