TEAM ROLES VALIDATION 121 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 10 (2), 121144

A validation study of Belbins team roles

Department of Psychology, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Oxford Psychologists Press, Oxford, UK Interface Studies Unit, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
The Belbin team role preferences of the members of 55 teams were assessed by three independent methods: (1) Cattells 16PF (Form 5) personality questionnaire, (2) video observation of a business simulation exercise and subsequent analysis with a Belbin behavioural checklist, and (3) Saville and Holdsworths Occupational Personality Questionnaire. The 338 participants were drawn in approximately equal measure from managerial and non-managerial levels from equal numbers of manufacturing and public service organizations. A multitrait multimethod correlation matrix derived from the data collected from the participants was employed to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validities of the Belbin team roles. Application of the Campbell and Fiske criteria to the matrix did not produce clear support for discriminant validity. Application of a correlated uniqueness model in a confirmatory factor analysis showed the Belbin team role model to be overparameterized and to lack both convergent and discriminant validity. Further modelling revealed that the Belbin team roles fit easily into a Big Five five-factor personality framework.

S.G. Fisher

T.A. Hunter

W.D.K. Macrosson

Since its public appearance in 1981 in the book, Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Belbins theory of team roles (Belbin, 1981) has been the focus of considerable attention both in industry (Senior, 1997) and academia (Broucek & Randell, 1996; Dulewicz, 1995; Fisher, Hunter, & Macrosson, 1998). In his book Belbin (1981, p. 132) proposed that the following five criteria must be fulfilled for the construction of an effective team: (1) that each member contributes to achieving objectives by performing a functional role (professional/
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Professor W.D.K. Macrosson, Interface Studies Unit, Graham Hills Building, University of Strathclyde, 40 George Street, Glasgow G1 1QE, UK. Email: w.macrosson@strath.ac.uk 2001 Psychology Press Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/1359432X.html DOI: 10.1080/13594320143000591

122

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

technical knowledge) and a team role, (2) that an optimal balance in other functional and team roles is needed, depending on the teams goals and tasks, (3) that team effectiveness depends on the extent to which members correctly recognize and adjust to the relative strengths, (4) that personality and mental abilities fit members for some team roles and limit their ability to play others, and, (5) that a team can deploy its technical resources to best advantage only when it has the range and balance of team roles to ensure efficient team work. The central concept linking these criteria was that of the team role, and the book Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail laid out the development and definitions of that concept. There, Belbin (1981) posited the necessity for eight team roles to be deployed within a team for it to operate optimally. He coined special names for the team roles, giving their characteristics as: Completer-finisher: Painstaking, conscientious, anxious; searches out errors and omissions; delivers on time; perfectionism; obsessional behaviour. Chairman: Mature, confident, a good chairperson; clarifies goals, promotes decision making; delegates well; inclined to be lazy; takes credit for effort of a team. Company worker: Disciplined, reliable, conservative, and efficient; turns ideas into practical action; adherence to the orthodox and proven; obstructing change. Monitor-evaluator: Sober, strategic, discerning; sees all options; judges accurately; scepticism with logic, cynicism without logic. Plant: Creative, imaginative, unorthodox; solves difficult problems; preoccupied with ideas and neglects practical matters; strong ownership of ideas. Resource investigator: Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative; explores opportunities; develops contacts; loses enthusiasm once initial excitement has passed. Shaper: Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure; has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles; a proneness to frustration and irritation; inability to recover situation with good humour or apology. Team worker: Co-operative, mild, perceptive, and diplomatic; listens, builds, averts friction, calms the waters; indecision on crucial issues; avoiding situations that may entail pressure. (Later Belbin, 1993, altered the titles of two of his team roles; the Chairman became the Co-ordinator, the Company worker the Implementer. His earlier nomenclature has been adopted in this paper because of its more widespread use in industry.) The Belbin proposal was that the members of the team must be capable, amongst themselves, of discharging all of these eight team roles. Helpfully, in his formulation, Belbin (1981) acknowledged that an individual may be able to operate effectively in more than one team role, thereby releasing an optimal team from any constraints on numbers. From his experiments and

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

123

work with teams Belbin (1993) also posited that mental ability, current values and motivations, field constraints, experience, and role learning as well as personality all have an effect on team behaviour, although he declined to comment on the relative effect of each. However, the great importance that Belbin, in practice, ascribed to the dimension of personality within team role is revealed first, by his Self Perception Inventory published in his book (1981) and second, by his collaboration with personality test producers. The publishers of the 16PF (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) personality questionnaire and the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (Saville, Holdsworth, Nyfield, Cramp, & Mabey, 1992) both collaborated with Belbin (Dulewicz, 1995) at different times to develop equations for calculating team role scores from their respective test data. Clearly, Belbin held the view that focusing on personality data simplified the question of who to choose for team membership: The extraction from psychometric test material of a disposition towards certain team roles enables executives to develop clear expectations about the potential contribution of a candidate. In other words, complex data processed to appear in a simple form is often preferred to scores on multi-dimensional tests on which it is difficult to take an overview (Belbin, 1993, p. 32). The heart of the Belbin theory was simple: For optimal performance a team should contain individuals capable of operating in each of the eight team roles he had defined. This was the key concept. So, if an organization was selecting candidates for membership of a given team it should make every endeavour to ensure the presence of all eight team roles. Additionally, and of considerable practical import, access to these team roles was possible through the application of commercially available personality questionnaires and the relevant formulae. Indeed, the predictive power of the formulation was claimed to be very considerable (Belbin, 1981). In a series of experiments Belbin, Aston, and Mottram (1976) had shown how deviation from the ideal consistently yielded teams that performed poorly. So, it was not surprising when industry was downsizing and the duties of managers were being taken over by teams, that the Belbin team role theory was enthusiastically adopted. Indeed, the extent to which his ideas on team roles have impacted on industry is betokened by the remarkable way in which the names originally given to these eight team roles have been absorbed into the everyday vocabularies of this generation of management. So much so that Roderick (1997a, b) has thought it worthwhile to lampoon them in a two-part article on the dark side of team roles. Although Belbin did not elaborate the theoretical foundations for his theory of team roles, its roots may be clearly seen in two major threads of classical organizational theory. First, in Bureaucratic Theory originally developed by Max Weber (see Gerth & Mills, 1958, translation) the need for specialization and the need to match competence and job responsibility are made explicit. Belbins team role model echoes that need in that it identifies individuals particular behavioural traits and matches them to specialized roles within the team. Weber

