We are all called to work in teams these days, on papers, articles, projects, grant submissions and so on. Don’t get me wrong. Most of the people I work with are great and all of them are smart. But each has a different style that makes it challenging for me as a “get ‘er done” type person. I have to stop, adjust my thinking, put my empathy cap on and realize that my egocentric world isn’t the world as others know it. I realize my style of working is just that: my style, and certainly not others. My thinking as a nurse theorist, especially, the middle-range theory of nurses’ psychological trauma, has conditioned me to consider others’ feelings and experiences in the world (Foli, 2022)

That being said, here are the six common styles of folks whom I have come across over the past two decades with tips on how to navigate them.

1. The “comment-loving” scientist: Give them a Google doc or a team-shared document and they go wild. Every sentence is mapped with comments, edits, and as you slog through it, you become more anxious, wondering if you should ignore them, address them, or give up. It’s a veritable sea of opinions, edits, corrections, and words that overwhelms, fatigues, and annoys.
   • What to do/options: Take a breath and take a break. Look through listings of houses for sale on your favorite browser, update your CV, or other activity that doesn’t require much energy or thought. Return to the document and take one comment at a time. Be mindful that the person took time to offer feedback, and their thoughts should be respected and given consideration. When I do this, I recognize the expertise of this individual and that many of the comments improve the article or grant proposal. I accept that going through these comments will take time, but it may be value added time.
2. The “let’s meet” and accomplish little colleague: Now this person is a bit tricky in that you need to discern why they want to meet, especially if their work outside of the meeting hasn’t been accomplished. Is it to cover up their lack of progress? To feel part of the team? Do they want to assure you that they are taking the project seriously? The clock has moved 45 minutes, and nothing has been accomplished or decided.
   • What to do/options: I realized that when this happened to me the individual wanted to stay connected to the group and perceived the meeting time as important to discuss issues. I had to look beyond my frustrations to better appreciate the value of our discussions. I also had to request an agenda and documents to preview prior to meeting or I advised them that we would need to postpone our conversation. In all my communications, I was sensitive to the tone and clarity of messaging: my requests were in the interest of the project, not merely a preference of mine.
3. The nursogynist: Whether overtly or covertly, this person doesn’t understand the knowledge base and contributions of a nurse/nursologist. Discourse is characterized by nursogyny, coined by Chinn (2019) who writes:
   “This is the knee-jerk reaction to discount, even disparage our own nursing sensibility, the worth of our own values, to buy the myth that nursing is ‘less than’.”
   The team members’ mental model is limited to preconceived stereotypes of “a nurse,” ignoring additional knowledge the nurse-team member has. The project team member will often declare: “We need a nurse!” Instead, they should state: “We need a nursologist who will bring us much needed information and experience we don’t possess – things we don’t even know we don’t know.” Language makes a difference, and bias creates reality. A second aspect of this is “nurse-theoryogyny,” when other disciplines eschew nursing theory as confusing or unnecessary. In interactions with a psychologist with talents in highly quantitative analysis, I spoke about my theory of parental postadoption depression (Foli, 2009). The individual looked at me as if I had lost my academic mind.
   • What to do/options: The nursologist must understand when accepting an invitation to be part of a team, what they are signing up for and the role that prompted the invitation. Specifically, what knowledge/experience is sought for this project? Is the person who issues the invitation interested in the nursologist’s accomplishments, experience, and area of expertise? The nursologist should not have to persuade the leader/members about what they can offer; however, some would argue it’s an opportunity to educate others about nurses’ scientific contributions. Ultimately, the nursologist should decide whether being part of this team is worth their time and effort and if they proceed, be ready to identify nursogyny in behaviors and discourse. If not, there is magic in saying, “no” to the invitation. There is also an opportunity to educate others outside of nursing. As I continued the discussion with the psychologist, I began to speak our common language. I referred to variables within the theory of parental postadoption depression and the relationship between expectations and depressive symptoms. I emphasized how the theory was an organizing framework that provided hypotheses and assisted in data collection and analysis. Our conversation was rich, and our body of work is something I’m very proud of.
4. The “who cares about relationships” person: This team member or leader is not invested in how people feel, social relationships, or how they come across in their interactions. Their stoicism may mimic an autocratic leader’s behaviors and be off-putting to team members who yearn for a psychologically safe space to contribute. This can lead to a poor outcome in terms of the project’s quality and stimulate a false consensus reached out of fear of expressing dissenting opinions.
   • What to do/options: When I interacted with a team leader with this style, I incorrectly assumed that the leader didn’t care about others’ ideas, and that they leaned toward being an autocratic leader. In fact, they were unsure themselves and as the group process unfolded, it became more apparent that the leader was invested in the group and began to interact more comfortably. A second pattern is that nursologists may be hesitant to speak up – I have lost count of the times I waited to discuss an idea only to find a collaborator had the same idea and wasn’t scared to voice it. Be professional. Be confident. Be able to take intellectual risks.
5. The use job: This is especially true when a project or grant submission is being planned. In this instance, the nursologist is called upon to aid in the planning of a project and participates in a needs assessment, as well as offering ideas to provide the groundwork to the project. The nursologist may assume that they are being asked to be a permanent team member; when in fact, they are cut out of budget buy-out time and communication ends once the grant discussions move forward.
   • What to do/options: The nursologist should clarify when they are contacted what role they are being asked to assume and in what phase(s) of the project. Reading the abstract or early text that describes the project will offer an idea of whether the role of the nursologist is limited or integrated into the long-term project. References to ethical conduct may be helpful, such as those prepared by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2025).
6. The collaborative gem: This individual values nursing input and nursing theory. They are willing to learn about the work of nurses and the expertise you bring. They assume a respectful position and defer to you as a professional. You, in turn, feel safe and are eager to contribute your knowledge.
   • What to do/options: Understand that this is the way interdisciplinary collaborators are supposed to function. Enjoy the interactions and appreciate that the resulting project, study, article, or grant submission is stronger for it.

There are probably additional contributors that a nursologist finds themselves when working in interdisciplinary teams, but these are the top six I have experienced. As I end this blog, I confess I have been an imperfect team member and leader at times. I’ve been too much of a “take charge” type gal and less of consensus builder, or perhaps prematurely critical of the idea. But that’s the point, right? To reflect and to learn and to grow and do better. In the end, we want to advocate for ourselves and honor our unique knowledge that stems from nursing theory and practice, as well as to learn to do better ourselves.

References

Chinn, P. L. (2019, March). Keynote Address: The discipline of nursing: Moving forward boldly. Presented at “Nursing Theory: A 50 Year Perspective, Past and Future,” Case Western Reserve University Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing. Retrieved from https://nursology.net/2019-03-21-case-keynote/

Foli, K. J. (2009). Postadoption depression: What nurses should know. American Journal of
 Nursing, 109, 11. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000357144.17002.d3

Foli, K. J. (2022). A middle-range theory of nurses’ psychological trauma. Advances in Nursing Science, 45(1), 86-98. doi: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000388

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2025). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf