For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.
This extract shows one way to approach Section B of the HRM263 Team Dynamics End-of-Course Assessment for the July 2026 semester at SUSS. It covers the FinTech Solutions and CreativePay case. It is not a complete answer, and Section A must be built from your own team experience. SUSS requires original work, accurate APA referencing and a completed GenAI attribution table if you used AI tools.
Related: read the full HRM263 ECA July 2026 question and our step-by-step guide to the HRM263 ECA. An older, more general HRM263 Team Dynamics sample covers earlier semesters.
How the July 2026 ECA is weighted
| Part | Focus | Marks | Word limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Describe your own team (at least three months) | 5 | 300 |
| Q2 | Team Effectiveness Scale: analyse the two highest dimensions | 10 | 400 |
| Q3 | Lowest dimension explained through a decision-making concept | 15 | 400 |
| Q4 | Two individual-level solutions for that dimension | 20 | 600 |
| Q5 | Bases of power held by Marcus and Sarah | 12 | 400 |
| Q6 | Power tactics used by Marcus and Sarah | 13 | 300 |
| Q7 | Two strategies to rebuild shared identity and cohesion | 25 | 600 |
| Overall | Clarity of writing and APA accuracy | 5 | – |
Section B carries half the marks and Q7 alone is worth a quarter of the paper. The extracts below concentrate there.
Question 5 extract: bases of power
French and Raven (1959) describe five bases of social power: legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent. Raven (1965) later added informational power. The case shows that formal authority and actual influence sit with different people in the Integration Team.
| Person | Base of power | Definition | Evidence from the case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus | Legitimate | Influence that comes from a formally assigned position | Appointed Team Lead by upper management and insists that FinTech protocols are followed |
| Marcus | Reward | Ability to give outcomes others value | Promises a bonus to those who comply if the project succeeds |
| Marcus | Coercive | Ability to impose unwanted outcomes | Warns that members who do not align have an uncertain future on the project |
| Sarah | Expert | Influence based on skills others need | Usually the only member who can fix critical architectural bugs |
| Sarah | Referent | Influence based on liking and identification | Well liked by both groups because she gets to know members personally |
| Sarah | Informational | Influence based on sharing knowledge that changes how others see a problem | Runs informal Q&A sessions that break down complex code and lead to consensus |
The contrast is the point to draw out for the marker. Marcus relies on position-based power, which tends to produce compliance at best. Sarah holds personal power, which tends to produce commitment (Yukl, 2013). The CreativePay members withdrawing into private chat groups is the behavioural evidence that Marcus’s power is not converting into commitment.
Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments
Native Singapore Writers Team
- 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
- Highest Satisfaction Rate
- Free Revision
- On-Time Delivery
Question 6 extract: power tactics
Power tactics are the specific behaviours people use to turn a power base into influence over others (Yukl & Falbe, 1990). A strong answer defines the term in one sentence, then evaluates each person’s tactics rather than only naming them.
- Marcus – pressure and exchange. Threatening members’ place on the project is pressure. Offering a bonus in return for following FinTech methods is exchange. Pressure and exchange often achieve short-term compliance, but they rarely build commitment and can provoke resistance (Yukl, 2013). The members’ silence in meetings fits this pattern.
- Marcus – emotional displays. Showing anger so that members feel guilty is a form of pressure that damages psychological safety. Edmondson (1999) found that teams learn less when members fear speaking up, which matches the loss of open discussion in official meetings.
- Sarah – rational persuasion and consultation. Her Q&A sessions explain technical issues and invite discussion about how to move forward. These tactics are associated with commitment rather than mere compliance (Yukl & Falbe, 1990).
- Sarah – personal appeal. Her relationships with members of both groups give her requests weight without formal authority.
Question 7 outline: rebuilding shared identity and cohesion
Q7 asks for two strategies, how each would be rolled out, and a link to at least one course framework. The table below shows the planning stage of a model answer. A full response would expand each row into roughly 300 words.
| Strategy | Who leads | Rollout steps | Framework link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Build a common team identity around the digital wallet | Upper management with Marcus | Re-launch the team with one shared goal and milestone plan; mix Legacy and Innovator members in paired workstreams; retire the “Legacy” and “Innovators” labels in team communication | Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979); common ingroup identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) |
| 2. Formalise Sarah’s integrating role and make it safe to disagree | Upper management with Sarah | Appoint Sarah as technical integration lead; turn her Q&A sessions into a scheduled forum with agreed ground rules; Marcus moves from directive to consultative decision-making on technical choices | Psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999); team structure and enabling conditions (Hackman, 2002) |
One caution for Q7: do not simply recommend that Marcus be removed. The question asks for strategies that rebuild long-term structural cohesion, so markers look for interventions that change roles, routines and shared goals, with a clear sequence and owner for each step.
Common mistakes in Section B
- Listing power bases without quoting or paraphrasing evidence from the case.
- Confusing power bases (what someone holds) with power tactics (what someone does).
- Writing Q7 as general advice with no rollout steps or framework link.
- Exceeding word limits for individual questions; each question has its own cap.
For help with team dynamics and organisational behaviour coursework, see our organisational behaviour assignment help, HRM assignment help and ECA assignment help pages.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
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.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.
Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371–382). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
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. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.
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
