USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
| Assignment and Guidelines |
The Case Study for this week is “The Forgotten Group Member,” which appears on page W–113 of the course text.
Each student is required to analyze this week’s case study and submit a 2–3 page paper addressing the key questions identified below. Remember that all case studies present both too much and too little information. There may be information presented that is not really relevant, and there may be scant information about a key area. This analysis does require interpretation of the information and there is not “one” right answer. However, you must explain and defend any assumptions you made and\or conclusions resulting from your analysis with citations from the text or from the case itself. There is no need to research outside sources for this paper. Your paper MUST include the following labeled sections:
| Category | Points | Description | |
|
Part I: Group Development |
15 |
Identify and summarize the stages of group development.Reflecting on the case and textbook material, what stage is the group at now? How could an understanding of the stages of group development have assisted Christine in her leadership role with this team?Support your conclusion with evidence from the case and our text. |
|
|
Part II: Problem Identification |
30 |
Identify key problems.Identify primary and secondary problems the group and/or Christine are facing. Identify what Christine should have understood about individual membership in teams in order to have built group processes that were supportive of her workgroup’s performance. Do not necessarily limit yourself to only team theory here. Plumb any concepts we have covered to date in class if you feel they are relevant. |
|
| Part III: Retrospective Evaluation | 40 |
Given that there is no “one perfect solution” for this situation, identify, describe, and defend two possible solutions to the primary problem(s). Clearly identify and defend both courses of action. Identity and discuss specific steps needed to implement your selections. Support your selections with evidence from the case, the text, and/or weekly discussion. Remember that deciding on a course of action entails envisioning and planning the steps to success. Be sure to identify implementation steps for both possible solutions.Almost every situation presented with relation to group dynamics and behavior can have multiple avenues for remedy. It is important to develop the ability to critically evaluate more than one alternative and rationally identify pros and cons of each. Presenting pros and cons for the identified alternative solutions in a table format within the paper is acceptable. |
|
|
Part IV: Reflection |
Discuss whether Christine was an effective group leader in this case. Why or Why not? |
|
Grading Rubric |
|
Criteria |
Failed to Meet Minimum Standards |
Met Minimum Standards 60% = 60 pts, D |
Satisfactory 70% = 70 pts, C |
Good 80% = 80 pts, B |
Superior 90% = 90 pts, A |
|
| Part I: Group Development
(15 points) |
No problem summary included. 0 |
Identifies the stages of group development with some summary. Does not tie theory back to the case. 9 |
Identifies the stages of group development with some summary, and ties theory to the case situation with minimal supporting evidence from the case and text. 11 |
Identifies the stages of group development and ties theory to the case situation with supporting evidence from the case and text. 13 |
Clearly and accurately identifies the primary issues presented by the case with clear supporting evidence from the case. 15 |
|
| Part II: Problem Identification
(30 points) |
No possible solutions discussed. 0 |
Discusses case in general terms with no insight into the real issues presented. 20 |
Discusses issues presented by the case generally, without supporting references. Identifies secondary issues, not primary issues. 23 |
Identifies the primary issues presented by the case with some supporting references to the case. 26 |
Clearly and accurately identifies primary and secondary issues presented by the case with clear supporting evidence from the case. 30 |
|
|
Part III: Retrospective Evaluation (40 points) |
None provided. 0 |
Does not clearly identify or explain selected recommendation for solutions. 27 |
Identifies recommended solutions with no implementation steps. 31 |
Clearly identifies recommended solutions with discussion of implementation steps at a summary level. 35 |
Gives a clear and focused analysis with implementation recommendations; directly relates selection to course readings. 40 |
|
| Part IV: Reflection(15 points) |
Perfunctory effort at answering question. 10 |
Summary level reflection on leadership. 11.5 |
Good faith effort in examining leadership issue with supporting material. 13.0 |
Well-presented insights into leadership issue with supporting material. 15 |
CASE 7: The Forgotten Group Member
Developed by Franklin Ramsoomair, Wilfred Laurier University
The Organizational Behavior course for the semester appeared to promise the opportunity to learn, enjoy, and practice some of the theories and principles in the textbook and class discussions. Christine Spencer was a devoted, hard-working student who had been maintaining an A–average to date. Although the skills and knowledge she had acquired through her courses were important, she was also very concerned about her grades. She felt that grades were paramount in giving her a competitive edge when looking for a job and, as a third-year student, she realized that she’d soon be doing just that.
Sunday afternoon. Two o’clock. Christine was working on an accounting assignment but didn’t seem to be able to concentrate. Her courses were working out very well this semester, all but the OB. Much of the mark in that course was to be based on the quality of groupwork, and so she felt somewhat out of control. She recollected the events of the past five weeks. Professor Sandra Thiel had divided the class into groups of five people and had given them a major group assignment worth 30 percent of the final grade. The task was to analyze a seven-page case and to come up with a written analysis. In addition, Sandra had asked the groups to present the case in class, with the idea that the rest of the class members would be “members of the board of directors of the company” who would be listening to how the manager and her team dealt with the problem at hand.
Christine was elected “Team Coordinator” at the first group meeting. The other members of the group were Diane, Janet, Steve, and Mike. Diane was quiet and never volunteered suggestions, but when directly asked, she would come up with high-quality ideas. Mike was the clown. Christine remembered that she had suggested that the group should get together before every class to discuss the day’s case. Mike had balked, saying “No way!! This is an 8:30 class, and I barely make it on time anyway! Besides, I’ll miss my Happy Harry show on television!” The group couldn’t help but laugh at his indignation. Steve was the businesslike individual, always wanting to ensure that group meetings were guided by an agenda and noting the tangible results achieved or not achieved at the end of every meeting. Janet was the reliable one who would always have more for the group than was expected of her. Christine saw herself as meticulous and organized and as a person who tried to give her best in whatever she did.
It was now week 5 into the semester, and Christine was deep in thought about the OB assignment. She had called everyone to arrange a meeting for a time that would suit them all, but she seemed to be running into a roadblock. Mike couldn’t make it, saying that he was working that night as a member of the campus security force. In fact, he seemed to miss most meetings and would send in brief notes to Christine, which she was supposed to discuss for him at the group meetings. She wondered how to deal with this. She also remembered the incident last week. Just before class started, Diane, Janet, Steve, and she were joking with one another before class. They were laughing and enjoying themselves before Sandra came in. No one noticed that Mike had slipped in very quietly and had unobtrusively taken his seat.
She recalled the cafeteria incident. Two weeks ago, she had gone to the cafeteria to grab something to eat. She had rushed to her accounting class and had skipped breakfast. When she got her club sandwich and headed to the tables, she saw her OB group and joined them. The discussion was light and enjoyable as it always was when they met informally. Mike had come in. He’d approached their table. “You guys didn’t say you were having a group meeting,” he blurted. Christine was taken aback.
We just happened to run into each other. Why not join us?”
“Mike looked at them, with a noncommittal glance. “Yeah … right,” he muttered, and walked away.
Sandra Thiel had frequently told them that if there were problems in the group, the members should make an effort to deal with them first. If the problems could not be resolved, she had said that they should come to her. Mike seemed so distant, despite the apparent camaraderie of the first meeting.
An hour had passed, bringing the time to 3 p.m., and Christine found herself biting the tip of her pencil. The written case analysis was due next week. All the others had done their designated sections, but Mike had just handed in some rough handwritten notes. He had called Christine the week before, telling her that in addition to his course and his job, he was having problems with his girlfriend. Christine empathized with him. Yet, this was a group project! Besides, the final mark would be peer evaluated. This meant that whatever mark Sandra gave them could be lowered or raised, depending on the group’s opinion about the value of the contribution of each member. She was definitely worried. She knew that Mike had creative ideas that could help to raise the overall mark. She was also concerned for him. As she listened to the music in the background, she wondered what she should do.
