Examining Multiteam Systems Across Context and Type: A Historiometric Analysis of Failed MTS Performance

Abstract

Multiteam systems (MTSs) are complex organizational forms comprising interdependent teams that work towards their own proximal goals within and across teams to also accomplish a shared superordinate goal. MTSs operate within high-stakes, dangerous contexts with high consequences for suboptimal performance. We answer calls for nuanced exploration and cross-context comparison of MTSs “in the wild” by leveraging the MTS action sub-phase behavioral taxonomy to determine where and how MTS failures occur. To our knowledge, this is the first study to also examine how key MTS attributes (boundary status, goal type) influence MTS processes and performance. We conducted historiometric analysis on 40 cases of failed MTS performance across various contexts (e.g., emergency response, commercial transportation, military, and business) to uncover patterns of within- and between-team behaviors of failing MTSs, resulting in four themes. First, component teams of failing MTSs over-engaged in within-team alignment behaviors (vs. between-team behaviors) by enacting acting, monitoring, and recalibrating behaviors more often within than between teams. Second, failing MTSs over-focused on acting behaviors (vs. monitoring or recalibrating) and tended to not fully enact the action sub-phase cycle. Third and fourth, boundary status and goal type exacerbated these behavioral patterns, as external and physical MTSs were less likely to enact sufficient between-team behaviors or fully enact the action sub-phase cycle compared to internal and intellectual MTSs. We propose entrainment as a mechanism for facilitating MTS performance wherein specific, cyclical behavioral patterns enacted by teams align to facilitate goal achievement via three multilevel behavioral cycles (i.e., acting-focused, alignment-focused, and adjustment-focused). We argue that the degree to which these cycles are aligned both between teams and with the overarching MTS goal determines whether and how an MTS fails. Our findings add nuance beyond single-context MTS studies by showing that the identified behavioral patterns hold both across contexts and almost all types of MTS action-phase behaviors. We show that these patterns vary by MTS boundary status and goal type. Our findings inform MTS training best practices, which should be structured to integrate all component teams and tailored to both MTS attributes (i.e., boundary status, goal type) and situation type (e.g., contingency planning).

The psychology of interoperability: A systematic review of joint working between the UK emergency services

“…Yet, ironically, it has been found that sub‐teams working within MTSs tend to prioritize intra‐team over inter‐team communications (Allen et al, 2014; Wang et al, 2015). This tendency to favour intra‐team communications is more likely to happen when under stress (Campbell et al, 2022) and when organizations lack a culture of information sharing (Bharosa et al, 2010; Kwon et al, 2011). Within emergency response contexts, it has been shown that processes for information sharing are not embedded; the Manchester Arena Inquiry (Saunders, 2022) noted there was a failure to identify who needed specific pieces of information, there were no clear radio channels to communicate information, and agencies failed to co‐locate at the scene limiting communications.…”

Patient care in complex Sociotechnological ecosystems and learning health systems

“…79 Overall, a failed MTS can be defined as an MTS whose performance, in the face of challenges, resulted in a failure to achieve targeted distal goals. 80 In their historiometric analysis of failed MTS performance, Campbell and colleagues 80 identified four major themes that were found across or seen as a contributing factor in known cases of MTS breakdown. Using the action subphases or team alignment behaviors (acting, monitoring, and recalibrating) at the within-and betweenteams levels from Torres et al 78 as the foundation for their evaluation, they noted that failing MTSs demonstrated an imbalance in withinteam alignment behaviors more often than and at the expense of between-team alignment behaviors.…”

“…Real‐world cases of failed MTSs can range from extreme, high‐stakes contexts such as the 2017 collision of three U.S. Navy vessels, resulting in the deaths of several Navy sailors and millions of dollars in damages, 78 to less extreme contexts such as the 2013 failed launch day for the Affordable Care Act website, which saw more than 250 000 users, of which only six were able to select a plan and submit an application 79 . Overall, a failed MTS can be defined as an MTS whose performance, in the face of challenges, resulted in a failure to achieve targeted distal goals 80 …”

Social science and teams: a patient perspective

“…Multiteam systems operate in high-stakes and dynamic environments that require deep coordination of actions and responses, tracking and monitoring information, sharing and information exchange, and adapting actions as new information or exchanges occur both within and across teams [5,6]. This creates a situation with important consequences for suboptimal performance [6]. The demands of multiteam systems increase the challenges of creating cohesive, interdependently functioning and high-performing teams that enhance effectiveness for both members and patients.…”

“…provide high-quality and safe patient care). Multiteam systems operate in high-stakes and dynamic environments that require deep coordination of actions and responses, tracking and monitoring information, sharing and information exchange, and adapting actions as new information or exchanges occur both within and across teams [5,6]. This creates a situation with important consequences for suboptimal performance [6].…”