Scenario based question - Application 2 Group Assessment - worth 5%. Instructions: Students must come to class prepared by reading the case on eLearning, and then studying relevant sections of theory from the textbook and the eReadings. You are to read through the case, and then answer all of the questions, ensuring consideration is given to each member's opinions. Note: some questions may have multiple parts. Every part of each question requires an answer. Assessment will be based on selecting the correct option (A, B, C, D or E) AND providing correct justification. Marks may be indicated in class, but actual marks are likely to vary, based on the justification expressed in your submitted answer sheet. This will be marked by your tutor after class, and your final mark will be recorded. All answer sheets must be returned to your tutor. Your returned answer sheet will constitute your attendance and participation in this tutorial. If an answer sheet is not returned with your name on it, you will be considered as absent from the tutorial, and you will receive zero for this assessment. DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE THE ANSWERS IN EACH TEAM MEMBER'S SHEET. SUBMIT ONLY ONE FULLY COMPLETED ANSWER SHEET PER GROUP. You will have a fixed period of time to complete all questions. This period of time will be equal across all groups. YOU MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO COMPLETE EVERY ANSWER. The Faltering Project Team Scenario As an experienced project team manager, you've been requested to undertake an evaluation of a multi-institutional project managed by a team of academics. The team has funding of $250,000 over 2 years from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). The project is part of a national grant scheme offering funding for the improvement of learning and teaching in higher education in Australia. The project aims to improve the quality of student learning in teamwork activities in tutorials for business subjects Team members and their organisations: Associate Professor Joan, Project Leader (age 57) University in Wollongong: Joan has an excellent record as a project leader in her own university having successfully led many projects. She is highly committed to her professional work but her life is often chaotic and she usually works 60 - 70 hours per week. As the principal author of the project application and project leader, she is gregarious, well-liked and respected and is highly committed to the success of the project. She is has a low core selfevaluation, and is a risk-taker. Sometimes described by her colleagues as a classic Type A personality, she is highly driven and obsessive about detail, but also has a tendency to leave things to the last minute and will sometimes work through the night in order to meet deadlines. Julie, Project Officer (PhD student age 23) University in Wollongong: As well as undertaking her PhD part-time, Julie is working in a new role as project officer to earn extra money and is being mentored by Joan. She is highly committed to the project as she strongly believes in the project aims and her PhD investigates a similar theme. Julie is regarded by her friends and family as a perfectionist and is strongly risk averse. When under pressure to achieve deadlines she also struggles with anxiety and stress. Julie has minimal experience working with academics but is a strong self-monitor, although at times, she is confused by the changing role requirements associated with her position. Associate Professor Indra, (aged 48) University in Sydney: Indra is an expert in the area and is a long-standing colleague and friend of Joan's. She likes to be the focus of attention and presents as very self assured. She has a tendency to talk down to people and was quite surprised with recent peer feedback from colleagues that they frequently feel devalued by her comments and behaviour. She is also highly driven and her driving ambition for promotion to the level of Professor is well known Professor Peter, University in South Australia (age 40): Peter is a leading expert on student learning but has many other competing commitments and priorities. He views his involvement in the team principally as a means to gain a promotion to Dean. He was promoted to professor at the age of 33 and is charming and adaptable. He has been described by those who know him well as a \"political animal\"for his no holds barred approach. He has worked with Joan on other projects and respects her hard work and commitment. A cameo of the project The project appeared to get off to a good start. The first face to face meeting was very business-like and got straight into role and task allocation and developing a timeline of all outcomes and milestones. A financial plan was created in line with the budget and initial costings indicating that resources would be adequate to achieve the project outcomes. The initial report for the ALTC was submitted on time and without hitch. However, since then, progress has been slow, and, while Julie was extremely busy with data collection and analysis, other team members were busy overseas attending to unrelated issues and pre-occupied with teaching commitments. In more recent times, some complex issues developed requiring important leadership decisions to be made. At the last face to face meeting two weeks before the annual ALTC progress report was due, things came to a head. Peter, who was to develop a first draft of the progress report for discussion at the meeting, forgot the face to face meeting was scheduled and failed to attend sending no apology or draft report. Joan responded by suggesting that she would contact Peter, obtain any information and write the report herself. Indra, however, was very disgruntled as she had rushed back from a conference in Singapore to attend the meeting and, having had no sleep, she arrived at the meeting in a taxi from the airport. She was furious at the non-attendance of her colleague, and, in the heat of the moment, vented her feelings strongly, suggesting that the absent team member was not only disinterested in the project, but also arrogant, inconsiderate and typical of male professors in his field. She went on to suggest that he should be replaced in the team by someone who would be committed to the project and team. Julie, persuaded by the strength of Indra's argument agreed and Joan, albeit reluctantly, conceded she would consider the proposal suggested by her colleagues. In order to assess how the team is performing, you decide to investigate the team and process development (formative evaluation) and the extent of the progress towards achievement of project outcomes (summative evaluation). Your evaluation inquiry raised the following questions: 1. What evidence exists of progress and achievement in the areas of team development and context? Team development Establishment of clear understanding and commitment to roles None Some Strong Can't tell Establishment and commitment to clear and workable norms None Some Strong Can't tell Acknowledgement of status differences None Some Strong Can't tell Development of a plan for maintaining cohesiveness over time and distance None Some Strong Can't tell 7. To what extent do you think that team cohesion could be improved by employing a path-goal approach to leadership? It may be highly successful under specific conditions It may have some but limited effect It may have no real effect None of the above 10. Describe and prioritise the 4 most important actions for Julie to ensure her effective performance in the team? Talk to Indra about her PhD supervisor who she thinks would be an excellent replacement for Peter; Express her concerns and anxieties about the project and team to Joan; Discuss her role expectations with Joan; Support Joan's decision; Discuss her role expectations with Joan; Support Joan's decision; Talk to Joan about a contingency plan to finish the report; Discuss her concerns and anxieties about the project with Indra; Express her concerns and anxieties about the project and the team to Joan; Discuss her role expectations with Joan; Discuss Joan's plan for finishing the report; Support Joan's decision Discuss her role expectations with Joan; Discuss her concerns and anxieties about the project with Indra; Help Joan write the report; Talk to Joan about her PhD supervisor, who she thinks would be an excellent replacement for Peter Why? In two to three lines, explain your reasoning in selecting this answer. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ 11. Which MBTI assessment best describes Joan: ESFP ISTP ESTJ ENTJ ISTJ Why? In two to three lines, explain your reasoning in selecting this answer. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________________________