The basis of clinical tribalism, hierarchy and stereotyping: A laboratory-controlled teamwork experiment

Jeffrey Braithwaite, Robyn Clay-Williams, Elia Vecellio, Danielle Marks, Tamara Hooper, Mary Westbrook, Johanna Westbrook, Brette Blakely, Kristiana Ludlow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the basis of multidisciplinary teamwork. In real-world healthcare settings, clinicians often cluster in profession-based tribal silos, form hierarchies and exhibit stereotypical behaviours. It is not clear whether these social structures are more a product of inherent characteristics of the individuals or groups comprising the professions, or attributable to a greater extent to workplace factors. Setting: Controlled laboratory environment with wellappointed, quiet rooms and video and audio equipment. Participants: Clinical professionals (n=133) divided into 35 groups of doctors, nurses and allied health professions, or mixed professions. Interventions: Participants engaged in one of three team tasks, and their performance was video-recorded and assessed. Primary and secondary measures: Primary: teamwork performance. Secondary, pre-experimental: a bank of personality questionnaires designed to assess participants' individual differences. Postexperimental: the 16-item Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale (MHPTS) to measure teamwork skills; this was selfassessed by participants and also by external raters. In addition, external, arm's length blinded observations of the videotapes were conducted. Results: At baseline, there were few significant differences between the professions in collective orientation, most of the personality factors, Machiavellianism and conservatism. Teams generally functioned well, with effective relationships, and exhibited little by way of discernible tribal or hierarchical behaviours, and no obvious differences between groups (F (3, 31)=0.94, p=0.43). Conclusions: Once clinicians are taken out of the workplace and put in controlled settings, tribalism, hierarchical and stereotype behaviours largely dissolve. It is unwise therefore to attribute these factors to fundamental sociological or psychological differences between individuals in the professions, or aggregated group differences. Workplace cultures are more likely to be influential in shaping such behaviours. The results underscore the importance of culture and context in improvement activities. Future initiatives should factor in culture and context as well as individuals' or professions' characteristics as the basis for inducing more lateral teamwork or better interprofessional collaboration.

LanguageEnglish
Article numbere012467
Pages1-10
Number of pages10
JournalBMJ Open
Volume6
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2016

Fingerprint

Stereotyping
Workplace
Individuality
Personality
Machiavellianism
Controlled Environment
Health Occupations
Videotape Recording
Task Performance and Analysis
Politics
Nurses
Psychology
Delivery of Health Care
Equipment and Supplies

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Cite this

@article{7e724d6200624f1396fe1c05d3e04439,
title = "The basis of clinical tribalism, hierarchy and stereotyping: A laboratory-controlled teamwork experiment",
abstract = "Objectives: To examine the basis of multidisciplinary teamwork. In real-world healthcare settings, clinicians often cluster in profession-based tribal silos, form hierarchies and exhibit stereotypical behaviours. It is not clear whether these social structures are more a product of inherent characteristics of the individuals or groups comprising the professions, or attributable to a greater extent to workplace factors. Setting: Controlled laboratory environment with wellappointed, quiet rooms and video and audio equipment. Participants: Clinical professionals (n=133) divided into 35 groups of doctors, nurses and allied health professions, or mixed professions. Interventions: Participants engaged in one of three team tasks, and their performance was video-recorded and assessed. Primary and secondary measures: Primary: teamwork performance. Secondary, pre-experimental: a bank of personality questionnaires designed to assess participants' individual differences. Postexperimental: the 16-item Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale (MHPTS) to measure teamwork skills; this was selfassessed by participants and also by external raters. In addition, external, arm's length blinded observations of the videotapes were conducted. Results: At baseline, there were few significant differences between the professions in collective orientation, most of the personality factors, Machiavellianism and conservatism. Teams generally functioned well, with effective relationships, and exhibited little by way of discernible tribal or hierarchical behaviours, and no obvious differences between groups (F (3, 31)=0.94, p=0.43). Conclusions: Once clinicians are taken out of the workplace and put in controlled settings, tribalism, hierarchical and stereotype behaviours largely dissolve. It is unwise therefore to attribute these factors to fundamental sociological or psychological differences between individuals in the professions, or aggregated group differences. Workplace cultures are more likely to be influential in shaping such behaviours. The results underscore the importance of culture and context in improvement activities. Future initiatives should factor in culture and context as well as individuals' or professions' characteristics as the basis for inducing more lateral teamwork or better interprofessional collaboration.",
author = "Jeffrey Braithwaite and Robyn Clay-Williams and Elia Vecellio and Danielle Marks and Tamara Hooper and Mary Westbrook and Johanna Westbrook and Brette Blakely and Kristiana Ludlow",
note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012467",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "1--10",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "British Medical Journal Publishing Group",
number = "7",

}

The basis of clinical tribalism, hierarchy and stereotyping : A laboratory-controlled teamwork experiment. / Braithwaite, Jeffrey; Clay-Williams, Robyn; Vecellio, Elia; Marks, Danielle; Hooper, Tamara; Westbrook, Mary; Westbrook, Johanna; Blakely, Brette; Ludlow, Kristiana.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 6, No. 7, e012467, 01.07.2016, p. 1-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The basis of clinical tribalism, hierarchy and stereotyping

T2 - BMJ Open

AU - Braithwaite, Jeffrey

AU - Clay-Williams, Robyn

AU - Vecellio, Elia

AU - Marks, Danielle

AU - Hooper, Tamara

AU - Westbrook, Mary

AU - Westbrook, Johanna

AU - Blakely, Brette

AU - Ludlow, Kristiana

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Objectives: To examine the basis of multidisciplinary teamwork. In real-world healthcare settings, clinicians often cluster in profession-based tribal silos, form hierarchies and exhibit stereotypical behaviours. It is not clear whether these social structures are more a product of inherent characteristics of the individuals or groups comprising the professions, or attributable to a greater extent to workplace factors. Setting: Controlled laboratory environment with wellappointed, quiet rooms and video and audio equipment. Participants: Clinical professionals (n=133) divided into 35 groups of doctors, nurses and allied health professions, or mixed professions. Interventions: Participants engaged in one of three team tasks, and their performance was video-recorded and assessed. Primary and secondary measures: Primary: teamwork performance. Secondary, pre-experimental: a bank of personality questionnaires designed to assess participants' individual differences. Postexperimental: the 16-item Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale (MHPTS) to measure teamwork skills; this was selfassessed by participants and also by external raters. In addition, external, arm's length blinded observations of the videotapes were conducted. Results: At baseline, there were few significant differences between the professions in collective orientation, most of the personality factors, Machiavellianism and conservatism. Teams generally functioned well, with effective relationships, and exhibited little by way of discernible tribal or hierarchical behaviours, and no obvious differences between groups (F (3, 31)=0.94, p=0.43). Conclusions: Once clinicians are taken out of the workplace and put in controlled settings, tribalism, hierarchical and stereotype behaviours largely dissolve. It is unwise therefore to attribute these factors to fundamental sociological or psychological differences between individuals in the professions, or aggregated group differences. Workplace cultures are more likely to be influential in shaping such behaviours. The results underscore the importance of culture and context in improvement activities. Future initiatives should factor in culture and context as well as individuals' or professions' characteristics as the basis for inducing more lateral teamwork or better interprofessional collaboration.

AB - Objectives: To examine the basis of multidisciplinary teamwork. In real-world healthcare settings, clinicians often cluster in profession-based tribal silos, form hierarchies and exhibit stereotypical behaviours. It is not clear whether these social structures are more a product of inherent characteristics of the individuals or groups comprising the professions, or attributable to a greater extent to workplace factors. Setting: Controlled laboratory environment with wellappointed, quiet rooms and video and audio equipment. Participants: Clinical professionals (n=133) divided into 35 groups of doctors, nurses and allied health professions, or mixed professions. Interventions: Participants engaged in one of three team tasks, and their performance was video-recorded and assessed. Primary and secondary measures: Primary: teamwork performance. Secondary, pre-experimental: a bank of personality questionnaires designed to assess participants' individual differences. Postexperimental: the 16-item Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale (MHPTS) to measure teamwork skills; this was selfassessed by participants and also by external raters. In addition, external, arm's length blinded observations of the videotapes were conducted. Results: At baseline, there were few significant differences between the professions in collective orientation, most of the personality factors, Machiavellianism and conservatism. Teams generally functioned well, with effective relationships, and exhibited little by way of discernible tribal or hierarchical behaviours, and no obvious differences between groups (F (3, 31)=0.94, p=0.43). Conclusions: Once clinicians are taken out of the workplace and put in controlled settings, tribalism, hierarchical and stereotype behaviours largely dissolve. It is unwise therefore to attribute these factors to fundamental sociological or psychological differences between individuals in the professions, or aggregated group differences. Workplace cultures are more likely to be influential in shaping such behaviours. The results underscore the importance of culture and context in improvement activities. Future initiatives should factor in culture and context as well as individuals' or professions' characteristics as the basis for inducing more lateral teamwork or better interprofessional collaboration.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982709266&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1054146

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012467

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012467

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 7

M1 - e012467

ER -