124

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

also recognized the need for orderly processing of work with special provision to ensure that every task was accomplished. In the latter regard, Belbins Completer-finisher role fits the need perfectly, whereas the need for orderly processing is met in the Chairman and Company worker roles. However, Webers insistence on an unambiguous chain of command flies in the face of the very nature of a team and is simply inappropriate in the true team environment. The second major thread of classical organizational theory upon which Belbins theory rests is to be found in the theories intimately associated with the human relations movement. Advocates of the human relations approach believe that it is beneficial to create positive human relations within the organization (Mayo, 1946; Miles, 1965). In that regard the function of Belbins Team worker role is clearly pivotal, the co-operative, perceptive and empathetic Team worker ensuring not only that the interpersonal climate within the team is kept as harmonious as possible but that the Chairman is always kept aware of the relational undercurrents flowing within the team. Within the human relations movement, also, the importance of participation in the decision-making processes in the organization has been recognized from the earliest times. Belbins team theory clearly draws on this, each of his team roles feeding into the sequence of events associated with the delivery of a project. For example, Gupta and Taube (1985) in a survey of project management theories reaching back into the 1970s, when Belbin was conducting his team-building experiments, defined the stages in project management as: Project selection; Planning; Defining resources needed; Scheduling; Implementing; Measuring progress; Reporting; and Maintaining human relations. Belbins team roles map comfortably onto Gupta and Taubes stages. Shapers, Chairmen and Plants all have a major role to play in the planning and defining phases; Resource investigators and Company workers will have found their mtier in the Implementation stage; Monitorevaluators and Completer-finishers are ideally suited to the Measuring progress and Reporting stages respectively; the Team worker is quietly working at Maintaining human relations. The bureaucratic theory of Weber and the human relations theory can also be seen as providing theoretical underpinning for the earlier team role model of Benne and Sheats (1948), a model not dissimilar to that of Belbin. Indeed, the group task roles of Benne and Sheats (1948) can be seen as resting on these same theories. In this way, Belbins empirical formulation clearly links to a well-established base of theory. In the light of the continuing adoption (Huczynski, 1997) of the Belbin team role typology the issue of the validity of the model assumes increasing importance. Two validation studies (Broucek & Randell, 1996; Dulewicz, 1995) have been reported but both, in their own ways, have raised questions rather than furnished confirmation of the validity of Belbins team role model. In the first of the validation studies, Dulewicz (1995) evaluated team roles by using two personality questionnaires, the Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF: Cattell et al., 1970) and the Occupational Personality Questionnaire Concept 5.2 (OPQ: Saville et al., 1992) and suggested that a comparison of the

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

125

factor structure of the team roles from each of the personality instruments and an examination of the correlations between the team roles when measured by both instruments should provide evidence of construct validity of Belbins team role model. His exploratory factor analysis yielded factor loadings that had little in common and, additionally, failed to support Belbins proposed four pairings of team roles. Lack of support of construct validity may be inferred from this result. Helpfully, Dulewicz (1995) published the correlation matrices from which the exploratory factor analysis may be replicated. When the factor analysis is replicated and the relevant anti-image correlation matrices and indices derived from it calculated, the appropriateness of conducting a factor analysis is seen as being highly questionable. The Kaiser (1981) measure of sampling adequacy for factor analysis is found to be .43 and .44 for the 16PF and OPQ data respectively, both of which, in Kaisers terms, are unacceptable. The usefulness of the pattern of factor loadings in establishing construct validity in this instance may, at best, be considered doubtful. The second set of data that Dulewicz suggests could help establish construct validity is the matrix of correlations between the 16PF and OPQ derived team roles. First, the validity diagonal in that matrix shows the average correlation to be .35; second, of the 56 off-diagonal correlations 22 are significant, but the mean value of these 22 correlations is a mere .31. These data are advanced as evidence for inter-method/equivalent form reliability , and construct validity of seven of the eight team roles (Dulewicz, 1995, p. 91). The authors of this paper take a different view and suggest that an average correlation of .35 signals poor inter-method/equivalent form reliability and that 39% of off-diagonal correlations being statistically significant and having a mean value comparable to the validity diagonal itself indicates a lack of discriminant validity. In the second, more recent, study of construct validity, Broucek and Randell (1996), used the five-factor model as operationalized by the NEO-PI/NEO-PI-R questionnaire (Costa & McCrae, 1992) as a standard against which to evaluate the Belbin team roles as measured by both the Self Perception Inventory and Belbins Observer Assessment instrument. They concluded on the basis of the correlations between the NEO-PI/NEO-PI-R and Self Perception Inventory that there was no evidence to support claims for either convergent or discriminant validity. Solely on the basis of the well-established inadequacy of the psychometric properties of the Self Perception Inventory the authors take no issue with that conclusion. However, the use of the NEO-PI/NEO-PI-R questionnaire to examine the discriminant validity of Belbins Observer Assessment instrument which, unlike the Self Perception Inventory had not been the subject of academic enquiry prior to the work of Broucek and Randell (1996), depends on the orthogonality of the dimensions of personality in the five-factor model as operationalized in that questionnaire. Broucek and Randell (1996, p. 391) write, These dimensions are orthogonal to one another , but inspection of the NEOPI/NEO-PI-R Professional Manual (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 100) shows that a number of substantial correlations do exist between them. Clearly, the five

126

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

factors are not orthogonal to one another. Any conclusion regarding the discriminant validity of the Belbins Observer Assessment instrument must, therefore, have a corresponding element of uncertainty attached to it. In view of these uncertainties and an earlier examination of the structure of Belbins team roles (Fisher et al., 1998) the time appeared ripe to adopt an alternative approach to the issues of the validity and structure of the team role model. The method chosen for the enquiry employed the well-established (Marsh, 1989) multitraitmultimethod matrix analysis followed by confirmatory factor analysis. The multitraitmultimethod matrix was first proposed by Campbell and Fiske (1959) as a way of establishing the convergent and discriminant validity of a given construct. They proposed that the traits under scrutiny, of which there should be three or more preferably, be measured by at least three different methods. In this study three measures were employed: Two were derived from separate personality questionnaires, the 16PF and the OPQ, and the third from a video assessment technique devised specifically for this enquiry. Thus, the team roles yielded eight traits and the 16PF, OPQ, and video assessment three methods for an 11 11 multitraitmultimethod matrix. The Self Perception Inventory was not included in the multitraitmultimethod matrix portfolio of measures on account of the overwhelming evidence (Fisher, Macrosson, & Sharp, 1996; Furnham, Steele, & Pendleton, 1993) accumulated in regard to its unsatisfactory psychometric properties. Adoption of the multitrait multimethod matrix methodology avoided issues concerning the best personality questionnaire to employ or any assumptions regarding the underlying structure of the model. Thus, the approach taken in this study was deliberately conservative. By avoiding the much criticized Team Roles Self Perception Inventory and adhering to the personality questionnaire algorithms derived from Belbin we sought to keep on firm ground, noting that Dulewicz (1995, p. 94) had, in regard to these algorithms, indicated that it seems reasonable to contend that these 16PF equations form a benchmark for further research (authors italics). We also employed our video observational technique, in preference to Belbins Observer Assessment report form which is only completed by fellow workers, in an effort to achieve reliability and impartiality. To achieve comparability with Belbins subjects we sought only volunteers who were in employment and had previous experience of working in groups or teams. We also recruited a sufficiently large sample to obtain statistical significance for small values of correlation coefficients thereby offering hope of detecting effects other than gross ones.

