SubjectScout
ENAR
Sign inGet matched
Get matched

Belbin: nine contributions, not nine fixed people

Start questions

AI-assisted English content review; independent teacher approval pending.

Practice scope and review

Original, AI-authored English practice with worked guidance. Selected topics only; independent teacher review is pending. This is not a complete syllabus, official past-paper collection or predicted exam score. Check your own exam-board specification: these concepts are not certified against a particular board or exam year.

192 original questions across 31 selected topic areas. No account or payment required to practise.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990), examination year 2027: AI-assisted conceptual alignment to official sources, not teacher or exam-board certification. Syllabus mapping and remaining coverage.

3 questions in this topic

This is a limited practice preview and is not submitted for search indexing.

All topics

Original written applications of inspected primary conceptual sources. Partial support only; not official assessment, complete key-study coverage or practical work. Teacher review pending.

Subtopics in this topic (3)
  • Thinking roles: invention, appraisal and specialist knowledge
  • Social roles: contacts, cohesion and coordination
  • Action roles: momentum, implementation and finishing

3 of 3 questions shown

Loading saved responses

Question 1In a fictional exhibition team, A proposes an unconventional display, B compares its costs with two alternatives, and C knows the technical limits of the lighting system. A forgets installation details, B delays a decision, and C concentrates narrowly on lighting. (a) Apply Belbin's three thinking roles. (b) Explain how each strength can be accompanied by a limitation. (c) Evaluate replacing B and C with more idea generators. Classify the written contributions only; do not administer a role inventory. Primary reading: https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles Reading scope: Official Belbin conceptual resource: What is a Belbin Team Role?, The Nine Belbin Team Roles, Plant, Monitor Evaluator and Specialist; FAQs on multiple roles and behaviour. Descriptions only; original Henley research methods/results and SPI not read or reproduced. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47; 9990-option-4.3.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
Explain / Apply / Evaluate6 indicative marksNo calculator

In a fictional exhibition team, A proposes an unconventional display, B compares its costs with two alternatives, and C knows the technical limits of the lighting system. A forgets installation details, B delays a decision, and C concentrates narrowly on lighting. (a) Apply Belbin's three thinking roles. (b) Explain how each strength can be accompanied by a limitation. (c) Evaluate replacing B and C with more idea generators. Classify the written contributions only; do not administer a role inventory. Primary reading: https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles Reading scope: Official Belbin conceptual resource: What is a Belbin Team Role?, The Nine Belbin Team Roles, Plant, Monitor Evaluator and Specialist; FAQs on multiple roles and behaviour. Descriptions only; original Henley research methods/results and SPI not read or reproduced. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47; 9990-option-4.3.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Thinking roles: invention, appraisal and specialist knowledge: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. A's contribution resembles a Plant, B's a Monitor Evaluator, and C's a Specialist. The distinction is the work being contributed: inventing a possibility, judging alternatives, and supplying depth in a particular domain. Calling all three 'clever people' would lose the differences relevant to this case.
  2. A's originality does not ensure installation details are covered. B's careful appraisal can slow a choice, while C's depth can narrow attention to lighting at the expense of the whole exhibition. These are possible trade-offs in the official role descriptions, not excuses for every error or evidence that a person always behaves this way.
  3. Claim: more idea generators must improve the team. More ideas might help a shortage of options but would not replace cost appraisal or lighting knowledge. Judgement: retain those contributions or explicitly cover them elsewhere before recommending replacement. This fictional analysis illustrates complementary behaviour; it does not validate a person's profile, guarantee exhibition success or require one permanently labelled person per role. No SPI items, scoring keys, observer questionnaires or real-person assessments are used.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. (a) Link A's novel solution to Plant.
  2. (a) Link B's comparative judgement to Monitor Evaluator and C's technical depth to Specialist.
  3. (b) Relate A's missed details to the possible cost of idea focus.
  4. (b) Relate B's slower judgement and C's narrow focus to their distinct contributions.
  5. (c) Replacing appraisal/expertise with more ideas could leave feasibility and technical constraints unchecked.
  6. (c) Role labels describe the supplied behaviours, not fixed diagnoses or proof of optimal team composition.

Examiner tip

Explain the contribution before attaching the role name.

Question 2In a fictional book-fair team, D finds an external venue contact but forgets to follow up. E helps two colleagues cooperate but avoids a necessary unpopular decision. F clarifies the shared goal and delegates tasks, leaving too little work for themselves. (a) Apply the three social team roles. (b) Explain one trade-off for each. (c) Evaluate the claim that all three are merely friendly behaviour and that F should automatically become the formal manager. Use only the written case, without profiling real colleagues. Primary reading: https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles Reading scope: Official Belbin conceptual resource: Resource Investigator, Teamworker, Co-ordinator and FAQs Do you need nine people? / Are all Belbin Team Roles needed at all times? Descriptions only, not original research methods/results or assessment materials. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47; 9990-option-4.3.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
Explain / Apply / Evaluate6 indicative marksNo calculator

