This HRM263 Team Dynamics ECA for the July 2026 semester at SUSS is worth 40% of the course. Section A is a reflective analysis of a team the student worked in, scored with the Team Effectiveness Scale, and Section B is a case study on power, influence tactics and cohesion in a merged FinTech integration team.

Section A (50 marks)

Select a recent team from a workplace, volunteer or academic context that existed for at least three months, long enough to move through the stages of team development from forming to adjourning. This team is the basis for Questions 1 to 4.

Question 1 (5 marks, max 300 words)

Briefly describe your chosen team and the specific project involved. Your description must include:

• The team’s core purpose and intended outcomes.
• The number of members and their key roles.
• A preliminary assessment of whether this was a high-performing or struggling team.

Teams that faced significant friction often provide the richest material. Include specific evidence of the group dynamics observed during the project.

Question 2 (10 marks, max 400 words)

Use the Team Effectiveness Scale (Appendix 1) to rate your team’s performance across the five core characteristics: Coordinated Interaction, Compelling Purpose, Interlocking Interdependence, Adaptive Structure and Cohesive Alliance. Identify the TOP TWO highest-rated dimensions and explain how they are linked to your experiences. Include a screenshot of your completed scale as a figure, and focus on analysis rather than repeating the definitions.

Question 3 (15 marks, max 400 words)

Select ONE lowest-rated dimension. Using decision-making concepts covered in the course (for example Groupthink, the Ringelmann Effect or Steiner’s Process Model), examine how the team’s decision-making processes contributed to lower team effectiveness. Show how the theoretical mechanics of the chosen concept explain the performance gaps observed.

Question 4 (20 marks, max 600 words)

Develop TWO actionable solutions that you personally could have implemented as an individual member to improve the lowest-rated dimension, including the implementation steps. Explain why each step would be effective by applying course concepts such as Identity, Formation, Development and Structure, Power or Influence.

Appendix 1: Team Effectiveness Scale

Ten items rated from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), two per dimension:

• Coordinated Interaction: the team works as a single coordinated unit; members structure the work process and assist one another.
• Compelling Purpose: a common purpose and goal; commitment and accountability for achieving it.
• Interlocking Interdependence: members are interdependent; no member can determine his or her own outcome.
• Adaptive Structure: roles, norms and relations are defined; the structure is reviewed and revised to improve functioning.
• Cohesive Alliance: the team is unified with strong relations; it remains intact over difficult times.

Section B (50 marks): FinTech Solutions and CreativePay Case

Two years ago, FinTech Solutions, a structured and traditional financial services firm, acquired the start-up CreativePay to launch a digital wallet. The project is now six months behind schedule because of friction in the ten-member Integration Team, made up of five “Legacy” FinTech staff and five CreativePay “Innovators”.

Team Lead Marcus, a former FinTech executive appointed by upper management, insists on strict compliance protocols and formal documentation, views the Innovators as reckless, refuses alternative views and often shows anger. He told the team that “the FinTech way is the only way”, warned that those who do not align have an uncertain future on the project, and promised a bonus to those who follow him. The CreativePay members have since withdrawn, rarely speak in meetings and discuss ideas in private chat groups.

Sarah, CreativePay’s former lead architect, was not promoted in the merged structure but is liked and respected by both groups. Members seek her advice, she is usually the only person able to fix critical technical bugs, and she runs informal Q&A sessions that break down complex code and often bring the two groups to consensus.

Question 5 (12 marks, max 400 words)

Assess the distinct Bases of Power held by Marcus and Sarah. Define each base of power identified and provide clear evidence from the case study.

Question 6 (13 marks, max 300 words)

Define Power Tactics and evaluate the types of tactics deployed by Marcus and Sarah to influence the team members.

Question 7 (25 marks, max 600 words)

Formulate TWO specific management strategies that Marcus, Sarah or upper management can execute to rebuild the team’s shared identity and foster long-term structural cohesion. Describe exactly how each strategy should be rolled out, the behaviours or interventions required, and how each leverages at least one relevant course framework or concept.

5 marks across the paper are awarded for clarity of written language and accurate APA referencing.