Belbin, R. (1981) Management Teams Could be seen as a functionalist – someone who saw a team as made up of constituent parts or roles – an organic group.

Belbin, R. (1981) Management Teams

Could be seen as a functionalist – someone who saw a team as made up of constituent parts or roles – an organic group which needed all the roles filled to be effective.

What follows comes with the necessary academic critique – a health warning that because it is a good theory it will not always work – providing the perfect balanced team is not a guarantee of results.

Teams, especially in public services are not necessarily so focussed on the finished product – focus often has to be on a quick solution that is only a temporary solution – a means to an end.

Public services are often involved in a product that is not going to be marketed – they rescue someone or shoot someone in quick time

Belbin (1981) does though provide a framework to understand a team – particularly when a team is not functioning well

Not an exact fit for many

Individuals– Your own skills– How you used them in the team

Individuals could have a 'secondary' team role they could display – In debates– If no other team member had them – Or people were missing on the day

Overall

Absence of any role weakens the team

Too many ‘plants’ can mean too many ideas that are never completed

Too many completer finishers and the team may lack inspiration

Too many team workers and the team may lack the necessary dynamic of conflict to produce ideas/results

Team Roles

Co‑ordinator Ashley Dan Howard CPlant LeeAshley DanShaper Katie KerryHoward J Katie, Lee Kerry Phil Monitor‑Evaluator Jason Implementer Howard j Resource Investigator JasonHoward CTeam Worker PhilDan Completer‑Finisher Specialist (added later).

Team Roles

Co‑ordinator James Will DanniPlant Alex Shaper Charlene Aaron KayleighMonitor‑Evaluator Darren Ben Implementer Resource Investigator Nic Simon Matt BenCompany worker Charlene Andrew AaronTeam Worker Nic Adshana Darren Matt James Ben

KayleighCompleter‑Finisher Andrew DanniSpecialist

Team Roles

• Co‑ordinator• Plant• Shaper• Monitor‑Evaluator• Implementer• Resource Investigator• Team Worker• Completer‑Finisher• Specialist (added later).

CoordinatorCoordinates the efforts of the team to achieve its taskPreoccupied with achieving the taskWant to involve all members of the team as if they have the same motivation/preoccupationGood at recognising people’s strengths and weaknessesActive listeners, sum up people’s feelings and can articulate the group’s viewsNot necessarily assertive people

Strengths - Weaknesses

Mature

Confident

Clarifies goals

Use individuals in the team effectively to achieve the recognised goal

Can be manipulative

Plant

The ideas person

Source of original ideas

Bring originality – an ability to think outside of the box

Likely to be intelligent

Ignore details concentrate on the objective

Uninhibited – extrovert

Can be prickly – cause and take offence

Can even switch off if their ideas are questioned

Strengths - Weaknesses

Creative – good at problem solving

Need to be flattered

Can loose sight of the objectives

May just enjoy creating new ideas and this can be problematic when a task needs to be finished

ShaperFull of nervous energyOutgoingEmotionalImpulsiveCan be impatientOften seeking to prove they can be leaderQuick to challenge Enjoy being challengedHave arguments but quick to forgetCan be paranoid-see conspiracy where there is noneAppear self-confident – as a cover for self-doubtCompulsiveCan be arrogant but they make things happen

Strengths - Weaknesses

Dynamic

Outgoing

Challenging

Tenacious

Prone to outbursts

Insensitive

Monitor evaluator

Likely to be intelligent

Serious – lack charisma

Dispassionate analysis

Not an ideas person but someone who may stop dangerous idea – hold the team in check

Unenthusiastic - Do not get carried along

Objective - Team should listen to them – they are seldom wrong

Can be too critical and negative - depressing

Strengths - Weaknesses

Shrewd

Objective

Boring

Lack drive

Too negative

Implementer

Effective systematic and methodical Practical organiser

Identify the objectives – puts the team on track

Once decisions are made will chart the way to achieving it

Sees the reality – what can be done

Will be phased/threatened by sudden changes

Can be negative about new ideas (challenge the plant)

Strengths - Weaknesses

Disciplined

Reliable

Efficient

Inflexible

Resource InvestigatorNeeds to be amongst the technology – gadget personWorks within and outside of the teamNetworkerRelaxed sociableSalespersonNeed to be motivated by others (within or outside)Enthusiasm can be of the momentVital in keeping the team in the real world – in touch with othersStable controlledMay help to avoid ‘group think’ (Janis 1972)

Strengths - Weaknesses

Gregarious

Good communicators

Enthusiastic

Easily bored

Send too many emails

Team Worker

Sensitive to emotional undercurrents

Active internal communicator

Know about the team and their private lives

Loyal to the team

Will support ideas rather than be innovative

Counterbalance any friction (caused by ‘shaper’ ‘plant’ or ‘monitor evaluator’ with attempts to achieve unity

Can be a bit woolly as a result of their team perspective

Strengths - Weaknesses

Keeps relationships going

Interested in people within the team

Non threatening

Accommodating

Can be indecisive because of desire to maintain unity

Completer Finisher

Worries about what might go wrong

Good at checking detail

Attention to detail can make them loose sight of the objective

A sense of urgency or importance about the work

Can be impatient with any casual approach – can find ‘plant’ infuriating

They are compulsive about meeting deadlines

Can lower moral with their worries

Strengths - Weaknesses

Thorough - Attention to detail

Meet deadline

Worrier

Get bogged down in detail

Specialist

A bolt on member of the team

Accountant, IT, Designer, Statistician

Comes in to do one job

Focussed

Unaware of the bigger picture

Out of the politics

Strengths - Weaknesses

Single minded

Knowledgeable about their area

Can only contribute in their specialist area

Overall

Absence of any role weakens the team

Too many ‘plants’ can mean too many ideas that are never completed

Too many completer finishers and the team may lack inspiration

Too many team workers and the team may lack the necessary dynamic of conflict to produce ideas/results

Strengths - WeaknessesThere can be a weakness in thinking that providing the right balance will actually produce the right resultAlthough we can all recognise traits – does anyone actually fit any individual roleIs it more likely that we fit a number of rolesHowever without the ideas people and the details people and the team people and the finisher, teams engaged in routine tasks are unlikely to be successfulThere may well be an argument that special teams need more of one traitIn public service where the outcome is not always so clear then there can be a need for more different balancesDuring quick time incidents - too many thinkers can bog down the process – but a lack of thinking can result in wrong decisions The shooting of potential terrorists as opposed to the Stephen Lawrence murder

Bibliography

• Belbin, R. (1981) Management Teams: why they succeed or fail, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinnemann.

• Janis, I. (1972) (1972) Victims of Groupthink, Houghton: Mifflin Company.

• Tuckman, B. (1965) 'Developmental sequence in small groups', Psychological Bulletin 63(6): 384-399.

Co‑ordinator

Plant

Shaper

Monitor‑Evaluator

Implementer

Resource Investigator

Team Worker

Completer‑Finisher

Specialist (added later).