the “science” behind team science - cctst | … · · 2017-08-23the “science” behind team...
TRANSCRIPT
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
“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).
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.
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
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
• 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.
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
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
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
Please check out our team science resources at the CCTST CIS webpage:
https://cctst.uc.edu/programs/cis/teams
Team Science Resources
https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/public/Home.aspx