The team project offers a context in which you can practice and develop teamwork skills through experiential learning. Your team will choose a specific company organization and choose a specific task to accomplish.  The project is organized around three main parts, namely background, discussion, and leadership decisions:

Background: You and your team members search for, gather, and organize important information in relation to your team project. Examples can include political, economic and cultural environment of the world and a nation-state, and trends in a specific industry.

Discussion: You and your team members analyze the collected background information, and identify at least three critical issues that need leaders attention and possible leadership decisions. Then your team takes perspectives on these critical issues and prioritizes one as the niche that your team project aims to address.

Leadership Decisions: You and your team members design two possible leadership decisions for the niche identified in discussion, and recommend one leadership decision over the other. Your team also proposes an action plan so that the recommended leadership decision can become reality.

Each team will present their project on June 8, 2022  Each team also needs to write a leadership decision brief for the project (1,200-1400 words), which is due at 11:00pm (PDT) Wednesday June 8, 2022. THIS IS ONE PAPER per team (not individual papers)

Rubric:

Background (9 points)

Emerging (1 – 4)

Developing (5 – 7)

Mastering (8 – 9)

Student describes background mainly by quoting information from the case description. Some aspects are incorrect or confused.

Student describes background mainly in his/her own words, and explores relevant

information and assumptions although in a limited way. Most aspects are accurate.

Student summarizes relevant background information accurately and interprets the information with consideration of assumptions and

their implications. This may include additional research and identification of potential biases.

Discussion (12 points)

Emerging (1 – 6)

Developing (7 – 9)

Mastering (10 – 12)

Student does not attempt to or fails to identify and summarize critical issues accurately.

Student does not analyze a critical issue from the perspective of a chosen theory and engages ideas that are obvious or agreeable.

Student does not attempt to or fails to integrate his/her world-view in the process of perspective taking.

Student shows little evidence of reflection on his/her own assumptions.

Priority set by students is unclear or simplistic with little consideration of the organizations goals. 

Student identifies and summarizes critical issues with most aspects accurate.

Nuances and key details are missing or glossed over.

Student clearly analyzes a critical issue from the perspectives of a chosen theory and engages challenging ideas tentatively although he/she may dismiss alternative views hastily.

Student integrates his/her world-view in the process of perspective taking although in a limited way. 

Student shows some evidence of reflection on his/her own assumptions.

Priority set by student is generally clear based on accurate understanding of the organizations goals.

Student clearly and accurately identifies and summarizes subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the critical issues.

Student clearly analyzes a critical issue from the perspectives of a variety of theories and engages integrating his/her own ideas with others ideas. 

Student clearly connects his/her worldview and his/her perspectives on the case in a precise meaningful way.

Student shows strong evidence of reflection on his/her own assumptions.

Priority set by student demonstrates sophisticated, integrative thoughts in line with accurate understanding of the organizations goals.

Leadership decisions (9 points)

Emerging (1 – 4)

Developing (5 – 7)

Mastering (8 – 9)

Student does not attempt to or fails to put forward two possible leadership decisions.

Student presents two possible leadership decisions although in a limited way. For instance, one option is not really viable.

Student recommends one leadership decisions without addressing the other one, or does so superficially.

Student presents an action plan although some objectives are unclear.

Student presents two viable leadership decisions with clear integration of the analysis conducted in the discussion.

Student recommends and justifies one leadership decisions over the other even with support from information not available from the assigned case.

Student presents an action plan with clear and specific objectives.