An empirically-based assessment

of Belbin’s team roles

Barbara Senior, Nene University College, Northampton

P
articipation in group and team working can occur for two reasons. First, a person
may be a member of a team by virtue of their functional role in the organisation; for
ins tance, because they belong to a particular specialis m or grouping, have
particular task skills or because of their position in the organisational hierarchy.
Alternatively or additionally, membership might be given on the basis of an individual’ s
capacity to genera te novel ideas, co-ordinate contributions from others, encourage
harmonious relationships or ensure implementation of decisions; in other words, on the
basis of their team role as opposed to their functional role.
Many academics, consultants and others claim to have identified sets of team roles,
which, when fully rep res en ted among members, are s aid to ass is t th e team’ s
performance. Among these categorisations, those of Belbin (1981, 1993) are among the
earliest, yet still among the most popular, in terms of their use by consultants and trainers
to assist in the composition of new teams and in team-building activities for teams
already in existence.
Belbin’s latest work on this subject describes nine possible team roles. Figure 1 gives
details of the strengths and weaknesses of each. It also illustrates one person’s team role
pro® le in terms of `natural’ role(s) (team role behaviour preferred by that person); role(s)
`able to be assumed’ (team role behaviour which, although not natural preferences, can be
assumed if necessary); and role(s) to which they are most unsuited and so best avoided.
A number of issues arise in the application of Belbin’s theories. One is the link which is
said to exist between a `balanced’ team, with all team roles strongly represented among
members, and a team’s performance. Another is the validity and reliability of the Belbin
Team Role Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI). Yet a third is the contention that there are
nine unique team roles with associated assumptions that all combinations are equally
likely in anyone’ s team role profile and that all roles are equally represented among
members of de® ned populations.
The ® rst two of these issues have received limited attention with differing results. For
instance, while the link between team role balance and team performance has received
some support in Senior ’ s (1997) study of 10 occupational teams, the psychometric
properties of the BTRSPI have been criticised strongly by Furnham et al (1993) and
Broucek and Randell (1996). The third issue has received little attention and is, therefore,
the subject of this article.
The aims of this study are to investigate:
1. The factor structure of the nine role version of the BTRSPI;
2. The possibility that some team roles are so different from others that they are unlikely to
co-exist as natural team roles within one person; and
3. The frequency with which any team role is likely to be represented among populations of
interest and, therefore, whether some team roles are `scarcer’ to come by than others.

54 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3

 FIGURE 1 Example of a team role pro® le with descriptions of the nine different team roles
Roles best
avoided Roles to be assumed Natural roles Roles and descriptions Allowable weaknesses
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PL X PLANT
Creative, imaginative, unorthodox Ignores incidentals
Solves dif® cult problems Too preoccupied to communicate effectively
RI X RESOURCE INVESTIGATOR
Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative Over-optimistic
Explores opportunities, develops contacts Loses interest after initial enthusiasm
X CO COORDINATOR
Mature, con® dent, a good chairperson Can be seen as manipulative
Clari® es goals, promotes decisionmaking Of¯ oads personal work
Delegates well
SH X SHAPER
Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure Prone to provocation
Drive and courage to overcome obstacles Offends people’s feelings
X ME MONITOR EVALUATOR
Sober, strategic and discerning Lacks drive and ability to inspire others
Sees all options

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3

Judges accurately
X TW TEAMWORKER
Cooperative, mild, perceptive, diplomatic Indecisive in crunch situations
Listens, builds, averts friction
IMP X IMPLEMENTER
Disciplined, reliable, conservative, ef® cient Somewhat in¯ exible
Turns ideas into practical actions Slow to respond to new possibilities
CF X COMPLETER-FINISHER
Painstaking, conscientious, anxious Inclined to worry unduly
Searches out errors and omissions Reluctant to delegate
Delivers on time
X SP SPECIALIST
Single minded, self-starting, dedicated Contributes on a narrow front only
Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply Dwells on technicalities
Barbara Senior, Nene University College, Northampton

