Current age is confronting challenges of health and humanity survival. The issue of pandemic global Coronavirus has stopped every business activity around the globe. Covid-19 crisis is taking over the world and testing clinical capacity of teams with unprecedented patient numbers (Bauer & Anderson, 1985). The situation is also providing opportunities to healthcare to envision effective care delivery in future. Leadership and communication are the core parts of teams during current pandemic. A thoughtful and strong leadership is critical for organizational stability. During the height of crisis, a team planning is necessary to tackle the situation. The team building approach works significantly for the leadership development and this practice yields a planned orientation. Covid 19 has modified communication ways in teamwork, focused more on team building work and developed sound basis. Leadership process is a systematic work that binds team members to produce a productive workforce.

Covid-19 upheaval has expedited team communication and virtual setup, leadership and management. Best practice to handle tough situation is team management, effective collaboration and virtual communication. Team management trains to work on virtual platform because teammates need to know their delivery and its significance. Before this crisis, team management have not faced virtually integrated and technology driven environment (Burt, 2018). Trust, confidence and engagement are some core parts of team management that needs to be communicated with customer. These attributes function effectively under thoughtful leadership.

It is critical to discuss that team leaders manage and devote essential time to train teams. Knowledge transfer through team building approach allow them to lead and perform effectively. It is important to understand that essential principles of leadership work inherently when applied to teamwork (Costantine, Landon &Saade, 2020). They aid team development approach, grouping performance and business environment. Due to effective communication and connectivity, awareness related to key societal issues needs a broad-based structure. A leader follows these rules and provide a wide scenario to implement techniques of grouping and group based tasks.

Performing strong and knowledge based teams play a critical role in developing groups. The group based learning allows individuals to participate in different ventures and focus on connectivity. Group based activities also focus on good attributes and put relevant impact on capabilities to face challenges (Georgiades, 2020). Under a leadership perspective, the goal of grouping is to face issues and develop planning. To accomplish groups’ objectives, preparation is essential that is invigorated by leaders and they develop a team charter. It is essential to understand the team operating agreement that enhance group members’ involvement and they know about work patterns. Teams can reduce stress by using mindful technologies and collaboration (Hajro, 2018). Role of group in education is significant to understand because positive and negative characteristics determine success ratio.

Purpose of study

It is important to know that how a leader contributes for the good of the group. This notion is better to understand when required leadership and grouping theories are considered. Working on leadership theories, allows understanding of team work, management principles and abilities needed to accomplish tasks. The purpose of this paper is to identify how a leader contributes to good things in a group and it will be linked to relevant theories. The paper will describe good and bad attributes of a group and its influence through leadership.

Theoretical Overview

Individual and collective level leadership pertains to effective team members. At individual level, groups behave different from the external point of view, for instance, it is reflected when a person say that someone has got into the bad company. The notion of self-managed teams is linked to the high performing and task oriented structure (Hirpara& Taylor, 2020). In certain organizations, these features of team are not common but depends on leaders’ involvement. A leader can walk in such situation and adopts necessary steps required for high performing groups. Teamwork, group and leadership play essential role in the Industrial age. Current pandemic has focused on the need to work in grouping to achieve goals and objectives.

Group Dynamics

Groups differ in size, character and composition. Some famous groups appear to share key values and similarity of features make them dominant. The systematic group study was stated by Kurt Lewin in 1940s, when multiple research papers were written on group dynamics. It is a vibrant field that overlap multiple branches like social science, psychology, education and sociology. The scope of groups and its linkage with industry is significant because in many disciplines, group study is focused (Kassema, 2020). For example, psychotherapy is about group therapy, in business, management teams are managed, and in politics, political leadership participates. Groups have taken recognition after the setting up of theories in social psychology about work nature, plan and development of teams.

In grouping, good and bad are two key types that elaborate the idea about functioning of groups. The good group functioning all goes well, it spreads positive influence and give positive motivation that persists. On the contrary, the wrong or bad group is about the rebellious attitude and conflicts in class or at workplace. This form of group engages team members in unproductive activities and show unwillingness to cooperate. The difference in good or bad group is different and based on situational factors. The group dynamics play inherent role in defining the role of group in classroom or in workplace. The internal characteristics of a good group pave the way for learning and evolve over time.

The learner group consists of active partners and members represent a strong social unit that is bigger than the sum (Kaul, Shah & El-Serag, 2020). Group development is essential to work inherently because if it goes astray, it can harm learning. It is important to consider the positive development of group processes, as driving force can pursue learning goals. Researchers have focused on key processes used in the development of group dynamics that go inside and analyze team building approaches. In educational contexts, the group dynamics determine coherency and act as independent units. The productive environment for groups allows their involvement and they specialize in subject matter training. Due to structural significance of group based behaviors, the scope of leadership extends.

Leader Member Exchange Theory

Literature presents the dimensions of leader member exchange theory under transformational leadership. The concept ‘leader-member exchange’ theory was floated in classical Greek Days under vertical dyed linkage (McArthur, 2002). The concept is about leadership approach that work on group behaviors within organizations. The theory is intuitive and discuss what a leader group structure can be. It explains the working dimensions of group and leadership by pointing towards the strong features. It also illustrates the dynamic of problems, issues of loyalty with leader and develops structure to offer solutions. A leader works to maintain team in most significant form through its hard work and striving efforts. The role of responsibility matters a lot when it comes to work through grouping.

Leaders usually garner their position of relationship. The leader member exchange theory highlights the fact that a position by grouping is secured by trust and confidence. Most of the trusted person and supporters do this with responsibility under an inner circle. The inner circle is based on dyad linkage theory. Dyad means two, and it refers to leader and it is linked to others for whom it work. Linkage is about relationship that work for the coherency to build team. Leaders feel that team is the main adhering point for their productivity because it specifically work for the support (Spinelli &Pellino, 2020). If a leader allows it followers work according to the task, they would get substantial support in this regard.

The scope of roles under leadership is undefined because a supporter can assume a formal role. A subordinate and leaders’ relationship is preserved at some instances, due to conflict of power. Due to acquisition of power, a leader undertakes challenges and can relate to the lower status. The term ‘inner circle’ can define the power of a relationship when it comes to a leader and supporter (Stillman, Fletcher &Carr, 2007). In a team, multiple tasks, strengthening roles and supportive relationship allow greater performance. Better roles define better leadership so supportive leaders support more and acquire greater responsibility. The range of leaders can be different from a small discussion forum to large and this framework undertakes strong attributes to accomplish a task.

Leadership range differs, when it comes to manage teams, either small or large encompassing roles tackle groups (Somech, 2003). For the structural framework, the complex tasks can need more organizational and group dynamics to work. In leader member exchange theory, there are three stages of development. First is the organizational stage that can be performed under some approaches and help a person rise from a crowd while having intelligence and charisma. The second stage is role development that comes with many origins and answers the questions that how group was formed. In the third stage of development, the ‘good old boy network’ expression is developed. This leader led relationship needs consideration to work on general qualities that will develop groups. In these cases, the fundamental values are integrity, trust, and willingness that not only work on openness but also delegate power. In current working environment and situation, egregious routinized systems face challenges.


