Perceived Academic Team Leaders’ Authentic Leadership and Team Members’ Psychological Safety: A Cross‐Sectional Online Survey
Authors: Mrayyan Majd T. 
Published: July 2024

Background. Current research has mainly concentrated on the psychological facets of authentic leadership and the sense of psychological security it cultivates. Aim. This research assessed the perceived academic team leaders’ authentic leadership and team members’ psychological safety. Methods. Using a quantitative cross‐sectional study, the study was conducted in 2022 using an online survey. A convenience snowball sample of 105 nursing faculty members was recruited from various Jordanian universities. Results. The nursing faculty highly praised their leaders’ authentic leadership on a 5‐point scale. Yet, they felt a lack of psychological safety for themselves. While the academic nursing team leaders were commended for their readiness to hear others’ suggestions before making choices, they should work on resisting group influence. These leaders must convey their feelings openly and truthfully. Concerning their own psychological safety, the nursing faculty felt their distinctive abilities and talents were recognized and utilized when collaborating with team members, which was the most highly rated feature. Conversely, the least‐rated aspects were holding mistakes against faculty members and having trouble requesting assistance from others. The nursing faculty’s sense of security and comfort significantly impacts their psychological wellbeing. Interestingly, their level of psychological safety is found to have a significant but negative correlation with their marital status, providing a rich and new insight into psychological safety; married females with children are prone to more work burnout, which might lower their psychological safety. On the other hand, a positive and moderate correlation is observed between psychological safety and the size of the team they work with. Surprisingly, the team size is the only factor that predicts the psychological safety of nursing faculty members; this occurs by enhancing the team’s creativity and learning behaviors. However, the model itself is not very effective and only accounts for a small portion (6.30%) of the variation in their psychological safety scores, suggesting other unmeasured factors likely play a more significant role in nursing faculty members’ psychological safety, such as personality traits, stressors, and job satisfaction. Conclusion. The authentic leadership displayed by nursing team leaders does not directly impact the psychological safety of nursing faculty members. The study addresses a critical and contemporary issue within the nursing academic field, providing useful preliminary insights. However, its methodological limitations, including sample selection and the weak explanatory power of its model, suggest that further research is needed. The results highlight the urgent need for immediate interventions to improve the chaotic academic environment they are currently facing, such as enhancing workplace friendship and authentic communication and using entrepreneurial and nonauthoritative leadership styles. Future studies could benefit from diverse samples, longitudinal design, and deeper analysis of contributing factors to psychological safety.