Expert-Dominated Group Problem Scenario
Situation Overview
This walkthrough demonstrates managing a group where one or two participants dominate discussions due to superior technical knowledge, marginalizing others and reducing collaborative learning. Shows real-time intervention techniques.
Group Profile
- Dr. Martinez: 15-year cybersecurity veteran, CISSP, PhD → naturally dominant
- Alex: Senior penetration tester, specialized expertise → technical show-off tendency
- Jordan: IT Manager, 5 years experience → being overshadowed
- Sam: Business Analyst, security-curious → intimidated by experts
- Casey: HR Director, compliance background → withdrawing from technical discussions
Problem Indicators
- Dr. Martinez answering every question immediately
- Alex adding technical corrections and complexities
- Jordan, Sam, and Casey becoming quiet
- Side conversations between experts
- Non-experts checking phones or disengaging
Opening: Problem Develops
Initial Setup
IM: “Let’s go around - name and one thing you bring to cybersecurity discussions.”
Dr. Martinez: “Dr. Martinez, 15 years in cybersecurity. I’ve led incident response for everything from basic malware to nation-state attacks. I hold CISSP, CISM, and have a PhD in computer security. I’ve published papers on advanced persistent threats and…”
Alex: (interrupting) “Alex, senior pen tester. I specialize in breaking into systems that people think are secure. Last week I found zero-days in…”
Jordan: (quietly) “Jordan, IT Manager. I handle day-to-day security operations.”
Sam: (hesitant) “Sam, business analyst. I’m trying to learn more about cybersecurity.”
Casey: (defensive) “Casey, HR. I deal with security awareness training and compliance.”
IM Internal Assessment: Red flag - experts dominating introductions, others being brief and withdrawing. Need immediate intervention.
Problem Manifests in Role Assignment
IM: “Based on your backgrounds, I’ll assign roles…”
Dr. Martinez: (before IM finishes) “I should probably be the Crisis Manager since I have the most experience with incident response leadership. Alex could be Detective since he understands attack techniques best.”
Alex: “Actually, I think I’d be better as Protector since I know how systems get compromised and how to defend them.”
Jordan: (quietly) “I guess I could be…”
Dr. Martinez: (interrupting Jordan) “Jordan should be Tracker since that’s more operational, less strategic.”
IM Emergency Intervention: “Hold on. I appreciate the expertise, but I’ll handle role assignments to ensure the best learning experience for everyone.”
IM Note: Experts trying to control the session. Need to establish facilitator authority and protect other participants.
Strategic Role Assignment
IM: “I’m going to assign roles strategically for maximum learning:”
- Dr. Martinez → Tracker: “Your expertise will help analyze adversary behavior”
- Alex → Communicator: “Your technical knowledge needs to be translated for stakeholders”
- Jordan → Crisis Manager: “Your operational experience is perfect for coordination”
- Sam → Detective: “Fresh perspectives often catch things experts miss”
- Casey → Protector: “Security awareness and compliance are crucial protection”
Dr. Martinez: (surprised) “Tracker? I think my experience would be better utilized as…”
IM: (firmly) “These assignments are intentional. Part of the learning is working outside your comfort zone and supporting teammates with different expertise.”
IM Note: Deliberately assigned experts to supporting roles. Dr. Martinez to analytical role, Alex to communication role that requires considering non-technical audience.
Setting Collaboration Expectations
IM: “Before we start, let me be clear about expectations. This is collaborative learning, not a demonstration of individual expertise. The goal is team effectiveness, which means everyone’s contribution matters equally.”
IM: “I want to hear from all five roles in every round. Experts - your job is to help teammates think through problems, not solve everything yourself.”
IM Note: Clear expectations about collaboration vs. individual expertise demonstration.
Round 1: Managing Expert Dominance
Crisis Setup
IM: “TechCorp’s network is showing signs of compromise. Initial symptoms suggest APT activity. Jordan, as Crisis Manager, what’s your first priority?”
Dr. Martinez: (immediately) “Well, obviously you need to activate the incident response team and…”
IM: (interrupting) “Dr. Martinez, I asked Jordan. Please let our Crisis Manager respond first.”
Jordan: (hesitant) “Um… I guess I’d want to understand the scope of the problem first?”
Dr. Martinez: “That’s not really the right approach. In APT situations, you need to…”
IM: (firm interruption) “Dr. Martinez, Jordan is learning to think through crisis management. Can you ask a question that helps Jordan develop their thinking rather than providing the answer?”
Dr. Martinez: (reluctantly) “Jordan, what information would you need to understand the scope?”
IM Note: Redirecting expert from providing answers to facilitating learning. This is crucial early intervention.
MIndividual Actions with Expert Management
Jordan (Crisis Manager) - Action 1 with Protection
IM: “Jordan, as Crisis Manager, what’s your first action?”
Jordan: “I want to coordinate with the team to understand what each role is discovering.”
Alex: “That’s inefficient. You should immediately isolate suspected systems and…”
IM: (interrupting Alex) “Alex, Jordan is thinking about coordination, which is exactly what a Crisis Manager should do. Jordan, how would you structure that coordination?”
Jordan: (more confident) “I’d want quick reports from each team member about what they’re seeing from their perspective.”
IM: “Excellent crisis management thinking! Roll d20 for team coordination.”
Jordan rolls 11 (+1 for management approach)
IM: “Good coordination! Your systematic approach helps the team work more effectively. Alex, as Communicator, how would you help Jordan get the information needed?”
IM Note: Protected Jordan from Alex’s criticism, validated the approach, then channeled Alex’s energy into supporting Jordan.
Sam (Detective) - Action 1 with Expert Support Redirect
IM: “Sam, as Detective, what would you investigate first?”
Sam: (nervously) “I’m not sure… maybe look at log files?”
Dr. Martinez: “You need to be more specific. There are system logs, application logs, security logs, network logs…”
IM: (redirecting) “Dr. Martinez, instead of listing options, can you ask Sam a question that helps them think through which logs might be most useful?”
Dr. Martinez: (adjusting) “Sam, if you suspected someone broke into the network, what kind of evidence would you expect to find?”
Sam: “Um… traces of them getting in?”
Dr. Martinez: (starting to lecture) “Well, that could be authentication logs, but also firewall logs, and you’d need to correlate…”
IM: (interrupting) “Dr. Martinez, let’s let Sam build on their thinking. Sam, where would you look for traces of someone getting in?”
Sam: “Maybe the authentication logs?”
IM: “Great detective thinking! Roll for log analysis.”
Sam rolls 14
IM: “Excellent! You find suspicious login patterns. Sam, what makes these patterns suspicious to you?”
Sam: (building confidence) “Logins at weird times from locations that don’t make sense?”
IM Note: Protecting Sam’s learning process from Dr. Martinez’s overwhelming expertise. Building Sam’s confidence step by step.
Casey (Protector) - Action 1 with Role Validation
IM: “Casey, as Protector, what’s your priority for protecting the organization?”
Casey: (hesitant) “I’m not very technical…”
Alex: “Security awareness training won’t help during an active APT attack. You need technical controls like…”
IM: (stopping Alex) “Alex, security awareness and human factors are crucial for protection. Casey, what human-related vulnerabilities might be relevant here?”
Casey: (more confident) “Well, if it’s APT, they probably used social engineering to get in initially.”
IM: “Excellent insight! How would you protect against ongoing social engineering?”
Casey: “Alert users to be extra careful with emails and unusual requests?”
IM: “Perfect protection thinking! Roll for user awareness enhancement.”
Casey rolls 13
IM: “Great work! Your user alerts actually prevent three additional spear-phishing attempts from succeeding.”
IM Note: Validated Casey’s non-technical but crucial contribution against Alex’s technical bias.
Alex (Communicator) - Redirected Challenge
IM: “Alex, as Communicator, you need to translate these technical findings for senior leadership. How do you explain Sam’s suspicious login discovery to non-technical executives?”
Alex: (struggling) “Well… they found anomalous authentication patterns indicating potential unauthorized access vectors through…”
IM: “Alex, remember your audience. How would you explain this to someone with no technical background?”
Alex: (adjusting) “Someone might have stolen passwords and is logging in when they shouldn’t be?”
IM: “Better! How would you explain the business impact?”
Alex: (thoughtful) “If attackers have our passwords, they could access sensitive data or disrupt operations.”
IM: “Excellent! Roll for stakeholder communication.”
Alex rolls 12
IM Note: Channeling Alex’s technical expertise into the challenging task of communication, which requires different skills.
