Brief Summary of Main Characters:

1. Maria Hernandez (Project Manager)

A strategic thinker, Maria is a mid-level manager in her 30s at a technology firm
focused on creating innovative software solutions. Maria is well-versed in managing
teams and has strong communication skills. Her leadership style is collaborative, but
she can struggle with making tough decisions when the group is divided.
2. Daryl Chang (Lead Engineer)
Daryl, a senior engineer in his 40s, is technically gifted but often resistant to change.
He tends to advocate for traditional, tried-and-true methods and is reluctant to adopt
new tools or approaches. Daryl is highly focused on results and can be dismissive of
ideas he perceives as inefficient.
3. Sofia Lee (Marketing Specialist)
A recent addition to the team, Sofia is in her late 20s and has a fresh perspective. She
is passionate about understanding customer needs and tailoring solutions for the
market. Sofia’s background in marketing gives her a unique view, but she sometimes
feels like an outsider among the engineers and developers.
4. Carlos Martinez (Senior Developer)
Carlos, in his mid-30s, is an experienced software developer who enjoys finding
creative solutions to technical challenges. He is more open to experimentation than
Daryl but prefers incremental improvements over radical changes. Carlos often plays
the role of a mediator between Daryl and Sofia, trying to balance both sides’
perspectives.
5. Jessica Foster (HR Liaison)
Jessica, in her late 20s, is the team’s human resources representative and is skilled in
conflict resolution and fostering team cohesion. While her primary responsibility is
HR-related, she has a strong interest in group dynamics and often steps in when
tensions arise between team members.

Case Narrative:

Background:

At InnovateTech, a mid-sized software company, a cross-functional team has been tasked

with developing a cutting-edge software solution for a key client. This software will require
significant innovation to meet the client’s needs, and the project is critical for securing future
business. The team has already been working together for a few months and has made some
initial progress, but now they face a critical decision about the direction of the project.

Critical Incident 1: Initial Tensions and the Role of Diversity

The team gathers for their weekly project meeting, but the atmosphere is tense. Maria, the
project manager, opens the floor for discussion about the next phase of development. She
proposes a shift to using a new development platform that promises faster performance and
more flexibility. The idea is met with resistance from Daryl, who argues that the current
platform, while not as fast, is reliable and familiar.
Sofia, who has been following market trends, presents data showing that clients are
demanding faster delivery times and more intuitive user experiences. She argues that the new
platform is the key to meeting these needs. However, Daryl dismisses her argument, pointing
out that jumping to a new platform might result in unforeseen technical issues and delays. He
feels that pushing the team to adopt an unfamiliar system could jeopardize the project’s
timeline.

As the discussion continues, Carlos tries to mediate, suggesting they test the new platform
with a small module before committing. This solution is not enough to placate Daryl, who
insists that resources should not be spent on experimenting when the current platform is
already functional. The team's differing perspectives highlight the challenges of managing
diversity within the group—both in terms of their professional backgrounds and their
approach to risk.

Learning Concepts:

 Diversity of Thought: Daryl's technical conservatism versus Sofia's market-driven

approach.
 Conflict Resolution: Carlos’ attempt to mediate between opposing views.

Critical Incident 2: Groupthink and the Status Quo Bias

As tensions escalate, Jessica steps in to address the increasing frustration within the group.
She suggests they all take a step back and re-evaluate their goals for the project. However, the
conversation quickly devolves into a back-and-forth between Sofia and Daryl, with each
reinforcing their positions without truly listening to the other side.

Maria, feeling the pressure to keep the team moving forward, becomes more directive in her
approach. She emphasizes the need for unity and suggests that they should stick to the current
platform since it’s the most “practical” option. The rest of the team, while not fully
convinced, reluctantly agrees. This decision, though made with the goal of maintaining
momentum, can be seen as a classic example of groupthink—the desire for harmony over
critical evaluation.

In the weeks following this decision, the team starts to face problems with the software’s
performance. The project falls behind schedule, and frustrations rise again. It becomes clear
that the decision to avoid change may have been influenced by status quo bias, where the
team stuck to the familiar path simply because it was comfortable.

Learning Concepts:

 Groupthink: The team agrees to stick with the current platform due to pressure to
conform.
 Status Quo Bias: The decision to avoid change, despite the possibility of
improvement, illustrates a tendency to favor the status quo.

Critical Incident 3: The Role of Technology in Communication

As the team struggles to resolve the ongoing issues, Maria decides to leverage technology to
improve communication and collaboration. She introduces a project management software
that will allow the team to track progress more effectively and share feedback in real time.
However, not all team members are equally enthusiastic.

Daryl expresses skepticism, arguing that the new tool will only add complexity to the
process, especially for those not comfortable with technology. He suggests the team stick to
email and in-person meetings. On the other hand, Sofia eagerly embraces the new system,
seeing it as an opportunity to streamline communication and stay on top of changes. The
differing views on technology usage highlight how group dynamics can be affected by
individuals’ comfort and familiarity with technology.

Learning Concepts:

 Technology in Group Communication: The debate over the use of new project
management tools to enhance communication.
 Adoption of Technology: The differing willingness of team members to embrace
new tools, reflecting generational and individual differences.

Critical Incident 4: Escalation of Commitment and Sunk Costs

With the project falling behind schedule, Maria calls for an emergency meeting to discuss the
next steps. By this point, significant resources have already been invested in the current
platform and the team’s chosen approach. Daryl advocates for continuing with the current
strategy, arguing that they have already spent so much time on it that abandoning it now
would be a waste.

Carlos and Jessica express concerns that the team is falling into the trap of escalation of
commitment, where the initial investment (in terms of both time and money) clouds their
ability to make rational decisions moving forward. They suggest the team might need to cut
their losses and consider alternative approaches, but Daryl is insistent that they press on,
despite the growing issues.

The situation exemplifies how sunk costs can influence decision-making, even when the
rationale for continuing the current path is weak. Maria finds herself in a difficult position,
torn between Daryl’s insistence on sticking with the project’s current trajectory and the need
to address mounting problems.

Learning Concepts:

 Escalation of Commitment: Daryl’s insistence on continuing with the existing plan

despite evidence that it is not working.
 Sunk Costs: The team’s reluctance to abandon the current project due to the
resources already invested.

Critical Incident 5: Advocacy and Inquiry

As the project continues to stall, Maria invites the team to participate in a brainstorming
session where they can freely present their opinions and suggest solutions without judgment.
In this session, Sofia advocates strongly for a new approach that incorporates user feedback
and a more agile development cycle.
However, Daryl counters with a more conservative position, arguing that taking such a risk
might jeopardize the project’s completion. At this point, Maria urges the group to engage in
inquiry, asking each team member to openly question and test their assumptions. The team
discusses what could be the underlying reasons behind their resistance to change—whether
it’s the fear of failure or simply the desire to avoid uncomfortable risks.

This critical incident highlights the importance of advocacy and inquiry in group
communication. While advocacy allows team members to push for their perspectives, inquiry
encourages deeper exploration of the underlying issues and assumptions.

Learning Concepts:

 Advocacy: Sofia and Daryl strongly present their views on the project’s direction.
 Inquiry: Maria encourages the team to question their assumptions and explore
alternative perspectives.

Key Learning Objectives:

1. To understand the role of diversity in group communication and decision-making.

2. To explore how groupthink and status quo bias can influence decision outcomes
and hinder progress.
3. To examine the impact of technology on group collaboration and communication.
4. To recognize how sunk costs and escalation of commitment can influence group
decisions.
5. To understand the importance of advocacy and inquiry in facilitating healthy group
discussions.

Key Terms:

1. Diversity of Thought: The variety of perspectives, experiences, and problem-solving

approaches within a group.
2. Groupthink: A psychological phenomenon in which the desire for harmony in a
decision-making group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making.
3. Status Quo Bias: The preference to maintain the current state of affairs and avoid
change.
4. Technology in Group Communication: The use of digital tools and platforms to
facilitate communication and collaboration within a group.
5. Adoption of Technology: The process by which individuals or groups integrate new
technologies into their workflow or decision-making processes.
6. Escalation of Commitment: A behavioral pattern where individuals or groups
continue an endeavor once an investment has been made, even when it no longer
seems rational.
7. Sunk Costs: Past investments of time, money, or effort that should not influence
future decisions.
8. Advocacy: The act of strongly supporting a particular point of view in group
communication.
 9. Inquiry: The process of asking open-ended questions to encourage exploration and
critical thinking.
10. Conflict Resolution: The process by which disagreements within a group are
resolved, either through mediation, negotiation, or other methods.

Discussion Questions:

1. How might the team in this case study overcome their differing perspectives on the
platform choice? What steps could they take to ensure that all viewpoints are
considered fairly?
2. What could Maria have done differently to prevent the team from falling into
groupthink? How could she encourage more critical discussion?
3. How does the team's reliance on technology influence their communication and
decision-making? What are the benefits and potential drawbacks of using digital tools
in group settings?
4. In what ways can sunk costs be a hindrance to effective decision-making, and how
can a team overcome this bias to make better choices?