The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

Personnel
Review The distribution of Belbin
29,2 team roles among
UK managers
124 S.G. Fisher, T.A. Hunter and W.D.K. Macrosson
Received May 1998 University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Revised November 1998
Accepted November Keywords Management roles, Managers, Teams, Team management index, Validity
1998
Abstract 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.

Personnel Review,
Vol. 29 No. 2, 2000, pp. 124-140.
# MCB University Press, 0048-3486
Two decades ago Charles Handy (1978) forecast the eclipsing of management
on the expectation that, aided by computers and advanced communications
facilities, businesses would radically reshape themselves, the information
processing function being better and more cheaply performed by machines
than by humans. He noted (Handy, 1978, p. 307) that ``managers would be well
advised to have another string to their bow''. Sadly for many, the wholesale
downsizing of virtually all commercial and industrial enterprises and the
stripping out of many layers of management over the past ten to 15 years now
bear witness to the accuracy of his forecast. One corollary to the removal of
such extensive swathes of management has been the inadvertent creation of a
significant organizational lacuna; there were no longer the necessary personnel
to lead, motivate, foster commitment and other such ``soft'' functions at these
middle levels. However, many organizations reacted to this gap and, to an
extent, have filled it by the creation of multitudes of teams. Not only are these
teams now expected to produce the tangible deliverables asked of them but
they are also expected to create the increased motivation and commitment
(Dyer, 1994) so urgently sought after by the organizations' CEOs. Teams,
therefore, have become a key component in many organizations; properly
functioning teams are now central to many organizations' health. It is not
surprising, then, that the structure, operation and dynamics of teams are now
the subject of much research and even more writing. What is surprising,
however, is that the current flow of books, magazine and journal articles from
both practitioners and academics appears to be increasing rather than abating;
this increase may well suggest that there is still much to be discovered about
the structure and dynamics of teams.
The authors are very grateful to MSL International who collected the data, to ASE (a branch of
NFER Nelson Publishing Company, the owners of the copyright of the data) who made the data
available.
 A common theme present in much contemporary writing is the importance Team roles
of team roles. In defining these roles some authors draw on established among UK
personality theories (Belbin, 1981; Herriot, 1994; Jay, 1995; Margerison and managers
McCann, 1984) but others (Davis et al., 1992; Williams, 1996) construct their
own typologies based on their first hand experiences of teams. Although there
is a great profusion of schemes of team roles, the one proposed by Belbin (1981)
appears to have made the greatest impact in the UK judging by its widespread 125
use, as reported by students, in selection centres and by its extensive adoption
into university teaching programmes (Huczynski, 1997). The Belbin model, its
popularity apparently resting on its ease of application through the published
Inventory (Belbin, 1981), on its readily identifiable roles, and on its research
basis, suggests that successful and effective teams need to have individuals
within them capable of performing eight key roles, each member
complementing the others' strengths and curtailing their weaknesses. In other
words, there needs to be a spread of naturally occurring roles across the team
for it to deploy its technical expertise to best advantage. Belbin (1981) also
maintained that not only do team roles exist as behaviours and thinking styles
but individuals will tend to have distinctive preferences or ``natural'' roles
which will be assumed on most occasions. He coined special names for these
eight roles, giving their characteristics as:
(1) The plant: Creative, imaginative, unorthodox; solves difficult problems;
preoccupied with ideas and neglects practical matters; strong ownership
of ideas.
(2) The resource investigator: Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative;
explores opportunities; develops contacts; loses enthusiasm once initial
excitement has passed.
(3) The co-ordinator: Mature, confident, a good chairperson; clarifies goals,
promotes decision making; delegates well; inclined to be lazy, takes
credit for effort of a team.
(4) The 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.
(5) Monitor-evaluator: Sober, strategic, discerning; sees all options; judges
accurately; scepticism with logic, cynicism without logic.
(6) 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.
(7) Implementer: Disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient; turns
ideas into practical action; adherence to the orthodox and proven;
obstructing change.
(8) Completer: Painstaking, conscientious, anxious; searches out errors and
omissions; delivers on time; perfectionism; obsessional behaviour.
Personnel Notwithstanding its popularity and widespread use, the Belbin team role model
Review has been criticised for paucity of evidence of construct validity (Broucek and
29,2 Randell, 1996). Also, the worth of Belbin's Self-Perception Inventory which has
been used by some researchers for their studies into teams (Balderson and
Broderick, 1996; Shi and Tang, 1997) has been challenged; indeed, strong
recommendations have been made for discontinuation of the Inventory
126 (Broucek and Randell, 1996; Fisher et al., 1996; Furnham et al., 1993a; 1993b).
However, in spite of these reservations, no authors have, to date, proposed
abandoning the Belbin model; the support (Dulewicz, 1995; Fisher et al., 1994)
which has, so far, been obtained for the model's validity, significantly, has not
involved the discredited Self-Perception Inventory. In this paper some evidence
will be advanced supporting further the Belbin team model; the evidence has
been derived from the proposition that the frequency of occurrence of team
roles in a large pool of managers can be successfully predicted from Belbin's
team role model.

