Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Workflow interruptions are skyrocketing in the contemporary workplace, especially in collaborative team environments. The reliance on (communication) technologies and accessibility through email and phone creates increasing avenues for frequent teamwork interruptions. In this study, we investigate in fourteen multidisciplinary team meetings in hybrid healthcare settings (1) which workflow interruptions naturally emerge and (2) how these interruptions influence the communicative processes within the team. We find evidence for an interruptive meeting environment, characterized by videoconferencing issues, disruptive beepers/phones that go off, and people leaving and entering the meeting room during patient discussions. Contrary to what was expected, team members initially respond to the interruption with positive statements (i.e., humor) as a coping mechanism, which decreases significantly in the minutes after the interruptive event. After the interruptive episode, significantly more negative statements, as well as conversational repetitiveness occurs. This research contributes to understanding naturally occurring workflow interruptions in actual organizational healthcare teams, by providing objective and fine-grained empirical insights into how workflow interruptions affect changes in the teams’ communication.

Keywords

Teams or teamwork communication health-care

Introduction

In the rapidly growing and changing work environment of today, organizations employ teams with boundaries characterized by increased permeability (Driskell et al., 2023). Permeable team boundaries imply that team members must be able to move quickly and easily in and out of teams (Dibble & Gibson, 2018). Notably, in healthcare environments characterized by high turnover and labor shortages, teams experience evolving compositions with members assuming roles across various teams, resulting in concurrently attending tasks and signals (Mayo et al., 2023).

While these fluid forms of organizing play a pivotal role in maximizing personnel resources in the healthcare sector (Mayo et al., 2023), they also pose new challenges for organizations and teams. One central challenge associated with permeable teams is the one of workflow interruptions. We define workflow interruptions as ‘an unexpected suspension of the behavioral performance or the attentional focus from an ongoing work task’ (Puranik et al., 2020, p. 817). The rapid advancement of technology and the arrival of fluid team structures have facilitated inter-team communication while engendering an increase in interruptions (Mayo et al., 2023). Team meetings are susceptible to diverse interruptions that influence team functioning, such as external telephone calls (Wiesche, 2021), technological malfunctions (Gillespie et al., 2012), and physical disruptions within meeting spaces (van der Meer et al., 2022).

Although extant research has broadly examined the impact of interruptions on various outcomes, such as task interferences (Bretonnier et al., 2020) or productivity (Wiesche, 2021), it has lacked in-depth exploration of their effects on team processes, notably communication. Although Gillespie et al. (2012) found a positive correlation between interruptions and miscommunications that emerge during surgical procedures, the authors look at the phenomenon while taking aggregates of variables per meeting and do not take into account the timing of these events and whether interruptions temporally precede miscommunications. In addition, van der Meer et al. (2022) looked at the effects of one interruption on communication patterns in an exploratory manner. While they do consider the temporal aspect, they look at one manipulated interruption only, while in organizational settings multiple and natural occurring interruptions are common.

Understanding the effects of interruptions on team communication in a fine-grained manner is essential, as it reveals how interruptions can hinder the team’s ability to jointly diagnose problems and develop appropriate interventions, drawing on the knowledge and expertise of its members. Communication is the medium through which organizational team members form a collective unit, achieve collective goals, and sustain their shared identity (Frey et al., 1999; Keyton et al., 2021). Team communication, defined as an exchange of information between two or more team members (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009) is crucial for team performance (Marlow et al., 2018) and serves as the primary means through which most team collaboration is accomplished (McComb & Kennedy, 2020). Particularly, in teams tasked to diagnose and solve complex problems (which is the type of team we consider in this study), successful task performance relies heavily on the active exchanges of ideas, expertise, experience, and inspiration — activities rooted in interpersonal communication (Janssens et al., 2022; Kratzer et al., 2004, 2008; Leenders et al., 2007; Yu, 2005).

In the current paper we contribute to the understanding of interruptions in team settings by studying actual real-time occurring interruptions in organizational teams and how they relate to granular changes in the team’s communication processes. Specifically, we investigate how workflow interruptions influence the substance (‘communication content’) and tone (‘communication valence’) of team communication. Both facets of communication are important and are intricately linked within conversational dynamics and thus warrant simultaneous consideration (Keyton & Beck, 2009).

Adopting a temporal lens, we scrutinize changes in moment-to-moment communication, recognizing that interruptions inherently trigger shifts in focus, thereby impacting how conversational time is allocated post-interruption (Ancona et al., 2001; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017). This temporal perspective is crucial as it allows us to assess alterations in communication content and valence in response to naturally unfolding workflow interruptions (Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Feldman & Greenway, 2021). This has not been explored before and it is relevant given that it broadens our understanding of how organizational teams actually deal with interruptions, how it affects the quality of (in our empirical setting) the critical decision-making process, as well as whether the team as a whole is affected by an interruption in their conversational space or just an individual in the team.

Substantively, our study contributes to two key facets within the field. First, we extend the analytical lens beyond the individual level, which has been predominant in existing research (Puranik et al., 2020). Although some work has focused on the effects of interruptions on individuals, theory and empirical findings at the individual level cannot simply be aggregated to the level of a team, considering the complex interactions and interdependencies among team members (Driskell & Salas, 1992; Goldstone & Gureckis, 2009). Recognizing the widespread presence of teams in organizational settings, we advocate for a thorough understanding of work interruptions by exploring their impact on team dynamics, while keeping in mind the interactive nature that is fundamental to team functioning (Goldstone & Gureckis, 2009; van der Meer et al., 2022). By studying the effects of interruptions on team communication we foster a fine-grained, process-oriented understanding of interruptions within teams.

Second, our study contributes to a dynamic, multi-level understanding of teams advocated by team scholars (Mathieu et al., 2019), by analyzing what team members say and do and how that is nested in time. Recognizing the dynamic nature of teams, scholars have emphasized the significance of examining temporal dynamics (Cronin et al., 2011; Klonek et al., 2019; Leenders et al., 2016). By using a temporal approach to examine the effects of interruptions on team communication and by focusing on communication patterns within short-term time frames, we gain fine-grained insights into how problem-solving teams manage high information processing demands during interruptive events.

Theoretical Background

Workflow Interruptions

Interruptions within organizational teams may cause a temporary pause in the team’s behavioral performance and results in teams shifting attention away from a primary task they are currently engaged in (Puranik et al., 2020).

To date, research into work interruptions have predominantly unfolded at the individual level (Puranik et al., 2020). Work interruptions were found to have negative effects on individual performance (i.e., errors and accidents, delays) and well-being (i.e., stress, anxiety, emotional exhaustion; Puranik et al., 2020). At the team level, work interruptions affect not only individual team members but also the overall functioning of the team (van der Meer et al., 2022). The interruption impacts both the interrupted member as well as others in the group and communication actions and behaviors triggered by one team member following an interruption may affect those of other members as well, given the requisite collaboration to perform their joint task. Although relatively scarce, studies examining interruptions at the team level highlight their predominantly negative impact on team functioning. Specifically, interruptions are related to miscommunication (Gillespie et al., 2012), dissatisfaction, stress, delays, and distractions (Wiesche, 2021), as well as to issues concerning task distribution and completion (Tschan et al., 2011; Wiesche, 2021). Other papers have focused on interventions designed to mitigate the effects of interruptions in teams (Aydin et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Quinones Cardona et al., 2021) or have proposed computational models examining the effects of interruptions at a systemic level (Knight et al., 2023).

We build on the study of van der Meer et al. (2022) that has previously explored the impact of workflow interruptions on team communication. In this study, interruptions were artificially induced through confederates, focused on a single type of disruption only (i.e., change of meeting room) and investigated how communication changed. Our study further delves into the naturally occurring interruptions, encompassing a spectrum of types, intensities, timings, and occurrence rates, thereby enhancing ecological validity. Additionally, investigating the communicative responses by members of organizational teams to such naturally occurring interruptions is crucial for understanding their authentic impact (Leroy & Glomb, 2018; Puranik et al., 2020).

In our study we focus particularly on (external) stimuli or secondary activities that interrupt focused concentration on a primary team task (Jett, 2003). Interruptions may also stem from internal factors such as derailing train of thoughts (Seipp, 2019). However, the origin of an interruption (whether it is caused by external factors or initiated by oneself) matters in terms of consequences and spill-over effects for the team functioning. External interruptions are far more intrusive compared to internal sources (Puranik et al., 2021). Due to the fact that this research focuses on spill-over effects for team communication, we focus on external interruptions. This type of interruption is generally initiated by competing activities or environmental stimuli that are irrelevant to the team task at hand.

Communication Valence

Following the conceptualization of Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. (2013), we define communication valence as an observable, behavior-manifested process embedded in the teams’ interaction, which goes beyond the notion of individual internal affective states. Thus, we do not focus on static features or affective states of individuals but rather on behavioral manifestations that are represented in the communicative acts of team members. We also focus on a dynamic team interaction context, because – especially in teams – individuals are subject to social influence (Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008) and hence their communicative acts are influenced by the teams they are embedded in. Communication valence in organizational teams can be either relatively positive or negative in nature. In line with previous team conceptualizations, we define positivity as an individual’s observable verbal statement that expresses or implies optimism or enthusiasm and that is constructive, supportive and affirmative in intention and attitude (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). Examples of positive statements are ‘This sounds great,’ ‘This could really work,’ or ‘I’m really looking forward to this’ (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). Opposingly, negativity in team interactions is defined as the verbal expressions of disaffirmation that emphasizes the negative status quo and does not advance the team meeting (Gerpott et al., 2020). Examples of negative statements are: ‘This would never work here’ or ‘Others know better how to solve the problem’ (Gerpott et al., 2020).

We state that negativity or positivity statements are not isolated statements, but are formed and constrained by the buildup of moment-to-moment communication in teams (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017). Accordingly, positive and negative behavior in teams emerges and disappears and team valence can display both upward and downward changes over time (Barsade & Knight, 2015; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). One of the factors that may impact valence in teams are interruptive events. In the ensuing discussion, we describe how interruptions may trigger valence responses in teams.

Interruptions and Negative Valence

Interruptions manifest inherently as relational phenomena within the context of team collaboration, eliciting responses within the team (Fletcher et al., 2018; van der Meer et al., 2022). Initially, when an external interruption occurs, it compels a switch away from the primary task, conflicting with individuals' commitment to completing the task at hand and one’s preferences for continuing that work (Leroy et al., 2020). The misalignment between team members’ motivation to work on their primary task and the unexpected induced attention switch explains why workflow interruptions are likely to be experienced as a hindrance to goal progress (Leroy & Glomb, 2018). From this perspective, the workflow interruption, particularly those of an unexpected nature, may evoke negative communicative statements among team members.

Van der Meer et al. (2022) showed in their study that the extent to which organizational teams use negative communication is significantly different before and after the interruption. Although the overall frequency of negative communication did not change significantly, specific task statements triggered more negativity after the interruption, compared to before. Taking these insights into account, we posit that in healthcare teams, characterized by high information processing demands and time pressure, the negative effects of unexpected interruptions are especially salient; medical specialists need focus to process important and densely formulated information and need to come up with treatment plans for patients in a timely, adequate and uniform manner. Thus, workflow interruptions put cognitive strain on the information processing flow, resulting in emerging negativity statements directly after the interruption. Moreover, we hypothesize that initial negative behavioral responses trigger more negative statements within teams. We draw from social contagion theory (Wheeler, 1966) indicating that in a social interaction setting, when an event occurs that produces instigation (e.g., an interruption), people are likely to copy the behaviors of other members in the group: when one or more members express negative statements, the other members in the group are more inclined to use similar statements. Hence, observed negativity during the interruptions transcends towards more negativity directly after the interruption. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1: Team members initially respond with more negativity during interruptive events than during uninterrupted conversational time.

H2: Team members express more negativity statements in the five- minute time window after interruptive events, compared to uninterrupted conversational time.

Interruptions and Positive Valence

We posit that interruptions not only trigger negativity, but inhibit positivity in the team’s conversation as well. Interruptions in teams create a different momentary conversational context, with implications for the likelihood of positivity following that conversational moment. As the attention switches to the interruption, Van der Meer et al. (2022) found that teams use positive communication differently before and after the interruption. Specific statements (such as solution-oriented statements) triggered positivity before the interruptions, but not after them. Based on these findings, we posit that during naturally occurring interruptions, positivity in healthcare meetings is also inhibited. The attentional focus requires deviation from the primary task, which does not spark positivity, especially in task environments with high information processing requirements and time pressure. When focusing on moment-to-moment shifts in team’s conversations, we consider that interruptions inhibit positivity statements, which carries on in the conversation after the workflow interruption that has taken place.

H3: Team members make fewer positive communicative statements during the interruptive events than during uninterrupted conversational time.

H4: Team members express less positivity statements in the five- minute time window after the interruptive event, compared to uninterrupted conversational time.

Communication Content

Communication content describes verbal messages that are shared within the team that are associated with the task at hand. Communication content from one team member triggers other team members to add to the discussion and therefore shape co-construction (Zoethout et al., 2017). Thus, team members process verbally shared content communication from other medical physicians and use previously shared information to construct their own contribution. In the literature, this phenomenon is described as ‘transactivity’ or ‘co-construction,’ or as the extent to which team members act on each other’s reasoning (Raes et al., 2015; Zoethout et al., 2017). However, the occurrence of workflow interruptions makes it more difficult to build on what was said previously, because it disrupts the team members’ information processing system (Hinsz et al., 1997). Instead, team members take one step back to repeat or clarify what has been shared previously, which may potentially restore information processing failures caused by workflow interruptions (Schippers et al., 2014). Given that the healthcare work environment is known for its time pressure, the shift back into the primary task after an interruption is thus costly because team members may not remember which part of the primary task was last shared (Rivera-Rodriguez & Karsh, 2010). Therefore, we posit that the team showcases significantly more clarification behavior during meeting interruptive episodes. Consequently, when an interrupted task is resumed, it takes time to remember where one left off and regain focus. Leroy et al. (2020) states that the resumption lag to the primary task must be reactivated, steps previously completed and those left to complete must be remembered and attention must be reoriented towards the right set of task rules and context. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H5: Team members express more clarification statements during the interruptive event than during uninterrupted conversational time.

H6: Team members express more clarification statements in the five- minute time window after the interruptive event, compared to uninterrupted conversational time.

Method

Setting of the Study

Our study is situated within the context of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs), where medical professionals from diverse disciplines meet to deliberate and formulate treatment plans for patient care (Janssens et al., 2023; Rosell et al., 2019). MDTMs have been described as the ‘golden standard’ of healthcare organizing and hence more attention is warranted to understanding the communication dynamics of these team meetings (Johnson et al., 2018; Nancarrow et al., 2013; Soukup et al., 2020, 2021). Within multidisciplinary healthcare teams, examining workflow interruptions holds particular relevance due to the high cognitive demands and focus requisite for crafting suitable treatment plans for patients (Humphrey et al., 2007; Schippers et al., 2014). Moreover, this work environment is characterized by intense time pressures (Walraven et al., 2022; Zajac et al., 2021). Consequently, workflow interruptions may significantly interfere with the team’s communication process, altering deliberation trajectories, and, potentially influencing the quality of critical outcomes.

Sample Characteristics

In total, fourteen medical team meetings are observed, resulting in approximately 18 hours of video footage, ranging from meetings that take minimum 41 minutes to maximum one hour and 32 minutes (Mean = 1h 16 min; SD = 15min). The sample consists of multidisciplinary team meetings in a health care setting, in a non-academic European hospital. During these multidisciplinary decision-making boards, physicians gather on a weekly basis to discuss treatment plans for patients who have been diagnosed with cancer. This research setting is highly suitable for studying workflow interruptions because the physicians are required to share their expertise in order to jointly develop treatment plans for patients during the meeting. Although they are taking part in these meetings, the physicians are required to be accessible by work phone in case of emergencies with other patients. In addition to work phone interruptions, interruptions can also be related to people entering and exiting the room or be related to videoconferencing malfunctions (i.e., audio problems, screen sharing issues). This environment has been described and known as interruptive despite national quality guidelines that explicitly recommend that ‘disruptive elements such as beepers or telephones need to be kept to a minimum’ (Westerhuis, 2016, p. 8).

The data collection took place between July - September 2021. Team composition varied but included multiple subdisciplines, such as neurologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, radiotherapist-oncologists, neuro-surgeons, nurse specialists and, occasionally interns/ residents (doctors in training in order to become specialists), ranging from 12 to 21 uniquely contributing members in each meeting (M = 15.5, SD = 2.71). Work experience in the physicians’ current function varied between zero and 25 years (M = 8.22, SD = 6.23). Team members were between 27 and 59 years old (M = 41.23, SD = 8.3). Due to COVID-19 restrictions there was a maximum in terms of the number of people who were allowed in the room, given that space was limited. Therefore, some team members participated to the meeting digitally via an online video conferencing tool. The study was granted ethical approval by a mid-Western European Ethics Committee (complying with the national law on Medical Research in Humans) and informed consent was obtained from all team members.

Transcription

We captured the entire communication flow in audio and video material from each meeting. Each meeting room was equipped with a videoconferencing system, allowing us to record audio and video of participants in the meeting room as well as the participants present at other locations via videoconferencing stream. The audio and video recordings were transcribed into time-stamped sequences of ‘who says what at what time.’ The unit of analysis is a verbal contribution that expresses or implies a complete thought of verbal speech (Bales, 1950), of which there were 11,722 across all MDTMs.

Coding Process

In total, 12,494 verbal contributions were coded by two independent coders for communication content (i.e., clarification statements) and communication valence (i.e., positivity vs. negativity) using the coding software MAXQDA (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). A subset of 772 verbal utterances received the label ‘uncoded’ (due to noise the content was unable to be transcribed) resulting in a final dataset of 11,722 verbal communicative statements. A subset of the act4teams coding scheme was used as a foundation, which is described in the literature as valid and reliable measure for behavioral coding (Kauffeld et al., 2018; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). One meeting was double coded to determine inter-rater reliability between the two independent coders (one medical physician and one social scientist). There was good agreement between the two coders' judgements, κ = .897 (for a similar methodology see Janssens et al., 2023).

Measures

Communication Valence

Several papers have focused specifically on positivity behaviors (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017) or negativity behaviors (Gerpott et al., 2020; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010) as a subset from act4teams, which provided us with fine-grained guidance on how to code verbal contributions. Positivity was operationalized as a verbal expression that was constructive in intention or attitude, showing optimism and/or confidence that overall contributes to an enjoyable team atmosphere (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017). Negativity was operationalized as expressions of dissatisfaction or annoyance by criticizing, blocking, or disagreeing in negative tonal variance with one another (Gerpott et al., 2020; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010). Examples from our data can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Coding Scheme¹.

Behaviors		Explanation concept	Example dataset	Reference
Content	Question clarification	• Questions to clarify/repeat information stated before	‘So he is currently taking panitumumab?’	Siminoff, Laura A., and Mary M. Step. “A comprehensive observational coding scheme for analyzing instrumental, affective, and relational communication in health care contexts.” Journal of health communication 16.2 (2011): 178-197
			‘It’s solitary, isn’t it?’
			‘What are you saying, I can’t understand it’
	clarification	• Statements containing information that has already been shared prior	‘you just said that he is very poor cognitively’
	clarification		‘he only had ascal and that has now stopped’
Valence	Negativity	Expression of dissatisfaction or annoyance by
		• Implicitly or explicitly criticizing others	‘As if you’re going to immediately assess it for CAR-B, that is not how we do it right?’	Kauffeld, S., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Meinecke, A. L. (2018). 21 The advanced interaction analysis for teams (act4teams) coding scheme
			‘I am not a radiotherapist, but I think you should just treat this as a small cell carcinoma’
			‘Wait, that you know for sure?’
		• Blocking/ terminating the discussion in a negative way	‘Enough said’	Morgan , T. , Rackham , N. , & Hudson , H. ( 1974 ). DIS: Three years on . Industrial and Commercial training , 6 ( 6 ), 248 – 257 https://doi.org/10.1108/eb003406
		• Blocking/ terminating the discussion in a negative way	‘I said what I had to say’
		• Disagreement (with either procedural way of work or others input)	‘This is not our experience or interpretation, the patient record is not correct’	Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Chiu, M. M. (2017). Igniting and resolving content disagreements during team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis of team dynamics at work. Journal of organizational behavior, 39(9), 1142-1162
			‘and now we are supposed to solve this, while we receive a bulk of data all over us’
			‘And it wasn’t nice for us to have to do it so quickly, she had already deteriorated, thus this lady should actually have stayed there. With her own doctors.’
	Positivity	Expressions that contribute to enjoyable team atmosphere by
		• Encouraging or endorsing others	‘Yes, okay, okay, you’re doing this good’	Kauffeld, S., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Meinecke, A. L. (2018). 21 The advanced interaction analysis for teams (act4teams) coding scheme
			‘never change a winning team’
			‘you are also a jack of all trades, what did you see?’
		• Providing support	‘I’m going to help you out’	Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2012). The discussion coding system (DCS)—A new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication methods and measures, 6(1), 12-40
		• Humor and laughter patterns	‘The most difficult thing about this diagnosis is how you write it, a nice scrabble word’	Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1278
			‘it is a walking tumor’
			Surgeon: ‘I always see the added value of a resection, of course, but not for the patient’
		• Enthusiasm regarding patients diagnosis	‘yes, one of my favorite diagnoses, a T2 hyperintense mass, between clivus and pons, gives some mass effect on that pons completely unchanged, we have 3 scans here, one is from earlier this year, and this one is from 11 years ago completely unchanged and on the sagittal you can see here that or you can see that mass that is here, I think I should keep a little window, that mass is of course here and it has a very close relationship to clivus, but very often it changes little focus, but the rest does not color, and the images fit best with ecchordosis physaliphora’	Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Chiu, M. M., Lei, Z., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). Understanding positivity within dynamic team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis. Group & organization Management, 42(1), 39-78

¹The coding process is performed by two independent coders (a social science doctoral student as well as a medical physician in training). We acknowledge it is difficult to fully grasp all the variance in speaking tone (for e.g., negativity) solely based on a communicative statement in this table. Rather, based on the video (tonal variance) and conversational context, negativity could be clearly interpreted by two independent coders.

Communication Content

Each verbal contribution that reiterated information or questions about topics that had been shared prior, was labelled a ‘clarification statement.’ Clarification statements cover repetitiveness of information and represent a consistent behavioral code across various coding schemes (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012; Siminoff & Step, 2011). Examples can be found in Table 1.

Interruptions

A research assistant observed and noted all time-stamped interruptions taking place during all meetings. Three main intrusive interruptions observed are: (1) videoconferencing tool issues; (2) people entering or exiting the meeting and, (3) phones ringing. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of time and occurrences of the three main types of interruptions. Regarding the videoconferencing issues, we notice that – on average – more than one time per meeting, issues regarding the videoconferencing system are discussed (Mean = 1.86; SD = 1.35): team members talk explicitly about connection issues, screen sharing difficulties, or that physicians are not able to get through the system in order to contribute to the conversation. A second type of interruption consists of physicians exiting or entering the room while discussions regarding treatment plans for patients were ongoing. On average, people enter or exit the room eleven times per meeting (Mean = 11.71; SD = 6.99), with a maximum of 25 times during a single meeting. The third main type of interruption of that of beepers or phones ringing during patient case discussions. Physicians are required to be reachable by phone in case medical emergencies. On average the meeting is interrupted by a phone call almost five times (Mean = 4.71; SD = 2.97) with a maximum of twelve times.

Table 2.

Descriptive overview of intrusive workflow interruptions.

Interruption		Min	Max	Mean	SD	Total
1. Videoconferencing issues
	Time per meeting in HH:MM:SS	00:00:00	00:06:26	00:01:24	00:01:56	00:19:31
	Number of issues	0	5	1.86	1.35	26
2. People entering, leaving meeting
	Time per meeting in HH:MM:SS	00:00:10	00:04:07	00:01:28	00:01:06	00:20:35
	Number of occurrences	2	25	11.71	6.99	164
3. Phone ring
	Time per meeting in HH:MM:SS	00:00:03	00:02:27	00:00:44	00:00:43	00:10:10
	Number of occurrences	1	12	4.71	2.97	66

Notes: The external interruptions are displayed in absolute count values and time in HH:MM:SS format.

Data Preparation and Analysis

The time-stamped 11,722 verbal utterances were categorized according to their position relative to the interruption: utterances (1) during interruptive episodes, (2) during the period of 5 minutes¹ after the interruptive episode, and (3) during uninterrupted conversational time before an interruption (which does not overlap with the 5 minutes after the previous interruptive event). If interruptions happen one after the other in close temporal proximity, these conversations are clustered under the category ‘during interruptive episodes.’ From the moment that there is no next interruption within the following 5 minute time window, the ‘during period of 5 minutes’ starts. Hence, the 5 minutes period after an interruptive episode is truly uninterrupted. The selection of conversational time and examples for each category are visually shown in Figure 1. For each category, we calculated the frequencies of clarification statements, positivity statements, and negativity statements.

Figure 1.

Visual overview of intrusive workflow interruptions per meeting*. *The red box shown in meeting 13 is a conversational example that is categorized in the interruptive conversational episode category. The green box in meeting 1 showcases the time window of 5 minutes after interruptive events. The blue box in meeting 12 showcases the comparison group of uninterrupted conversational time.

Using the open-source software R, we employed a zero-inflated multilevel Poisson regression model for our analyses (Lee et al., 2006). This model is a good fit for our count data, because we observe an excess of zero counts in verbal contributions (e.g., reflecting neutral valence statements). We account for the multi-level structure of the data in the calculation of the z-values. Interruptions are nested in weekly meetings, thus we add the meeting level as a fixed effect in the zero-inflated Poisson regression model. The control group consists of the events during the period of conversational time i.e. not interrupted.

Small Sample Rationale

In this study, we opt for an in-depth exploration of a small sample of fine-grained data that can yield insights into the minute-to-second unfolding of team communicative changes in response to workflow interruptions. Although the observation size is small, it yields a rich set of data points (e.g., speech acts) reflecting 11,722 statements. The data collection process and coding for this type of research data is highly time intensive, but offers rich dataset structures. This type of dataset is sometimes referred to as “small-n, large-p.” In this context, “n” represents the number of cases (in our case: observed meetings), and “p” represents the number of variables or measures per case (in our case interruptions or communicative statements). However, this term is mainly used in the variable selection literature or the dimension reduction literature. In our case, we prefer the term “Big Small Data,” since that highlights that intricate quantitative analyses can be performed, even though only few cases were observed (Chakraborty et al., 2012; Loh, 2012).

By exploring quantitative changes in communicative behavior, prioritizing on a niche research area, we have maximized the potential of the limited sample to generate valuable insights. Given that the analyses are made at the level of the time stamped verbal utterances, we focused on a small sample size in terms of amount of meetings in order to better capture the context and the endogenous effects as opposed to having to deal with exogenous variables being present while expanding the scope of the research.

Results

Figure 1 illustrates the frequency of workflow interruptions per meeting. Next, we consider the change of communication valence and communication content in response to workflow interruptive events. Table 3 shows how communication content and communication valence changes (1) during the interruptive event, (2) within the five-minute period after the intrusive event and, (3) during uninterrupted conversational time.

Table 3.

Comparison of communicative statements during and after an interruptive event, compared to uninterrupted conversational time using zero-inflated Poisson regression comparisons

Behaviors		Timepoint	Frequency			Test statistic	Significance level
	Interaction level	Timepoint	Total amount of content/ valence statements	Total amount of communicative statements in timepoint category	Proportion: occurrence rate in %	Z value	p Value
Content	Question clarification + clarification	During interruption	127	2407	5.28%	−0.91	.366
		5 min after interruption	370	4467	8.28%	3.90**	< .001
		Uninterrupted	284	4848	5.86%
Valence	Negativity	During interruption	16	2407	0.66%	−1.81	0.070
		5 min after interruption	98	4467	2.19%	4.00	< .001
		Uninterrupted	54	4848	1.11%
	Positivity	During interruption	93	2407	3.86%	2.12	0.034
		5min after interruption	90	4467	2.01%	−2.96	0.003
		Uninterrupted	141	4848	2.91%

Notes: Zero-inflated Poisson regression models are used to model count data that has an excess of zero counts. We accounted for the weekly meetings, meaning that we control for meeting effects in the calculation of the Z values. The control group is listed as the period of conversational time that is uninterrupted. The combination of total amount of communicative statements across categories (during interruption, 5 min after interruption and uninterrupted conversational time) sums up to 11722, which differs slightly from the total amount of verbal utterances described in the method section: 12494. That is because 772 verbal contributions were not able to get coded due to noise

To test Hypothesis 1, we calculated the total number of negativity statements observed during the interruptive episode, as shown by the red box in Figure 1, and compared this with the frequency count during uninterrupted conversational time (see the blue box displayed in Figure 1 as an example). We do not observe significantly more negativity during the interruption episode (z = −1.81, p = .070) compared to uninterrupted conversational time. Moreover, in Hypothesis 2, we aim to test if negativity is evidenced more during the five-minutes time window directly after the interruptive event (an example is shown in the green box highlighted in Figure 1). The results lend support for Hypothesis 2, as we did find a significant increase in negativity statements in the five-minute time windows directly after the interruptive event, (z = 4.00, p < .001), compared to uninterrupted conversational time. Taken together, these findings suggest that negativity becomes more frequent in the minutes after the interruptive event, thus impacting the team’s conversation with more negativity behaviors.

To test Hypothesis 3, we followed a similar procedure calculating the number of positivity statements during and directly after the interruptive event, and, during uninterrupted conversational time. Contrary to our hypothesis, we see significantly more positivity during the interruptive episode (z = 2.15, p = .034), compared to uninterrupted conversational time. However, the positivity does not continue in the minutes after the interruptive event. As expected in Hypothesis 4, we see a significant decrease in positivity statements after the interruptive episode, (z = −2.96, p < .01), compared to uninterrupted conversational time. In sum, the data shows that multidisciplinary teams initially respond with positive statements towards interruptive events, but the positivity disappears quickly in the minutes after the interruptive event.

Hypothesis 5 states that clarification statements would increase during interruptive events. However, the results do not support this expectation, as instead, we observe a non-significant decrease of clarification statements during the interruptive event (z = −0.91, p = 0.366), compared to uninterrupted conversational time. However, we do find support for hypothesis 6, as we observe a significant increase of clarification statement in the minutes after the interruptive episode (z = 3.90, p < 0.001), compared to uninterrupted conversational time. Taken together, these findings suggest that during the interruption, the team does not directly respond to the interruption, but clarification statements are sought more often in the minutes after the interruptive events.

In addition, we ran post-hoc analysis to explore whether the increase in negativity in the five-minute time window conversation is not just relative to the ‘uninterrupted’ baseline conversational time window, rather also in relation to the conversation during the interruptive events. Negativity behaviors are significantly higher in the five-minute time window after the interruption (z = 4.43, p < .001), compared to the conversations during interruptive events. The opposite effect is found for positivity behaviors, which are significantly less present in the five-minute time window after the interruption (z = - 4.75; p < 01) compared to conversational time during the interruptive event. Additionally, in terms of clarification behaviors, we see a significant increase in clarification behaviors (z = 4.43, p < .001) compared to the conversations during interruptive events. These findings reinforce that negativity and clarification behaviors increase, while positivity decreases, following interruptive events, both in comparison to discussions without interruptions and to the 'during interruptive' events.

Building on the prior post hoc analysis, one of the reviewers suggested that a more detailed analysis at the individual level would further strengthen our multilevel contribution by illustrating how interruptions affect the communication among diverse team members, rather than being initiated by a single team member. Our exploratory observations indicate that interruptions lead to responses from multiple team members across various disciplines. For example, after an initial interruption, we observed several specialists engaging in clarification behaviors, illustrating the spillover effect across team members. On average, during the 5 minutes following an interruption, team members from approximately three different disciplines asked clarifying questions, indicating that interruptions have broader implications for multiple team members in the conversational space, and is not solely surrounded by one member. This reinforces our multilevel perspective, demonstrating that interruptive events influence multiple team members in their conversational space.

Robustness Checks

In response to the reviewers' feedback, we conducted robustness checks by exploring shorter and longer time windows of three and 7 minutes to determine whether the observed effects persist across different time scales.

Our findings indicate consistent patterns in the dataset when using varying time windows. Specifically, clarification behaviors significantly increase across all time windows following the interruptive events, compared to uninterrupted conversational periods. This suggests that interruptions trigger a heightened need for clarification, immediately after the interruptive events (within three-minutes), but also for longer periods of time (within seven-minutes). Negativity behaviors, however, do not show a significant increase within the three-minute window but emerge more clearly in the five- and seven-minute windows, indicating that negativity takes some time to manifest post-interruption. Additionally, our findings suggest an initial increase in positivity behaviors during the interruptive events. However, when extending the time window to 7 minutes (with the comparison group of uninterrupted conversational time correspondingly reduced), this initial positive reaction during the interruptive event appears to diminish. However, we do see a robust significant decrease of positivity behaviors in the three-, five-minute and seven-minute window selection after interruptive events, compared to uninterrupted conversational time. These findings give interesting insights and are to some extend surprising, as the effect of interruptions within the conversational space of healthcare teams lingers, even more than 5 minutes, especially in terms of an increase of clarification behaviors and negativity behaviors and significant decrease of positivity behaviors in three-, five- and seven-minute time window exploration².

Second, we conducted another type of robustness check in which we changed the comparison group from ‘uninterrupted conversational time’ to ‘time windows before the interruptive events’. Although this type of analysis has some limitations in terms of coding issues (e.g., in conversations where clusters of interruptions are spaced approximately 5 minutes apart, the interval between them can be categorized as both “after” one interruption and “before” the next), we do believe this analysis provides some indication of temporal shifts in communication patterns before, during and after interruptive events. We notice similar tendencies in terms of significantly more clarification behaviors after interruption in the three-, five and seven-minute time windows, compared to similar time windows before the interruption. However, we do not observe a significant increase in negativity behaviors in the three- and five- minute time window after the interruption compared to before. Rather, this effect is only visible when selecting a seven-minute time window. Thus, the negativity effects are not robust in terms of changing around the interruptive event (before/during/after); rather only show when the comparison group of uninterrupted conversational time as a baseline model is larger (= patient case discussions that on average do not show interruptions). However, we do observe a significant decrease in positivity in the three-, five and seven-minute time windows after the interruptive events, compared to similar time windows before. However, the initial reaction of positivity behaviors during the interruption is only visible in the five-minute time windows when selecting comparison groups preceding the interruptive event. More detailed findings regarding these robustness test can be found in the Appendix tables, attached to this manuscript.

Discussion

In this study, we investigate the extent to which workflow interruptions in medical multidisciplinary teams influence subsequent communication valence and communication content of these meetings. The main types of interruptions occurring in this work environment were videoconferencing issues, people leaving and entering the room, and telephones or beepers going off. These intrusive events significantly impact both the content and the valence of the communication emerging within the team.

In hypotheses H1 and H3 we posited that team members respond with more negative and fewer positive communication statements during an interruption compared to uninterrupted conversational periods. Contrary to our hypotheses, we did not observe an initial negative response towards intrusive events. Instead, we noted an initial increase in positivity behaviors during interruptive events, which could potentially serve as a coping mechanism for the team to deal with the interruption at hand. One plausible explanation for these findings is that teams employ positive communication statements as a self-regulatory strategy to cope with interruptive episodes. Drawing from self-regulatory theories (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Hacker, 2003), when confronted with an unexpected interruption, team members activate a monitoring system that evaluates their current state against a desired state. When a discrepancy is perceived between the two states (as interruptions generate a delay in goal progress), then team members may activate coping mechanisms such as humor and laughter. One recent study found evidence for humor as a shared coping strategy employed by teams to address environmental stressors (Hmieleski & Cole, 2022).

Consistent with hypotheses H2 and H4, we find that team members exhibit a higher frequency of negative statements and a lower frequency of positive statements during the five-minute time window following the interruptive event compared to uninterrupted conversational time. This suggests that although team members initially respond with positivity to an interruption, they are unable to sustain this positivity and instead transition to expressing negative sentiments, which only becomes more pronounced when exploring larger time windows of 7 minutes after the interruptive event. Prior research shows that negative remarks or expressions of disapproval towards others are associated with rejection, which in turn trigger brain responses linked to physical pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003). These biological reactions are not conducive to effective team functioning of problem-solving. In addition, consistent with social contagion theory (Wheeler, 1966), when one team member expresses negativity, others tend to mimic this behavior, resulting in the spread of negative sentiments within the team meeting.

Contrary to the anticipated outcomes posited in hypothesis H5, the initial response among team members subsequent to an interruption did not reveal an increased occurrence of clarification or conversational repetition when compared to uninterrupted periods. Instead, a notable increase in clarification statements emerged in the minutes following the interruptive event, lending credence to H6. This suggests that there is a temporal delay in regaining the team’s focus and reverting to the primary task, thus prolonging the impact of the interruption on the communication process. This finding remained robust and consistent across three-, five-, and seven-minute time frames, as well as when comparing these intervals to the periods preceding the interruptive events.

The higher occurrence of clarification statements following an interruptive episode may signify a decrease in time efficiency, as the repetition of information consumes valuable time, leading to unnecessarily lengthy and less efficient team meetings. This is particularly significant as interruptions contribute to heightened fatigue in these extended medical team meetings (Soukup et al., 2019). Nevertheless, clarification statements may also serve a constructive purpose within the case discussion at hand, potentially prompting the team to verify the understanding of information and fostering a more thorough exploration of the case. Clarification statements are recognized as important in initiating problem-solving communication (Stray et al., 2012) and are a notable aspect of collaborative design, often taking up a significant portion of design meetings (Olson et al., 1992). Since designers come from diverse backgrounds and need time to explain their ideas to others, the frequent use of clarification statements highlights their key role in supporting effective team communication and problem-solving. However, despite the potentially beneficial function that clarification statements may play in a team’s problem-solving endeavor, the notable increase in their occurrence following an interruption suggests that the interruption causes team members to lose focus and disrupts their collaborative thought process. This, in turn, prompts additional clarification questions that might have been unnecessary had the discussion proceeded without interruption, rendering an already time-pressured meeting needlessly inefficient.

Theoretical Contributions

The insights found in our research are relevant for teams with boundaries characterized by increased permeability (Driskell et al., 2023). Multiple-team membership is a specific example where members have to switch from one team to another (or more) and experience interruptions that can be associated with performance losses (Margolis, 2020; O’leary et al., 2011; Van De Brake & Berger, 2023). Our findings show that interruptions significantly impact communicative processes, thereby disrupting focus on the core team. These results contribute to recent empirical research, which suggests that switching behavior across teams—particularly when they differ qualitatively in aspects such as task type—leads to more substantial switching costs (Backmann et al., 2024; van de Brake et al., 2023). This effect is empirically evident in our data.

Little research has focused on the effects of interruptions on the team’s process. Our findings show that while there is initially a positive response to interruptions, this positivity quickly gives way to an increase in negative statements and clarification queries. Prior research highlights negativity as a dysfunctional form of communication. The study of Aubé and Rousseau (2016) showed that complaining behavior within teams are negatively related to team performance and team process improvement. At the same time, dysfunctional communication such as criticizing others or complaining were negatively related to team and organizational success (Aubé & Rousseau, 2016; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Next to these findings, positivity has been linked to team enhanced performance, effectiveness, and task efficiency (Jouanne et al., 2017; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017; Soukup et al., 2020). Interruptions to team workflow and the subsequent verbal responses have the potential to derail team processes and compromise team functioning, thereby contributing to negative outcomes.

With our findings we align with the interruption research at individual level, emphasizing mainly the negative effects of interruptions (Puranik et al., 2020). However, our unexpected discovery of positive, albeit short-lived, verbal statements during interruption events (rather than the negative response hypothesized) suggests the potential for interruptions to also play a beneficial role for teams. These findings correspond with prior research at the individual level, suggesting that some interruptions can elicit positive emotions (Feldman & Greenway, 2021). The attentional diversity caused by external work interruptions may provide positive ‘windows of opportunities’ for meeting basic psychological needs (Deci et al., 2017; Gagné & Deci, 2005) to improve or reflect on work processes (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002) or to recover and take cognitive breaks (Jett, 2003). In the team context, the need for relatedness may be satisfied by engaging in an enjoyable side conversation with fellow team members after an interruption (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Interruptions may provide a brief respite from an ongoing conversation to cognitively revitalize (Soukup et al., 2019).

We also contribute to the dynamic, process-oriented perspective of teams (Mathieu et al., 2019). Employing an explicit temporal lens where we measure communicative patterns during interruptions and during the subsequent 5-min period, we address persistent calls for greater consideration of time in organizational and team research (Ancona et al., 2001; Cronin et al., 2011; Klonek et al., 2019; Leenders et al., 2016). Furthermore, by scrutinizing the conversational dynamics that unfold within teams after interruptions, we offer a detailed examination of team processes, moving beyond aggregated self-report measures (Kolbe & Boos, 2019). This study represents a first step towards comprehending the dynamics of positive and negative statements following interruptions in the context of teams. Our results highlight the importance of studying teams dynamically, as evidenced by the observed shift from positivity to negativity and an increase in clarification-oriented statements within the five-minute window following interruptions. Our study shows that team communication processes are not static and can change from one moment to another and hence should be studied as such. If a cross-sectional design would have been used, the results obtained would have been different, depending on when the positive and negative statements were measured (Mitchell & James, 2001). With a design that measures team interaction at different timepoints our study reveals that interruptions have different effects on team communication processes at different timepoints and hence offer a completer and more accurate picture of teams and their interaction processes. We advocate for theory development of how interruptions affect team problem-solving discussion, employing a more temporal perspective that delineates both the immediate and longer-term effects of these events. In addition, as a response to reviewers’ requests, we aim to encourage future researchers to experiment with different time windows in their analysis, thereby ensuring more robust and comprehensive results. In that regard, we contribute to providing some guidance towards how to approach and analyze fine-grained temporal behavioral datasets.

Understanding the dynamics of medical teams may hold crucial implications for teams operating under time-pressure and high information demand across various domains. Medical decision teams, characterized by their multidisciplinary nature and the need for accurate decision-making in high-stake situations, provide valuable insights into team functioning under pressure. The complex interactions of communication, collaboration, and problem-solving within MDTMs reflect the challenges faced by teams in high-pressure environments where accurate decisions are crucial and information demands are high (e.g., emergency response teams, financial trading floors, or military units, many project teams, e.t.c.) (Aggarwal et al., 2024; Jouanne et al., 2017; Schmutz et al., 2018), The need for effective communication and coordination to address complex problems swiftly and accurately is a common denominator among high-pressure teams (Driskell et al., 2018; Power, 2018). Just as in medical teams, interruptions in these contexts can disrupt workflow, hinder information processing, and impact decision-making. By examining how medical teams navigate interruptions and sustain or lose performance, we may gain valuable insights into strategies and interventions that can enhance team effectiveness in other high-pressure settings.

Directions for Future Research

An intriguing avenue for further exploration is to unravel interruption characteristics and explore how variations in interruptions may impact subsequent conversation dynamics. For instance, interruptions characterized by high intensity levels or prolonged durations might have more detrimental effects compared to interruptions with lower intensity or shorter durations. Furthermore, anticipated internal interruptions may be easier for the team to disregard and continue the task at hand, in contrast to unforeseen interruptions.

In essence, studying medical teams provides a rich source of knowledge that can be generalized to enhance the effectiveness of teams operating under similar conditions across various domains. The insights gained from understanding the communication, coordination, and decision-making processes in medical teams offer valuable lessons for optimizing performance and resilience in high time-pressure and information-demanding teams in diverse contexts (Driskell et al., 2018). Subsequent research endeavors could delve into whether interruptions yield distinct effects under conditions of low time pressure and reduced information processing demands, and discern which dimension exerts a more significant influence on the observed effects. For instance, teams functioning in an environment characterized by high information processing demands but minimal time pressure might exhibit a lower susceptibility to negative communicative expressions following an interruption compared to teams operating in a high information processing demands setting coupled with elevated time pressure. Future research might focus on these questions.

Practical Implications

Our results highlight the direct impact of interruption episodes on content and valence communication within teams. Positive valence communication has been associated with beneficial outcomes for teams (Jouanne et al., 2017; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013; Soukup et al., 2020), while negative communicative statements carry adverse implications (Aubé & Rousseau, 2016; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Consequently, it becomes relevant for practitioners to reflect on how they can tackle the effects of interruptions within teams.

One potential approach involves structuring meetings to minimize the occurrence of interruption episodes. One rather straightforward way of obtaining this is to work towards stable IT videoconferencing systems, enabling MDT members to effectively collaborate in a hybrid setting. A more systemic solution entails reevaluating the organization of work within the hospital and the role of multidisciplinary team meetings within the broader workload of medical physicians. Currently, these team meetings are additional work activities that medical physicians engage in on top of other regular duties, resulting in interruptions when they are contacted for patient treatment during the meetings. Formal scheduling of these meetings as uninterrupted work time in the schedules of medical physicians can mitigate interruptions and enhance productivity.

Considering the frequent occurrence of interruptions in multidisciplinary decision-making boards, we propose redesigning the team environment to minimize unnecessary disruptions and distractions. This approach aims to afford team members ample mental space to actively contribute to the development of patient treatment plans. For instance, a potential solution involves segregating availability exclusively for urgent matters during team meetings while discontinuing non-urgent communication distractions. Consequently, team leaders should establish clear social norms, emphasize social control, and promote individual accountability to mitigate non-urgent communication distractions effectively. Moreover, if team leaders identify a tendency among team members to repeatedly engage in non-urgent distractions, addressing these behaviors becomes crucial to prevent the negative spill-over effects and foster behavioral change.

Another strategy to manage the effects of interruptions involves cultivating awareness and reflexivity regarding the nature of communicative responses that ensue within teams following interruptions. While structural changes to reduce interruptions may be challenging to implement in certain medical settings, increasing awareness, particularly through leadership initiatives, can enhance the communicative dynamics within the team and yield improved outcomes.

Conclusion

The findings of this study reveal that workflow interruptions during healthcare multidisciplinary team meetings significantly influence the communication content and valence within teams. The most prevalent interruptions observed include video conferencing problems, beepers/phones that go off, and individuals entering or exiting the meeting room. Initially, team members exhibit a positive response to interruptions, but their statements transition towards a more negative tone in the minutes following the interruption. This is accompanied by conversational repetitiveness. Our study provides objective and detailed empirical insights into the interplay between workflow interruptions and changes in communication dynamics within healthcare teams.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Impact of Workflow Interruptions on Multidisciplinary Team Communication in Hybrid Healthcare Settings

Supplemental Material for The Impact of Workflow Interruptions on Multidisciplinary Team Communication in Hybrid Healthcare Settings by Margo Janssens, Samantha S. C. P. Van Der Bruggen, Nicoleta Meslec, Laurens V. Beerepoot and Roger Th. A. J. Leenders in Group & Organization Management

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the WeCare; .

Associate Editor: Travis Maynard

ORCID iDs

Margo Janssens

Laurens V. Beerepoot

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Margo Janssens is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Psychology in the Organization Studies department at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. Her research specializes in communicative patterns within/across teams, with a particular emphasis on the healthcare sector.

Samantha S. C. P. van der Bruggen is an internal medicine resident, specializing in hematology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, and physician-researcher at WeCare (collaboration between Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital and Tilburg University).

Nicoleta Meslec is Associate Professor in the Organization Studies Department at Tilburg University, The Netherlands. Her research interests include team behavior and cognition, multiple-(project) team membership, collective intelligence and leadership. Her work has been published in journals such as Leadership Quarterly, International Journal of Project Management and Small Group Research.

Laurens V. Beerepoot has been an internist-oncologist at the Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital (ETZ) in Tilburg since 2007. He is chairman of the daily board of the Clinic for Cancer of the ETZ, and has gastrointestinal oncology, neuro-oncology, uro-oncology and head and neck oncology as areas of interest.

Roger Th. A. J. Leenders is a full professor in both the Organization Studies department (TSB, Tilburg University) and the Jheronimus Academy of Data Science (Tilburg University & TU Eindhoven). Specializing in social networks and social network analysis, Roger's research delves into how human interactions drive creativity and problem-solving within teams and organizations. He has dedicated over two decades to exploring (the organizational dynamics of) new product development. As another research interest, he studies the intricacies of social influence processes within social networks and has a broad interest in how social networks impact on group behaviors and outcomes.

References

Aggarwal

Mayo

A. T.

Murase

Zhang

E. Y.

Aven

Woolley

A. W.

(2024). Cognitive versatility and adaptation to fluid participation in hospital emergency department teams. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(2), 1144638. Article 1144638. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1144638

Ancona

D. G.

Goodman

P. S.

Lawrence

B. S.

Tushman

M. L.

(2001). Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 645–663. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.5393903

Aubé

Rousseau

(2016). Yes, we complain so what? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(7), 1137–1151. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-08-2015-0304

Aydin

M. A.

Gul

Aydin

M. F.

Tunc

(2022). A real-time analysis of intraoperative interruptions in relation to use of simple preventive measures including a sign on the door and a checklist-based team brief. Journal of Perioperative Practice, 32(11), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589211024428

Backmann

Wimmer

Mortensen

Hartmann

Hoegl

Peus

(2024). A resource-based view on individual absorption in the context of multiple team memberships. Organization Science, 35(4), 1473–1488. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.14929

Baethge

Rigotti

(2013). Interruptions to workflow: Their relationship with irritation and satisfaction with performance, and the mediating roles of time pressure and mental demands. Work & Stress, 27(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.761783

Bales

R. F.

(1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 15(2), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086790

Barsade

S. G.

Knight

A. P.

(2015). Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111316

Bretonnier

Michinov

Le Pabic

Hénaux

P.-L.

Jannin

Morandi

Riffaud

(2020). Impact of the complexity of surgical procedures and intraoperative interruptions on neurosurgical team workload. Neurochirurgie, 66(4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2020.02.003

10.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

(1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19

11.

Chakraborty

Ghosh

Mallick

B. K.

(2012). Bayesian nonlinear regression for large p small n problems. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 108(4), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2012.01.015

12.

Cronin

M. A.

Weingart

L. R.

Todorova

(2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 571–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590297

13.

Deci

E. L.

Olafsen

A. H.

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

14.

Dibble

Gibson

C. B.

(2018). Crossing team boundaries: A theoretical model of team boundary permeability and a discussion of why it matters. Human Relations, 71(7), 925–950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717735372

15.

Driskell

J. E.

Salas

(1992). Collective behavior and team performance. Human Factors, 34(3), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089203400303

16.

Driskell

Funke

Tolston

Capiola

Driskell

J. E.

(2023). Fluid and virtual teams. Small Group Research, 55(5), 680–705. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964231216367

17.

Driskell

Salas

Driskell

J. E.

(2018). Teams in extreme environments: Alterations in team development and teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.002

18.

Eisenberger

N. I.

Lieberman

M. D.

Williams

K. D.

(2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134

19.

Feldman

Greenway

(2021). It’s a matter of time: The role of temporal perceptions in emotional experiences of work interruptions. Group & Organization Management, 46(1), 70–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120959288

20.

Fletcher

K. A.

Potter

S. M.

Telford

B. N.

(2018). Stress outcomes of four types of perceived interruptions. Human Factors, 60(2), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817738845

21.

Frey

L. R.

Gouran

D. S.

Poole

M. S.

(1999). The handbook of group communication theory and research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233107

22.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

23.

Gerpott

F. H.

Chiu

M. M.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2020). Multilevel antecedents of negativity in team meetings: The role of job attitudes and gender. In Jarrett

(Ed.), Managing meetings in organizations (pp. 215–239). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812995-8.00009-5

24.

Gillespie

B. M.

Chaboyer

Fairweather

(2012). Interruptions and miscommunications in surgery: An observational study. AORN Journal, 95(5), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2012.02.012

25.

Goldstone

R. L.

Gureckis

T. M.

(2009). Collective behavior. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(3), 412–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01038.x

26.

Hacker

(2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work processes? European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 12(2), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320344000075

27.

Hareli

Rafaeli

(2008). Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.007

28.

Hinsz

V. B.

Tindale

R. S.

Vollrath

D. A.

(1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43

29.

Hmieleski

K. M.

Cole

M. S.

(2022). Laughing all the way to the bank: The joint roles of shared coping humor and entrepreneurial team-efficacy in new venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1782–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211046543

30.

Humphrey

S. E.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Meyer

C. J.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 885–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.885

31.

Janssens

Meslec

Leenders

(2022). Collective intelligence in teams: Contextualizing collective intelligent behavior over time. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(5), 989572. Article 847703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.989572

32.

Janssens

Van Der Bruggen

Schouten

Beerepoot

Leenders

(2023). Utterance based analysis of communicative Phases in multidisciplinary health care team meetings. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2023(1), 11842, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.213bp

33.

Jett

Q. R.

George

J. M.

(2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 494–507. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196791

34.

Johnson

Nguyen

Groth

White

(2018). Reaping the rewards of functional diversity in healthcare teams: Why team processes improve performance. Group & Organization Management, 43(3), 440–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118769192

35.

Jouanne

Charron

Chauvin

Morel

(2017). Correlates of team effectiveness: An exploratory study of firefighters’ operations during emergency situations. Applied Ergonomics, 61(3), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.01.005

36.

Kauffeld

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Meinecke

A. L.

(2018). The advanced interaction analysis for teams (act4teams) coding scheme. In Salas

Rico

Passmore

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes (pp. 432–453). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118909997.ch21

37.

Kauffeld

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599

38.

Keyton

Beck

S. J.

(2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013495

39.

Keyton

Beck

S. J.

Poole

M. S.

Gouran

D. S.

(2021). Group communication: A continued evolution. In Lutgen-Sandvik

Sypher

B. K.

(Eds.), The Emerald handbook of group and team communication research (pp. 7–24). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-500-120211002

40.

Klonek

Gerpott

F. H.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Parker

S. K.

(2019). Time to go wild: How to conceptualize and measure process dynamics in real teams with high-resolution. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(4), 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619886674

41.

Knight

Sanderson

Neal

Ballard

(2023). Interruptions in healthcare: Modeling dynamic processes and effects at a team level. Applied Ergonomics, 112(3), 104051. Article 104051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104051

42.

Kolbe

Boos

(2019). Laborious but elaborate: The benefits of really studying team dynamics. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1478.

43.

Kratzer

Leenders

R. T. A.

Van Engelen

J. M.

(2004). A delicate managerial challenge: How cooperation and integration affect the performance of NPD teams. Team Performance Management: International Journal, 10(1/2), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590410527559

44.

Kratzer

Leenders

R. T. A.

Van Engelen

J. M.

(2008). The social structure of leadership and creativity in engineering design teams: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 25(4), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2008.10.004

45.

Kuckartz

Rädiker

(2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8

46.

Lee

A. H.

Wang

Scott

J. A.

Yau

K. K. W.

McLachlan

G. J.

(2006). Multi-level zero-inflated Poisson regression modelling of correlated count data with excess zeros. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 15(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1191/0962280206sm429oa

47.

Leenders

R. T. A.

(2013). Longitudinal behavior of network structure and actor attributes: Modeling interdependence of contagion and selection. In Skvoretz

(Ed.), Evolution of social networks (pp. 165–184). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203059500-8

48.

Leenders

R. T. A.

Contractor

N. S.

DeChurch

L. A.

(2016). Once upon a time: Understanding team processes as relational event networks. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(1), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615578312

49.

Leenders

R. T. A.

Van Engelen

J. M.

Kratzer

(2007). Systematic design methods and the creative performance of new product teams: Do they contradict or complement each other? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00241.x

50.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Allen

J. A.

(2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1278–1287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038083

51.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Chiu

M. M.

Lei

Kauffeld

(2013). The upward spirals in team processes: Examining dynamic positivity in problem solving teams. Small Group Research, 44(1), 140–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412468961

52.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Chiu

M. M.

Lei

Kauffeld

(2017). Understanding positivity within dynamic team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis. Group & Organization Management, 42(1), 39–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116628720

53.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Kauffeld

(2010). The downside of communication: Complaining cycles in group discussions. In Biech

(Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult, and what you can do (pp. 33–54). Jossey-Bass.

54.

Leroy

Glomb

T. M.

(2018). Tasks interrupted: How anticipating time pressure on resumption of an interrupted task causes attention residue and low performance on interrupting tasks and how a “ready-to-resume” plan mitigates the effects. Organization Science, 29(3), 380–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1184

55.

Leroy

Schmidt

A. M.

Madjar

(2020). Interruptions and task transitions: Understanding their characteristics, processes, and consequences. The Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 661–694. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0146

56.

Loh

W.-Y.

(2012). Variable selection for classification and regression in large p, small n problems. In Barbour

Chan

H. P.

Siegmund

(Eds.), Probability approximations and beyond (205, pp. 135–159). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1966-2_10

57.

Hong

Tian

Zhang

(2022). The effectiveness of a specialized nursing team intervention in the unplanned interruption of continuous renal replacement therapy. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 51(3), 544–551. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v51i3.8930

58.

Margolis

(2020). Multiple team membership: An integrative review. Small Group Research, 51(1), 48–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419883702

59.

Marlow

S. L.

Lacerenza

C. N.

Paoletti

Burke

C. S.

Salas

(2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach? A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144(3), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001

60.

Mathieu

J. E.

Gallagher

P. T.

Domingo

M. A.

Klock

E. A.

(2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106

61.

Mayo

A. T.

Myers

C. G.

Bucuvalas

J. C.

Feng

Juliano

C. E.

(2023). Supporting robust teamwork—Bridging technology and organizational science. New England Journal of Medicine, 388(22), 2019–2021. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2300172

62.

McComb

Kennedy

(2020). Computational methods to examine team communication. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52027-4

63.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

DeChurch

L. A.

(2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013773

64.

Mitchell

T. R.

James

L. R.

(2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 530–547. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.5393889

65.

Nancarrow

S. A.

Booth

Ariss

Smith

Enderby

Roots

(2013). Ten principles of good interdisciplinary teamwork. Human Resources for Health, 11(3), 19. Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-11-19

66.

Okhuysen

G. A.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.370.2947

67.

O'Leary

M. B.

Mortensen

Woolley

A. W.

(2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.61031807

68.

Olson

G. M.

Olson

J. S.

Carter

M. R.

Storrosten

(1992). Small group design meetings: An analysis of collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 7(4), 347–374. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0704_1

69.

Power

(2018). Extreme teams: Toward a greater understanding of multiagency teamwork during major emergencies and disasters. American Psychologist, 73(4), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000248

70.

Puranik

Koopman

Vough

H. C.

(2020). Pardon the interruption: An integrative review and future research agenda for research on work interruptions. Journal of Management, 46(6), 806–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319887428

71.

Puranik

Koopman

Vough

H. C.

(2021). Excuse me, do you have a minute? An exploration of the dark- and bright-side effects of daily work interruptions for employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(12), 1867–1884. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000875

72.

Quinones Cardona

LaBadie

Cooperberg

D. B.

Zubrow

Touch

S. M.

(2021). Improving the neonatal team handoff process in a level IV NICU: Reducing interruptions and handoff duration. BMJ Open Quality, 10(1), e001014. Article e001014. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001014

73.

Raes

Boon

Kyndt

Dochy

(2015). Measuring team learning behaviours through observing verbal team interaction. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(7), 476–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl-01-2015-0006

74.

Rivera-Rodriguez

A. J.

Karsh

B.-T.

(2010). Interruptions and distractions in healthcare: Review and reappraisal. BMJ Quality and Safety, 19(4), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.033282

75.

Rosell

Wihl

Hagberg

Ohlsson

Nilbert

(2019). Function, information, and contributions: An evaluation of national multidisciplinary team meetings for rare cancers. Rare Tumors, 11(3), 2036361319841696. https://doi.org/10.1177/2036361319841696

76.

Schippers

M. C.

Edmondson

A. C.

West

M. A.

(2014). Team reflexivity as an antidote to team information-processing failures. Small Group Research, 45(6), 731–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414553473

77.

Schmutz

J. B.

Lei

Eppich

W. J.

Manser

(2018). Reflection in the heat of the moment: The role of in-action team reflexivity in health care emergency teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(6), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2299

78.

Seipp

A.-K.

(2019). Why do we keep interrupting ourselves? Exploring the reasons for internal interruptions at work. Performance Enhancement & Health, 7(1-2), 100148. Article 100148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.100148

79.

Siminoff

L. A.

Step

M. M.

(2011). A comprehensive observational coding scheme for analyzing instrumental, affective, and relational communication in health care contexts. Journal of Health Communication, 16(2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.535109

80.

Soukup

Gandamihardja

T. A.

McInerney

Green

J. S.

Sevdalis

(2019). Do multidisciplinary cancer care teams suffer decision-making fatigue: An observational, longitudinal team improvement study. BMJ Open, 9(5), e027303. Article e027303. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027303

81.

Soukup

Lamb

B. W.

Shah

N. J.

Morbi

Bali

Asher

Gandamihardja

Giordano

Darzi

Green

J. S. A.

Sevdalis

(2020). Relationships between communication, time pressure, workload, task complexity, logistical issues, and group composition in transdisciplinary teams: A prospective observational study across 822 cancer cases. Frontiers in Communication, 5(3). Article 583294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.583294

82.

Soukup

Murtagh

Lamb

B. W.

Green

J. S.

Sevdalis

(2021). Degrees of multidisciplinarity underpinning care planning for patients with cancer in weekly multidisciplinary team meetings: Conversation analysis. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 14(3), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S270394

83.

Stray

V. G.

Moe

N. B.

Aurum

(2012). Investigating daily team meetings in agile software projects. In 2012 38th Euromicro conference on software Engineering and advanced Applications (pp. 274–281). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2012.44

84.

Tschan

Vetterli

Semmer

N. K.

Hunziker

Marsch

S. C. U.

(2011). Activities during interruptions in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A simulator study. Resuscitation, 82(11), 1419–1423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.06.023

85.

Van De Brake

H. J.

Berger

(2023). Can I leave my hat on? A cross-level study of multiple team membership role separation. Personnel Psychology, 76(1), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12495

86.

van der Meer

S. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Delahaij

Homan

A. C.

(2022). The influence of intrusions on team interaction: An explorative field study. Small Group Research, 53(5), 644–669. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211073590

87.

Walraven

J. E.

van der Hel

O. L.

van der Hoeven

J. J. M.

Lemmens

V. E.

Verhoeven

R. H.

Desar

I. M.

(2022). Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: Results of a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 829. Article 1041. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08112-0

88.

Westerhuis

(2016). Kwaliteitscriteria multidisciplinair overleg (MDO). Retrieved November 27, 2024, from https://iknl.nl/nkr/evaluatie-met-nkrdata/multidisciplinair-overleg

89.

Wheeler

(1966). Toward a theory of behavioral contagion. Psychological Review, 73(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023023

90.

Wiesche

(2021). Interruptions in agile software development teams. Project Management Journal, 52(2), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972821991365

91.

(2005). How team communication affects innovation: Good communication is a prerequisite for good teamwork. But how much is enough? MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.902556

92.

Zajac

Woods

Tannenbaum

Salas

Holladay

C. L.

(2021). Overcoming challenges to teamwork in healthcare: A team effectiveness framework and evidence-based guidance. Frontiers in Communication, 6(4). Article 606445. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.606445

93.

Zoethout

Wesselink

Runhaar

Mulder

(2017). Using transactivity to understand emergence of team learning. Small Group Research, 48(2), 190–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417691614

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB