Leading a project team as the medical writer
A medical writer usually owns a document's deadline without authority over the people who must supply its pieces and return its reviews, so leading the project team falls to the writer even when the writer manages nobody. That leadership rests on integrity and on a set of behaviours: building credibility by being good at the work, managing the project as a steward of the team's time, motivating the team and keeping the working relationships sound, allowing for the temperaments and difficult behaviours on the team, and confronting conflict early.
Why leadership falls to the medical writer
Drug development is something like 70% science and 30% psychology, in one long-serving writer's estimate: the writer works with teams of people as various as people are and keeps everyone moving in a good direction, and usually owns the deadline for document completion without authority over the people who must supply pieces or complete reviews and return comments, so the work needs people-management skills and learning how to approach different people and make things happen. As the endpoint recipient of material from many sources, the writer has to manage those data flows and get people to deliver on time, in the quality and format expected, and, as another veteran puts it, medical writing itself is a kind of managerial exercise of coordinating sources of information and people and creating and implementing timelines.
Leadership is an integral part of a medical writer's working life, and the ways of leading without authority apply to contract, in-house and freelance writers alike. In a familiar case, a writer who knows how to write the report is missing team comments, has a deadline, has had a conference call resolve less than hoped and leave no clear direction, and has received updated data again; leadership and efficiency are needed, and sometimes the best option is the writer. Behind the scenes the writer steers discussions, coordinates reviews, manages timelines, facilitates consensus and harmonises global teams while writing the document.
Leadership qualities such as being proactive and confident can make a world of difference in how a writer approaches challenging tasks and situations, and can translate into time savings and efficiency across a medical writing project; from knowing when to anticipate needing help to dealing with difficult team members who cannot review in time, confidence can help get the job done. Every team and project is different, with constant change in writing drug and device documents, and asserting behind-the-scenes leadership is often critical to the successful conclusion of a writing project, which in turn builds the team's confidence in the writer as a writer and valued team member. Communicating effectively and diplomatically is essential to successful relationships with the team. Sometimes the best option is how the writer personally approaches each challenge.
Medical writing job postings can ask for leadership in words like these: leads medical writing processes with project teams to develop new documents; has an excellent record of leadership, mentoring, coaching and developing people; demonstrates project leadership expertise, including project management and interpersonal communication skills. One writer hired from such a posting gave the word no further thought until she began overseeing third-party medical writers and became responsible for their delivery of projects, at which point leading suddenly meant something very big.
On those third-party projects, leadership looked like the key differentiator between good and poor outcomes. Where the third-party writer acted as an effective leader of the project team, the team delivered high-quality documents on time and developed, or at least left intact, good collegial relationships; where medical writing leadership seemed absent, there was inevitably far more late-night heroic effort and crisis management, and a team that felt frazzled and beaten up by the project's end. The leadership behaviours apply to medical writers in multiple settings, not only the regulatory one.
In that writer's view, looking at medical writing through a lens of leadership helps writers become more of what project teams actually need from them. Perception is powerful: in Goethe's words, treating a man as he is leaves him as he is, while treating him as he can and should be makes him become as he can and should be. A writer who has never seen the role as one of leadership should start now, because doing so helps in work that is probably largely team-based, and should reflect on and practise the behaviours and emulate the writers who model them well.
What makes a leader
One blunt test of leadership is to turn around: "If no one is following, maybe you're just out for a walk." Having followers is a prerequisite for leadership but plainly not enough, because celebrities are followed, and so are NFL fantasy football and the Twilight Facebook page. With charisma, popularity and leadership accolades removed, what is left may be no leader at all.
Peter Drucker defines a leader as someone who has followers, sets examples, achieves results and takes responsibility. That makes leadership a matter of purpose, working with people to achieve results, with example-setting as standard-setting, and with responsibility extending to the performance of the team the leader supports rather than only to the leader's own. With the razzle-dazzle removed and the effort and responsibility left in, the role stops sounding glamorous, and that is often what the leader's role is.
