This would not entirely solve the factionalism problem, but the lack of vision and clear objectives currently affecting the group is the primary problem with the lack of leadership and is something that needs to be addressed; these are the problems that are preventing the group from moving forward in an effective and efficient way, and are the fundamental reasons behind the need for more defined and concrete leadership (Myatt, 2012). Once this leadership is established with a broader consensus about the direction the venture should be heading, those members of the team who disagree with the outcome will be more encouraged to renew their commitment to the team and maintain the right attitude in their efforts by the prevention of more extreme splintering or more disparate and numerous ideas that might be the result of a more straightforward and immediate vote for a leader. Recommendations

It is recommended that the group members have a meeting where two basic and divergent plans for the venture are outlined and described through discussion and consensus. A leader for each plan will then be nominated, and the positions for and reasoning behind each plan clarified. A vote should then be held for the plan/leader that the group feels will be more successful, with everyone agreeing at the outset that the outcome of the vote will be adhered to and that everyone will work willingly and properly on the project regardless. Cementing this commitment to the team and to other team members prior to the discussion and the voting will help to make the discussion more honest and fruitful and will also help to ensure that factionalism is mitigated if not prevented in the final outcome of the vote and the continued efforts of the group as it takes its business forward.

Team Skills and Processes

Our team worked very well together in developing these...

Individual research followed by a group discussion in which the previously identified problem was discussed and research findings applied quickly led to the conclusion that a singular leader was needed for the group in the case, and the three methods of selecting this leader described above were outlined. Following a discussion of each of these three alternatives, it became clear that a unanimous consensus was already forming around the third presented option, that of the plan development leading to a vote for the group in the case's leader, and a quick vote between the members of our own group confirmed this consensus.
Cherron Thompson again reviewed the final draft, and her skills in assessing the details and exigencies of the situation were very helpful in developing the solutions.

Nicholas Payne helped to direct the course of the discussion and was the first to begin describing the three basic solutions, providing an organized framework within which further discussion and determination could be made.

Jeremy Steele ensured that the paper addressed the primary concern and that the details of the case itself were accounted for in discussion.