METHOD Subjects
A total of seven prominent multinational manufacturing organizations and two large indigenous UK firms, all with plants located in Scotland, provided 14 teams (44 males, mean age = 36 years, SD = 8.4; 20 females, mean age = 30 years, SD

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

127

= 6.5) comprising managerial personnel and 14 teams (107 males, mean age = 39 years, SD = 10.5; 11 females, mean age = 27 years, SD = 6.3) comprising nonmanagerial personnel. Public service organizations such as local district councils and NHS trusts provided 14 teams (33 males, mean age = 33 years, SD = 9.4; 81 females, mean age = 41 years, SD = 10.5) comprising managerial and 13 teams (3 males, mean age = 29 yrs, SD = 6.7; 39 females, mean age = 36 years, SD = 10.9) non-managerial personnel. Thus, a total of 55 teams comprising 187 male and 151 female volunteer subjects, mean age 38.1 (SD = 9.9) and 37.2 (SD = 10.9) years respectively, were recruited.

Questionnaires

16PF 5. The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire Form 5 (16PF5) published by the Institute of Personality and Ability Testing and distributed in the UK by NFER-NELSON Ltd is a personality questionnaire that measures 16 primary aspects of adult personality. The questionnaire was administered to each individual participating in the study and a raw score for each personality factor for each participant was derived. The raw scores for each participant were inserted into the formulae shown in Table 1. Sten scores for each team role were then derived by inserting the raw team role scores into the norm table (not shown in this paper) provided by the publishers, NFER-NELSON Ltd. Towards the end of the 1970s, that is in the later stages of his studies, Belbin (personal communication) pinpointed individuals who had played crucial roles, as recorded by observers, in the business simulation exercises and found a relationship between psychometric test scores and observed team roles. The relationship was uncovered by comparing the 16PF test scores of teams which
TABLE 1 Formulae for the derivation of team role scores from 16PF5 raw data Team role Completer-finisher Chairman Company worker Monitor-evaluator Plant Resource investigator Shaper Team worker Equation C+ G +O + Q 3+ Q4 A +C+ 2E +F +2G2LM+ 2Q3 2G2I2L2MQ1+ Q 3 F+ N 2A + E-2F+ H+ 2I + MN+ Q1+ 2Q2 2C + F+ H-L+ M+ Q 1 C+ 3E + FG +HI + 2O + 2Q 4 AELQ 2

16PF5 Personality in Practice by Wendy Lord NFER-NELSON 2000. Adapted by permission of the Publishers, The NFER-NELSON Publishing Company Limited, Darville House, 2 Oxford Road East, Windsor, Berkshire SL4 1DF, England. All rights reserved.

128

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

were successful in the business simulation exercise with the test scores of the unsuccessful teams. On the bases of these observations Belbin produced his equations as a set of handwritten tables (Berry, 1995); the equations are now in the open literature (Fisher, Hunter, & Macrosson, 2000). There is no evidence extant to indicate that these equations were derived by linear regression or any similar procedure. Recourse to mathematical techniques appears not to have been necessary since Berry (1995) has been able to demonstrate plainly that the team role equations can be deduced from the descriptions given in Belbins first book (1981). However, one team role equation was an exception. Belbin discovered that the cluster of distinguishing characteristics of the Plant was none other than Cattells formulae for Creative Disposition; he adopted it as it stood (1981, p. 33). At the start of his work on team roles Belbin (personal communication) had been using the 1962 edition (Form A) of the 16PF but when that edition was superseded in 1969 he found the new form to be a less reliable predictor. At that juncture Belbin (personal communication) started to give more attention to observer assessments than self reporting. In spite of the experience with the 1969 edition of the 16PF, Belbin and the 16PF publishers, NFER-NELSON Ltd (Life, 1993, personal communication) produced a set of equations (Dulewicz, 1995) for the calculation of team roles. The 1969 version of the 16PF has now been superseded by the 1993 version, the 16PF5. The final stage in the evolution of the team role equations was the substitution of the 1969 version primary factors by the appropriate admixture of 16PF5 primary factors, moderated and informed by Belbin and NFER-NELSON Ltd (Life, 1993, personal communication). The outcome of this latter collaboration is the equations shown in Table 1; these are the equations used in this investigation. OPQ. The Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) Concept 5.2 published by Saville and Holdsworth UK Ltd is designed to measure 31 separate aspects of an individuals behaviour, interests, and personality characteristics in a work context (Saville et al., 1992). The questionnaire was administered to each individual participating in the study and a raw score for each personality factor for each participant was derived. Standardized (Sten) scores for the 30 factors were derived through the use of the appropriate commercially available norm tables. The Sten scores were then converted into the eight team roles using proprietary software that employs an algorithm derived in co-operation with Belbin and norms derived from over 1000 UK managers (Dulewicz, 1995). The equations on which the algorithm is based were generated in three steps: first, conceptual descriptions were generated from the research literature; second, from these conceptual descriptions predictive equations were defined; third, early versions of the equations were submitted to Dr Belbin who added his own views and amendments, which were generally taken into account in the final equations (Mabey & Hunter, 1986). However, no information on the algorithms,

