Robotics Team: One Ultimatum, Three Weeks Out
The after-school robotics team at Ridgeway Middle School has seven members and three weeks until a regional showcase. Priya, the build lead, has written roughly 70% of the robot's control code and has attended all 14 work sessions. Marcus, the co-lead named on the registration form, has attended 6 of 14, and in the last four sessions spent most of the time on his phone. Two newer members, Sam and Leah, have largely stopped proposing ideas after Marcus talked over them in weeks 3 and 4. Priya told the coach privately that she is done carrying the build and asked to be taken off the team, but added that she does not want to make it a whole thing. She has not said anything to the other members. The coach has one 90-minute team meeting and one private conversation's worth of time before the next build session. The showcase rubric awards 20 of 100 points for teamwork and division of labor, and judges ask each member what they personally built. Marcus's absences have not been explained.
1. What is the coach's first move, and why are the obvious alternatives worse?
Read the worked answer
The first move is a short private conversation with Priya, not a full-team meeting and not a quiet reshuffle of roles.
She is the single point of failure - about 70% of the control code and 14 of 14 sessions - and the only person who has announced an intent to leave. The highest-cost, least reversible outcome is losing her, so she gets the first conversation. She also asked not to make it a whole thing, which means a public meeting that centers her complaint would spend the confidence she extended.
The alternatives fail for specific reasons. Convening the team first spends the one meeting on unverified accounts and puts Sam and Leah in the position of publicly corroborating a complaint they never filed. Stripping Marcus's co-lead title before hearing from him treats a 6-of-14 record as a proven cause when the absences are unexplained; if the cause is a family obligation or a job, a unilateral demotion is unfair and likely to end his participation, costing the team a registered member three weeks out.
The goal of the Priya conversation is narrow: what specifically would make the next three weeks tolerable, and what is she willing to hand off.
2. What should the coach ask Marcus, and what should the coach refuse to concede?
Read the worked answer
Ask in this order: what has been happening that the coach does not know about; whether he actually wants the co-lead role; and what he will personally deliver before the showcase. The first question must come first, because everything after it depends on whether the absences were a choice.
Do not concede three things. First, that the co-lead title is secure regardless of contribution - the rubric awards 20 points for division of labor and the judges interview each member, so the title has to correspond to something. Second, that 'I'll be more involved' is an acceptable answer; convert it into something countable, such as running the intake wiring and attending the next four sessions. Third, do not repeat Priya's complaint or identify her as its source. She spoke privately and the situation is still repairable.
Equally, do not promise that no role change will occur. Promising that to keep the peace now guarantees a worse conversation later, and the coach has obligations to all seven members, not only to Marcus's feelings.
3. Script the 90-minute team meeting. What is said to the group, and what is deliberately left out?
Read the worked answer
Say four things and stop.
- State the deliverable and the owner for each piece, by name, in writing: Priya owns the control code and hands the sensor-calibration module to Sam; Marcus owns the intake wiring; Leah owns the engineering notebook and the demo script. Named deliverables with dates convert an interpersonal problem into a schedule.
- State the rubric fact out loud: 20 of 100 points are for division of labor and judges ask each member what they built. That is a reason to redistribute work, and it is a reason the team can hear without anyone being cast as the villain.
- Change the idea-round format so the two quietest members speak first and the lead speaks last. That addresses why Sam and Leah went silent without requiring anyone to accuse Marcus.
- Set a check-in at the end of the following session, and hold it.
Left out deliberately: any public accounting of who missed which session, any reference to Priya's private message, and any speculation about the causes of Marcus's absences. Public scorekeeping hardens positions; the roster of deliverables does the same work without it.