1. Analyze your group in terms of agents of change (AC1's, AC2's, and AC3's), using the following steps to guide your analysis:

• Who are the AC2's and AC3's within your group? Justify your views with specific examples. If the statistical distribution of your group doesn't match that used in your textbook, focus on the roles played by each group member (and his/her relative influence on the team) in order to determine "who's who".

• Use diagrams to help illustrate your analysis.

• Describe the cognitive climate of your group. How do the various AC2 and AC3 sub-groups enable the performance of your overall group? How do they limit it? In addition, comment on the relative "integration" of the various AC3's within your group: do they each play positive roles as well-respected members of the team, or are they neutrally or negatively positioned in terms of their contributions? How might their role(s) be enhanced to better enable group performance overall?

• What impact do "authority" and/or "status" have within your group? For example: is the group member with the most authority an AC2 or an AC3? What impact does this fact have on the dynamics of the group? On his or her leadership within the group?

• Consider the impact of coping behavior on the climate of the group: who is doing the most/least coping within the group? What impact does this have on individual contributions and performance?

2. Consider your group in light of our study of resistance to change:

• Recalling that no one resists or accepts all change, consider who within your group appears to resist/welcome which (kinds of) changes? How might you explain these variations in acceptance/resistance using principles of A-I theory?

• Is resistance to change being managed well in your group? How might it be handled even more effectively?

3. Discuss the presence and impact of bridging (in both level and style) within your group as a means for managing some of the cognitive gaps existing within it:

• Who is acting in the role of a bridger now? Under what circumstances, and in what ways? Are they effective in their bridging efforts? Why or why not?

• Where and how might additional bridging be used effectively to improve the problem-solving Performance of the group? Who would be the best candidate(s) for a bridging role and why?

• Use diagrams to help illustrate your analysis.

4. Finally, consider Tuckman & Jensen's model of group development (from Lesson 4) and describe the progress of your problem-solving group in terms of this model and its links to Adaption-Innovation theory:

• Use specific examples to illustrate each stage of the process your group has passed through.

• Close your assignment with comments on how Tuckman & Jensen's model reveals new insights about the relationship between Problem A and Problem B within your group.