research findings
Tony Manning, Richard Parker and Graham Pogson
Introduction
Meredith Belbin’s team role theory (Belbin, 1981) retains its popularity as a theory of team
working, particularly in the fields of management training and development, and his
Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) is used extensively in the UK in a variety of
applied settings, including selecting, counselling and developing management teams
DOI 10.1108/00197850610685590 VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006, pp. 287-296, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 287
(Hogg, 1990). However, as Furnham (2005) points out, this instrument has received
comparatively little psychometric assessment or validation and concludes that:
It is both interesting and annoying to academics to find that both consultants and clients seem
uninterested and disinterested in validating theories and measures upon which they often make
enormously important decisions. Even more perplexing is the fact that once measures have been
shown to be seriously wanting, it has little or no effect on the popular use and retention of the
measure.
This article is a response to some of the criticisms of Belbin’s team role theory and his Team
Role Self-Perception Inventory. It builds on an earlier article by one of the authors (Manning,
1997) in which it is argued that, while team role theory does offer a useful but limited model
for exploring team composition, there is a need for both a re-definition of the concept of a
team role and an adequate framework for actually describing personality. It describes a
concept of team role with a significant social dimension. This recognises the importance of
social learning and relates this to the roles that people habitually play in teams, the autonomy
provided by such roles and their commitment to them. It also advocates the use of the ‘‘Big
Five’’ model for describing individual differences in personality.
The earlier article (Manning, 1997) acknowledged some of the major problems with the
BTRSPI. It then went on to briefly describe a variety of new measures, developed by the
author and Richard Parker of Daedal Training, designed to overcome these problems. These
included: self-assessment and peer rating questionnaires (without forced-choice scoring)
looking at the ways individuals habitually behave in teams, with results expressed in team
role terms; a questionnaire to explore the social dimension more fully, including role
expectations, autonomy and commitment; self-assessment and peer rating adjective
checklists to provide scores on the ‘‘Big Five’’ personality factors. These measures are
briefly described in the Appendix.
In the period since 1997, the authors have used the above measures to collect data from
individuals working in actual teams, in a variety of different contexts, who participated in
training and development activities, including team development activities, put on by the
authors. This article outlines the revised team role model and presents findings that lend
support to the model itself, as well as the associated measures. Two important conclusions
emerge from this. First, that the ‘‘Big Five’’ model does provide a useful framework for
exploring the relationship between personality and team roles. Second, that when exploring
team roles, there should be less focus on the constraining influence of personality and more
focus on team roles as learned social roles.
j j
PAGE 288 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006
an individual’s behaviour in such a role is also likely to depend on both the autonomy that
they have in that role and their commitment to it. This is not, of course, to deny that an
individual’s personality characteristics may influence how he or she behaves in a particular
role but simply to emphasise that roles, including team roles, are essentially social. This
re-defined concept of a team role is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between an individual’s team role behaviour (i.e. their
habitual way of behaving in a particular team) and three sets of factors, namely, their
personality, the expectations of that role and their orientation to it. These three sets of factors
are described briefly below and are followed by research findings on their observed
relationship to team role behaviour. These findings lend support to the model itself and to the
usefulness of the various measures.
j j
VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 289
3. Conscientiousness. This is about the number of goals that an individual pursues and the
extent to which they pursue them in a focused way. The two extremes are the
spontaneous individual, who pursues many goals but in an unfocused way, and the
conscientious individual, who pursues fewer goals but does so in a more focused,
controlled and structured way.
4. Anxiety. This is about the way in which people respond to the stresses and pressures of
life. At the two extremes are the stable individual, who is emotionally resilient, and the
anxious individual, who is emotionally reactive.
5. Openness. This is about a person’s openness to new experiences and is manifested in
such things as an individual’s breadth of interests, level of creativity and intellectual
qualities. At the two extremes are the conventional individual, who is relatively closed to
new experiences, and the open individual, who is relatively open to such experiences.
Table I summarises the relationships found between self-assessed ratings of the above five
personality dimensions and ratings of team role behaviour. Table I(a) looks at the relationship
between personality dimensions and self-assessments of team role behaviour, while
Table 1(b) looks at the relationships between personality dimensions and peer ratings of
team role behaviour. The strongest observed relationships between personality traits and
both self-assessments and peer ratings of team role behaviour are summarised briefly
below, in order of the strength of the relationship:
1. Extroversion
B Extroverted individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role scales:
Shaper, Resource Investigator and Co-ordinator.
B Introverted individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role scales:
Specialist, Completer Finisher, Monitor Evaluator and Plant (Innovator).
2. Tender-mindedness (agreeableness)
B Tender-minded individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role
scales: Team Worker (Supporter), Co-ordinator, Implementer and Team Player.
j j
PAGE 290 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006
B Tough-minded individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role
scales: Specialist, Monitor Evaluator and Plant (Innovator).
3. Conscientiousness
B Conscientious individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role
scales: Implementer, Completer Finisher and Co-ordinator.
B Spontaneous individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role scales:
Resource Investigator, Plant (Innovator) and Monitor Evaluator.
4. Anxiety
B Anxious individuals tended to have high scores on the Plant team role scale.
B Stable individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role scales:
Co-ordinator, Implementer, Team Player and Team Worker (Supporter).
5. Openness
B Open individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role scales: Plant
(Innovator), Shaper, Resource Investigator and Monitor Evaluator.
B Conventional individuals tended to have high scores on the following team role scales:
Implementer and Completer Finisher.
These findings suggest that there does appear to be a relationship between an individual’s
behaviour in their team, expressed in team role terms, and their personality attributes. This
lends support to Belbin’s assertion that there is such a link and expresses this clearly and
consistently in terms of the ‘‘Big Five’’ factor model of personality. It is, moreover, broadly in
line with previous research using a different measure of the ‘‘Big Five’’ factors (Broucek and
Randell, 1996; Feltham et al., 2003).
j j
VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 291
1. Overall responsibility. This appears to relate to the overall level of responsibility
associated with a given job, particularly the responsibility for managing or leading others,
and is likely to indicate an individual’s position in their organisational hierarchy. This
ranges from positions that have relatively low levels of overall responsibility, to positions
that have relatively high levels of responsibility, particularly for leading or managing
others.
2. Generalist versus specialist. This appears to relate to the extent to which an individual is
either a generalist, and achieves results through interpersonal relationships at all levels,
or is a specialist, and achieves results through the use of specialist or technical
knowledge and skills, including skills in problem solving.
3. Completer versus investigator. This appears to relate to the extent to which an individual’s
role is that of a completer, with the focus on completing practical details, or that of an
investigator, with the focus on investigating wider possibilities.
4. Implementer versus innovator. This appears to be related to whether an individual’s role is
that of an implementer, with the emphasis on organising and implementing tasks, or with
that of an innovator, where the emphasis on stimulating innovation.
Clear and broadly consistent relationships were found between these four dimensions of
team role expectations and both self and other-assessed team role behaviours. Table III
reports these relationships. Table III(a) looks at the relationships between role expectations
and self-assessed team role behaviours, while Table III(b) looks at the relationships between
expectations and other-assessed team role behaviours. The main conclusions are
summarised below:
1. Overall responsibility
B Individuals with relatively low levels of overall responsibility tend to have lower scores
across the entire range of team roles, particularly the three ‘‘leadership’’ roles, namely,
Co-ordinator, Shaper and Team Player.
Table III Correlation matrices for team role expectations and team roles
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Notes: factor 1: overall responsibility (low to high); factor 2: generalist versus specialist; factor 3:
completer versus investigator; factor 4: implementer versus innovator
j j
PAGE 292 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006
B Conversely, individuals with relatively high levels of overall responsibility tend to have
higher scores across the entire range of team roles, although the relationship is
strongest for the three ‘‘leadership’’ roles.
2. Generalist versus specialist
B Individuals playing more generalist roles tend to have higher scores on the more
‘‘people-oriented’’ team roles, namely Co-ordinator, Team Player, Team Worker and
Resource Investigator.
B In contrast, those playing more specialist roles tend to have higher scores on the
Specialist team role, as well as the ‘‘problem-solving’’ roles, namely Plant and Monitor
Evaluator.