Dr. Martinez (Tracker) - Analytical Focus
IM: “Dr. Martinez, as Tracker, use your expertise to analyze the adversary behavior. Based on what the team has found, what can you determine about the attackers?”
Dr. Martinez: (in element) “The login patterns Sam found, combined with the timing Casey identified, suggest this is a well-organized group with specific objectives. The patience and persistence indicate APT-level sophistication.”
IM: “Excellent analysis! What questions does this raise for the rest of the team?”
Dr. Martinez: (engaging collaboratively) “Jordan, from a crisis management perspective, how long might this group have been in our systems? Sam, what other evidence might support long-term presence?”
IM Note: Dr. Martinez naturally engaging in collaborative analysis when given appropriate role. Starting to ask questions rather than provide all answers.
Round 1 Synthesis
IM: “Let’s share discoveries. I want to hear from each role, starting with our Crisis Manager.”
Jordan: (more confident) “I coordinated the team’s investigation and we’ve discovered signs of sophisticated, long-term compromise.”
Sam: “I found suspicious login patterns that suggest unauthorized access.”
Casey: “I identified social engineering as likely entry point and prevented additional attacks through user awareness.”
Alex: “I translated technical findings into business impact - stolen passwords threatening data and operations.”
Dr. Martinez: “I analyzed adversary behavior and confirmed this is APT-level sophistication with likely long-term presence.”
IM: “Excellent teamwork! Notice how each perspective contributed something unique. Network Security Status improved from 60 to 75.”
IM Note: Experts contributing appropriately, others gaining confidence. Balance improving.
Round 2: Reinforcing Collaboration
Escalated Challenge
IM: “The APT has been discovered and is now actively trying to complete their mission before being expelled. They’re moving laterally through the network and attempting data exfiltration. Higher stakes, more complex coordination needed.”
IM Note: Increased complexity requires true collaboration, making expert dominance less effective.
Collaborative Actions
Cross-Role Collaboration Emerges
Jordan (Crisis Manager): “This escalation requires coordinated response. Sam, what can you track about their lateral movement? Casey, how do we protect users during active compromise?”
Dr. Martinez: (starting to interrupt)
IM: (gentle redirect) “Dr. Martinez, I love that you want to contribute. What question could you ask that helps Jordan think through crisis escalation management?”
Dr. Martinez: (adjusting) “Jordan, what’s your biggest concern about managing a response while the attackers are still active?”
Jordan: “That we might interfere with each other - the technical response and the user protection and the business communication.”
Dr. Martinez: “That’s exactly the right concern. How might you coordinate to avoid that?”
IM Note: Dr. Martinez learning to facilitate rather than dominate. Jordan developing leadership confidence.
Sam (Detective) - Growing Confidence
Sam: “I want to track their lateral movement by looking for unusual network connections and file access patterns.”
Alex: (starting to correct) “You should also check for…”
IM: (stopping Alex) “Let’s see what Sam discovers first, then you can help fill gaps. Sam, roll for lateral movement tracking.”
Sam rolls 16
IM: “Excellent detective work! You discover they’re specifically targeting financial systems and intellectual property. Alex, from a communication perspective, how would you prioritize alerting stakeholders about these targets?”
Alex: (learning to build on others) “Sam’s discovery means we need to alert Finance and R&D departments immediately about elevated risk.”
IM Note: Sam growing in confidence, Alex learning to build on others’ discoveries rather than correcting them.
Team Coordination Developing
Casey: “If they’re targeting financial systems, we need to alert accounting staff about potential social engineering attempts targeting their credentials.”
Dr. Martinez: “Good thinking, Casey. What social engineering tactics would be most concerning given what Sam found about their current access?”
Casey: “They might impersonate IT support asking for password resets or system access to ‘fix’ the security problem.”
Jordan: “As Crisis Manager, I need to coordinate messaging so users know about the threat but don’t panic. Alex, how do we communicate urgent caution without causing business disruption?”
Alex: (thinking about audience) “We could say ‘IT security is implementing additional verification procedures today. Please verify any unusual requests through established channels.’”
IM Note: Natural collaboration emerging. Experts supporting rather than dominating.
Round 2 Success
IM: “Network Security Status: 85. Your coordinated response is containing a sophisticated APT attack. How did the collaboration feel different this round?”
Jordan: “I felt more confident making decisions because everyone was supporting rather than second-guessing.”
