The Role of Psychological Safety in Predicting Proactive Behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are employees with a propensity to be proactive (i.e., proactive personality), it does not mean that they will behave proactively regardless of the work situation. Contextual factors at work can both facilitate or deter employees from acting proactively, and this study explores whether psychological safety is one of these contextual factors. Full-time employees in Canada completed an online questionnaire assessing both individual and organizational factors related to proactivity in the workplace. It was found that psychological safety did affect the relationship between proactive personality and proactive behaviour. When the level of psychological safety decreases, inherently proactive employees exhibited highest levels of proactive behaviour. On the other hand, when psychological safety increases, the role of proactive personality diminished such that proactive behaviour increased even among employees who were not dispositionally predisposed to being proactive. Proactive behaviour was also found to be positively related to job satisfaction and affective commitment toward the organization. Overall, the study findings suggest that organizations that desire employees to behave proactively can do so by cultivating a psychologically safe work environment for employees.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".