Making Sense of Employee Performance in Digital Workplaces_An Interpretative Phenomenological Study of Psychological Safety and Digital Orientation
DOI:
10.51601/ijersc.v7i5.1136Published:
2026-11-05Downloads
Abstract
This study explores how employees make sense of performance in digital workplaces through their lived experiences of psychological safety and digital orientation. Adopting a qualitative Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach, the study draws on in-depth interviews with eight employees working in organizations that have implemented digitally enabled work practices in Indonesia. The findings reveal three interconnected dimensions of employees' experiences. First, psychological safety provides an interpersonal environment that encourages employees to express ideas, ask questions, and learn from mistakes without fear of negative consequences. Second, digital orientation shapes employees' understanding of performance through technological adaptability, digital collaboration, and the continuous development of digital competencies. Third, the interaction between these conditions influences employees' ability to translate their digital capabilities into meaningful workplace contributions. Building on these findings, the study proposes Safe Digital Actualization as an emerging conceptual proposition, explaining how psychological safety and digital orientation converge in shaping employees' understanding and actualization of performance. The study contributes to the literature on organizational behavior and strategic human resource management by highlighting the importance of integrating psychological support with digital capability development in increasingly digitalized workplaces.
References
[1]. Alves, M. P., et al. (2022). Gender and psychological safety in virtual teams: The role of awareness types enabled by information technologies. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 28(5–6), 351–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-01-2022-0006
[2]. Babapour Chafi, M., Hultberg, A., & Bozic Yams, N. (2022). Post-pandemic Office Work: Perceived Challenges and Opportunities for a Sustainable Work Environment. Sustainability. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294
[3]. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job Demands–Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
[4]. Barba-Sánchez, V., Meseguer-Martínez, Á., Gouveia-Rodrigues, R., & Raposo, M. L. (2024). Effects of digital transformation on firm performance: The role of IT capabilities and digital orientation. Heliyon, 10(6), e27725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27725
[5]. Brahmana, R. K., & Kontesa, M. (2024). Does digital orientation enhance firm performance? Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629241257300
[6]. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaa
[7]. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE
[8]. Cepeda-Cardona, J., & Lozada Barahona, N. E. (2025). Bridging digital orientation and firm performance through employee-driven digital innovation: Is technostress a red flag or a red herring? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 74(9), 3009–3031. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-07-2024-0452
[9]. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE
[10]. Del Valle, M., et al. (2024). Psychological factors and technology acceptance in the workplace. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v50i0.2177
[11]. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). SAGE.
[12]. Dzandu, M. D., Theophilus, I., & Issa, D. (2023). Exploring the relationship between personal and work characteristics of project managers and psychological safety in virtual teams. Procedia Computer Science, 219, 2067–2074. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.509
[13]. Eatough, V., & Smith, J. A. (2017). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555.n12
[14]. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/26669999
[15]. 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(1), 23–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
[16]. Finlay, L. (2012). Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology & Practice, 6(1), 6–25.
[17]. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
[18]. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
[19]. Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough?. Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
[20]. Ingsih, K., Sihombing, P. R., & Widiastuti, D. (2024). The role of digital competence in improving employee performance. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v22i0.2689
[21]. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
[22]. Kane, G. C., Phillips, A. N., Copulsky, J., & Andrus, G. (2019). The Technology Fallacy: People Are the Real Key to Digital Transformation. MIT Press.
[23]. Kensbock, J. M., & Stöckmann, C. (2021). A human-centered perspective on digital transformation. Journal of Business Economics, 91(6), 829–861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-01012-x
[24]. Khin, S., & Ho, T. C. F. (2019). Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(2), 177–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083
[25]. Kim, S., Lee, H., & Connerton, T. P. (2020). How psychological safety affects team performance: Mediating role of efficacy and learning behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01581
[26]. Kindermann, B., Schmidt, C. V. H., Fengel, F., & Strese, S. (2024). Expanding the boundaries of digital orientation research: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 185, 114895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114895
[27]. Lechner, A., & Tobias Mortlock, J. M. (2022). How to create psychological safety in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 51(2), 100849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100849
[28]. Lee, H. (2022). How does psychological safety foster employee performance? A serial multiple mediation of job crafting and thriving. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 25(3–4), 98–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-12-2021-0239
[29]. Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2018). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 5(1), 2–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082
[30]. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE.
[31]. Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.873177
[32]. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
[33]. Manokha, I. (2020). The implications of digital employee monitoring and its relationship with trust and control. Surveillance & Society, 18(4), 470–484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v18i4.13776
[34]. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-Bass.
[35]. Molino, M., et al. (2020). Wellbeing costs of technology use during remote working. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072343
[36]. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.03
[37]. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological Safety: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Human Resource Management Review 27 (3), 521-535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
[38]. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
[39]. O’Donovan, Róisín. (2020). A systematic review exploring the content and outcomes of interventions to improve psychological safety, speaking up and voice behaviour. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1). DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-4931-2
[40]. O'Donovan, R., & McAuliffe, E. (2020). A systematic review of factors that enable psychological safety in healthcare teams. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 32(4), 240–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa025
[41]. O'Donovan, R., McAuliffe, E., & De Brún, A. (2021). Exploring Psychological Safety in Healthcare Teams to Inform the Development of Interventions: Combining Observational, Survey and Interview Data. BMC Health Services Research, 21, 780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06236-1
[42]. Parker, S. K., Knight, C., & Keller, A. (2020). Remote Managers Are Having Trust Issues. Harvard Business Review.
[43]. Parkin, A. K., Zadow, A. J., Potter, R. E., Afsharian, A., Dollard, M. F., Pignata, S., Bakker, A. B., & Lushington, K. (2023). The role of psychosocial safety climate on flexible work from home digital job demands and work-life conflict. Industrial Health, 61, 307–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2022-0078
[44]. Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Applying the Job Demands–Resources Model: A 'How To' Guide to Measuring and Tackling Work Engagement and Burnout. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 120–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008
[45]. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2022). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[46]. Sulaiman, A., et al. (2025). Digital competence and employee performance in the context of digital transformation. Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences and Research, 10(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.64753/jcasc.v10i2.1646
[47]. Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J.-F. (2019). The Technostress Trifecta—Techno Eustress, Techno Distress and Design: Theoretical Directions and an Agenda for Research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169
[48]. Tarafdar, M., et al. (2015). The dark side of information technology use. MIS Quarterly. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07
[49]. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
[50]. Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact (2nd ed.). Wiley.
[51]. Trenerry, B., Chng, S., Wang, Y., Suhaila, Z., Lim, S., Lu, H. Y., & Oh, P. H. (2021). Preparing workplaces for digital transformation: An integrative review and framework of multi-level factors in the COVID-19 context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.620766
[52]. Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316
[53]. Van Manen, M. (2017). Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-Giving Methods in Phenomenological Research and Writing. Routledge.
[54]. Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
[55]. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
[56]. Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation. Managing Digital Transformation.
[57]. Wang, Y. (2022). Analyzing the mechanism of strategic orientation towards digitization and organizational performance settings enduring employee resistance to innovation and performance capabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1006310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1006310
[58]. Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.08.001
[59]. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
[60]. You, H. W., & Brahmana, R. K. (2024). The role of digital orientation in moderating the relationship between innovation and internationalization. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 19(12), 4409–4430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-03-2022-04.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