Emotional intelligence is the core skill that, for Annie McKee, separates average leaders from resonant ones, who move people through mindfulness of their own emotions, compassion and the ability to use emotional knowledge in practice; no official title is needed to lead this way. Prevailing myths keep organisations from promoting emotional intelligence: that intellect is enough to set leaders apart, whereas IQ measures only pattern recognition and, on McKee's figure, 85% to 90% of the difference between outstanding and average leaders is linked to emotional intelligence; that mood does not matter, whereas emotions are contagious, people feel before they think, and culture and climate account for nearly 30% of organisational performance; and that great leaders are tough enough not to complain under even intense stress, whereas everyone would be better off admitting their weaknesses. The practice starts with honest self-reflection on one's strengths and on what angers, stresses and engages one, and with projecting the emotions that inspire without covering the negative ones, which are recognised and moved through. Destructive behaviour is best corrected early, because after several painful episodes with a coworker the capacity for empathy shrinks, and difficult conversations call for compassion and understanding rather than anger.
Leading project teams as the medical writer requires integrity and the right behaviours. Teams differ in their dynamics but the principles do not: technical proficiency builds the credibility, and managing the project and the relationships gains and keeps the team's trust. Medical writers are called to lead, and although they work with many talented professionals, the success of team projects often lies in effective leadership, the writer's included.
Integrity and trust
Leadership begins with character, and specifically with integrity. Followers will not trust a leader for long whose actions do not match their professed values, words and promises; integrity cannot be faked, at least not all of the time, and big and small things both count. The examples for medical writers run from faking data to make a paper publication-worthy and expensing non-work items to the company, through cutting corners by not fact-checking all the data in a quality review, to making promises to the team knowing they may not be kept, including promises made with good intentions, to placate individuals, resolve conflict or get the work moving.
Followers may forgive a leader's technical incompetence, but they will not forgive a lack of integrity. Integrity is the key to trust and trust is the key to leadership, and a lack of trust can ruin the execution of even the best-laid project plan and sour a team's dynamic.
Credibility through technical proficiency
A medical writer's leadership behaviours fall into three categories: demonstrating technical proficiency, managing projects, and building and maintaining positive work relationships. Technical proficiency builds credibility, because it gives the team confidence that the right person is leading the project: people can follow an expert's lead, and they do not want to follow someone who appears to lack either the vision of the end product or the knowledge required to reach it. So the writer should hone the craft and become proficient in it.
Four practices demonstrate that proficiency. The first is understanding the industry and the therapeutic area: a writer who did not begin medical writing with a doctorate in the assigned scientific area should read and train, because writers are usually not expected to be the therapeutic subject-matter experts but a moderate amount of scientific understanding is expected, and showing team members an understanding of their work wins some trust. The second is writing a good first draft whenever possible, which can be compared with the leader's task of communicating the vision, and with the second of Stephen Covey's habits of highly effective people, beginning with the end in mind: the writer takes responsibility for co-creating the project vision with the team and communicating it through that draft, the best and possibly only opportunity to start the project in the right direction. The third is sharing and coaching on what the writer knows really well, whether journal conventions, the regulations governing the project, or company policies and procedures, whenever the information is relevant and can add value. The fourth is asking questions intelligently, since the writer's question may be one other team members have and are not voicing, after a filter: is this the right time, right place, right person and right question?
To create credibility when new to a team, a writer can be accountable, demonstrate technical acumen, give and earn respect, talk less and act more, and demonstrate commitment. Leading peers or more senior colleagues through document preparation without authority requires the writer to understand the team's goals and motivators, set and document expectations at the project's start, be an empathetic listener, hold team members accountable through consistent follow-up, create positive visibility for them, and master their own emotional intelligence. Managers control and direct, while leaders influence and inspire.
Leading without authority takes courage to establish oneself as a knowledgeable leader, not only in writing but in all aspects of developing and completing medical writing projects; work to understand disease states, indications, document-management processes, standard operating procedures, templates and the governing guidance and regulations; and empathy for what is driving team members' decisions, all while staying committed to the quality and realistic management of the document.
Managing the project
Not all leaders are project managers, but effective project managers are leaders, because they see themselves as stewards of the team's time, resources and energy, and so make removing the obstacles in the team's way one of their highest priorities. Most medical writers one experienced writer knows wear the project-manager hat and are almost always managing several projects at once, and in her observation effective project-management skills are surprisingly not a given.
A work plan the team will commit to starts from the tasks, their durations and the people responsible, and from how the tasks relate to one another, such as which are predecessors of which. The writer may not know every task, so team members are asked for theirs and how long each takes. Deadlines should not be left ambiguous, because a request made without a commitment date often does not get done on time, or at all; and an important deadline needs more than announcing, since team members should be asked to commit to it, with buy-in up front and help in seeing how their tasks relate to others' and to the project's success. The plan is then communicated and reviewed regularly, and adjusted as needed: the plan sets the expectations, reviewing it is the key to making progress, and neglecting it can lead to misdirection and wasted time and effort.
Risk contingency and mitigation plans are worth preparing, even simple ones. Drucker holds that the most important task of the leader is to anticipate crisis, "perhaps not to avert it, but to anticipate it", since waiting until crisis hits is abdication. A typical mitigation plan for a medical writer answers how to prevent out-of-office time from holding up the document timeline, and the contingency plan answers what to do when it is holding it up. Where the project involves a relationship with another organisation, the writer should find out the process for resolving risks and problems in the project. The plans need not be elaborate and are tailored to the project's needs, but they are prepared up front.
Progress should be measured and monitored, with continual updates to the team, because the best-laid plans easily fail when the team's progress goes unmonitored. The owner of the project plan is the person who should do this; one writer puts her own name in the work-plan footer so that the ownership is plain. Where a project manager owns the plan instead, establishing up front who holds which project-management responsibilities keeps the two from stepping on each other's toes and sending the team mixed signals.
Motivating the team
A writer motivates the team by building goodwill during the project, recognising team members' successes and giving praise, and by finding out what motivates each of them; Drucker's formulation is that the leader multiplies the performance capacity of the whole by putting to use whatever strength or aspiration there is in individuals. Recognition should not wait for the end, because sharing feedback and recognition early builds goodwill up front, like a bank account to draw on later when the project needs it. Praise should be sincere and given only for the behaviours the writer intends to encourage, because people do more of what is praised.
A positive attitude has a motivating effect: the team sees a positive writer as someone with high energy and a capacity for accomplishment, which encourages it to follow. Two simple strategies serve it: framing negative statements positively, as in "I will be able to take care of this first thing tomorrow" rather than "I won't be able to do this until tomorrow morning", and focusing on resolving issues rather than whining, at least to the team, listening and empathising when others need to vent and then redirecting their energy into action.
Caring about other people's perspectives means asking for input and feedback, then listening, thanking people and not getting defensive. Listening does not mean agreeing. Leaders do not lose their cool because someone disagrees or criticises, and a quick way to lose followers is to lose it because the ego got in the way; feedback the writer disagrees with can be met by asking for examples that illustrate it and considering them. Feedback that is asked for should be acted on, because doing nothing with it may be more demotivating than never having asked. Trust is gained by listening, respecting others' perspectives and following up.
Missed opportunities to celebrate successes with the team are missed opportunities to build on the team's strengths and engagement for future projects, and a celebration does not have to be large: even a shared note of positive customer feedback can carry it. A culture of excellence is set by demonstrating excellence and expecting it of others, which sets the bar high for everyone; Drucker calls the leader the person who has the strength to do the outstanding, pacesetting job, and the writer should model the values others are meant to show.
Reliability, meetings and day-to-day communication
Relationship work is partly managing the writer's own relationship with the team and partly helping team members collaborate with each other, and both rest on demonstrated reliability. Tackling the first task immediately demonstrates it, through something as simple as sending out the minutes straight after the project kickoff, and first impressions matter. The writer should do what they say they will do when they said they would do it, a commitment that is easy to let slip when busy; one writer keeps a private calendar reminder for every commitment, with auto-notification for the important ones, and even small things such as a promised phone call can be recorded so as not to forget them. Whatever the writer says they will do, they should always follow through, and do it right the first time.
Communication matters to the team relationship because it sets the team's tone, formal or informal, organised or sloppy. Effective leaders always have an agenda for a meeting, whether or not it is published, and the points that need to be discussed, because busy colleagues are understandably irritated by unproductive meetings and wasting people's time is poor stewardship of the team's resources. When a meeting digresses from its priorities and purpose, the writer should interrupt the devolving conversation and pull it back to the agenda or purpose, and one writer reports that a standing phrase, "Now, back to the purpose of this discussion", works. A writer whose meeting it is should lead it.
Oral communication should be tailored to the audience, a principle that, in one experienced writer's finding, medical writers often follow in writing and forget in their day-to-day dealings with team members. Adapting to people may mean changing the channel: a physician who does not respond to email can be reached by phone, in person or through an assistant. Many decision-makers are not detail people even though medical writers often are, so with a decision-maker the writer spares the details and gives the bottom line first, "Here is the decision I need from you", and then fills in key supporting details or answers whatever questions arise.
Everyone leaving a meeting should know what they are responsible for, and a good practice is to summarise the actions and the responsible parties in the minutes, restate them at the meeting's end, or both. Decisions should be recorded, however it is done, such as in the minutes or the document draft, because busy people, the writer included, can forget what was decided, and a record prevents a decision being revisited out of forgetfulness.
Temperaments on the team
Understanding one's own personality and how introverts and extroverts function can improve relationships and workplace performance, whether a writer is aiming to move up or already leads, and the free HumanMetrics personality test assesses introvert or extrovert status. Both introverts and extroverts can be good medical writers, which may be reassuring because personality type is not something that can be changed: people of either type can be well organised, detail oriented, good listeners, team players and analytical.
Introverts are typically, and often incorrectly, seen as shy, self-centred, aloof, poor team players and leaders, bad public speakers, arrogant, rude, unfriendly or without anything to say. Shyness is perhaps the commonest of these false attributes, but it is not introversion: it is a wish to avoid people or a tendency to be self-conscious in front of them, both types can be shy, and the vibrant comedian and actor Steve Martin happens to be an introvert. Nor are all extroverts poor listeners, unable to process information internally, shallow, loud, talkative, energetic, always team oriented or the life of the party, or more social, outgoing or confident than introverts. The main difference is how each recharges: extroverts draw energy from groups and introverts need down time. Introverts usually take time to think deeply and process information and are often insightful, sensitive and intuitive, may avoid small talk or lack assertiveness in conversation, and, when they do talk, may share personal information freely, sometimes too much too soon; extroverts tend to seek novelty and excitement, are often gregarious, assertive, cheerful depending on circumstances, and talkative, enjoy the centre of attention and are action oriented.
Both types should work a little outside their comfort zones and learn from each other. Extroverts may be more likely to be promoted as leaders because they tend to speak up and be heard, and have to take care not to interrupt colleagues; introverts who feel talked over should be encouraged to "be their own cheerleaders", for instance by asking to be included in meeting agendas so that there is a space for them to speak. A team with both has two distinct and valuable perspectives to tap, and meetings can draw on both. Sending the agenda before the meeting gives introverts time to think about their contribution, and they are more likely to speak up when prepared; extroverts can be invited to speak first and introverts after they have had time to process; and introverts can be given the chance to email their input afterwards, because they nearly always have something to say but may need to be asked. Listening to both enhances the team, and some clients may prefer to communicate with one type over the other.
David Keirsey's temperament theory names four main types, Guardian, Rational, Idealist and Artisan, which may apply to the four travellers of The Wizard of Oz and to leadership styles. Keirsey's Guardians are the glue that holds society together, concerned with order, right action and a secure environment for those in their charge, stabilising leaders, and Dorothy holds the party together while leading it to the Wizard. Rationals are innovative problem solvers: the Scarecrow, convinced he has no brain, devises the trick that gets apples from a hostile tree and the plan to rescue Dorothy in stolen guards' uniforms. Idealists are catalysts who energise productive relationships, enthusiastic, people-centred and patient, often putting individuals before the task: the Tin Woodman, sure he has no heart, cares deeply for the party's welfare. He races into action when the party faces the Kalidahs, the most feared predators in Oz. Artisans are practical, deal with concrete problems rather than possibilities, excel at on-the-spot decisions but are impulsive, and above all take risks; for an Artisan leader courage means doing what needs to be done against all odds, even in the face of fear, and the Lion, believing he lacks courage, shows bravery by protecting the party.
Emotional intelligence grows from understanding what drives a person and how they interact with others, and understanding one's temperament type helps a person perform more effectively, both as an individual and as a team. Different temperaments bring different expectations and priorities: an Artisan manager cares about results and may not care about the details of how they were reached, so an Idealist team leader who wants to talk about each member's contribution may find the conversation frustrating; and one Rational leader finds that the effect of a decision on individuals may not even occur to him, where an Idealist leader he knows is very conscious of it. The same leader found that learning about his type through online inventories and discussion with trained Myers–Briggs practitioners helped him identify what drives him and lead by playing to its strengths and compensating for its weaknesses. Recognition of the role of social and emotional intelligence in building productive workplaces has grown since Daniel Goleman's 1995 book Emotional Intelligence. In the story, each traveller finds the strengths they believed they lacked.
Difficult behaviours on the team
Collaborative writing needs the writer to lead people of widely varying backgrounds, expertise, priorities, pressures and communication styles toward a document that is clear, precise and compliant with third-party guidelines, often on challenging timeframes, and the pandemic pushed more of that collaboration into a virtual setting where writers have to recognise and navigate team dynamics in creative ways.
Recognising the behaviour comes first. Perceptions vary with the person judging, but difficult behaviours are broadly those misaligned with the expectations of the writer and the team, and the common types fall on two axes, narrow or broad focus and approach or withdrawal. Group 1, narrowly focused and approaching, mismanages the writer's time, attention and processes (micromanagers, digressers, know-it-alls, worriers and wordsmiths), often from concern about proving their worth or being blamed, for reasons such as job vulnerability or being new in a post with lesser credentials than others on the team. Group 2, broadly focused and aggressive, derails progress unpredictably, like an elephant barrelling through a meeting, with strong egos and often short tempers, sometimes from not realising the value of writers in handling important team functions. Group 3, narrowly focused but withdrawn from the task in hand, is reticent until a problem arises, vacillates, fails to give the clarity needed to move forward, stalls meetings and underdelivers, for reasons including cultural complexity, competing priorities and simple unawareness of what the team expects of them. Group 4, broad in perspective but withdrawn from the team's functions and goals (pessimists, complainers, rumourmongers, blamers, deceivers and dismissers), is often the commonest, influences the tone and dynamic of whole teams for the worse, and is often made worse, and sometimes caused, by ineffective communication from project leaders, writers leading cross-functional teams among them. Further types are the vacillator, under-deliverer, reticent and staller on the narrow-focus side and the exploder, egoist and tank on the broad-focus side.
Learning to identify potentially challenging team dynamics and communication styles proactively, and the context behind them, can help writers anticipate and prevent problems before they arise, or at least limit their impact. Each group has its own early actions, ongoing strategies and meeting solutions, and other strategies assert the writer's leadership and identify difficult behaviour early in a project. Writers should state their qualifications and their role as writer and project manager confidently at the outset, then set out the roles, expected contributions and timeframes of everyone else; consider a pre-kickoff meeting with a team representative to get a feel for the dynamics and personalities; at the kickoff, encourage members to turn their cameras on, so that voices, behaviours and tones can be matched to names and problem behaviour seen, and establish ground rules and timelines for the project's duration; and consider assigning a note taker so that the writer can attend to the dynamics. Clear, consistent communication is paramount: writers should say exactly what they need from each member, directly if necessary, and timed agendas sent before each meeting and emails that put the bottom line up front help keep difficult behaviour in check. Medical writers have immense power to lead writing teams in a way that fosters productive, collegial behaviour, and where difficult behaviour arises despite these strategies, the writer stays professional, positive, solutions-oriented, firm and confident in the leadership role to keep the team moving toward its goal.
Everything a writer does communicates value, from emails free of spelling and grammatical errors to well-prepared slides grounded in the science, and others need to see that a document is safe with the writer, which scientific knowledge and writing expertise alone do not show. Owning a document means influencing without authority, which is challenging especially over more senior team members, and understanding team dynamics is what lets the writer shepherd team and document to success. Knowing what the writer's own actions say to the team is equally important: the writer can take private notes in a meeting when something uncomfortable happens, recording observations without judgement, and evaluate them critically afterwards, since understanding how one's feelings manifest gives the power to change them and improve interpersonal effectiveness.
Where others seem doubtful of the writer's value, the writer owns the disconnect and asks to reset. With one person, that means complimenting something specific and real, to create a connection and confirm commitment, and, if no feedback comes, leading the person to it by explaining the behaviour creating the disconnect and asking to learn more; with a whole team, the same principles hold, but it is probably best raised at the start of a meeting: "it seems we're experiencing a rough patch. I'd appreciate your advice about the best way to move forward." With stereotypical team members, the writer notes the feeling and the reaction and then owns the situation. Captain Obvious can be drawn further into the conversation with a question on his expertise and room to answer it. The Interrupter should not be allowed to go on even when he is more senior, but met with a neutral phrase: "I promise we will get to that, Jack; please, let's complete this discussion point first." The Combative calls for staying neutral, succinct and redirecting: "Catherine, I hear how important this is to you. Maybe we can address it in Section 11. Right now, we need to move to comments from Clarice." Disagreeing may feel combative but respectful disagreement is often needed to get the document right, and then a neutral, matter-of-fact tone helps, posing the disparity as a question: "It seems we are missing a source for the data on page 82. How should we resolve this?" A medical writer's value proposition is scientific knowledge and writing expertise, understanding team dynamics, and understanding, and being willing to change, oneself: getting the document right rather than being right, with empathy, respect and dedication, and giving others the benefit of the doubt. A writer who shows up every day as their best self to do their best work invites everyone else to do the same.
