Is It Safe To Learn And Share? On Psychological Safety and Social Learning in (Agile) Communities of Practice

TL;DR

This study examines psychological safety in Agile Communities of Practice, revealing lower safety in online settings and identifying factors affecting participation, with practical recommendations for fostering inclusive virtual communities.

Contribution

It provides empirical insights into psychological safety differences between online and face-to-face Agile CoPs and suggests interventions to improve inclusivity in virtual work environments.

Findings

Psychological safety is lower online than face-to-face.

Low safety reduces willingness to contribute and take interpersonal risks.

Exclusionary behaviors and hostility threaten psychological safety.

Abstract

As hybrid, distributed, and asynchronous work models become more prevalent, continuous learning in Agile Software Development (ASD) gains renewed importance. Communities of Practice (CoPs) are increasingly adopted to support social learning beyond formal education, often relying on virtual communication. Psychological safety, a prerequisite for effective learning, remains insufficiently understood in these settings. This mixed-methods study investigates psychological safety within Agile CoPs through survey data from 143 participants. Results indicate that psychological safety is significantly lower in online interactions compared to face-to-face settings. Moreover, low psychological safety reduces participants' intent to continue contributing and avoidance of interpersonal risk. No significant differences emerged based on gender, community seniority, or content creation activity. However, differences by role and age group suggest potential generational or role-related effects. Thematic analysis revealed exclusionary behavior, negative interaction patterns, and hostility as primary threats to psychological safety, often reinforced by tribalism and specific community dynamics. Suggested interventions include establishing explicit norms, structured facilitation, and active moderation. The findings were validated through member checking with 30 participants. This study provides a comparative perspective on interaction modalities and offers practical guidance for organizers seeking to cultivate inclusive, high-impact CoPs and similarly structured virtual or hybrid work environments.