People in Project Management Assessments

Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering
Faculty of Engineering and Environment
Dr Allan Osborne | KB7036 and AT7026 People in Project
Management Page 1 of 6
Assessment Brief Assessment Components 001 and 002
1 Module Key Information
1.1 Module Title
People in Project Management
1.2 Module Code Numbers
KB7030 (Newcastle) and AT7027 (Amsterdam)
1.3 Module Level and Points
Level 7 and 20 points
1.4 Summative Assessment Component(s) and Weighti ng(s)
▪ Assessment Component 001: Coursework
................................................................... 10% weighting
▪ Assessment Component 002: Coursework

................................................................... 90% weighting
1.5 Module Leader
Dr Allan Osborne
1.6 Academic Year
Semester 2 2021-22
1.7 Cohorts
Newcastle and Amsterdam students
2 Assessment Submission and Feedback
2.1 Assessment Overview
The module has two components of summative assessment.
These include:
▪ Assessment Component 001 is a piece of coursework in the
form of a Peer Review (Steps 1 & 2)
▪ Assessment Component 002 is a piece of coursework in the
form of an Academic Paper
2.2 Release Date of Assessment Brief
The module leader released the assessment brief to you on the
following date and time:

▪ 09:00 (UK time) on Monday 21 February 2022
2.3 Medium Used to Disseminate Assessment Brief
You can find a digital copy of this assessment brief from the
Content > Assessment sub-folder in the
Blackboard (Bb) course.
2.4 Date(s) and Time(s) of Submission
You are required to submit these assessment components by no
later than the following dates and times:
1. Peer Review Step 1..................................................... 13:00
(UK time) on Monday, 21 March 2022
2. Peer Review Step 2............................................... 13:00
(UK time) on Wednesday, 30 March 2022
3. Academic Paper ................................................................
13:00 (UK time) on Monday, 9 May 2022
2.5 Return Date of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark and
Feedback
The module leader will post your Peer Review Step 2 feedback
and your unconfirmed internally
moderated mark and feedback for the Academic Paper by no
later than the following dates and times:
1. Peer Review Step 2..........................................................
13:00 (UK time) on Monday, 4 April 2022

2. Academic Paper ............................................................
13:00 (UK time) on Thursday, 9 June 2022
2.6 Mechanism for Return of Mark(s) and Feedback
The module leader will use the Turnitin digital submission tool
to return your feedback and unconfirmed
internally moderated mark for the Academic Paper. You can
find the relevant Bb Assignment and Turnitin
digital submission tools in the Bb course from the Content >
Assessment > Submission Tools sub-folder.
3 Assessment Overview
The assessment baseline quotation is: “Leadership in a team
setting is much less about command and
control, and more about getting the most out of a diverse and
experienced group of individuals” (Ernst &
Young, 2013).
3.1 Belbin Self-Perception Inventory (SPI)
Before writing your Academic Paper, you need to complete a
Belbin Self-Perception Inventory (SPI)
questionnaire to ascertain your preferred team role(s) according
to Belbin’s team roles theory. The
module leader will invite you to complete a Belbin SPI
questionnaire by emailing your Northumbria
University inbox no later than 13:00 (UK time) on Monday, 21

February 2022. You must note the
invitation will come from [email protected] and not the module
leader. You will need to check your
junk folder if you cannot see the message in your Northumbria
University inbox.
You must message the module leader using the Bb Messages
tool if you cannot find the module
leader’s invitation to complete a Belbin SPI from
[email protected] after checking your inbox and
junk folder. Do not email the module leader; this will slow
down the module leader’s response time
(see Module Handbook and Panopto Assignment Briefing video
presentation for further information).
3.2 Peer Review
Peer Review has two steps. You can read what these steps are
in the following two sub-sections. There
are only two possible marks for Peer Review: 0% or 100%. To
gain 100%, you must complete both
steps by the deadlines shown above in Section 2.4. You cannot
receive a partial mark by completing
only one of the steps. Neither can you apply for a Short
Extension for Assessment Component
001 (Peer Review); this is because the module leader has
notified the Student Engagement Team that it
cannot grant you a Short Extension for Assessment Component
001 (Peer Review).
Peer Review Step 1 Submission Requirements
You will submit a digital copy in Microsoft 365 Word format of
your draft Academic Paper to a Bb

Assignment digital submission tool called Peer Review Steps 1
& 2 in the Bb course's Content >
Assessment > Submission Tools sub-folder. You must submit
your draft Academic Paper anonymously.
When submitting your digital file, you need to be careful
because your first submission attempt is
deemed final; this means you cannot ask the module leader to
give you a second opportunity should you
inadvertently upload the wrong file. You can find the maximum
word limit for your Academic Paper below
from Section 5.3.
Peer Review Step 2 Submission Requirements
The Bb Assignment digital submission tool will give you access
to the Peer Review Step 2 process
immediately after the Peer Review Step 1’s submission deadline
has passed. Peer Review Step 2
requires you to provide constructive, supportive feedback using
a structured template provided by the
module leader for two students’ draft Academic Papers. You
will find the Peer Review Step 2 Structure
Feedback Template from the Content > Assessment sub-folder
in the Bb course. You will use the Bb
Assignment digital submission tool called ‘Peer Review Steps 1
& 2’ in the Content > Assessment >
Submission Tools sub-folder in the Bb course to write your
reviews using the feedback template as a
guide. You must submit your reviews anonymously. You can
find the minimum and maximum word limits
for Peer Review Step 2 below from Section 5.2.
3.3 Academic Paper

