SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İş ve İnsan Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Voice, Decision Participation, and Exclusion: Exploring Psychological Safety Among HR Leaders in the Turkish Automotive Sector

Ses, Karara Katılım ve Dışlanma: Türk Otomotiv Sektöründe İK Liderleri Arasında Psikolojik Güvenliğin İncelenmesi

Ayhan Yazar(Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Business Administration)0009-0002-8381-5880
Mehlika Saraç(Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Management and Organization)0000-0001-6720-5594
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-08
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Originality: By focusing on HR leaders positioned between senior management, employees, and policy implementation in a manufacturing-intensive automotive cluster, this study extends psychological safety literature beyond team-level voice by showing how decision participation, error framing, HR role legitimacy, team trust, and exclusion form a connected boundary-position process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: This study aims to explore how psychological safety is experienced by human resource (HR) leaders working in Bursa’s Turkish automotive sector.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 HR leaders from automotive main and sub-industry firms in Bursa.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Originality: By focusing on HR leaders positioned between senior management, employees, and policy implementation in a manufacturing-intensive automotive cluster, this study extends psychological safety literature beyond team-level voice by showing how decision participation, error framing, HR role legitimacy, team trust, and exclusion form a connected boundary-position process.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türk otomotiv sektörü · Bursa endüstri ilişkileri · Mobbing ve işyerinde dışlanma

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to explore how psychological safety is experienced by human resource (HR) leaders working in Bursa’s Turkish automotive sector. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative design was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 HR leaders from automotive main and sub-industry firms in Bursa. Participants were selected through purposive sampling, and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings: Five themes were identified: open expression, mistakes and feedback culture, top-management relations, team-level safety, and mobbing/exclusion. Psychological safety was shaped mainly by organizational conditions rather than individual willingness to speak. Autocratic leadership, family-business dynamics, restricted decision participation, and punitive error cultures increased self-censorship and defensive behavior. Team solidarity provided partial protection, but gossip, rivalry, and exclusion weakened this buffer. Mobbing and exclusion appeared both as direct mistreatment and as organizational bypassing, information withholding, and marginalization. Originality: By focusing on HR leaders positioned between senior management, employees, and policy implementation in a manufacturing-intensive automotive cluster, this study extends psychological safety literature beyond team-level voice by showing how decision participation, error framing, HR role legitimacy, team trust, and exclusion form a connected boundary-position process.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Bursa’daki Türk otomotiv sektöründe çalışan insan kaynakları (İK) liderlerinin psikolojik güvenlik deneyimlerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Çalışmada nitel araştırma deseni kullanılmıştır. Bursa’daki ana ve yan sanayi otomotiv firmalarında görev yapan 15 İK lideriyle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Katılımcılar amaçlı örnekleme ile seçilmiş, veriler tematik analiz yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Beş tema belirlenmiştir: açık ifade, hata ve geri bildirim kültürü, üst yönetimle ilişkiler, ekip içi güvenlik ve mobbing/dışlanma. Psikolojik güvenliğin bireysel konuşma isteğinden çok örgütsel koşullar tarafından şekillendiği görülmüştür. Otokratik liderlik, aile şirketi dinamikleri, karar süreçlerine sınırlı katılım ve cezalandırıcı hata kültürü öz-sansürü ve savunmacı davranışları artırmıştır. Ekip dayanışması kısmi bir koruma sağlasa da dedikodu, rekabet ve dışlanma bu korumayı zayıflatmıştır. Mobbing ve dışlanma yalnızca doğrudan kötü muamele olarak değil, karar süreçlerinden dışlanma, bilgi saklama ve sistematik marjinalleştirme biçiminde de ortaya çıkmıştır. Özgün Katkı: Çalışma, üretim yoğun otomotiv kümesinde üst yönetim, çalışanlar ve İK uygulamaları arasında konumlanan İK liderlerine odaklanarak psikolojik güvenlik literatürünü ekip içi ses çıkarma çerçevesinin ötesine taşımakta; karara katılım, hata kültürü, İK rol meşruiyeti, ekip güveni ve dışlanmanın sınır konumlu bir deneyim olarak birlikte işlediğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yazar, A., Saraç, M. (2026). Voice, Decision Participation, and Exclusion: Exploring Psychological Safety Among HR Leaders in the Turkish Automotive Sector. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2. https://doi.org/10.18394/iid.1946128

