Our group chose Tailoring Teaching as our seminar topic.  Our group was large with five physicians from different medical specialties.  Our group members had different areas of interests and different visions of what Tailoring Teaching means.  To compromise we initially decided our seminar would consist of a brief overview of how to tailor teaching can apply to multiple settings followed by a more in depth discussion of two different topics.  There was limited time during the first week of the course for our group to have a full conversation about what our seminar would look like.  Due to the other demands the course made of our time we had limited time to research our topics during the first week.  We did not discuss the minutiae of what the seminar would look like.  When we left the week we did not storm properly¹. Group members had drastically different visions of what the seminar would look like.  There was also different views on the wisdom of surveying multiple topics rather than covering a single topic in greater detail.  We did not broach these different views in any detail.  As well group members intuitively worked differently wishing to develop the seminar content and delivery methods in opposing order.

The next meeting was about three months later over skype.  At this point I had completed a literature review of my subject area, began consolidating 25 relevant papers and came up with a very early timeline for my portion of the seminar – approximately one hour.  After reviewing everyone’s contribution so far the group quickly came to the decision to alter the seminar by removing my topic and move the entire seminar on covering a single domain in greater detail.  Based on the speed of the decision I felt the decision was made before the meeting started.   I was content this conclusion was made sooner rather than later so I could stop investing additional time in my area, nonetheless I still found the decision disempowering as I felt my prior work was not appreciated and I had no content knowledge of the other topic.  The presentation we were making was based on a single book only one group member had read.  Chapters were photocopied for two other members to read for their sections of the new presentation and I was instructed to read a short review paper of the topic matter.  As the seminar progressed I was assigned topics such as the abstract and the quiz rather than being given a content portion to take ownership over.

I feel the disparities of knowledge base between members lead to inequities in the ability for members contribute.  Only one member had read the complete source literature that formed the basis of our presentation.  I believe other members had difficulty making contributions to the broad structure of the presentation and providing quality feedback to other member’s contributions that they had little knowledge of.  For me, although I did not realize at first, the review paper did not give me the knowledge base to make any meaningful contribution to the project at all.  I found developing broad components such as the abstract and the quiz difficult without having sufficient insight into the overall project.  Given that most of the work associated with the project had been pushed to the few weeks before the seminar date and only one copy of the book was available I could not rectify my knowledge once I realized the problem.  I felt disappointed in myself for my limited contribution to the project and felt disempowered to fix the problem once I was aware of its causes.

Looking back at this situation I can see how decisions during the first week or rather lack thereof lead us down this unfortunate path.  The first week of INTAPT was the only opportunity for our entire group to easily gather and come to a consensus which we did not do.  The reasons for not coming together varied from member specific issues such as different personal work styles, to INTAPT structural issues such as limited time and other course demands.  This may have been avoided if we had taken the group charter more seriously.  We wrote this document a few days before the group seminar due date by dividing and distributing its subcomponents amongst the group.  At the time of writing this reflection I have not read our charter and I suspect nor have the other members of my team.

The one redeeming aspect of this process was the maturity we all expressed when these differing opinions came to a head the day before the presentation and we sat down to discuss process that unfolded over the last several months and associated emotions.  We used similar but differing words to describe each other’s attitudes such as disengaged vs disempowered.  Dialogue was very cordial and allowed us to present an excellent seminar the next day without our audience being aware of our turmoil.

Team work is important in all of our processional lives and to me this project represents the challenges that arise when teams do not take the time to argue out differences early as these differences eventually come out with magnified impact.  Much of the challenges could have been resolved if either we spent the first week of INTAPT coming to a consensus or if we discussed the group dynamic once things began feeling dysfunctional.  Given the maturity of our reflective discussion before the seminar I believe this situation could have been resolved early if any of the members raised the subject.  I feel my future teams would function better if I do not shy away from advocating for myself.  Raising these issues is hard but not raising these issues is ultimately harder.

1. Tuckman BW, Jensen MAC. Stages of Small-Group Development. Gr Organ Stud. 1977;2(4):419-427.