





































AMWAJournal.org     19Session Reports

addition, utilizing a collaborative authoring platform, such 

as SharePoint, enables multiple writers to work on a doc-

ument concurrently. As documents are further developed, 

tools such as table, listing, and figure tools are available to 

help format and present data clearly to reviewers. Lastly, as 

a large amount of data are presented in regulatory docu-

ments, it is essential to have a quality control tool in place to 

ensure a document is ready for submission.

Documents
In the rotational training program at Merck, Drs Carr, 

Mageau, and Xu were able to gain hands-on experience 

and participate in shadowing opportunities to develop an 

understanding of the types of documents that medical writ-

ers author. During that time, they learned how documents 

were built during the authoring process, shadowed the 

Quality Control group, attended consensus meetings, and 

eventually transitioned to being lead authors.

Soft Skills
Lastly, further developing self-management and people 

skills helps to strengthen a medical writer’s ability to work 

collaboratively even while remote, build connections, and 

maintain high productivity. Medical writers are responsi-

ble for leading meetings and managing a team to build a 

cohesive document. Having strong people skills is critical to 

achieving this goal.

 When transitioning into a regulatory medical writing 

role, there are several transferrable skills that can be utilized 

from previous experiences, including soft skills, technical 

skills, and core knowledge. To further prepare new writers, 

numerous training opportunities are offered through orga-

nizations such as NIH, local regulatory affairs forums, and 

more. Lastly, AMWA provides a recommended training out-

line focusing on core knowledge and skills, documents, and 

soft skills that further helps to bridge any knowledge gaps 

for new writers entering the everchanging field.

Stephany Panlilio is a Senior Associate in Medical Writing at 
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Foster City, CA)

Author declaration and disclosures: The authors note no  
commercial associations that may pose a conflict of interest in 
relation to this article.

Author contact:  stephany.panlilio@gilead.com

* * *

GROWING YOUR CAREER AS AN EDITOR 
Speakers 
Crystal Herron, PhD, ELS, Redwood Ink, San Francisco Bay 

Area, CA

Loretta Bohn, ELS, RTI International, Research Triangle 

Park, NC

Erica Goodoff, ELS(D), The University of Texas MD 

Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

By Angela Trenkle, BS
Being a strong editor is a skill set that can open many doors 

in the medical writing field. In this panel session, three edi-

tors discussed some of their tips and tricks for navigating 

the world of editors.

How Editing and Writing Differ 
Ms Goodoff began by explaining that writing is almost like 

a brain dump; you are just writing everything that is in your 

mind with regard to the topic. Editing requires more of a crit-

ical thinking piece: I have content, but how do I shape it? Dr 

Herron added that emotional intelligence is also an import-

ant skill to have for editing so that you can eloquently explain 

your proposed changes to authors. Ms Bohn also emphasized 

that editing is not personal and that editors are looking at the 

writing from a different perspective—advocating for readers. 

All three of these editors mentioned that it was important to 

explain why you’re recommending the changes and to back 

up your suggestions with data and resources.

Key Skills for Editing Grant Proposals 
Ms Goodoff began by stating that a key skill for editing grant 

proposals is to find ways to make it as effortless as possible 

to read the text and to make sure that the logic flows and 

ties back to the main objective. Dr Herron emphasized that 

the storytelling element of the research project is important, 

which includes how the research project is expected to end. 

Ms Bohn pointed out the navigation pane in Word, which 

is a good way to look at pieces of a grant for consistency. All 

three mentioned the importance of cutting down the length 

and wording and ensuring that the entire document is con-

sistent in flow.

Teaching/Mentoring Editors 
Ms Goodoff began by discussing how coaching new col-

leagues in editing differs from editing when the client is the 

only one who will see your edits. It can be helpful to teach 

new editors because it helps you to become a better editor, 

but you must find that balance between fixing the prob-

lems and teaching the new editor to do it themselves. With 

http://www.amwajournal.org


AMWAJournal.org     20Session Reports

colleagues, it can be complicated because you’re editing 

someone else’s editing, so it’s important to check your ego 

at the door. Dr Herron suggested specifically that freelancers 

try to find another editor that they can trust and learn from 

because, most of the time, freelancers are working alone. 

Ms Bohn also added to this by emphasizing the importance 

of having a more organized approach when meeting with 

someone and suggested cross-teaching so you can learn 

from each other.

Working Remotely
Ms Bohn began by mentioning that the skills are the same, 

but mentoring someone that you aren’t in the same room 

with requires a unique approach. Ms Goodoff chimed in 

and agreed that the core editing skills are the same, but the 

presentation of the information is different when working 

remotely. She had to learn a lot of new technology and noted 

that you don’t get the same chance to rely on audience reac-

tions, but you can write a tentative script while presenting 

on Zoom. Dr Herron added the suggestion that you can post 

a sticky note with a person drawn on it near your camera; 

that way you have “someone” to talk to and look at near the 

camera, which will help your audience connect with you.  

Ms Bohn closed by suggesting a fake commute at home, 

something that signifies the beginning and the end of your 

workday.

 
Angela Trenkle is a preclinical technical writer at BIOQUAL, Inc., 
and is based in the Washington, DC, area

Author declaration and disclosures: The author notes no com-
mercial associations that may pose a conflict of interest in rela-
tion to this article. 

Author contact: angelatrenkle@gmail.com

* * *

REMOTE BUT NOT ALONE: NAVIGATING DIFFICULT 
PERSONALITIES WHEN YOU WORK FROM HOME
Speaker 
Melissa Christianson, PhD, Whitsell Innovations, Inc., 

Chapel Hill, NC

By Stacie Marsh, MPA, CPH, GPC
Collaborative medical writing requires leadership from  

professional medical writers to guide teams of people 

toward the common goal of completing documents with 

clarity, precision, and adherence to third party guidelines, 

often within challenging timeframes. Medical writing teams 

typically include groups of individuals from widely varying 

backgrounds, areas of expertise, priorities, pressures, and 

communication styles. Medical writers must foster effective 

teamwork in order to successfully lead their teams toward 

achieving their common goal.

 The pandemic has forced more writing teams to collab-

orate in a virtual environment, requiring medical writers to 

recognize and navigate team dynamics and interpersonal 

intricacies in creative ways. Dr Christianson’s presentation 

at the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA)’s 2021 

Medical Writing and Communication conference identified 

the most common personality types among difficult members 

of medical writing teams and provided specific strategies for 

navigating these traits in a virtual environment.

Defining and Recognizing Difficult Behaviors
The first step in dealing with difficult behaviors is recogniz-

ing that they exist. Although perceptions of difficult behav-

iors vary by the individual assessing the behavior, difficult 

behaviors and attitudes typically refer to those that are mis-

aligned with the expectations of the writer and the team.

 Dr Christianson illustrated the most common types of dif-

ficult behaviors in a behavior categories axis (Figure). Group 

1 includes those who are narrowly focused with tendencies to 

approach a project in a way that mismanages the writers time, 

attention, and processes, and ultimately impedes the writer’s 

ability to move a project forward in an optimal timeframe. 

Examples of Group 1 traits include micromanagers, digress-

ers, know-it-alls, worriers, and wordsmithers. Those in Group 

1 may be concerned about proving their own worth or get-

ting blamed for less-than-optimal outcomes for reasons such 

as job vulnerability or being new in a position with perhaps 

lesser credentials that other team members.

 Group 2 includes those who are more broadly focused 

but aggressively approach projects. These behaviors conjure 

*This manuscript is based on a session at the 2021 AMWA Medical Writing and Communication 
conference. 
 

 
Figure. Top left (Group 3); top right (Group 1); bottom left (Group 4); bottom right (Group 2) 
 
Group 2 includes those who are more broadly focused but aggressively approach projects. 
These behaviors conjure an elephant barreling through a meeting, causing chaos in their wake. 
Examples include those with strong egos, often short tempers, and who are prone to derail a 
team’s progress in unpredictable ways. Individuals displaying these tendencies may not realize 
the value of writers in handling important team functions. 
 
Group 3 includes those who are more narrowly focused on a project yet withdrawn or 
disengaged from specific tasks at hand. These individuals tend to be reticent to voice their 
opinion or make an important contribution until a problem arises, vacillate, and fail to provide 
clarity to move forward, stall a meeting’s progress, and generally underdeliver on their intended 
roles and contributions. Reasons for these behaviors can be attributed to cultural complexities, 
competing priorities, and simple unawareness of what is expected of them as part of the 
medical writing team, among others. 
 
Finally, Group 4 includes those who approach a project from a broad perspective but whose 
actions withdraw from the functions or goals of the team. Individuals displaying these 
characteristics tend to be pessimists, complainers, rumormongers, blamers, deceivers, and 
dismissers. Unfortunately, these are often the most common types of difficult behaviors and 
influence the tone and dynamic of entire teams in a negative manner. These behaviors are often 
exacerbated by—and sometimes a result of—ineffective communication from project leaders, 
including medical writers leading cross-functional teams. 
 
DEALING WITH DIFFICULT BEHAVIORS 
 

ApproachWithdraw

Narrow Focus

Broad Focus

Reticent

Vacillator

Under-deliverer

Staller

Micromanager

Worrier

Know-It-All

Rumormonger

Pessimist

Dismisser

Complainer

Blamer

Deceiver

Tank

Exploder

Egoist

Digresser

Wordsmith

Figure. Top left (Group 3); top right (Group 1); bottom left (Group 4); 
bottom right (Group 2).

http://www.amwajournal.org