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

129

norms, or team role equations, comparable to that disclosed by NFER-NELSON Ltd, has been published in the open literature by Saville and Holdsworth UK Ltd. Business simulation exercise. Toxic Waste is a commercially available team-working exercise obtained from Chadwick Rees Consultancy Ltd, England. It is an exercise that had been developed specifically to allow various aspects of team-working styles and behaviours to emerge, and was selected for this research because no specialized business or technical knowledge was required for its completion. It also imposes few rules or any hierarchy on the team prior to the start of the exercise. In advance of conducting the main investigation, a trial run of Toxic Waste was made with a team comprising volunteers drawn from university staff and students. From the lessons learned from the trial a minor modification was made to the exercise which helped bring out the characteristics of the least assertive or involved team member. The modification to the Toxic Waste exercise was nothing other than addition of the requirement that the team produce a tender for the contract to collect the waste. On a day agreed between the employing organization and the researcher (Hunter), one of the 55 teams who volunteered for the investigation met in a conference room on company premises or in a local hotel. After completing the 16PF and OPQ personality questionnaires, administered by the researcher, the team was invited to participate in the modified form of Toxic Waste. The exercise, which has no time limit, usually took each team about 3 hours to complete. The entire business simulation exercise was recorded on videotape. This procedure was repeated for each of the 55 teams. Video observation. All of Belbins writings were combed for adjectives and descriptive statements relating to the eight team roles. Each group of adjectives and descriptive statements were clustered under each team roles and then refined and reduced to about 710 items that captured the essence of each team roless characteristic behaviour. These groups of items, shown in Table 2, were used to define the team roles and constituted our Belbin Behavioural Checklist, which provided the researcher with markers for specific team role behaviours. Since the business simulation exercises for all 55 teams had been recorded on videotape, by replaying the tape time and again, the behaviour of every individual operating in a team context could be assessed at leisure. The video recordings of the business simulation exercise were played repeatedly and the researcher focused on each team member in turn and awarded the team member one point on every occasion that the team member displayed any of the behaviours described in the Belbin Behavioural Checklist. On completion of the event recording, summation of the points yielded a team role score for each subject. In the pilot study in which a team comprising volunteers drawn from university staff and students completed Toxic Waste, the researchers scoring

130

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON TABLE 2 Belbin behavioural checklist

CF

Completer- finisher

Thorough about a task; attentive to all details; finishes things; reluctant to let go until complete; nags others to finish on time; perfectionist; plans so that nothing gets overlooked. Delegates tasks and rallies team; makes firm decisions usually having consulted others; adaptive to changes; committed to goals and sees to them being met; uses all team members making all play a role; draws out the potential from all members; recognizes talent and uses it. Orderly and precise; sticks to rules; doesnt like change; organizes plans and action; disciplined in approach; systematic in approach; tackles any tasks. Asks for all information; unenthusiastic and impartial about ideas; slow to make a decision; likes to think based on all facts; negative about plans. Negotiates and liaises with outsiders; asks questions from others; opportunistic; thinks on feet; picks up on the ideas of others; is sociable; inquisitive and curious; enthusiastic about tasks at the beginning. Thinks things through; tackles problems usually on own; proposes ideas and solutions; creative and imaginative; dominant with ideas. Active in the need to achieve something; restless; likes to work without planning; challenges others or indecision in a team; argues; disturbs the balance; goads action from others; opportunist, often negative; impatient and often frustrated. Listens to others and supports them; works with the awkward people; not forceful or demanding; diplomatic and balancing; averts conflict; communicates well with others.

CH

Chairman

CW

Company worker

ME

Monitor- evaluator

RI

Resource investigator

PL

Plant

SH

Shaper

TW

Team worker

of team behaviour on the video recording was correlated with that of an educated, managerial level, lay person. Inter-observer reliabilities of between .7 and .9 were obtained over the range of team roles, the Monitor-evaluator role giving the poorest, the Resource investigator the highest reliability respectively.

Analysis

For each participant the experimental protocol yielded 24 data points: three team role scores, one each from the 16PF questionnaire, the OPQ questionnaire and the video observations, for each of the eight Belbin team roles. Complete sets of

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

131

data were obtained for 331 out of the 338 participants. Two commercially available software packages were used to process the data, SPSS for Windows (release 6.1.3) for the calculation of correlation coefficients, and AMOS (release 3.6) for the confirmatory factor analyses. The initial step in the analysis of the data was the calculation of the multitraitmultimethod correlation matrix. The traits are the eight Belbin team roles, the methods the 16PF questionnaire, the OPQ questionnaire, and the video observation.

As indicated earlier, Campbell and Fiskes (1959) approach to the establishing of convergent and discriminant validity of a given construct rests on the analysis of a multitraitmultimethod matrix of Pearsons correlations. The multitrait multimethod matrix obtained in this study is shown in Table 3. All correlations in the validity diagonal, shown in bold in the heterotraitheteromethod blocks (encased in lines in Table 3), were significant at p .05; the heterotrait monomethod correlation triangles are in italics.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE MULTITRAIT MULTIMETHOD MATRIX

CampbellFiske criteria

In their landmark paper, Campbell and Fiske (1959) suggested four criteria by which convergent and discriminant validity might be evaluated from a multitrait multimethod matrix; these criteria were re-expressed by Marsh and Hocevar (1983) and Marsh (1989) as follows: Convergent validity criterion: The convergent validity coefficients should be statistically significant and sufficiently different from zero to warrant further examination of validity. Discriminant validity criteria: (i) The convergent validities should be higher than the correlations between different traits assessed by different methods (i.e., the convergent validity should be higher that the values lying in its column and row in the heterotraitheteromethod triangles). (ii) The convergent validities should be higher than correlations between different traits assessed by the same method. (iii) The pattern of the correlations should be similar for each of the different methods. In Table 3 the validity diagonals, shown in bold face, were found to be statistically significant and different from zero (mean = .48, SD = .10; 99% confidence interval, t(.01, 24) = 2.81, upper and lower limits, .54 and .42 respectively). If the data have failed to meet this first criterion, which indicates convergent validity being approached, it would have been hard to avoid the

132
Video CF CH CW ME PL RI SH TW CF CH CW ME PL RI SH OPQ TW 15 07 11 24 20 19 28 51 14 22 38 01 30 04 07 07 16 07 45 23 20 22 13 15 18 13 17 31 02 09 01 16 06 31 10 29 15 17 08 31 07 32 27 54 44 22 06 18 15 41 16 12 04 59 40 02 21 49 29 08 31 08 44 22 15 11 12 09 21 17 08 40 03 35 09 10 21 01 22 08 45 02 19 10 28 37 06 24 23 59 21 05 06 20 06 06 30 24 55 30 16 22 28 26 22 10 46 50 10 61 43 16 17 02 04 60 00 43 81 43 03 35 01 29 07 14 22 22 07 13 35 47 14 41 04 54

132

TABLE 3 Multitraitmultimethod Pearson correlation matrix for Belbin team roles ( N = 331)

16PF

CF

CH

CW ME

PL

RI

SH TW

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

1 6 P F

CF CH 06 CW 16 ME 33 PL 11 RI 60 SH 36 TW 26

71 19 25 32 05 10

13 52 15 23 06

20 61 25 42

02 06 46

09 37

29

V i d e o

CF CH CW ME PL RI SH TW

47 12 08 23 05 38 06 09

03 47 27 15 30 16 08 16

02 18 44 01 46 08 23 14

35 24 26 37 02 49 16 12

11 03 17 13 47 06 13 12

43 40 19 37 08 59 15 01

03 10 24 02 13 15 58 24

O P Q

CF CH CW ME PL RI SH TW

48 27 05 28 16 45 05 08

38 46 59 14 06 38 15 04

39 10 48 17 37 02 13 08

28 35 08 25 21 64 24 19

09 04 13 09 35 16 13 12

30 63 15 27 39 79 30 02

04 14 19 05 30 20 57 21

CF=Finisher; CH=Co-ordinator; CW=Implementer; ME=Monitor evaluator; PL=Plant; RI=Resource investigator; SH=Shaper; TW=Team worker; decimal points omitted; validity diagonals in bold; heterotraitmonomethod data triangles in italics.

