Determinants of other relevant concepts

Deliberate interventions

Some research has explored practices and programs that can foster a quiet ego—a concept that overlaps with humility.  Specifically, like humble individuals, people who experience a quiet ego are aware of their attributes rather than defensive, feel a sense of belonging or affiliation with all humans rather than special, appreciate the perspectives of other people, fostering compassion, and strive to develop and learn from their experiences rather than demonstrate their capabilities (Wayment et al., 2015).  Accordingly, initiatives that promote this quiet ego may also foster humility.    

Some interventions have been introduced to foster and cultivate this quiet ego.  To illustrate, Wayment, Collier, et al. (2015) introduced an intervention that was designed to foster a quiet ego.  First, participants heard an audio recording that delineated the four distinct facets or features of a quiet ego: detached awareness, inclusive identity, perspective taking, and growth.   Specifically, the audio

• described the notion of a quiet ego and each of the four distinct facets,
• outlined the benefits of these facets to individuals,
• clarified that a quiet ego balances personal interests with the needs of other people—a compromise between an inflated ego and a suppressed ego,
• prompted the individuals to imagine, as vividly as possible, how they could experience, demonstrate, or develop these facets,
• encouraged individuals to utilise the insights they gained from this exercise to accommodate the various demands and challenges they experience every day.

Relative to participants who were allocated to a control condition, in which they were exposed to National Geographic magazines instead, participants who completed this intervention did indeed report elevated levels of a quiet ego.  Furthermore, during a demanding cognitive task, they were not as likely to experience mind wandering and experienced diminished stress, as gauged by levels of urinary 8-iso-PG F2α concentration. 

Other studies have validated this procedure.  For example, Wayment, Huffman, et al. (2019) introduced the same intervention to induce a quiet ego.  This intervention promoted both emotional intelligence and a sense of flourishing, validating the procedure.

Conditions that foster a quiet ego

Besides these deliberate interventions, research has also explored other circumstances or experiences that can foster this quiet ego.  For example, after individuals feel a sense of awe, they are more likely to experience a quiet ego (Zhang et al., 2025).

Some research indicates that reciprocal peer coaching—in which pairs of staff or small teams coach, mentor, motivate, support, or appraise one another—may foster psychological safety.  Reciprocal peer coaching, sometimes called peer accountability pairs or triads, tends to entail a sequence of phases.  To illustrate

• first, staff receive information about this forthcoming initiative, such as the goal of this approach, an example of a typical session, and the opportunity to offer feedback during the pilot,
• second, staff receive training on how to converse with one another during these sessions as well as how to promote trust, maintain confidentiality, and embrace vulnerability (cf., Cox, 2012),
• third, staff are allocated to triads, typically with peers from other departments, and meet every three weeks for about an hour,
• fourth, staff record the key activities they plan to undertake as well as other relevant information in a shared log,
• fifth, every few months, a facilitator will check the dynamics, progress, and satisfaction of each triad and attempt to address problems or challenges,
• finally, the triads are rotated every six months or so.

During each conversation, the pairs, triads, or teams may discuss

• their personal aspirations
• the goals they want to achieve over the next few weeks—and how these goals are relevant to their personal aspirations and to the strategy of their team or organisation,
• the potential obstacles and challenges
• strategies to manage these obstacles and challenges or to improve performance generally,
• reflections on the insights these individuals have acquired since the last meeting,
• progress on their goals since the last meeting,

This approach has been studied in multiple sectors, especially in the training and development of teachers (e.g., Gonen, 2016; Zwart et al., 2008), academics (Cox, 2012), and health practitioners (e.g., Ladyshewsky, 2002; Valanci-Aroesty et al., 2022). According to participants, these sessions tend to facilitate learning, improve planning, and improve emotions (Goldman et al., 2013).  Furthermore, after these sessions, individuals are more willing to seek feedback from peers (Valanci-Aroesty et al., 2022).

Relationship between reciprocal peer coaching and psychological safety

Laird et al. (2024) conducted a study that explored whether reciprocal peer coaching does indeed foster psychological safety. In this study, medical researchers from multiple universities participated in a reciprocal peer coaching program.  The participants

• attended two online sessions about leadership, teamwork, and career advancement,
• attended four residential retreats over a year, each lasting three days,
• during these residential retreats, in pairs or small teams, discussed their values, goals, milestones, and other related topics.

Two weeks after the online session and one year later, participants completed the measure of psychological safety that Edmondson (1999) had validated. This instrument was administered to evaluate the extent to which these participants felt safe to raise sensitive matters to the cohort.  A sample item was “Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues”.  After completing the reciprocal peer coaching, psychological safety improved significantly—an experience that subsequent interviews with participants also uncovered. 

Beneficial features of reciprocal peer coaching

The benefits of reciprocal peer coaching, peer accountability pairs, and similar approaches depend on many characteristics of the individuals, workplace conditions, and conversations.  For example, reciprocal peer coaching tends to facilitate learning, development, trust, and performance most when

• the individuals feel some pressure to embrace novel methods and practices (Zwart et al., 2009),
• the individuals enjoy the challenge of professional development, rather than feel compelled to participate in these sessions (Zwart et al., 2009).

