Multi-agency services: Team building

RSS web feeds

Share
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
- Reddit
- Facebook
- StumbleUpon
Print
Email
Save
Feedback

Multi-agency services: Team building

This section includes information on considerations for team building, presenting a selection of conceptual models and practical recommendations from the extensive literature on the subject.

See below for information on:

Conceptual models

forming, storming, norming, performing –a team building model
external and internal commitment
creative conflict
group think
power and status.

Practical considerations for team building

good practice in multi-agency team work
common framework and language.

Forming, storming, norming, performing

There are lots of ways of conceptualising the way a team is developed, but a model developed in 1965 by Bruce Tuckman provides a simple and effective starting point in relation to multi-agency services. He identified four stages that teams go through on their route to maximum effectiveness.

Stage 1: Forming

The group is not yet a group but a set of individuals.

Their behaviour is driven by a desire to be accepted by the others, and avoid controversy or conflict. Serious issues and feelings are avoided, and people focus on being busy with routines, such as team organisation, who does what and when to meet. They may talk about the purpose of the group, its definition or its composition.

Individuals are also gathering information and impressions – about each other, and about the scope of the task and how to approach it.

This is a comfortable stage to be in, but the avoidance of conflict and threat can mean that not much gets done.

Stage 2: Storming

As the work of the team and the real issues start to be addressed, it will become more difficult for team members to avoid conflict.

It is normal for groups to go through a conflict stage when the consensus on purpose, leadership and behaviour is challenged and re-established. Personal agendas will be revealed and in some cases hostility may be generated. Some individuals will be glad to be getting into the real issues, while others will wish for the comfort and security of Stage 1.

If successfully handled, this period of storming leads to a new and more realistic setting of objectives, procedures and norms. This stage is particularly important for testing the norms of trust in the group.

Stage 3: Norming

Individuals feel they are part of a cohesive, effective group as they establish norms and practice – in effect, their own multi-agency organisational culture.

These 'rules of engagement' influence how the team will operate, as well as what is appropriate in terms of behaviour, level of work and degree of openness and trust. Individuals may push the boundaries to gauge the level of commitment that is expected.

Team members now understand each other better, and can appreciate each other's skills and experience. They listen, appreciate and support, and are prepared to change pre-conceived views.

Individuals have had to work hard to attain this stage, and may resist any pressure to change, for fear of reverting to the 'storming' stage.

Stage 4: Performing

This stage is characterised by interdependence and flexibility.

Team members know each other well enough to be able to work together, and trust each other enough to allow independent activity.

Roles and responsibilities can change according to need. The energy of the group is directed towards the task in hand, and this is when it is likely to be most productive.

External and internal commitment

Successful team performance will require commitment from all members of the team. Argyris discusses two modes of commitment: external and internal (as defined in the table below). Both are valuable in the workplace, but only internal commitment reinforces empowerment and transformation.

External commitment	Internal commitment
Tasks are defined by others	Individuals define tasks
The behaviour required to perform tasks is defined by others	Individuals define the behaviour required to perform tasks
Performance goals are defined by management	Management and individuals jointly define performance goals that are challenging for the individual
The importance of the goal is defined by others	Individuals define the importance of the goal

For staff to be more committed to the team, management must encourage the development of internal rather than external commitment. This will mean involving staff in defining their work objectives, specifying how to achieve them, and setting stretch targets, both for the team collectively and individually for themselves.

Creative conflict

Conflict is one of the most exciting free resources that exist in any group of people. Conflict is present wherever human beings interact and try to reach agreement about how they can move forward collectively. So it helps to stop seeing conflict as something to be avoided, and to embrace it as an untapped resource waiting to be harnessed.

Conflict is simply representative of the differences in people's beliefs about the most appropriate way forward in a particular situation. Dealing with conflict challenges individuals to remain curious rather than being angry because someone holds a different view. This opens up the potential that no single person holds the absolute truth, but that sharing our differences enables us to move to a new understanding of the appropriate way to manage a particular issue.

In the team building model outlined by Bruce Tuckman (1965), the second critical phase in the development of any team is the 'storming' phase, in which the consensus is challenged, personal viewpoints become more apparent and hostility may be generated. Tuckman suggests that this phase is important for testing the levels of trust in the group. It can also provide a starting point for gaining a genuine understanding of different viewpoints and a shared understanding of why everyone is there.

The process of 'storming' – or conflict – can be complex and risky, but if the discussion is kept focused on the team's purpose and related activities, it becomes possible to distinguish and understand the points of tension and conflict. It can depersonalise conflict and offers the possibility of working with the issues that lie beneath the surface to carry out the agreed tasks.

If a multi-agency service loses sight of its differences in responding to the needs of children and families, then there is a danger it will simply offer a watered-down approach. The rigour involved in creative inter-disciplinary discussion and dialogue over differences in approaches can help to ensure that actions are taken for well-grounded reasons.

Group think

Another point in favour of conflict – on an ongoing basis – is that it helps to resist the development of 'group think' (Horwath, 2005), which happens when a group becomes so cohesive and insulated that norms develop where certain ideas become accepted and go unchallenged. In these situations distorted assessments of the child and family situation can occur. Howarth's work suggests that those most vulnerable to 'group think' are teams which are:

very cohesive
insulated from information outside the group
reluctant to search systematically through alternative options
often working under stress and are dominated by a directive group leader.

Power and status

It is also helpful to be alert to the dynamics created by perceptions of power and status (Horwath, 2005). There are different types of power, for example:

hierarchy (formal positional power)
status (perceptions of positional power)
influence (informal power)
control of strategic resources
possession of knowledge or skills.

Practitioners' perception of their own power and status and that of other group members will influence their engagement in collaborative practice and the authority they are given.

For example, medicine has traditionally been regarded as a high-status profession and greater weight has usually been given to medical knowledge rather than social knowledge. This means medical professionals may have a disproportionate influence in collaborative working. Power may also derive from the perceived centrality of the professional's agency to the work in hand. In these situations, if some professionals do not consider themselves to be as 'important' as others they may remain less committed to working together or be unsure of the value of their contribution, and consequently leave the work to others.

Multi-agency working can have the unintended consequence of creating core and peripheral participants. Core participants might be those who work full time, who are high status and to whom the partnership work is a major element of their practice. Participants who feel peripheral may include part-time workers, those seconded into teams for short periods, or those who feel that they are not core to the main purpose of the joint enterprise. People can also feel peripheral where most of the team are co-located but some are not. Effective leadership recognises the dangers of workers feeling peripheral and values the role and knowledge of such workers.

Reading and resources

Tuckman, B., 'Developmental sequence in small groups', Psychological bulletin (1965, vol. 63), pp.384-399

Horwath, J., 'Managing difference: Working effectively in a multi-agency context' in Cawson, P., et al. (eds) Safeguarding children: A shared responsibility (2005), Chichester: Wiley

Click for more information on the Tuckman model and other models of team building.

Click for more information on theories of action, as developed by organisational psychologist Chris Argyris.

Good practice in multi-agency team work

Based on an extensive research review, Frost (2005) provides the following practical recommendations for how good practice in multi-agency team work can be developed and sustained.

Leadership strategies:

respect specialist expertise and celebrate professional diversity, for example recognise and value difference; build a definition of expertise that values diversity
stress interpersonal flexibility and value of personal relationships within the team
actively engage diverse perspectives independent of their status in the team
reflect collaboratively on problems prior to prescribing solutions
work towards mutuality of terminology in the team and service delivery activities.

At structural/organisational level:

co-location of professionals in shared buildings; evidence suggests that co-location assists communication, learning and understanding of roles
planning services with all team members present at meetings
reaching agreement on the team's objectives
staff need to celebrate how they are different from each other, but also how they are held together by a shared vision and common objectives
creating transparent lines of communication with partner agencies
reconciling tensions between employment and line management structures.

At ideological level:

Clarifying common goals.
Understanding the impact of changes in roles/responsibilities on professional identities
- Where partnership working is built, and where roles may become blurred, front-line staff require clear lines of accountability and appropriate professional support and supervisory arrangements.
Understanding the implications of changes in working practice on service users
- Effective joined-up working also includes partnerships with service users. This means involving them in the development of the service and conducting on-going research and evaluation on their experiences and outcomes. It is important to take their views and experiences seriously.

At procedural level:

Setting aside time for team building.
Establishing joint activities for members from different agencies.
Developing shared protocols and documentation
- Effective joined up working requires shared procedures that have been developed with the participation of the professionals involved. Procedures will have greater meaning and utility when they are accepted and owned by the front-line staff, and staff have been involved in producing them. This takes time and planning and needs to be handled with skill and leadership.
- Involving staff in the development of the team's processes and procedures can also contribute significantly to breaking down silos, generating understanding and building the team.
- Effective procedures and protocols should be regularly reviewed and consulted around and, when necessary, changed and reformed to reflect the changed realities of practice. This forms part of a learning loop where policy structures practice, but where practice should, in turn, inform and reform policy.
Providing ongoing support and training for staff undergoing changes in work practices.

Common framework and language

A significant barrier to team working is the fact that different language, eligibility criteria, standards and processes are used in different agencies and services. A common framework for levels of need and delivery of services, supported by common language and definitions, can help to remove that barrier and means that the people involved with a child or young person can share an understanding of their needs, as well as the ways to meet those needs.

Achieving a common language and agreeing a conceptual framework was an early goal for some of the information sharing and assessment trailblazers (Cleaver et al, 2004). Practitioners gained a better understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities when they were involved in the process of agreeing a common language and developing a conceptual framework. Involvement also resulted in them being able to influence subsequent developments and ensured that whatever was decided upon would be understood by as wide an audience as possible.

To assist in the development of a shared language for multi-agency working, we have developed a common language glossary to support multi-agency working which:

explains core concepts and definitions which are commonly confused or misunderstood by practitioners working in a multi-agency setting
brings together and explains overlap between different words that are used by different agencies to explain similar things
may help provide a starting point for you to consider how you use terminology appropriately and where you could reduce use of jargon and acronyms
indicates where terms are falling out of use and other terms are preferred, together with the reasons for this.

Use of jargon

Jargon can be used to reinforce professional status and exclude others. Attention should be paid to the importance of language and it should not be taken for granted that all members will necessarily understand, for example, complex medical terms or acronyms. Professionals should be encouraged not to use jargon in this way and should be supported to challenge use of jargon where inappropriate.

Reading and resources

Professionalism, partnership and joined-up thinking: A research review of front-line working with children and families (2005)

Developing information sharing and assessment systems: Research report (2004)

Developing information sharing and assessment systems: Research brief (2004)