Group assignments carry significant weight on most MBA programmes, and they are the most common source of complaints to programme offices. Cohorts are international, часто part-time, spread across time zones, and assembled at random. Assuming goodwill will be enough is the mistake.
Week One: Write a Team Charter
A charter takes 45 minutes and prevents most later disputes. Agree in writing:
- Named owner and deadline for each deliverable — not "we will all work on the analysis".
- Internal deadlines set at least five days before submission.
- Communication channel and expected response time.
- Decision rule when the group disagrees — majority, or the section owner decides.
- What happens if someone misses a deadline, and at what point the tutor is informed.
Circulate it by email so it is timestamped. If the group later goes to arbitration, the charter is the single most useful document you can produce.
Splitting the Work Without Splitting the Report
Dividing by section produces a document that reads as five different essays — inconsistent terminology, repeated background, contradictory conclusions. Two roles fix this:
- An integrator who rewrites the whole document for one voice after drafts are in.
- A referencing owner who standardises citations and the reference list.
Build both into the timeline as tasks with real hours attached.
Handling a Free Rider
Escalate in order, and document each step:
- Direct, private, non-accusatory contact: is something going on, do you still have capacity for section 3?
- Raise in the group channel with the charter attached, restating the deadline.
- Contact the module tutor before submission, not after marks are released. Tutors have very limited options afterwards.
Do not quietly absorb the missing work and complain later. Redistributing without informing anyone removes the evidence that a problem existed.
Writing a Fair Peer Assessment
Peer assessment often adjusts individual marks, so it is assessed judgement. Rate against behaviour, not likeability:
- Did they deliver their agreed sections on time?
- Was the quality usable without a full rewrite?
- Did they respond within the agreed window?
- Did they contribute to analysis, or only to formatting?
Give specific examples in comments. Scores without evidence are usually discounted by moderators.
Working Across Time Zones
With members in London, Toronto and Sydney there is no comfortable shared hour. Default to asynchronous work: written updates against the charter, one synchronous call per week scheduled on rotation so the same person is not always taking the 6am slot. Record decisions in writing immediately after each call.
When the Group Cannot Agree on the Argument
Deadlock over content is different from deadlock over effort, and it needs a different remedy. If two members want opposing recommendations, do not average them into a mushy compromise — markers spot a report that argues both ways and commits to neither.
Instead, make the disagreement explicit and resolve it with evidence. Ask each side to state, in two sentences, what evidence would change their mind. Then go and look for it. If the evidence genuinely supports both positions, that is a finding in itself: present both options with a clear criterion for choosing between them, and recommend one. A report that says "we recommend Option A; Option B becomes preferable if the capital constraint eases" reads as sophisticated. A report that cannot decide reads as unfinished.
What to Do After a Bad Group Experience
Programme offices see the same complaint every term, usually too late to act. If the experience was genuinely poor, write it up while it is fresh: what the charter said, what happened, what you did about it, and when. Submit it through the formal route your programme provides rather than as an informal grievance after results.
It is also worth separating the two things that usually get conflated — a mark you consider unfair, and a process you consider unfair. Institutions will rarely revisit academic judgement, but they will frequently investigate process. Framing your case around process gives it a much better chance of being heard.