• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1 of 2 Team Roles in a Nutshell Ever wondered why some teams just seem to work and others hit the rocks? When things don’t work, it is obvious to all and it often has a profound effect on the people involved, as well as the project or objective to be achieved. In the 1970s, Dr Meredith Belbin and his research team at Henley Management College set about observing teams, with a view to finding out where and how these differences come about. They wanted to control the dynamics of teams to discover if – and how – problems could be pre- empted and avoided. Over a period of nine years, international management teams were studied. Each participant completed a battery of psychometric tests, so that attributes such as personality and behaviour could be brought into play and their effects on the team could be accurately considered. As the research progressed, the research revealed that the difference between success and failure for a team was not dependent on factors such as intellect, but more on behaviour. The research team began to identify separate clusters of behaviour, each of which formed distinct team contributions or “Team Roles”. A Team Role came to be defined as: “A tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way .” It was found that different individuals displayed different Team Roles to varying degrees. The first Team Role to be identified was the “Plant”. The role was so-called because one such individual was “planted” in each team. They tended to be highly creative and good at solving problems in unconventional ways. One by one, the other Team Roles began to emerge. The Monitor Evaluator was needed to provide a logical eye, make impartial judgements where required and to weigh up the team’s options in a dispassionate way. Co-ordinators were needed to focus on the team’s objectives, draw out team members and delegate work appropriately. When the team was at risk of becoming isolated and inwardly-focused, Resource Investigators provided inside knowledge on the opposition and made sure that the team’s idea would carry to the world outside the team. Implementers were needed to plan a practical, workable strategy and carry it out as efficiently as possible. Completer Finishers were most effectively used at the end of a task, to “polish” and scrutinise the work for errors, subjecting it to the highest standards of quality control. Teamworkers helped the team to gel, using their versatility to identify the work required and complete it on behalf of the team. Challenging individuals, known as Shapers , provided the necessary drive to ensure that the team kept moving and did not lose focus or momentum. © BELBIN® 2015 ‘BELBIN ®’ is a registered trademark of BELBIN UK. www.belbin.com 2 of 2 Whilst some Team Roles were more “high profile” and some team members shouted more loudly than others, each of the behaviours was essential in getting the team successfully from start to finish. The key was balance. For example, Meredith Belbin found that a team with no Plant struggled to come up with the initial spark of an idea with which to push forward. However, once too many Plants were in the team, bad ideas concealed good ones and non- starters were given too much airtime. Similarly, with no Shaper, the team ambled along without drive and direction, missing deadlines. With too many Shapers, in-fighting began and morale was lowered. As well as the strength or contribution they provided, each Team Role was also found to have an “allowable weakness”: a flipside of the behavioural characteristics, which is allowable in the team because of the strength which goes with it. For example, the unorthodox Plant could be forgetful or scatty; or the Resource Investigator might forget to follow up on a lead. Co-ordinators might get over-enthusiastic on the delegation front and Implementers might be slow to relinquish their plans in favour of positive changes. Completer Finishers, often driven by anxiety to get things right, were found to take their perfectionism to extremes. Teamworkers, concerned with the welfare and morale of the team, found it difficult to make decisions where this morale might be compromised or team politics, involved. Shapers risked becoming aggressive and bad- humoured in their attempts to get things done. It was only after the initial research had been completed that the ninth Team Role, “Specialist” emerged. The simulated management exercises had been deliberately set up to require no previous knowledge. In the real world, however, the value of an individual with in-depth knowledge of a key area came to be recognised as yet another essential team contribution or Team Role. Just like the other Team Roles, the Specialist also had a weakness: a tendency to focus narrowly on their own subject of choice, and to prioritise this over the team’s progress. The Team Roles that Meredith Belbin identified are used widely in thousands of organisations all over the world today. By identifying our Team Roles, we can ensure that we use our strengths to advantage and that we manage our weaknesses as best we can. Sometimes, this means being aware of the pitfalls and making an effort to avoid them. Most people have a number of “preferred Team Roles” or behaviours they frequently and naturally display. We also have “manageable roles”, roles which might not be the most natural course of behaviour for us, but which we can assume if required and might wish to cultivate. Lastly, we have least preferred roles, those we should not assume, since we’ll be playing against type. In this instance, the effort is likely to be great, and the outcome, poor. If work requires Team Roles other than our own, it is a much better bet to find and work with others who possess roles complementary to our own. Since people tend to display more than one preferred role, a team of four could quite easily represent all nine Belbin Team Roles. So, in a nutshell, the Belbin philosophy is about celebrating – and making the most of – individual differences. The message is that there is room for everyone in the team: all positive contributions are welcome. © BELBIN® 2015 ‘BELBIN ®’ is a registered trademark of BELBIN UK. www.belbin.com History and Research A unique study of teams took place at the Administrative Staff College at Henley, Oxon, (now known as Henley Business School) which ran an internationally famous 10-week course for successful managers with board potential. Part of the course involved a business simulation in which the managers were put in to competing teams. This simulation contained all the principal variables that typify the problems of decision-making in a business environment. The experiment was designed along scientific lines with careful measurement at each stage. In 1969, Dr Belbin was invited to use this business game as a starting point for a study of team behaviour. He came to it as a highly respected academic/industrialist, chairman and co- founder of The Industrial Training Research Unit (ITRU), which was founded by the Manpower Services Commission. Having an interest in group as well as individual behaviour, but with no particular theories about teams, he enlisted the aid of three other scholars: Bill Hartston, mathematician and international chess master; Jeanne Fisher, an anthropologist who had studied Kenyan tribes; and Roger Mottram , an occupational psychologist . Together they began what was to be a nine - year task. Three business games a year with eight teams in each game, and then in meeting after meeting, observing, categorising and recording all the different kinds of contribution from team members. The BUSINESS simulation Those participating were invited to take psychometric tests plus a test of high level reasoning ability called the Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA). Teams of various designs were composed on the basis of these individual test scores. Every half minute the contribution of the person speaking was recorded and classified into one of seven categories by trained observers. At the end of the exercise, which ran off and on throughout a week, the results of each team (operating as a company) were presented financially, which allowed more effective and less effective “companies” to be compared. A battery of psychometric tests was assembled, comprising measures of: High level reasoning ability (the Critical Thinking Appraisal) Personality (the 16 scales of the Cattell Personality Inventory or 16PF) Outlook (the Personal Preference Questionnaire or PPQ, developed specifically for the purpose). © BELBIN® 2015 ‘BELBIN ®’ is a registered trademark of BELBIN UK. www.belbin.com FINDINGS What was at first deemed to be likely was that high-intellect teams would succeed where lower intellect teams would not. However, the outcome of this research was that certain teams, predicted to be excellent based on intellect, failed to fulfil their potential. In fact, it became apparent by looking at the various combinations that it was not intellect, but balance, which enabled a team to succeed. Successful “companies” were characterised by the compatibility of the roles that their members played while unsuccessful companies were subject to role conflict. Using information from psychometric tests and the CTA, predictions could be made on the roles that individuals played and ultimately on whether the company would be more likely to figure among the winners or losers. One interesting point to observe from the experiment was that individuals reacted very differently within the same broad situation. It is a common experience that individual differences can cause a group to fall apart. People just don’t fit in. On the other hand, variation in personal characteristics can become a source of strength if they are recognised and taken account of.

Load more

  16

Copy Link