| Course | BUSI 427 Team Dynamics (BUSI427) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 5 |
| Assignment | Discussion Board Forum 3: Thread |
| Paper type | Discussion thread |
| Length | about 510 words (thread and replies). Course guide: a thread of at least 500 words demonstrating course-related knowledge with at least 3 scholarly references in current APA format |
| Format | APA 7 citations and reference list |
| Points | 70 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 5 in Liberty's published BUSI 427 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 427 Week 5
Discussion Board Forum 3 Thread: Trust in Teams
BUSI 427 Team Dynamics, Discussion Board Forum 3: Thread
Thread by [Student Name]
The forum topic is a composite; the Lencioni fable, the textbook and the research cited are real, and the structure follows Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 427.
In the opening parts of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Kathryn Petersen takes over a struggling company's executive team and tells them that their first problem is an absence of trust. Lencioni (2002) places trust at the base of his five-level pyramid and defines it in a specific way: the confidence among team members that their peers' intentions are good, so that they can be vulnerable with one another by admitting mistakes, weaknesses and needs for help. Is he right that trust is the foundation?
Scholars define trust somewhat more broadly. Mayer et al. (1995) proposed an influential model that treats trust as accepting vulnerability toward someone because one judges that person able, well-intentioned and principled, their terms being ability, benevolence and integrity. Lencioni's version emphasizes benevolence: members must believe that peers will not use their admissions against them. The scholarly model adds that trust also depends on believing peers are competent and honest, which suggests a team needs more than personal openness to trust one another.
Research supports Lencioni's emphasis on trust's importance. De Jong et al. (2016) combined the results of over one hundred studies and found that trust within teams was positively related to team performance, even after accounting for trust in the leader and other team processes. The relationship was stronger when members depended heavily on one another, as an executive team does, and when members had different skills. Edmondson (1999) found that psychological safety, which closely resembles Lencioni's vulnerability-based trust, was associated with learning behaviors such as admitting errors and seeking feedback, which in turn were associated with team performance. The fable's claim survives the test: teams whose members can be honest about their weaknesses learn faster and perform better.
The research adds one caution. Trust can lead members to monitor one another less, which helps when everyone is reliable but can let problems go unnoticed. Lencioni seems aware of this, since his model places accountability above trust, and Levi (2017) notes that effective teams combine cohesion with clear norms for performance.
At DecisionTech, the executives' polite meetings hide the problem: no one admits uncertainty, so the team never discusses its real weaknesses. Kathryn's first exercises, such as asking each executive to share personal histories, are designed to build the benevolence component of trust. The research suggests she will also need to show that each executive is competent and honest, and then hold them accountable, which is exactly where the fable goes next. Lencioni's sequence, in other words, is part of his argument.
The fable also suggests why trust is hard to build at the top of an organization. Executives are rewarded for appearing competent, and admitting a weakness can feel like handing a rival an advantage. The meta-analysis offers a reason to take the risk anyway: the teams that gain most from trust are those whose members depend heavily on one another's different skills, which describes an executive team exactly. For DecisionTech, the cost of continued guardedness is not just unpleasant meetings but slower, worse decisions in a market that will not wait.
References
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134-1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.
Levi, D. (2017). Group dynamics for teams (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
What the BUSI 427 Week 5 instructions ask
Week 5 assigns the fable's opening section, Luck, and its first two parts, along with chapters 12 and 13 of Levi and a presentation, and grades the Forum 3 thread, worth 70 points, and Quiz 4, worth 60. As before, the post needs 500 words, real command of the reading and a trio of refereed sources; replies come a week later. This forum is the first chance to bring Lencioni into the discussion, so a thread that tests one of the fable's claims against peer-reviewed research works particularly well. It also prepares for the 4-MAT paper on the fable due in Week 8, which asks students to reflect on the book in depth.
How this BUSI 427 Week 5 example is built
The thread takes one claim from the fable and examines it rather than summarizing the story. It describes Lencioni's view that trust is the base of the five-level pyramid and his definition of trust as vulnerability. A scholarly model of trust gives a fuller definition, and a meta-analysis provides evidence that trust within teams relates to performance, along with the conditions under which the link is strongest. Psychological safety research shows the behavior Lencioni has in mind. A caution follows, that trust can also lower monitoring, before the thread applies the conclusion to DecisionTech's executives in the fable's first two parts. The three scholarly references are cited alongside the two course books.
BUSI 427 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
For the trust thread, points depend on handling the topic with what the course has taught, now including Lencioni, on passing 500 words, and on supporting the case with a minimum of three refereed studies. Instructors look for accurate description of the fable and of Lencioni's model, and for research that genuinely tests or extends it rather than restating it. A thread that notes where the research qualifies the fable shows critical thinking, which will also be expected in the 4-MAT paper. Applying the analysis to the fable's characters, or to a real team, demonstrates understanding beyond definitions. Quoting the fable sparingly, and paraphrasing it accurately, also counts.
BUSI 427 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Read the assigned parts of the fable first and note one claim you want to test, such as the importance of trust. Look for peer-reviewed research on that claim; meta-analyses are especially useful because they combine many studies. Compare definitions carefully, since Lencioni's meaning of trust is narrower and more specific than most researchers'. Include at least one finding that qualifies the fable, not only ones that agree. Refer to specific scenes or characters from the reading. Reach 500 words with three scholarly sources. Keep notes on the fable as you read, because the 4-MAT paper in Week 8 will ask for a summary, a concrete response and a reflection on it.
Related BUSI 427 sample papers
Other BUSI 427 weeks
- BUSI 427 Week 1: Forum 1 Thread
- BUSI 427 Week 2: Forum 1 Replies
- BUSI 427 Week 3: Forum 2 Thread
- BUSI 427 Week 4: Forum 2 Replies
- BUSI 427 Week 6: Forum 3 Replies
- BUSI 427 Week 7: Forum 4 Thread
- BUSI 427 Week 8: 4-MAT Paper on Five Dysfunctions
More BS in Business Administration sample papers
- BUSI 423 Week 5: Forum 3 Thread
- BUSI 424 Week 5: Forum 5 Thread and Replies
- BUSI 430 Week 5: Essay 3: Word-of-Mouth Marketing
- BUSI 431 Week 5: Sales Plan Project Draft 3
BUSI 427 Week 5 questions, answered
What is the BUSI 427 Forum 3 thread?
A 70-point Week 5 post linking the course reading, Lencioni's fable included, to trust, in 500-plus words backed by three peer-reviewed sources.
Where can I find a free BUSI 427 Week 5 sample paper?
Below is a complete BUSI 427 Week 5 thread testing Lencioni's claim that trust is the foundation of teamwork against a trust model, a meta-analysis and psychological safety research.
What does Lencioni mean by trust?
Vulnerability-based trust: team members' confidence that their peers' intentions are good, so they are willing to admit weaknesses, mistakes and needs for help without fear.
What are the five dysfunctions of a team?
Lencioni stacks five: at the bottom an absence of trust; above it a fear of conflict; then weak commitment; then avoided accountability; and at the top inattention to results, each level enabling the next.
What else is due in BUSI 427 Module/Week 5?
Quiz 4, sixty points, asks thirty open-book questions on the fable's start and Levi's twelfth and thirteenth chapters. The thread is worth 70 points the same week.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 427 Week 5 sample · All BUSI 427 weeks · All courses