Read the below case studies "Equal Justice" and "Superstars?" and answers to the below questions and make apersonal reflection. Relate your reflection tobeing a leader in these situtations (minimum ofthree hundred fifty words). Do not answer the three questions. Your reflection should be in essay format and should be about your personal reflection on the answers.

"Equal Justice"

Ariana Russo watched as three of her classmates filed out of the conference room. Then she turned back to the large wooden table and faced her fellow members (a student and three faculty members) of the university's judiciary committee.

The three studentsLucas Bakker, Ben Acker, and Valerie Golayhad just concluded their appeal against a copying conviction stemming from a group project for an international marketing course. Ariana, who happened to be in the class with the students on trial, remembered the day that the professor, Hank Schmidt, had asked Lucas, Ben, and Valerie, along with the group's leader, Conrad Novak, to stay after class. She happened to walk by the classroom a half hour later and saw four glum students emerge. Even though Conrad had a chagrined expression on his face, Lucas was the one who looked completely shattered. It didn't take long for word to spread along the ever-active grapevine that Conrad had admitted to copying his part of the group paper.

At the hearing, the students recounted how they'd quickly and unanimously settled on Conrad to lead the group. He was by far the most able student among them, someone who managed to maintain a stellar GPA even while handling a full course load and holding down a part-time job. After the group worked together for weeks analyzing the problem and devising a marketing plan, Conrad assigned a section of the final paper to each member. With the pressure of all those end-of-the-semester deadlines bearing down on them, everyone was delighted when Conrad volunteered to write the company and industry background, the section that typically took the most time to produce. Conrad gathered up everyone's contributions, assembled them into a paper, and handed the final draft to the other members. They each gave it a quick read. They liked what they saw and thought they had a good chance for an A.

Unfortunately, as Conrad readily admitted when Professor Schmidt confronted them, he had pulled the section that he'd contributed directly off the Internet. Pointing out the written policy that he had distributed at the beginning of the semester, which stated that each group member was equally responsible for the final product, the professor gave all four students a zero for the project. The group project and presentation counted for 30 percent of the course grade.

Lucas, Ben, and Valerie maintained that they were completely unaware that Conrad had cheated. "It just never occurred to us Conrad would ever need to cheat," Ben said. They were innocent bystanders, the students argued. Why should they be penalized? Besides, the consequences weren't going to fall on each of them equally. Although Conrad was suffering the embarrassment of public exposure, the failing group project grade would only put a dent in his solid GPA. Lucas, however, was already on academic probation. A zero probably meant that he wouldn't make the 2.5 GPA that he needed to stay in the business program.

At least one of the faculty members of the judiciary committee supported Professor Schmidt's actions. "We're assigning more and more group projects because increasingly that's the way these students are going to find themselves working when they get real jobs in the real world," he said. "And the fact of the matter is that if someone obtains information illegally while on the job, it's going to put the whole corporation at risk for being sued, or worse."

Even though she could see merit to both sides, Ariana was going to have to choose. If you were Ariana, how would you vote?

What Would You Do?

Answer:

In this instance, it is obvious that the professor had a policy in place that stated that each group member was equally responsible for the final result and that this policy was communicated to the group at the beginning of the semester. The three students insisted that they had no idea that Conrad had p*lagiarised, but they must make sure that the work is original and unique. It is also logical that they trusted Conrad because he was the group's leader and well-known for his academic ability.

A fair solution, in this case, would be to lessen the punishments for the three students. Each student should receive only half of the possible project points, which would be an F, rather than a zero. While taking into consideration the students' ignorance of Conrad's p*lagarism, this solution acknowledges the professor's policy and the value of academic honesty. This solution also recognizes that innocent students who had no intention of cheating shouldn't bear the full weight of the punishment.

Therefore, if I were Ariana, I would vote to lessen the punishments for all three of the students. This answer recognizes the difficulty of the problem and the significance of justice and fairness while maintaining academic honesty.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Superstars"

Hi. My name is Martina Meyer. I am the newly appointed CIO of a medium-sized technology company. Our company recruits top graduates from schools of business and engineering. Talent, intellect, creativityit's all there. If you lined up this crowd for a group photo, credentials in hand, the "wow" factor would be there.

Our company is spread over a dozen states, mostly in the Northwest. The talent pool is amazing across the board, both in IT and in the rest of the company. But when the CEO hired me, he said that we are performing nowhere near our potential. On the surface, the company is doing fine. But we should be a Fortune 500 organization. With this much talent, we should be growing at a much faster rate. The CEO also said that I was inheriting "a super team with disappointing performance." His task for me was to pull the IT stars into a cohesive team that would meet company needs for new IT systems and services much faster and more effectively.

Without making our superstars feel that they were being critiqued and second-guessed, or indicating "there's a real problem here," I wanted to gather as much information and feedback as possible from the 14 team members (regional CIOs and department heads) who report to me. I held one-on-one meetings to give a voice to each person, allowing each individual to provide an honest assessment of the team as well as areas for improvement and a vision for the future of team efforts.

I was surprised by the consistency of the remarks and opinions. For example, a picture emerged of the previous CIO, who was obviously awed by the talent level of team members. Comments such as "Bob pretty much let us do what we wanted" and "Bob would start the meeting and then just fade into the background, as if he found us intimidating" were typical. The most disturbing comment, "Bob always agreed with me," was expressed by most of the team members at some point in our conversation. It was as if the regional heads believed that the CIO wanted them to succeed by doing as they thought best for themselves.

I queried members about the level of cooperation during meetings and uncovered areas of concern, including the complaint that others at the table were constantly checking their iPads and smartphones during meetings. One department head told me, "You could turn off the sound while watching one of our meetings, and just by the body language and level of attention, tell who is aligned with whom and who wishes the speaker would just shut up. It would be comical if it weren't so distressing."

Such remarks were indicative of a lack of trust and respect and a breakdown of genuine communication. One team member told me, "I recently encountered a problem that a department head from another region had successfully solved, but the information was never shared, so here I am reinventing the wheel and wasting valuable time." It was apparent that these so-called high performers were territorial, and that the "each division for itself" attitude was becoming a cultural norm that, because it was unchecked, was slowing our response to line departments and customers.

I was also struck by the similarity of the regional IT leaders in their backgrounds, comments, and attitudes, which presented a whole new dilemma: How do we build diversity, jumpstart ideas, and reignite passion? This looks like a group of individualists who don't know how to play as a team. I don't want to diminish the individual talent, but I am concerned by the lack of cohesion. I need to find a way to help people think less about themselves and more about sharing work and information and achieving collective results for the good of the company.

Team building is an art, anchored by trust and communication, and committed to mutual success. What I'm seeing looks like team dysfunction to me. Now I have to determine the steps necessary to build a cohesive, visionary team.

Questions

1. What type of team does the new CIO have? What do you see as the key problem with the team?

Answer: The high-performing team that the new CIO has is very talented, but they don't work well together or feel like they have a common goal. The team's main issue is that instead of cooperating for the sake of the organization, they have grown divided and individualized in their goals.

2. How do you think that the team evolved to this low level of cooperation and cohesiveness?

Answer: Due to several causes, the team has evolved to this low level of unity and cooperation. The management style of the former CIO, which gave team members the freedom to act whenever they pleased without much direction or accountability, was one of the main contributing factors. This caused a breakdown in true communication as well as a loss of trust and respect among team members. Additionally, the lack of diversity and stagnation of ideas has resulted from the regional IT leaders' same origins, remarks, and attitudes.

3. What suggestions do you have for the CIO to help her turn this collection of individual regional and department heads into a top-performing team? Explain.

Answer: The CIO needs to take several actions to transform this group of independent regional and department leaders into a high-performing team. She must first set up and effectively communicate the team's clear goals and expectations. This will contribute to the development of a common sense of direction. Second, she must encourage honest conversation and teamwork to build a climate of respect and trust. Third, by searching out fresh viewpoints and encouraging team members to question assumptions and think creatively, she should promote diversity of thought and ideas. Finally, she should continue to coach and encourage team members so they may improve their skills and abilities and collaborate productively to achieve shared objectives. By taking these actions, the CIO may contribute to the development of a unified, creative team that is dedicated to attaining group goals for the company's benefit.