Author (s): Volevakha I.B., Kolomiiets N.V.

Work place:


Volevakha I.B.,

PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor,
Associate Professor of the Department of Psychology,

Academy of the State Penitentiary Service, Chernihiv, Ukraine,

ORCID: 0000-0002-7814-9476


Kolomiiets N.V.,

Doctor of sciences (Law), Professor,

Head of the Department of Criminal law and justice,

Chernihiv Polytechnic National University, Chernihiv, Ukraine,

ORCID: 0000-0001-5609-2651


Language: Ukrainian

Scientific Herald of Sivershchyna. Series: Education. Social and Behavioural Sciences 2022. № 2 (9): 28–42


Psychological safety of employees is very important for organization functioning and development as it contributes to improved team performance, job involvement, sharing information and knowledge, ensuring their strong desire to continue working and developing in the organization where they work.

The purpose of the study is to reveal the organizational factors of psychological safety at a job position, that is to determine, which characteristics of internal organizational condition affect the employees’ perceptions and feelings about a workplace safety.

Scientific novelty. This study was carried out to examine the effects of organizational factors on the psychological safety of employees in the workplace. Psychological safety is regarded as a state of preservation of mind that involves maintaining a balance between the negative effects of the environment and a person’s resilience, that is, the ability to overcome such effects.

In the structure of psychological safety of the organization member three components were identified: 1) the cognitive component – beliefs of employee about parameters of the professional environment in terms of real and potential threats and his/her own abilities to cope with them; 2) the emotional component – a feeling of being protected from the threats that go from the professional environment. The resulting assessment has emotional shades and can be characterized by dichotomies such as “safe-dangerous”, “good-bad”, “comfortable-uncomfortable” etc.; 3) component “confidence in the future” – in order to feel safe, it is not enough for an employee to perceive the environment as safe and his own ability to cope with all the challenges successfully today, but also the confidence that the current state of affairs will be maintained tomorrow is important.

Conclusions. A questionnaire was offered to the members of business organizations and educational institutions. The results of the study confirmed that such organizational factors as level of organizational culture, working team cohesion, working team self-organization, management style of the immediate supervisor, work autonomy, role ambiguity have positive effect on psychological safety. The results imply the importance of purposeful implementation the company policies aiming improvement of these factors.

Key words: organization, worker psychological safety, educational institution, business organization, factor, corporate culture, work autonomy, team cohesion.



  1. Tsaras, K., Malliarou, M., Kotrotsiou, S., Papathanasiou, I. et al. (2019), “Impact of job burnout on mental health among social workers in public and private sector in Greece”, Mental Health : Global Challenges Journal, Vol.2, № 1, available at: article/view/47/39 (accessed at 10 May 2022).
  2. Baeva, I. A. (2006), “Psychology of safety as a direction of psychological science and practice”, National Psychological Journal, № 1, рр. 66–68.
  3. Shlykova, N. L. (2004), Psychological safety of the subject of professional activity, Triada, Tver.
  4. Kolesnikova, T. I. (2001), “The psychological world of personality and its safety”, Series : Psychology of security and success, Vlados-Press, Moscow.
  5. Kahn, W. A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, № 33, рр. 692–724.
  6. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L. and Harter, L. M. (2004), “The psychology condition of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, № 77, рр. 11–37.
  7. Edmondson, A. C. and Lei, Z. (2014), “Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, № 1, рр. 23–43.
  8. Appelbaum, N. P., Dow, A., Mazmanian, P. E. et al. (2016), “The effects of power, leadership and psychological safety on resident event reporting”, Medical Education, № 50, рр. 343–350.
  9. Aranzamendez, G., James, D. and Toms, R. (2015) “Finding antecedents of psychological safety: a step toward quality improvement”, Nursing Forum, № 50, рр. 171–178.
  10. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., and Lirtzman, S. I. (1970), “Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, № 15, рр. 150–163.
  11. Newman, A., Donohue, R. and Eva, N. (2017), “Psychological safety: a systematic review of the literature”, Human Resourse Management Review, № 27, рр. 521–535.
  12. Walumbwa, F. O., Schaubroeck, J. (2009), “Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, № 5, рр. 1275–1286.
  13. Parker, S. K., Axtell, C. M. and Turner, N. (2001) “Designing a safer workplace: Importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 6, № 3, рр. 211–228.
  14. Schmidt, S., Roesler, U., Kusserow, T. and Rau, R. (2014), “Uncertainty in the workplace: Examining role ambiguity and role conflict, and their link to depression – a meta-analysis”, European journal of work and organizational psychology, № 23, рр. 91–106.
  15. Idrees, D., Hafeez, M. and Jung-Yong, K. (2017), “Psychological Factors Affecting the Perception of Personal Safety of Construction Workers in a Developing Country”, International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Research (IJSER), Volume 5, Issue 10, рр. 94–98.
  16. Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, № 44, рр. 350–383.
  17. Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., Balasubramanian, S. and Anand, G. (2009), “The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 1, № 3, рр. 429–447.
  18. Handbook of a psychologist-consultant of an organization (2006), in Istratova, O. N. and Eksakusto, T. V. (Ed.), Phoenix, Rostov-on-Don.
  19. Work technologies of organizational psychologists: manual for university students and postgraduates (2005) / in Karamushka, L. M. (Ed.), INKOS Company, Kyiv.
  20. Breaugh, J. A. (1985), “The measurement of work autonomy”, Human Relations, № 38, рр. 551–570.
  21. Edmondson, A. (2004), “Psychological Safety, Trust and Learning: A Group-level Lens”, In Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, Kramer, R. and Cook, K., Russell Sage Foundation, New York, рр. 239–272.
  22. Urien, B., Osca, A. and García-Salmones, L. (2017), “Role ambiguity, group cohesion and job satisfaction: A Demands-Resources Model (JD-R) Study from Mexico and Spain”, Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, Volume 49, Issue 2, рр. 137–145.
  23. Tsai, Y. (2011), “Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction”, BMC Health Services Research; Vol. 11, Issue 98, available at: articles/10.1186/1472-6963-11-98 (accessed at 10 May 2022).
  24. Aluko, M. A. O. (2003), “The impact of culture on organizational performance in selected textile firms in Nigeria”, Nordic Journal of African Studies, Vol. 12, Issue 2, рр. 164–179.


Full text .pdf

©2024. Penitentiary academy of Ukraine