When and why hierarchy steepness is related to team performance

Cantimur, Yeliz; Rink, Floor; Vegt, Gerben S. van der

doi:10.1080/1359432x.2016.1148030

Cited by 20 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 100 publications

(149 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, adopting a team view on hierarchy and open cultures is perhaps too restrictive; rather, a broader view which encompasses the entire healthcare organisation is warranted. Hierarchy is a deep-rooted cultural aspect of healthcare, and while some literature suggests that it can improve role clarity and coordination within teams [ 62 ], it is becoming apparent that the resulting detriment to teams should be further acknowledged in healthcare [ 63 ]. Our study has shed light on the numerous methods by which teams can help to foster psychological safety.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the barriers and facilitators of psychological safety in primary care teams: a qualitative study

Remtulla

Hagana

Houbby

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Psychological safety is the concept by which individuals feel comfortable expressing themselves in a work environment, without fear of embarrassment or criticism from others. Psychological safety in healthcare is associated with improved patient safety outcomes, enhanced physician engagement and fostering a creative learning environment. Therefore, it is important to establish the key levers which can act as facilitators or barriers to establishing psychological safety. Existing literature on psychological safety in healthcare teams has focused on secondary care, primarily from an individual profession perspective. In light of the increased focus on multidisciplinary work in primary care and the need for team-based studies, given that psychological safety is a team-based construct, this study sought to investigate the facilitators and barriers to psychological safety in primary care multidisciplinary teams. Methods A mono-method qualitative research design was chosen for this study. Healthcare professionals from four primary care teams (n = 20) were recruited using snowball sampling. Data collection was through semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was used to generate findings. Results Three meta themes surfaced: shared beliefs, facilitators and barriers to psychological safety. The shared beliefs offered insights into the teams’ background functioning, providing important context to the facilitators and barriers of psychological safety specific to each team. Four barriers to psychological safety were identified: hierarchy, perceived lack of knowledge, personality and authoritarian leadership. Eight facilitators surfaced: leader and leader inclusiveness, open culture, vocal personality, support in silos, boundary spanner, chairing meetings, strong interpersonal relationships and small groups. Conclusion This study emphasises that factors influencing psychological safety can be individualistic, team-based or organisational. Although previous literature has largely focused on the role of leaders in promoting psychological safety, safe environments can be created by all team members. Members can facilitate psychological safety in instances where positive leadership behaviours are lacking - for example, strengthening interpersonal relationships, finding support in silos or rotating the chairperson in team meetings. It is anticipated that these findings will encourage practices to reflect on their team dynamics and adopt strategies to ensure every member’s voice is heard.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the barriers and facilitators of psychological safety in primary care teams: a qualitative study

Remtulla

Hagana

Houbby

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, different dynamics may unfold at different levels of analysis. For example, consider that inequalities at the organizational level-e.g., in salaries-may reflect differences in performance, status, power, as well as other legitimate or illegitimate factors (Cantimur, Rink, & van der Vegt, 2016;Eriksson, 1999;Greer et al, 2018;Halevy, Chou, & Galinsky, 2011;Hays & Bendersky, 2015;Shaw, 2014;Trevor, Reilly, & Gerhart, 2012). As such, employee's perceptions of the level of inequality within their organization may be driven by different factors-e.g., whether they are thinking about vertical inequality between managers and their employees, or horizontal inequality between people of similar ranks (Downes & Choi, 2014) -than those at other levels of analysis.…”

Section: What Level Of Analysis?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequality in Researchers’ Minds: Four Guiding Questions for Studying Subjective Perceptions of Economic Inequality

Jachimowicz¹,

Davidai²,

Goya‐Tocchetto³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent of inequality that people perceive in the world is often a stronger predictor of individual and societal outcomes than the level of inequality that actually exists. It is therefore imperative for researchers to theoretically conceptualize and empirically operationalize perceived inequality in a coherent and consistent manner. However, the lack of consensus on what constitutes perceived inequality can lead researchers to use the same words to study different phenomena. What seem like minor methodological decisions made in the study of inequality can substantially influence the outcomes and conclusions that researchers dra from their work. In this review, we draw on a wide range of interdisciplinary work, including from social and cognitive psychology, economics, political science, and sociology, to unpack the assumptions researchers often make. We develop the four questions framework which illustrates the important theoretical and empirical decisions researchers are recommended to address when studying perceived inequality: (1) What kind of inequality? (2) What level of analysis? (3) What part of the distribution? and (4) What comparison group? We posit that this framework provides the conceptual clarity necessary for understanding when, how, and why perceptions of inequality affect individuals and societies.

show abstract

“…We see Hong–Page first and foremost as a model of collaborative search across an epistemic landscape. This process too often exhibits a hierarchical structure when used by democratic institutions as a means of gathering information and crafting policy (Rittel 1965; Allen and Cohen 1969; Anderson and Brown 2010; Cantimur 2016). So while not all deliberation is this form of collaborative search, to align with the extant literature, we'll use the terms “discussion” and “deliberation” to pick out this kind of collaborative search.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation in Models of Epistemic Democracy

Grim¹,

Bramson²,

Singer³

et al. 2018

Episteme

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epistemic justifications for democracy have been offered in terms of two different forms of information aggregation and decision-making. The Condorcet Jury Theorem is appealed to as a justification in terms of votes, and the Hong–Page ‘diversity trumps ability’ result is appealed to as a justification in terms of deliberation in the form of collaborative search. Both results, however, are models of full and direct participation across a population. In this paper, we contrast how these results hold up within the familiar structure of a representative hierarchy. We first consider extant analytic work that shows that representation inevitably weakens the voting results of the Condorcet Jury Theorem. We then go on to show that collaborative search, as modeled by Hong and Page, holds its own within hierarchical representation. In a variation on the dynamics of group search, representation even shows a slight edge over direct participation. This contrast illustrates how models of information aggregation vary when put into a representative structure. While some of the epistemic merits of democracy are lost when voting is done hierarchically, modeling results show that representation can preserve and even slightly amplify the epistemic virtues of collaborative search.

show abstract

When and why hierarchy steepness is related to team performance

Cited by 20 publications

References 100 publications

Exploring the barriers and facilitators of psychological safety in primary care teams: a qualitative study

Exploring the barriers and facilitators of psychological safety in primary care teams: a qualitative study

Inequality in Researchers’ Minds: Four Guiding Questions for Studying Subjective Perceptions of Economic Inequality

Representation in Models of Epistemic Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About