Centre for Critical and Major Incident Psychology, University of Liverpool.
J Appl Psychol. 2015 Jul;100(4):1309-1318. doi: 10.1037/a0038591. Epub 2014 Dec 29.
By reference to a live hostage negotiation exercise, this study presents a taxonomy of uncertainty that can be usefully applied to assist in the categorization and application of findings from decision-making research conducted in naturalistic (specifically critical incident) settings. Uncertainty was measured via observational methods (during the exercise and by reference to video footage), decision logs, and postincident simulated recall interviews with trainee police officers. Transcripts were coded and analyzed thematically. Uncertainty was dichotomized as deriving from either endogenous sources (about the problem situation itself) or exogenous sources (about the operating system that is dealing with the incident). Overall, exogenous uncertainty (75%) was more prevalent than endogenous uncertainty (25%), specifically during discussions on plan formulation and execution. It was also qualitatively associated with poor role understanding and trust. Endogenous uncertainty was more prevalent during discussions on situation assessment and plan formulation. The taxonomy provides a useful way for organizational researchers to categorize uncertainty during the naturalistic observations of workplace interactions and decision making. It reduces the complexity associated with observational research to allow organizational psychologists to better tailor their recommendations for reducing uncertainty. Dealing with endogenous uncertainties would entail targeting decision making specific to the problem incident (e.g., introduce training or policy to reduce redundant fixation on rote-repetitive superordinate goals and focus on more short-term actionable goals during situation assessments). Dealing with exogenous uncertainties would entail improving decision making relating to management and team processes across critical incidents (e.g., training to clarify distributed roles in critical incident teams to aid plan formulation and execution). Organizational researchers interested in uncertainty management in the workplace should utilize this taxonomy as a guide to (a) categorize uncertainty and (b) generate applicable recommendations from their findings.
通过参考一次现场人质谈判演习，本研究提出了一种不确定性分类法，可用于协助对在自然主义（特别是关键事件）环境中进行的决策研究结果进行分类和应用。不确定性是通过观察方法（在演习期间和参考视频片段）、决策日志以及事后与受训警察进行的模拟回忆访谈进行测量的。对记录进行了编码和主题分析。不确定性分为内生来源（关于问题情况本身）或外生来源（关于处理事件的操作系统）。总体而言，外生不确定性（75%）比内生不确定性（25%）更为普遍，特别是在制定和执行计划的讨论中。它也与角色理解和信任不佳有关。在进行情况评估和计划制定的讨论时，内生不确定性更为普遍。该分类法为组织研究人员提供了一种有用的方法，可以对工作场所互动和决策的自然观察中出现的不确定性进行分类。它降低了与观察研究相关的复杂性，使组织心理学家能够更好地针对减少不确定性提出建议。应对内生不确定性需要针对特定于问题事件的决策（例如，引入培训或政策以减少对刻板重复上级目标的冗余关注，并在情况评估期间更关注短期可操作目标）。应对外生不确定性需要改进与跨关键事件的管理和团队流程相关的决策（例如，培训以澄清关键事件团队中的分布式角色，以帮助制定和执行计划）。对工作场所不确定性管理感兴趣的组织研究人员应利用此分类法作为指南：（a）对不确定性进行分类，（b）根据其研究结果提出适用的建议。
