YENİ FİKİRLERİN SESSİZLİĞİ: BİR TEKNOLOJİ ŞİRKETİ SENARYOSUNDA PSİKOLOJİK GÜVENLİĞİN YENİLİKÇİ DAVRANIŞLAR ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 146 - 171, 11.12.2025

Olgun İrmak Çetin

https://doi.org/10.70756/anameud.1641430

https://izlik.org/JA54YG44AW

Öz

Bu makale, bir teknoloji şirketi olan Tech Innovate Solutions'da (TIS) geçen ayrıntılı bir senaryoyu kullanarak, psikolojik güvenlik ile kuruluşlardaki yenilikçi davranışlar arasındaki kritik ilişkiyi araştırmaktadır. “Yeni Fikirlerin Sessizliği” başlıklı senaryo, yönetimsel tutumlar ve örtülü performans baskıları yoluyla ortaya çıkan psikolojik güvenlikteki ince bir erozyonun, çalışanların sesini nasıl bastırabileceğini ve yeni fikirlerin üretilmesini nasıl engelleyebileceğini göstermektedir. Bir zamanlar dinamik ve yenilikçi bir firma olan TIS, çalışanların olumsuz tepkilerden korkarak alışılmadık fikirleri paylaşmakta giderek daha tereddütlü hale gelmesiyle yaratıcı çıktılarda bir düşüş yaşamaya başlar. Bu makale, altta yatan dinamikleri anlamak için senaryoyu psikolojik güvenlik teorisi ve tehdit katılığı teorisi de dahil olmak üzere örgütsel davranış teorileri merceğinden analiz etmektedir. TIS içindeki kilit karakterleri, olay akışını ve çatışma noktalarını tanımlayarak, güvenlik eksikliğinden kaynaklanan iletişim boşluklarını ve gerilimleri vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca makale, yeniliğe elverişli, psikolojik açıdan daha güvenli bir ortamın teşvik edilmesini amaçlayan yönetim eğitimi, güvenli fikir paylaşım alanlarının oluşturulması ve gözden geçirilmiş geri bildirim mekanizmaları gibi potansiyel çözümler önermektedir. Bulgular, psikolojik güvenliğin sadece inovasyon için temel bir unsur değil, aynı zamanda kurumsal başarının da kritik bir itici gücü olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. TİS gibi şirketler, sessizliğin temel nedenlerini ele alarak ve hedefe yönelik müdahaleler uygulayarak çalışanlarının yaratıcı potansiyelini açığa çıkarabilir ve rekabet güçlerini yeniden kazanabilirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Psikolojik Güvenlik , Yenilikçi Davranışlar , Örgüt Kültürü , Teknoloji Şirketi , Senaryo Analizi

THE SILENCE OF NEW IDEAS: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY ON INNOVATIVE BEHAVIORS IN A TECH COMPANY SCENARIO

https://izlik.org/JA54YG44AW

Öz

This paper explores the critical relationship between psychological safety and innovative behaviors within organizations, using a detailed scenario set in a technology company, Tech Innovate Solutions (TIS). The scenario, titled "The Silence of New Ideas," illustrates how a subtle erosion of psychological safety, manifested through managerial attitudes and implicit performance pressures, can stifle employee voice and hinder the generation of new ideas. Once a dynamic and innovative firm, TIS begins to experience a decline in creative output as employees become increasingly hesitant to share unconventional ideas, fearing negative repercussions. The paper analyzes the scenario through the lens of organizational behavior theories, including psychological safety theory and threat rigidity theory, to understand the underlying dynamics. It identifies key characters, event flow, and conflict points within TIS, highlighting the communication gaps and tensions arising from a lack of safety. Furthermore, the paper proposes potential solutions such as managerial training, creation of safe idea-sharing spaces, and revised feedback mechanisms aimed at fostering a more psychologically safe environment conducive to innovation. The findings reveal that psychological safety is not only a foundational element for innovation but also a critical driver of organizational success. By addressing the root causes of silence and implementing targeted interventions, companies like TIS can unlock their employees' creative potential and regain their competitive edge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Psychological Safety , Innovative Behaviors , Organizational Culture , Technology Company , Scenario Analysis

Kaynakça

• Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10.
• Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
• Atagan Çetin, A. (2023). Effects of climate change disasters on accounting practices: A YouTube content analysis with the VUCA model. In H. A. Kutlu (Ed.), Advances in Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences 2 (pp. 664-684). Platanus Publishing.
• Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), 45-68.
• Bass, B. M. (2006). Transformational leadership. Lawrence Elabaum Associating.
• Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High‐quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(6), 709-729.
• Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: a new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 202.
• Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 354-363.
• Doğan, S., & Atagan Çetin, A. (2023). Muhasebe meslek mensuplarının meslek etiği algısı: Kırklareli ilinde bir uygulama. Saribas, S. (Ed.) , Küreselleşen dünyada sosyal bilimler (s. 655-692). Duvar Yayınları.
• Duhigg, C. (2016). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine, 26(2016), 2016.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
• Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. In: John Wiley & Sons.
• Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 23-43.
• Fleming, M., Clarke, W., Das, S., Phongthiengtham, P., & Reddy, P. (2019). The future of work: How new technologies are transforming tasks. MITIBM Watson AI Lab.
• 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.
• Gao, S., Low, S. P., Gao, S., & Low, S. P. (2014). The Toyota Way. Lean Construction Management: The Toyota Way, 49-100.
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel, multi-domain perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
• Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.
• Kartajaya, H., Kotler, P., & Hooi, D. H. (2019). Marketing 4.0: moving from traditional to digital. World Scientific Book Chapters, 99-123.
• Kniberg, H., & Ivarsson, A. (2012). Scaling agile@ spotify. online], UCVOF, ucvox. files. wordpress. com/2012/11/113617905-scaling-Agile-spotify-11. pdf.
• Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of applied psychology, 78(4), 662.
• 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: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(7), 941-966.
• Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human resource management review, 27(3), 521-535.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2): John Wiley & Sons. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative science quarterly, 501-524.
• Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2020). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change: John Wiley & Sons.
• West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied psychology, 51(3), 355-387.