| Course | MAN-3760 Leadership Communication |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Group process analysis, presented with Module 4 on groups and teams |
| Length | About 515 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MAN 3760 Module 4
From Divide-and-Submit to Decide Together: A Process Analysis of an Online Case Team
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership, Thomas Edison State University
MAN-3760: Leadership Communication
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
From Divide-and-Submit to Decide Together: A Process Analysis of an Online Case Team
How We Started
Our team had four members in three time zones. For the first case we divided the questions, one each, wrote our answers separately and pasted them together the night before the deadline. Our mentor's feedback noted that our answers did not build on one another and that our final answer contradicted one of the intermediate ones. No one had read the whole document before we submitted it.
Stages of Development
Tuckman (1965) described groups as moving through forming, storming, norming and performing. We had formed but skipped storming entirely: we never disagreed because we never discussed. Hackman and Johnson (2013) note that conflict, handled well, improves group decisions; our lack of conflict was a symptom of our lack of interaction.
Avoiding Groupthink
Janis (1982) described groupthink as the way close-knit groups can let the wish for agreement crowd out a realistic look at alternatives. We were not especially cohesive, but we showed one of its symptoms, self-censorship. Two of us later admitted we had doubts about the final answer but did not raise them because we did not want to slow the group down.
Functional Perspective
Hirokawa (1988) tested the functional perspective on group decision making and found that groups that thoroughly analyzed the problem, established criteria and evaluated alternatives' positive and negative qualities made better decisions. On the first case we performed none of these functions as a group; each person performed them alone, if at all.
What We Changed
For the second and third cases we made three changes. We rotated a coordinator, who scheduled one live video meeting per case and kept a shared document. In the meeting we discussed the case together before dividing the writing, agreeing on criteria for the final answer first. And we assigned a devil's advocate, a role that rotated, whose job was to argue against the group's emerging answer. Our second case analysis earned a much higher score, and the mentor noted that the answers built on each other.
Roles and Leadership
Leadership in our team was shared. I took the coordinator role first and found myself listening more than directing, a direct test of the question-asking habit I set out to build in the first module. Another member emerged as the team's best writer and took on final editing for all three cases.
Lessons for Future Teams
First, dividing the work is not the same as working together; the critical functions of analysis and evaluation must be done as a group. Second, a team needs structured ways to disagree, such as a devil's advocate. Third, rotating coordination builds shared leadership and keeps one person from carrying the team. We agreed to write these practices into a short team charter at the start of any future project, so they do not depend on the same people remembering them.
Conclusion
Our team began as four individuals pasting answers together and became a group that analyzed and decided together. Tuckman's stages, the functional perspective and groupthink each explain part of that change.
References
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective (6th ed.). Waveland Press.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 487-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00165.x
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Reading the MAN 3760 Module 4 assignment instructions
The group process analysis, part of the 20 percent shared with the three group case analyses, asks you to analyze and evaluate your team's interaction over the semester. Describe and evaluate the strategies you used to complete the work, analyze roles, leadership, decision making and conflict, and apply group and leadership concepts. The analysis is assessed on the quality of description and analysis and on the use of concepts, as well as clarity of writing. Be fair to teammates and focus on the team's process rather than on individuals. Describe what your team actually did, using specific moments such as a missed deadline or a disagreement. Apply at least three concepts from the readings on groups, and evaluate your own role honestly.
How the MAN 3760 Module 4 example is put together
The paper describes how the team started and the result. Sections apply Tuckman's stages, Janis's groupthink and the functional perspective to the first case, each explaining part of the problem. A section describes three changes the team made and their result. A section examines shared leadership and the writer's role. It closes on three lessons and a summary of how the team changed. Each concept explains a different part of the first case's problem, which shows the analysis rather than repeating it. The changes are described with their results, and the lessons are written for any future team, not only this one. Its lessons apply to any future project team.
MAN 3760 Module 4 rubric: what earns full marks
Mentors grade the group process analysis on clear description of the team's process, application of group and leadership concepts, evaluation of what worked and did not, and clear writing. Analyses that use several concepts to explain a specific problem, and that show how the team changed, demonstrate understanding. Fair treatment of teammates and honest reflection on the writer's own role show maturity. Practical lessons for future teams complete the analysis and show what the writer learned. Balance matters too: report what worked alongside what failed. Writing that names behaviors rather than people, and that includes the writer's own part, shows the fairness expected in a process analysis.
MAN 3760 Module 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students lose points by blaming teammates, by describing what happened without analysis or by applying concepts that do not fit their team. Others write only about the final case. Describe the team's process across the semester. Apply concepts to specific moments. Evaluate what changed and why. Reflect on your own role. Remember that your teammates may read similar analyses; keep the tone professional. Focus on what the team did and what it learned. Describe one moment where the team's process changed for the better, and what caused the improvement. A free first sample on your own MAN-3760 group process analysis is available on request.
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 MAN 3760 and Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- MAN 3760 Module 1: Self-Assessment: How a Ramp Supervisor Communicates Under Pressure
- MAN 3760 Module 2: Application Paper: Three Theories, One Station Manager
- MAN 3760 Module 3: Application Paper: Power and Influence in a Push for New Loading Procedures
- MAN 3760 Module 5: Application Paper: Johnson and Johnson's 1982 Tylenol Crisis Communication
- MAN 3760 Module 6: Self-Assessment: Cultural Communication on a Diverse Ramp Crew
- MAN 3760 Module 7: Final Project: Leadership Communication at Boeing and the 737 MAX
- LDR 3050 Module 7: Reflection Paper: Building a Climate Where People Speak Up
- LDR 4220 Module 2: Case Study: Netflix's Leap to 190 Countries and the Transnational Strategy
- LDR 3450 Module 2: Written Assignment: What Kind of Change Agent Am I?
- MAN 4150 Module 2: Diagnosis and Resistance Written Assignment
MAN 3760 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MAN 3760 Module 4 sample paper?
An online case team's process, from divide-and-submit to deciding together, is analyzed above.
What are Tuckman's stages of group development?
Forming, storming, norming and performing.
What is groupthink?
The habit, in close-knit groups, of letting the wish to agree outweigh a hard look at the options.
What is the functional perspective on group decisions?
The view that groups decide better when they analyze the problem, set criteria and evaluate alternatives together.
What is a group process analysis?
An evaluation of how your team worked, including strategies, roles, decision making and conflict.