BUSI 427 Week 6 Discussion Board Forum 3: Replies Example

Reviewed by Thomas Kerrigan, MBA, CPA · Liberty University · Updated

This BUSI 427 Week 6 sample replies to a pair of trust threads from Forum 3, citing a peer-reviewed study in each. The first responds to a classmate who doubted that team-building exercises like the personal histories in Lencioni's fable can build real trust, agreeing that a single exercise is not enough and using research on swift trust in temporary teams to show that trust is sustained by early, reliable action. Reply two backs a classmate's view that the leader must model vulnerability first, supporting the point with research on leader behavior and team psychological safety while adding the field guide's insistence that leader vulnerability be genuine, not staged. Both replies draw on the Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions field guide sections assigned this week. Liberty University BUSI 427 gives these two replies 40 points, with Quiz 5 falling in the same stretch for BS in Business Administration students.

CourseBUSI 427 Team Dynamics (BUSI427)
Module/Week6
AssignmentDiscussion Board Forum 3: Replies
Paper typeTwo discussion replies
Lengthabout 408 words (thread and replies). Course guide: replies to 2 classmates' threads, each at least 200 words with at least 1 scholarly reference in current APA format
FormatAPA 7 citations and reference list
Points40
SchoolLiberty University Online
ProgramBS in Business Administration
Where it sitsModule/Week 6 in Liberty's published BUSI 427 course guide; current sections can differ
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for BUSI 427 Week 6

1

Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies: Trust in Teams

BUSI 427 Team Dynamics, Discussion Board Forum 3: Replies

Thread by [Student Name]

The two classmates and their threads are composites; the Lencioni books, the textbook and the research cited are real, and the structure follows Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 427.

Reply to Kevin

Why this part earns its pointsThe first reply agrees with the doubt about exercises, then locates trust in follow-through.
2

Kevin, you raised a healthy doubt about the personal histories exercise Kathryn uses at the off-site: can a team really build trust by sharing childhood stories for an hour? I agree that one exercise is not enough, and the research helps explain why. Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) studied global virtual teams whose members had never met and found that some teams developed what researchers call swift trust, a tentative trust extended at the start based on roles and expectations. Whether that trust lasted depended on what members did next. Teams in which members responded promptly, followed through on commitments and communicated enthusiastically maintained trust, while teams with early lapses saw it collapse. An exercise can open the door to trust, but only reliable behavior afterward keeps it open. Lencioni (2005) makes a similar point in the field guide, presenting the personal histories exercise as a starting point that must be followed by leaders modeling vulnerability and by the team discussing real work honestly. Levi's chapter on team development makes a similar point: early warmth fades unless the team also experiences success at work together, which is why the fable's executives must start making real decisions after the off-site. In your own experience with team-building events, what happened in the weeks afterward?

Reply to Simone

Why this part earns its pointsThe second reply supports the classmate with leader research and adds the field guide's caution.
3

Simone, your argument that the leader must be the first to show vulnerability fits both the fable and the research. Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), surveying neonatal intensive care teams, found that when physician leaders openly asked for and valued others' input, staff felt safer speaking up and took a more active part in improvement projects. The effect was especially important for lower-status members, who were least likely to speak up otherwise. That supports your point: members watch the leader to learn whether it is safe to admit a mistake. I would add one caution from Lencioni (2005). The field guide stresses that the leader's vulnerability has to be genuine, and a confession staged to look humble is likely to be recognized for what it is and to cost trust rather than build it. In the fable, Kathryn's credibility comes from consistency, not dramatic moments. Leaders also need to respond well when others take the risk, since one sarcastic response can undo many invitations. Small responses matter too, such as thanking a member who reports bad news before discussing the problem itself. Can you think of a leader whose admission of a mistake changed how your team behaved?

4

References

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.791

Lencioni, P. (2005). Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team: A field guide for leaders, managers, and facilitators. Jossey-Bass.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413

What the BUSI 427 Week 6 instructions ask

Week 6 moves into sections 3 and 4 of Lencioni's field guide, Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, chapters 14 and 15 of Levi and a presentation, with the Forum 3 replies worth 40 points and Quiz 5 worth 60. Two of the Week 5 trust threads get answers, and each answer needs 200 words and its own peer-reviewed citation in APA form. The field guide moves from the fable's story to practical tools for building trust and productive conflict, so this week's reading gives replies concrete practices to recommend. A reply that pairs a field guide tool with research on whether such practices work shows the critical use of sources the course encourages.

How this BUSI 427 Week 6 example is built

Both replies take a classmate's position on trust and refine it with research and the field guide. The first agrees that a single exercise does not build lasting trust, then uses swift trust research to explain that teams can start with tentative trust that is confirmed or destroyed by early behavior, which makes follow-through the real test. The second supports the classmate's view that leaders must go first, adds evidence that leader inclusiveness predicts psychological safety, and notes the field guide's warning about manufactured vulnerability. Each reply connects the research to a specific scene or tool from Lencioni and ends with a question for the classmate. Each carries its own reference list.

BUSI 427 Week 6 grading rubric: where the points go

Points for these replies come from real engagement with each classmate, use of the course reading including Lencioni's field guide, a length past 200 words apiece and a refereed citation in every reply. Instructors look for replies that add a perspective the classmate did not consider, supported by research, and that connect the discussion to this week's field guide sections. A reply that agrees but refines a claim with evidence, or that respectfully notes a limitation, contributes more than one that repeats the thread. Clear questions at the end of each reply invite the conversation to continue. Short, concrete practices are easier for classmates to use than general advice.

BUSI 427 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost points

Pick two threads that take a clear position on trust, such as whether exercises work or who must go first. For each, look for one study that sharpens the position; research on swift trust, leader behavior and psychological safety is plentiful. Connect your point to a tool or scene from the field guide or fable. Each reply needs 200-plus words and a peer-reviewed source of its own. Avoid restating the fable's plot, since classmates have read it. Study for Quiz 5 at the same time, since it covers this week's sections and chapters. Notice which ideas from the field guide you find most useful, because the 4-MAT paper asks how you would act on the book.

Related BUSI 427 sample papers

Other BUSI 427 weeks

More BS in Business Administration sample papers

BUSI 427 Week 6 questions, answered

What are the BUSI 427 Forum 3 replies?

Two replies to classmates' trust threads, worth 40 points in Module/Week 6, each at least 200 words with a scholarly reference, drawing on Lencioni's field guide and Levi.

Where can I find a free BUSI 427 Week 6 sample paper?

This page shows a complete BUSI 427 Week 6 pair of replies on whether team exercises build trust and why leaders must show vulnerability first, with research on both.

What is swift trust?

A form of trust that temporary teams extend at the start, before members know one another, based on roles and expectations; it is maintained or lost depending on members' early actions.

How can a leader build trust on a team?

By going first in admitting mistakes and limits, inviting input, responding well when others take risks, and following through reliably, so that members see vulnerability is safe and promises are kept.

What else is due in BUSI 427 Module/Week 6?

Quiz 5 tests the field guide's third and fourth sections and Levi's chapters 14 and 15 in thirty open-book questions, for 60 points.

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 6 sample · All BUSI 427 weeks · All courses