MMI practice scenarios: teamwork and leadership

These are original practice scenarios on teamwork and leadership, written for this site. They are not real interview stations, no university is named, and none is recalled from any real interview. Each university sets its own criteria, so use these for thinking practice and not as a prediction of what you will be asked. There is no single correct answer to any of them. The aim is to practise reasoning out loud, showing care for people, and being honest about trade-offs. The Medical Board of Australia's Code of conduct is a background read on professional expectations of doctors. The frameworks are our own suggestions for organising your thinking, not official marking guides from any university.

ExamExplained is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by any university or the UCAT ANZ Consortium. We are run alongside a tutoring business (see /about); the universities' own pages always come first.

These scenarios use Australian professional settings. If you are applying to a New Zealand school, also read the Medical Council of New Zealand's guidance and the university's own published MMI material.

Scenario 1: The group member who does not contribute

Prompt

You are in a group of five preparing a science presentation worth a large part of your grade. One member has missed two meetings and has not sent the section they promised. The deadline is in four days, and the others are starting to complain about them in the group chat.

What the station is probing

Whether you address a problem fairly and directly rather than gossiping or quietly doing their work.

A framework to think it through

• Find out first: is something going on for them that you do not know about?
• Speak to the person privately and kindly, before raising it with anyone else.
• Agree on a specific, realistic task and a time to check in.
• Protect the group's outcome with a back-up plan for their section.
• Involve the teacher only if direct conversation fails, and say so openly to the member.

Strong points to reach

• Curiosity about the reason comes before judgement.
• Direct, private, respectful communication is the first step.
• You can protect the deadline and still treat the person fairly.

Common traps

• Complaining in the group chat, which damages trust.
• Silently doing all their work, which hides the problem and breeds resentment.

Scenario 2: Leading when no one volunteers

Prompt

Your class has been asked to organise a fundraising day, but nobody is stepping up as coordinator and the planning time is slipping away. Several people look at you. You have never led something this size.

What the station is probing

Your willingness to step forward, and how you lead without taking over.

A framework to think it through

• Decide whether you are willing and able to take it on, and be honest about your limits.
• If yes, say so, then ask what skills and preferences others have.
• Break the event into tasks and match people to them.
• Set a simple way to check progress and ask for concerns.
• Be clear that you will ask for help and welcome feedback.

Strong points to reach

• Leading can mean organising and enabling others, not giving orders.
• Admitting inexperience is compatible with stepping up.
• Good leaders share decisions and ownership.

Common traps

• Saying yes and then doing everything yourself.
• Refusing only because the task feels uncomfortable, without considering alternatives such as sharing the role.

Scenario 3: A disagreement about the plan

Prompt

Your team of four is building a model for a school competition. You think the group should simplify the design, but a teammate strongly wants a complicated version and says you are being lazy. Others stay silent. Time is limited.

What the station is probing

How you handle disagreement and criticism while keeping the team working.

A framework to think it through

• Stay calm and separate the idea from the person.
• Ask them to explain their reasoning; you may learn something.
• State your concern in terms of the shared goal, such as time and risk.
• Look for a compromise or a test, for example building a simple version first.
• Invite the quiet members to give their view, then agree how to decide.

Strong points to reach

• Listening genuinely can change your own mind.
• Disagreement is useful when it is focused on the goal.
• A clear decision process is better than winning the argument.

Common traps

• Becoming defensive after the personal comment.
• Giving in just to keep the peace even though you have a real concern.

Scenario 4: The quiet team member

Prompt

In a tutorial group exercise, one student has barely spoken in three weeks. When you ask them a direct question they answer briefly. You notice the louder members tend to finish tasks before they can contribute.

What the station is probing

Your awareness of inclusion and your ability to draw people in without embarrassing them.

A framework to think it through

• Notice the dynamics, including your own habits, before assuming anything about the person.
• Create space, such as asking each person for a view in turn.
• Offer a role that suits different styles, for example written input or a specific task.
• Check in privately and warmly, without pressure.
• Value what they add once they do contribute.

Strong points to reach

• Quiet does not mean unengaged or unskilled.
• Inclusion is built into how a group runs, not just a favour to one person.
• Respect their choices about how much they share.

Common traps

• Putting them on the spot in front of everyone.
• Assuming they lack confidence or ability when you do not know.

Scenario 5: Sharing credit

Prompt

Your team wins a regional science award. In the interview with a local newspaper, the reporter assumes you were the leader and praises you personally. In fact, a teammate came up with the main idea and did much of the analysis.

What the station is probing

Honesty, humility and fairness about contributions.

A framework to think it through

• Consider what was true: who did what?
• Correct the impression gently and name your teammates' contributions.
• Acknowledge your own part accurately without false modesty.
• Think about how the teammate would feel if the wrong person were thanked.
• Reflect on how you will recognise others in future.

Strong points to reach

• Fairly sharing credit builds trust in teams.
• You can be honest about your own contribution too.
• Credit is not a limited resource.

Common traps

• Quietly accepting praise because it feels awkward to correct it.
• Overcorrecting so that your own real work is erased.

Scenario 6: Prioritising with limited resources

Prompt

You are part of a volunteer group running a community health stall. On the morning, only half the volunteers turn up and the equipment budget has been cut. You can offer blood pressure checks, a talk on sleep, or a table of printed handouts, but not all three well.

What the station is probing

Your ability to prioritise in a team using reasons, not just preference.

A framework to think it through

• Clarify the purpose: what does the community most need from the stall?
• List what each option needs in people, time and skill.
• Check what you can do safely with the people who are present.
• Decide with the team, not alone, and explain the reasoning.
• Review during the day and adjust.

Strong points to reach

• Priorities flow from the goal and from safety.
• Doing fewer things well beats many things poorly.
• Teams need to know why a decision was made.

Common traps

• Trying to do everything and doing it badly.
• Offering a health check without anyone trained and supervised to do it safely.

Scenario 7: Covering a shift

Prompt

You work part-time at a supermarket. A colleague asks you to cover their Saturday shift because of a family matter. You have an important exam on Monday and had planned to study all weekend. Your manager is short of staff.

What the station is probing

How you weigh duty to others against your own commitments, and how you communicate it.

A framework to think it through

• Understand what is really needed and how urgent it is.
• Be honest with yourself about your study needs and your limits.
• Consider options: part of the shift, a swap, another colleague.
• Speak to the colleague and the manager openly.
• Decide, then follow through reliably.

Strong points to reach

• Helping is good, but so is protecting your own responsibilities.
• Offering a partial solution can be better than a flat yes or no.
• Reliability matters: only commit to what you can deliver.

Common traps

• Agreeing out of guilt and then resenting it or letting your exam suffer.
• Refusing curtly with no thought for the colleague's situation.

Scenario 8: The captain's dilemma

Prompt

You are captain of your school netball team. The coach asks you to help decide the starting team for a final. Your best friend has been playing below their usual form, and a younger player has been training hard and improving.

What the station is probing

Fairness, integrity and the ability to put the team's interests first when it is uncomfortable.

A framework to think it through

• Be clear about the criteria: effort, form, role and what the team needs.
• Recognise the conflict of interest in a close friendship.
• Offer your honest view to the coach, but accept that the coach decides.
• Speak to your friend before the list is posted, with kindness and honesty.
• Support everyone afterwards, including the player who misses out.

Strong points to reach

• Fair process and open criteria protect relationships.
• Naming a conflict of interest is part of handling it well.
• Leadership includes hard conversations.

Common traps

• Protecting the friend regardless of merit.
• Letting the friendship go silent afterwards.

Scenario 9: Different working styles in a team

Prompt

You are in a study group where members have different working styles. One member always addresses the tutor very formally and avoids disagreeing in meetings, while another interrupts often and speaks bluntly. You do not know why they behave this way. Tension is growing and some feel disrespected.

What the station is probing

Respect for difference and your skills in helping a group communicate.

A framework to think it through

• Avoid assuming intent: differing norms can look like rudeness or disinterest.
• Raise it as a group process matter, such as agreeing how we will run meetings.
• Set simple ground rules, such as taking turns and inviting written comments.
• Check in individually with those who are upset.
• Reflect on your own assumptions.

Strong points to reach

• Different communication styles are not faults.
• Shared ground rules help everyone take part.
• Respect can be built by asking and listening.

Common traps

• Labelling people by their background.
• Ignoring the tension in the hope that it fades.

Scenario 10: Two deadlines, one team

Prompt

You lead a small group on a project due Friday, but a teammate tells you on Wednesday that a clash with their sports final means they cannot finish their part. Another teammate offers to take over but is already overloaded. Your own assignment is also due Friday.

What the station is probing

Realistic planning, honest communication and supporting a team under pressure.

A framework to think it through

• Clarify exactly what remains and how long it takes.
• Find out whether the teacher offers an extension and ask early.
• Redistribute the work fairly instead of loading one person.
• Look at your own workload honestly.
• Agree a plan and communicate it to everyone.

Strong points to reach

• Early, honest communication prevents last-minute crises.
• Fair sharing of load protects both the team and the individuals.
• Asking for an extension in good time is responsible, not weak.

Common traps

• Letting the overloaded teammate absorb it.
• Hiding the problem until Friday.

ExamExplained is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by any university or the UCAT ANZ Consortium.