The “Science” behind team science: what we know about successful collaboration

Jack Kues, PhD

Associate Dean, Continuous Professional DevelopmentDirector, Center for Improvement Science

CCTST Grand Rounds

August, 18, 2017

Disclosure: I have no relevant disclosures related to this presentation

Outline of this presentation

• History and definitions

• What we know

• What we can do

History and Definitions

“Team Science is a collaborative effort to address a scientific challenge that leverages the strengths and expertise of professionals trained in different fields.”

Team Science Toolkit - NCI

Definition: Team Science

Definition: The Science of Team Science (SciTS)

…a new interdisciplinary field…which aims to better understand the circumstances that facilitate or hinder effective team-based research and practice and to identify the unique outcomes of these approaches in the areas of productivity, innovation, and translation.

(Stokols et al., 2013 p. 4).

Today’s Presentation is about……

This

Not This

Transdisciplinary

Interdisciplinary

Multidisciplinary

Unidisciplinary

Collaboration Hierarchy

Researchers from a single discipline work together to

address a common problem.

Researchers from different disciplines each make separate

contributions in an additive way.

Researchers integrate “information, data, techniques,

tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from two or

more disciplines…to advance fundamental understanding

or to solve problems.” (NAS, NAE, and IOM, 2005, p.26)

Researchers integrate and also transcend disciplinary

approaches to generate fundamentally new conceptual

frameworks, theories, models, and applications.

The Science of Team Science:……What we know……

Things we know about teams and collaboration:Some Key Areas of Team Science

• Forming Teams: Size, Composition, Diversity, Proximity

• Team Functions: Trust, Conflict Resolution, Commitment, Accountability, Attention to Results

• Communication: Timeliness, Preferences, Familiarity, Technology

• Leadership: Traits and Behaviors, Styles, Responsibilities, Dysfunctions

• Environment: Physical, Organizational

Forming Teams: SIZE

• Large teams (20+)• Require more coordination; take longer to make decisions

• Can achieve higher levels of performance (access to more resources)

• Teams working on complex tasks in uncertain environments• Small, but positive, correlation between size and performance (Stewart, 2006)

• Small teams in hospital settings (5-12)• Higher cohesiveness, performance, personal well-being

• Cohesiveness showed greatest link to performance

Forming Teams: Composition• Senior/Junior investigator mix

• Incumbents (senior investigators) add experience and connectivity to resources

• Teams with a greater percentage of Incumbent members perform better…..up to a point

• Teams without junior (less experienced) investigators have less creativity and innovation

• Highly networked investigators• Teams with a greater percentage of investigators with large social networks are more

productive

• Balance membership between intellectuals and high achievers

Forming Teams: Diversity

• More diverse teams have greater productivity than less diverse teams• Different disciplines

• Varied experiences

• Different conceptual models

• Varied approaches to problem solving

• Homogeneous teams are less creative and produce fewer innovations• Reliance on shared methodologies and designs

• Quick to come to consensus

Team Functions: Five Primary Functions of a Team

1. Trust

2. Conflict resolution

3. Commitment to a common goal

4. Personal and team accountability

5. Attention to results

Avoidance of Accountability

Lack of Commitment

Fear of Conflict

Absence of Trust

Five

Dysfunctions

of a Team

Inattention

to Results

Absence ofTrust

Fear ofConflict

Lack ofCommitment

Avoidance ofAccountability

Inattention toResults

5.91

7.006.91

5.86

6.05

RESULTS FROM TEAM ASSESSMENT INVENTORY

Conflict Resolution Styles

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument;

1974, 2002, 2007

Communication: Timeliness

• Greater face-to-face time at the beginning of team formation and task results in greater productivity and function.

• Participatory goal setting enhances….• Team cohesion

• Feelings of inclusiveness

• Shared beliefs

• Collective efficacy

Communication: Preferences

• Different Communication Modalities

• Personal Communication Styles

• Consider preferred communication types• Phone, email, WebEx, in person, etc.