Hypotheses
Although many researchers have endeavoured to establish the traits, abilities
and aptitudes of leaders and managers, and have amassed page upon page of
characteristics, they observe few patterns (Randle, 1956). However, where
patterns are seen to exist it appears that two personality traits emerge
repeatedly. The first is extroversion, the second is stability. When reference is
made to extroversion it is readily seen that it has become almost axiomatic that
today's managers are to be found among the extroverted. Few texts or papers
on management or leadership omit making reference to extroversion. Indeed, as
interested observers of the numerous major UK firms which come to the
universities to select and recruit our undergraduate students for their
management training schemes, the authors note selectors' distinct preference
for extrovert applicants. Their preference for the second personality trait, that
of stability, is not so immediately apparent. However, when considering it as
existing at the opposite end of the bipolar construct of anxiety/stability, and
recalling its close relationship (Costa and McCrae, 1992) with confidence in self,
numerous instances can be found in the literature where stability, or low levels
of anxiety or neuroticism, is associated with managers or executives. For
example, Wilson (1975) presented data showing that in four out of five factories
the first-line managers had low levels of anxiety as shown by their 16PF sten
scores lying between 3.8 and 4.8; Kirton and Mulligan (1973) in a study of 258
UK managers reported low scores (M =1.83; SD = 1.63; Range = 0-6) for
neuroticism as measured on the Maudsley Personality Inventory; Henney
(1975) tested 36 UK middle managers from a manufacturing firm and found
them to be both stable and extroverted; Costa et al. (1984) assert that people
who are, inter alia, self-confident are likely to find themselves in the occupation
role of business executive; Rawls and Rawls (1968) tested 60 executives from a
medium-sized utilities company with the California Psychological Inventory Team roles
and concluded that the successful executive seemed to be more forward, among UK
outgoing and self-confident. managers
Given that managers, in general, exhibit the characteristics of extroversion
and stability (low anxiety), it is illuminating to examine the Belbin team roles
with regard to these. Belbin (1981) describes the co-ordinator (chairman) and
resource investigator as extrovert, the plant as introvert, and the shaper, and 127
the completer as anxious. The team worker is described as having the
sociability scores commonly associated with extroverts but the low dominance
scores of introverts. He describes the monitor-evaluator as a ``low profile''
individual (Belbin, 1993, p. 65); we interpret this as tending towards
introversion rather than extroversion. The implementer (company worker)
draws no comment from Belbin in regard to extroversion or anxiety. On the
basis of these team role descriptions it is possible to formulate four hypotheses
regarding each team role:
H1: In a large pool of managers one would expect to find, because of their
relatively extrovert personalities, few subjects with low sten scores (that
is, >10 per cent of the subjects having sten scores of 1, 2 and 3) for the
team roles of co-ordinator and resource investigator.
H2: In a large pool of managers one would expect to find, because of their
relatively non-introverted or non-anxious personalities, few subjects
with high sten scores (that is, <10 per cent of the subjects having sten
scores of 8, 9 and 10) for the team roles of plant, shaper, monitor-
evaluator, and completer.
H3: In a large pool of managers one would expect to find, primarily because
of their low dominance, few subjects with high sten scores (that is, <10
per cent of the subjects having sten scores of 8, 9 and 10) for the team
role of team worker.
H4: In a large pool of managers one would expect to find, because the team
role of implementer is not characterised either by extroversion or by
stability, a symmetrical distribution of sten scores, in other words, the
percentage of subjects having sten scores of 8, 9 and 10 to be very
similar to those with sten scores of 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

Method
The data used for this study, referred to as the ASE data, were generously
made available to the authors by ASE/NFER Nelson Publishing Company and
were first described in the literature by Bartram (1992) when he used the same
data in his study of the personality of UK managers. The subjects who
provided the ASE data comprised 1,441 male and 355 female managers all of
whom completed Cattell's 16PF Personality Questionnaire SCREENTEST
Version (Form A), bar 64 who received the paper and pencil version. The
subjects (Bartram, 1992), all with some managerial experience, were candidates
Personnel short listed for managerial appointments. They were applying for a wide range
Review of management positions in both the private and public sectors, and were
29,2 drawn from a very broad range of industries. Most of the data were collected in
Manchester and London, with the remainder coming from Windsor, Bristol and
Birmingham sites. Information regarding the gender and age was available for
only 75.3 per cent of the subjects: male (age M = 37.5, SD = 11.4, N = 1,108),
128 female (age M = 33.3, SD = 12.9, N = 245). The raw 16PF scores were converted
into sten scores using, where appropriate, the norm tables (Saville, 1972) for
males and females of the UK general population. Sten scores were inserted into
the equations given by Belbin and his co-workers (Dulewicz, 1995; Fisher et al.,
1996; Mottram, 1988), shown in Table I, and the resulting values converted to
Belbin team roles sten scores using the information (Life, 1993) in Table II.
Means and standard deviations, and intercorrelations were calculated for each
of the Belbin team roles.

Results
The distribution of team role scores is shown in Table III; any given figure in
Table III is the percentage of the subjects who, for the particular team role
shown at the top of the column, had the team role score shown on the left side of
the Table. For example, it may be seen that 25.6 per cent of the subjects had a
sten score of 4 for their monitor-evaluator behaviour. Visual inspection of each
of the distributions of the observed team role scores enables a broad
characterisation to be made. Thus, the distributions of the completer, monitor-
evaluator and shaper scores can be seen as skewed towards the low values on
the scale; about 60 per cent of scores lay in the range 1 to 4. The co-ordinator
and resource investigator distributions exhibit similar skewedness, but
towards the high values; 50 per cent to 60 per cent of scores lay between 8 and
10. The three remaining team roles, implementer, plant and team worker, show
fairly symmetrical distributions centred on the middle of the scale, 50 per cent
to 55 per cent of scores being in the range 5 to 7. The data contained in Table III
were such as to allow three out of the four hypotheses to stand. With regard to
H1, only 2.5 per cent and 3.4 per cent of the subjects showed sten scores of 1, 2
or 3 for the team roles of co-ordinator and resource investigator respectively.
With regard to H2, the corresponding percentages for the roles of plant, shaper,

Team role 16PF Primary factors

Completer G+O+Q3+Q4-C
Co-ordinator Q3+2G+F+2E+C-M-3L-A
Implementer 2G-2I-2L-2M-Q1+Q3+77
Monitor-evaluator N-F
Resource investigator C+H+M+Q1-L
Table I. Plant 2B-2A+E-2F+H+2I+M-N+Q1+2Q2+55
Belbin team role Shaper 2E+H+2L+2O+2Q4-C-G-I
formulae Team worker A-E-L-Q2
 Sten scores
Team role 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Completer <9 9 to 10 11 to 12 13 to 14 15 to 16 17 to 18 19 to 20 21 to 22 23 to 24 >24

Co-ordinator <±10 ±10 to ±5 ±4 to 1 2 to 7 8 to 12 13 to 16 17 to 20 21 to 28 29 to 33 >33
Implementer <35 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 68 69 to 73 >73
Monitor-evaluator <±7 ±7 to ±6 ±5 ±4 to ±3 ±2 to ±1 0 to 1 2 to 3 4 5 >5
Plant <68 68 to 74 75 to 78 79 to 83 84 to 89 90 to 96 97 to 101 102 to 106 107 to 109 >109
Resource investigator <10 10 to 11 12 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 17 18 to 19 20 to 21 22 to 23 24 to 26 >26
Shaper <15 15 to 18 19 to 23 24 to 29 30 to 35 36 to 41 42 to 47 48 to 53 54 to 59 >59
Team worker <±19 ±19 to ±18 ±17 to ±16 ±15 to ±14 ±13 to ±12 ±11 to ±10 ±9 to ±8 ±7 to ±6 ±5 to ±4 >-4
ranges and sten scores
Team roles: raw score

Team roles
among UK
managers
Table II.

