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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP
21,7 Interpersonal characteristics
associated with different team
roles in work groups
638
Martin F. Davies and Eleftheria Kanaki
Goldsmiths University of London, London, UK
Received January 2006
Revised May 2006
Accepted May 2006
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate interpersonal characteristics associated with
Belbin’s team roles in work groups.
Design/methodology/approach – The SYMLOG Interpersonal Effectiveness Profile
(an interpersonal measure of personality), the EPQ (an intrapsychic measure of personality)
and a revised version of Belbin’s behavioural checklist measure of team roles were administered
to 145 UK managers.
Findings – Canonical correlation analysis showed that SYMLOG personality dimensions were much
more clearly and strongly related to team roles than were EPQ personality dimensions. The dominance
(upward) SYMLOG dimension was positively associated with the roles of implementer, coordinator
and resource investigator, and this was the most important canonical variate. The accepting authority
(forward) SYMLOG dimension was positively associated with the roles of completer finisher, monitor
evaluator and negatively associated with plant and shaper, and this was the next most important
canonical variate. The friendly (positive) SYMLOG dimension was positively associated with the roles
of team worker and plant and this was the least important canonical variate. Only the extraversion
dimension of the EPQ was clearly associated with team roles (implementer, coordinator, resource
investigator and team worker).
Research limitations/implications – The present findings are too dependent on self-report
questionnaires which are prone to biases such as positivity, leniency and halo effects. Research using
observational analysis of behaviour in groups would be useful for extending the present findings.
Practical implications – Organizations might improve the functioning of their teams by analysing
the sorts of interpersonal characteristics that are duplicated or lacking in their personnel so that a
balanced mix of personalities can be established across different roles.
Originality/value – There has been little research on the interpersonal as opposed to the
intrapsychic personality characteristics of different social roles in small groups.
Keywords Personality, Team working, Group work
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 21 No. 7, 2006
pp. 638-650
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940610690187
In any group there is differentiation between the group members in terms of the functions
they perform (for a review, see Hare, 1994). These different functions constitute the roles of
the group members whether they be formal (such as chairperson or secretary) or informal
(such as facilitator or joker). Although a great deal has been written about social roles
(Biddle, 1979; Mills, 1984), little research of an empirical nature has been carried out into
the different types of roles in small groups. Most research on roles has come either from
sociologically-oriented psychologists (Heiss, 1981; Stryker and Statham, 1985) who focus
on theoretical accounts of roles or from management psychologists who tend to rely on
descriptive case studies (Adair, 1986; Handy, 1985). Even social psychologists have tended
to concentrate almost exclusively on just one role in the group – the leader. Although the
leader is the single most influential member of a group, the collective influence of the Team roles in
remaining members can easily exceed the leader’s influence (for a review, see Hare and work groups
Kent, 1994). One exception to this is work based on Belbin’s team-role model (for recent
examples, see Fisher et al., 1998, 2000, 2002).
Belbin (1981, 1993) argued that an individual member of a group usually adopts a
specific way of interacting with other members. Some behaviours are either favoured or
resisted by individuals, who choose particular roles according to their natural disposition. 639
Individuals find it easier to play a role that fits their personality characteristics and this
results in effective participation within a group. According to Belbin, the useful people to
have in teams are those who possess the strengths or characteristics which serve a
particular need without duplicating those already there. What is needed for effective teams
is not well-balanced individuals but individuals who balance well with one another. In this
way, weaknesses can be compensated and strengths used to full advantage.
Belbin has carried out extensive studies of work groups in applied settings and he
proposed that the right balance of attributes and skills in a group is crucial to effective
team working. For example, one member might possess an eye for detail, whereas
another member might bring planning or ideas to the group. Based on development,
selection and training experiences with management teams, Belbin concluded that
eight types of role are important for effective teams. These eight team roles are:
(1) Implementer. Disciplined, reliable, conservative, efficient; turns ideas into
practical action; adheres to the orthodox and proven; obstructs change.
(2) Coordinator. Mature, confident, a good chairperson; clarifies goals and promotes
decision-making; delegates well; inclined to be lazy; takes credit for effort of a team.
(3) Shaper. Dynamic, challenging, thrives on pressure; has the drive and courage to
overcome obstacles; prone to frustration and irritation; inability to recover
situation with good humour or apology.
(4) Plant. Creative, imaginative, unorthodox; solves difficult problems; preoccupied
with ideas and neglects practical matters; strong ownership of ideas.
(5) Resource investigator. Extravert, enthusiastic, communicative; explores
opportunities; develops contacts; loses enthusiasm once initial excitement has
passed.
(6) Monitor evaluator. Sober, strategic, discerning; sees all options, judges
accurately; scepticism with logic, cynicism without logic.
(7) Team worker. Co-operative, mild, perceptive, diplomatic; listens, builds and
averts friction, calms the waters; indecisive on crucial issues; avoids situations
that may entail pressure.
(8) Completer finisher. Painstaking, conscientious, anxious; searches out errors and
omissions; delivers on time; perfectionist; obsessional.

The theoretical bases of Belbin’s team role model can be traced to two classical
organizational theories. First is bureaucratic theory developed by Max Weber where
the need for specialization in an organization is matched to particular job competences
and responsibilities. Thus, for example, the need to process work in an orderly fashion
and ensure its accomplishment fits with the roles of coordinator, implementer and
completer finisher. The second major theoretical strand derives from the human
JMP relations approach where good interpersonal relationships are important in
21,7 organizational functioning. Thus, for example, the role of team worker serves to
ensure positive relations and morale within the team by listening to others, averting
friction and calming the waters. These two major ideas of organizational theory are
epitomized in the distinction between task- and relationship-oriented roles in groups
(Benne and Sheats, 1948; Slater, 1955), a distinction which has recently been confirmed
640 in an analysis of Belbin’s team roles (Fisher et al., 1998).
Recent research has investigated Belbin’s team roles in the context of the Big-five
model of personality structure (Broucek and Randell, 1996; Fisher et al., 2001). The
Big-five model consists of five dimensions of personality: neuroticism, extraversion,
openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Costa and McCrae,
1992). The findings of Broucek and Randell (1996) and Fisher et al. (2001) produced
somewhat inconsistent and mixed results in that the different team roles did not show
the predicted distinct patterns of correlations with the Big-five dimensions. For
example, the roles of coordinator, implementer, completer finisher and monitor
evaluator had similar patterns of correlations with the Big-five dimensions.
These mixed results may not be altogether surprising, however, because the
Big-five personality model is based on analysis of the general domain of natural
language rather than on the specific domain of interpersonal/group settings, and it is
known that Big-five ratings of general self-images differ from self-perceptions based on
particular social roles (Donahue and Harary, 1998). In assessing the personality
characteristics of Belbin’s team roles, therefore, it would be more appropriate to use a
scheme derived from the analysis of social interaction in groups.
Although a number of schemes have been devised for analysing group behaviour
(for reviews, see Davies, 1996; Hare and Davies, 1994), a significant development in small
group research is SYMLOG – the SYstematic Multiple Level Observation of Groups
(Bales, 1999; Bales and Cohen, 1979; Hare and Hare, 1996). This system is a comprehensive
integration of findings originally based on observations of actual social interaction in
groups (Bales, 1950). In the SYMLOG system, three independent dimensions have been
identified as underlying most interpersonal and group behaviour: upward-downward
(dominant vs submissive), positive-negative (friendly vs unfriendly), and
forward-backward (accepting authority vs not accepting authority). People who score
as “Upward” are dominant, assertive and outgoing. They participate a great deal in group
interactions, influence group decisions and lead group activities. People who score as
“Positive” are sociable and affiliative. Their interactions with others are cooperative, warm
and friendly and this produces high morale and cohesiveness in the group. People who
score as “Forward” are accepting of authority and tend to behave in expected and
predictable ways, thus preserving the equilibrium of the group. People who score as
“Downward” “Negative” or “Backward” have characteristics opposite to those described.
According to SYMLOG, to be an effective team member, a person should score as upward,
positive and forward. People who score as downward, negative and backward are not
effective team members. The SYMLOG scheme has been extensively validated in both
experimental and applied settings (Bales, 1999; Hare et al., 2004).
The following study examined the relationships between SYMLOG personality
dimensions and Belbin team roles. Based on a comparative analysis of Belbin’s
descriptions of different team roles and SYMLOG personality dimensions (Table I), the
following predictions were made:
 Team roles in
SYMLOG dimension Marker traits
work groups
U Dominant
UP Sociable
UPF Persuasive
UF Managerial
UNF Moralistic 641
UN Tough
UNB Rebellious
UB Funny
UPB Warm
P Equalitarian
PF Cooperative
F Task-oriented
NF Persistent
N Selfish
NB Cynical
B Unpredictable
PB Likeable
DP Trustful
DPF Responsible
DF Obedient
DNF Self-sacrificing
DN Resentful
DNB Withdrawn
DB Indecisive
DPB Contented
D Silent
Notes: U ¼ upward; D ¼ downward. Scores on the upward-downward dimension are obtained by
subtracting ratings on the D traits from ratings on the U traits. P ¼ positive; N ¼ negative. Ratings on Table I.
the positive-negative dimension are obtained by subtracting ratings on the N traits from ratings on the SYMLOG personality
P traits. F ¼ forward; B ¼ backward. Ratings on the forward-backward dimension are obtained by dimensions and marker
subtracting ratings on the B traits from ratings on the F traits traits

. The upward-downward (dominant-submissive) SYMLOG dimension would be

associated with the roles of resource investigator (“extravert” “enthusiastic”),
coordinator (“confident” “promotes decision-making”), shaper (“dynamic”
“challenging”), and implementer (“efficient” “turns ideas into practical action”).
. The positive-negative (friendly-unfriendly) SYMLOG dimension would be
associated with the roles of resource investigator (“communicative” “develops
contacts”), team worker (“cooperative” “mild”), and coordinator (“confident”
“trusting”).
.
The forward-backward (accepting-not accepting authority) SYMLOG dimension
would be associated with the roles of plant (“solves difficult problems”), shaper
(“dynamic” “has the drive to overcome obstacles”), coordinator (“clarifies goals”
“promotes decision-making”), monitor evaluator (“strategic”), implementer
(“turns ideas into practical action”), and completer finisher (“painstaking”
“delivers on time”).
JMP As a comparison, relationships between team roles and a well-known and well-validated
21,7 measure of personality – the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ: Eysenck and
Eysenck, 1991) – were also investigated. The EPQ was included because, like SYMLOG,
it consists of three main dimensions (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism).
Unlike SYMLOG, which was based on analyses of individual differences in
interpersonal/group domains, the EPQ was derived from analyses of individual
642 differences in intrapsychic domains. It was expected, therefore, that the EPQ dimensions
would not correlate as strongly with team roles as SYMLOG dimensions. Based on
previous findings using the Big-five personality dimensions, it was expected that:
. Extraversion would be positively correlated with the roles of coordinator
(confident, delegates well), shaper (dynamic), resource investigator (extravert,
enthusiastic) and team worker (cooperative, social), but negatively correlated
with the role of plant (preoccupied with ideas, tackles problems on own).
.
Neuroticism was expected to correlate positively with the roles of shaper (prone
to frustration and irritation) and completer finisher (anxious, perfectionist,
obsessional), but negatively with the roles of implementer (efficient, organized),
and coordinator (mature, confident).
.
Predictions with regard to psychoticism were less clear-cut because there is no
single Big-five dimension with which it corresponds. However, McCrae and
Costa (1985) found that agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly
correlated with low psychoticism. Therefore, it was predicted that psychoticism
would be negatively correlated with the roles of implementer (disciplined,
reliable), coordinator (mature, trusting), monitor evaluator (sober, strategic,
discerning), team worker (cooperative, mild, perceptive, diplomatic) and
completer finisher (conscientious).

Method
Participants
Participants were middle managers from administration, human resources (personnel)
and information systems departments of large UK public sector and private service
organizations. Heads of departments were contacted for the selection of potential
recruits who regularly worked in teams and for the distribution and collection of
questionnaires. A total of 145 participants (91 men, 54 women) provided data for the
study at their place of work. The age range of the participants was 28-58 years.

Materials
Self-report questionnaires were used to collect data on SYMLOG and EPQ personality
dimensions whereas peer ratings were obtained for Belbin team roles. The reason for
using peer ratings was that previous research had found poor reliability and poor
convergent and discriminant validity for Belbin’s self-perception inventory (Broucek
and Randell, 1996; Fisher et al., 1996; Furnham et al., 1993). The SYMLOG
Interpersonal Effectiveness Profile (Bales and Cohen, 1979) assesses how a person
expects to be seen by others in their team. Individuals rate how they expect to be
judged by other members of their team on 26 traits (Table I) representing combinations
of all three SYMLOG dimensions using nine-point rating scales (rarely – 1, 2, 3;
sometimes – 4, 5, 6; often – 7, 8, 9).
 The EPQ-R (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1991) is a self-report questionnaire consisting of Team roles in
100 questions to which participants respond yes or no. A revised version of Belbin’s work groups
behavioural checklist (Fisher et al., 2001) was completed by other group members to assess
the different team roles. The peer-rating questionnaire requires participants to rate a given
group member on the characteristics shown in Table II using a nine-point scale ranging
from “not at all descriptive of this person” to “extremely descriptive of this person”. For
each person rated, the average scores given by other group members were calculated. 643
Procedure
The participants completed the questionnaires at their places of work. They were
asked to make their judgments with reference to teams consisting of fellow workers
with whom they regularly worked in the same environment, such as the same
department or the same office according to conditions existing in each company.

Results
Table III shows correlations between scores on the Belbin team roles and on the
SYMLOG and EPQ personality dimensions.
As can be seen, the upward-downward (dominant-submissive) SYMLOG dimension
correlated significantly positively as predicted with the roles of implementer (r ¼ 0.36),
coordinator (r ¼ 0.45) shaper (r ¼ 0.20), and resource investigator (r ¼ 0.34).
The SYMLOG dimension of positive-negative (friendly-unfriendly) correlated

Belbin team role Description

CF – completer-finisher Thorough about a task; attentive to all details; finishes things;

reluctant to let go until complete; nags others to finish on time;
perfectionist; plans so that nothing gets overlooked
CO – coordinator Delegates tasks and rallies team; makes firm decisions usually having
consulted others; adaptive to changes; committed to goals and sees to
them being met; uses all team members making all play a role; draws
out the potential from all members; recognizes talent and uses it
IM – implementers Orderly and precise; sticks to rules; does not like change; organizes
plans and actions; disciplined in approach; systematic in approach;
tackles any tasks
ME – monitor-evaluator Asks for all information; unenthusiastic and impartial about ideas;
slow to make a decision; likes to think based on all facts; negative
about plans
RI – resource investigator Negotiates and liaises with outsiders; asks questions from others;
opportunistic; thinks on feet; picks up on the ideas of others; sociable;
inquisitive and curious; enthusiastic about tasks at the beginning
PL – plant Thinks things through; tackles problems usually on own; proposes
ideas and solutions; creative and imaginative; dominant with ideas
SH – shaper Active in the need to achieve something; restless; likes to work without
planning; challenges others or indecision in a team; argues; disturbs
the balance; goads action from others; opportunist, often negative;
impatient and often frustrated
TW – team worker Listens to others and supports them; works with the awkward people; Table II.
not forceful or demanding; diplomatic and balancing; averts conflict; Revised Belbin behaviour
communicates well with others checklist
 21,7
JMP

644

Table III.

dimensions
SYMLOG and EPQ
Correlations between
Belbin team roles and
SYMLOG dimensions EPQ dimensions
Team role Upward-downward Positive-negative Forward-backward E N P