55
An empirically-based assessment of Belbin’s team roles

METHOD

Sample
Two samples were used in this study:
Set A consisted of 352 junior and middle managers from many different organisations. The
majority had completed or were studying, part-time, for management quali® cations of degree
level and above. This sample set extends that used by Swailes and Senior (1996), in an earlier
investigation of the factor structure of the BTRSPI, in that an additional 134 people were
added to the Swailes and Senior sample of 218 ± an increase in sample size of 62 per cent;
Set B consisted of 46 full-time students on masters-level management courses.
The results from the two sets of respondents are treated separately because of their
different experiences. Set A had experience of managing and having characteristics similar to
the managers who made up the samples on whose team behaviour Belbin ® rst formulated
his theories, while set B had little experience of managing but were studying management
and business at a high level. Overall, a total of 398 people took part in the study. The average
age of set A (managers) was mid-30s. Approximately 60 per cent were men. The average age
of set B was 24 and 54 per cent were male.

Measures
The BTRSPI was used to identify respondents’ team role scores and pro® les. This measure
consists of seven sections, each containing 10 items. A sample item is: `I am generally
effective in preventing careless mistakes or omissions from spoiling the success of an
operation.’ Respondents are asked to distribute 10 points in each section according to how
much they feel each item re¯ ects their behaviour. Thus, someone could give all 10 points to
one item or distribute fewer points to a greater number of items. Analysis, using Belbin
Associates’ `Interplace’ computer programme, gives a normalised sten score of between zero
and 100 on each of the nine team roles. Belbin advises that a score of 70 or above indicates a
person’ s most `natural’ team role, with scores between 30 and 70 indicating roles `able to be
assumed’ and scores below 30 indicating roles to be avoided (see Figure 1). For any
individual, their score could result in one team role only being identi® ed as a natural team
role. On the other hand, a person could score such that more than one team role achieves a
score of 70 or above. The pro® le in Figure 1 shows such an example.

Analysis
Team role scores were computed for each respondent, giving nine team role scores for each
person. Subject to item ratio was 39:1 for set A (managers) and 5:1 for set B (full-time
management students). Frequency counts of different scores for each team role were made
to ascertain the frequency of occurrence of natural team roles (scoring 70 or over) in each of
the resp ondent sets. Factor analys is usin g Varimax rotation (based on Prin ciple
Components Analysis) was carried out to examine the factor structure of the team role
measures. All factors which, individually, accounted for 10 per cent or more of the variance
were selected as significant for inclusion in the results. Items loading above/below the
commonly accepted criterion of +0.3000 (eg see Child, 1990; the GAP programme) were
taken as signi® cant.

56 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3

 Barbara Senior, Nene University College, Northampton

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows the results of the factor analysis of the team role scores for both sample sets,
together with the frequency of `appearance’ of each team role in each sample set.

Factor structure of BTRSPI

Factor analysis of the data from both sample sets produced a four-factor solution in each
case, although the factor structure for set A shows some differences from that of set B ±
hence the different labelling of factors in Table 1. The similarities and differences in how the
team roles load on to different factors are of interest. The ® rst similarity is that the team
roles of shaper, implementer and monitor evaluator are independent of one another in that
they load on to single different factors in both sets of results. Secondly, the team role of
shaper appears to be mutually exclusive to that of teamworker, given the high loadings of
each of these team roles at opposite poles of factor 1 in both sets of results. This is, perhaps,
not surprising given the assertive characteristics of the shaper compared to the cooperative
characteristics of the teamworker and longstanding theories about the dif® culties of team
members assuming a task-oriented as well as a people-oriented role (see, for instance,
Bales, 1950).
A third similarity across the results is the strong positive relationship between the clearly
de® ned implementer and slightly less well de® ned completer-® nisher roles; a ® nding which
confirms that of Broucek and Randell (1996) in their study correlating results from the
BTRSPI with those from observers of the team members in question. There appears,
therefore, to be a lack of independence between these two roles and the question arises as to
whether they are indeed two separate roles; the results here suggest they are not. Swailes
and Senior (1996) conceptualised these two roles together as the `doing’ end of a `thinking-
doing’ dimension of behaviour. Their finding that the other end of this dimension was
characterised by the plant and resource investigator roles together is repeated in this study

TABLE 1 Factor matrix and frequency of occurrence of team roles for sample sets

Decimal points for factor loadings omitted. Signi® cant loadings of variables shown in italics

SET A (n=352) SET B (n=46)

Factor Factor Factor Factor % scoring Factor Factor Factor Factor % scoring
1A 2A 3A 4A 70 or above 1B 2B 3B 4B 70 or above
Team role
PL 11 75 36 -07 23 -14 -17 78 -05 22
RI 59 40 -06 -40 26 16 -60 02 66 17
CO 07 05 -90 03 25 38 -26 -01 -74 33
SH 78 05 -13 05 26 77 -25 -12 -21 26
ME 09 02 -02 89 23 27 03 72 26 20
TW -74 07 -12 43 34 -95 -04 -03 -01 54
IMP 11 -80 24 -12 46 11 78 -22 08 22
CF -39 -52 30 23 40 -29 75 -07 04 46
SP -54 -02 49 11 44 10 13 -72 08 35

Eigenvalue 2.49 1.51 1.22 0.99 2.33 1.92 1.17 0.98

% variance 27.7 16.8 13.6 11.0 25.9 21.3 13.0 10.9

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3 57

An empirically-based assessment of Belbin’s team roles

by taking into account both sets of results. For instance, while the `opposite’ of the
implementer and completer-® nisher roles in the managers’ results is the role of plant which
is positively associated with that of the resource investigator, the corresponding opposite
role in the students’ results is quite clearly the resource investig ator, but this time
overlapping signi® cantly with the monitor evaluator role.
Given these similarities and differences between the two sample sets, two team roles
remain to be explained ± the coordinator and specialist roles. Belbin’ s (1981) original name
for the coordinator role was `chairman’ , indicating its leader-type nature. As a more
generalist role it gains validity from being negatively associated with the specialist, as
shown in the results for set A. It might, therefore, be conceptualised as being at one end of
what might be termed a `generalist-specialist’ dimension, or what Trompenaars (1993)
terms a universalistic-particularistic dimension, with the specialist role lying at the other
end. However, the specialist role is to some extent unresolved, given its position in relation
to other different roles in the two samples. The specialist role was added later by Belbin
(1993) to the original eight roles and is arguably less behaviourally oriented compared with
the other eight roles.

Probable and improbable team role pro® les

Overall, the factor structure which emerges from these two sets of results suggests that there
are, at most, seven team roles (PL, CO, SH, ME, TW, IMP/CF, SP) and perhaps only six, if
the PL and ME roles are as positively associated, as shown by the results from set B. How-
ever, as this set only contains 46 respondents, it is prudent, until further data accumulates, to
accept seven roles. Given this, what also emerge are suggestions about the likelihood of
certain team roles appearing together as natural roles in any individual pro® le. Thus, while
natural plant and monitor evaluator-type `thinking’ roles are likely to coexist in team role
pro® les, they are unlikely to feature as natural team roles in pro® les denoting preferences for
an implementer/completer-® nisher-type `doing’ role. Individuals with preferences for a
shaper-type role are unlikely to be able to assume a teamworker role. In addition, the more
generalist coordinator role is unlikely to coexist with the more particularistic specialist role,
if indeed the latter can be conceptualised as a role in its own right. The resource investigator
role, according to the results found here, has little standing as a role in its own right.

Scarcity versus abundance of natural team roles

Table 1 shows that the most frequently occurring team roles among managers in set A are
implemen ter, completer-finisher and specialist. The role of teamworker occurs less
frequently, but not as infrequently as plant and monitor evaluator, which appear to be
particularly scarce among managers. By comparison, the most frequently occurring team
roles among full-time management students (set B) are those of teamworker and completer-
finisher. Only 17 per cent of management students included resource investigator as a
natural team role (scoring 70 or above) in their team role pro® les. Other scarce team roles for
set B are monitor evaluator, plant and implementer. The coordinator and specialist roles
occupy a middling position in terms of frequency of occurrence in this sample.
These results, taken together with those above, suggest that the incompatibility of, or
signi® cant overlap with, some roles compared with others is compounded by the differential
availability of them in populations of managers and aspiring managers. However, the team
role frequency pro® le emerging from these results is probably helpful in that, in any team,
there is likely to be less need for large numbers of leading roles (coordinators and shapers)

58 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3

 Barbara Senior, Nene University College, Northampton

and thinking type roles (plants and monitor evaluators) than there are for the more doing
type roles (implementers combined with completer-® nishers). In addition, while suf® cient
numbers of teamworkers are valuable in terms of team processes, too many monitor
evaluators would delay action too long while details were checked and re-checked.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEAM MANAGEMENT

Two major questions which arise from the results of this study are how far Belbin’ s measure
of team roles can continue to be regarded as a helpful tool in team management and should
managers and others modify their understanding of team roles in the light of the ® ndings of
this study? The results of this study and others certainly throw doubts on the reliability of
the BTRSPI as a measure of team roles. However, the team-role concept remains strong. In
addition, its application in practice shows that the concept continues to be recognised and
accepted and that Belbin’s measure continues to be widely used in many different settings. It
is unrealistic, therefore, to suppose that the use of the BTRSPI will be discontinued.
Consequently, until an improved measure can be developed, practitioners’ interpretations of
the results gained from using the BTRSPI should be modi® ed as follows.
First, although the concept of team roles which can be distinguished one from another
remains current, the idea that there are nine of these is debatable. It certainly seems futile to
try to distinguish between implementer and completer-finisher roles; in the author ’s
experience, many people ® nd it dif® cult, in practical terms, to separate these two roles.
Consequently, HR managers and particularly trainers could regard people with strong
preferences for either of these roles as interchangeable in terms of their contributions to the
work of teams.
In the case of natural resource investigators, particularly given the ambiguity of this role,
composers of teams should examine such individuals’ team role pro® les to ascertain what
other overlapping roles they might play, particularly if there is more than one resource inv-
estigator in a team and a shortage of other roles such as shaper and plant with which the
role overlaps.
A strong shaper role needs to be balanced by a strong team worker role, given the
unlikelihood of shapers having team worker characteristics and vice versa. While shapers
will drive the task along, there is still the necessity for team members to be cared for as
people as well as being driven to complete tasks. This is especially important for newly-
formed teams where good and stable member interrelationships have yet to be established.
Managers generally should cherish people with natural plant and/or monitor evaluator
roles. Being relatively rare team role species, they are a scarce team resource which is needed
to counteract the more numerous action-oriented people with implementer/completer-
® nisher roles, who are unlikely to carry out the careful thinking and checking of details so
necessary for the successful achievement of team goals. In addition, it is better to recognise
that plants and monitor evaluators are unlikely to implement decisions enthusiastically or
effectively. Managers should not, therefore, expect this type of behaviour from people
having these team role preferences.
Finally, in organisations which increasingly value innovation and dynamism, care should
be taken not to overlook people who are not `go-getters’, do not have brilliant ideas and are
not particularly interested in doing a task themselves . These are the relatively rare
coordinators who, on the whole, do not overlap other roles but who are indispensable for
keeping the team effort together and on course.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3 59

An empirically-based assessment of Belbin’s team roles

REFERENCES

Bales, R. F. 1950. `A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction’. American
Sociological Review, Vol. 15, April, 257-63.
Belbin, R. M. 1981. Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, London: Heinemann.
Belbin, R. M. 1993. Team Roles at Work, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Belbin Associates. Interplace IV Human Resource Management System User’s Manual.
Cambridge.
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 ® ve-
factor model’. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 69, 389-405.
Child, D. 1990. The Essentials of Factor Analysis, London: Cassell.
Furnham, A, Steele, H. and Pendleton, D. 1993. `A psychometric assessment of the Belbin
Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory’ . Journal of Occupational and Organisational
Psychology, Vol. 66, 245-247.
GAP computer analysis programme run by the Manchester Computing Centre.
Senior, B. 1997. `Team roles and team performance: is there ª reallyº a link?’ . Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, no. 70, 241-258.
Swailes, S. and Senior, B. 1996. `Looks good, but...?: The validity of learning style and team
role measures’. Published proceedings of the British Academy of Management Annual
Conference, September.
Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

60 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3