Introduction

In recent years, workplace health and safety have expanded beyond physical conditions to include psychological and relational dimensions of employee well-being1,2. European policy developments now emphasize the importance of psychosocial risk management and the cultivation of work environments that support trust, open communication, and psychological safety. Psychological safety, a shared belief that one can take interpersonal risks without fear of negative consequences, has gained increasing attention as a foundation for organizational learning, voice behavior, and engagement3. Despite this growing interest, limited research has qualitatively explored how employees perceive psychological safety, particularly in Central and Eastern European contexts.

Psychological safety is not merely a structural or procedural feature of the workplace; it emerges through day-to-day interpersonal interactions, especially with leaders. The presence or absence of supportive leadership behaviors, such as emotional availability, fairness, or responsiveness, can significantly shape whether employees feel safe to express concerns, offer feedback, or challenge established practices4,5. These behaviors serve as relational cues that signal whether openness is encouraged or discouraged. Conversely, environments marked by fear, unpredictability, or strict hierarchies can inhibit voice and reinforce silence, leading to disengagement and organizational inertia.

Relational theories such as attachment theory offer a useful interpretive lens for understanding how psychological safety is co-constructed in the workplace. Originally developed to explain the formation of secure interpersonal bonds, attachment theory has been adapted to organizational settings to explore how leadership behaviors can provide employees with emotional resources in high-risk or uncertain situations. In this view, leaders may function as “secure bases” or “safe havens,” promoting a sense of trust that facilitates authentic communication and constructive dissent6,7. Such a perspective highlights that psychological safety is deeply relational and context-dependent, not simply a matter of individual courage or communication skills.

Importantly, psychological safety is closely tied to employee voice8, defined as the voluntary expression of ideas, concerns, or suggestions intended to improve organizational functioning9,10. Speaking up involves a degree of interpersonal risk, especially in hierarchical or culturally high power-distance environments, where authority may not be easily challenged. Employees’ willingness to engage in voice behavior is shaped by their perceptions of relational safety, trust, and the expected consequences of speaking openly11.

While much of the existing research has focused on psychological safety in Western, low power-distance settings, less is known about how these dynamics unfold in post-socialist contexts such as Slovakia, where hierarchical organizational cultures may persist. Moreover, few studies have examined how employees themselves make sense of their work environment, the barriers they face when speaking up, and the kinds of leadership behaviors they perceive as supportive or threatening to psychological safety. Attachment theory can provide an interpretive framework for understanding how participants make sense of trust, support, and voice in their relationships within the work environment.

Theoretical framework

Psychological safety has emerged as a critical construct in understanding how organizational environments enable or inhibit learning, innovation, and employee voice. Defined as a shared belief that the work context allows for interpersonal risk-taking without fear of embarrassment, punishment, or marginalization, psychological safety is foundational for effective team functioning and organizational responsiveness12. When employees perceive that it is safe to express concerns or offer suggestions, they are more likely to engage in voice behavior, constructive, upward communication aimed at improving the organization10,12.

A growing body of research identifies leadership behavior as a key antecedent of psychological safety. Leaders who are approachable, emotionally consistent, and open to feedback are more likely to foster trust-based environments that encourage employee engagement. Conversely, leaders who are punitive, unpredictable, or emotionally distant may inadvertently create climates of fear or apathy, resulting in silence and disengagement. These dynamics are especially pronounced in cultures with high power distance, where deference to authority may further discourage voice13,14,15.

To deepen understanding of these interpersonal mechanisms, the present study draws on attachment theory as an interpretive framework. Originally developed in developmental psychology, attachment theory explains how individuals form expectations about the availability and responsiveness of significant others6,16. In organizational settings, this theory has been adapted to examine how leaders can function as attachment Figs. 16,17, providing emotional resources in the face of uncertainty or interpersonal risk18. Two key functions are central: the secure base, which supports exploration and initiative by providing a foundation of trust, and the safe haven, which offers emotional support during distress19,20,21,22. When leaders fulfill these functions by being emotionally available, consistent, and trustworthy, employees are more likely to experience psychological safety and engage authentically with their work environment.

