The Group Project That Broke the Group
Aritra leads a five-member Class XI project on water conservation, due in nine days. Rohan missed three planning meetings and uploaded four weak slides at 11 p.m. Sana wrote in the group chat that Rohan is 'useless and should be removed'. Two members want to delete his name from the cover. The teacher has said every member must present. Rohan now says his father is injured and he works at the family shop until 9 p.m., which he had not disclosed. He adds that he will 'just not come' to the presentation. Aritra feels angry with Rohan for disappearing and annoyed with Sana for making the chat hostile. The group has one 40-minute free period tomorrow before the teacher's review. Aritra has not spoken privately to either.
1. Diagnose the conflict. What are the task, relationship and process issues, and what assumptions is Aritra making?
Read the worked answer
Task issue: nine days left, weak slides, a required presentation, and uneven contribution. Relationship issue: Sana's public 'useless' message has humiliated Rohan and damaged psychological safety; two members want to remove his name. Process issue: no agreed roles, no checkpoints, no way to disclose constraints, and decisions being made in a group chat. Aritra assumes Rohan does not care and that removing his name is a simple solution; Sana assumes public shaming will produce compliance; the group assumes silence means agreement. Rohan's disclosure of his father's injury and shop hours changes the picture from 'lazy' to 'unreported constraint'. The diagnosis should separate behaviour from character: the problem is missed work and late communication, not Rohan's worth. A good response addresses all three levels, not just the slides.
2. Script the private conversations Aritra should have - first with Rohan, then with Sana. Show the wording and the reasoning behind it.
Read the worked answer
With Rohan: 'I am not here to blame you. The presentation is in nine days and we need to know what is realistic. You said you work until 9 p.m.; what time can you give this week?' Listen, then offer a concrete role: 'Could you own the local examples and two slides by Friday, and send them by 8 p.m.?' Agree a checkpoint. Reasoning: an open question, a specific request, and a role that fits his constraint reduce defensiveness. With Sana: 'Your point about contribution is fair, but calling Rohan useless in the group chat shuts down the very cooperation we need. Please raise concerns with me or in the group using behaviour and impact.' Then set a norm: no name-calling, decisions after a check-in. Reasoning: address the behaviour, not Sana's character; protect both accountability and safety. Aritra should also apologise for not surfacing roles earlier.
3. Should Rohan's name be removed from the cover, or should the teacher be involved? Decide using explicit criteria.
Read the worked answer
Do not remove his name unilaterally. Criteria: (1) contribution and accountability; (2) fairness and school rules; (3) relationship and learning; (4) the teacher's requirement that every member present. Rohan has contributed four slides and has a genuine constraint he disclosed late; that justifies a revised role and a clear deadline, not immediate exclusion. If he misses the agreed checkpoint, the group should involve the teacher with evidence - the agreed roles, messages and submitted work - and ask for facilitation, not punishment. Involving the teacher early can also protect the group from a last-minute crisis. The judgement is proportionate: first a supported plan, then escalation if the plan fails. Removing his name without a conversation would be punitive and would not solve the presentation problem.