The methodology of this paper is qualitative. With the help of interviews, research question will be addressed. Qualitative interview will be evaluated under a thematic analysis approach.


The participant of this study is a 27 years old university student at her final masters’ year in Educational Leadership and Management at the University of Coalalambour. She was approached while she was about to leave Coalalambour and requested to be interviewed since her major requires her to do lots of group projects. Pre-interview was done followed by the final interview, she refused to do a third interview because she was busy with exams. She was interviewed to understand the grouping and leadership principles because her major was educational leadership. Understanding leadership and grouping allows evaluation of major differences in productive work. The participant involvement provided insights to know about managing team work and participation in productive workouts.


The procedure used in this study is use of thematic analysis approach like the one developed by Braun and Clarke (2013). The thematic approach allows familiarizing with the data by assigning preliminary codes. In this interviewing process, data familiarity will provide themes by jotting down different ideas. After this, coding will be implemented. Coding is about summarizing three lined of interviews as dialogues that will reflect images, words or accurate concepts. Coding is the iterative stage that will explain the work and ideas.

Procedure further extends to validate the codes. It is to work on re-examining data by authenticating the consistency of data to ensure if it is not misinterpreted. Set up of themes after code validation will allow clustering in themes. The creation of multiple themes will allow finalizing of on theme, later its illustration will be done with verbatim quotations. When coding process will be finalized, the report results will be composed.

The thematic analysis of qualitative data is a useful approach to analyze data effectively. This process is suitable and appropriately applicable on interview transcripts like the one used in this study. The process will allow examining further ideas and themes that are workable and provide a future dimension. The advantages of thematic analysis of qualitative data are finding a running theme, getting flexibility of fata and think about key ideas (Singh, Meera Bai & Pal, 2011). For instance, the issue of current age is coronavirus that is modifying existing leadership behaviors in countries. Changed behaviors in leadership are transforming teamwork hence grouping.

Under this thematic approach, a freedom is attained that makes research study flexible because it is modified under different research studies. Literature helps validating different concepts of theory so a rich and detailed result is attained. Current research will contribute in this way to discuss epistemology about leadership. Our research question about leadership and changing group behavior due to Covid-19 will be significantly answered by this approach. This method will help organizing, analyzing and in identifying themes appeared from a dataset. The collected data will be analyzed in the next section in light of interview transcript.

Data Analysis

Based on interview and methodology, data is divided into three parts. A first part is a good group, a second part is a bad group, and the third part is discussion.

The good group

The interview discussion was vibrant because participant explained about her group and leading person traits. She described two group leaders who exhibited different characteristics. The researcher was interested in Group dynamics, and God forbid that how wrong can work for group related tasks. Group dynamics is a group work that operates in small numbers. Participant described that good leader gathers its team and makes it healthy by telling everyone about their roles. The leader, who builds a strong team, is enthusiastic and has an incredible capacity to empathize. A leader is visionary and tolerant who understand the issues with group members and seeks a problem-solving approach (Safronova&Urubkov, 2017).

The information provided by the participant discussed the excellent attributes of a leader and group roles. The leaders’ characteristics are never-ending because he wants to see its team strong. He is unconventional and fun-loving, neither needy nor demanding. In addition, a good leader develops a good group and has a youthful spirit. It is researched that in the times of corona crisis, leadership should be more responsible, accelerated and ready to help (Petriglieri, 2020). The foundations in the form of a strong team allow better performance and develop good team ethics (Schwarz, 2014). It also helps employees and fellows to move smoothly and communicate effectively.

Good teams and groups focus on results and outcomes when work is done collectively. The leader offers them clear direction under a visionary approach to achieve organizational objectives. During a crisis, a leader has the responsibility to gather group members and lead them effectively, so that they get hope (Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013). According to participant, an enchantment with vision is a clear framework that helps individuals set up their directions and learn frequently. Visionary leaders promise a better future due to their sacrificing and productive nature. In the times of crisis like the current pandemic of Coronavirus, leaders have to show responsibility to control and direct the team. If vision is not set in crisis, motivation will not be achieved.

The bad group

A bad group face the bad side of a leader during a time of crisis, so team members face the worst experience. The participant in this study has elaborated the worst experience she faced with a bad leader. For instance, at corona times, the leader kept the same plan outside of what team wanted to change because of the corona, such as social distancing.Participant discussed “the leader was less appealing to team members due to her behaviour and display of different features like, she boosted her math abilities, tried to avert his eyes and showed intense behavior”.Some bad points in her views are “changed momentum quite a bit with the Corona outbreak, unexpected change and stability in the group and lots of arguments which is a wrong way of doing things”.Team members seem unsatisfactory due to this kind of approach. Due to reduced participation or no vision of a leader, a group may turn into bad and show poor contribution.

Bad group exhibits a lethargic approach due to work and show overburdened. There is less competency in the group, and they lack crucial skills like productivity, efficiency and performance (McFarland, 2014). This kind of situation creates a stressful work environment so the leader can be disrespectful to co-workers, supervisors and other mates. Lack of involvement is the key feature of a bad group because there is no vision and direction that help team members to get involved in team activities. The poor team members refuse to take any responsibility, so they always face failures.

More specifically, Adair theory is best suited here. It is action-centered leadership that was presented by John Adair in 1960. It is three circles model that overlap each other and elaborate about task achievement, managing grouping and managing individuals that form a team (Mango, 2018).


Overlapping circles highlight that these three elements work together, as elements of managing individual can overlap managing group and that in turn can overlap achieving the task and so managing individuals (Junker & van Dick, 2014). This theory illustrates that if a manager wants to be a good leader, all these features should be implemented. The model is itself simple yet needs to adapt to the situation.


The interview with the participant provided key themes of grouping, such as good group, bad group and their working dynamics. The way of working and involving group members into different tasks has been greatly changed due to the crisis of coronavirus. Groups are no more working together due to social distancing rules. Leaders follow key precautionary practices to help group members stay safe and spread awareness (Grint, 2020). According to research studies, group behaviour can guide individuals in adopting goods and bad ethics. Interview inferred that group behaviour is mostly workable with leader behaviour, for instance, a positive attitude of a leader develops positive roots of a group, so it turned into a good group and vice versa. Corona crisis has changed the notion of many groups and group leaders about work and work ethics. For instance, better and improved collaboration has been seen today than earlier to tackle the crisis. Improved support and value-added opinion have been seen in current times due to a positive group working ethics (Dörnyei& Murphey, 2009).

In the bad times, the good group can hold power, trust and mouldbehaviours of the team, so a leader can have influence over the entire team. A good group have a powerful sense of strength and an incredible sense of authority so the leader will be idealistic. On the contrary, “a bad leader can be a critical person and always try to be a perfectionist” discussed by participant, so this will create distance in team members. Popular and ideal leader work on social skills to gather a team and tries to resolve conflicts. For example, in the interview, the participant mentioned some weak points of a leader while working as a group in corona situation when no precautions were followed, and gathering was allowed.

