Search results

Team performances are usually affected by the combination of team members. When the roles of each of the team members are supplementing the functions of one another, a balanced team is formed. In a fast‐moving business environment, it is not uncommon to see that certain key team members may not be present in the team at all times. The remaining team members are required to play their roles dynamically in order to supplant the roles and the functions of the missing members. However, it is not very clear how the role adjustment process is managed. Understanding the role modification phenomenon may enable the management to regulate the composition of their work teams more effectively. Specifically, this paper will discuss two different approaches to studying this dynamic team role behavior.

To provide a critique of Belbin's team role theory, including the provision of a re‐definition of the concept of team role and an adequate framework for relating personality to team roles. The re‐defined concept of team roles has a significant social dimension that relates it to the roles people habitually play in teams, the autonomy provided by such roles and their commitment to them. It also advocates the use of the “Big Five” model for describing individual personality differences and relating them to team role behaviour.

A revised model of team role behaviour is described, along with a brief account of the “Big Five” model of personality, and findings are presented that relate team role behaviour to three sets of variables, namely, personality, team role expectations and team role orientation, including autonomy and commitment.

Team role behaviour is described using both self‐assessments and aggregated assessments by others derived from instruments using Likert‐type scales. Information is presented showing the relationship between these measures of team role behaviour and three sets of variables, namely, personality, team role expectations and team role orientation, including autonomy and commitment. These findings support the idea that team roles have a significant social dimension and that the “Big Five” model of personality provides a useful model for relating team role behaviour to individual personality traits.

The research does not look at a number of other issues raised by Belbin's theory of team roles, including the relationship between team composition and team effectiveness. Further research, using the measures described in the article, could be carried out to explore this relationship in actual teams, including exploring team composition in different work contexts.

The main implication of the research is that, while team role behaviour does appear to be related in part to individual personality traits, such traits are much less constraining than Belbin's theory suggests. Team role behaviour can usefully be seen, in part at least, as learned social behaviour, with individuals learning to play different roles in teams. Thus attempts to improve team effectiveness would benefit from looking more at learned behaviour (including leadership, problem solving, work organisation and interpersonal skills, as well as specialist expertise relevant to the particular team), while focusing relatively less on assessment, selection, placement and guidance.

Previous research on, and criticisms of, Belbin's team role theory have challenged it from within the discipline of psychology. This research is unique in criticising it from a more sociological perspective. It is also unique in shifting the practical focus for improving team effectiveness away from assessment, selection, placement and guidance to learned behaviour and skills.

The purpose of this paper is to model the relationship between influencing behaviour, personality traits, work roles and role orientation. It builds on previous research into team roles, highlighting the relationship between influencing behaviour and team role behaviour.

Statistical analysis on questionnaire data from a mixed, work‐based, UK sample is used to assess relationships between influencing behaviour, role expectations, role orientation and team role behaviour.

The paper argues that team roles access different types of power and influencing behaviours depending on role and role orientation. The findings establish a link between influencing behaviour and team role behaviour, as well as personality traits, developing the idea that there is a significant social dimension to team roles.

The research does not consider specific influence attempts, nor does it present evidence regarding the effectiveness of patterns of influencing behaviour in particular contexts.

The paper highlights the relationship between influencing behaviour and personality and contextual variables. Considering “when” different strategies and styles are used may offer guidelines for action. The findings reinforce the significance of the social dimension of team roles and indicate a need for further research to consider the success of influencing behaviour in different contexts.

Previous research into influencing behaviour has focused on its relationship to either situational variables or personality traits and, where personality variables have been studied, they have been specific traits. This research considers both sets of variables simultaneously and covers the whole personality domain. This is the first study of the relationship between team role behaviour and influencing behaviour.

This article aims to present and discuss research findings on 360 degree assessments of team role behaviours in different contexts. In so doing, it brings together and develops two themes previously explored by the author, namely: the need to introduce a significant social dimension into thinking about team roles; the need to recognise that appropriate leadership behaviour is not universal but contingent upon context.

A mixed sample of public sector managers in the UK completed a team role self-assessment questionnaire and had a 360 degree assessment completed on them. The research looked at the degree of correlation between the self-assessments and the 360 assessments and its statistical significance, exploring the ways in which the nine team roles are more or less valued in different contexts.

Statistically significant relationships were found between measures of leadership contexts and team role behaviours. More importantly for this research, 360 degree assessments of team role behaviours were also found to vary in different contexts. Similarities and differences were found in the team roles behaviours that were typical in particular contexts and those that were valued in such contexts.

The range of contexts explored in this article was limited. Two contextual variables derived from the model of “dynamic” leadership were examined, namely the level of influence over change and the level of influence over others. In both cases, high and low levels of influence were considered. It would be useful to explore other contextual variables. It would also be useful to see if the observed relationships were found in situations other than the UK public sector.

First, the findings reinforce the view that there is a significant social dimension to team roles, they cannot be viewed merely as clusters of personality traits, they are related to social roles and the influence people have in such roles. Second, teams are likely to be more effective if the behaviour of individual team members is appropriate to the social roles and contexts that they find themselves in. Third, what people tend to do in particular situations is not necessarily the same as that which is valued in such situations.

The findings reinforce the conclusions of earlier research by the author and associates. In so doing, they lend support to original team role and leadership models developed by these individuals, as well as highlighting links between the two models. They also highlight differences between what people tend to do in particular situations and what is likely to be valued in such situations.

Criticizes Belbin′s team‐role theory on the basis that roles are only appropriate in highly static organizations. Also argues that most teams have no set roles and that every member often takes the roles of others. Rather than assign roles, it is more empowering to teach allteam members how to manage teamwork effectively.

To investigate whether implementing Belbin’s ideas on team balance and role diversity result in enhanced team performance.

Compares the performance of teams engaged in a computer-simulated management game, analyzing team composition and individuals’ preferred Belbin roles.

Teamwork: highly valued by so many organizations – and often so very hard to achieve! As a result, many job specifications state that the role requires “a good team player”. What is harder to find is evidence of whether “good” teams deliver superior performance.

Observes that team role diversity does not lead to better financial performance. Adds that the Belbin role of the team leader does not appear to predict performance either.

Points out that awareness of their preferred Belbin team roles can help team members to become aware of their strengths and weaknesses and influence their behavior.

Provides an empirical evaluation of Belbin’s work in terms of team performance rather than team behavior.

With the growth in teamworking, organizations are increasingly turning to team role models in the hope of enhancing the effectiveness of their teams. However, such models can be both expensive to buy‐in and administer. Examines significant similarities between the two major team role models ‐ Belbin and TMS models. Argues that if the two systems/assessments can be used interchangeably, organizations could make considerable savings in both time and money. Finds no simple, direct correspondence between the two models (despite close congruence between the role behavioural indicators). Finds a small degree of predictability in some roles (none in others, especially the “creative” and “leadership” roles). Suggests that generally, the Belbin roles do tend to gravitate towards the relevant quadrant of the TMS wheel, but not directly to an identifiable role. Proposes that further research is needed to see if this tendency is a robust and significant finding.

Belbin team role scores derived from the 16PF5 personality questionnaire data were obtained from a sample of volunteers drawn from industrial and local authority organizations. The volunteers, comprising male and female managers and non‐managers, with approximately equal numbers in each of the four possible categories, were set into teams. Approximately half of the 55 teams comprised solely managers, the other half solely non‐managers. The distribution of Belbin team roles over all the teams was not controlled. All teams completed a business game typically used for training managers in team decision making. The distribution of Belbin scores amongst all the volunteers and the results of the business game provided evidence in support of the claim that Belbin’s team role theory can be applied to non‐managerial personnel.

Team role preference, as formulated by Meredith Belbin, and cognitive style are both rooted in personality. As a consequence, it should be possible to successfully hypothesise certain relationships between team role preferences and cognitive style, or one or more of its components. To test this idea, data was collected by administering the Kirton Adaption Innovation inventory and Cattell’s 16PF personality questionnaire to a group of undergraduate students (n = 183) who were reading a mixed engineering and business degree. This paper reports correlations which substantiate some of the postulated relationships. The findings, which suggest that the ideal Belbin team contains a balanced mix of adaptors, innovators and bridgers, give a new perspective to the Belbin team role model, and should provide some guidance to those who seek to build and operate “Belbinesque” teams.

The purpose of this study is to test the relationship between team composition and team performance by applying the construct of Ten Haaf, Bikker and Adriaanse.

Data were collected from a sample of 39 teams out of a population of 234 undergraduate MBA students. Four performance indices of each team were tested against the Ten Haaf et al. scores by using Spearman's rank test.

A statistical relation between team composition according to Ten Haaf et al. and team performance was not found. It is argued that Ten Haaf et al. and other authors do not use constructs according to Belbin's theory of balancing teams.

There is need for a construct, which is isomorphic with Belbin's notions of team balancing. The relation between this construct and performance should be tested.

The current team balancing constructs in literature are of limited use. As the various constructs give differing assessments of balance these constructs should not be used. Implications are suggested for more prescriptive algorithms for designing balanced teams.

The team composition algorithm of Ten Haaf et al. has not been tested up to now with regard to team performance. The study amplifies on the ambiguity of the concept of team balance.