Prof Question? After you watch the video on Hoosiers, analyze his team development process. Compare and contrast his team as it progressed. What behaviors did you see the team use that indicated to the point that it progressed from a group to a team? At what point did the team stop being a group and become a team? My discussion response: Post 1 The team is much more a collection of individuals rather than a cohesive unit that takes accountability collectively. Coach Dale is new and thrust into a situation where he has to foster a sense of unity and work to build a cohesive unit all working for the same goal. As the basketball squad progresses, individuals learn their roles and become more complementary to each other and contribute to a common goal. The squad evolves from individuals with individual accountability to a cohesive unit with a common goal. In a great show of solidarity and doing what's best for the "team," Jimmy Chitwood only agrees to play if coach Dale remains as the coach of the team. The shift towards all members complementing each other and working for a common goal demonstrates how they progressed from a group to a team. My response to post 1: Post 2: After watching the movie Hoosiers, it is pretty evident for me the several aspects the team when trough. For instance, the team was already formed, but it had its flaws. It lack vision, the team did not picture itself as one and did not have goal interdependence. In addition, the team had to go through a punctuated equilibrium to address the coach issue problem. This caused a big rupture that, against all odds, was fixed by the new coach (Gene Hackman). Also the team suffers from forming, which negatively affects the team performance. It seems to me the coach does a good job by treating them as a team regardless of all these flaws and standing before them since the beginning. A good example of this is when he mentions in the court when people calls for Jimmy by saying, "We need to respect what we have, and not what we do not have." Sometimes as a leader, we need to believe in our team members and stick with them in good and bad terms to show how important the team is. I really do not understand how a team can believe in itself we the coach does not believe in it in the first place. The reward of learning comprehensive interdependence comes when they make it to the state final and win it. That is a team helping one another to achieve the same goal. My response to post 2: Prof Question When you consider the movie “Hoosiers,” what were some of the communications problems early on in the development of the team? What behaviors did you see that indicated to you that there were problems? Respond to two of your fellow learners with a positive yet critical analysis of their discussion. My discussion response: Post 1from roxanne: It struck me how harsh the townspeople were toward Coach Dale, with the exception of his friend, the principal who hired him. People literally turned their ...

1. Prof Question?
After you watch the video on Hoosiers, analyze his team
development process. Compare and contrast his team as it
progressed. What behaviors did you see the team use that
indicated to the point that it progressed from a group to a team?
At what point did the team stop being a group and become a
team?
My discussion response:
Post 1
The team is much more a collection of individuals rather than a
cohesive unit that takes accountability collectively. Coach Dale
is new and thrust into a situation where he has to foster a sense
of unity and work to build a cohesive unit all working for the
same goal. As the basketball squad progresses, individuals learn
their roles and become more complementary to each other and
contribute to a common goal. The squad evolves from
individuals with individual accountability to a cohesive unit
with a common goal. In a great show of solidarity and doing
what's best for the "team," Jimmy Chitwood only agrees to play
if coach Dale remains as the coach of the team. The shift
towards all members complementing each other and working for
a common goal demonstrates how they progressed from a group
to a team.
My response to post 1:
Post 2:
After watching the movie Hoosiers, it is pretty evident for me
the several aspects the team when trough. For instance, the team
was already formed, but it had its flaws. It lack vision, the team
did not picture itself as one and did not have goal
interdependence.
In addition, the team had to go through a punctuated
equilibrium to address the coach issue problem. This caused a
big rupture that, against all odds, was fixed by the new coach
(Gene Hackman). Also the team suffers from forming, which

2. negatively affects the team performance.
It seems to me the coach does a good job by treating them as a
team regardless of all these flaws and standing before them
since the beginning. A good example of this is when he
mentions in the court when people calls for Jimmy by saying,
"We need to respect what we have, and not what we do not
have." Sometimes as a leader, we need to believe in our team
members and stick with them in good and bad terms to show
how important the team is. I really do not understand how a
team can believe in itself we the coach does not believe in it in
the first place.
The reward of learning comprehensive interdependence comes
when they make it to the state final and win it. That is a team
helping one another to achieve the same goal.
My response to post 2:
Prof Question
When you consider the movie “Hoosiers,” what were some of
the communications problems early on in the development of
the team? What behaviors did you see that indicated to you that
there were problems? Respond to two of your fellow learners
with a positive yet critical analysis of their discussion.
My discussion response:
Post 1from roxanne:
It struck me how harsh the townspeople were toward Coach
Dale, with the exception of his friend, the principal who hired
him. People literally turned their backs, walked out, barged in
and said really unwelcoming things. It is little wonder that the
basketball players having grown up in this, albeit fictional,
environment would apply the same behaviors towards Coach
Dale.
Coach Dale, of course, had his own "communicator issues", as
the text phrases it. He was arrogant and chose to not explain the
thought processes behind his actions. He was sadly lacking in
expressing empathy, even though eventually it became apparent
that he felt deeply about the team and the sport in general.

3. The behaviors I saw from the team that spelled trouble are as
follows: ignoring or purposely disobeying the Coach, speaking
disparagingly to each other and avoiding eye contact. Coach
Dale spoke aggressively, stood in people's "space" for
intimidation, raised his voice to shout down opposition and then
would become non-communicative when things were not going
well.
My response to roxanne post 1:
Post 2 from Nancy:
The problems were that a couple players and the assistant couch
were self centered and only saw their goal. The way it was
shown is when two players disrespected the couch by talking
over him. The other was the assistant couch that tried to make
Gene Hackman take a back seat to him by telling him what to
do. Not examples of team process but more of an example of
process gains. In these examples you would end up with process
loss.
My response to nancy post:2