Effects of public service motivation on R&D project-based team learning where psychological safety is a mediator and project management style is a moderator

Pattanatornchai, Jintana; Kohda, Youji; Javed, Amna; Udomvitid, Kalaya; Pisal Yenradee Article Effects of public service motivation on R&D project-based team learning where psychological safety is a mediator and project management style is a moderator Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Pattanatornchai, Jintana; Kohda, Youji; Javed, Amna; Udomvitid, Kalaya; Pisal Yenradee (2024) : Effects of public service motivation on R&D project-based team learning where psychological safety is a mediator and project management style is a moderator, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 5, pp. 1-24, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050093 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320913 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Pattanatornchai, Jintana, Youji Kohda, Amna Javed, Kalaya Udomvitid, and Pisal Yenradee. 2024. Effects of Public Service Motivation on R&D Project-Based Team Learning Where Psychological Safety Is a Mediator and Project Management Style Is a Moderator. Administrative Sciences 14: 93. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/admsci14050093 Received: 11 February 2024 Revised: 17 April 2024 Accepted: 18 April 2024 Published: 1 May 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Effects of Public Service Motivation on R&D Project-Based Team Learning Where Psychological Safety Is a Mediator and Project Management Style Is a Moderator Jintana Pattanatornchai 1,2,*, Youji Kohda 1, Amna Javed 1, Kalaya Udomvitid 3and Pisal Yenradee 2,* 1School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi 923-1211, Ishikawa, Japan; [email protected] (Y.K.); [email protected] (A.J.) 2School of Manufacturing Systems and Mechanical Engineering, Industrial Engineering and Smart Logistics, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand 3NECTEC, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand; [email protected].th *Correspondence: [email protected] (J.P.); [email protected] (P.Y.) Abstract: While public service motivation (PSM) and teamwork are widely recognized as crucial drivers for effective public service delivery, researchers primarily analyze these factors independently and at a personal level. The existing literature rarely explores the interplay between PSM, the project team learning process (PTLP), and psychological safety (PS) within research and development (R&D) project teams, particularly in national R&D organizations. This study addresses this gap by proposing a theoretical model that examines the combined effect of individual motivation and team collaboration, mediated by PS, on R&D PTLP. Additionally, it investigates the moderating influence of project management (PM) styles—fully agile and partially agile—on these relationships. The proposed method utilizes partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) for quantitative data analysis. Our findings revealed a positive relationship between PSM, PS, and R&D PTLP, with PS acting as a significant mediator. Notably, the relationship between PSM and R&D PTLP was stronger under fully agile project management compared to partially agile settings. These findings suggest that both project teams and organizations should prioritize promoting PS and consider the moderating effects of project management styles to foster a sustainable R&D team learning process, particularly within national R&D institutions. Keywords: public service motivation; psychological safety; project-based team learning; research team; national R&D organization; project management 1. Introduction The contemporary business landscape necessitates effective teamwork management for organizations to secure a competitive edge. Collaborative environments facilitate the exchange of diverse knowledge and ideas, fostering innovation and adaptability. Team learning processes (TLPs) emerge as a critical mechanism within this framework, enabling the continuous learning and development of teams. As Edmondson (2012) posits, organizations increasingly rely on teams to drive this ongoing learning, impacting overall performance. Reports by international consulting further emphasize the significance of cultivating effective learning environments for organizational success and sustainability. Leadership styles, corporate culture, and dedicated resources are identified as key drivers of TLP; however, transitioning from mere teamwork to team learning hinges on complex social dynamics at both the individual (member) and team (members, leader, and wider environment) levels. Edmondson (1999) defines team learning as a continuous process of internal and external reflection and action. This involves questioning, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and openly discussing errors or unexpected outcomes. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050093 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 2 of 24 Communication lies at the heart of this definition, enabling knowledge sharing and individual learning from fellow team members. Thus, TLP reflects the iterative learning process sustained through active communication and interaction within teams. Communication and interpersonal interaction are central to effective team learning. However, fostering positive interpersonal exchange requires specific mechanisms. Recent research identifies psychological safety (PS) as a crucial environmental factor in this process. Defined by Edmondson (1999) as a climate where individuals feel comfortable, open, and secure in expressing themselves, PS provides the foundation for strong team communication. Interestingly, studies emphasize the detrimental impact of anxiety on learning behaviors. When encountering nervousness, individuals tend to exaggerate the possibility of failure beyond reality. For instance, Zeng et al. (2020) stated that fear of sharing dissenting opinions can hinder individual role empowerment and create team discomfort. This fear often manifests as silence or passive-aggressive behavior, leading to an avoidance of potential negative feedback. These behaviors become significant roadblocks to collective learning and effective teamwork, akin to a silent cancer hindering organizational growth. Establishing a psychologically safe environment for teams fosters open communication across diverse backgrounds. This necessitates eliminating fear-induced silence, a challenge addressed by several scholars who advocate for psychological safety (PS). PS describes a state where individuals feel comfortable expressing themselves without fear of negative consequences. By creating a secure environment, teams can lower self-protective behaviors and encourage open interaction. However, despite its benefits, excessive PS can lead to unintended negative consequences like unethical behavior. Examples include corruption, reduced dedication, and self-serving task selection. These “dark side” outcomes highlight the need for moderation in fostering PS. Additionally, PS implementation can clash with traditional Asian cultures that emphasize seniority and hierarchical structures. This conflict can be particularly acute in large, highly regulated organizations, such as government agencies. While psychological safety (PS) encourages effective teamwork, it may not sufficiently direct individual work output. Excessive PS can even demotivate employees due to a tendency to avoid challenging tasks, potentially arising from a relaxed approach to interpersonal differences within the team. Therefore, individual motivation emerges as a crucial factor. In the public sector, particularly in developing countries like Thailand and Southeast Asia, this motivation drives domestic political issues and plays a key role in national development. Public servants face complex public expectations, making their ability to understand behavior essential for effective policy formulation. An ideal form of individual motivation is public service motivation (PSM). PSM describes an individual’s drive to benefit society without personal gain, differentiating it from other motivations. This intrinsic motivation is expected from public servants and has expanded beyond its original government context to encompass the private and volunteer sectors. PSM is generally expected to exist and influence behavior in real-world settings. National R&D organizations operate as project-based entities, where project management (PM) styles can impact team member motivation. Heterogeneity in project teams (academic backgrounds, expertise, seniority, and personal connections) can hinder role empowerment. Team members might hesitate to express ideas due to discomfort with diverse feedback or fear of making mistakes. These factors pose obstacles to achieving PSM. Research on the multilevel interplay between individual and team factors in the public sector remains underexplored. Notably, the relationship between public service motivation (PSM) and project team learning processes (PTLPs) within R&D project work mediated by psychological safety (PS) has received scant attention. Although numerous studies across healthcare, education, and private sector product development demonstrate a positive relationship between psychological safety and team learning process association, the nuanced dynamics in public R&D organizations, characterized by their complex goals, remain largely uninvestigated. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 3 of 24 This paper has specific objectives as follows. (1) To examine the structural relationships between PSM and PTLP via PS as a mediator of the R&D project team in the national R&D organization. (2) To examine the differentiation of project management styles’ moderator effects of structural relationships between PSM and PTLP via PS as a mediator of the R&D project team in the national R&D organization. This study selected Thailand’s National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC) as its research target. NECTEC is a statutory government organization under the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA). It is an ideal case study for investigating the proposed framework due to its established structure and relevance to the research topic. The study anticipates a twofold impact. Theoretically, it strives to contribute to existing knowledge by proposing a comprehensive model that elucidates the relationship between public service motivation (PSM), psychological safety (PS), and project team learning processes (PTLPs). The social impact, on the other hand, lies in the potential to address performance-related issues within Thailand’s national R&D organizations by enhancing learning processes. This study proposes a novel framework to investigate the mediating role of psychological safety (PS) in the relationship between public service motivation (PSM) and project team learning processes (PTLPs), taking into account the influence of project management (PM) styles. The structure of the article is as follows. First, we introduce the research problem and objectives. Subsequently, we delve into the existing literature on PSM, PTLP, PS, and PM styles. We then provide a concise overview of the national R&D organization NECTEC, serving as the research context. Subsequently, the proposed framework and research methodology are presented. Finally, we discuss the evaluation results, followed by a comprehensive discussion, conclusion, and potential avenues for future research. 2. Literature Review The relationship between PSM (public service motivation), PS (psychological safety), and PTLPs (project team learning processes) in R&D project teams (of national R&D organizations) is scarcely discussed among scholars. Thus, this research will propose an enhanced comprehension model of the relationship between PSM, PS, and PTLP in the context of the project management styles. The subjects’ level of freedom differs depending on the style of PM. Therefore, PTLP is selected to assess the degree of freedom in this matter to obtain the output. We will mention the four vital keywords: public service motivation (PSM), project team learning process (PTLP), psychological safety (PS), and project management (PM) styles. The description of each keyword is conducted to the influence of each keyword which illustrated in the existing work. Table 1demonstrates the comparison of the previous research works and this research. Table 1. Comparison of previous research works and this research. Research Work PSM PTLP PS PM Liu and Perry (2014) / Van Loon et al. (2015) / Taylor et al. (2013) / Word and Carpenter (2013) / Potipiroon and Ford (2017) / Potipiroon and Wongpreedee (2020) / / Wang and Li (2023) / Lin et al. (2024) / Edmondson (1999) / / Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 4 of 24 Table 1. Cont. Research Work PSM PTLP PS PM Liu et al. (2014) / Newman et al. (2017) / Marder et al. (2021) / / Pierce and Aguinis (2013) / Rabiul et al. (2023) / McElroy et al. (2024) / / Huang (2009) / Marlow et al. (2018) / Reagans et al. (2005) / Wong (2004) / Lin et al. (2022) / Alami et al. (2022) / / Nurmi and Koroma (2020) / / Chowdhry (2023) / / Lalmi et al. (2021) / Barros et al. (2024) / / This paper / / / / 2.1. Public Service Motivation (PSM) The notion that public service motivation (PSM) surpasses self-interest in driving public employees remains prevalent (Houston 2000;Perry and Wise 1990). Despite various definitions (Perry and Wise 1990;Brewer and Selden 1998;Vandenabeele 2007), a common thread of service to a broader community, rather than individual gain, unites them. The concept, however, poses open questions regarding its origins and development through socialization (Wright and Pandey 2008). Understanding PSM becomes critical for public administration, as it delves into the individual’s drive to benefit society through public service (Perry and Hondeghem 2008). This core concept links to the desired outcomes in public organizations, with researchers agreeing that PSM-driven individuals aim to serve the abstract notion of the public interest for collective societal benefits. Perry (1996) identified four core dimensions of public service motivation (PSM): attraction to policymaking, public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice. Kim ([2008] 2009) streamlined this model, reducing items from 24 to 12, while aligning with Vandenabeele’s (2008) five-dimensional framework: attraction to politics, public interest, compassion, self-sacrifice, and a novel addition—democratic governance. Notably, PSM research continues to evolve with instruments adapting to organizational contexts (public vs. private). Vandenabeele and Jager (2020) developed a concise and practical PSM measure, revising earlier scales by Kim et al. (2013) and Van der Wal et al. (2008). These revisions focused solely on PSM dimensions, shifting away from cues reflecting private sector values based on individual work contexts. This emphasis reinforces the distinct nature of PSM within the public service domain. Several topics have come about from PSM research such as job satisfaction, choice of occupation or employment sector, individual and organizational performance, organizational and job commitment, work attitudes and behavior, perceived superior trust, entrepreneurial passion, social entrepreneurship intension, public sector attraction, perceived fit with the public sector, organizational learning, change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior, and leadership (Liu and Perry 2014;Wright and Pandey 2008;Schott and Ritz 2018;Lin et al. 2024;Palma et al. 2021;Chandra et al. 2021;Carpenter et al. 2012;Li and Wang 2022;Chih and Zwikael 2015). Studies examining the relationship between PSM and turnover found it to be a negative relationship. Many studies showed the potential Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 5 of 24 negative aspects of too much PSM, e.g., stress, burnout, job dissatisfaction as well as involuntary or long-term absenteeism, negatively affecting physical well-being, and social media use for work during non-work hours (Liu and Perry 2014;Van Loon et al. 2015; Wang and Li 2023). PSMs are examined in various fields in the public and nonprofit sectors (Taylor et al. 2013;Word and Carpenter 2013). PSM surveys were conducted in many countries such as Germany, Australia, South Korea, China, Thailand, the Netherlands, etc. (Kim 2009; Perry and Hondeghem 2008;Liu and Perry 2014;Potipiroon and Ford 2017;Potipiroon and Wongpreedee 2020;Palma et al. 2021;Wang and Li 2023;Loscher et al. 2023;Lin et al. 2024). There are a few papers that research similar topics to those in this article. For instance, Broekema et al. (2019) contribute to the understanding of public service motivation (PSM) and its influence on public leaders’ post-crisis learning orientation. Our findings, based on data collected from Dutch mayors in 2015, suggest a positive association between PSM and a comprehensive approach to organizational learning following a crisis. This highlights a potential research gap at the team or project level, where future investigations could explore how PSM influences learning dynamics within smaller units. Moreover, Potipiroon and Wongpreedee (2020) studied the relationship between PSM and psychological safety in the area of local government employees, which is a study in the context of critical climates and internal whistleblowing intentions. This shows the research gap in the other sectors in Thailand that can be explored. 2.2. Psychological Safety (PS) The concept of psychological safety has evolved over time, with key contributions from various scholars. In 1965, Schein and Bennis first introduced it as the feeling of security individuals experience during change management (Schein and Bennis 1965). Later, Kahn (1990) focused on individual perceptions of safety, defining it as the absence of fear regarding negative consequences for expressing beliefs or behaviors (Kahn 1990). This individual perspective emphasizes the role of trusting and supportive relationships in fostering psychological safety, as highlighted by Newman et al. (2017). However, perhaps the most widely cited definition comes from Edmondson (1999), who shifted the focus to group dynamics. She defines psychological safety as the shared belief within a team or group that allows members to take risks together without fear of judgment or punishment (Edmondson 1999). This definition highlights the collective aspect of psychological safety and its importance for collaborative risk-taking and innovation within teams. Edmondson (1999) developed and validated a seven-point scale to measure team psychological safety (PS). This scale encompasses individual perceptions of safety within a team setting and captures reactions from team members towards risk-taking and honest expression. Notably, Google’s Re: Work project, investigating factors associated with improved team performance, adopted Edmondson’s scale to assess the PS of their teams (Google Re:Work 2024). This highlights the practical relevance of measuring PS in enhancing team effectiveness. Additionally, the Fearless Organization website offers