How To Approach The HRM263 ECA: Team Effectiveness Scale, Decision-Making Concepts And Power Questions

The HRM263 Team Dynamics ECA for July 2026 asks you to analyse a real team you have worked in, then apply power and influence theory to a merger case. Most lost marks come from two habits: describing the team instead of analysing it, and naming theories without tying them to evidence. This guide shows how to avoid both.

Quick answer: Spend about half your effort on Section A and half on Section B, since each carries 50 marks. In Section A, use the Team Effectiveness Scale scores as evidence and link the lowest dimension to one decision-making concept such as groupthink. In Section B, separate power bases (what Marcus and Sarah hold) from power tactics (what they do), then give two cohesion strategies with clear rollout steps.

What the July 2026 HRM263 ECA asks for

The ECA is individual, worth 40% of the course and marked out of 100. It is due on 2 November 2026 at 12:00 pm through Canvas, and late work loses 10 marks for each 24-hour block after a 12-hour grace period. The full wording is on our HRM263 ECA July 2026 question page.

Section A: choosing the right team

The brief asks for a team that existed for at least three months, so it had time to move through stages of development. Students often pick a team that went smoothly because it feels safer. That usually makes Q3 and Q4 harder, because there is little to diagnose. A team with real friction gives you richer evidence.

Questions to ask before you commit

• Can I describe the team’s purpose, size and roles in a few sentences?
• Can I recall at least two specific decisions the team made, and how they were made?
• Is there one area where the team clearly struggled?
• Can I talk about it without naming colleagues? Use roles, not names.

Q2 and Q3: using the Team Effectiveness Scale properly

Q2 asks you to rate your team on the scale in Appendix 1, covering five characteristics, and include a screenshot as a figure. Treat the scores as data. For each of the two highest dimensions, state the score, give one concrete example, and explain why it worked.

Q3 asks you to take the lowest-rated dimension and explain it through a decision-making concept from the course. Pick one concept and apply it in depth rather than listing three.

A good Q3 paragraph follows a chain: low score, the decision pattern behind it, the concept that names that pattern, and the effect on team outcomes.

Q4: solutions you could have implemented yourself

Q4 is worth 20 marks, and the key word is individual. Solutions such as “management should restructure the team” do not answer the question. Propose two things you, as a member, could have done, with implementation steps and an explanation using course concepts.

• Volunteer to act as devil’s advocate in key decisions to counter groupthink, and suggest a short pre-decision checklist.
• Propose clear individual task ownership and visible progress tracking to reduce social loafing.

Section B: power bases versus power tactics

Q5 and Q6 look similar, and students often write the same content twice. Keep them separate. Power bases are what a person holds, using French and Raven’s (1959) categories. Power tactics are the behaviours they use to influence others (Yukl & Falbe, 1990).

For each base or tactic, define it in one sentence, then point to a specific event in the case. Our HRM263 ECA Section B sample shows this layout in full, for reference only.

Q7: two strategies with a real rollout

Q7 is the single biggest question. The marker wants two strategies that rebuild shared identity and long-term cohesion, each with specific behaviours or interventions and at least one framework. Strong answers usually combine one identity-focused strategy, drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), with one structural strategy that changes roles or decision routines.

Write each strategy in three parts: what changes, who does it and in what order, and why the framework predicts it will work. Add one limitation for each to show evaluation.

Mark-maximising checklist

• Team chosen with at least three months of history and real friction.
• Scale screenshot included as a labelled figure in Q2.
• One decision-making concept applied in depth in Q3.
• Two individual-level solutions with steps in Q4.
• Bases and tactics kept separate in Q5 and Q6.
• Q7 strategies with owners, sequence and a framework.
• Word limits respected for each question.
• Cover page, Academic Integrity Declaration and GenAI attribution table completed.

Common mistakes

• Describing the team’s history instead of analysing its dynamics.
• Using the scale scores in Q2 but ignoring them in Q3 and Q4.
• Recommending that Marcus simply be replaced in Q7.
• Citing course slides only; peer-reviewed sources strengthen the analysis.

If you want a second view on your plan, our organisational behaviour assignment help and SUSS assignment help pages explain how our tutors review drafts. You can also read student reviews.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use an academic project group for Section A?

Yes. The brief allows workplace, volunteer or academic teams, as long as the team existed for at least three months.

Does my team need to be high-performing?

No. The brief says teams with significant friction often give the richest material. Give a fair preliminary judgement with evidence.

How do I include the Team Effectiveness Scale?

Complete the scale in Appendix 1 and insert a screenshot as a labelled figure in Q2, then refer to the scores in your analysis.

What is the difference between Q5 and Q6?

Q5 is about the sources of power each person holds. Q6 is about the tactics they use to influence the team. Define each separately and use different evidence.

How many sources should I cite?

The brief does not set a number. Use the course readings plus a few peer-reviewed articles, all in APA format.

Can I use generative AI?

Only as the course allows, and any use must be recorded in the GenAI attribution table. Your analysis and examples must be your own.

References

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.132