A Critique of “The limits of psychological safety: Nonlinear relationships with performance”

A Critique of “The limits of psychological safety: Nonlinear relationships with performance”

Abstract:
This critique examines the theoretical underpinnings, methodological design, measurement practices, and practical implications of “The limits of psychological safety: Nonlinear relationships with performance.” Drawing on insights from contributors including Tom Geraghty, Joe Dadamo, and Phil Bush, this analysis highlights concerns over the paper’s conceptualisation of psychological safety, its binary treatment of routine versus innovative work, and the potential for misinterpretation in managerial practice. The critique further discusses the neglect of the moral and rights‐based rationale for psychological safety alongside its organisational benefits.

1. Introduction
The study under review investigates a nonlinear relationship between psychological safety (PS) and in‐role performance, positing that beyond moderate levels, high PS may detract from performance on routine tasks. Although the paper makes a contribution to the field by challenging the prevailing view of PS as uniformly beneficial, several practitioners and commentators have raised concerns about its theoretical assumptions and methodological choices .

2. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Assumptions
2.1 Misrepresentation of Psychological Safety
Critics contend that the paper misrepresents psychological safety by suggesting that it is solely about encouraging innovation and risk-taking. This mischaracterisation creates a straw‐man argument, as no credible theory posits that psychological safety equates to mere comfort or complacency .

2.2 The Dichotomy Between Routine and Novel Tasks
Joe Dadamo and other commentators have highlighted the paper’s oversimplification of work roles by contrasting ‘routine’ with ‘novel’ tasks. In Dadamo’s view, the assumption that high PS distracts employees from routine tasks by shifting their focus towards novelty is problematic, especially in professions such as nursing. Critics note that while routine work requires strict adherence to protocols, it also demands vigilance to prevent errors: a nuance that is overlooked when nursing is portrayed as a purely routine function .

2.3 Neglecting the Moral and Rights-Based Perspective
Phil Bush emphasises that psychological safety is not only a means to improve performance but also a moral imperative, ensuring that workers can report mistakes and voice concerns without fear of reprisal. By framing PS predominantly in instrumental terms, the paper risks marginalising its ethical dimension. This oversight could be particularly harmful when findings are misinterpreted by managers, potentially undermining the fundamental purpose of cultivating safe and respectful work environments .

3. Methodological Evaluation
3.1 Measurement Validity and Reliability
Several contributors have questioned the validity of the 7‐item measure used to assess psychological safety. As noted by Joe Dadamo, the scale may inadvertently capture other factors, such as group norms or cultural influences, that confound the relationship between PS and performance. A more thorough measurement systems analysis (MSA) might have helped to identify and control for such lurking variables.

3.2 Sampling and Contextual Variability
Critics raise concerns over the heterogeneity of the samples employed in the five studies. For instance, the nursing sample, comprising individuals from various specialties with differing responsibilities, may not be representative of a homogenous ‘routine’ role. Similarly, the diverse occupational backgrounds of knowledge workers and startup employees call into question whether the same assumptions about routine versus innovative work can be uniformly applied .

3.3 Analytic Techniques and Temporal Considerations
While the use of sophisticated techniques such as Kernel Regularised Least Squares (KRLS) and fixed effects regressions is commendable, critics argue that the expectation of a ‘moderate band’ of PS as optimal seems to be a restatement of the authors’ hypotheses rather than a theory derived from first principles. Moreover, the reliance on supervisor evaluations obtained three months after initial surveys introduces temporal ambiguity, particularly in dynamic environments where performance standards may shift rapidly .

4. Discussion of Broader Implications
4.1 Instrumental Versus Ethical Rationale
A critical concern is the paper’s instrumental focus, which emphasises performance outcomes at the expense of recognising the intrinsic ethical importance of psychological safety. As Phil Bush asserts, PS is essential not merely for enhancing innovation but also for upholding workers’ dignity and fostering an environment where mistakes can be openly addressed, and learned from, without fear of punitive action.

4.2 Implications for Managerial Practice
There is considerable worry that, given its publication behind an academic paywall, the paper’s executive summary may be the only part accessible to managers and leaders. This raises the risk of its findings being taken as gospel, potentially leading to misguided policies that limit psychological safety in routine settings. Such misinterpretation could have severe consequences, especially in high-risk areas like healthcare where the ability to report and learn from errors is crucial.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations
In summary, while “The limits of psychological safety: Nonlinear relationships with performance” contributes a provocative perspective by challenging the prevailing assumption that more PS is invariably better, its conceptualisation and methodological execution invite significant critique. The paper’s misrepresentation of psychological safety, oversimplification of the routine–novel task dichotomy, and potential measurement and sampling issues must be addressed in future research. It is recommended that subsequent studies adopt a more nuanced framework that integrates both the instrumental and ethical dimensions of psychological safety, employs rigorous measurement systems, and carefully accounts for contextual variability across different work environments.