THE MODERATING ROLE OF INTRAGROUP TRUST 
AND TEAM TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON 
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGICAL 
SAFETY AND LEARNING BEHAVIOUR IN TEAMS.
BY
STEPHEN KODJO KUMAKO
THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN 
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF AN M.PHIL 
DEGREE IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANISATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY.
JULY, 2010.
3 9 7 9 2 2
bite
<3^ 3 9 7 9 2 2
tlfc
DECLARATION
1 hereby deelare that, except for reference to other people’s work which have been duly 
acknowledged, this thesis titled 7he moderating rote of intragroup trust and team 
transformational leadership on the relationship between psychological safely and learning 
behaviour in teams' is my own original work and presented to the Department of Psychology. 
University of Ghana, as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of an MPhil. 
Degree in Industrial and Organisational Psychology. I also wish to declare further that this 
work has never in its present form, or in any other form, been presented to any other 
examining body.
Date:..—“S'../. /.2010.
STEPHEN KODJO KUMAKO
(Student)
This thesis was submitted for examination with the approval of:
DR. MAXWELL ASUMENG
(Principal Supervisor)
DR. A.A. AFRI1- A
(Co-Supervisor)
I dedicate this work to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. God has been 
faithful and merciful to me throughout my life even when I was undeserving of his mercies. 
All that I am and all that I will ever be is by His Grace.
1 also dedicate this work to mv parents. Mr. & Mrs. Kumako for all the sacrifices they made 
to give my siblings and me the best education.
Finally. I dedicate this work to my dear aunt. Madam Agnes Adjovi Ahadzi for believing in 
me and supporting me through all the challenges of my tertiary education.
DEDICATION
li
"Be not afraid of greatness. Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have 
greatness tlirttst upon them." - William Shakespeare
My gratitude goes to Dr. Charity Akotia of the Department of Psychology, University of 
Ghana for helping me discover my career path and being a source of support and 
encouragement in my education. Mom. whenever I tell my story of how I got into the field of 
Psychology, your name will eternally be mentioned.
My sincerest appreciation goes to my supervisors. Dr. Maxwell Asumeng and Dr. A.A. 
Afrifa. Under your guidance, 1 have developed into a better researcher and I am very grateful.
1 would never have confidently taken on the challenge of team research if not for the 
direction, tutelage and encouragement of Dr. Roseanne Foti of the Virginia Polytechnic 
Institute and State University where 1 studied for an academic year. Working with Roseanne 
was as much fun as challenging. Her attention to detail and insightful feedback was a source 
of motivation and 1 look forward to working with her in the near future. Special thanks also 
go to her husband. Dr. Neil Hauenstein also of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 
University.
My siblings have been very supportive through my graduate career and 1 am eternalK 
grateful. Mr. Philip Kumako Jnr. continues to be the brother I am always proud of and has 
been the cornerstone throughout the challenges of graduate work, 1 thank Mrs. S\l\ia 
Coulhon for all the prayer and support especially with the printing of my questionnaires. 1 am
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Kotogbor for their prayer and support. I am also thankful to my little 
sister, Barbara Kumako for always giving me something to be grateful to God for.
Mr. Mawusi Kofi Glozah is one person whose support has been invaluable. His insight and 
understanding of research methodology and analysis is very commendable. I am grateful for 
you being a friend and brother. 1 am hopeful that this bond of friendship and professional 
companionship is forever.
I am very grateful to my research assistants, Mr. Desmond Agboada and Mr. Emmanuel 
Dziwomu, whose commitment and hard work contributed to the timely conclusion of this 
project. You are disciplined researchers and I am confident you will achieve the peak of your 
career.
I am appreciative to the following people who took responsibility to help with the data 
collection in their respective institutions: Ms. Cynthia Eryuo, Mr. Daniel Mensah and Ms. 
Sitso Yakohene just to mention a few. Special thanks to all the individuals and institutions 
who in one way or the other helped me complete this project.
Last but not the least: I will like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Ms. Valerie Otoo for 
standing by me through thick and thin all these years. Your prayers, commitment and support 
have given me less to worry about as 1 concentrate on my academic career. As 1 look forward 
to us spending the rest of our lives together. I am grateful each day for you.
Iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION...............................................................................................................................'
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................................."
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
I. I. I Background of the Stud)’.................................................................................................  1
1.1.2 Team Psychological Safety..................................................................................................4
1.1.3 Team Learning behaviour......................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 Intragroup trust as a Moderator of the Team psychological safety and team learning 
behaviour relationship............................................................................................. 9
1.2.2 Team transformational leadership as a Moderator of the Team psychological safety 
and team learning behaviour relationship..................................................................14
1.3 Rationale of the Stud) ...................................................................................................... 18
1.4 Research Questions................................................................................................... 20
1.5 Aims of the Study......................................................................................................... 20
1.6 Relevancc of the stud v.............................................................................................................................21
v
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................23
2.1.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................23
2.1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 23
2.1.2 Social exchange theory....................................................................................................... 23
2.1.3 Transformational leadership theory.................................................................................... 26
2.2 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES...................................................................................30
2.2.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................30
2.2.2 The relationship between team psychological safety and team learning
behaviour............................................................................................................................. 30
2.2.3 Intragroup trust as a Moderator of the Team psychological safety and team learning 
behaviour relationship.........................................................................................................34
2.2.4 Team transformational leadership as a Moderator of the Team psychological safet> 
and team learning behaviour relationship........................................................................... 37
2.2.5 Key Variables in the study...................................................................................................41
2.3 Statement of Hypotheses.........................................................................................................41
2.4 Operational Definition of Key Terms..................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................   44
3.1 Population............................................................................................................................... 44
3.2 Sample.................................................................................................................................... 46
3.3 Sampling Techniques............................................................................................................. 48
3.4 Design..................................................................................................................................... 49
3.5 Instruments/Measures.............................................................................................................50
vl
3.6 Procedure................................................................................................................................ 53
3.6.1 Pilot Study......................................................................................................................... 53
3.6.2 Main Study........................................................................................................................ 54
3.7 Common Method Variance............................................................................................... 56
3.8 Ethical Considerations....................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS........................................................................................................................................60
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................60
4.2 Preliminary Analyses..............................................................................................................60
4.2.1 Analysis of the Normal Distribution of variables................................................................60
4.2.2 Computation of Descriptive Statistics................................................................................. 61
4.2.3 Empirical Justification of Data Aggregation....................................................................... 61
4.2.3.1 Team Level of Analysis...................................................................................................61
4.2.3.2 Inter rater agreement and data aggregation of team members' responses........................62
4.2.4 Reliability Studies............................................................................................................... 66
4.2.5 Pearson’s Correlation of Study variables.............................................................................67
4.3 Hypotheses Testing................................................................................................................ 68
4.3.1 Hypothesis I.........................................................................................................................6S
4.3.2 Hypotheses 2 and 3............................................................................................................. 69
4.4 Summary'of Findings..............................................................................................................74
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................ 75
5.1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 75
vll
5.1.2 The relationship between team psychological safety and team
performance.....................................................................................................................................76
5.1.3 Does intragroup trust moderate the Team psychological safely and team learning 
behaviour relationship?....................................................................................................................78
5.1.4 Does team transformational leadership moderate the Team psychological safely and 
team learning behaviour relationship.............................................................................................. 81
5.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research............................................................83
5.3 Implications for practice..........................................................................................................86
5.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................87
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................89
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................102
Appendix I (Questionnaires)............................................................................................. 102
Appendix II (Normal Distribution Curves)....................................................................... 108
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Demographic statistics Tor team members and team 
leaders.................................................................................................................. 47
Descriptive Statistics, inter rater agreement indices and Reliability coefficients 
of the study variables............................................................................................67
Pearson correlations for the study variables......................................................... 67
Results of Standard Multiple Regression Analysis for Team Psychological 
Safety as a predictor of Team Learning Behaviour.............................................68
Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for the moderation 
efl'ect of Intragroup trust (IT) and Team Transformational Leadership (TTL) 
on the Psychological Safety - Team Learning Behaviour relationship 73
Ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 A summary of hypothesized relationships between the independent,
moderating and dependent variables...................................................................... 42
Figure 2 Path diagram of the moderating model (alter Baron & Kenny,
1986)....................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 3 A Summary of observed relationships among the independent, moderating and
dependent variables.................................................................................................75
ABSTRACT
The study investigated the moderating role of intragroup trust and team transformational 
leadership on the relationship between team psychological safety and learning behaviour in 
teams. Fifty seven work teams comprising four hundred and fifty six respondents in teams of 
seven to nine members were purposively sampled from five financial institutions in Accra. 
Ghana. Team members completed questionnaires on Team Psychological Safety 
(Edmondson. 1999). Intragroup trust (Simons & Peterson, 2000) and Team Transformational 
Leadership (Carless, Wearing. & Mann. 2000), whereas team leaders provided ratings of the 
teams' learning behaviour (Edmondson, 1999). Team members’ responses were aggregated 
and matched to their respective team leaders for each team. Hierarchical regression and 
moderation analysis were run on data at the team level of analysis. Results indicated a 
positive relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour with 
team transformational leadership moderating the relationship as predicted. However, 
intragroup trust did not moderate the relationship between team psychological safety and 
team learning behaviour. It was concluded that a team will feel psychologically safe when 
there is some amount of trust among team members. However, no additional trust within the 
team may be necessary in reaping the positive effects of team psychological safety on team 
learning behaviour. Furthermore, team transformational leadership facilitates learning in the 
team by creating a climate where team members' opinions, questions and help are welcomed 
at no interpersonal risk.
xi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 Background to the study
Organisations in Ghana today can be thought of as operating in very unstable and highly 
uncertain environments. This could be attributed to the fact that twenty first century 
organizations are complex and faced with increased global competition, new technology, and 
innovation amongst others. These factors are critical to the success of every' organization. In 
meeting this goal, organisations in Ghana and worldwide have focussed on more effective ways 
of utilizing its most valued assets, the human capital (Shonk. 1992). This has resulted in a shift 
from traditionally, vertical and functionalized structures to more decentralized general structures 
encouraging employees to take more responsibility and work in teams to achieve organisational 
goals. Parker (2003: 1) asserts that in organizations today, ‘generalism has replaced 
specialization, collaboration has replaced autonomy, empowerment has replaced power, and 
teamwork has replaced individualism’.
The proliferation of teams in organisations has been termed a ‘corporate renaissance’ (Ranter. 
1983) and the ‘second industrial revolution’ (Fisher, 1983). Organisations using teams are able to 
constantly monitor their external environment and respond to situations quicker than when work 
is being done individually. A conglomeration of factors including the pressures of global 
competition, the need to consolidate business models in complex and shifting environments and 
the pursuit of continuous innovation have led to a reappraisal of the team as a key element of the
1
basic organisational architecture. It is not surprising therefore that the joint action of individuals 
working together in a cooperative manner to attain shared goals through the differentiation of 
roles and functions, and the use of elaborate communication and coordination systems, are now 
viewed as essential to effectiveness and competitive advantage ( Ko/Jowski & Bell, 2003).
Many definitions of teams have been offered in the literature (Tjosvold, 1991). Three central 
themes that run through these definitions of teams are their interaction, interdependence and 
common goals of individuals (Porter, Lawler & Hackman, 1987; Shonk, 1992). Kozlowski and 
Ilgen (2006: 79) conceptualize a team as “two or more individuals who socially interact (face- 
to-face or. increasingly, virtually) possess one or more common goals: are brought together to 
perform organizationally relevant tasks: exhibit interdependencies with respect to workflow, 
goals, and outcomes; have different roles and responsibilities; and are together embedded in an 
encompassing organizational system, with boundaries and linkages to the broader system context 
and task environment". Teams in organisations may be considered to be more adapt to surmount 
the complexities of organisational functioning by drawing on diverse and sometimes unique 
expertise, experiences, competencies, knowledge and skills of its members. These resources can 
then be properly coordinated through collaboration, cooperation, and adaptability to achieve 
organisational effectiveness.
The ubiquitous use of teams or groups in organisations has seen a concomitant increase in teams 
or groups research in organisational psychology. There has been a paradigm shift in the last 25 
years or so from research in small interpersonal groups in social psychology to the study of work 
teams in Organisational psychology (Kozlowski & Ilgen. 2006: Levine & Moreland. 1990:
Simpson & Wood. 1992). Steiner (1986: 283) noled the necessity of this shift when he wrote 
‘The group is too important to an understanding of human behaviour and the knowledge of 
society to be forever neglected. If social psychologists do not research the group, someone else 
surely will’. Levine and Mooreland (1990) recapitulate Steiner’s (1986) view by concluding that 
research in small groups or a team ‘is alive and well but living elsewhere’.
The use of teams in organisations is also not without its challenges. The individual identity of 
team members may be threatened by team membership. This is because being part of the team 
redefines employees ‘sense of who you are’ as one may have to alter ones' behaviour to conform 
to team norms (Bettenhausen. 1991). The personality of team members (Steiner. 1972). social 
loafing (Karau & Williams. 1993), group think leading to conformity and isolation of members 
with conflicting views (Janis, 1972) are just a few of the challenges associated with team work.
In Ghana, the daunting task for industrial and organisational psychologists therefore, is to 
understand the dynamics underlying the effective use of teams in organisations. Among various 
factors that can affect the smooth functioning of teams in organisations, the interpersonal climate 
in the team is very critical for the team to be effective. A climate that is enabling and devoid of 
tension will allow for team members to "be themselves' and work hard lo meet their set goals 
reflective of a team with psychological safety. Unique expertise and viewpoints of each team 
member have to be harnessed as the team learns from its collective experiences and collaborate 
effectively. Recently, there has not only been an increased interest in the effects of 
psychologically safe interpersonal climates in teams on group processes and outcomes but also 
researchers arc interested in identifying variables that may strengthen or weaken the positive
effects of team psychological safety on team processes and outcomes. I he focus here is the 
ability of these variables to moderate the relationship between an independent variable and a 
dependent variable. A moderator or a moderating variable is a qualitative or quantitative variable 
that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor 
variable and a dependent or criterion variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the present study, 
intragroup trust and team transformational leadership respectively were hypothesized to 
moderate the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour.
1.1.2 Team psychological safety
Researchers interested in maximizing learning behaviour in teams to ensure team performance 
have emphasized the importance of the conduciveness of the interpersonal climate in teams. The 
decision to speak up, seek feedback, offer help or other learning behaviours in a team is informed 
on the knowledge that the interpersonal risk to one's self is minimal. Working in teams could be 
a buffer to learning behaviours and could also prevent learning if team members do not feel 
psychologically safe to do so. Schein and Bennis (1965) first underscored the importance of 
psychological safety of employees in ensuring organizational change as system-wide changes in 
organizations would be facilitated to the extent that individuals fell safe to alter their behaviour. 
Schein (1985) argued that psychological safety reduced the threat posed to individuals when 
faced with uncertain or unexpected information in their environment thus mitigating the 
‘defensiveness or threat-rigidity’ associated with such experiences and which can affect learning 
behaviours.
4
Psychological safety has been identified as one of the three psychological conditions -namely 
psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety and psychological availability- which are a 
function of situational characteristics and individuals' experiences and their work roles and 
ensured engagement or disengagement at work. Factors such as interpersonal relationships, 
group and inter-group dynamics, norms and a supportive management style and process have 
been identified as elements of the social system that foster psychological safety and allowed 
individuals to engage fully in their work roles (Kahn, 1990; May. Gilson. & Harter, 2004).
Psychological safety has been conceptualised at multiple levels of analysis. Recent research has 
studied the construct as both an individual level (Kahn, 1990; May et al. 2004: Tynan. 2005) and 
organisational level of analysis (Baer & Frese, 2003) in addition to the team or group level. 
Edmondson (1999) first introduced team psychological safety as a team or group construct 
implying that such a climate is characteristic of the team as a unit rather than the individual team 
members. Edmondson (1999) describes team psychological safety as a shared belief that the 
team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. This shared team or group characteristic develops in 
intact teams over time as a result of interactions and collective on the job experiences 
(Edmondson 1999. 2004). Team members cognitively calculate the perceived consequences of 
their actions or inactions and the perceived threat to their image. People would avoid engaging in 
behaviours that are likely to present them as ignorant, incompetent, negative or disruptive in their 
teams unless there is a climate of psychological safety shared in the team (Edmondson. 1999.
2002).
5
Studies have associated psychological safety with team learning behaviour and team 
performance (Edmondson, 1999), firm goal achievement and return on assets (Baer & Frese,
2003), personal engagement at work and job involvement (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Kahn, 1990; 
May et al„ 2004), and face giving (Tynan, 2005). Edmondson. Bohmer and Pisano (2001) found 
that psychological safety plays a critical role in the successful adoption of a new surgery 
technique in hospitals by members of Emergency Room teams. Teams characterized by a higher 
degree of psychological safety displayed more effective and satisfactory' use of the new 
technology, compared to teams where people did not feel safe. Furthermore. Edmondson and 
Woolley (2003) demonstrate that psychological safety has a positive impact on the acceptance of 
an organisation-wide change program in a large manufacturing company. Team psychological 
safety also leads to learning from failure (Carmeli, 2007). These findings imply that 
psychological safety reduces defensiveness and “learning anxiety" in uncertain and unknown 
situations (Schein. 2004). Thus for teams that are engaged in activities that present them with an 
opportunity to learn, team psychological safety may be an important precursor of behaviours 
indicative of team learning.
1.1.3 Team learning behaviours
Team learning has been viewed both as an outcome and a process. Edmondson (1999) 
conceptualises team learning as the process by which relatively permanent changes occur in the 
behavioural potential of the group as a result of group interaction activities tha^ugh which 
members acquire, share, and combine knowledge. She further explains that team learning is an 
ongoing process ol reflection and action, characterized by asking questions, seeking feedback.
6
experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of actions. 
Team learning is a process by which team knowledge is gained by evaluating different opinions, 
openly discussing these opinions, forming new routines, and adjusting performance strategies in 
response to negative feedback (Edmondson. 1999; Edmondson, Bohmer. & Pisano, 2001). Team 
learning also includes a process of reflection about the team's processes and behaviours (West. 
2004).
Another definition of team learning that has been offered in the literature views it as a ‘relatively 
permanent change in the team's collective level of knowledge and skill produced by the shared 
experience of the team members' (Ellis, Hollenbeck, llgen. Porter, West & Moon. 2003: 822). 
Team learning depends on each member’s individual ability to acquire knowledge, skills, and 
abilities as well as his or her ability to collectively share that information with team members. 
The focus of this conceptualization and definition of team learning is as an outcome (Day. Gronn 
& Salas. 2004).
Team learning is characterised by help seeking, feedback seeking, speaking up about concerns 
and errors, innovative behaviour and innovation and boundary spanning (Edmondson. 2004). 
These behaviours enable team members to improve their collective understanding of a given 
situation and discover the consequences of previous actions, thereby helping them to detect and 
respond to changes in their operational environment (Edmondson. 1999; Schippers. Den Hartog. 
Koopman, & Wienk. 2003). These behaviours in a team are referred to as learning behaviour. It 
is through these activities that learning occurs at the team level. Engaging in these behaviours
7
will result in knowledge being embedded within the team, which ultimately promotes 
performance improvement (Argote & Olivera, 1999).
Team learning has been differentiated from other related constructs including adaptation and 
innovation. Burke, Stagl, Salas & Pierce (2006) assert that team learning translates to an 
increased behavioural repertoire to learn which may remain latent and never manifest. Adaptive 
teams are teams that actually use this behavioural capacity manifested in knowledge gained 
through team learning to adjust or respond to situational requirements. Team innov ation has also 
been conceptualized as a process variable which like team learning is a precursor to team 
adaptation. However, whilst team learning contributes to team performance (Edmondson. 1999). 
team innovation may or may not lead to functional outcomes (Burke et al. 2006).
Team learning behaviour has been found to mediate the relationship between team psychological 
safety and team performance (Edmondson. 1999). Team learning as an outcome is typically 
inferred from changes in team performance. It is rarely assessed directly as a construct in its own 
right (Kozlowski & Ilgen. 2006). These arguments thus follow that whilst team learning 
behaviour is seen as a proximal outcome of team psychological safety, other outcome variables 
such as the team's performance may be considered more distal outcome.
8
1.2.1 Intragroup trust as a moderator of the team psychological safety and team learning 
behaviour relationship
There has been a large body of research that seeks to unlock the nature of the relations between 
trust and important organisational outcomes as the former is seen as an essential lubricant of 
successful working relationships such as teamwork (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Research has shown 
that a search for a concise and universally accepted definition of trust has not only remained 
elusive but also is the ‘holy grail' of trust research (Creed & Miles. 1995: Kramer. 1999).
Jones and George (1998) posit that trust is an expression of confidence between the parties in an 
exchange of some kind - confidence that they will not be harmed or put at risk by the actions of 
the other party or confidence that no party to the exchange will exploit the others v ulnerability. 
Maver. Davis and Schoorman (1995) proposed the Integrative Model of Organisational Trust, a 
theoretical framework examining trust in an organisational setting involving two focal 
individuals: a trustor (the individual trusting) and a trustee (the indiv idual being trusted). They 
conceptualised trust as the willingness of a party to be v ulnerable to the actions of another party 
based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, 
irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.
Mayer et al.'s definition of trust has become widely accepted in the organisational literature (e.g.. 
Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Jones and George. 1998; Kramer. 1999). Unlike past 
conceptualizations of trust, the definition offered in this model separates trust from its 
antecedents. In Mayer et al.'s (1995) model, both the disposition of the trustor and the perceiv ed 
characteristics of the trustee influence trust. Furthermore, trust does not involve risk per se on the
9
part of the trustor, but rather a willingness of the trustor to engage in risk-taking with the trustee 
(e.g., sharing sensitive information).
At the team level of analysis, intragroup trust can be seen as an aggregation of individual team 
member's perception of group-wide trust (Simons & Peterson, 2000). The trustor in this 
conceptualisation of intragroup trust is the individual team member and the trustee is the team or 
group as a unit. At the group level of analysis, trust entails generalized expectations for all group 
members (Zand. 1972).
The decision to trust is based on choice. Kramer (1999) identified two models of choice - the 
rational and relational models. The rational model of choice indicates that people trust when it is 
rational to do so. The decision to trust is informed on risk evaluation with the intent to maximize 
expected gains or minimize expected loss. Schelling (1960) as cited in Kramer (1999) asserts 
that such rational choices are made through conscious calculation of advantages, a calculation 
that in turn is based on an explicit and internally consistent value system. The relational model of 
choice highlights social aspects of trust and conceptualises it not only a calculative orientation 
towards risk but also a social orientation towards people and towards society as a whole 
(Kramer, 1999).
Edmondson (1999, 2004) notes that trust is an important antecedent to psychological safety. 
Team psychological safety is a conceptually different but related construct to intragroup trust. 
Edmondson (2004) connects the concepts of psychological safety and trust, stating that they have 
much in common: they both describe psychological stales involving perceptions of risk or
10
vulnerability and making choices to minimize negative consequences and both have potential 
positive consequences for work groups and organisations.
The nature of this vulnerability is more broadly defined for trust than for psychological safety. A 
key difference is that trust, presumes the extent to which you give others the benefit of the doubt 
- a focus on ‘others' whereas for psychological safety the interest is if others would give you the 
benefit of the doubt - a focus on ‘self (Edmondson, 2004). Edmondson asserts that the tacit 
calculation of interpersonal risk typical in psychological safety is more focused on the 'short 
term effect' of an action or inaction as against the more ‘long term effect’ of trust.
Trust has been researched a lot in the literature and can be conceptualized as a trait, an emerging 
state or as a process (Burke. Sims, Lazzara & Salas, 2007). As a process, trust may be seen as an 
intervening process through which other important behaviours, attitudes, and relationships are 
either bolstered or weakened. Various trust researchers in the literature have conceptualized trust 
as unidimensional (Mayer et al. 1995) or multidimensional (Cummings & Bromiley. 1996).
Dirks and Ferrin (2001) distinguish between the two models by which trust operates on work 
place behaviours, affects and performance outcomes. Trust can either be seen as having a main 
effect or a as a moderating effect. These two models represent important distinctions because 
they imply different theoretical rationales, methodological designs, forms of statistical evidence, 
and different ways of using trust as a managerial intervention.
In the main effect model, trust is conceptualised as operating directly to affect desired outcomes 
such that higher levels of trust are expected to result in more positive altitudes, higher levels of 
cooperation and other forms of workplace behaviour, and superior levels of performance (Dirks 
& Ferrin. 2001), Overall, the effects of trust on various workplace behaviours and performance 
outcomes are weaker and less consistent. For many outcomes, some studies revealed a 
significant effect, while others did not. For example, the literature indicates significant effect 
(Smith & Barclay. 1997; Boss. 1978; O'Reilly. 1978; Zand, 1972) and no significant effects (De 
Dreu. Giebels & de Vliert. 1998; Dirks, 1999; Roberts & O'Reilly. 1974) between trust and 
various cognitive, behavioral and performance outcomes.
The most promising main effect of trust according to Dirks and Ferrin (2001) is its relationship 
with organisational citizenship behaviour which reported very high and consistent effect sizes. 
According to them, the evidence does not seem to provide strong support for the conventional 
wisdom that is represented by the main effect model-that trust, on average, results in desirable 
behaviours and outcomes. A typical example is the mixed evidence for the effects of trust on 
dyad or group performance, a relationship that has long been assumed to exist (Golembiewski &. 
McConkie. 1975). Following from the inconsistent findings on the main and direct effects of 
trust on outcomes, it is plausible to assert that trust does not act in a direct causal role or elicit 
particular outcomes itself.
Intragroup trust, as earlier mentioned, can be considered as a psychological state that prov ides a 
representation of how individual team members understand their relationship with the team 
members in situations that involve risk or vulnerability. It follows therefore that intragroup trust
12
is influenced by the accumulated experiences with, and knowledge about, the team in situations 
involving vulnerability. Dirks & Ferrin (2001) explain that because it represents an individual's 
understanding of a relationship, trust involves two distinct processes through which positive 
outcomes in the relationship is strengthened or weakened. First, intragroup trust affects how one 
assesses the future behaviour of team members with whom one is interdependent (or whom may 
take action that affects oneself)- Second, intragroup trust also affects how one interprets the past 
(or present) actions of the other party, and the motives underlying the actions. It is through these 
processes, according to Dirks & Ferrin (2001) that trust moderates the effect of primaiy 
determinants (causal factors) on outcomes by affecting how one assesses the future behaviour or 
interprets the past actions of another party. Using a rational and tacit calculation of the other 
party's future or prior actions, trust could reduce some of the concomitant uncertain!) and 
ambiguity in the team.
Dirks (1999) found that trust within group significantly moderates the relationship between 
motivation and group process and performance. Intragroup trust also significant!) moderates the 
relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Hwang 
and Burgers (1997) proposed that trust is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
cooperation. This terminology has come to be understood to imply or suggests that trusi may act 
as a moderator (Dirks & Ferrin. 2001). Following from this analogy, it is plausible to posit that 
intragroup trust acts as a moderating variable affecting the relationship between psychological 
safety and team learning behaviour consistent with Edmondson's (1999) assertion that trust is a 
necessary but not sufficient condition for team psychological safety.
13
Psychological safety in the team will lead to team learning behaviours. Trust has been identified 
as an important antecedent of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Kahn, 1990; May et al,
2004). However, it stands to reason that as team members cognitively calculate the short term 
effect of psychological safely which in turn will affect Ihe nature of learning and the behaviours 
indicative of learning in the team, the interpretation of team members past behaviour and an 
assessment of future behaviors may influence the extent to which team members engage in 
learning behavior as a result of feeling psychologically safe. For example, a team member who 
finds the climate in the team to be safe for interpersonal risk taking may be more likely’ to speak 
up, seek feedback, and ask questions to the extent that based on past experiences with the team, 
the team member is able to predict the future behavior of the team members. Thus intragroup 
trust may provide the mechanism by which the relationship between team psychological safety 
and learning behaviour is fostered or inhibited.
1.2.2 Team transformational leadership as a moderator of the team psychological safety 
and team learning behaviour relationship.
In teams, a difficult challenge is the issue of team leadership. Zacarro. Rittman and Marks. 
(2001; 452) assert that ‘indeed we would argue that effective leadership processes represent 
perhaps the most critical factor in the success of organisational learns'. On the contrary, 
ineffective leadership is often seen as the reason teams fail (Stewart & Man/. 1995). Leadership 
functions in a team can be performed by the formal functional team leader and or could be 
shared in the team. Day, Gronn and Salas (2004) refer to this distributed or shared leadership in 
the team as team leadership capacity.
14
The functional approach to leadership has been tailored by a number of theorists investigating 
both organizational and team leadership. When viewed from a functional dimension, team 
leadership can be described as a series of problem solving steps: diagnosing group deficiencies, 
taking remedial action, forecasting impending changes, and preventing harmful environmental 
changes or their effects (McGrath, 1984). This process is accomplished through the leader's 
generic responses to social problems. According to Fleishman. Mumford. Zaccaro. Levin. 
Korotkin and Hein (1991). these generic responses are captured in taxonomy of leadership 
performance functions having four super ordinate dimensions and thirteen subordinate 
dimensions. The four super ordinate or broad categories are: (1) information search and 
structuring. (2) information use in problem solving, (3) managing personnel resources and (4) 
managing materia! resources. This taxonomy of leadership dimensions though originally 
developed with regard to organizational leadership can also be applied to individual, team, and 
unit level leadership.
An implication of seeing team leadership from a functional perspective assumes that leaders in 
teams play a boundary spanning role linking the teams to their environments (Katz & Kahn, 
1978). Functional team leaders exercise discretion and choice as to the best solution amongst 
alternatives to achieve team effectiveness (Zaccaro et al. 2001). Taking a slightly different 
perspective, Hackman (2002) identified five conditions that leaders can create to ensure team 
effectiveness. The first three of the conditions (i.e.. real team, compelling direction, enabling 
structure) have been argued to be core conditions while the later two (i.e., supportive context, 
expert coaching) arc enablers. A real team is one in which there is a task with some level of 
interdependence, clear boundaries, some degree of membership stability, and authority to
15
manage work processes. Once this has been established, leaders ensure the team has received 
direction that is clear, consequential, and motivating. Finally, leaders provide the team with 
structural components (i.e., design of work that is motivating and empowering, functional norms, 
and team composition) that facilitate the achievement of the direction and corresponding goal. 
Once core conditions have been established, creating and maintaining a supportive context (i.e., 
updated information, resources—educational and task related) and coaching assistance can 
further facilitate performance.
These functional leader behaviours of the team leader are very similar to the characteristics of 
transformational leaders (Bums, 1978; Bass, 1988, 1998). According to Avolio (1999), 
transformational leadership focuses on improving the performance of followers and developing 
followers to their fullest potential. Bass (1985) argues that transformational leadership motivates 
followers to do more than the expected by (a) raising followers’ levels of consciousness about 
the importance and v alue of specified and idealized goals, (b) getting followers to transcend their 
own self interest for the sake of the team or organisation, and (c) moving followers to address 
higher level needs.
Focusing on functional leadership in teams, the behaviour and orientation of ihe team leader is 
critical to creating a climate of psychological safety (Edmondson, 2003). Edmondson explains 
that team leaders create psychological safety not only by facilitating the willingness to speak up 
but also by employing (he strategies of articulating a rationale for change. Encouraging team 
members lo speak up and also by playing down the power differential characteristic of teams is 
also an important desired characteristic of team leaders. This is very important as ii provides an
16
additional criterion for which team leader behaviour can be measured. Transformational leader 
behaviours go beyond team leader coaching (Edmondson, 2003) and team leader inclusiveness 
(Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006) and include behaviours that influence the motivation of team 
members and leads to increased performance. Edmondson (2003) provides a new dimension of 
seeing team leader behaviour not only as an antecedent or input to psychological safety but also 
as an integral part of an ongoing team learning process. When viewed from this perspective, 
transformational team leader behaviour can be thought of as influencing the strength of the 
relationship between psychological safety and desired group processes and outcomes such as 
team learning behaviour.
Kozlowski and Doherty (1989) conjecture that leaders shape the interpretation of climate for 
those team members with whom they have a good leader-member exchange (LMX; Graen. 
Orris. & Johnson, 1973) relationship. Results from this study, showed that team members with 
good LMX relations had climate perceptions that were both similar to their leader and 
consensual with each other, relative to those with poor LMX relations, whose perceptions were 
discordant with the leader and each other. More recent research has provided results consistent 
with this, showing that team leaders and the quality of their LMX relationships they enact with 
team members play a key role in shaping the nature and strength of climate perceptions 
(Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras. 2003; Zohar. 2002; Zohar & 
Luria. 2004, as cited in Kozlowski & llgen. 2006). Thus, a climate of psychological safety in the 
team leading to team learning behaviour is likely to be affected by the team leaders' 
transformational behaviour.
17
1.3 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
Previous research has examined the relationship between psychological salety and variables such 
as team learning behaviour and team performance (Edmondson, 1999), firm goal achievement 
and return on assets (Baer & Frese, 2003), personal engagement at work and job involvement 
(Brown & Leigh. 1996; Kahn. 1990: May el al.. 2004). face giving (Tynan, 2005) and the 
successful adoption of a new surgery technique in hospitals by members of Emergency Room 
teams (Edmondson et al, 2001).
In the current study, the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning 
behaviour will be examined. Edmondson (1999) found support for a significant relationship 
between team psychological safety and self-reported team learning behaviour and observer rated 
team learning respectively. However, these studies were done in Western and individualistic 
cultures like the United States and as such much proper inference may not be made to the 
Ghanaian collectivist culture.
Culture can be characterized along numerous dimensions. Hall (1976) asserts that a primary 
characteristic of cultures is the degree to which they focus on the indiv idual (individualistic) or 
on the group (collectivist). Hofstede (2001) identified five major dimensions on which cultures 
differ: uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism. masculinity-femininity. power distance 
and long-term-short-term orientation. The Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour 
Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program studied 62 countries and identified 10 regional 
clusters that provided a convenient way to analyse the similarities and differences between 
cultural groups. Ihe characteristics ol the 'Anglo' cluster in which the United Slates of America
18
falls is significantly different from the 'Sub-Saharan Africa cluster which includes countries like 
Ghana (Hofstede, 2001). This current work would examine if the results lrom this study in a 
Ghanaian organisational context will be consistent with Edmondson’s findings. I his work will 
also provide very important national data for Ghana on learning behaviour and the interpersonal 
climate in teams.