129
Personnel Team roles
Review Score CF CO IM ME RI PL SH TW
29,2
1 18.2 0.1 2.0 7.2 0.5 3.3 10.2 1.6
2 12.1 0.5 3.7 21.3 1.1 8.6 9.1 2.6
3 15.3 1.9 8.0 12.7 1.8 9.5 16.4 3.6
4 15.5 4.8 11.5 25.6 3.8 16.1 21.4 6.8
130 5 14.3 9.8 16.0 18.9 6.0 23.5 19.7 13.0
6 10.5 14.4 19.7 9.9 8.6 22.3 12.5 18.0
7 6.8 15.9 16.1 3.6 11.4 9.4 6.0 18.0
8 4.1 32.8 10.4 0.5 13.6 4.6 3.3 16.2
9 2.3 13.0 7.5 0.2 22.9 1.3 1.1 11.9
10 0.9 6.8 5.1 0.1 30.1 1.6 0.3 8.3
Table III.
Frequencies of Belbin Notes: CF = Completer; CO = Co-ordinator; IM = Implementer; ME = Monitor-evaluator;
scores for each RI = Resource investigator; PL = Plant; SH = Shaper; TW = Team worker
team role N = 1,796. Frequencies expressed as percentages

monitor-evaluator, and completer were 7.5 per cent, 4.7 per cent, 0.8 per cent,
and 7.3 per cent respectively. With regard to H3, 36.4 per cent of the subjects
showed sten scores of 8, 9 or 10 for the role of team worker. Finally, with regard
to H4, 13.7 per cent of the subjects showed sten scores of 1, 2 or 3, and 23.0 per
cent showed sten scores of 8, 9 or 10 for the team role of implementer. The
correlation matrix for the team roles, as well as their means and standard
deviations, is shown in Table IV.

Discussion
The issue of a biased sample was considered, particularly in the light of the
recent findings of Timmerman (1997) who has recently reported his
examination of the 16PF scores of 636 outplaced US executives. It is clear from
his own data (Timmerman, 1997), as well as data taken from three other studies
and reproduced by him, that there are statistically significant differences
between employed and outplaced executives. It was of concern, therefore, to the
authors of this paper that the data made available to them did not contain
information regarding which subjects were in and which were not in
employment. However, in Timmerman's (1997) paper statistically significantly
differences can also be seen to exist on some 16PF scales between the three
samples of unemployed executives reported from the other studies.
Timmerman (1997) noted these differences and suggested that the other studies
had not succeeded in obtaining a representative sample of unemployed
executives. In the face of this unresolved conflict it was not possible to assert
the existence of systematic differences in personality between employed and
outplaced executives. However, on the basis of Timmerman's (1997) remarks, it
seems reasonable to assume that bias, if it exists, arising from the state of being
between jobs is not an issue. Confirmation of this conclusion was sought in an
examination of the 16PF data reported by Dulewicz (1995). In his study of 100
managers Dulewicz (1995) reported the number of people each manager had
Team role Source Mean SD CF CO IM ME RI PL SH

CF: Completer ASE 4.0 2.2

Dulewicz 4.9 2.5
CO: Co-ordinator ASE 7.2 1.7 ±8**
Dulewicz 6.3 1.6 0
IM: Implementer ASE 5.9 2.1 24** 67**
Dulewicz 5.5 1.9 35** 59**
ME: Monitor-evaluator ASE 3.8 1.6 28** ±10** 23**
Dulewicz 4.6 2.0 31** ±21* 16
RI: Resource investigator ASE 8.0 2.0 ±59** 45** ±5* ±33**
Dulewicz 6.8 2.1 ±66** 26** ±29** -40**
PL: Plant ASE 4.9 1.9 ±8** ±16** ±52** 2 14**
Dulewicz 5.4 2.0 0 ±14 ±51** 16 12
SH: Shaper ASE 4.2 1.9 38** ±56** ±41** ±16** ±44** 7
Dulewicz 4.7 1.9 41** ±25** ±15 ±26** ±39** 05
TW: Team worker ASE 6.6 2.1 ±10** 30** 37** 0 29** ±56** ±56**
Dulewicz 6.2 2.1 ±11 9 27** 6 22* ±68** ±45**
Notes: * p < 0.05; ** < 0.01, two-tailed test. Decimal points omitted. Dulewicz data N = 100; ASE data N = 1,796
correlations between

