Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
L. Michelle Bennett
Howard Gadlin
Christophe Marchand
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health
PAGE: 2
Top Ten
Take Aways
TRUST
It is almost impossible to imagine a successful collaboration without
trust. Trust provides the foundation for a team. Without trust it is
nearly impossible to sustain a collaboration.
VISION
A strong and captivating vision attracts people to the team and
provides a foundation for achieving team goals. Shared vision
provides a focal point around which a highly functioning team can
coalesce.
SELF-AWARENESS AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Emotional Intelligence among team members contributes to
the effective functioning of research teams. Self awareness gives
people greater control over their own emotional reactions to others,
improves the quality of their interactions, and helps build other-
awareness.
LEADERSHIP
Strong collaborative leadership elicits and capitalizes on the team
members’ strengths and is a critical component of team success.
Leadership can be demonstrated by every team member, not just
the formal leader(s).
MENTORING
Mentoring is an indispensable aspect of successful collaboration. A
mentor recognizes the strengths of each team member, identies
areas in which newer scientists have the greatest potential to grow,
and can help coach people to attain their aspirations. With good
mentoring, the development of scientists is synchronous with
strengthening team dynamics.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 3
TEAM EVOLUTION AND DYNAMICS
Research teams form and develop through critical stages to achieve
their highest potential (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing). A
positive team dynamic sustains and further strengthens a research
team, enabling it to achieve successful outcomes.
COMMUNICATION
Effective communication within and outside a research team
contributes to effective group functioning. It depends on a
safe environment where team members can openly share and
discuss new scientic ideas and take research into new, previously
unconsidered directions as well as ensure that difcult conversations
can take place.
RECOGNITION AND SHARING SUCCESS
Individual contributions should be recognized, reviewed, and
rewarded in the context of a collaboration. Recognition and reward
of all team members should be done thoughtfully and fairly in the
context of the team and the institution.
CONFLICT AND DISAGREEMENT
Conict can be both a resource and a challenge—a resource
because disagreement can expand thinking, add new knowledge
to a complex scientic problem, and stimulate new directions
for research. A challenge because if it is not handled skillfully,
conict impedes effective team functioning and sties scientic
advancement.
NAVIGATING AND LEVERAGING
NETWORKS AND SYSTEMS
Highly collaborative teams can transcend different organizational
structures, extending their reach across and beyond the
organization. They often function within the context of multiple and
sometimes interconnected systems, and they can help establish
strong networks of researchers who together can accomplish more
than they could as individuals.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 4
Table of
Contents
TOP TEN TAKE AWAYS
02
INTRODUCTION 06
CHAPTER 01 | ENGAGING IN TEAM SCIENCE 07
This Is Pretty Obvious Stuff
CHAPTER 02 | PREPARING YOURSELF FOR TEAM SCIENCE 12
The Value of Self-Reection
Understanding Personality T
ypes
Giving and Receiving Feedback
The Value of Mentorship
CHAPTER 03 | LEADING RESEARCH TEAMS 27
Leadership Dimensions
CHAPTER 04 | BUILDING A RESEARCH TEAM 37
Launching a Team
Setting Expectations
CHAPTER 05 | TRUST 50
How to Foster Trust Among Team Members
T
ypes of Trust
Psychological Safety
Creating the Foundation for Trust and Psychological Safety
CHAPTER 06 | VISION 58
How to Develop a Shared Vision
CHAPTER 07 | COMMUNICATION 64
How to Communicate About Science
Promoting Disagreement
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 5
CHAPTER 08 | CREDIT AND SHARING 77
How to Give Recognition and Share Credit
Organizational Recognition and Reward
How to Approach Recognition and Reward
Recognition, Review, and Reward
Catch 22 for the Tenure-Track Scientist
CHAPTER 09 | MANAGING DIFFERENCE 90
How to Harness Diversity in Team Science
CHAPTER 10 | CONFLICT IS NORMAL 100
Understanding Conict
How to Engage with Conict
CHAPTER 11 | SUSTAINING AND STRENGTHENING THE TEAM 112
How to Strengthen Team Dynamics
One Bad Apple
CHAPTER 12 | NAVIGATING AND LEVERAGING NETWORKS AND SYSTEMS 122
The Team as a System: Social Network Analysis
CHAPTER 13 | FUN 128
ABOUT THE AUTHORS 130
APPENDIX 132
Collaborative Agreement Questions (Prenup for Scientists)
Welcome to My Team Letter Template
Offer Letter/Pre-Tenure Agreement Template
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES 137
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 6
Introduction
Collaboration and Team Science: A Field Guide was rst published in 2010. For
nearly a decade, the Field Guide has served as a valuable resource for scientists
participating in or leading a research team. It has also been used by those
considering becoming involved in or building a research team. Graduate courses
designed to focus on or integrate team science and interdisciplinary research into
their learning have used it as a base text, and professional development ofces have
provided it to trainees to enhance their understanding of working collaboratively.
Institutional leaders have used it to help guide change at an organizational level,
shifting research culture from a primary investigator-initiated focus to one that
embraces collaborative and efforts that cut across discipline-based departments.
The original research foundation for the Field Guide was conducted with scientic
teams at the NIH. Since its publication, the authors have had opportunities to travel
nationally and internationally to conduct workshops and give lectures, as well as
work with and learn from individuals, teams, and organizations. The learning from
these experiences is reected in this second edition.
We were honored and humbled by the initial response to the Field Guide. That
reaction enabled us to interact with and learn from others and continue collecting
practical information as it pertains to collaboration and team science. As our
learning expanded, it seemed time to update the Field Guide to provide additional
information as well as to rene or enhance that which existed. We wish to thank
Samantha Levine-Finley for her valuable contribution to the rst edition of the Field
Guide. We also want to thank Darlene Summers for careful editing of this version of
the Field Guide. It is with appreciation for the opportunity to contribute that we have
integrated several additional sections as well as resources into this new version.
This new version of the Field Guide, as well as the content in the appendixes, can be
accessed at http://teamscience.nih.gov.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 7
CHAPTER 01
Engaging in
Team Science
Increased specialization of research expertise and methods has made
interdependence, joint ownership, and collective responsibility between and among
scientists near requirements. These features of team science may not suit everyone,
but given these current trends, most researchers likely will nd themselves asked to
participate on or lead a research team at some point in their careers.
The early 2000’s was met with a surge of interest and investment in multi- and inter-
disciplinary team science programs from public agencies and private organizations
alike. Today, with modern research methods becoming more specialized and
pressing health issues being truly complex, collaborations among scientists trained
in different elds have become essential. The eld of inquiry termed the Science-of-
Team-Science (SciTS) was coined in 2006. This eld encompasses an amalgam of
conceptual and methodological strategies aimed at understanding and enhancing
the outcomes of large-scale collaborative research and training programs. In 2015,
a report commissioned by the National Research Council presented an overview of
what has been learned about “factors such as team dynamics, team management,
and institutional structures and policies that affect large and small science teams.”
(Cooke and Hilton, editors, 2015).
There are many types of research teams, each one as dynamic as its team members.
Research teams may comprise investigators from the same or different elds.
Interdisciplinary teams have members trained in different disciplines bringing their
unique expertise together to solve a problem or answer a question. Research teams
vary by size, organizational complexity, and geographic scope, ranging from as few
as two individuals working together to a vast network of interdependent researchers
across many institutions and countries. Research teams have diverse goals spanning
scientic discovery, training, clinical translation, public health, and health policy
(Stokols, Hall et al. 2008).
Innovations and advances not possible within one laboratory are emerging from
collaborations and research teams that have harnessed techniques, approaches, and
perspectives from multiple scientic disciplines and therapeutic areas. Team science
has been described as a collaborative and cross-disciplinary approach to scientic
inquiry that draws researchers, who otherwise would work independently or as co-
investigators on smaller-scale projects, into collaborative centers and groups.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 8
As the gure on the next page illustrates, research
teams vary across a continuum of interaction
and integration. This continuum provides a
basic framework for understanding how this
Field Guide conceptualizes teams. On one
end of the spectrum is investigator-initiated
research, wherein scientists work individually
and independently on their research. They may
create a team-like environment within their
laboratory but there is little or no interaction with
others outside. Collaboration at the mid-level of
interaction and integration reects researchers
working relatively independently on different
aspects of a common scientic problem with
some interaction that may lead to publishing the
results together. After this experience, they may or
may not work together again. At the opposite end
of the spectrum are highly integrated research
teams that display high interaction. They exhibit
a number of characteristics including, but not
limited to, high trust as evidenced by their ability
to distribute leadership responsibility, and they
share resources, data, and decision-making
authority, as well as credit. Well-functioning
teams display many of the characteristics
described in the following modules. This Field
Guide addresses a wide range of team science
concepts, from low levels of interaction and
integration to highly integrated.
First
Collaboration
It can be extremely helpful
to frame one’s rst projects,
as an undergraduate or
graduate student and in
some cases a postdoctoral
fellow, as collaborations.
The collaborator in these
instances is the investigator
who hired the trainee to
support his/her research
program. If this relationship
is treated as one between
peers, based on trust and
mutual respect, it will result
in an outstanding training
environment where the
trainee will take on more
responsibility, contribute to
the research agenda, and
accept accountability for
experimental successes
—and failures.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 9
What Is a Scientic
Research Team?
…think of it as a continuum…
Level of Interaction and Integration
INVESTIGATOR-
INITIATED RESEARCH
COLLABORATION
INTEGRATED
RESEARCH TEAM
Investigator
works largely
independently
on a research
problem with his
or her laboratory.
Each group
member brings
expertise to address
the research
problem.
Group members
work on separate
parts of the
research problem,
which are later
integrated.
Data sharing or
brainstorming
among lead
investigators varies
from limited to
frequent.
Each team member
brings specic
expertise to address
the research problem.
Teams meet regularly
to discuss team goals,
individuals’ objectives,
and next steps.
Team shares
leadership
responsibilities,
decision-making
authority, data, and
credit.
Frequently, new
leaders emerge to
take on projects from
new ideas sparked by
the joint work.
HIGHLOW
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 10
Scientic teams vary in their duration. Some teams are put together for a very
focused purpose and are not intended to have a life that extends beyond the
accomplishment of a specic task. Others may be designed with the expectation of
a long-term collaboration, exploring multiple facets of a set of problems that may
only be resolved over a lengthy time frame.
As the focus on research teams sharpens, questions are emerging about how
research teams can maximize their effectiveness and experiences. Effectiveness can
be considered in the context of the overall functioning of the team and its success
in its ability to achieve major research accomplishments. We can think of teams in
two dimensions: the task dimension and the interpersonal dimension. Task refers
to the interactions among group members related to the scientic assignment and
interpersonal refers to the relationships among group members and the team as
a whole (Fiore, Carter et al. 2015). It is generally believed that a team’s chances of
achieving its scientic goals is very strongly affected by its ability to establish effective
working relationships among its members.
Not every team is successful – some never really get off the ground, others are able to
achieve only some of their goals, and some never really maximize their full potential.
Other teams are highly successful – reaching and often exceeding their recognized
goals and creating positive experiences for team members and the institutions that
support them. We acknowledge that a team can be successful with respect to its
relationships yet not achieve the scientic success it sought.
Why do some research teams achieve a state of high functioning while others do
not? What factors maximize a research team’s productivity or effectiveness? How
can research teams best be recognized, reviewed, and rewarded? Collaboration
and Team Science: A Field Guide was developed to help answer these and other
questions. For those of you who are thinking this is pretty obvious stuff…
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 11
THIS IS PRETTY OBVIOUS STUFF
In our experience, people sometimes characterize the principles, ideas, and concepts
presented in this manual as pretty fundamental–they are common sense; they
are obvious. Others may feel the concepts are difcult to get their head around,
especially since there are no concrete data or experiments that can be performed to
prove anything, and there is no one formula that assures success.
While much of this may seem obvious, a disconnect exists when we consider many
people who are engaged in scientic and personal interactions. For example, while
people intuitively know that trust is a strong foundation for collaboration, their
behavior during everyday interactions with group members in the laboratory, during
seminars, or when discussing data suggests lack of trust. The individual may self-
assess as a very trusting person and someone who can easily build trust with others;
however, real-life experiences indicate the exact opposite.
We devoted a module in this Field Guide to self-awareness because willingness
not only to self-examine but to accept and act on feedback from others can greatly
enhance one’s ability to align his or her self-perception with reality, and even change
one’s behavior (see Chapter 02: Preparing Yourself for Team Science page 12).
o the Reader:Note t
mJust as every research team is unique, so too ay be your approach
to the Field Guide. You may read it in the order in which it is written,
or may prefer to start with a topic that is most relevant to you at
the current moment. Each module is devised to stand alone but
also contains references to other modules because, not surprisingly,
there are important connections among concepts. We have
included Take Aways at the end of each module that provide the
key elements from the section.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 12
Preparing Y
CHAPTER 02
ourself
for Team Science
Team science is rapidly becoming a primary mode of operation for biomedical
researchers and clinicians working on complex questions involving human health.
Making the most of the opportunities that team science has to offer may seem
fraught with the challenges of adapting from a solo-investigator culture to one
of collaboration. For example, each person often has a different perception and
experience of what this “team science” stuff is all about. We included the scenarios
below to help stimulate thoughts around some of the challenges you might face as
you consider participating on or leading a team and to formulate questions so you
can make the most of the opportunities team science presents.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 13
IT’S WORKING:
CASE STUDY 1
It’s lunchtime and Dr. Welstrom is walking to the cafeteria with a colleague
from another laboratory, Dr. Miller. Dr. Miller starts discussing a problem he
is having with a specic team research project. He says he feels stuck; he has
most of the expertise he needs but lacks it in one particular area that would
allow him to truly advance his research. Dr. Welstrom tells him that she not
only has the expertise and resources to help, but that she sees another line
of inquiry that could be important to follow. Her contributions would help
with the publication that Dr. Miller is trying to prepare, broaden its scope,
and contribute globally to the research project. Dr. Welstrom invites him to
provide her with the cell lines she would need to perform the experiments
and says she’ll provide him with any ndings. Dr. Miller says that it is not how
his laboratory does things. Instead, he wants to introduce Dr. Welstrom to
the team leader who is always open to new skills and perspectives of other
scientists that will help them get the data needed. The laboratory nds it
more rewarding to work as a team to uncover the multiple facets that underlie
complex scientic questions, rather than have people work in isolation and
just contribute data. As Dr. Welstrom enters the cafeteria and approaches the
colorful salad bar, where she sees all the different vegetables that will combine
to become her lunch, she realizes that she has the opportunity to become part
of an interdisciplinary team. What does she need to know as she starts this
new venture?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 14
IT’S NOT
WORKING:
CASE STUDY 2
Dr. Antonelli has been running her own laboratory for a few years and things
are going fairly well. She has had a couple of papers in high-impact journals
and is feeling good about the contributions her group is making to her current
projects. She has been formulating an idea for a much larger effort that
would require her to bring together a number of experts in different elds. Dr.
Antonelli is hesitant to try to pull the trigger on starting this initiative because
she just can’t put her nger on the problem. Dr. Antonelli has noticed that
people in her laboratory don’t offer much during weekly laboratory meetings
and, when they do, they are reluctant to give details about their experiments.
Sometimes they even make disrespectful comments to each other. She has
been surprised when junior scientists have come to her with requests to
work on projects that are irrelevant to the lab’s mission. Most concerning, Dr.
Antonelli nds herself having to stamp out often bitter arguments between
laboratory members over authorship and reliability of data. Why are things
going wrong, and what can Dr. Antonelli do about it? And if she does do
something about it, can she apply what she has learned to that bigger, bolder
project that is bubbling in her mind?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 15
Some people naturally function as part of a research team, whereas others must
develop and apply skills to enable them to successfully contribute to team efforts.
The same can be said for the ability to lead teams. We have found that effective
team members and team leaders possess skills that contribute positively to the
overall functioning and success of the team. They must be able to contribute
to building trust, communicating effectively, and both giving and receiving
constructive feedback. In addition, they must embrace a collaborative spirit,
meaning they are willing to share data, credit, and decision–making with other
team members.
At this juncture, we want to point out that the notion of collaboration can also
introduce threats. For investigators who have been trained to work independently,
have been promoted based on individual accomplishment, and who are routinely
rewarded for their singular contributions to science, a shift to an approach
or culture that involves others as equals can be foreign. In the collaborative
setting, there is a requirement for the leaders to share decision-making, power,
knowledge, resources, and credit. Investigators may feel more comfortable to
think about taking this step after tenure or otherwise secure in their position.
Yet, even this can feel risky.
COLLABORATION INTRODUCES THREATS
HIGH INTERACTION
AN INTEGRATION
MULTIPLE
INTERDEPENDENT
LEADERS
POWER
STATUS
AUTONOMY
INTERDEPENDENTINDEPENDENT
GROUP
IDENTITY
SELF
IDENTITY
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 16
THE VALUE OF SELF-REFLECTION
The strength of collaboration skills often
depends on an individual’s level of personal
insight and self-awareness, ability to be in touch
with his or her thoughts and feelings, level of
consciousness of his or her impact on other
people, and strengths and weaknesses. Self-
awareness does not emerge without effort;
usually it is the result of actively engaging in
self-reection and exploration.
The following tips may help establish a positive
orientation toward participating in teams:
• Recognize that others may have a different
understanding or perception.
• Ask questions to understand how others
perceive an experience.
• Appreciate that different perspectives are
what contributes to creativity, innovation,
and problem solving.
• Remind yourself that different disciplines
look at the world in distinct ways, use
different methodologies and techniques,
may have unfamiliar conceptual frameworks
and even distinctive norms and values.
As a team leader or member, be aware of your
emotional reactions and try to manage them
the best you can. Emotional reactions can have
strong and direct negative impact on the rest
of the team (see Negative Impacts of Emotional
Reactions box).
Whether you are a member or a leader, your contributions to the team can benet
from self-reection. Although you may not think that the consideration of the ner
points of interpersonal dynamics is relevant to biomedical research, there is more
Negative
Impacts of
Emotional
Reactions
Everyone has emotions
and emotional reactions
to people and events.
However, being unaware
of your own strong
emotional reactions
may have negative
consequences, including:
• Narrowing vision
and creativity
• Stiing curiosity,
openness, and
playfulness of mind
• Hindering ability to
recognize nuances
• Distorting perceptions
• Lowering team morale
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 17
of a connection between scientic thinking and self-reection than appears at
rst glance. Both depend heavily on inferential reasoning—selectively focusing on
observable data, drawing inferences about what the data might mean, and nding
ways to test those inferences with additional observable data. Although the “data” of
interpersonal relationships may not have the facticity of data in research studies, they
are nonetheless available for observation, inference, and reection.
Over the years, studies of interpersonal dynamics, group functioning, and individual
cognitive and emotional processes have established that, through self-reection and
communication, people can become more aware of themselves, their behavior, and
the impact they have on others. More importantly, such awareness can give people
greater control over their own reactions to others and improve the quality and
direction of their relationships.
For this reason, self-awareness among team members is crucial for the effective
and satisfying functioning of research teams. As written by Cohen and Cohen
in Laboratory Dynamics (Cohen and Cohen 2012), an excellent discussion of
management skills for scientists, “… self-awareness allows you to exercise behavioral
options and choose the behavior that will be most effective, rather than the one that
may make you feel good for the moment, but that you will later regret.”
However, to move toward self-awareness, a person must overcome what social
psychologist Lee Ross (Ross 1996) has described as “naïve realism”—the belief that we
see events as they really are. Each person believes that his or her attitudes and beliefs
derive from an objective reaction to information and that other rational people
will react in the same way if they are open to the same information. In this regard,
scientists are like most other people.
Although there is no single approach that works for everyone, developing self-
awareness by yourself may be a challenging task. You may nd it helpful to start by
looking within yourself to become more aware of the strengths and weaknesses you
bring to a team and then seek out a mentor, coach, or other role model who can
help you navigate the nuances of your research team.
Some institutions offer free professional development training and coaching
sessions. Raising your self-awareness by discovering your personality type (see
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator page 20) or your Why-It-Matters (why you are the
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 18
CASE
STUDY 3
Two colleagues, Dr. Maxim and Dr. Lao, have just presented their research
results at a conference. A question from the audience challenges the
pair’s conclusions. Dr. Maxim responds defensively because he “heard” and
“experienced” the challenge as an attack. Dr. Lao jumps into the discussion
with a very different attitude; she welcomes the challenge and is eager to
debate the data and its interpretation that led to the conclusion. Instantly,
each person in the room, including Dr. Maxim and Dr. Lao, draws conclusions
and creates “stories” to explain the researchers’ different reactions. Why do the
two researchers bring a very different perspective when being asked the same
question?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 19
best at doing what you do) may well become a life-changing experience and it
may be easier to seek out a professional trainer as part of your journey. Professional
development experts have access to assessment tools, which may help you to draw a
more complete picture of your personality and work style. In addition, these experts
can help you develop strong leadership skills and provide feedback to help your
professional development.
The following sections provide tools and resources that can help you explore and
become more aware of how you see yourself and the world, which will provide useful
insights into your contribution to the team dynamic. In addition, this exploration will
help you understand better those around you.
UNDERSTANDING PERSONALITY TYPES
There are myriad ways to describe differences in psychological functioning. Among
the most well-known approaches to describing differences in the ways people think
and feel is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a questionnaire derived from the
psychological theories of C. G. Jung. This psychometric test assesses people in terms
of their preferred stance toward others—extroverted versus introverted—and their
preferred modes of psychological functioning—judging versus perceiving, thinking
versus feeling, and sensing versus intuition (see page 20).
The MBTI is commonly used to assess an individual’s personality type by considering
his or her attitude, functioning, and lifestyle. It can help you understand your own
way of thinking and feeling and can also help you appreciate personality differences
that exist among other people.
For example, becoming aware of something as “obvious” as the difference between
extroversion and introversion can help you work with, adapt to, and accept—rather
than react against—someone whose orientation is different from your own. You will
likely nd that people with different styles can complement each other and offer
strengths where others are less skilled.
The MBTI is just one tool for beginning to think about personality types. You may
nd it useful to simply reect on how you see yourself and how you think others see
you. For example, you might ask, “How collaborative am I?” and “How collaborative
do others think I am?” Other questions you might ask can focus on your style of
interacting with others: “How argumentative am I?” and “How argumentative do
others think I am?” Cohen and Cohen (2012) provide excellent examples of questions
for self-reection and tools that allow you to rate your style of interaction as well as
how you think others perceive you.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 20
Myers-Briggs Personality Types
ATTITUDE
• Do you prefer to focus on the outer world of people and things (extraversion [E])
or on your own inner world of ideas and images (introversion [I])?
FUNCTIONING
• Do you prefer to focus on the information you receive through your ve senses
(sensing [S]) or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning to the patterns and
possibilities you see (intuition [N])?
• When making decisions, do you prefer to rst consider objective logic and facts
(thinking [T]) or do you prefer to consider people and feelings involved (feeling [F])?
LIFESTYLE
• In dealing with the outside world, do you prefer structure and boundaries (judging
[J]) or do you prefer openness and adaptability (perceiving [P])?
There are 16 Myers-Briggs personality types that result from combinations of
preferences in these areas. For example, someone who prefers to focus on the outer
world, receive information through his/her ve senses, make decisions based on
logic and facts, and be in settings characterized by structure and boundaries has
personality type ESTJ.
The MBTI conceptualizes personality type as similar to left- or right-handedness:
individuals are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of thinking and
acting. No one type is better or worse; however, individuals naturally prefer one
overall combination of type differences. To take the MBTI or to learn more, visit
www.myersbriggs.org.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 21
VALUE OF ASSESSMENTS
Assessments are powerful ways of learning more about ourselves and,
by extension, others. They are not a meant to be used to assign labels
to yourself or others, nor are they meant to describe unchangeable
personal characteristics. Rather, they capture preferred ways of acting
and interacting that can be inuenced by internal and external
factors. This is especially true when people are angry, hungry, or tired
since we tend to go to the style we are most comfortable with in
these situations. One value of becoming aware of your predominant
style is that it can help you experiment with different ways of
handling challenging situations.
GIVING AND RECEIVING FEEDBACK
Even in conditions of high trust, it can be hard to give or receive honest feedback
about behavior or the job being performed. This can be especially true for team
leaders. If you are a team leader, your role will likely supersede your personal
characteristics in the workplace, even in casual team environments where
friendships exist. As team leader, your reaction to feedback—including your
emotional response—is likely to have an impact on team members and “set the
tone” for the team as a whole. For example, if you welcome feedback from all team
members and thank them, they will learn by watching you. It is especially difcult
for people with less power or in subordinate positions to provide candid feedback,
especially if you, as team leader, have the ability to impact their careers. Ensuring
they feel safe receiving and giving feedback is essential.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 22
The single most important factor in encouraging candid feedback is establishing
an atmosphere in which disagreement and constructive criticism are welcomed.
To establish such an atmosphere of psychological safety, team members must
have a positive experience when they voice disagreement with the team leader or
other team members. If your response to another team member’s expression of
differences is defensiveness, rebuttal, ridicule, punishment, or exclusion—whether
in private or public—team members will be unlikely to speak up, even when asked.
However, if you meet team members’ efforts to voice disagreement with both
receptivity and appreciation, you will begin to build a base from which others can
voice their opinions—both positive and negative—to improve overall team function.
While it may be impossible to get to the point of absolute honesty and frankness,
it is possible to move further in that direction.
There are a number of approaches for giving feedback, one of which is called the
Situation, Behavior, Impact, Future (SBIF) model (see text box page 22). For receiving
feedback, the rules are simple. Greet the input with a sincere “Thank-you” and if you
do not fully understand the comments someone is making, ask some questions.
Whatever you do, there is no need to respond defensively or to explain yourself. The
“Thank-you” is adequate.
In recent years, “360-degree evaluations” have become a popular managerial and
self–evaluation tool, particularly in circumstances where the ability to work well
together is important. In a 360-degree evaluation, each person being evaluated
receives feedback from peers, supervisors, and subordinates. To increase the
likelihood of truthful responses, the feedback from peers and subordinates is kept
anonymous.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 23
GIVING FEEDBACK:
THE SITUATION,
BEHAVIOR, IMPACT,
FUTURE (SBIF) MODEL
When giving positive or constructive feedback the goal is to be as
specic as possible so the recipient knows exactly what they did well
or can learn how to do better next time. The following approach can
help you deliver specic feedback.
• Situation – describe the exact situation and location where the
behavior occurred: “During our monthly team meeting yesterday, …”
• Behavior – describe the exact behavior that was observed: “…you
repeatedly made bold statements arguing that my proposed
approach will not work. …”
• Impact – describe the impact that behavior had: “…When you made
those statements, it made me feel unsupported and it drained all my
energy. …”
• Future – (if constructive in nature) describe what behavior you would
like to observe in the future: “I would appreciate if instead of making
such statements in front of the entire team, you could discuss your
concerns regarding my scientic approach with me in person rst.
We could then take the discussion to the entire team for their input
on the various possible approaches.”
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 24
THE VALUE OF MENTORSHIP
Mentoring is an indispensable aspect of successful collaboration. When embarking
on a collaborative effort for the rst time, or as your collaboration evolves into a highly
integrated and diverse team, being or having a good mentor can help. No matter
how reective you may be, there are limits to what you can achieve on your own.
Having another person help with the process of self-reection can be enormously
important. In science, a mentor can play that role.
Being a Mentor
Leading a successful research team extends beyond supervising and managing.
It extends to the role of mentors: being someone who recognizes the strengths of
each team member and identies areas in which newer scientists have the greatest
potential to grow.
Mentors can exist at every career stage and help others learn the nuances of the
science, unravel and handle the politics of the organization and/or the discipline,
develop scientic and other skills in various areas, and create strategies for successful
collaborative interactions. Great mentors can help you achieve success along your
chosen career path through assisting with networking, identifying opportunities, and
tackling complex scientic situations or questions by assembling the right resources
and sharing the formative successes and failures they faced along the way.
Seeking a Mentor
Regardless of your career stage, mentors can serve as a sounding board as you work
your way through a maze of issues, challenges, and opportunities. If you do not have
a mentor, consider seeking out and identifying an individual who would be a strong
mentor for you. Although your supervisor may or may not be a mentor to you, he or
she can be a terric resource for identifying others who can help guide you. Mentors
do not even need to know they are serving as a mentor to you. Sometimes just by
observing someone you respect and admire in a meeting or interacting with others,
you can take away powerful lessons learned.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 25
A GOOD MATCH IS IMPORTANT
Before you enter a mentoring relationship with someone else, take
time to discuss the goals and expectations you both have. Try to gure
out if it will be a good t.
Questions for Mentors:
• What qualities in a mentee will bring out the best qualities in you as
a mentor?
• What four characteristics dene you best in the role of mentor?
• What kind of mentoring arrangement do you prefer?
Questions for Mentees:
• What do you want out of a mentoring relationship?
• What goals have you set for yourself? Short term? Long term?
• How do you learn best?
• How do you like to be challenged?
• What kind of mentoring arrangement do you prefer?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 26
Ask Yourself: Am I Ready to
Participate on a Research Team?
• Can I thrive as a member of a highly collaborative research team?
• To what extent? What would it take?
• What would I gain? What do I most hope to gain?
• Do I have anything to lose? What is my biggest worry about being on a team?
• Am I willing to share data and credit with team members?
• Am I willing to accept constructive feedback and training from team members?
• Am I willing to provide constructive feedback and training to team members?
• Can I openly discuss issues and concerns with team members?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 27
CHAPTER 03
Leading
Research Teams
Leading a research team requires more than nely honed research expertise and
subject matter prociency; it requires the development and application of multiple
skills and thoughtful interaction with team members. As a team leader, you must
be able to clearly and decisively communicate, share information, and articulate the
team’s shared vision. You must be prepared to model a collaborative approach to
science and motivate other members to do so as well. You must also support and
empower team members, assign roles and delegate responsibilities, and manage
team members’ expectations.
LEADERSHIP DIMENSIONS
Bringing together a talented group of researchers to work cooperatively to solve a
problem takes time, commitment, passion, and a lot of hard work. Whereas everyone
on the team plays an important role, typically one or two individuals steer the effort.
As a leader, you can bring people together to brainstorm, discuss new ideas, develop
strategies and timelines, and coordinate small contributions of individual resources
that together can get a project off the ground. You can build both personal and
scientic trust among the team members and provide a conduit to senior leadership
in the organization. In addition, you can foster mutual respect, the desire to share
data and credit, a willingness to continually challenge each other to advance the
project while containing conict, and develop a dynamic process that evolves over
time.
The characteristics of successful research team leaders are as diverse as the teams
they lead. There are a number of common strengths exemplied by leaders that
contribute to the overall success of the team. Leaders of collaborative efforts, no
matter what their personal style, seem to be effective at: energizing and supporting
participation among team members; communicating across different areas of
specialization; and nding ways to address difcult issues.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 28
Leadership styles, like leadership characteristics, vary widely. Some leaders employ
a style in which they both self-identify as the team leader and are seen clearly by
others as heading the effort. They are in command and in charge. Others would be
less inclined to describe themselves as leaders and could be thought of as driving
from the back of the bus. That is a leadership approach that is less directive and
provides many of the team members the opportunity to take on leadership roles in
the context of the overall project.
Non-authoritarian leadership styles seem to be more common across successful
team leaders. However, there are some leadership styles that can damage and derail
a team effort, including:
Absentee leadership—unavailable or insufciently involved
Inhibited leadership—conict avoidant or averse and reluctant to handle difcult
people or situations
Defensive leadership—resistant to feedback regarding systemic problems and
projecting outward blame
Hostile leadership—actively promoting competition and conict within the team
Strong scientic and interpersonal communication skills are critical and required to
keep the group interacting, cohesive, and on course. Communication includes both
the subjects for discussion as well as the logistical strategies for effective interactions.
As a leader, you must ensure that the team outlines roles and responsibilities,
commitment of resources, and how credit for participation in team efforts will be
shared and assigned. Communication strategies may include teleconferencing,
interactive Web-based collaboration tools, listservs, and e-mail. Workshops and
retreats provide forums for face-to-face interaction as well as strengthening and
broadening networks. In addition, the importance of learning each other’s scientic
languages cannot be understated (See Chapter 07: Communication).
How people speak can play a role in the collaborative setting and can depend
on the context. Leaders who are conferred high status by their followers and
peers typically use powerful language (statements that are assertions without
any qualication). In contrast, we typically do not associate strong leadership with
the use of powerless language. Powerless language is characterized by the use
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 29
of hesitations, hedges, disclaimers, raising one’s voice at the end of a sentence,
and tag questions (e.g., “I think…,” “it has been said that,” “maybe I’m wrong but,”
and “don’t you agree?”). Powerful language is devoid of such elements. A study
was conducted to evaluate status conferral to individual leaders in the context of
independent and interdependent work. Results demonstrated that in the context of
highly interdependent work, that higher status was conferred to leaders who used
powerless language. This was due in part to the perception that the leader was more
strongly focused on the group as a whole than on his personal role within the group
(Fragale 2006).
Other studies have found that women are much more likely to use powerless
language than are men, which might be another factor to explain why having
more women on a team leads to better functioning. When you qualify someone’s
assertions with an expression such as “perhaps I am mistaken, but…,” you create a
comfortable space in which someone else can safely offer her or his perspective.
There is accumulating evidence that having women in leadership roles or on the
team contributes positively to overall functioning and productivity (more in Chapter
09: Managing Difference section). Several studies have found that women speak
less frequently and also are much less likely to interrupt other speakers in team
meetings than are men. If we remember that the intent of a team is to direct
multiple perspectives on a problem, then it makes sense that teams in which there
is more even participation are likely to be more creative and make more progress
than teams in which participation is monopolized by a few people.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 30
STRENGTHS
BASED LEADERSHIP
Leaders of collaborative teams are in the enviable position of being
able to draw on the greatest talents of each member. All it requires
is that the leader(s) can recognize and exploit those strengths for
the benet of the team and its research project. Some leaders have
a talent for identifying the strengths of others quickly. Other leaders
may take longer and can use multiple ways to identify an individual’s
strengths and how they contribute best to a team. Perhaps the
simplest and most straightforward method is to ask everyone to share
what they think their own strengths are. Another approach is to take
advantage of the StrengthsFinder book or other assessments available
online (Rath 2007). The results of these can be discussed in the group
setting enabling individuals to share what resonates or not about
their individual assessment results as well as allowing feedback and
observations from team members. When people are contributing
their greatest strengths to a project, they are typically energized by the
process. When people are asked to contribute in ways that drain and
tire them, it can be difcult to sustain motivation for the effort.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 31
THERE IS NO FORMULA
FOR THE PERFECT LEADER
Characteristics that Contribute to Successful Team Leadership include:
• Self-awareness
• Other awareness
• Shared responsibility
for success
• Accountability for issues
and problems
• Mentoring others
• Managing up and across
• Creating a safe environment
• Having difcult conversations
• Speaking up, challenging
ideas
• Fairness in decisions and
actions
• Giving your best everyday
• Serving as a role model
Note to the Reader:
atched t they are being w
y see, not
times forgeLeaders some
closely. Others will model the behavior the
the w
ords they hear.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 32
Ask Yourself: Am I Ready
to Lead a Research Team?
• Am I able to clearly and decisively communicate and share information with
team members?
• Am I prepared to clearly articulate my vision to team members?
• Am I prepared to model a collaborative process and inspire team members
to achieve our shared goal?
• Am I willing to support team members at all levels and assign roles and
responsibilities?
• Am I willing to manage team members’ expectations?
• Am I prepared to select team members who will thrive in the team’s culture?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 33
IT’S WORKING:
CASE STUDY 4
Dr. Bello and colleagues had been sharing ideas for many months around a
possible new project. Some preliminary data from one of the team members
resulted in a lot of excitement. The group started to coalesce around what
felt like a promising direction for a new research project at the intersection
of several disciplines. As the team became more excited about the project
and generated enough data to submit a grant application, Dr. Bello started
integrating time into their meeting agendas to ensure that the dynamics of
the team were working well. Dr. Bello had extremely strong self-awareness
as a result of taking advantage of professional and leadership development
opportunities at work. Dr. Bello was able to help the group develop trust,
surface tensions early, and openly challenge and question research results. In
addition, team members took time to create a research plan that outlined
roles and responsibilities and talked about how they would hold each other
accountable to the commitments each of them made.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 34
IT’S NOT
WORKING:
CASE STUDY 5
Drs. Spark and Rey had just completed a manuscript and submitted it for
publication. Paper writing had gone pretty smoothly with each of them writing
their respective sections based on the work they performed and merging
the content. They were quite enthusiastic about the results they combined
from similar sample sets and decided they should continue working together.
They set up a meeting and asked Drs. Tan and Gagnon to join them. As they
started developing ideas and performing initial experiments over the following
months, the group members seemed more focused on their individual efforts
as opposed to that of the group. In addition, Dr. Tan was not performing the
promised experiments, instead making excuses about other priorities. As
commitment continued to wane, other group members also found it difcult
to nd time to complete their assignments. Soon, Dr. Tan stopped attending
meetings all together. Dr. Gagnon followed suit. Data generated were either
left unpublished or found their way into their individual publications.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 35
ASK YOURSELF IF IT’S WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Leaders understand their strengths and weaknesses as well as those of the team
members.
• Leaders hold themselves and their groups accountable.
• Leaders can detect when there is tension and effectively intervene to resolve it at
the earliest stage possible.
• Leaders create environments where people feel safe sharing ideas about the
science as well as bringing up interpersonal issues related to the team.
• Leaders engage others to take on tasks where they are less skilled or competent.
• Leaders are fully supportive of the people around them succeeding and taking on
leadership roles.
• Leaders are fully present both physically and when interacting with team
members.
When It’s Not Working:
• Leaders have little or no self-awareness and as a result also have little awareness
of the dynamics that surround them.
• Environments of trust and psychological safety are not created.
• People are hesitant to share concerns about others’ scientic data.
• Interpersonal conicts are avoided or work arounds are created.
• Members are more likely to blame and make excuses than take responsibility
or act with accountability.
• Members are too busy to meet regularly.
• When in meetings, members are often checking email or engage in side
conversations.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 36
Take Aways:
The leader…
• Is self- and other-aware.
• Ensures leadership and management functions for the team are fullled, and
may call on others to contribute to those roles.
• Knows what motivates and energizes the team members and tries to align their
strengths with the work that needs to be done.
• Welcomes the contributions of all team members.
• Delegates responsibility to the lowest levels possible.
• Is willing to handle conict and encourage disagreement.
• Understands he/she is being watched and team members will model
his/her behavior.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 37
CHAPTER 04
Building a
Research Team
Whether you are leading or participating on a research team, it is critical to
understand what contributes to successful team functioning and what can negatively
impact the development of a productive group. As science becomes ever more
specialized, researchers increasingly need the support, input, and expertise of
scientists from several research elds to move their efforts forward. Yet, bringing
together individuals from various disciplines or specialties, and at different stages
in their careers, is a task that requires forethought and care. After all, people from
different disciplines often bring expectations, norms, and ways of thinking that are
unique to their eld. It is crucially important that collaborators agree on expectations
at the earliest point of a project as possible and reconcile any conicting views. If
handled well, the process of integrating scientists from diverse backgrounds can
result in the formation of a highly functioning group. If done indiscriminately, the
team may not endure.
LAUNCHING A TEAM
You can build a research team from the top down (by leaders in their respective elds
and/or organizations) or from the bottom up (by junior and senior scientists at the
grassroots level). Both approaches can result in the development of highly effective
teams.
A well-known example of the top-down formation of a highly successful research
team was the one established by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2003
to solve the spreading SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) pandemic.
WHO brought together 11 researchers from 9 countries to identify the pathogen
responsible for SARS deaths. Once organized, the team quickly embraced several key
principles of effective teams—frequent communication about data, results, and next
steps; processes to share data and clinical samples; and a shared commitment to a
concrete goal. As a result, a mere month later, the team determined that a previously
unrecognized coronavirus was the causative agent of SARS (Peiris, Lai et al. 2003).
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 38
Bottom-up teams form when scientists identify a common interest and come
together to tackle a problem or achieve an agreed-upon goal. Examples of bottom-
up teams and collaborations can be found across the biomedical sciences, from
simple collaborations to highly complex and interactive research teams. People
will often be drawn together by a common interest and will self-assemble to
collaboratively address a challenging question. With leadership support for their
scientic endeavors, self-assembled multidisciplinary efforts can be highly successful.
When interviewing potential new team members:
• Develop interview questions that require the candidate to articulate his or her
interest and experience in working on a research team.
• Ask for examples of how the candidate has successfully contributed to a team in
the past, what challenges he or she encountered, and how they were resolved
• When checking a candidate’s references, inquire about his or her capacity to
collaborate and function as a supportive member of a team.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 39
IT’S WORKING:
CASE STUDY 6
Most of Dr. Wu’s team members applied for their positions, knowing from the
beginning that they would be working as part of a collaborative research team.
During interviews, Dr. Wu was clear in communicating each team member’s
expected roles and responsibilities, processes for sharing data and credit, as
well as the team’s overall vision and goals. She even provided them with a
“Welcome to My Team” letter that outlined what she expected and what could
be expected of her in return. She then asked about each applicant’s objectives
and commitment to team science to determine compatibility. If the person
indicated that he or she was more comfortable working as a solo investigator
than as part of a team, Dr. Wu suggested that another laboratory or project
might be a better t. “It’s a personality thing,” she said. “You can really tell a
lot about what kind of team member someone will be by asking the right
questions and being open to their answers.”
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 40
IT’S NOT
WORKING:
CASE STUDY 7
Dr. Anderson had come to the conclusion that several of his junior team
members joined his team primarily because of the research funding he was
able to offer. Once these team members had the resources they needed,
they stopped attending team meetings and withdrew from interactions with
members of the team. Other team members, especially senior researchers
in leadership roles, continued participating in the team effort, but failed to
share data openly or discuss research results. Team members often did not
interact directly and were openly resistant to considering alternative ideas or
perspectives offered by other team members. “On paper, we are a research
team, but I get the feeling many team members are focusing on their own
research,” he said. “I guess they do not share my collaborative spirit.”
Many lessons can be learned from these case studies and the interviews we
conducted with scientists and researchers who are part of interdisciplinary scientic
teams at NIH. In the world of biomedical science, tremendous value is placed on
individual accomplishment; both the team leader and the participants need to be
mindful of the balance between individual professional growth and the achievement
of a scientic goal by the group. In the pages to follow, you will learn more about the
importance of creating this balance, including strategies to carve out leadership roles
for team members and to dene success metrics for reviews and other evaluations
to assure recognition and reward (see the sections How to Give Recognition and
Share Credit and Recognition, Review, and Reward in Chapter 08: Credit and
Sharing).
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 41
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 42
Interviewing New Team Members
Interviewing is a key part of bringing new talent into an existing team or building a
team from scratch. In addition to reviewing a candidate’s CV, letters of reference, and
research statement, it is informative to utilize different types of questions to be sure
to gain insight into the individual’s values and past performance as well as how he or
she is likely to deal with everyday challenges. When conducting interviews, be sure
to ask the potential team member to expand on his or her answers and give specic
examples. In addition to listening attentively, watch for body language and visual
cues that may provide additional insight.
Values-Based Interview Questions
Values-based interview questions can help you learn more about whether a potential
team member’s values are consistent with the principles that guide your team.
The rst step is to identify the characteristics of an ideal candidate. Next, develop
interview questions that will help determine if the candidate has those values or
characteristics. Sample values-based interview questions include:
• Describe three things you particularly liked about your past job(s). What were the
key ingredients that made those situations so agreeable?
• What would you do if you realized you had made a mistake in your work?
• In working on a research team, you may encounter some people who are more
challenging to work with than others. Describe your approach to working
collaboratively.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 43
Performance-Based Interview Questions
Performance-based interview questions can help you determine whether the
candidate is capable of performing the job at stake (Hale 2002, Adler 2007). While
a person’s résumé says that he or she “led a team that successfully identied a gene
that modies disease susceptibility,” performance-based questions encourage the
candidate to describe how this achievement was accomplished. In addition, ask the
candidate to speculate on how he or she would approach a particular situation. For
example, you might say: “The successful candidate in this position will be responsible
for developing a policy for data sharing and communicating research results for our
laboratory. How might you approach such a task?” Deeper questions such as these
can help you determine how an individual may actually perform in the position and
provide insights as to the candidate’s potential for success on the team. Sample
performance-based interview questions include:
• Describe a project that you led that had a tight deadline and its outcome.
• One project of great importance to the team is [explain project]. How would you
approach it?
• Tell me about a time when you have led a team and a time when you have been
a participant on a team.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 44
Behavioral-Based Interview Questions
Behavioral-based interview questions can help you understand how a candidate may
behave or react under certain circumstances and what skills he or she would bring to
specic situations (Fitzwater 2000). Behavioral interviews are based on the premise
that you will have a better idea of how an individual may function on your team if
there is past behavior to assess. It is usually most helpful to present a specic scenario
and then ask the potential team member to describe how he or she would behave
in the situation at hand. After the question is answered, you could then discuss the
impact of his or her behavior. Sample behavior-based interview questions include:
• There is considerable disagreement within your team about what should be the
next set of studies in your project. How would you handle this situation?
• Your team has adopted a new policy that you think is overly restrictive. How would
you respond?
• A fellow team member tells you he is upset; he says you did not take his idea for a
new research direction under serious consideration. How would you respond?
SETTING EXPECTATIONS
There are many ways to go about building a research team—some more effective
than others. If you are charged with or are interested in building a research team,
there are several considerations to keep in mind:
• Make sure each person understands his or her roles, responsibilities, and
contributions to the team’s goals.
• Establish expectations for working together; as a participant, understand your
contribution to the end goal.
• Recognize that discussing team goals openly and honestly will be a dynamic
process and will evolve over time.
• Be prepared for disagreements and even conicts, especially in the early stages of
team formation (see box Understanding Your Team’s Evolution page 46).
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 45
• Agree on processes for sharing data, establishing and sharing credit, and
managing authorship at the start and over the course of the project.
• Develop a process to regularly consider new scientic perspectives and ideas
related to the research.
Several tools exist for setting expectations including:
• Collaborative agreements
• Welcome letters
• Institutional Agreements
A collaborative agreement can serve several purposes. First, it can explicitly
and precisely state the goals of the project and describe how each of the
collaborators will contribute to the project. Second, it can delineate how to
handle communications, data sharing, differences of opinion, and other project
management process issues. Third, it can address the administrative aspects of
the collaboration—nances, accountability, stafng, etc. And nally, in the current
scientic environment, it also can provide an opportunity to reect on potential
conicts of interest.
The Welcome to My Team Letter can provide a scaffold for building deeper trust. It
includes description of what team participants can expect of the team leader(s) and
each other, what the leader(s) expect of the members, and can describe the process
that will be followed if there is a disagreement. Team Letters can be written by the
leader and shared with the team or they can be written collaboratively among team
members. Ideally the letter would be reviewed at some regular interval to keep it up
to date (Bennett, Maraia et al. 2014).
Institutional agreements such as offer letter, pre-tenure agreements, joint-
appointments documents as well as promotion and tenure criteria can all play a role
in the dynamic between individuals and teams relative to the larger organization.
(More in Chapter 12: Navigating and Leveraging Networks and Systems).
Documents for expectation setting can only provide the framework within which
the collaboration will occur. Implementing the agreement requires translating these
aspirations into practice, and this requires structuring the working relationships
in a way that engenders trust among the collaborators (see Chapter 05: Trust).
Templates for developing these agreement types are located in the Appendix.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 46
Understanding Your Team’s Evolution
The Model of Group Development published by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 theorizes
that research teams and other groups form and develop in critical stages to achieve
their highest potential (Tuckman 1965, Tuckman and Jensen 1977). Over 50 years
later, Tuckman’s model is still cited and used within leadership courses and by
organizational development experts. You may nd it extremely helpful to note these
stages, which include the four originally described by Tuckman and a fth he added
years later, as your team evolves.
1. Forming: The team is established using either a top-down or bottom-up approach.
2. Storming: Team members establish roles and responsibilities. This process may
trigger disagreements or “turf battles” and reveal a reluctance to appreciate the
perspectives and contributions of people from different disciplines or training.
However, if collegial disagreement is supported and premature pressure to
consensus is resisted, people will begin to open up to one another.
3. Norming: Team members begin to work together effectively and efciently, start to
develop trust and comfort with one another, and learn they can rely on each other.
4. Performing: The team works together seamlessly, focuses on a shared goal, and
efciently resolves issues or problems that emerge.
5. Adjourning or Transforming: Two things can happen when a team accomplishes
its initial goal(s):
• Teams may come to a natural end. The team’s dissolution should be celebrated
and the accomplishments recognized and rewarded.
• The team may take on a new project with a new goal, applying its ability to work
together to solve a new problem.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 47
MODEL OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Bruce Tuckman, 1965, 1977
ADJOURNING AND
TRANSFORMING
FORMING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 48
ASK YOURSELF IF IT’S WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Team leaders recruit members whose strengths include being part of a research
team.
• Team members reach out to leaders who can guide their professional growth
and development in the context of the team.
• During interviews, candidates and potential collaborators are made aware of the
team’s culture and the expectations for working together and sharing data.
• If a person doesn’t t with the team, it is addressed directly and if there is no
resolution, the individual either leaves of his/her own accord or is encouraged to
nd another project.
• Team members take advantage of tools such as Collaborative Agreements and
Welcome Letters (Bennett, Maraia et al. 2014).
When It’s Not Working:
• Members prioritize their own objectives before the overall team goal.
• Members lack a clear understanding of the overall vision for the team.
• The leader fails to provide clarity around roles, responsibilities, and expectations
for each of the team members.
• Individual team members begin working for their own gain at the expense of
the team.
• Working through scientic, experimental, or personal challenges openly and
honestly becomes difcult and fraught with conict.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 49
Take Aways:
• Whether you are building a team or considering becoming part of a team, ask
questions of potential team participants and be certain you understand their
expectations of team functioning.
• Understand that teams evolve over time and go through periods of “storming”
before reaching peak performance.
• Make sure team members’ roles and responsibilities are clear to everyone
involved.
• Agree up front on how to achieve open and honest communication, share data,
and evaluate scientic achievement and progress.
• As a group, agree on expectations, and how to respond if they are not met.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 50
CHAPTER 05
Trust
Let us be honest: Working with others means relying on them, and relying on others
always entails some level of risk. Taking that risk requires some level of trust. It is
almost impossible to imagine a successful collaboration without trust. A lack of or
the erosion of trust almost always leads to the collapse of collaboration.
Trust is not a simple, one-dimensional variable. It is based on an assessment we
make of another person’s or group’s abilities, honesty, reliability, and intentions. To
experience trust, research team members must have condence in the abilities of
their colleagues to do good work, do it on schedule, produce reliable results, and
openly share and discuss interpretations of data collected. Team members must also
feel condent that their colleagues are committed to the collaboration, that they
care about the interests and needs of others on the team, and that they are invested
in the success of the team as a whole. Finally, trust requires faith in the candor of
one’s colleagues—the belief that they will be truthful in their communications and in
the conduct of their scientic research.
HOW TO FOSTER TRUST AMONG TEAM MEMBERS
• Hold weekly data meetings or case conferences—be sure that all team members
have the opportunity to present data and receive feedback.
• Model and teach team members how to give feedback that is both
complimentary and constructive.
• Encourage scientic debate and exchange—challenge ideas with the goal of
making a decision or reaching a conclusion based on scientic information.
• Create an environment where every team member feels safe to share ideas and
ask questions of other team members.
• Hold team members accountable for following through on their commitments.
• Encourage the sharing of knowledge and cross-training whenever practical
among group members.
• Develop a process to handle disagreements over clinical issues or science or other
laboratory issues, before conict arises.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 51
TYPES OF TRUST
While we often think of trust as deeply personal, that is not always the case. Driving
on a highway, for instance, entails some degree of trust in the other drivers but
not in a way that is personal. This type of trust is known as “calculus-based” trust—
it is situation-specic and is contingent upon the assumption that people will
conform to established norms or procedures. In other words, people do what they
are supposed to do because the rewards outweigh the penalties and ensure a
reasonable degree of reliability.
When someone says “trust,” we typically think of “identication-based” trust. This kind
of trust is built around a sense of compatibility of goals or values or an intellectual
or emotional connection. With this sort of trust, each party is condent that the
shared interests or strong connection mean they can act on behalf of each other.
It is this trust that can endure and provide the platform for sustained collaboration
and interactions. It is also critical for providing the foundation for effective
communication, successful team building, and the sharing of data and credit (see
Chapter 04: Building a Research Team; see Chapter 07: Communication and
Chapter 08: Credit and Sharing).
Two other types of trust are frequently seen in the scientic setting: competence-
based trust and swift trust. If you have ever known a scientic colleague with
“golden hands” who can help you get any protocol or procedure working, you have
experienced a relationship built on competence-based trust. You may not know the
individual well, but you know you can count on her/him to help you get your method
working.
When groups are formed quickly and for a short duration to accomplish a task,
that is called teaming. These short-lived teams can be vital for solving a problem or
overcoming a barrier yet are not meant to endure. Teaming relies on swift trust. In
this situation, roles are dened, the goal is clear, deadlines are dened, and everyone
gives each team member the benet of the doubt, proceeding as if trust exists.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 52
There are often connections between the forms of trust. For example, teams can
start working together using calculus-based trust, using Collaborative Agreements or
Welcome Letters, as the foundation. From here, trust can grow and expand. Scientists,
for whom work is almost always more than just work, can develop deep relationships
that are personal though not intimate.
Four Forms of Trust
• Calculus–based trust – built on calculations of the relative rewards for trusting or
losses for not trusting
• Identity–based trust – built on an assumption of perceived compatibility of values,
common goals, emotional/intellectual connection
• Competence–based trust – built on the condence in people’s skills and abilities,
allowing them to make decisions and train others
• Swift Trust – built on giving all team members the benet of the doubt that their
intentions are good with clear goals and limited time
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 53
IT’S WORKING: CASE STUDY 8
Team members on an interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research project
established a publication and data analysis committee. This committee was
charged with ensuring the team adhered to the International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) fair authorship guidelines. It also provided
a forum in which decisions on authorship and related issues were openly
made by an assembly supported by all investigators. This committee was also
empowered to review and approve data analysis plans and study-wide papers.
The processes for submission were clearly dened by the committee. Over
the course of several years, all issues that came before the committee were
handled satisfactorily.
IT’S NOT WORKING: CASE STUDY 9
Dr. Salazar and Dr. Buchanan, two scientists from different institutions,
were involved in a long- term collaboration. The two PIs did not develop a
partnership agreement in advance and there were no explicitly agreed-upon
guidelines for determining authorship. Dr. Salazar published a paper in a
high-visibility journal using data that had been generated by postdocs in her
laboratory as well as by postdocs in Dr. Buchanan’s laboratory. Although Dr.
Salazar acknowledged Dr. Buchanan’s lab’s contribution in the paper, none of
the researchers from that laboratory were included as authors. Dr. Buchanan
disagreed with the way the data from her laboratory were presented in the
published paper and asked her to retract it. When Dr. Salazar failed to address
the concerns raised, Dr. Buchanan contacted senior-level scientists in Dr.
Salazar’s organization to air her complaints. These leaders initiated a formal
investigation into the charges. By this time, the two investigators no longer
trusted one another and their collaboration came to a halt.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 54
PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY
Psychological safety has a reciprocal relationship with trust, another key element
in successful team functioning. Each supports the other. If people are reluctant to
speak up and interact with their colleagues it will be difcult to develop trust with
them and working well together without trust is almost impossible. For any team to
function, its members need to feel free to speak up, share ideas, ask questions, and
express disagreement. Without that, there is no team, just an assemblage of people
working in parallel. The tragedy of the Columbia space shuttle is now the classic
example of what can happen in an organizational climate where speaking out is not
okay and people fear the consequences if they do. Amy Edmondson, who studied
for over two years the 2003 explosion of the space shuttle, has identied four major
“risks to image” that her research shows inhibit people from speaking up as shown in
the table below (Bohmer, C. et al. 2004; see also The Space Shuttle Columbia’s Final
Mission: hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-space-shuttle-columbia-s-nal-mission).
Being Seen as… Results in reluctance to…
Ignorant … ask questions or seek information
Incompetent … admit mistakes or ask for help
Negative
… disagree, express concerns, or
offer criticism
Disruptive
…seekfeedbackorinterruptow
of work
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 55
It is important for team members to be conscious of the degree of psychological
safety in their teams. Without psychological safety, teams cannot identify problems
and errors, clarify misunderstandings, or work together toward team goals. Leaders
in particular play a major role in creating, modeling, and supporting psychological
safety within a team. Among the steps leaders can take to create the conditions for
psychological safety are:
• Invite participation (and mean it)
• Admit mistakes and show fallibility
• Acknowledge gaps in knowledge—admit to not knowing something
• Be available to team members
• Be fair when holding people accountable
• Clearly convey what is acceptable
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 56
ASK YOURSELF IF IT’S WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Trust provides a foundation for the team’s success.
• There is frequently open communication, discussion, and even disagreement in a
safe environment.
• The team encourages sharing opinions and is able to achieve consensus when
appropriate.
• Data sharing is common and discussion of next steps is collegial and cooperative.
• Team members teach each other and support each other’s work.
• Team members show condence in each other’s motives and commitment to
the group’s mission.
When It’s Not Working:
• Team members remain focused on themselves and their own efforts.
• The group cannot openly discuss scientic projects or issues involving team
dynamics out of fear.
• Individuals are suspicious of others’ motives and are less inclined to share data or
other information that might help others advance their efforts.
• The collective discusses issues only at the most supercial level.
• Team members are more likely to see others in the group as competitors rather
than as collaborators.
• Team meetings are regularly followed by smaller meetings of sub-groups where
discussion is more candid and free-owing and people raise issues they were
reluctant to discuss in the larger group.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 57
Take Aways:
• Building and maintaining trust takes work; it is risky to place too much faith just
in good interpersonal chemistry.
• There cannot be trust if collaborators are not explicit about what they expect
from each other.
• Scientists need to attend to the quality of scientic and relational
communications and interactions within their laboratories and among their
collaborations.
• A written collaborative agreement can provide guidelines and processes for
addressing every major issue that might arise in a collaboration.
• Trust is fragile—handle with care. If someone’s trustworthiness becomes an issue
it is addressed promptly.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 58
CHAPTER 06
Vision
We have more choices of how to spend our time than we can accommodate.
Researchers are pulled in many different directions and challenged to prioritize how
they will spend their time. If the vision for a collaborative project is not compelling, it
will be difcult for people to pull their attention away from something perceived as
more pressing.
A strong and captivating vision serves as a magnet to attract people to participate
and helps create the highly functioning team’s foundation. It is not uncommon for
team members to have a slightly different sense of the team’s vision depending on
their roles and responsibilities within the team or their stage of career development.
What is most important is that each person understands the overall vision and goals
of the project and how they contribute to the collective effort.
HOW TO DEVELOP A SHARED VISION
• Write a vision statement for your laboratory, collaboration, or team.
• Ensure that all team members can describe the team’s goal, or the “big picture.”
• Encourage all team members to articulate their own research goals and how
these goals relate to the “big picture.”
• Discuss each team member’s accomplishments and challenges and how
these relate to the team’s overall mission.
• Instill in team members a sense of ownership of their contribution to the
team’s goals.
• Encourage team members to accept responsibility and be accountable for
their accomplishments and failures—without blaming.
Team members at a very junior level of their career, such as high school students,
may have a thorough understanding of their own project and a general
understanding of the overall vision for the project. Yet they might not have the depth
of knowledge to understand the intricacies of all the different components that
come together to form the entire effort. As individuals advance in their scientic
training and their level of responsibility increases, they tend to develop a greater
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 59
depth and breadth of overall understanding. They become more and more aware
of what each team member is doing and how those concurrent efforts combine to
support the mission of the team. Beyond this understanding, though, a hallmark
of successful teams is that all members can articulate the feeling of being part of
a larger whole and indicate that the work they are doing is helping to successfully
achieve the vision.
Our research uncovered the risks that emerge when team members do not share a
common vision. Group cohesion is strained when individuals cannot articulate the
overall vision for the project or describe how their individual efforts contribute to the
larger effort. A researcher may express less commitment to an overarching effort
than to his/her individual success. Without shared vision, group members are, in
effect, not working on the same project. For this reason, they do not see themselves
as being part of a “team.” Consequently, they may show evidence of low trust, lack
of willingness to share data with other group members, desire to keep all credit
to themselves, and poor communication with team members. In extreme cases,
they may even subvert one another’s work. Needless to say, these elements can
compromise the ability of a team to effectively and successfully function.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 60
IT’S WORKING: CASE STUDY 10
Dr. Henry recently joined a research team. Dr. Torres, the team leader, has set
clear and tangible short- and long-term scientic goals for her team. Dr. Henry
and his fellow team members are able to articulate the goals and understand
how their research results and other contributions will help achieve the team’s
overall vision. The team frequently discusses where it is going and how it wants
to get there. In fact, once a quarter, Dr. Torres convenes the entire team to
discuss the team’s progress toward its goals and whether adjustments need
to be made. At these meetings, each team member again articulates his or
her research goals and the team discusses how the pieces t into the bigger
picture.
IT’S NOT WORKING: CASE STUDY 11
A PI, Dr. Cohen, and a branch chief, Dr. Millstrom, appeared to have a shared
vision for the collaborative project in which they were involved. However, when
it came to the implementation phase, it became clear they did not agree
on how to achieve the vision. They were at odds about when to move the
ndings from the laboratory into the clinical setting. Dr. Millstrom argued that
the preclinical results were sufcient. Dr. Cohen argued that the mechanism
behind the preclinical data was unclear and until there was a better
understanding of the results, the project should not be advanced to the clinic.
Mediators and experts needed to be brought in to help make the best decision
for the research project.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 61
ASK YOURSELF IF IT’S WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Each team member knows what goals he or she is working toward and how they
relate to the team’s overall goals.
• Team members share a sense of purpose and ownership.
• There is a high level of commitment, responsibility, and accountability among all
team members.
• Team members support—rather than compete with—one another.
• In achieving the shared vision, members are just as willing to share credit and
criticism.
• There is a tendency for team members to stay at work even after the ofcial work
day has ended.
When It’s Not Working:
• Team members have difculty understanding how their individual goals relate to
the big picture.
• Team members are focused on their own individual achievements above the
overall focus of the group.
• Team members tend to compete with—rather than support—one another.
• Cohesiveness among team members is weak; individuals are focused on personal
projects, sometimes at the expense of another scientist’s work.
• Team members nd it difcult to share data and credit, leading to conict and
tension within the group as a whole.
• There is a tendency for people to leave work early or as quickly as possible at the
end of the ofcial work day.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 62
Take Aways:
• Whether you are leading or participating on a research team, you must be able
to articulate and commit to the team’s overall goals.
• Each team member’s individual research goals should be clearly stated and their
importance should be recognized in the context of the team’s effort.
• A team’s vision is dynamic and will change over time; regularly review and revise
(as needed) the team’s vision statement and that of each team member.
30 Second Challenge:
Describe the vision for your collaborative research
project in 30 seconds.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 63
SWOT ANALYSIS
A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknessess, Opportunities, Threats) analysis is
a process for thinking strategically about a project and identify paths
toward achieving the projects goals. It entails analyzing strengths
and weakness within the team and opportunities and threats in the
larger environment. It could be an instructive exercise for a team
to have each member ll in this matrix and then for their entries
to be posted and compared. To do so allows the team to become
aware of differences in individual perceptions and experiences of the
collaborative project.
Internal
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
External
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 64
CHAPTER 07
Communication
One common communication challenge faced by interdisciplinary teams who begin
a project together includes trying to understand what each other is saying. Different
scientic disciplines have their own vocabularies, jargon, and phrasing that is not
necessarily understood by others. Even more, it is not uncommon for disciplines to
use words that might have one meaning in everyday plain language but another
in the context of the science they are conducting. It takes time, patience, and even
translation for groups to learn each other’s languages or even recognize that the
words they are using mean different things. When this becomes clear, you may nd
it helpful to stop action and take the time to make sure everyone has the needed
vocabulary and understanding required to contribute fully to the discussions at
hand.
Communicating with your team about science—everything from scientic discourse
to the discussion of data and the implications of research results—may be an easier
topic for some people to handle than others. As you work through this module, you
will see that much of what we have learned about success in communicating about
science relies upon trust (see Chapter 05: Trust).
Researchers of interdisciplinary teams have identied several common
problems... in such collaborations: differences in epistemology and
method, different ways of formulating research questions, and
differences in communication styles between members… During
meetings goals are dened, knowledge is shared, and new common
perceptions of the problems at hand are developed. It is through the
sequential meeting process that this group identies and establishes
a common “working” set of denitions, concepts, goals and knowledge
practices (From Monteiro and Keating 2009).
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 65
HOW TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT SCIENCE
Among the scientic teams we studied and have worked with, those that were
highly integrated had established a concrete schedule of activities that guided the
work of the group. In general, they held weekly laboratory meetings to talk about
data and results and had regular journal club meetings where relevant papers,
methodologies, and/or scientic approaches were discussed; in addition, each group
member presented a formal seminar at least once per year. Differences of opinion
or alternative interpretations of presented data were addressed from a scientic
perspective rather than considered personal affronts, and all members of the
team, regardless of their career level, were invited and expected to contribute to all
discussions. In other words, everyone had a voice. The groups intentionally revisited
their goals and objectives on a regular basis and redened them as needed to align
with the most recent data and results. Strong communication about the science
provided for a solid platform on which to move the science forward and clearly
articulate the mission, goals, and objectives of the team.
Supporting Idea Generation and Creativity
• Embrace the notion that differing opinions may hold the seeds to creativity and
important new ideas.
• Expect team members grounded in different disciplines to have different
perspectives on scientic issues.
• Conduct regular meetings in which team members take turns presenting data
and providing feedback.
• Ensure that all team members feel able to participate in discussions about
data, methods, results, and other aspects of the science, as well as various issues
affecting the group.
• Convene a journal club or other forum to discuss current topics and
methodologies.
• Provide an environment and opportunities for team members to talk informally
about their work.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 66
Tending to Team Dynamics to Enhance Communication
• Establish ground rules for how people are expected to communicate with each
other during meetings.
• Develop an expectation that data and results will be shared with all team
members as well as procedures for doing so.
• Respectfully address and resolve debates over science or scientic results through
literature reviews, experimentation, outside expert opinion, and other relevant
methods.
• Help people translate when there are differences in concepts, methodologies, and
frameworks.
• When disagreeing, be sure to disagree with the idea, not the person.
• Support the contribution of team members at all levels of seniority.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 67
FRAMING: THE ART
OF PERSUASION
As a team leader or team member, you will have to present projects,
initiatives, requests, issues, or ideas to key stakeholders (leadership,
potential collaborators, reviewers, etc.), and it is important to frame
your presentation towards your audience. As Jay A. Conger writes
in his book The Necessary Art of Persuasion, “There is just as much
strategy in how you present your position as in the position itself. In
fact, I’d say the strategy of presentation is the more critical. (Conger
2008)”
What is persuasion? It is the ability to present an issue, idea, or
request in a convincing manner that leads stakeholders to willingly
support it and act upon it.
According to Jay A. Conger, we should all be careful with the
persuasion exercise most of us perform every day in our own heads.
This is mainly a self-persuasion exercise and it is not intended to be
framed towards any stakeholder’s perspective. Instead, we all should
use a more rational approach based on Conger’s 4 C’s strategy:
Credibility, Common Ground, Compelling Positions, and Connection.
Credibility: First, you need to establish your credibility either through
your expertise (knowledge/track record), your relationship (history/
quality/trustworthiness/shared values), or your body language (voice
tone/interaction/eye contact). You can also use credibility substitutes
such as experts, supporting evidence, pilot study, ambassador, or
network.
FRAMING: THE ART OF PERSUASION CONTINUES ON PAGE 68 >>
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 68
FRAMING: THE ART
OF PERSUASION CONT.
Common Ground: Second, you need to frame your presentation
to your stakeholder’s view of the idea or issue, speaking about
shared benets, values, and beliefs. Custom frames need to be
used for each different stakeholder.
Compelling Positions: Third, build your arguments to support
your frame. Choose evidence and data from your stakeholders’
perspectives and use vivid details to make them compelling.
Do not hesitate to tackle the killer questions up front.
Connection: Finally, appeal to your stakeholders’ identity and
address their emotion. Support your solution with stories, values,
illustrations with emotional appeal. Describe how individuals
will be impacted personally.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 69
PROMOTING DISAGREEMENT
We nd it useful to differentiate between (scientic) disagreement and
(interpersonal) conict. The paradoxical task of research teams is that they must
become a place where, simultaneously, disagreement is freely expressed and
personal conict is contained and managed. Science thrives on disagreement; it is
the motivator for scientic progress. Interpersonal conict is an inevitable part of
human interaction and, if not managed well, can be tremendously destructive. Of
course, scientic disagreements sometimes segue into personal conicts, especially
when scientic disagreements become personalized. That is why it helps enormously
to de-personalize scientic disagreements.
At the outset of any collaboration, a scientic team should decide how its members
will address both scientic disagreements and interpersonal conicts. Whereas
interpersonal conict can disrupt the effective working of a team, scientic
disagreement, if handled properly, will not threaten the working relationship.
However, it is helpful if a team agrees to structure regular opportunities for
communication and establish shared attitudes and norms regarding both conict
and disagreement (See Chapter 10: Conict Is Normal). Teams can put aside time
in which relevant scientic issues are discussed in a format where the only goal is to
better understand the different conceptions and positions of the discussants.
Scientic disagreements are different from those in other areas—such as politics—
which are generally addressed or “settled” by debates during which each side
attempts to win by proving the other wrong. In debates, the initial positions of
opposing parties remain xed and one or the other side is declared a winner.
Winning a debate usually means that the winning party made better arguments for
the position they argued. In science, the process of addressing disagreement is more
important than the initial positions in the disagreement. Often the initial positions
are changed by the very process of dialogue.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 70
PRODUCTIVE COLLISION
CONTAIN
AFFECTIVE
/ PERSONAL
CONFLICT
SHARE
PERSPECTIVE
/ INVITE
DISAGREEMENT
A line of scientic inquiry can
begin with disagreement; the
disagreement is then the basis
for hypothesis formation and the
rst step towards a fact-based
exploration for fundamental
understanding. Although science
can be incredibly competitive, it is
not meant to be guided by either
a primary concern for preserving
relationships or a desire to win
the argument regardless of the
relevant facts. The Nobel Prize-
winning behavioral scientist
Daniel Kahneman has actually
developed and employed a
methodology of adversarial
collaboration that attempts to
exploit the strengths of both
dialogue and debate and also
elevates science above personal
rivalry (Mellers, Hertwig et al.
2001). When we look at it from the
broadest perspective, science is a
form of adversarial collaboration
in which people with competing
perspectives work toward the
solution of shared problems and
puzzles.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 71
IT’S WORKING:
CASE STUDY 12
Dr. Andrews, a tenured scientist, was asked to join a scientic research team
that was formed after a grassroots effort met early success and gained the
favor of the Institute director. Her expertise in statistics would ll a gap for the
research team, which was preparing to initiate a new clinical trial. The team
leader explained to Dr. Andrews that the team was highly integrated and that
they attributed the quick pace of the research progress to regular meetings
at which results and next steps were discussed. When Dr. Andrews agreed
to join the team, she received the meeting schedule, which included both
data-sharing and strategic sessions; she then revised her own schedule to
accommodate the new commitments. While attending these new meetings
meant Dr. Andrews needed to resign from a committee on which she was
proud to serve, she understood that a commitment to this new group was
among her highest priorities. She quickly became accustomed to very
dynamic group meetings during which everyone participated and challenged
the presenters. When her turn came, she welcomed the discussion around
her analyses and ideas, which enhanced her contributions to the ongoing
experimental design of the protocol.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 72
IT’S NOT
WORKING:
CASE STUDY 13
Dr. Polcyzk’s branch conducts monthly meetings to discuss experimental data,
interpretations, and next research steps. The meetings are largely perfunctory
in nature. It is expected that they will occur, but minimal effort or enthusiasm
is invested. At these meetings, the presenter is rarely asked to clarify his or her
data and is seldom asked questions or for more information; the discussion is
brief and everyone is eager to get back to his or her own work. When questions
are asked, the presenter is usually defensive and guarded in what he or she
will share with the broader group. There are rarely questions that challenge a
presenter’s interpretation of data.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 73
ASK YOURSELF IF IT’S WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Team members develop a common language for the project, eliminate or clearly
dene discipline-specic jargon, and translate across disciplines.
• Open discussion, differing opinions, and constructive criticism are encouraged
and lead to healthy scientic dialogue.
• Team members become interested in learning more about the work of other
team members from different disciplines.
• Over time, team members have the capacity to integrate the perspectives of
others into their thinking and into hypothesis generation.
• The team works on projects in which everyone can see a path to clinical or
scientic application.
• Interpersonal conict is dealt with and addressed early before relationships are
damaged.
When It’s Not Working:
• Team members fear sharing an idea or challenging a result could damage their
image or reputation.
• There are “turf wars” and other indicators that individuals are defensive and/or
hoarding data, reagents, or other resources.
• There is less focus on the science and more on the personal aspects of the
team’s interactions.
• Separate “factions” emerge within the team, establishing articial barriers to
scientic discussion; the team may engage in “unhealthy agreement” to avoid
conict.
• Members approach scientic discussions as debates and may become
combative or avoid discussion altogether.
• Group meetings feel more like debates than opportunities for dialogue.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 74
Take Aways:
• Expect that all group members will participate in laboratory meetings, journal
clubs, and other scientic discussion that facilitates the direction of the research
project.
• Establish an infrastructure that guides behavior, helps the team become
comfortable having dynamic scientic discussions and debates, and leads to
strong collaborative relationships.
• Learn how and encourage others to disagree productively about the science as a
component of professional growth and development.
• Remember that open scientic communication and consideration of new ideas
and perspectives can result in more rapid achievement of accomplishments and
take research into new, previously unconsidered directions.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 75
Debate, Discussion, Dialogue
Debate Discussion Dialogue
Communication
In debate, two sides
oppose each other
and attempt to prove
each other wrong.
Forceful assertion
of one’s position.
Debate creates closed-
minded attitude.
Exchange of
information,
opinions, experiences
Little attention to
identity, power,
and status.
Discussion tends
to contribute to the
formation of an abstract
notion of community.
In dialogue, two
or more sides
work together
toward common
understanding.
Understanding based
on appreciation
of differences and
personal experience.
Self-Orientation
Debate defends
one’s own position
as the best solution
and excludes
other solutions.
Precludes revealing
one’s assumptions.
In discussion, one of
the primary goals is to
clarify and understand
the issue, assuming
that all are working
with a stable reality.
Orientation toward
being right.
In dialogue, one
submits one’s best
thinking, knowing
that other peoples’
reactions will help
improve it rather
than destroy it.
In dialogue people
reveal assumptions
and personal values.
Other-Orientation
In debate, one looks
for glaring differences
in opinion. In debate,
onelistenstond
awsandweaknesses
in the other position.
Aim is to critique and
defeat the other.
In discussion, one
listens primarily to be
able to insert one’s
own perspective. Little
regard for participation
of others.
In dialogue, one listens
to the other side(s) in
order to understand,
ndmeaningand
points of connection.
One searches for
strengths in the other
positions. Dialogue
oriented toward
modifying one’s
perspective.
COMPARING DEBATE, DISCUSSION, DIALOGUE CONTINUES ON PAGE 76>>
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 76
Debate, Discussion, Dialogue
Debate Discussion Dialogue
Emotions
In debate, one is not
concerned with the
feelings or emotions
of the other. In debate,
one does not consider
how the debate will
affect relationship with
the other.
In discussion, emotional
responses may be
present but may be
unwelcome. Strong
focus on content rather
than affect.
In dialogue, emotions
help to deepen the
understanding of
personal and group
relationship issues.
End State
In debate, winning is
the goal.
In discussion, the more
perspectives voiced, the
better.
Indialogue,nding
common ground is
the goal.
Compiled and adapted by Ratnesh Nagda, Patricia Gurin, Jaclyn Rodriguez & Kelly Maxwell (2008), based on
“Differentiating Dialogue from Discussion” a handout developed by Diana Kardia and Todd Sevig (1997) for the Program
on Intergroup Relations, Conict and Community (IGRC), University of Michigan; and, “Comparing Dialogue and Debate,”
a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for
Social Responsibility (ESR). Other members included Lucile Burt, Dick Mayo-Smith, Lally Stowell, and Gene Thompson.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 77
CHAPTER 08
Credit
and Sharing
Of all the aspects of team science, sharing recognition and credit is among
the most difcult to master. Professional recognition is important regardless of
where a researcher is on his or her career path: it plays a role in tenure decisions,
grant submissions, promotions, scientic awards, and acceptance to prestigious
organizations, among other things. For decades, scientists have largely been
recognized—and thus rewarded—for their individual accomplishments. However,
support is increasing for the idea that individual contributions can be recognized
and rewarded in the context of a collaboration. Recognition and reward of all team
members should be done thoughtfully and fairly.
How credit is attributed can vary greatly from team to team, and the decision about
how to share credit will impact all team members. The best time to make these
decisions is either before work begins or as early as possible. Waiting until the paper
is written and authorship discussed can jeopardize the work as well as relationships
among team members. Sometimes it is not possible to determine order of
authorship at the outset of a collaboration. In these circumstances, collaborators can
agree in advance on the criteria that will be used for making authorship decisions
and the process by which those decisions will be made.
HOW TO GIVE RECOGNITION AND SHARE CREDIT
• Build and maintain trust among team members (see the section How to Foster
Trust Among Team Members in Chapter 05: Trust).
• Unambiguously assign or negotiate roles and responsibilities for the various team
members—this is especially important for team leaders.
• Establish as early as possible a process and criteria for determining how
authorship and other forms of credit will be decided. This can be done in the form
of Collaborative Agreements, Welcome Letters, or other types of documents (see
Appendix).
• Create a credible process by which team members can raise concerns about how
credit is being or will be determined as soon as questions arise.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 78
Proposed
Framework
for Evaluating
Collaborative
Academics
A recent publication puts
forward a simple framework
to appropriately recognize
and review academic
researchers participating in
collaborative research or team
science. Aligned with the
pillars of the academic model,
the framework combined
qualitative and quantitative
assessment in the areas
of education and service,
stature and accomplishment,
and urges the collection of
evaluative data. Assessment
of the following scientic
activities is suggested: design,
implementation, analysis, and
contributions to publications.
In addition, the framework
encourages assessment
through other more creative
approaches, including
input from lead investigator
collaborators, teaching, input
into grant applications, and
commitments such as journal
clubs (Mazumdar, Messinger
et al. 2015).
• Identify early on in your scientic relationship
those who will be responsible for answering
questions and responding to outside
inquiries about various scientic aspects of
the project.
• In public presentations, identify team
members and explicitly acknowledge their
contributions to the research endeavor.
• Appropriately attribute all people
who contribute to writing, performing
experiments, or provide intellectual input.
The formation of highly productive, integrative
research teams has outpaced institutional
mechanisms that support, review, recognize,
and reward individuals who contribute to these
collaborations. For research teams to ourish,
there must be paradigm shifts for both scientists
working in teams and the organizations that
evaluate their work. Appropriate recognition and
reward of team science is critical for promoting
the success of existing teams as well as for
nurturing new ones. At NIH, there are several
examples of changes that have been made to
help shift the perception that recognition and
reward for team science projects are lacking.
Most notably, in 2006, the NIH modied its
intramural tenure evaluation guidelines to
include recognition for participation in team
science. The guidelines indicate that substantial
impact of independent pursuits, as well as
those characterized as team science, will
qualify an individual for recognition for tenure.
Another NIH effort recognizing the importance
of collaboration in 2007 was permitting R01
applications to be submitted by multiple PIs.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 79
IT’S WORKING: CASE STUDY 14
A collaborative research team set up a publications committee to actively
address authorship issues from the very beginning of the project. The leader,
Dr. Kamela, encouraged team members to generate and present to the group
their proposals for potential experiments and get their ideas out into the open.
Dr. Kamela also made explicit the expectation that the resulting data would
be shared and discussed openly with the team. The team agreed on clear and
specic authorship rules and how they would share credit. The publications
policy was included as an appendix on every research plan.
IT’S NOT WORKING: CASE STUDY 15
Two fellows from different laboratories were working, at the direction of
their supervisors, on a collaborative project. While the scientic question was
clear and the work was distributed based on expertise, authorship had never
been discussed as an aspect of the collaboration. When it was time to write
the paper, both fellows assumed they would be rst author. A heated and
emotional dispute erupted when it became clear that neither one would
give up his position of thinking he should be rst author. Accusations of
discrimination, poor-quality research, lack of intellectual contributions, among
others, were made. Many hours of valuable time over many days were spent
trying to come to a resolution. The supervisors continued their collaborations;
the fellows, however, remained bitter and frustrated.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 80
Leading medical and research associations are recognizing that there are research
accomplishments that ought to be attributed to a scientic team. The American
Association for Cancer Research, for example, has created the Team Science Award
that recognizes interdisciplinary approaches to translational cancer research.
Additionally, many journals now have explicit policies about how joint authorship is
determined.
ORGANIZATIONAL RECOGNITION AND REWARD
Institutions have trouble giving an individual credit for a scientic accomplishment
if credit for the achievement was shared among multiple people. There is a
belief among some established researchers involved in team science or highly
collaborative work that there comes a time in their careers when they should cede
senior authorship on papers and pass speaking invitations to more junior members
of the team so that the junior members can attain greater recognition, take a
more prominent role, and further develop their careers. Review teams that value
the individual investigator grapple mightily with how to deal with such situations.
There can be the misperception that the senior investigator is no longer playing an
important role; why otherwise would she or he give up the last author position or
not give the talk? What happens when two team collaborators at roughly the same
career development stage aspire to the same progression of promotions? While
science is inherently competitive—and needs to remain so to assure the most robust
research approaches and outcomes—does it make sense to promote just one of two
equally outstanding scientists purely based on the premise that it has always been
done that way and no mechanisms are in place to support the promotion of both?
Culture shifts in how sharing and giving credit are perceived will be another critical
element to assuring there is enthusiasm for participating in collaborative ventures.
Another shift in the culture of academic institutions is the implementation of a
new role that is intended to support collaborative research. Although the titles,
roles, and responsibilities of the individuals in these positions vary from institution
to institution, we have become aware of a trend among some institutions to
actively support collaboration and team science. Whether they are referred to as
research development professionals, boundary spanners, or laboratory managers,
the individuals in these positions play a critical role in making connections across
the institutions, helping researchers nd other scientists who could contribute to a
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 81
collaborative venture. In addition, they can help to identify funding opportunities,
to provide a point of contact for the researchers in the open laboratory setting, or to
structure a grant application to convey how team science will advance the research
goals. As research becomes more and more collaborative, a greater need exists for
individuals who can play a scientic coordination role in the context of the science
itself or the scientic administration.
ASK YOURSELF IF IT’S WORKING
When It’s Working:
• How credit and authorship will be attributed, including meeting abstracts,
papers, and intellectual property, is decided at an early stage of the research
project.
• All team members understand and accept the process and criteria for allocating
authorship and acknowledgments.
• An environment of psychological safety is created and sustained which enables
group members to willingly and openly discuss any issues or concerns that arise.
• Team members share data, discuss interpretation, and jointly plan next steps.
• Strategies for recognizing and rewarding individuals participating on teams is
established.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 82
When It’s Not Working:
• Team members resent their supervisors and colleagues because they think they
should have gotten credit when they did not.
• Team members are willing to accept credit and recognition, but unwilling to
give it in return.
• Communications are troubled, and issues and concerns of team members are
not openly discussed.
• Team members become reluctant to openly share their data.
• Members are unwilling to ask for agreements in the early stages of the scientic
collaboration.
• Personal and professional relationships suffer.
Take Aways:
• Develop agreements for how credit for research accomplishments will be
attributed.
• Have a clear understanding of authorship criteria and responsibilities early in
the life of the project.
• Be mindful of team members’ career development when developing
agreements:
1. For whom is the credit and recognition most critical?
2. Are there any team members who can begin letting more junior
members have greater recognition? This may take the form of
authorship, corresponding authorship, and/or presentation of invited
talks.
• When joining an organization, ask it to outline how your contributions to team
science will be formally reviewed and recognized.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 83
HOW TO APPROACH RECOGNITION AND REWARD
Unfortunately, there are still many tales of scientists and clinicians at prominent
institutions who nd out during a tenure review process or other evaluations that
they are viewed as “not demonstrating the required independence” to make it to
the next step in their career trajectory even though they heard that working with
multiple colleagues on complex scientic problems is valued. In other words,
promotion policies, institutional norms, and personal values of evaluation committee
members are not always up to date with the messages being broadcasted
by organizational leadership; this can have a strong negative impact on those
participating in team science.
It is difcult for an early career scientist to contemplate the benets of team science
if s/he works in an institution that does not recognize or reward collaborative efforts
or whose mentors suggest not engaging with others for fear of giving the impression
that they are not completely independent. In addition, regardless of career stage
individuals in disciplines that are inherently collaborative (such as bioinformaticians
and statisticians) are often confronted with the challenge of demonstrating how
they have made independent contributions in the context of the team even when
publications would not have been possible at all without their expertise.
For this reason, the ability of a research team leader to engage positively with and
gain the support of his or her organizational leadership cannot be understated.
As a team leader, you can put into place specic processes, if only for your special
circumstance. For example, you could negotiate to include appropriate review and
recognition of collaborative research efforts in a new recruit’s start-up package.
To correctly approach recognition and reward:
• Assure that processes and procedures are in place to robustly and rigorously
review, recognize, and reward researchers involved in highly collaborative research
teams.
• Communicate and demonstrate to those participating on and leading research
teams that their efforts, if truly outstanding, will be appropriately rewarded.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 84
RECOGNITION, REVIEW, AND REWARD
The development of institutional procedures, policies, and processes for assessing
the accomplishments and contributions of scientic teams, as well as of the
individual members who contribute to those efforts will send strong messages
about the value of this approach. Routine team science criteria for review panels,
metrics or milestones for the researcher involved in collaborative work, and policies
and procedures to assure that young investigators are not punished for participating
in collaborative teams are lacking. The creation of such mechanisms would signal
institutional commitment to the community.
In 2017, the National Institutes of Health published a Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA, PAR-17-340) for a RM1 grant entitled “Collaborative Program
Grant for Multidisciplinary Teams.” This FOA has been designed to support highly
integrated research teams of three to six PIs to address ambitious and challenging
research questions that are important for the mission of the National Institute of
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) and that are beyond the scope of one or two
investigators. Teams have been encouraged to consider far-reaching objectives
that will produce major advances in their elds. These objectives should require
considerable synergy and should not be achievable with a collection of individual
efforts or projects. Such a funding mechanism recognizing the effort of multiple
PIs involved in highly integrated research teams should ultimately promote the
advancement of their individual careers.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 85
CATCH 22 FOR THE TENURE-TRACK SCIENTIST
One question surfaces in tenure committee meetings: “Has Scientist X demonstrated
independence?” For tenure–track investigators to be awarded tenure, they need to do
outstanding science and demonstrate their independence. As a result, early-career,
energetic researchers are typically cautioned against collaboration and counseled
to focus exclusively on independent efforts. After many years of research successes
achieved through individual effort, they are, once tenured, allowed and perhaps even
expected to collaborate and join with others to solve complex scientic problems. By
this time, they may or may not be inclined to pursue such efforts.
Systems, policies, and criteria need to be put in place by institutions to assure early-
career investigators that they can participate on collaborative research teams and
that they will be appropriately reviewed and rewarded during the tenure process for
doing outstanding science as part of collaborative interactions.
Various tools exist:
• Offer letter
• Pre-tenure agreement
• P&T criteria
• Joint appointment agreements
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 86
IT’S WORKING:
CASE STUDY 16
Dr. Felix had worked largely as a solo investigator for many years until he
accepted a senior position on a research team investigating epitope-driven
vaccines. Dr. Felix was pleasantly surprised by how supportive the institute
was of the team’s efforts, and how this was clearly communicated and
demonstrated. Leadership had recently revised certain policies that had not
been “team science friendly” to encourage investigators to work collaboratively
and ensure fair review at tenure meetings, annual performance evaluations,
and other institutional venues. Mechanisms were put in place so that
individuals would be regularly recognized for the outstanding research they
were performing on their own as well as their contributions to meritorious
team efforts. Dr. Felix’s team leader had an excellent relationship with the
institute’s leadership, making the group, as a whole, feel supported in their
efforts.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 87
IT’S NOT
WORKING:
CASE STUDY 17
Dr. Amiel was recruited to a prestigious institute to begin her career as an
independent investigator. She was recognized to be a creative thinker, had
successfully challenged existing paradigms at the postdoctoral level, and
had proposed a compelling line of research to pursue. In addition, her strong
scientic contributions and leadership ability were clearly demonstrated in
her work with a collaborative research team, an attribute the institutional
leadership indicated was highly valued. Dr. Amiel quickly found her place
at the new institution, initiated the independent research she proposed,
and made substantive contributions as both a participant and a leader in
collaborative research efforts. At her formal review three years later, Dr. Amiel
was shocked at her overall assessment by the outside review team. She was
praised for her independent research, but the review committee strongly
suggested that she abandon her collaborative research projects because they
“will not contribute to international reputation” and noted that “it is difcult
to assess her independence” in the context of the collaborative work. The
reviewers said the time Dr. Amiel was squandering on these efforts could be
redirected to assure she attained tenure at her next review. Since there were
no policies or criteria in place for the review of contributions to team research
efforts, they were barely considered by the outside committee and provided no
foundation for an appeal to the review.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 88
ASK YOURSELF IF IT’S WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Institutional messages about the importance of team science and collaboration
are supported by policies, processes, and procedures.
• Departments have developed strategies to recognize individual accomplishment
in the context of a team.
• Expectations around collaborative research are explicitly captured in offer letters
or pre-tenure agreements.
• Team science is actively supported through the implementation of research
and scientic administrative positions that work closely with the researchers in
support of collaboration.
• More senior researchers sponsor more junior colleagues by giving them
opportunities for senior authorship on papers, national/international speaking
engagements, or take the lead on a new research direction.
When It’s Not Working:
• Scientists participating in collaborative research efforts are skeptical that their
efforts will be recognized and rewarded.
• Early career scientists are unwilling to participate in team efforts for fear that
they will risk not being recognized as independent.
• Criteria for tenure are out of date and committees operate through a “we know
it when we see it” or “we’ve always done it this way” approach.
• Agreements are all verbal and a collaborative investigator does not have
anything in writing to conrm conversations about how they will be reviewed for
their team efforts.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 89
Take Aways:
• Institutions should align their messages about team science with their policies
and procedures.
• Positions evolve over time to increasingly support the scientic and
administrative needs of team science.
• Written agreements can help assure that both the researchers and the
institutional leadership have clear expectations about:
1. how team science will occur and
2. how it will be recognized, reviewed, and rewarded
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 90
CHAPTER 09
Managing
Difference
Team science is an exercise in diversity. The dimensions of differences that come
together in inter- and trans-disciplinary research range from disciplinary, social,
knowledge and skills, to personality and power, just to name a few. Although the
rationale for team science is grounded in an appreciation of the potential benets of
disciplinary diversity, that diversity does not automatically blend into a harmonious,
cooperative team of researchers exchanging information and moving in the same
problem-solving direction.
At the most general level, many research studies show that as long as there
is not great pressure within a group to conform and agree, heterogeneous
groups outperform homogeneous groups in solving problems (Hong and Page
2004). Heterogeneous groups are often found to have more interpersonal and
group process related problems than homogeneous groups. More specically,
demographic diversity negatively affects group process. However, such problems are
not inevitable and they need not be insurmountable.
Differences are at the core of the research team’s strength and at the same time
serve as a challenge to their successful functioning: strength because the very
purpose of a team is to bring multiple perspectives to bear on complex problems;
and challenge because the more people involved the greater the likelihood of
difculties in communication, conict, and coordination. Unless managed well,
any type of diversity can become the basis for conict and stereotyping or other
problems in social integration and communication. You may have such diversity
in your group; categories that are known to impact group performance and group
process are shown in the text box page 91.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 91
HOW TO HARNESS DIVERSITY IN TEAM SCIENCE
• Establish trust (see Chapter 05: Trust)
• Create an environment of Psychological Safety (see Chapter 05: Trust)
• Develop the skills to have difcult conversations (see Chapter 10: Conict
Is Normal)
• Set expectations (see Chapter 04: Building a Research Team)
• Recognize that different perspectives are essential for a better outcome
• Share and understand differences among group members
• Be curious and ask questions before making a decision
• Assume that every team member has something important to contribute
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 92
Categories and Types of Diversity
(Mannix and Neale 2005)
SOCIAL-CATEGORY DIFFERENCES
Race
Ethnicity
Gender
Age
Religion
Sexual Orientation
Physical Abilities
DIFFERENCES IN KNOWLEDGE
OR SKILLS
Education
Functional Knowledge
Information or Expertise
Training
Experience
Abilities
DIFFERENCES IN VALUES OR BELIEFS
Cultural Background
Ideological Beliefs
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES
Cognitive Style
Affective Disposition
Motivational Factors
ORGANIZATIONAL- OR COMMUNITY
-STATUS DIFFERENCES
Tenure or Length of Service
Title
Special Relationship with Some
Organizational Leaders
DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL AND
NETWORK TIES
Work-Related Ties
Friendship Ties
Community Ties
In-Group Memberships
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 93
There is a relationship between different types of diversity and their impact
on group performance. Informational diversity corresponds to differences in
individuals’ knowledge, skills, and experience-related background. Research has
shown that informational diversity is positively related to group performance.
When informational diversity is present, scientic teams work better if there is at
least a moderate level of conict over science-related matters. As we have tried to
emphasize in this guide, a research team should be a place where disagreement
can ourish. Diversity, not just expertise, seems to make a difference in team
performance. For example, it has been reported that “the greater the proportion of
experts a team had, the more likely it was to disintegrate into nonproductive conict
or stalemate”(Gratton and Erickson 2007).
By comparison, the impact of social/category differences on group process and
performance seems to depend on how well it is managed: in general, the less
conict, the better the group’s performance. Visible differences can lend themselves
to evocation of stereotypes and biases and be the basis for misunderstandings and
failed communications. The effects of stereotypes and biases can be modulated
by creating opportunities for team members to learn about each other explicitly
rather than based assumptions and visible traits. Some studies have indicated
that, when demographic diversity is viewed as a potential strength, then it is more
likely to contribute to stronger team coherence. With the increase in team science
and collaborations across institutions and even nations, demographic diversity in
science is an ongoing feature of life. In this way, if team members become aware of
differences related to demography, personality style, values, beliefs, and status, they
are able to exploit those differences as a basis of establishing bonds with fellow team
members.
Earlier, we wrote about the four phases of team development (see Chapter 04:
Building a Research Team) and the importance of psychological safety in building
trust so that a group can progress from the storming to norming stage. Psychological
safety and trust also can serve to bridge across differences. In fact, the relationship
is reciprocal—bridging differences helps to build trust and establish psychological
safety. “If a team cannot create an environment that is tolerant of divergent
perspectives and that reects cooperative goal and interdependence, then the
individuals who carry the burden of unique perspectives may be unwilling to pay
the social and psychological costs necessary to share their viewpoints” (Mannix
and Neale 2005).
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 94
In the same way that self-awareness is essential for individuals to be able to interact
effectively and cooperatively with colleagues (see Chapter 02: Preparing Yourself
for Team Science), teams must be aware of disciplinary differences that lead to
conicting scientic strategies, methodological approaches, tools for managing
data, and preferences regarding research direction. For example, when researchers
became aware of the methodological and conceptual differences they were
experiencing, they were able to build a shared framework within which their
discussions could be productive and their work could progress. Most often, that
awareness develops in meetings that are structured to identify and clarify scientic
misunderstandings. Although researchers typically are more interested in doing
science than in attending to the ne points of group dynamics, spending time
developing skills in communication, conict management and decision making
can have a benecial effect on the scientic work itself. The Toolbox Dialogue
Initiative is one tool focused on working with collaborative teams to guide them
through a structured dialogue in order to achieve greater self-awareness and mutual
understanding among team members (Michael O’Rourke – The Toolbox Dialogue
Initiative: toolbox-project.org/).
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 95
IT’S WORKING:
CASE STUDY 18
A group of scientists came together with an interest in developing a novel in
vitro model system that could recapitulate the interplay of different cell types
and how they changed during the disease process. During the rst team
meeting, one of the researchers, a materials science engineer, presented a
concept for a matrix that could be used to support cells such that different
cell types could be combined, as one would nd them in the body, and
their interactions studied. In the meeting room, three other disciplinary
backgrounds were also represented among the group members. It became
quickly apparent that the different members were not speaking the same
language; in fact, their approaches and methodologies were quite distinct.
Recognizing this, one of the group members interrupted the scientic
discussion once it was clear that there were going to be some challenges and
asked permission to talk about the discomfort and tension he noticed.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 96
IT’S NOT
WORKING:
CASE STUDY 19
Dr. Chin, a new post-doc, recently joined Dr. Smith’s laboratory. She has been
working diligently on her project and has been very productive. She is well
spoken and presents her data clearly at laboratory meetings but is generally
very quiet and difcult to engage in casual conversations. Dr. Smith has been
pleased with her work thus far but is disappointed that she fails to propose
new directions for her project. Dr. Clark, the other post-doc in the laboratory,
has been in the laboratory for several years and has become good friends
with Dr. Smith. He is very self-assured and enthusiastic and often speaks up at
laboratory meetings, contributing suggestions and new ideas that enhance the
projects of the laboratory. He and Dr. Smith often eat lunch together and go
out after work to discuss new ideas for his project. They also regularly leave the
laboratory together to play tennis during the day. Dr. Chin’s previous laboratory
had a very strict hierarchy and her former PI dictated her entire project. She
has had numerous ideas for her project but because she is only a junior post-
doc she does not feel it is her place to present these suggestions to Dr. Smith.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 97
The single most important factor in overcoming the challenges that diversity
can introduce is the development of a strong team identity. As a team begins to
work well, the growing sense of identity balances and integrates their disciplinary,
institutional, and demographic identities. This shared identity is built around a sense
of shared vision, growing trust, clear roles and responsibilities, as well as problem
conceptualization. The more you and your team members think of their identity as
being “a member of X team,” the stronger the potential bonds within the team with
shared messages such as: “we are in this together, we are pursuing the same goals,
we must support one another.” In addition, any differences in status will begin to
minimize with the increasing cohesion.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 98
ASK YOURSELF: IS IT WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Groups are able to work together cooperatively and supportively across
differences.
• Active listening and curiosity is used to uncover denitions and meanings that
may be distinct to some team members.
• Psychological safety exists and team members participate actively in group
discussions.
• Differences in power and status among team members begin to moderate as
the team spends more time together.
• At team meetings people do not cluster only with people like themselves.
• Disagreement about scientic matters is expected and valued, and
interpersonal conict is diffused at the earliest stage possible.
• People are able to raise any identity-related concerns, either with leaders or the
entire team.
When It’s Not Working:
• There are high levels of inter-personal or inter-group tensions among team
members.
• Rivalries develop among different groups within the team.
• At team meetings, people in same identity groupings cluster together.
• During team meetings, the fact that there are tensions among the group
members is reected in how people interact, either keeping silent or
confronting others.
• Different identity groups discuss common concerns among themselves rather
than raising them with the entire team or with leadership.
• When inter-group problems arise, people are too busy to attend to them.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 99
Take Aways:
• Pay attention to the dynamics of interaction within a team and between diverse
groups and be open to surfacing differences so they can be discussed openly.
• Diversity can be a strong asset to a scientic team when individual strengths are
recognized and valued.
• Building a strong sense of team identity is essential for team functioning.
• A clear vision that is understood by all promotes team identity.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 100
CHAPTER 10
Conict
Is Normal
Conict is about differences; it exists when two or more parties disagree, compete,
or perceive that their interests are incompatible. Conict is both an inevitable and
a necessary aspect of human interaction. It is impossible to imagine a collaborative
venture in which conict does not occur. But conict does not automatically mean
there is something wrong with a team. In fact, social cohesion emerges from
engaging in and resolving conicts.
Science is competitive by nature and this can generate conict. Many people,
including scientists, fear conict and tend to avoid it. Many scientists are both
competitive and conict avoidant—a potentially counterproductive combination
especially for members of a scientic team. Ignoring problems and avoiding conicts
can undermine the research endeavor. This is particularly the case if competitiveness
leads to engaging others in ways that elicit conicts. If you avoid acknowledging
and addressing these conicts, you cannot understand what led to them, which is
necessary for resolution.
Team leaders and members should learn not to fear conict even though they may
never enjoy it. We have seen that surfacing differences and talking them through is
the only way to manage the disagreement and, if handled well, can strengthen the
team.
UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT
Earlier in the Field Guide, we wrote about the importance of self-awareness and
awareness of others (see Chapter 02: Preparing Yourself for Team Science). One
arena in which it is especially useful to be aware of your emotions and reactions is in
the way you handle and respond to disagreements or other types of conict. A well-
known inventory of conict styles, the Thomas-Kilmann Conict Mode Instrument
(Thomas and Kilmann 1974 updated in 2007), may help you identify your most
natural style of resolving conict as well as other conict resolution styles that may
be useful in different situations.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 101
A particular conict resolution style may be more effective in some circumstances
and a liability in others. One example where an approach can be a liability follows.
Imagine the head of a research laboratory whose preferred mode of handling
conict is avoidance, a common trait among scientists. If there is discord among the
scientists in his laboratory and he is reluctant to address it, the conict can fester,
undermining the research endeavor and possibly derailing the project. Recognizing
your conict style preference(s) and understanding the ramications of the other
styles can be helpful in guiding the way you approach future conicts.
The most successful team players and leaders do not hold themselves captive to
their dominant conict resolution style(s). Instead, they adapt their reaction to
conict according to the issues at hand, the styles of those with whom they disagree,
and the ends they hope to achieve. They recognize and are adept at using all styles
as appropriate for each situation.
HOW TO ENGAGE WITH CONFLICT
If you are leading or participating on a team, consider the following steps for
managing and resolving conict:
• Understand the culture and the context of conict—seek out the meaning of the
conict for yourself and/or the other parties.
• Actively listen—assure others you have heard what they said and ask questions to
conrm your understanding.
• Acknowledge emotions—they will likely be part of the conict, but expressing
them and hearing them can help lift barriers to resolution.
• Look beneath the surface for hidden meaning—hidden fears, needs, histories, or
goals may be the underlying source of the problem.
• Separate what matters from what is in the way—get away from discussing who is
right or wrong and focus more on how to satisfy mutual needs.
• Learn from difcult behaviors—let those experiences help you develop your skills
in managing difcult situations and having empathy for and patience with others.
• Solve problems creatively and negotiate collaboratively—this also means
committing to action.
• Understand why others might be resistant to change—the problem could be an
unmet need.
Adapted from Cloke and Goldsmith, 2000
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 102
When dealing with conict, it is important to recognize people’s tendencies to
overemphasize the importance of personal and interpersonal dimensions and
underestimate the signicance of organizational factors. Personal and interpersonal
factors are usually quite visible and, in conict situations, often quite dramatic. By
contrast, organizational factors often operate outside of our immediate awareness.
For example, if there were to be a conict between two team members, your
rst instinct may be to consider the personalities of each person, citing the
aggressiveness of one or the reclusiveness of the other. However, an alternative
approach that may get to the root of the conict would be to consider the
competition that the two feel in vying for the team leader’s favor. Not surprisingly,
it is less common to identify the ways in which the leader may have inadvertently
sparked the conict by failing to ensure roles and responsibilities were clearly
dened. The leader may have neglected to discuss how each team member’s
contributions integrate into the greater whole and are important for the overall vision
of the team’s research endeavor (see Chapter 06: Vision).
Scientic teams are necessarily diverse. By itself, diversity of thought, opinion,
approach, or identity is neither good nor bad; what matters is how it is handled.
Critically examining the culture of a team can often provide insight into
understanding why differences in personal attributes that could be an asset for a
team instead develop into a source of conict and disharmony.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 103
CONFLICT RESOLUTION STYLES
When you encounter conict, you may rely more heavily on one style
than on others, whether because of temperament or practice. But
everyone is capable of using all ve conict resolution styles. Think
about how different styles could be used in different situations.
Competing: When competing, you use whatever power seems
appropriate to win your own position. Competing can involve “standing
up for your rights,” defending a position you believe is correct, or simply
trying to win.
Accommodating: When accommodating, you neglect your own
concerns to satisfy the concerns of others. Accommodating might take
the form of selessness or yielding to another person’s direction or
point of view.
Avoiding: When avoiding, you sidestep the conict altogether.
Collaborating: When collaborating, you attempt to work with the
other person to nd a solution that fully satises the concerns of both.
It means digging into an issue to pinpoint the underlying needs and
wants of the individuals.
Compromising: When compromising, you attempt to nd an
expedient and mutually acceptable solution that partially and even
fully satises the concerns of all parties.
Adapted from Thomas-Kilmann, 2007
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 104
QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE
WHEN FACING CONFLICT:
• Who is involved and what are their personalities, emotions, thoughts,
motivations, values, ideologies, and/or identities?
• What are the interpersonal dynamics, including communication,
intimacy, rivalry, competition, power, and hierarchy?
• How are the organizational structure and dynamics (such as roles
and responsibilities, rules, policies and procedures, and organizational
norms and values) contributing?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 105
LISTENING: THE FIRST STEP
TOWARD PROBLEM SOLVING
Skillful listening helps you to gather the information you need to
reframe a conict as a joint problem and build the rapport and trust
that is necessary to begin a process of jointly solving the problem
through the collaboration of the disputants.
When approached for help in resolving a conict, the best place to
start is by listening. Instead of immediately trying to solve the problem,
interrogating people or prematurely analyzing the problem/situation,
ask the person to explain to you what has happened and listen. If
there are things you do not understand ask questions to gain more
information. You may need to seek out others and ask them for their
account of the situation as well, before you can come to a decision
about what next steps to take.
True listening is a far more comprehensive endeavor than simply
hearing someone talk. It is a multifaceted effort that includes
attending to the speaker’s words, tone of voice, and body language.
There are several components to effective listening.
Visibly “Tune-In”—Face others directly, adopt an open posture, make
eye contact, and relax.
Active Listening—Focus exclusively on the person speaking, make
efforts to connect, and be open to what others have to say.
LISTENING: THE FIRST STEP TOWARD PROBLEM SOLVING CONTINUES ON PAGE 106 >>
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 106
LISTENING: THE FIRST STEP
TOWARD PROBLEM SOLVING
Accurate Listening—Paraphrase others’ points to assure that you
understand and, if something is unclear, ask for more information.
Listening for Meaning—Restate the issue or problem and request
feedback on your understanding, and ask as many questions as
needed for full understanding.
Adapted from Egan, 2001
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 107
PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION
In a team setting, the assumption that conict is bad or that two
people in conict are necessarily adversaries can be incredibly
destructive. Rather, if all parties can see their conict as a joint
problem, they can entertain the idea of working together toward
a joint solution where both people can benet. The end goal is to
negotiate in a principled way rather than in a manner that resembles
ghting.
Principled negotiation has ve steps:
• Separate the people from the problem.
• Focus on interests, not positions.
• Invent options for mutual gain.
• Insist on using objective criteria to evaluate options.
• Be focused on the future.
The aim of such negotiation is to nd a solution that is attractive to all
parties and leaves them feeling that they have achieved something. In
addition, an ideal outcome is that all parties believe that their ability to
manage and resolve conict has been enhanced by the very way they
have negotiated. Adapted from (Fisher, Ury et al. 1991)
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 108
IT’S WORKING:
CASE STUDY 20
Dr. Willoughby, a postdoc, complained to her team leader, Dr. Franke, that
a senior technician on the project, Dr. Tuma, was withholding data and was
unwilling to keep her informed about the studies he was conducting. Dr. Tuma
independently reported that Dr. Willoughby was treating him abusively and
claiming his ideas for herself. Dr. Franke quickly realized it was important to
tackle this conict head on and invited both individuals to a neutral place
for a discussion. After listening carefully to each of them, Dr. Franke became
aware that Dr. Tuma was having difculties managing boundaries and setting
limits in his working relationship with Dr. Willoughby. A voraciously curious
researcher with seemingly unlimited energy and a willingness to spend
day and night in the laboratory, Dr. Willoughby would quickly design new
experiments based on the studies and results of others on the research team.
Other team participants were able to capitalize on her enthusiasm and work
collaboratively with her. For reasons of personal history and style, Dr. Tuma
experienced her curiosity as intrusiveness and saw her eagerness to build on
the work of others as if she were taking ideas away from them; he felt that
his contributions to the team were being threatened. Dr. Franke helped the
two scientists negotiate an agreement about how they would work together,
including rules about sharing data and communicating about each other’s
studies. The two then jointly designed a process by which they would each be
expected to obtain agreement from the other about building on the other’s
work or collaborating.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 109
IT’S NOT
WORKING:
CASE STUDY 21
Dr. Lewis, a team leader who recently assembled a new research group to
address a thorny scientic issue, announces that she wants everyone to focus
their energies on research and that she does not want to be bothered with
petty personal disputes that arise among participants. “I expect you to work
out among yourselves whatever differences may arise,” she explains in her
introductory discussion with every person who joins the team. After an initial
period of harmonious interaction among members of the group, two postdocs
with different supervisors begin to quarrel about access to the electron
microscope and other team resources. Unable to resolve their differences, the
two soon begin to have disagreements about cleaning the shared equipment
after use and the usage and purchase of reagents. The tension between the
two begins to negatively affect the overall group dynamic and functioning until
one of the postdoctoral researchers approaches Dr. Lewis to inform her that he
is leaving the team.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 110
ASK YOURSELF: IS IT WORKING
When It’s Working:
• All team members—from team leaders to trainees—are attuned to potential
conicts among team members, have established processes to address them,
and are comfortable intervening should they arise.
• The team maintains high expectations of interpersonal civility (see Chapter
05: Trust and Chapter 11: Sustaining and Strengthening the Team).
• Areas of scientic and methodological disagreement are not understood in
personal terms.
• Once recognized, ambiguities over team members’ roles and responsibilities
are addressed proactively.
• The team leader conveys and demonstrates to team members that conict
can have a positive impact—from improving group cohesion and enhancing
research to promoting team goals.
• Initial signs of conict are addressed promptly.
When It’s Not Working:
• There are undiscussed interpersonal conict(s) and tensions within the team.
• Groups do not listen to concerns, engage in mediation between colleagues, nor
seek out other third-party resources to serve as neutral intervenors.
• The team is unaware of or avoids acknowledging other team members’
motivations and needs.
• The “deeper” meaning behind the conict is not seen.
• There is a failure to listen carefully to team discussion.
• Group members interpret conict as unhealthy when it is actually constructive.
• Individuals misread a lack of argument or challenge as agreement.
• Team leads overestimate team members’ ability to work together as a team.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 111
Take Aways:
• When handled skillfully, conict can be productive and provide opportunities for
creativity. If it is handled poorly, it can undermine a team’s functioning.
• Ignoring conict is a sure way to guarantee that it will remain alive and perhaps
worsen.
• Resolving conict requires individuals to take the time to understand what is
driving it.
• Team leaders must develop strong listening skills to thoughtfully and fairly
intervene in conicts; they can then encourage and mentor team members to
learn and use those same skills to listen to one another and begin to understand
differing opinions and perspectives.
• Teams should be proactive and establish processes to handle conicts,
ambiguities, or other concerns when they arise.
• Taking the Thomas-Kilmann Conict Mode Type Instrument can greatly benet
the team by helping everyone understand their (and others’) conict styles.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 112
CHAPTER 11
Sustaining and
Strengthening the Team
A scientic problem and how to approach it is what brings the team together.
That is why the notion of having a strong vision is so critically important. However,
if the team does not also attend to team dynamics, they run the risk of derailing.
We nd that many of the interdependent characteristics of successful teams are
also at play in positive team dynamics, including good communication, effective
conict management, strong leadership, shared goals, recognition and reward for
collaborative research, and the development of interpersonal trust (see the Table of
Contents to locate modules on these topics).
Creativity and innovation are oftentimes mentioned as the benets for bringing
people together from different disciplines. The contributions from the various
dimensions of difference can come together in new and original ways. However, this
does not occur magically. Just as groups need to be mindful of how they are sharing
data and information, they need to challenge themselves to not get too comfortable
with their team mates.
In his book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki identies four characteristics
that minimize the risk of group-think and support effective team functioning
(Surowiecki 2005):
Diversity of opinion – a multiplicity of perspectives in the team;
Independence – individual members do not feel pressure to agree with others;
Decentralization – individual members have different specialized knowledge;
Aggregation – processes of mechanisms for integrating perspectives and making
collective decisions.
Almost by denition scientic teams meet the criteria for elements 1 and 3.
Attending to team dynamics enables the team to take fullest advantage of its
diverse strengths. One important way to sustain a positive team dynamic is to create
an atmosphere in which everyone feels free to participate in discussion.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 113
For example, when discussing a particular research nding or an unexpected
obstacle, it can be powerful to remind everyone that brainstorming is enriched by
viewing every idea put forward is valuable. Not all ideas need to be implemented,
but they can be shared such that the team can determine if they would be feasible.
Many more ideas can be generated by adopting the approach of saying “thank-you”
to every idea and then building on it by saying “and.” This building of ideas can move
a not so good idea to a great one through additions and iteration. Once many ideas
are on the table then the group can begin to narrow the eld to select the ones that
are likely to have the greatest impact. Responding to someone else’s idea by saying
“yes, but,” or “that’s a dumb idea,” or asking “how are you going to do that?” can have
the effect of squashing the idea. Once the idea is dead, there is nothing to build on.
Another way to keep a group fresh or even accelerate productivity is to step back and
ask what new expertise is needed on the team and invite new people to participate,
which will cause the team to enter a storming cycle. While storming can be a
challenge, it also ensures that the group mixes it up, considers new perspectives,
and moves out of its comfort zone and back into an arena where creativity and
innovation can ourish.
HOW TO STRENGTHEN TEAM DYNAMICS
• Monitor the group environment to ensure that the psychological safety remains
intact—that it is collegial and nonthreatening.
• Identify, recognize, and leverage the strengths each team member brings to the
group.
• Practice building on each other’s ideas to spark innovation and cultivate creativity
before narrowing possibilities down to identify a solution or path forward.
• Recognize that individual accomplishments contribute to overall successes for the
team.
ONE BAD APPLE
Almost everyone has had the experience of being in a group where a single
individual poisons the group’s morale and undermines the group’s performance.
This happens even in teams with lots of “talented, very smart, and likeable people.” In
the same way that it is imperative to address conicts as they occur—they do not go
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 114
The Five
Dysfunctions
of a Team
In thinking about team
dynamics, it may be helpful
for you to compare the
characteristics of successful
teams with the indicators
of failed teams. In The Five
Dysfunctions of a Team,
Patrick Lencioni identies
ve traits that characterize
dysfunctional teams:
• Absence of trust
• Fear of conict
• Lack of commitment
• Avoidance of
accountability
• Inattention to results
Successful teams are
alert to the signs of these
dysfunctions and take
steps to confront and
overcome them. A small
but consistent amount of
attention to team dynamics
can pay off tremendously
in terms of improving team
morale and performance
(Adapted from Lencioni,
2002).
away on their own—it is important that a group
deal with the bad apple and directly address
the problems that person is creating. When we
speak of the bad apple in a group, we are not
talking merely about individual eccentricities, or
ordinary non-conformity. Research has identied
three types of people who fairly consistently
present problems for teams or groups (Felps,
Mitchell et al. 2006):
1. The slacker — a person who simply does
not pull their weight, who almost always
does less than they can, and often attends
to matters that have nothing to do with the
work of the team even when they are at
work (e.g., talking on the phone, searching
the web, taking long breaks).
2. The miscreant — a person who attacks
and insults others and regularly violates
“interpersonal norms of respect.”
3. The depressive pessimist — a person who is
continually negative in mood and attitude
and often complaining about the work
being unpleasant or expressing pessimism
about the group’s project coming to a
successful end.
Studies consistently nd that such individuals
can do great damage to a team’s spirit and
performance. While there are no “cures” for
bad apples, there are suggestions for how to
address the problem. First, it is important to
try not to hire such people in the rst place.
Careful reference and background checking
can assist with that. Second, if such a person
is hired and begins to cause problems, it is
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 115
important that the team and its leaders respond quickly. Bad apples do not change
spontaneously. Using performance appraisals that take into account behavior as well
as performance can be important for giving feedback, issuing warnings, initiating
monitoring, taking disciplinary actions, and even ring when nothing else works.
As many can attest, dynamics are not necessarily tangible or easy to dene; they can
be more easily recognized when considering a team from a “few steps back.” Taking
time to examine how things are going and group process can make a big difference.
The chart below is one example of a simple team or collaboration assessment form
that can structure such an examination. Whether using a formal assessment tool
or taking a more informal approach, teams can set a regular time for members to
discuss how they are experiencing the team and to discuss what is functioning well
and what needs to be addressed.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 116
Evaluation for Scientic Collaborations:
Relationship and Performance*
Indicators Poor Marginal Satisfactory Good Excellent
Relationship Indicators
Communication
Process for Resolving
Disputes
Adequate Notice of Problems
Responsiveness of Parties to
Concerns Raised
Level of Trust Among
Participants
Openness
Ability to Work as a Team
Performance Indicators
Availability of Resources
Keeping to Schedule
Commitment of Participants
(Individuals/Leaders)
Attitude of Participants
Expectations
Barriers (Fewer Barriers =
Higher Rating)
Synergy
* Adapted from a form used by the Ofce of the Ombudsman, Center for Conict Resolution, NIH.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 117
IT’S WORKING:
CASE STUDY 22
A new initiative included team members who were steeped in tradition
and knew how the system works, and others who were newer and willing
to challenge the status quo. At the outset of their collaboration, they spent
half a day outlining their expectations about how they would communicate,
make decisions, and address any problems that might arise. In addition, they
committed themselves to creating an atmosphere in which any member
of the team could safely raise any scientic question they had. To that end,
they established an informal set of ground rules to provide guidance for
team discussions. Shortly after the collaboration began, they found that
team members often chatted in the hallways in addition to participating in
formal meetings. During idea generating sessions, they learned to build on
each other’s ideas instead of shooting them down or telling the group theirs
was better. Judgement was suspended and all ideas provided a bridge to a
better one. The combination of experiences and backgrounds contributed to a
collegial atmosphere where everyone had a voice.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 118
IT’S NOT
WORKING:
CASE STUDY 23
Dr. Donaldson, a junior scientist, was loyal to his former laboratory chief who
hired him and not the current laboratory chief, Dr. Chu, who later became
his supervisor. When Dr. Donaldson was unhappy about Dr. Chu, he turned
to his previous boss. When Dr. Chu was unhappy with Dr. Donaldson, he
turned to his laboratory manager asking him to monitor Dr. Donaldson. This
made Dr. Donaldson feel anxious and insecure about his place on the team.
He began to feel isolated and less committed to the team’s research. He
vented his frustrations to a fellow junior scientist, who in turn told a friend
of his. This created an environment where everyone felt vulnerable to other
team members’ gossip and where social dynamics began to affect the lab’s
productivity and scientic achievements.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 119
Emotional Intelligence
A positive mood supports a team’s exibility and resilience. “A team with a strong
positive mood will be hopeful about the future and grateful for what is going
well today,” wrote facilitators Marcia Hughes and James Bradford Terrell in Team
Emotional and Social Intelligence (2009). Team members and leaders must also be
sure, of course, to reality-test their optimistic ideas or they run the risk of unchecked
expectations, leading to burnout.
The authors list seven key ingredients that contribute to a positive team mood:
• Curiosity
• Perseverance
• Positive, can-do attitude
• Hopefulness
• Attitude of abundance
• Playfulness
• Zest
To promote a positive mood among your team, try gathering team members in pairs
or small groups to answer the following questions; then discuss responses as a large
group:
• How do you demonstrate a positive attitude as a team?
• How do you demonstrate a long-term view and keep things in perspective?
• Are playfulness and a sense of zest encouraged in your team?
If so, how?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 120
ASK YOURSELF: IS IT WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Psychological safety is sustained over time, and team members regularly
discuss issues and concerns.
• Team members are aware of each other’s strengths and tap into them to
move the project forward.
• Teams understand that if they are feeling too comfortable, it is probably time
to infuse some new members into the team.
• Team members are engaged and feel they are valued and value others,
creating an atmosphere of mutual support.
• The group uses “thank-you, and” when sharing ideas.
• Team members know that decisions are made fairly and there will be an
opportunity for comment.
When It’s Not Working:
• An unpredictable, uncertain atmosphere leads to feelings of anxiety,
vulnerability, and threat.
• Team members are uncomfortable discussing difcult issues as a group,
contributing to indirect communication.
• Little sense of personal recognition or value among team members dampens
the sense of ownership of team goals.
• Team members have insufcient or unequal commitments to team
performance.
• Team members feel disengaged, isolated, alienated, or defensive.
• Team members, including the team leader, do not provide candid feedback.
• Team members engage in gossip.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 121
Take Aways:
Sustain and Strengthen Team Dynamics:
• Don’t let the team get too comfortable, bring in new members as the project
evolves.
• Treat every idea as valuable and nurture them with “thank-you, and…”
• Identify, recognize, and take advantage of each other’s strengths.
• Check in with the full team from time to time to review what is working well
and to make sure there are no hidden issues.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 122
CHAPTER 12
Navigating and Leveraging
Networks and Systems
Working across boundaries, even within the same scientic organization, can be
challenging. This is especially true when an institution’s culture values work that is
done largely independently, in isolation, and procedures, policies, or processes are
not in place to facilitate cross-organizational interactions. Collaborating with others
beyond the connes of an organization presents additional challenges.
We visualize a research team as the intersection of organizational entities that
may or may not have their own points of interconnection. The team benets
from the expertise contributed by each of the component parts and, together,
the components constitute an overall network or system within which the team
operates. A research laboratory could be considered as its own focused system
within the context of a larger system—the department or division—that, in turn, sits
within and/or is inuenced by a larger, more powerful system.
A team can transcend different organizational levels and extend its reach within and
beyond the organization. A more complex conceptualization would include various
interactions among investigators within and among institutions that contribute to
the overall project. A sketch of this might look similar to a network map, not unlike
a molecular interaction map that is used to demonstrate the complexity of the
system in which a gene or protein is functioning. Thus, we come to recognize that
highly collaborative teams function within the context of multiple and sometimes
interconnected systems, and they also help establish strong networks of researchers
who together can accomplish more than they could as individuals.
If the community of researchers within an institution does not believe, or does
not perceive, that team science is truly valued and rewarded at the same level as
individual achievements, their motivation to participate on research teams will be
diminished.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 123
Can Architecture Support Team Science?
The University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, spearheaded
an effort focused on integrating collaborative research and teaching approaches into
its Health Sciences enterprise. The leadership envisioned that an interdisciplinary
approach would strengthen success in securing research funding, maximize the
research impact, augment clinical research, and expand opportunities for research
trainees at all levels. The University embarked on a project to build an Academic
Health Sciences Complex with interdisciplinary collaboration as its foundation.
Multiple scientic disciplines would be included but not limited to medical, dental,
veterinary, pharmacy, nutritional, clinical psychology, and public health. They would
be brought together in buildings designed with open laboratory space, shared
specialty facilities, and places designed for collisions such as open stairways, seating
areas, coffee bars and snack rooms. In addition to promoting physical connections,
glass was a strong feature throughout, permitting daylight to penetrate into the
atriums and laboratories and to permit people to make visual contact at a high rate,
to enhance safety as well as transparency. As the leadership strategically guided
this vision forward, it kept in mind ve interacting facets: people, space, operations,
institutional leadership, and training (Bennett, Nelan et al. In press).
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 124
THE TEAM AS A SYSTEM: SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS
The social structure of a team will impact how the group functions and how well
it performs. Once teams have formed and begun working toward their goals, team
members can map out their social network by performing a social network analysis
(SNA). Merely creating an organizational chart and a listing of the job responsibilities
of each of the members of a research team will not necessarily give you a good
picture of how a team actually works, who interacts with whom, or the impact on
the team of each of its members.
An SNA can help you and other team members understand the interactions that
are or are not taking place within and outside of the team. Within this context,
team members can identify areas of strength or weakness and assess how valuable
resources are utilized. The ultimate goal of this approach is to implement strategies
to improve the team’s ability to create and share knowledge by looking at how
people interact.
An SNA can help a team answer the following questions:
• What systems have we put in place?
• Can we use our internal or external systems to more effectively get work done?
• How can those systems be modied or enhanced to better support the team’s
mission?
To perform an SNA, consider four types of networks: knowledge, access, source
receptive, and energy (see box page 125).
INDIVIDUAL NETWORK ANALYSIS
Your individual network can be leveraged in the context of team effort. Professional
connections can result in a benet to the whole team as they seek out additional
experts to contribute to their effort. When people join a team, they are not only
establishing a new network, they are also expanding everyone’s interconnections and
possibilities for interaction. They can chart their own existing network and within it,
identify where ties can be strengthened or gaps lled to broaden one’s reach within
and beyond the walls of the institution.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 125
System Network Analysis
Four types of networks are described below. Asking the questions provided in italics
can help you gain a better understanding of the components that constitute each
network.
Knowledge Network: Knowing who can answer questions or provide more
information allows for more efcient functioning and points the team in the right
direction to obtain the information it needs. Effective teams may build in some
redundancy here so that the team does not come to a halt if a key person in the
knowledge network suddenly becomes unavailable. Ask: Who does or does not have
the specic information I need?
Access Network: You may know where to go for information, but a critical question
is whether the person with the information will share it and be a resource for
additional information. Ask: I’ve identied who has the information, and will he or
she share it now and in the future?
Source Receptive Network: Within teams, the old adage “knowledge is power”
sometimes points to an ugly reality: team members are not always collaborative. If
there is personal enmity between two team members, or if trust is low, they might
withhold data, materials, or technical assistance. Ask: Will I be welcomed as a
collaborator? Will he or she share with me the data and resources I’m looking for?
Energy Network: The outcome of the above interactions may impact the energy
of team members and the group as a whole. Energy can propel a team forward
and support its functioning; likewise, drains on energy can sap momentum. Key
people and interactions that infuse energy into the team or suck it away should
be quickly identied. Not surprisingly, energized teams perform better when the
group is focused on a positive goal and when the members are fully engaged, feel
they are valued, and sense that they are contributing to the overall progress toward
the stated objectives. Every team member—from team leader to junior scientist—
plays an important role in a team’s energy and team functioning. Ask: How did my
interactions with him or her feel? Did it give or take from the team’s energy?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 126
ASK YOURSELF: IS IT WORKING
When It’s Working:
• Team leaders are aware of immediate and overall institutional support and
communicate that to team members.
• Team leaders and members work together to secure support and recognition
of the team as a whole. Individual contributions to the team are also
recognized.
• Teams thrive when there is top-down support and bottom-up vision and
enthusiasm.
• Perceptions that the institution is unsupportive, while frustrating, do not stand
in the way of the leader doing what he or she thinks is right.
• Teams cut across boundaries and have distinct patterns of communication,
information exchange, informal inuence, and trust.
• Teams establish formal and informal networks that facilitate research
progress.
• Team leaders take the time to understand the social networks.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 127
When It’s Not Working:
• Junior scientists and clinicians are wary of entering into complex
collaborations for fear that their institutions will not recognize their
contributions during review.
• Team leaders and members are unsure whether their work on a team will
help, or hinder, their careers.
• There is confusion over the team’s place in the organizational structure.
• Organizational leaders do not consider teams as they develop strategic plans,
budgets, and other institutional policies.
• The team is unable to establish connections as a group with key individuals or
groups within the organization.
• The team encounters resistance, obstruction, or complacency when it
interacts with other institutional bodies.
• Team members experience their organization’s administration and leaders as
oppositional.
Take Aways:
• All teams function within larger systems that have an impact on how they
operate.
• Team leaders must have a holistic view of where the team sits within the
institution and who the key players are inuencing the team’s functioning.
• Team leaders must seek institutional support for their efforts at the highest
levels.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 128
CHAPTER 13
Fun
How many times we have heard or even told students at a career fair, “If you do what
you love, you will love what you do.” It sounds so trite, so simplistic, and yet there is
something about that phrase that people enjoy holding onto.
When thinking about this in the context of the laboratory and a great collaboration,
what is the driving force behind this commitment to solve a research question
together? This is where passion comes in. We have used the words commitment,
vision, and mentorship—all of which are vitally important, and all derive from an
inner passion and a relentless curiosity. What could be more fun and more satisfying
than nding other people with similar passions and interests with whom to unravel
complexities and make new discoveries?
It is not just successful scientic problem solving and discovery that lead scientists to
work collaboratively. Although it is not often discussed, one of the most compelling
aspects of collaborative work is that it is fun. Anyone who visits a highly cohesive
laboratory quickly notices that people work well together, there is a welcoming
and enthusiastic environment, and the laboratory members are clearly comfortable
working with each other. In informal discussions with scientists, they often refer to
having fun and point to the satisfaction that comes from being part of a team that
works well together. Daniel Kahneman, the psychologist who won the Nobel Prize
in economics, describes the delight he discovered in his collaboration with Amos
Tversky:
“[W]e met in Jerusalem to look at the results and write a paper. The experience was
magical. I had enjoyed collaborative work before, but this was different. Amos was
often described by people who knew him as the smartest person they knew. He
was also very funny, with an endless supply of jokes appropriate to every nuance
of a situation. In his presence, I became funny as well, and the result was that we
could spend hours of solid work in continuous mirth . . . [A]nd we were not just
having fun. I quickly discovered that Amos had a remedy for everything I found
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 129
difcult about writing. With him movement was always forward . . . [A]s we were
writing our rst paper, I was conscious of how much better it was than the more
hesitant piece I would have written by myself” (American Psychologist, 2003).
Kahneman’s remarks point to many of the best things that research collaborations
can offer: complementarity in styles and abilities, enhanced quality of the nal
product, a deeply satisfying connection to a colleague, and substantial doses of fun.
Interestingly, recent research in the relatively new area of positive psychology
supports these informal observations. In a wide variety of settings, there are very
strong correlations between people’s happiness in their work and their commitment
to that work, their relationships with colleagues, and productivity.
More broadly, there is also research demonstrating the adaptive value of positive
affect. “Beyond their pleasant subjective feel, positive emotions, positive mood, and
positive sentiments carry multiple, interrelated benets” (Fredrickson & Losada,
2005). These benets are both behavioral and physical. Among the noteworthy
behavioral benets of positive affect are an expanded scope of attention, increased
creativity and intuition, and broadened behavioral repertoires.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 130
About
the Authors
L. Michelle Bennett ([email protected]v)
L. Michelle Bennett directs the Center for Research Strategy (CRS), a strategic
scientic planning and analysis ofce that serves the NCI Director and supports
NCI priorities. Located within the Ofce of the Director, CRS is ideally positioned
to collaborate, catalyze, convene, and coordinate initiatives across NCI’s Divisions,
Ofces, and Centers. Dr. Bennett earned her Ph.D. in oncology from the University
of Wisconsin–Madison and as a postdoctoral fellow performed some of the earliest
work on BRCA1 and BRCA2 including the characterization and localization of
BRCA1 to the long arm of Chromosome 17. She has extensive practical experience in
promoting collaboration and team-based approaches by bringing together research
scientists with diverse backgrounds and expertise to solve complex scientic
problems and is certied as an Executive Coach. Dr. Bennett is the recipient of many
awards, including NIH and Institute Director’s Awards, the NCI Women’s Scientist
Advisors Achievement Award, and the NCI Exceptional Mentor Award.
Howard Gadlin (how[email protected])
Howard Gadlin was the Ombudsman and Director of the Center for Cooperative
Resolution at the National Institutes of Health from 1999 until his retirement at the
end of 2015. An experienced mediator, trainer, and consultant, he remains active
in conict resolution and team science activities. Dr. Gadlin has years of experience
working with conicts related to race, ethnicity, and gender, including sexual
harassment. Dr. Gadlin is past President of the University and College Ombuds
Association (UCOA) and The Ombudsman Association (TOA), and past chairperson of
the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen. Currently he is the co-editor of the Journal of
the International Ombudsman Association. He earned his PhD in Psychology from
the University of Michigan.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 131
Christophe Marchand ([email protected]v)
Christophe Marchand is a Health Scientist Administrator in the Center for Research
Strategy within the Ofce of the Director at the National Cancer Institute (NCI/NIH).
Molecular pharmacologist by training, Dr. Marchand has been at the NCI for the past
20 years, including 18 in a research laboratory at the Center for Cancer Research
(CCR/NCI). He has co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed publications and is the
recipient of 3 NCI Director’s Innovation Awards (2007, 2011 & 2016). Dr. Marchand
led the Professional Development Committee of the NCI Staff Scientists and Staff
Clinicians Organization from 2011 to 2016, and has been involved in capacity building
ever since.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 132
Appendix
A. COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT TEMPLATE
Although each research project has unique features, certain core issues are common
to most of them and can be addressed by collaborators posing the following
questions:
Overall Goals
• What is the overall vision for the collaboration?
• What are the scientic issues, goals, and anticipated outcomes or products of the
collaboration?
• When is the collaboration over?
• When is the project over?
Who Will Do What?
• What are the expected contributions of each participant?
• Who will write any progress reports and nal reports?
• How and by whom will personnel decisions be made? How and by whom will
personnel be supervised?
• How and by whom will data be managed? How will access to data be managed?
How will you handle long-term storage and access to data after the project is
complete?
Authorship, Credit
• What will be the criteria and the process for assigning authorship and credit?
• How will credit be attributed to each collaborator’s institution for public
presentations, abstracts, and written articles?
• How and by whom will public presentations be made?
• How and by whom will media inquiries be handled?
• When and how will you handle intellectual property and patent applications?
Contingencies and Communicating
• What will be your mechanism for routine communications among members of
the research team (to ensure that all appropriate members of the team are kept
fully informed of relevant issues)?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 133
• How will you decide about redirecting the research agenda as discoveries are
made?
• How will you negotiate the development of new collaborations and spin-off
projects, if any?
• Should one of the principals of the research team move to another institution
or leave the project, how will you handle data, specimens, laboratory books, and
authorship and credit?
Conict of Interest
• How will you identify potential conicts of interest among collaborators?
• Could a collaborator or any close family members or associates benet nancially
from the research?
• Is a collaborator receiving money from someone who could benet nancially
from the research?
B. “WELCOME TO MY TEAM” TEMPLATE
The Letter can transmit important information about:
• Goal of research group/PI vision
• Fullling the mission and providing training
• Role of the PI or Team Leader(s) – what can be expected
• Expectations of laboratory or team members
Specic Topic Areas Could Include:
Laboratory/Team Interactions and Procedures
• Team meetings, Journal Clubs, Sharing space and reagents, Using specialized
equipment
• Time and attendance, Vacations, Sick leave
• Networking, Attending outside meetings, Professional etiquette
• PI or Team Leader(s) Work habits, Expected work habits
Conduct of research
• Scientic integrity/research ethics, Notebooks, record keeping, sharing data
• Data presentations, Submission of Abstracts and Presentations
• Responsibility for data storage and retrieval
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 134
Communication
• Seminars and talks, Abstracts and manuscripts
• Logistics and agendas for routine meetings, Expectations for participation and/or
contribution
• Process to follow if there is a disagreement
Authorship & Collaborations/Sharing Credit
• Criteria/process for deciding, Ongoing projects
• Process for regular review and revision, Acknowledgments
Career Development
• Training in science, Communication skills (oral, written)
• Personal Interactions - professionalism
• Career Planning, Promoting the careers of more junior members
• Opportunities to take on new leadership roles
Evaluation
• Form and Frequency
• Reference Letters
Scientic Administration & Leadership
• Manuscript review
• Grantsmanship
Mentoring
• Finding a mentor (or mentors)
• Mentoring, sponsoring, coaching others
Institutional and Local Resources
• Employee assistance program/counseling, Housing, Local information
C. LANGUAGE TO INSERT INTO AN OFFER LETTER
OR PRE-TENURE AGREEMENT
Although every recruitment is unique, emphasis on interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary science is becoming quite common. Research institutions wanting
to encourage collaborative research while promoting development of bright early
career researchers need to establish well-dened guidelines for review and reward of
those who engage in interdisciplinary science.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 135
It is crucial that offer letters explicitly delineate what is expected of both the
institution and the individual scientist. The template below identies a set of
questions the answers to which ought to be clear from either the offer letter or
ancillary communications with the recruit.
Participating in or Leading an Interdisciplinary Research Project
Roles, Responsibilities, Expectations
1. What will be the role of the individual?
2. What will be expected of the early career scientist?
3. How will success be dened for those participating in interdisciplinary research?
Leading an interdisciplinary team?
4. What will be the role of the department? Chair?
5. What will be expected of the department? Chair?
Review and Reward*
1. Success: What criteria will be used to assess the progress and success of the
scientist for interdisciplinary work?
2. Sharing Credit and Data: How will data sharing, processes for access to data,
authorship decisions be reviewed and assessed?
Mentoring
1. How will the early career scientist be mentored in interdisciplinary research?
(Individual mentor, mentoring committee, etc.)
2. What will be expected of the scientist in mentoring his or her own lab/team
members?
3. What training is expected and/or required of those participating in or leading
interdisciplinary efforts?
Joint Appointments
For researchers appointed in more than one department the agreement will clearly:
1. Identify the departments/organizations involved in supporting the scientist
2. State that the departments/organizations are committed to the tenure-track
scientist
3. State who will be responsible for the administration of the scientist (performance
reviews, HR, budget tracking, etc.) and dene administrative home
4. Which resources will be provided by which department/organization
5. Commit to annual review and dene who will participate
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 136
6. Establish a procedure to follow in case of disagreement
7. Establish a procedure to follow should any party decide to withdraw or
signicantly alter the agreement
*Possible criteria to include for reviewing an interdisciplinary researcher:
1. Clearly describe the researcher’s role in driving the project(s) forward
2. What is the major effort that she/he is leading or to which she/he is making
signicant scientic contributions?
3. Is the contribution essential for the overall success of the project?
4. How did the contribution inuence the overall outcome/direction of the project?
5. Was the contribution original rather than a reproduction of the work of others
(e.g., was the software developed with novel, original features that will be used by
others in the eld, or did the scientist merely modify existing software to make it
compatible with the workow of the project)?
6. What accomplishments/achievements can be attributed to the PI in the context of
the larger team?
7. For PIs whose research is mainly collaborative, how is the contribution of the
individual PI regarded in the PI’s eld of research? What is the signicance of the
contributions?
8. What agreements were put in place to decide how authorship, data, and
presentations would be shared? What processes were put in place in case of
disagreement?
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 137
References
Adler, L. (2007). Hire with your head: using performance-based hiring to build great teams. Hoboken,
N.J., John Wiley & Sons.
Bennett, L. M., R. Maraia and H. Gadlin (2014). “The ‘Welcome Letter’: A Useful Tool for Laboratories and
Teams.” J Transl Med Epidemiol 2(2).
Bennett, L. M., R. Nelan, B. Steeves and J. Thornhill (In press). Health Sciences Research at the
University of Saskatchewan: The Interrelationship of People, Space, Operations, Institutional
Leadership, and Training in Fostering a Team Approach in Health Sciences Research. Advancing Social
and Behavioral Health Research through Cross-Disciplinary Team Science: Principle for Success. K. L.
Hall and R. T. Vogel. New York, Springer Publishing Company.
Bohmer, R., Feldman, L.R., Ferlins, E.M., and Edmonson, A.C. (2004). “Columbia’s Final Mission.”
Harvard Business School: Case 304-090 (Revised May 2010.).
Cloke, K. and J. Goldsmith (2000). Resolving personal and organizational conict: stories
of transformation and forgiveness. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Cohen, C. M. and S. L. Cohen (2012). Lab Dynamics: Management and Leadership Skills for
Scientists. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Conger, J. A. (2008). The necessary art of persuasion. Boston, Mass.,
Harvard Business Press.
Egan, G. (2001). The skilled helper: a problem-management and opportunity-development approach
to helping, Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.
Felps, W., T. R. Mitchell and E. Byington (2006). “How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel:
Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional Groups.” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 27 27:
175-222.
Fiore, S. M., D. R. Carter and R. Asensio (2015). Conict, Trust, and Cohesion: Examining Affective and
Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Fisher, R., W. Ury and B. Patton (1991). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in.
New York, N.Y., Penguin Books.
Fitzwater, T. (2000). Behavior-based interviewing selecting the right person for the job,
Crisp Learning.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide
PAGE: 138
Fragale, A. R. (2006). “The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task
interdependence on status conferral.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101(2):
243-261.
Gratton, L. and T. J. Erickson (2007). “Eight ways to build collaborative teams.” Harvard Business Review
85(11): 100-+.
Hale, J. A. (2002). Performance-based evaluation: tools and techniques to measure the impact of
training. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Hong, L. and S. E. Page (2004). “Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-
ability problem solvers.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(46): 16385-16389.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The ve dysfunctions of a team: a leadership fable. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Mannix, E. and M. A. Neale (2005). “What Differences Make a Difference? The Promise and Reality
of Diverse Teams in Organizations.” Psychol Sci Public Interest 6(2): 31-55.
Mazumdar, M., S. Messinger, D. M. Finkelstein, J. D. Goldberg, C. J. Lindsell, S. C. Morton, B. H. Pollock, M.
H. Rahbar, L. J. Welty, R. A. Parker, E. Biostatistics, C. Research Design Key Function Committee of the
and C. Translational Science Awards (2015). “Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-
Based Research: A Proposed Framework.” Acad Med 90(10): 1302-1308.
Mellers, B., R. Hertwig and D. Kahneman (2001). “Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction
effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration.” Psychological Science 12(4): 269-275.
Monteiro, M. and E. Keating (2009). “Managing Misunderstandings: The Role of Language in
Interdisciplinary Scientic Collaboration.” Science Communication 31(1): 6-28.
Peiris, J. S., S. T. Lai, L. L. Poon, Y. Guan, L. Y. Yam, W. Lim, J. Nicholls, W. K. Yee, W. W. Yan, M. T. Cheung,
V. C. Cheng, K. H. Chan, D. N. Tsang, R. W. Yung, T. K. Ng, K. Y. Yuen and S. s. group (2003). “Coronavirus
as a possible cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome.” Lancet 361(9366): 1319-1325.
Rath, T. (2007). Strengthsnder 2.0. New York, Gallup Press.
Ross, L. (1996). Naive Realism: Implications for Social Conict and Misunderstanding, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Stokols, D., K. L. Hall, B. K. Taylor and R. P. Moser (2008). “The science of team science: overview
of the eld and introduction to the supplement.” Am J Prev Med 35(2 Suppl): S77-89.
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York, Anchor Books.
Thomas, K. W. and R. H. Kilmann (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conict Mode Instrument, XICOM.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups.” Psychol Bull 63: 384-399.
Tuckman, B. W. and M. A. C. Jensen (1977). “Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited.” Group &
Organization Studies 2(4): 419-427.
Center for Research Strategy
NIH Publication No. 18-7660
