The alternative solutions to address the problem ranged from:1-Switching the team rankings, promoting the Junior Varsity to Varsity and demoting the Varsity to second-ranked Junior Varsity status. This we believe is the safest and surest way to have a better performing team ready for the competition.
2-Changing individual crew team members in the boats. In this, the coach hoped to find a more ideal personality combination, resulting in better performance. We believe this is not a viable choice in the timeframe, given the JV team's unwillingness to adjourn from their team and risk involved in trying to rebuild the team. We are skeptical the removed JV members would be able to unify the rest of the varsity team.
3-Trying an intervention with the Varsity team, hoping to enhance their performance by helping them become aware of the psychological differences. While we believe this is less risky than switching members, we do not believe it is reasonable to accomplish in the short time frame, and instead should focus our energy on preparing the JV team for the competition. Since 'Coach P', as an experienced 'master' level coach, has already tried to reach the varsity team on a mental level, and failed, we do not believe we can apply a similar method and achieve adequate results before the competition. We fear the damage has already been done-we should have analyzed our rower's personal qualities, whether leaders or disrupters, early on in the team forming process.
Our staff's recommendation is based on Tuckman's model. The model requires
Bibliography: obert Kreitner and Angelo Kinicki. Organizational Behavior. Mcgraw-Hill Irwin, 2007. 310-311, 312, 315, 316-354, 344, 352Greg Moorhead. Organizational Behavior Blackboard, 2007. Module 1:4,14. Shein, Organizational Psychology. 198.