| Course | BU 302 Leadership and Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Team dynamics write-up |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 302 Unit 4
Seven Meetings to One Checklist: A Team Dynamics Write-Up of a Landscaping Task Force Traced Through Tuckman's Stages, Including the Storm That Came Back
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 302: Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Instructor Name
March 4, 2026
Seven Meetings to One Checklist: A Team Dynamics Write-Up of a Landscaping Task Force Traced Through Tuckman's Stages, Including the Storm That Came Back
After client callbacks rose in the second half of 2025, the course's composite landscaper, Greenline Grounds, formed a task force to write a new end-of-property checklist for its maintenance crews before the 2026 season. This paper follows that group through the stage model taught in the course. A table lists the group's seven meetings in order, the model is stated with what each stage should look like, and the body walks the sequence, marking each transition against an entry in the table. A stage the group repeated is treated as a finding, and a short section covers the member who never fully joined.
The Meetings in Order
The task force had six members: four maintenance crew leads, including Travis Boone and Andre Walker from the Unit 2 memo; an account manager, who joined from the fifth meeting; and the operations coordinator, who scheduled the meetings and took notes. The group met for an hour on Tuesday afternoons during the slow winter season. The table below summarizes each meeting from the coordinator's notes.
| Meeting and date | What happened |
|---|---|
| 1. January 6 | Operations manager explained the callback numbers and the goal; members introduced their crews; little discussion; agreed to meet weekly |
| 2. January 13 | Travis argued a checklist would slow crews and cost bonuses; Andre said the problem was rushing, not the lack of a list; voices raised; no decisions |
| 3. January 20 | Coordinator brought callback data by property; group agreed callbacks clustered on the last property of the day; agreed on a limit of five checklist items |
| 4. January 27 | Members drafted five items; Andre and Travis each wrote two; Wade Pruitt absent; group agreed decisions by majority with the coordinator breaking ties |
| 5. February 3 | Account manager joined and asked for two client-facing items; Travis objected to the list growing; debate reopened on the five-item limit |
| 6. February 10 | Group agreed to four crew items plus one photo item that serves clients; account manager accepted; roles assigned for field test |
| 7. February 24 | Reviewed a two-day field test on six properties; adjusted wording of one item; presented final checklist to operations manager; group disbanded |
The Stage Model
Tuckman (1965) reviewed studies of small groups and proposed that groups develop through four stages: forming, when members orient to the task and to each other and depend on a leader; storming, when conflict arises over the task and roles; norming, when the group develops shared rules and cohesion; and performing, when energy goes into the task itself. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) later added a fifth stage, adjourning, for groups that finish their work and disband. Robbins and Judge (2019) note that the stages are a general pattern rather than a fixed sequence, and that groups may move back to an earlier stage or pass through stages at different speeds. That caution matters for this group.
Walking the Sequence
The first meeting shows forming. Members introduced their crews, deferred to the operations manager's explanation and agreed on a meeting schedule, but no one challenged the goal or proposed anything. The transition to storming came in meeting 2, marked by an open disagreement: Travis argued that a checklist would slow crews and reduce bonuses, and Andre replied that the cause of callbacks was rushing. The raised voices recorded in the notes and the absence of any decision are the evidence that the group was contesting the task itself.
Meeting 3 marks the move to norming, and a specific event caused it. The coordinator's callback data gave the group a shared fact, that callbacks clustered on the last property of the day, and both sides of the earlier argument could accept it. The group then set its first rule, a limit of five items. Meeting 4 continued norming with a second rule, majority decisions with the coordinator breaking ties, and with a division of drafting work between the two members who had argued. The drafting itself suggests the group was beginning to perform.
The Storm That Came Back
Meeting 5 reopened conflict. When the account manager joined and asked for two client-facing items, Travis objected, and the five-item limit, settled in meeting 3, was debated again. In the stage model's terms, the group returned to storming. This is a finding rather than a failure. A new member with different interests brought a task question the original members had not faced, and the group had to renegotiate one of its norms. The sequence Tuckman (1965) described assumes stable membership; this group changed membership midway, and it repeated a stage as a result. Meeting 6 restored norming quickly, with a compromise that kept the list short while meeting the client need, and meeting 7 shows performing and then adjourning: the group reviewed field test results, adjusted one item, delivered the checklist and disbanded.
The Member Who Never Quite Joined
Wade Pruitt, a crew lead with eight seasons at the company, attended five of the seven meetings and spoke rarely. He missed meeting 4, when the decision rule was set and drafting was divided, and meeting 6, when the compromise was reached. In the stage model's terms, he never moved through norming with the group, because he was absent when its main norms were formed. At the final meeting he said the checklist was fine but that his crew already did everything on it. This is common in groups: a member who misses the meetings where norms are formed may accept the output without owning it. For the checklist's rollout, his crew is the one most likely to treat it as paperwork, which the operations manager should know.
What the Group's Path Shows
The task force followed the stage model closely when its membership was stable and repeated a stage when a new member arrived. Two things moved it forward: shared data, which ended the first storm, and a clear decision rule, which made the second storm short. Both are practical lessons for future task forces at the company. The firm, the six members and all seven meetings are invented for teaching purposes.
References
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
What the BU 302 Unit 4 instructions ask for
The team dynamics unit asks students to analyze a group's development using the stage model from the course, usually Tuckman's forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. Most versions want the group introduced, a record of its meetings or key events, the model explained with a citation and an analysis that marks transitions between stages with evidence. Many rubrics reward attention to stages that were skipped or repeated and to members who did not integrate. A timeline or table is often expected. Group projects from other courses are sometimes allowed if details are disguised. Cite the model's original source and your textbook in APA 7. Keeping notes during the project, or rebuilding them from emails and chat logs, makes the timeline much easier to write.
How the BU 302 Unit 4 example is put together
The sample introduces the task force's purpose and members, then presents a seven-row table summarizing each meeting from the coordinator's notes. The model section describes the five stages and quotes the textbook's caution that the sequence is not fixed. The body walks the meetings in order, tying forming to meeting 1, storming to a specific argument in meeting 2 and norming to the data and decision rule in meetings 3 and 4. A separate section treats the return to storming when a new member arrived as a result. Another section follows the member who missed two key meetings. The close states what moved the group forward and notes the composite setting.
Where the points sit in the BU 302 Unit 4 rubric
The rubric for this write-up usually assesses the accuracy of the stage model, use of evidence, depth of analysis and organization. Model accuracy earns full points when each stage is described and cited, including adjourning. Evidence is judged by whether each transition points to a specific event rather than to how the group felt. Depth rewards papers that treat skipped or repeated stages and individual members as findings, which the sample does with the second storm and the absent crew lead. Organization is helped by a table that lets a reader follow the sequence without the prose. Correct citations and a clear narrative complete the grade.
BU 302 Unit 4 help: mistakes that cost points
The most frequent weakness in Unit 4 is assigning stages based on mood, such as the group felt comfortable, instead of events. Another is forcing the group through all five stages in order when it did not follow them. Students often leave out the timeline, which makes transitions impossible to check. Some papers ignore members who never engaged, even though almost every group has one. Others spend most of the paper on leadership, which belongs to other units unless the prompt asks for it. Finally, treat irregularities as results; a stage that repeated after a membership change says something useful about how groups work. Stages are a lens for reading events, not a grade on the group.
Get a BU 302 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 4 instructions and the rubric from your BU 302 classroom, and say which stage model your section reads. We write a custom example that tables the events first, names the model, argues every transition from something that happened and keeps the skips in. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 302 papers and business management samples
- BU 302 Unit 1: Organizational setting profile
- BU 302 Unit 2: Individual differences memo
- BU 302 Unit 3: Motivation theory application
- BU 302 Unit 5: Communication breakdown analysis
- BU 302 Unit 6: Influence tactic comparison
- BU 302 Unit 7: Organizational culture read
- BU 302 Unit 8: Applied behavior case file
- BU 106 Unit 4: Marketing analysis
- BU 217 Unit 4: Employment law scenario
- BU 231 Unit 4: Trade and regulation paper
- BU 242 Unit 4: Pain point analysis
BU 302 Unit 4 questions, answered
Can I write about a group project from another course?
Many sections allow it and some ask for it. Keep classmates unnamed and unidentifiable, describe conduct rather than character, and leave out anything shared in confidence. If the group is still running, be careful about writing an account somebody in it could read back later, since a composite built from two or three past projects avoids the problem entirely.
What if the group never reached the last stage?
Write that, and it usually strengthens the paper. Groups that dissolve at a deadline or stay stuck in disagreement are ordinary, and a write-up naming the stage the group stopped at, with the events that kept it there, applies the model harder than one narrating a clean arc. Say what would have moved it on.
Does the write-up need a leadership section?
Check the instructions, since sections vary on whether they want the analysis extended into what a leader should have done. Where it is asked for, tie each recommendation to a transition the paper already argued rather than to general advice about communication. Where it is not asked for, a short closing paragraph on those lines rarely hurts.
Where can I find a free BU 302 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page shows the entire BU 302 Unit 4 write-up free of charge, meeting table and margin notes included. To get one built on your own group's timeline, send the prompt with a short outline of the meetings, and a free custom version will follow, typically within 48 hours.
What if my group in BU 302 Unit 4 skipped a stage?
Report it as a finding. The sample's group returned to storming when a new member joined, and the paper explains why. Instructors reward analysis that tests the model against what happened, not papers that force every group into the same five steps.