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 otherawareness.

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, identifies 

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 scientific ideas and take research into new, previously 

unconsidered directions as well as ensure that difficult 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

Conflict can be both a resource and a challenge—a resource 

because disagreement can expand thinking, add new knowledge 

to a complex scientific problem, and stimulate new directions 

for research. A challenge because if it is not handled skillfully, 

conflict impedes effective team functioning and stifles scientific 

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-Reflection

Understanding Personality Types

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 

Types 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 Conflict

How to Engage with Conflict

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 first 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 offices 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 scientific 

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 reflected 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 refine or enhance that which existed. We wish to thank 

Samantha Levine-Finley for her valuable contribution to the first 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 find 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 interdisciplinary 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 fields have become essential. The field of inquiry termed the Science-ofTeam-Science (SciTS) was coined in 2006. This field 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 fields. 

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 

scientific 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 scientific disciplines and therapeutic areas. Team science 

has been described as a collaborative and cross-disciplinary approach to scientific 

inquiry that draws researchers, who otherwise would work independently or as coinvestigators on smaller-scale projects, into collaborative centers and groups.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide

PAGE: 8 

As the figure 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 reflects researchers 

working relatively independently on different 

aspects of a common scientific 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 first 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 Scientific 

Research Team?

...think of it as a continuum...

Level of Interaction and Integration

INVESTIGATORINITIATED 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 specific 

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.

LOW HIGH
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide

PAGE: 10 

Scientific 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 specific 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 scientific 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 scientific 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 scientific 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 difficult 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 scientific 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 selfassess 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

m Just 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 specific 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 findings. 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 finds it 

more rewarding to work as a team to uncover the multiple facets that underlie 

complex scientific 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 fields. Dr. 

Antonelli is hesitant to try to pull the trigger on starting this initiative because 

she just can’t put her finger 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 finds 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

INDEPENDENT INTERDEPENDENT

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. Selfawareness does not emerge without effort; 

usually it is the result of actively engaging in 

self-reflection 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 benefit 

from self-reflection. Although you may not think that the consideration of the finer 

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

• Stifling 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 scientific thinking and self-reflection than appears at 

first glance. Both depend heavily on inferential reasoning—selectively focusing on 

observable data, drawing inferences about what the data might mean, and finding 

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 reflection.

Over the years, studies of interpersonal dynamics, group functioning, and individual 

cognitive and emotional processes have established that, through self-reflection 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 selfawareness by yourself may be a challenging task. You may find 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 find 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 

find it useful to simply reflect 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-reflection 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 five 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 first 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 five 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 influenced 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 difficult 

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 

specific 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 specific 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 scientific approach with me in person first. 

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 first time, or as your collaboration evolves into a highly 

integrated and diverse team, being or having a good mentor can help. No matter 

how reflective you may be, there are limits to what you can achieve on your own. 

Having another person help with the process of self-reflection 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 identifies 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 scientific 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 scientific 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 terrific 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 figure 

out if it will be a good fit.

Questions for Mentors:

• What qualities in a mentee will bring out the best qualities in you as 

a mentor?

• What four characteristics define 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 finely honed research expertise and 

subject matter proficiency; 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 

scientific 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 conflict, 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 exemplified 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 finding ways to address difficult 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 insufficiently involved

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

people or situations

Defensive leadership—resistant to feedback regarding systemic problems and 

projecting outward blame

Hostile leadership—actively promoting competition and conflict within the team

Strong scientific 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 scientific 

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 qualification). 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 benefit 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 difficult 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 difficult 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 forge Leaders some

closely. Others will model the behavior the

the words 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 difficult 

to find 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’ scientific data.

• Interpersonal conflicts 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 fulfilled, 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 conflict 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 fields 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 field. It is crucially important that collaborators agree on expectations 

at the earliest point of a project as possible and reconcile any conflicting 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 fields 

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 bottomup 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 

scientific 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 fit. “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 scientific 

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 scientific 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 define 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 specific 

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 first 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 identified a gene 

that modifies 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 

specific 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 specific 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 conflicts, 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 scientific 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—finances, accountability, staffing, etc. And finally, in the current 

scientific environment, it also can provide an opportunity to reflect on potential 

conflicts 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, jointappointments 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 find it extremely helpful to note these 

stages, which include the four originally described by Tuckman and a fifth 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 efficiently, 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 

efficiently 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 fit 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 

find 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 scientific, experimental, or personal challenges openly and 

honestly becomes difficult and fraught with conflict.
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 scientific 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 confidence 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 confident 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 scientific 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 scientific debate and exchange—challenge ideas with the goal of 

making a decision or reaching a conclusion based on scientific 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 conflict 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-specific 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 “identification-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 confident 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 scientific setting: competencebased trust and swift trust. If you have ever known a scientific 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 defined, the goal is clear, deadlines are defined, and everyone 

gives each team member the benefit 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 confidence in people’s skills and abilities, 

allowing them to make decisions and train others

• Swift Trust – built on giving all team members the benefit 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 defined 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 difficult 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 identified 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-final-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 ...seek feedback or interrupt flow

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 confidence 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 scientific 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 superficial 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-flowing 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 scientific 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 difficult 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 scientific 

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 scientific 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 fit 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 

findings from the laboratory into the clinical setting. Dr. Millstrom argued that 

the preclinical results were sufficient. 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 official work 

day has ended.

When It’s Not Working:

• Team members have difficulty 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 find it difficult to share data and credit, leading to conflict 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 official 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 fill 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 

scientific 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 find 

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 scientific 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 identified 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 defined, knowledge is shared, and new common 

perceptions of the problems at hand are developed. It is through the 

sequential meeting process that this group identifies and establishes 

a common “working” set of definitions, 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 scientific 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 scientific 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 scientific 

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 redefined 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 scientific 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 scientific 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 benefits, 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 find it useful to differentiate between (scientific) disagreement and 

(interpersonal) conflict. The paradoxical task of research teams is that they must 

become a place where, simultaneously, disagreement is freely expressed and 

personal conflict is contained and managed. Science thrives on disagreement; it is 

the motivator for scientific progress. Interpersonal conflict is an inevitable part of 

human interaction and, if not managed well, can be tremendously destructive. Of 

course, scientific disagreements sometimes segue into personal conflicts, especially 

when scientific disagreements become personalized. That is why it helps enormously 

to de-personalize scientific disagreements. 

At the outset of any collaboration, a scientific team should decide how its members 

will address both scientific disagreements and interpersonal conflicts. Whereas 

interpersonal conflict can disrupt the effective working of a team, scientific 

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 conflict 

and disagreement (See Chapter 10: Conflict Is Normal). Teams can put aside time 

in which relevant scientific issues are discussed in a format where the only goal is to 

better understand the different conceptions and positions of the discussants.

Scientific 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 fixed 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 scientific inquiry can 

begin with disagreement; the 

disagreement is then the basis 

for hypothesis formation and the 

first 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 Prizewinning 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 scientific 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 fill 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 

define discipline-specific jargon, and translate across disciplines.

• Open discussion, differing opinions, and constructive criticism are encouraged 

and lead to healthy scientific 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 

scientific application.

• Interpersonal conflict 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 artificial barriers to 

scientific discussion; the team may engage in “unhealthy agreement” to avoid 

conflict.

• Members approach scientific 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 scientific discussion that facilitates the direction of the research 

project.

• Establish an infrastructure that guides behavior, helps the team become 

comfortable having dynamic scientific 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 scientific 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 closedminded 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, 

one listens to find

flaws and weaknesses

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, 

find meaning and

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.

In dialogue, finding

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, Conflict 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 difficult 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, scientific 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 scientific 

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 scientific relationship 

those who will be responsible for answering 

questions and responding to outside 

inquiries about various scientific 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 flourish, 

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 modified 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 

specific 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 scientific 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 first author. A heated and 

emotional dispute erupted when it became clear that neither one would 

give up his position of thinking he should be first 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 scientific 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 scientific 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 find 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 scientific coordination role in the context of the science 

itself or the scientific 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 scientific 

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 find 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 scientific 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 difficult for an early career scientist to contemplate the benefits 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 specific 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 scientific 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 fields. 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 scientific 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 earlycareer 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 

scientific 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 difficult 

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 scientific 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 confirm 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 scientific 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 benefits 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 specifically, 

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 

difficulties in communication, conflict, and coordination. Unless managed well, 

any type of diversity can become the basis for conflict 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 difficult conversations (see Chapter 10: Conflict 

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, scientific teams work better if there is at 

least a moderate level of conflict over science-related matters. As we have tried to 

emphasize in this guide, a research team should be a place where disagreement 

can flourish. 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 conflict 

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 

conflict, 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 reflects 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 

conflicting scientific 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 scientific 

misunderstandings. Although researchers typically are more interested in doing 

science than in attending to the fine points of group dynamics, spending time 

developing skills in communication, conflict management and decision making 

can have a beneficial effect on the scientific 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 first 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 find 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 scientific 

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 difficult 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 postdoc 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 definitions 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 scientific matters is expected and valued, and 

interpersonal conflict 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 reflected 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 scientific 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

Conflict 

Is Normal

Conflict is about differences; it exists when two or more parties disagree, compete, 

or perceive that their interests are incompatible. Conflict is both an inevitable and 

a necessary aspect of human interaction. It is impossible to imagine a collaborative 

venture in which conflict does not occur. But conflict does not automatically mean 

there is something wrong with a team. In fact, social cohesion emerges from 

engaging in and resolving conflicts. 

Science is competitive by nature and this can generate conflict. Many people, 

including scientists, fear conflict and tend to avoid it. Many scientists are both 

competitive and conflict avoidant—a potentially counterproductive combination 

especially for members of a scientific team. Ignoring problems and avoiding conflicts 

can undermine the research endeavor. This is particularly the case if competitiveness 

leads to engaging others in ways that elicit conflicts. If you avoid acknowledging 

and addressing these conflicts, you cannot understand what led to them, which is 

necessary for resolution. 

Team leaders and members should learn not to fear conflict 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 conflict. A wellknown inventory of conflict styles, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument 

(Thomas and Kilmann 1974 updated in 2007), may help you identify your most 

natural style of resolving conflict as well as other conflict resolution styles that may 

be useful in different situations.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide

PAGE: 101 

A particular conflict 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 

conflict 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 conflict can fester, 

undermining the research endeavor and possibly derailing the project. Recognizing 

your conflict style preference(s) and understanding the ramifications of the other 

styles can be helpful in guiding the way you approach future conflicts. 

The most successful team players and leaders do not hold themselves captive to 

their dominant conflict resolution style(s). Instead, they adapt their reaction to 

conflict 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 conflict:

• Understand the culture and the context of conflict—seek out the meaning of the 

conflict for yourself and/or the other parties.

• Actively listen—assure others you have heard what they said and ask questions to 

confirm your understanding.

• Acknowledge emotions—they will likely be part of the conflict, 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 difficult behaviors—let those experiences help you develop your skills 

in managing difficult 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 conflict, it is important to recognize people’s tendencies to 

overemphasize the importance of personal and interpersonal dimensions and 

underestimate the significance of organizational factors. Personal and interpersonal 

factors are usually quite visible and, in conflict situations, often quite dramatic. By 

contrast, organizational factors often operate outside of our immediate awareness. 

For example, if there were to be a conflict between two team members, your 

first 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 conflict 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 conflict by failing to ensure roles and responsibilities were clearly 

defined. 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).

Scientific 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 conflict and disharmony.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide

PAGE: 103 

CONFLICT RESOLUTION STYLES

When you encounter conflict, you may rely more heavily on one style 

than on others, whether because of temperament or practice. But 

everyone is capable of using all five conflict 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 selflessness or yielding to another person’s direction or 

point of view.

Avoiding: When avoiding, you sidestep the conflict altogether.

Collaborating: When collaborating, you attempt to work with the 

other person to find a solution that fully satisfies 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 find an 

expedient and mutually acceptable solution that partially and even 

fully satisfies 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 conflict 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 conflict, 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 conflict is bad or that two 

people in conflict are necessarily adversaries can be incredibly 

destructive. Rather, if all parties can see their conflict as a joint 

problem, they can entertain the idea of working together toward 

a joint solution where both people can benefit. The end goal is to 

negotiate in a principled way rather than in a manner that resembles 

fighting.

Principled negotiation has five 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 find 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 conflict 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 conflict 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 difficulties 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 scientific 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 

conflicts 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 scientific 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 conflict 

can have a positive impact—from improving group cohesion and enhancing 

research to promoting team goals.

• Initial signs of conflict are addressed promptly.

When It’s Not Working:

• There are undiscussed interpersonal conflict(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 conflict is not seen.

• There is a failure to listen carefully to team discussion.

• Group members interpret conflict 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, conflict can be productive and provide opportunities for 

creativity. If it is handled poorly, it can undermine a team’s functioning.

• Ignoring conflict is a sure way to guarantee that it will remain alive and perhaps 

worsen.

• Resolving conflict 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 conflicts; 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 conflicts, 

ambiguities, or other concerns when they arise.

• Taking the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Type Instrument can greatly benefit 

the team by helping everyone understand their (and others’) conflict styles.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide

PAGE: 112 

CHAPTER 11

Sustaining and 

Strengthening the Team

A scientific 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 find that many of the interdependent characteristics of successful teams are 

also at play in positive team dynamics, including good communication, effective 

conflict 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 benefits 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 identifies 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 definition scientific 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 finding 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 field 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 flourish.

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 conflicts 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 identifies 

five traits that characterize 

dysfunctional teams:

• Absence of trust

• Fear of conflict

• 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 identified 

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 find 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 first 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 firing when nothing else works. 

As many can attest, dynamics are not necessarily tangible or easy to define; 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 Scientific 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 Office of the Ombudsman, Center for Conflict 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 scientific 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 scientific achievements.
Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide

PAGE: 119 

Emotional Intelligence

A positive mood supports a team’s flexibility 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 difficult 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 insufficient 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 scientific 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 confines 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 benefits 

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 influenced 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 scientific 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 five 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 modified 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 benefit 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 filled 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 efficient 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 specific 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 identified 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 identified. 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 influence, 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 influencing 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 finding other people with similar passions and interests with whom to unravel 

complexities and make new discoveries?

It is not just successful scientific 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 

difficult about writing. With him movement was always forward . . . [A]s we were 

writing our first 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 final 

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 benefits” (Fredrickson & Losada, 

2005). These benefits are both behavioral and physical. Among the noteworthy 

behavioral benefits 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 (LMBennett@nih.gov)

L. Michelle Bennett directs the Center for Research Strategy (CRS), a strategic 

scientific planning and analysis office that serves the NCI Director and supports 

NCI priorities. Located within the Office of the Director, CRS is ideally positioned 

to collaborate, catalyze, convene, and coordinate initiatives across NCI’s Divisions, 

Offices, 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 scientific 

problems and is certified 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 (howard.gadlin@gmail.com)

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 conflict resolution and team science activities. Dr. Gadlin has years of experience 

working with conflicts 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 (Christophe.Marchand@nih.gov)

Christophe Marchand is a Health Scientist Administrator in the Center for Research 

Strategy within the Office 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 scientific 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 final 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?

Conflict of Interest

• How will you identify potential conflicts of interest among collaborators?

• Could a collaborator or any close family members or associates benefit financially 

from the research?

• Is a collaborator receiving money from someone who could benefit financially 

from the research?

B. “WELCOME TO MY TEAM” TEMPLATE

The Letter can transmit important information about: 

• Goal of research group/PI vision 

• Fulfilling the mission and providing training 

• Role of the PI or Team Leader(s) – what can be expected 

• Expectations of laboratory or team members 

Specific 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 

• Scientific 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 

Scientific 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-defined 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 identifies 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 defined 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 define administrative home

4. Which resources will be provided by which department/organization

5. Commit to annual review and define 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 

significantly 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 

significant scientific contributions?

3. Is the contribution essential for the overall success of the project?

4. How did the contribution influence 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 field, or did the scientist merely modify existing software to make it 

compatible with the workflow 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 field of research? What is the significance 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 conflict: 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). Conflict, 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 highability problem solvers.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(46): 16385-16389.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five 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 TeamBased 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 Scientific 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). Strengthsfinder 2.0. New York, Gallup Press.

Ross, L. (1996). Naive Realism: Implications for Social Conflict 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 field 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 Conflict 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