





































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


AMWAJournal.org     21Session Reports

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 tenden-

cies may not realize the value of writers in handling import-

ant 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 under-

deliver on their intended roles and contributions. Reasons 

for these behaviors can be attributed to cultural complexi-

ties, 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 proj-

ect from a broad perspective but whose actions withdraw 

from the functions or goals of the team. Individuals display-

ing these characteristics tend to be pessimists, complain-

ers, 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—ineffec-

tive communication from project leaders, including  

medical writers leading cross-functional teams.

Dealing With Difficult Behaviors
Learning to proactively identify potentially challenging 

team dynamics and communication styles—and the con-

text in which these behaviors may be based—can help writ-

ers anticipate and prevent problems before they arise, or at 

least limit their impact.

 Dr Christianson suggested early actions, ongoing 

strategies, and meeting solutions for each of the 4 groups. 

Following these practical tips will ensure that cross-

functional teams collectively and efficiently achieve 

their common goal of producing a clear, compelling, 

and compliant final product. The presentation included 

practical strategies to assert writers’ leadership roles and 

assess team member characteristics in order to identify 

potentially difficult behaviors and mitigate their impact 

early in a project. For example, writers should confidently 

articulate their qualifications and their roles as writers and 

project managers at the outset of a project, followed by 

detailing the roles, expected contributions, and associated 

timeframes for all other team members.

 Writers may want to consider holding a pre-kickoff 

meeting with a team representative prior to the formal kick-

off in order to get a feel for team dynamics and personality 

traits. During the kickoff, writers should encourage team 

members to turn their cameras on in order to match voices/

behaviors/tones with names and visibly monitor problem-

atic behavior. The kickoff meeting should establish ground 

rules and timelines expected of all team members for the 

project duration. Writers may also want to consider assign-

ing a note taker for meetings so they can focus on the task at 

hand as they tune in to team dynamics.

 Clear and consistent communication is paramount. 

Writers should be very clear about what they need from 

individual team members and communicate with them 

directly if needed. Timed agendas sent in advance of each 

meeting, as well as emails using the “bottom-line-up-front” 

approach are also helpful in keeping difficult behaviors  

in check.

 Medical writers have immense power to lead writing 

teams in a way that fosters productive, collegial behavior.  

If difficult behaviors arise despite adherence to these 

proactive strategies, writers should remain professional, 

positive, solutions-oriented, firm, and confident in their 

leadership to keep teams moving forward toward their 

common goal.

Stacie Marsh is a medical writer at Words for Good, Inc. based  
in Charlotte, NC.

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

Author contact: stacie@wordsforgood.com

* * *

Medical writers have immense 
power to lead writing teams in 
a way that fosters productive, 
collegial behavior.

http://www.amwajournal.org