Means, standard

Team roles
among UK
deviations and

managers
Table IV.
team roles

131
Personnel under his or her control and, also, the mean salary; thus, careful reading of
Review Dulewicz's (1995) description of his sample leads to the conclusion that there
29,2 were no unemployed executives in it. The correlation matrix and mean and
standard deviations for the team role scores of Dulewicz's managers are
reproduced in Table IV displayed alongside the ASE data for the managers
described in this study. Inspection of the values in Table IV reveals the two sets
132 of data to be comparable; it was, therefore, concluded that bias arising from
unemployment does not appear to be an issue in this study.
As is seen in the results section above, the hypothesised relationship (H3)
regarding the team worker role was in conflict with the observed data. It was
anticipated that because of their low dominance there would be few subjects
having high team worker role scores. As noted earlier, Belbin (1981) describes
the team worker as having the sociability scores commonly associated with
extroverts but the low dominance scores of introverts. In formulating our
hypothesis more weight was placed on the dominance aspect. The data reveal
this to have been an error; the sociability scores associated with extroverts
clearly have been the dominating influence here. This one failure of the Belbin
model to predict correctly the distribution of team roles in a large pool of
managers, we hope, may be regarded as pardonable; the failure may well have
arisen from our lack of appreciation of the team role rather than a deficiency in
the Belbin model. We conclude, therefore, that the ability to predict successfully
the frequency of occurrence of the various team roles solely from Belbin's
construct adds weight to the claim of construct validity.
In Belbin's (1981) description of team roles the personality traits of
extroversion and anxiety receive considerable attention. The emergence of the
five-factor model as a comprehensive yet economical description of personality
is a development which should have some relevance to the Belbin team role
model. Access to the five-factor model, with its scales of extroversion,
agreeableness, openness to experience, neuroticism, and conscientiousness, is
given through the NEO-PI questionnaire, or its revised form, the NEO-PI-R.
Indeed, Broucek and Randell (1996) in using the NEO-PI suggested that each of
the Belbin team roles may be differentially defined by varying combinations of
the five factors. In differentiating the team roles in terms of the subscales of the
five-factor model, Broucek and Randell (1996) concluded that some of Belbin's
role descriptions appear ``questionable'' (Broucek and Randell, 1996, p. 392).
Unfortunately, Broucek and Randell (1996) did not report the correlation of the
five-factor model with the Belbin team roles which they derived from the 16PF;
they limited their correlation work to the NEO-PI, the Belbin Observer
Assessment, and the heavily criticised (Furnham et al., 1993a; 1993b) Belbin
Team Role Self-Perception Inventory. The authors feel this may have been a
significant omission. The authors have noted that studies on the construct
validity of Belbin's team roles which lead to conclusions which may be
described as ``equivocal'' start either with data derived from discredited
(Broucek and Randell, 1996; Fisher et al., 1996; Furnham et al., 1993a) Belbin's
Team Role Self-Perception Inventory in either its ipsative or non-ipsative form
(Broucek and Randell, 1996; Furnham et al., 1993a), whereas the studies on the Team roles
construct validity of Belbin's team roles which lead to conclusions which may among UK
be described as ``supportive'' start with data derived from known, tested and managers
established personality questionnaires (Dulewicz, 1995; Timmerman, 1997).
Broucek and Randell (1996) pose the most serious questions, Dulewicz (1995)
the strongest defence. A helpful contribution to the debate may be possible
through establishing the relationship between Belbin's team roles and the five- 133
factor model.
If, in a large or medium-sized organization, the distribution of team role
characteristics reflects the distributions encountered in the large sample of
managers who were the subjects in this study then an implication of our
findings is that there will be a surfeit of co-ordinators and resource
investigators and a dearth of completers and monitor-evaluators. Given the
propensity of firms to use whatever personnel resources are available it seems
that the pressure will be to form rather unbalanced, according to the Belbin
model, teams. However, the situation could be relieved should some individuals
show more than one strong team role. Our data were re-displayed (see Table V)
to reveal the patterns of distribution of alternative strong Belbin team roles.
Here, strong is defined as a score greater than 7. Examination of these data in
Table V shows, for example, that if there were to be a completer in the team
then there is a fair chance, about one in three, that the individual might have a
strong secondary co-ordinator or implementer team role score and, therefore,
probably be successful in that role. Thus, there is some comfort in these figures
for those attempting to assemble ``Belbinesque'' teams. Co-ordinators can, it
would appear, frequently double up as resource investigators; also, they can
often double up as implementers and team workers. Similarly, resource
investigators can often double up as co-ordinators and team workers. Because

