BUSI 681 Week 3 Group DB Forum 2 Part 1 Example

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

Here is a BUSI 681 Week 3 sample: a member's complete Part 1 post for the second group forum, roughly 650 words on managing project teams, chapter 11 of Gray and Larson. The writer leads a water utility project whose design team is split between utility engineers, a consulting firm three states away and a contractor's estimators, and asks how such a team can develop into a high-performing one when its members rarely meet. The thread draws on the classic review behind the forming, storming, norming and performing model, a two-study investigation of how four features of virtuality affect team innovation and how a psychologically safe climate offsets them, and a decade-long review of team effectiveness research. A passage from 1 Peter on serving one another with differing gifts provides the biblical integration. Liberty University BUSI 681 counts this team-development thread for 50 points of the MBA course grade.

CourseBUSI 681 Advanced Project Management II (BUSI681)
Module/Week3
AssignmentGroup DB Forum 2 Part 1
Paper typeDiscussion thread
Lengthabout 549 words (thread and replies). Course guide: an individual thread of 500 to 750 words demonstrating course-related knowledge, referencing at least 3 peer-reviewed sources and including at least 1 biblical integration; the group's synthesized reply follows in Part 2
FormatAPA 7 citations and reference list
Points50
SchoolLiberty University Online
ProgramMBA
Where it sitsModule/Week 3 in Liberty's published BUSI 681 course guide; current sections can differ
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for BUSI 681 Week 3

1

Group Discussion Board Forum 2: Part 1 (Thread)

BUSI 681 Advanced Project Management II, Group Discussion Board Forum 2: Part 1 (thread)

Thread by [Student Name]

The forum prompt and the water utility's project team are composites standing in for the course's own; the textbook, Scripture and research cited are real, and the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 681.

Thread

Why this part earns its pointsThe thread begins with a team that stalled, which gives the development models something real to explain.
2

The design team for our composite water utility's new reservoir includes four utility engineers in our office, five engineers at a consulting firm three states away and two estimators from the contractor who will build it. In nine months, the whole team has met in person twice. The project is behind, and the delays trace to a pattern that began early: disagreements about the reservoir's foundation design were raised in side emails between pairs of engineers but never discussed openly in team meetings, so decisions were made, reversed and made again.

Chapter 11 of Gray and Larson (2018) presents the five-stage model of team development, forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning, which draws on Tuckman (1965). Tuckman's 1965 synthesis drew on fifty published studies of how groups change over time, from therapy and training groups to natural and laboratory groups, and laid out a sequence that tracks both how members relate to one another and how they handle the task. By that sequence, our team never moved through storming. We formed politely, met by video, assigned tasks and avoided arguing in front of the client utility's managers. Conflict existed, but it went underground instead of being worked out, so norms never formed. The chapter notes that the model is not universal and presents an alternative, the punctuated equilibrium model, but either way our team lacked the shared process through which disagreement turns into agreement.

Why this part earns its pointsThe thread breaks virtuality into separate features before recommending anything, so each remedy matches a specific problem.
3

Our team is also virtual, and research suggests that word hides several different problems. Gibson and Gibbs (2006) pulled apart four traits usually bundled under the label virtual, distance between members, reliance on electronic tools, shifting membership and roles and differences in nationality, and examined them through interviews with 177 members of 14 teams and a survey of 266 members of 56 aerospace design teams. They found that the characteristics were not highly correlated, that each had independent and different effects on innovation and that a psychologically safe communication climate helped mitigate the challenges. A team spread across three organizations needs permission to disagree out loud more than it needs another software tool. Our team has high dispersion and electronic dependence and some structural change as consultants rotate, but no national diversity.

Looking back over ten years of team research, Mathieu et al. (2008) traced a shift from simple input-process-output models toward frameworks in which inputs shape mediating processes and emergent states over time. That framing suggests our problem is not the team's composition but a missing process: no regular forum for surfacing disagreement, which left the emergent state of trust undeveloped.

Scripture describes how people with different gifts should work together. Peter told believers that each had received a gift and should put it to work for the others, managing well the many forms of God's grace (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, 1 Peter 4:10). Our engineers, consultants and estimators bring different expertise; the challenge is to turn those differences into service to the project rather than competing private opinions.

I would propose a two-day in-person workshop to restart the team, explicitly working through the foundation disagreement, followed by weekly video design reviews with a rule that technical objections are raised in the meeting, and a rotating facilitator from each organization. Has anyone in our group restarted a stalled virtual team, and what worked?

4

References

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451-495. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.451

Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2018). Project management: The managerial process (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

What the BUSI 681 Week 3 instructions ask

In its third module BUSI 681 studies how project teams form and perform, through Gray and Larson's chapter 11, a presentation and Quiz 3, and Forum 2 begins. Each member's Part 1 thread on the team-building prompt stays between 500 and 750 words, applies the chapter, rests on a trio of peer-reviewed team studies at minimum and connects to Scripture. The thread is graded at 50 points, and the group's synthesized Part 2 reply follows a week later for 25 more. Chapter 11 covers team development models, the conditions that make high-performing teams possible, building project teams, managing virtual teams and avoiding common team pitfalls, so prompts typically ask students to diagnose a team they know.

How this BUSI 681 Week 3 example is built

The thread uses one team's difficulties as its case. It describes how the split design team stalled in early disagreements that were never surfaced, then reads that history through the five-stage model in chapter 11, which draws on Tuckman's review of small-group development. Gibson and Gibbs's study separates four features usually lumped together as virtuality and shows that each hinders innovation differently, while a psychologically safe communication climate helps. Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp and Gilson's review frames team effectiveness as a sequence of inputs, processes and outcomes over time. The thread closes with practical steps and a reflection on gifts used in service.

BUSI 681 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go

A Forum 2 thread scores well when it reads a real team through chapter 11, argues from at least three peer-reviewed studies of teams, lets Scripture shape a point rather than decorate it and keeps within the 500-to-750-word range. Team concepts that graders look for include the five-stage development model, the punctuated equilibrium model, situational factors affecting team development, building high-performance teams through shared vision, rewards and decision making, managing conflict, rejuvenating teams and the special demands of virtual teams. They want a diagnosis of a real or realistic team rather than a summary of the models, and a position the group can build on in its synthesized reply.

BUSI 681 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points

Team threads often describe Tuckman's stages and stop. Apply the model to a team you know, naming where it stalled and why, and test whether the stages fit at all; the chapter itself presents an alternative model. When discussing virtual teams, be specific about which features apply, such as distance, dependence on technology, changing membership or national diversity, because they cause different problems. Support recommendations with research rather than team-building clichés. Choose Scripture about how people with different abilities work together and explain it in context. Keep within 750 words so the group can synthesize everyone's thread in Part 2. Name the team's current stage plainly; graders reward a diagnosis over a definition. Read one classmate's thread before posting yours to see how your diagnosis compares.

Related BUSI 681 sample papers

Other BUSI 681 weeks

More MBA sample papers

BUSI 681 Week 3 questions, answered

What is BUSI 681 Group Discussion Board Forum 2?

The second group forum: each member's Part 1 thread on managing project teams, held to 500 to 750 words and posted in the third module, followed by the group's synthesized Part 2 reply in Module/Week 4.

Where can I find a free BUSI 681 Week 3 sample paper?

This page holds a complete BUSI 681 Week 3 thread on developing a project team split across organizations and states, with research on team development, virtuality and team effectiveness.

What are the stages of team development?

The widely used model describes forming, storming, norming and performing, often with a final adjourning stage, as teams move from uncertainty and conflict to agreed norms and productive work.

Why do virtual project teams struggle?

Research separates geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, changing membership and national diversity, each of which can hinder innovation in different ways; a psychologically safe communication climate helps offset these effects.

What else is due in BUSI 681 Module/Week 3?

Quiz 3, thirty open-book questions on managing project teams with a 45-minute limit, along with chapter 11, one presentation and preparation for the group's Part 2 reply.

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 681 Week 3 sample · All BUSI 681 weeks · All courses