WGU C205 Task 1 Guide: How to Pass Leading Teams on Your First Submission

By Dan Palmer, MBA · Academic strategy consultant for working adult learners · LinkedIn

You already lead meetings, manage projects, and deal with coworkers who go silent on email threads. C205 Leading Teams asks you to explain the thinking behind all of that in 3 to 5 pages. Because each of the seven prompts is scored as its own rubric aspect, a paper that blends them into one continuous essay makes it hard for the evaluator to confirm each one was addressed.

This guide walks through the C205 Leading Teams Task 1 (task code KUM1) one rubric aspect at a time, shows you what “Competent” looks like for each, and explains how this paper feeds directly into C205 Task 2. You can also download a full annotated example paper below.

C205 Task 1 Assignment Prompt

Introduction

Effective business leadership requires a mastery of group and team dynamics. In order to meet these needs, individuals must learn strategies for group communication, team building, and leadership to assist organizations in meeting goals. Organizational personnel must learn team strategies and appropriately apply them, as organizations increasingly operate with teams and work groups in both collocated and virtual settings.

In this task, you will write a paper that reviews key concepts related to team development, which will better prepare you for the teamwork required for Task 2.

Requirements

Your submission must represent your original work and understanding of the course material. Most performance assessment submissions are automatically scanned through the WGU similarity checker. Students are strongly encouraged to wait for the similarity report to generate after uploading their work and then review it to ensure Academic Authenticity guidelines are met before submitting the file for evaluation. See Understanding Similarity Reports for more information.

Grammarly Note:

Professional Communication will be automatically assessed through Grammarly for Education in most performance assessments before a student submits work for evaluation. Students are strongly encouraged to review the Grammarly for Education feedback prior to submitting work for evaluation, as the overall submission will not pass without this aspect passing. See Use Grammarly for Education Effectively for more information.

Microsoft Files Note:

Write your paper in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) unless another Microsoft product, or pdf, is specified in the task directions. Tasks may notbe submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc. All supporting documentation, such as screenshots and proof of experience, should be collected in a pdf file and submitted separately from the main file. For more information, please see Computer System and Technology Requirements.

You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

A. Write a paper (suggested length of 3–5 pages) in which you analyze the factors that influence professional team dynamics and group development by doing the following:

1. 1. Discuss at least three factors to consider when creating professional teams or work
   2. Discuss three practices that help build trust among team
   3. Explain how team structure can impact team
   4. Discuss at least two strategies for clarifying the purpose of a
   5. Discuss how individuals in a team can use power or influence to achieve team
   6. Discuss how the strengths of individual team members can be capitalized on to achieve team
   7. Discuss three ways in which technology affects communication in virtual

B. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized

C. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission

C205 Task 1 Example

Note: This paper is an example for illustration purposes only. Harlow Ridge Supply and all people, figures, and events in it are fictitious. Do not submit this paper or any part of it as your own work. If you need assistance with your C205 Task 1, contact Gradevia on WhatsApp at +1 564 544 6924.

C205_Task_1_Example_Harlow_Ridge (Click to Download)

What C205 Task 1 Actually Asks You to Do

The C205 Task 1 WGU prompt has seven content requirements (A1 through A7), plus citations (B) and professional communication (C). Each one is scored separately, and every aspect must reach Competent for the paper to pass. That means a brilliant trust section can’t compensate for a thin technology section.

Notice the word “detail” in almost every Competent column. Evaluators are looking for the how and why, not a list of terms.

Plan Your Time Around a Work Week

You don’t need a free weekend for this paper. Four focused evenings work well for most full time professionals:

1. Evening one: Read your course material on team formation, trust, power, and virtual teams, and pick your scenario (explained below).
2. Evening two: Draft A1 through A4.
3. Evening three: Draft A5 through A7.
4. Evening four: Add citations, run Grammarly for Education, and check the similarity report before you submit.

Anchor the Whole Paper in One Scenario

The strongest C205 Task 1 papers use a single team scenario from start to finish. It gives every section concrete material and keeps you out of textbook summary mode. You can use a team from your own job (anonymized) or build a fictitious one.

