Identify primary and secondary problems the Woodson Foundation is facing. Identify what the organization should have understood about individual membership in teams in order to have built group processes that were supportive of her groups goals.
The Case Study for this week is Building a Coalition, which appears on page 629 of the course text.
Each student is required to analyze this week’s case study and submit a two- to three-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 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 papermustinclude the following labeled sections.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines
Order Paper Now| 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 The Woodson Foundation in building a cohesive coalition?
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 Woodson Foundation is facing. Identify what the organization should have understood about individual membership in teams in order to have built group processes that were supportive of her groups’ goals.
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. Identify and discuss specific steps needed to implement your selections. Support your selections with evidence from the case, the text, 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 | 15 | What would you advise as a strategy for managing diversity issues for program leaders? |
Grading Rubrics
| Criteria | Failed to Meet Minimum Standards | Met Minimum Standards60% = 60 points, D | Satisfactory70% = 70 points, C | Good80% = 80 points, B | Superior90% = 90 points, A |
| Part I: Group Development(15 points) | No problem summary included0 | Identifies the stages of group development with some summary; does not tie theory back to the case9 | Identifies the stages of group development with some summary, and ties theory to the case situation with minimal supporting evidence from the case and text11 | Identifies the stages of group development and ties theory to the case situation with supporting evidence from the case and text13 | Clearly and accurately identifies the primary issues presented by the case with clear supporting evidence from the case15 |
| Part II: Problem Identification(30 points) | No possible solutions discussed0 | Discusses case in general terms with no insight into the real issues presented20 | Discusses issues presented by the case generally, without supporting references; identifies secondary issues, not primary issues23 | Identifies the primary issues presented by the case with some supporting references to the case26 | Clearly and accurately identifies primary and secondary issues presented by the case with clear supporting evidence from the case30 |
| Part III: Retrospective Evaluation(40 points) | None provided0 | Does not clearly identify or explain selected recommendation for solutions27 | Identifies recommended solutions with no implementation steps31 | Clearly identifies recommended solutions with discussion of implementation steps at a summary level35 | Gives a clear and focused analysis with implementation recommendations; directly relates selection to course readings40 |
| Part IV: Reflection(15 points) | None provided0 | Perfunctory effort at answering question10 | Summary level reflection on leadership11.5 | Good faith effort in examining leadership issue with supporting material13.0 | Well-presented insights into leadership issue with supporting material |
