Leading People and Teams (MGTS7810)

MGTS7810 Leading People and Teams - Personal Case Discussion Brief – for Week 3

The major individual assignment in this course (see Assessment 2) requires you to analyse and critique a work group or team in which you have been or are currently a member. In Week 3 you will present to your peers in class an overview of your Input-Process-Output (IPO) progress so far.

The course requirement described here is formative and does not attract any marks towards your final grade. However, the course process of presenting to fellow students is designed to assist you (1) in deciding the work group or team for the IPO analysis; (2) identifying the key issues that are/were in play in the group (using the IPO) mapping tool to draft up the initial Appendix A table, and at this early stage, (3) begin to think of the three to five Input, Process or Output factors that may be the basis for the longer analysis in the final Assessment 2 report.

The initial work you undertake in preparing this IPO Appendix A mapping and brief for discussion will be integrated into the final Assessment 2 report as a more refined version of Appendix A. To share with your peers and seeking feedback, be prepared to talk through a general description of the group or team and the context in which it operates, focusing on key issues, past or present, that have arisen in the group. The description should at least partly reflect your own involvement and interactions in the group. The incorporation of academic terms and constructs (e.g., team leader style, cohesion, group identity, conflict, group formation) at this early stage to describe the work group is important to adding depth and credibility to the interpretation of your group experiences and observations. See the IPO Appendix A examples that are provided on Blackboard, and the supporting articles.  

In summary, this IPO Appendix A described here does not attract any marks towards your final grade. However, the process is designed to assist you in mapping the factors in play, and deciding the focus of your analysis for the final Assessment 2 report, as well as identifying the key issues (3 to 5 max) that you will analyse in more depth in that Assessment 2 report. The work you undertake in preparing this IPO Appendix A will be integrated into the final report. Your peer feedback should also assist you to apply key insights from the course content to your own case. Come prepared on Week 3 to discuss your initial draft Input-Process-Output Appendix A in small groups of your peers. In preparing this IPO Appendix A, please look at past IPO examples on Blackboard under Learning Resources and read at least the article on Blackboard under Assessment 2 by:

• Susan Mohammed & Katherine Hamilton (2007), from Steven G. Rogelberg, Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chapter Title: "Input–Process–Output Model of Team Effectiveness".

Content:        Assessment 1: PowerPoint presentation, Week 8 (20 minutes + questions)

• This case study assessment requires you to conduct research into a specific case of interest, in small teams of 4-5 people.
• Your team will prepare a 20-minute PowerPoint presentation designed to share your learning and insights from the case.
• More details about the process and requirements for the presentation will be provided in class on Week 1 with past examples.
• Examples of previous topics and presentations will be talked through on Day 1, and are available on Blackboard. 
• Teams will be assigned and formed randomly on Week 1 of the course.
• The team presentation will be live in class.
• There is a Q and A after each presentation that is part of the marking.
• There will be an opportunity for student/audience feedback of each presentation that will be incorporated into the lecturer's marking.
• Each case study team will need to gain "sign-off" of their selected case from the lecturer, by no later than week 3.

Peer Review: Group members are expected to contribute equally, fulfilling the tasks agreed on. If there are disagreements in relation to team members' contributions that cannot be resolved, students must bring the problem to the attention of the lecturer as early as possible. Students can elect to undertake a Peer Review process, which can influence the marks of those who do not contribute to group work.

The focus of the case study presentation is to assess and analyse a case of your choosing (with lecturer approval). The purpose is to reflect on the concepts, frameworks, and models discussed in the course, and to apply them to a particular case. Ideas for the case to be analysed should be discussed with the lecturer for suitability and scope. Past cases analysed by groups have often been talked about a leader and/or topic where there is a wide range of general and more academic information that helps in developing the analysis and presentation. Topics should also fit in well with the topics in this course and also be suitable for analysis using the existing academic literature. Past topics have included the Challenger space shuttle disaster, responses to various Australian natural disasters (e.g. bush fires, Queensland floods), various corporate scandals (Enron, Sony, AMP, Volkswagen emissions) or in particular the performance of well-known leaders or leadership teams (Prime Ministers, high profile Australian or international CEOs). Examples will be given in class on Week. It is expected that peer reviewed academic readings will be incorporated to add depth, evidence or additional support for the interpretations you make in this case study. Try to minimise the major use of less valid evidence such as web sites or unedited books, but some use is understandable for giving contextual evidence or information.

The presentation should focus on the various issues that arise in the case, the assessment you made about what happened in the group/context, and the insights you derived that reflect learning from the situation. The presentation to be delivered in depth, but also in the 20-minute time frame, should focus attention, as a guide on three factors (four is possible but not five), so allowing time for each factor, with the other minutes allowing an introduction to the case and an insightful wrap up with recommendations. The group can decide if some or all are presenters, but all must be involved on the day either live or by Zoom. If group members are not presenters, their role in answering questions is heightened.

The 20-minute presentation of 12 slides maximum as a guide (excluding a title page and references used) should touch on the following (although you may decide on your own creative way to present your analysis):

• An introduction to the team members, case title and its context (details should be evident on the slides) - suggest 2-3 minutes max
• An analysis of the case, discussed in relation to the ideas, concepts, frameworks, models, and/or theories covered in the course - three-four key themes to be managed in the time allowed - suggest 15-17 minutes max
• Key insights and learnings/recommendations from the case as a summary - suggest 2-3 minutes max.

The presentations will be delivered face to face but if required due to circumstances, some or all can be delivered virtually (over Zoom).

On the due date, you should submit on Blackboard the presentation, including all references in the prescribed manner (APA format or similar format) as the final slides of the presentation. There are 12 slides as a guide, but this excludes a cover slide with topic name and list of team members, and a set of final PowerPoint slides (1-2 pages in smaller font as they are not presented) with the references used in developing the presentation. There will be a random check of the authenticity of the references used. The presentation criteria (rubric) are available on Blackboard.

After the List of References in the Powerpoint file, provide the completed AI statement as Appendix A using the proforma provided on Blackboard.

Please Note: The presentati on will be recorded for marking purposes per UQ Policy.

AI Statement

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Translation (MT) are emerging tools that may support students in completing this assessment task. Students may appropriately use AI and/or MT in completing this assessment task. Students must clearly reference any use of AI or MT in each instance.

A failure to reference generative AI or MT use may constitute student misconduct under the Student Code of Conduct.

Length:          3000 words (±10%)

Overview

Assessment 2 follows from the in-class discussion on Week 3 of the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model. The purpose of Assessment 2 is for you to analyse your personal case of a team reflecting on the concepts, frameworks, theories and models discussed in a selection of course topics and readings. The insights you gain from the course and your readings should be applied to your analysis of this group or team and your involvement in it. The focus of the submitted assessment is on 3-5 maximum factors described at play in the IPO analysis that you provide as Appendix A.

A more detailed description of the task is available below and on the course Blackboard site. Again this Assessment with previous examples will be talked about on Week 1, and past Assessment 2 examples are on Blackboard.

In more detail

The purpose of this Assessment 2 is for you to analyse your personal case of a team or group experience, reflecting on the concepts, frameworks, theories, and models discussed in a selection of course topics and readings. The insights you gain from these readings should be applied to your critique of this work group or team and your involvement in it.

Again, it is expected that peer reviewed academic readings will be incorporated to add depth, evidence or additional support for the interpretations you make in this personal case. Try to minimise the major use of less valid evidence such as web sites or unedited books, but some use is understandable for giving contextual evidence or information. The essay should analyse and/or critique the group or team from your point of view, so engaging in critical analysis. The essay should focus on insights from the course readings and other readings. As you go through the course, you will be reminded of your experiences in the group that reflect the discussions and issues raised in course sessions and the readings. More importantly, the course content may prompt you to make new sense of your experience and to develop fresh insights into the dynamics involved.

Select the key insights that were particularly salient for you and build your essay around these. 

1. Use the IPO analysis that will form Appendix A in your submitted Assessment 2. The IPO will give a more detailed analysis of the mapping of many factors operating in this work group or team. The Individual Case Analysis will only report in depth on 3-5 of the factors described in the IPO.
2. Browse through the Course PowerPoint slides and Course Readings available through Blackboard for the possible 3-5 themes, but also use UQ library searches.
3. Please dig deeper than the lecture notes and look for additional sources through the UQ library or Google Scholar to explore a particular issue beyond the discussions in the course and the listed course readings. You will need to do your own research. High performing students typically go beyond the reading lists and use the most up-to-date research in journals. See the guidance provided by the marking rubric.

Use the academic journal readings that provoke insights for you in making sense of your team experience. The word limit means that you should focus your attention on key insights about the group and its effectiveness. Three to five is the suggested number. Do not try to ‘unpack’ all of the dynamics in the group. You will need to be judicious in your choice of issues to explore in depth. Three to five areas of focus are usually more than enough in the word limit specified.

The final essay should contain the following elements:

• A brief but informative introduction (use the subheading of "Introduction and brief overview") that includes a description of the group and its context
• A discussion of your key 3-5 key factors at work in your case that demonstrate your learning and application of the ideas drawn from the course and relevant academic readings. We suggest that each factor is a sub-heading.
• A reference list containing all and only the references cited in your essay formatted in the prescribed manner (APA 7th or AMJ format)
• You must end the essay with a "Set of recommendations" section about what might have occurred/can occur to resolve or better manage the 3-5 key factors that have been the focus on the IPO team analysis.
• Appendix A of the Input-Process-Output (IPO) analysis of your case must be included, following the ideas on Blackboard of what can be included under each of the I, P and O using the reading on Blackboard by Susan Mohammed & Katherine Hamilton (2007), from Steven G. Rogelberg, Encyclopaedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chapter Title: "Input–Process–Output (IPO) Model of Team Effectiveness".
• Appendix B will be the AI statement using the provided proforma on Blackboard.
• Do not provide an abstract or executive summary or organisational chart or similar; only provide the one IPO appendix
• Provide a word count on page 1 with your student name.

Formatting recommendations:

• In-text author/date referencing style; for example, (Smith, 2008, p. 112) or (Smith, 2008), and not (M. Smith 2008, p. 112) or (Smith: 112). Chosoe a standard refrencing style (e.g. APA, Harvard) and consistently apply that style
• Size 12 font with 1 inch or 25mm margins all round
• Double or 1.5 spacing
• Word limit does not include title page, references, IPO analysis Appendix A
• See marking criteria sheet for further details on the assessment criteria.
• Put the word count (excluding references and Appendix A) on the front page.

AI Statement

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Translation (MT) are emerging tools that may support students in completing this assessment task. Students may appropriately use AI and/or MT in completing this assessment task. Students must clearly reference any use of AI or MT in each instance.

A failure to reference generative AI or MT use may constitute student misconduct under the Student Code of Conduct.