Teams in health care face several challenges such as increasing complexity of health care provision; emphasis on efficiency and cost control; and focus on innovation, patient and person centred care delivery (IoM, 2001) (Kessel, Kratzer, & Schultz, 2012). Often high performing teams are seen as a panacea for the continuously challenging environment. Moreover, several studies have shown the link between high performing teams and performance in terms of patient safety (Carayon, et al., 2014; Baker, Salas, & Barach, 2003), quality of care (Carayon, et al., 2014; Gittel, et al., 2000), clinical performance (Baker, Salas, & Barach, 2003; Gittel, et al., 2000), individual well-being (Manser, 2009).
A 2016 longitudinal study by People Analytics Unit of Google found psychological safety to be the top characteristic of the high-performing teams (Newman, Donohueb, & Evab, 2017). Psychological safety describes the perception that an individual holds regarding the consequences of interpersonal risks in their working environment (Edmondson, 2004). In psychologically safe environments, followers are encouraged to seek help when they have doubts regarding tasks, to ask for feedback, to speak up on errors and concerns, to be comfortable with innovation and innovative behaviours, and to cooperate with other groups (Edmondson, 2004). Moreover, studies have emphasised psychological safety as vital in decreasing employees’ errors and in increasing safety, thus highly important for environments like health care provision (Newman, Donohueb, & Evab, 2017).
In reviewing the antecedents of psychological safety, Edmondson (2004) argues that the behaviours that position the leader as being approachable and available, inviting input, and modelling fairness and fallability is crucial for nurturing team psychological safety. Furthermore, studies also showed that leaders who encourage their members’ participation and exhibit orientation towards improvement manage to foster higher levels of psychological safety in their teams (Newman, Donohueb, & Evab, 2017).
Leadership taxonomy distinguishes between transformational and transactional leadership. Bass theorised that while the transformational leader is motivating the followers by inspiring them to reach their common goal together, the transactional leader is using what could be considered a give&take approach in order to determine the followers to move towards their common goal (Bass & Bass, The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications , 2009). While Bass’ model for conceptualising leadership is focusing on the leader’s persona, positioning the leader at the core of leadership, the Leader Member Exchange (LMX) theory focuses on the relationship implied by l
