Christine needed to understand the storming stage better, and how to help Mike by maybe clarifying his goals and expectations of him. Mike clearly became withdrawn, and even lashed out when he saw the group together and felt he had been left out. Part II: Problem Identification The primary problem would be Mike and his social loafing, working not as hard because he is in a group than he might have if he had worked individually. The secondary problem is basically the effect from the primary problem, which is that the assignment isn’t done to turn in.
Mike hasn’t done his part of the case study ND Christine isn’t sure how to deal with that. Both of these problems are issues for Christine and the group. They need to finish the project, but also there is a part where they have to grade each other’s contributions, and each other’s contributions will affect their grades. The case study mentioned the different personalities of each group member, basically laying out what kind of group member they were. What it didn’t mention, were things such as: did Christine give very clear instructions on the project and who was responsible for what? Ere appropriate goals set for the am? Not everything was clearly laid out in the write-up. Christine really needed to take into consideration the different members and found a good way to communicate with all of them in what different ways may have worked. Part Ill: Retrospective Evaluation The primary issue here was Mike’s lack of effort and lack of actual work. There could be many solutions to this problem, but I will discuss just two. The first solution would be to offer some accommodations to Mike as well as being firm with him.
Mike had let Christine know that he was overloaded with ark and a personal problem, so Christine may need to give him a reasonable schedule to help accommodate him. Steps that can be taken to accomplish this solution would be: 1) Talk with Mike to determine his schedule and work load 2) Lay out a feasible schedule that may be less meetings, but more communication via email or phone. 3)Set clear deadlines for the portions of the work. 4) Make sure to give Mike encouragement and help foster his creative ideas to help him get the process started. 5) Make sure to stay firm on deadlines, and continually follow up. Speak with the other group members to make them informed of what is going on with the case study and how Mike is handling his The second solution I would suggest, would be to talk the instructor. The instructor may need to be aware of the issue so that they can help out, or possibly change the way they would be graded. The instructor can’t possibly know what is going on if they aren’t alerted. For this solution, the following steps can be taken: 1)Meet with the professor in person to discuss the issues within your group. 2)Make sure to have evidence of what has taken place (i. Group meeting dates not attended, emails sent or received, phone call attempts). 3) Ask for resolution possibilities, or help with how to deal with the situation. 4) Possibly change the grading structure if the professor will allow. 5) Speak with Mike about the resolutions that were the result of the meeting with the professor so that he is fully aware of what is going on with the case study project. Part IV: Reflection The outcome of the group project wasn’t mentioned, as to whether Mike ever turned in his portion, or how the group actually did grade wise, so it is hard to Lully evaluate Christine as a group leader.
I will say from what was written in the case study, Christine didn’t seem very organized and didn’t seem to have great communication skills with all of the group members. She didn’t stay firm with Mike on meetings and objectives and let him use excuses to not do his work. Class group projects can be very difficult, but I think overall Christine did well with most of the members but to be effective you need to lead all members well and the project needs to be completed and should be successful.