Year 1 Legal Skills - Reflective Portfolio
In the Firm Name and Rules task, I followed my ‘’Completer-finisher’’ Belbin profile ,
advising to correct the errors and shorten the rules to look perfect, which I believe I did
well. Following Alex, as I viewed as ‘’Shaper’’, we came to a name very quickly.
Implementing Belbin roles[1] within our group is linked to Tuckman’s stages, as my team is
between ‘’Forming’' and ‘’Storming’’ also defined as ‘’Testing and dependance stage’’ [2]:
everyone brings in their opinions which forms a collision of ideas. By taking part in this
task, I became better at decision-making skills and integrated better within the team which
advantage us in future assignments. I positively changed my opinions about my
colleagues as in my first week I didn’t like them at all. Even if our relations became better, I
still could improve my group working skills by communicating and interacting more with my
team.
I have become better in negotiation and organising skills by participating in the Red/Blue
game. Therefore, I learnt that losing is not bad as soon as achieving experience.In the
red/blue game, I didn’t follow the allocated to me ‘’Coordinator’’ role; instead, I assigned to
my second preferable role of ‘’Monitor-evaluator’’, providing valuable analytical and
strategic decision in picking the red/blue colour. Therefore Rebecka remarked herself as
‘Coordinator’ and David as ‘Implementer’ same as we viewed them in Belbin Matrix.
Arguments between us persisted but quickly dealt, avoiding conflicts. Based on the team’s
performance could be evidence of Tuckman’s ‘’Norming’’ stage: everyone agrees in
decision making. Moreover, the team’s survey feedback from Junior Partners highlights
that our team is at Tuckman’s ‘’Storming’’ stage. Saying ‘ as a team you are well creative
and hardworking however you should listen to each other’s opinions ‘, their feedback
boosted our confidence and made me think that I shouldn't argue that often with David as
it reflects on our team in an unsatisfactory way.
Furthermore, the similarity of my Belbin preferred roles seems to align with Honey and
Mumford[3] pragmatist learning style to which I was identified. I believe that being a
pragmatist learner benefit towards the team’s success. Evidence of that could be seen in
Gisborne when I stepped out and contributed towards skeleton argument structure,
suggesting we highlight the main points to make it easier to formulate our main arguments.
Furthermore, I believe that the Shona productive scribing helped to structure on our final
skeleton argument. Relying on Tuckman’s theory[4], we followed his linear pattern as from
now on we are only at ‘performing’ stage; no conflicts arise and always cooperate at group
1
In the Firm Name and Rules task, I followed my ‘’Completer-finisher’’ Belbin profile ,
advising to correct the errors and shorten the rules to look perfect, which I believe I did
well. Following Alex, as I viewed as ‘’Shaper’’, we came to a name very quickly.
Implementing Belbin roles[1] within our group is linked to Tuckman’s stages, as my team is
between ‘’Forming’' and ‘’Storming’’ also defined as ‘’Testing and dependance stage’’ [2]:
everyone brings in their opinions which forms a collision of ideas. By taking part in this
task, I became better at decision-making skills and integrated better within the team which
advantage us in future assignments. I positively changed my opinions about my
colleagues as in my first week I didn’t like them at all. Even if our relations became better, I
still could improve my group working skills by communicating and interacting more with my
team.
I have become better in negotiation and organising skills by participating in the Red/Blue
game. Therefore, I learnt that losing is not bad as soon as achieving experience.In the
red/blue game, I didn’t follow the allocated to me ‘’Coordinator’’ role; instead, I assigned to
my second preferable role of ‘’Monitor-evaluator’’, providing valuable analytical and
strategic decision in picking the red/blue colour. Therefore Rebecka remarked herself as
‘Coordinator’ and David as ‘Implementer’ same as we viewed them in Belbin Matrix.
Arguments between us persisted but quickly dealt, avoiding conflicts. Based on the team’s
performance could be evidence of Tuckman’s ‘’Norming’’ stage: everyone agrees in
decision making. Moreover, the team’s survey feedback from Junior Partners highlights
that our team is at Tuckman’s ‘’Storming’’ stage. Saying ‘ as a team you are well creative
and hardworking however you should listen to each other’s opinions ‘, their feedback
boosted our confidence and made me think that I shouldn't argue that often with David as
it reflects on our team in an unsatisfactory way.
Furthermore, the similarity of my Belbin preferred roles seems to align with Honey and
Mumford[3] pragmatist learning style to which I was identified. I believe that being a
pragmatist learner benefit towards the team’s success. Evidence of that could be seen in
Gisborne when I stepped out and contributed towards skeleton argument structure,
suggesting we highlight the main points to make it easier to formulate our main arguments.
Furthermore, I believe that the Shona productive scribing helped to structure on our final
skeleton argument. Relying on Tuckman’s theory[4], we followed his linear pattern as from
now on we are only at ‘performing’ stage; no conflicts arise and always cooperate at group
1