The difference in the good and bad group is apparent from working ethics, following the current scenario and leadership approach. Different team leader perceptions allow team members to think and behave according to the situation (Chappelow, 2007). From the participants’ view, good leader values its members and work together during the issue of the coronavirus, since it is important to follow distance maintaining rules. Hence, a leader can focus on group members’ behaviour and modifies them. A behavioral theory of leadership considers the reactions and observable actions of leaders and followers in a particular situation, just like a corona. The theory focuses on leaders’ behaviour and assumes that whether the leader is born or made, successful leadership is based on learned and definable behaviour.

Participative leadership theory describes a style of leadership that is an idea on the basis of group learning (Davis, 2001). These leaders enhance contribution and encourage the participation of the team in a group so that they feel more accountable (Cardiff, McCormack &McCance, 2018). This process help group members to be more specific to adopt decision-making approach and use a decisive style. A leader in this way enhance communication and social skills and brings in teamwork format. The structural process of team and leadership needs to be updated with the current crisis such as Covid-19 situation to train and educate the team members.


Leadership during crisis interpret the ideal traits necessary to form a group and build skills. Leaders not only provide structural approach but also reassure people to participate in product decisions. Adapting to new challenges of current crisis like corona is attributable to leader because he instils need in the team required to tackle conflicts. Group behaviour is decided on behalf of the leader. The report discussed the key issue of coronavirus today and its impact on leadership. It is based on leaders’ guidelines and actions. Mostly good leaders develop good groups because they develop good habits in-group members that allow them to participate in objective accomplishment. Bad groups face declined morale due to less involvement and less participation. In view of the participant of the study, a good leader engages team members and encourage them to participate in activities.

Leadership defines group roles, and current pandemic needs leadership skills that develop good group collaboration. If a good group develops better collaborative skills in members, it’s evident to work in collective support during a crisis. Moreover, good leadership necessitates a trustworthy image and decision making power. This interview analysis illustrated that the current challenging situation needs effective leadership skills to monitor group behaviour as well as to educate people. A leader works as a mentor and educator to direct group fellows, thus enhance learning. The views of the participant about good group and leadership showed that the best leader is an ideal one because he/she supports its team in all respects, is trustworthy, exchange ideas and coordination.

The leader is an influential figure and encourages the team to spread positive influence, get educated and stay involved. The study is useful in terms of analyzing the role of a good leader in building the best team with all good features. The study is beneficial in terms of describing a bad leader that corresponds to a bad group. The study discussed that bad group behaviour not only discourages team members but reduce their involvement. Lack of involvement declines productivity. The study illustrated the practical experience of a participant in the current scenario of coronavirus and how important it is to maintain social distancing and rules to avoid contact with the public. The study provides an institutional approach in terms of understanding the good behavior of a leader that results in good group ethics and that positive group activity improves health.

Group dynamics-based approach discussed that group interaction is essential to maintain in an organization, which is attributable to the leader. The performance of a leader describes how effectively a group is being managed and what attributes are built in the group members. The attitudinal/behavioural and participatory theories are relevant to discuss in this paper because they define the attitude of leaders and foster skills that are necessary to implement in the team. The current paper is valuable in terms of analyzing team behaviour and leadership approach. It helps to learn key frameworks of leadership and its role in modifying team members’ attitude. The paper enhanced learning about standards a leader set for managing teamwork allows establishing productive roles and responsibilities. During tough times like corona, leadership supports teamwork and develops group behavior. This situation also invigorates competencies in teams and groups.


Cardiff, S., McCormack, B., &McCance, T. (2018). Person-centred leadership: A relational approach to leadership derived through action research. Journal Of Clinical Nursing27(15-16), 3056-3069. doi: 10.1111/jocn.14492

Chappelow, C. (2007). Dividends & interest- Drawing on leadership. Leadership In Action27(5), 23-24. doi: 10.1002/lia.1224

Davis, T. (2001). Integrating internal marketing with participative management. Management Decision39(2), 121-132. doi: 10.1108/eum0000000005418

Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2009). Group dynamics in the language classroom (4th ed., pp. 12-36). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Grint, K. (2020). Leadership, Management and Command in the time of the Coronavirus. Leadership, 174271502092244. doi: 10.1177/1742715020922445

Junker, N., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly25(6), 1154-1173. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002

Mango, E. (2018). Rethinking Leadership Theories. Open Journal Of Leadership07(01), 57-88. doi: 10.4236/ojl.2018.71005

McFarland, V. (2014). Qualities in Team Development. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2825837

Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. (2013). Participative Leadership and the Organizational Commitment of Civil Servants in China: The Mediating Effects of Trust in Supervisor. British Journal Of Management24, S76-S92. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12025

Petriglieri, G. (2020). The Psychology Behind Effective Crisis Leadership. Retrieved 19 May 2020, from

Safronova, N., &Urubkov, A. (2017). Measuring the Impact of Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Project Team Members on the Formation of Team Roles (on the Example of the Concept R. Belbin)(Presentation Slides). SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3008549

Schwarz, R. (2014). How well does your leadership team really work?. The Successful Registrar14(11), 8-8. doi: 10.1002/tsr.30018

Singh, D., Meera Bai, M., & Pal, D. (2011). Management Rationale for Participative Management: A case of Haryana Sugar Industry. Indian Journal Of Applied Research4(8), 98-100. doi: 10.15373/2249555x/august2014/26

Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a multi-level perspective. Journal Of Organizational Behavior24(8), 1003-1018. doi: 10.1002/job.225

Stillman, J., Fletcher, R., &Carr, S. (2007). Netball Team Members, but Not Hobby Group Members, Distinguish Team Characteristics from Group Characteristics. Journal Of Sport And Exercise Psychology29(2), 253-266. doi: 10.1123/jsep.29.2.253


Bauer, B., & Anderson, W. (1985). Leadership enhancement: The chancellor’s leadership class. The Journal For Specialists In Group Work10(1), 14-18. doi: 10.1080/01933928508411793

Burt, I. (2018). Leadership-Driven Anger Management Groups for Adolescents: Do They Really Work?. The Journal For Specialists In Group Work43(1), 57-80. doi: 10.1080/01933922.2017.1411409

Costantine, M., Landon, M., &Saade, G. (2020). Protection by Exclusion. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000003924

Georgiades, C. (2020). Leadership Lessons From Prior Pandemics: Turning the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Into an Opportunity. Journal Of The American College Of Radiology. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.04.027

Hajro, A. (2018). THE PROFILE OF A LEADER AND HIS LEDERSHIP. Knowledge International Journal28(1), 345-350. doi: 10.35120/kij2801345h

Hirpara, D., & Taylor, B. (2020). Leadership proficiency in surgery: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Journal Of Surgery63(3), E229-E230. doi: 10.1503/cjs.006020

Kassema, J. (2020). COVID-19 Outbreak: Is It a Health Crisis or Economic Crisis or Both? Case of African Counties. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3559200

Kaul, V., Shah, V., & El-Serag, H. (2020). Leadership During Crisis: Lessons and Applications from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Gastroenterology. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.076

McArthur, R. (2002). Democratic Ledership and Faculty Empowerment at the Community College: A Theoretical Model for the Department Chair. Community College Review30(3), 1-10. doi: 10.1177/009155210203000301

Spinelli, A., &Pellino, G. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives on an unfolding crisis. British Journal Of Surgery. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11627

















Gender: Female
• Approximate age 27
• Nationality Colombian
• Current status
•Time and language of the interview : English

Appendix A The Actual Interview Transcript

Interviewer: Good Morning!

Participant: Good morning!

Interviewer: I hope everything is okay with you?

Participant: Yea. What about you.

Interviewer: Pretty good, I would say. Thank you.

Participant: You are welcome.

Interviewer: So, are you ready?

Participant: Ready when you are.

Interviewer: Okay. Just to recap, you said you were in two distinctive groups, good and bad.

Participant: Yes.

Group Nature

Interviewer: What is the description of the groups in your opinion?

Participant: Well for the good group, we were five from different countries. Our leader ‘R’ was enthusiastic throughout the project. Which was about a presentation on the effects of depression on managing the team. We decided early on that we should get together in [location of the gathering] and we were always there except for one guy but he had his own reasons. As for the other group, we had four members. The leader of the first group was just a regular member there in the second group. He was a bit shy at first. The leader ‘K’ was a bit older than all of us. She said that she knew him from somewhere, but I did not bother to ask. We had a pretty good start, since the leader knows how to figure her way through numbers because statistics was our issue in the first group!


Interviewer: What were the symptoms of the groups being good/bad?

Participant: As for the good group, ‘R’ gave each and every one of us our roles and was tolerant of our mistakes. I still remember his smile wherever he was waiting for us when we get together. Like we often asked where this guy actually gets angry or not! He was optimistic and often seeking to understand. One day, [name of one of the group members] was completely lost for like a full week. Then, he suddenly contacted us and said that he ran into an accident. Our leader quickly gathered us and we went to his place to check up on him. Our leader told him that he already did his job and all he wished for is his fat recovery! What a man! He was also fun loving and unconventional, which validates my need for freedom. He was neither needy or demanding. I felt I was there because I want to be, not because I had to be there, if that makes any sense? There other guys were a bit slow but with quick minds and youthful spirits. I think it helped stimulate my mind.

As for the bad group, the leader ‘K’ was pretty confidant of herself. She even boosted about her math abilities. Saying that it will be a smooth sail and all that and winked at ‘R’. He tried to avert his eyes. Anyhow, she gave us high hopes since we did struggle quite a bit. Well, let us just say it was our main pitfall! The momentum changed quite a bit with the Corona outbreak. There where periods of unexpected change and stability in our second group. We were meant to meet at the evening. She said that we can meet in her place. One of the girls said that we should not because of social distancing rules. But she said that nothing would ever happen and we should meet to get things done. Suddenly, one of the girls did not come, ‘K’ was somewhat angry because she met her in the grocery store that day and, according to her, she was fine. ‘K’ argued a lot with her on phone. I knew this way of doing things is wrong. Yet, ‘R’ did not do anything at all! Her intensity scared us. As if there was not outlet for what she was thinking about. All she had in mind is that the work needs to be done according to her plan. ‘R’ Had an unsatisfactory look on his face.

Q3. Do you think group activity helps i.e. positive or negative?

  1. explain if it is negative

It depends on how the group acts with its leader. I think the second group was negative because of its leader. She thought that she is more capable than all of us and therefore she bossed us all around. She came across as cold and critical. I mean she did not listen to any of us. All she wanted is that we gave our answers to whatever questions she had. Thinking nothing about the current situation, I mean Corona kept us doing nothing but work and work. I do not know why he did not say anything to her, though!

As for the good one, being understanding and supportive really elevated some of the pain. Like no one was able to go as deep as we could! We spent quite sometime together outside of what we had to do.

Interview: What is your opinion about working in groups can impact grade?

Participant: Well It did impact both our grades and our health!

For the good group, we got a lower grade, but we thought that all of our efforts were payed off. As for the bad group, we got a better grad at the expense of our mental health!

Interviewer: Do you think grouping allows everyone to put in similar effort?

Not always! I got this sense of inadequacy with the second group. Like I need to just follow her and that’s it.

Interview What are the reasons that attribute the group’s being good/bad to?

  1. please mention if there are bad attributes

Participant: As for the good group, ‘R’ was practical, trustworthy and could hold things for others. He gave some of his time and did one of the guys work!


Influence of the leaders

Interviewer: What influence of the leaders had on grouping?

Participant : As for the good group, although he gave powerful sense of power and an incredible sense of authority, he was idealistic and in touch with his soft side.

The bad group had a leader who was critical and perfectionist and I think it created a distance.

Interview:  Can you state three drawback of group work in both groups?

Participant:To be honest, I did not like ‘R’ helping the other member that much. It is good to be caring but not to the extent of doing his work! Secondly, he did not ask about our weaknesses. We know that no one is competent enough in statistics not until the end! I think it because we also spent so much time having fun together.

The bad group had a pretty bossy leader. She seemed like she did not need the help of others. She also trusted herself so much  that she went to the extreme trying to prove that she was right! Thank god no one got corona!  I also felt like we were in the group only to do the work.

Interviewer: Do you agree that group projects enable individuals to use skills which individual assessment do not?

Participant: Yeah. Social skills, for example. Humans tend to view the world through closed kingdoms. Group work allows us to see the issue from multiple angles!

Interviewer: You mentioned conflicts in the two groups, what do you think the main reason behind them? Could you please state some causes?

Participant: Hmmm. I will be honest. ‘K’ is highly independent but a bit hard-headed. We failed to persuade her to do the work via Zoom. She said that since we all live in the same area, we had to come in one place and do the work. The police noticed us and told us to disperse and she was about to fight with the saying that we do not have corona. She was also so wrapped up in the project that she never spoke to any one of us outside of what she told us to do. She did an outstanding job in her part. But the others were less productive.

The good group was about to fell apart at the end. We were quite weak in statistics. As a result, we had this thought that all of our work is in vain. Still, being together gave us hope that everything will be fine in the end.

Significance of grouping

Interviewer: can you describe your general feelings about significance of grouping min light of the two groups?

Participant:The bad group left a bad taste in my mouth. I really wanted to be myself. But ‘K’s’ Impulsiveness made us doubt ourselves. I felt like if I follow my gut feelings, there will always be unfavorable consequences. So, from my perspective, I could not take any actions effortlessly. Had to go back to her.

As for the good group. We had this sense of belonging that we did not do anything wrong. Rather than seeing this pattern, I mean us not knowing anything bout statistics, as punishment, we thought of it as a process of personal growth.

Interviewer: How did the leaders as the group leaders behave and how did this contribute to what the group was like?

Participant:The good group had a pretty down-earth leader. I felt like it does not matter how hard I worked because perfection is hard. We really had fun together and felt like family.

As for the bad group. I think, while her intensity could help her achieve success in this world, it would not be very helpful to her in the long run. I do not think that I would ever work with her again
Interviewer: What happened to the groups in question?

Interviewer: Do you think the two leaders exerted influence on group members?

Participant:A big yes! I wanted to be the good group because I wanted to. I had to be in the bad group because I had to!

Interviewer: How leader’s ideas forward towards a strategy in groups , mention two ideas?

‘R’ felt like he already embraced his kindness and desire to provide. When he helped our friend, I felt safe and take care of. I can depend on this leader. Yeah and he likes to work in cooperation with others. I felt like I can help anyone with anything and I learned new things! Unlike the bad group. ‘K’ was like a robot, she said that everyone should only do his job and I felt board the whole time! She also did not follow social distancing rules and we did not work like we should. I think her not following the rules by the government worsened our commitment. It is like we thought he was a perfectionist in everything.

Interviewer: Are the described phenomena common in the country the you come from?

Participant: Oh boy! A roller coaster of emotions! You can find both good and bad people in my country!

Interviewer: Can you make your assessment of team effectiveness, if yes, mention three characteristics?

Participant: The workflow was solid with the first group. The leader seed like he had a knack for knowing how to deal with people. He was fun-loving and approachable.

The second group was bad. She was intense, arrogant and a bit nasty. I tried to hide what I felt a number of times. One day, I woke up and saw like 23 messages from her. She thought I was ignoring her. I did not bother to say that I was feeling sick because I do not think she would believe me. I just said that I was away and I am sorry.

Interviewer: How perceptions of one team leader can be different from others?

Participant: Since we came from different backgrounds, we had some religious and language barriers. But we did not think of it that much. In the good group, we had fun. In the bad group, we worked like hell. So, each leader had his own qualities that resulted in new experiences.

Interview: What are the key values that are inherent in the two leaders, as a participant of the group?

Participant:  ‘R’ valued group work and fun above all. As a result, we felt close to him and everyone else. ‘K’ Thought that we only need to do our job and we were distant from each other.

Interviewer: So you think a leader need to focus on group behavior, how a leader connects all the team members together?

Participant: Exactly.

What can minimized the conflicts in group members


Interviewer: Can you specify two things that you feel work differently the minimized the conflicts in group members?

Participant: ‘R’s’ kindness. It worked like magic with the good group. But he was almost non-existent in the bad one that I felt like it was a bad trait!

Also, ‘K’s’ intensity could have been beneficial to us in the statistical part of the project. We were a bit carless. But it was bad in the second group because it but so much pressure on us.

Interviewer: What is the reason some people go off task at any point during the group work?

Now that I think about it, the way ‘R’ showed his kindness towards us and that everything is aright make us procrastinate a bit. Also, When my friend got sick and ‘R’ helped him, I had this satanic thought of doing the same thing. But with ‘K’, we went discussing trivial things like that we can do everything online and she said that she would never join us! We had to come, and I did not work elsewhere except when we got together.

Interviewer: Since one of your team member was absent from group work but role is assigned, what would you do if you were the leader?

Participant: I would compensate that member’s work and move on.

Interviewer:  In your opinion, which leader was best to in assessing the understanding of group member?

Participant: I think the bad one. She asked about what each excels at.

Interviewer:  How collaboration in group work can yield learning?

Participant: Through coordination and exchange of ideas

Interviewer: Based on your experience with the group work, how every participant behaves with it?

Participant It was different in both. As I told you, the leader is the most influential figure.

Interviewer: Is it important for all group members to show consent towards agreed goals?

Participant: Of course!

Interviewer: What are some other thoughts about group work?

Participant: Sharing is caring. You need to always let the other members feel that you are connected with them.

How team members behave

Interviewer: Do you believe team members understands one another’s’ role?

Participant: Yes for the bad group but the pressure was so hard for us we lost interest in doing our best.

Interviewer: Do the two leaders assume the responsibility to train their members and focus on effective collaboration, coordination and development?

Participant: The leader of the bad group did not. She said: “What do you excel most at?” and we decided on the roles. She than said that since no one said anything when she said the word “excel”, no one needs any help! That snake!

Interviewer: What about the good group?

Participant: He did the same but followed us through to the end.

Interview: I think this is it. Do you have anything else to say?

Participant: No, Thank you.

Interview: You are welcome, Thank you for your help.

Participant: No problem. Good luck!

Interview: You, too!

Appendix B Pre-Interview

Interviewer: Good morning [Name of the participant]! My name is George! I am a researcher interested in Group dynamics and God forbid what might go wrong during group work! All of your info will not be shared by anyone, including this recording.

There will be two interviews. The first one is to just lay the ground for the second interview. So, for now, let us just talk in general and not go too deep. We will leave it for the second interview. Is this alright with you? I may ask for a third one if there is something that would need any clarification. Do You Have any questions?


Participant: Ready when you are.


Interviewer: How are you coping with the corona outbreak? I hope you are doing fine!


Participant: I am fine, Thank you. It has been really tough for me.


Interviewer: I am really sad to hear this! I really everything is fine. Do you need any help?.


Participant: Thank you so much. No , I am doing fine. I hope you are, as well. Do you need any help?


Interviewer: No, I am doing fine. Thank you for asking!


Participant: Good! I heard your boss is trying to get in touch with you all.


Interviewer: Yes. They are Putting us in groups of small numbers to take us back.


Participant: HeHe. Group dynamics the right way.


Interviewer: Haha. I would not say this at such an early stage but thank you!


Participant: No problem. Wish for your safe travel.


Interviewer: Thank you. Speaking of Which, you did say that you had a very interesting experience in two distinct groups. May I know about them? Let us first start with the good one.


Participant: Yes. We knew our roles from the very beginning. [The group’s leader] was a very active guy. He was pretty enthusiastic and I was instantly into the mood. I must confess, though. He was a bit confrontal. But I always felt that it was never an issue.


Interviewer: Do you mind if I ask why it was never an issue?


Participant: He felt like my practical side. Like he was a maturing influence on me.


Interviewer: Interesting! So he felt like he had this energy that made you want to show up, right?


Participant: Yes.


Interviewer: Was this the same for everyone else?


Participant: Yes, I think so. He had this incredible capacity to empathize.He was able to see the good in all things and he was visionary and can see the world from both sides despite the differences among us. Ironik enough, He was a complete guy in the other group!


Interviewer:Was he the leader in both?


Participant: No, He was just another member in the second one. He disapproved of that girl’s intensity, that was apparent. But it felt like his will was somewhat diminished and he could not express himself. He even reacted quite recklessly. Typical man!


Interviewer: I completely understand you. But may I ask you to discuss the two groups separately? Just to avoid confusion.


Participant: No problem.


Interviewer: So, you said that, for the good group, you all were different from one another. May I ask how? what was so different about you all.


Participant: Well, since this is an international university. We all came from dramatically different backgrounds.


Interviewer: Yes. I see. Was this the same with the other group?


Participant: Yea, minus having one member I knew from the older group.


Interviewer: Oh this second group seems totally different, eh?


Participant: Well the start was actually better than the first one!


Interviewer: Seriously?


Participant: Yeah but with the spread of Covid-19, it went downhill.


Interviewer: Oh! That is too bad.


Participant: I know, right!


Interviewer: What was the main thing that made it the worst experience?


Participant: Despite the fact that she showed a period of struggle, she kept with the same plan outside of what we wanted to change because of the corona. We went through trials for no clear reason! Just when we thought we leveled off and found a solution, she said no and when I confronted her in private, she said I trust my intuition and we should not change the way things are! What the! And he just stood there Like a wall despite his experience as a leader!


Interviewer: I really feel you. You need to give reasonable reasons for your actions!


Participant: I do not think that I will be able to get that man *tch*.


Interviewer: He must have been a headache. But I think this is it. Thank you so much. I will get back to you in 5 days time. Just email me with times you are comfortable with. Is this okay with you? Do you have anything else to add?

Participant: Not that I think of. Okay. Thanks!


Interview: Your welcome! Thank you so much for the help! Talk to you later!

Participant: You, too! See you soon!




Appendix CCoding List

Description of Good Groups:

  • They are collaborative
  • They are trustworthy
  • They communicate effectively
  • They show involvement

Description of Bad Groups:

  • Groups that are less involved
  • They are not trustworthy
  • Lack of involvement
  • No vision, less optimistic

Group activity benefits

  • understanding and supportive role
  • Positive collaboration
  • Optimism
  • Improvement in grades and health

Influence of leaders on Grouping

  • Strength
  • incredible sense of authority
  • Better communication
  • Focus on decision making

Projects help groups than individuals

  • Team building approach
  • conflict resolution
  • Enhancing social skills

Leaders as the group leaders

  • They modify team behavior
  • They enhance decision making skills
  • They encourage members by fun and learning
  • They give ideas that forward towards a strategy

Team effectiveness

  • Approachable
  • Fun loving
  • People dealing

Group Behavior

  • Kindness
  • fun & learning
  • Collaboration

Benefits of Group work

  • Sharing
  • Understanding
  • Coordination













 Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. was one of the most significant financial institutions in the United States which involved financial crisis and bailout. Lehman institute provides massive financial services to many worldwide institutions like government, corporations, and wealthy individuals. The New York based financial institution has many offices across the world. Lehman Brothers come fourth among the world’s oldest and largest global financial services firms (Johnson & Mamun, 2012). However, this financial institute was declared bankrupt on September 15, 2008, with 613 billion dollars of debt. Lehman Brothers scandal was noted as the largest bankruptcy in the history of US. The collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc brought another era of financial challenges. The distressed followed with a period of volatility and a perfect economic storm that shook the worldwide stock exchanges with rapid downfall (Adu-Gyamfi, 2016).


Lehman brothers started with a humble origin from a small general store. The Henry Lehman was a German immigrant who founded the store in Alabama in 1944. His brothers Mayer and Emanuel founded the company. It grew from cotton trade and selling dry goods. The company expanded after Henry’s death and this scope encompassed brokerage service and commodity trading. The American economy’s boom also accelerated the progress of the company, though there were plenty of challenges that Lehman brothers had to face in upcoming decades. The company survived all the challenges including the great depression and railroad bankruptcies.   

Lehman Brothers were indulged in many financial issues and worked with mortgage-backed securities in 2003-04. The company enabled capital markets and real estate involvement gave rise to the growth rate. In 2006, the firm securitized $146 billion in mortgage and received a 10% profit over last year. The firm earned record profits from 2005-07. In 2007, net revenue was $19.3 billion but later US housing market confronted cracks, and the company’s stocks faced a record decline. The main issue was raising home delinquencies that had an impact on the earning of the firm. Lehman acted as a major mortgage player in the market, even after the US market gained its momentum.  

Causes of Lehman Brother’s failure

The analysts indicate that there are multiple factors involved behind the downfall of history’s biggest failure of US financial institutions. The Lehman Brothers suffered through numerous failures ultimately leading to the company’s failure. The greedy agencies, Fed actions, Wall Street traders as well as American Housing boom combined with deregulation are few factors that plunged the firm into fallout (Greenfield, 2010). Some analysts say that the crisis of credit and failure of Lehman Brothers are not solely responsible, the company also suffered through numerous credits taken from the market as well. However, corporate failure is another aspect that is also associated with the Lehman Brothers fall in the economy (Gardner, 2008).

 Lehman Brothers faces a financial crisis due to the poor insight of the board members. Lehman Brothers is considered the most significant corporate failure, due to governance failure. Corporate or board failure is noted and criticized by many analysts. Many economic analysts indicated that Lehman Brothers collapsed due to taking excessive debts and lack of risk management by board members on their diversified products (Thomas H., 2009). The holistic approach determined that the board failed the company by not taking proper responsibilities and maintaining transparency in profits. Furthermore, the corporate also showed a lack of accountability and business ethics that further plugged the Lehman Brothers into crisis (Adu-Gyamfi, 2016). 

One of the critical matters that developed in the Lehman crisis was the frail structure and activity of corporate administration associations within the organization. The organizational administration structures fizzled to protect the company from inordinate hazard taking, which in the long run lead to Lehman’s insolvency. These internal disappointments stayed all around covered up and were disregarded until the downturn (Chu, 2018). The key regions, where corporate administration fizzled, were the governing body, compensation plans, and corporate hazard “the executives”. Furthermore, outer control also failed to guide budgetary markets and foundations, CRAs, industry culture, and conceivable rivalry by rival organizations just as inspectors played a poor role. 

 The firm compounded with specific problems, which made them lose their confidence and investors on hedge funds and other banks. The financial analysts also narrate that the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers without a proper rescue from the government put the economy in crisis and allowed the economic collapse of the market (Wiggins, Piontek, & Metrick, 2019). Although the stock market fell dramatically within the week due to this fallout, emergency intervention by the government allowed specific stability in the situation. The government tried to handle the gigantic dangerous scale of corporate failure but Lehman Brothers were already incorporate failure including lack of policies and responsibilities towards the company. The board needed to connect with the Risk Committee. CRO and CFO effectively discuss the potential strategies and activities to save the company. However, such steps are not pursued in Lehman Brothers, and the company failed tremendously (Sraders, 2018).

Lehman Board Structure

The Board of directors is the major structural feature and is noted as essential for the overall working of the company. In a typical board, there are independent directors, chairman, a number of different committees, outside the board, and diverse directors. The independent board holds specific responsibilities towards the company to keep board accountability transparent. The various board members significantly align their interests as per the best interest of the company (Thomas L. , 2008). The casual relationships between board members and the company are based on governance quality and control. Considering this aspect of Board members in Lehman Brothers, it is identified that the company board is diverse, but their oversight and ineffectively leads to financial downfall. The structure of Lehman Brothers consists of 10 directors, eight independence standards, different section directors, and executives from profit and non-profit affiliations (O’Mahony, 2018). Within Lehman Brothers company, all the board members and executives are paid healthily with specific equity portions and compensation. However, despite this, the Lehman Brothers board did not perform their responsibilities. The structural attributes and their professional backgrounds were notably absent in the financial service and business practice.  It is reflected that the problem in board failure arises due to agency problems (Johnson &Mamun, 2012).

Lehman Brothers bankruptcy
Agency problems and accounting theft

Agency Problem

The agency problem mainly arises because agents do not act in the best interest of the shareholder. Agency problems state that when the principal, i.e., shareholders, work through others, the agency becomes subjective. The problem thus came into view that Lehman’s brother’s motivating agents to do not comply with the principal’s best interest, and the agent works on their investment. Scholars indicate that agents in any company are hired because they have the capacity to perform their tasks in any state, and the principal requires their assistance. However, when principals and agents are not on one page, commitment, and specific knowledge, as well as commitment, are not performed accordingly (Stevens, 2009). Furthermore, it is also identified that since agent possesses greater information within the company, they can be left the company in the dark for their interest and not perform their duties as promised in the contractual relationship.

 Based on the conceptual analysis described above, it is reflected that Lehman Brothers faced these problems very increasingly. Lehman Brother board has a small piece of company ownership that guarantees the best interest of the company. The company effectively risked its own privacy and information at the disposal of board members. The company took great risks under the agency problems because executives acted on their interest and took performance-based compensation. The analysis of Lehman Brothers and board members indicated that the company itself established agency problems by making shareholders impossible to directly run the company (Thomas H., 2009). Shareholders hire the other party to reduce their problem, but that committee was not formally structured and monitored. Director’s role and management were oversight under the external audit setting, the compensation scheme for high members, and leading to lack of governance. When the corporate board was analyzed, it was also identified that ultimate board responsibilities and their business affairs led down the company. The board did not perform their responsibilities, loyalty and care were highly compromised. (Sraders, 2018).

Monitoring values in Lehman Brothers

 According to the principle, it is noted that corporate governance needs to carry out certain strategic guidance in the company. The effective monitoring and accountability of management by the board members are also included in this perspective. Based on this principle, it is reflected that the Lehman Board lacked the ethical value of keeping responsibilities and accountabilities towards the company. Board members are required to implement the best interest of the company to keep ethical standards high. However, board members’ practice did not show any objective or corporate affairs that fulfilled their functions and kept the company effective on their risk policy strategy or business plan (O’Mahony, 2018). The company and Board Members effectively reduced their ethical values and principles to manage internal conflicts or oversee the company disclosure. It should be noted that once hired on the company board, each member has individual responsibility and ethical value to safeguard the rising agency problem in the company and held the lack of transparency in the company. CRA has an important role in tackling the financial crisis and securities within the company. The CRAs in Lehman Brothers failed to tackle any risk, balance out the power or misguidance inside the company. The major problems related to the financial inaccuracy and conflict of interests were not completely understood, and the overall corporate governance framework failed. The board and its independent members were noted as a classic examples of risks and crises. As one of the largest firms dealing with finance, the company did not have any risk management policies or evaluation strategies that could allow the board to perform its duties (Shell, 2018). The company faces trickery in terms of transparency and accountability. No member was observed to have proper dedication and accountability towards their duties. The greatly compromised internal information aggressive growth and pace of members were not properly monitored (Chu, 2018).

The analysis and critic review on Lehman Brother also indicate that performance-based compensation in the company was tight as per demands of long term shareholders and their value. The substantial opportunities in the company led to having a great impact on unethical performance and misleading the company greatly. Board individuals are expected to apply to the well-being of the organization by keeping the high moral benchmarks (Fitzpatrick & Thomas, 2016). Nonetheless, their training did not indicate any target practice or corporate undertakings that satisfied their capacities and stayed with the compelling on their hazard approach technique or marketable strategy (Shell, 2018). The organization and Board members have successfully diminished their moral qualities and standards to deal with interior clashes or administer the organization’s divulgence. The case study of Lehman Brothers is an active example where the corporate board took advantage of company resources and indulged in unethical practices (Authers& Fox, 2018).


 The Lehman Brothers were engaged with various causes and expertly characterized their way towards the destruction. Lehman Brothers are considered as the greatest corporate disappointment principally because of the administration failure. The corporate and board disappointment is noted and censured by numerous investigators. These various monetary investigators showed that Lehman Brothers crumbled because of unreasonable obligations and the absence of hazard policy. The board members bombed the organization by not taking appropriate obligations and keeping up their benefits. Moreover, the corporate analysis additionally demonstrated a lack of responsibility and business morals that further connected the Lehman Brothers financial emergency. The basic qualities and their expert foundation were prominently missing in money-related assistance and business practice. The organization successfully took a chance with their own protection and data at the transfer of board individuals. The organization went out on a limb under the corporate issue since administrators followed up on their own interests and took advantage of their own corporate salary. As one of the biggest firms, the organization didn’t have any policy or strategy to keep the executive’s approaches or assessment systems while enable them to play out their obligations. The organization faced a lack of responsibility. The inside data was incredibly undermined, forceful development and pace of individuals were not appropriately held under the screen.


Adu-Gyamfi, M. (2016). The Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers: Causes, Effects and Lessons Learnt. Journal of Insurance and Financial Management, 1(4), 132-149.

Authers, J., & Fox, B. (2018, September 24). Legacy of Lehman Brothers is a global pensions mess. Retrieved from Financial Times:

Chu, B. (2018, September 12). Financial crisis 2008: How Lehman Brothers helped cause ‘the worst financial crisis in history’. Retrieved from Independent:

Dutta, S., Caplan, D., & Lawson, R. (2010). Lehman’s $hell Game. Strategic Finance, 92(2), 23-29.

Fitzpatrick, T., & Thomas, J. (2016). Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, what lessons can be drawn? London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gardner, G. (2008, September 15). Will Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Affect You? Retrieved from NPR:

Greenfield, H. (2010). The decline of the best: An insider’s lessons from Lehman Brothers. Leader to Leader, 55, 30-36.

Johnson, M. A., & Mamun, A. (2012). The failure of Lehman Brothers and its impact on other financial institutions. Journal of Applied Financial Economics, 22(5), 375-385.

O’Mahony, P. (2018, September 11). Lehman Brothers, 10 years on: seven lessons for investors. Retrieved from Irish Times:

Shell, A. (2018). Lehman Bros. collapse triggered economic turmoil. Retrieved from ABCnews:

Sraders, A. (2018, September 12). The Lehman Brothers Collapse and How It’s Changed the Economy Today. Retrieved from The Street:

Stevens, B. (2009). Corporate ethical codes as strategic documents: An analysis of success and failure. EJBO – Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 14(2).

Thomas, H. (2009, August 19). Lehman victims kept waiting for compensation. Retrieved from Express:

Thomas, L. (2008, September 15). Examing the ripple effect of the Lehman bankruptcy. Retrieved from The New York Times:

Wiggins, R. Z., Piontek, T., & Metrick, A. (2019). The Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy A: Overview. Journal of Financial Crises, 1(1).



Dr. Meredith Belbin, in the early 1970s, worked on a management theory to study the performance of teams in project management roles. Belbin studied various attitudes of members of the team by running different business simulations to conclude key results on employees’ work behavior. He found different clusters by studying the behavior of employees. He was of the view that no team is perfect for every task that exists. (MANAGEMENT CENTRE, 2018)

Belbin devised eight later on nine different attitudes of team behavior depending upon the roles they perform in the project. He defined clusters as the behavior of employees by which they interact with other employees in the project. (MANAGEMENT CENTRE, 2018)

Belbin identified which teams will be suitable for which roles and which will not be successful and which behaviors the team will exhibit in project management roles. Belbin’s Theory helps managers to identify the skillsets of different employees and recruit them on the project according to their skills. It helps managers to better evaluate the current experience levels of different employees and their feelings about the work culture. It also assists managers in identifying the activities which employees like and which they do not. (MANAGEMENT CENTRE, 2018)

Belbin used specific language to address the key roles in project management. Belbin’s Theory assists employees in identifying whether they are shaper, plant, or completer. Different roles under the Belbin theory are explained below. (MANAGEMENT CENTRE, 2018)

Implementer employees are well organized in their job roles, systematic, introverted, and faithful to the work they perform. They are down-to-earth people with an ample amount of common sense to do the job tasks. The role of implementers in project teams consists of turning plans into actions which can be then performed to reach the final output. The major weaknesses in the implementer role include the resistance to major change and lack of flexibility to respond to different assignments. Managers need to manage the implementer style of employees by balancing the right mix of flexibility. (MANAGEMENT CENTRE, 2018)

The coordinator style of employees in the team management roles, according to Belbin’s Theory are cool and calm, and they look mature in their appearance. They can manage the tasks confidently and with full control. The biggest role of the contributor is to provide a calm and cool atmosphere for the other team members to perform well in the project. The major weaknesses they possess include deficient levels of creativity and a strong grip on the process but not on the final output. Managers need to work with contributors to carefully draft objectives for them and then monitor the objectives throughout the project. (MANAGEMENT CENTRE, 2018)

Shapers are extroverts and flexible members of the team. They play an important role in shaping the objectives and get the job done in the set time. They are highly motivated individuals with great skill of focusing on the tasks with full concentration and eagerness. Shapers enjoy the challenge, and they usually find the solution to the most challenging situation without losing their temperament. Their main role is to provide a shaping structure to project to achieve objectives. Major weaknesses of shapers include easily get annoyed with other team members, and they are, in general impatient. Managers need to allocate enough time to discuss the issues with the shapers before concluding. Managers need to implement shapes in the project to achieve the project objectives. (MANAGEMENT CENTRE, 2018)

The plant is another role that is studied and identified by Belbin in his Theory on different employee behaviors in the project management roles. Plant role involves creative people with a great mindset and ability to interact and solve complex issues involved in the project.  They are imaginative and can think freely and also generate ideas through brainstorming with other employees.  The biggest weaknesses of these types of people include ineffective communication with other employees due to the fact of preoccupied nature, and they might ignore incidents at times. Managers also need to carefully handle the problem of forgetfulness and absent-minded of these employees. (IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON, 2018)

Completer / Finisher role involves the people concentrating on finishing the task in due time and carefully evaluating the project scope. They are very concerned and anxious about the project work and the deadlines.  They put themselves into the shoes of others to better understand the problems and their remedies. They can perform their work on time and with great levels of concentration.  Their main strengths include delivering the objectives of the project in due time and identifying errors and omissions in the project work. They are poor in delegating the task to their juniors and tend to worry easily. (MOGA, 2017)

Monitor / Evaluator is serious-looking people in their appearance and have great skill of skepticism, which helps them to analyze the project situations and problems critically and better respond to the important aspects of the project. Great analysis skills of monitor/evaluator help them to keep other members of the team on track by highlighting the objectives of the project and its deadlines. (BUSINESS BALLS, 2019)

Resource Investigators are motivated and extrovert people with great communication skills inside and outside the office premises. They have the inbuilt ability to negotiate with the other members and creating contacts. They are not good at generating ideas, but they can better respond to other people’s ideas and suggestions. Their main strengths include questioning other people’s ideas and setting up contacts outside the office to achieve the larger goals of the organization. They easily adapt to the new teams. They are generally lazy and lose focus once the project is undertaken.  Over optimistic about the objectives of the project often lead them to certain difficulties. (COACHING, 2017)

A specialist is those employees in the project managers who have specialized skills to complete the task at hand. They are experts in their fields, and they are very proud of the work they perform and the skills they possess. The most common mistakes among this type of employee include limiting themselves to a particular area of the field and not focusing on the bigger image of the objective. Due to this, they easily get demotivated and lose focus from the main objectives. (MIND TOOLS, 2019)

Team workers are the people who are interested in uniting the team members together to achieve the larger objective of the project. Their main role is to act as an arbitrator in the team management environment, and they focus on resolving the issues of the team and conflicts that exist within the project team. Their team members praise them for the supportive nature they possess and offer in the team management environment. The biggest strength of these types of employees is that they put the interests of the employees above the interests of their own, and that is why they do not take the sides of employees on certain matters. (MERCHANT, 2019)

There are certain limitations to the Belbin theory. Belbin theory can be implemented at the personal, team, and cultural change. However, they are not implemented. Belbin team performance can be used in the work setting only. It cannot be used in a personal capacity. Belbin has a cultural bias as it is focused on the higher level of executives in the British. This depicts that although the Theory can be implemented in other cultures, the main focus of the Theory was a particular class of people. (ISAAC, 2018)

New Managers can easily understand the structures of the organization in the corporate world by applying Belbin theory and can easily be familiar with different levels of employees. Employees can make use of the Belbin theory and can make use of the strengths they possess in an organizational framework to achieve the goals of the organization. (ISAAC, 2018)

There are different methods by which the Belbin theory can be implemented in a better way on the company level.  Managers need to discover different patterns of work behavior in the organizational culture and then need to respond according to the specific team culture. Coherence needs to be increased between the manager and other employees. Senior managers need to dig deep and unearth the hidden talents of the young workforce so that they can reach their true potential. Managers can better perform in the team by evaluating the key strengths and weaknesses of different team members in the job and then allocating jobs and roles to them according to their specific skill sets and talent. (ISAAC, 2018)


Available at:
[Accessed 14 OCT 2019].


Available at:
[Accessed 14 OCT 2019].

Available at:
[Accessed 14 OCT 2019].

Available at:[Accessed October 14, 2019].

Available at:
[Accessed 14 OCT 2019].

Available at:
[Accessed 14 OCT 2019].

Available at:
[Accessed 14 OCT 2019].

    Crazy Offer!

    25% off

    on your first order