Search results

In the context of the widespread and extensive use of team work in organizations this study analyses the relationship between individual team role preference and styles of managing interpersonal conflict. Data were collected from 26 work teams containing 169 individuals at two times four months apart. Results show that team role preference is related to Dominating, Integrating, Avoiding, Compromising and Obliging conflict management styles. Moreover, two different effects were observed over time. Firstly, at Time 2 an increase in the role clarity (reduction of role ambiguity) of team members was observed. Secondly, time pressure and team learning processes moderated the relationship between team roles and conflict managing style. Results have theoretical as well as practical implications for team building programmes in search of integrative solutions to conflict.

Consideration of Belbin’s team role model led to the view that some of the roles proposed might require the exercise of control, but others much less so. A hypothesis which indicated which roles might be expected to manifest expressed and wanted control was developed and then tested using Schutz’s FIRO‐B questionnaire. A mixture of graduates in employment and undergraduates still at university were utilised as subjects for the investigation. After consideration of the validity of Schutz’s constructs, the data obtained were construed as supporting the hypothesis and adding weight to the claims for the validity of the Belbin team role model.

Competitive performances of manufacturing firms are affected by the strategies they selected. The implementations of strategies, as usually assumed, rely on the effectiveness of work teams. The performances of teams, to a large degree, are directed by team leaders. Therefore, the compatibility between competitive performances, manufacturing strategies, and the functions of team leaders should be explored. Based on the statistical findings obtained from other literature as well as an analysis of an international survey of manufacturing strategies. It is proposed that the compatibility is basically the relationship between the knowledge seeking behavior of team leaders and the knowledge required for improving competitive performances. We also discovered that it is worth further investigating two particular types of team leaders, i.e. shaper and company builder. Their characteristics may provide a basis to expand our understandings of team leaders’ performances and the competence‐based organizations of today.

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.

In the description of his team model, Belbin describes certain “allowable” weaknesses in the roles, the true‐life experience of teamworking, however, sometimes reveals behaviour among colleagues which is far from “allowable”. The Belbin model is silent on such behaviour, so an investigation of Machiavellianism within each of the Belbin team roles was undertaken to explore this darker side of team behaviour. The instrument chosen for the investigation was the Christie and Geis Machiavellianism IV scale. Sizeable correlations in the experimental data were obtained which were readily interpreted within the framework of the Belbin theory. Suggestions regarding aspects of team management were made based on the experimental findings.

Ascertains the preferred team roles of a substantial sample of UK managers using Belbin’s model. Finds that co‐ordinators and resource investigators are present in great numbers, but few completers, monitor evaluators, plants and shapers are encountered. Highlights the significance of this finding for firms seeking to create balanced and, hopefully, optimally‐structured teams. Adduces some evidence for the validity of the Belbin team role construct.

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.

Against the background of a recent investigation into the internal reliability and the validity of the Belbin Team Role Self‐perception Inventory, two linked studies were undertaken. In the first, test‐retest reliabilities of the Belbin self‐perception inventory were measured and found to be unsatisfactory; in the second, correlations with team roles forecast on the basis of 16PF data were attempted and, with the exception of one team role, no substantial correlations were established. Provides support for the use of 16PF as the preferred method for estimating team role preferences rather than the Belbin self‐perception inventory data.

THE VALUE OF ABSTRACTS AND THEIR USE ‐ MCB is not a company to rest on its laurels. In the vernacular of modern‐day management literature, the company can rightly claim to be a learning organization; one that seeks to regenerate and develop itself in accordance with current trends, most notably customer and market requirements.

Leaders of global virtual teams (GVTs) during the economic crisis of 2008–2009 faced a leadership challenge very different from leadership of traditional, face-to-face teams during normal economic conditions. Previous research has shown that the effect of leadership tends to become diminished in virtual team situations, due to well-known challenges of virtual working (geographic dispersion, computer-mediated communication, time zone, cultural and language differences); however, little empirical research has been undertaken during crisis periods such as experienced in 2008–2009 to evaluate the effect of leadership on team outcomes during times of crisis. We present findings which shed light on the impact of three sets of leadership behaviour, as described by FIRO theory (Schutz, 1958), that is, inclusion (participation), control (structure) and affection (personal support), on virtual team motivation and cohesiveness spanning the time of the recent global economic recession. Beginning in March 2008 spanning one year to March 2009, 221 team members within 31 operational GVTs located across 22 countries responded to a three-part, online survey relating to perceptions of team leader behaviour, team motivation and cohesiveness. Findings showed significant positive relationships between leaders' perceived expression of inclusion and personal support and motivation and cohesiveness outcomes. In addition, perceived team cohesiveness was positively correlated to perceived team motivation. Results suggest the need for virtual leaders to ‘turn up the volume’ in their initiated inter-personal behaviour, that is, to increase efforts in participation and supportiveness to bridge the considerable gaps between themselves and team members working virtually and to maintain motivation during difficult times. Correspondent to these findings, we surmise that leadership development programs need to be adjusted to include training and feedback mechanisms to support these types of GVTs leadership behaviours.