The theory also sheds light on the emotional dynamics of speaking up, which inherently entails vulnerability. Voice behavior requires not only a rational assessment of potential outcomes but also a subjective sense of emotional security10,11. Employees are more likely to speak openly when they trust that their input will be received without adverse repercussions. In this way, psychological safety becomes a relational construct, co-created through ongoing social interactions, particularly between leaders and team members.

In post-socialist organizational cultures such as Slovakia, where formal hierarchies and traditional leadership norms may still shape workplace expectations23, these relational dynamics are particularly salient. When leaders are emotionally distant, unpredictable, or punitive, they may undermine this sense of security, leading employees to suppress their voices to avoid perceived relational or professional threats24,25,26,27. Attachment theory, with its emphasis on emotional security and trust, offers a useful lens through which to interpret employees’ lived experiences in such contexts21,22. Rather than assuming a universal model of leadership or communication, this approach allows for a context-sensitive interpretation of psychological safety as a socially and culturally embedded phenomenon.

The current study

The current study aims to explore how employees in Slovak organizations perceive psychological safety and how they experience speaking up in their workplaces28. It investigates the relational conditions that support or undermine these experiences, with particular emphasis on leadership behavior and workplace culture. While previous research has often examined psychological safety, leadership, and voice as separate constructs or through quantitative approaches, this study adopts a qualitative, exploratory design grounded in employees’ subjective accounts.

Rather than testing predefined hypotheses, the study follows a hypothesis-generating approach, aiming to uncover how psychological safety is experienced, interpreted, and narrated by employees themselves. Special attention is given to how participants describe their leaders’ behaviors, whether those behaviors fostered trust and openness or contributed to fear and silence. The relational lens provided by attachment theory informs the interpretation of participants’ narratives but does not serve as a prescriptive framework. Instead, the theory supports a more nuanced understanding of how emotional and interpersonal dynamics shape workplace safety.

The research is situated within the broader context of shifting expectations in workplace health and safety management across Europe, where organizations are increasingly called to move beyond compliance and foster genuinely safe, inclusive, and psychologically supportive environments28. In response, this study provides an empirically grounded, culturally sensitive perspective on psychological safety in a post-socialist, high power-distance setting.

The following research questions guide the inquiry:

  1. 1.

    How do employees perceive their workplace environment?

  2. 2.

    What is it like for employees to speak up in the workplace?

  3. 3.

    What factors interfere with the sense of psychological safety in the workplace?

  4. 4.

    What do employees think about a leader who fosters psychological safety?

  5. 5.

    What can be done to help employees feel psychologically safe in the workplace?

Results

Based on a thematic analysis of participants’ statements, seven main themes and seventeen subthemes related to the phenomenon of speaking up in the workplace were identified (Table 1). The themes and subthemes served as the foundation for classifying different types of work environments. In developing the types, we considered the presence of both positive and negative statements within each thematic area, which allowed us to capture the ambivalent aspects of participants’ experiences. The duality of responses (both favorable and unfavorable evaluations) within a single category provided a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the work environment from the respondents’ perspective, enabling us to identify meaningful contrasts in their attitudes and lived experiences. Based on the thematic patterns and their interpretation, a typology of work environments, labeled A, B, and C, was developed and used as an interpretive framework for the results. To ensure a systematic presentation of findings, the results are organized according to five research questions and interpreted within the context of the A, B, C typology identified during the analysis.

Table 1 Themes and subthemes related to speaking up.
Full size table

RQ1: how do employees perceive their workplace environment?

Participants’ perceptions of their work environment were categorized into three typologies (see Fig. 1) based on leadership behavior and communication dynamics. We developed an interpretive typology of workplace environments, labeled as Type A (psychological safety), Type B (psychological unsafety), and Type C (unhealthy - emotional disengagement). The typology reflects interpretative depth rather than population-wide prevalence and is not intended as a universally generalizable model, but rather as a conceptual framework derived inductively from participants’ lived experiences in Slovak organizational settings. It serves to illustrate distinct relational climates and their perceived impact on psychological safety, rather than to classify organizations per se. Themes and subthemes were not exclusively linked to a single type; instead, the same theme could encompass both positive and negative responses, depending on each participant’s specific experience. These contrasting accounts within the same thematic area enabled us to differentiate between the types of environments. Therefore, it was not merely the presence of a theme that mattered, but rather the nature of the responses within that theme—whether positive, negative, or absent - that guided the classification into Type A, B, or C.

Type A represents a psychologically safe environment, where participants describe open dialogue, mutual trust, and supportive leaders who value their input. In contrast, Type B denotes a psychologically unsafe setting, where attempts to speak up are met with criticism or negative consequences. Type C describes an unhealthy environment characterized by emotional disengagement, with participants noting a lack of responsiveness or interest from leaders regarding employee feedback.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Categorization of the Work Environment.

RQ2: what is it like for employees to speak up in the workplace?

Speaking up was common in a Type A environment (n = 2). Employees (PB, PI) in these settings reported that their opinions were acknowledged and appreciated. One participant mentioned that their input was valued.

“…whenever I suggested something to my bosses, we always agreed, and my opinions were accepted without any issues. As for my work, there is no area where I could not express my opinion It was always possible to speak up, and if necessary, we would reach a compromise together, and so on. So, in this regard, everything is excellent.” (PB10-12).

Additionally, another participant shared a similar opinion: “Our boss literally takes care of our personnel matters. For example, if we are dissatisfied with something or disagree about something at work, especially personnel issues, he handles it. For instance, I can work from home or go to the office, and our boss accommodates us by allowing me to work from home whenever I need to. I can work from home or the office whenever I want, basically. This was a suggestion from us that having flexible working hours would be beneficial, and he agreed to it.” (PI16).

Conversely, employees in Types B (n = 5) and C (n = 4) reported fear of retaliation, being ignored, or giving up on expressing concerns altogether. In Type B (PA, PE, PF, PG, PJ), a participant with a disability described mockery and distrust from leadership: “I have a disability, and my last boss used to mock me, saying I was faking it or just did not feel like working. After that, he started checking up on me quite often, even though I always did my job, and he never found anything wrong. I noticed he was checking on me more frequently than on others who never said anything. When I had to go to the doctor or was on sick leave after surgery, he did not like it.” (PG21).

Another shared opinion was in a similar tone: “…I can speak openly with my colleagues, but not with my boss… He would just start playing games between employees, acting unfairly. He’d give me more work, less to others, and deliberately assign me pointless tasks just to make things harder. I don’t want that. When I get singled out like that, I feel like I shrink by half a meter.” (PJ2-6).

While in Type C (PC, PD, PH, PK), a participant remarked, “…yesterday I spoke up about something my supervisor did. She told me to do a task I had never done before, and she was explaining it to me from about 2 meters away. It felt off, so I told her it was like a bus driver getting out and telling a passenger, “Sit down and drive.” She just snapped back at me – she seemed irritated, just dismissive, but I had to figure it out by myself… After that, I felt completely burned out… Honestly, next time I probably won’t even say anything, because I know it wouldn’t change anything anyway…” (PH13-15).

Participant C shared the experience as follows: “…we can express our opinion whenever we want, but it rarely leads to any real change - it’s usually not taken into account… We can suggest to our supervisor how things could be done, but it doesn’t matter, because the director wants it his way, and that’s how it will be. We can have discussions, but that’s where it ends” (PC8).

Overall, speaking up was welcomed in Type A settings, where leaders listened to and acted on employee suggestions. In Type B, the fear of retaliation and dismissive leadership discouraged voice. In Type C, participants felt that expressing concerns was pointless, leading to frustration and withdrawal. Leadership behavior strongly shaped whether employees felt safe speaking up.

RQ3: what factors interfere with the sense of psychological safety in the workplace?

Eight key barriers to psychological safety become evident from participants’ narratives. First, (1) fear and stress arise due to high expectations or lack of support, as illustrated by participant E10: “…when, for example, there are demands from leaders… It’s hard to change that person’s mind… in some conflict situations… so a person tends to hold back and doesn’t want to escalate a situation that would only increase the tension.”

(2) Rigid hierarchies also interfere, with participant J55 stating, “I think the boss listens to him, but then doesn’t talk further, doesn’t address the issue, and just thinks their own way, you know.”

(3) Poor leader-employee relationships contribute as well, with participant C52-53 describing, “…he would have to show genuine interest first and foremost… But he doesn’t really accept us that much… We see him maybe once every six months, when he drops by.”

(4) A weak culture of voice is evident among older workers, as participant G47 noted, “…those who are really close to retirement or over fifty tend to keep quiet.”

