Introduction. While leadership has been identified as a critical factor influencing psychological safety, a quantitative analysis of this relationship across different leadership approaches remains necessary. Purpose. This study aims to synthesise empirical evidence on the relationship between (1) transformational leadership and psychological safety and (2) Leader-Member-Exchange and psychological safety in organisational settings. We hypothesise a positive relationship between both constructs and psychological safety. Method. A systematic literature review was conducted in four databases. A total of 23 studies were included in this analysis. The associations will be quantified using Pearson's r correlation coefficients, and two separate meta-analyses will be conducted: one examining the relationship of psychological safety with transformational leadership (13 studies) , and another exploring its relationship with LMX(10 studies). Results. A preliminary review of the literature (2020-2024) reveals research across multiple disciplines, with most research being developed in China, for both transformational leadership (21.4%) and LMX studies (50%). Cross-sectional designs predominate (72.4% transformational leadership, 60% LMX), with limited longitudinal research. Edmondson's 1999 scale is most used (85.7% transformational leadership, 60% LMX studies). Statistical analyses primarily employ SEM and regression techniques. Psychological safety is considered a mediating mechanism between leadership and outcomes in 90% of studies from both approaches. LMX research focuses on procedural outcomes (job crafting, voice behaviour) and attitudinal outcomes (turnover, discretionary behaviours).In contrast, transformational leadership research examines broader outcomes, including hedonic well-being (job satisfaction) and eudaimonic well-being (engagement, work meaning). Conclusion. Our initial analysis shows evidence of the contribution of leaders and good leadership to psychological safety. Moreover, psychological safety is identified as a relevant mechanism in the relationships between leadership and organisational outcomes . The completed meta-analysis will provide quantitative estimates of the strength of these relationships and examine how results vary among the identified subgroups.