For illustration, this guide uses Harlow Ridge Supply, a fictitious regional medical supply distributor forming a seven person cross functional team to roll out a new warehouse inventory system across three sites. Two members work on site, and five work remotely. You’ll see how this one scenario gives you something specific to say under every heading.

Use APA Level 1 headings that match the rubric language, such as “Factors to Consider When Creating Professional Teams.” Evaluators scan for these. Don’t make them hunt.

A1: Factors to Consider When Creating Professional Teams

Discuss at least three factors, and give each its own paragraph. Strong choices from the course material include:

Task interdependence. Does the work actually require people to coordinate, or would a group of individuals working separately be enough? Your course text distinguishes true teams from work groups on exactly this point (Levi & Askay, 2021).

Team size. Explain the tradeoff. More members bring more skills but add coordination cost and social loafing risk.

Skill and demographic composition. Address both the technical skills the project needs and the value of diverse perspectives, along with the friction diversity can create early on.

Member availability and location. For a working adult, this is familiar ground. A remote heavy team changes how you staff it.

Harlow Ridge note: You would explain why the rollout needs a warehouse lead from each site, an IT analyst, a procurement specialist, and a finance representative, and why seven is enough without becoming unmanageable.

Why papers get “Approaching Competence” here: naming a factor in one sentence with no explanation of why it matters to team outcomes.

A2: Three Practices That Help Build Trust

The rubric says three, so give three. Adding a fourth doesn’t earn extra credit, and a weak fourth can drag the section down. Practices that give you enough to discuss in depth:

Following through on small commitments early. Trust in new teams is built on observed reliability, not stated intentions.

Creating psychological safety. Edmondson and Bransby (2023) describe psychological safety as a state of reduced interpersonal risk. Explain what a leader does to create it, such as responding to a reported mistake with questions instead of blame.

Transparent communication of decisions and information. When members see the reasoning behind choices, they stop filling gaps with assumptions.

For each practice, cover what it looks like in action and why it produces trust. That second part is where most papers fall short.

A3: How Team Structure Impacts Team Effectiveness

This is the one aspect that says “support” instead of “detail,” which signals the evaluator wants you to back your explanation with course concepts or sources.

Pick a structure and explain its effect on effectiveness. Options include a leader directed team, a self managed team, a cross functional team, or a virtual team. Connect structure to concrete outcomes like decision speed, accountability, and innovation. A useful move is contrasting two structures: a self managed team may generate more creative solutions but slows down when roles are undefined, while a leader directed team decides faster but can suppress input.

Harlow Ridge note: Explain why a cross functional structure with a designated project lead fits a rollout that touches operations, IT, and finance at once.

A4: Strategies for Clarifying Team Purpose

Discuss at least two. Reliable options:

A team charter. Describe what goes in it (mission, goals, roles, decision rules, success measures) and how drafting it together creates shared ownership. This one pays off twice, since charters often come back around in C205 Task 2.

SMART goals tied to organizational objectives. Show how a vague purpose (“improve inventory”) becomes specific and measurable, and why that specificity reduces conflict later.

A kickoff session with leadership sponsorship. Explain how hearing the “why” directly from a sponsor connects the team’s work to the bigger picture.

A5: How Individuals Use Power or Influence

Note the wording: individuals in a team, not only the formal leader. Many papers lose points by writing only about the manager.

Use the bases of power covered in your course (legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and referent) and focus on the positive uses that help the team reach its goals (Levi & Askay, 2021). Expert and referent power are especially useful because any member can hold them regardless of title. Pair power bases with influence tactics such as rational persuasion, consultation, and coalition building, and show a specific person using one to move the team forward.

Harlow Ridge note: The IT analyst has no authority over the warehouse leads but uses expert power and rational persuasion, backed by test data, to convince them to adopt a new scanning workflow.

A6: Capitalizing on Individual Strengths

Go beyond “assign tasks based on strengths.” Explain the mechanism:

• How you identify strengths (skills inventories, strengths assessments, past performance, direct conversation)
• How you deploy them (matching roles to strengths, pairing complementary members)
• How you develop them (stretch assignments, peer coaching)

Tie it back to team objectives. Show that matching the procurement specialist’s vendor negotiation experience to supplier onboarding shortens a critical timeline.

A7: Three Ways Technology Affects Virtual Team Communication

Three ways, each with a clear effect. Balanced papers score better than purely positive ones, so include at least one challenge.

Reduced nonverbal cues and video fatigue. Bailenson (2021) argues that nonverbal overload is a likely cause of Zoom fatigue and outlines four features of the videoconference interface that drive psychological strain. Discuss what that means for long virtual meetings.

Asynchronous communication across time zones. Tools like Slack or Teams let work continue around the clock, but messages lose tone and response delays can read as disengagement.

Shared collaboration platforms and transparency. Shared documents and project boards make progress visible, which supports accountability. Newman and Ford (2021) recommend that virtual team leaders upgrade their communication tools and techniques and build a culture of trust, which lets you link A7 back to your trust discussion in A2.

B and C: Citations and Grammarly

Citations (B): Every paraphrase needs an in text citation, and every citation needs a matching reference entry with author, date, title, and source location. Your course text is a safe primary source. Adding one or two current peer reviewed articles strengthens support for A3 and A7.

Professional communication (C): Grammarly for Education runs automatically, and the paper cannot pass without clearing the Correctness category. Fix every flagged correctness issue before submitting. Also wait for the similarity report. Your writing should be your own analysis in your own words.

See a Full Annotated Example

Note: This paper is an example for illustration purposes only. Harlow Ridge Supply and all people, figures, and events in it are fictitious. Do not submit this paper or any part of it as your own work. If you need assistance with your C205 Task 1, contact Gradevia on WhatsApp at +1 564 544 6924.

C205_Task_1_Example_Harlow_Ridge (Click to Download)

How C205 Task 1 Sets Up C205 Task 2

The KUM1 introduction states that this paper prepares you for the teamwork required in Task 2. For many students, C205 Task 2 WGU involves applying these same concepts to a team setting. If your version of C205 Task 2 asks for a PowerPoint, the concepts you explain here become the content of your slides. Always confirm the current requirements in your own Task 2 instructions, since task versions change.

What carries over directly: your trust practices, your team charter thinking, your power and influence analysis, and your virtual communication points. If you write C205 Task 1 carefully, a good portion of your Task 2 thinking is already done.

Pre-Submission Checklist

• Each A1 through A7 requirement has its own heading
• A1 has at least three factors, A4 at least two strategies
• A2 and A7 have exactly three items each
• A3 includes support from a source or course concept
• A5 covers individuals, not only the formal leader
• Every source cited in text appears in the reference list
• Grammarly Correctness is clear and the similarity report is reviewed
• File is saved as .docx with an allowed file name

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should C205 Task 1 be?

The suggested length is 3 to 5 pages. Roughly half a page per rubric aspect, plus a short introduction and conclusion, lands you in range.

Can I use my own workplace as the example?

Yes, and it often produces the strongest detail. Remove identifying company and coworker names.

Do I need outside sources for C205 Task 1 WGU?

The course text can carry most of the paper. One or two current scholarly sources make A3 and A7 noticeably stronger.

Is C205 Task 2 a group assignment?

Task 2 builds on the teamwork concepts from Task 1. Check your current C205 Task 2 WGU instructions for the exact deliverable and format.

Need a Second Set of Eyes?

If you’re juggling a full workload and want structured assignment support on your C205 outline, rubric alignment, or APA formatting, message Gradevia on WhatsApp at +1 564 544 6924.

Message us on WhatsApp

Related WGU Content

WGU C206 EHM2 Task 1: Ethical Theories, Leadership, and the Ethical Lens Inventory, Step-by-Step Guide + Sample Paper

WGU C206 Task 2 (Paradigm Toys): Guide + Example

WGU C207 Task 1: Complete Guide + Worked Example (Linear Regression Analysis)

WGU C207 Task 2 Guide: Decision Tree Analysis + Example

References

Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030

Edmondson, A. C., & Bransby, D. P. (2023). Psychological safety comes of age: Observed themes in an established literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055217

Levi, D., & Askay, D. A. (2021). Group dynamics for teams (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Newman, S. A., & Ford, R. C. (2021). Five steps to leading your team in the virtual COVID-19 workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 50(1), Article 100802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100802