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Artinger, F. M., Marx-Fleck, S., Junker, N. M., Gigerenzer, G., Artinger, S., & van Dick, R. (2025). Coping with uncertainty: The interaction of psychological safety and authentic leadership in their effects on defensive decision making. Journal of Business Research, 190, 115240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115240
  2. Badru, A. F., Karadas, G., Olugbade, O. A., & Hassanie, S. (2024). Can employees’ trust their supervisor? The role of high-performance work systems and stewardship climate on employee voice. Heliyon, 10(19), e37795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37795
  3. BEBKA. (2026). Automotive Main And Sub Industry. Yatırım Destek Ofisi. https://bursainvest.gov.tr/key-sectors/automotive-main-and-sub-industry/
  4. Bennett, H., McCracken, M., O’Kane, P., & Brown, T. (2024). The elusiveness of strategic HR partnering: Using paradox theory to understand tensions surrounding the HR business partnering role. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(4), 942–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12538
  5. Blomberg, S., Rosander, M., & Einarsen, S. V. (2024). Role ambiguity as an antecedent to workplace bullying: Hostile work climate and supportive leadership as intermediate factors. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 40(2), 101328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2024.101328
  6. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736076
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. London.
  9. Casprini, E., Palumbo, R., & De Massis, A. (2024). Untangling the yarn: A contextualization of human resource management to the family firm setting. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 15(3), 100621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2024.100621
  10. Cayrat, C., & Boxall, P. (2023). The roles of the HR function: A systematic review of tensions, continuity and change. Human Resource Management Review, 33(4), 100984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100984
  11. Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
  12. Dheer, R. J. S., Terpstra-Tong, J., Treviño, L., Ralston, D. A., Tjemkes, B., Paparella, L. S., Crowley-Henry, M., Burns, C., Froese, F., Poeschl, G., Morales, O., Szabo, E., Fu, P., Srinivasan, N., Molteni, M., Butt, A., Furrer, O., Darder, F. L., Kangasniemi-Haapala, M., … Alas, R. (2026). Impact of organizational culture on employee psychological safety perception: The pivotal role of trust in top management across 18 societies. International Business Review, 35(1), 102523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2025.102523
  13. Dong, R. K., Li, X., & Hernan, ‘Banjo’ Roxas. (2024). Psychological safety and psychosocial safety climate in workplace: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review towards a research agenda. Journal of Safety Research, 91, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2024.08.001
  14. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
  15. Edmondson, A. C., & Bransby, D. P. (2023). Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(Volume 10, 2023), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055217
  16. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(Volume 1, 2014), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
  17. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-3
  18. Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2015). The mediating roles of psychological safety and employee voice on the relationship between conflict management styles and organizational identification. American Journal of Business, 30(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-06-2013-0040
  19. Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The Development and Validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348–1366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012743
  20. Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
  21. Guarin, A. D., Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A., & Edwards, M. (2025). Time to voice? A review and agenda for longitudinal employee voice research. Human Resource Management Review, 35(1), 101059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101059
  22. Homann, F., Limbert, C., Matthews, S., Castaldi, D., & Sykes, P. (2021). Identifying management practices that drive production-line workers’ engagement through qualitative analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 77, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2021.02.006
  23. Invest in Turkiye. (2026, March 24). Automotive—Invest in Türkiye. https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/sectors/pages/automotive.aspx
  24. Joseph, E. R., & Seshadri, V. (2025). Is connection the key? The mediating role of psychological safety in the relationship between relatedness to employee engagement. Acta Psychologica, 260, 105607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105607
  25. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
  26. Kim, B. (2024). Workplace violence and harassment: An umbrella review of synthesis studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 78, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101981
  27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry; Sage Publications: Newbury Park. CA USA.
  28. Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
  29. Morrison, E. W. (2023). Employee Voice and Silence: Taking Stock a Decade Later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(Volume 10, 2023), 79–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654
  30. Mortimore, H., & Mackintosh, C. O. (2025). HR Have the Final ‘No’: Advising, Persuading and Overruling to Navigate the Institutional Logics in HR Practice. Human Resource Management Journal, 35(4), 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12600
  31. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
  32. Nielsen, M. B., Einarsen, S. V., Parveen, S., & Rosander, M. (2024). Witnessing workplace bullying—A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual health and well-being outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 75, 101908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101908
  33. Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00121.x
  34. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
  35. Paul, J., Pilbeam, C., & Smallwood, A. (2025). Safety voice concept clean-up: Examining the voice that challenges us to be safer. Safety Science, 191, 106931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106931
  36. Rabiul, M. K. (2024). Does one’s sense of psychological safety mitigate the link between workplace ostracism and employee vitality? Meaningful work as a boundary role. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 123, 103925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103925
  37. Rai, S. S., & Koodamara, N. K. (2025). How does trust in leader influences organizational commitment? A test of a moderated mediation model. Acta Psychologica, 257, 105092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105092
  38. Salin, D. (2003). Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying: A Review of Enabling, Motivating and Precipitating Structures and Processes in the Work Environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035610003
  39. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care: Journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
  40. Toufighi, S. P., Ghasemian Sahebi, I., Govindan, K., Lin, M. Z. N., Vang, J., & Brambini, A. (2024). Participative leadership, cultural factors, and speaking-up behaviour: An examination of intra-organisational knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), 100548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100548
  41. Uğurlu, Ö. Y., & Ayas, S. (2016). The relationship between psychological safety and employee voice: The mediation role of affective commitment and intrinsic motivation. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 223–239.
  42. van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228–1240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1228
  43. Zavala-Parrales, A., Meléndez-Anzures, F. E., Perez-Suarez, S., & Dominguez, A. (2025). Driving gender equality in the automotive industry: A review of educational strategies. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1474864