Why Compromise and Consensus Matter to Multidisciplinary Teams

Multidisciplinary Teams Among the many challenges that teams face when they set out to solve a problem or create a working relationship on specific issues is the need for members of the team to relate well with each other -- in particular, when the team is composed of individuals that represent several disciplines. I have been part of teams that were composed of members from radically different disciplines. I know first-hand the challenges and pitfalls that these teams face.

This reflective blog embraces key points in the literature about working with multidisciplinary teams, and my personal observations and beliefs. When consensus is challenging and even problematic A major metropolitan community in California was confronting the problem of homelessness, and I was asked, as a journalist, to be part of a panel that would explore the problem and present potential solutions to the city council. My recollections of the dynamics of this panel are more vivid than what actually was accomplished.

The panel included: a city planning commissioner; a social worker; a Roman Catholic priest who ran a soup kitchen; a Jewish Rabbi, and a Protestant pastor; a registered nurse; and myself. Our task was to come up with ideas that could provide solutions (housing, meals, healthcare).

There was no one representing the homeless community; I had befriended a homeless man for a story I wrote, so I went to him and eventually he agreed to participate (I promised him to take him to breakfast each day that we were to meet). After being bogged down by the Protestant pastor's insistence that we should address the problem of aggressive panhandlers first, we tried to reach consensus on where funds would come from so homeless people could get three decent meals a day.

In our first meeting, suggested that we agree to a goal of reaching formal consensus on at least two objectives: sources of funding and potential places to serve free meals to homeless people. The challenge for a multidisciplinary group is to "…optimize the utilization of specific expertise" while working towards consensus on specific solutions (Deane, et al., 2015). The Jewish Rabbi became the transactional leader we needed, tending to the moment-to-moment tasks, showing patience when arguments between the homeless person and the planning department person disrupted the flow of the meetings.

The rabbi tactfully pointed out flaws in arguments, achieved peace when there was tension, and he also showed skill at being a transformational leader, providing "…a more idealized informational form of leadership" that instilled "clear values…mission…intellectual stimulation" (Deane 2015). The rabbi was so effective I moved that he be selected as chair, and all agreed.

Our first meeting did not result in any firm recommendations, but the rabbi appointed each member to research specific aspects of funding meals, where they would be served, and what nonprofit groups would be asked to participate (we set aside healthcare). The priest prepared the agenda for meeting two, and the rabbi ensured that "all relevant team members" were included in debate and discussion (NHS 2010).

The planning person presented a list of available grants; the homeless person had gone to the library and reported on nutritional needs of homeless people, but when the nurse interjected her view that there would never be a free meal.