Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Why didn’t you say something? Effects of after-event reviews on voice behaviour and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams


Weiss, Mona; Kolbe, Michaela; Grote, Gudela; Spahn, Donat R; Grande, Bastian (2016). Why didn’t you say something? Effects of after-event reviews on voice behaviour and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology:1-15.

Abstract

Team decision-making can go wrong when individuals fear to voice suggestions or concerns to higher status team members. We investigate how after-event reviews (AERs) can be used to promote voice behaviour and hierarchy-attenuating beliefs in multi-professional action teams. We hypothesized that (1) lower status team members will speak up more following an assertiveness-specific AER (ASAER) as compared to a teamwork-generic AER (TGAER) and (2) that an ASAER leads to stronger endorsement of hierarchy-attenuating beliefs than the TGAER. To test these hypotheses, we implemented simulations of medical emergencies with 20 healthcare teams consisting of low (i.e., nurses) and high-status (i.e., physicians) professions. After participating in one of the two AERs, teams managed a simulation in which a higher status confederate engaged in potentially harmful actions. Behavioural coding of the videotaped simulations and assessment of team members’ hierarchy beliefs supported both hypotheses: nurses spoke up more following the ASAER than following the TGAER and both professional groups reported significantly higher levels of hierarchy-attenuating beliefs following the ASAER as compared to the TGAER. We discuss how AERs can affect upward voice and increase awareness for the potential downsides of status hierarchies in multi-professional teams.

Abstract

Team decision-making can go wrong when individuals fear to voice suggestions or concerns to higher status team members. We investigate how after-event reviews (AERs) can be used to promote voice behaviour and hierarchy-attenuating beliefs in multi-professional action teams. We hypothesized that (1) lower status team members will speak up more following an assertiveness-specific AER (ASAER) as compared to a teamwork-generic AER (TGAER) and (2) that an ASAER leads to stronger endorsement of hierarchy-attenuating beliefs than the TGAER. To test these hypotheses, we implemented simulations of medical emergencies with 20 healthcare teams consisting of low (i.e., nurses) and high-status (i.e., physicians) professions. After participating in one of the two AERs, teams managed a simulation in which a higher status confederate engaged in potentially harmful actions. Behavioural coding of the videotaped simulations and assessment of team members’ hierarchy beliefs supported both hypotheses: nurses spoke up more following the ASAER than following the TGAER and both professional groups reported significantly higher levels of hierarchy-attenuating beliefs following the ASAER as compared to the TGAER. We discuss how AERs can affect upward voice and increase awareness for the potential downsides of status hierarchies in multi-professional teams.

Statistics

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 21 Nov 2016
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Institute of Anesthesiology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:German
Date:July 2016
Deposited On:21 Nov 2016 10:26
Last Modified:03 Dec 2016 04:08
Publisher:Taylor & Francis
ISSN:1359-432X
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.1208652

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 1MB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations