The planning for the community building session is almost complete. The last details are how to conduct the plenary sessions for sharing information across groups to develop key priorities and themes that will need to be addressed.

There are 2 sessions that need to be planned. One is to review the work done by intact work teams. In this larger session, the goal is to spot patterns and identify themes that can be used to plan actions. These patterns or themes will come from the stop–continue–start charts developed by each functional group. In this way, not only will the changes that need to happen be identified, but aspects of effective work (those things that work well and should be continued) can also be reinforced.

The external consulting team strongly recommended a “cross-functional, by-level grouping” for the first step. Their aim is to promote understanding of priorities and show how different issues at different levels of the organization can be aligned. The internal consulting team is excited about being the primary facilitators for these sessions. Everyone recognizes that a structured approach will be critical (for timing and to control decision–making inputs). The approach called Nominal Group Technique (NGT) seems to be ideally suited to this task.

You want to prepare yourself for conducting the session. Use the library, Internet, or other resources to research NGT. Because each grouping will be of a differing size, you want to tailor the overall steps of NGT to the situation you will facilitate. To do this, you must create a meeting session plan (a document of 4–5 pages) that will answer the following questions:

• What is the goal of the session?
• How will the nominal group technique be used to achieve this goal?
• How will the members of the team work together (guidelines for effective participation)?
• What specific steps and tasks will be involved in achieving the goal?
• How much time will be allocated to each step or task? What voting mechanism is most appropriate for the size of the group and the specific stage of the process?
• What will the outcome look like? What will the group present to the other levels?

Download a sample format here. Your assignment is to complete the missing sections (in red) and develop any additional participant materials or instructions to assist the group in completing the task.
Please submit your assignment.

For assistance with your assignment, please use your text, Web resources, and all course materials.

Individual Project Rubric

The space shuttle disaster claimed seven lives with school teacher Christa McAuliffe on board. A fault technically caused this disaster in the O-rings seals. The case study also showed that the tragedy resulted from flaws in decision-making process presented by the organization structure and culture. The warnings of O-rings seal failure were communicated three months before departure, but the NASA and Kennedy space center management ignored. This study prompts to identify whether advocacy or inquiry approach dominated the decision-making process and if DeBonos parallel thinking would have worked in the challenger situation.

Decisions are important aspects in the running of an organization. However, not every decision made is useful and effective to the problems identified. Advocacy approach of decision making represents a management by exemption situation. Further, where the leaders advocate for decisions, they feel strongly about without inquiring other expertise views on the matter. Inquiry approach of decision making represents an ideal and realistic handling of decisions. They discuss the problem without expressing personal agendas or opinions. Instead, they advocate for the stands they feel strongly about and then inquire other viewpoints from external expertise on the issue. In the case of the disaster, the advocacy decision-making approach dominated. The reasons are their concept of decision making was that of a contest. NASA had ambitious goals to create an operational shuttle and institutionalize a heavy schedule of flights. Hence, they persuaded and defended their position to continue with the flights regardless of the dangers posed and conviction they received from the engineers. Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for O-ring seals repair and his engineers, had strongly opposed the launch. However, their regards were not valued and dismissed making them reverse their allegations and recommend a go situation.

DeBonos parallel thinking is a process where the issue of subject matter is separately split in different directions to enable members critically explore and come up with knowledgeable facts, proofs, and comments. When applied within groups, it focuses on proving or disapproving the comments put across thereby eliminating the ineffectiveness of groupthink. DeBonos parallel thinking would not have worked for the disaster. The process has perfect decision-making resolutions, but the strong forces displayed by the organization structure and culture only supported the space shuttle top management and director personnel’s decisions. It was difficult to present any opinion for fear of disapproval and discouragement as it happened to Thiokol after he was asked by the space center managers when he wanted them to launch. The space shuttle challenger tragedy occurred as a result of flaws in the decision-making process. The challenger case used advocacy decision-making approach which makes it difficult for DeBonos parallel thinking to work out. Decision-making process highly depends on the organization structure and culture for it to be effective and useful.

Reference:

David Moseley, Vivienne Baumfield, and Julian Elliott, (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, pg 135.

Edward De Bono, (1994). Parallel thinking: from Socraticthinking to de Bono thinking.Viking ISBN, Pg 36-38.

Ronald C. Kramer (1994). The Challenger Explosion: Communication Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.

Decisions are important aspects in the running of an organization. However, not every decision made is useful and effective to the problems identified. Advocacy approach of decision making represents a management by exemption situation. Further, where the leaders advocate for decisions, they feel strongly about without inquiring other expertise views on the matter. Inquiry approach of decision making represents an ideal and realistic handling of decisions. They discuss the problem without expressing personal agendas or opinions. Instead, they advocate for the stands they feel strongly about and then inquire other viewpoints

The space shuttle disaster claimed seven lives with school teacher Christa McAuliffe on board. A fault technically caused this disaster in the O-rings seals. The case study also showed that the tragedy resulted from flaws in decision-making process presented by the organization structure and culture. The warnings of O-rings seal failure were communicated three months before departure, but the NASA and Kennedy space center management ignored. This study prompts to identify whether advocacy or inquiry approach dominated the decision-making process and if DeBonos parallel thinking would have worked in the challenger situation.

Decisions are important aspects in the running of an organization. However, not every decision made is useful and effective to the problems identified. Advocacy approach of decision making represents a management by exemption situation. Further, where the leaders advocate for decisions, they feel strongly about without inquiring other expertise views on the matter. Inquiry approach of decision making represents an ideal and realistic handling of decisions. They discuss the problem without expressing personal agendas or opinions. Instead, they advocate for the stands they feel strongly about and then inquire other viewpoints from external expertise on the issue. In the case of the disaster, the advocacy decision-making approach dominated. The reasons are their concept of decision making was that of a contest. NASA had ambitious goals to create an operational shuttle and institutionalize a heavy schedule of flights. Hence, they persuaded and defended their position to continue with the flights regardless of the dangers posed and conviction they received from the engineers. Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for O-ring seals repair and his engineers, had strongly opposed the launch. However, their regards were not valued and dismissed making them reverse their allegations and recommend a go situation.

DeBonos parallel thinking is a process where the issue of subject matter is separately split in different directions to enable members critically explore and come up with knowledgeable facts, proofs, and comments. When applied within groups, it focuses on proving or disapproving the comments put across thereby eliminating the ineffectiveness of groupthink. DeBonos parallel thinking would not have worked for the disaster. The process has perfect decision-making resolutions, but the strong forces displayed by the organization structure and culture only supported the space shuttle top management and director personnel’s decisions. It was difficult to present any opinion for fear of disapproval and discouragement as it happened to Thiokol after he was asked by the space center managers when he wanted them to launch. The space shuttle challenger tragedy occurred as a result of flaws in the decision-making process. The challenger case used advocacy decision-making approach which makes it difficult for DeBonos parallel thinking to work out. Decision-making process highly depends on the organization structure and culture for it to be effective and useful.

Reference:

David Moseley, Vivienne Baumfield, and Julian Elliott, (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, pg 135.

Edward De Bono, (1994). Parallel thinking: from Socraticthinking to de Bono thinking.Viking ISBN, Pg 36-38.

Ronald C. Kramer (1994). The Challenger Explosion: Communication Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.

from external expertise on the issue. In the case of the disaster, the advocacy decision-making approach dominated. The reasons are their concept of decision making was that of a contest. NASA had ambitious goals to create an operational shuttle and institutionalize a heavy schedule of flights. Hence, they persuaded and defended their position to continue with the flights regardless of the dangers posed and conviction they received from the engineers. Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for O-ring seals repair and his engineers, had strongly opposed the launch. However, their regards were not valued and dismissed making them reverse their allegations and recommend a go situation.

DeBonos parallel thinking is a process where the issue of subject matter is separately split in different directions to enable members critically explore and come up with knowledgeable facts, proofs, and comments. When applied within groups, it focuses on proving or disapproving the comments put across thereby eliminating the ineffectiveness of groupthink. DeBonos parallel thinking would not have worked for the disaster. The process has perfect decision-making resolutions, but the strong forces displayed by the organization structure and culture only supported the space shuttle top management and director personnel’s decisions. It was difficult to present any opinion for fear of disapproval and discouragement as it happened to Thiokol after he was asked by the space center managers when he wanted them to launch. The space shuttle challenger tragedy occurred as a result of flaws in the decision-making process. The challenger case used advocacy decision-making approach which makes it difficult for DeBonos parallel thinking to work out. Decision-making process highly depends on the organization structure and culture for it to be effective and useful.

Reference:

David Moseley, Vivienne Baumfield, and Julian Elliott, (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, pg 135.

Edward De Bono, (1994). Parallel thinking: from Socraticthinking to de Bono thinking.Viking ISBN, Pg 36-38.

Ronald C. Kramer (1994). The Challenger Explosion: Communication Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.

The space shuttle disaster claimed seven lives with school teacher Christa McAuliffe on board. A fault technically caused this disaster in the O-rings seals. The case study also showed that the tragedy resulted from flaws in decision-making process presented by the organization structure and culture. The warnings of O-rings seal failure were communicated three months before departure, but the NASA and Kennedy space center management ignored. This study prompts to identify whether advocacy or inquiry approach dominated the decision-making process and if DeBonos parallel thinking would have worked in the challenger situation.

Decisions are important aspects in the running of an organization. However, not every decision made is useful and effective to the problems identified. Advocacy approach of decision making represents a management by exemption situation. Further, where the leaders advocate for decisions, they feel strongly about without inquiring other expertise views on the matter. Inquiry approach of decision making represents an ideal and realistic handling of decisions. They discuss the problem without expressing personal agendas or opinions. Instead, they advocate for the stands they feel strongly about and then inquire other viewpoints from external expertise on the issue. In the case of the disaster, the advocacy decision-making approach dominated. The reasons are their concept of decision making was that of a contest. NASA had ambitious goals to create an operational shuttle and institutionalize a heavy schedule of flights. Hence, they persuaded and defended their position to continue with the flights regardless of the dangers posed and conviction they received from the engineers. Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for O-ring seals repair and his engineers, had strongly opposed the launch. However, their regards were not valued and dismissed making them reverse their allegations and recommend a go situation.

DeBonos parallel thinking is a process where the issue of subject matter is separately split in different directions to enable members critically explore and come up with knowledgeable facts, proofs, and comments. When applied within groups, it focuses on proving or disapproving the comments put across thereby eliminating the ineffectiveness of groupthink. DeBonos parallel thinking would not have worked for the disaster. The process has perfect decision-making resolutions, but the strong forces displayed by the organization structure and culture only supported the space shuttle top management and director personnel’s decisions. It was difficult to present any opinion for fear of disapproval and discouragement as it happened to Thiokol after he was asked by the space center managers when he wanted them to launch. The space shuttle challenger tragedy occurred as a result of flaws in the decision-making process. The challenger case used advocacy decision-making approach which makes it difficult for DeBonos parallel thinking to work out. Decision-making process highly depends on the organization structure and culture for it to be effective and useful.

Reference:

David Moseley, Vivienne Baumfield, and Julian Elliott, (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, pg 135.

Edward De Bono, (1994). Parallel thinking: from Socraticthinking to de Bono thinking.Viking ISBN, Pg 36-38.

Ronald C. Kramer (1994). The Challenger Explosion: Communication Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.

Dehumanization has been defined as a denial of humanness to others and has been associated with aggression and a host of negative consequences (Moller & Deci, 2009). In contemporary society, the use of computer-based communications and social media outlets creates an open opportunity for people to be aggressive. For example, the increase of anonymity through technology has provided a medium for aggression. The current literature suggests that the power differential between the online aggressor and the victim is not considered enough (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010; Fiske, 2014). Both of these issues can lead to dehumanization.

For this Discussion, consider a situation in which aggressive behavior could occur online and think about how it might foster dehumanization.

Post a brief description of the situation you selected. Then explain three potential factors that might foster dehumanization/de-individuation and lead to online aggressive behavior. Finally, using a social psychology perspective, explain two ways online aggression could be reduced. Be specific and use the current literature to support your response.

Watch or research the documentary “Take Your Pills” directed by Alison Klayman and then do the following:

I’m looking for a short (3 pages or so), thoughtful, well-edited essay that contains the following:

As a place to begin, please start with a brief paragraph or two that summarizes the documentary as thoroughly as possible (in addition to “what happens” this includes background on the creator, dates and platform of release, target audience, critical and social reception, any “real-world” impact, etc.).

I then want you to discuss the documentary in “research paper” terms. An effective documentary functions in many ways like an effective research paper. Please identify and analyze those elements we’ve discussed in class: the significance of title and subtitle; what is the overall “thesis;” what reasons does the film put forth to support/refute/refer to the overall point or “thesis”); what concrete evidence (research material) supports those reasons. Other elements you should address include: tone, beginnings and endings, strength of arguments, audience appeals (to pathos, logos, ethos), reliability of sources (including that of the filmmakers), and other elements you feel crucial to the documentary and its overall point(s).