Determinants of other relevant concepts

Interventions to foster a quiet ego

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).

Interventions that may foster receptiveness to opposing views

Recommended practices

Only limited research has explored the circumstances and interventions that encourage people to be receptive to information or arguments that contradict their beliefs or preferences, called receptiveness to opposing views. Nevertheless, after reviewing the literature, Minson and Chen (2022) proposed a series of recommendations on how leaders could encourage this receptiveness. Because receptiveness to opposing views entails four distinct facets—limited derogation of opponents, limited negative emotions, engagement of taboo subjects, and intellectual curiosity—the authors offered suggestions on how leaders could foster each of these facets. For example, to diminish the inclination of people to denigrate opponents, Minson and Chen (2022) offered several recommendations.

First, leaders should inform individuals of the naïve realism bias—the tendency of people to overestimate the degree to which their beliefs are objective (Nasie et al., 2014). For example, leaders could ask people why their beliefs differ from the opinions of their rivals. Leaders could inform individuals that everyone assumes their beliefs are objective, rational, and accurate, whereas the opinions of their opponents are irrational and distorted. When people learn about this bias, they become more receptive to conflicting narratives (Nasie et al., 2014).
Second, leaders could encourage individuals to adopt the perspective of their opponent—even if simply to learn how to counteract this perspective. This exercise increases respect towards opponents (for a review, see Todd & Galinsky, 2014).
Third, leaders should encourage individuals to consider the opposite of their beliefs. After people complete this activity, they are more inclined to appreciate the merits of divergent opinions (Lord et al., 1984). Indeed, this directive, to consider the opposite, is more effective than an instruction to be as unbiased and as fair as possible.
Fourth, the leader should remind individuals of the diversity, rather than homogeneity, of their opponents. That is, after people recognise their opponents are diverse, comprising both favourable and unfavourable features as well as varying on their motivations and arguments, their contempt towards these rivals diminishes (Brauer et al., 2012; see also Bruneau et al., 2015).
Finally, leaders should convene discussion about the potential of groups to change and improve over time. For example, they might discuss how conflicts between European nations have dissipated. Or they might refer to leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr. or Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who inspired significant change in their communities. This belief that groups can change significantly diminishes unfavourable attitudes to rivals (Goldenberg et al., 2018; Halperin et al., 2011).

To diminish the intensity of unpleasant emotions that people experience when exposed to divergent beliefs, Minson and Chen (2022) suggested that leaders could encourage individuals to

observe the emotions they experience in response to opinions that conflict with their beliefs,
recognise they can experiment with a range of strategies to alleviate these emotions—such as consider how they can utilise divergent beliefs to refine and to improve their arguments in the future (cf., Gutentag et al., 2017; Tamir et al., 2019),
develop the habit to display positive emotions when they hear divergent beliefs—partly because this behaviour could also evoke positive emotions in their opponent (cf., Barsade, 2002) and generate a more cooperative interaction.

Minson and Chen (2022) offered fewer suggestions on how leaders could inspire curiosity towards divergent perspectives or encourage people to engage with issues that are deemed as taboo. For example, to inspire curiosity towards divergent perspectives, the authors referred to information gap theory (Loewenstein, 1994)—the notion that novel, inconsistent, or ambiguous information can attract curiosity—as well as the vital role of intellectual humility. Finally, Minson and Chen (2022) suggested that leaders and other individuals should attempt to demonstrate, and thus act as role models, to foster receptivity towards opposing perspectives.

Practices to display receptivity to opposing ideologies

Some people appear to be more receptive to opposing views. These individuals are curious about beliefs that diverge from their opinions rather than uncomfortable with these beliefs, respectful of opponents, and willing to consider any topic. People who seem receptive to these opposing ideologies are often perceived as judicious, trustworthy, and professional.

In an illuminating paper, Yeomans et al. (2020) presented some guidelines on how individuals can display this receptivity to opposing ideologies. Specifically, these guidelines suggest that, to display this receptivity, people should, when debating a matter

demonstrate they genuinely understand and appreciate the perspective of opponents, expressing phrases like “I do understand and appreciate this concern” or “your argument makes sense to me”,
underscore, as often as possible, the arguments of their opponent of which they agree, such as “I believe you are right about this claim” or “I agree entirely about this premise”,
pose arguments as hypotheses rather than as definitive conclusions, with reference to hedges like “This solution may be very useful” or “This solution is somewhat useful” rather than “This solution will be effective”,
attempt to express positive phrases rather than negations, such as “another helpful perspective is…” rather than “you are wrong”.

These guidelines were derived from an algorithm that discriminates receptive text from unreceptive text. Yeomans et al. (2020) conducted a study to validate these guidelines. Specifically, in this study of 777 participants

only half these individuals received the guidelines,
all individuals wrote a response to an argument, written by a person who espoused an opposing belief about a topic,
other judges, unaware of which participants had received the guidelines, evaluated the degree to which these responses seemed receptive to opposing ideologies.

As hypothesised, if participants had received the guidelines, their responses appeared more receptive to opposing views. Furthermore, other individuals who read these responses were more willing to collaborate with these participants in the future.

The use of pronouns, such as “we” versus “you”

The pronouns that people utilise may also signal the degree to which individuals seem receptive to opposing beliefs. Specifically, in adversarial settings, such as debates between rivals, people who express first-person plural pronouns, such as “we”, are more likely than people who express second-person pronouns, such as “you”, to be perceived as receptive to opposing beliefs.

As evidence of this hypothesis, Hussein and Tormala (2024) conducted a study in which 550 individuals first answered a question about whether they feel the legal drinking age should be lowered. Then,

participants read a speech, written by a politician, that presented an argument that opposes their opinion,
the speech included first-person plural pronouns, such as “If we oppose lowering the drinking age, we…”, or second person pronouns, such as “If you oppose lowering the drinking age, you…”,
finally, participants indicated the degree to which they felt the politician is receptive to diverse perspectives—as well as whether they now believe the drinking age should be lowered.

If the speech contained first-person plural pronouns, such as “we”, rather than second person pronouns, such as “you”, the politician was perceived as more receptive to diverse beliefs. This receptivity also increased the likelihood that participants would shift their position on this topic. Furthermore, as a subsequent study revealed, when individuals express first-person plural pronouns, they are perceived as less aggressive. This decrease in perceived aggression partly explained the association between pronoun use and perceived receptivity (Hussein & Tormala, 2024).

Causes of non-disclosure of imperfection

Negative emotions

Few studies have explored the characteristics or circumstances that promote non-disclosure of imperfection—the tendency of some people to conceal flaws rather than acknowledge faults. One exception is a study that Hill et al. published in 2020. In this study, 78 students, all of whom were enrolled in music programs, completed a survey at the beginning, middle, and end of an academic year. The survey included

the Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale, comprising items like “I try to keep my faults to myself”,
a Scale of Positive and Negative Experience, in which individuals indicated the degree to which they experienced six positive emotions, such as happy, and six negative emotions, such as sad, over the last four weeks.

Interestingly, if the students often experienced negative emotions in the middle of this year, they were more likely to report non-disclosure of imperfection at the end of the year. Arguably, when people experience unpleasant emotions, they assume, on some level, the setting or circumstances may be unsafe or threatening. Consequently, these individuals become more attuned to possible threats or problems. They may, for example, be more aware of problems that could unfold if they acknowledge their mistakes or flaws—reinforcing the tendency to conceal, rather than disclose, their imperfections.

Causes of psychological safety: Reciprocal peer coaching

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.

The humour of leaders

Psychological safety also depends on the humour that leaders express. Some kinds of humour may foster psychological safety (Potipiroon & Ford, 2021), and other kinds of humour may impede psychological safety. Specifically, Martin et al. (2003) differentiated four kinds of humour:

aggressive humour, comprising sarcasm, ridicule, or other comments that mock other people and can be offensive or upsetting,
affiliative humour, intended to improve relationships, in which individuals laugh together at benevolent rather than derogatory remarks,
self-enhancing humour in which individuals utilise humour to improve their emotions, such as laugh at the absurdities of their life or circumstances but constructively rather than derisively,
self-defeating humour in which individuals disparage themselves either to attract approval from other people or to conceal unpleasant feelings.

