曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
performance. It is beyond the scope of this report to provide a detailed summary of
the literature on correlates of team performance. Instead, the following is a sample of
the findings, while the reader is referred to the literature for greater detail (Brannick,
Prince, Prince & Salas, 1995; Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998; Entin, & Serfaty, 1999;
Orasanu & Salas, 1993; Serfaty, & Entin, 1997; Serfaty, Entin & Deckert, 1994; Stout,
Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Milanovich, 1999).
In high workload situations, more effective teams adopt communication and
coordination strategies that reduce the effort needed to meet task demands while
maintaining performance levels (Entin, & Serfaty, 1999). Orasanu and Salas (1993)
found that the conversations of effective teams were characterised by a high level of
homogeneity. The team members adopted conventionalised speech patterns that
appeared to facilitate coordination. Low performing teams had speech patterns that
were heterogeneous and less predictable. This created more work when the task
required interaction.
In high stress situations, effective crews are also more explicit in defining the
problem, articulating plans and strategies for coping, obtaining relevant information,
explaining the rationale, and allocating and coordinating responsibilities among the
crew. The suggestion is that teams build a shared mental model (SMM) of the
situation. In terms of mission analysis, more effective teams have been observed to
engage in more planning types of behaviour than less effective teams. In more
effective teams, the leader uses low workload periods in the mission to make plans.
This helps to build the SMM, and to allow commands to take on contextual meaning
(Stout, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Milanovich, 1999). More effective teams also have
SMMs for the majority of key taskwork knowledge areas. In addition, they have
higher consensus levels for critical teamwork constructs (Pascual, 1999).
DSTO-TR-1034
18
Teams that rely solely on implicit coordination are overwhelmed by problems during
crisis situations (Orasanu & Salas, 1993). Team effectiveness appears to be enhanced
when team members provide information before they are requested to do so.
Providing information in advance appears to be particularly beneficial in situations
characterised by increased workload (Stout, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Milanovich,
1999). The strategy of anticipating changes in the situation and needs of other team
members contributes significantly to the team’s effective performance under stress,
and appears to be the reason such teams perform consistently better under a range of
tactical conditions (Serfaty, & Entin, 1997).
A further demonstration of the importance of communication and coordination is
that error often occurs as a consequence of staff shift rotation. Critical pieces of
information, key operational assumptions, cognitive focus, and shared situation
awareness can all be lost or misinterpreted in the hand-over process. To be effective,
the distributed decision making team needs to develop and successfully transition a
minimal sensible structure from one staff shift to the next (Leedom, 1999). A critical
difference between effective and ineffective shift changeover relates to how well the
teams coordinate (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998). Highly reliable teams emerge if
communication lines are open and flexible (Serfaty, & Entin, 1997).
In C2, the team must also be adaptable. The ability to adapt to a dynamic
environment lies at the heart of a team’s performance and robustness to error
(Serfaty, Entin & Deckert, 1994). The members must be able to adapt to unpredictable
and uncertain conditions. They achieve this by redistributing workload or
reorganising the team’s roles, monitoring each other’s behaviour (to catch and
correct errors), and giving each other constructive feedback designed to improve
performance (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998). When faced with an increasingly
demanding task environment, the effective team will adapt its decision making
strategies, and even its structure to manage the task (Serfaty, Entin & Deckert, 1994).
4.3 An Existing Taxonomy of Team Behaviour
As well as identifying critical team factors, behavioural observations can be used to
establish a taxonomy of a particular domain. A previous example, established by
Leedom (1999), centred on cataloguing behaviours into steps involved in training
proficient battle command. The following provides a summary of Leedom’s
taxonomy, while full detail can be found in the original article.
1. Clarify expected roles and contributions.
2. Establish a clear strategy for knowledge management.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料30(14)
