LAUSR

learning from doing in context. Am Psychol. 2018;73(4):504-516. 37. Dunn AM, Scott C, Allen JA, Bonilla D. Quantity and quality: increasing safety norms through after action reviews. Hum Relat. 2016;69(5):1209-1232. 38. Keiser NL, Arthur W. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness [published online August 27, 2020]. J Appl Psychol. 2020. 39. Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors. 2013; 55(1):231-245. 40. Klein C, DiazGranados D, Salas E, et al. Does team building work?Small Group Res. 2009;40(2):181-222. 41. Shuffler ML, DiazGranados D, Salas E. There’s a science for that: team development interventions in organizations. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011;20(6):365-372. 42. Buller PF, Bell CH. Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity: a field experiment. Acad Manage J. 1986;29(2): 305-328. 43. Hackman JR, Wageman R. A theory of team coaching. Acad Manage Rev. 2005;30(2):269-287. 44. Carmeli A, Reiter-Palmon R, Ziv E. Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: the mediating role of psychological safety. Creat Res J. 2010;22(3): 250-260. 45. Walumbwa FO, Schaubroeck J. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(5): 1275-1286. 46. Hu Y, Zhu L, Zhou M, et al. Exploring the influence of ethical leadership on voice behavior: how leader-member exchange, psychological safety and psychological empowerment influence employees’ willingness to speak out. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1718.