In one case, a writer asked to abandon the third version of draft 1, return to the first and deliver a fourth draft within two or three days takes a short break, checks her availability and contacts her supervisor, since asking for support may be her best option rather than taking everything on herself, and she can meet the authoring team about any questions on the new direction. She can also check that she understands the agreement on the number of drafts and timelines, recommend writing that a team member or another writer could do, and ask for more writing time where appropriate or shorter team review. In another, challenged by a manager about the document's accuracy and a one-day approval turnaround, for a document the manager had reviewed a week earlier, the writer steps back rather than sending a premature email, answers in empathic, fact-based language (the statistician's confirmation of the analysis, her understanding that approval was a formal step), offers a call if needed, and warns the team of a possible delay, with a revised timeline if appropriate. Leading without authority takes being prepared, being kind but firm and knowing one's material: understanding what may be driving the behaviour, such as corporate goals or being caught out of the loop, while staying committed to the quality and realistic management of the document, and using empathic language so that the other person stays open to the facts, because it is about building the relationship and showing the writer's value, not about being right.
Conflict and diplomacy
Leaders confront conflict early instead of waiting for problems to get worse, and a writer who doubts being able to mediate conflict is sometimes the person best placed to do it. In one case, near the start of a project between two companies, the medical writer sensed tension between them and asked the team what was working well for them and what was not; nobody responded immediately or at any length, and the writer felt a little awkward. After the meeting she received further responses by email, including thanks for having asked the question of the other company, and when she tried to use that feedback some aspects of the collaboration between the two companies seemed to improve.
Seeking first to understand and then to be understood means focusing on the other parties' interests first, avoiding jumping straight to solutions, and beginning a negotiation by listening. Anyone who disengaged from the conversation should be followed up after the meeting, to find out what would resolve the conflict. Identifying the decision-makers up front and having them make the decisions keeps the rest of the team from going around and around on a decision, and conversations can become unnecessarily overheated when team members voice contradictory opinions and cannot reach a decision, sometimes because the true decision-maker is not in the room, in which case the writer either invites them or collects the team's perspectives and takes them to them. Respect shows in being engaged and interested, making eye contact when face to face, avoiding tapping on the keyboard, multitasking or interrupting, and letting there be a pause after someone speaks, which in one writer's experience also keeps her calm and gives her a chance to frame a response during a contentious conversation. An unpopular decision can be communicated while still acknowledging concern for individuals' perspectives and showing respect.
Some people feel that admitting being wrong or not knowing is a sign of weakness, but that is the dishonest talk of the ego: team members can probably guess the truth and are more likely to read admission than denial as strength, especially where they already know the writer is wrong or lacks the knowledge. Admitting shows that the writer can subordinate the ego to the task, and it builds trust. A writer who has hurt a team member should say sorry, because apologies can clear a lot of the mistrust and rancour that may sit just under the surface souring a team.
Team diplomacy is gaining team members' perspectives and navigating conflicting opinions so that everyone is pleased with the outcome, and it requires building trust and respect, listening, communicating rather than dictating, and using questions to solicit ideas. A writer waiting on a last reviewer may be able to proceed without the comments if that reviewer is not a primary one, though this is not ideal and needs the hierarchy and roles clarified at the kickoff or in early interactions; where the comments are essential, the writer may have to accommodate them late while minding work–life balance, and can telephone to learn when they will come, which also makes the reviewer aware of the importance of their input; re-send the request copying someone the reviewer answers to or respects; draft the update so that the reviewer only has to confirm it, which is frequently more straightforward than asking for revised text; restate the timeline, the urgent need for a response and the consequences of a miss; and ask more than once. Credibility is built on effective communication with the team: whether teasing comments out of a reviewer or obtaining team consensus, thinking creatively about how to communicate and build rapport with individual members while maintaining one's own boundaries is necessary to be effective.