| Course | IOP-7100 The Psychology of Leadership, Motivation, and Teamwork |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Written assignment: group behaviors and work teams |
| Length | About 534 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for IOP 7100 Module 3
From Group to Team: Fixing How a New Tax Engagement Group Works Together
Student Name
Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Thomas Edison State University
IOP-7100: The Psychology of Leadership, Motivation, and Teamwork
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
From Group to Team: Fixing How a New Tax Engagement Group Works Together
The Group
Last fall the firm formed a group of a manager, two seniors and three associates to handle forty of its largest small business clients, from payroll filings through year-end returns. The group was assembled from three offices. By April it had filed eleven extensions it had promised clients it would avoid, two seniors had argued openly over who owned which clients and associates said they never knew what was urgent.
How the Group Developed
After reading the small group studies of his day, Tuckman (1965) named four stages that groups often pass through: forming, storming, norming and performing. Our group formed in October and moved straight into busy season without ever settling roles or norms. Its storming, the conflict over ownership, happened in March under deadline pressure, the worst possible time. Tuckman's sequence is a description, not a law, but it suggests that new teams need time and structure to settle roles before their heaviest work.
Teamwork Processes
LePine et al. (2008) pooled teamwork studies and found three families of process: preparing, which covers clarifying the mission, setting goals and planning; doing, which covers tracking progress, coordinating and covering for one another; and relating, which covers handling conflict and building confidence. All three related to team performance and member satisfaction. Our group skipped transition processes entirely, had weak action processes, with no shared view of deadlines, and handled conflict poorly.
Context and Composition
Mathieu et al. (2008) surveyed ten years of team research and stressed that results depend on who is on the team and the setting it works in, on how members work and what they come to share, and on how all of this shifts over time. Our group's context worked against it: members reported to managers in three offices, and the firm's systems tracked clients by office rather than by team.
Redesign
| Teamwork process | What went wrong | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Transition: mission, goals, planning | No kickoff; roles assumed | Two-day kickoff in September to assign client owners and backups and set a filing calendar |
| Action: monitoring and coordination | No shared view of deadlines | Shared tracker reviewed in a 20-minute Monday meeting |
| Action: backup | Overloaded members left alone | Each client has a named backup who steps in automatically |
| Interpersonal: conflict | Ownership disputes in March | Ownership settled at kickoff; manager mediates within 48 hours |
| Context | Split reporting lines | All six report to the group manager for the season |
Measuring the Change
Next season the group will be judged on extensions filed that it had promised to avoid, deadlines met for each client and members' satisfaction with how the team works, gathered in a short survey in May. A comparison with the previous season's figures will show whether the redesign made the difference.
Conclusion
The group missed deadlines not because its members lacked skill but because it never became a team: it skipped the planning that teams need, had no way to coordinate and settled conflict at the worst moment. Research on team development, processes and context points to a kickoff, shared tracking, backups and a single reporting line, changes that can be tested next season against extensions filed and members' satisfaction.
References
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Reading the IOP 7100 Module 3 assignment instructions
The written assignment for IOP-7100's third module, Group Behaviors and Work Teams, is shown here; it is one of five that together carry 35 percent. You will analyze a real group or team with research on how groups develop, which processes make teams effective and how composition and context matter, then recommend specific changes. Robbins and Judge's chapters on groups and teams introduce the concepts, and meta-analyses give the evidence. Describe what actually happened in the team, connect each problem to a research finding and propose changes you could test. Include the team's context, such as reporting lines and systems, not only how members behave. Describe what actually went wrong, with figures such as missed deadlines.
How this IOP 7100 Module 3 example is built
The paper begins with a group's failures in its first season: extensions it promised to avoid, open conflict and confusion about priorities. Tuckman's developmental sequence explains why storming arrived at the worst time. LePine and colleagues' three teamwork dimensions sort the failures into transition, action and interpersonal processes. Mathieu and colleagues' review adds context, especially split reporting lines. A five-row table links each process failure to a change, from a September kickoff to named backups. The conclusion names the measures for next season. Each change is aimed at one of the three kinds of process, so nothing in the redesign is generic team building. A May survey and the season's extension count will show whether the redesign worked.
Where the marks sit in the IOP 7100 Module 3 rubric
Credit in this assignment comes from accurate use of group and team research, a clear diagnosis of a real team, changes tied to findings and APA writing. Papers that use a process model to locate a team's problems show more than papers that describe teamwork in general. Recognizing the limits of a classic model, such as Tuckman's stages, shows critical reading. Including context and composition, not only member behavior, shows understanding of team effectiveness research. Proposals with measurable outcomes show readiness to test them. Mentors also credit plans that schedule the team's planning work before its busiest period. Comparing results before and after a redesign shows how teamwork changes can be tested.
Common IOP 7100 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students lose marks by describing a team's personalities rather than its processes, by applying Tuckman's stages as a fixed law or by recommending team building events without a link to the problem. Gather what happened, sort problems by teamwork process, consider context such as reporting lines and propose changes you can measure. A free first draft of your IOP-7100 Module 3 assignment can be prepared on a team you know. Remember that teams need time to settle roles and norms before heavy work, and plan that time explicitly. Name who on the team owns each change so the redesign does not drift.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More IOP 7100 and Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology sample papers
- IOP 7100 Module 1: Written Assignment: What Motivates Associates Through Tax Season?
- IOP 7100 Module 2: Written Assignment: Why Two Audit Managers Get Such Different Results
- IOP 7100 Module 4: Written Assignment: Moods, Engagement and Performance in an Accounting Firm
- IOP 7100 Module 5: Final Paper: An Evidence-Based Intervention for Busy-Season Stress at an Accounting Firm
- IOP 6100 Module 4: Written Assignment: A Structured Interview, Honest Reference Checks and an Assessment Center
- IOP 6200 Module 3: Written Assignment: Evaluating Deli Clerk Training at Four Levels
IOP 7100 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free IOP 7100 Module 3 sample paper?
The paper above diagnoses and redesigns a new tax engagement group at an accounting firm with team research.
What are Tuckman's stages of group development?
Forming, storming, norming and performing, a description of how small groups often develop.
What are the three kinds of teamwork processes?
LePine and colleagues found transition, action and interpersonal processes, each related to team performance.
Why does team context matter?
Inputs such as reporting lines and organizational systems shape how well a team can coordinate, as team effectiveness research shows.
How many written assignments does IOP-7100 have?
Five papers, together 35 percent of the course grade.