Year 1 Legal Skills - Reflective Portfolio
In the Firm Name and Rules task, A who I viewed as Belbin’s ‘shaper’1, suggested the
name ‘Hunters’ to which all of us agreed, indicating a consensus decision-making
approach.2 Moreover, I followed my ‘’Completer-finisher’’ Belbin profile, advising to
shorten the rules to improve trust within the firm and to bring a better performance.
However, D, viewed as ‘Implementer’, unprofessionally responded to this idea, resulting in
the first disagreement within the firm. From that point our different opinions formed a
collection of ideas which linked Belbin team roles 3 to Tuckman’s team stages.4 Therefore it
classified our team under the ’’Forming’' and ‘’Storming’’ stage also defined as ‘’Testing
and dependance stage’’.5 Taking part in group working tasks improved my decision-
making skills. I am calmer when solving conflicts and listen carefully to other opinions.
Even if our relations became better, I could still improve my group working skills by
communicating and interacting more with my firm outside PBL’s. I also agree with my
tutor’s feedback that for further group improvements I should step up and support the
chair and scribe when the team is disorganised.
In the Red/Blue game, I didn’t follow the allocated “Coordinator’’; instead, I assigned to
my second preferable role of ‘’Monitor-evaluator’’, providing a strategic decision in
picking the red/blue colour. Despite our team correlation, we got a negative outcome.
Doing this again I would consider using Fisher & Ury’s approach of better negotiating and
gaining mutual benefit.6 However Maughan’s research showed that a negative score will
1 R M Belbin, Management Teams: Why they Succeed or Fail (3rd Ed, Butterworth Heinemann 2010)
2 W. K. Hoy and C. J. Tarter , Administrators solving the problems of practice: Decision-making cases,
concepts, and consequence( 3rd Ed Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2008)
3 R M Belbin, Team roles at work (2nd Ed, Butterworth Heinemann 2010)
4 B W Tuckman, and M A Jensen, Stages in small group development revisited (Vol 2 ,Group and
Organisation Studies 1977) 419-427
5 B W Tuckman, ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’ ( Vol 63 ,Psychological bulletin 1965 ) 386
6 Roger Fisher , William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to yes : negotiating agreement without giving in
(3rd Ed, New York,London: Penguin 2011)
1
In the Firm Name and Rules task, A who I viewed as Belbin’s ‘shaper’1, suggested the
name ‘Hunters’ to which all of us agreed, indicating a consensus decision-making
approach.2 Moreover, I followed my ‘’Completer-finisher’’ Belbin profile, advising to
shorten the rules to improve trust within the firm and to bring a better performance.
However, D, viewed as ‘Implementer’, unprofessionally responded to this idea, resulting in
the first disagreement within the firm. From that point our different opinions formed a
collection of ideas which linked Belbin team roles 3 to Tuckman’s team stages.4 Therefore it
classified our team under the ’’Forming’' and ‘’Storming’’ stage also defined as ‘’Testing
and dependance stage’’.5 Taking part in group working tasks improved my decision-
making skills. I am calmer when solving conflicts and listen carefully to other opinions.
Even if our relations became better, I could still improve my group working skills by
communicating and interacting more with my firm outside PBL’s. I also agree with my
tutor’s feedback that for further group improvements I should step up and support the
chair and scribe when the team is disorganised.
In the Red/Blue game, I didn’t follow the allocated “Coordinator’’; instead, I assigned to
my second preferable role of ‘’Monitor-evaluator’’, providing a strategic decision in
picking the red/blue colour. Despite our team correlation, we got a negative outcome.
Doing this again I would consider using Fisher & Ury’s approach of better negotiating and
gaining mutual benefit.6 However Maughan’s research showed that a negative score will
1 R M Belbin, Management Teams: Why they Succeed or Fail (3rd Ed, Butterworth Heinemann 2010)
2 W. K. Hoy and C. J. Tarter , Administrators solving the problems of practice: Decision-making cases,
concepts, and consequence( 3rd Ed Boston: Allyn & Bacon 2008)
3 R M Belbin, Team roles at work (2nd Ed, Butterworth Heinemann 2010)
4 B W Tuckman, and M A Jensen, Stages in small group development revisited (Vol 2 ,Group and
Organisation Studies 1977) 419-427
5 B W Tuckman, ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’ ( Vol 63 ,Psychological bulletin 1965 ) 386
6 Roger Fisher , William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to yes : negotiating agreement without giving in
(3rd Ed, New York,London: Penguin 2011)
1