• Share your team roster with preferences listed

Preferred Communication

University Hospital Radiology Report TAT Project

Project Membership Roster

Name Title Role

Communication

Preference

Mailing Address/

Office Location

Desk

Phone Cell/Phone Fax e-mail

Alternate Contact/

Assistant Phone

Dan Crawley Radiology Process Owner Email M.L. 0742 584-5830 513-798-5019 584-4867 Outlook Judy Langenbach 584-0645

Judy Hughes Radiology Coordinator (Nuc med) Team Member Phone M.L. 0577 584-1092 513-798-5020 584-7690 Outlook Nuc Med Phone Desk 584-9024

Judy Langenbach Radiology Secretary Team Member Phone M.L. 0742 584-0645 513-798-5021 584-4867 Outlook

Robert Lukin Radiology Chairman Team Member Email 584-4396 513-798-5022 584-0431 Outlook Sharon Orr 584-4396

Jack Malott Radiology Director Process Owner In person M.L. 0742 584-6220 513-798-5023 584-4867 Outlook Judy Langenbach 584-0645

Bob Staton Radiology Assistant Director Ad Hoc Member Email M.L. 0742 584-6220 513-798-5024 584-4867 Outlook Judy Langenbach 584-0645

Amy Short OE Senior Consultant Black Belt Candidate Email ABC Room 2308 BAP 585-6862 513-798-5025 585-6859 Outlook Rebecca Boerger 585-6800

Logical

Analytical

Fact Based

Quantitative

Holistic

Intuitive

Integrating

Synthesizing

Organized

Sequential

Planned

Detailed

Interpersonal

Feeling-Based

Kinesthetic

Emotional

Re

lation

ship

-O

rien

tedTa

sk-

Ori

en

ted

Communication: Familiarity

• Familiarity and social cohesion are closely linked.• Familiarity and social cohesion is linked to greater productivity in the short run.

• Over time the link becomes an inverse relationship.• “Social Loafing” and “groupthink” are proposed explanations for the shift.

• Homogeneity and social cohesion.• Homogeneous teams tend to be more socially cohesive.

• Heterogeneous teams, despite being less cohesive, are more productive on creative and intellectual tasks.

Forming Teams: Leadership

Leadership: Traits and Behaviors

Traits

• Intelligence

• Self-confidence

• Physical appearance

• Educational status

• Task-relevant knowledge

• Emotional intelligence

Behaviors

• Generating and sustaining trust

• Cultivating a shared dream

• Promoting a sense of direction, meaning and hope

• Bias toward risk taking and action

• Offering a strong vision of collective success

Team Processes That Are Influenced by Leader Behavior

NAS; 2015

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

Rank Ordered Leadership Management Characteristics

Leadership

Characteristics

Assessment

• Absentee leadership—unavailable or insufficiently involved

• Inhibited leadership—conflict avoidant or averse and reluctant to handle difficult people or situations

• Defensive leadership—resistant to feedback regarding systemic problems and projecting outward blame

• Hostile leadership—actively promoting competition and conflict within the lab.

Leadership: Dysfunctional Styles

Environment: Physical and Organizational

Physical

• Spatial proximity to support frequent and informal contact

• Access to adequate meeting space

Organizational

• Incentives to support collaborative teamwork

• Organizational climate of sharing

• Nonhierarchic organizational structures to facilitate team autonomy

• Frequent social events to support face-to-face contact

Ongoing Team Science Research by the Center for Improvement Science

Team Experience Self-Assessment

Mean score for positive items: 3.36

Mean score for negative items: 1.28

Mean composite score: 2.08

Range of composite scores: -4 to 5

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

0.8

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

Dependability Productive TeamDynamics

RespectfulDiscussion Skills

TOTAL

% S

co

re

Skills Sub-scores

Team Skills Self-Assessment Scores

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

To

tal S

co

reIndividual Raw Team Skills Self-

Assessment Scores

0

5

10

15

20

Areas of Frustration for Team Functioning

Knowing how to drive does not make you a mechanic!

What we can do…..….Tools and Resources

Please check out our team science resources at the CCTST CIS webpage:

https://cctst.uc.edu/programs/cis/teams

Team Science Resources

Self Assessment

for

Team Attributes

Assessing One’s

Team

For Dysfunction

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiwhq22i6nQAhVm6IMKHemwBC4QjRwIBw&url=http://seapointcenter.com/create-a-team-charter/&bvm=bv.138493631,d.amc&psig=AFQjCNHXC530o_ZjLVMgZpn086gCqVHPHQ&ust=1479241826696966

Team Skills Training Workshops

https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/public/Home.aspx

http://www.teamscience.net

"In the long history of humankind (and animal

kind, too) those who learned to collaborate

and improvise most effectively have

prevailed."

Charles Darwin