(5) The absence of feedback discourages speaking up, with participant C29 explaining, “So, the fact that no one cares and no one deals with it can cause a person not to speak up anymore.”

(6) Unclear role boundaries create tension, as participant I32-33 observed: “Those who have been there longer, who are older in age and seniority, they can get away with more than the younger ones… some people are allowed more than others…”.

(7) Work overload is another barrier, with participant D46 saying, “…maybe I would give enough time to complete the task, sometimes the time is too short,” and participant D48 adding, “…a person does it, but it’s not as good as it should be.”

Lastly, (8) insufficient support systems limit psychological safety, exemplified by participant H44: “…there was supposed to be something like a teambuilding event… only a few women signed up… and after that, they didn’t offer us anything else.”

Together, eight barriers range from fear and hierarchical rigidity to a lack of feedback and support. They highlight the complex interplay between organizational culture, leadership practices, and individual experiences. Collectively, they contribute to reduced psychological safety, leading employees to disengage, withhold input, and experience diminished trust in their work environment.

RQ4: what do employees think about a leader who fosters psychological safety?

Participants identified a set of leadership qualities they perceived as supportive of psychological safety (see Fig. 2). These are presented here as five competency domains: social, emotional, communication, cognitive, and organizational, which emerged inductively across the narratives. We claim these as participant-informed themes that reflect lived perceptions of effective leadership in their specific organizational contexts.

Five core leadership competencies were brought to light from participantsꞌ perspectives as central to creating psychological safety: (1) social competencies (trust-building), (2) emotional competencies (empathy and responsiveness), (3) communication competencies (openness, transparency), (4) cognitive competencies (transparent decision-making), and (5) organizational competencies (flexibility, inclusivity). These competencies form a multidimensional framework in which both relational and functional aspects of leadership are essential to cultivating a psychologically safe work environment.

A subset of these behaviors, especially those related to emotional availability, responsiveness, and consistency, reflects what we refer to as leadership with attachment-related qualities. Participants described leaders who embodied these traits as emotionally supportive, predictable, and trustworthy. Such leadership fosters a sense of interpersonal safety and is associated with a higher willingness to speak up, admit mistakes, or share concerns.

Drawing on attachment theory, we interpret these attachment-related qualities as corresponding to the safe haven function of an attachment figure, that is, someone who provides emotional support and reassurance in times of uncertainty. These relational traits, drawn from broader leadership competencies such as strategic thinking or structural flexibility, are relevant to workplace functioning but are not conceptually rooted in attachment theory. We believe this distinction is important for maintaining theoretical clarity and for accurately describing the mechanisms by which leadership behavior influences psychological safety.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Conceptual model linking leadership competencies, psychological safety, and workplace safety.

The Fig. 2 illustrates two distinct clusters of leadership competencies that contribute to the development of psychological safety: (1) Leadership with attachment-related qualities, including emotional availability, responsiveness, and relational consistency (social and emotional competencies), and (2) Other leadership competencies, such as communication clarity, decision-making, and flexibility (communication, cognitive, and organizational competencies). While the first cluster is interpreted through the lens of attachment theory, the second reflects functional leadership skills. Psychological safety is depicted as a mediating mechanism that enables voice behavior and supports a healthy, adaptive workplace. The model underscores the idea that psychological safety is co-constructed through both emotional-relational and structural-functional leadership behaviors.

RQ5: what can be done to help employees feel psychologically safe in the workplace?

Participants proposed a variety of improvements that could enhance their sense of psychological safety at work. These suggestions aligned closely with the two categories of leadership competencies identified in RQ4: relational (attachment-related) and functional (task- and structure-based). Their responses underscore that psychological safety is supported not only by how leaders relate to employees emotionally but also by how they manage the work environment structurally and communicatively.

Several participants emphasized the importance of relational consistency and emotional availability. They called for leaders who are approachable, empathetic, and responsive to individual concerns, characteristics consistent with the safe haven function described in attachment theory. These suggestions included more opportunities for informal check-ins, emotionally sensitive responses to conflict, and greater relational stability, especially in environments affected by frequent managerial turnover. Employees described these qualities as essential for reducing fear, increasing trust, and fostering openness.

In addition to relational improvements, participants identified organizational and procedural changes that would enhance psychological safety. These included better communication of decisions, the establishment of anonymous feedback mechanisms, fair workload distribution, and more explicit role definitions. While these suggestions are not directly tied to attachment theory, they reflect the need for functional leadership competencies that foster a transparent, well-organized workplace culture. For instance, employees highlighted the value of predictable scheduling, inclusive decision-making processes, and regular opportunities for voicing concerns without fear of retribution.

Table 2 presents a synthesis of these recommendations, categorized by theme and supported by illustrative quotations. Collectively, the suggestions point to a dual strategy for enhancing psychological safety: fostering emotionally secure relationships between leaders and employees, and ensuring structurally supportive organizational conditions. This dual-pathway model offers practical guidance for leadership development and organizational change initiatives that promote well-being and employee engagement. The findings underscore the multidimensional nature of psychological safety and the pivotal role of leadership in fostering or hindering open and secure environments.

Table 2 Recommendations for enhancing psychological safety: relational vs. Functional leadership Approaches.
Full size table

Discussion

The study explored how employees perceive psychological safety in Slovak workplaces, with a focus on the relational and emotional mechanisms that shape it. Participants emphasized that psychological safety does not result from formal policies, but rather arises from everyday interpersonal dynamics. These findings extend existing research8 by illustrating how micro-relational cues, such as emotional tone and leader accessibility, are central to the felt experience of safety. Speaking up was consistently framed as an interpersonal risk, moderated by leaders’ openness and accessibility. In line with Edmondson3, leader responsiveness, active listening, and non-punitive feedback were seen as critical enablers of voice.

The proposed typology contributes to psychological safety research by offering a contextualized interpretive framework that captures three relational climates observed in the data: open and supportive (Type A), fear-driven (Type B), and emotionally detached (Type C). We emphasize that the typology is not a definitive classification of all work environments, but rather a heuristic tool for understanding how leadership behavior and organizational norms shape employees’ willingness to speak up. By embracing a qualitative design and drawing on participants’ lived experiences, the typology provides a nuanced conceptual framework that captures the relational depth often overlooked by statistically oriented models. It offers a starting point for future inquiry and refinement in both research and practice. The current study adopted an exploratory and hypothesis-generating approach. While grounded in prior literature on psychological safety, its primary aim is to offer deeper insight into how leadership behaviors shape the experience of safety in Slovak organizational contexts. The findings, including the proposed interpretive typology, are intended not as generalizable categories but as conceptual tools to support theory-building and to inform future quantitative validation or dimensional modeling. By surfacing relational dynamics that may remain hidden in large-scale surveys, the study seeks to complement existing research and propose new directions for empirical testing.

The study’s findings strongly support applying attachment theory in organizational settings, especially in how employees interpret leadership behavior through the lens of emotional security. Participants consistently described leaders who were emotionally available, consistent, and supportive as those who fostered environments of psychological safety. These leaders were perceived as having attachment-related qualities, functioning as emotionally secure figures who enabled employees to take interpersonal risks6,17, such as expressing dissenting views or admitting mistakes, without fear of negative consequences. For example, participants in Type A environments frequently referenced their ability to communicate openly with their superiors, feeling heard and valued in ways that align with secure attachment dynamics. In contrast, leaders in Type B and C environments were often described as emotionally distant, punitive, or inconsistent, behaviors that mirror insecure attachment patterns and triggered anxiety, withdrawal, or emotional disengagement among employees.

The findings offer additional insight into the relational mechanisms that underpin psychological safety by linking them to employees’ willingness to speak up. In our participants’ accounts, voice behavior was consistently described as emotionally demanding and inherently risky. Employees weighed whether it was safe to raise concerns based on their leaders’ emotional availability, predictability, and responsiveness, qualities that reflect the safe haven function in attachment theory21,22,29. Leaders perceived as supportive and trustworthy enabled employees to take interpersonal risks, including voicing problems or dissenting views. Speaking up is not merely a communicative act, but a relational process grounded in felt emotional safety. Attachment theory offers a valuable lens for interpreting the conditions under which voice becomes possible, particularly in hierarchical or emotionally ambiguous environments. Psychological safety and speaking up are not shaped only by organizational policies or structures, but by the perceived relational security that leaders provide12. When the attachment-related support is absent, voice behavior becomes constrained, regardless of formal procedures encouraging feedback or participation. Fostering employee voice requires more than procedural openness; it demands leaders who consistently convey emotional stability, accessibility, and care.

The findings underscore the relational mechanisms at the heart of psychological safety: it is not merely a structural or procedural outcome, but a deeply interpersonal process shaped by repeated emotional interactions. The proposed typology reflects a gradient of relational experiences in the workplace, some of which may be interpreted through attachment theory as reflecting attachment-related qualities in leadership. Moreover, it suggests that fostering psychological safety requires leaders to not only possess technical or organizational competencies but also develop relational awareness and emotional intelligence, qualities closely aligned with attachment-related leadership behaviors that support secure, predictable, and trust-based interactions. By situating leadership within an attachment framework, the study provides a more nuanced understanding of how safety climates are co-created and sustained through daily relational cues.

The five leadership competency domains identified in this study should be understood as experiential categories derived from participant narratives, not as empirically validated constructs. While they resonate with elements of existing leadership models, such as transformational leadership30,31, and trust-building competencies32, our findings emphasize the relational expressions of these competencies in everyday workplace interactions. Given the small and context-specific sample, we recommend that future research develop measurement tools or survey instruments to test how these perceived competencies align with established models and whether they predict psychological safety across broader organizational settings.

Through thematic analysis, two broad categories of leadership competencies emerged: relational competencies, some of which align with attachment-related qualities as described in attachment theory, and functional competencies, which reflect broader organizational leadership practices. Relational competencies included emotional availability, consistent behavior, responsiveness to employee concerns, and a sense of trustworthiness in interpersonal interactions. Such traits align with the safe haven concept in attachment theory25, wherein leaders provide a stable and supportive relational environment that encourages exploration, openness, and voice. Several participants described feeling psychologically safe in the presence of leaders who were approachable and understanding, emphasizing the emotional reassurance that such leadership provided. While some leadership behaviors identified by participants resonate with functions described in attachment theory, we refrain from introducing a formal model. Instead, we use the term leadership with attachment-related qualities to reflect the interpretive and exploratory nature of our qualitative findings.

In contrast, functional competencies, such as clear decision-making, transparent communication33, organizational justice34, flexibility, and inclusive organizational practices, were not inherently relational but were still perceived as critical enablers of psychological safety35. Participants valued leaders who provided structure, articulated expectations clearly, and facilitated team coordination. Although these behaviors do not fall within the leadership with attachment-related qualities framework, they were nonetheless associated with a sense of predictability and fairness, which further contributed to employees’ willingness to speak up and engage. In some cases, participants proposed mechanisms such as anonymous suggestion boxes or an ombudsman as alternative channels for raising concerns in environments where direct communication with leaders was perceived as emotionally unsafe or ineffective.

Safety barriers were not primarily structural but rather relational, including unclear feedback, inconsistent emotional signals, and hierarchical distance, all of which undermined trust. Participants consistently viewed supportive leaders as fulfilling the safe haven function, providing emotional stability and relational reliability that helped reduce anxiety and foster trust. The findings underscore the need for emotionally intelligent leadership that fosters trust and risk tolerance36,37.

Participants also identified practical strategies for enhancing psychological safety, including emotionally responsive leadership, structured peer check-ins, and flexible environmental conditions. These findings are consistent with Brown et al.38 and Grawitch et al.8, reinforcing the view that safety must be embedded in both interpersonal norms and systemic practices. Drawing from attachment-informed interpretations, we would, for example, encourage leaders to demonstrate qualities such as approachability, empathy, and consistent presence in day-to-day interactions. Such an approach aims to reduce frequent leadership turnover, maintain continuity in emotional support, and promote fairness, availability, and respect in everyday relationships. The findings can also be understood in light of established antecedents of psychological safety. Numerous studies have shown that psychological safety is shaped not only by individual leader behavior, but also by broader constructs such as procedural justice39,40, voice climate10,41, and leader–member exchange42,43,44. In our study, participants’ emphasis on fair decision-making, emotional availability, and consistent feedback closely aligns with these constructs, particularly procedural fairness and relational trust. This suggests that psychological safety in high power distance contexts may depend less on formal empowerment and more on relational predictability and interpersonal respect.