Metaphorically using your Belbin SPI questionnaire as an
appraisal instrument, i.e., a conceptual lens
through which you will reflect on your past observations of
people and their behaviour while working in
teams, you must write an academic paper that addresses the
following two tasks. Between the two
main sections of your academic writing, you must include an
appropriate segue linking the separate
sections together.
Task 1 – Belbin’s Team Roles Theory
In this section of your Academic Paper, the module leader
requires you to write a clear and coherent
narrative detailing your opinion concerning the validity of your
Belbin SPI questionnaire report and
Belbin’s Team Roles Theory. While doing so, you are required
to use published papers you have
chosen from primary literature sources in leadership,
management, and organizational sciences as the
theoretical underpinning for your academic writing.
Task 2 – People and Behaviour Theories
In this section of your Academic Paper, the module leader
requires you to write a clear and coherent
academic debate detailing the opposing viewpoints concerning
the validity of critical theories

associated with a single ‘People and Behaviour’ domain
assigned to you. While doing so, you are
required to use published papers you have chosen from primary
literature sources in leadership,
management, and organizational sciences as the theoretical
underpinning for your academic debate.
‘People and Behaviour’ Domain
When the module leader posted this assessment brief on the Bb
course, he also posted a document titled
‘Assigned People and Behaviour Domains’ in the Bb courses’
Content > Assessment sub-folder.
If you look at this document, you will see the domain the
module leader has randomly assigned to you.
You must write your Academic Paper using the people and
behaviour domain assigned to you. If you
write your Academic Paper using a different domain, you will
not have fully satisfied the assignment's
requirements for Task 2 for Assessment Component 002. As a
result, the module leader will have to
reduce your unconfirmed mark for the Academic Paper.
To ascertain the APM’s definition of your allocated domain,
you need to review the APM Body of
Knowledge 7th edition. You can access this publication free of
charge by joining the APM as a student
member. The APM’s website explains how to become a student
member. You should note that the APM
does not expect you to pay an annual membership fee while you
are a student. You are classified as a
student when studying this module and your Master’s degree.

Academic Paper Submission Requirements
You will submit a digital copy in Microsoft 365 Word format of
your Academic Paper using the Microsoft
365 Word template provided by the module tutor to a Turnitin
digital submission tool called ‘Academic
Paper’ in the Content > Assessment > Submission Tools sub-
folder in the Bb course. You can find the
Microsoft 365 Word template from the Bb course’ Content >
Assessment sub-folder. You must submit
your Academic Paper anonymously. When submitting your
digital file, you need to be careful because
your first submission attempt is deemed final; this means you
cannot ask the module leader to give
you a second opportunity should you inadvertently upload the
wrong file. You can find the maximum
word limit for the Academic Paper below from Section 5.3.
4 Referencing Style
The module leader expects you to write your Academic Paper in
an academically acceptable format. You
must present your bibliographic citations in your text and
reference list using the Cite Them Right
method of the Harvard referencing system. Cite Them Right is
freely available to Northumbria University
students at https://www.citethemrightonline.com/ You must
enter your Northumbria University online user
credentials to access the online guide.
5 Word Limits
5.1 Peer Review Step 1

Your draft Academic Paper for Peer Review Step 1 should have
a minimum word count not less than
50% of the maximum word limit for the Academic Paper. It
also must not exceed the maximum word
limit for the Academic Paper.
5.2 Peer Review Step 2
You will use a structured template provided by the module
leader as a guide when writing the peer
reviews for the two draft Academic Paper assigned to you.
Each section included in the Peer Review
Step 2 Structure Feedback Template has a minimum word count
of 50 words. There is no maximum
word limit.
https://www.citethemrightonline.com/
5.3 Academic Paper
You are required to declare the word count of your Academic
Paper in the relevant section of the
Microsoft 365 Word Template the module leader has given you.
The maximum word limit for the
Academic Paper is 3,000 words; this limit excludes the
Abstract, which has a separate word limit of
200 words. The Academic Paper word limit includes the
following constituents:

▪ The main body of text
▪ In-text citations, e.g., (Smith, 2011) or Smith (2011)
▪ Direct quotations from primary or secondary source mater ials
You are permitted to exclude the following constituents when
calculating the word count of your
Academic Paper:
▪ Title
▪ Abstract (no more than 200 words)
▪ Keywords (no more than five keywords)
▪ Figures
▪ Tables
▪ Reference list
You are not allowed to include the following constituents when
writing your Academic Paper:
▪ Appendices
▪ Bibliography
▪ Endnotes
▪ Footnotes
▪ Glossary of terms
6 Further Information
6.1 Module Learning Outcomes (MLOs) Assessed by
Coursework
On completion of the Coursework, you will be able to:
Knowledge and understanding:
1. Define and evaluate selected key theories and concepts

associated with the main characteristics
and processes of teams, the issues facing teams, and the
organizational context of teams.
2. Critically appraise selected key theories and techniques
associated with the groups and teams in
an organization, organizational structures, and management
processes.
Intellectual/professional skills and abilities:
3. Empowered with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to
create, participate in, and effectively lead
real and virtual project-orientated teams.
4. Critically review the literature on team dynamics,
management, and organizational behaviour and
engage with what others have written through evaluative
discourse.
Personal values attributes:
5. Exhibit the professional ethics characteristics of a University
postgraduate student.
7 Referral
If the Progression and Awards Board (PAB) decides to give you
a referral attempt of the module, the
module leader may ask you to retake the examination at another
time. The referral attempt opportunity
will typically occur after the end-of-level Progression and
Awards Board (PAB). If you pass the module