Leadership and psychological safety

A variety of studies have shown that various leadership styles and leadership behaviours may foster psychological safety.  To illustrate, staff are more likely to experience psychological safety when managers and supervisors

• demonstrate transformational leadership (Carmeli et al., 2014; Detert & Burris, 2007), in which they articulate a compelling, optimistic, and existing vision of the future as well as helps individuals achieve this vision (see Bass & Avolio, 1990),
• adopt a style called change-oriented leadership (Ortega et al., 2014), in which they monitor the market to seek opportunities, encourage innovation, and embrace risks (Yukl et al., 1990),
• demonstrate ethical leadership, as gauged by items like “Defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained” and “Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards” (Brown et al., 2005),
• exhibit authentic leadership (Liu et al., 2015; Max et al., 2019), epitomised by items like “Accurately describes how others view his or her capabilities” and “Makes decisions based on his or her core beliefs”,
• demonstrate they are open, available, and accessible, called inclusive leadership (Carmeli et al., 2010; see also Javed et al., 2019; Vakira et al., 2023), as gauged by items like “(My) manager encourages me to access him or her on emerging issues”,
• empower their staff (Joo et al., 2023)—and, for example, delegate challenging and significant tasks to these individuals and thus show confidence in their staff (cf., Ahearne et al., 2005),
• exhibit openness (Detert & Burris, 2007), as measured by items like “good ideas get serious consideration from managers above them” (Ashford et al., 1998).

Arguably, these leadership styles—such as transformational, ethical, inclusive, and authentic leadership—imply that managers and supervisors value the growth, wellbeing, and integrity of individuals rather than only more immediate outcomes.  Consequently, these leaders cultivate a culture in which staff attempt to help one another develop.  These staff will thus respect, rather than deride, the concerns that colleagues raise, fostering psychological safety.

Team characteristics and psychological safety

Many characteristics of teams may also affect the level of psychological safety that individuals experience.  To illustrate, staff members tend to experience greater psychological safety when

• all members receive some shared reward, such as a bonus or better resources, if the team or department achieves some goal (Chen & Tjosvold, 2012),
• the goals and plans of various teams or departments are compatible with each other (Chen & Tjosvold, 2012), so that success in one team will benefit other teams,
• each team member is assigned a distinct set of responsibilities, understands the priorities of this team, and appreciates how their responsibilities are relevant to these priorities (Bresman & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013; Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010),
• team members are encouraged to develop relationships outside the workgroup and distil information or resources that could benefit the team (Faraj & Yan, 2009),
• team leaders foster a climate of continuous improvement, encouraging staff to propose suggestions on how to continually improve work practices (Rathert et al., 2009),
• team leaders protect members from too many pressures, demands, or distractions from other departments in the organisation (Faraj & Yan, 2009).

Bureaucratic practices and psychological safety

Bunderson and Boumgarden (2010) first proposed, as well as confirmed, the possibility that bureaucratic practices—in which the roles of individuals in teams are demarcated unambiguously—may foster psychological safety.  Specifically, Bunderson and Boumgarden differentiated three bureaucratic attributes:

• specialisation, in which each staff member is assigned a specific role that utilises their particular blend of skills,
• hierarchy, in which the team is assigned a leader who is granted the right to reach all key decisions—but may nevertheless consult widely to inform these decisions,
• formalisation, in which the goals, priorities, and schedule of tasks is communicated unambiguously and followed closely.

According to Bunderson and Boumgarden (2010), these attributes, collectively referred to as team structure, should foster trust and thus psychological safety.  Specifically, without this structure, team members may not share the same goals, priorities, or beliefs or may not understand the needs and challenges of their colleagues.  Consequently, other staff may respond unpredictably to their suggestions or demands, compromising trust and psychological safety.

As evidence of this possibility, 220 individuals, representing 40 teams in a large technology firm, completed a survey. Specifically,

• these individuals answered questions that assess psychological safety (Edmonson, 1999) as well as question that gauge task structure, such as “each team member has their particular area of specialty”,
• team structure was positively and strongly associated with psychological safety, r = .71.

Cooperative goals and psychological safety

Some teams or organisations develop compatible objectives, called cooperative goals.  In these instances, if one person or team fulfills a goal, other people or teams become more likely to fulfill their goals too.  To illustrate, when all members of a team or workgroup receive the same reward in response to some achievement, such as attracting a major client, goals are more likely to be compatible and cooperative.   

In contrast, some teams or organisations develop incompatible objectives, called competitive goals.  To illustrate, several teams, in the same organisation, might have each independently set the goal to prevail in some competition.  If one team prevails, the other teams fail. 

As Chen and Tjosvold (2012) hypothesised, cooperative goals should foster psychological safety. In these circumstances, individuals and teams are motivated to enhance the performance and capabilities of one another. Staff assume the feedback of their colleagues is intended to be helpful rather than critical.  Consequently, staff feel the concerns they raise about the team or organisation will be respected and considered, fostering psychological safety.  To assess this argument, Chen and Tjosvold (2012) conducted a study in which 125 CEOs of Chinese firms and at least two of their executives completed a series of measures including

• seven questions that assess psychological safety, adapted from Edmondson (1999),
• fifteen questions that gauge whether the goals of departments are cooperative, competitive, or independent, such as “Departments seek compatible goals”, “Departments have a win-lose relationship”, or “The success of one department is unrelated to others’ success”,
• four questions that assess whether the various departments share their rewards, such as “In our company, other departments will share material (such as money) rewards for their contributions if one department achieves good performance and profit”.

Shared rewards were positively associated with cooperative, but not competitive or independent, goals.  Cooperative goals were positively associated, and independent goals were negatively associated, with psychological safety.