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

133

conclusion that the different methods had been by measuring different constructs; a lack of convergent validity in at least one method would have been indicated. In regard to the first of the discriminant validity criteria, inspection of Table 3 reveals that 161 of the 168 off-diagonal values in the three heterotrait heteromethod blocks are smaller than the convergent validities, implying agreement on any one trait is relatively independent from agreement on other traits, thereby giving support for this first criterion of discriminant validity. The second criterion regarding discriminant validity requires that the convergent validities be higher than correlations between different team roles assessed by the same method. This requires that each value in the validity diagonals be compared with all other correlations in the same row and same column in the corresponding triangular heterotraitmonomethod submatrices (Marsh, 1990). For the three sets of comparisons involving 168 comparisons, 17 correlations in the heterotraitmonomethod triangles were seen to be higher than their corresponding convergent validities. The mean convergent validity (.49) is higher than the mean correlation among scales for the 16PF (.04), video (.08), and the OPQ (.15) methods. Most of the 17 failures originated in the OPQ monomethod submatrix These data were interpreted as lending support to overall discriminant validity since a method effect would have resulted in similar values for correlations in the validity diagonals and correlations in the heterotrait monomethod triangles. The third criterion for discriminant validity set by Campbell and Fiske (1959) required that the pattern of correlations between different traits (team roles in this study) be similar for the same and different methods. In other words, the pattern of trait interrelationship should be visible in all of the heterotrait triangles of both the monomethod and heteromethod blocks. As indicated by Marsh (1989, 1990), assuming that there are significant correlations among traits, satisfaction of this criterion would suggest that true trait correlations are independent of the method of assessment, whereas failure would suggest that the observed correlations are differently affected by method effects. Inspection of the matrix did not reveal clearly the hypothesized pattern and so this third criterion could not be declared firmly to have been met. Difficulty in meeting this final criterion for discriminant validity has been encountered from the very start of multitraitmultimethod matrix analyses, Campbell and Fiske (1959) having noted that a failure to meet this criterion was encountered in many of the studies that they had examined. Part of the difficulty experienced in meeting this criterion must reside in the fact that any conclusion based on a visual inspection of a sizeable matrix in the absence of any quantified metric cannot be other than arbitrary and subject to the desires, conscious or otherwise, and the blindness of the investigator. Thus, for the size of the matrix in this study it was deemed prudent to disregard this third criterion for discriminant validity. In summary, these preliminary results do appear to provide support for

134

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

the convergent and discriminant validity of the team role constructs, although the support for discriminant is not as strong as that for convergent validity. As indicated by Marsh (1989), Campbell and Fiske (1959, p. 85) implied an additional criterion in stating that the presence of method variance is indicated by the difference in level of correlation between parallel values of the monomethod block and the heteromethod block, assuming comparable reliabilities among the tests. Following the procedure given by Marsh (1989) each of the 84 heterotraitmonomethod correlations was compared with the appropriate four heterotraitheteromethod correlations. For 210 of these 336 comparisons heterotraitmonomethod correlations were larger than the heterotraitheteromethod correlations, thereby suggesting the presence of modest method effects. Because of the importance of establishing the convergent and discriminant validity of any given construct and the elegance of the Campbell and Fiske (1959) approach to this problem, many investigators have, down the decades, suggested novel approaches to the analysis of the multitraitmultimethod matrix, for example the three-factor unreplicated analysis of variance as described by Kavanagh, MacKinney, and Wolins (1971). However, the development of confirmatory factor analysis and the widespread availability of user-friendly software has transformed the analysis of the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Confirmatory factor analysis is now the preferred approach (Marsh, 1990).

Confirmatory factor analysis

Multitraitmultimethod matrices, like other correlation matrices, can be factor analysed to infer underlying constructs. Factors defined by different measures of the same trait are used to infer trait effects, whereas factors defined by different measures assessed with the same method are used to infer method effects (Marsh, 1990). With confirmatory factor analysis the investigator can define models that posit a priori either trait or method factors, or both, and test the ability of such models to fit the data. In the general multitraitmultimethod model adapted from Jreskog (1974) there are at least three traits (T = 3) and three methods (M = 3), the (T M) measured variables are used to infer the (T + M) a priori factors; each measured variable loads on one trait and one method factor but is constrained so as not to load on any other factors; and, finally, the correlations among trait factors and among method factors are freely estimated, but correlations between trait and method factors are fixed to be zero (Marsh, 1989). These constraints allow the decomposition of variance into additive trait, method and error components. In Widamans (1985) taxonomy of structural models for multitrait multimethod data this structure is labelled Model 3C. The confirmatory factor analysis models for multitraitmultimethod matrices can be defined in terms of three design matrices (1) a (T M) by (T + M) matrix of factor loadings, (2) a (T + M) by (T + M) matrix of factor variances and

covariances , and (3) a (T M) by (T M) matrix of unique variances and covariances; in the terminology of LISREL (Jreskog & Srbom, 1981) these matrices are labelled L y, Y , and Q respectively. This model is particularly attractive in that its structure directly corresponds to Campbell and Fiskes (1959) original conceptualization of the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Unfortunately , estimation problems with the model are legion, out-of-range estimates, negative unique variances, and non-convergence being amongst frequently encountered difficulties. In the face of these virtually universal estimation problems Kenny and Kashy (1992, p. 166) argued for the adoption of a correlated uniqueness model, first proposed by Kenny (1979) and subsequently championed by Marsh (1990). (The path diagram of this model is shown in Figure 1 for the case of five traits and three methods; the rectangles represent observed variables, the large ellipses the latent variables, and the small ellipses the specific error or unique variables. The arrows indicate the dependencies between the variables.) The correlated uniqueness model specifies only trait factors; no method factors are created. Instead, the disturbances, or unique factors, are allowed to be correlated across measures of the same method, as shown in Figure 1. Despite this constraint it is possible to assess convergent and discriminant validities as in traditional confirmatory factor analysis, which uses the Widaman (1985) Model 3C.

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

135

Fitting the model

An attempt to confirm the convergent and discriminant validity of the Belbin model by fitting a correlated uniqueness model containing eight traits and three methods to the multitraitmultimethod data shown in Table 3 was unsuccessful; the estimated correlation matrix was nonpositive definite. In a paper on nonpositive definite matrices in structural modelling, Wothke (1993) pointed to the dangers of overparameterization, indicating that the number of parameters that can reasonably be included in a structural model is partly determined by the degree of systematic information contained in the data. As noted earlier, a measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1981) was calculated for each of the correlation matrices for the Belbin team roles derived from the 16PF and OPQ personality tests by Dulewicz (1995); these measures indicated that correlations between pairs of variables cannot be explained by other variables, thus lending weight to the suspicion that overparameterization may lie at the root of the nonpositive definite correlation matrix difficulty. On the basis of this pointer, pairs of team roles were combined by averaging team role scores in an effort to reduce the number of traits in the correlated uniqueness model. This appeared a reasonable stratagem, Belbin (1981) himself having noted the intrinsic pair relatedness of some of the eight individual team roles; he had suggested a 4 2 taxonomy of Negotiators (Resource investigators and Team workers), Managerworkers (Company workers and Completer-finishers), Intellectuals (Monitor-

136

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

Figure 1.

Correlated uniqueness model for five traits and three methods.

evaluators and Plants), and Team leaders (Chairmen and Shapers). So, as a first step in a progressive reduction of the number of team roles, the scores of one pair of team roles were averaged giving six individual and one paired team role, a total of seven traits; in the next step in the process of reduction a further pair of team roles were combined to give four individual and two paired team roles, a total of six traits; this process was continued one further cycle. The correlated uniqueness model was, in turn, fitted to the reduced data sets thereby derived. Freedom from nonpositive definite correlation matrices was not encountered until six team roles had been put into three pairs, thereby yielding five traits, namely, three paired and two unpaired team roles. Some of the groupings used in the model fitting work are shown in Table 4.
17

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

137

The fit of the five trait, three method correlated uniqueness model, Figure 1, to each set of data was evaluated on three measures. The first of these measures was the ratio of the minimum sample discrepancy function (Browne, 1982, 1984) to the degrees of freedom; it has been held to be a good indicator (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985) with values of between 2 and 5 being taken to signal a reasonable fit. Wheaton, Muthn, Alwin, and Summers (1977) write that a ratio of approximately 5 is beginning to be reasonable. Not all are of one mind on this issue, however, Carmines and McIver (1981) suggesting the upper limit of acceptability is three. The second measure used was that devised by Jreskog and Srbom (1984), a goodness of fit index ranging between zero and unity, the latter indicating a perfect fit. The third was the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), a measure of model adequacy, compensated for model complexity, based on the population discrepancy function. Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that a value of .08 or less for the RMSEA would indicate a reasonable error of approximation but would not want to employ a model whose RMSEA was greater than .10. Team roles were progressively paired according to an established model or theory; a non-systematic approach to reducing the number of traits by a random pairing of team roles was not followed. Thus, initially, team roles were progressively paired in accordance to Belbins suggestion, noted earlier, but the approach failed to produce an acceptable fit between the correlated uniqueness model and the data sets. Similarly, pairing up team roles along the lines of task and relationship team roles proposed in Fisher et al. (1998) also failed to produce an acceptable fit of the correlated uniqueness model to the data sets. However, in the work of Broucek and Randell (1996) on the construct validity of the Belbin team roles we noted they had correlated Belbins Observer Assessment measure with the five-factor model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990). Following their report we categorized a selection of the Belbin team roles into pairs so as to reflect the NEO-PI-R five factors model. The NEO-PI-R five factors personality factors are shown in Table 4; they are: Extraversion , Conscientiousness, Openness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Assigning four of the eight Belbin team roles to these five categories was relatively straightforward: the Resource investigator clearly aligned with the Extraversion factor, the Plant with the Openness, the Team worker with the Agreeableness , and the Shaper with the Neuroticism factor. These team roles are sharply defined and tend not to overlap with other team roles. However, categorizing the remaining four roles was harder. For them, Belbins descriptions are broad. It is not clear, for example, if Chairmen are most notable for their agreeableness or for their extraversion or, indeed, for their conscientiousness. Similarly, it was hard to decide if the Completer-finishers and Monitorevaluators are more conscientious than neurotic, or vice versa. As for the Company workers, they seemed to be able to fit in four out of the five categories without difficulty. Some of the ways in which the eight Belbin team roles were

138
TABLE 4 Measures of fit indices for the models tested Team role groupings Openness Agreeableness pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl ch+ cw +tw cw +tw ch+tw ch+tw cw+tw cf+ sh cf+ sh cf+ sh cf+ sh cf+ sh ch+ cw +tw sh ch+tw sh ch+tw me+ sh 5.31 4.89 4.90 4.84 4.78 4.71 4.49 3.81 ch+tw cf+ me+ sh 5.17 tw sh 6.18 tw cf+ sh 6.53 .89 .89 .91 .91 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .93 tw cf + me + sh 7.12 .88 Neuroticism Minimum discrepancy function/df .136 .129 .125 .112 .114 .109 .109 .108 .107 .106 .103 .092 Root mean Goodness square error of of fit index approximation

138

Model no.

Extraversion

Conscientiousness

ri

cw + ch

ri

ch+ cw + me

ch+ri

cf+ cw+ me

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

ri

cw

ri

cf+ cw

ri

cf+ cw+ me

ri

cf+ me

ch+ri

me

ri

cw+ me

10

ri

me

11

ch+ri

me

12

cw +ri

me

cf=Completer-finisher; ch=Chairman; cw=Company worker; me=Monitor-evaluator; pl=Plant; ri=Resource investigator; sh=Shaper; tw= Teamworker; df=degrees of freedom (50).

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

139

divided up between these five categories are shown in Table 4. Some combinations gave data sets to which the correlated uniqueness model fitted poorly, other less poorly, and a few reasonably well. The best combination found was model 12, shown in Table 4.

Validity and method effects

Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and method effects may be assessed, as they are in traditional confirmatory factor analysis (Kenny & Kashy, 1992) from the estimated parameters shown in Table 5. Inspection of the data, Table 5, obtained from fitting the correlated uniqueness model to the five trait team, model 12: (cw +ri), me, pl, (ch+tw), (cf+sh), reveals that: (1) each of the factor loadings on each of the team types, that is on (cw +ri), me, pl, (ch+tw), and (cf+sh), is statistically significant. On this basis convergent validity may be claimed for each of the five team types: (cw+ri), me, pl, (ch+tw), and (cf +sh) (2) the means and deviations of the factor loadings on all three methods, 16PF, OPQ, and video, are all sufficiently close to suggest that no one method contains more trait variance than the others (3) only two out of the ten factor covariances are small and statistically insignificant; this is a clear, strong signal indicating lack of discriminant validity (4) numerous unique covariances for each of the methods, and particularly the personality questionnaire methods, are significant, thus indicating the presence of method effects. Although the video technique is the best of the three, it still shows the presence of method effect. Application of the criteria of Campbell and Fiske (1959) to the multitrait multimethod matrix revealed, as noted earlier, that the Belbin team role model possessed convergent validity but failed to exhibit discriminant validity; the evidence for the latter was much less than that for the former. At the more rigorous test of confirmatory factor analysis Belbins eight team role model failed totally, thereby disallowing any firmer conclusions concerning construct validities to be drawn beyond those reached with the Campbell and Fiske criteria. However, the confirmatory factor analysis result was a positive outcome in that it pointed to the problem of overparameterization, namely, that the data appeared not to be able to support eight distinct constructs. Thus, in an indirect manner the confirmatory factor analysis result has further undermined the claim for discriminant validity for the eight role team model. The failure of a theory to possess demonstrated and adequate psychometric properties does, however, not necessarily prejudice its widespread acceptance

DISCUSSION

140
Unique variance and covariance 20 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 .55* 0 0 0 0 .58* 2.34* .59* .66* 1.06* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.50* 1.23* .07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.81* .09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.97* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.40* 1.56* 1.47* 2.28* 3.51* 0 0 0 0 0 2.85* 1.06* .55* 1.24* 0 0 0 0 0 2.72* 1.30* 1.21* 0 0 0 0 0 5.03* .34 0 0 0 0 0 2.39* .50* .91* 2.27* .38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

140

TABLE 5 Estimated parameters for the combined Belbin team roles: Correlated uniqueness model

Factor loadings

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

Variable

16

17

18

19

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16PF (cw+ ri) 16PF (me) 16PF (pl) 16PF (ch+ tw) 16PF (cf+sh) OPQ (cw+ ri) OPQ (me) OPQ (pl) OPQ (ch+ tw) OPQ (cf +sh) VID (cw+ ri) VID (me) VID (pl) VID (ch+ tw) VID (cf +sh)

1.00 0 0 0 0 1.04* 0 0 0 0 .77* 0 0 0 0

0 1.00 0 0 0 0 .93* 0 0 0 0 .91* 0 0 0

0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 .92* 0 0 0 0 1.26* 0 0

0 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 .71* 0 0 0 0 .67* 0

5.76* 0 4.60* 0 .47* 2.63* 0 .24 .41 1.76* 0 .83* .02 .25 4.09* 0 1.23* 1.14* .25 .59* 5.70*

Factor variances and covariances 16 cw + ri 3.95* 17 me 1.29* 1.66* 18 pl .81* .12 1.37* 19 ch+ tw 3.14*1.52*1.19* 5.58* 20 cf + sh 1.72* 1.07* .34 1.99* 8.08*

N=331; *p < .05.

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

141

and perceived utility. A prime example is Schutzs (1958/1989) FIRO-B theory of interpersonal relations. The examination of the construct validity of FIRO-B by Ryan, McGuire, and Ryan (1970) was the first in a series of investigations (Macrosson, 2000) of the eight scales of FIRO-B; all investigations have demonstrated the scales lack of orthogonality. Throughout the years these researches were being published FIRO-B continued to be widely used by personnel practitioners in industry and commerce (Macrosson, 2000). It would appear that the same is true with the Belbin team role model. Although questions have remained unanswered for many years about its psychometric properties, the Belbin team role theorys use continued unabated (Broucek & Randell, 1996). A successful resolution to the problem of the nonpositive definite estimated correlation matrix was found in creating condensed versions of the Belbin eight team role model. The ability to fit these condensed team roles satisfactorily to a five-trait correlated uniqueness model was confirmation that the data could not support Belbins eight team role constructs. The best fitting of these condensed team role models, the five team role model 12 (see Figure 4), was shown to possess convergent, but to lack discriminant, validity, a result that echoes that for the Belbin eight team role model. The lack of discriminant validity became obvious while fitting the correlated uniqueness model to the five team role models. It was discovered at that point that the four Belbin team roles of Chairman, Company worker, Completer-finisher, and Monitor-evaluator could be readily interchanged without greatly altering the goodness of fit of the model. The large and significant factor covariances shown in Table 5 were, thus, only to be expected. The definitions of some of the eight Belbin team roles appear to lie at the root of the problem. Two examples illustrate the problem: (1) the Chairmans behaviour of clarifying goals and getting things organized is hard to distinguish from the efficient Company worker who turns ideas into practical action, and (2) the Completer-finishers searching out of errors and omissions is hard to distinguish from the accurate judging and seeing all options of the Monitor-evaluator. Close reading of Belbins (1981) original exposition reveals many such examples. Broucek and Randell (1996, p. 403) claimed that the Belbin team role theory is flawed by conceptual discrepancies . It is hard to avoid concluding that a core conceptual discrepancy is the overlapping team role definitions , which result in the observed poor discriminant validity. Discriminant validity is assumed to be a good and desirable quality and, in regard to team role theories, can be seen as dependent on well-defined roles. However, McCrimmon (1995), on the basis of many years of consultancy work in industry and commerce, has taken a contrary view. He asserted that individuals knowledge of their own roles coupled with a knowledge of team role theory leads not only to an expectation that they will behave in accordance with their role at all times, but will also lead to a potentially restrictive obligation to do so. Additionally, he asserted there will be a reluctance to contribute from the point of view of someone elses role lest they feel usurped. In the face of these

142

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

dangers of territoriality and abdication, McCrimmon (1995) proposed that team members allow themselves to move into other roles, subject to criterion of raising team effectiveness. His experience of teams, particularly in circumstances of swiftly changing demands, permitted him to underscore the importance of flexibility. Plainly, operational plasticity and ease of movement between team roles is greatly facilitated when team role definitions are ambiguous rather than clear. Lack of discriminant validity may confer benefit in the application of team role theory. Broucek and Randell (1996) suggested that the Belbin team roles may have more than an intuitive appeal. They did not indicate what might lie beyond that intuitive appeal, but in their correlation study with Belbins Observer Assessment instrument and Costa and McCraes (1992) NEO-PI/NEO-PI-R Five Factor Inventory, it is possible that they sensed that Belbin had, unwittingly and imprecisely , been identifying the Big Five while observing his teams engaged in their business simulation exercises. Indeed, the fit of the data to the five-role correlated uniqueness model is sufficiently good as to constitute an invitation to advance a Big Five team role model. A Big Five team role model may be seen to rest comfortably with the progression of tasks in the delivery of a project as noted earlier, project tasks being: Planning; Defining resources needed; Scheduling; Implementing; Measuring progress; Reporting; and Maintaining human relations. Thus, Openness in the Five Factor Inventory subsumes inventive, insightful, enthusiastic, versatile, and imaginative behaviour, clearly virtues in the Planning and Defining resources phases; Extraversion subsumes outgoing, forceful and energetic behaviour, important inputs to the Implementing phase; Conscientiousness subsumes efficient, methodical and precise behaviour, vital contributions to the Scheduling phase; Neuroticism subsumes anxious and fearful behaviour, key aspects for Measuring progress and Reporting phases; and Agreeableness subsumes trusting, friendly, stable, tolerant behaviour, indispensable traits for the Maintaining human relations. Additionally, fitting a Big Five categorization to a decision-making process, for example, the general purpose consensus problem-solving model of Hurley (1995), is equally easy. In conclusion, it is hard to avoid assigning Belbins team role theory to the category occupied by many commercially available products such as FIRO-B and the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator, extensively employed but psychometrically unsound. The possibility opened up by the findings reported in this paper is that it may well be possible to create a team role theory based upon a five-factor model of personality that has both psychometric validity as well as operational utility. To such an end Barrick and Mounts (1991) work has laid a secure foundation for a Big Five team role theory, since, in an extensive metaanalysis, they established that the Big Five are, indeed, valid predictors of job performance. Certainly, should a Big Five team role model ever be developed, it would have a more obvious grounding in theory than Belbins.

TEAM ROLES VALIDATION

143

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126. Belbin, R.M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. London: Heinemann. Belbin, R.M. (1993). Team roles at work. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Belbin, R.M., Aston, R.R. & Mottram, R.D. (1976). Building effective management teams. Journal of General Management, 3(3), 2329. Benne, K.D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 4149. Berry, J.R. (1995). Team structure and management. Unpublished PhD thesis, Brunel University, UK. Broucek, W.G., & Randell, G. (1996). An assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin SelfPerception Inventory and Observers Assessment from the perspective of the five factor model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 68, 8199. Browne, M.W. (1982). Covariance structures. In D.M. Hawkins (Ed.), Topics in applied multivariate analysis (pp. 72141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Browne, M.W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 6283. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 55(2), 81105. Carmines, E.G., & McIver, J.P. (1981). Analysing models with unobserved variables. In G.W. Bohrnstedt & E.F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., & Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970). Handbook for the 16PF. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Digman, J.M.(1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology , 41, 416440. Dulewicz, V. (1995). A validation of Belbins team roles from 16PF and OPQ using bosses ratings of competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 68, 8199. Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A., & Macrosson, W.D.K. (1998). The structure of Belbins team roles. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 71, 283288. Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A., & Macrosson, W.D.K. (2000). The distribution of Belbin team roles among UK managers. Personnel Review, 29, 124140. Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K., & Sharp, G. (1996). Further evidence concerning the Belbin team-role self-perception inventory. Personnel Review, 25, 6167. Furnham, A., Steele, H., & Pendleton, D. (1993). A psychometric assessment of the Belbin teamrole self-perception inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 245257. Gerth, H.H., & Mills, C.W. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology . New York: Oxford University Press. Gupta, S.K., & Taube, L.R. (1985). A state of the art survey of research on project management (19761983). In B.V. Dean (Ed.), Project management: Methods and studies. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. Huczynski, A. (1997). How to build successful teams the Belbin way. ACCOUNT, 9 (3), 3234. Hurley, W.B. (1995). A general purpose consensus problem-solving model. Team Performance Management: An International Journal , 1, 2635.

REFERENCES

144

FISHER, HUNTER, MACROSSON

Jreskog, K.G. (1974). Analysis of covariance structures. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 8, 6592. Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relations by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: International Educational Services. Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D. (1984). LISREL-7: Users reference guide. Moorsville, IN: Scientific Software. Kaiser, H.F. (1981). A revised measure of sampling adequacy for Factor Analytic Data Matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 379381. Kavanagh, M.J., MacKinney, A.C., & Wolins, L. (1971). Issues in managerial performance: Multitraitmultimethod analyses of ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 75(1), 3449. Kenny, D.A. (1979) Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley. Kenny, D.A., & Kashy, D.A. (1992). Analysis of the multitraitmultimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165172. Life, E.A. (1993). Calculating team role scores from 16PF Primary Factor Sten Scores. Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON. Mabey, W., & Hunter, R. (1986). Using personality measures to improve selection. Guidance and Assessment Review, 2, 14. Macrosson, W.D.K. (2000). FIRO-B: Factors and facets. Psychological Reports, 86, 311320. Marsh, H.W. (1989). Multitraitmultimethod analysis. In J.P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research methodology, measurement and evaluation: An international handbook . Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Marsh, H.W. (1990). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitraitmultimethod data: The construct validation of multidimesional self-concept responses. Journal of Personality, 58(4), 661692. Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitraitmultimethod matrices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(3), 231248. Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562582. McCrimmon (1995). Teams without roles: Empowering teams for greater creativity. Journal of Management Development, 14(6), 3541. Roderick, C. (1997a). Team roles: The dark side (Part 1). Selection and Development Review, 13(5). Roderick, C. (1997b). Team roles: The dark side (Part 2). Selection and Development Review, 13(6), 1819. Ryan, B.A., Maguire, T.O., & Ryan, T.M. (1970). An examination of the construct validity of the FIRO-B. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 34, 419425. Saville, P., Holdsworth, R., Nyfield, G., Cramp L., & Mabey, W. (1992) Occupational Personality Questionnaire Manual. Esher, Surrey: Saville & Holdsworth Ltd. Schutz, W. (1989). FIRO-B: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behaviour. Mill Valley, CA: Will Schutz Associates. (Original work published 1958). [Also reprinted as Schutz, W. (1978). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists]. Senior, B. (1997). Team roles and team performance: Is there really a link? Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology , 70, 241258. Wheaton, B., Muthn, B., Alwin, D.F., & Summers, G.F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D.R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1977 (pp. 84136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Widaman, K.F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 126. Wothke, W. (1993). Nonpositive definite matrices in structural modelling. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Manuscript received May 2000 Revised manuscript received January 2001