individuals the opportunity to self-evaluate their PS using the same scale (Edmondson 2018). Building upon Edmondson’s (1999) foundational work linking psychological safety (PS) to learning and performance, researchers have delved deeper into its multidimensional impact. Studies have explored PS’s relationship with various outcomes, including innovation, creativity, employee attitudes, communication, knowledge sharing, voice behavior, work engagement, and organizational commitment. They exhibited better service quality, reported lower career turnover intention/career regret, and/or were satisfied with their career (Liu et al. 2014;Newman et al. 2017;Chang and Busser 2020; Guchait et al. 2019;Huo 2021;Li et al. 2022;Rabiul et al. 2022;Wang et al. 2019;Rabiul et al. 2023). Drawing from social learning theory, social information processing theory, social identification theory, and social exchange theory, research suggests that PS fosters knowledge sharing by encouraging trust and open communication within teams (e.g., speaking up without fear of judgment) (Newman et al. 2017). This in turn facilitates Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 6 of 24 individual and team-level learning behaviors, ultimately indirectly influencing employee performance (Baer and Frese 2003). McElroy et al. (2024) identified three key themes related to psychological safety and hierarchy in the operating room debriefing process: (1) “commitment to learning”, (2) “it is a safe space”, and (3) “natural leader”. These themes suggest that debriefings can foster a culture of learning and quality improvement among frontline workers. Furthermore, the findings support the notion that debriefings can serve as a vehicle for individual and team learning, potentially contributing to broader organizational change. Notably, the study also highlights the importance of mitigating hierarchical influences and power structures to facilitate such positive organizational transformation. Furthermore, PS extends its influence beyond individuals and teams, impacting organizational performance. Baer and Frese (2003) found a strong positive correlation between employees’ collective perception of PS and organizational metrics like return on assets and goal achievement. PS also enhances employee attitudes, fostering organizational commitment, work engagement, and positive teamwork perceptions. The study of the development of a competency framework defining effective surgical educators proposed that fostering PS was the first competency from five competencies and sixteen behaviors, Sharma et al. (2024). PS has a strong relation with the agile technique in team learning processes; psychological safety can be increased through peer and tutor support, the use of smiley emojis, and initiatives to reduce disruptive behaviors (Marder et al. 2021). Consistent with the study of Barros et al. (2024), they found psychological safety is a significant indirect success factor for agile software development projects. The direct success factor is team capabilities and customer involvement. This fosters an environment where employees are more receptive to new technologies, continuous learning, and adapting to challenges. While psychological safety (PS) boasts numerous benefits for teams, research suggests a potential “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect (Pierce and Aguinis 2013). In excessively high-PS environments, team dynamics can shift, leading to negative consequences. Pierce and Aguinis (2013) found that overly high PS may increase the likelihood of unethical behavior, as team members prioritize personal interests over group goals and engage in collusion. While limited research currently exists on the full spectrum of PS’s potential downsides, Newman et al. (2017) cautiously acknowledge the possibility of such negative outcomes. Further investigation into the potential “dark side” of PS could offer valuable insights for practitioners in balancing its advantages with potential risks. 2.3. Project Team Learning Process (PTLP) As more responsibility and information falls on teams’ shoulders, it is crucial to understand the influence of team learning behaviors on team effectiveness. Team learning behaviors are essential for team performance, no matter the situation. Most product and technology development is moving towards team-based structures, since teams are believed to increase individual commitment and performance (Ramesh and Tiwana 1999) Vicarious learning may be an efficient supplement to direct experience, allowing people to profit from lessons gained from a wide variety of others’ experiences in a short amount of time. It is beneficial in the case of vicariously shared failure stories due to the increased emotional impact and the higher value of the knowledge generated by failure compared to success (Bledow et al. 2017;Sitkin 1992). Organizational environment is progressively more turbulent, dynamic, and complex than ever, creating learning demands beyond the capability of an individual (Tannenbaum et al. 2012). Team learning has been conceptualized in a number of ways in the research literature. For instance, Edmondson et al. (2007) views team learning as an “encompassing rubric”, or a useful abstraction of an organizational phenomenon, and defined team learning as a process in which a team takes action, obtains and reflects on feedback, and makes changes to adapt or improve. Another perspective of team learning is as a dynamic process in which the learning process, the conditions that support them, and team behaviors change as the team changes (Sessa and London 2007). Team learning is a critical process in developing Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 7 of 24 new products and services quickly and effectively (Edmondson and Nembhard 2009; Lynn et al. 1999). Team learning refers to a continuous process of reflection and action directed toward obtaining and processing information to detect, understand, and adapt to changes in an environment, and to improve the performance of a team (Edmondson 1999). Team learning, characterized as a cyclical process of reflection and adaptation fueled by psychological safety (Knapp 2010), fosters knowledge creation through the transformation of shared group experiences. Team learning processes are measured using learning behaviors in work teams, experiential learning in teams, team learning and metacognition, and team learning beliefs and behaviors (Van den Bossche et al. 2006; Edmondson 1999;Kayes et al. 2005;McCarthy and Garavan 2008). Previous studies have investigated the role of a variety of factors such as infrastructure capabilities, user involvement, reporting quality, project risk, leadership styles, and problemsolving competency in information technology (IT) project performance (Xu et al. 2010; Doll and Deng 2011;Thompson et al. 2007;Wallace et al. 2004;Thite 2000;Aladwani 2002; Li et al. 2011). In technology R&D teams, trust fosters communication and an awareness of individual expertise (Huang 2009). This clarity enables efficient knowledge encoding and retrieval, ultimately facilitating knowledge sharing within the team. Kirkman et al. (2004) found no direct link between team leader–member racial similarity and team effectiveness, and so research on how racial diversity impacts team dynamics remains crucial. Communication allows for resource pooling in planning, which improves team performance. Furthermore, communication quality will have a bigger impact than frequency, and certain communication kinds (face-to-face, familiar teams) may exhibit stronger performance correlations (Marlow et al. 2018). Several scholars found psychological safety is a key element for grooming the team learning process under various contexts. For instance, team psychological safety mediates the relationship between team leader coaching and context support and the result of team learning behaviors, linking it to human resource development (HRD) and adult education theory and practice (Knapp 2010). Previous research has demonstrated that individual experience (Reagans et al. 2005), team psychological safety (Edmondson 1999), and group cohesiveness (Wong 2004) have a major impact on a team’s learning behavior (Kostopoulos et al. 2011). Psychological safety and team learning are important processes for understanding the enhancement of change-oriented leaders who help healthcare teams perform better. There is a favorable and strong association between change-oriented leadership, psychological safety, team learning, and team performance. Change-oriented leadership, which focuses on key innovations, improvement, and adaptability to external changes, encourages team members to learn (Lin et al. 2022). In nursing education, team learning and psychological safety are fundamental to developing professional nursing competencies. Most multinational corporations (MNCs) nowadays mandate English as a common company language, i.e., lingua franca, to facilitate international collaboration between employees who speak different native languages (Neeley 2017). The psychologically safe language climate made working in English feel easy and comfortable for the non-native speakers when they work in MNCs (Nurmi and Koroma 2020). In agile software development, agile practitioners interpret technical excellence as a mindset that emphasizes continuous attention to a sustainable code, learning, and teamwork. While our findings show that a mindset of continuous attention to a sustainable code is an important pillar for technical excellence in agile teams, they point to important roles of mindsets for continuous attention to learning and to the team (Alami et al. 2022). 2.4. Project Management (PM) Organizations have become more project-based throughout the years in order to achieve their business objectives more economically (Blomquist and Müller 2006). Research has suggested combining elements from the traditional and agile approach as a solution to this matter, meaning that they apply the agile method to a limited degree (Abrahamsson et al. 2009). The literature on traditional and agile project management approaches will Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 8 of 24 be presented to distinguish the differences between the approaches. There is academic research on project management; it is primarily a form of structuring work processes. Project management is simultaneously an area of research, an application, a type of practice, and a method of conducting work (Palatz 2012). Project management type (PM) refers to the way in which teamwork is managed. Agile PM (APM) is commonly used in software development projects, and waterfall PM (WPM) is an easy type to use and understand and is commonly used to manage projects in the government sector. WPM is the traditional approach to project management and is defined by simplicity, predictability, and linearity, where boundaries are well-defined in order to make planning easier (Špundak 2014). However, the “one size fits all” method is difficult to apply in more complex project management situations, as different situations require different solutions (Fernandez and Fernandez 2008). As the management method attempts to avoid changes, it can be difficult to implement in more complex and dynamic environments. APM is different from WPM. The APM approach has been prevalent in recent years as project environments have become more dynamic. These project environments require more flexibility and the ability to adapt to changes, which is prominent in agile project management methods. For the agile method to work, a significant degree of interaction within the project team is needed, as well as active cooperation with customers and main stakeholders (Conforto et al. 2014;Andrei et al. 2019). This way, customers and stakeholders are more involved in the project process and are able to suggest changes along the way. Due to unpredictability and rapid changes, it can be challenging to specify the final solution of the project in advance (Fernandez and Fernandez 2008). Projects with innovative goals require team autonomy and agile communication practices that are sufficient for the agile teams to be empowered (Malik et al. 2021). There have been several research studies conducted on PM in the past. Because large firms frequently divide their activities into minor to mega project levels. The classic project style, often known as WPM, is commonly referenced, whereas the current popular approach is APM. The preceding paragraph explained the distinctions between WPM and APM. Thus, this part will address PM usage in prior work passes via various perspectives. For instance, in the industry sector, agile methods are mainly used in product development, project management, and process development, whereas the usage in assembly planning and factory planning is less common (Burggräf et al. 2020). In ‘Team science and building a team’, it was noted that modern progress in translational medicine requires highly integrated teams working together to achieve scientific goals. Understanding team formation, evolution, project management, and psychological safety can maximize innovation and scientific success (Chowdhry 2023). Innovation resilience behaviors in innovation project teams are positively related to project success. Moreover, innovation resilience behaviors become more critical as adversity increases (Fey and Kock 2022). In large software projects, agile methodologies aimed to reduce project failure risk by focusing on human-related factors like team capability and customer involvement, and it was found that psychological safety is an essential condition involved in that achievement (Barros et al. 2024). However, organizational culture plays a crucial role when implementing agile management methods. This statement is supported by several authors. At the individual level, project team members should have sufficient competence to understand and outline potential risks and changes in the project. They should be able to affect the outcome of the project, organizational goals, and value provided to customers. This may affect team learning processes positively, which is recommended in future works (Conforto et al. 2014). Moreover, many studies have modified APM formats to be more diverse and suitable for different contexts or situations. For example, Lalmi et al. (2021) report that agile project management can be suitable for the design phase of construction projects. Failure can occur due to cost overruns, schedule overruns, or unreasonable growth in project content. A hybrid project management model based on lean, agile, and traditional approaches Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 15 of 24 5. Discussion and Managerial Insight In this research, we question the belief that PSM universally results in R&D project team learning. When considering this, we took into account the moderating effects of intrinsic motivation and the learning process of the R&D project team. Thus far, there has been little focus on comprehending the possible limitations that might clarify the differences in the connection between PSM and team learning. The noteworthy interconnections observed in our research provide essential additions to the literature on PSM. Studies have consistently shown that people who possess a high level of public service motivation (PSM) are more inclined to exhibit dedication and loyalty towards their public sector organizations. This commitment is primarily driven by the perceived alignment between the organizations’ attributes and their own personal values and beliefs. Our research findings reveal a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between public service motivation (PSM) and the project team learning process (PTLP) compared to initial assumptions. Notably, the findings show that psychological safety (PS) acts as a crucial mediating variable that strengthens the association between PSM and PTLP. While the direct effect of PSM on PTLP is positive and statistically significant, the indirect effect mediated by PS is demonstrably stronger. These align with the concept that a psychologically safe climate can facilitate the fulfillment of employees’ altruistic needs. Within this climate, employees feel empowered to voice their ideas and concerns, openly discuss problems, and contribute their best solutions (Edmondson 1999;Baer and Frese 2003). This sense of security is likely fostered by the characteristics of PS, which promote open communication and knowledge sharing through trust-building mechanisms (Liu et al. 2014;Newman et al. 2017). They likely create an environment that indirectly influences employee performance, potentially by fostering collaboration, innovation, and knowledge transfer (Baer and Frese 2003). This study contributes to the existing scholars on public service motivation (PSM), psychological safety (PS), and project team learning process (PTLP). We expand the understanding of PSM’s influence by demonstrating its role in facilitating PTLP, a relationship not previously explored in depth. Our findings extend prior research on PSM, which has primarily focused on its connection to factors like job satisfaction, occupational choice, performance (individual and organizational), commitment (organizational and job), work attitudes and behaviors, perceived supervisor trust, entrepreneurial and social entrepreneurial inclinations, public sector attraction, perceived fit with the public sector, organizational learning, change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior, and leadership (Liu and Perry 2014;Wright and Pandey 2008;Schott and Ritz 2018;Lin et al. 2024;Palma et al. 2021;Chandra et al. 2021;Carpenter et al. 2012;Li and Wang 2022;Chih and Zwikael 2015). Additionally, we contribute to the PS literature by highlighting its mediating role in the PSM-PTLP relationship. Prior research on PS has largely concentrated on its impact on individual and team outcomes such as trust, knowledge sharing, and error reporting (Edmondson 1999;Liu et al. 2014). Our findings resonate with the growing body of research that emphasizes the positive aspects of public service motivation (PSM) (e.g., Broekema et al. 2019). These studies highlight the potential for PSM to foster positive learning orientations. However, a gap exists in the literature regarding the influence of PSM on learning dynamics within smaller units, such as project teams. This study addresses this gap by examining the relationship between PSM and project team learning process (PTLP) within R&D teams. Shedding light on a critical gap, our study examined the intricate interplay between PM styles, PSM, PS, and PTLP within R&D teams. Interestingly, both fully agile PM and partially agile PM appear to support PSM and PS. These findings suggest that both approaches cultivate environments conducive to nurturing public service motivation and fostering a sense of psychological safety within project teams. However, the field of PM styles in public administration remains underdeveloped. While prior research, such as Istrate and Marian (2012), has explored the use of project management for organizational culture change within public institutions, a comparative analysis of different project management styles has been Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 16 of 24 largely absent. Our research addresses this gap by examining the differential effects of fully agile and partially agile approaches on PSM, PS, and PTLP. Furthermore, the stronger positive effect of psychological safety (PS) on project team learning process (PTLP) observed in fully-agile project management (F-APM) suggests a potential explanation. The inherent flexibility and rapid iteration cycle characteristics of F-APM may foster particularly effective environments for team learning. This aligns with the existing research that explores the synergy between PS and agile techniques in the context of team learning. Studies have shown that agile approaches, coupled with PS, can lead to increased knowledge sharing, continuous improvement, collective learning, enhanced team capabilities, and greater customer involvement (Marder et al. 2021;Alami et al. 2022;Barros et al. 2024). Our finding of a weaker direct effect of public service motivation (PSM) on the project team learning process (PTLP) in fully agile project management (F-APM) needs further investigation. This unexpected result raises intriguing questions about the potential moderating role of project management style. One description is that the direct influence of PSM on team learning might be more pronounced in partially agile project environments. Here, the more structured nature of partially agile approaches may provide a more explicit framework for channeling PSM into concrete learning activities. Alternatively, the weaker effect in F-APM tends to be attributed to specific cultural or contextual factors within the studied teams. The existing research found that employees believe that knowledge, organizational culture, and project management training are essential for success in public administration institutions (Istrate and Marian 2012). These factors might include elements such as the existing hierarchical structure, the level of empowerment granted to team members, or the risk aversion of the project leader. Future research that delves deeper into such contextual elements is necessary to understand their potential influence fully. Future research could explore these possibilities in greater detail to gain a deeper understanding of the nuanced interaction between project management styles, PSM, and PTLP. However, based on our findings, we can offer some managerial insights for project team leaders, particularly when utilizing a PM styles approach within R&D teams. 1. Fostering a psychological safety climate in project team members when working in F-APM style. Where the direct effect of PSM on PTLP may be weaker, project leaders should actively cultivate a psychological safety (PS) climate. This can be achieved by encouraging open communication, promoting learning from mistakes, and fostering trust within the team. By nurturing a PS climate, project leaders can support and potentially amplify the intrinsic motivation (reflected by PSM) that drives team learning, even in the context of F-APM. 2. Conversely, for project teams lacking a strong PS climate, partially agile project management (P-APM) might be a more strategic approach. The more structured nature of P-APM may provide a clearer pathway for team members with high PSM to translate their intrinsic motivation into concrete learning behaviors. Further research is needed to validate this proposition, but these insights offer a starting point for project leaders navigating the complex interplay between project management styles, PSM, and team learning. 6. Conclusions and Recommendation for Further Studies This study examined the interplay between public service motivation (PSM), psychological safety (PS), and project team learning process (PTLP) within R&D teams at Thailand’s National Electronic and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC). Employing an online survey distributed in 2021, data were collected from 160 R&D professionals. Utilizing partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), the study delves into the complex relationships between these variables, considering the influence of project management (PM) styles. The path analysis revealed a compelling narrative. Higher levels of PSM were significantly associated with enhanced PS, suggesting that R&D professionals driven Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 17 of 24 by public service motivation experience greater psychological safety within their teams. Meanwhile, PS fosters a thriving R&D PTLP, as evidenced by the significant positive relationship between PS and PTLP. Interestingly, a direct effect of PSM on PTLP was also observed, indicating that public service motivation can independently contribute to enhanced learning processes within R&D teams. The effect sizes of these relationships ranged from moderate to large, highlighting their practical significance. Further exploration confirmed the partial mediating role of PS in the PSM-PTLP relationship. While higher PSM indirectly influences PTLP through fostering PS, a direct effect also remains, suggesting that public service motivation can contribute to learning processes through other mechanisms beyond enhancing psychological safety We found the four points of this key finding. Firstly, the analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between PSM and PS, indicating that R&D team members who are motivated by public service principles report a stronger sense of psychological safety in their teams. Secondly, a positive relationship was also found between PTLP and PS, suggesting that a psychologically safe environment fosters effective team learning processes. Thirdly, the study further identified a crucial link between PSM and PTLP, highlighting the importance of intrinsic motivation, such as PSM, as a novel driver of success in R&D project teams’ learning. Finally, the impact of PM styles on these relationships was explored. The results demonstrate that both fully agile and partially agile PM can cultivate environments conducive to PSM, PS, and PTLP, though specific nuances may exist between the two styles. 6.1. Theoretical Contributions This study contributes to the existing literature in several key areas, offering novel theoretical insights into the relationships between public service motivation (PSM), psychological safety (PS), project team learning process (PTLP), and project management (PM) styles within R&D project teams. In conclusion, this study makes significant theoretical contributions in the following ways: 1. Strengthening the understanding of PSM’s impact on PS, particularly in the national R&D organization contexts: The findings affirm the link between PSM and PS, suggesting that individuals driven by public service values feel more psychologically safe within their teams. This aligns with previous research, highlighting the positive association between public service motivation, open communication, and risk-taking behaviors (Potipiroon and Wongpreedee 2020). However, the study goes beyond confirmation, suggesting that PSM’s influence on PS may be particularly important in the national R&D organizations which work with complex goals. This opens avenues for further research to explore the unique dynamics of PSM and PS in different organizational settings. 2. Highlighting the crucial role of PS in fostering PTLP within R&D project teams: This study strengthens the understanding of how PS fosters PTLP. Psychological safety creates an environment where team members feel comfortable sharing ideas, asking questions, and learning from mistakes, encouraging collaborative learning and growth (Edmondson 1999). This finding adds to the existing body of knowledge by specifically demonstrating the relevance of PS in R&D teams, where continuous learning is crucial for technological advancement. This can inform interventions aimed at enhancing PS within R&D teams to optimize learning and innovation. 3. Identifying a potential direct effect of PSM on PTLP, highlighting the intrinsic motivation associated with public service values which strengthen R&D project team learning: An intriguing finding is the direct effect of PSM on PTLP, independent of PS. This suggests that public service motivation may directly motivate individuals to engage in learning activities beyond the mediating role of psychological safety. This aligns with research highlighting the intrinsic learning orientation often associated with PSM (Perry and Hondeghem 2008), suggesting that individuals drawn to public Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 18 of 24 service are inherently motivated to develop their knowledge and skills to contribute to the greater good. This opens up new avenues for research exploring the specific mechanisms through which PSM directly influences learning, potentially enriching our understanding of individual and team learning dynamics. 4. Encouraging further investigation into the interaction between PM styles in relation to PSM, PS, and PTLP: Investigating the impact of PM styles on these relationships adds valuable nuance to the existing literature. While this study’s results suggest both fully agile and partially agile approaches can foster PSM, PS, and PTLP, further investigation into the specific nuances between these styles is encouraged because this result of the dataset is non-significant. This opens up new research possibilities exploring how different PM methodologies may create subtly different environments that impact team motivation and learning processes. 6.2. Practical Contributions Moreover, this study translates its theoretical insights into several practical contributions that can benefit R&D teams, organizations, and project management approaches in the following ways: 1. Fostering public service motivation (PSM) among project team members can promote PS, creating a more trusting and collaborative environment: The project leader or organization leader can identify individuals motivated by public service motivation (e.g., using validated assessment tools) and emphasize the organization’s mission and societal impact during recruitment and onboarding. Leaders can cultivate team members with the drive to contribute to the greater good. The organization can propose training and development programs to promote public service values through case studies, mentorship opportunities, and volunteering initiatives. These activities can further strengthen personal motivation and team cohesion. 2. Fostering psychological safety (PS) through open communication, error tolerance, and respectful interactions can enhance team learning and performance: Project team leaders and members should encourage open communication through regular team meetings, open feedback mechanisms, and active listening practices. These can foster a trusting environment where individuals feel comfortable sharing ideas and concerns. Furthermore, project leaders can implement clear learning guidelines from mistakes, learn new knowledge through trial and error, and demonstrate empathy towards setbacks. It can also promote psychological safety and risk-taking. 3. Optimizing the project team learning process (PTLP) through strategies encouraging continuous learning, knowledge sharing, and collaborative problem-solving can significantly improve project outcomes: An example of the activities is the collaborative learning activities. Project leaders and members should facilitate workshops, set up knowledge-sharing sessions, and provide mentoring programs. These can encourage team members to learn from each other and expand their expertise. Project leaders and members should practice open communication skills, provide constructive feedback, and learn from one another effectively. This can further embed learning into the project team culture. 4. Understanding the nuances of different PM approaches and their impact on team learning dynamics and learning processes can optimize project management strategies: The project leader should select the styles of a PM that are consistent with the context of team member culture. Although this research confirms that both fully agile and partially agile approaches appear conducive to PSM, PS, and PTLP, further research is required in the future for strong confirmation. 5. Developing and implementing tools to measure PSM, PS, and PTLP within teams can allow for ongoing assessment and inform targeted interventions to address emerging gaps: Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 19 of 24 Regular monitoring of these variables can be used to track progress and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented strategies, which the project leader should give priority to concern. Understanding the way each member thinks can help the leader to smoothly operate the project flow. By implementing these practical recommendations, R&D project teams and organizations can create environments that cultivate public service motivation, foster psychological safety, and optimize R&D project team learning processes, ultimately leading to enhanced innovation and project successes. 6.3. Limitations While this study sheds light on the interplay between public service motivation (PSM), psychological safety (PS), and research and development project team learning process (PTLP) within a national R&D organization, acknowledging its limitations is crucial for advancing our understanding. These limitations include the following: • A single organization was focused on this study, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings to other R&D contexts. Due to time and resource constraints, including budgetary limitations and a strict timeline, we were prevented from expanding the research scope to encompass a more diverse range of R&D settings. • The sample size of 160 participants is relatively small. While resource limitations restricted our ability to recruit a larger sample, we conducted a pilot study to ensure the validity and reliability of the instruments used and made significant efforts to achieve a diverse sample within the organization. • The reliance on survey data limits our ability to delve deeper into the mechanisms underlying the relationships between PSM, PS, and PTLP. Surveys inherently struggle to capture the nuances of team-level dynamics and communication patterns that can significantly influence learning behaviors within project teams. • This study did not consider the potential influence of cultural variations on the relationships between PSM, PS, and PTLP. Cultural norms and values can significantly impact how individuals perceive and experience these variables. • This study provides a snapshot of the relationships at a single point in time. However, the dynamics of these variables may evolve over time and across different project phases. By acknowledging these limitations, we can highlight areas for future research and emphasize the need for further exploration of these relationships in different contexts, with larger and more diverse samples, using a wider range of data collection methods that can capture the complexities of team dynamics. 6.4. Future Research This study lays the groundwork for a deeper understanding of the interplay between public service motivation (PSM), psychological safety (PS), and research and development project team learning process (PTLP). Future research can extend these findings in several compelling directions: • Future research could address the limitation of broadening the generalizability of the study by investigating these relationships across diverse organizational settings, encompassing different industries, cultures, and project types. By including a wider variety of contexts, researchers can explore how these factors might influence the observed relationships. • Future research should replicate this study with a larger and more geographically diverse participant pool to address the limitations of generalizability imposed by the sample size. This will enhance the generalizability of the findings and allow for more robust statistical analyses. • Incorporating qualitative methods can provide a richer understanding of the underlying mechanisms at play. In-depth interviews with team members could explore team discussions, communication styles, and how team members feel comfortable sharing Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 20 of 24 ideas and admitting mistakes. Additionally, process-tracing techniques that follow teams as they engage in specific activities can provide valuable insights into how PSM, PS, and PTLP interact in real-time project environments. • Future research should explore how cultural factors might moderate the relationships observed in this study. Cross-cultural comparisons or studies investigating teams from diverse populations can illuminate these potential influences. Understanding the cultural context can provide a more nuanced perspective on how PSM, PS, and PTLP interact within project teams. • Longitudinal studies that track changes in PSM, PS, and PTLP over time can offer valuable insights into their temporal interactions and how they respond to the evolving dynamics of project environments. Understanding these temporal aspects can inform project management practices and interventions designed to optimize team learning throughout the project lifecycle. By building on this foundation and addressing the identified limitations, future research can unlock a deeper understanding of how public service motivation and project management styles influence team dynamics and the learning process. This knowledge will equip organizations to make informed decisions about fostering a psychologically safe climate and a collaborative environment, ultimately enabling project teams to successfully learn. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.P., Y.K., K.U. and P.Y.; methodology, J.P., A.J. and Y.K.; software, J.P.; validation, J.P., Y.K. and P.Y.; formal analysis, J.P.; investigation, J.P.; resources, J.P.; data curation, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P.; writing—review and editing, P.Y.; visualization, J.P. and P.Y.; supervision, J.P.; project administration, J.P.; funding acquisition, Y.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Due to confidentiality agreements, data can be made available subject to a non-disclosure agreement. For further information, you may contact NECTEC at [email protected].th. Acknowledgments: This research is supported by the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST), Japan. National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), and the Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology (SIIT), Thammasat University (TU), Thailand. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the Bard, a large language model developed by Google AI (Bard.google.com), in preparing this manuscript. Bard was applied as a crucial tool in proofreading the academic language style of the original draft. Bard enabled in identifying errors, checking grammar, punctuation, and spelling, as well as detecting potential plagiarism. This instrument helps improve the overall clarity and quality of the writing. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest. References Abrahamsson, Pekka, Conboy Kieran, and Xiaofeng Wang. 2009. Lots done, more to do: The current state of agile systems development research. European Journal of Information Systems 18: 281–84. [CrossRef] Aladwani, Adel M. 2002. An Integrated performance model of information systems projects. Journal of Management Information Systems 19: 185–210. [CrossRef] Alami, Adam, Oliver Krancher, and Maria Paasivaara. 2022. The journey to technical excellence in agile software development. Information and Software Technology 150: 106959. [CrossRef] Andrei, Bogdan-Alexandru, Andrei-Cosmin Casu-Pop, Sorin-Catalin Gheorghe, and Costin-Anton Boiangiu. 2019. A Study on using waterfall and agile methods in software project management. Journal of Information Systems & Operations Management 13: 125–35. Baer, Markus, and Michael Frese. 2003. Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 24: 45–68. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 21 of 24 Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16: 74–94. [CrossRef] Barros, Leonor, Carlos Tam, and Joao Varajao. 2024. Agile software development projects–Unveiling the human-related critical success factors. Information and Software Technology 170: 107432. [CrossRef] Bledow, Ronald, Bernd Carette, Jana Kühnel, and Diana Bister. 2017. Learning from others’ failures: The effectiveness of failure stories for managerial learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education 16: 39–53. [CrossRef] Blomquist, Tomas, and Ralf Müller. 2006. Practices, Roles, and Responsibilities of Middle Managers in Program and Portfolio Management. Project Management Journal 37: 52–66. [CrossRef] Brewer, Gene A., and Sally Coleman Selden. 1998. Whistle Blowers in the Federal Civil Service: New Evidence of the Public Service Ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8: 413–40. [CrossRef] Broekema, Wout, Jan Porth, Trui Steen, and Rene Torenvlied. 2019. Public leaders’ organizational learning orientations in the wake of a crisis and the role of public service motivation. Safety Science 113: 200–9. [CrossRef] Burggräf, Peter, Matthias Dannapfel, Tobias Adlon, and Carsten Fölling. 2020. Hybrid approach to agile assembly planning–Empirical evaluation of the industrial practice. Procedia CIRP 93: 1170–75. [CrossRef] Carpenter, Jacqueline, Dennis Doverspike, and Rosanna F. Miguel. 2012. Public service motivation as a predictor of attraction to the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80: 509–23. [CrossRef] Chandra, Yanto, Fandy Tjiptono, and Andhy Setyawan. 2021. The promise of entrepreneurial passion to advance social entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 16: e00270. [CrossRef] Chang, Wen, and James A. Busser. 2020. Hospitality career retention: The role of contextual factors and thriving at work. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 32: 193–211. [CrossRef] Chih, Ying-Yi, and Ofer Zwikael. 2015. Project benefit management: A conceptual framework of target benefit formulation. International Journal of Project Management 33: 352–62. [CrossRef] Chowdhry, Varun Kumar. 2023. Team science and building a team. Translational Radiation Oncology, 653–56. [CrossRef] Cohen, Jacob. 1988. The effect size. In Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Abingdon: Routledge. Conforto, Edivandro Carlos, and Daniel Capaldo Amaral. 2016. Agile project management and stage-gate model—A hybrid framework for technology-based companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 40: 1–14. [CrossRef] Conforto, Edivandro C., Salum Fabian, and Daniel C. Amaral. 2014. Can Agile Project Management Be Adopted by Industries Other than Software Development? Project Management Journal 45: 21–34. [CrossRef] Doll, William J., and Xiaodong Deng. 2011. Antecedents of Improvisation in IT-Enabled Engineering Work. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 23: 26–47. [CrossRef] Edmondson, Amy. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 350–83. [CrossRef] Edmondson, Amy C. 2012. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Edmondson, Amy C. 2018. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Edmondson, Amy C., and Ingrid M. Nembhard. 2009. Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Product Innovation Management 26: 123–38. [CrossRef] Edmondson, Amy C., James R. Dillon, and Kathryn S. Roloff. 2007. Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. The Academy of Management Annals 1: 269–314. [CrossRef] Fernandez, Daniel J., and John D. Fernandez. 2008. Agile Project Management —Agilism versus Traditional Approaches. Journal of Computer Information Systems 49: 10–17. [CrossRef] Fey, Sascha, and Alexander Kock. 2022. Meeting challenges with resilience–How innovation projects deal with adversity. International Journal of Project Management 40: 941–50. [CrossRef] Google Re:Work. 2024. Rework. Available online: https://rework.withgoogle.com/jp/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness# introduction (accessed on 27 April 2024). Guchait, Priyanko, Jeanna L. Abbott, Choong-Ki Lee, Ki-Joon Back, and Ashokkumar Manoharan. 2019. The influence of perceived forgiveness climate on service recovery performance: The mediating effect of psychological safety and organizational fairness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 40: 94–102. [CrossRef] Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2013. PLS applications in strategic management: Partial least squares modeling in strategy research. Long Range Planning 46: 1–194. [CrossRef] Houston, David J. 2000. Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10: 713–27. [CrossRef] Huang, Chi-Cheng. 2009. Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation 29: 786–97. [CrossRef] Huo, Meng-Long. 2021. Career growth opportunities, thriving at work and career outcomes: Can COVID-19 anxiety make a difference? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 48: 174–81. [CrossRef] Istrate, Liviu, and Liviu Marian. 2012. Research on the Use of Project Management in Organizational Culture Change in Public Administration Institutions. Procedia Economics and Finance 3: 617–22. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 22 of 24 Kahn, William A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal 33: 692–724. [CrossRef] Kayes, Anna B., D. Christopher Kayes, and David A. Kolb. 2005. Experiential learning in teams. Simulation and Gaming 36: 330–54. [CrossRef] Kim, Sangmook. 2009. Revising Perry’s Measurement Scale of Public Service Motivation. American Review of Public Administration 39: 149–63. First published 2008. [CrossRef] Kim, Sangmook. 2009. Testing the Structure of Public Service Motivation in Korea: A Research Note. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19: 839–51. [CrossRef] Kim, Sangmook, Wouter Vandenabeele, Bradley E. Wright, Lotte Bogh Andersen, Francesco Paolo Cerase, Robert K. Christensen, Celine Desmarais, Maria Koumenta, Peter Leisink, Bangcheng Liu, and et al. 2013. Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of measurement invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23: 79–102. [CrossRef] Kirkman, Bradley L., Paul E. Tesluk, and Benson Rosen. 2004. The Impact of Demographic Heterogeneity and Team Leader-Team Member Demographic Fit on Team Empowerment and Effectiveness. Group & Organization Management 29: 334–68. [CrossRef] Knapp, Randall. 2010. Collective (Team) Learning Process Models: A Conceptual Review. Human Resource Development Review 9: 285–99. [CrossRef] Kostopoulos, Konstantinos C., Yiannis E. Spanos, and Gregory P. Prastacos. 2011. Structure and Function of Team Learning Emergence. Journal of Management 39: 1430–61. [CrossRef] Lalmi, Abdallah, Fernandes Gabriela, and Souad Sassi Boudemagh. 2021. A conceptual hybrid project management model for construction projects. Procedia Computer Science 181: 921–30. [CrossRef] Li, Yue, and Fashuo Wang. 2022. Challenge stressors from using social media for work and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of public service motivation and job involvement. Government Information Quarterly 39: 101741. [CrossRef] Li, Yushu, Ming-Hsien Yang, Gory Klein, and Houn-Gee Chen. 2011. The role of problem solving competency in information system development projects. International Journal of Project Management 29: 911–22. [CrossRef] Li, Minglong, Dexiang Yin, Hailian Qiu, and Billy Bai. 2022. Examining the effects of AI contactless service son customer psychological safety, perceived value, and hospitality service quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 31: 24–48. [CrossRef] Lin, ChuChih, ChinYen Han, YaLing Huang, LiChin Chen, and Ching-Ching Su. 2022. Effectiveness of the use of concept maps and simulated cases as a teaching-learning strategy in enhancing the learning confidence of baccalaureate nursing students: A qualitative approach. Nurse Education Today 115: 105418. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Lin, Mi, Qian Liu, and Zhi Li. 2024. Perceived superior trust and organizational commitment among public employees: The mediating role of burnout and the moderating role of public service motivation. Heliyon 10: e24997. [CrossRef] Liu, Bangcheng, and James L. Perry. 2014. The Psychological Mechanisms of Public Service Motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration 36: 4–30. [CrossRef] Liu, Songbo, Jia Hu, Yuhui Li, Zhen Wang, and Xiaoshuang Lin. 2014. Examining the cross-level relationship between shared leadership and learning in teams: Evidence from China. The Leadership Quarterly 25: 282–95. [CrossRef] Loscher, Georg J., Sascha A. Ruhle, and Stephan Kaiser. 2023. Serving two masters: Commitment profiles of employees in the German military reserve. European Management Journal 41: 404–14. [CrossRef] Lynn, Gary S., Richard B. Skov, and Kate D. Abel. 1999. Practices that support team learning and their impact on speed to market and new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16: 439–54. [CrossRef] Malik, Mohsin, Sarwar Shagufta, and Orr Stuart. 2021. Agile practices and performance: Examining the role of psychological empowerment. International Journal of Project Management 39: 10–20. [CrossRef] Marder, Ben, Ferguson Pauline, Marchant Caroline, Brennan Marchant, Hedler Caroline, Rossi Marco, Black Shona, and Doig Rona. 2021. ‘Going agile’: Exploring the use of project management tools in fostering psychological safety in group work within management discipline courses. The International Journal of Management Education 19: 100519. [CrossRef] Marlow, Shannon L., Christina N. Lacerenza, Jensine Paoletti, C. Shawn Burke, and Eduardo Salas. 2018. Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 144: 145–70. [CrossRef] McCarthy, Alma, and Thomas N. Garavan. 2008. Team learning and metacognition: A neglected area of HRD research and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10: 509–24. [CrossRef] McElroy, Canice, Emma Skegg, Mercedes Mudgway, Ngaire Murray, Linda Holmes, Jennifer Weller, and James Hamill. 2024. Psychological Safety and Hierarchy in Operating Room Debriefing: Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Journal of Surgical Research 295: 567–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Neeley, Tsedal. 2017. The Language of Global Success: How a Common Tongue Transforms Multinational Organizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [CrossRef] Newman, Alexander, Ross Donohue, and Nathan Eva. 2017. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review 27: 521–35. [CrossRef] Nurmi, Niina, and Johanna Koroma. 2020. The emotional benefits and performance costs of building a psychologically safe language climate in MNCs. Journal of World Business 55: 101093. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 23 of 24 Palatz, Susannah B. F. 2012. Project management of innovative teams. In Handbook of Organizational Creativity. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 421–55. [CrossRef] Palma, Raffaela, Anna Crisci, and Gianluigi Mangia. 2021. Public service motivationindividual performance relationship: Does user orientation matter? Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 73: 100818. [CrossRef] Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6: 5–22. [CrossRef] Perry, James L., and Annie Hondeghem. 2008. Building Theory and Empirical Evidence about Public Service Motivation. International Public Management Journal 11: 3–12. [CrossRef] Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review 50: 367–73. [CrossRef] Pierce, Jason R., and Herman Aguinis. 2013. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management 39: 313–38. [CrossRef] Potipiroon, Wisanupong, and Michael T. Ford. 2017. Does Public Service Motivation Always Lead to Organizational Commitment? Examining the Moderating Roles of Intrinsic Motivation and Ethical Leadership. Public Personnel Management 46: 211–38. [CrossRef] Potipiroon, Wisanupong, and Achakorn Wongpreedee. 2020. Ethical Climate and Whistleblowing Intentions: Testing the Mediating Roles of Public Service Motivation and Psychological Safety Among Local Government Employees. Public Personnel Management 50: 327–55. [CrossRef] Rabiul, Md Karim, Ataul Karim Patwary, Ahmad Edwin Mohamed, and Harun-or Rashid. 2022. Leadership styles, psychological factors, and employee commitment to service quality in the hotel industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 23: 853–81. [CrossRef] Rabiul, Md Karim, Osman M. Karatepe, Rashed Al Karim, and I. M. Panha. 2023. An investigation of the interrelationships of leadership styles, psychological safety, thriving at work, and work engagement in the hotel industry: A sequential mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management 113: 103508. [CrossRef] Ramesh, Balasubramaniam, and Amrit Tiwana. 1999. Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams. Decision Support Systems 27: 213–35. [CrossRef] Reagans, Ray, Linda Argote, and Daria Brooks. 2005. Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science 51: 869–81. [CrossRef] Sarstedt, Marko, Jörg Henseler, and Christian M. Ringle. 2011. Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. Advances in International Marketing 22: 195–218. [CrossRef] Schein, Edger H., and Warren G. Bennis. 1965. Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach. New York: JohnWiley and Sons. Schott, Carina, and Adrian Ritz. 2018. The Dark Sides of Public Service Motivation: A Multi-level Theoretical Framework. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1: 29–42. [CrossRef] Sessa, Valerie I., and Manuel London, eds. 2007. Work Group Learning: Understanding, Improving and Assessing How Groups Learn in Organizations, 1st ed. London: Psychology Press. [CrossRef] Sharma, Neha, Emily Steinhagen, Jeffrey M. Marks, and John. B. Ammori. 2024. Development of a Competency Framework Defining Effective Surgical Educators. Journal of Surgical Education 81: 388–96. [CrossRef] Sithambaram, Jayasaegaran, Nasir, Mohd Hairul Nizam Bin Md Nasir, and Rodina Ahmad. 2021. Issues and challenges impacting the successful management of agile-hybrid projects: A grounded theory approach. International Journal of Project Management 39: 474–95. [CrossRef] Sitkin, Sim B. 1992. Learning Through Failure—The Strategy of Small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior 14: 231–66. Špundak, Mario. 2014. Mixed agile/traditional project management methodology–reality or illusion? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 119: 939–48. [CrossRef] Tannenbaum, Scott I., John E. Mathieu, Eduardo Salas, and Dedre Cohen. 2012. Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology 5: 2–24. [CrossRef] Taylor, Jami K., Richard M. Clerkin, Katherine M. Ngaruiya, and Lise K. Velez. 2013. An Exploratory Study of Public Service Motivation and the Institutional–Occupational Model of the Military. Armed Forces & Society 41: 142–62. [CrossRef] Thite, Mohan. 2000. Leadership styles in information technology projects. International Journal of Project Management 18: 235–41. [CrossRef] Thompson, Ronald L., H. Jeff Smith, and Charalambos L. Iacovou. 2007. The linkage between reporting quality and performance in IS projects. Information & Management 44: 196–205. [CrossRef] Van den Bossche, Piet, Wim H. Gijselaers, Segers Mien, and Paul A. Kirschner. 2006. Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments: Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviors. Small Group Research 37: 490–521. [CrossRef] Van der Wal, Zeger, Gjaff De Graaf, and Karin Lasthuizen. 2008. What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration 86: 465–82. [CrossRef] Van Loon, Nina Mari, Wouter Vandenabeele, and Peter Leisink. 2015. On the bright and dark side of public service motivation: The relationship between PSM and employee wellbeing. Public Money & Management 35: 349–56. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 93 24 of 24 Vandenabeele, Wouter. 2007. Towards a Public Administration Theory of Public Service Motivation: An Institutional Approach. Public Management Review 9: 545–56. [CrossRef] Vandenabeele, Wouter. 2008. Development of a Public Service Motivation Measurement Scale: Corroborating and Extending Perry’s Measurement Instrument. International Public Management Journal 11: 143–67. [CrossRef] Vandenabeele, Wouter. 2014. Explaining Public Service Motivation: The Role of Leadership and Basic Needs Satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration 34: 153–73. [CrossRef] Vandenabeele, Wouter, and Stefanie Jager. 2020. Government Calling Revisited: A Survey-Experiment on the Moderating Role of Public Service Motivation in Assessing Employer Attractiveness. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Wallace, Linda, Mark Keil, and Arun Rai. 2004. How software project risk affects project performance: An investigation of the dimensions. Decision Sciences 35: 289–321. [CrossRef] Wang, Fashuo, and Yue Li. 2023. Social media use for work during non-work hours and work engagement: Effects of work-family conflict and public service motivation. Government Information Quarterly 40: 101804. [CrossRef] Wang, Xingyu, Jinsoo Lee, Priyanko Guchait, and Ki-Joon Back. 2019. The importance of psychological safety and perceived fairness among hotel employees: The examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 18: 504–28. [CrossRef] Wong, Sze-Sze. 2004. Distal and local group learning: Performance tradeoffs and tensions. Organization Science 15: 645–56. [CrossRef] Word, Jessica, and Heather Carpenter. 2013. The New Public Service? Applying the Public Service Motivation Model to Nonprofit Employees. Public Personnel Management 42: 315–36. [CrossRef] Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2008. Public service motivation and the assumption of person–organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society 40: 502–21. [CrossRef] Xu, Xiaobo, Weiyong Zhang, and Reza Barkhi. 2010. IT infrastructure capabilities and IT project success: A development team perspective. Information Technology Management 11: 123–42. [CrossRef] Zeng, Hao, Lijing Zhao, and Yixuan Zhao. 2020. Inclusive leadership and taking-charge behavior: Roles of psychological safety and thriving at work. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 509644. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.