Accountability in two different teamwork environments: The jigsaw puzzle and the collage

By Allison Dalton, Yvonne Pelling and Gaetano R. Lotrecchiano.

How can teams demonstrate accountability in two different collaborative environments?

Accountability refers to the ways, both tangible and intangible, of showing up for ourselves and the rest of the team throughout a collaborative project. It gives rise to trust and forward momentum which impacts team functioning and ultimately the outcome of the work.

Here we look at accountability in two different collaborative environments, which we refer to using the metaphors of the jigsaw puzzle and the collage.

A team tasked with assembling a jigsaw puzzle deals with a finite set of clearly distinguished pieces, each to be fitted together in one correct way, and a reference image to demonstrate what the outcome will look like. Jigsaw puzzle teams work in unchanging environments with clearly measurable success criteria. Accountability in these environments is relatively straightforward (although not necessarily easy).

A team tasked with co-creating a collage is given only starting materials and a blank canvas, and must conceptualize, define, execute, and continually renegotiate the vision as the collage takes shape. Collage teams work in shifting, relational, and open environments where success is established rather than imposed. Accountability in these environments is neither straightforward nor easy.

The two environments are summarized in the table below.

(For those using small screens, please note: this is a three column table and columns that flow off the right-hand side of the screen can be scrolled to. An image version of this table is also available).

Accountability in a jigsaw puzzle environment can be demonstrated with tangible things like checklists and clear documentation, with deliverables centered on rubrics and reports. An example is a hospital emergency room, where medical care providers are tasked with treating patients. Providers contribute their differing expertise to assess, diagnose, and treat the patient according to established care guidelines.

Accountability in a collage environment requires multiple perspectives to be understood and integrated. For this type of process, although the team may be inclined to reach for a checklist, the team will find that none exists or that available checklists are limited in their applicability. Accordingly, the emphasis of accountability becomes less outcome focused, and more interaction focused. Accountability in this environment could look like observing the situation, being reflective, and taking different perspectives in real time. This translates into questions like:

• Am I listening fully?
• Do I give and take space?
• How am I contributing to a positive and forward moving environment?
• Do I create safety for others?

An example is a hospital team―including medical providers, hospital staff, and patient partners―tasked with understanding and improving the experience for patients receiving care in the emergency room. In this environment, the collaborators contribute their differing expertise, but the path forward is undefined.

These two kinds of accountability are summarized in the table below.

(For those using small screens, please note: this is a three column table and columns that flow off the right-hand side of the screen can be scrolled to. An image version of this table is also available).

Conclusion

As teams work through challenges, they must first understand the type of collaborative environment they inhabit before they can understand how to demonstrate accountability to each other and to the work. Neither the jigsaw puzzle nor the collage is inherently more valuable and, commonly, collaborations incorporate both at different times. Accordingly, teams can strive to flexibly demonstrate accountability using both outcome and interaction-focused methods.

Do these metaphors resonate with you? What are your experiences in jigsaw puzzle and collage environments? How do you shape accountability in each environment?

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet 4.5 was used for the purposes of brainstorming, providing feedback, editing, and proof-reading. All content, conceptualization, and writing came from the authors. (For i2Insights policy on artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Allison Dalton MSHS is a PhD candidate in Translational Health Sciences at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences in Washington, DC, United States of America. Her research draws from complex systems science, system dynamics, and team science to explore how inter- and transdisciplinary teams integrate diverse perspectives in research.

Biography: Yvonne Pelling MEd is the Patient and Community Partnership Lead at PASSERELLE, Canada’s national training entity in Patient-Oriented Research, in Quebec. Her work examines how people learn to collaborate across disciplines, sectors, and forms of expertise, with research interests in team science, patient-oriented research, inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, and collaborative capacity-building.

Biography: Gaetano R. Lotrecchiano EdD, PhD, FINSciTS is a Professor of Clinical Research and Leadership and of Pediatrics at the School of Medicine and Health Sciences at George Washington University in Washington, DC, United States of America, and is a Senior Fellow of the International Network for the Science of Team Science. His research interests include complexity leadership and characteristics, transdisciplinary team science, team science competencies and motivation in teams.