A Qualitative Study on the Relationship and Distinction Between Psychological Safety and Individual Trustworthiness in a Hospital Context

Abstract

This study aimed to disentangle the concepts of psychological safety and individual trustworthiness, which are often used interchangeably in organizational behavior literature, and to examine their dynamic relationship in-depth within the high-risk context of a hospital. This qualitative study was conducted with 28 healthcare workers selected via purposive sampling from a city hospital in Turkey. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews between May and August 2025 and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants' demographic characteristics are presented using descriptive statistics, and main themes are presented accordingly. Thematic analysis of the data revealed that participants clearly distinguished between these two concepts. Psychological safety was defined as an "environmental" characteristic (freedom of speech; absence of punishment), while trustworthiness was perceived as an individual "reputation" matter (keeping one's word; doing one's job well). Leader trustworthiness was found to be a strong prerequisite for psychological safety, while a safe environment provided a space for experiencing and building mutual trust. Psychological safety and individual trustworthiness are mutually reinforcing yet distinct phenomena. The findings offer practical implications, suggesting that leadership training should focus on the concrete behaviors that build trustworthiness and that performance systems should be redesigned to be more learning-oriented.

Keywords

• Psychological Safety
• Individual Trustworthiness
• Healthcare Workers
• Qualitative Research

Hastane Bağlamında Psikolojik Güvenlik ve Bireysel Güvenilirlik Arasındaki İlişki ve Ayrım Üzerine Nitel Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Bu çalışma, örgütsel davranış literatüründe sıklıkla birbirinin yerine kullanılan psikolojik güvenlik ve bireysel güvenilirlik kavramlarını birbirinden ayırmayı ve hastane gibi yüksek riskli bir ortamda bu iki kavramın dinamik ilişkisini derinlemesine incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu nitel çalışma, Türkiye'deki bir şehir hastanesinden amaçlı örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 28 sağlık çalışanıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler, Mayıs-Ağustos 2025 tarihleri ​​arasında yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmış ve tematik analiz yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Katılımcıların demografik özellikleri betimsel istatistikler kullanılarak sunulmuş ve ana temalar buna göre sunulmuştur. Verilerin tematik analizi, katılımcıların bu iki kavram arasında net bir ayrım yaptığını ortaya koymuştur. Psikolojik güvenlik, "çevresel" bir özellik (ifade özgürlüğü; cezanın olmaması) olarak tanımlanırken, güvenilirlik bireysel bir "itibar" meselesi (sözünü tutmak; işini iyi yapmak) olarak algılanmıştır. Lider güvenilirliğinin psikolojik güvenlik için güçlü bir ön koşul olduğu, güvenli bir ortamın ise karşılıklı güveni deneyimlemek ve geliştirmek için bir alan sağladığı bulunmuştur. Psikolojik güvenlik ve bireysel güvenilirlik, birbirini güçlendiren ancak birbirinden farklı olgulardır. Bulgular, liderlik eğitiminin güvenilirliği artıran somut davranışlara odaklanması ve performans sistemlerinin daha öğrenme odaklı olacak şekilde yeniden tasarlanması gerektiği yönünde pratik çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Psikolojik Güvenlik
• Bireysel Güvenilirlik
• Sağlık Çalışanları
• Niteliksel Araştırma

References

1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
2. Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
3. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
4. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
5. Durak, H. S. (2025). A Study on the Basic Variables of Organizational Exclusion: A University Example. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 60(4), 3774–3791. https://doi.org/10.63556/tisej.2025.1651
6. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
7. 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 (pp. 239–272). Russell Sage Foundation.
8. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

9. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
10. Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
11. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
12. Lee, S. E., & Dahinten, V. S. (2020). The Enabling, Enacting, and Elaborating Factors of Safety Culture Associated With Patient Safety: A Multilevel Analysis. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 52(5), 544-552.
13. Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.
14. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
15. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
16. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
18. 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(7), 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413
19. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
20. O’Donovan, R., & McAuliffe, E. (2020). A systematic review of factors that enable psychological safety in healthcare teams. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 32(4), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa025
21. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
22. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
23. Schmutz, J. B., & Manser, T. (2013). Do team processes really have an effect on clinical performance? A systematic literature review. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 110(4), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes513
24. Schwartz, R. W., & Abbott, A. A. (2007). Storytelling: A clinical application for undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice, 7(3), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2006.06.005