Two Sides to Every Story: Exploring Hybrid Design Teams' Perceptions of Psychological Safety on Slack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the unique challenges of hybrid work can compromise collaboration and team dynamics, hybrid teams can thrive with well-informed strategies and tools that nurture interpersonal engagements. To inform future supports, we pursue a mixed-methods study of hybrid engineering design capstone teams' Psychological Safety (PS) (i.e., their climate of interpersonal risk-taking and mutual respect) to understand how the construct manifests in teams engaged in innovation. Using interviews, we study six teams' perceptions of PS indicators and how they present differently on Slack (when compared to in-person interactions). We then leverage the interview insights to design Slack-based PS indicators. We present five broad facets of PS in hybrid teams, four perceived differences of PS on Slack compared to in-person, and 15 Slack-based, PS indicators--the groundwork for future automated PS measurement on instant-messaging platforms. These insights produce three design implications and illustrative design examples for ways instant-messaging platforms can support Psychologically Safe hybrid teams, and best practices for hybrid teams to support interpersonal risk-taking and build mutual respect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".