3. Completer versus investigator
B Individuals playing completer roles tend to have higher scores on the Completer
Finisher and Implementer team roles.
B Individuals playing investigator roles tend to have higher scores on the Resource
Investigator team role.
4. Implementer versus innovator
B Individuals playing implementer work roles tend to have relatively high scores on the
Implementer team role.
B Individuals playing innovator work roles tend to have relatively high scores on Plant
(Innovator), Resource Investigator, Shaper, Monitor Evaluator and Specialist team roles.
j j
VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 293
Table IV Correlation matrices for autonomy, commitment and team roles
Autonomy Commitment
Notes: factor 1: overall responsibility (low to high); factor 2. generalist versus specialist; factor 3.
completer versus investigator; factor 4: implementer versus innovator; n ¼ 119
personality. Contextual factors appear to play a part in behaviour associated with all team
roles, although they play a particularly important part in behaviour associated with the
Co-ordinator, Team Player, Shaper and Specialist team roles.
Conclusions
This article has developed the ideas on team role theory contained in an earlier article by one
of the authors, and presented findings to support such ideas, using research instruments
designed to overcome some of the weaknesses identified in the instruments developed by
Belbin. In particular, it has argued that, while team role theory offers us important insights
into the relationship between team composition and team effectiveness, it has two areas of
weakness, namely, its conceptions of team role and personality.
A concept of team role with a significant social dimension has been described. This
recognises the importance of social learning and relates this to the roles that people
habitually play in teams and what is expected of them in such roles, the autonomy provided
by such roles and their commitment to them.
It has also advocated the use of the ‘‘Big Five’’ model of personality, a model that is well
rooted in theory and research, and indicated that adjective checklists can provide useful
ways of measuring these five sets of traits.
j j
PAGE 294 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006
Finally, it has confirmed the view that, when looking at an individual’s team role behaviour,
there should be less focus on the constraining influence of personality and more attention
given to playing learned roles, particularly in relation to leadership and specialist roles within
teams. In consequence, attempts to improve team effectiveness should focus more on
training and development activities, particularly those that address leadership, problem
solving, work planning and interpersonal skills, as well as specialist knowledge and skills
appropriate to the specific team. Moreover, relatively less attention should be focused on the
areas emphasised by Belbin, namely, assessment, selection, placement and guidance.
References
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1993), ‘‘Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between the big five
personality dimensions and job performance’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 111-8.
Belbin, R.M. (1981), Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Hogg, C. (1990), Team building, Personnel Management Fact Sheet Series, No. 34.
Manning, T. (1997), ‘‘Team work, team roles and personality’’, Quality of Working Life News and
Abstracts, Vol. 129, Winter.
Norman, W.D. (1963), ‘‘Towards an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated structure in
peer nomination personality ratings’’, Journal of Personality and Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 6,
pp. 574-83.
Trapnell, P.D. and Wiggins, J.S. (1990), ‘‘Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the
Big Five dimensions of personality’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 781-90.
j j
VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 295
2. Work orientation questionnaire
This questionnaire was completed by the individual and looked at three sets of factors, apart
from the individual’s personal qualities, that might affect their behaviour in their team at work,
namely:
B Expectations i.e. what others, particularly their line manager, expected of them in their
job. There were 10 scales, corresponding to the 10 team roles mentioned above, with
each scale made up of the three items used in the Team Role questionnaire to
characterise the contribution associated with the specific role, rated on a five-point
Likert-type scale from ‘‘extremely important’’ to extremely unimportant’’.
B Autonomy i.e. the extent to which the individual is in a position to choose how they set
about their job or is constrained by rules, procedures and the like. This consisted of 12
statements rated on a five-point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly
disagree’’, with six statements scored in one direction and the other six in the opposite
direction.
B Commitment i.e. the extent to which the individual identifies with the aims and practices of
their job, the team and organisation, and displays a positive or negative orientation to it.
This also consisted of 12 statements rated on a five-point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly
agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’, with six statements scored in one direction and the other
six in the opposite direction.
j j
PAGE 296 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 6 2006