Correspondence to:

Current literature on the subject of interdisciplinary health teams recognizes that there are differences among various health professions ’ knowledge and values and therefore stresses the importance of team members learning more about each others’ professions, so that consensus decisions may be reached. In this paper, I analyze and critique this approach to teamwork, drawing upon recent insights from complexity science. More specifically, I argue that the differences between many health-related professions ’ knowledge are deeper than commonly supposed and that the goal of consensus—at least in the sense of ‘thinking alike’—is unrealistic and probably unnecessary. In fact, complexity science offers us a way to think about effective interdisciplinary teamwork that does not rely on the notion of consensus