Institution of Learning - Case Study Example

Secondly, the fact that Steven is senior in the college, creative, but hates having to write reports or deliver presentation, it might interfere with his contribution to the development and presentation of the project. Third, Erick made certain alteration of some of the wording in the report and added different information, making a number of parts to sound unoriginal without consulting the other two members, thus breaching the spirit of a team (Shepard, 2005). Fourth, Kelly is in an aggressive quest to relocate to Oregon soonest possible to be close to her fiance and intends to switch her career.

Perhaps, she was adhering to agency theory that indicates the relationship between motivation and the individual worker’s productivity. It seems the workers are not motivated, thus could not work as a team because the perception from their interaction is that each operates on his/her own (Shepard, 2005). This fact could interfere with the group spirit since she might not be interested in the outcome of the project, contrary to the goal of the group initiative. The case also revealed that Steven, Eric and Kelly decided that they could individually self-organize and let each other prepare for the presentation in his/her own fashion.

This contravenes the group spirit since they were to agree on all aspects of the project, create a sense of understanding on each of them, on the full report and finally give one of them the opportunity to do the presentation. This would be important because, allowing each person to present in his/her own fashion could give room for manipulation of the content to their personal interest and satisfaction, perhaps not for the Institution (Shepard, 2005). The key Problems in this Case There are certain problems in this case ranging from personal to technological in nature.

For example, there tree staff members lack coordination since they do not interact during their duties. To substantiate this claim, the Steven and Kelly could not prepare the ten questions, which they agreed on for the interview, citing their own reason for failing to do so. Steve only had five questions while Kelly did not present questions at all, claiming that the system could not open her document to print the questions. Indeed, this posted a big challenge in executing a group’s project and should be addressed, if the three staff members wanted to succeed in the initiative (Shepard, 2005).

Moreover, after deliberation on the project, Erick prepared the final draft and sent a copy to the IT Director and Mark for their review. Surprisingly, he did this without consulting Steven and Kelly for their comment on the final draft. Therefore, the two could not endorse the content of the final draft, subsequently creating a problem during its presentation (Shepard, 2005). As given in the case, Kelly established at least two flaws in the final draft, which did not make sense for her, but had no choice since the final copy had reached the IT Director and Mark who initially did not have any problem with the document.

The second problem is time keeping. The case information stated that Steve and Kelly could not report in time for the presentation, despite Erick’s effort to arrive 30 minutes earlier. Kelly’