In a fictional book-fair team, D finds an external venue contact but forgets to follow up. E helps two colleagues cooperate but avoids a necessary unpopular decision. F clarifies the shared goal and delegates tasks, leaving too little work for themselves. (a) Apply the three social team roles. (b) Explain one trade-off for each. (c) Evaluate the claim that all three are merely friendly behaviour and that F should automatically become the formal manager. Use only the written case, without profiling real colleagues. Primary reading: https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles Reading scope: Official Belbin conceptual resource: Resource Investigator, Teamworker, Co-ordinator and FAQs Do you need nine people? / Are all Belbin Team Roles needed at all times? Descriptions only, not original research methods/results or assessment materials. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47; 9990-option-4.3.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Social roles: contacts, cohesion and coordination: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. D's outward search fits Resource Investigator; E's contribution to cooperation fits Teamworker; F's focus on goals and delegation fits Co-ordinator. These are different functions within the fictional team's work, even though all can involve communication with others.
  2. D's initial enthusiasm is less useful if the venue lead is never pursued. E's wish to preserve harmony may delay a difficult choice. F can distribute work well yet go too far and avoid their own share. The response should connect each limitation to its function rather than treating social roles as uniformly positive or giving a generic weakness applicable to anyone.
  3. Claim: these are all friendliness, so F is the obvious manager. Networking, cooperation and aligning contributions are distinguishable behaviours, and being a Co-ordinator in this episode does not establish readiness for formal authority. Judgement: use the labels to identify contributions and gaps, not to appoint or rank people without evidence about the actual job. Roles can be combined and depend on the task. This is written conceptual practice, not a Belbin report or recruitment assessment; no protected inventory or colleague ratings are requested.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. (a) Identify D as Resource Investigator and connect the label to external opportunities/contacts.
  2. (a) Identify E as Teamworker and connect the label to cooperation/cohesion.
  3. (a) Identify F as Co-ordinator and connect the label to goals and delegation.
  4. (b) Relate weak follow-up, difficult decisions and over-delegation to the three respective limitations.
  5. (c) Distinguish networking, supporting cooperation and focusing contributions rather than reducing them to friendliness.
  6. (c) Formal appointment requires further evidence; a behavioural role is not a job title or leadership qualification.

Examiner tip

A Co-ordinator contribution is not the same thing as holding a management post.

Question 3In a fictional exhibition project, G pushes the group past stalled discussions but irritates others; H turns an agreed idea into a practical schedule but resists a useful revision; I finds caption errors before opening but keeps polishing beyond the deadline. (a) Apply Belbin's three action/task roles. (b) Recommend how to manage these trade-offs without deleting the useful contributions. (c) Evaluate 'nine roles means hiring nine people who each perform only one role'. Do not run an inventory or assess real workers. Primary reading: https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles Reading scope: Official Belbin conceptual resource: Shaper, Implementer, Completer Finisher; The Nine Belbin Team Roles and FAQs on nine people, simultaneous roles and copyright. Descriptions only, not SPI administration/scoring or original empirical research. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47; 9990-option-4.3.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
Explain / Apply / Evaluate6 indicative marksNo calculator

In a fictional exhibition project, G pushes the group past stalled discussions but irritates others; H turns an agreed idea into a practical schedule but resists a useful revision; I finds caption errors before opening but keeps polishing beyond the deadline. (a) Apply Belbin's three action/task roles. (b) Recommend how to manage these trade-offs without deleting the useful contributions. (c) Evaluate 'nine roles means hiring nine people who each perform only one role'. Do not run an inventory or assess real workers. Primary reading: https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles Reading scope: Official Belbin conceptual resource: Shaper, Implementer, Completer Finisher; The Nine Belbin Team Roles and FAQs on nine people, simultaneous roles and copyright. Descriptions only, not SPI administration/scoring or original empirical research. Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47; 9990-option-4.3.1, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Action roles: momentum, implementation and finishing: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. G resembles a Shaper because the contribution is forward drive, H an Implementer because the contribution is practical delivery, and I a Completer Finisher because the contribution is final checking. Urgency, execution and quality control can each help, but they are not interchangeable forms of 'working hard'.
  2. A written recommendation can retain G's momentum while requiring challenges to focus on the task rather than people. H should review changes against clear practical evidence instead of rejecting them automatically. I needs an agreed checking deadline and a distinction between important errors and endless refinement. These responses manage the case's trade-offs; the term allowable weakness does not make intimidation or missing every deadline acceptable.
  3. Claim: nine roles require nine single-role hires. The official resource explicitly allows multiple roles per person and different contributions at different times. Judgement: allocate the necessary work for this fictional exhibition, not a compulsory headcount or permanent identity. This exercise covers the action roles and composition caveat, not a validated staffing decision or all group-development and decision-error content. No self-scoring grid, copyrighted questionnaire, employee data or human trial is included.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. (a) Identify G's drive as Shaper and H's practical organisation as Implementer.
  2. (a) Identify I's error-checking as Completer Finisher.
  3. (b) Retain momentum while setting boundaries against personal provocation.
  4. (b) Allow evidence-based schedule revisions and set a finite quality-check endpoint rather than discarding implementation or checking.
  5. (c) Nine behavioural contributions do not logically require nine individuals.
  6. (c) People can contribute more than one role and needs vary by task/stage; the framework is not proof of a guaranteed optimum.

Examiner tip

Team-role coverage is about contributions, not compulsory headcount.

All AS & A Level subjects