Sam: “When my detective work was built upon rather than corrected, I felt like I could contribute more.”
Casey: “Having my non-technical perspective valued made me more willing to share ideas.”
Alex: “Focusing on communication made me think about how to make technical concepts accessible.”
Dr. Martinez: “Asking questions instead of providing answers helped me see how others think through problems.”
IM Note: Successful transformation. Experts learning collaboration skills, others gaining confidence.
Round 3: Advanced Collaboration
Complex Challenge
IM: “Final phase: The APT is contained but has left persistent access mechanisms. You need to clean up completely while maintaining business operations and preparing for potential retaliation. This requires sophisticated coordination.”
IM Note: Complex challenge that requires everyone’s expertise and true collaboration.
Expert Integration
Natural Role Evolution
Jordan: “For complete cleanup, I need technical expertise from our team. Dr. Martinez, based on your APT analysis, what persistent mechanisms should we prioritize finding?”
Dr. Martinez: (supportive) “Great question, Jordan. Based on their behavior patterns, I’d expect backdoors in authentication systems and possibly compromised administrative accounts. Sam, your detective skills would be perfect for hunting these - what would you look for?”
Sam: (confident now) “I’d check for unusual administrative logins and any new accounts created during the compromise timeline.”
Alex: (building supportively) “Sam’s approach is excellent. From a communication standpoint, I should prepare stakeholders for potential service disruptions during cleanup. Casey, what user communication would help during the cleanup process?”
Casey: “Users need to understand why there might be additional security checks and system maintenance without giving details that might help future attackers.”
IM Note: Beautiful natural collaboration with experts facilitating others’ thinking.
Coordinated Problem Solving
The group naturally organizes a coordinated response:
Jordan coordinates: “Sam and Dr. Martinez work together on technical hunting, Alex and Casey handle stakeholder communication, I’ll coordinate with business operations.”
Sam and Dr. Martinez collaboration: “Sam finds indicators, Dr. Martinez provides context about typical APT persistence methods.”
Alex and Casey collaboration: “Casey identifies communication needs, Alex translates technical requirements into business language.”
IM: “Everyone roll d20 for this coordinated cleanup operation.”
Group rolls: 15, 17, 14, 16, 13
IM: “Outstanding coordination! Your cleanup is thorough, business disruption is minimal, and stakeholder confidence is maintained.”
Final Assessment
IM: “Network Security Status: 95 - higher than baseline because of improved team coordination and defensive measures. Final status from each role:”
Jordan: “Crisis managed with team coordination, all stakeholders informed and confident” Sam: “Complete technical cleanup achieved through collaborative hunting” Casey: “User awareness enhanced, communication maintained confidence” Alex: “Technical expertise translated effectively for all stakeholder audiences” Dr. Martinez: “Adversary behavior analyzed, team expertise leveraged for comprehensive defense”
IM: “You transformed from expert dominance to collaborative expertise. This is exactly how high-performing security teams operate.”
Debrief: Collaboration Transformation
Expert Perspective Transformation
IM: “Dr. Martinez and Alex, how did your role in the team change during the session?”
Dr. Martinez: “I learned that helping others think through problems often produces better solutions than just providing answers. The team’s collective expertise was stronger than my individual knowledge.”
Alex: “Focusing on communication forced me to really understand concepts well enough to explain them simply. That actually deepened my own understanding.”
Non-Expert Confidence Building
IM: “Jordan, Sam, and Casey, how did your confidence change?”
Jordan: “When experts supported my decisions rather than correcting them, I felt more comfortable exercising leadership.”
Sam: “Having my findings built upon rather than criticized made me willing to take more investigative risks.”
Casey: “Realizing that non-technical perspectives are valuable helped me contribute ideas I would have kept to myself.”
Key Learning Insights
Group Reflections:
- Collaboration multiplies expertise rather than just adding it
- Different perspectives strengthen technical solutions
- Supporting others’ thinking often produces better results than providing answers
- Everyone has valuable contributions regardless of technical background
- Effective teams leverage individual strengths while maintaining collective responsibility
IM Commentary: Expert Dominance Management
Critical Early Interventions
Strategic Role Assignments
- Experts to supporting roles: Placed dominant experts in analytical or communication roles
- Non-experts to leadership: Gave crisis management and detective roles to less dominant participants
- Role rationale: Provided clear reasoning that emphasized learning over comfort zones
Ongoing Management Techniques
Redirection Strategies
- Answer-blocking: Consistently prevented experts from providing immediate answers
- Question-facilitation: Taught experts to ask questions that develop others’ thinking
- Build-on requirements: Required experts to build on others’ contributions rather than correcting them
Protection Techniques
- Interruption management: Consistently stopped experts from interrupting others
- Contribution validation: Validated non-expert contributions before allowing expert input
- Process control: Maintained structured discussion order to ensure all voices were heard
Collaboration Development
- Expertise channeling: Directed expert knowledge toward supporting team goals
- Cross-role coordination: Encouraged natural collaboration between different expertise levels
- Success attribution: Emphasized team achievements over individual contributions
Specific Techniques for Different Expert Types
The Technical Show-Off (Alex)
- Communication challenge: Assigned role requiring translation of technical concepts
- Audience focus: Constantly reminded to consider non-technical perspectives
- Building requirement: Required to build on others’ contributions before adding technical complexity
- Collaboration skills: Developed ability to make technical expertise accessible and supportive
Protection Strategies for Non-Experts
Confidence Building
- Immediate validation: Consistently reinforced correct thinking and valuable contributions
- Process protection: Prevented interruptions and corrections during learning moments
- Expertise recognition: Helped participants recognize their unique valuable perspectives
- Success attribution: Ensured non-experts received credit for their contributions
Participation Scaffolding
- Question structuring: Provided frameworks for thinking through complex problems
- Role clarity: Clear explanation of why their role and perspective mattered
- Expert support: Redirected expert energy toward helping rather than correcting
- Incremental challenge: Built difficulty gradually as confidence increased
Transformation Indicators
Expert Behavior Changes
- From answering to questioning: Experts learned to facilitate others’ thinking
- From correcting to building: Started building on others’ ideas rather than correcting them
- From demonstrating to supporting: Used expertise to help team succeed rather than show individual knowledge
- From leading to collaborating: Participated as team members rather than trying to control direction
Non-Expert Confidence Growth
- Increased participation: More willing to share ideas and take risks
- Leadership emergence: Comfortable exercising authority within their roles
- Expertise recognition: Understanding of their unique valuable contributions
- Collaboration initiation: Beginning to actively coordinate with others
Critical Success Factors
Early and Consistent Intervention
- Immediate problem recognition: Identified dominance patterns within first 10 minutes
- Consistent redirection: Never allowed dominance patterns to become established
- Clear expectations: Explicitly communicated collaboration requirements
- Authority maintenance: Maintained facilitator control throughout session
Strategic Role Management
- Uncomfortable assignments: Placed experts in roles requiring new skills
- Leadership distribution: Gave leadership roles to non-dominant participants
- Expertise channeling: Directed expert knowledge toward team support
- Role rationale: Clear explanation of developmental purpose of assignments
Collaboration Skill Development
- Question training: Taught experts to ask facilitating questions
- Building practice: Required building on others’ contributions
- Translation requirements: Made experts explain concepts accessibly
- Team focus: Consistently emphasized collective success over individual performance
Common Pitfalls and Recovery
What Doesn’t Work
- Direct confrontation: Publicly criticizing experts creates defensiveness
- Expertise dismissal: Ignoring or minimizing expert knowledge alienates them
- Unclear expectations: Vague collaboration requests allow dominance to continue
- Inconsistent intervention: Sporadic redirection allows patterns to re-establish
Effective Recovery Techniques
- Private redirection: Brief sidebar conversations to adjust behavior
- Role clarification: Remind experts of their assigned collaborative function
- Success reframing: Show how collaboration enhances rather than diminishes their expertise
- Skill development: Frame changes as developing new professional capabilities
Long-term Group Development
Expertise Evolution
- Start: Individual expertise demonstration and dominance
- Early: Redirected expertise toward team support
- Middle: Collaborative problem solving with shared responsibility
- End: Natural integration of different expertise levels
Advanced Technique: Legacy Malmon Historical Context
Using Historical Perspective to Level the Playing Field
When dealing with expert-dominated groups, legacy malmon historical context can be particularly effective for reducing expertise advantages and encouraging collaborative learning.
Strategic Intervention Using Code Red Historical Context
IM: “Before we continue with this modern attack, let’s take a step back. It’s July 2001. You’re dealing with the Code Red worm, which is spreading automatically across university networks. Alex, in 2001, what security tools would you have had available?”