Several limitations must be acknowledged. The study was conducted in Slovakia, a country with high power distance cultural norms, where hierarchical authority is often accepted without question23. These cultural norms may have influenced how participants perceive and express psychological safety, particularly in terms of their willingness to speak up or challenge authority figures. What may seem like disengagement or learned helplessness in this context might reflect different expectations regarding voice and participation in other cultures. Therefore, cultural factors likely interact with organizational dynamics, affecting both actual and perceived safety. Second, although the qualitative design offers rich insight into subjective experience, it does not allow for generalization or causal inference. Third, the sample consisted mainly of white-collar professionals from mid- to large-sized organizations, potentially limiting the transferability of findings to smaller firms, blue-collar settings, or less formalized work environments.

Despite these limitations, the study contributes to the psychological safety literature by offering a context-sensitive, relational perspective on how leadership behaviors shape employees’ willingness to speak up. Employee narratives from Slovak organizational settings highlight micro-level relational cues, such as emotional responsiveness, accessibility, and perceived fairness, as central to the experience of psychological safety. The proposed typology and the five perceived leadership competencies should not be viewed as definitive or universally generalizable. Instead, they are presented as interpretive tools that help make sense of recurring experiential patterns in psychologically safe versus unsafe environments. Their primary value lies in supporting future theory development and guiding empirical exploration.

Future research should focus on testing and refining the proposed competency domains using larger and more diverse samples. It will also be important to examine how these relational dynamics interact with organizational structures and cultural norms in other contexts. Longitudinal and mixed-method designs may help trace how psychological safety evolves over time and in response to specific leadership interventions. By clarifying how everyday leadership behaviors are experienced in different workplace climates, this study lays the groundwork for more targeted, culturally sensitive, and empirically testable models of psychological safety. Furthermore, examining how identity factors, such as gender, tenure, and job role, interact with cultural norms in shaping safety climates will be crucial for developing more inclusive models.

Conclusion

The study contributes to a growing body of evidence suggesting that workplace safety must be understood as a multidimensional construct encompassing both physical and psychological domains. Grounded in attachment theory and based on qualitative data from Slovak organizational contexts, our findings emphasize that psychological safety is not merely a byproduct of structural safeguards or regulatory compliance. Instead, it emerges through consistent, emotionally attuned interactions, particularly those modeled by leaders who, through their emotional availability and responsiveness, serve as psychological safe havens within the organization.

While the introduction positioned workplace safety within the framework of evolving European Union legislation on employee well-being, the results of this study confirm that psychological safety represents an essential component of this broader shift. Participants identified relational trust, leadership responsiveness, and inclusive communication as core mechanisms that either enhance or inhibit their felt sense of safety at work. In this regard, psychological safety should be regarded as a foundational element of occupational safety management systems, not a separate or secondary concern.

Our proposed typology of workplace climates (Types A, B, and C) further delineates how leadership behaviors intersect with organizational culture to either support or undermine employee voice. These findings reinforce the argument that leaders play a central role in creating safe work environments, not only by preventing harm but by fostering the psychological conditions necessary for open dialogue, innovation, and well-being.

As organizations continue to navigate rising complexity, remote work, and mental health challenges, the imperative is clear: fostering psychological safety is no longer optional but essential to ensuring workplace safety in its fullest sense. Future interventions should integrate psychological safety into leadership development, employee health strategies, and organizational design to promote resilience, engagement, and sustainable performance. The key question is no longer whether psychological safety is important, but rather how it can be intentionally and sustainably fostered.

Methodology

Participants

The sample consisted of 11 participants (8 men), all of whom were working adults residing in Slovakia. Participants were recruited through an external agency based on predefined inclusion criteria: being employed, residing in all regions of Slovakia, and being over 18 years old. To ensure representativeness, the sample included individuals from various regions of Slovakia, both genders, and a diverse age range from 30 to 61 years. Participants (Table 3) represented a variety of industry sectors, including logistics, IT, storage, administration, manufacturing, management in agriculture, public sector services, health care services, finance and banking, human resources, and personnel management. Most participants were employed in small, medium, or large organizations. These included multinational corporations, state-owned enterprises, and private firms. Job roles ranged from laborers, specialists, and coordinators to mid-level managers, providing a broad view of hierarchical positioning within the organizational structure. The participants were skilled laborers, participants with high school or college education. To protect confidentiality, specific company names and exact job titles are not disclosed. Participant quotes are labeled consistently with anonymized codes (e.g., participant B is PB) and reflect experiences from across the professional spectrum.

Table 3 Characteristics of Participants.
Full size table

Procedure

Following the recruitment process, each participant took part in an individual online semi-structured interview conducted via Microsoft Teams. These in-depth interviews were carried out in November 2024. Before the interview, participants provided informed consent for both participation in the study and the recording of the session. They were assured anonymity, and all sensitive or potentially identifying information was excluded from the final dataset.

The interview protocol consisted of 19 questions covering five key topics: psychological safety, employee voice, specific workplace experiences, ethical integrity, and workplace health. Example questions included: “Can you recall a situation where you hesitated to express your opinion? What prevented you from speaking up?“, “How would you describe the support you receive in handling difficult situations at work? What improvements do you suggest?“, and “How do you assess the support provided by your organization regarding your physical and mental health?” The interviews varied in length from 60 to 85 min, and participants were allowed to ask questions at the end of each session.

Participants received financial compensation for their participation, which the recruiting agency managed. Each interview was transcribed verbatim for subsequent data coding and analysis, with all personally identifiable information removed to maintain confidentiality.

Data analysis

To explore employees’ perspectives, a thematic analysis was conducted using the six-phase framework outlined by Braun and Clarke45. We began by immersing ourselves in the data, carefully reading the interview transcripts multiple times while taking preliminary notes. This was followed by the development of initial codes, which involved systematically identifying meaningful segments within the data.

Next, patterns and broader themes were identified as codes were organized into subthemes and overarching themes. The themes and subthemes were then reviewed and refined to ensure accuracy and consistency through team discussions and reassessments.

From the participants’ perspectives, we identified three key categories during the analysis. The first included barriers and facilitators that shape employees’ willingness to express their opinions in the workplace, with certain factors either encouraging or discouraging open communication. The second category, leadership competencies, encompassed the skills and qualities that participants linked to positive workplace experiences and enhanced well-being. The third category consisted of recommendations for broader workplace improvements, which extend beyond leadership and impact overall employee satisfaction.

Lastly, a comprehensive thematic summary was compiled, presenting the final findings and their relevance. Based on the thematic analysis of participants’ experiences, we subsequently interpreted and formulated responses to the individual research questions. This analytical strategy allowed us to identify recurring patterns in the data and link them to the study’s conceptual framework, providing a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. To enhance the clarity and effectiveness of presenting the findings, the results were also visualized using graphical representations. This approach supported the interpretation of key themes and facilitated a more accessible overview of the identified patterns across participant responses.

Saturation was assessed based on the principle of code saturation46. The research team closely monitored the emergence of new codes throughout the interview dataset. After conducting nine interviews, no additional codes or themes were identified. The final two interviews were utilized to confirm and elaborate on the existing thematic categories. This process indicated that the study had achieved sufficient thematic depth and consistency for its objectives.

The research team also held regular debriefings to discuss coding saturation and maintain analytical rigor. Given the study’s aim of exploring subjective experiences and developing an interpretive typology based on participant narratives, the sample size was considered appropriate according to established qualitative research standards47,48.

Researcher reflexivity

The second author, who conducted all interviews and led the analysis, approached the research from a background in organizational psychology with prior professional experience in employee well-being programs. This background informed both the sensitivity to relational dynamics in workplace settings and the interest in psychological safety as a lived experience rather than solely as a structural condition. To minimize potential bias during data collection, the interviews followed a semi-structured protocol, and participants were encouraged to lead the conversation toward issues most salient to them. Throughout the coding and analysis process, the research team engaged in regular peer debriefings and iterative discussions to question assumptions, validate themes, and ensure consistency in interpretation. Given the cultural context of Slovakia, characterized by relatively high power distance, the researcher remained aware of possible disparities in how participants might perceive and articulate authority, hierarchy, or psychological safety. Reflexive memos were maintained after each interview to document emerging impressions, emotional reactions, and potential influences on the interpretation of the data. The reflexive approach aimed to uphold methodological rigor and transparency throughout the study.