Two dimension underpin these four styles of humour (Martin et al., 2003):

The first dimension refers to whether the humour is intended either to benefit the individual who expressed the humour—corresponding to aggressive and self-enhancing humour—or to improve relationships—corresponding to affiliative and self-defeating humour.
The second dimension refers to whether the humour is benevolent—corresponding to affiliative and self-enhancing humour—or derogatory—corresponding to aggressive or self-defeating humour.

Unsurprisingly, relative to leaders who express aggressive humour, leaders who express affiliative humour are more likely to enhance the work environment, such as promote psychological safety. To illustrate, Lin et al. (2025) conducted a compelling study to clarify how the humour of leaders can affect the psychological safety of teams. Specifically, 583 Chinese staff members, recruited from a range of organisations, completed questions over three time periods.

First, participants completed questions that assess the extent to which leaders expressed affiliative humour, such as “My leader likes to make us laugh”, as well as aggressive humour, such as “My leader usually doesn’t care much about our feelings when he or she jokes around” (cf., Carnevale et al., 2022).
During this time, these individuals also completed a measure that assesses the degree to which they experience a need for structure and clarity, such as “I feel uncomfortable when the rules are not clear” (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993)
About two weeks later, participants answered questions that measure psychological safety, such as “I felt the leader would work for my best interest” (Tynan, 2005).
Finally, about two more weeks later, participants completed questions that gauge the degree to which they engage in innovative behaviours, such as “I will advocate and recommend my new ideas to others at work” (e.g., Scott & Bruce, 1994)

As hypothesised, affiliative humour tended to foster psychological safety whereas aggressive humour tended to diminish psychological safety—especially when need for structure and clarity was low. Finally, psychological safety promoted innovative behaviour.

Presumably, when leaders convey affiliative humour, they demonstrate their propensity to prioritise the wellbeing and relationships of their staff. Therefore

staff feel their concerns will be considered and accommodated, fostering psychological safety,
staff who experience a need for structure and clarity, however, prefer strict hierarchies and, thus, may not be as amenable to this affiliative humour.

When leaders convey aggressive humour, they feel that mistakes or shortcomings could be denigrated, impeding psychological safety. Nevertheless, staff who experience a need for structure and clarity prefer strict hierarchies and, thus, may be somewhat more amenable to aggressive humour.

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.

The role of a bottom-line mentality

Some leaders or workgroups almost solely prioritise financial outcomes over all other competing goals, called a bottom-line mentality. This notion of a bottom-line mentality, first delineated by Greenbaum et al. (2012), may also diminish psychological safety. To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Greenbaum et al. (2020), 438 staff members, derived from 121 workgroups, completed a survey at two times. Specifically,

at the first time, these staff answered four questions, constructed by Greenbaum et al. (2012), that gauge the degree to which their workgroup endorses bottom-line mentality, such as “Department employees treat the bottom-line as more important than anything else”,
two weeks later, these staff completed the psychological safety scale (Edmondson, 1999), comprising items like “Members of this department are able to bring up problems and tough issues”.

At this second time, the 121 supervisors of each workgroup answered some questions that measure the creativity of each workgroup, including “My department employees often come up with creative solutions at work” (Baer & Oldham, 2006). As the findings revealed

after controlling various characteristics of the teams, such as the number and tenure of members, the bottom-line mentality of workgroups was inversely associated with psychological safety,
this psychological safety was positively associated with creativity (Greenbaum et al., 2020).

Therefore, to foster psychological safety, leaders need to temper this bottom-line mentality. For example, leaders could embed other indices of success, such as psychological safety and wellbeing, in the strategy, measure these indices, and genuinely assess and reward these measures.

Besides psychological safety, this decrease in bottom-line mentality could enable organisations to fulfill other goals. For example, when the bottom-line mentality of supervisors diminishes, staff are more likely to

experience favourable attitudes to the workplace, such as job satisfaction, commitment to the workplace , and a general feeling of dehumanisation rather than burnout (Tseng, 2020), workaholism (Farasat et al., 2022), or job insecurity (Zhang, Zhang, et al., 2021),
share knowledge and information with one another (Zhang, Huang, et al., 2021),
express suggestions on how to improve the workplace (Wan, Zhang, et al., 2021),
behave ethically (Ge, 2018), such as inflate the benefits or conceal the drawbacks, of the company products to clients (Zhang, Zhang, et al., 2021), and even cheat at work (Farasat et al., 2022).

Nevertheless, the bottom-line mentality of supervisors may compel staff, especially individuals who are ambitious, to devote more effort to tasks that boost finances (e.g., Babalola et al., 2021). Indeed, whether bottom-line mentality is detrimental or beneficial depends on many other characteristics and conditions. In general, if staff are ambitious and competitive of identify closely with the team or organisation, they tend to perform more effectively, but often behave unethically, when leaders prioritise the bottom line. In contrast, if staff perceive morality as vital, they are more inclined to dislike the organisation when leaders prioritise the bottom line. Here are some illustrations:

If staff are more concerned about their personal goals than team goals, and like to work alone, a bottom-line mentality in their supervisor is inversely associated with the effort these individuals devote to their work (Chen et al., 2022). In contrast, if staff are more concerned about their team goals, and like to work collaboratively, a bottom-line mentality in their supervisor is positively associated with the effort these individuals devote to their work (Chen et al., 2022).
If staff perceive honesty, kindness, justice, and other moral attributes as central to how they are, they are more inclined to leave organisations when the leader exhibits a bottom-line mentality—because, in these organisations, colleagues often behave unethically (Mesdaghinia et al., 2019). In contrast, if staff do not perceive morality as central to their identity, they may not be as inclined to leave organisations when the leader exhibits a bottom-line mentality (Mesdaghinia et al., 2019).
If staff are ambitious and determined to be promoted, they are more likely to dedicate effort into their work yet behave unethically—such as conceal the drawbacks of their products to customers—if their supervisor demonstrates a bottom-line mentality (Babalola et al., 2021). In contrast, if staff are not as ambitious, their behaviour is not as likely to depend on whether their supervisor demonstrates a bottom-line mentality (Babalola et al., 2021).
If staff feel they could not readily secure a job elsewhere, they are more inclined to behave unethically to boost their organisation, such as deceive customers, when their supervisor exhibits a bottom-line mentality (Kamran et al., 2023). In contrast, if staff feel they could readily secure a job elsewhere, their behaviour is not as dependent upon whether their supervisor exhibits a bottom-line mentality (Kamran et al., 2023).
If staff experience mindfulness—in which they observe their feelings, thoughts, and surroundings without judgment—they do not tend to behave unethically to boost their organisation regardless of whether their supervisor exhibits a bottom-line mentality (Farasat & Azam, 2022). In contrast, if staff do not experience mindfulness, they are more likely to behave unethically when the supervisor exhibits a bottom-line mentality (Farasat & Azam, 2022).

Characteristics or conditions that may temper this bottom-line mentality

Because a bottom-line mentality in leaders can diminish psychological safety, characteristics or conditions that elicit this mentality could thus decrease the degree to which staff feel safe to express their worries, concerns, and suggestions candidly. Research has uncovered a range of characteristics or conditions that elicit this mentality. Here are some illustrations:

When supervisors feel mentally drained and exhausted, they are more likely to espouse a bottom-line mentality (Rice & Reed, 2021). That is, to preserve their mental energy, these individuals tend to confine their attention to tangible, financial goals (Rice & Reed, 2021)
When supervisors believe they will receive tangible rewards, such as bonuses or promotions, if they fulfill their goals, they are more likely to experience a bottom-line mentality (Mawritz et al., 2023). In contrast, if managers instead often refer to the other benefits that achievement can generate, such as personal development or engaging opportunities, this bottom-line mentality may subside and psychological safety could increase.
When supervisors feel the demands of their job impair their personal goals, such as the aspiration to develop capabilities and experience wellbeing, they are more inclined to adopt a bottom-line mentality (Rice & Day, 2022). That is, when inundated with frustrating demands, individuals become more obsessed with their personal goals in lieu of the needs and concerns of colleagues (Rice & Day, 2022).
Similarly, other sources of stress, such as ambiguous or conflicting roles, can also foster a bottom-line mentality (Keeler & Webster, 2018)
When organisations epitomise justice and fairness—such as introduce practices to treat staff as fairly and respectfully as possible—individuals are not as inclined to adopt a bottom-line mentality (Rice & Luse, 2022). In these organisations, staff feel that other attributes, rather than merely profit, are valued and appreciated (Rice & Luse, 2022).