Journal
COGNITION TECHNOLOGY & WORK
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 605-624Publisher
SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10111-020-00646-9
Keywords
Voice; Action teams; Speaking up; Team communication; Recipient of voice
Categories
Funding
- University of Zurich
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Team communication is crucial for team performance, with voicing concerns and suggestions being an essential part. However, research on voice in action teams shows inconsistencies, including methodological issues in measuring voice and uncertainty about the role of the voice recipient. A stronger consensus is needed to address these conceptual and methodological issues for improving validity and comparability of research findings.
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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available