Implementer 0.36 * * * 0.16 0.20 * (0.20 *) 2 0.15 2 0.17 *

Coordinator 0.45 * * * 0.16 0.23 * * 0.20 * 2 0.14 2 0.13
Shaper 0.20 * 2 0.08 2 0.24 * * 0.23 * * 0.15 0.13
Plant 0.03 (0.17 *) 0.25 * * 2 0.04 20.10 2 0.07
Resource investigator 0.34 * * * 0.22 * * (0.17 *) 0.31 * * * 20.11 (2 0.19 *)
Monitor evaluator 0.14 0.12 0.33 * * * 0.10 (20.17 *) 2 0.05
Team worker 20.11 0.28 * * * 0.00 0.16 0.13 0.11
Completer finisher 20.10 2 0.02 0.37 * * * 0.03 0.07 2 0.09
Notes: * * *p , 0.001 level; * *p , 0.01 level; *p , 0.05 level: two-tailed significance. Correlations in bold are in the predicted direction. Correlations in
italics are in the direction opposite to predicted. Correlations in parentheses are significant but not predicted
significantly positively with the roles of resource investigator (r ¼ 0.22) and team worker Team roles in
(r ¼ 0.28) as predicted but not with coordinator (r ¼ 0.16). The significant correlation with work groups
plant (r ¼ 0.17) was not predicted. The SYMLOG dimension of forward-backward
(accepting-not accepting authority) correlated significantly positively as predicted with
the roles of implementer (r ¼ 0.20), coordinator (r ¼ 0.23), monitor evaluator (r ¼ 0.33)
and completer finisher (r ¼ 0.37). The negative correlations with plant (r ¼ 20.25) and
shaper (r ¼ 20.24) were in the direction opposite to predicted and the significant 645
correlation with resource investigator (r ¼ 0.17) was not predicted.
The extraversion dimension of the EPQ was significantly positively correlated with
the roles of coordinator (r ¼ 0.20), shaper (r ¼ 0.23) and resource investigator (r ¼ 0.31)
as predicted but not with monitor evaluator (r ¼ 0.16). The significant negative
correlation with plant was not found (r ¼ 2 0.04) and the significant correlation with
implementer (r ¼ 0.20) was not predicted. Neuroticism was not found to be correlate
significantly with any of the team roles predicted and the negative correlation with
monitor evaluator (r ¼ 2 0.17) was not predicted. Psychoticism was only found to
correlate significantly negatively with the role of implementer (r ¼ 2 0.17) as predicted.
The correlation with team worker (r ¼ 0.11) was opposite to predicted and the
significant correlation with resource investigator (r ¼ 2 0.19) was not predicted.
Further, examination of the relationships between the Belbin team roles and the
SYMLOG and EPQ personality dimensions was carried out using canonical correlation
analysis. This is the most appropriate method of analysis when the variables represent
two conceptually distinct sets (team roles and personality) and it provides an overall
picture of the dimensions (or variates) underlying the relationships between the two
sets of variables. The method of analysis is similar to factor analysis except that factor
analysis is carried out when the variables are conceptually related rather than
consisting of two distinct sets of variables. For the analysis of SYMLOG dimensions,
all three canonical variates were found to be highly significant. As can be seen from
Table IV, the first canonical variate produced a correlation of 0.65 and a Wilks’ l of
0.33, F(24,398) ¼ 7.61, p , 0.001. The second canonical variate produced a correlation

Canonical variates
1 2 3

Canonical correlation 0.65 0.57 0.39

Squared canonical correlation 0.42 0.32 0.15
Belbin team roles
Shaper 0.11 2 0.55 20.31
Plant 0.00 2 0.49 0.44
Implementer 0.66 0.02 0.05
Coordinator 0.77 20.01 20.03
Resource investigator 0.61 20.04 0.21
Completer finisher 0.04 0.72 20.08
Team worker 0.00 0.03 0.76
Monitor evaluator 0.30 0.41 0.11 Table IV.
SYMLOG dimensions Loadings of Belbin team
Upward-downward (dominant-submissive) 0.88 20.33 20.35 roles and SYMLOG
Positive-negative (friendly-unfriendly) 0.33 20.16 0.94 dimensions on canonical
Forward-backward (conforming-not conforming) 0.36 0.89 20.04 variates
JMP of 0.57 and a Wilks’ l of 0.58, F(14,276) ¼ 6.26, p , 0.001. The third canonical variate
21,7 produced a correlation of 0.39 and a Wilks’ l of 0.85, F(6,139) ¼ 4.16, p , 0.002.
As can be seen from Table IV, the upward-downward SYMLOG dimension was the
single most important personality component of the first canonical variate:
implementer, coordinator and resource investigator were the most important team
roles. The forward-backward dimension was the most important personality
646 component of the second canonical variate: completer finisher and monitor evaluator
loaded positively whereas shaper and plant loaded negatively on this variate. The
positive-negative dimension was the most important personality component of the
third canonical variate: plant and team worker loaded positively on this variate.
For the analysis of EPQ dimensions, all three canonical variates were found to be
significant. As can be seen from Table V, the first canonical variate produced a
correlation of 0.46 and a Wilks’ l of 0.62, F(24,398) ¼ 2.92, p , 0.001. The second
canonical variate produced a correlation of 0.36 and a Wilks’ l of 0.79,
F(14,276) ¼ 2.44, p , 0.005. The third canonical variate produced a correlation of
0.30 and a Wilks’ l of 0.91, F(6,139) ¼ 2.23, p , 0.05.
As can be seen from Table V, the extraversion dimension was the single most
important personality component of the first canonical variate: implementer, coordinator,
resource investigator and team worker were the most important of the team roles. There
was no single EPQ dimension associated with the second canonical variate, all three
dimensions loading positively on it. Only one team role – Shaper – loaded highly on this
variate. Similarly, there was no single EPQ dimension associated with the third canonical
variate, Neuroticism loading positively and psychoticism loading negatively. Completer
finisher loaded positively and team worker loaded negatively on this variate.

Discussion
The findings of the present experiment provide support for the idea that a
classification of team roles based on interpersonal personality characteristics is better
than one based on intrapsychic personality characteristics. The canonical correlations

Canonical variates
1 2 3

Canonical correlation 0.46 0.36 0.30

Squared canonical correlation 0.21 0.13 0.09
Belbin team roles
Shaper 0.31 0.72 0.01
Plant 0.03 20.33 20.04
Implementer 0.56 20.28 0.18
Coordinator 0.55 20.23 0.09
Resource investigator 0.74 20.13 0.35
Completer finisher 0.00 0.02 0.44
Team worker 0.41 0.11 2 0.59
Table V. Monitor evaluator 0.37 20.26 20.20
Loadings of Belbin team EPQ dimensions
roles and EPQ Extraversion 0.90 0.35 0.18
dimensions on canonical Neuroticism 20.37 0.78 0.51
variates Psychoticism 20.24 0.62 2 0.75
were much larger when SYMLOG dimensions were involved than when EPQ Team roles in
dimensions were involved. The squared canonical correlations between team roles work groups
and SYMLOG dimensions indicated 42 per cent shared variance for the first variate,
32 per cent shared variance for the second variate and 15 per cent for the third variate.
By contrast, the squared canonical correlations between team roles and EPQ
dimensions indicated shared variance of only 21 per cent for the first variate, 13 per cent
for the second variate and 9 per cent for the third variate. In addition, the canonical 647
variates were more clear-cut for the SYMLOG dimensions (a single dimension
accounting for most of the personality component on each of the three variates) than
for the EPQ dimensions (a single dimension accounted for most of the personality
component on only one of the three variates). Finally, 10 of the 13 predicted correlations
between team roles and SYMLOG dimensions were significant, whereas only 4 of the
14 predicted correlations between team roles and EPQ dimensions were significant.
In Belbin’s analysis, the ideal team consists of members who together have all the
requisite skills for achieving group goals (Woods and Thomas, 1992). The useful
people to have in teams are those who possess the strengths or characteristics which
serve a particular need without duplicating those already there. Effective teams consist
of individuals who balance well with one another rather than well-balanced
individuals. According to the present findings, however, there appears to be
duplication of important personality characteristics across the different team roles.
Thus, implementer, coordinator, and resource investigator all scored highly on the
upward (dominant) SYMLOG dimension. Implementer, coordinator, monitor evaluator
and completer finisher all scored highly on the forward (accepting authority) SYMLOG
dimension, and resource investigator and team worker scored highly on the positive
(friendly) SYMLOG dimension.
It would seem from the SYMLOG analysis, therefore, that effective teams could be
built from a combination of some of Belbin’s team roles, but not all of them. This
conclusion supports the work of Fisher et al. (2001) who found that confirmatory factor
analysis of Belbin team roles did not support eight distinct constructs. In addition, by
combining team roles, they found that “condensed” team roles could fit quite easily
with the Big-five personality dimensions, but although a five team-role model
possessed convergent validity it lacked discriminant validity. For example, the roles of
coordinator, implementer, completer finisher and monitor evaluator could be readily
interchanged without greatly affecting the fit of the model. This mirrors the present
findings for the correlation of these roles with the forward SYMLOG dimension.
Fisher et al. (2001) suggested that their findings, along with those of Broucek and
Randell (1996), provided better support for a “Big-5 team-role model” than for Belbin’s
team-role model in terms of psychometric validity and also in terms of theory given
that Barrick and Mount’s (1991) meta-analysis had shown that the Big-five personality
dimensions were very good predictors of job performance.
Belbin (1981) himself had noted the intrinsic relatedness of pairs of his team roles
and had proposed a 4 £ 2 taxonomy: negotiators (resource investigators and team
workers); manager workers (implementers and completer finishers); intellectuals
(monitor evaluators and plants); and team leaders (coordinators and shapers). The
present findings for SYMLOG dimensions suggest a somewhat different pairing of
team roles. Resource investigators and team workers share the common characteristic
of being positive (friendly) which would be useful in negotiators. Implementers and
JMP coordinators share the common characteristics of being both upward (dominant) and
21,7 forward (accepting authority) which would seem most useful in team leaders.
Completer finishers and monitor evaluators share the common characteristic of being
forward (accepting authority) which seems most like manager workers. Shaper and
plant seem to fit more into the intellectual category if this involves challenging and
questioning the accepted authority of the group.
648 In contrast to Belbin’s view that effective teams consist of a mixture of individuals
who balance out one another, the SYMLOG scheme (Bales, 1999; Bales and Cohen,
1979) proposes that an effective team consists of homogeneously effective individuals.
An ideal team consists of upward, positive and forward members: downward,
backward, and negative people are not useful team members. One problem with this
analysis, however, is that research shows that homogeneous teams are not particularly
effective and may be ineffective under some circumstances (Davies, 1994; Hill, 1975;
Shaw, 1981). In extreme cases, if group members are too similar and too uniform, this
can lead to “groupthink” (Janis, 1982) which has been linked to policy fiascos such as
the Bay of Pigs. The present findings showed that shapers (dynamic, challenging,
pressurizing) and plants (creative, imaginative, unorthodox) are perceived as going
against the authority of the group. The challenging and pressurizing aspects of
shapers may be seen by other group members as running counter to the group’s
direction and authority, whereas plants may be seen by other group members as going
against the group’s authority and goals because of their unorthodoxy, but these
attributes and roles may nevertheless serve a very useful function in preventing
groups from becoming too complacent, conformist and resistant to change.
The present study suggests that organizations might improve the functioning of
their teams by analysing the mixture of roles existing in their teams. In addition,
organizations might improve their training and development needs to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of team workers so as to facilitate those group behaviours
vital to their team roles. For example, if a particular team consists of an Implementer
and a coordinator but no resource investigator there is an obvious duplication of
function on the one hand and an obvious absence on the other. Similarly, if a manager
scores highly on SYMLOG dimensions of dominance and conforming to authority,
he/she would seem to be suited to the roles of coordinator or implementer, whereas if
he/she scores highly on the SYMLOG dimension of friendliness, a more effective role
would be resource investigator or team worker.

References
Adair, J. (1986), Training for Leadership, Macdonald, London.
Bales, R.F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bales, R.F. (1999), Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement, Transaction,
New Brunswick, NJ.
Bales, R.F. and Cohen, S.P. (1979), SYMLOG: A System for the Multiple Level Observation of
Groups, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-26.
Belbin, R.M. (1981), Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Belbin, R.M. (1993), Team Roles at Work: A Strategy for Human Resource Management, Team roles in
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
work groups
Benne, K.D. and Sheats, P. (1948), “Functional roles of group members”, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 4, pp. 41-9.
Biddle, B.J. (1979), Role Theory: Expectations, Identities, and Behaviors, Academic Press, New
York, NY.
Broucek, W.G. and Randell, G. (1996), “An assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin 649
self-perception inventory and observer assessment from the perspective of the five-factor
model”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 389-405.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Odessa, FL.
Davies, M.F. (1994), “Personality and social characteristics”, in Hare, A.P., Blumberg, H.H.,
Davies, M.F. and Kent, M.V. (Eds), Small Group Research: A Handbook, Ablex, Norwood,
NJ, pp. 41-78.
Davies, M.F. (1996), “Social interaction”, in Hare, A.P., Blumberg, H.H., Davies, M.F. and Kent,
M.V. (Eds), Small Groups: An Introduction, Praeger, London, pp. 115-34.
Donahue, E.M. and Harary, K. (1998), “The patterned inconsistency of traits: mapping the
differential effects of social roles on self-perceptions of the Big Five”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 24, pp. 610-9.
Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, S.B.G. (1991), Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult),
Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A. and MacRosson, W.D.K. (1998), “The structure of Belbin’s team roles”,
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 283-8.
Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A. and MacRosson, W.D.K. (2000), “The distribution of Belbin team roles
among UK managers”, Personnel Review, Vol. 29, pp. 124-36.
Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A. and MacRosson, W.D.K. (2001), “A validation study of Belbin’s team
roles”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 121-44.
Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A. and MacRosson, W.D.K. (2002), “Belbin’s team role theory: for
non-managers also?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 14-20.
Fisher, S.G., MacRosson, W.D.K. and Sharp, G. (1996), “Further evidence concerning the Belbin
team-role self-perception inventory”, Personnel Review, Vol. 25, pp. 61-7.
Furnham, A., Steele, H. and Pendleton, D. (1993), “A psychometric assessment of the Belbin
team-role self-perception inventory”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 66, pp. 245-57.
Handy, C. (1985), Understanding Organizations, Penguin, London.
Hare, A.P. (1994), “Types of roles in small groups: a bit of history and a current perspective”,
Small Group Research, Vol. 25, pp. 443-8.
Hare, A.P. and Davies, M.F. (1994), “Social interaction”, in Hare, A.P., Blumberg, H.H., Davies,
M.F. and Kent, M.V. (Eds), Small Group Research: A Handbook, Ablex, Norwood, NJ,
pp. 169-93.
Hare, S.E. and Hare, A.P. (Eds) (1996), SYMLOG Field Theory: Organizational Consultation,
Value Differences, Personality and Social Perception, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Hare, A.P. and Kent, M.V. (1994), “Leadership”, in Hare, A.P., Blumberg, H.H., Davies, M.F. and
Kent, M.V. (Eds), Small Group Research: A Handbook, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 155-66.
JMP Hare, A.P., Sjvold, E., Baker, H. and Powers, J. (Eds) (2004), Analysis of Social Interaction
Systems: SYMLOG Research and Applications, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
21,7 Heiss, J. (1981), “Social roles”, in Rosenberg, M. and Turner, R.H. (Eds), Social Psychology:
Sociological Perspectives, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Hill, R.E. (1975), “Interpersonal compatibility and workgroup performance”, Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 11, pp. 210-9.
650 Janis, I.L. (1982), Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, MA.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1985), “Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures
of the five-factor model of personality”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 6,
pp. 587-97.
Mills, T.M. (1984), The Sociology of Small Groups, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Shaw, M.E. (1981), Group Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Slater, P.E. (1955), “Role differentiation in small groups”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 20,
pp. 300-10.
Stryker, S. and Statham, A. (1985), “Symbolic interaction and role theory”, in Lindzey, G. and
Aronson, E. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology,Vol. 1, Random House, New York,
NY, pp. 311-78.
Woods, M. and Thomas, M. (1992), “The Belbin interplace III – an expert system to assist
personnel and training in personal and team development”, Training & Development
Methods, Vol. 2, pp. 1-12.

Corresponding author
Martin F. Davies can be contacted at: m.davies@gold.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints