Speaking up in high-risk organizations plays a pivotal role in the mitigation of errors and can make the difference between life and death. To date, speaking up has been studied mostly within teams. However, many high-risk organizations rely on the effective collaboration across teams in ad hoc multiteam systems (MTS). This study widens the scope of research from teams to MTS and empirically compares the mechanisms involved in speaking up within versus across teams in ad hoc MTS-aircrews. In a sample of 1490 aircrew members of a European airline, we found that crewmembers' individual level perceptions of psychological safety mediated both the relationship between status and speaking up and between perceived leader inclusiveness and speaking up within teams. Across teams, however, psychological safety and leader inclusiveness-as perceived by pursers in their role as boundary spanners-showed no effect. Instead, it was pursers' within-team perceptions of psychological safety that mediated between status and speaking up across teams. Teams in ad hoc MTS may thus serve as safe harbours supporting their members also in interactions across team boundaries. Implications of findings for research on MTS and practical recommendations to improve speaking up within and across teams in ad hoc MTS are discussed.

Several accidents have shown that crew members’ failure to speak up can have devastating consequences. Despite decades of crew resource management (CRM) training, this problem persists and still poses a risk to flight safety. To resolve this issue, we need to better understand why crew members choose silence over speaking up. We explored past speaking up behavior and the reasons for silence in 1,751 crew members, who reported to have remained silent in half of all speaking up episodes they had experienced. Silence was highest for first officers and pursers, followed by flight attendants, and lowest for captains. Reasons for silence mainly concerned fears of damaging relationships, of punishment, or operational pressures. We discuss significant group differences in the frequencies and reasons for silence and suggest customized interventions to specifically and effectively foster speaking up.

Leadership training in MTS should address shared rather than merely vertical forms of leadership, and component teams in MTS should be trained together with emphasis on boundary spanners' dual leadership role. Furthermore, team members should be empowered to engage in leadership processes when required.

Work teams increasingly face unprecedented challenges in volatile, uncertain, complex, and often ambiguous environments. In response, team researchers have begun to focus more on teams whose work revolves around mitigating risks in these dynamic environments. Some highly insightful contributions to team research and organizational studies have originated from investigating teams that face unconventional or extreme events. Despite this increased attention to extreme teams, however, a comprehensive theoretical framework is missing. We introduce such a framework that envisions team extremeness as a continuous, multidimensional variable consisting of environmental extremeness (i.e., external team context) and task extremeness (i.e., internal team context). The proposed framework allows every team to be placed on the team extremeness continuum, bridging the gap between literature on extreme and more traditional teams. Furthermore, we present six propositions addressing how team extremeness may interact with team processes, emergent states, and outcomes using core variables for team effectiveness and the well-established input–mediator–output–input model to structure our theorizing. Finally, we outline some potential directions for future research by elaborating on temporal considerations (i.e., patterns and trajectories), measurement approaches, and consideration of multilevel relationships involving team extremeness. We hope that our theoretical framework and theorizing can create a path forward, stimulating future research within the organizational team literature to further examine the impact of team extremeness on team dynamics and effectiveness.

Explainable AI (XAI) is considered the number one solution for overcoming implementation hurdles of AI/ML in clinical practice. However, it is still unclear how clinicians and developers interpret XAI (differently) and whether building such systems is achievable or even desirable. This longitudinal multi-method study queries (n=112) clinicians and developers as they co-developed the DCIP – an ML-based prediction system for Delayed Cerebral Ischemia. The resulting framework reveals that ambidexterity between exploration and exploitation can help bridge opposing goals and requirements to improve the design and implementation of AI/ML in healthcare.