I consider that one of the key aspects of the module was its capacity to develop interpersonal working and the ability to work within a group dynamic. The resolution of issues, coordination of effort, and maximisation of individual skills through delegation are all highly transferable skills, which added to the developmental strengths of the formal curriculum. As Davis observes, ‘Whilst there is demand for the traditional ability to analyse, think critically an work independently…’, there is also a growing demand for ‘…transferable skills….communication, team working,…and problem solving.’ This requires ‘careful curriculum planning, support mechanisms, teaching methodologies and assessment strategies…’ (8). As discussed above, there are a range of factors which form the individual’s attitudes and effectiveness within this dynamic, in terms of what they deem acceptable or effective approaches. Many of these are culturally formed, and may be interpreted within frameworks such Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Index. Within this, Hofestede projects, each culture has tolerances and behavioural norms which dictate group behaviour, as well as strategic thinking within organisations. He defines these criteria as uncertainty avoidance, power distance, long/short term orientation, gender, i.e. masculinity and femininity, and individualism/collectivism. (9). Perhaps more revealing than this scheme of wide cultural sub-groups, however, is the related idea that these are just one component in tripartite scheme which includes universal human traits, ‘learned’ behaviour and values, and individual personality traits. (10) I consider that the recognition of individual strengths and weaknesses is a key factor, not only in the recognition of individual contributions, but in effective team building. I have definitely learned that assembling a team is a skill in itself. Simply pushing together a random group of individuals is not team-building.