Six Days, Four People, One Presentation
Priya is the nominated lead of a four-person group in a Level 2 business course. Their assessed presentation is worth 30% of the module and is due in six days. Of the last five planning meetings, Tom has attended two, and at 11:40 p.m. before each deadline he sends long messages saying the slides are 'all wrong' and rewrites them without telling anyone. Jess does solid research but says almost nothing in meetings and has never presented. Sam agrees with whoever spoke last. Priya has done most of the slides, is behind in two other subjects, and is angry. She drafts a message to the group chat naming Tom and saying he needs to 'actually show up or get out'. Their tutor has said the group submits one deck and that peer assessment will count towards individual marks.
1. Explain what is likely to go wrong if Priya sends the message naming Tom in the group chat, and describe a better first step.
Read the worked answer
The message is understandable but it is a public attack in front of the other two members. Likely effects:
- Tom is pushed into defending himself rather than changing behaviour, so the chat becomes about who is right.
- Jess and Sam learn that raising problems gets you humiliated, so they become quieter - the opposite of what a group with six days left needs.
- It creates a written record of conflict that may be seen in peer assessment or by the tutor.
- It names behaviour ('show up') without specific impact or a request, so it is easy to dispute.
Better first step: a short, private message asking Tom for a 15-minute call, framed around the deadline: 'I want us to get this submitted without anyone failing. Can we talk about the last two weeks?' Then a group meeting with an agenda: what is finished, what is left, who does what by when. If the behaviour continues after a clear private conversation, involve the tutor - not as a complaint but as a request for help with the process. Escalation should be proportional: private first, group second, tutor third. The deadline means she should not wait more than 48 hours for a response before setting a fallback plan.
2. Write the three or four sentences Priya should use with Tom. Each should contain a specific behaviour, its impact, and a request.
Read the worked answer
Structure: observation (not judgement), impact, request, and a proportionate consequence.
- 'In the last two weeks you've missed three meetings and sent rewritten slides at midnight twice.' Specific and checkable, with no labels such as 'lazy'.
- 'When that happens I have to redo the notes the next morning, and Jess's research gets cut without her being asked. I'm now doing about 70% of the deck and I'm behind in two other subjects.' Impact on the work and on others, not on Priya's opinion of Tom's character.
- 'I need us to agree one version by Wednesday 6 p.m. and for changes to be made in the shared file, not by message.' A clear, time-bound request.
- 'If that isn't possible, I'll ask the tutor to help us split the tasks formally so the peer assessment reflects who did what.' A consequence that is proportionate, not a threat.
Why it works: Tom can respond to a request about the file and the deadline without having to accept a character judgement. The sentences avoid 'you always', 'you never' and 'actually'. Priya should say them in person or on a call, then follow up in writing with the agreed deadline so there is a shared record.
3. What should Priya do about Jess and Sam, and how should the group handle peer assessment fairly?
Read the worked answer
Jess and Sam are not 'fine because they cause no trouble'. Jess's silence is a risk because she has never presented; Sam's agreement means nobody checks decisions. Priya should:
- Give Jess a defined, visible role that uses her research - for example, she owns two slides and answers questions on them - and rehearse it once, rather than assuming she will speak on the day.
- Ask Sam to be timekeeper and to run a two-minute 'what could go wrong' check at each meeting, a role that makes disagreement legitimate.
- Split the remaining work in writing, with names and dates, so peer assessment has evidence.
On peer assessment: marks should reflect contribution, not likeability. Priya should record what each person did - meetings attended, slides owned, drafts written. She should not use peer assessment to punish Tom for the conflict; if his final contribution is adequate, the mark should say so. Equally, she should not cover for gaps by silently doing the work, because that removes the evidence and rewards absence. If the group cannot agree, they should ask the tutor to look at the shared file history before submission, rather than negotiating marks in the chat.