following a referral attempt, you will be awarded the module
pass mark for level 7 modules, i.e., 50%. If
you become eligible to complete a referral attempt but are
subsequently unable to undertake the
opportunity when required, you will be permitted to re-sit the
module at the next scheduled sitting; this will
generally entail the suspension of your progression on your
programme of study until such time that you
have completed the level and become eligible to proceed. The
date and time of the examination for your
referral attempt will usually be confirmed to you by Academic
Registry via the University’s website and not
by the module leader.
8 Assessment Criteria
The academic staff that will mark your Academic Paper will use
the following Assessment Criteria Matrix
to grade your work. The Assessment Criteria Matrix uses
Northumbria University’s postgraduate
descriptor as its pedagogic base.
When you receive your summative assessment feedback,
academic staff will give you feedback using the
Triple Plus/Delta Retrospective, which includes ‘three positive
things you did’ and ‘three things you could
improve’.

Figure 8.1: Module Assessment Criteria Matrix
9 Guidance for Students on Policies for Assessment
The University has many policies for assessment. The
following information, available to you from here,
guides these policies, including relevant procedures and forms.
(1) Assessment Regulations and Policies
(a) Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards
(b) Group Work Assessments Policy
(c) Moderation Policy
(d) Retention of Assessed Work Policy
(e) Word Limits Policy
(2) Assessment Feedback
(a) Anonymous Marking Policy
(3) Late Submission of Work and Extension Requests
(4) Personal Extenuating Circumstances
(5) Technical Extenuating Circumstances
(6) Student Complaints and Appeals
(7) Academic Misconduct
(8) Student Disability and Unforeseen Medical Circumstances

https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/university-
services/academic-registry/quality-and-teaching-
excellence/assessment/guidance-for-students/1 Module Key
Information1.1 Module Title1.2 Module Code Numbers1.3
Module Level and Points1.4 Summative Assessment
Component(s) and Weighting(s)1.5 Module Leader1.6 Academic
Year1.7 Cohorts2 Assessment Submission and Feedback2.1
Assessment Overview2.2 Release Date of Assessment Brief2.3
Medium Used to Disseminate Assessment Brief2.4 Date(s) and
Time(s) of Submission2.5 Return Date of Unconfirmed
Internally Moderated Mark and Feedback2.6 Mechanism for
Return of Mark(s) and Feedback3 Assessment Overview3.1
Belbin Self-Perception Inventory (SPI)3.2 Peer Review3.2.1
Peer Review Step 1 Submission Requirements3.2.2 Peer Review
Step 2 Submission Requirements3.3 Academic Paper3.3.1 Task
1 – Belbin’s Team Roles Theory3.3.2 Task 2 – People and
Behaviour Theories3.3.3 ‘People and Behaviour’ Domain3.3.4
Academic Paper Submission Requirements4 Referencing Style5
Word Limits5.1 Peer Review Step 15.2 Peer Review Step 25.3
Academic Paper6 Further Information6.1 Module Learning
Outcomes (MLOs) Assessed by Coursework6.1.1 Knowledge
and understanding:6.1.2 Intellectual/professional skills and
abilities:6.1.3 Personal values attributes:7 Referral8 Assessment
Criteria9 Guidance for Students on Policies for Assessment
114
APM Body of Knowledge 7th edition
3.1.5 Conflict resol u tion
Facilitating win-win solu tions where possible

Conflict arises when there are differ ing opin ions and/or oppos
ing interests between stake-
hold ers that matter to the people involved and are not easily
recon ciled. Conflict may be asso-
ci ated with the task being under taken, the process used to
perform the task or rela tion ships
between people.
Outside of the work place, people have a choice whether to
ignore a conflict or address it.
Project profes sion als do not have the same choices at work as
they have in their personal lives.
Usually, ignor ing the conflict and the people involved is not an
accept able way of safe guard ing
the success of the project, programme or port fo lio.
There are choices that can be made whether to ‘manage’ a
conflict, i.e. prevent it from being
an ongoing issue but typic ally requir ing one or other party to
lose some thing of value to them,
or to ‘resolve’ a conflict, i.e. enable a winwin solu tion.
Taking a conflict resol u tion perspect ive, rather than conflict
being perceived as negat ive – an
unwanted struggle – conflict is an oppor tun ity to add value,
using an ‘everyonecanwin’
approach.
A common model to use when consid er ing approaches to the
manage ment or resol u tion of
conflict is the one depic ted in Figure 3.1.5. This model encour
ages people to think about
conflict using two dimen sions:
� the desire to achieve own object ives;
� the desire to achieve others’ object ives.
Investing the time neces sary to achieve both one’s own and

others’ object ives is not always the
right thing to do – it depends on how much resolv ing the
conflict matters to achiev ing the
object ives and bene fits, and the degree to which it is import
ant to build/preserve long-term
rela tion ships between the parties involved.
Where a win-win is neces sary, the project profes sional needs
a high level of skill in facil it a tion
to be able to under stand and creat ively align goals.
Other skills are import ant, depend ing on the conflict manage
ment/resol u tion mode that is
desired, e.g.:
� Assertiveness skills: To stand up for the project and what is
required for success.
� Listening skills: To under stand the perspect ives of the
people involved.
� Personal resi li ence: When the project context is highly
charged with many conflicts to
manage.
Sometimes, it is neces sary to involve other parties to resolve a
conflict, e.g. the project sponsor/
other stake hold ers as part of governance, a neutral medi ator
(from inside or outside of the
organ isa tion) or an arbit ra tion service to prevent the conflict
escal at ing into litig a tion or indus-
trial action. Projects need clear proto cols for escal at ing
conflicts either to project governance,
or to the relev ant programme or port fo lio level and for decid
ing when the organ isa tion needs
to go straight to litig a tion, or to altern at ive dispute resol u
tion in order to de-escalate the conflict.

Pr
op
er
ty
of
AP
M
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
on
ly
Do
no
t d
ist
rib
ute

Chapter 3 People and beha viours
115
Recommended reading
� The Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument™ is a
frequently used model to explore the
options for manage ment or resol u tion of a conflict. Kilmann’s
website provides access to
reading mater i als and the self-diagnosis instru ment to help
develop skills in dealing with
conflict.
� Everyone Can Win: Responding to Conflict Constructively
(2007) is a prac tical book that
provides the essen tials for hand ling personal and work place
diffi culties with emotional
intel li gence includ ing hand ling clashes of values and toxic
power issues.
� A Practical Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution
(2018) is a compre hens ive and
digest ible comment ary on the ways to resolve conflicts out of
court. This is very relev ant
to some projects where conflicts within the organ isa tion or in
the supply chain/between
part ners cannot be resolved easily.
Figure 3.1.5 A common model to consider approaches to dealing
with conflict
Source: Adapted from the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode
Instrument.
Figure 3.1.5 ‘Conflict Situations’ based on Dr Ralph Kilmann’s

version of the TKI Conflict Model,
www.kilmanndiagnostics.com/
overview-thomas-kilmannconflict-mode-instrument-tki,
copyright © 2009–2018 by Kilmann Diagnostics. All rights
reserved. (Accessed
8 August 2018.)
Pr
op
er
ty
of
AP
M
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
on
ly
Do
no
t d

ist
rib
ute
116
APM Body of Knowledge 7th edition
Full refer ences for section 3.1
3.1.1
Bourne, L. (2016) Stakeholder Relationship Management: A
Maturity Model for Organisational
Implementation, 2nd edition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bourne, L. (ed.) (2011) Advising Upwards: A Framework for
Understanding and Engaging Senior
Management Stakeholders. Farnham: Gower Publications.
Holloway, J., Bryde, D. and Joby, R. (2015) A Practical Guide
to Dealing with Difficult Stakeholders (2015)
Farnham: Gower.
3.1.2
Cross, R. L., Parker, A. and Cross, R. (2004) The Hidden Power
of Social Networks: Understanding How
Work Really Gets Done in Organizations. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business Publishing.
Emes, M. and Griffiths, W. (2018) Systems Thinking: How is it
Used in Project Management? Princes
Risborough: Association for Project Management.

Scott, J. (2017) Social Network Analysis, 4th edition. London:
Sage Publications.
3.1.3
Association for Project Management People Specific Interest
Group (2010) The Lens Collective. Princes
Risborough: Association for Project Management.
Dent, F. and Brent, M. (2006) Influencing: Skills and
Techniques for Business Success. Basingstoke:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Mayfield, P. M. (2013) Practical People Engagement: Leading
Change through the Power of Relationships.
Abingdon: Elbereth Publishing.
3.1.4
Kaner, S. (2014) A Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory
Decision-Making, 3rd edition. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Pullan, P. and Murray-Webster, R. (2011) A Short Guide to
Facilitating Risk Management: Engaging
People to Identify, Own and Manage Risk. Farnham: Gower
Publications.
Sibbet, D. (2010) Visual Meetings: How Graphics, Sticky Notes
& Idea Mapping Can Transform Group
Productivity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
3.1.5
Blake, S., Browne, J. and Sime, S. (2018) A Practical Approach
to Alternative Dispute Resolution, 4th
edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cornelius, H. and Faire, S. (2007) Everyone Can Win:
Responding to Conflict Constructively, 2nd edition.

Pymble, NSW: Simon and Schuster.
Pr
op
er
ty
of
AP
M
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
on
ly
Do
no
t d
ist
rib
ute

Belbin Team Role
Report for
PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
POTHIREDDY
University of Northumbria
KB7036 People in Project Management
© BELBIN 2011
Team Role Summary Descriptions
Team Role Contribution Allowable Weaknesses
Plant
Resource
Investigator
Co-ordinator
Shaper
Monitor
Evaluator
Teamworker

Implementer
Completer
Finisher
Specialist
Creative, imaginative, free-thinking.
Generates ideas and solves difficult
problems.
Ignores incidentals. Too
pre-occupied to communicate
effectively.
Outgoing, enthusiastic, communicative.
Explores opportunities and develops
contacts.
Over-optimistic. Loses
interest once initial
enthusiasm has passed.
Mature, confident, identifies talent.
Clarifies goals. Delegates effectively.
Can be seen as manipulative.
Offloads own share of the
work.
Challenging, dynamic, thrives on

pressure. Has the drive and courage to
overcome obstacles.
Prone to provocation. Offends
people's feelings.
Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees
all options and judges accurately.
Lacks drive and ability to
inspire others. Can be overly
critical.
Co-operative, perceptive and
diplomatic. Listens and averts friction.
Indecisive in crunch
situations. Avoids
confrontation.
Practical, reliable, efficient. Turns ideas
into actions and organizes work that
needs to be done.
Somewhat inflexible. Slow to
respond to new possibilities.
Painstaking, conscientious, anxious.
Searches out errors. Polishes and
perfects.

Inclined to worry unduly.
Reluctant to delegate.
Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated.
Provides knowledge and skills in rare
supply.
Contributes only on a narrow
front. Dwells on technicalities.
PURUSHOTHAM REDDY POTHIREDDY
Team Role Overview
SPI completed on 25-Feb-2022
© BELBIN 2011 Page 3 Report printed on 25-Feb-2022
The bar graph in this report shows your Team Roles in order
from highest to lowest, using all available
information. The other pages of your report will analyse your
Team Role Overview in more detail.
This report is based on your Self-Perception plus 4 Observer
Assessments.
Percentile
Team Role
100
90

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CF CO PL TW IMP RI SH SP ME
Key
CF Completer Finisher
CO Co-ordinator
PL Plant
TW Teamworker
IMP Implementer
RI Resource Investigator
SH Shaper

SP Specialist
ME Monitor Evaluator
The graph above shows your Team Roles in order of preference.
Some people have an even spread of
Team Roles whilst others may have one or two very high and
very low Team Roles. An individual does
not necessarily show all nine Team Role behaviours.
This graph is a combination of your views and those of your
Observers. When we combine all the
information together, we take account of how closely your
perception of yourself agrees with others'
views of you. Many factors are taken into account when
deriving your final Team Role composition.
Analysis of your Team Role Composition
This report provides an overview of Team Roles as seen by
yourself and others, in order from most
prominent (column 1) to least (column 9). Your overall Team
Role composition is not simply an
average of each individual line, but a weighted integration of
your perceptions and your Observers'
views, which takes many factors into account.
Assessments.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PURUSHOTHAM REDDY POTHIREDDY's Self-PerceptionCF
CO IMP TW RI ME PL SP SH
Observers:
Purnachander Mudhuganti SP CF SH PL RI CO TW ME IMP
Yameesha Borkar CO PL TW RI CF IMP SH ME SP
Girish Kottisa PL TW SH IMP CF ME RI SP CO
Arushi Sinha PL SP SH TW ME RI CF IMP CO
Observers' Overall Views PL TW SH CF RI SP CO IMP ME
Your Overall Team Role Composition CF CO PL TW IMP RI
SH SP ME
Your observers reached quite different conclusions to your own
in terms of Team Role preferences. There
will inevitably be some compromise, but if you feel strongly
that you have strengths which have not yet
been uncovered, it is up to you to declare your preferences in
these areas. Alternatively, you may want to
focus on cultivating those Team Role strengths which others see
in you.
This comment looks at the consistency between the Observers'
Overall Views and your Self-Perception. It
does not take into account the level of agreement between the
Observers themselves.

Comparing Self and Observer Perceptions
The bar graph in this report shows how you perceive your Team
Role contributions, in comparison to
your Observers' views. The table below the graph shows the
percentile scores for Self-Perception and
Observers.
Assessments.
Percentile
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

10
0
SPI Obs
CF
SPI Obs
CO
SPI Obs
PL
SPI Obs
TW
SPI Obs
IMP
SPI Obs
RI
SPI Obs
SH
SPI Obs
SP

SPI Obs
ME
Team Role
Key Self-Perception (SPI) Observations (Obs)
(Percentile) (Percentile)
CF
CO
PL
TW
IMP
RI
SH
SP
ME
Completer Finisher 100 45
Co-ordinator 89 40
Plant 18 82
Teamworker 37 64
Implementer 54 37

Resource Investigator 33 44
Shaper 10 51
Specialist 15 42
Monitor Evaluator 28 29
Your Team Role Preferences
This report shows your percentile scores for each Team Role,
according to your Self-Perception
responses. Team Roles are divided by percentile score into
Preferred, Manageable and Least
Preferred Roles.
This report is based upon your Self-Perception only.
Least Preferred Roles Manageable Roles Preferred Roles Team
Roles
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Plant
Resource
Investigator
Co-ordinator
Shaper
Monitor
Evaluator
Teamworker
Implementer
Completer
Finisher
Specialist

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Please remember that Belbin Team Roles consist of both
strengths and associated weaknesses. From
your responses, your top Team Roles show a relatively high
ratio of associated weaknesses to strengths.
Team Role Feedback
This report offers guidance and advice on the best way to
manage your behaviour at work and make
the most of your Team Role contributions. The applicability of

the advice may vary depending on the
stage of your career and your current working situation.
Assessments.
You appear to have a disposition towards managerial liaison
work, as well as a concern for
accuracy and attention to detail. As such, you could be well -
placed to act as the public advocate of
quality, encouraging others to aspire to - and maintain - high
standards.
If you are a manager, take a close interest in the jobs of thos e
who work for you. Pay attention to
exactly how things have been done without interfering or
implying superior knowledge. If you find
fault with what is being practised, you may achieve the desired
results merely by posing one or
two well-formulated questions. Always make yourself available
as someone to whom others may
turn to talk about key job issues.
When dealing with either your manager or colleagues, it may be
advisable for you to avoid
dwelling for too long on minor matters. Instead, you should
project yourself as someone who
believes that attention to detail as a general principle offers
competitive advantage. Your mission is
to communicate this outlook to all with whom you associate.
You should be able to do so by
reference to personal example and without resorting to rank or
status. However, by bringing your
actions and public words in line with each other you will
command added respect.

Your working style should be one of taking a broad view and
then getting down to the detail.
You seem to have some sparks of creativity and originality
which may need coaxing into the
limelight. When faced with a challenge, take the opportunity to
move apart from the team's
thinking and discussions and allow yourself to approach the
problem from a fresh perspective.
When coming up with solutions, allow others to evaluate them.
In this way, you can begin to
establish yourself as someone who is capable of original
thinking but who is not carried away by
his own ideas.
On a final note, you need to take account of the role for which
you are least suited. Your
judgements may be too swayed by emotion rather than by
dispassionate reasoning. If you can
work in harmony with someone who is good at looking at
options objectively, your performance is
likely to improve.
Maximizing your Potential
This report highlights your Team Role strengths and possible
weaknesses, based on your views and
those of your Observers, if applicable. The section,
'Understanding your Contribution', provides

analysis of your responses to your Self-Perception to enable you
to work more effectively.
Assessments.
Strengths
You are likely to:
o have an eye for detail and be able to undertake careful,
sustained work. It is important to promote
this strength so that others can recognise it more fully.
Possible Weaknesses
You may:
o have a balanced outlook, but have difficulty in finding a
perfect role fit owing to a lack of definitive
Team Role preferences.
Understanding your Contribution (based on your self-
perception)
Looking at the results solely from your self-perception (not
taking any observer views into account), you
have highlighted two possible contributions you can make.
Below is some advice on how to play to your
strengths further in these areas:
To play your Completer Finisher role to better effect, aspire to
produce polished work and to
promote your image as someone who gets the details right.
To play your Co-ordinator role to better effect, take the lead

role in bringing others to
agreement on important decisions. Aim for a balance between
airing different views and
moving to a conclusion.
Feedback and Development Suggestions
This report is ideal for handing to and discussing with your line
manager. It will provide an insight into
your preferred way of working and the environment in which
you thrive. Alternatively, this report is also
a useful aid for any manager or recruitment specialist who
wants to find out more about the individual
in terms of their preferred working style and environment.
Assessments.
Key points
Ask PURUSHOTHAM REDDY POTHIREDDY about the kinds
of problems which prevent a project from
being successful. Form a view on whether PURUSHOTHAM
REDDY is able to adopt a strategic viewpoint
on preventing errors from occurring, or is focused solely on
details.
Work Environment

PURUSHOTHAM REDDY is well-suited to taking
responsibility for an area where delivery to high
standards is vital and where people's efforts need to be brought
together to ensure that given standards
are reached. It is important that responsibilities within the job
should be clearly defined at the outset, so
that PURUSHOTHAM REDDY knows which work is to be
delegated and which will come under his own
remit.
Others have observed that PURUSHOTHAM REDDY might be
best suited to:
o providing support for clients or colleagues as required
o giving confidence to others
o offering novel and unique ideas and solutions
On the other hand, observers did not reach consensus about the
kinds of work to which PURUSHOTHAM
REDDY is less suited.
Observed Team Role Strengths and Weaknesses
The bar graph in this report shows your Observers' responses
broken down into the strengths and
associated weaknesses for each Team Role. An associated
weakness is termed allowable if it

operates alongside the observed strengths of the Team Role.
This report is based on 4 Observer Assessments.
Associated Weaknesses Strengths
PL
RI
CO
SH
ME
TW
IMP
CF
SP
List of Observer Responses
When observers complete an Observer Assessment, they can
tick or double-tick adjectives which they
think apply to you. This report shows the ticks received for each

word, in descending order. Words
which denote your associated weaknesses are shown in italics.
This report is based on 4 Observer Assessments.
Please note: if the Observer Assessments were completed in a
different language to the one specified for this report, the
equivalent
word or phrase is used.
helpful 8
encouraging of others 8
original 6
disciplined 5
free-thinking 5
caring 5
corrects errors 5
outspoken 4
practical 4
willing to adapt 4
self-reliant 3
outgoing 3
logical 3

confident and relaxed 3
competitive 3
dedicated to subject 3
tough 2
perfectionist 2
enterprising 2
motivated by learning 2
studious 2
over-talkative 2
frightened of failure 2
diplomatic 2
realistic 2
analytical 2
efficient 2
methodical 2
creative 1
imaginative 1
seizes opportunities 1

impartial 1
challenging 1
inconsistent 1
persevering 1
perceptive 1
accurate 1
reliable 1
keen to impart expertise 1
uninvolved with specifics 1
inventive 0
shrewd 0
hard-driving 0
territorial 0
sceptical 0
restricted in outlook 0
over-sensitive 0
manipulative 0
inflexible 0

eccentric 0
confrontational 0
absent-minded 0
inquisitive 0
broad in outlook 0
meticulous 0
consultative 0
conscious of priorities 0
resistant to change 0
reluctant to allocate work 0
persuasive 0
over-delegating 0
oblivious 0
impulsive 0
fussy 0
fearful of conflict 0
unenthusiastic 0
unadventurous 0

pushy 0
procrastinating 0
engrossed in own area 0
indecisive 0
impatient 0
Suggested Work Styles
This report looks at the combination of your top Team Roles
and suggests working styles that may be
suitable. Phrases are provided which summarise the relevant
working styles.
Assessments.
Team Roles Work Style
1 2 3 4
CF CO
Checking Progress
"I like to ensure high standards are

maintained by the whole group."
CF PL
Improving
"I like to produce new and better
standards."
CF TW
Assisting
"I am most appreciated for the way I can
achieve high standards when working with
others."
CO PL
Piloting
"I relish taking responsibility for promoting
new approaches."
© BELBIN 2011
Glossary of Terms
Self-Perception Inventory (SPI)
The Self-Perception Inventory is the questionnaire an individual
completes to ascertain his or her Team
Roles. The questionnaire consists of eight sections, with each
section containing ten items. The individual

is asked to allocate ten marks per section to those statements
which best reflect his or her working styles.
Observer Assessment (OA)
The Observer Assessment is the questionnaire completed by
people who know the Self-Perception
candidate well. We recommend that observers are chosen from
among those who have worked with the
individual closely and recently and within the same context
(e.g. within the same team), since Team Role
behaviours can change over time and in different situations,
offering advice on managing this.
Team Role Strength
These are the positive characteristics or behaviours associated
with a particular Team Role.
Team Role Weakness
This is the flipside of a strength: negative behaviour which can
be displayed as the result of a particular
Team Role contribution. If someone is playing a particular
Team Role well and their strengths outweigh
their weaknesses in the role, it is called an “Allowable
weakness”. Weaknesses become ‐ “non allowable” if
taken to extreme or if the associated Team Role strength is not
displayed.
Percentiles
A percentile is a way of measuring your position in relation to
others (the rest of the population). If a group
of people take a test and receive scores, these can be distributed
from highest to lowest and an
individual’s score can be judged in relation to the scores of
others. If a person’s score is in the 80th
percentile, this indicates that 20% of people have scored more
highly for this measure.

Percentages
Percentages represent a proportion of the whole. If you take an
aptitude test and score 70 marks out of a
possible 100, your score is 70%.
Strong example of a Team Role
A strong example is someone who appears to play a particular
Team Role to especially good effect. To
qualify as a strong example of a particular Team Role, someone
needs to be in the 80th percentile for that
Team Role according to their Self-Perception. Once observer
assessments are added, their feedback is
also taken into account to determine whether or not someone
qualifies as a strong example.
Points Dropped
Some items in the Self-Perception Inventory pertain to claims
about oneself rather than a valid Team Role
contribution. If you have made more claims than 90% of the
population, your Team Role feedback will
take this into consideration.
Belbin Team Role
Report for
PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
POTHIREDDY
University of Northumbria
KB7036 People in Project Management

© BELBIN 2011
Team Role Summary Descriptions
Team Role Contribution Allowable Weaknesses
Plant
Resource
Investigator
Co-ordinator
Shaper
Monitor
Evaluator
Teamworker
Implementer
Completer
Finisher
Specialist
Creative, imaginative, free-thinking.
Generates ideas and solves difficult
problems.

Ignores incidentals. Too
pre-occupied to communicate
effectively.
Outgoing, enthusiastic, communicative.
Explores opportunities and develops
contacts.
Over-optimistic. Loses
interest once initial
enthusiasm has passed.
Mature, confident, identifies talent.
Clarifies goals. Delegates effectively.
Can be seen as manipulative.
Offloads own share of the
work.
Challenging, dynamic, thrives on
pressure. Has the drive and courage to
overcome obstacles.
Prone to provocation. Offends
people's feelings.
Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees
all options and judges accurately.
Lacks drive and ability to
inspire others. Can be overly

critical.
Co-operative, perceptive and
diplomatic. Listens and averts friction.
Indecisive in crunch
situations. Avoids
confrontation.
Practical, reliable, efficient. Turns ideas
into actions and organizes work that
needs to be done.
Somewhat inflexible. Slow to
respond to new possibilities.
Painstaking, conscientious, anxious.
Searches out errors. Polishes and
perfects.
Inclined to worry unduly.
Reluctant to delegate.
Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated.
Provides knowledge and skills in rare
supply.
Contributes only on a narrow
front. Dwells on technicalities.

Team Role Overview
The bar graph in this report shows your Team Roles in order
from highest to lowest, using all available
information. The other pages of your report will analyse your
Team Role Overview in more detail.
Percentile
Team Role
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

10
0
CF CO IMP TW RI ME PL SP SH
Key
CF Completer Finisher
CO Co-ordinator
IMP Implementer
TW Teamworker
RI Resource Investigator
ME Monitor Evaluator
PL Plant
SP Specialist
SH Shaper
The graph above shows your Team Roles in order of preference.
Some people have an even spread of
Team Roles whilst others may have one or two very high and
very low Team Roles. An individual does
not necessarily show all nine Team Role behaviours.
This graph is based solely on your views. In addition to
analysing your own views, you can ask others to
complete Observer Assessments to provide feedback about the

Team Role behaviours they observe in
you. This is useful because Team Role contributions are about
the way others see us and work with us,
as well as the way we perceive ourselves.
Your Team Role Preferences
This report shows your percentile scores for each Team Role,
according to your Self-Perception
responses. Team Roles are divided by percentile score into
Preferred, Manageable and Least
Preferred Roles.
Least Preferred Roles Manageable Roles Preferred Roles Team
Roles
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Plant
Resource
Investigator
Co-ordinator
Shaper
Monitor
Evaluator
Teamworker
Implementer
Completer
Finisher
Specialist
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Please remember that Belbin Team Roles consist of both
strengths and associated weaknesses. From
your responses, your top Team Roles show a relatively high
ratio of associated weaknesses to strengths.
We recommend requesting Observer Assessments to give a more
rounded view of your Team Role
contributions.
Team Role Feedback
This report offers guidance and advice on the best way to
manage your behaviour at work and make
the most of your Team Role contributions. The applicability of
the advice may vary depending on the

stage of your career and your current working situation.
You appear to have a disposition towards managerial liaison
work, as well as a concern for
accuracy and attention to detail. As such, you could be well -
placed to act as the public advocate of
quality, encouraging others to aspire to - and maintain - high
standards.
If you are a manager, take a close interest in the jobs of those
who work for you. Pay attention to
exactly how things have been done without interfering or
implying superior knowledge. If you find
fault with what is being practised, you may achieve the desired
results merely by posing one or
two well-formulated questions. Always make yourself available
as someone to whom others may
turn to talk about key job issues.
When dealing with either your manager or colleagues, it may be
advisable for you to avoid
dwelling for too long on minor matters. Instead, you should
project yourself as someone who
believes that attention to detail as a general principle offers
competitive advantage. Your mission is
to communicate this outlook to all with whom you associate.
You should be able to do so by
reference to personal example and without resorting to rank or
status. However, by bringing your
actions and public words in line with each other you will
command added respect.
Your working style should be one of taking a broad view and
then getting down to the detail.

You could also focus on cultivating your ability for efficient
planning and organisation. One of the
most effective ways to establish your reputation is by hard
work. If you can develop a practical way
of working, not only are you likely to benefit, but you may well
find others following your example.
On a final note, you need to take account of the role for which
you are least suited. You do not
appear to have the characteristics of someone who obtains
results by driving others forward. If you
can work in harmony with someone who has these
complementary qualities, your performance is
likely to improve.
Maximizing your Potential
This report highlights your Team Role strengths and possible
weaknesses, based on your views and
those of your Observers, if applicable. The section,
'Understanding your Contribution', provides
analysis of your responses to your Self-Perception to enable you
to work more effectively.
Strengths

You are likely to:
o be very precise, demanding and achieving high standards in
your work.
o be equally capable of taking a broad overview and focusing on
details.
o draw out contributions from others and make the best use of
the talent within a team.
Possible Weaknesses
You may:
o take a generalist approach and tend not to get involved with
the specifics of a subject.
o find it difficult to adapt to quickly-changing events.
o not tend to explore or originate new ideas.
Understanding your Contribution (based on your self-
perception)
Looking at the results solely from your self-perception (not
taking any observer views into account), you
have highlighted two possible contributions you can make.
Below is some advice on how to play to your
strengths further in these areas:
To play your Completer Finisher role to better effect, aspire to
produce polished work and to
promote your image as someone who gets the details right.
To play your Co-ordinator role to better effect, take the lead

role in bringing others to
agreement on important decisions. Aim for a balance between
airing different views and
moving to a conclusion.
Feedback and Development Suggestions
This report is ideal for handing to and discussing with your l ine
manager. It will provide an insight into
your preferred way of working and the environment in which
you thrive. Alternatively, this report is also
a useful aid for any manager or recruitment specialist who
wants to find out more about the individual
in terms of their preferred working style and environment.
Key points
It is important to establish whether PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
POTHIREDDY can work well under pressure
and how he copes with meeting deadlines.
Work Environment
PURUSHOTHAM REDDY is well-suited to taking
responsibility for an area where delivery to high
standards is vital and where people's efforts need to be brought
together to ensure that given standards

are reached. It is important that responsibilities within the job
should be clearly defined at the outset, so
that PURUSHOTHAM REDDY knows which work is to be
delegated and which will come under his own
remit.
Suggested Work Styles
This report looks at the combination of your top Team Roles
and suggests working styles that may be
suitable. Phrases are provided which summarise the relevant
working styles.
Team Roles Work Style
1 2 3 4
CF CO
Checking Progress
"I like to ensure high standards are
maintained by the whole group."
CF IMP
Deploying Quality Processes

"I am at my most effective when I can
improve procedures as I apply them."
CF TW
Assisting
"I am most appreciated for the way I can
achieve high standards when working with
others."
CO IMP
Organising
"My main strengths lie in organising myself
and others."
© BELBIN 2011
Glossary of Terms
Self-Perception Inventory (SPI)
The Self-Perception Inventory is the questionnaire an individual
completes to ascertain his or her Team
Roles. The questionnaire consists of eight sections, with each
section containing ten items. The individual
is asked to allocate ten marks per section to those statements
which best reflect his or her working styles.
Observer Assessment (OA)
The Observer Assessment is the questionnaire completed by

people who know the Self-Perception
candidate well. We recommend that observers are chosen from
among those who have worked with the
individual closely and recently and within the same context
(e.g. within the same team), since Team Role
behaviours can change over time and in different situations,
offering advice on managing this.
Team Role Strength
These are the positive characteristics or behaviours associated
with a particular Team Role.
Team Role Weakness
This is the flipside of a strength: negative behaviour which can
be displayed as the result of a particular
Team Role contribution. If someone is playing a particular
Team Role well and their strengths outweigh
their weaknesses in the role, it is called an “Allowable
weakness”. Weaknesses become ‐ “non allowable” if
taken to extreme or if the associated Team Role strength is not
displayed.
Percentiles
A percentile is a way of measuring your position in relation to
others (the rest of the population). If a group
of people take a test and receive scores, these can be distributed
from highest to lowest and an
individual’s score can be judged in relation to the scores of
others. If a person’s score is in the 80th
percentile, this indicates that 20% of people have scored more
highly for this measure.
Percentages
Percentages represent a proportion of the whole. If you take an
aptitude test and score 70 marks out of a
possible 100, your score is 70%.

Strong example of a Team Role
A strong example is someone who appears to play a particular
Team Role to especially good effect. To
qualify as a strong example of a particular Team Role, someone
needs to be in the 80th percentile for that
Team Role according to their Self-Perception. Once observer
assessments are added, their feedback is
also taken into account to determine whether or not someone
qualifies as a strong example.
Points Dropped
Some items in the Self-Perception Inventory pertain to claims
about oneself rather than a valid Team Role
contribution. If you have made more claims than 90% of the
population, your Team Role feedback will
take this into consideration.

People in Project Management Assessments

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to People in Project Management Assessments

Similar to People in Project Management Assessments (18)

More from LinaCovington707

More from LinaCovington707 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

People in Project Management Assessments