Strong Alternative strong team roles

team role CF CO IM ME PL RI SH TW

CF 131 42.0 35.1 4.6 8.4 19.0 17.6 29.8

CO 5.8 945 38.8 0.3 5.7 80.5 0.7 45.7
IM 11.1 88.0 412 1.2 1.2 64.0 0.2 51.7
ME 40.0 2.0 33.3 15 13.3 13.3 6.7 33.4
PL 8.3 40.7 3.8 1.6 133 67.7 7.6 2.3
RI 2.1 63.8 22.1 0.2 7.2 1,197 1.5 43.4
SH 27.3 8.3 1.2 1.2 11.9 21.4 84 0.00
TW 6.0 66.0 32.6 0.9 0.5 79.3 0.8 654
Notes: CF = Completer; CO = Co-ordinator; IM = Implementer; ME = Monitor-evaluator;
RI = Resource investigator; PL = Plant; SH = Shaper; TW = Team worker Table V.
(1) This Table is not symmetrical about the diagonal. Enter only from the column on Distribution of the
the left and not from the row along the top. The percentages may sum to more than alternative strong roles
100 per cent because some subjects had more than two strong team roles. 1,593 out among subjects who
of the 1,796 subjects displayed at least one strong team role. show two strong
(2) The figures on the diagonal (in italics) denote the actual numbers of subjects. Belbin team roles
Personnel there is no shortage of co-ordinators and resource investigators, finding team
Review members to fill implementer and team worker roles should not be too much of a
29,2 problem. These are all people centred roles (Fisher et al., 1998), which augurs
well for long-term and organizational productivity. People-oriented leadership
has consistently been shown to bring higher levels of participation, work
interest and effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Owens, 1987). However, there is not so
134 much comfort with regard to the other four roles: completers, monitor-
evaluators, plants and shapers. It would appear that there are few individuals
showing these as preferred team roles within the ranks of managers either as a
primary or a secondary team role. The implications of this distribution will be
important for those CEOs who are concerned to have an adequately
heterogeneous cadre of managers from which to recruit balanced teams. CEOs
may well challenge their personnel specialists in regard to excessive zeal in
recruiting stable extroverts. Can the anxious and introverted only get into the
firm by mastering technical skills that are in short supply? Indeed, is there
advantage to be gained by casting the recruitment net into these relatively un-
fished waters? These are important issues; regrettably, the extent to which a
team is compromised by a lack of completers, monitor-evaluators, plants and
shapers is a question still unanswered. However, for organizations lacking
completers, monitor-evaluators, plants and shapers there are grounds for
optimism; Belbin's (1981) research also indicated that his classic mixed team
was not the only team type capable of ever doing well; he observed that a less
complex pattern, one quite commonly found in industry, sometimes provided
good results. Thus, teams comprising stable extroverts in roles such as team
worker, resource investigator and co-ordinator quite often performed well, their
flexibility seemingly compensating for their lack of specialised team
behaviours. Their success may be understood in terms of self-knowledge of
their own strengths and weaknesses, a characteristic of winning teams (Belbin,
1981) which makes them open to training themselves with regard to those
behaviours which might enhance their team performance. However, the
question still remains: to what degree should the ranks of management be
consciously opened to the completer, monitor-evaluator, plant and shaper types
in pursuit of the balanced team?

Conclusion
As was suggested earlier in this paper, the increasing flow of articles and books
on the structure and operation of teams may well indicate that much is still
unknown about teams. It is, therefore, reassuring that further support has been
found for the popular Belbin team role model. However, it is tempting to ask if
the unresolved issues and unsolved mysteries of team working could be related
to the fact that it is likely, as is implied from the ASE data, that there could be
relatively few balanced teams available in industry with which to conduct
research. Thus, the problems with the practical realities of teams in industry
and commerce may lie more in organizations' staff recruitment practices than
in team theory.
References Team roles
Balderson, S.J. and Broderick, A.J. (1996), ``Behaviours in teams: exploring the gender among UK
differences'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 33-42.
Bartram, D. (1992), ``The personality of UK managers: 16PF norms for shortlisted applicants'',
managers
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 159-72.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stodgill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial
Applications, (3rd ed.), Free Press, New York, NY. 135
Belbin, R.M. (1981), Management Teams. Why They Succeed or Fail, Butterworth-Heinemann,
London.
Belbin, R.M. (1993), Team Roles at Work, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Broucek, W.G. and Randell, G. (1996), ``An assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin Self-
Perception Inventory and Observer's Assessment from the perspective of the five-factor
model'', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 389-405.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Professional Manual. Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), Psychological, Assessment
Resources Inc., Lutz, FL.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. and Holland, J.L. (1984), ``Personality and vocational interests in an
adult sample'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 390-400.
Davis, J., Millburn, P., Murphy, T. and Woodhouse, M. (1992), Successful Team Building. How to
Create Teams that Really Work, Kogan Page, London.
Dulewicz, V. (1995), ``A validation of Belbin's team roles from 16PF and OPQ using bosses'
ratings of competence'', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 68,
pp. 81-99.
Dyer, W.G. (1994), Team Building: Current Issues and New Alternatives, (3rd ed.), Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A. and Macrosson, W.D.K. (1998), ``The structure of Belbin's team roles'',
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 283-8.
Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Sharp, G. (1996), ``Further evidence concerning the Belbin
Team-role Self-perception Inventory'', Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 61-7.
Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Walker, C.A. (1994), ``The structure of new product teams'',
Selection and Development Review, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 1-3.
Furnham, A., Steele, H. and Pendleton, D. (1993a), ``A psychometric assessment of the Belbin
Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory'', Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 245-57.
Furnham, A., Steele, H. and Pendleton, D. (1993b), ``A response to Dr Belbin's reply'', Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 66, p. 261.
Handy, C. (1978), The Gods of Management. Who They Are, How They Work and Why They Fail,
Souvenir Press, London.
Henny, A.S. (1975), ``Personality characteristics of a group of industrial managers'', Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 65-7.
Herriot, P. and Pemberton, C. (1995), Competitive Advantage through Diversity, Sage
Publications, London.
Huczynski, A. (1997), ``How to build successful teams . . . The Belbin Way (CD-ROM)'', Account,
Vol. 9 No. 3, Autumn, pp. 32-4.
Jay, R. (1995), Build a Great Team, Pitman Publishing, London.
Kirton, M.J. and Mulligan, G. (1973), ``Correlates of managers' attitudes towards change'', Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 101-7.
Personnel Life, E.A. (1993), Data Plus: Calculating Team Role Stens from 16PF Primary Factor Sten Scores,
NFER Nelson Publishing Company, London.
Review Margerison, C.J. and McCann, D.J. (1984), The Team Management Index, MCB University Press,
29,2 Bradford.
Mottram, R.D. (1988), ``Building effective management teams using the 16PF'', The Analysis of
Personality in Research and Assessment, Independent Assessment and Research Centre,
London.
136 Owens, R. (1987), Organizational Behavior in Education, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Randle, C.W. (1956), ``How to identify promotable executives'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34,
pp. 122-34.
Rawls, D.J. and Rawls, J.R. (1968), ``Personality characteristics and personal history data of
successful and less successful executives'', Psychological Reports, Vol. 23, pp. 1032-4.
Saville, P. (1972), The British Standardisation of the 16PF. Supplement of Norms. Forms A and B,
NFER Nelson Publishing Company, Windsor.
Shi, Y. and Tang, H.K. (1997), ``Team role behaviour and task environment. An exploratory study
of five organisations and their managers'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 86-95.
Timmerman, T.A. (1997), ``A closer look at the personality characteristics of outplaced
executives'', Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 55-65.
Williams, H. (1996), The Essence of Managing Groups and Teams, Prentice-Hall Europe, Hemel
Hempstead.
Wilson, D. (1975), ``Use of tests in United Biscuits'', in Miller, K. (Ed.), Psychological Testing in
Personnel Assessment, Wiley, New York, NY.
 Abstracts from the wider Team roles
among UK
literature managers

``The distribution of Belbin team roles

among UK managers'' 137

The following abstracts from the wider literature have been selected for their special relevance to
the preceding article. The abstracts extend the themes and discussions of the main article and act
as a guide to further reading.
Each abstract is awarded 0-3 stars for each of four features:
(1) Depth of research
(2) Value in practice
(3) Originality of thinking
(4) Readability for non-specialists.
The full text of any article may be ordered from the Anbar Library. Contact Debbie Brannan,
Anbar Library, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, UK BD8 9BY. Telephone: (44) 1274 785277; Fax:
(44) 1274 785204; E-mail: dbrannan@mcb.co.uk quoting the reference number shown at the end
of the abstract.

An empirically-based assessment of Belbin's team roles

Senior, B.
Human Resource Management Journal (UK), 1998 Vol 8 No 3: p. 54 (7 pages)
Describes the team role profiles developed by Belbin and investigates if the
Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) is a useful tool for team
building. Uses two samples, one of 352 junior and middle managers from a range
of UK organizations; the second of 46 full-time students on a UK masters-level
management course, to investigate the factor structure of the nine role version of
the BTRSPI; to examine the possibility that some team roles are so different that
they are unlikely to co-exist as natural team roles within one person; and to
understand the frequency with which team roles are represented within a
population. Finds a number of flaws in the BTRSPI ± the research found only
seven team roles at the most; some roles are unlikely to co-exist with other roles
within the same person; and some of the team roles occur less frequently than
others. Considers the implications of these findings for the future use of BTRSPI,
suggesting how it can be modified to overcome the limitations found.

Theoretical with application in practice and Survey

Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********
Reference: 27AT356
Cost: £6 (plus VAT)
Personnel Colour your managerial type, colour your organization
Review Baruch, Y.
Career Development International (UK), 1999 Vol 4 No 1: p. 11 (8 pages)
29,2
Argues that managers need to be able to be flexible in their response to internal
and external change and able to adapt their leadership styles to the exigencies
of the moment. Proposes spectral management type inventory (SMTI) as a
138 method of assessing management styles, describing the theory that lies behind
it, and the management styles, team roles and learning styles it identifies.
Outlines how SMTI can be used in implementing organizational change,
setting out how the technique can be used to create a fit between the employees
and their organizational roles. Gives examples of it use in practice.

Theoretical with application in practice

Indicators: Research implications: * Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number:********
Reference: 28AC155
Cost: £18 (plus VAT)

Organizational engineering principles in project management

Austrom, D.
Project Management Journal (USA), Dec 1998 Vol 29 No 4: p. 25 (10 pages)
Gives a definition of organizational engineering (OE) according to Salton and
sets out methodology, starting with identifying individuals' information
processing styles using the ``input/output processing template'' (I Opt).
Explains how scoring along four axes gives the distribution of preferment
among the four constituent styles. Gives several examples of plots of various
styles profiles. Explains the underlying attributes. Sets out four principles how
individual style plots can help select a high-performing project team, based on
a model where one team member's output is another's input. Illustrates this by
a case study of an automotive engine design team which was way behind
schedule through miscommunication, inefficiency, and lack of shared
understanding. Describes how OE was applied to form an eleven-person
leadership team of ten pre-selected candidates and one other, who was to be
chosen from three candidates. Plots the styles discovered via the ``I Opt''
instrument and how a complementary selection was made from the three
candidates' styles for the eleventh position. Illustrates how OE enabled
resolution of conflict within the team through re-design of one member's duties.
Also, how introduction of ``structural devices'' (in this case three rules), and
understanding of one another's preferences, helped the team as a whole.

Theoretical with application in practice

Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********
Reference: 28AE523
Cost: £12 (plus VAT)
Putting the ``team'' into teamwork: alternative theoretical Team roles
contributions for contemporary management practice among UK
Wilson, M.G.
Human Relations (USA), Jul 98 (51/7): p. 927 (18 pages)
managers
Summarizes the research and debate on the underlying psychological processes
that affect the ability of people to work together effectively in a team, focusing
on social identity theory. Analyses how individuals categorize themselves and 139
how this self-categorization is used as the basis of the judgement on whether
one can fit into a team. Outlines how this analysis can be used to understand
the underlying motivational processes in team formation and assesses the
implications for team building and management. Underlines two conclusions
arising from applying social identity theory to team building: that becoming a
team member is a process that involves an awareness of social categories; and
that a team is a unit which has its own mental model that guides the team's
combined thinking process. Argues that this thinking process is more than a
sum of the individual members' cognition.

Theoretical with application in practice

Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number:*********
Referennce: 27AR998
Cost: £24 (plus VAT)

Re-examining a model for evaluating information centre success

using a structural equation modelling approach
Chau, P.Y.K.
Decision Sciences (USA), Spring 1997 Vol 28 No 2: p. 309 (26 pages)
Ranges over the need for properly validated instruments for the assessment of
information centre (IC) success. Recaps on structural equation modelling
(SEM), used traditionally for organization behaviour analysis. Uses a
commercially available covariance structure analysis-based SEM product to
validate a cited IC success model, previously developed by Magal et al. Claims
from the analysis that the cited model is inadequate in that IC success is
measured by only a single indicator. Revises the model using an appropriate
confirmatory factor analysis approach, and applies the SEM tool to the study of
the psychometric properties of the resultant model. Finds again that the model
still fails to satisfy multiple indicator criteria of IC success. Argues that the
overall approach demonstrates the general validity of SEM to the validation
analysis of conceptual measurement instruments.

Theoretical with application in practice

Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: * Readability: ** Total number:*******
Reference: 27AK899
Cost: £18 (plus VAT)
Personnel The effect of personality type on team performance
Review Hebert, F.J.
29,2 Journal of Management Development (UK), Vol 16 No 5 97: p. 337 (17 pages)
Investigates the effect that personality type has on team effectiveness, looking
at this in the context of information systems (IS) development teams. Examines
the behaviours that are critical to the success of a IS development team
140 (effective leadership, cohesion, communication and heterogeneity) and uses the
work of Jung and Myers Brigg to draw up a model of the different personality
types needed within a team. Tests out the model with case studies of two US
cross-functional teams working on IS development, one thought to be very
productive, the other judged to have an unsatisfactory performance. Concludes
that personality type can explain the different performances of the two teams,
and concludes that the model could be an important tool in cross-functional
team building.

Theoretical with application in practice

Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: ***
Originality: * Readability: ** Total number: ********
Reference: 26AY271
Cost: £24 (plus VAT)