Kahn (1990) found support for a supportive management style in promoting psychological safety 
Results of Kalin's study highlighting interpersonal relationships dynamics, of which trust is a 
component, as a social factor that promotes psychological safety leading to engagement is 
supported by Edmondson (2002. 2004). Edmondson identifies trust as an antecedent condition to 
the development of psychological safety in teams. Leader behaviour has also been identified as 
an antecedent of psychological safety' in teams (Edmondson, 2004). A supportive management 
style or the leader behaviour and trust have been identified as antecedents of psychological safety. 
Team work is dynamic and may involve a lot of processes that may affect conditions in the team. 
The relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour may be 
affected by a plethora of factors beyond and above the antecedents of team psychological safety. 
As such this study will focus on some factors that may influence the relationship between team 
psychological safety and team learning behaviour.
The current study moves away from conceptualizing intragroup trust and leader coaching (a 
characteristic of transformational leadership), as inputs or antecedents of psychological safety 
leading to team learning behaviour (Edmondson. 2004) to a proposed model in which intragroup 
trust and team transformational leadership respectively moderate the psychological safety-team
19
learning behaviour relationship. This may provide greater explanatory power for the 
hypothesized relationship.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The current study thus seeks to find answers to the following questions:
1. Does team psychological safety promote team learning behaviours in team?
2. Does intra group trust affect the strength of the relationship between psychological safety 
and learning behaviour in teams?
3. Does a transformational team leader influence the relationship between psychological 
safety and learning behav iour in teams?
1.5 AIMS OF THE STUDY.
The proposed model in the current study extends work by previous researchers and seeks to
examine the moderating role of intragroup trust and team transformational leadership on the 
relationship between psychological safety and learning behaviour in teams.
This study will specifically:
(a.) examine the relationship between psychological safety and learning behav iour in teams 
(b.) examine if intragroup trust interacts with team psychological safety in affecting tine 
psychological safety-learning behaviour relationship in teams. Specifically, if the positive
effect of team psychological safety on learning behaviour in teams will be stronger for
teams with high intragroup trust than those with low intragroup trust
20
(c.) examine if team transformational leadership interacts with team psychological safety in 
affecting the psychological safety-learning behaviour relationship in teams. That is, if the 
positive effect of team psychological safety on learning behaviour will be stronger for teams 
with a transformational team leader than for those teams whose leader is not 
transformational.
1.6 RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY.
Organizations increasingly are becoming 'learning organizations'. As managers try to improve 
learning throughout the organization, there is a need to focus on small work units that 
accomplish organisational tasks. Better conditions of service which may include higher pay and 
job security may not necessarily result in increased performance if the members of these teams 
do not feel psychologically safe to engage in their daily tasks. This study will thus provide 
support for focussing attention on the interpersonal climate within these teams if organisational 
goals are to be met.
The important role of intragroup trust and team transformational leadership in ensuring that team 
members feel safe psychologically to work and contribute to the achievement of team and 
organisational goals will be clarified. Results of the study may also be generalised to team 
leadership in cross functional hierarchical teams such as medical surgical teams, in which the 
team leader is critical in bridging the power and status differentials in the team in order to create 
a conducive interpersonal climate lor team and organisational goals to be achieved. This is
21
particularly important in a culture like that of Ghana where much emphasis is placed on respect 
and reverence for leaders.
The findings of this study will provide support for a need to include an understanding of team 
processes and dynamics in the training of professionals who predominantly work as teams on a 
daily basis. It will also provide empirical support for training of team leaders in strategic and 
effective team leadership.
Finally, results of this study will also add on to existing literature on teams especially in Ghana 
since little literature exists in the area of team and team processes in Ghana.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.1 Introduction
There are quite a number of theorists that have contributed to our understanding of trust and 
transformational leadership and how they work in organisational settings to enhance desired 
outcomes in the organisation. Specifically, the affect theory of Social exchange (Lawler. 2001) 
offers an explanation about the mechanisms through which trust between two parties develops 
and is maintained. The transformational leadership theory (Bass. 1985) conceptualizes leader 
behaviours that are effective in motivating followers to achieve organisational goals. The affect 
theory of Social exchange (Lawler. 2001) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. 
1985) are discussed in the context of the present study to help explain the moderating role of 
intragroup trust and team transformational leadership respectively on the relationship between 
psychological safety and learning behaviour in teams.
2.1.2 Social Exchange Theory
There is widespread agreement in the literature that trust formation is a process that takes place 
over time through social interaction (Dirks & Ferrin. 2002; Jones & George. 1998). Social 
exchange theories were developed around the framework that social interactions, like economic 
transactions, reflect people’s desire to seek rewards and avoid punishments (Simpson. 1976).
23
Social exchange theory describes social exchanges as interactions between two individuals in 
which one party does another a favour with the expectation of a favour in return, although no 
time period for this reciprocation is specified. Social exchange involves trusting that the other 
party will fulfil their obligations (Blau, 1964).
Theorists studying the way trust develops have adopted behaviourist definitions of rewards as 
anything valuable to the recipient and costs as any intrinsically unpleasant experience or 
foregone alternative reward. Profits are conceptualized as rewards minus costs (Simpson, 1976). 
It is not surprising, therefore, that people are motivated by a desire to obtain profitable outcomes. 
The quest to capture the profits or value of social interactions could be considered a more 
arduous task than quantifying profits in monetary terms in the economic w'orld.
Lawler's affect theory of social exchange builds on prior work by placing affective responses - 
feelings and emotions - as the central component of social interactions (Lawler, 2001; 2006). 
From this perspective, social order and all interpersonal exchanges are affected by participant's 
emotional reactions to the process. Lawler’s work builds on previous social exchange traditions 
by emphasizing that emotional reactions to exchanges are inherently self-reinforcing or 
punishing. The likelihood of attributing those rewarding or punitive emotional experiences to the 
exchange partner depends on the jointness of the task, with higher emotional responsibility 
assigned for activities with high degrees of interdependence (Lawler, 2006). In this framework, 
affective trust is generated by social exchanges around tasks which require interdependence, and 
thus provide a reason to attribute an emotional experience to the exchange partner. Within a 
general social exchange framework, trust is generated by returning benefits received from others
and gradually expanding the scope of exchanges over time (Whitener et al., 1998 as cited in 
Whitmore, 2009). The series of social exchanges initiated in a relationship enable individuals to 
develop trust via both cognitive and affective, or emotion-based, mechanisms.
As individuals interact with a trustee, they learn from their exchanges. Exchanges that result in a 
higher profit (i.e. more rewards than costs) lead to increased trust, whereas those that are not 
rewarding fail to reinforce trusting behaviour and cognitions. Cognitive re-evaluations of trust 
based on experience over time contribute to the more intellectual, cognition-based trust. The 
development of a rewarding interpersonal relationship, such as a friendship, with the trustee 
contributes to affective-based trust (McAllister, 1995 as cited in Whitmore. 2009). Within this 
framework, trust in interpersonal relationships relies heavily on reciprocity, with rewarding 
social exchanges increasing trust (Buchan. Crosson. & Dawes. 2002: Dirks & Ferrin. 2002: 
King-Casas, Tomlin, Anen. Camerer. Quartz. & Montague. 2005 as cited in Whitmore. 2009).
In a recent meta-analysis. Colquitt. Scott and LePine (2007) examined the impact of trust on 
three broad categories of job performance: task performance, citizenship behaviour, and 
counterproductive behaviour (including intentions to quit). Results indicated that trust in 
managers had moderately strong relationships w'ith all three broad categories of job performance 
such that individuals who trusted their managers tended to engage in better task performance, 
more citizenship behaviours, and less counterproductive behaviour, including intentions to quit.
Social exchange theory suggests that when subordinates trust their managers, they are likely to 
have a history of successful exchanges (Blau, 1964). These ‘profitable’ exchanges create in the
25
subordinate a feeling of an obligation to reciprocate and high expectations of reciprocation 
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This reciprocity demands that the trusting subordinates should 
be motivated by expectations of future benefits to engage in actions that preserve the relationship 
and benefit the manager, either directly or indirectly. This implies therefore that subordinates 
should be committed to remaining in the relationship and be motivated to put forth greater effort 
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
Social exchange theories are the basic theory that helps to explain trust between a trustor and 
trustee. In the current study, the dynamic interpersonal relations between a team member and the 
other team members develop through reciprocity. The team members' cognitive evaluation of the 
profits derived from taking the risk of accepting to be vulnerable to the actions of the team based 
on past experience informs a team members' future decision to trust.
2.1.3 Transformational Leadership Theory
Bums (1978) introduced the term ‘transforming leadership' in the general concept of political 
leadership. According to Burns (1978: 4). transforming leaders ‘look for potential motives in the 
followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs and engages the full person of the follower' ultimately 
resulting in a 'relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation" for both leader and follower.
Bums integrates Maslow's theory of human motivation and Kohlberg's theory of moral 
development to build his conceptualization of transforming leadership which he views as going 
beyond simply satisfying the followers' wants or desires to being actually instrumental in
26
producing the social change that will satisfy both the lollowers and leader s authentic needs 
(Bums, 1978). which he sees at Maslow’s level of self-actualization and Kohlberg’s higher 
stages of moral development. Transforming leaders arouse the moral consciousness of followers 
and motivate them toward and through end-values such as justice and equality, liberty, peace and 
humanitarianism. Burns asserts that, transforming leaders were enlightened leaders who lead 
followers to self-aetualize beyond their typical selves and become their “better selves” (Yukl, 
1998).
Bums (1978) drew a distinction between transforming leadership and transactional leadership. 
He asserts that transactional leadership involves an exchange between leader and follower based 
on self interest. Transforming leaders motivate their followers to transcend personal goals of self 
interest and synergize with organizational goals and values to ensure organizational effectiveness.
Extending earlier work by Bums (1978), Bass (1985) defines transformational leadership as the 
process whereby a leader raises followers' levels of consciousness about the importance and 
value of certain designated outcomes; moves followers lo transcend their own self-interest for 
the sake of the organization or policy; and alters the need levels of followers by expanding their 
“portfolio" of needs and wants. Bass identifies transformational leadership (different from 
Bums' (1978) transforming leader) and transactional leadership and according to him most 
leaders exhibit patterns of both transactional and transformational leadership behaviors, but in 
different amounts (Bass, 1985). This differs significantly from Bums’ view that identifies a 
continuum on which transactional and transforming leadership types lie al different places. Bass 
delineates moral leadership and transformational leadership and simply views transformational
27
leadership as producing change (Bass, 1998), beyond good and evil. Bass indicates that 
“transformational leaders vary from the highly idealistic to those without ideals (Bass, 1985: 
185).
Another distinction between Burns and Bass theories is that whereas Bums views the 
transforming leader as necessarily raising followers’ needs levels, Bass defines a 
transformational leader as one who expands the portfolio of needs and wants for followers; thus 
“political leaders can transform the economic and technological processes, moving people from a 
traditional * higher-level' socially oriented culture to a modern culture dominated by crass 
materialism" (Bass, 1985: 16); therefore, while an upward shift in the level of need is seen as 
essential to Bums’ definition, Bass does not see it as a necessary condition of transformational 
leadership.
Specifically, Bass’ (1985; 1998) conceptualization of behaviours indicative of transformational 
leadership included four dimensions:
Idealized influence/Charisma: behaviour that inspires followers’ loyalty to the 
organisation, commands respect, instills trust, and acts as a strong role model for 
followers; provides a vision and mission for followers and generates the energy and 
enthusiasm to achieve goals.
Intellectual Stimulation: behaviour that arouses in followers an awareness of problems, 
an awareness of their own thoughts and imagination, and recognition of their beliefs and
28
values; stimulates followers to be creative and innovative in finding solutions to 
problems.
Inspirational motivation: behaviour that communicates a clear vision and high 
performance expectations to the followers; leader uses symbols and emotional appeals to 
inspire followers to transcend self interest and be motivated to achieve organisational 
goals.
Individualized consideration: behaviour that fosters a supportive climate; focuses 
attention to individual differences in subordinates' needs for growth and development; 
coaches and mentors followers to become fully actualized.
In the context of the present study, the behaviour of the team leader which includes idealized 
influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration can 
be considered very instrumental in reducing the ambiguity and uncertainty in a team learning 
situation which will lead to team members feeling psychologically safe to learn from their 
collective experiences. These transformational leaders' behaviours include leader coaching 
behaviour (Edmondson, 2003) and leader inclusiveness (Nembhard & Edmondson. 2006) which 
is related to team psychological safety and leads to learning within the team. Therefore, team 
transformational leader behaviour is likely to moderate the relationship between team 
psychological safety and team learning behaviour. That is. the positive effect of team 
psychological safety on learning behaviour will be stronger for teams with a transformational 
team leader than for those teams whose leader is not transformational.
29
2.2 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES
2.2.1 Introduction
This section reviews some of the studies that have been conducted on psychological safety and 
learning behaviour in teams. The main argument being advanced here is that, intragroup trust and 
team transformational leadership respectively will moderate the team psychological safety - 
team learning behaviour relationship. In this regard, this section will begin with a review of 
studies that establish a relationship between psychological safety and learning behaviour in 
teams. Once the empirical basis for this relationship has been established, studies that provide 
conceptual and empirical evidence to support the argument that intragroup trust and team 
transformational leadership will individually moderate the relationship between team 
psychological safety and team learning behaviour will be reviewed.
2.2.2 The relationship between Psychological safety and learning behaviour in teams.
Employees working in an organisation that provides a personally non-threatening and supportive 
climate should be more likely to take the risk of proposing a new idea than in an environment 
where ‘proposing a new idea will lead to an attack, to him or her being censored, ridiculed or 
penalized . . . (West, 1990: 312). According to Baer and Frese. (2003), organisations with a 
climate for psychological safety will enhance learning behaviour as well as the use of 
employees’ creative potential. They emphasised that potential mechanisms by which climate for 
psychological safety produces a higher degree of performance are: ease and reduced risk in
30
presenting new ideas in a safe climate (Edmondson, 1999; West, 1990), better team learning 
(Edmondson, 1999). higher level of job involvement and exertion of greater effort (Brown & 
Leigh. 1996). and smoother collaboration in solving problems. Baer and Frese (2003) studied 47 
mid-sized German companies and found direct relations between climates for initiative and 
psychological safety respectively and firm performance. This implies that companies displaying 
a strong climate for initiative and psychological safety perform better than companies that fail to 
establish such conducive climates in the organisation.
Carmeli (2007) explored failure-based learning behaviours in organisations. He examined the 
role of social capital and psychological safety in the development of failure-based learning 
behaviours. Survey data were collected from 137 members of 33 organisations in a variety of 
industries in Israel. The results indicate that in organisations where there is strong social capital, 
the development of psychological safety and failure-based learning behaviours is enabled. 
Specifically, results show that when people feel psychologically safe, learning from failures is 
enabled (r = .61. p < .001). It was also found that social capital, through psychological safety, is 
directly and indirectly associated with failure-based learning behaviours. Carmeli also conducted 
follow-up analyses to trace the practices organisations use for expanding learning capacities and 
their outcomes at both the organisational and individual levels.
Edmondson (1999) tested a model of work-team learning and introduced the construct of team 
psychological safety. She argued that beliefs about the interpersonal context (team psychological 
safety and team efficacy) vary between teams in the same organisation and investigated their 
effects on team learning behaviour and performance. Fifty-one management, new-product
31
development, sales and production teams in a manufacturing company were studied using 
qualitative (observation and interviews) and quantitative (surveys) data to lest the various 
propositions. The results of the study indicates that psychological safely, as a shared team belief, 
is significantly related to learning behaviour in teams (r = .80, p < ,05), which in turn promotes 
team performance (r = .72.p < .05). Team efficacy was not significantly related to team learning 
behaviour. Team psychological safety was found to mediate the effects of team-leader coaching 
and context support on team learning behaviour. The hypothesis that team learning behaviour 
mediates the relationship between psychological safety and team performance was also 
supported. Edmondson concluded that team learning behaviour helped translate effective team 
design and leadership into team performance.
Edmondson. Bohrner and Pisano (2001) while studying surgical teams qualitatively identified 
four steps of the learning process (enrolment, preparation, trials, and reflection) in which each 
surgical case was a "trial" from which to learn (through collective discussion, or reflection). In 
this field study of 16 operating room teams learning to use an innovative (and extremely 
challenging) new technology for minimally invasive cardiac surgery, the researchers found that 
psychological safety allowed non-surgeons lo speak up - despite facing longstanding status 
barriers - with observations, questions or concerns about the new technology. Established 
hierarchical roles and routines in the operating room were renegotiated to allow the technology 
to be implemented successfully. Rather than only waiting for the chief surgeon to issue 
commands, all team members (nurses, perfusionists, and anaesthesiologists) had to speak up 
about and act upon crucial information from each other. Teams that were able to establish a 
degree ol psychological safely were better able to renegotiate the ingrained hierarchy w ithin the
surgical team, and speaking up was a predictor of successful implementation of the technology 
(Edmondson, 2002).
In a related study, Tjosvold, Yu, and Hui (2004) surveyed members of 107 teams from a variety 
of Chinese companies and industries and found that cooperative goals were positively related to 
group problem solving (/• = 0.63. p < 0.01). Results also indicate that groups that reported a 
problem solving approach learned from their mistakes measured both by ratings of their 
managers (r = 0.46. p < 0.01) and group members (r = 0.73, p < 0.01).Teams with cooperative 
goals were more likely to engage in learning behaviours (than teams with competitive or 
independent goals) and more likely to report learning from their mistakes (measured as an 
outcome). Learning behaviour only partially mediated this relationship. Findings suggest that 
cooperative goals within a team may be a foundation for the problem-solving interaction among 
members that helps teams learn from their mistakes.
In summary, these studies make a strong case for the association between team psychological 
safety and team learning behaviours leading to improved performance in teams. Organisations in 
Ghana could also be affected by the complexities of team work that could promote or inhibit 
team learning thus affecting performance. With most of the studies reviewed above being set in 
individualistic cultures like the United States, the dynamics of team psychological safety in a 
collectivist society like Ghana in imparting learning behaviour and performance may be of 
theoretical and practical relevance.
33
2.2.3 Intragroup trust as a moderator of the psychological safety and learning behaviour 
relationship in teams.
A lot of research has tried to understand the mechanisms through which trust acts on 
organisational outcomes. Whereas some researchers support the school of thought that proposes 
a direct effect of trust on outcomes including organisational citizenship behaviour, performance 
etc the inconsistency of findings have led to researchers rethinking the role trust plays in 
ensuring effective work group processes and performance. Trust has thus been conceptualised as 
having an indirect effect on group processes and outcomes through a moderating role. Dirks 
(1999) asserts that conceptual arguments by three researchers though not empirically supported 
gives impetus to the foregoing proposition that suggests that trust operates by facilitating the 
effects of other variables on group process and performance.
Hackman and Morris (1975: 48) stated that team building (e.g., trust building) activities are 
intended to "remove some of the emotional and interpersonal obstacles to effective group 
functioning and thereby permit group members to devote a greater proportion of their energies 
toward actual task work”. Furthermore. Hwang and Burgers (1997) proposed that mist is an 
important "condition" for cooperation.
Using an experimental method with a between-subjecls design. Dirks (1999) studied forty-two 
three-person work groups consisting of undergraduate students to examine 2 possible roles 
through which interpersonal trust could affect group performance: a main effect and a 
moderating effect. Results from this study indicate that trust did not have a main effect on group
34
processes and performance, but did moderate the relationship between group members' 
motivation and group processes and outcomes. Groups with high levels of motivation directed 
their efforts toward group goals in the high-trust condition, but they directed their effort toward 
individual goals in the low-trust condition. Motivation had a significant, positive effect on group 
performance in the high-trust condition, but motivation had no effect on performance in the low- 
trust condition. He asserts that the group's energies in terms of motivation were channelled 
toward either group or indiv idual goals, depending upon the level of trust within the group.
In another study. Kimmel, Pruitt. Magenau, Konar-Goldband and Carnevale (1980). as cited in 
Dirks & Ferrin (2001). found that trust in business partner did not produce a main effect on 
information exchange or outcomes (joint benefit), but it did interact with aspiration levels to 
influence negotiation processes. Under high trust, high aspiration levels produced high levels of 
information exchange and integrative (cooperative) behaviour. On the contrary, in low trust 
conditions, high aspiration levels produced extremely low levels of information exchange and 
high levels of distributive (competitive) behaviour. They suggested that negotiators deemed risky, 
cooperative behaviours to be prudent tactics under conditions of high trust only whereas under 
low trust, negotiators chose to use methods that put them at lower risk to reach their goals.
Read (1962) found a significant moderating effect of trust in supervisor on the relationship 
between mobility aspiration and information sharing. Schurr and Ozanne (1985) in another study 
also found that trust in a partner moderates the relationship between bargaining toughness and 
negotiation processes and outcomes. A significant effect was reported.
35
The above discussion focussed on studies that conceptualised trust as a moderator of the 
relationship between motivational constructs and performance outcomes. Other studies have also 
tried to understand how trust moderates the relationship between a trustee’s action and the 
trustors’ reaction or interpretation of the trustee's actions. Benton, Gelber, Kelley and Licbling 
(1969) as cited in Dirks and Ferrins (2001) found evidence that trust influenced the relationship 
between deceit by a partner and doubling the partner's word. The researchers found a significant 
moderating effect of trust in partner on the relationship between partner's past behaviour and 
individual s doubt of partner. More specifically, after being deceived by a partner to a limited 
extent, individuals with high levels of trust in the partner tended to hold little doubt about the 
partner's truthfulness. Alternatively, under the same level of deceit, individuals with low levels 
of trust in their partner tended to have significant doubt about the partner's truthfulness.
These results are similar to findings by Robinson (1996) in an organisational context with the 
referent being the employee and the employer. She found that initial trust in an employer 
moderated the relationship between a psychological contract violation and subsequent trust in the 
employer. She argued that because of the tendency toward cognitive consistency, initial trust in 
the employer acts on individuals’ differential and selective perception and interpretation of 
violations of the psychological contract. Thus an individual with high initial trust will tend to 
perceive the violation as unintentional or a misunderstanding consistent with their level of trust. 
Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1999) in study of employees' interpretation of organisational change 
found some evidence that trust in management moderated the relationship between 
management's reasons for change and the perceived legitimacy of those changes.
36
More recently. Simons and Peterson (2000) found that trust moderated the relationship between 
task conflict and relationship conflict within groups. They proposed that, under low trust, task 
conflict within a group is interpreted negatively and subsequently results in relationship conflict. 
Alternatively, under high levels of trust, they suggested that task conflict would be more likely to 
be interpreted positively and hence would not be translated into relationship conflict.
From the foregoing conceptual and theoretical arguments, the moderating effect of intragroup 
trust on the relationship between team psychological safety and learning behaviour in teams 
seems plausible. As such, the repetitive interactions of team members will lead to the 
development of intragroup trust within the team which will work to strengthen or weaken the 
relationship between a climate of psychological safety and learning behav iour in the team.
2.2.4 Team transformational leadership as a moderator of the psychological safety and 
learning behaviour relationship in teams.
Employing a case study design with four cross-functional process-improvement teams in a large 
high-tech manufacturing firm. Brooks (1994) found that members' perceptions of the 
interpersonal risk created by within-team power differences appeared strongly related to learning 
behaviour. Further, those teams lacking in learning behaviour found it difficult to span team 
boundaries, and members "described the climate at the team meetings as ‘stifling.' 
‘intimidating, and 'damaging.'" with leaders “publicly ridiculing them" for voluntary 
contributions to meetings. In contrast, in other teams, leaders encouraged member participation 
and deemphasized power differences.
37
In a related study, Edmondson (1996) discovered differences across 8 hospital teams in a specific 
learning behaviour—speaking up about mistakes. Edmondson used surveys, interviews, 
observations and archival data to investigate the effects of the structure of teams on the rate of 
medication errors. Eight hospital unit teams from two hospitals were studied over a six months 
period. The results from 159 respondents in these 8 teams indicated systematic differences in 
both the frequency of medication errors and the possibility that the errors would be identified and 
that team members would learn from this experience. Hospital teams that delected and reported 
highest error rates were teams that were high in performance. These teams were characterized by 
an openness to discuss errors and were composed of highly skilled nurse managers whereas 
teams that detected and reported less error were lower on these dimensions. Unit leader 
behaviour which included direction setting and coaching reinforces the climate within the team 
and increases or decreases the reporting of errors. This unexpected result indicated the presence 
of differing levels of psychological safety across teams that were studied. Teams with better 
team leaders, higher quality team interpersonal process, and greater team effectiveness had 
higher - rather than lower - detected error rales. Qualitative data (interv iew and observational), 
collected by an independent researcher blind to the unexpected quantitative results, gave 
credence to Edmondson's c'.r post explanation that better teams were more likely to report .rather 
than hide, errors which is very critical for learning to take place within the team. Some team 
leaders (nurse managers, in this setting) had fostered a climate of openness that encouraged a 
willingness to engage in learning behaviour which is consistent with earlier findings by Brooks 
(1994).
38
Edmondson (2003) described ways that team leader actions promote and inhibit psychological 
safety and learning behaviours in surgical teams. Using a multiple case study design, Edmondson 
used data from 165 respondents interviewed from 16 operating room teams who were learning to 
use a new technology for cardiac surgery to investigate learning in interdisciplinary action teams 
in these hospitals. Results from the study support the hypotheses that case of speaking up and 
team boundary spanning was strongly associated with successful implementation of the new 
technology. Team leader coaching was also associated with ease of speaking up and team 
boundary spanning. Effective team leaders (surgeons) fostered “speaking up in the service of 
learning” by motivating the need for learning and deemphasizing power differences within the 
team. The findings that team leader coaching is significantly related to learning behaviours 
which in turn imparted performance - successful implementation of the new technolog) , is 
consistent with findings from Edmondson (2004. 2002, 1996) and Edmondson et al (2001). 
Edmondson argued that significant variance in learning processes should exist for different types 
of teams. Specifically, learning in interdisciplinary action teams, in which real-time 
improvisation and coordination is critical to performance, was not likely to be explained by the 
same variables as in routine production or functional teams.
In a related study focusing on team leaders. Sarin and McDermott (2003) surveyed 52 product 
development teams in six high-tech companies. Results indicate that team leaders, who involved 
members in decision making, clarified team goals and provided bridges to outside parties via the 
leader’s status in the organisation, facilitated team learning. Consistent with earlier findings (eg. 
Edmondson, 1999) learning in the team was related to speed to market and innovation which
39
were the indicators of team performance. Sarin and McDermott conceptualised learning in the 
team as a first-order outcome which in turn enhanced performance, a second-order outcome.
Edmondson et al (2001) using an embedded multiple ease qualitative design studied cardiac 
surgery operating-room teams in 16 hospitals in investigating the role of a climate of 
psychological safety in hierarchical interdisciplinary teams breaking away from routine in 
implementing a new innovative technology for cardiac surgery. Using interviews and archival 
data, the researchers found considerable variance in implementation success across teams in the 
16 hospitals. They observed from data that the success of new' routines depended on how the 
collective learning process unfolds after a strategic decision to implement a new technology is 
made. More importantly, they identified that the team leader behaviour in this hierarchical 
context of surgical teams supported team learning and contributed to a climate of psychological 
safety within the teams which was characterised by team members being more willing to ‘speak
Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) employed a survey design to study 1440 health care 
professionals from the neonatal intensive care unit in 23 hospitals. These teams were hierarchical 
with the team leader being the physician and having higher status than other professionals on the 
team. The researchers introduced the construct of leader inclusiveness and hypothesized that in 
these cross disciplinary teams, higher status individuals will experience greater psychological 
safety than team members with lower status. They hypothesized that this relationship will vary 
across cross-disciplinary unit teams. They also tested the hypotheses that leader inclusiveness is 
associated with psychological safety and moderates the relationship between status and
40
psychological safety. The researchers conjecture that psychological safety predicts engagement 
in quality improvement work and mediates the relationship between leader inclusiveness and 
engagement. All the researchers six hypotheses stated above were supported.
In view of the literature reviewed above, it is revealing that the team leader plays a very 
important role in creating and maintaining a climate of psychological safety among the team 
members. The leaders coaching behaviour and the leaders' inclusiveness are much desired 
behaviours that contribute to learning and performance in the team. These behaviours fall under 
the broader specific behaviours outlined by Bass (1985) as characteristic of transformational 
leaders. It is thus plausible to posit that the team leaders’ transformational behaviour will 
moderate the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour.
2.2.5 Key variables in the study
• Independent variable - Team psychological safety
• Moderating variable - Intragroup trust
• Moderating variable - Team transformational leadership
• Dependent variable - Team learning behaviour
2.3 HYPOTHESES
Based on the literature reviewed above, the study will test the following hypotheses:
1. I cam psychological safety will be positively related to team learning behav iour 
(Edmondson, 1999).
41
2. Intragroup trust will moderate the relationship between team psychological safety and 
team learning behaviour. Specifically, the positive effect of team psychological safety on 
learning behaviour in teams will be stronger for teams with high intragroup trust than those 
with low intragroup trust (Dirks & Ferrin. 2001).
3. Team transformational leadership will moderate the relationship between team 
psychological safety and team learning behaviour. That is. the positive effect of team 
psychological safety on learning behaviour will be stronger for teams with a transformational 
team leader than for those teams whose leader is not transformational (Bass, 1998).
A summary of the hypothesized relationships to be tested in this study are illustrated in the figure 
below.
Figure 1: A summary of hypothesized relationships between the independent, moderating 
and dependent variables
42
2.4 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
In the context of the present study, the following terms have been defined as follows:
• Team: Seven to nine people working together and interdependently to meet a common 
goal who have worked together for a minimum of six (6) months and have a functional 
team leader.
• Team psychological safety: An aggregation of individual team member’s shared belief 
that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking.
• Intragroup trust: An aggregation of individual team member’s perception of group- 
wide trust.
• Team transformational leadership: An aggregation of individual team member's 
perception of team leaders' transformational behaviour with team members that raises the 
level of motivation and morale in the team in order to meet the teams’ full potential.
• Team learning behaviours: Team leaders' assessment of team members' behaviours 
that are indicative of an ongoing process of reflection and action, characterized by asking 
questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or 
unexpected outcomes of actions (Edmondson, 1999).
43
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Population
The population for the study comprised of companies listed in the Ghana Club 100 since 2000. 
The Ghana Club 100 (GC100) is an annual compilation of the top 100 companies in Ghana to 
give due recognition to successful enterprise building. The GC100 is about corporate excellence. 
The award system is guided by a set of transparent, impartial and objective criteria in the choice 
of the winners. The eligibility criteria includes: all prospective entrants must be limited liability 
companies: companies with state interest must have Government’s share being below 50%: all 
companies must have cumulative net profits that are positive for the three years preceding the 
entry'; and must have engaged in significant corporate social responsibility.
The GC100 ranks companies based on three very objective parameters. The size of the company 
is measured using the company’s turnover for the year being ranked. Turnover for the banks is 
measured by their gross interest income plus commissions and fees w hilst turnover for insurance 
companies is measured by net premium earned plus investment income. The company's 
profitability is measured using the return on equity (ROE) which indicates the return that 
management has created for the shareholders of the company. This is calculated using the 3years 
average ROE for the companies. The final parameter is the company's growth which gives 
recognition to companies that are growing at impressive rates. These companies are growing 
because of excellence in product development, marketing and effective management. The
44
company's growth is measured using the 3 year compounded annual growth rate of turnover over 
the period 2 years before the year being ranked to the year being ranked.
The GC100 companies were chosen as the population of interest because these companies were 
the top-performers in their respective sectors and are assumed to face a lot of competition and 
uncertainty from their environment. Cascio and Aguinis (2005) state that the changing nature of 
organisations' environment, global competition and the effect of new technology have given rise 
to a change in organisational structure. Organisations faced with competition are transforming to 
flattened structures and getting work done in teams. Thus, much work in the GC100 companies 
may be considered to be done in teams. The GC100 companies also include private and public 
organisations thus making the population representative of the population of Ghanaian 
companies.
There were a number of necessary criteria for teams to be selected into the study. The 
organisations had to have functional teams. These functional teams should have an identified 
team leader. This was important as team members were required to assess their team leaders' 
transformational behaviour. The team members and their team leader should also have worked 
together for a period not less than six (6) months prior to the study. This is to ensure that the 
team processes being investigated have been adequately developed within the team. It was also a 
necessary criterion for team selection and inclusion to ensure that team members and their leader 
have interacted enough to know each other well.
45
3.2 Sample
Teams were selected from the head offices and branches of five (5) banking institutions in the 
Accra metropolitan area. Teams were purposively selected to meet the aforementioned criteria. A 
total of sixty four (64) teams were sampled for the study. Of these sixty four (64) teams, thirty 
nine (39) were from bank branches of these five (5) banking institutions across the metropolis 
whilst the remaining twenty five (25) teams were sampled from the head offices of the five (5) 
banks. These teams had between seven (7) to nine (9) members. The researcher set an arbitrary 
60% response rate for each team as an additional criterion for inclusion of team data in the 
analysis since individual responses were aggregated to the team level (Somech, 2006). This 
means that at least 60% of team members in each team have to respond to and return the 
questionnaires for that teams' data to be included in the analysis. All sixty four (64) teams 
returned their questionnaires, however not all were used in the analysis. Data from fifty seven 
(57) teams comprising four hundred and fifty six (456) team members and their fifty seven (57) 
team leaders respectively were used in the analysis. In total, seven (7) teams were excluded from 
the analysis. Two (2) teams were excluded from analysis because the team leaders' questionnaire 
was not completed though it was returned. Another three (3) teams were excluded because less 
than 60% of team members in these teams returned their questionnaires. The final two (2) teams 
that were excluded met the 60% return rate but most of the questionnaires w ere not filled.
The fifty seven (57) teams used in this study meet Stevens (1996) recommendation that for social 
science research, about fifteen (15) respondents per predictor are needed for a reliable equation. 
The level of theory, measurement and analysis for this study is the team level, therefore 
according to Stevens (1996). fifteen (15) teams per predictor is required. Since there are three
46
predictors (team psychological safety, intragroup trust and team transformational leadership) in 
this study the minimum sample size according to Stevens’ recommendation is forty five (45).
The demographic characteristics of the team members and their respective team leaders are 
presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Demographic statistics for team members and team leaders.
VARIABLE FREQUENCY PERCENT
Team Team Team Team
Members Leader Members Leader
SEX
Male 242 28 53.1 49.1
Female 214 29 46.9 50.9
MARITAL
STATUS
Single 304 10 66.7 17.5
Separated/W ido wed/ 9 0 2 0
Divorced
Married 143 47 31.4 82.5
EDUCATION 
AL LEVEL
SHS 3 0 .7 0
Training College 1 0 2 0
Polytechnic 32 0 7 0
Univ. Degree 337 22 73.9 38.6
Postgrad. Degree 83 35 18.2 61.4
Demographic data also show that the mean age of team members was 29.1 years, with team 
members' ages ranging from 22 years to 55 years. Team members had worked with the 
organisation for between lyear to 33 years with 35.7% of team members having worked with the 
organisation for only 1 year. Tenure with the team for team members ranged from lyear to 9 
years with 59.6% of team members being with the learn for just 1 year. Ninety six point seven
47
percent (96.7%) of team members had worked as a professional for 10 years or less with a range 
of 1 year to 33 years.
For the team leaders, demographic data also revealed that the mean age of team leaders' was
36.3 years, with team leaders' ages ranging from 27 years to 59 years. Team leaders had worked 
with the organisation for between lyear to 37 years with 57.9% of team leaders having worked 
with the organisation for 5 years or less. Tenure with the team for team leaders ranged from 
lyear to 5 years with 63.2% of team leaders being with the team for 3 y ears or less. Seventy 
three point seven percent (73.7%) of team leaders had worked as a professional for 10 years or 
less with a range of 2 years to 37 years.
3.3 Sampling techniques
The organisations were conveniently sampled. This is in cognizance of the fact that not all 
organisations with functional teams were forthcoming in granting approval for their 
organisations to be used as a source for data to be collected. In view of this, organisations who 
granted approval were used. It must also be noted that organisations where the researcher could 
easily secure approval w»ere selected. The purposive sampling technique was however used in 
selecting teams for the study. This technique allowed for teams which met Kozlowski & llgen's 
(2006) definition of teams to be selected. The study also focused on teams that had a functional 
team leader since the study was interested in teams and their transformational team leader as 
such the purposive sampling technique was appropriate. The criteria that teams for the study 
should have worked together on the same team for at least six (6) months prior to the study was 
met by employing the purposive sampling technique in selecting the teams for the study. In view
48
of these aforementioned criteria, in each organization, teams that qualified for the study were 
first identified after which various teams and their team leaders were given the questionnaires to 
fill after getting their consent.
3.4 Design
A cross-sectional survey and predictive correlational design was employed for the study. This 
research was a cross-sectional survey because respondents from the various organizations 
sampled, who were not only from different organizations but also comprised of professionals 
with varying academic backgrounds, job grades, departments, experience, age, tenure, sex etc., 
responded to the researcher's questionnaire at one point in time. The study was predictive 
correlational in nature as the study sought to investigate the predictive relationship between team 
psychological safety and team learning behaviours. Multiple regression analysis was used to test 
the extent of this predicted relationship and the moderating role of intragroup trust and team 
transformational leadership on the team psychological safety-team learning behaviour 
relationship.
The v ariables of interest in this study are team psychological safety', intra group trust and team 
transformational leadership as the independent variables and team learning behaviors and team 
performance as the dependent variables.
49
3.5 Instruments/ Materials.
The instrument for the study was a self-report questionnaire. It was categorized into four (4) 
main sections; A. B, C. and D for the team members. Team member’s perception of 
psychological safety in the team comprised section A. Sections B and C investigated intragroup 
trust and the team members' perception of team leader’s transformational behavior respectively. 
Section D was used to collect the demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Section A Team Psychological Safety
Team Psychological Safety scale developed by Edmondson (1999) was used in this study 
(Appendix 1). The scale with a Cronbach alpha of .82 reported in Edmondson (1999) study is a 
seven-item scale developed using both positively and negatively worded items to reduce 
response bias. Sample items include “If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against 
you” (reverse scored) and “It is safe to take a risk on this team". Responses were scored on a 5- 
point Likert scale from l(very inaccurate) to 5(very accurate). The possible range of scores is 
from 5 to 35 with higher scores indicating more reported psychological safety. Cronbach alpha 
for this study was .75.
Section B Intragroup trust
Intragroup trust was measured using the Simons & Peterson (2000) intragroup trust scale, which 
is a five-item summative Likert-type scale (Appendix 1). In this scale, respondents rated items 
from 1 = never to 5 =always. and the item responses were summed. Items assessed group 
members' perception of group-wide trust; their perception of group-wide expectations of 
truthfulness, integrity, and living up to one's word; and their sense of shared respect for group
50
members' competence. Items were expressed explicitly at the group level and phrased as 
extremes (e.g., "We are all certain that we can fully trust each other.") to attenuate ceiling effects 
that could emerge from social desirability (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Reliability of .89 for the 
intragroup mist scale has been reported in previous studies by Simons and Peterson (2000). 
Cronbach alpha of .87 was reported in this study.
Section C Team Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership was measured using the Global Transformational Leadership Scale 
developed by Carless, Wearing, and Mann (2000) (Appendix 1). It consists of seven (7) items 
and has been found to have a high degree of convergent validity with more established and 
lengthier questionnaires such as the Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) and the 
Leadership Practices Inventory (LP1) (Carless et al., 2000). Examples of items are: “my leader 
communicates a clear and positive vision of the future”, “my leader gives encouragement and 
recognition to staff’, and “my leader encourages thinking about problems in new ways and 
questions assumptions’’. Response categories ranged from l(To a very large extent) to 5(To a 
very small extent). Cronbach's alphas of .90 and .94 have been reported in previous studies 
(Carless et al, 2000). Cronbach alpha in this study was .97.
Section D Personal Data/Demographics
It consisted of items which solicited information such as the highest academic qualification, age, 
gender, marital status, length of lime participant has worked together w ith team members, tenure 
with the organisation and number of years as a professional from team members. These variables 
are control variables that could predict psychological safety and team learning behavior at the
51
individual level of analysis and as such a need to control for them. The demographic information 
was also to enable the researcher give some description of the sample used
For the team leaders' questionnaire. Sections A measured the team’s learning behaviour. Section 
B was used to collect the demographic characteristics of the respondents
Section A (Team leader) Team Learning behaviour
A seven-item scale adapted from Edmondson (1999) was used to capture team learning 
behaviour (Appendix 1). The scale has a reported Cronbach alpha of .78 in previous studies 
(Edmondson. 1999). Examples of items on this scale are ‘This team frequently seeks new- 
information that leads us to make important changes’, in this team, someone always makes sure 
that we stop to reflect on the team’s work processes’. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale 
from 1 (never) to 5(always). The possible range of scores is from 5 to 35 with higher scores 
indicating a team that displays more learning behaviour. Cronbach alpha for this study was .69. 
The teams learning behaviour was assessed by the team leader.
Section B (Team Leader) Personal Data/Demograpliics
It consisted of items which solicited information such as the highest academic qualification, age, 
gender, marital status, length of time participant has worked together with team members, tenure 
with the organisation and number of years as a professional from team members. These variables 
are control variables that could predict psychological safety and team learning behavior at the 
individual level of analysis and as such a need to control lor them. The demographic information 
was also to enable the researcher give some description of the sample used.
52
3.6 Procedure.
The procedures involved in the study included a pilot study which was then followed by the main 
study. The specific procedures employed in the conduct of the study are discussed below.
3.6.1 Pilot study
Polit. Beck and Hungler (2001) conceptualize a pilot study in two different ways in social 
science research. According to these authors, it can refer to feasibility studies which are small 
scale versions or trial runs, done in preparation for a major study. However, a pilot study can also 
be the pre-testing or 'trying out' of a particular research instrument (Baker, 1994). Teijlingen van, 
Rennie. Hundley and Graham (2001) assert that one of the advantages of conducting a pilot 
study is that it might give advance warning about where the main research project could fail, 
where research protocols may not be followed, or whether proposed methods or instruments are 
inappropriate or too complicated. A pilot study can reveal deficiencies in the design of a 
proposed experiment or procedure and these can then be addressed before time and resources are 
expended on large scale studies.
The aim of the pilot study was to test the reliability of the various measures and their 
appropriateness on a Ghanaian sample. The sample for the pilot study consisted of ten (10) 
functional teams from two (2) banking institutions in the Accra metropolis. This consisted of 
ninety seven (97) team members and ten (10) team leaders. Convenience sampling technique was 
used to select the organisations for the study. The purposive sampling technique was used in 
selecting teams for the study. Data was collected Ibr the predictor variables from team members 
and aggregation of individual data to the team level for the ten (10) teams was preceded by
53
empirical justification through statistical methods. Team leaders’ responses on the dependent 
variables represented their respective teams.
The Cronbaeh's a from the reliability studies for the ten (10) teams are as follows. The Team 
Psychological safety scale had a Cronbaeh’s a of .93 whilst a Cronbaeh’s a of .86 was observed 
for the intragroup trust scale. The team transformational leadership scale had a Cronbaeh’s a 
of .96. The scales for the criterion variable which team leaders responded to had a Cronbach 
alpha of .80 and for team learning behaviour. All the observed reliabilities were acceptable for 
the various scales. The pilot study began in the first week of February, 2010 and data collection 
lasted for three weeks.
3.6.2 Main study
The sample for the study comprised of functional teams in the head offices and branches of five 
banking institutions in the Accra Metropolitan area. The researcher/research assistants sought 
permission from the human resource departments of the various organisations of interest. This 
was facilitated with a letter of introduction from the Department of Psychology. University of 
Ghana, Legon. It must be noted that introductory letters were sent to other banking institutions 
but only the five banking institutions responded favorably to the researchers request to conduct 
the study in their organisations. Once permission was granted, the researcher and/or his assistants 
sought specific information about the teams from the HR department. This was to purposively 
select only those teams that met the criteria for inclusion of teams in the study. Specifically, 
teams for the study should have a functional team leader and should have worked together for at 
least six (6) months prior to the start of the study. Team leaders of these teams were then
54
contacted and their assistance sought for the study. The researcher sought informed consent from 
all participants before the questionnaires were administered. Due to the fact that the 
questionnaires had to be administered, collected and analyzed on a team by team basis, each 
team leader distributed and collected the questionnaires from team members. There was 
information about the study as well as instructions as to how to fill the questionnaires on the 
informed consent form. There was also contact information for the researcher and his principal 
supervisor on the informed consent form if team members/leaders needed any clarification.
The questionnaires for team members consisted of four sections. These comprised the team 
psychological safety scale, the intragroup trust scale, the team transformational leadership scale 
and a demographic information section. Team leaders’ questionnaire consisted of the team 
learning behaviour scale and a demographic information section.
Participants were assured of confidentiality of their responses. In this regard, each participant 
was given an envelope into which he/she was to place and seal the completed questionnaire 
before returning it. They were also asked not to write their names or any identification on any 
part of the questionnaire or envelope to ensure anonymity. Participants were given one week to 
complete the questionnaires taking into consideration the busy nature of work in the banking 
sector. Completed questionnaires were completed and sealed in envelopes and returned to the 
leaders of the respective teams. The researcher then collected the sealed envelopes from the team 
leaders. The duration for the data collection was seven weeks. Data collection started in the 
second week of March, 2010 and ended in the last week of April, 2010. Returned questionnaires 
were coded by team and data entered for analysis.
55
3.7 Common Method Variance
Common method variance is variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than 
to the constructs the measures represent. A potential source of common method bias is the 
common rater effect. This refers to any artifactual covariance between the predictor and criterion 
variable produced by the fact that the respondent providing the measure of these variables is the 
same person (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003).
An important advantage of this procedure in controlling common method variance is that it 
makes it quite impossible for the mindset of the source or rater to bias the observed relationship 
between the predictor and criterion variables. Specifically, obtaining predictor and criterion 
variables from different sources eliminates the effects of consistency motifs, implicit theories, 
social desirability tendencies, dispositional and transient mood states, and any tendencies on the 
part of the rater to acquiesce or respond in a lenient manner (Podsakoff et al, 2003).
In the conduct of this study, common method variance was controlled by obtaining measures of 
the predictor and criterion variables from different sources. As such responses for the predictor 
variables (team psychological safety, intragroup trust and team transformational leadership) were 
obtained from team members whilst the team leader provided an assessment of the teams' 
learning behaviour (criterion variable).
3.8 Ethical considerations.
The Ethics Code as set out by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2002) outlines a 
common set of principles and standards upon which psychologists build their professional and
56
scientific work. This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most 
situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the 
individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, 
and the public regarding ethical standards and considerations when planning, conducting and 
reporting research in the discipline.
Organisational research must take into consideration the ethical conduct of the research and this 
process must start at the research planning stage through the recruitment and selection of 
research participants. It also includes ethical considerations during the conduct and reporting of 
the research (Aguinis & Henle. 2002)
In the conduct of the present study, the researcher gave particular attention to his knowledge and 
understanding of the ethical guidelines in the design of the experiment. The soundness of the 
research design and methodology and the ethical acceptability of the study in terms of ensuring 
that the benefits of conducting the research far outweighed the costs of not conducting it were 
taken into consideration. In the selection and recruitment of research participants, no amount of 
coercion (subtle or otherwise) was involved and no inducements offered for participation. 
Organisations and teams that were interested and volunteered to take part in the study were used.
As directed by the APA's Ethics Code Standard 3.10. Informed Consent, psychologists 
conducting research should inform participants about (I) the purpose of the research, expected 
duration, and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the 
research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or
57
withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their 
willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) any 
prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and 
(8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They also 
provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers.
In the conduct of this study, the researcher took particular steps to adhere to the APA ethics code. 
In every organisation used for this research, permission was sought from the human resource 
department and their assistance sought in administering the questionnaire. Each participant was 
given an information sheet outlining the research purpose, procedure, risks, extent of anonymity 
and confidentiality, institutional approval and seeking their signed informed consent (see 
Appendix 1).
The information sheet outlined the purpose of study and assured participants that there were no 
risks to them for participating in this study. The extent of anonymity and confidentiality' was also 
explained to participants. In this regard, participants were informed that the results of this study 
will remain strictly confidential and that at no point will their name be required. The researcher 
explained that the only identification will be the researcher's code which will identify 
respondents by their teams. This researcher's code exists only to provide a reference for the 
researcher. The participants in the study were assured that at no time will the researcher release 
the data collected in the study to anyone, other than those individuals working on the research 
project. To assure participants of the confidentiality that would be attached to the data that they 
would provide, each of them was given an envelope into which lie she was to place and seal the
58
completed questionnaire before returning it. Participants were also informed of the freedom to 
withdraw from this study at any time without penally and also the freedom not to answer an) 
questions that they choose without penalty.
59
CHAPTER FOUR 
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 Introduction
The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of intragroup trust and team 
transformational leadership on the relationship between team psychological safety and team 
learning behaviour. As such intragroup trust and team transformational leadership were the 
moderating variables of interest. Thus this study involved moderation analysis. The statistical 
package for social sciences (SPSS) version 17.0 was employed in the analysis. The analysis was 
done in two main stages. The first involved the preliminary analyses while the second involved 
testing the hypotheses of the study.
4.2 Preliminary Analyses
The preliminary analysis was done in five steps. These were: Analysis of the normal distribution 
of the variables. Descriptive statistics analysis, empirical justification for data aggregation. 
Reliability analysis and computing the Pearson correlations among the variables of the study.
4.2.1 Analysis of the normal distribution of the variables
This step involved ascertaining that data for the study was normally distributed. Regarding issues 
of normality, all the variables were normally distributed (see table 2 and Appendix 11). 
According to labachnick and Fidell (2001) normality is acceptable when skewness and Kurtosis 
is between -1 and +1. Pallart (2001) asserts that in regression analysis, it is more important that
60
the dependent variable is normally distributed. All the variables were accordingly used in the 
parametric statistical tests, specifically regression analysis.
4.2.2 Computation of Descriptive Statistics
The next step involved computing the descriptive statistics of the data. This involved 
summarising ihe raw data obtained in terms of its demographic characteristics. Results from this 
analysis are outlined in chapter three (refer to Table 1).
4.2.3 Empirical justification for Data aggregation
4.2.3.1 Team Level of analysis.
The unit of theory in the present study was the team. That is. all the hypotheses were posited at 
the team level, and the study variables were conceptualised, measured and analysed at the team 
level. This meets Klein & Kozlowski (2000) recommendation that the level of theory, 
measurement and analysis should be the same in multilevel research.
Theoretically, Rousseau (1985) advocated the use of composition theories, which specify the 
functional similarities of constructs at different levels. Referent-shifl composition models were 
developed in climate research (Chan, 1998; Click, 1985) to avoid conceptual confusions between 
individual (psychological) and organizational (collective) climate. In employing a referent-shifl 
model, individuals respond to items focusing on the higher-level unit of interest (work group or 
organisation) as the case may be. The referent is thus changed from "1" to "we”,' this team' or 
“this group’. Example ol an item using this model is "In this team, we all trust each other". It 
follows therefore that key characteristics of this model arc (a) focusing responses of indiv iduals
61
on the higher unit (instead of self-reports) and (b) a prior evaluation of agreement to justify 
aggregation (since agreement would indicate a collective construct).
4.2.3.2 Inter rater agreement ancI Data Aggregation for team members’ responses 
An essential advantage for referent-shift models is the assessment of agreement prior to 
aggregation. Aggregation is justified by theoretical as well as empirical arguments (Rousseau, 
1985). Inter rater agreement (IRA) refers to the absolute consensus in scores furnished by 
multiple judges for one or more variables (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). Estimates of IRA 
are used to address whether scores furnished by judges are interchangeable or equivalent in terms 
of their absolute value.
According to van Vijver and Fisher (2007). data should only be aggregated if there is sufficient 
agreement in team member responses for each variable. In order to empirically justify- data 
aggregation of individual team members' data to the team level for team psychological safety, 
intragroup trust and team transformational leadership, two IRA indices were computed for the 
three variables for each team. These are within group agreement (/vs) index and average 
deviation (ADM) index. The Intraclass correlation (ICC I & 2) were also computed for each 
variable.
Within Group Agreement (r^) index
The individual r„g statistics for the three team constructs were calculated for each team. The rKg 
coefficient is an indicator of homogeneity of individual ratings within teams. The rwg. was 
developed by James, Demaree and Wolf (1984, 1993). This index focuses on consensus or
62
agreement within a single unit such as a work group or team. The rwg index compares the 
variability of a variable within a team to some expected variability. If the observed variability is 
significantly smaller than the expected variance, the resulting value of rwg is closer to 1, 
suggesting high agreement and that aggregation is possible. The index ranges from 0 to 1. 
although negative or values larger than 1 are possible (James et al., 1984; Klein & Kozlowski. 
2000).
The rvvg operationalize agreement for a single attribute as: 
S.!
r„c = 1 ~»  a ,
= A ! - 1
(r 12
where the term "null distribution" means a distribution where raters exhibit no agreement and A 
represents the number of scale anchors.
According to James et al (1993), individual ratings within groups for each variable should have a 
high degree of agreement of at least r„g > .70. More recently. LeBreton and Senter (2008) 
recommend revised Standards for Interpreting Inter rater Agreement (IRA). According to them, 
rug estimates of .51 to .70 indicate moderate agreement, .71 to .90 reflects strong agreement and 
.91 to 1.00 shows very strong agreement.
Thus, within group agreement (inter rater agreement) indices were computed for each of the 
predictor variables that team members responded to (ie team psychological safely, intragroup 
trust and team transformational leadership) for each team. All rw>, values computed showed 
moderate to very strong agreement consistent with LeBreton and Senter. (2008. see Table 2).
63
Average deviation hemo d index
The use of this index was to provide additional conceptual, empirical and statistical support for 
the aggregation of team members’ individual data to represent their respective teams. The AD.u 
index has been proposed by Burke, Finkelstein, and Dusig (1999) as another measure of IRA. 
This measure, like rwg , was developed for use with multiple judges rating a single target on a 
variable using an interval scale of measurement. These authors described this index as a 
"pragmatic" index of agreement because it estimates agreement in the metric of the original 
scale of the item.
The AD\i is represented by 
A D M ( j l  =  -  £  i  X  j k  -  X j  |
n  k = i
Burke and Dunlap (2002) suggested a critical value of .80 or less for establishing agreement 
when using a 5-point scale. All the scales used in this study were 5-point scales and ADu index 
for all teams were less than .80 (see Table 2).
Intraclass correlation (ICC) (1&2).
The ICC was introduced to determine inter-rater reliability in Shrout & Fleiss (1978) classical 
study. The ICC (!) is calculated using the results of a one-way analysis of variance. ICC il) 
provides an estimate of the proportion of the total variance of a measure that is explained by unit 
membership (Bliese, 2000). 1CC(1) may also be interpreted as an estimate of the extent to which 
raters arc interchangeable—that is, the extent to which one rater from a group may represent all
64
the raters within the group. ICC(J) values may be interpreted as the level of consensus + 
consistency one would expect if a judge was randomly selected from the population of judges 
and his or her scores were compared to the mean score (i.e., estimated true score) obtained from 
the sample of judges (Bliese, 2000). According to LeBreton and Senter (2008), ICC (!) values 
may also be interpreted as an effect size estimate revealing the extent to which judges' ratings 
were affected by the team membership. Klein and Kozlowski (2000) assert that researchers using 
ICC (I) to justify aggregation usually conclude that aggregation is justified when the F test for 
these values is significant.
The intraclass correlation (2), or ICC (2), answers the following question: How reliable are the 
group means within a sample? The ICC (2) gives an index of the extent to which the mean rating 
assigned by a group of judges is reliable. In such cases, an ICC (2) may be calculated that 
estimates the stability (i.e., reliability) of mean ratings furnished from K judges.
The following ICC (I) values were obtained: team psychological safety. .13: intragroup irusi.,42: 
team transformational leadership, .80. These effect sizes are relatively acceptable, suggesting 
that ratings on these variables were heavily influenced by team membership.
The ICC (2) values for the three variables were: team psychological safety. .50; intragroup trust. 
.79; team transformational leadership. .97. The ICC (2) values reveals acceptable levels of Inter 
Rater Reliability + Inter Rater Agreement and suggests that the mean ratings (taken ov er judges) 
reliably distinguish the fifty seven teams. ICC (1) and ICC (2) values all had a significant ftest 
thus justifying aggregation of individual team member data to the team level.
65
LeBreton and Senter (2008) recommend that moderate to high revalues, ADM values below .80, 
acceptable ICC (I) effect sizes and a sizeable ICC (2) provides adequate empirical justification 
for aggregation of data to the team level. As such team members’ data on team psychological 
safety, intragroup trust and team transformational leadership were aggregated to the team level 
for analysis. Aggregation was done by computing the mean of individual item responses for each 
team variable and summed up to represent the teams score on that particular variable.
In order to get complete data for each team, the team members’ responses were matched to their 
corresponding team leaders' data. Using coding procedure, the aggregated data for each team 
could be appropriately matched to their respective team leaders’ data. This was done before the 
testing of hypotheses.
4.2.4 Reliability Studies
Coefficient of internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) was also computed to establish the reliability 
of each of the scales in this study. Measures had satisfactory reliabilities, with alpha values 
ranging from .69 to .97 (see Table 2).
66
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, inter rater agreement indices and Reliability
coefficients of the study variables.
Variable Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis . rm__________ A Dvi Cronbach’s a
Team 24.86 1.80 i LS
I
O -.188 .75 .54 .75
psychological
safety
Intragroup trust 20.26 1.59 -.294 -.664 .95 .22 .87
Team 18.08 3.97 .264 -.894 .96 .20 .97
transformational 
leadership 
Team learning 18.46 3.48 -.796 -.469 .69
behaviour
The statistics rwg and ADM represents agreement within groups averaged across all teams for each variable team 
members responded to.
4.2.5 Pearson correlations among variables
The final step in the preliminary' analysis was the computation of Pearson Product moment 
correlations among all the study variables. This is presented in table 3.
Table 3 Pearson correlations for the study variables
VARIABLE 1 2 3 4
1. Team Psychological
Safety
2. Intragroup Trust -.220 -
3. Team Transformational -.270' -.118
Leadership
4. Team Learning .679" -.306* -.025 -
Behaviour
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
**. Correlation is significant al the 0.01 level
67
An examination of the correlations among the study variable reveals that team psychological 
safety was the variable that was significantly related to most of the other study variables. Team 
psychological safety had a significant negative relationship with team transformational 
leadership (r = -.270). This result was however not expected. Intragroup trust, surprisingly, did 
not relate to team psychological safety. Team psychological safety was also significantly 
positively related to team learning behaviour (/• = .679).
4.3 Hypotheses testing.
4.3.1 Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis one (1) investigated the relationship between team psychological safety and team 
learning behaviour. It was predicted that there will be a significant positive relationship between 
team psychological safety and team learning behaviour. This hypothesis was tested using 
multiple regression analysis. Table 4 contains a summary of the results.
Table 4:
Results of Standard Multiple Regression Analysis for Team Psychological Safety as a 
predictor of Team Learning Behaviour
Model B Std. Error B
1 (Constant)
-30.213 7.120
Team Psychological Safety 1.963 .286 .679**
/?•’= .461, ♦*/?-' .000
68
Summary of the results of the standard multiple regression analysis to examine the effect of 
Team psychological safety on Team Learning Behaviour indicated that Team psychological 
safety positively influenced Team Learning Behaviour, [/'(I, 55) = 47.100, p < .000]. It 
explained 46.1% of the variance in Team Performance. Therefore, the hypothesis that there will 
be a significant positive relationship between team psychological safety and team learning 
behaviour was also supported by the results.
4.3.2 Hypothesis 2 and 3
Hypotheses 2 and 3 were moderating hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 examined if intragroup trust will 
moderate the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour. 
Specifically, it was hypothesized that the positive effect of team psychological safely on learning 
behaviour in teams M ill be stronger for teams with high intragroup trust than those w ith low 
intragroup trust. Hypothesis 3 also investigated if team transformational leadership will 
moderate the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour. That 
is. it was hypothesized that the positive effect of team psychological safety on learning behaviour 
will be stronger for teams with a transformational team leader than for those teams whose 
leader is not transformational. To test these two hypotheses, moderation analysis was used. The 
conceptual and statistical basis for moderation is outlined below.
a. Conceptual meaning of moderation hypothesis
Baron and Kenny (1986) assert that a moderator is a qualitative (e.g., sex. race, class) or 
quantitative (e.g., level of reward) variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the
69
relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable. This 
study examined if intragroup trust and team transformational leadership moderated the team 
psychological safety-learning behaviour relationship. Baron and Kenny suggest that a common 
framework for capturing both the correlational and the experimental views of a moderator 
variable is possible by using a path diagram as both a descriptive and an analytic procedure. 
Using such an approach, the essential properties of the moderator variables as used in the present 
study are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Path diagram of the moderating model (after Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Predictor
(Team Psychological 
Safety TPS)
Moderator  b
(Intragroup trust IT)
(Team transformational leadership TTL)
c
Predictor X Moderator
(TPS X IT) /
(TPS X TTL)
The model diagrammed in Figure 2 has three causal paths that feed into the outcome variables 
(team learning behav iour): the impact of the team psychological safety as a predictor (Path a), 
the impact intragroup trust and team transformational leadership as moderators (Path b). and the 
interaction or product or the predictor (TPS) and each moderator (ie. TPS X IT, TPS X TTL) 
(Path c). I he moderator hypotheses are supported if the interaction (Path c) is significant.
*■ Outcome Variable
^ (Team learning behaviour TLB)
70
b. Statistical test for moderation analysis
A general requirement for testing for a moderation effect is that, there should be an association 
between the independent and dependent variables. This requirement was met (see fable 3). 
Hierarchical Multiple Regression was employed to test for the moderation effects of intragroup 
trust and team transformational leadership on the relationship between team psychological safety 
and team learning behaviour. In a hierarchical regression procedure, a single variable or set of 
variables are entered into an equation in a specified hierarchical order, and on the addition of 
each new set. an R2 (the proportion of the variance in the criterion variable accounted for by the 
predictors) is determined (Cohen & Cohen 1983). Specifically, the procedures proposed by 
Baron and Kenny (1986) were employed. This is because it is generally accepted and widely 
used in other studies testing moderation effects. According to Baron and Kenny, testing a 
moderation effect involves four stages;
1. Centre (standardize) both the predictor & the moderator. Centring is a linear 
transformation method which eliminates problems associated with multi-collinearity. It is 
achieved by subtracting the mean value for a variable from each score for that variable 
(Aiken & West. 1991; Lingard & Francis, 2006).
2. Calculate the interaction term (i.e.. predictor X moderator) using ihe standardized values.
3. Regress the outcome variable on the predictor, moderator, and their interaction. That is. 
in the hierarchical regression analysis, the predictor should be entered in the first block, 
the moderator(s) in the second block and the interaction terms in the third block.
71
4. If the interaction effect is significant (i.e., il ft of predictor X moderator is significant), 
then there is a moderation effect. However, il the interaction term was not significant, no 
moderation effect was apparent.
To test hypotheses 2 & 3. the procedures proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing for 
moderation effect using hierarchical multiple regression was used. TPS (ie. the independent 
variable) and IT & TTL. the moderators, were centred or standardized using the standardization 
procedures by Aiken and West (1991). Next, the interaction terms were created. This was done 
by multiplying the centred TPS scores by the centred 11' scores (TPS X IT) and also by the 
centred TTL scores (TPS X TTL). Following this, the dependent variable, that is. TLB was 
regressed on TPS, IT & TTL and then on the interaction terms. Specifically, TPS (the 
independent variable) will be entered in the first block. IT & TL (the moderators) in the second 
block and TPS X IT and TPS X TTL (the interaction terms) in the third block.
72
Table 5:
Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for the moderation effect of 
Intragroup trust (IT) and Team Transformational Leadership (TTL) on the Psychological 
Safety - Team Learning Behaviour relationship.
B Sid. Error P
Step 1 Constant 18.597 .452
Team Psychological Safety .185 .200 .124
Step 2 Constant 18.595 .438
Team Psychological Safety .171 .195 .114
Intragroup Trust -.618 .260 -.310*
Transformational Leadership -.046 .112 -.054
Step 3 Constant 18.689 .420
Team Psychological Safety (TPS) .293 .195 .195
Intragroup Trust (IT) -.688 .253 -.345**
Transformational Leader (TTL) -.097 .109 -.113
TPS X IT .140 .105 .170
TPS X TTL .140 .057 .327*
f’ = .015, .110 and .219 for steps 1. 2 and 3 respectively. A If = .095 and .109 for steps 2 and 3 respectively.
*p < .05, **p < .01
As hypothesized. Team Psychological Safety was also found to positively influence Team 
Learning Behaviour. [F(l. 55) = 47.100, p < .000], explaining 8.6 % of the variance in Team 
Learning Behaviour. This indicates that as Team Psychological Safety increases. Team Learning 
behaviour also increases. On the other hand, as Team Psychological Safety decreases Team 
Learning behaviour also decreases.
73
In line with the prediction made, the interaction between Team Psychological Safety and Team 
Transformational Leadership (TPS X TTL) was statistically significant (fi = .327, p < .05). 
Contrary to prediction however, Team Psychological Safety did not interact with Intergroup 
Trust (TPS X IT) to significantly predict Team Learning Behaviour (/! = .170, p > .05). This 
indicates that while Team Transformational Leadership moderated the Team Psychological 
Safety-Team Learning Behaviour relationship, intragroup trust did not. In view of this, 
hypothesis 2. stated as intragroup trust will moderate the relationship between team 
psy chological safety and team learning behaviour was not supported. However, hypothesis 3 
stated as Team transformational leadership will moderate the relationship between team 
psychological safely and team learning behaviour was supported by the results.
4.4 Summary of Findings
In summary, hypotheses 1 and 3 were supported whiles hypothesis 2 was not supported.
The following findings were consistent with predictions made by the study;
• There was a significant positive relationship between team psychological safety and team 
learning behaviour (Hypothesis 1).
• Team transformational leadership moderated the relationship between team psychological 
safety and team learning behaviour (Hypothesis 3).
The following findings were however not consistent with predictions made;
• Intragroup trust did not moderate the relationship between team psychological safety and 
team learning behaviour (Hypothesis 2).
74
CHAPTER FIVE 
DISCUSSION
5.1.1 Introduction
The current study examined the moderating role of intragroup trust and team transformational 
leadership on the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour. 
Prior to test for moderation effects, the study examined if team psychological safety significantly 
predicts team learning behviour. Results from this study indicate that team psychological safety 
significantly predicts team learning behaviour. Also, team transformational leadership was found 
to significantly moderate the team psychological safety - team learning behaviour relationship. 
Contrary to prediction, intragroup trust did not moderate the team psychological safety - team 
learning behavior relationship. Based on the results of the study, the proposed conceptual model 
was revised and is presented below.
Figure 3: A summary' of the observed relationships between the independent, moderating 
and dependent variables
(r =  .68) Team Learning Behaviour
Team
Transformational
Leadership
75
These finding are discussed below. This is followed by a discussion of the limitalions of the 
current study, recommendations for future research, implications for practice and concluding 
remarks.
5.1.2 The relationship between Team Psychological Safety and Team Learning Belt a viour 
The study sought to find out if team psychological safety was related to team learning behaviour. 
In view of this the first hypothesis was stated as Team psychological safely will he positively 
related to team learning behaviour. This hypothesis was supported by the results of the study. 
This indicates that team psychological safety positively predicted team learning behaviour.
The findings from this study suggest that Team Psychological safety is likely to increase the 
chances of team members exerting extra effort and engaging in interpersonally risky learning 
behaviours, such as help seeking, experimentation and discussion of error. This finding is 
consistent with other findings in the literature. For instance. Edmondson (1999) found empirical 
support that team psychological safety promoted team learning, which in turn facilitated team 
performance. She explained that an implication of this finding is that peoples beliefs about how 
others will respond if they engage in behav iour for which the outcome is uncertain affects the 
willingness to take interpersonal risk in the team. This implies that failure to engage in 
behaviours indicative of a climate of psychological safety may prevent team learning which 
could affect team performance adversely.
In Ghana, organisations can be said to be transforming to ‘learning organisations', as such there 
is a need to understand team learning as most learning in the organisation may be considered to
76
occur within teams. In a climate of psychological safety, team members are more likely to 
engage in behaviours such as seeking feedback from the team, asking questions about team tasks 
and speaking up about one’s own mistakes in the team. Team members engaging in these 
learning behaviours will in turn provide an opportunity for team members to learn by reflecting 
on particular task related behaviours and making the necessary' behavioural modifications. These 
behavioural modifications are indicative of learning in the team and this could ultimately have an 
impact on team and organisational productivity.
The result in this study is also consistent with Carmeli (2007) who investigated failure-based 
learning behaviours in organisations. The results showed that w'hen there is social capital, people 
feel psychologically safe and learning from failures is enabled in organisations. The situation in 
Ghana may be similar as team members feeling of psychological safety may be determined by 
the quality of social interactions the team members have. A climate of psychological safety will 
engender a learning orientation in the team where mistakes and performance errors are 
considered as an opportunity to learn and prevent a recurrence of the particular errors.
The positive effect of team psychological safety on team learning behaviour is a very important 
relationship. This implies that when team members feel psychologically safe they will be more 
willing to engage in learning behaviours within the team. This position is supported by previous 
research and indicates that team members’ feeling that the team is a safe environment to take 
interpersonal risk w'ill make them less worried of the perceived risks of being oneself. When 
team members feel psychologically safe in the team, they tend to feel there is no consequence for 
interpersonal risk taking and as such feel ‘at home’ in the team. Thus, they are likely to believe
77
that others will give them the benefit of the doubt and will not think of them as ignorant, 
disruptive and incompetent, should they engage in learning behaviours in the team. Consequently, 
team members will be more likely to speak up about their mistakes, seek feedback or ask very 
important questions that will help in achieving the team and organisational goals.
5.1.3 Does intragroup trust moderate the team psychological safety-team learning 
behaviour relationship?
The study further sought to investigate if intragroup trust will moderate the relationship between 
team psychological safety and team learning behaviour. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the 
positive effect of team psychological safety on learning behaviour in teams will be stronger for 
teams with high intragroup trust than those with low intragroup trust. Contrary to predictions, 
results from the study indicate that intragroup trust did not moderate the team psychological 
safety and team learning behaviour relationship. This implies that the relationship between team 
psychological safety' and team learning behaviour is not significantly affected by the amount of 
intragroup trust among team members.
This result is inconsistent with conceptual arguments advanced by Dirks and Ferrin (2001) as to 
the indirect mechanisms through which trust affects organisational variables. Specifically, they 
argued that the inconsistent findings of the direct effects of trust on organisational outcomes is 
perhaps due to the fact that trust moderates the effect of primary' determinants (causal factors) on 
outcomes by affecting how one assesses the future behaviour or interprets the past actions of 
another party.
78
Following from this conceptual argument therefore, results of this study are inconsistent with 
research findings that support trust as a moderator of organisational variables. For instance, 
Simons and Peterson (2000) showed that trust negatively moderates the effects of task 
(cognitive) conflict on relationship (affective) conflict. Trust reduced the likelihood of 
relationship conflict in top management teams, such that task conflict (productive disagreement 
over the content of one's decisions and ideas that deepen cognitive understanding of the 
problem) was able to help the team produce better solutions.
Findings from this study are also inconsistent with Dirks (1999). Dirks found that trust 
moderated the relationship between group members' motivation and group processes and 
outcomes. Specifically, highly motivated groups channelled their efforts toward group goals in 
the high-trust condition, whereas in the low-trust condition effort was directed towards 
individual goals. Thus, trust affected the strength of group members' motivation on group 
processes. The finding from this study, in a Ghanaian organisational context, provides tentative 
evidence that instead of perceiving trust as a variable that indirectly affects team performance, 
researchers should consider trust as a concept that works through different mechanisms 
depending on the unique characteristics of the group. In this current study, team members 
demographics indicate that over a third (35.7%) of the teams had worked together for at least one 
year. It is therefore arguable that teams had developed a certain amount of trust among team 
members through their every day experiences and thus intragroup trust did not significantly 
affect the strength ol the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning 
behaviour.
79
Inconsistent with the findings of this study, Rousseau and Tijoriwala’s (1999) study found 
empirical support for the moderating role of trust in management on the relationship between 
management's reasons for change and the perceived legitimacy of those changes. Furthermore. 
Robinson (1996) found that initial trust in an employer moderated the relationship between a 
psychological contract violation and subsequent trust in the employer.
In this study, the finding that intragroup trust did not moderate the relationship between team 
psychological safety and team learning behaviour is contrary to expectation. A number of 
reasons could account for this result. First, Pearson correlations computed for the study variables 
indicate that there was an insignificant negative correlation between team psychological safety 
and intragroup trust (/■ = -.22). This is inconsistent with previous findings. May et al (2004) 
showed that co-worker trust had a significant positive effect on psychological safety. Kahn
(1990) also found that "interpersonal relationships promoted psychological safety when they 
were supportive and trusting." Participants in his study felt free to share ideas and concepts about 
designs when they believed that any criticism would be constructive rather than destructive. It 
could be assumed that the sample studied had already set standards of trust that was independent 
of their perceptions of psychological safety.
Furthermore. Edmondson's (1999) assertion that trust is a necessary but not sufficient condition 
for team psychological safety presupposes that a certain amount of trust among team members is 
necessary for team psychological safety to develop. Thus, trust can be seen as an antecedent to 
psychological safety in the team. Social exchange theory suggests that when a team member 
gives other team members the benefit of the doubt (an indicator of trust), the other team
80
members will be more likely to reciprocate this trust. Intragroup trust not moderating the 
relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour may be attributable 
to the fact that team members will feel psychologically safe when there is some amount of trust 
among team members. However, no additional trust within the group may be necessary in 
reaping the positiv e effects of team psychological safety on team learning behaviour. This may 
be as a direct consequence of team members having a repertoire of knowledge of the team and 
team members' previous action or inaction in interactions that involves one being vulnerable to 
them.
5.1.4 Does team transformational leadership moderate the relationship between team 
psychological safety and team learning behaviour?
The study further sought to examine if team transformational leadership will moderate the 
relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour. Specifically. it was 
hypothesized that the positive effect of team psychological safely on learning behaviour in teams 
will be stronger for teams with a transformational leader than those without a transformational 
leader. Consistent with predictions, results from the study indicate that team transformational 
leadership moderates the team psychological safety and team learning behaviour relationship. 
This implies that the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning 
behaviour is significantly affected by the presence of team transformational leadership.
Edmondson (2002) asserts that the actions and attitudes of the team leader are critical 
determinants of the team learning process. Team leaders not only are a critical influence on 
psychological safety but also they can deliberately work to structure a learning process. Team
81
leaders also play a role in shaping, or at least communicating, the team's goal. Results of this 
study lire consistent with empirical findings by numerous researchers. For example. Sarin and 
McDermott (2003) found that team leaders, who involved members in decision making, clarified 
team goals and provided bridges to outside parties via the leader s status in the organisation, 
facilitated team learning. Results from Nembhard and Edmondsons* (2006) study also indicate 
that leader inclusiveness is associated with psychological safety and moderates the relationship 
between status and psychological safety.
Furthermore. Edmondson et al. (2001) found that team leaders' (surgeons) behaviour in a 
hierarchical context of surgical teams supported team learning and contributed to a climate of 
psychological safety' within the teams where team members were more willing to 'speak up'. 
This is similar to collectivist cultures like Ghana where the social orientation places a lot of 
respect and recognition on leadership. Thus team members will seek direction and inspiration 
from their leader and transformational leaders who bridge the power and status differentials are 
more likely to have a team that feels safe psychologically and work to meet team and 
organisational goals.
The important role of the team transformational leader in ensuring collaboration among team 
members and coordinating these efforts to achieve team and organisational goals is very crucial 
to the organisation. A transformational team leader who serves as a role model for the team and 
models standards of effective and desired behaviour for team members to emulate is critical to 
the team members feeling psychologically safe. The team leaders' transformational behaviour 
which includes idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and
82
inspirational motivation is likely to provide the structure in the team for learning to take place. 
For a team to he effective and be seen to be adaptive, innovative or engaging in learning 
behaviours, the team leader must set the tone or the right climate in the team where he welcomes 
the team members' opinions, questions and help at no risk to their person or image, [his would 
lead to psychological safety in the team and to desired organizational outcomes such as team 
learning behaviours, innovation and increased performance. On the other hand, when a team 
leader fails to create the right atmosphere in the team, it could adversely affect the teams learning 
behaviour.
5.2 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The findings of the current study are encouraging for team research in Ghana. However, it must 
be noted that the present study was somewhat limited by its design. In the first instance, the data 
were largely self-reported, hence subject to bias. This aspect of the study does not differ from 
previous work (Somech. 2006: Edmondson. 1999). It is also important to note that recent 
research suggests that self-reported data are not as limited as was previously believed and that 
people often accurately perceive their social environment (Alper. Tjosvold. &Law. 1998). This 
concern with the research design was addressed in the present study as the likelihood of common 
method variance was low because the criterion variable (team learning behaviour) was obtained 
from different sources (team leaders) (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). However, the researcher does 
not have data to show that these perceptual measures of team learning behaviour are predictors 
of “objective" measure of team learning behaviour. Future research should use other sources for 
evaluating team learning behaviour (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
83
A second limitation pertains to the uniqueness of the sampled teams, namely, functional teams in 
banking and financial institutions. Although theory cuts across team types, the question arises as 
to whether the functional teams studied are sufficiently similar to other teams or if they are so 
distinct as to require different ways of viewing and measuring the team variables of interest. 
Giving the limited time and space to conduct this research, it was not practicable to empirically 
study other types of teams. It is very critical to assess the generalizability of research findings 
from this study to other teams thus future research should focus on cross-functional teams such 
as hospital/surgical teams and military teams to ascertain how these team variables works in such 
teams.
The use of a cross - sectional survey design in this study limited the researcher’s ability to 
predict causal relationships. Though associations were observed among the study variables, no 
direct cause-effect relationship can be concluded. It is also important to note that the use of the 
cross - sectional survey design also does not capture any dynamic or reciprocal relationships 
with the study variables. For example, it is plausible to posit that team psychological safety 
facilitates the risk of team learning behaviour, which, when unpunished by the team, further 
reinforces team psychological safety (Edmondson. 1999).
The unique characteristics of the sample - teams of bank workers - must be commented on. 
Bank workers in Ghana have very tedious and busy schedules as the banking environment can be 
considered a very' dynamic and fast-paced one. These workers had little or no time to spare to 
complete the questionnaires as evidenced by the long data collection period. Also, the banking 
sector is very lucrative in Ghana and issues of job security and mistrust for management have
84
culminated in these workers being very aversive to research. This came to light during data 
collection when despite all the measures pul in place to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, 
these workers were still reluctant to complete the questionnaire especially since they had to rate 
their team leaders' transformational behaviour. These workers also seem to have some mistrust 
for the organisation as evidenced by the numerous phone calls received by the researcher and his 
research assistants from team members to verify that the research was actually being conducted 
by the researcher though HR had circulated memos to that effect prior to the commencement of 
data collection. Future research should explore the use of completing questionnaires on the 
internet (online surveys) to help ameliorate this problem.
Finally, it was impracticable to perform any further analysis on the individual demographic 
information collected as data from team members was aggregated to the team level for analysis. 
This presents a unique problem associated with research that involves aggregation of data to a 
higher unit.
It is recommended that future research in a Ghanaian organisational setting should explore the 
personality traits of team members to ascertain the unique personality of team members that 
report a strong positive correlation between team psychological safety and team learning 
behaviour. This will be beneficial to organisations as they can fit individuals with compatible 
personality types in the same team to maximize team and organisational performance.
85
5.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Findings from this study have both theoretical and practical/organizational implications. By way 
of theoretical significance, findings of this study will add on to the literature on teams in Ghana. 
Since there is paucity of literature on teams in Ghana, findings of the study will provide 
benchmark data which can be used for future research.
Findings from the study are also very crucial to the effective use of teams in organisations by 
highlighting the important role of the team leaders’ transformational behaviour. The consistent 
positive effects of team members feeling psychologically safe to be ‘themselves' and assert 
themselves in promoting speaking up, seeking feedback, asking questions and discussing errors 
in the team is very revealing. Managers of organisations and team leaders have a very critical 
role in making this happen. As Edmondson (2002) asserts, team leaders can be seen to occupy an 
increasingly sophisticated and challenging role, especially when they lead teams that need to 
learn. These front-line organisational leaders must continually clarify’ the meaning and 
importance of the team's goal, make sure that goal is serving the organization's strategic aims, 
and remain open to input from other team members about ways in which the goal must be 
modified to meet new changes in the team's environment. This implies that the transformational 
team leader needs to strike the right balance between exercising his authority as a leader and also 
‘letting go’ of some of the authority by bridging the power differential betw een himself herself 
and other team members.
Team leaders in Ghanaian organisations would reap the benefits of team members feeling safe by 
accepting their own fallibility and that of their team members so that making a mistake on the
86
team is seen as a learning opportunity for the team and not a chance to ridicule, criticizes or 
humiliates team members. Somech (2006) suggests that in functionally homogenous teams, the 
team leader must lake a more active role in stimulating team members to promote team reflection 
and by extension team learning by providing them with a framework for decision making and 
establishing clear rules for behaviour.
Employing principles from reinforcement theory, behaviour modification will be possible if team 
leaders articulate clearly what the team norms are. Also the team leader must be direct in his 
communication with team members and avoid encouraging factions within the team by not being 
seen to ‘take side" with particular team members. This can be achieved by training team leaders 
in the dynamics of developing and managing a team and the crucial leadership issues at each 
stage of development. For example at the forming stage of a team, when uncertainty is high, the 
team leader must be task focussed to clarify team objectives and coordinate efforts to achieve 
them.
5.4 CONCLUSION
This study's main aim was to examine the moderating role of intragroup trust and team 
transformational leadership on the relationship between team psychological safety and learning 
behaviour in teams. The results provided empirical evidence that team psychological safety 
significantly predicted team learning behaviour. The proposed model in which intragroup trust 
and team transformational leadership moderates the relationship between team psychological 
safety and learning behaviour in teams was not fully supported by the research finding. 
Specifically, research findings indicate that within a Ghanaian organisation setting, intragroup
87
trust did not significantly moderate the team psychological safety - team learning behaviour 
relationship, however team transformational leadership did.
Organisations are continuously going to be faced with increased competition, technological 
advancement and organisational restructuring to meet with the increased uncertainty 
organisations have to deal with. This implies that the use of teams in getting work done is fast 
becoming a pervasive reality in organisations and as such a need to understand team dynamics to 
improve team learning and performance. This work has paved the way for team research in 
Ghana by examining a number of variables that are related to teams and team learning in tandem 
with the paradigm shift from ‘organisations that learn’ to ‘learning organisations'. Team leaders 
must be seen to be transformational in order to avoid a stilling environment in the team that will 
negatively affect team learning. Future research will thus help explain the dynamics of team 
processes and how organisations could benefit from their use.
88
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H„ & Henle, C.A. (2002). Ethics in research. In S.G. Rogelberg (Ed), Handbook of 
research methods in industrial and organisational psychology (pp 34-56). Malden, MA: 
Blackwell Publishers.
Aiken. L. S.. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. 
Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage
Alper. S.. Tjosvold, D.. & Law, K. S. 1998. Interdependence and controversy in group 
decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational 
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 74: 33-52.
American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of 
conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1597-1611.
Argote. L. & Olivera. F., (1999).Organisational Learning and Core processes in new product 
development. In Thompson. L., Levine, J.. & Messick, D., (Eds). Shared cognition in 
Organisations: the management of knowledge (pp 297-328). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum
Avolio. B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organisations. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baer, M„ & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and 
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of 
Organizational Behaviour. 24(1), 45-68.
Baker, T. L. (1994). Doing Social research (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Baron R. M. and Kenny D. A., (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social 
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal 
of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173-1 182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J.A. Conger & 
R.N.Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational 
effectiveness (pp.40-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass. B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. 
Mahvvah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bettenhausen, K. (1991). Five years of group research: what we have learnt and what needs 
to be addressed. Journal of management, 17,345-381.
Blau. P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Bliese. P. D. (2000).Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implication 
for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S.W.J.Kozlowski (Eds.), 
Multilevel Theory.Research, and Methods in Organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass.
Boss. R. W. (1978). Trust and managerial problem solving revisited. Group Organisational. 
Studies. 3 .331-342.
Brooks. A. K. (1994). Power and the production of knowledge: Collective team learning in 
work organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 5(3). 213-235.
Brown. S. P.. & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to 
job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychologr. <N‘/(4). 358 
368.
Burke. C.S., Sims, D.E.. Lazzarra. E.H., and Salas, E. (2007).'Trust and Leadership: A Multi- 
Level Review and Integration. The Leadership Ouarterly. 18. 606 -632.
90
Burke. C.S.. Stagl, K.C., Salas, E., & Pierce, L. (2006).Understanding Team Adaptation: A 
Conceptual Analysis and Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,6, 1189-1207
Burke, M. J.. & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the average 
deviation index: A user's guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5(2). 159-172.
Burke. M. J„ Finkelstein, L. M.. & Dusig. M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for 
estimating interrateragreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 49-68.
Bums, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Carless, S.A.. Wearing, A.J. & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational 
leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 389-404.
Carmeli. A. (2007). Social capital, psychological safety and learning behaviours from failure 
in organisations. Long Range Planning, 40( 1), 30-44.
Cascio. W.F. & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management (6th 
ed). Pearson Prentice Flail: New Jersey.
Chan. D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different 
levels of analysis: A typology of compositional models. Journal of Applied Psychology. 
83. 234-246
Cohen. J.. & Cohen. P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression Correlation Analysis for the 
Behavioural Sciences. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Colquitt. J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine. J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust 
propensity: A meta-analvtic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job 
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 902-927.
Creed. D.W.E., & Miles, R.E. (1995). Trust in Organisations: A conceptual framework linking 
organisational forms, managerial philosophies and opportunity cost of control. In R.M.
91
Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in organisations: Frontiers in theory and research (pp 
16-38). Thousand oaks. CA: Sage Publications.
Cropanzano, R„ & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. 
Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.
Cummings. I..L & Bromiley. P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OFI): Development 
and validation. In Kramer. R. M. & Tyler, T. R. (Ed). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of 
theory and research, (pp. 302-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Day, D.V.. Gronn. P.. & Salas. E., (2004). Leadership Capacity in teams. The Leadership 
Quarterly. I5.X5~-880
De Dreu. C.. E. Giebels, E. & Van de Vliert. (1998). Social motives and trust in integrative
negotiation: The disruptive effects of punitive capability. Journal of Applied.
Psychology.83. 408-423.
Dirks. K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance.Journal o) 
Applied Psychology. 84. 445-455.
Dirks. K. T.. & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization 
Science, 12. 450-467.
Dirks, K. T.. & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic finding and 
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psycltology 8~. 611-628.
Edmondson. A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and 
organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of 
Applied Behavioural Sciences, 32( 1). 5-32.
Edmondson. A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. 
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2). 350-383.
92
Edmondson. A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations. 
Organization Science, 13(2), 128-146.
Edmondson. A. C. (2003), Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote
learning in interdisciplinary action teams. The Journal of Management Studies. 40(6), 
1419-1452.
Edmondson. A. C. (2004). Learning from failure in health care: Frequent opportunities,
perv asive barriers. Oitalily and Safety in Health Care. 13(6), 3-9.
Edmondson. A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group 
level lens. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: 
Dilemmas and approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Edmondson, A. C.. & Woolley. A. W. (2003). Understanding outcomes of organizational 
learning interventions. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.). International
handbook on organizational learning and knowledge management. London: 
Blackwell.
Edmondson. A. C., Bohmer, R. M„ & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team
learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 46(A), 685-716.
Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R.. & Pisano, G. (2001). Speeding up team learning. Harvard 
Business Review. 125-132.
Ellis. A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R„ llgen. D. R„ Porter. C. O. L. H„ West. B. J.. & Moon. H. 
(2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied 
Psychology, XX, 821-835.
Fisher, K. (1993). Leading self directed work teams. New York: McGraw-Hill.
93
Fleishman, E.A., Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Levin, K.Y., Korotkin, A.C., & Hein, M.A
(1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behaviour: A synthesis and 
functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2 ,(4), 245-287.
Ghana Club 100 (1998-2005). Ghana Investment Promotion Centre, www.nipc.ortt.t’h/ 19k. 
(Retrieved 27th October, 2009).
Glick. W. H. (1985). Conceptualising and measuring organizational and psychological climate: 
Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review. 10, 601-616.
Golembiewski. R & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group process. 
In C. Cooper, ed. Theories of Group Process. Wiley: New York.
Graen. G.B.. Orris. J.B.. & Johnson. T.W. (1973). Role assimilation processes in a complex 
organization. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 3. 395—420.
Hackman. J. R. (2002). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.). Handbook of 
organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hackman, J. R„ & Morris. C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group 
performance effectiveness. In H. 1-1. Blumberg. A. P. Hard.V.Kent.&M.Davies (Eds.), 
Small groups and social interaction (Vol. 1). Chichester. UK: Wiley.
Hall. E.T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubledav.
Hofstede. G. (2001). Culture's Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors. Institutions and 
Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks. California: Sage
Hwang, P. & Burgers W. (1997). Properties of trust: An analytical view. Organisational. 
Behavior Human Decision Processes, 69. 67-73.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf. G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater 
reliability with and without response bias. Journal oj Applied Psychology. 69. 85- 98.
James, L. R„ Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg :An assessment of within-group 
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306-309.
Janis, l.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and 
fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Jones, G. R. & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for 
cooperation and teamwork. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 531 546.
Kalin. W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement 
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kanter. R. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Karau. S.. & Williams, K. (1993). Social Loafing: a meta- analysis review and theoretical 
integration. Journal of personality and social psychology. 65, 681-706.
Katz. D.. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed). New York: 
Wiley.
Klein. K. J.. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and 
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W.J.. & Ilgen. D.R. (2006).Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and 
Teams. Psychological Science in the Public interest, 7 (3). 77-124
Kozlowski. S.W.J.. & Bell. B.S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W.C. 
Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and organisational 
psychology. London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Doherty, M.L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: 
Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology. ~4. 546-553
95
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring 
questions. Annual Review of Psychology. 50 569-598.
Lawler. E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal ojSociolog)', 107, 
321-352.
Lawler. E. J. (2006). The affect theory of social exchange. In P. J. Burke (Ed.) Contemporary 
Social Psychological Theories. 244-267. Palo Alto. California: Stanford University
Press
LeBreton, J.M., & Senter, J.L. (2008). Answers to 20 Questions about Interrater Reliability and 
Inter rater Agreement. Organisational Research Methods. 11(4), 815-852.
Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. (1990), “Progress in small group research". Annual Review 
of Psychology. 41, 585-634
Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2006). Does a supportive work environment moderate the
relationship between work-family conflict and burnout among construction
professionals? Construction Management and Economics. 24. 185-196
May. D. R., Gilson, R.L.. & Harter L.M.. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. . 11-37.
Mayer. R. C.. Davis. J. H.. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational 
trust. The Academy of Management Review. 20. 709- 734.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice 
Hall
96
Nembhard, I.M., & Edmondson A.C., (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader 
inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts 
in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941-966.
Oldham. G. R.. & Cummings, A, (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors 
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607-634.
O'Reilly 111, C. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organisational 
communication: A laboratory and field investigation. Human Relations. 31. 173-193.
Pallari. J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. 
Sydney: Allen & Urwin.
Parker. G.M. (2003). Cross-functional teams: Working with allies, enemies and other 
strangers. San Francisco.CA: Jossey-Bass.
Podsakoff. P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-report in organizational research: Problems 
and prospects. Journal of Management. 12: 531-544.
Podsakoff. P.M., MacKenzie. S.B., Lee. J.. & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Biases 
in Behavioural Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended 
Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88. 5, 879-903
Polit. D. F.. Beck. C. T.. & Hungler, B. P. (2001). Essentials of Nursing Research: 
Methods. Appraisal and Utilization (5lh Ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & 
Wilkins.
Porter. L.. Lawler. E. & Hackman. .!.. (1987). Ways group influence individual work 
effectiveness. In steers, R.. Porter, L. (Eds.), Motivation and job behavior (5lh ed. pp. 
199-207). New York: McGraw-Hill.
97
Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15, 
3-15.
Roberts, K., &. O'Reilly , C. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three 
possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205-215.
Robinson, S. (1996). Trust and the breach of the psychological contract. Administrative. 
Science Quarterly. 41 574-599.
Rousseau, D. & Tijoriwala. S. (1999). What's a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and 
social accounts in promoting organiza- tional change. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 84 514-528.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross level 
perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in Organizational 
Beha\'ior, (1-37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rousseau. D„ Sitkin. S.. Burt .R.. & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross 
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review. 23.387- 392.
Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. (2003), The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, 
knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product dev elopment 
teams. Decision Sciences. 34(4), 707-739.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass 
Publishers.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E., & Bennis, W. (1965). How can organizations learn faster? The challenge of 
entering the green room. New York: Wiley,
98
Schippers, M. C„ Den Hartog, D. N.. Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and 
team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group 
longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational 
Behavior, 24(6), 779-802.
Schurr. P., & Ozanne, J.. (1985). Influences on exchange processes: Buyers'
preconceptions of a seller's trustworthiness and bargaining toughness. Journal of 
Consumer Researsch. 11 939-953.
Shonk. J. (1992). Team-based organizations. Developing a successful team environment. 
Howewood. 1L: Business One. Ivwin.
Shrout, P. E.. & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing reliability. 
Psychological Bulletin, 86. 420-428.
Simons. T.. & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management 
teams: The pivotal role of intra-group trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85. 102- 
111.
Simpson, J.A. and Wood, W. (1992), '‘Introduction: where is the group in social psychology? 
An historical overview". In Worchel. S. and Simpson. J.A. (Eds). Group Process and 
Productivity. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 1-12.
Simpson, R. L. (1976). Theories of social exchange. In J.W. Thibault, J. T. Spence, & R. C.
Carson (Eds). Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology. Morristown. New 
Jersey:Generai Learning Press
Smith, J„ & Barclay, D. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the
effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Market ing,61. 3-21.
99
Somech, A. (2006). The Effects of Leadership Style and Team Process on Performance and 
Innovation in Functionally Heterogeneous Teams. Journal of management, 32, 1, 132 
157
Steiner. I. (1972). Group process am!productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Steiner. I.V. (1986). “Paradigms and groups”. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental 
Social Psychology, Vol. 19, Academic Press, New York, NY. pp. 251-89.
Stevens. J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahway,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stewart. G. L..& Manz. C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-managing work teams: A ty pology and 
integrative model. Human Relations, 4H, 747-770.
Tabachnick. B. G.. & Fidell. L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4U> ed.). Boston, VIA: 
Allyn & Bacon.
Teijlingen van. E., Rennie, A. M„ Hundley, V„ & Graham, W. (2001). The importance of 
conducting and reporting pilot studies: the example of the Scottish Births Surv ey. 
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34, 289-295
Tjosvold, D.. Yu. Z.-y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of 
cooperative goals and problem-solving. The Journal of Management Studies, 41(7), 
1223-1245.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). Team organization: an enduring competitive advantage. New York, John 
Wiley and son.
Fynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and lace giving on dyadic psychological safety 
and upward communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 35(2). 223-247.
100
van Vijver, F.J.R. & Fischer, R. (2007). Improving Methodological Robustness in Cross Cultural 
research. In Rabi S. Bhagat and Richard M. Steers (Eds.), Handbook of Culture, 
Organizations, and Work (Chapter 17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
West. M. (1990). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M. A.
West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology. Chichester, N.Y.: Wiley.
West, M. (2004). Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In M. M. Beverlein, D. 
A. Johnson & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.). Product development teams (Vol. 5. pp. 1-29). 
Stamford, C.T.: JA1 Press 
Whitmore C.B.. (2009). Trust Development: Testing a New Model in Undergraduate 
Roommate Relationships. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 
Virginia. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.
Yukl. G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 
Zaccaro, S. J.. Rittman, A. L., & Marks. M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership 
Quarterly, 12.451-483
Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly I~ 
229-239.
101
THHEMODREA
APPENDIX I: SAMPLE OF RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
TEAM MEMBERS
Information Sheet for Participants
Title of project: Psychological safety and learning behaviour in Teams
Investigator: Stephen Kodjo Kumako
Main Research Supervisor: Maxwell Asumeng, Ph.D.
Second Research Supervisor: A.A. Afrifa, Ph.D.
I am a Graduate student at the Department of Psychology. University of Ghana. As part of the 
requirements for the award of an MPhil degree in Industrial and Organisational Psychology, I am 
conducting a research to assess interactions between team members and their team leaders to 
ascertain variables which may contribute to a more conducive and professional interpersonal 
climate in the team to ensure increased performance. 1 will therefore need your assistance by 
completing this questionnaire as honestly and sincerely as possible.
There are no risks to you for participating in this study. The results of this study will remain 
strictly confidential. Completed questionnaires should be returned in envelopes provided.
It would take approximately 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. You are encouraged to 
respond to all statements.
Participant’s Responsibilities
I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. 1 give my consent to participate in this study and 
understand that should I have any questions about this research. I can contact:
Stephen Kodio Kumako 
(Investigator)
Department Of Psychology 
University Of Ghana, Legon. 
0244 388042
Dr. Maxwell Asumeng 
(Main Research Superv isor) 
Department Of Psychology 
University Of Ghana, Legon, 
0248 674405
Signature of Participant
102
Section A - TEAM PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY.
The following statements express various feelings towards and evaluations of your team. Please 
indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statements by circling the response 
that best reflects your opinion.
Very inaccurate inaccurate Neither accurate Very
accurate accurate
nor 
inaccurate
1 2 3 4 5
1 If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held 1 2 3 4 5
against you.
2 Members of this team are able to bring up problems 1 2 3 4 5
and tough issues for discussion.
3 People on this team sometimes reject others for being 1 2 3 4 5
different.
4 It is safe to lake a risk on this team 1 2 3 4 5
5 It is difficult to ask members of this team for help. 1 2 3 4 5
6 No one on this team would deliberately act in a way 1 2 3 4 5
that undermines my efforts.
7 Working with members of this team, my unique skills 1 2 3 4 5
and talents are valued and utilized.
Section B - INTRAGROUP TRUST.
The following statements express various feelings towards and evaluation of your team. Please 
rate how often these statements are characteristic of your team by circling the response that best 
reflects your opinion.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
1 2 3 4 5
1 We absolutely respect each other's competence. 1 2 3 4 5
2 Ever)' member of this team shows absolute integrity. 1 2 3 4 5
3 We expect the complete truth from each other. 1 2 3 4 5
4 We are all certain that we can fully trust each other. 1 2 3 4 5
5 We count on each other to fully live up to our word. 1 2 3 4 5
Section r - TEAM TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP.
The following statements concern your feelings towards and evaluations of your TEAM 
LEADER. Please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statements by 
circling the response that best reflects your opinion of your team leader.
To a very large To a large Somewhat To a small To a very small
extent extent extent extent
1 2 3 4 5
1 My team leader communicates a clear and positive vision of 
the future
2 3 4 5
2 My team leader treats staff as individuals, supports and 
encourages their development
2 3 4 5
3 My team leader gives encouragement and recognition to staff 2 3 4 5
4 My team leader fosters trust, involvement and cooperation 
among team members
2 3 4 5
5 My team leader encourages thinking about problems in new 
wavs and questions assumptions
2 3 4 5
6 My team leader is clear about his/her values and practices 
what he/she preaches
2 3 4 5
7 My team leader instills pride and respect in others and inspires 
us by being highly competent
2 3 4 5
Section D.
For each of the following questions, please fill in the blank or check the appropriate space. 
Sex: Male I I Female I 1 
Age: years
Marital Status:
Single 1 | Separated. Divorced, Widowed ] [ Married
Highest Level of Education:
Senior Secondary school I I Training college 
University Degree [ | Postgraduate degree
Polytechnic
104
How long have you worked with your organisation? 
How long have you worked with your present team? 
How long have you worked as a professional?
Years
Years
Years
TEAM LEADER
Information Sheet for Participants
Title of project: Psychological safety and learning behaviour in Teams
Investigator: Stephen Kodjo Kumako
Main Research Supervisor: Maxwell Asumeng, Ph.D.
Second Research Supervisor: A.A. Afrifa, Ph.D.
I am a Graduate student at the Department of Psychology, University of Ghana. As part of the 
requirements for the award of an MPhil degree in Industrial and Organisational Psycholog)-, I am 
conducting a research to assess interactions between team members and their team leaders to 
ascertain variables which may contribute to a more conducive and professional interpersonal 
climate in the team to ensure increased performance. I will therefore need your assistance by 
completing this questionnaire as honestly and sincerely as possible.
There are no risks to you for participating in this study. The results of this study will remain 
strictly confidential- Completed questionnaires should be returned in envelopes provided.
It would take approximately 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. You are encouraged to 
respond to all statements.
Participant’s Responsibilities
I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. 1 give my consent to participate in this study and 
understand that should I have any questions about this research, I can contact:
Stephen Kodio Kumako 
(Investigator)
Department Of Psychology 
University Of Ghana, Legon, 
0244 388042
Dr. Maxwell Asumeng 
(Main Research Superv isor) 
Department Of Psychology 
University Of Ghana, Legon. 
0248 674405
Signature of Participant
105
Section A - TF.AM I EARNING BEHAVIOUR.
The following statements express various evaluations of behaviour in your team. Please rate 
how often these statements are characteristic of your team by circling the response that best 
reflects your opinion.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
1 2 3 4 5
1 We regularly take time to Figure out ways to improve our 
team's work processes
1 2 3 4 5
2 This team tends to handle differences of opinions privately 
or off-line rather than addressing them directly as a group
1 2 3 4 5
3 Team members go out and get all the information they 1 2 3 4 5
possibly can from others-such as customers, or other parts of 
the organization
4 This team frequently seeks new information that leads us to 
make important changes
1 2 3 4 5
5 In this team, someone always makes sure that we slop to 
reflect on the team's work processes
1 2 3 4 5
6 People in this team often speak up to test assumptions about 
issues under our discussion
1 2 3 4 5
7 We invite people from outside the team to present 
information or have discussions with us
1 2 3 4 5
Section B.
For each of the following questions, please fill in the blank or check the appropriate space.
Sex: Male i | Female 
Age; years
Marital Status:
Single | j Separated. Divorced, Widowed | | Married
Highest Level of Education:
Senior Secondary school | 1 Training college I 1 Polytechnic
University Degree [~~ | Postgraduate degree [ [
How long have you worked with your organisation! 
How long have you worked with your present team? 
How long have you worked as a professional?
Years
Years
Years
107
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y 
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y
APPENDIX II: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Histogram
TEAMPSYCSAFETY
Histogram
INTRAGROUPTRUST
108