Alex: (thinking) “Well… no modern endpoint detection, basic antivirus, manual patching…”
IM: “Exactly. Dr. Martinez, with your current expertise, what would you have done differently in 2001 with those limitations?”
Dr. Martinez: (thoughtful) “That’s actually challenging. Modern incident response frameworks didn’t exist yet.”
IM Note: Historical context neutralizes current expertise advantage - everyone has to think differently about familiar problems.
Collaborative Discovery Through Historical Limitations
IM: “Now let’s work together. Given 2001 technology limitations, how would this team have responded to automated attacks? Jordan, what challenges would IT operations face?”
Jordan: (more confident) “No automation, everything manual, limited communication tools…”
IM: “Sam, from a business perspective, how would you have explained this to leadership in 2001?”
Sam: (engaged) “It would be harder to show immediate business impact without modern metrics…”
IM: “Casey, what policies would have needed updating after Code Red?”
Casey: (contributing actively) “Security awareness training would need to cover new types of threats…”
IM Note: Historical perspective requires everyone to think beyond current expertise and work together to understand context.
Evolution Discussion for Collaborative Learning
IM: “Now let’s bring this forward to today. As a team, how has incident response evolved since 2001? Each person contributes one insight.”
Jordan: “Automation allows faster response” Sam: “Better metrics for business impact” Casey: “More sophisticated training programs” Alex: “Advanced detection capabilities” Dr. Martinez: “Coordinated threat intelligence sharing”
IM: “Excellent! Notice how everyone contributed something unique. Modern cybersecurity builds on collective knowledge, not individual expertise.”
IM Note: Historical evolution discussion emphasizes that effective cybersecurity requires diverse perspectives, not just technical expertise.
Why Legacy Context Works for Expert Dominance
Historical Unfamiliarity: Even experts are less comfortable with historical contexts, reducing confidence gaps Collaborative Requirements: Understanding historical evolution requires multiple perspectives Humility Building: Experts realize current knowledge built on collective historical learning Perspective Validation: Non-technical viewpoints become valuable for understanding evolution Learning Focus: Shifts from demonstrating expertise to collaborative discovery
Implementation Guidelines
When to Use Historical Context
- Expert dominance appears early in session
- Technical participants overwhelming non-technical participants
- Group needs perspective on how cybersecurity knowledge developed
- Time available for extended learning exploration
Historical Context Questions for Experts
- “How would you approach this with 2001 technology?”
- “What assumptions from that era proved wrong?”
- “How did the cybersecurity community learn these lessons?”
- “What would someone in 2005 not understand about this attack?”
Collaborative Evolution Questions
- “How has [specific technique] evolved since [historical period]?”
- “What lessons from [historical attack] apply to current threats?”
- “How do different perspectives help us understand this evolution?”
- “What would future cybersecurity professionals learn from our current approaches?”
Replicable Success Patterns
For Future Expert-Dominated Groups
- Immediate intervention: Don’t allow dominance patterns to establish
- Strategic role assignment: Use uncomfortable roles to develop new skills
- Consistent redirection: Never allow experts to provide easy answers
- Collaboration requirements: Explicit expectations for team support behavior
- Success recognition: Celebrate collaborative achievements over individual expertise
Prevention Strategies
- Setup phase management: Control role assignments and set clear expectations
- Early pattern recognition: Watch for dominance indicators in first 10 minutes
- Facilitator authority: Establish clear control over discussion process
- Collaboration modeling: Demonstrate how experts can support without dominating
Skills Developed
Expert Participants
- Facilitation skills: Learning to ask questions that develop others’ thinking
- Communication skills: Translating technical expertise for diverse audiences
- Collaboration skills: Using individual expertise to strengthen team performance
- Leadership skills: Supporting others’ development rather than demonstrating superiority
Non-Expert Participants
- Confidence building: Willingness to contribute ideas and exercise authority
- Technical communication: Ability to engage with technical concepts appropriately
- Leadership development: Comfort with decision-making and coordination roles
- Expertise recognition: Understanding of their unique valuable contributions
This expert dominance management demonstrates that even highly experienced professionals can learn to collaborate more effectively when provided with appropriate structure, clear expectations, and consistent facilitation that channels individual expertise toward collective team success.