Team roles and team performance: Is there 'really' a link?

Barbara Senior*
New College of Higher Education. Park Campus. Northampton NN2 1AL. UK

Belbin's (1981, 1993) team role theories are evaluated in terms of the claim that high team performance is associated with teams which are balanced in terms of the team roles represented amongst team members. Eleven teams from a mixture of private and public organizations were surveyed to test the proposition that a balanced team will be a high performing team and vice vetsa. Issues of measurement of team balance and team petformance are addressed. The research is believed to be unique in including a number of criteria tor team role balance rather than rhe single, simplistic measure frequently used. An innovative measure of team performance is used. The results of the investigation give some support to the link Belbin makes between team role balance and team performance. These are discussed in the light of the paucity of rigorous tesearch in this area to date.

The performance of an organization in seeking to achieve organizational goals depends on many factors such as strategy, structure, technology, people employed and management style. Of importance amongst these is the 'people' factor, that is the behaviour of individual employees and the contribution this makes to performance at individual, group and organization level. Some writers (e.g. Burns & Stalker, 1966; Morgan, 199.3; Weber, 1964) relate the organizarions to the structure they adopt whilst others (e.g. Herzberg, 1968; McClelland, 1988;Maslow, 1943; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1964; Taylor, 1947}concentrate on what motivates the individual worker. However, current pressure to 'downsize' organizations, resulting in a reduction in the number of levels with consequent development of more flexible forms of working (Drucker, 1988; Tjosvold, 1991), arguments about the empowerment of workers (Conjer, 199.3; Moss-Kanter, 1993), and rhe interdependence between individuals which is said ro characterize most modern semi-auromated work (Smith, Peterson & Misumi, 1994), has brought about an emphasis on the work of the group or on the more recent development of that concept, the work of the team. Indeed, a recent article (Brown, 1995) emphasizes this trend by pointing out the rapid growth in group based rewards as opposed to individualistic based reward schemes. Likert s (1961) linking pin theory sees its expression in these ideas that everyone is part of one or more teams, whether production or service oriented or part of the management
*Requtsrs tor reprints.

242 Barbara Senior structure of the organizations. The performance of teams within organizations is, therefore, an important variable in the performance of the organization as a whole. Crucial to the performance of teams are the abilities and behaviours of their members. Relevant to this are the roles that team members play. These can be thought of in two ways. The first is in terms of functional roles, that is those roles which relate to a person's job role and function in the organization; for instance, marketing manager, lecturer, typist, head of department. People are often chosen to be members of teams on the basis of their functional roles, these being considered most appropriate to the task{s) which the team has to perform. However, people's functional roles, though fitting them in terms of experience and expertise for the task in hand, will not necessarily help when it comes to the process through which a team of people makes decisions and implements them. They do not help in matters such as the way different team members approach a problem or task, the way team members interact with one another, and their style of behaviour in general. Consequently, writers such as Belbin (1981, 1993), Davis, Millburn, Murphy & Woodhouse (1992), Margerison & McCann (1990), Parker (1990), Spencer & Pruss (1992) and Woodcock (1989) have proposed the notion of team roles, or in the case of Parker, team-player styles. Thus, individuals will not only bring the characteristics of their functional roles to their activities as members of teams, but will also, naturally, take up one or more team roles. For instance, a person might naturally be imaginative-a good ideas person. Another might be good at gathering information, whilst another might take the role of coordmator of other people's contributions. A number of different team roles can be identified and these vary according to different writers. From those referred to above, the largest number of team roles is fifteen (Davis etal., 1992) and the least four (Parker, 1990). There is some overlap between different sets of roles, but also some roles which seem to be unique to a particular writer. The identification of team roles is sometimes claimed to be based on different personality characteristics (e.g. Margerison & McCann, 1990; Parker, 1990). However, all proponents of the team role concept claim to have observed the behaviouts typical of each team role, in a wide variery of occupational teams in many different types of organizations. As an early proponent of the team role concept, the work of Belbin (1981, 1993) is particularly interesting as, arguably, the basis upon which other team role frameworks have been built. Beibin's development of the team role concept arose ftom observing, over a period of nine years, teams ot managers on training courses playing management games where team performance was measured in terms of winning or losing (Dulewicz, 1993). Belbin claimed to be able to predict the performance of a team through knowledge of each team member's team role. Given team role profiles for each team member, where all team roles were strongly represented across the profiles (that is the team was assumed to be 'balanced'), the team was predicted to be high performing. Where some team roles were absent, he maintained that the team would have a lower success rate. However, the issue of what constitutes 'success' or high performance in real teams in real organizations, rather than artificially constituted management game playing teams, is more complex. Winning or losing can rarely be measured. Other measures must, therefore, be looked for. A small survey of the literature (Evenden & Anderson, 1992; King, 1988; Margerison & McCann, 1990; Prince, 1989) reveals at least 33 concepts associated with high performing teams. In other cases (Cohen & Ledford, 1994), team performance is measured on a small number of scales by reference to team managers' judgments and/or that of their superiors. Cohen & Ledford show how performance can also be measured by objective data such as customer complaints, team members' accidents, illness and absenteeism. However, where no such objective criteria exist, for instance in management teams, some

form of subjective criteria has to be used. Even so, a survey of the literature reveals little agreement on what criteria to set or how judgments should be made as to whether these criteria have been met.

a.

_o -5 .2^
a> ^i? c

It may be that the 'difficulty of measuring salient, ecologically valid and reliable, 2 team-dependent outcome variables' (Furnham, Steele & Pendleton, 1993, p. 245) has led ? J to the paucity of academic studies which attempt, in any systematic way, to test team role -? theories in the context of real teams in real organizations. What is without doubt is the continuing and widespread use of the team role concept and the idea of a balanced team. This is particularly the case with trainers and consultants in their pursuit of helping teams improve their team performance. Given the extensive application of team role theories, it is surprising that there is little, other than anecdotal, evidence to support the original premise from which these activities are derived. What evidence there is concentrates on the psychometric properties of different ways of measuring individuals' team roles (Furnham et al.. 1993), and the -a c relationship between self-perception measures and those used by observers who know the participants well (Parkinson, 1995). Thus, considering the widespread use of team role theory in recruitment of members to teams and in training associated with team c building, it seems timely that the theories which form the basis of team theory should be t; tested in a more systematic way. Aims of the study Using real teams in real organizations, the study sets out to evaluate Belbin's team role theories in terms of their ability to predict team performance. The means of doing this, however, raise a number of methodological issues which must be addressed. These are: (a) how to identify a person's 'natural' team role; (b) how to measure whether a team is balanced or not; and (c) how to measure team performance. These are discussed below, prior to a more detailed description of the methodology used and discussion of the results. As a preface to this, Belbin's team role theory is described in more detail. Belbin's team role theory In his book, published in 1981, Belbin claimed to have identified eight team roles as a result of his original research using management teams playing management games. In his later book, published in 1993, he renamed some of the team roles and added a ninth role as a result of further experience. Table 1 identifies the nine team roles together with a short description of their strengths and weaknesses. The roles are described in more detail in Belbin's book (1993) and in the notes associated with Belbin Associate's software program (Interplace IV) which has been designed to measure people's Belbin team roles. The identification of people's team roles is, however, ot more than academic interest.
D.. "^
u.

? u O -a e
pondega
So
^ s

u
T3 E

cQ c

i? 6

c
n . QO

o X "^ nj -

f 2n
- -a

un C [iJ

U,3

l-l

co a
l-l

uo
u
1

ao c E
options.
1-^ F E
ul

o -z

.; -0 ,c o -0

S "c

.S E
l-l

'legac , dyn;
c
OJ

s -e
-^
UJ

E g-8
'L'

E
ij C I r

2 -S ,1 J f^
c
-0 o

:? &
~o
I-

o c3
Ul

a
a Q .H a i;

5
c^-^
.-M ft rt

.
3 a,^

5^
ac
Cl- C/!)

3 S - ,2 csu

f
nO

a.^
CQ
a

-a

CL DS

H -a
= o

Belbin maintains 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. For instance. Table 1 shows the profile of someone whose natural roles (that is those scoring at 70 or above) are plant and completet-finisher. Thus, as well as contributing their professional skills or expertise to a team, team members will also contribute particular behavioural characteristics which can be identified with their natural team roles. Team role theory, then, finds its expression in the assumption that for a team to be high performing, there needs to be a balance, or spread, of naturally occurring team roles across the team. This idea is encapsulated in two statements made by Belbin. These are:
Each team needs an optinriunn balance in both functional roles and team roles. The ideal blend will depend on the goals and tasks the team faces,

and
A team can deploy its technical resources to best advantage only when it has the requisite range of team roles to ensure efficient teamwork (Belbin, 1981, pp, 132133).

Identification of team roles

Two instruments designed by Belbin exist for the purpose of identifying a person's natural' team roles. The first is Belbin's Self-Perception Inventory (SPI), an ipsative instrument which is completed by each team member. The second is an observer checklist which is completed by team members' colleagues who know their team member behaviour well. There have been criticisms (Furnham et al.. 1993) of the psychometric properties of the SPI, but these were of the original eight-role version. No published tests of the psychometric properties of the current nine-role version have been found. However, a more recent study of 218 SP!s completed by a variety of practising managers (Swailes & Senior, 1996) provides some statistical evidence for the independence of each team role. Little attention has been given to the use of the observer checklists other than in the study by Parkinson (1995) and comments in the Intetplace manual (not dated). The statement in the latter reads, "In groups of executives and senior managers tested there was found to be a degree of agreement between self-percept ion and observed perception, and between the observers themselves that was significantly better than would occur by chance' (p. 50). Parkinson compared the nine-role version of the SPI with results from observers and found a limited association between the two. Drawing on this, logic suggests that a person's team roles could, most accurately, be identified by using a combination of the SPI and observer checklist results. It was decided, therefore, to use this method in this study. Defining team role balance The issue of balance is an important one, and Belbin's linking of a balanced team with high performance is no different from other team role theorists on this issue. However, whilst logically, the idea of balance is appealing, ways of measuring balance ate contentious.

Barbara Senior The most straightforward and most used method of determining team balance is to establish whether team members' profiles, collectively, have all nine team roles represented at the natural level, that is at a score of 70 or above. If all nine team roles are represented in this way, then, according to Belbin, the team is said to be balanced, with the implication that a balanced team will be high performing. However, Belbin acknowledges that, where some team roles are not naturally' present, if they are at the able to be assumed' level (that is scoring between 30 and 60see Table 1), this may not be too detrimental to the team's performance. What seems to be implied here, is that there is a subjective judgment to be made as to the extent of balance of team roles in any team. Looked at from the other direction, a team would definitely be unbalanced where a team role was not represented, either 'naturally' ot at the 'able to be assumed' level. The measure of balance discussed above relies on examining individual team members' most naturally occurring roles. One could also argue that team role balance occurs when the team's average scores on each team role (taking all the team role scores into account) are found to be similar, although this measure is not commonly found in the literature. Thus, although one or more naturally occurring roles may be absent from any of the individual team members' profiles, the fact that, on average, those team role characteristics appear in similar quantity to any other may suggest a degree of balance. It was decided, therefore, to use both measures of balance in this study.
Team roles and a team's ikey stage of activity

The concept of balance tied to a particular level at which team roles occur across team member profiles is relatively clear. In addition, it is easy to set a measure of similarity for team role average scores across team roles. However, in his 1993 book, Belbin also stresses the link between the stages of a team's project or activities and the need for different team roles to be dominant at different stages. Table 2 lists the six stages with Belbin's comments on the team roles deemed relevant to each stage. Given the importance of the role of any team leader, it could be argued that his or her natural roles should be congruent with at least one of the roles deemed necessary for a specific stage of team activity and this was argued at the 1996 Interplace Users Conference. In addition, there is a case to be put for these particular team role characteristics to be present on average when all the team role scores of *?// the team members are taken into account. Both these measures are used in this study. Definition of team performance The central tenet of Belbin's theories is that the more balanced a team is in terms of the spread of naturally occurring team roles, the greater the propensity for it to be high performing. In other words, there is a cause and effect relationship between team role balance and team performance. As discussed above, in Belbin's original work (Belbin, 1981; Dulewicz, 1995), team performance was measured in terms of winning and losing. However, difficulties occur when there are no objective measures with which to judge team performance. This is a particular problem for management teams, or in Katzenbach & Smith's (1991) terms.

Table 2. Team roles relevant to different stages of a team's project or activities

Key stages of team activity Team roles relevant to particular stages 1 Identifying needs Key figures ar this stage are individuals with a strong goal awareness. Shapers and coordinators make their mark here. 2 Finding ideas Once an objecrive is set, the means of achieving it are required. Here plants and resource investigators have a crucial role to play. 3 Formulating plans Two activities help ideas turn into plans. One weighing up the options, the second making good use of all relevant experience and knowledge to ensure a good decision. Monitor evaluacors make especially good long-term planners and specialists have a key role to play at this stage. 4 Making contacts People must be persuaded that an improvement is in prospect. Champions of the plans and cheer leaders must be found. This is an activity where resource investigators are in their element. However, to appease disturbed groups, a team worker is required. 3. Establishing the Plans need turning into protedures, methods and working practices to organization become routines. Implementers are the people required here. These routines, however, need people to make them work. Getting people to fit the system is what coordinators are good at. 6. Following through Too many assumptions are made that all will work out well in the end. Good follow-through benefits trom rhe acrentions of complecers, Implementers, too, pull their weight in this area, for they pride themselves on being efficient in anything they undertake.
Based on Bdbin (1993. pp. lUO-lOl),

teams classified as "recommending things' or running things' rather than those which 'make ot do things'. Methods which could be used include observation of the team's behaviour, tracking the effects of its decision making or the administration of pre-prepared questionnaires to team members and other relevant persons. However, all these methods rely on the researcher's own perception of what makes any team effective or not and do not take into account the different goals and purposes of different teams (particularly when operating in different organizations). Neither do they take account of team members' own ideas on what constitutes 'performance' for them. One method which attempts to meet these criticisms is the use of repertory grid (Stewart & Stewart, 1981), first, to generate the constructs which define team performance, for the team in question, and, second, to rate the team on these constructs to obtain a measure of its performance. Thus, each team sets its own performance criteria and rates its performance accordingly. This process is recommended by writers such as Galpin (I994, p, 245) who says, '. . . asking teams and individuals to rate themselves on whatever factors are determined to be important is a good way to approach "immeasurables" like customer service, teamwork and communication skills'. The particular process used for this study is based on this view. It is detailed further in the methodology section below and reported fully in a separate article (Senior, 1996a).

248 Barbara Senior Method Process

Two determinants of team performance have been identified. The first concerns whether a ream is balanced or not in terms of team roles; the second concerns the presence or absence of those team roles particularly relevant to a team's ,specific stage of project development or ream activities. Given these, the following formed the basis on which the data collection and analysis were carried out in order to meet the aims of the study.

1 Through an identification of team members' team roles, and taking account of the stage of activity of each team
(a) assess the degree of balance of each team and, on chis basis {b) predict its likely level of performance, 2 Test these predictions against the actual perceived performance of the team. 3 Conclude the extent to which Belbin's team role theories can usefully be used in actual organizational settings.

Sample
The participants of interest to this study were 11 management teams of between four and nine members; that is groupings of people who meet together and work as teams which involve decision making related to the whole or part of their organizations. The teams were distributed amongst public and private sectors as follows: social services, 3 teams; borough councils, 4 teams; hospital trusts, 1 team; benefit agency, 1 team; financial institution, 1 team; brewery, 1 team. All members of all teams completed the Belbin nine-role version of the Self Perception Inventory (SPI) and participated in interviews to collect data on certain characteristics of their teams, the stage ot team activity and their teams' performances, A total of 67 team members took part in the research.

Measures
Identification of team roles. Belbin's nine-role version of the SPI was used, in conjunction with results from team members' colleagues completing observer sheets, Belbin Associates' Interplace IV computer software was used to analyse rhe SPI and observers' scores resulting in the production of a team role ranking for each team member (see Appendix 1). Ideally, results from at least four observer sheets are required tor each team member In some cases, the observers' results were not acceptable owing to a lack of discrimination in their completion. These were returned once to the individual concerned requesting another attempt. Where this also failed or was not forthcoming, the identification of the team role profile was done on the results of rhe SPI and fewer than four observers. Only three teams included members who did not have a full set of observer results. The extent of the shortfall was judged not to affect significantly the overall result. Measures of team role balance. The Interplace IV program uses the results of the analysis of team members' team roles to produce a 'Team Role Combinations Report', This is shown in Fig, 1 as a graph of the scores of t,a) the individuals with the highest team rote scores, and {b) the ream's average score for each team role. The definition of team role balance uses the two measures described above. First, that all individual team roles should score 70 or above, a measure which indicates a 'natural' role (the left hand bars in Fig, 1), Second, that the average team role stores (the right hand bars in Fig. 1) should show no more than a 20 per cent variation one from another. The figure of 20 per cent is arbitrary, but thought to be reasonable given no guidance in any of the literature nor trom Belbin himself on this measure. General team characteristics and stage of team activity. Team members were asked six open-ended questions relating to general characteristics of their teams and the stage of team activity at the point of the research according to the stages identified by Belbin and listed in Table 2. The questions related to: the purpose and tasks of the team; che organizational functions represented by the members; the length ot time the team had existed; the degree ot stability of the team's membership; the

249

Figure 1. Team role combinations report. For each pair of bars, the bar on the left represents the individual with the highest overall score in that team role. The bar on the right represents the team's average score. team's stage of activity; the type of internal and external environment experienced by the ream. Explanations of Beibin's key stages of team activity were given by the researcher to help categorize the teams accordingly. From the answers given, a pen picture of each team was assembled. Presence of team rules appropriate to team's stage of development. A team leader was judged to have team roles relevant to his/her team's particular stage of activity ifthe roles identified in Table 2 matched the strongest roles in the team leader's profile. Where a team was clearly at a single activity stage, a match was measured by the team leader's strongest two team roles matching those required for that activity stage. Where a team was moving between activity stages, a match was measured by the team leader's strongest three roles being amongst che three or four required for those activity stages. In addition, the tliaracceriscics of the desired roles should be amongst the cop four average team role scores, Agam this latter measure is arbitrary, there being no guidance in the literature nor from Belbin himself on this issue. Team performance. Each team member participated in a one-co-one interview with the researcher to use the repertory grid technique chosen to determine each team's performance. The technique, used in this study, required each participant to choose real examples of the following seven elementsa 'good' team, a 'bad' team, an "okay' team, a well acted play, a badly acted play, the team of interest (i.e. the research team), and another team with which the participant was personally involved. The inclusion ot elements such as the well and badly acted play is a recognized part of the technique, the argument being chat elements somewhat different from those of direct interest help che creaciveness of the chinking in che 'compare and contrxst' process discussed below. Participants were then asked to compare and contrast different groups of three elements in terms of their pertormance. By use of this methodknown as che 'triad' methodof comparing elements, each team member identified a range of constructs, all relating to team performance. The method used is suth thac all constructs have two poles allowing the rating of each of the seven elements on each construct, using a six-poinc scale. An exception is that of the firsc ceam involved which rated on a five-point scale. Appendix 2 is an example ot a completed construct and rating sheet for a single team member. The GAP PREFAN program located at the Manchester Computing Centre was used to produce group analyses of che repercory grid data for each team. The program includes a principal component analysis and identifies the loadings of each element and each construct on each principal component. This allows che production of cognitive maps showing the positive or negative positioning of a team in relation to che team per

250 Barbara Senior

formance constructs. It also gives the statistical distances of elements from each ocher, thus allowing judgement of how far or near che ceam of interest is from the examples of a good team, a bad team, an okay team etc. Figure 2 illustrates chis wich data from one of che ceams. The map includes all the seven elements used co elicit the performance constructs. It includes the constructs loading most highly on the top two principal components; typically, 20 on component 1 and 15 on component 2. In no case did the cop two principal componencs account for less than 70 per cent of the variance. Inspection of the map enables the team of interest's (in this case TF) performance to be assessed by observing it in terms of: {a) its positive, borderline or negative position on che map in relation to che ceam performance constructs; {h) its nearness to the good team and co the okay team. In addition, the GAP program gives data on the discance of che team of interest from che bad team. A high performing team would be one which is typically positioned fwsitively with regard co the performance constructs and which is at least 55 per cent nearer than by chance to the good team. A low perform-

MoUvitKl to nulii thU>> hipptn MSkn

Figure 2. Team F cognitive map showing loadings of elements and conscruccs on component 1 (horizontal axis) and component 2 (vertical axis). Note: Distances of elements from each ocher are denoted as follows: 0.70 CO 0.7y {2'y'X nearer chan by chance) 0,60 CO 0,69 (,^5% nearer than by chance) 0.50 to 0,59 (45%' nearer than by chance) ^^=^^ 0.40 to 0.49 (55%: nearer than by chance) ^^^ ^

o elements: GT = good team BT = bad team OKT okay team OT own team WAP - well acced play BAP ^ badly acced play TF Team F ing ceam would be one which is typically positioned negatively on che map and having no association with the good ceam wich probably a near association with the bad ceam.

ffd8ffe000 ffd8ffe0 ffd8ffe00 ffd8ffe0 ffd8ffe0 ffd8ffe0 ffd8ffe0001 ffd8ffe 104a464946 00104a4 0104a4649 00104a4 00104a46 00104a4 04a46494600 000104a 000102010 6494600 460001020 6494600 4946000 6494600 01020100c80 4649460 0c800c8000 0ffe20c584 0102010 100c800c8 0102010 1020100c 0102010 0c80000ffe2 0010201 943435f505 0c800c8 0000ffe20c 0c800c8 800c8000 0c800c80 0c584943435 00c800c 24f46494c4 584943435 0000ffe2 0ffe20c5 000ffe20 f50524f4649 80000ffe Results 0000ffe2 500010100 000c484c69 0c58494 f50524f464 lists che 4c450001010 key stage of activity fot each 0c58494 8494343 c584943 20c5849 Table 3 6e6f021000 team, the 3435f50 94c450001 team roles 0000c484c69 identified by Belbin as being 3435f505 5f50524f 435f5052 43435f5 006d6e7472 particularly 524f464 0100000c4 useful for 6e6f0210000 those stages, and whether {a) the 24f46494 46494c45 4f46494c 0524f46 524742205 team 8595a2007c 94c4500 84c696e6f leaders' c450001 0001010 4500010 06d6e747252 strongest roles matched the ones 494c450 required; ib) the e000200090 overall team average scores 021000006 the ones 4742205859 required as defined in the 0100000 0000c484 100000c 0010100 006003100 matched 0101000 d6e747252 section c484c69 c696e6f0 484c696e 5a2007ce000 above. 000c484 006163737 measures 00c484c 04d534654 474220585 lists the 6e6f0210 2100000 6f021000 2000900060 results of applying the team role c696e6f0 Table 4 696e6f02 000000004 balance 1000006 95a2007ce measures, 0310000616 together with rhe degree of 00006d6 6d6e7472 006d6e7 2100000 945432073 matching d6e7472 Key6d6e747 stage and 000200090 of the e747252 5247422 4725247 373704d534 teams' key stages to {a) the team 524742000 members' of 6540000000 strongest individual role scores Match key stage roles 000000000 5247422 006003100 4742205 058595a2 4220585 2524742 ffd8ffe000104a46494600 Match and to {b) of key stage roles average role scores as defined 000000000 the 01020100c800c80000ffe2 058595a 006163737 above in theassociated team 8595a20 007ce000 95a2007c 0494543207 measures section. Where the 2058595 0000000f6d 0c584943435f50524f4649 to leader's strongest 2007ce0 04d534654 requirement 3524742000 of a measure is met a 'yes' is 07ce000 2000900 e000200 a2007ce 600010000 4c4500010100000c484c69 0000d32d4 0020009 000000004 recorded. 0000000000 Where this is not mer, a 'no' is 2000900 0600310 0900060 to strongest overall team 0002000 6e6f021000006d6e747252 ffd8ffe000104a4649460001 Team 850202000 020100c800c80000ffe20c58 47422058595a2007ce0002 ffd8ffe000104a46494600010 0006003 945432073 recorded. 0000000000 'Nearly' is recorded where the 0600310 0006163 0310000 9000600 000000000 4943435f50524f46494c4500 20100c800c80000ffe20c5849 000900060031000061637 1000061 524742000 measure 00000f6d600 was almost met. The footnotes at 0006163 73704d5 6163737 3100006 000000000 010100000c484c696e6f0210 43435f50524f46494c4500010 3704d5346540000000049 the end of 0100000000 the table indicate the precise 000000000 6373704 000000000 73704d5 3465400 04d5346 1637370 00006d6e747252474220585 100000c484c696e6f02100000 454320735247420000000 meaning of 000000000 the 'nearly' recordings. 95a2007ce000200090006003 6d6e74725247422058595a20 000000000000000000000f d534654 000000000 3465400 0000004 5400000 d32d485020 4d53465 000000000 10000616373704d53465400 07ce00020009000600310000 6d6000100000000d32d48 0000000 0000000f6 0000004 9454320 0004945 2000000000 4000000 000000000 00000049454320735247420 616373704d53465400000000 502020000000000000000 000000000 0494543 d60001000 Table 3. Balance of 9454320 7352474 4320735 0000000000 Team roles marched to team key 0049454 00000000000000000000000 494543207352474200000000 000000000000000000000 000000000 0000f6d6000100000000d32d 00000000000000000000f6d60 stage of 000000000000000000000 2073524 00000d32d 7352474 2000000 2474200 0000000000 ofactivity 3207352 Balance 000000000 48502020000000000000000 00100000000d32d485020200 000000000000000000000 Matching of 7420000 485020200 2000000 0000000 0000000 0000000000 key 4742000 000000000 00000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000011637 Match of key 001163707 0000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000000 stage 0000000 00000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 072740000015000000033 average role scores Predicted 274000001 00000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 646573630000018400000 0000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000000 organization/follow through no 0000000 individuals" 500000003 00000000001163707274000 000000000000000000000116 06c77747074000001f0000 overall ceam 0000000 000000000 0000000 0f6d6000 00000f6d 0000000000 IMPCO/CFIMP ideas/plans yes 0000000 364657363 00150000000336465736300 370727400000150000000336 00014626b707400000204 stage roles Rl/ME SP follow through no nearly* 000001840 000f6d6 000000000 nearly* PL 0000000000 to 0f6d6000 1000000 6000100 0000f6d 0001840000006c777470740 4657363000001840000006c7 000000147258595a00000 roles to strongest 000006c777 CFIMP 00001f000000014626b70740 7747074000001f00000001462 218000000146758595a00 0001000 000000000 D 1000000 00d32d4 000000d 0000000000 on 6000100 performance 470740000 0000204000000147258595a 6b7074000002040000001472 00022c000000146258595a 00000d3 000000000 IMP CO strongest 00d32d4 8502020 32d4850 0000001163 organization nearly* yes IMP CO 000000d 01f0000000 00000218000000146758595 58595a000002180000001467 0000024000000014646d6 role 14626b707 2d48502 000000000 needs/ideas 7072740000 nearly* no SH CO/PL Rl 8502020 0000000 2020000 32d4850 a0000022c00000014625859 58595a0000022c0000001462 e64000002540000007064 leader's strongest 400000204 5a0000024000000014646d6 58595a000002400000001464 6d6464000002c40000008 0200000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0150000000 organization/follow through no nearly* 2020000 overall team 000000147 e640000025400000070646d 6d6e64000002540000007064 8767565640000034c0000 IMP CO/CF 3364657363 of 0000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 the basis IMP 258595a000 6464000002c400000088767 6d6464000002c40000008876 008676696577000003d40 H 002180000 Team0000000 0000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000018400 565640000034c0000008676 7565640000034c0000008676 00000246c756d69000003f 001467585 roles 696577000003d4000000246 696577000003d4000000246c 8000000146d6561730000 0000000 000116370 0000000 0000000 0000000 00006c77747 nearly no PL RI/ME SP 0000000 95a0000022 averages c756d69000003f8000000146 756d69000003f8000000146d6 040c00000024746563680 0000000 727400000 0000000 0000000 0000000 074000001f0 contacr/organization no no Rl 0000000 c000000146 team roles d6561730000040c00000024 561730000040c00000024746 00004300000000c725452 TW/IMP CO average role scores 258595a000 0000000 150000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000001462 plans/organization nearly' nearly ME 0000000 74656368000004300000000 56368000004300000000c725 430000043c0000080c6754 SP/IMP CO 002400000 team balance c725452430000043c000008 452430000043c0000080c675 52430000043c0000080c62 0000000 336465736 K 0000000 0000000 0000000 6b70740000 0000000 0014646d6e B 0c675452430000043c00000 452430000043c0000080c625 5452430000043c0000080c 0000000 300000184 0000000 0000000 0000000 0204000000 0000000 640000025 yes 80c625452430000043c0000 452430000043c0000080c746 7465787400000000436f70 400000070 nearly* 0000000 0000006c7 0000000 0000000 0000000 147258595a0 nearly 0000000 080c7465787400000000436f 5787400000000436f70797269 797269676874202863292 646d64640 yes 70797269676874202863292 676874202863292031393938 031393938204865776c65 0000000 774707400 "Kt-y itajjes as 0000218000 described in Table I, 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00002c4000 nearly' 031393938204865776c6574 204865776c6574742d506163 74742d5061636b6172642 0000000 0001f0000 In these cases, 0001467585 che result was one role shon ot che requirt-cJ 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 000887675 very good 742d5061636b61726420436f 6b61726420436f6d70616e790 0436f6d70616e790000646 number. Key. CF 656400000 0000000 00014626b implemencer; E 0000000 0000000 0000000 95a0000022c = tompleter-finisher; CO =PL = plane; RlIMP = 0000000 ME = monicor evaiuacor; coordinator; = 6d70616e790000646573630 000646573630000000000000 573630000000000000012 34c0000008 yes 00000000000001273524742 012735247422049454336313 735247422049454336313 0000000 707400000 resource 0000000 0001163 0000000 0000001462 invtsii^ator; SH = shapet; SP = specialise; TW = 0000000 676696577 no team worker. 2049454336313936362d322 936362d322e3100000000000 936362d322e3100000000 0000001 204000000 0001163 7072740 1163707 58595a00000 0000000 000003d40 nearly^ e3100000000000000000000 000000000001273524742204 000000000000001273524 00000246c7 1637072 147258595 7072740 0000150 2740000 2400000001 1163707 yes 00127352474220494543363 9454336313936362d322e310 742204945433631393636 56d690000 good 13936362d322e3100000000 000000000000000000000000 2d322e310000000000000 7400000 a00000218 0000150 0000003 0150000 4646d6e6400 2740000 03f8000000 00000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000 J 0150000 1500000 000000146 0000003 3646573 0003364 0002540000 146d65617 00000000000000000000000 00000 00000000000000000000

nearly^ nearly' good yes no no no 252 Barbara Senior Table 4. Predicted team performances using team role balance measures moderate no no "For Team C, eight of che nine coles are at rhe 'nacural' (score of 70 or above) level whilsc the ninth is at che 'able to be assumed' no level. *In these cases the difference becween che hij^hesc and lowesc scocing toles was 25 points rather than the 20 points criteria sec foe a balanced team based on average role scores, I n chese tascs, the result was one role short of che required number. yes moderate C The final column of Table 4 is an assessment, given the information in the previous nearly^ columns, of the likely performance of each team. This was calculated in two stages. First, no by rank ordering the teams according to the greatest number of'yes' counrs, followed by a no mixture of'yes' and 'nearly' counrs descending to the lowest rating for the greatest number nearly* of 'no' counts. The teams are listed in rhis order in the table, from the one with the best moderate performance prediction to rhe one with rhe worst. D This was followed by a more subjective grouping of the teams on a five-point scale of no 'very good', 'good', 'moderate', 'moderate to poor', 'poor'. no nearly^ Table 5 summarizes the results of the repertory grid analyses of each team's performance nearly^ in terms of how near or far (statistically) each team is from the team members' ideas of moderate good, bad and okay teams. It also says, for each ream, whether it was positioned in rhe

H positive or negarive zones of the relevant cognitive maps. The penultimate column makes no an assessment of each team's actual performance. This was done in two steps. First by rank no ordering the teams according to the following process: nearly^
no 1 The teams were grouped according to whether they fell in the positive, negative or moderate borderline positions (with respect to the performance constructs) on the cognitive maps.

2 Within these three categories, the teams were ordered by nearness to the 'good' team. 3 Where tied rankings occurred, the teams were ordered further by distance from the 'bad' team.
to poor no no nearly'^ no moderate

to poor no no no nearly"" moderate

no no no no poor

Table 5. Comparison of perceived actual team performances (using repertory grid results) with performances predicted on the basis of ream balance
Distance from Distance from Distance fromTeam good team bad team okay team J 55% nearer than 25% further than 75% nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in positive zone of cognitive map) E 35% nearer than 25% further than 35% nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in posicive zone of cognitive map) F 25% nearer than 25% further than 25% nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in positive zone of cognitive map) D 25% nearer than no different chan 35%' nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in positive zone of cognitive map) B 259? nearer than no different than 35% nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in positive zone of cognitive map) C 25f^ nearer than no different than 25%' nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positit)ned in positive zone of cognitive map) K no different than 25% further than no different than by chance by chance by chance (Borderline position on cognitive map) H no different rhan no different than 35%'nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in negarive zone of cognitive map) A no different than no different than 25%' nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in negative zone of cognitive map) 1 no different than no different than 25% nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in negative zone of cognitive map) G no different than 25% nearer than 55% nearer than by chance by chance by chance (Positioned in negative zone of cognitive map) Actual perceived performance very good moderate to poor good moderate to poor moderate to poor poor Predicted performance good moderate to poor moderate moderate good good good

moderate

good

very good

moderate

poor

moderate

moderate to poor

moderate to poor moderate

No/t, Teams rank-ordered by perceived actual performance. Rank I indicated (he highest performing; team, rank 11 the lowest performing team.

Barbara Senior 4. Where tied rankings still occurred, teams were further ordered by nearness to the okay team. The teams are listed in this order in the table with the best performing team ranked one and the lowest performing team ranked 11. This step was then followed by subjectively grouping the teams on the 'very good" ro 'poor' five-point scale as was done for the predicted performances. The final column of Table 5 gives the assessment for predicted performance, for comparison with actual performance. Finally, to test the degree of congruence of the rank ordering of predicted team performance with actual team performance, a Spearman's rank order correlation was carried out (see Table 6). The result shows a positive relationship between the two measures which is significant at the /> < . 10 level. Table 6. Comparison of predicted team performance with actual team performance Rank order of predicted Rank order of actual Team performance performance
A 4.5 9-5 B 1 4.5 C 6.5 6 D 6.5 4.5 E2 2 F8 3 G8 U H8

8 I 9.5

n
1

J 3 K 4.5 7
Ntite. Correlation significant at clie p < ,10 level, rwo-cailed,

Discusson The aims of this research were to evaluate Belbin's team role theories in the context of a range of management reams working within the public and private sectors. One of the issues explored was the idea that a team should be balanced in terms of members' team roles (both individually and averaged across the team) in order for the team to be effective and high performing. In addition, importance was attached to the stage of activity of the team and strength in the recommended ream roles for that stage sought. From the results relating to balance and the fit between stage of activity and leaders' and overall team average roles, predictions were made as to the likelihood of each team being high or low performing. These predictions were then compared ro the collective judgments of the team members, themselves, as to the actual performance of their teams. From the results reported above, four out of the 11 teams' actual performance confirmed the predicted performance when the five-point 'very good' to 'poor' scale was used. The predictions for six of the remaining seven teams were within one point of rhe actual performance on the five-point scale. Only one team showed a two pomr difference. Finally, a positive correlation {p < .10) was found between the rank ordering of the teams according to their predicted performances and the rank ordering of the teams according to their actual performances. These findings give some support ro Belbin's team role theories which associate team balance with team performance. The issue of measuring team balance was addressed. In predicting the performance of the teams, it is usual to rely on one measure of team balance onlyhow many team roles are represented in individual team members' profiles at a score of 70 or above. This measure, whether derived from the use of the SPI

only or combined SPI and observer results, does not appear to act as a good predictor (Senior, 1996/;). Therefore, the inclusion of other, albeit more arbitrary measures to help the prediction, is justified.

An argument could be made that there was a degree of researcher judgment in allocating teams to different key stages and the use of the five-point 'very good' to 'poor' scale. However, not all measures can be easily quantified. What is more, relying only on those measures which can be objectively quantified unnecessarily restricts rhe study and leads to somewhat impoverished results. The study has thrown up a number of issues. First, with 11 reams, it was difficult to controt for other factors such as team purpose, status differences amongst team members, individual members' intelligence and skills, and those factors mentioned at the beginning of the papere.g. organizational structure, motivation and degree of autonomy, which could affect team performance regardless of the presence or absence of team roles. However, all of the teams appeared to be able to organize rheir own work and had powers of decision making over how they operated and, in some cases, over policy as well. In no case was there any reason ro believe thar status differentials between team members (where they existed) affected individuals' ability to contribute to their team's operation. Second, a sample of 11 teams is not large and it would have been useful to have had additional teams from the private sector. Third, whereas all the teams investigated thought of themselves as teams, there were clear differences in the degree of interaction between members in pursuit of ream goals. It should be remembered that the majority of the teams were what could loosely be termed 'management" teams who only came together at intervals, rather than teams who worked together all the time. Consequently, a large number of ream performance constructs elicited through rhe repertory grid process described team processes rather than team goals and outcomes. This is not to say the latter were absent, merely fewer in number. Fourth, it would have been useful to obtain a more rigorous understanding of each team's stage of development and activity. However, working with real teams puts constraints on how much members can be asked to do. As it was, each person gave up at least one and a half hours of time to work with the researcher. Future research could well improve this aspect of the investigation. Finally, the concept of a balanced team was operationalized to have a particular meaning in quantifiable terms. Ultimately, a team might be considered balanced if some team roles are only at the 'able to be assumed' (see Table 1) level and even if one or more is absentifthe circumstances in which the team is operating allow this without detriment ro rhe team's performance. Team F illustrates a situation where the predicted performance

256 Barbara Senior was low yet Its members perceived the team to be effective in performance. This team had only four members and worked in a fairly closed environment. The weakest individual roles were monitor evaluator, plant and resource investigator. The plant and resource investigator roles are both associated with 'having ideas' and finding things out. The monitor evaluator is rhe intelligent checker of details and evaluator of options. In the environment in which this team worked, it is probable that bright ideas were not required in the regulated day to day work they had to do. Without further investigation, it is difficult to say whether the weak monitor evaluator role would be detrimental to the teams' performance, but on current knowledge, it is suspected not. Despite these limitations, the study has several major strengths. Primarily, the use of real teams in real organizations. The research goes beyond previous evaluations of ream role theories which are anecdotal in nature and frequently done by consultants or trainers who may have a vested interest in the results. As a result of using a repertory grid method for measuring team performance, there now exist around 650 constructs which team members have offered as descriptors of team performance. The possibility exists of distilling these into a validated questionnaire which can be used to measure team performance. Such a questionnaire would cut down the time spent interviewing team members and allow a greater number of teams to be surveyed. This study has concentrated on one of the most commonly used ream role frameworks (Belbin). Whilst there is a need to continue to test this framework in order to produce increased reliability for the results reported here, more studies are needed to evaluate other theories of team roles, with the outcome of debating the notion of team roles itself. Acknowledgements
The auchor would like co chank che members of all che ceams who cook pare in chis research. Everyone ,^ freely and uncomplainingly of cheir cime. Parcicularly pleasing has been che incecesc shown by che ceams in the resulcs of the research. Graceful chanks go also co Nene College for supporcing che research and Sandy McDonald for her extensive help wich daca colleccion and her encouragemenc chroughouc che period of che research. The commencs of my colleague Scephen Swailes have been helpful in arriving ac che tinal version of this paper.

References
Belbin Associates, interplace IV Human Resource Management System User's Manual. Cambricige, Belbin, R. M. (19H1). Management Teann: Why They Succeed or Fail. London; Heinemann, Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Buccerworth-Heinemann, Brown, D. I. (1995), Team-based reward plans. Team Performance Management. 1, 23-31. Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1966). The Management of Innot-ation. London: Taviscock Cohen, S, G. & Ledford, G. E, Jr (1994), The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experimenc. Human Relations. 47, 13-43. Conjer, J. A. (1993), Leadership: The art of empowering others. In J, R, Gordon (Ed,), A Diagnostic Approach to Organizational Behavior, pp. 420428, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Davis, J.. Millburn, P,, Murphy, T-& Woodhouse, M. (1992). Successful Team Building. How to Create Teams that Really Work. London: Kogan Page, Drucker, P. F. (19H8). The coming of the new organiziicion. Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb, pp, 45-53, Dulewicz, V, (1995), A validacion of Belbin's ceam roles from 1 6PF and OPQ using bosses' ratings of com petence, _/oarKij/ of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 68, 1-18, Evenden, R. & Anderson, G. (1992). Making the Most of People. Cambridge, MA; Addison-Wesley.

Furnham, A,, Sceele, H, & Pendlecon, D. (1993). A psychomecrit assessmenc of the Belbin Team-Role SelfPerception Xnwentoty. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 66, 245-257. Galpin, T, (1994), How co manage human performance. Employment Relations Today. Summer, 207225. Herzberg, F. W, (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review. 46, 53-62, Katzenbach, J, R. & Smich, K, (1991), The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Revieu: MarchApril, 111-120. King, D. (1988). Team excellence. Management Solutions. October, 25-28, Likert, R, (1961), New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, McClelland, D, C. (1988). Human Motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge Universicy Press. Margerison, C. & McCann, D. (1990). Team Management. London: W. H. Allen. Maslow, A, H. (1943), A theory of human motivation. Psychological Revieu: 50, 370396. Morgan, G, (1993), Imaginization: The Art oj Creative Management. London: Sage, Moss-Kanter, E, (1993). Power failure in managemenc circuics. In D, S, Pugh (Ed,), Organisation Theory: Selected Readings. London: Penguin, Parker, G. M. (1990). Team Players and Teamwork: The New Competitive Business Strategy. Oxford: Jossey-Bass, Parkinson, R. (1995), A silk purse out of a sow's ear. Organisations and People. 2, 22 25. Prince, G. (1989), Recognismg genuine teamwork. Supervisory Management, April, 25-31, Roechlisberger, F, J, & Dickson, W, J. (1964). Management and the Worker. New York: Wiley, Senior, B, (1996^), Team performance: Using repercory grid technique to gain a view from che inside. Journal
of Managerial Psychology. 11, issue 3,

Senior, B, (1996i), Team roles and ceam building: Self-perception is no basis on which to build a ceam. Iconoclastic Papers. 1(1), December, Internet address: hctp://www,solent.ac,uk/busmgmt/iconcM;lastic/ mdex,htm! Smith, P, B,, Peterson, M, F, & Misumi, J, (1994). Event management and work ceam effectiveness in Japan, Britain and USA. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, (si., 33-^,^ Spencer, J, & Pruss, A. (1992), Managing Your Team. London: Piatkus. Stewart, V, & Stewart, A, (1981), Business Applications of Repertory Grid. London: McGraw-Hill, Swailes, S, & Senior, B. (1996), Team role and learning scyle: A correlacional study. Nene College School of Management Working Paper. Norchampton: Nene College of Higher Education, Taylor, F, W, (1947), Scientifk Management. New York: Harper & Row, Tjosvold, D. (1991), Team Organization. An Enduring Competitive Advantage. Chichester: Wiley. Weber, M. (1964), The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. New York: Collier Macmiltan. Woodcock, M, (1989), Team Development Manual. 2nd ed, Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Received 2 November 1994: final version received 16 April 1996

Appendix 1 Assessment results in ranked order

Candidate: Date: Team roles Assessment 1 234 56 7 89 Self perception MF CF IMP PL SH TW Rl CO SP Observer A SH CF ME Rl SP TW PL IMP CO Observer B CF SH ME SP TW Rl PL IMP CO Observer C SH CF IMP CO Rl TW ME PL SP Observer D PL CO SH SP CF TW ME Rl IMP Overall ranking SH CF ME PL TW Rl IMP CO SP

Barbara Senior Appendix 2 Elements scored on each construct: A single team member's results
Elements Scale I GT BT OKT WAP BAP T2 1DWN(T) Scale 6 Clear objeccives 2 5 4 2 4 3 4 Unclear objeccives Positive link becween 2 6 4 1 5 2 1 No link/negative individual differences link between and ceam objeccives individual differences and ceam objeccives Many curf issues 6 2 4 4 3 5 4 Few curf issues Lot of openness and trusc 3 6 2 2 6 1 2 Secrecy and scepcicism Very process aware 3 3 2 2 3 1 4 Very cask awate Unclear roles and 5 4 3 5 1 4 3 Clear roles and responsibilities responsibilities Good individual 1 3 5 3 3 2 3 Bad individual performances performances Locs of ciienc feedback 1 4 5 2 2 5 4 Lictle client feedback Good skills misc. 2

4 2 2 5 2 2 Insufficienc skills
a mongsc members Inadequate communicacions 3 1 4 6 i 4 3 Good communicacions between team and others becween ceam and ochers Thorough planning 4 6 4 1 6 3 2 Ad hoc operacional operationally planning Supporcive ceam leader 1 5 2 5 3 3 Inflexible leadership style Gcx>d idea generation 2 3 3 4 5 2 2 Poor idea generation Has a lot of fun 1 5 3 2 5 4 5 Takes it all too seriously Conscruccive conflicc 3 6 3 2 5 2 3 Descruccive conflicc managemenc management Good prioricy secting 3 6 4 2 4 3 2 No idea of priorities
For each characceriscit, giveeath t-lemenc a score between 1 and (i. The left hand end of each stale scores 1, che rijrhc hand end scorts 6. Key. GT = ^ood teamjBT = bad ceam; OKT = okay team; WAP - well acted play; BAP = badly atred play;T2 = ceam of inceresc (rtsearch team); OWN(T) = addiciotial ceam.