August 05, 2026
Psychological safety: case study on its relationship with team performance
Joyce Silva Mesquita; Vinícius Rennó Castro
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202600993
Article prepared by the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute focused on synthesis and writing.
Abstract
Psychological safety has emerged as a crucial factor in the corporate environment, influencing engagement, learning, and collective performance. The study aimed to compare the levels of psychological safety among teams in a multinational company with different performance outcomes, seeking to identify patterns, discrepancies, and managerial implications for people management. A quantitative and descriptive approach was adopted, employing documentary research to collect secondary and anonymized data from the GPTW 2024 climate survey and internal performance reports from the same year. Based on Clark’s four-stage model of psychological safety, climate survey questions were classified, and an aggregated measure was constructed for analysis by function and organizational unit. The results revealed that items related to psychological safety were primarily concentrated in the inclusion and contribution stages, due to the structure of the climate survey. More administrative roles exhibited higher levels of psychological safety, while operational and technical areas recorded lower indices and a higher incidence of unrated employees. Joint analysis demonstrated a consistent association between higher levels of psychological safety and better performance outcomes, as well as greater maturity in management rituals. It was concluded that psychological safety represents a structuring element for high-performing teams, reinforcing its central role in building productive environments and in the maturity of people management processes, and should be considered in leadership practices and organizational development processes.
Keywords: Performance appraisal; Organizational climate; Engagement; Leadership; Multinational.
1. Introduction
In a contemporary corporate scenario, characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, often described as a VUCA world (Bennis and Burt, 1985), organizations face the pressing challenge of cultivating and maintaining engaged, productive, and resilient teams. The ability for agile adaptation to changes, creativity in the pursuit of innovative solutions, and readiness to respond to challenges imposed by dynamic markets are essential pillars for organizational sustainability and success. In this context, psychological safety emerges as a critical factor, directly influencing employees’ willingness to share ideas, take interpersonal risks, and contribute innovations. Furthermore, it is intrinsically linked to talent retention and the preservation of institutional knowledge, as professionals who feel safe develop a greater sense of belonging and connection to the company, which, in turn, positively impacts commitment and reduces turnover intention by approximately 27% (Frazier, 2017; Clarke et al., 2025).
The relevance of the concept of psychological safety was widely discussed by Amy Edmondson (1999), who defines it as the shared belief that the work environment is safe for interpersonal expression. Edmondson highlights that, in environments where people feel free to speak without fear of reprisal or embarrassment, there is greater openness to continuous learning. This stance is fundamental because errors cease to be seen as individual failures and begin to be treated as opportunities for growth and improvement. Such a perspective favors experimentation, the exchange of different points of view, and the collaborative construction of creative solutions, essential elements for innovation and organizational adaptation. Conversely, when the climate is one of punishment or judgment, employees tend to remain silent, avoiding contributing new ideas or questioning established practices, which severely limits the team’s potential for evolution and collective performance (Edmondson, 1999).
A team’s psychological safety is a construct that can be diagnosed and developed in a structured way, as proposed by Timothy R. Clark (2020). The author presents a sequential model composed of four stages that represent different levels of maturity in psychologically safe environments. The first is Inclusion Safety, where individuals feel accepted and respected by the group. This is followed by Learning Safety, which allows experimentation, asking questions, and making mistakes without fear of punishment. The third stage is Contribution Safety, where collaborators feel valued for their skills and are encouraged to collaborate. Finally, Challenge Safety encourages questioning the status quo and proposing changes, even in the face of established hierarchies or norms. This model offers a valuable practical tool for diagnosing the organizational environment, being essential for guiding development actions, promoting more inclusive and innovative cultures, and ensuring that collective potential is fully leveraged (Clark, 2020).
In parallel, performance management is described by Anthony and Dearden (1980) as the process by which management ensures that the organization executes its strategies effectively and efficiently. In contemporary times, Adler (2023) points out that, in addition to ensuring the execution of the existing strategy, modern performance management also involves influencing employee behavior and feeding back into the strategic formulation process. Models such as the Performance Pyramid by Cross and Lynch (1990) illustrate how top strategic objectives are broken down into operational metrics, integrating financial and non-financial indicators into a hierarchical structure. Traditionally, individual performance appraisal focuses on objective indicators of productivity and quantifiable actions, as well as subjective assessments of work quality and quantity (Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000). However, the influence of psychological safety on these performance outcomes is not always explicitly analyzed, which represents a significant gap in understanding organizational effectiveness.
The justification for this research lies in the growing appreciation for mental health at work, especially in dynamic and demanding corporate environments. This aspect gained even more relevance with the update of Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1) in Brazil, which began to require companies to implement measures aimed at managing psychosocial risks in the workplace. Thus, investigating this theme will contribute to the improvement of management and team development practices and to compliance with current legal requirements. Furthermore, research such as that by Mahmoud et al. (2021) and Edmondson (1999) indicates that psychological safety enhances engagement, supports continuous learning, and fosters the formation of high-performance teams, reinforcing its strategic role for people management and talent retention. Given this context, the general objective of the research was to compare the levels of psychological safety among teams in a multinational company with different performance results, seeking to identify patterns, discrepancies, and relevant managerial implications for people management and organizational development.
2. Material and Methods
The present research adopted a case study methodological approach, following Yin’s (2014) guidelines, which emphasizes the empirical investigation of contemporary phenomena in their real context. Regarding the nature of the data and procedures, the study was classified as quantitative and descriptive. The quantitative approach involved the numerical analysis of organizational indicators, while the descriptive nature sought to observe, record, and correlate phenomena without direct researcher interference, aligning with the guidelines of Bigaton et al. (2024). This combination allowed for an in-depth analysis of the relationship between psychological safety and team performance.
The study was conducted in a multinational company in the ingredients and flavors sector, with operations established in various regions of Brazil. The organization has three manufacturing units in the State of São Paulo, in addition to plants in Minas Gerais, Goiás, and Amazonas, and a central office. The data collection and analysis period comprised the year 2024, using information referring to this period. The main unit of analysis was the teams, with the data being aggregated and compared by function and by organizational unit, allowing for the identification of specific patterns and discrepancies.
The total population of collaborators in Brazil, during the research period, was approximately 1,400 individuals, including employees hired under the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), third-party contractors, interns, and young apprentices. The sample for the 2024 GPTW climate survey consisted of 901 employees, representing 64% of the organization’s total population in Brazil. For the analysis, averages of positions with five or more respondents were considered, ensuring confidentiality and minimum data representativeness.
Data collection was carried out through documentary research, according to the methodology proposed by Flick (2012), using internal reports produced for management purposes. The main data collection instrument was the report of the GPTW 2024 climate survey. This survey, applied biennially by an external provider, is standardized to allow comparisons between different companies and contained 63 questions. These questions were individually evaluated to identify their relationship with the concepts of psychological safety.
In addition to the climate survey, the internal performance reports for 2024 were used. These documents contained individual performance evaluations consolidated in the company’s corporate system. The use of these reports allowed for the cross-referencing of psychological safety perception and formal performance results, enabling comparison between different organizational units and functions. It is important to note that the survey exclusively used secondary and anonymized data, with no possibility of individual identification of employees.
The documents used in the research, their origins, and the indicators extracted for analysis are synthesized in Table 1, which details the document type, the responsible sector, the objective for the research, and the specific indicators that were extracted to compose the study’s database.
Table 1. Documents used in the research
|
Document Type |
Responsible Sector |
Research Objective |
Extracted indicators |
|
2024 Results of the “GPTW” Climate Survey |
Human Resources |
Identification of questions related to psychological safety and their respective answers |
Psychological safety level of teams |
|
2024 Performance Reports |
Human Resources |
Positioning of teams evaluated for performance |
Performance Evaluation by Function and Unit |
Source: Original research data
The first stage of the research execution consisted of identifying the GPTW climate survey questions related to the construct of psychological safety. To this end, the 63 questions were examined individually and classified based on the theoretical models of Edmondson (1999), which defines psychological safety as the belief of a safe environment for interpersonal expression, and Clark (2020), which proposes four evolutionary stages: Inclusion, Learning, Contribution, and Challenge. As a result, 26 questions, corresponding to 41% of the total, were identified as relevant to psychological safety.
After identifying the questions, the consolidation and calculation of the average psychological safety scores were carried out. The responses, originally recorded on a scale of 0 to 100, were grouped by function and by organizational unit. This initial analysis step allowed for the establishment of an overview of psychological safety perceptions in different areas and locations of the company, serving as a basis for subsequent comparisons with performance results.
The organization’s performance appraisal process, fundamental for contextualizing performance data, occurred annually and was composed of sequential phases. Initially, goals and expectations were defined. Then, there was continuous monitoring with formal and informal conversations. The formal appraisal was conducted in internal systems, including self-assessment and manager assessment, considering results and behaviors. Subsequently, calibration between managers and Human Resources took place, using the Nine-In-Box matrix, and finally, feedback was provided for employee development. Performance was classified into five categories, from “Did not meet expectations” to “Significantly exceeded expectations”.
The collected data were treated through descriptive quantitative analysis, mainly using the calculation of means, weightings, and comparative analyses between organizational groupings. To increase the analytical representativeness of the functions, a relative weight calculation was performed, obtained by multiplying the psychological safety mean by the number of respondents in each area, followed by the percentage analysis of each function’s contribution to the total sample. All calculations and data consolidations were performed with the aid of Microsoft Excel.
In a later stage, cross-analyses were performed between psychological safety levels and the distribution of performance evaluations. This comparison was made both by function and by organizational unit, allowing for the identification of patterns, convergences, and divergences among the analyzed variables. The objective was to understand how psychological safety levels related to team performance results, contributing to a broader understanding of organizational effectiveness.
The ethical procedures were rigorously observed, ensuring the exclusive use of secondary and anonymized data, with no possibility of individual identification of collaborators. The analyzed reports were made available upon formal authorization from the organization, ensuring the confidentiality of information and its restricted use for academic purposes. There was no direct intervention or interaction with participants throughout the study, preserving the integrity and privacy of those involved.
The research presented some important methodological limitations. The impossibility of investigating causal relationships between psychological safety and performance stemmed mainly from the completeness and structure of the available data. The GPTW survey questions did not address all stages of psychological safety proportionally, and the data were made available only at an aggregate level by function and unit, which reduced the number of analytical units and the execution of more robust statistical analyses, hindering any causal inference. Such factors reinforce the need for complementary instruments and more granular databases for subsequent studies.
3. Results and Discussion
The analysis of the results of the present research, conducted in a multinational company in the ingredients and flavors sector, revealed significant patterns in the relationship between psychological safety and team performance, offering valuable insights for people management and organizational development. The adopted methodology, which combined documentary research with descriptive quantitative analysis, allowed for an in-depth understanding of employee perceptions and performance results, albeit with the limitations inherent in the nature of secondary and aggregated data.
The initial stage of the analysis consisted of identifying the GPTW climate survey questions that related to the construct of psychological safety, according to the theoretical models of Edmondson (1999) and Clark (2020). Of the 63 original questions, 26 (equivalent to 41%) were classified as pertinent to psychological safety. This classification, although essential for delimiting the scope of the research, revealed a predominance of items associated with the stages of Inclusion Safety and Contribution Safety, according to Clark’s (2020) typology. Inclusion Safety refers to the perception of acceptance and belonging to the group, where individuals feel comfortable being themselves without fear of being marginalized or judged. Contribution Safety, on the other hand, concerns the belief that each person’s ideas and work are valued and that there is freedom to contribute actively. The greater representation of these stages in the climate survey suggests that the instrument tends to capture more basic and intermediate aspects of psychological safety, focusing on the individual’s acceptance and valuation within the team.
On the other hand, the Learning Safety and Challenge Safety stages, which represent more advanced levels of maturity in psychologically safe environments, showed a lower incidence of questions. Learning Safety, which involves the freedom to experiment, ask questions, and make mistakes without fear of punishment, and Challenge Safety, which encourages questioning the *status quo* and proposing changes, are crucial for innovation and continuous development (Clark, 2020). The underrepresentation of these stages in the GPTW climate survey may indicate a limitation of the instrument itself in capturing the depth of psychological safety required for high-performance and innovative environments. Edmondson (1999) argues that true psychological safety is manifested in a team’s ability to openly discuss errors and learn from them, without resulting in embarrassment or retaliation. If the questions do not sufficiently explore this dimension, the organization may have an incomplete view of its level of psychological safety, especially regarding its teams’ capacity to innovate and adapt.
This gap in assessment may have significant practical implications. An organization that bases its psychological safety development strategies predominantly on data emphasizing inclusion and contribution may be missing the opportunity to foster a more robust culture of learning and challenge. To overcome this limitation, it would be crucial to complement climate research with other instruments or methods, such as focus groups or interviews, that allow for a deeper exploration of employees’ perceptions of freedom to make mistakes, question, and innovate. The absence of a comprehensive assessment of Clark’s (2020) four stages may lead to a false sense of security, where employees feel accepted but still hesitate to take interpersonal risks that are essential for organizational growth and transformation.
The subsequent analysis focused on the perception of psychological safety by function and by organizational unit, revealing important variations that deserve detailed attention. Regarding functions, it was observed that administrative areas such as Human Resources, Business Development, and Purchasing presented the highest averages of psychological safety. These results suggest that, in these departments, employees perceive a work environment that is more open, trustworthy, and with greater support for expressing ideas and engagement. The nature of the work in these functions, often characterized by activities that demand intense collaboration, information exchange, and less formal hierarchy compared to operational areas, may naturally favor the construction of a psychologically safe environment. The literature corroborates this observation, indicating that teams with more complex and interdependent tasks tend to develop greater psychological safety to manage the uncertainty and ambiguity inherent in their work (Edmondson, 1999). The ability to express concerns and seek help without fear of appearing incompetent is vital in these contexts, and the high scores in these functions indicate that this condition is present.
In contrast, functions of a more operational and technical nature, such as Engineering, Quality, Health and Safety (QHS) and Customer Service, registered the lowest levels of psychological safety. Manufacturing and Supply Chain also showed low averages, although with a significantly larger number of respondents, which gives them a greater relative weight in the general sample, as shown in Table 8. This disparity suggests that the nature of the work, often focused on compliance, rigid processes, and error control, may create an environment less conducive to interpersonal expression and risk-taking. In sectors where physical safety and regulatory compliance are paramount, there may be a tendency to penalize errors, which, while understandable from an operational standpoint, can inhibit psychological safety. Frazier et al. (2017) highlight that environments with high error aversion can lead to “organizational silence,” where employees avoid sharing ideas, concerns, or reporting problems for fear of retaliation or judgment. This, in turn, can compromise the team’s ability to learn and innovate, negatively impacting long-term performance.
The high representativeness of functions such as Manufacturing, Supply Chain, and QSE in the sample, combined with their low psychological safety averages, makes them priorities for organizational interventions. The practical implication is that the company needs to develop specific strategies to foster psychological safety in these areas, which may include leadership training focused on open communication, creation of safe channels for feedback and suggestions, and the promotion of a culture of learning from mistakes, rather than just punishing them. The leadership in these areas must be empowered to understand that psychological safety does not compromise operational safety, but rather enhances it by allowing problems to be identified and resolved proactively.
Table 2. Relationship between psychological safety and distribution of employees by Performance by Function
|
Function |
Average SP* |
Not evaluated by the manager |
1 – Did not meet expectations |
2 – Met some expectations |
3 – Fully achieved |
4 – Exceeded expectations |
|
Human Resources |
93 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
50% |
50% |
|
Business Development |
92 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
60% |
40% |
|
Shopping |
88 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
80% |
20% |
|
Information Technology |
85 |
17% |
0% |
0% |
17% |
67% |
|
Sales |
84 |
4% |
2% |
8% |
59% |
27% |
|
Institution |
81 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
100% |
0% |
|
Research and Development |
80 |
2% |
0% |
3% |
69% |
26% |
|
Finance |
77 |
0% |
0% |
4% |
63% |
33% |
|
Marketing |
74 |
0% |
0% |
9% |
55% |
36% |
|
Supply Chain |
74 |
26% |
2% |
4% |
43% |
26% |
|
Manufacturing |
72 |
29% |
6% |
15% |
40% |
10% |
|
Engineering |
71 |
49% |
4% |
15% |
25% |
8% |
|
Quality, Health and Safety (QHS) |
70 |
5% |
0% |
10% |
71% |
14% |
|
Customer Service |
69 |
0% |
0% |
8% |
85% |
8% |
Source: Original research results
The analysis of the relationship between psychological safety and performance by function, as detailed in Table 2, revealed a consistent pattern: functions with high psychological safety (average equal to or greater than 85) showed a notable concentration of collaborators in the superior performance categories (“3 – Fully Achieved” and “4 – Exceeded Expectations”). For example, Human Resources (93 PS) had 50% of collaborators in “Exceeded Expectations” and 50% in “Fully Achieved”, with no occurrences in the lower performance categories. Business Development (92 PS) and Information Technology (85 PS) also demonstrated a high proportion of employees with superior performance, with 40% and 67% in “Exceeded Expectations”, respectively. This absence of negative ratings (categories “1 – Did not meet expectations” and “2 – Partially met expectations”) and the low incidence of “unrated” employees in these high psychological safety functions are robust indicators of an environment where trust and interpersonal openness translate into consistent and high performance results. Performance management literature, as described by Viswesvaran and Ones (2000), suggests that clarity of expectations and constructive feedback, intrinsic elements of a psychologically safe environment, are fundamental for high individual and collective performance.
In contrast, functions with low psychological safety (average equal to or below 75), such as Marketing (74), Supply Chain (74), Manufacturing (72), Engineering (71), QSE (70), and Customer Service (69), exhibited a less favorable performance distribution. In these areas, the proportion of employees in the “4 – Exceeded expectations” category was significantly lower, and there was a significant increase in the lower performance categories. Manufacturing, for example, registered 6% in “Did not meet expectations” and 15% in “Met some expectations,” while Engineering had 4% and 15% in these same categories. Even more concerning was the high incidence of “not evaluated” employees in these functions, particularly in Engineering (49%), Manufacturing (29%), and Supply Chain (26%). The absence of evaluation by managers is a strong indication of fragility in performance management processes and, by extension, in psychological safety. The lack of feedback and clarity on performance can generate uncertainty and distrust, undermining employees’ willingness to take risks and express ideas, as argued by Clark (2020). A manager who does not evaluate their employees may be avoiding difficult conversations or demonstrating a lack of engagement with their team’s development, which is inconsistent with fostering a psychologically safe environment.
The absence of employees classified in the “5 – Significantly exceeded expectations” category in all analyzed roles, as shown in Table 2, suggests that the organization’s criteria for this category are extremely rigorous. While this could be seen as an indicator of high standards, it also raises the question of whether the organizational environment allows employees to consistently achieve this level of excellence, or if there are systemic barriers preventing the manifestation of truly exceptional performance. Psychological safety, by promoting experimentation and learning from mistakes, is a catalyst for innovation and superior performance, and its absence may limit the potential for excellence.
Table 3. Relationship between psychological safety and employee distribution by Performance per Unit
|
Unit |
Number of Employees |
Average SP* |
Not evaluated by the manager |
1 – Did not meet expectations |
2 – Met some expectations |
3 – Fully achieved |
4 – Exceeded expectations |
|
SP- KC |
261 |
84 |
2% |
1% |
4% |
64% |
29% |
|
SP-BA |
60 |
82 |
13% |
0% |
8% |
67% |
13% |
|
SP-CPS |
152 |
77 |
20% |
0% |
0% |
54% |
26% |
|
SP-CO |
292 |
75 |
11% |
3% |
10% |
57% |
19% |
|
AM |
7 |
71 |
100% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
MG |
518 |
68 |
24% |
4% |
15% |
48% |
9% |
|
GO |
120 |
63 |
40% |
0% |
3% |
37% |
20% |
Source: Original research results
The analysis by organizational unit, presented in Table 3, complements the perspective by function and reveals that no unit reached the average psychological safety equal to or greater than 85, which is a critical finding. This indicates that, although some functions may have pockets of high psychological safety, the organizational culture as a whole does not yet promote a psychologically safe environment homogeneously. Units such as SP-KC (84) and SP-BA (82) approached the upper threshold and presented relatively high proportions of employees with performance “Exceeded expectations” (29% and 13%, respectively), in addition to low rates of “not evaluated”. This suggests that, in these units, there is more effective leadership and a local culture that favors psychological safety, even if it does not reach the level of excellence.
On the other hand, units such as MG (68), GO (63), and AM (71) registered the lowest averages of psychological safety and presented significant weaknesses in performance evaluation processes. The MG unit, the largest in terms of number of employees, presented the lowest average psychological safety and a high percentage of “not evaluated” (24%), in addition to a low proportion of high performance (9% in “Exceeded expectations”). This combination of factors positions MG as the unit of highest priority for intervention, as low psychological safety in such a large contingent of collaborators can have a systemic impact on the organization’s productivity and engagement. The situation in GO (40% of “not evaluated”) and AM (100% of “not evaluated”) is even more alarming, suggesting that talent management and performance evaluation practices are not being effectively implemented or understood by local managers. The absence of evaluations in AM, for example, is a clear sign that leadership is not fulfilling its fundamental role in the development and recognition of collaborators, which, in turn, undermines psychological safety and trust.
These findings reinforce the literature that points to the central role of leadership in building psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Clark, 2020). The omission of feedback, conflict avoidance, and low predictability of management practices, such as the lack of performance reviews, tend to weaken the perception of safety, favoring organizational silence and negatively impacting team performance (Frazier et al., 2017). Performance calibration, although an important tool for ensuring fairness (Grosvenor and Hoehn, 2016), can be ineffective if managers are not engaged in the evaluation process and do not possess the necessary competencies to conduct constructive feedback conversations.
In summary, the research results demonstrate a consistent and robust association between higher levels of psychological safety and better performance outcomes, both in the breakdown by function and by organizational unit. This relationship was more evident in contexts where there is greater role clarity, regularity of management rituals, and greater autonomy perceived by employees, indicating that psychological safety is not an isolated factor, but acts in an integrated way with the work structure and leadership practices. The nature of the activities also influences the distribution of psychological safety, with administrative areas presenting higher levels than operational and technical ones, which tend to be more oriented towards compliance and control.
These findings reinforce and operationalize the classic and contemporary literature by demonstrating, in a real organizational context, how psychological safety relates to formal performance indicators (Edmondson, 1999; Clark, 2020). More than confirming the theoretical framework, the study contributes by highlighting that weaknesses in management processes, such as low participation in climate surveys, high rates of unrated employees, and inconsistencies in conducting performance appraisals, constitute indirect signs of environments with lower psychological safety. The literature emphasizes that leaders play a central role in this process, as managerial behaviors associated with the omission of “feedback”, conflict avoidance, and low predictability of management practices tend to weaken the perception of safety, favoring organizational silence and negatively impacting team performance (Edmondson, 1999; Frazier et al., 2017; Clark, 2020).
The practical implications of these results are multifaceted. Firstly, the organization must recognize psychological safety as a strategic pillar for the development of high-performance teams and for talent retention (Clarke et al., 2025). This implies going beyond mere measurement and investing in concrete actions to foster an environment where employees feel safe to express ideas, ask questions, and take risks. Secondly, it is crucial to develop leadership at all levels, especially in the roles and units that showed the lowest psychological safety scores and the highest percentages of “not evaluated”. Training programs should focus on skills such as non-violent communication, constructive feedback, conflict management, and the importance of creating space for learning from mistakes. Leadership must be trained to understand its role as a facilitator of psychological safety and how its responsibility in performance evaluation directly impacts employees’ perceptions.
Third, performance management processes need to be reviewed and improved to ensure greater transparency, fairness, and consistency. The high incidence of “unrated” in some areas is unacceptable and suggests a systemic failure that needs to be urgently corrected. This may involve implementing more rigorous monitoring mechanisms to ensure that all employees receive feedback and evaluation, as well as holding managers accountable for not fulfilling this task. The use of the Nine-In-Box matrix (Grosvenor and Hoehn, 2016) should be accompanied by robust and well-conducted calibration meetings, which minimize biases and ensure the standardization of evaluation criteria.
Finally, the organization should consider complementing the GPTW climate survey with instruments that more comprehensively capture the four stages of psychological safety by Clark (2020), especially Learning and Challenge. This will allow for a more complete understanding of the organizational environment and the identification of areas where innovation and the ability to question the *status quo* may be inhibited. The creation of voice and participation spaces, such as discussion forums or anonymous suggestion boxes, can also contribute to employees feeling more comfortable expressing their ideas and concerns. By addressing these issues in an integrated manner, the company can build a more resilient, innovative, and engaged organizational culture, where psychological safety becomes a competitive advantage and a driver for high performance.
4. Conclusion
It is concluded that the objective was achieved when comparing the levels of psychological safety between teams of a multinational company with different performance results. The research revealed a consistent and robust association: environments with greater psychological safety, especially in administrative roles, showed superior performance and a lower incidence of negative or unperformed evaluations. In contrast, operational and technical areas, with less psychological safety, exhibited less favorable results and a high rate of unevaluated employees, highlighting weaknesses in management and leadership processes. It was observed that the organizational climate instrument used tends to predominantly capture the Inclusion and Contribution stages of psychological safety, limiting the evaluation of the Learning and Challenge stages.
Despite achieving its objective, the study has important limitations. The nature of secondary and aggregated data, by function and unit, prevented the inference of direct causal relationships between psychological safety and performance, as well as the performance of more robust statistical analyses. Furthermore, the structure of the GPTW questionnaire did not comprehensively address all four stages of psychological safety, offering a partial view. For future studies, it is suggested to collect more granular data and use complementary methods, such as focus groups or interviews, to deepen the understanding of employees’ perceptions. It is also recommended to investigate the impact of specific leadership interventions on the development of psychological safety, especially in areas identified with lower scores.
Bibliographic References
Adler, R.W. 2023. Strategic performance management: accounting for organizational control. 2ed. Routledge, Abingdon, Reino Unido.
Anthony, R.; Dearden, J. 1980. Management control systems. 4ed. Irwin, Homewood, IL, EUA.
Bennis, W.; Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. Harper & Row, New York, NY, EUA.
Bigaton, A.; et al. 2024. Metodologias de pesquisa para trabalhos de conclusão de curso. Editora PECEGE, Piracicaba, SP, Brasil.
Clark, T.R. 2020. The 4 stages of psychological safety: defining the path to inclusion and innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland, CA, EUA.
Clarke, S.; et al. 2025. Safe to stay: the role of leader behaviors and psychological safety in employee retention in high-demand workplaces. SAGE Open 15(3): 1–15. Disponível em: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/23970022251337643>. Acesso em: 09 out. 2025.
Cross, K.; Lynch, R. 1990. Tailoring performance measures to suit your business. Journal of Accounting and EDP 6(1): 17–25.
Edmondson, A.C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2): 350-383.
Flick, U. 2012. Introdução à Metodologia de Pesquisa. Editora Penso, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
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. Disponível em: <https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183>. Acesso em: 09 out. 2025.
GROSVENOR, K.; HOEHN, A. 2016. The Performance and Potential Matrix: The Nine Box Grid. New York: Center for Creative Leadership.
Viswesvaran, C.; Ones, D.S. 2000. Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 8(4): 216–226. Disponível em: <https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00151>. Acesso em: 09 out. 2025.
Yin, R.K. 2014. Estudo de Caso: Planejamento e Métodos. 5ed. Editora Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in People Management of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform