Advertisement

The Importance of Multiple Perspectives

How to Make Behavioural Science Work in Multidisciplinary Teams
  • Helena Rubinstein
Chapter

Abstract

Behavioural science can be most effective when deployed as part of a multidisciplinary team. Furthermore, behavioural science is more likely than other functions to need to be part of a multidisciplinary team, as many functions touch on the way people interact with each other and with products and services. This chapter provides a brief overview of the academic literature about the benefits and challenges of working in multidisciplinary teams and describes a case study of how this works in practice. Rubinstein lays out guidelines for making multidisciplinary teamworking effective that include building trust, managing professional identities, coping with different communication styles, managing uncertainty, managing complexity, assessing quality, dealing with time pressures and availability, and the role of the leader.

Keywords

Holistic innovation Leadership Multidisciplinary teamworking Professional identity 

References

  1. Alves, J., Marques, M. J., Saur, I., & Marques, P. (2007). Creativity and innovation through multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 27–34.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00417.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Budner, S. (2006). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision making. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Cowan, D. A. (1986). Developing a process model of problem recognition. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 763–776.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1986.4283930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 123–138.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00341.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. A. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(4), 553–567.  https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X72128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 53–75). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Janssen, W., & Goldsworthy, P. (1996). Multidisciplinary research for natural resource management: Conceptual and practical implications. Agricultural Systems, 51(3), 259–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(95)00046-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kanter, R. M., & Summers, D. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Social, structural and collective conditions for innovation in organizations. In Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581–598.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Love, P., Fong, P., & Irani, Z. (2006). Management of knowledge in project environments. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Majchrzak, A., More, P. H. B., & Faraj, S. (2011). Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mental Health Commission. (2006). Multi-disciplinary team working: From theory to practice. Dublin: Coimisiún Meabhair-Shláinte, Dublin. Retrieved from http://www.mhcirl.ie/File/discusspapmultiteam.pdfGoogle Scholar
  14. Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In Handbook of individiual differences in social behaviour (pp. 318–329). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ratcheva, V. (2009). Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes—The case of multidisciplinary project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 206–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rose, B. (2016). Managing multidisciplinary teams effectively: Tips for project managers. Innovia Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simon, H. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 57–64.Google Scholar
  19. Strober, M. H. (2006). Habits of the mind: Challenges for multidisciplinary engagement. Social Epistemology, 20(3–4), 315–331.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720600847324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thompson, E. P., Chaiken, S., & Hazlewood, J. D. (1993). Need for cognition and desire for control as moderators of extrinsic reward effects: A person x situation approach to the study of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 987–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vegt, G. S. V. D., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532–547.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vissers, G., & Dankbaar, B. (2002). Creativity in multidisciplinary new product development teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1), 31–42.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Rubinstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Innovia Technology LtdCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations