The province that this group is at right now is the “storming stage” ( Robbins & A ; Judge. 2013 ) . Even though there are clear differences on the thought of different groups of how to implement the after school plan or who should head it. the common end is still to run into the demands of the pupils and to break their acquisition and tonss. The Woodson Foundation. the school and the NCPIE are coming together to organize a development squad but is holding conflict on who will command the group and this is clearly a mark that the group is in its “storming stage” .
If the group knew that there are five phases to to the full go a functional group. they may come into an understanding to travel onwards to “norming stage” ( when the group demonstrates coherence ) . “performing stage” ( to the full working and understand the undertaking at manus ) . and eventually “adjourning stage” ( concluding phase for impermanent groups. wining in this undertaking. divide the group and traveling on to another ) . They would likely take to work together cognizing the phases and work towards the end ( concluding phase ) which is organizing a functional after school plan instead than debating on who should hold more say in this plan and non acquiring the existent end accomplished. Part II: Problem Identification
The primary job that Woodson Foundation faces is that the school and the NCPIE both have their ain involvements and would wish things to be controlled their manner. The school is afraid that if Woodson controls the state of affairs. occupations traveling to the new system will be taken support from other school occupations and they will lose control with their school board policies. The NCPIE wants to increase parental control and utilize their ain educational methods with the pupils. Woodson’s end is more clear cut. it merely wants to efficiency construct this after school plan with the minimum cost. If Woodson does non draw everyone together to see the clear end. this may drag on and clip and money will be wasted. The secondary job Woodson is confronting is that there’s a civilization and race facet in this community. The school is chiefly African America. Caucasians and Hispanics.
The NCPIE are made out of the same demographic but Woodson came from northern Virginia and is preponderantly Caucasic professionals. It would be difficult to derive the trust ( trust is the foundation of leading ( Robbins & A ; Judge. 2013 ) ) . and acquire into their demographic as similar demographic people tend to lodge together. Each group member should be sought out before puting them in a group. We don’t want to group members to hold cognitive disagreement ( Robbins & A ; Judge. 2013 ) which is people holding incompatible behaviours or attitudes. For case. Ari Kaufman will non be a good tantrum into the group since he’s personality will probably non travel along with other group members. In-group favouritism should besides be eliminated as clearly before these members came onto the Developing them they already felt like their trueness is either with Woodson. the school or NCPIE. Part III: Retrospective Evaluation
Since there are no perfect solutions. I would wish to show two solutions that may decide the issue: A. Choosing people with ideas that are non really similar to the group that they are showing like Meredith Watson from Woodson. Candace Sharpe from NCPIE and Victoria Adams from the school. Meredith supports the thought of acquiring the parents involved even though she’s from Woodson. Candace thinks they don’t have to even though she’s from NCPIE. and Victoria from the school who would be all right giving up the bureaucratism of the school and allowing other groups get involved. With these people stand foring their groups. it would be easier for the groups to accept a different position.
If a Woodson member went to talk to the school and said we would love to be involved. it would be harder to acquire through than say if Victoria went because the trust is that Victoria belongs to their group. The pro about this thought is that it eliminates people outside of the groups believing the development squad is biased. They will so construct their trust more when they learned that there’s a diverseness of thoughts being presented with the people they trust. The con would be if these people are extremists and alterations their beliefs towards their ain group and went onto another group. so all trust systems will neglect.
B. My following solution came from what we have discussed this hebdomad which is the “Hawthorne studies” . I remember the quotation mark that my schoolmate Hugh had posted: “If everyone is particular. so no 1 is” . We may be able to utilize positive acknowledgment and take the negative feelings towards each other. For case. when the campaigners are chosen. I would give voice it as “You three are handpicked from 100s of campaigner. We feel that merely you cats are qualified to do this mission win. I believe by doing them experience that they are the lone 1s that can carry through this end. they will work every bit difficult as they can to do their groups come together.
This will extinguish the difference they feel towards each other’s believes and besides expand into seeking to convert others to work together every bit good. As more people get on board with the thought. we can organize sub squads under the leaders of the squad and inform them besides that they will now be the “special” clump that need to distribute the word among the populace about how of import it is to be portion of this undertaking and do it work. This will finally hold a ripple consequence. The pro about this undertaking is that it will convey people together and extinguish the differences. The cons would be that if anyone realizes that they are non “special” and everyone is “special” . so this consequence will melt. Therefore. other inducements can be added which is discussed below. Part IV: Contemplation
Persons need to be motivated to work towards a end together. I would propose to the plan leaders to possibly utilize the end puting theory ( Robbins & A ; Judge. 2013 ) . By puting the end of constructing the after school plan. everyone will be working towards it. The support theory ( Robbins & A ; Judge. 2013 ) can besides be used. For case if person has accomplished a measure closer towards the end. a little fillip can be given. If others saw that. they will endeavor to work harder as good. But distributive justness must be formed as it would be a negative consequence if a Woodson employee got a fillip but when a school instructor did the same occupation. she didn’t acquire anything. This will so organize misgiving and finally go the ground for the separation of the group.