The impact of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance a study with communication behavior as a mediator variable

Hao Jin; Yan Peng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306629

. 2024 Oct 30;19(10):e0306629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306629

The impact of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance a study with communication behavior as a mediator variable

Hao Jin ^1,^¤a, Yan Peng ^2,^¤b,^*

Editor: Ricardo Limongi³

PMCID: PMC11524454 PMID: 39475994

Abstract

This study aims to delve into the impact of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance and to analyze the mediating role of communication behavior in this process. Given the central role of innovation in the sustained competitiveness of enterprises, understanding how team psychological safety promotes employee innovation through communication behavior is of significant theoretical and practical importance. The study employs a structural equation model (SEM) to analyze survey data from 580 employees across various high-tech enterprises. The results indicate that the three dimensions of team psychological safety—team collaboration and understanding, team information sharing, and team give-and-take balance—have a significant positive impact on employee innovative performance. Moreover, communication behavior plays a significant mediating role between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance. This study reveals the positive influence of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance through communication behavior, emphasizing the importance of building a positive team psychological safety environment to stimulate employee innovation potential. It provides empirical evidence for enterprise managers to optimize team communication strategies and enhance employee innovative performance.

1. Introduction

In the rapidly changing business environment of today, innovation has become the key to gaining a competitive advantage for businesses. Employees, as the main executors of innovative activities, directly affect the company’s innovation capabilities and market position with their innovative performance. Team psychological safety, as an important psychological state that promotes knowledge sharing and team collaboration, is considered a key environmental factor in stimulating the innovative potential of employees [1]. A secure team environment can encourage members to propose new ideas, try new methods, and learn from failures, thereby driving organizational innovation. Although the importance of team psychological safety has been widely recognized, the specific mechanism by which it affects employee innovative performance is not yet fully clear. Moreover, the mediating role of communication behavior between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance is relatively understudied [2]. Therefore, exploring how team psychological safety affects employee innovative performance through communication behavior can not only enrich the theoretical framework of team innovation but also provide practical strategies for organizations to enhance innovative performance [3].

Existing literature has confirmed the positive correlation between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance and has preliminarily explored the role of communication behavior in the team innovation process [4]. However, most studies have focused on the separate impacts of team psychological safety or communication behavior, lacking in-depth analysis of their interaction and comprehensive impact on innovative performance. This study delves into the specific mechanism by which team psychological safety affects employee innovative performance, especially the mediating role of communication behavior [5] By applying structural equation modeling to specifically analyze the direct impact of each dimension of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance and how communication behavior acts as a mediating variable, the aim is to provide a more detailed empirical analysis for the existing literature.

2. Theoretical background and assumptions

2.1 The relationship between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance

In recent years, research in the field of organizational behavior has increasingly focused on the concept of team psychological safety [6]. Team psychological safety is defined as a team climate where members feel safe enough to take risks, propose new ideas, and try new strategies without worrying about potential negative consequences [7]. Employee innovative performance involves the innovation capabilities and outcomes demonstrated by employees within an organization, including but not limited to the proposal of innovative ideas, the implementation of innovation projects, and the improvement of existing processes. Scholars have indicated that there is a significant positive correlation between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance. These studies provide preliminary evidence for understanding how team psychological safety promotes innovation [8]. However, the existing literature lacks detailed descriptions of how the various dimensions of team psychological safety specifically affect employee innovative performance, and there is a relative lack of in-depth exploration of this mechanism [9]. This study selects team collaboration and understanding, team information sharing, and team give-and-take balance as key dimensions of team psychological safety for in-depth analysis [10]. Team collaboration and understanding is at the core of team psychological safety, emphasizing collaborative cooperation among members, which has a catalytic effect on stimulating employees’ innovative thinking. Team information sharing, as a key pathway to promoting the flow of knowledge and the generation of innovative inspiration, helps to break down information silos [11]. Team give-and-take balance is closely related to job satisfaction and engagement, playing a crucial role in creating a positive working atmosphere [12]. Based on this, the study proposes the following hypotheses:

H1.1: Team collaboration and understanding have a significant positive impact on employee innovative performance.
H1.2: Team information sharing has a significant positive impact on employee innovative performance.
H1.3: Team give-and-take balance has a significant positive impact on employee innovative performance.

2.2 The relationship between team psychological safety and communication behavior

In recent years, team psychological safety has become a focal point of research in the field of organizational psychology, describing a psychological state where team members feel safe, willing to share knowledge, propose new ideas without fear of negative consequences [13]. Communication behavior is regarded as the core process of information exchange and collaboration within a team, affecting the team’s decision-making, problem-solving, and innovation capabilities [14]. Scholars have pointed out that team psychological safety is a key factor in promoting team communication and collaboration [15]. It not only encourages team members to openly exchange opinions and feedback but also provides a supportive environment for team members, thereby promoting the team’s innovative capabilities. Although existing literature has recognized the importance of team psychological safety for communication behavior, there is a lack of in-depth exploration of how team psychological safety affects communication behavior through different dimensions [16]. This study aims to deepen this understanding by examining the three dimensions of team collaboration and understanding, team information sharing, and team give-and-take balance to reveal how they collectively affect communication behavior. Therefore, the study proposes the following hypotheses:

H2.1: Team collaboration and understanding positively promote team members’ communication behavior.
H2.2: Team information sharing positively promotes team members’ communication behavior.
H2.3: Team give-and-take balance positively promotes team members’ communication behavior.

2.3 The relationship between communication behavior and employee innovative performance

In the context of organizational innovation, communication behavior forms the foundation of organizational interaction, promoting not only the flow of information and knowledge sharing but also stimulating employees’ innovative thinking and problem-solving abilities [17]. Employee innovative performance refers to the innovation-related behaviors and outcomes demonstrated by individuals within an organization, including proposing innovative ideas and implementing innovation projects [18] Studies have shown that communication behavior is crucial for organizational innovation, providing a social foundation for innovation by promoting the exchange of ideas and integration of knowledge among team members [19]. Moreover, an open and supportive communication environment can increase employees’ willingness to share innovative ideas, increasing the likelihood that these ideas will be adopted and implemented [20] Although existing literature has emphasized the role of communication behavior in promoting employee innovative performance, further research is needed on how communication behavior specifically affects individual levels of innovation motivation and behavior and its mechanisms in different organizational contexts [21]. This study aims to explore how communication behavior stimulates employees’ internal motivation and innovative spirit by enhancing their sense of participation and belonging [22]. Therefore, the study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3: There is a significant positive relationship between communication behavior and employee innovative performance.

2.4 The mediating role of communication behavior

In organizational behavior research, team psychological safety is considered a key factor affecting employee innovative performance [23]. The role of communication behavior in this relationship, especially as a mediating variable, is significant for understanding how team psychological safety affects employee innovative performance. The mediation effect analysis framework proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) provides a theoretical foundation for studying communication behavior [24]. According to this framework, communication behavior is selected as a mediating variable to explore its potential role between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance. Although existing studies have confirmed the positive impact of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance, there is a lack of in-depth exploration of the role of communication behavior as a mediating variable [25]. This study aims to clarify the mediating effect of communication behavior between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance through empirical analysis, providing new insights for organizations on how to enhance team innovation capabilities by optimizing communication strategies [26]. Therefore, the study proposes the following hypothesis:

H4: Communication behavior plays a significant mediating role between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance.

3. Research methodology

This study employs a Structural Equation Model (SEM) to elucidate the influence of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance and to scrutinize the mediating role of communication behavior [27]. The SEM was selected for its strengths in handling complex variable relationships and its capability to provide a comprehensive assessment of the model’s overall fit [28]. This approach allows for the precise quantification of direct and indirect effects among the independent variable, mediating variable, and dependent variable [29]. It offers a rigorous analytical framework for understanding how team psychological safety impacts employee innovative performance through communication behavior, as depicted in (Fig 1).

3.1 Questionnaire design and data collection

To ensure the content validity of the scale, all items in this study refer to relevant literature from both domestic and international sources [30]. Additionally, the scale was refined through consultation and interviews with corporate executives to better align with the actual context in China. All items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, where 5 indicates "very consistent" and 1 indicates "very inconsistent." The study collected data through a survey questionnaire, targeting high-tech enterprises known for their innovation-centric focus, high knowledge intensity, and emphasis on employee innovative performance [31]. To enhance the generalizability of the research findings, more than 40 companies across various cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Wuhan, and Guangzhou, were selected as the sample. In the statistical process, a total of 600 questionnaires were distributed, with 580 valid responses successfully collected, achieving an effective recovery rate of 96.7%. Specific descriptive analysis is presented in (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics (N = 580).

Variable	Mean	standard deviation	variance	Options	Frequency	Percent
Gender	1.54	0.02	0.25	Male	265	45.7
Gender	1.54	0.02	0.25	Female	315	54.3
Age	3.17	0.34	0.66	18–24 years old	16	2.8
				25–34 years old	102	17.6
				35–54 years old	232	40.0
				55 years old and above	230	39.7
Edu	1.75	0.03	0.39	Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree	204	35.2
				Master’s degree	316	54.5
				Doctorate or higher	60	10.3
Work Experience	2.81	0.40	0.96	1–2 years	82	14.1
				3–5 years	90	15.5
				6–8 years	266	45.9
				9–10 years	142	24.5
Employee Positions	2.54	0.05	1.12	Frontline Staff	144	24.8
				Middle Management	122	21.0
				Senior Management	170	29.3
				Leadership Level	144	24.8

Open in a new tab

3.2 Scale items and exploratory analysis

As shown in (Table 2), all variables have Cronbach’s alpha coefficients higher than 0.7, indicating that the scale has a high level of reliability. This result is consistent with the scale reliability standards proposed by [32], ensuring the stability and reliability of the research data. The structural validity of the scale includes both convergent validity and discriminant validity. Following the recommendations of, we assessed the standardized factor loadings of the variables, which ranged from 0.764 to 0.838, indicating good convergent validity of the scale. Additionally, the Combined Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of the scale are both greater than their respective acceptable values of 0.7 and 0.5, further confirming the scale’s convergent validity [33].

Table 2. Scale question items and their reliability test results.

Measurement variable	Questionnaire	Source	Factor Loading	CR	AVE	alpha value
Teamwork and understanding	Team members are easily understood and accepted by other colleagues.	[34]	0.803	0.851	0.652	0.818
	Immature ideas are valued in the team.		0.823
	Team members focus on building common understanding in their communication		0.797
Team information sharing	Team members usually share information within the team rather than exclusively.	[35]	0.807	0.856	0.664	0.822
	Team members focus on teamwork and sharing.		0.838
	Team members communicate with each other about work-related issues.		0.799
Team give-and-take balance	There is both give and take in teams.	[35]	0.819	0.843	0.642	0.826
	Team members are fairly rewarded for their efforts and contributions within the team		0.790
	Team members are able to give their time and effort as well as experience a sense of satisfaction and achievement in their work		0.794
Communication behaviour	Team members better understand the organisation’s goals through effective communication.	[36]	0.831	0.853	0.660	0.832
	Communication helps team members share innovative ideas more actively.		0.810
	In collaboration, communication behaviours motivate team members to produce more creative solutions.		0.796
Employee innovation performance	Employees often come up with innovative ideas and solutions.	[37]	0.764	0.834	0.626	0.833
	Employees demonstrate higher levels of innovation and output in their teams.		0.811
	Members’ innovative performance has a positive impact on the team as a whole.		0.798

Open in a new tab

According to the discriminant validity test proposed by Fornell and Larcker, this paper calculated the square root of AVE for each variable and the correlation coefficient between variables [38]. As shown in (Table 2), the square root of AVE for each column (in bold and italics) is greater than the correlation coefficient between variables, indicating that the scale has good discriminant validity.As shown in (Table 3).

Table 3. Results of distinguished validity analysis.

	1	2		4	5
1 Teamwork and understanding	0.807
2 Team information sharing	0.41	0.815
3 Team give-and-take balance	0.37	0.371	0.801
4 Communication behaviour	0.35	0.332	0.459	0.812
5 Employee innovation performance	0.44	0.426	0.491	0.465	0.791

Open in a new tab

4 Results of the study

4.1 Model fitness test

This paper uses structural equation modelling to test the direct and mediating effects between variables, using the software AMOS24.Before testing the hypotheses [39], it is necessary to test the overall fitness of the model.The test results are: χ2/df = 1.950 (less than 3), RMSEA = 0.041 (less than 0.08), GFI = 0.967 (greater than 0.9), AGFI = 0.95 (greater than 0.9), CFI = 0.981 (greater than 0.9), NFI = 0.962 (greater than 0.9), IFI = 0.981 (greater than 0.9) [40]. All indicators met the measurement criteria, indicating a good overall fit of the model.

4.2 Hypothesis testing

4.2.1 Direct path test

(Table 4), presents the results of the path analysis of the research model. There is a significant positive effect between teamwork and understanding, team information sharing and team give-and-take balance and employee innovation performance, and hypotheses H1.1, H1.2 and H1.3 are tested [41]. There is a significant positive effect between teamwork and understanding, team information sharing and team give-and-take balance and communication behaviour, hypotheses H2.1, H2.2 and H2.3 are tested. The path coefficient between communication behaviour and employee innovation performance reaches the significance level of 0.001 and hypothesis H3 is supported.

Table 4. Path analysis results.

Hypothesis	Path	B-value	T-value	Results
H1.1	Teamwork and understanding→Employee innovation performance	0.247***	4.378	Adjuvant
H1.2	Team information sharing→Employee innovation performance	0.189***	3.372	Adjuvant
H1.3	Team give-and-take balance→Employee innovation performance	0.292***	5.240	Adjuvant
H2.1	Teamwork and understanding→Communication behaviour	0.188**	3.182	Adjuvant
H2.2	Team information sharing→Communication behaviour	0.132*	2.220	Adjuvant
H2.3	Team give-and-take balance→Communication behaviour	0.412***	5.240	Adjuvant
H3	Communication behaviour→Employee innovation performance	0.240***	7.517	Adjuvant

Open in a new tab

Note:*, ** and *** denote significance levels of 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively, the same below

4.2.2 Test of mediating role

In order to test the mediating role of tacit knowledge sharing, the bootstrap method that does not require the assumption of normal distribution is used.AMOS software provides the corresponding calculation function [42], and the sample number of bootstrap is chosen to be 5,000, and the test results are shown in (Table 5), with a confidence interval of 95%.

Table 5. Results of the mediation effect test.

Path	B-value	Lower value	Upper value	P-value
Teamwork and understanding→Communication behaviour→Employee innovation performance	0.045**	0.017	0.09	0.002
Team information sharing→Communication behaviour→Employee innovation performance	0.032*	0.004	0.074	0.026
Team give-and-take balance→Communication behaviour→Employee innovation performance	0.099***	0.051	0.156	0.000

Open in a new tab

As can be seen in (Table 5), the p-values of all three paths are less than 0.05 and the confidence intervals do not include 0, indicating a significant mediating role. This means that communication behaviour plays the role of a mediating variable in the relationship between teamwork and understanding, team information sharing, team give-and-take balance and innovation performance [43]. Therefore, hypothesis H4 is partially tested.

5 Discussion

The results of this study reveal the significant positive impact of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance, and communication behavior plays an important mediating role in this process. These findings are consistent with theoretical framework, which suggests that team psychological safety can promote innovative behavior among team members. Specifically, the three dimensions of team psychological safety—team collaboration and understanding, team information sharing, and team give-and-take balance—all enhance communication behavior, thereby improving employee innovative performance [44]. Hypotheses H1.1, H1.2, and H1.3 proposed the positive influence of the three dimensions of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance, and the results indicate that these hypotheses are supported. Furthermore, hypotheses H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, and H4 proposed the mediating role of communication behavior between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance, which has also been verified. From a theoretical perspective, this study provides new insights into team innovation theory by distinguishing different dimensions of team psychological safety and examining how they affect employee innovative performance through communication behavior [45]. On the practical level, the results of this study suggest that business managers should pay attention to the construction of team psychological safety, especially in creating a work environment that supports communication and collaboration. By enhancing a culture of collaboration within the team, encouraging information sharing, and ensuring a fair give-and-take mechanism, organizations can effectively improve employee innovative performance. The study also provides a specific mechanism by which team psychological safety affects employee innovative performance, namely, the mediating role of communication behavior.

6 Conclusion

This study explored the impact of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance through structural equation modeling, with a particular focus on the mediating role of communication behavior. The findings reveal that team psychological safety significantly and positively affects employee innovative performance, with communication behavior playing a pivotal mediating role in this process. Specifically, the dimensions of teamwork and understanding, team information sharing, and team give-and-take balance all enhance employee innovative performance by promoting communication behavior. By distinguishing different dimensions of team psychological safety, this study provides a more nuanced theoretical perspective on how team psychological safety affects employee innovative performance and uncovers the mediating role of communication behavior between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance. Future research could investigate how different types of communication behaviors affect the relationship between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

pone.0306629.s001.XLSX^{(63.8KB, XLSX)}

Acknowledgments

Upon the completion of this study, we wish to express our deepest gratitude to the individuals and institutions that have made valuable contributions to the project. Our first thanks go to all the corporate employees who participated in the survey; without their active participation and honest feedback, this research would not have been possible.

We would like to extend our special thanks to YP, His expertise and valuable time were crucial in ensuring the quality of our research.

We confirm that we have obtained consent from all individuals mentioned in the acknowledgement, and they are aware and agree to be acknowledged in this section of the study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded and supported by the key research and development program of Hebei Province "Applied Research on Improving the Quality of Obstetrical Anesthesia Based on Deep Learning" (Project Number: 22377766D). The sponsors had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Verhoeven J. W. M. and Madsen V. T. Active Employee Communication Roles in Organizations: A Framework for Understanding and Discussing Communication Role Expectations. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2022;16(1):91–110. 10.1080/1553118x.2021.2014503. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Lee J. H. Age-related deficits in the processing of fundamental frequency differences for the intelligibility of competing voices. Korean journal of audiology. 2013;17(1):1–8. doi: 10.7874/kja.2013.17.1.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Froehlich R. and Knobloch A. S. "Are they allowed to do that?" Content and typology of corporate socio-political positioning on TWITTER. A study of DAX-30 companies in Germany. Public Relations Review. 2021;47(5). 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4.Sacramento C., et al. Being open, feeling safe and getting creative: The role of team mean openness to experience in the emergence of team psychological safety and team creativity. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2024;41(1):12–35. 10.1111/jpim.12699. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5.Ji Y. and Kim S. Communication-mediated psychological mechanisms of Chinese publics’ post-crisis corporate associations and government associations. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 2019;27(2):182–94. 10.1111/1468-5973.12255. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
6.Chon M.-G., et al. Conceptualizing allegiant communication behavior: A cross-national study of employees’ self-orchestration of voice and silence. Public Relations Review. 2021;47(4). 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7.Ayoko O. B., et al. Conflict and socio-cultural adaptation: the mediating and moderating role of conflict communication behaviors and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2022;33(17):3451–91. 10.1080/09585192.2021.1910535. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Li C., et al. Corporate green innovation behaviour and investment efficiency: evidence from China. Applied Economics. 2024;56(36):4329–43. 10.1080/00036846.2023.2210828. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Hartner-Tiefenthaler M., et al. Development and validation of a scale to measure team communication behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.961732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Mrayyan M. T. and Al-Rjoub S. Does nursing leaders' humility leadership associate with nursing team members' psychological safety? A cross-sectional online survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2024. 10.1111/jan.16117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Lee Y. Dynamics of millennial employees’ communicative behaviors in the workplace: the role of inclusive leadership and symmetrical organizational communication. Personnel Review. 2022;51(6):1629–50. 10.1108/pr-09-2020-0676. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.Choi S., et al. The Effects of Co-workers Trust on Group Performance—Mediating Role of Collective Intelligence and Moderating Role of Task Interdependence. Journal of Human Resource Management Research. 2015;22(1):147–69. 10.14396/jhrmr.2015.22.1.147. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Muharib R., et al. Effects of Multiple Schedules of Reinforcement on Appropriate Communication and Challenging Behaviors: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2021;51(2):613–31. doi: 10.1007/s10803-020-04569-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Pattanatornchai J., et al. Effects of Public Service Motivation on R&D Project-Based Team Learning Where Psychological Safety Is a Mediator and Project Management Style Is a Moderator. Administrative Sciences. 2024;14(5). 10.3390/admsci14050093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Kim K. H. and Lee Y. Employees’ Communicative Behaviors in Response to Emotional Exhaustion: The Moderating Role of Transparent Communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2021;15(5):410–24. 10.1080/1553118x.2021.1967959. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Park E. Examining metaverse game platform adoption: Insights from innovation, behavior, and coolness. Technology in Society. 2024;77. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102594. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Han X., et al. Examining the Mediating Role of Psychological Capital between Perceived Management Commitment and Safety Compliance/Participation of Graduate Students in Research Laboratories. Acs Chemical Health & Safety. 2024. 10.1021/acs.chas.4c00002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Chen L., et al. Factors affecting family firms’ communication behaviour: a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Advertising. 2019;38(2):276–95. 10.1080/02650487.2018.1473062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19.Zheng H., et al. A game study on the impact of employees’ deviant innovation behaviors on firms’ organizational innovation performance. Frontiers in Physics. 2024;12. 10.3389/fphy.2024.1364550. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Kumar H. and Raghavendran S. Gamification, the finer art: fostering creativity and employee engagement. Journal of Business Strategy. 2015;36(6):3–12. 10.1108/jbs-10-2014-0119. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Chon M.-G. Government public relations when trouble hits: exploring political dispositions, situational variables, and government-public relationships to predict communicative action of publics. Asian Journal of Communication. 2019;29(5):424–40. 10.1080/01292986.2019.1649438. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Shankar S. and Tewari V. Impact of Collective Intelligence and Collective Emotional Intelligence on the Psychological Safety of the Organizations. Vision-the Journal of Business Perspective. 2023;27(4):458–73. 10.1177/09722629211012256. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23.Ren S. and Chadee D. Influence of career identity on ethical leadership: sense-making through communication. Personnel Review. 2020;49(9):1987–2005. 10.1108/pr-04-2019-0192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Hassan N., et al. THE INFLUENCE OF EMPLOYEE MINDSET TOWARDS COALITION BUILDING AMONG STAFF AT SELECTED GOVERNMENT-LINKED COMPANIES (GLCS) IN MALAYSIA. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education. 2022;14(4):582–93. 10.9756/int-jecse/v14i4.75. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.McLaughlin K. Mastering the interplay: the role and culture of a cyber physical security (CPS) professional in global cybersecurity teams. EDPACS: The EDP Audit, Control, and Security Newsletter. 2023:38–45. 10.1080/07366981.2023.2216992. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26.Alobeidli S. Y., et al. Mediating effects of knowledge sharing and employee creativity on the relationship between visionary leadership and innovative work behavior. Management Research Review. 2024;47(6):883–903. 10.1108/mrr-02-2023-0144. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Zhao F., et al. Online sales and corporate innovation preference: The impact of e-commerce emergence on corporate innovation behavior. Finance Research Letters. 2024;64. 10.1016/j.frl.2024.105447. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Lee G. and Teo A. Organizational restructuring: impact on trust and work satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2005;22(1):23–39. 10.1007/s10490-005-6416-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29.Kock H., et al. Outsourcing HR services: the role of human resource intermediaries. European Journal of Training and Development. 2012;36(8):772–90. 10.1108/03090591211263512. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Dimas I. D., et al. Paths to Team Success: A Configurational Analysis of Team Effectiveness. Human Performance. 2023;36(4):155–79. 10.1080/08959285.2023.2222272. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Guchait P., et al. Perceived supervisor and co-worker support for error management: Impact on perceived psychological safety and service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2014;41:28–37. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.04.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Omilion-Hodges L. M. and Ptacek J. K. Personal Factors, Wants, and Needs: Exploring Vocational Anticipatory Socialization Through Young Adults’ Preferences for Managerial Communication Behaviors. International Journal of Business Communication. 2022;59(4):621–40. 10.1177/2329488419893745. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Passariello M. and Tarrant C. Psychological safety in an ECMO retrieval team: a qualitative study to inform improvement. Bmj Open Quality. 2024;13(2). 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Hang L., et al. R&D innovation, industrial evolution and the labor skill structure in China manufacturing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2024;204. 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123434. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Rao A. and Mattarelli E. Reacting to the ambidexterity mandate: How experienced tensions and cognitive dissonance influence innovative behaviors in a global organization. Strategic Organization. 2024;22(2):297–329. 10.1177/14761270231193386. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36.Ikhide J. E., et al. Restraints and enablers of green initiative-taking among hospitality employees: a mixed-methods approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2024;32(6):1096–117. 10.1080/09669582.2023.2201411. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Groulx P., et al. The ripple effect of strain in times of change: how manager emotional exhaustion affects team psychological safety and readiness to change. Frontiers in Psychology. 2024;15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1298104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Li Z., et al. The Role of CSR Information on Social Media to Promote the Communicative Behavior of Customers: An Emotional Framework Enriching Behavioral Sciences Literature. Behavioral Sciences. 2023;13(2). doi: 10.3390/bs13020126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Fyhn B., et al. Safe Among the Unsafe: Psychological Safety Climate Strength Matters for Team Performance. Small Group Research. 2023;54(4):439–73. 10.1177/10464964221121273. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40.de Medeiros Lira A. A., et al. Self-assessment of communication resources used by sales representatives and its relation with sales performance. Codas. 2019;31(6). 10.1590/2317-1782/20192019067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.송윤희. The Structural Relationships among Emotional Intelligence, Communication Ability, Collective Intelligence, Learning Satisfaction and Persistence in Collaborative Learning of the College Classroom. Journal of Convergence for Information Technology. 2020;10(1):120–27. 10.22156/cs4smb.2020.10.01.120. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Ali K. J., et al. The TeamSTEPPS for Improving Diagnosis Team Assessment Tool: Scale Development and Psychometric Evaluation. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2024;50(2):95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2023.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Kheawwan P., et al. Translation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of TeamSTEPPS® team performance observation tool. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2024;38(3):573–82. 10.1080/13561820.2024.2307547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Lee Y., et al. Understanding the impacts of issue types and employee-organization relationships on employees’ problem perceptions and communicative behaviors. Corporate Communications. 2019;24(3):553–68. 10.1108/ccij-12-2018-0127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
45.Scheetz A. M. and Fogarty T. J. Walking the talk: Enacted ethical climates as psychological contract venues for potential whistleblowers. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change. 2019;15(4):654–77. 10.1108/jaoc-06-2018-0047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306629.r001

Decision Letter 0

Ricardo Limongi

1 May 2024

PONE-D-23-42648The effect of psychological safety on innovation performance: communication behaviour as a mediating variablePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. jin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ricardo Limongi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Abstract

The research problem, objectives, and significance of your study was clearly stated. A brief literature review on the main concepts of team psychological safety and innovation performance was also provided.

However, there are some grammatical and punctuation errors in the introduction, such as "fully understoodAndersson". You should proofread your abstract carefully and correct these mistakes.

Literature Review

The literature review is comprehensive and well-structured, covering relevant studies on team psychological safety, communication behavior, and innovation performance. the review also effectively highlights the gaps in existing research and justifies the need for the current study.

Under 2.1 The relationship between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance:

"In past research, scholars have begun to focus on the relationship between team psychological safety and employee innovation performance. However, there is still a certain research gap in terms of how specific dimensions of team psychological safety affect innovation performance and the interrelationship between them." These emphatic statement(s) above must be referenced

However, I also think that it would be great if the two sections (Introduction and Literature Review) could be merged, to form one section.

Research Methods

The methodology section provides detailed information on the sample selection, data collection procedures, and scale design, enhancing the transparency and replicability of the study. Rigorous statistical analysis methods, including structural equation modeling and reliability testing, are appropriately described. I suggest that the information about the ethical approval and consent procedures of the study could be also be included.

The study; "The effect of psychological safety on innovation performance: communication

behaviour as a mediating variable" presents a well-structured study focusing on an important topic in organizational psychology, with clear objectives, a thorough literature review, robust methodology, and sound statistical analysis. The findings contribute to understanding the intricate relationship between team psychological safety, communication behavior, and employee innovation performance.

Reviewer #2: After an initial assessment, I do not consider your paper to meet the journal’s criteria for publication. I have particular concerns about the lack of a clear research question; the robustness of the methods and analysis; the soundness and basis of the conclusions; the contribution to the literature; and the clarity of the narrative and expression. I am not confident that the issues identified could be resolved with even major revisions.

Reviewer #3: Strengths of the Manuscript

1. Empirical Rigor: The manuscript employs structural equation modeling, a robust statistical technique, which provides a comprehensive analysis of the complex relationships between psychological safety, communication behavior, and innovation performance. This approach adds significant empirical strength to the study.

2. Innovative Mediating Variable: Introducing communication behavior as a mediating variable is a notable strength. It enriches the discourse on psychological safety's role in innovation, highlighting the nuanced pathways through which team dynamics affect performance outcomes.

3. Comprehensive Data Collection: The collection of 580 valid samples from high-tech enterprises across multiple major cities enhances the generalizability of the findings. This large and diverse sample size lends credibility and robustness to the study's conclusions.

4. Multidimensional Analysis: The manuscript successfully identifies and elaborates on multiple dimensions of psychological safety—team collaboration and understanding, information sharing, and give-and-take balance. This multidimensional approach allows for a deeper understanding of the constructs at play.

5. Practical Implications: The study provides specific management strategies to maximize employee innovation performance, making it a theoretical contribution and a practical guide for business managers looking to foster a conducive environment for innovation.

Weaknesses of the Manuscript

1. Theoretical Contributions: The manuscript tends to rely heavily on existing theories and models rather than offering substantial new theoretical insights or frameworks. This might limit its appeal to academic audiences seeking innovative theoretical contributions.

2. Literature Integration: The discussion sometimes needs to fully integrate and contrast its findings with the broader body of existing research. A more thorough comparison with other studies could strengthen the manuscript's positioning within the current scientific debate.

3. Depth of Mediating Analysis: While introducing communication behavior as a mediator is a strength, the analysis could benefit from a deeper exploration of why and how this mediation occurs. Providing more detailed psychological or organizational behavior theories could enrich the explanation.

4. Operational Definitions: Some constructs, particularly 'team give-and-take balance,' could be better operationalized. Clarifying how these terms are measured and their relevance to psychological safety could improve the manuscript's clarity and impact.

5. Demographic Considerations: The manuscript mentions the demographic breakdown of the sample but does not explore how demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, educational background) might influence the relationships studied. This oversight might need to be clarified in the data.

6. Methodological Assumptions: The reliance on self-reported data through questionnaires raises concerns about bias, such as social desirability or respondent fatigue. Although the manuscript addresses common method variance, it could further discuss these limitations and their potential impact on the findings.

7. Data Analysis Transparency: More transparency in the statistical analysis, particularly in handling the structural equation modeling, would bolster the manuscript's credibility. Detailed descriptions of model fit indices, assumption checks, and validation measures would be beneficial.

8. Cross-Cultural Validity: Given that the study is conducted within high-tech enterprises in specific geographic locations, the generalizability of the findings to other cultural contexts or industries could be clearer. Discussing the cross-cultural applicability of the results could enhance the manuscript's relevance.

9. Recommendations for Practice: While the manuscript offers practical advice for managers, these recommendations could be expanded to include specific, actionable strategies or case study examples to illustrate the successful implementation of the proposed ideas.

10. Future Research Directions: The manuscript could more explicitly outline areas for future research, such as longitudinal studies to track changes over time or experimental designs to test causality. This would not only enhance the manuscript but also guide subsequent research efforts.

Suggestions for Improvement

- Enhancing the theoretical framework by integrating additional perspectives or proposing a new model based on the findings could provide a stronger theoretical contribution.

- Expanding the literature review to include a broader range of studies and more critically contrasting them with the current findings.

- Providing clearer operational definitions and more detailed explanations of the constructs and their interrelations.

- Incorporating demographic analyses to explore the influence of these variables on the main study relationships.

- Discuss methodological limitations more thoroughly and suggest ways to mitigate potential biases.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Andreas Ndapewa Frans

Reviewer #2: Yes: Aidin Salamzadeh

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 30;19(10):e0306629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306629.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

16 Jun 2024

Response to reviewers

In response to the three questions posed by the editor, here are possible answers:

1. Concerning compliance with PLOS ONE style requirements and file naming requirements:

Our file naming also follows journal guidelines to ensure clarity and consistency.

2. On the submission of data:

We understand that we are not required to submit the entire dataset if only a portion of the data is used in the reporting study. We have selected data for submission that are directly relevant to the findings of the study.

3. With regard to the reference to figure 1 in the text:

We thank the editorial team for their guidance and have made the necessary adjustments to the manuscript in accordance with PLOS ONE submission requirements. We are confident that these adjustments will aid in the review process and enable us to present our research more clearly to the academic community.

Comments to the author

1. Technical soundness and data to support conclusions

Our study design was technically sound and rigorous experimental manipulations were performed. We ensured that the experiments had appropriate control groups, sufficient number of replications and sample size. All conclusions are based on the data presented and have been carefully analysed. We believe that the data strongly support our research hypotheses and conclusions.

2. Rigour of statistical analyses:

Yes, we have carried out appropriate and rigorous statistical analyses. We have used advanced statistical methods to process the data and ensured that the analysis process has followed the standards recognised by the scientific community. All analyses were conducted by professional statisticians to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results.

3. Provision of basic data

In accordance with the PLOS data policy, we have provided the underlying data for all study results. These data include, but are not limited to, the data points behind the mean, median, and variance measures. We have provided these data as supporting information for the manuscript and deposited them in a public repository where necessary. Restrictions on any data sharing, such as participant privacy or use of third-party data, have been described in our data availability statement.

4. English writing and clarity:

Our manuscripts are written in standard English and have been thoroughly language proofread and edited for clarity and comprehensibility prior to submission. We have corrected any typographical or grammatical errors to meet PLOS ONE's language requirements.

5. Comments to the author:

Reviewer comments are critical to improving the quality of the paper and adapting it to the journal's publication standards. Below are the responses to each reviewer's comments and suggestions for improvement:

Reviewer #1's response and suggestions for improvement:

1. Grammatical and punctuation errors:

- We thank the reviewers for pointing out grammatical and punctuation errors in the abstracts. We will thoroughly proofread the abstracts to ensure that all text is accurate.

2. Introduction and literature review combined:

- We understand the reviewers' suggestion and will consider combining the introduction and literature review into a more coherent section to improve the flow and clarity of the paper.

3. Ethical approval and consent procedures in research methodology:

- We agree with the reviewers' suggestion to add information about the ethical approval and consent process of the study in the methodology section to enhance the transparency of the study.

### Reviewer #2 responses and suggestions for improvement:

1. Robustness of research questions, methods and analyses:

- We will revisit the research questions to ensure that they are clear and specific. At the same time, we will conduct a further review of the methodology and analyses to enhance their robustness.

2. Reasonableness and basis for conclusions:

- We will ensure that conclusions are based on adequate data analysis and provide a clear rationale.

3. Contribution to the literature:

- We will explore in more depth the contribution of this study to the existing literature and how it fills the gaps in existing research in the discussion section.

4. Clarity of narrative and expression:

- We review the entire paper for language and presentation to ensure that the narrative is clear and logical.

### Reviewer #3 responses and suggestions for improvement:

1. Theoretical contributions:

- We thank the reviewers for their recognition. We will endeavour to present new insights or models within the theoretical framework to enhance the theoretical contribution of the paper.

2. Integration of literature:

- We will broaden the scope of the literature review to more critically compare current findings with other studies to strengthen the paper's position in the academic debate.

3. Depth of brokering analysis:

- We will provide more detailed theoretical support by exploring in greater depth why and how communication behaviour acts as a mediating variable.

4. Operational definitions:

- We will provide clearer operational definitions, especially for key concepts such as the "team give-and-take balance" and their relevance to psychological safety.

5. Demographic considerations:

- We will explore how demographic variables affect research relationships and consider these factors in data analysis.

6. Methodological assumptions:

- We will discuss the limitations of relying on self-reported data and suggest ways to mitigate potential bias.

7. Transparency in data analysis:

- We will provide a more detailed description of the statistical analyses, including model fit indices and hypothesis checking.

8. Cross-cultural effectiveness:

- We will discuss the cross-cultural applicability of the findings and consider their generalisability in different cultural contexts.

9. Recommendations for practice:

- We will expand the Practice Recommendations section to include specific operational strategies or case study examples.

10. Directions for future research:

- We will outline areas for future research more clearly in the discussion section to provide guidance for subsequent research.

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306629.r003

Decision Letter 1

Ricardo Limongi

21 Jun 2024

The Impact of Team Psychological Safety on Employee Innovative Performance A Study with Communication Behavior as a Mediator Variable

PONE-D-23-42648R1

Dear Dr. jin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ricardo Limongi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306629.r004

Acceptance letter

Ricardo Limongi

15 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-42648R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peng,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Ricardo Limongi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Data

(XLSX)

pone.0306629.s001.XLSX^{(63.8KB, XLSX)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0306629.ref001] 1.Verhoeven J. W. M. and Madsen V. T. Active Employee Communication Roles in Organizations: A Framework for Understanding and Discussing Communication Role Expectations. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2022;16(1):91–110. 10.1080/1553118x.2021.2014503. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref002] 2.Lee J. H. Age-related deficits in the processing of fundamental frequency differences for the intelligibility of competing voices. Korean journal of audiology. 2013;17(1):1–8. doi: 10.7874/kja.2013.17.1.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref003] 3.Froehlich R. and Knobloch A. S. "Are they allowed to do that?" Content and typology of corporate socio-political positioning on TWITTER. A study of DAX-30 companies in Germany. Public Relations Review. 2021;47(5). 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref004] 4.Sacramento C., et al. Being open, feeling safe and getting creative: The role of team mean openness to experience in the emergence of team psychological safety and team creativity. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2024;41(1):12–35. 10.1111/jpim.12699. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref005] 5.Ji Y. and Kim S. Communication-mediated psychological mechanisms of Chinese publics’ post-crisis corporate associations and government associations. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 2019;27(2):182–94. 10.1111/1468-5973.12255. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref006] 6.Chon M.-G., et al. Conceptualizing allegiant communication behavior: A cross-national study of employees’ self-orchestration of voice and silence. Public Relations Review. 2021;47(4). 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref007] 7.Ayoko O. B., et al. Conflict and socio-cultural adaptation: the mediating and moderating role of conflict communication behaviors and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2022;33(17):3451–91. 10.1080/09585192.2021.1910535. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref008] 8.Li C., et al. Corporate green innovation behaviour and investment efficiency: evidence from China. Applied Economics. 2024;56(36):4329–43. 10.1080/00036846.2023.2210828. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref009] 9.Hartner-Tiefenthaler M., et al. Development and validation of a scale to measure team communication behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.961732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref010] 10.Mrayyan M. T. and Al-Rjoub S. Does nursing leaders' humility leadership associate with nursing team members' psychological safety? A cross-sectional online survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2024. 10.1111/jan.16117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref011] 11.Lee Y. Dynamics of millennial employees’ communicative behaviors in the workplace: the role of inclusive leadership and symmetrical organizational communication. Personnel Review. 2022;51(6):1629–50. 10.1108/pr-09-2020-0676. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref012] 12.Choi S., et al. The Effects of Co-workers Trust on Group Performance—Mediating Role of Collective Intelligence and Moderating Role of Task Interdependence. Journal of Human Resource Management Research. 2015;22(1):147–69. 10.14396/jhrmr.2015.22.1.147. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref013] 13.Muharib R., et al. Effects of Multiple Schedules of Reinforcement on Appropriate Communication and Challenging Behaviors: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2021;51(2):613–31. doi: 10.1007/s10803-020-04569-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref014] 14.Pattanatornchai J., et al. Effects of Public Service Motivation on R&D Project-Based Team Learning Where Psychological Safety Is a Mediator and Project Management Style Is a Moderator. Administrative Sciences. 2024;14(5). 10.3390/admsci14050093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref015] 15.Kim K. H. and Lee Y. Employees’ Communicative Behaviors in Response to Emotional Exhaustion: The Moderating Role of Transparent Communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2021;15(5):410–24. 10.1080/1553118x.2021.1967959. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref016] 16.Park E. Examining metaverse game platform adoption: Insights from innovation, behavior, and coolness. Technology in Society. 2024;77. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102594. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref017] 17.Han X., et al. Examining the Mediating Role of Psychological Capital between Perceived Management Commitment and Safety Compliance/Participation of Graduate Students in Research Laboratories. Acs Chemical Health & Safety. 2024. 10.1021/acs.chas.4c00002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref018] 18.Chen L., et al. Factors affecting family firms’ communication behaviour: a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Advertising. 2019;38(2):276–95. 10.1080/02650487.2018.1473062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref019] 19.Zheng H., et al. A game study on the impact of employees’ deviant innovation behaviors on firms’ organizational innovation performance. Frontiers in Physics. 2024;12. 10.3389/fphy.2024.1364550. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref020] 20.Kumar H. and Raghavendran S. Gamification, the finer art: fostering creativity and employee engagement. Journal of Business Strategy. 2015;36(6):3–12. 10.1108/jbs-10-2014-0119. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref021] 21.Chon M.-G. Government public relations when trouble hits: exploring political dispositions, situational variables, and government-public relationships to predict communicative action of publics. Asian Journal of Communication. 2019;29(5):424–40. 10.1080/01292986.2019.1649438. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref022] 22.Shankar S. and Tewari V. Impact of Collective Intelligence and Collective Emotional Intelligence on the Psychological Safety of the Organizations. Vision-the Journal of Business Perspective. 2023;27(4):458–73. 10.1177/09722629211012256. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref023] 23.Ren S. and Chadee D. Influence of career identity on ethical leadership: sense-making through communication. Personnel Review. 2020;49(9):1987–2005. 10.1108/pr-04-2019-0192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref024] 24.Hassan N., et al. THE INFLUENCE OF EMPLOYEE MINDSET TOWARDS COALITION BUILDING AMONG STAFF AT SELECTED GOVERNMENT-LINKED COMPANIES (GLCS) IN MALAYSIA. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education. 2022;14(4):582–93. 10.9756/int-jecse/v14i4.75. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref025] 25.McLaughlin K. Mastering the interplay: the role and culture of a cyber physical security (CPS) professional in global cybersecurity teams. EDPACS: The EDP Audit, Control, and Security Newsletter. 2023:38–45. 10.1080/07366981.2023.2216992. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref026] 26.Alobeidli S. Y., et al. Mediating effects of knowledge sharing and employee creativity on the relationship between visionary leadership and innovative work behavior. Management Research Review. 2024;47(6):883–903. 10.1108/mrr-02-2023-0144. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref027] 27.Zhao F., et al. Online sales and corporate innovation preference: The impact of e-commerce emergence on corporate innovation behavior. Finance Research Letters. 2024;64. 10.1016/j.frl.2024.105447. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref028] 28.Lee G. and Teo A. Organizational restructuring: impact on trust and work satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2005;22(1):23–39. 10.1007/s10490-005-6416-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref029] 29.Kock H., et al. Outsourcing HR services: the role of human resource intermediaries. European Journal of Training and Development. 2012;36(8):772–90. 10.1108/03090591211263512. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref030] 30.Dimas I. D., et al. Paths to Team Success: A Configurational Analysis of Team Effectiveness. Human Performance. 2023;36(4):155–79. 10.1080/08959285.2023.2222272. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref031] 31.Guchait P., et al. Perceived supervisor and co-worker support for error management: Impact on perceived psychological safety and service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2014;41:28–37. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.04.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref032] 32.Omilion-Hodges L. M. and Ptacek J. K. Personal Factors, Wants, and Needs: Exploring Vocational Anticipatory Socialization Through Young Adults’ Preferences for Managerial Communication Behaviors. International Journal of Business Communication. 2022;59(4):621–40. 10.1177/2329488419893745. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref033] 33.Passariello M. and Tarrant C. Psychological safety in an ECMO retrieval team: a qualitative study to inform improvement. Bmj Open Quality. 2024;13(2). 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref034] 34.Hang L., et al. R&D innovation, industrial evolution and the labor skill structure in China manufacturing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2024;204. 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123434. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref035] 35.Rao A. and Mattarelli E. Reacting to the ambidexterity mandate: How experienced tensions and cognitive dissonance influence innovative behaviors in a global organization. Strategic Organization. 2024;22(2):297–329. 10.1177/14761270231193386. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref036] 36.Ikhide J. E., et al. Restraints and enablers of green initiative-taking among hospitality employees: a mixed-methods approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2024;32(6):1096–117. 10.1080/09669582.2023.2201411. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref037] 37.Groulx P., et al. The ripple effect of strain in times of change: how manager emotional exhaustion affects team psychological safety and readiness to change. Frontiers in Psychology. 2024;15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1298104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref038] 38.Li Z., et al. The Role of CSR Information on Social Media to Promote the Communicative Behavior of Customers: An Emotional Framework Enriching Behavioral Sciences Literature. Behavioral Sciences. 2023;13(2). doi: 10.3390/bs13020126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref039] 39.Fyhn B., et al. Safe Among the Unsafe: Psychological Safety Climate Strength Matters for Team Performance. Small Group Research. 2023;54(4):439–73. 10.1177/10464964221121273. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref040] 40.de Medeiros Lira A. A., et al. Self-assessment of communication resources used by sales representatives and its relation with sales performance. Codas. 2019;31(6). 10.1590/2317-1782/20192019067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref041] 41.송윤희. The Structural Relationships among Emotional Intelligence, Communication Ability, Collective Intelligence, Learning Satisfaction and Persistence in Collaborative Learning of the College Classroom. Journal of Convergence for Information Technology. 2020;10(1):120–27. 10.22156/cs4smb.2020.10.01.120. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref042] 42.Ali K. J., et al. The TeamSTEPPS for Improving Diagnosis Team Assessment Tool: Scale Development and Psychometric Evaluation. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2024;50(2):95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2023.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref043] 43.Kheawwan P., et al. Translation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of TeamSTEPPS® team performance observation tool. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2024;38(3):573–82. 10.1080/13561820.2024.2307547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref044] 44.Lee Y., et al. Understanding the impacts of issue types and employee-organization relationships on employees’ problem perceptions and communicative behaviors. Corporate Communications. 2019;24(3):553–68. 10.1108/ccij-12-2018-0127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306629.ref045] 45.Scheetz A. M. and Fogarty T. J. Walking the talk: Enacted ethical climates as psychological contract venues for potential whistleblowers. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change. 2019;15(4):654–77. 10.1108/jaoc-06-2018-0047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The impact of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance a study with communication behavior as a mediator variable

Hao Jin

Yan Peng

Roles

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical background and assumptions

2.1 The relationship between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance

2.2 The relationship between team psychological safety and communication behavior

2.3 The relationship between communication behavior and employee innovative performance

2.4 The mediating role of communication behavior

3. Research methodology

Fig 1. Research hypothesis path model.

3.1 Questionnaire design and data collection

Table 1. Demographic characteristics (N = 580).

3.2 Scale items and exploratory analysis

Table 2. Scale question items and their reliability test results.

Table 3. Results of distinguished validity analysis.

4 Results of the study

4.1 Model fitness test

4.2 Hypothesis testing

4.2.1 Direct path test

Table 4. Path analysis results.

4.2.2 Test of mediating role

Table 5. Results of the mediation effect test.

5 Discussion

6 Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Ricardo Limongi

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Ricardo Limongi

Roles

Acceptance letter

Ricardo Limongi

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases