The Science Learning Hub website gives a simple introduction to how people can use different ethical methods to think about right and wrong. It explains that ethics is not always about clear answers but more about discussion and reasoning. The site highlights four main frameworks: rights and responsibilities, consequentialism, autonomy, and virtue ethics. What stood out to me is that the site says the discussion itself is the most valuable part, since people may not fully agree but can learn from hearing different viewpoints. However, this site feels more like an overview than a detailed guide, since it doesn’t explain exactly how to apply the frameworks in real situations.

The Santa Clara University website is more detailed and focuses on giving people a framework they can actually use. It explains what ethics is and what it is not, then introduces six “ethical lenses” like rights, justice, utilitarianism, common good, virtue, and care ethics. It also gives step-by-step directions for making decisions, such as identifying the issue, getting facts, considering the lenses, and then reflecting afterward. I like this site because it feels more practical and could be applied to real-life ethical problems, though it can also feel overwhelming with so many lenses to consider at once.

Overall, the Science Learning Hub is a good starting point for learning the basics, while the Santa Clara site goes deeper and is more useful for actually working through a problem. Together, they balance each other out, with one helping you understand the ideas and the other helping you put them into practice.

This article made me think a lot about my own experiences working in groups. The article explains how guiding a diverse team to become productive is complicated, and it reminded me of a group project I had in college where everyone worked very differently. At first, we argued over how to divide the work and set deadlines, which felt like the storming stage described in the article. People didn’t know what their responsibilities were, and communication was messy. Over time, we started planning better, assigned roles clearly, and made a system to track progress, which helped us get organized and complete the project. Reading about how the team used a charter to stay focused and accountable made me realize how helpful structure can be in any group effort.

This also reminded me of other teamwork advice I’ve read, where unclear roles and expectations often lead to conflict. What was different about this article is that it showed a real-life example of a team going through all the stages of development, not just theory. It made me see how much planning, leadership, and communication can change the outcome of a team project.

Finally, the article connects to what happens in the real world when organizations merge or consolidate. Companies often face similar problems, like conflicting priorities and unclear roles, and strong teamwork skills are necessary to get through these challenges. Overall, this article helped me understand how important preparation, clear roles, and communication are for team success, both in school and every group setting.

Natvig, D., & Stark, N. L. (2016). A project team analysis using Tuckman’s model of small-group development.

This article made me think about times when I have worked on group projects where people had very different priorities. For example, when I served on a student committee in high school, some members focused on getting things done quickly, while others were determined to make sure every detail was perfect. These differences often created tension until we finally sat down and discussed what each of us really valued in the process. Reading about the Levi Strauss managers using “values cards” reminded me of this experience, because once people put their values on the table, the conflicts started to make more sense and became easier to manage.

The article also connects to other concepts we have studied, such as Tuckman’s model of group development. The “storming” stage, where team members clash, often happens because of unspoken differences in values. What Jaffe and Scott describe in their workshops, open conversations about personal and shared values, seems like a way for groups to move past storming into the “norming” stage. Both the article and Tuckman’s model highlight the importance of addressing these conflicts before a team can truly perform well together.

Beyond my own experiences and classroom connections, I also see this topic as very relevant to the larger world of work today. Companies like AT&T and Nordstrom demonstrate that values are not just abstract ideals but needed tools for guiding decisions and motivating employees. I also think about organizations that face scandals or low morale, often the problem comes from a lack of alignment between personal values and corporate practices. When employees feel that their values connect with those of their organization, they tend to be more engaged, optimistic, and committed. In a time when workplace culture is such a critical issue, this article shows why personal and organizational values must be seen as living and active, not just as statements or rules.

Jaffe, D. T., & Scott, C. D. (2015). How to link personal values with team values

Test