Krenz Hanna L, Burtscher Michael J
University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland.
Cogn Technol Work. 2021;23(3):605-624. doi: 10.1007/s10111-020-00646-9. Epub 2020 Aug 5.
Team communication is considered a key factor for team performance. Importantly, voicing concerns and suggestions regarding work-related topics-also termed speaking up-represents an essential part of team communication. Particularly in action teams in high-reliability organizations such as healthcare, military, or aviation, voice is crucial for error prevention. Although research on voice has become more important recently, there are inconsistencies in the literature. This includes methodological issues, such as how voice should be measured in different team contexts, and conceptual issues, such as uncertainty regarding the role of the voice recipient. We tried to address these issues of voice research in action teams in the current literature review. We identified 26 quantitative empirical studies that measured voice as a distinct construct. Results showed that only two-thirds of the articles provided a definition for voice. Voice was assessed via behavioral observation or via self-report. Behavioral observation includes two main approaches (i.e., event-focused and language-focused) that are methodologically consistent. In contrast, studies using self-reports showed significant methodological inconsistencies regarding measurement instruments (i.e., self-constructed single items versus validated scales). The contents of instruments that assessed voice via self-report varied considerably. The recipient of voice was poorly operationalized (i.e., discrepancy between definitions and measurements). In sum, our findings provide a comprehensive overview of how voice is treated in action teams. There seems to be no common understanding of what constitutes voice in action teams, which is associated with several conceptual as well as methodological issues. This suggests that a stronger consensus is needed to improve validity and comparability of research findings.
团队沟通被视为团队绩效的关键因素。重要的是，就与工作相关的话题表达关切和建议（也称为直言不讳）是团队沟通的重要组成部分。特别是在医疗保健、军事或航空等高可靠性组织的行动团队中，直言不讳对于预防错误至关重要。尽管最近关于直言不讳的研究变得更加重要，但文献中存在不一致之处。这包括方法学问题，例如在不同团队背景下应如何衡量直言不讳，以及概念问题，例如关于直言不讳接受者角色的不确定性。在当前的文献综述中，我们试图解决行动团队中直言不讳研究的这些问题。我们确定了26项将直言不讳作为一个独特结构进行测量的定量实证研究。结果表明，只有三分之二的文章对直言不讳给出了定义。直言不讳是通过行为观察或自我报告进行评估的。行为观察包括两种主要方法（即事件聚焦和语言聚焦），它们在方法上是一致的。相比之下，使用自我报告的研究在测量工具方面显示出显著的方法学不一致（即自编单项与经过验证的量表）。通过自我报告评估直言不讳的工具内容差异很大。直言不讳的接受者操作化不足（即定义与测量之间存在差异）。总之，我们的研究结果全面概述了行动团队中直言不讳是如何被对待的。对于行动团队中构成直言不讳的因素似乎没有共同的理解，这与几个概念和方法学问题相关。这表明需要更强的共识来提高研究结果的有效性和可比性。
