THE APPLOCATEON OF aELEIN'S TEAR ROLE THEORY

OOH ONFORMATOON SERVOCE ENTERPROSES

by

DALONA LOUSE VAN HEERDEN

DEssertatOon submitted On partOaO fullfOilment

of the requOrements for the degree

itfiAGOSTER ONFORGifiATOONES

On the

FACULTY OF ARTS

at the

RAND AFROKAANS UNWERSOTY

STUDY LEADER: PROF A S A DU TOOT

November MS

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES

4

5

6

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 7

1.2 Research problem formulation 8

1.3 Delimitation of the study field 8

1.4 Research methodology 10

1.5 Outline 10

2. TEAMS, TEAM ROLES AND TEAM ROLE THEORIES

2.1 Introduction 12

2.2 Teams 12

2.2.1 Definition 12

2.2.2 The value of teams 14

2.2.3 Effective teams 15

2.2.4 The importance of teams in-present-day enterprises 18

2.3 Team roles 19

2.4 Conclusion 21

3. BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY

3.1 Introduction 22

3.2 Belbin's research on team roles and the application of his team role theory 22

3.2.1 The background to Belbin's team role theory 22

3.2.2 Belbin's team role theory 24

3.2.3 The role of self-perception and self-insight 29

3.2.4 Primary and secondary team roles 30

3.2.5 The value of each team role 31

3.2.6 The Belbin Interplace computer package and how it is being used in enterprises 32

3.2.7 Why people prefer certain roles 36

3.2.8 The application of Be!bin's team role theory to an information service enterprise 39

3.3 The uniqueness of Belbin's team role theory when compared with other similar theories 40

3.3.1 Background 40

3.3.2 Comparing Belbin's team role theory with similar theories 41

3.4 Criticism of Belbin's team role theory 46

3.4.1 'Academic' criticism 46

3.4.2 Criticism of the value of team roles 50

3.5 Conclusion 52

3

APPLICATION OF BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY IN THE UNISA LIBRARY

4.1 Introduction 53

4.2 Unisa at present 53

4.3 The Unisa Library at present 54

4.4 The importance of teams within the Unisa Library context 55

4.5 The survey of the Periodicals Provision Team 56

4.5.1 The Periodicals Provision Team 56

4.5.2 Applying Belbin's team role theory to the Periodicals Provision Team 61

4.5.2.1 Background 61

4.5.2.2 Be!bin's two questionnaires: The Self Perception Inventory and Observers' Assessment questionnaires applied to the

Periodicals Provision Team 62

4.5.3 The results of the questionnaires 64

4.5.4 Team roles and the Periodicals Provision Team 67

4.6 The research/evaluation questionnaire 70

4.6.1 The choice of measurement scale 70

4.6.2 The choice of questions 70

4.7 The results of the research/evaluation questionnaire 72

4.7.1 Biographical background of the team members 72

4.7.2 A discussion of the research/evaluation questionnaire results 73

4.8 The role of self-perception and self-confidence within a team 79

4.8.1 Self-perception 79

4.8.2 Self-insight and self-confidence 79

4.9 Evaluation of the Periodical Provision Team 80

4.10 The value of team roles in practice 82

4.11 Conclusion 86

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

5.1 Summary 89

5.2 Conclusion 90

5.3 Recommendations for future research 92

BIBLIOGRAPHY 93

APPENDICES 99

4

SUMMARY

Belbin's team role theory is a popular team building tool. This study aims to establish whether

Belbin's theory can be meaningfully applied to an information service enterprise. Belbin's

team role theory is explained and its uniqueness, when compared with similar theories such

as Margerison and McCann's team role theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, is

highlighted. Belbin's theory is then applied to a team in the Unisa Library to evaluate how the

'end-user', the trainee, views the value of this team role theory. Their views are then

evaluated using a research/evaluation questionnaire. The findings are discussed and the

conclusion is reached that Belbin's team role theory can be meaningfully applied in an

information service enterprise. The feedback of the respondents indicates that they were

satisfied with the accuracy and truthfulness of the results and that they were of the opinion

that their team roles reflected their personalities rather than their values and culture. For them

the main value lies in the renewed self-insight and increased self-confidence gained from the

exercise. They also indicated its potential for improved cooperation and problem solving

within team context. Furthermore they were confident that the team roles could be used when

the reengineering plan is implemented in the Unisa Library. Finally it is recommended that

team building needs to form an integral part of the reengineering implementation process.

With regard to team development the need to focus on the 'task', 'team', 'individual' and the

'organisational context' is emphasised.

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere thanks to the following people and organisations:

The members of the Periodicals Provision Team of the Unisa Library for their enthusiastic

willingness to participate in this project.

They are (in alphabetical order):

Pitso Gumede, Sharon Hamilton-Green, Simon Jiani, Marga Kruger, Michael Mahlaule, Eric

Mazwi, Ruben Mbowene, Wanda Miso (team leader), Tryphinia Moeketsi, Phinias Mongale,

Jackie Morel, Jabulani Nzuza, Shadrack Ratema (deputy team leader), Frans Shibambo,

Japie Sono, Samson Thosago and Fransa van Wyk.

My supervisor, Professor Adeline du Toit for her encouragement and guidance;

The National Research Foundation: Social Sciences and Humanities (previously CSD: HSRC)

for their financial assistance towards this research. The opinions expressed and conclusions

arrived at are those of the author, and not those of the NRF;

Cecile van Schalkwyk and Este Retief who assisted with the research questionnaire and

statistical analysis;

The Unisa Library for the study leave granted to me to complete this research, and in

particular my sub-divisional head, Gwenda Thomas, and my supervisor, Lorraine Grobler for

their encouragement;

My parents, Andre and Eve Malan, for believing in me and for assisting me in many practical

ways;

My children, Jason and Michael, for their love;

My husband, Mark, for his love, support and encouragement when the going got tough;

My Creator, for the strength to start and finish this research.

6

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 : Team roles best avoided, roles able to be assumed and natural roles

Appendix 2 : A comparison of the profiles of two former world leaders

Appendix 3 : The Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI)

Appendix 4 : The Belbin Observers' Assessment Questionnaire

Appendix 5 : The Research/Evaluation Questionnaire

Appendix 6 : The Self-Perception Averages for the Periodicals Provision Team

Appendix 7 : The Observers' Assessment Averages for the Periodicals Provision Team

7

CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

As South-African enterprises move away from bureaucratic management models towards

more team-based approaches, much emphasis is being placed on teams and team-

building. Teams are being marketed as the answer to all management problems. All the

team members put together are meant to achieve more than the individuals on their own.

But there is much more to it than that. Teams are not necessarily successful entities. In

fact in some teams the team dynamics can be so counter-productive that synergy is not

achieved and team goals are not met. Team building exercises can be useful in this

regard.

During 1996 the Technical Services Division in the Unisa Library restructured and formed

self-directed work teams. A management consultant, was invited to take these teams as

well as the management teams of the library through team building training. He spent one

day with each team. Part of the training was a session on team roles, based on the work of

Dr Meredith Belbin, a British management consultant.

In preparation of the team role session, the participants were asked to complete

questionnaires the previous day. These were Belbin's Team Role Self Perception

Inventory (BTRSPI), as well as his Objective Assessment questionnaire about their co-

team members' behaviours. The answers were entered into the Interplace IV computer

database and the results were printed out. They were then presented to the individual

team members during the team role session. The profiles indicated the primary and

secondary team roles they appear to enact in the team context. Much interest was

stimulated in Belbin's theory, and more particularly what the value of team role

identification is in organisational development. As the Unisa library moves towards the

implementation of its reengineering project and new teams are formed, new team building

exercises will be undertaken. Awareness of the potential and possible problems with

Belbin's team role theory will result in the team roles being used more effectively.

Although many South African enterprises are using Belbin's questionnaires to identify the

roles members fulfill within teams researchers such as McCrimmon (1995:35) are very

8

critical of Belbin's work and encourage a more critical look at this theory which is being

used so widely.

This research focuses on critically assessing Belbin's theory, and more particularly as it

applies to an exceptional team such as the Periodicals Provision Team in the Unisa

Library.

The conclusions of this research report will be of value in future applications of team role

training exercises.

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM FORMULATION

The problem statement is as follows:

"Can the Belbin team role theory be meaningfully applied to an information service

enterprise?"

In order to solve this problem, the following can be identified:

0

What does Belbin's team role theory entail?

0

What makes Belbin's team role theory unique?

0

What is the value of Belbin's team role theory for an information service

enterprise?

Belbin's team role theory is in wide-spread use for team building exercises. Much has

been written about his theory by other team role theorists, other researchers and

academics, and consultants. This research will examine all of these and then apply

Belbin's theory in practice and evaluate how the 'end-user', the trainee, views the value of

his team role theory.

The theory's potential and possible problems as experienced in practice will be discussed,

with specific reference to its value in information enterprises.

1.3 DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY FIELD

Much research has seen the light where Belbin's theory has been applied to management

teams and more particularly to for-profit enterprises. This research applies Belbin's team

roles to a "process" team in a non-profit service enterprise, namely an information service

9

enterprise.

Many researchers have questioned the validity, reliability and contemporary value of

Belbin's team role theory. This research will not deal with the validity and reliability aspect,

nor with the questionnaires as such. Instead it focuses more especially on the human

resource value of his team role theory in present-day information service enterprises.

In South Africa two theses have already been written dealing with Belbin's work. Both were

submitted in 1994.

At the University of Stellenbosch Botha submitted a MBA-research report with the title: "'n

Ondersoek na die verband tussen die Myers-Briggs type indicator en Belbin se indeling

van spanrolle'. She applied Belbin's team role model to a military organisation. She found

the two questionnaires to arrive at relatively similar results.

At the University of Pretoria De Swardt submitted a research report with the title: "Team-

roles for effective management of community pharmacies" for a M.Pharm.

The participants in De Swardt's research project found the most valuable aspect of the

exercise to be the personal feedback received in the "counselling profile" of Belbin, the

self-insight gained, and how it impacted on their own interpersonal relationships. Their

team leaders found it valuable to understand their team members better (1994:146).

The conclusions of the research report in hand will hopefully make a contribution in terms

of the use of team roles for the more effective management of information service

enterprises and a more realistic application of team roles within the human resources

management context.

1 0

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

An exploratory literature study will be undertaken focusing on teams and team roles and

Belbin's team role theory. Due to the popularity of the team-approach in present-day

enterprises much has been written on the subject. Only one author is found to have

referred to Belbin's team role theory in the context of an information service enterprise.

Nine information-related journal articles were found dealing with the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (a similar personality type identifier) being applied to information service

enterprises. One article was found where another team role theory, the Margerison and

McCann Team Management Index, was applied to an information service enterprise.

Therefore literature on the application of Belbin's team role theory to enterprises in general

will be perused. The literature study is reflected in chapters two and three of this research.

The empirical component of this research involves the application of Belbin's team role

theory as presented in the literature study, to a particular team in the Unisa Library.

Thereafter the participants will be asked to complete a research/evaluation questionnaire

to assess their perceived value of the team role theory. This will be followed by a

discussion of the issues which arise and an evaluation of the team under discussion and

the Belbin's team role theory.

1.5 OUTLINE

In determining the application value of Belbin's team role theory to information service

enterprises the following steps will be followed:

In chapter 2 the concepts of team, team roles and effective teams will be clarified. The

value of teams and their importance in present-day enterprises will be addressed.

In chapter 3 the background to Belbin's team roles will be provided and then they will be

discussed and how they are being applied, as well as why they seem to be so popular.

The significance of self-perception and self-image in the identification of team roles is

noted. Then the viability of applying Belbin's team role theory in an information service

enterprise will be discussed. Next his theory will be compared with other similar theories in

use to place it in context and the uniqueness of the Belbin team role theory will be

highlighted. To conclude chapter 3 criticisms of Belbin's team role model as well as the

concept of team roles will be discussed.

1 1

Chapter 4 is the empirical research component of this research. It will firstly sketch the

current Unisa management context with specific reference to the Unisa library and will

convey the importance of teams within the library context. The choice of team and the

nature of its work will be explained. Then Belbin's team role model will be applied to this

particular team in the Unisa library. This case study is the focus of Chapter 4. The two

questionnaires completed by the team members will be explained and the results for this

team will be examined, including the 'balance' of team roles and how this could affect the

team's success.

Chapter 4 will also include an additional research/evaluation questionnaire submitted to

the team where they will evaluate their perceived value of the team role identification. The

questionnaire and its' results will be discussed. In particular the result of being made

aware of strengths and weaknesses and the effect the team role identification has on self-

perception and self-confidence will be discussed. Finally there will be an evaluation of this

team within the Belbin team role theory context.

Chapter 4 will conclude with a critical assessment of Belbin's contribution to team building

with particular reference to information service enterprises and will focus on the value of

team role identification in practice. An assessment will be made of the value of Belbin's

work for team building as experienced by the Periodicals Provision Team.

Chapter 5 will include the summary of the research, the conclusion and the researchers'

recommendations for future research.

12

CHAPTER 2

2. TEAMS, TEAM ROLES AND TEAM ROLE THEORIES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

As enterprises move towards a team-approach to 'tasks' clarity is necessary as to what a

'team' is and what distinguishes it from a group. Why teams are valuable and the

characteristics of effective teams also need to be determined, as well as the importance of

teams in present-day enterprises. The second part of this chapter defines the concept of

'team roles' which focuses more on the 'people' aspect of teams. This chapter serves as

background to chapter 3 which introduces Belbin's team role theory.

2.2 TEAMS

2.2.1 DEFINITION

From the outset the difference between a group and a team needs to be clarified. Lussier

in Smit & Cronje (1997:372) writes that "a group has a clear leader and consists of two or

more members who perform independent jobs with individual accountability, evaluation,

and rewards. The team, on the other hand, has a small(er) number of members with

shared leadership and its members perform inter-dependent jobs with individual and group

accountability, evaluation and rewards".

Smit and Cronje (1997:372) illustrate the difference between a group and team on a

continuum as in figure 2.1.

.sittaNA:

13

Group Team

Figure 2.1 : Differences between groups and teams

whereas Smit and Cronje's definition focuses more on the 'task' the definitions which

follow focus more on the 'people' aspect of teams in relation to the 'task'.

What distinguishes a group from a team is that in a team the team members are

interdependent in the achievement of their objectives.

Den Hertog and Tolner (1996:1706) define a team as "a set of interpersonal relationships

structured to achieve established goals". The group develops into a team once it is

organised well enough to fulfil a purpose (present researcher's emphasis). Table 2.1 uses

Den Hertog and Tolner's definition to illustrate this development process:

Individuals ---> Group ---> Development/Organisation of: ---> Team

- Task Allocation

- Decision Making

- Communication Table 2.1 : The process of a group developing into a team

Task allocation and decision making are part of the job itself, whereas communication and

14

aspects of decision making are part of the team dynamics. Johnson and Johnson (in Den

Hertog and Tolner, 1996:1706) define a group as: "two or more individuals in face-to-face

interaction, each aware of his or her membership in the group; each aware of the others

who belong to the group ... (who) strive to achieve mutual goals". Whereas they suggest

that a team in comparison is "a special sort of group characterised by positive traits like

'cooperation, cohesion and teamwork'.

Smith in Adair (1986:95) defines a team as: "'a group in which the individuals have a

common aim and in which the jobs and skills of each member fit in with those of others

(and) ... as in a jigsaw puzzle ... fit together (to) ... produce some overall pattern". He adds

that teams therefore "require both a common task and complementary contributions".

Katzenbach and Smith (1993:45) define a team as "..: a small number of people with

complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance, goals, and

approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable" (emphasis of present

researcher). It is these complementary contributions and skills which this research report

will focus upon and therefore Smith in Adair's (1986) definition will be used for the purpose

of this research.

2.2.2 THE VALUE OF TEAMS

McCrimmon (1995:35) writes that teamwork is being used as "the cure for all

organizational ills. Whatever the disease a team building exercise is likely to be the

prescribed medicine". So for example, teamwork is seen as "a cure for bureaucracy", and

the means of responding to client needs in a flexible and adaptable way, especially in

service organisations (Den Hertog & Tolner, 1996:1706-8).

What is the reasoning behind teams being more effective than individuals working on their

own? Martins (1997:1) writes that with a team:

0

The pool of knowledge is greater' - effective teamwork leads to better results;

0

'The approach to problems is more comprehensive' - a variety of opinions about

approaches leads to a better choice;

0

'There is greater acceptance of solutions, projects and/or techniques' when a team

decides collectively and the chances of successful implementation are therefore

better;

0

The 'conceptualisation of problems is improved' because they are looked at from

15

a variety of angles (emphasis of present author).

Each team member brings certain qualities to a team. How these interact collectively can

be positive or negative. As such, not all teams result in the hoped for positive "synergy". In

some cases the whole can become less than the sum of its parts. Ideal teamwork results

when the team output exceeds the sum of individual inputs. This leads to the prerequisites

for effective teamwork.

2.2.3 EFFECTIVE TEAMS

Adair (1986: 62,203) suggests that effective teams are those that recognise and address

three fundamental needs. As illustrated with three circles that form a triangle in figure 2.2,

the task needs (i.e. achieving the task), the team needs (i.e. building and maintaining the

team) and the individual needs (developing the individual) all need to be satisfied in a

balanced way. Most important is the fact that the three circles overlap in the middle which

symbolises the sense of unity in the team which holds the three circles together.

Achieving the task

Figure 2.2 : The balance of needs in an effective team (Adair, 1986:203)

Most teams focus mainly on the task and ignore the other two needs. This research

focuses on the team and individual aspects of this triangular illustration.

De Jager and Du Toit (1997:3) in writing about the self-managed teams in the Unisa

Library's Technical Services Division notes that the factors which play a role in the

composition of an effective team include the knowledge, experience, personalities and

personal choices of the people involved. The latter two are reflected in the roles members

prefer to fulfill within the dynamics of that particular team and refer to the 'team' and

16

'individual' angles of Adair's triangular illustration.

Margerison and McCann (1984:9) describe the characteristics of effective and high

performance teams. They have been grouped according to Adair's three principles of task,

team and individual (from figure 2.2), and a fourth principle has been added:

TASK:

Setting high-output, high-quality targets and regularly achieving them;

O

Being client-orientated (to be indicated in the vision and mission of an enterprise);

O

Regularly review their performance (for example, when they are evaluated by their

clients in surveys).

TEAM:

Having at least one linking person as a key team member to coordinate team

activities;

Co-operating well with one another (team building makes a contribution here);

Being well-balanced with respect to the roles people play in relation to their skills;

Having high problem solving skills;

Learning quickly from their mistakes;

Being highly motivated.

INDIVIDUAL:

Gaining a high degree of job satisfaction from their work.

CONTEXT:

O

Having managers who are well respected by the members for the example they

set;

O

Being assigned a high degree of autonomy.

The principle of 'context' is added to account for factors outside the team's control which

influence whether they can be effective or not. A wide range of skills and roles are required

to fulfill all the above criteria. Team members need to complement one another as

regards skills and roles.

Smith & Cronje (1997: 387-391) suggest that three aspects need to be considered in the

development of teams. They fall into three of the four principles noted above as follows:

CONTEXT: Firstly, the different team types, namely problem solving teams, self-

managed work teams and cross-functional teams.

"The implementation of self-managed work teams requires the redesign of many

aspects of the organisational system (such as):

flattening the organisation structure;

distributing performance-related information to employees;

17

extensive training and development (which includes team building);

eliminating status differences;

rewarding for performance and skills; and

creating conditions for employee empowerment" (the latter three refer to the

principle of the INDIVIDUAL as well).

Most of the above are problem areas in the Unisa Library which are being

addressed by the reengineering project and at present affect the performance of

the team under observation.

0 TEAM: Secondly, creating high-performance teams which includes matching

individual preferences with team role demands using one of the team role models.

This is the main focus of this research.

0 INDIVIDUALS: Transforming individuals into team members. In all South African

organisations the differences in this regard between white and black culture

(individualism vs group-orientation) needs to be taken into account. Team building

also plays a role here.

All of the above aspects form the basis of effective `task'-functioning.

According to Goodman, et al (1986:14-21) teams can be effective when the following

aspects are managed well: group composition, size, leadership, group cohesiveness,

communication, group decision techniques and interventions in group performance. The

effective management of these aspects will differ from team to team and will depend on

the organisational context.

Belbin (1996:98-100) writes that teamwork "is a concept derived from sport" and as with a

sports team the following aspects are essential: 0 the selection of a good team;

0 the recognition that particular players are right for particular positions

(specialisation and complementary roles); 0 versatility, helping where help is needed, i.e. players moving outside their

boundaries; 0 knowing how to combine team members well and assess the demands of the

situation; 0 prior strategy formulation and mutual understanding among team members.

Fowler (1995:40) is of the opinion that the most important characteristic of an effective

team is a common "willingness to work together".

18

To conclude, it is clear that a balance needs to be maintained between the 'task', 'team'

and 'individual' needs within a team for it to be effective. As important is the role of the

'context' within which the team needs to function. The primary focus of this research is on

the 'team' aspect and how this influences team's effectiveness. The secondary focus is on

the 'individual'.

2.2.4 THE liMPORTANCE OF TEAMS ON PRESENT-DAY ENTERPROSES

Tom Peters (1988:297) states that "the self-managing team should become the basic

organisational building block". Teamwork is also " an essential part of many of the

innovative approaches to work, such as total quality management, continuous

improvement and customer care initiatives, introduced over the last few years by

organisations trying to improve their competitiveness" (Teambuilding and..., 1994:2). The

Japanese quality circles are also based on a collective approach to work. Teamwork also

forms the basis of flatter organisational structures and the new management principles of

consensus decision making and empowerment of employees (Teambuilding and...,

1994:14).

Soete (1998) in a survey amongst American Research Libraries (ARL) found a significant

trend toward the use of teams, though most libraries were still a far way from implementing

self-managed teams, and that the transition to teams is generally not smooth. Staff tend to

be reluctant to change and, writes Soete "the command and control cultures that team-

based cultures replace are quite persistent".

19

The respondents to the ARL survey did indicate that the implementation of teams had had

positive impacts in their libraries as indicated in Table 2.2.

IMPACTS: OCCURRENCE (%)

Positive effect on morale 85%

More staff involvement in problem solving 85%

More creativity in problem solving 82%

Improved quality in problem solving 80%

Increased productivity 77%

Improved quality of work 77%

Staff more adaptable to change 74%

More effective decision making process 58%

Improved accountability in the organization 50%

Table 2.2: Positive impacts of team implementation in libraries

Bluck (1994:237), the faculty services manager in the library at the University of

Northumbria notes that the team system instituted there helped staff "to work together

effectively, to adapt to change, to work under pressure and - most importantly - to provide

better services to users". He also refers to the Fielden Report (the report on human

resource management in academic libraries in Britain) where it was suggested that "new

forms of team working are needed to help build commitment to the basic goals of each

(information service enterprise)" (Bluck, 1994:237).

To remain competitive, enterprises need to be dynamic and be able to act in a flexible and

adaptable way. As organisational problems become more complex and the need for new,

competitive and creative ideas increases, a team-approach to problem solving and

decision making becomes more suitable. A team which includes a member who is

creative, another who is directive, another who can tie things together, and another who

can turn the ideas into solutions which can be applied in the enterprise is more likely to

succeed. Each role is necessary for the making of more integrated decisions and solving

problems more effectively.

2.3 TEAM ROLES

Team members contribute in different ways to the effectiveness of decision making and

problem solving in a team. These contributions can be task- and/or robe -related.

20

Task orientation refers to their ffunctional/subject specific skills which enable team

members to fulfill their job descriptions; whereas role orientation refers to the sociological

dynamics at play within teams. It has to do with a person's approach to a problem, the way

s/he interacts with others and his/her style of behaviour (Senior, 1997:242).

This leads on to the definition of a 'team role'. A team role refers to how a team member

does a job instead of what s/he does. An individual characteristically chooses to work in a

way which is in line with his/her personality.

According to Hardingham and Royal (1994:34) the basic premise is that "people have

different characteristic styles of thinking, problem solving and interacting... certain activities

that they are good at and/or keen on, others that they are not". Accordingly they act out

certain roles for which they have a preference and aptitude.

Polzer (1995:495-496) defines a role as a 'set of recurrent behaviours' displayed by a

person within an interdependent group. They reflect the behaviour and personality of an

individual as displayed in his/her interaction with the other members of a team. A particular

team role reflects how a team member prefers to behave, interrelate and contribute

towards the team activities.

Mumma (1994:1) describes team roles as "the work behaviours that must be exhibited by

team members to reach team goals. These behaviours are required for doing the work and

maintaining the (team) as a cohesive unit. Several different team roles are often essential

for reaching a particular goal. Sometimes these roles are (missing), avoided or rejected,

thus making goal accomplishment more difficult or less certain".

Belbin (1981:169-170) defines team roles as: "a pattern of behaviour characteristic of the

way in which one team member interacts with another so as to facilitate the progress of

the team as a whole ... Each of these team-roles (is) associated with characteristic types

of personality as measured by the tests used in the experiments". Role identification helps

team members to determine what they should do in order to meet the expectations of their

fellow-team members, as well as what they can expect from them in turn. Therefore roles

are developed in relation to other people. Belbin suggests that for team interaction to run

smoothly the members must achieve some agreement about their relative roles. Mottram

(1982:33), who worked with Belbin on his original research writes that `knowing what to

expect and what not to expect from colleagues avoids mistakes and leads to less tension"

21

and he adds humorously: " ... (it gives team members) ... a whole new language in which

to insult each other. Calling a colleague a ... Shaper not only makes you feel better but can

be quite instructive to the colleague".

For the purpose of this research, a team role will refer to the way that a person's

personality is reflected in the behaviour s/he displays within a team. The focus will be on

the contribution team roles make to team dynamics.

2.4 CONCLUSION

In this chapter teams were defined as separate from groups based on the

interdependence of team members on one another for the effective achievement of team

goals and the resulting need for constructive relationships and complementary skills.

Aspects such as the complementary contributions necessary with regard to both task and

role were emphasised. The need for enterprises to move towards a team-based

organisational structure and the need for teams to function with synergy were also

highlighted.

Though the introduction of teams into information service enterprises is slow those which

have moved in that direction have noted positive results. The difference between the tasks

and roles of team members was introduced and a definition for team roles was arrived at.

The focus was the interaction between team members which facilitates the team's

progress and the way this is affected by their individual personalities and behaviour.

22

CHAPTER 3

3. BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter the concepts of 'team' and 'team role' were defined and placed in

the context of effective enterprise functioning. In this chapter the sub-problems of:

What Belbin's team role theory entails; and

What makes Belbin's team role theory unique

will be addressed.

This chapter will explain the background to Belbin's team role theory and focus on his nine

identified team roles and their characteristics. The role of self-perception and self-insight

will be discussed. Then the identification of primary and secondary roles will be explained

as well as the value of each team role. Belbin's Interplace computer package and how it is

being used in enterprises will be discussed. Then a discussion will follow on why people

seem to choose certain roles.

Next the applicability of Belbin's team role theory to information service enterprises will be

determined.

Furthermore the uniqueness of Belbin's team role theory is identified in comparison with

other similar theories, and then criticisms of Belbin's team role theory as well as team

roles per se will be addressed.

3.2 BELBIN'S RESEARCH ON TEAM ROLES AND THE APPLICATION OF HIS

TEAM ROLE THEORY

3.2.1 THE BACKGROUND TO BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY

In 1969 Dr Meredith Belbin, then chairman of the Industrial Training Research Unit at

Cambridge in cooperation with the Administrative Staff Management College in Henley in

the United Kingdom started computer-based research on effective teams. Selected middle

management syndicate teams were given a battery of psychometric tests and were

observed 'in action' focusing on the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful teams.

23

In 1981, after extensive observation of team functioning Belbin published the findings in

his book, Management teams: why they succeed or fail. One of the most interesting

observations made was the importance of team roles in the success of effective teams.

So for example, his research team found that if a team had too many bright and talented

members (what Belbin calls Plants) it was inclined to fail. He calls this the "Apollo

syndrome".They discovered this when they experimented with putting only Plants in a

team. They assumed that a team with such bright and talented members would outdo the

other simulated teams in their experiment and to their surprise discovered that they did the

worst. The reason, they found, is that if there are too many people in a team with high

analytical skills they will all be very focused on having their ideas implemented and will be

unwilling to listen to others' points of view. This team will spend too much time debating

the merits and disadvantages of each of their suggestions and will struggle to get down to

getting the job done. If there was a more representative team role balance in this team the

other team role players could "temper" the Plants' arguing and facilitate decision making

(Belbin's Coordinator role); or be more diplomatic, avert friction and calm the waters

(Belbin's Teamworker role); or turn ideas into practical actions (Belbin's Implementer' role);

or conscientiously get down to work and deliver on time (Belbin's Completer Finisher role).

These team roles will be explained in detail in section 3.2.2.

Originally Belbin and his fellow researchers believed that the team roles were determined

"largely by the psychological make-up of those who instinctively adopted them, measured

in terms of four principle factors:

0

intelligence;

0

dominance;

0

extroversion/introversion; and

0

stability/anxiety" (Teambuilding and ..., 1994:3).

The participants in their research completed the following questionnaires:

0

The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal to test their high-level reasoning

ability;

0

The Cattell 16PF (16 Personality Factor Questionnaire) a core personality inventory

to produce scores on sixteen personality factors; and

0

The Personality Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) to focus on personality, values

and motivations.

24

The results were used to predict likely behaviour within the team context. The balance of

team roles were then observed to determine which teams would be more successful.

Moreover the team which had the most even spread of all or most of the team roles

tended to perform far better than those where only a few team roles were represented or

rather over-represented. This then formed the basis of Belbin's team role theory.

In the preface of his follow-up book Team roles at work (1993) Belbin writes that his earlier

book "reached its peak in sales nine years after being first published" in 1981. His

explanation is that "a new way of describing roles and relationships at work had gradually

percolated into the wider language of industry and so created its own momentum" (Belbin,

1993a: v). It appears to be the most popularly used team role measure used today, more

especially in the present and former British countries.

3.2.2 BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY

Belbin's team role theory is grounded on the following principles:

0 Each team member contributes to the team in both his/her functional (task) role

and his/her team role;

0

An optimal balance between these two roles is needed for each team member;

0

A team member's primary and secondary team roles can be identified based on the

combined results of the Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) and

the Observers' Assessments of each person;

0

A balanced mix of team roles within a team usually results in high-performance;

0

The effectiveness of a team depends on the ability of the members to recognise

and adjust themselves to the relative strengths and weaknesses within the team

(Belbin, 1981:132-133).

Belbin identifies nine roles and their associated behaviours necessary for the optimal

team. Based on two questionnaires, his 'Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory'

(BTRSPI) and his Observers' Assessment questionnaire, his model identifies the three

team roles a team member can naturally perform given no pressure to act otherwise, four

which s/he is able to assume, and two roles which are best avoided, as illustrated in table

3.1. This concept is illustrated in more detailed in Appendix 1.

25

Two team roles Four team roles Three team roles

which are best avoided which the person is able to

assume

which are naturally performed

30-40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20

Table 3.1 : The three categories of team roles for each team member

The nine team roles he identified are described in Table 3.2.

BELBIN'S TEAM ROLES PREFERRED TEAM PARTICIPATION

PERSONAL STYLE

Plant (PL) Creating ideas Innovator

Resource Investigator (RI) Seeking information and resources

Outgoing explorer and liaisor.

Coordinator (CO) Coordinating effort Facilitator

Shaper (SH) Directing activity Aggressive achiever

Monitor Evaluator (ME) Critically assessing products and activities

'Devil's advocate'

Team Worker (TW) Attending to group processes Harmoniser

Implementer (IM) Testing and implementing ideas

Practical and efficient

Completer-Finisher (CF) Attending to detail and chasing progress

Conscientious

Specialist (SP)** Providing knowledge and skills in rare supply

Single-minded

** Belbin originally only included the first eight team roles. He later added the role of Specialist.

Table 3..2 : Belbin's team role descriptions

How each team role measures in terms of the four team role-influencing factors measured

in his psychometric tests (see section 3.2.1) is indicated in table 3.3.

26

BELBIN'S TEAM ROLES INFLUENCING PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS

Plant Dominant, very high IQ, introvert

Resource Investigator Stable, dominant, extrovert

Coordinator Stable, dominant, extrovert

Shaper Anxious, dominant, extrovert

Monitor Evaluator High IQ, stable, introvert

Teamworker Stable, extrovert, low in dominance

Implementer Stable, controlled

Completer Finisher Anxious, introvert

Specialist Introvert, sensing, thinking and judging according to the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator (Botha, 1994:108-112)

Table 3.3 : Belbin's team roles and the dimensions which influence them (Teambuilding

and..., 1994:4)

27

Table 3.4 provides a more detailed description of the team roles as well as naming the

'allowable weaknesses' of each team role type. It is important to note that although there

are nine team roles, it does not mean that there have to be nine people in every team.

Each person in the team is capable of playing up to two or three of the roles identified.

TEAM ROLES

TEAM ROLE CONTRIBUTION ALLOWABLE WEAKNESSES

Plant Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves difficult problems.

Ignores details. Too pre-occupied to communicate effectively.

Resource Investigator

Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative. Explores opportunities. Develops contacts.

Overoptimistic. Loses interest once initial enthusiasm has passed.

Coordinator Mature, confident, a good chairperson. Clarifies goals, promotes decision making, delegates well.

Can be seen as manipulative. Delegates personal work.

Shaper Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles.

Can provoke others. Hurts people's feelings.

Monitor Evaluator

Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees all options. Judges accurately.

Lacks drive and ability to inspire others. Overly critical.

Teamworker Co-operative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens, builds, averts friction, calms the waters.

Indecisive in crunch situations. Can be easily influenced.

Implementer Disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient. Turns ideas into practical actions.

Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities.

Completer Finisher

Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors and omissions. Delivers on time.

Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to delegate. Can be a nit-picker.

Specialist Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply.

Contributes on only a narrow front. Dwells on technicalities. Overlooks the 'big picture'.

Table 3.4 : Belbin's nine team roles and the related allowable weaknesses (Belbin, 1993:23)

The 'allowable weaknesses' refer to Belbin's observation that team roles can "be defined

from the assembled data almost as much in terms of what they (are) not as what they

(are)". He also found that a "so-called weakness (is) often no more than the obverse side -

of the strength(s)" of that person. He concluded that "if the weakness is the price that is

liable to be paid for a strength, it does not matter at all, for it is a fair trade-off', but that the

person with that strength needs to "develop an appropriate strategy for managing that

weakness" (Belbin, 1993a: 51-52).

28

Belbin argues that allowable weaknesses are exactly that: "allowable". As a result, he

says, they should not "be corrected...(as that) might undermine the real strength" of that

characteristic. Only when an allowable weakness "detract(s from a person's) team-role

contribution rather than add(ing) to it", then the manager of the team needs to take action.

Table 3.5 illustrates the fine line separating some allowable weaknesses from

unacceptable behaviour. So for example, a Shaper is prone to frustration and irritation

which would normally be useful in a situation where there are obstacles to be overcome

and the team lacks a bit of drive. But if his/her frustration and irritation with the slow

movement of events runs over in to hurting others and the Shaper is unable to apologise

to team members, then the team members may turn against the Shaper and ignore his/her

encouragement in future and this could be detrimental to the success of the team.

29

WEAKNESSES

TEAM ROLE ALLOWABLE NOT ALLOWABLE

Plant Pre-occupation with ideas and

neglect of practical matters

Strong 'ownership' of ideas when co-

operation with others would yield better

results

Resource

Investigator

Loss of enthusiasm once initial

excitement has passed

Letting clients down by neglecting to

make follow-up arrangements

Coordinator An inclination to be lazy if someone

else can be found to do the work

Taking credit for the effort of a team

Shaper A proneness to frustration and

irritation

Inability to recover a situation with good

humour or apology

Monitor

Evaluator

Scepticism with logic Cynicism without logic

Teamworker Indecision on crucial issues Avoiding situations that may entail

pressure

Implementer Adherence to the orthodox and

proven

Obstructing change

Completer

Finisher

Perfectionism Obsessional behaviour

Specialist Acquiring knowledge for its own sake Ignoring factors outside own area of

competence

Table 3.5 : Allowable and non-allowable team role weaknesses (Belbin, 1993a: 53)

Good insight into a person's strengths and weaknesses makes it possible to accept and

even welcome others' strengths and weaknesses. This leads to improved cooperation

within a team.

3.2.3 THE ROLE OF SELF-PERCEPTOON AND SELF-iNSOGHT

Argyle (1994:464) defines self-image as "the whole set of thoughts that individuals have

about themselves, including roles (and) personality traits".

In the light of this research there are two aspects involved here:

The one is the difference between the image individuals have of themselves and how they

perceive themselves (according to the Self-Perception Inventory) and how others assess

30

them (according to the Observers' Assessments);

The other is how renewed self-insight improves self-perception and results in increased

self-confidence as is reflected in section 4.8.

Watkins and Gibson-Sweet (1997:108) researched the phenomenon of the differences

between the team roles which are identified by the Self-Perception Inventory and those

identified by the Observers' Assessments. They suggest the following possible

explanations for the differences:

"Some team members do not have a realistic impression of themselves;

Some individuals are not able to transform feelings into actions;

Stronger team members force the weaker members away from their natural roles;

and

- Members sometimes have to satisfy roles alien to them because a natural

candidate is not available within the team."

Therefore, how a respondent would want to behave (the preferred team role) is not

necessarily enacted in the team context. The 'expected' behaviour rather than the

'preferred' behaviour is what is observed in the Observers' Assessments.

Parkinson (1995:24) also puts forward the possibility that participants complete the Self

Perception Inventory with a "bias best explained in terms of social desirability and wishful

thinking on the part of the subject as to how they would like to be seen to behave in

teams". They reflect what they 'think they do' whereas the observer's assess them in terms

of 'how they are seen to be coming across'.

Senior (1996) noted that using only the Self Perception Inventory led to unreliable results

and stressed the importance of complementing it with the Observers' Assessment

questionnaire. This creates an holistic picture of how the team is functioning at that time,

as well as resulting in renewed self-insight within the team context.

3.2.4 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TEAM ROLES

Be!bin's Interplace software (which is discussed in section 3.2.6) produces a list for each

team member of his/her team roles in order of strength. The top role is that person's

strongest primary role, whereas the last role is that person's weakest role. The top three

(primary) roles can be enacted with relative ease but the others are only possible on a

temporary basis when the situation calls for it. As an example, if a Coordinator were to

31

attend a meeting where s/he is not the chairperson of the meeting s/he will only be able to

temper his/her tendency to want to draw conclusions from discussions at the meeting

temporarily.

3.2.5 THE VALUE OF EACH TEAM ROLE

McCrimmon (1995:35) explains the value of roles as follows: "From a job analysis

perspective (present authors' emphasis), a team must do several things well in order to be

effective ... (and because)... different people are better than others at some of these tasks

this leads to the idea that there are various team roles which complement one another to

make up an effective team".

Yet, it is important that an nine team roles be represented in a team for the team to

function optimally. Team balance is the basis of Belbin's team role theory. The team roles

are divided into three essential categories:

0

The thinking team roles: Plants, Monitor Evaluators and Specialists;

0

The doing team roles: Shapers, Implementers and Complete Finishers; and

0

The people team roles: Teamworker, Resource Investigators and Coordinators.

These are all three essential aspects of a balanced team.

As mentioned earlier, Belbin's research showed that teams composed of very talented

people do not perform as well as teams which are composed of members who possess a

mix of all the necessary roles.

Belbin's teamwork model is based on that of sports' teams (1993:99). In this context he

writes about the placement of players as follows: "No manager will recruit three

goalkeepers. Particular players are right for particular positions... (An ideal) team has a

combination of players with complementary and perfectly matched behavioural skills".

Depending on the context a particular team role may be more important. Makin, Eveleigh

and Dale (1991:200) in their research with blue-collar, i.e. non-management teams found

the most vital team role for success in their teams to be that of a strong Completer

Finisher who ensures that allotted tasks are carried out and that objectives are reached

when necessary. Good time management is a characteristic of a Completer Finisher. The

second most important team role that came up in their research was that of a Plant.

Regardlessly all the team roles need to be fulfilled at some stage of a project or process.

32

Belbin also suggested that certain pairs or dyads of team roles worked well together. This

will be discussed in section 4.10 under the heading 'The value of team roles in practice'.

Team roles are therefore indicators of team member's preferred ways of working within a

team. They can provide an indication of what team members can expect from one another,

and provide awareness of the strengths and weaknesses within the team which need to be

acknowledged.

3.2.6 THE BELEM INTERPLACE COMPUTER PACKAGE AND HOW IT OS BEING

USED IN ENTERPRISES

As mentioned earlier Belbin's research at Henley was computer-based. The software

package integrated the results of the three questionnaires they used. As the popularity of

Belbin's team roles grew the need developed for a computer-based product which could

interpret the results to the Self-Perception Inventory and the Observer Assessments. This

package was made available in 1988 and was called The Interplace System of Human

Resource Management , Interplace for short. The manual included in the package is called

Interplace: matching people to jobs. At present the fourth version of the package is

available, called Interplace IV. It has been translated into nine languages for usage

worldwide (Moody, 1999:72).

Belbin writes (1996: vii) that Interplace was intended to "improve team selection and

performance". It can produce a full range of reports on the team role behaviour of

candidates or any other personnel issue within seconds. Over the years Interplace has

been refined and improved to be very user-friendly and easily understandable.

Woods (1992:10-15) describes it as "an expert system based on IBM compatible

computers... designed to help working managers, trainers, consultants and personnel in

the use, development, selection and understanding of teams. It ... goes a long way

towards helping individuals understand their own valued skills and how they may use them

in fitting more exactly to specific job requirements. As such it has a clear role in the

appraisal and counselling processes"."The Interplace system provides helpful information

on a persons' "own performance, his/her relationships with others and within the team and

points towards his/her "self-development programme". Uses of the Interplace package

include comparing self-assessments with observer assessments to glean whether they

correlate. If not, then it is possible that the person does not have good self-insight or that

33

the observers are not good 'observers' or that the person does not behave true to type

within the work situation.

Other uses are when a team needs to be put together to complete a temporary project. If

all the staff in the organisation have participated in such team building and all their

information is available in the Interplace database then the ideal team members can be

selected.

Where a team member needs to be hired the existing team can be examined to identify

which team roles may be lacking.

Where problems develop within teams the team role mix can be reviewed for the probable

personality and role clashes.

Belbin's team role identification method has proved extremely popular in management

development and consulting, both in South Africa and abroad, more especially the United

Kingdom. Dawson, Lord & Pheiffer (1996:9) write that Belbin's Team-Role Self Perception

Inventory is widely used in industry and commerce and that "practitioners seem to be

adopting the team based model as a recipe for success" .

Nicholson (1995:205) writes that it is used as "a tool to aid teambuilding and to seek high

performance through achieving a balance of essential group functions" and Fowler,

(1995:40-41) a British researcher writes that Belbin has "produce(d) one of the most widely

used questionnaires for team selection and team building, and his analysis of team

typology forms the basis for almost all work in this field".

Nicholson (1995:205) adds that Belbin's team allocation clearly has "intuitive appeal and

practical utility, by helping groups to introspect about potential imbalances in their modes

of conduct and to differentially predict individual behaviour in groups, and will probably

continue to be used widely by practitioners for this purpose".

The appeal lies especially in the clarification of roles, expectations, and strengths and

weaknesses of the individual team members. The fact that allowable weaknesses are

dealt with upfront and are seen as operating alongside the strengths of a recognised role

result in better self-insight, self-acceptance, team acceptance and improved commitment

to the team, as well as to improved teamwork interrelations.

34

Belbin (1993a: 86-87) lists the typical phrases and slogans expressed by various team

roles. When read they can also contribute to a spirit of humour amongst team members.

For example, a phrase typical of the Resource Investigator reads: "Never reinvent the

wheel" or a typical phrase for a Shaper reads: "Say 'no', then negotiate".

'Many a true word is spoken in jest': when a difficult team member who wasn't aware of

how others saw him/her hears the truth about him/herself under the disguise of humour it

can improve team spirit. It is hoped that the new self-insight will help team members to

'temper' their weaknesses for the common good.

The user-friendly software package, Interplace IV which offers many opportunities, is

probably the Belbin team role models' strongest selling point. Belbin's questionnaires and

computer package are widely used by human resource management- and organisational

development-consultants to:

Create ideal teams;

Improve team performance;

Determine job requirements and perform screening tests of possible job

candidates.

Organisations which purchase the Interplace software and enter the team role information

of all their staff members into its' database can use the results valuably. The advantage is

that the software analyses and interprets the results for the end-user. Interplace can

produce more than twenty computer reports. These include:

0 Candidate reports, such as the self-perception profile, a pie chart of self perception

vs observers assessments and a counselling profile;

O

Team reports, such as a team roles combination report;

O

Job reports, such as a report on a candidates' suitability for a job;

0 Organisation reports, such as profile averages or the most highly rated responses

for the organisation or a department (Don Porter Associates, Inc, 1997b).

Belbin's team role theory can also be used for rather unusual purposes, such as

comparing the profiles of two world leaders (See Appendix 2 which demonstrates how

political cooperation was facilitated by the complementary team roles played by Ronald

Reagen and Margaret Thatcher in the Eighties (Belbin, 1993:110)). Such a comparison

could also be of value when a deputy is selected for the director of an organisation or visa

versa. The ideal is to have two people who complement one another. For example, it

35

would be inadvisable to have two Shapers in these positions as it would result in conflict

between themselves and their employees. It would be preferable to have one Shaper and

one Coordinator. One could be a Resource Investigator and the other a Monitor Evaluator

or Completer Finisher.

Another area where team roles could be used with great value is in the choice of a

secretary for a manager. If a manager is for example a Resource Investigator it would be

very important for his/her secretary to be a Completer Finisher to ensure that s/he does

not let clients or employees down and makes follow-up arrangements where necessary.

Don Porter Associates, Inc who advertise Belbin's Interplace package on the Internet

market it by asking the following:

"Do the people in your organization need:

to understand how they can best contribute to a team?;

to improve their teamwork skills?;

to better understand why other team members behave the way they do in a team?;

to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of teams?;

to determine the best way of using each individual member in a given team?;

counselling notes which will help them make the best of their strengths and to be

aware of their weaknesses?;

to search for the most suitable candidate for a specific job from a given list of

candidates?;

to determine how suitable (vs. eligible) a person is for a specific job?;

to understand their team role profile and the team roles profiles for others (their

natural team roles, team roles they can assume, and team roles they probably

should avoid)".

They reply that Interplace is the solution to these needs and can provide for better

teamwork in your organisation (Don Porter Associates, 1997a).

Booysen (1999) a South African management consultant prefers using Belbin's team roles

for team training because Interplace is easy to administer and score and does not require

formal training. The results also lend themselves to team discussions and constructive

interaction. It offers something the participants can take away with them and use.

The appeal lies in the fact that the Belbin team roles are attractive and convincing in

explaining commonly observed individual differences (Teambuilding and...,1994:9).

36

These are some of the human resource management tasks Belbin's team role model can

be used for.

3.2.7 WHY PEOPLE PREFE CE T IIN ROLES

According to Belbin (1993a: 30) the factors indicated in figure 3.1 determine team-role

behaviour.

(1) Personality

(6) Role learning

(2) Mental ... BEHAVIOUR — (5) Experience

abilities

(3) Current

values and

motivations

(4) Field

constraints

Figure 3.1 : What underlies team role behaviour? (Belbin, 1993:30)

Belbin explains the origins of team role behaviour as follows:

Psycho-psychological factors, especially extroversion-introversion and high anxiety-

low anxiety underlie behaviour (1);

Nevertheless, high level thought (intelligence) can override personality (2);

Cherished values can also provide a particular set of behaviours (3); and

Behaviour can also depend on factors such as constraints in the immediate

environment (4);

Similarly personal experience and cultural factors can also influence behaviour (5);

As does the necessity to learn to play a needed role (6).

From this it can be deduced that Belbin has found that personality (1) is the most

important determiner of team role behaviour.

Green (1973: 1207-8) identifies the following three role relevant forces:

organisational or situational demands;

social or role-set demands;

personal or personality demands, for example an individuals' internalised beliefs,

norms and expectations which make up his/her identity.

37

Linking with the internalised beliefs and norms mentioned by Graen above, Fisher and

Macrosson (1995:8-15) researched the relationship between Moos & Moos' Family

Environmental Scales' and the eight original Belbin team roles. Their findings show how

behaviours learnt in the early home may be carried over into team behaviour.

This is particularly interesting in the South African context.

Moos and Moos' Family Environmental Scales' as used by Fisher and Macrosson (1995:9)

are divided into three dimensions, namely the relationship, personal growth and system

maintenance dimensions. These include ten subscales that measure the social-

environmental characteristics of families as indicated in Table 3.7. These dimensions are

relevant to the behaviour of the employee in the workplace.

Relationship dimension Personal growth

dimension

System maintenance

dimension

Cohesion

Expressiveness

Conflict

Independence

Achievement orientation

Intellectual-cultural orientation

Active-recreational orientation

Moral-religious emphasis

Organisation

Control

Table 3.7: Family environment dimensions and subscales (Fisher & Macrosson, 1995:9)

South African consultants who often use the Belbin team role model find the role that the

moral-religious background of participants play in the preferred team roles interesting

(Booysen, 1999). Table 3.8 is compiled by the present researcher and is based on Fisher

and Macrosson's (1995) research findings. It provides an indication of the family

background on the choice of team roles. This is of particular interest in the South African

context as whites and more specifically Calvinist Afrikaners tend to score highly in the

Completer Finisher and Monitor Evaluator team roles, as well as that of the Shaper

(Booysen, 1999).

38

TEAM ROLE HIGH FES SCORES

(4 )

LOW FES SCORES

(-)

MORAL-RELIGIOUS

(MR) SCORES

RESOURCE

INVESTIGATOR

+ Cohesion

+ Expressiveness

+ Independence

+ Active-recreation orientation

' communication, help, mutual support

' freedom to make own decisions, self-

sufficiency, assertiveness

° social-recreational activities

- Conflict

- Control

" no expression of anger,

aggression, conflict

* no persistence

(looses interest)

Very low score - lowest

of the 8 roles

(-0.1525)

IMPLEMENTER + Achievement orientation

* competitiveness

° diligence and application

- Intellectual-cultural orientation

' no distractions

Very low score -

2nd lowest score of the

8 roles (-0.1203)

PLANT + Independence

+ Intellectual-cultural orientation

- Achievement

- Competition

- Intellectual-cultural interest

- Socialisation

Low score (-0.1086)

COORDINATOR + (Family) cohesion orientation

° help and support

- Control

- Organisation

Low score (-0.0519)

TEAMWORKER + Cohesion

+ Active-recreation orientation

+ Organisation

+ Expressiveness

' Commitment, help and support of

family

- Conflict Medium score (0.0102)

SHAPER + Conflict

+ Achievement orientation

* competitiveness

' openly express anger, aggression,

conflict

- Cohesion

" little family commitment, help

and support

Medium score (0.0792)

MONITOR

EVALUATOR

+ Moral-religious orientation

+ Control

+ Conflict

+ Organisation

- Expressiveness

- Active-Recreation orientation

° repression of feelings

* social isolation

High score (0.1345)

COMPLETER

FINISHER

+ Control

+Moral-religious orientation

* Achievement orientation

° Self-discipline

- Active-recreational orientation

- Expressiveness

- Independence

- Intellectual-cultural orientation

Very high score

(0.3276)

Table 3.8 : The relationship between Belbin's team roles and Moos's Family Environmental Scales (FES) with

specific reference to the moral-religious (MR) scores. [+ = dimension is present; - = dimension is not present;

* =qualities associated with the relevant dimensions]

The characteristics of the team roles and the dimensions and subscales show an

interesting correlation. The main critique against using the FES-scales to explain choice of

team roles it is the phenomenon of different team roles within one family.

39

3.2.8 THE APPLICATION OF BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY TO AN INFORMATION

SERVICE ENTERPRISE

Belbin had great success in the early 1970's with his application of his team role model

amongst management teams. It was a time of authoritarian management when managers

were responsible for all problem solving and decision making. The managers selected for

his research were taken from profit-making companies. Information service enterprises are

predominantly non-profitmaking service enterprises. Whether Belbin's team role theory can

be applied unreservedly in an information service -context is therefore questioned.

Bluck (1994:226), writing about team management in academic libraries states that "Belbin

should be used with extreme caution in a library context". He argues that Belbin's results

apply to profit enterprises and not service-based enterprises such as information service

enterprises. In personal e-mail communication with Robert Bluck (1997) he raises

important points such as writes that "Belbin's research relates (almost) exclusively to the

private sector, using project teams, with similar grades. There is no evidence to support

the idea that his findings are transferable to non-profit organizations, with permanent

teams, with members on different grades... so I think (Belbin) should be used with extreme

caution (in libraries) if at all". Eventhough these are good points which must not be lost

sight of this researcher disagrees with Bluck as information service enterprises must still

apply their funds cost-effectively to improve productivity. As such, Belbin's team role theory

can also be applied in non-profit enterprises.

Bluck (1994:227) raises other important issues which must also be kept in mind: He

questions the acceptance of 'teams' within information service enterprises as he views

such enterprises as being hierarchical. Information service enterprises in South Africa are

slowly moving towards participative management and more democratic organisational

cultures. Admittedly most still have far to go. Where teams are not self-directed and team

members are not given the responsibility of problem solving and decision making some of

the team roles becomes irrelevant. In fact, people who hold these team roles as primary

roles can become very frustrated with the constraints under which they work.

A valid criticism by Bluck (1994:226) of Belbin is that his teams were "chosen for specific

projects, where all team members have equal status". Generally teams are involved in

ongoing day-to-day work and more often than not team members don't have equal status,

40

especially in present-day South Africa where teams still include previously disadvantaged

staff who are still on lower scales and grades. As such Belbin does need to be applied and

interpreted with the necessary caution.

Another new development is the tendency to multi-skill all staff in a team so that they can

stand in for one another. This reinforces the idea of a team member fulfilling more than

one or two roles, taking on secondary roles where necessary.

To conclude, it can be seen that Belbin's theory can be applied to information service

enterprises, but that due caution should be displayed with regard to its' limitations.

3.3 THE UNIQUENESS OF BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY WHEN COMPARED

WITH OTHER SIMILAR THEORIES

3.3.1. ACKGROUND

Eventhough Belbin makes no mention of their work Benne and Sheats (1948:41-49) were

the first researchers to differentiate between task and team roles. They identified task

roles, building and maintenance roles, and individual roles. Three years later Bales and

Strodtbeck (1951:485) differentiated between task-orientation behaviours and socio-

emotional behaviours or maintenance behaviour, which influence team processes. The

importance of reading Benne and Sheats' and Bales and Strodtbeck's articles is that it

becomes clear that Belbin was not the first researcher to look at roles. Some researchers

claim that Belbin's 1981-model is the basis from which other team role theories such as

those of Margerison and McCann were developed (Senior, 1997:242), but it appears that

the concept originated with Benne and Sheats. The main difference between Belbin's work

and that of Benne and Sheats is that Belbin linked team roles with personality and

characteristics. He specifically defined team roles in terms of the 16PF (16 Personality

Factor Questionnaire) scores and as such drew attention to the importance of personality

in team performance. This has been a valuable contribution to the field of team roles.

It is also important to recognise Carl Jung's work on psychological types which forms the

basis of most team role theories. Mumma (1984:7) writes that Belbin "elaborated the team

roles and demonstrated their relationship to effective task performance in business

management simulations and in several organisations". The novelty of his theory is

therefore the linking of Carl Jung's personality traits to team roles and the linking of team

41

roles to team performance. He was also the first team role theorist to develop a

questionnaire measure to identify preferred styles of team participation.

3.3.2 COMPARING BELBON'S TEAM ROLE THEO Y WITH SIMILAR THEORIES

The three theories which will be compared are all three based on Jung's psychological

types. They are Belbin's team role theory, Margerison and McCann's team role theory and

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Though the latter is not a 'team role' theory as such it

also identifies personality types and is used for similar purposes in enterprises. Table 3.9

compares these three contemporary approaches to understanding teams.

Belbin's theory follows the sociological approach. It focuses on role differences between

team members. The underlying question each team member asks is: 'What (behavioural)

role do I have within the team?'. The sociological approach is preferred by this researcher

as it focuses on the individuals' social relations within a team, whereas the other

approaches focus more on the individual.

Sociological approach

(i.e. social relations among

organised groups/teams)

Socio-psychological

approach

Psychological approach

(i.e. the human mind/soul)

I I I

Role differences

within a team

Individual role preferences Individual differences

I I I

What (behavioural) role

do I have?

What do I wish to do? Who am I?

I I I

Belbin's Team Role Theory Margerison-McCann Team

Management Wheel

Myer-Briggs Type

Indicator

All the above theories are based on Carl Jung's psychological types

Table 3.9 : The different approaches to understanding team roles (Based on: Margerison &

McCann, 1990:137).

The psychological and socio-psychological approaches in turn focus on the questions

'Who am I?' and 'What do I wish to do?'.

42

As noted earlier the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is reviewed as a team role theory

due to its similarities with the others in determining personality type and the corresponding

behaviour as may be displayed in the workplace.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator includes a questionnaire with 166 items scoring the four

temperaments identified by Carl Jung: extraversion-introversion, sensation-intuition,

thinking-feeling, and judgement-perception.

Botha (1994:119) suggests that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Belbin team role

questionnaires are equally good indicators of team behaviour. Whereas Belbin looks at

outwardly observable team behaviour, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator focuses more on

inherent personality traits (present author's emphasis). The advantage of the Belbin result

is that it includes input from both the self perception and observers' assessments from

fellow team members. Outwardly observable behaviour is also more valuable for team

discussion purposes. With Belbin's questionnaires the trainer does not need extensive

psychological training or formal training in the interpretation of the results. It is also easier

and less time-consuming to analyse for team building purposes (Booysen, 1999).

The work of Margerison and McCann also builds on Jung's insights into psychological

types. They illustrate their team roles as running in a wheel starting with:

The advisor:

The explorer:

The organiser:

The controller:

The advisor:

The linker:

Creator Innovator

Explorer Promoter & Assessor Developer

Thruster Organiser & Concluder Producer

Controller Inspector & Upholder Maintainer

Reporter Advisor & Creator Innovator, once again coming up with

new ideas

Coordinates all these activities

As illustrated in figure 3.2 the 'Linker' coordinates all the activities of the various role

players.

Creator Innovator

Assessor Developer

Linker

O

z 0)

Thruster Organiser

Reporter Adviser

cc

O a

43

Ey,PLORERs

Explorer Promotor

Upholder

Concluder Maintainer

Producer

Controller Inspector

CONTROLLERS

Figure 3.2: Margerison and McCann's Team Management Wheel (1990:30)

Margerison and McCann (1984:10) produced the Team Management Index (TMI) which

focuses more on Jung's work regarding the way in which people:

0 establish relationships (extraversion/expressive or introversion/reflective)

0 gain information (sensing/practical or intuition/holistic)

0

make decisions (thinking/logic or feeling/values)

establish organisational arrangements (judging/structure or perceiving/flexibility)

and their roles build on these activities. Their management wheel provides managers with

an integrated framework of teamwork and focuses on the work flow process which is most

useful.

Margerison and McCann's (1984:10) criticism of Belbin's work is that it "does not provide

managers with an integrated framework for self-understanding related to a model of team

work". They also find Belbin's sociological approach too narrow and prefer a socio-

psychological approach which focuses on individual role preferences (Margerison &

McCann, 1990:134-135). They decided against using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI) because in their opinion "it attempts to assess personality type across both work

and non-work situations... (whereas their) findings were that work and non-work are often

two distinct compartments in a person's life, so although they also used Jung's work on

psychological types, they adapted it for the work situation alone" (Teambuilding and....,

1994:7).

44

Their model focuses on the work flow process and can be used to:

determine the phase strengths and weaknesses of the team; and

determine the progress of a team project.

Figure 3.3 compares the terminology used in the three theories under discussion and the

associated skill involved. The Myers-Briggs equivalents are based on the work of Botha

(1994:114-115).

SKILL BELBIN MYERS-BRIGGS MARGERISON &

MCCANN

People Coordinator: Holds

the process together

ESTJ Linker : Holds the

process together

People

Doing

Resource Investigator

Implementer

ESTJ or ESFJ

ISTJ

Explorers:

Explorer/Promoter

Assessor Developer

Doing

Doing

Shaper

Completer Finisher

ISTJ or ESTJ

ISTJ

Organisers:

Thruster/Organiser

Concluder/Producer

Thinking

People

Monitor Evaluator

Teamworker

ISTJ

ESTJ or ISTJ

Controllers:

Controller/Inspector

Upholder/Maintainer

Thinking

Thinking

Specialist (¢)

Plant

ISTJ

INTP or INTJ

Advisers:

Reporter/Advisor

Creator/Innovator

' I

Renewed Exploration

(*) = The Specialist does not correspond perfectly with the Reporter/Advisor

Myers-Briggs abbreviations: E=Extrovert; I=Introvert; S=Sensing; N =Intuition; T=Thinking; F=Feeling;

J=Judging; P=Perceiving.

Figure 3.3 : A comparison of the terminology used by Belbin, Myers-Briggs and Margerison

& McCann and the associated skill involved.

Based on figure 3.3 we can then deduce for example that Belbin's 'Plant' has strong

thinking skills and that this team role corresponds well with that of Margerison and

McCann's Creator/Innovator which falls into the 'Advisor' category of their Team

Management Wheel. The Plant team role also corresponds with the Myers-Briggs INTP or

45

INTJ - types, i.e. according to Botha (1994:114-115) they tend to be either Introvert-

Intuitive-Thinking-Perceptive or Introvert-Intuitive-Thinking-Judging types.

An observation of concern here is that Botha found only 5 of the 16 MBTI-types covered by

the Belbin team roles. This reinforces the notion that Belbin measures outwardly

observable behaviour in team context, whereas Myers-Briggs measures inherent

personality traits. The context will determine which of the two is more appropriate for a

particular team building need.

The Belbin and Margerison and McCann classifications are very similar and refer to

outwardly observable behaviour. Which of the two theories will be preferred by a particular

team trainer will depend on the particular goals that need to be achieved. The Margerison and

McCann Team Management Wheel focuses more on the ongoing process of

Exploring --> Organising --> Controlling --> Advising --> Renewed Exploration.

The similarities between the three models under discussed lie in their Jungian origins.

Each emphases it's own unique differences. Which one is best will depend on what is

required within a particular context. Belbin's team roles appear to have a popular appeal,

Margerison and McCann focus on the ongoing nature of activities and Myers-Briggs focuses

on the inherent qualities of the individual. It will also depend on the resources available and

which software package is preferred.

Belbin appears to have the 'competitive advantage' here as his Interplace software package

has multiple possibilities such as personal profiles, counselling profiles, team profiles and the

possibility to search for the ideal candidate(s) to participate in a particular project.

Margerison and McCann's Team Management Systems (TMS)'s model also comes with its'

own software which can only be used by trainees who have attended their three day

accredited workshop. The questionnaires are provided free to these trainers on completion of

the workshop. They don't make their software available for sale. Every time the trainer wants

profiles they must be submitted to a TMS office for processing. The total TMS package is

considerably more expensive than the Interplace-package.

Belbin's BTRSPI is available in his published books. For ease of data processing the trainer

can purchase the whole Interplace package which includes a stiffy for producing the team

role results and manipulating the results for organisational purposes. The latter is a big plus in

46

favour of Belbin depending on the financial resources available. The observers' assessment

questionnaires are also a valuable asset for a more holistic picture of an team member. At

the end of 1998 Belbin Associates (Contribute: team-role..., 1998:1) made available a team

role game called 'Contribute'. "Used as a training tool, it is played by team members who

engage in a range of exercises that require team role strengths" (Moody, 1999:72).

An important reason for Belbin having the 'competitive edge' with regard to the team role

theories is the fact that he is a researcher turned businessman. He has founded Belbin

Associates and his products are marketed internationally and are tailored and updated to suit

the needs of the market. The `Contribute'-game brought onto the market as recently as

December 1998 is evidence of this.

This concludes the section explaining the uniqueness of Belbin's team role theory when

compared to other similar theories.

3.4 CRITICISM OF BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY

3.4.1 'ACADEMIC' CRITICISM:

Due to the popularity of Belbin's team role model and the fact that his team building business

has expanded internationally, criticism of the validity and reliability of his model was

inevitable. As seen in section 3.2.6 Belbin's Interplace System is being marketed as the

`answer to all team problems' and a bit of perspective is necessary in this regard.

Belbin's supporters are trainers and consultants who are using his work extensively for the

"recruitment of members to teams and in training associated with team building"

(Senior,1997:243). Criticism of Belbin's work has come from academics and researchers who

are concerned with the reliability and validity of the research results.

Although most researchers acknowledge the importance and usefulness of Belbin's team role

theory in constructing effective teams through mixing and balancing personality traits of the

team members, they question the scientific reliability, validity and internal consistency of the

BTRSPI.

Researchers such as Furnham, Steele and Pendleton claim that many companies are not

using the total Interplace package which includes the recently added Observers' Assessment,

47

but are using the BTRSPI on its own as is freely available in Belbin's original book. They

claim that the BTRSPI is an unreliable predictor or measure of role preferences and are of the

opinion that his 'roles' as identified by the BTRSPI are not psychometrically sound. They

question the degree in which team members are being moulded into roles for the sake of the

enterprise's goals (Furnham, Steele & Pendleton, 1993: 245). Fisher, Macrosson and Sharp

(1996:67) also confirm Furnham, Steel and Pendleton's findings that the Belbin Team Role

Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) can not be used on it's own to determine team roles.

Belbin (1993b: 259-260) in his reply to Furnham, et al's criticism says that the BTRSPI was

never intended to be a formal psychometric test and that it was meant only to be "a quick and

useful way of intimating to readers (of his 1981 book) what their own team roles might be".

Belbin also points out that Furnham is wrongly examining team roles as if they are

fundamental traits instead of as "clusters of related characteristics combining to facilitate the

emergence of a role" (Belbin, 1993b:260). It is also important to note that their criticism is

based on the original eight-role version of Belbin's Self-Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) and

does not include the Observers' Assessment Questionnaires which were introduced with the

integrated Interplace package. Further in his reply Belbin (1993b: 259) then also stated that

the integration of the two questionnaires as made available through the Interplace package

was the preferred way of identifying more realistic team roles. In his 1996 book The coming

shape of the organization Belbin (vii) writes in his foreword : "Later we devised new ways of

improving team selection and performance. The outcome was Interplace, a computer-based

human resource management system". In this software package the observers assessments

are included in the results and this produces a more holistic result.

Broucek and Randell (1996:403) acknowledge that Belbin's team role theory is "a unique

approach to predicting the effectiveness of teams ... (that he) ... has made a valuable

contribution in calling attention to the role of personality in team performance ... (and that it

has) ... attracted considerable support among trainers and consultants". But they also

express concern regarding the psychometric acceptability of Belbin's theory. They also write

that they are of the opinion that his study of team performance is supported more by

anecdote than by statistical data (Broucek & Randell, 1996:403).

Makin, Eveleigh and Dale (1991:196) also express their concern that "few quantitative data

are given to support the conclusions (of Belbin's findings), and statistical analysis is almost

non-existent" though their research did appear to support elements of Belbin's findings

(1991:203).

48

Dawson, Lord and Pheiffer (1996:9) urge Belbin to subject his team roles to rigorous tests of

reliability and that he publish his results. Furthermore they suggest that Belbin test the validity

of his team roles "through research in actual work environments rather than simulated work

settings".

Belbin's logic in drawing conclusions is questioned by many researchers, not only with regard

to his team roles. Mestre (1996:94-95) critiques his deductions as follows: his treatment of

topics is "'hit and run' and supported by a few anecdotes to illustrate the propositions".

Furthermore he writes that "little empirical evidence or further rationale is provided... and

leaves the reader confused for a lack of direction". He further accuses Belbin of "over-

simplification, ... superficial... arguments ... and lack of insights". He writes that Belbin's work

reads like "a consultants' promotional material".

Senior (1997: 243, 256) is also of the opinion that Belbin's roles are based on anecdotal

evidence and that the researchers involved had vested interests in the results.

Research done by Dulewicz (1995:94-97), also from the Henley Management College,

validated Belbin's team roles based on his research with the Sixteen Personality Factor

(16PF) and Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ).

Fowler (1995:41) writes that Belbin's research is pioneering and "forms the basis for almost

all work in this field", but he adds that "the Belbin typology is not the only approach to team

selection. At the 1994 IED conference in Arrogate, there were 32 exhibitors offering various

forms of team development training, and a number of these have their own team-type

classifications. Enterprises should research these other sources and decide for themselves

which approach best meets their needs". Though this would be the ideal the possibilities

offered by the Interplace tend to tempt the selector away from making an objective decision.

Broucek and Randell (1996:404) note with concern that Belbin gives no credit to the work

done by Benne and Sheats (1948) and Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) with regard to the

differentiation between task and team roles.

McCrimmon (1995:37) questions Belbin's focus on 'problem solving' teams, as he suggests

that "real life organizational teamwork is about the implementation of decisions and the

coordination of ongoing activity across numerous and disparate disciplines" (this

researchers' emphasis). This links with Margerison & McCann's team wheel explained in 3.3

49

which focuses on the ongoing process of enterprisal activities. This aspect is lacking in

Belbin's work. Unfortunetly neither Myers-Briggs nor Margerison & McCann offer the valuable

software comparable to that of Belbin which makes team building easy and effective.

Dawson, Lord and Pheiffer's (1996:9) and Dulewicz (1995:82) found that the relevance of

Belbin's team roles depend on the goals and tasks of the team. Belbin (1981:132) also noted

that "the ideal blend (of team roles) will depend on the goals and tasks the team faces".

It is important for users of the questionnaires to be aware that the team roles are not

definitive and are meant as an indication of probable team roles. Parkinson (1995:22-25)

suggests that all the psychometric criticism of Belbin's team roles is irrelevant when it is

considered that "the team role 'measure' is not the final result, only a step towards it". As a

team training consultant he would rather use a measure that is "acceptable but possibly

psychometrically flawed... (rather than) ... one that is psychometrically sound but not

acceptable or understandable to those who will be using it" . User-acceptability and face-

validity is far more important in the training situation. He writes that team roles are meant to

"stimulate self-analysis, understanding and learning" and are not definitive. Participants need

to develop their own team profile based on their internalisation of the results of both the self-

perception and observers' assessment results.

The last word comes from Belbin himself. In 1996 in his book The coming shape of

organization he writes: "The fallacy, to which I had proved myself as susceptible as anyone

else, was to assume that the recruitment and retention of able people in the aggregate,

operating in well-balanced teams, would ensure better performance on the part of the

organization as a whole. Broadly that is what tends to happen. Unfortunetly, without taking a

holistic view of the enterprise, nothing can be guaranteed". He still stands by his premise that

staff "put together in the right way" can outperform those who aren't, but he now adds that a

good team can not fulfil itself if the organisational environment and structure of the enterprise

are unsatisfactory. This then forms the basis of his book on the ideal shape of the future

organisation.

As such then, Belbin himself admits to the limitations of his team role theory.

The trainer choosing to use Belbin's team roles as human resource management tool must

take note of the above criticisms and the shortcomings and limitations of this model and work

within these parameters. Forewarned is forearmed. Regardlessly the value of his team roles

50

far outweigh the criticism and they are well-used by consultants and team trainers.

3.4.2 CRITICISM OF THE VALUE OF TEAM ROLES:

Clark's (1994:33) criticism of Belbin's team roles is that it focuses on the selection of teams

and not on their development. He also questions the practical value of determining that most

of the team belong to one category. Most organisations do not have the flexibility to make

inter-team transfers. The result may be that the team feels frustrated and hopeless instead of

empowered. Belbin suggests that such a situation should be seen as a growth opportunity

instead of a dead-end. When such a `mis-balance' is acknowledged then it can be dealt with.

More focus needs to be placed on the under-represented team roles and that people be

encouraged to experiment with other, more necessary, team roles.

The basis of Belbin's team role model is the importance of team roles. The consultant

McCrimmon (1995:35-41) writes at length about his criticism of team roles.

McCrimmon questions the whole idea of team roles suggesting that roles are appropriate only

in static/hierarchical/mechanistic organizations . He argues that most teams have no set roles

and that members interchange them.

His problems with roles are:

Facts versus norms: The role allocation can be restrictive;

Rigidity:

Team roles can work against flexibility or personal

development;

Territoriality:

Unwillingness to contribute outside the given role

allocation;

Abdication:

Refusing to take responsibility for anything outside the

given role;

Human nature:

People are unpredictable and may stray from the

expected role.

In his view roles are:

a "luxury (which we ) need to give up in today's more dynamic enterprises";

as well as being

"defence mechanisms, ... comfort zones where the unadventurous can feel safe".

He writes that "there is no getting away from the fact that a role is a box and today's

51

organizations are rapidly breaking up boxes". As such, he argues that Belbin's theories are

outdated. The author of this research report would agree with McCrimmon's critique of the

limitations of assigning team roles as the "commonly prescribed cure" for organizational ills.

Instead, this author would argue for its value in self-understanding and team understanding

which will be dealt with in detail later.

McCrimmon further questions the reliance of contemporary dynamic enterprises on

predominantly the following:

the Resource Investigator to maintain contact with the external environment;

the Plant to pick up new ideas;

the Monitor Evaluator to critically evaluate new ideas.

He asks whether such a team would, for example, cancel a meeting if the Monitor Evaluator

can not be present? He believes that "organisational renewal is much more loosely

structured, fluid and outward-looking than Belbin's teamwork... and that different forms of

teamwork need to be recognized for different purposes".

McCrimmon (1995:39) therefore suggests that the term 'team roles' be replaced with 'fluid

skill sets' to encourage flexibility and creativity amongst all team members. To ensure the

future success of contemporary enterprises these principles of fluidity, flexibility and creativity

are preferable to the limiting nature of Belbin's team roles.

McCrimmon further points out that in the Belbin context a team is a group with the task of

solving problems and making decisions, whereas most teams in enterprises are involved in

the process of implementing the decisions and coordinating ongoing activities. Can one

deduce from this that most teams involved in day-to-day activities should aim to include more

Teamworkers, Implementers and Completer Finishers, and where this is not the case,

encourage the members to focus on these team roles?

52

3.5 CONCLUSION

In this chapter the sub-problems of what Belbin's team role entails, and in which way Belbin's

team role theory is unique in relation to other role theories has been addressed. The team

roles have been explained as well as their application and value. It was found that a balanced

team where all the team roles are represented has the best chance of being successful. It

also became clear that the value of Belbin's Interplace /V-package contributes to the

popularity of this team role model due to both its' ease of use and its' valuable results.

Possible reasons why people choose certain roles were examined. The viability of applying

Belbin's team role theory to information service enterprises was debated and the conclusion

was reached that as these enterprises also need to be run effectively and productively this

team role model can be applied to such enterprises.

When Belbin's team role model was compared with other similar theories the similarities and

differences were identified. The uniqueness of the Belbin team role theory appears to lie in

its' intrinsic value and the Interplace software.

Criticism of Belbin's team role theory is mostly academic in nature and focuses on the validity

and reliability of the psychometric measures. It appears that where the total Interplace

package, including the Observers' Assessment questionnaire is used a more reliable result is

obtained. Valid criticisms are Belbin's focus on team selection rather than team development

and the possible inflexibility of the team roles in modern enterprises. It is important that team

trainers note these limitations when using Belbin's team role theory for team training

purposes.

To conclude, this researcher is of the opinion that team roles should be used tools and not as

rigid structures within which team members must function. They should be used to build

teams and not to limit the process of getting the task done.

53

CHAPTER 4

4. APPLICATION OF BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY IN THE MESA LIBRARY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter the first two sub-problems were addressed namely, what Belbin's

team role theory entails and what makes Belbin's team role theory unique in relation to similar

team role theories. In this chapter the next sub-problem, namely what the value of Belbin's

team role theory is for information enterprises will be addressed. This team role theory will be

applied to a particular team in the Unisa Library to assess its' value.

Firstly the current Unisa management context in which this team functions will be sketched by

looking at Unisa at present, the Unisa Library and the importance of teams within the library

context . The choice and nature of the team and what they do will be explained. Then Belbin's

team role model will be applied to this particular team in the Unisa library and the results will

be examined. The two questionnaires completed by the team members will be explained and

the results for this team will be discussed, including the 'balance' of team roles and how this

could affect the team's success.

This chapter will also include an additional research/evaluation questionnaire submitted to the

team where they evaluated their perceived value of the team role results. The design of the

questionnaire and the reasons for the choice of measuring scale and the choice of questions

will be explained. Then the results of the research/evaluation questionnaire will be analysed.

The effect the team role identification has on self-perception and self-confidence will also be

discussed. Finally an evaluation of this team will be made.

4.2 UNISA AT PRESENT

The Unisa Library serves the Unisa staff and student community in its teaching and research

needs. The library has a vital role to play as the university enters the new millennium.

At the opening of the new academic year on 9 February 1999 Professor Anthony Melck, the

newly appointed Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Unisa unveiled his Seven Point Plan to take

Unisa into the new millennium. The Unisa staff newsletter, The Bulletin (Prof Melck...,

1999:1,4) summarises his Seven Point Plan as follows: "It includes:

54

Reaffirming accessible distance education as the core business of Unisa, with

particular focus on developing quality learning materials and effective tuition;

Using selected programmes and schools as the basis for managing the academic

processes at Unisa and addressing national educational needs. This is in line with the

National Qualifications Framework, which requires educational offerings to be

presented as programmes;

Employment Equity will be attained through an aggressive programme of recruitment,

training and development of previously disadvantaged individuals;

Institutional growth is needed to ensure financial viability and sustainability. This

growth will be achieved through effective cost management, developing relevant

programmes to increase Unisa's market share; and developing access initiatives to

meet national needs;

The stature of Unisa as a university will be enhanced by encouraging excellence in

teaching, scholarship and research for the benefit of society;

The process of transformation will be underpinned on the one hand by effective

communication to ensure stakeholder participation and on the other by marketing

strategies;

All available resources will be channelled and allocated to bring the strategies outlined

above to fruition" .

Each point has implications for the Library, for example, its' important role in support of the

developing of quality learning materials as well as its vital role of providing in the teaching and

research needs of the Unisa community. The new programme structure, the employment

equity programme, the new financial management approach and the transformation process

all have implications for the way the library will enter the new millennium. This then is the

context within which the library functions.

4.3 THE UNISA LIBRARY AT PRESENT

Since 1992 there has been an ongoing evaluation of the management practices and

organisational structure in the Unisa Library. Various teams have been formed to deal with

the changes and new policies, for example the Management Practices Committee and the

(original) Reengineering Team. When these teams were formed in 1997 a management

consultant was asked to do team building exercises with these teams. He used Belbin's

questionnaires and his Inferplace IV computer package to identify team roles and make

suggestions as to how team interrelations could be improved. The team training resulted in

55

increased self-insight and more openness amongst team members.

After the Reengineering Team's proposals were rejected by the Library Management

Executive team a new reengineering process was initiated during 1998. It appears that the

new organisational design will be implemented during the year 2000.

As necessary changes in the processes and design of the library have been 'put on hold' until

the reengineering plan is implemented, the library is not functioning optimally at present which

makes it difficult to effectively evaluate a team. A new reengineering team assisted by a new

set of consultants is working on a detailed strategic enterprise modelling project which is very

thorough, if somewhat time-consuming. This context results in the findings of this research

not being ideal.

4.4 THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAMS WITHIN THE UNISA LIBRARY CONTEXT

The question arises as to what value Belbin's team role identification has in the workplace,

more particularly in a service enterprise like an information service enterprise.

Teams were implemented in the Technical Services division of the Unisa Library during 1996.

The teams were intended to be self-directed work teams (De Jager & Du Toit, 1997) but as

the rest of the library continues working within a bureaucratic structure they function as semi-

autonomous teams instead (Magubane, 1999). This is similar to the problem experienced at

the library of the University of Northumbria where "transitional problems included establishing

a common understanding of the nature of the team as 'a participative feature of a basically

hierarchical structure and not (his emphasis) a democratic device" (Bluck, 1994:232).

The teams in the Technical Services division have developed through the five team phases

suggested by Tuckman (in Robbins, 1993:288-9) namely, forming, storming, norming,

performing and adjourning and are functioning relatively successfully. Problems encountered

have been the fact that they are still functioning within a bureaucratic library structure and that

where job descriptions have changed and posts have been upgraded salaries have not been

raised correspondingly due to the moratorium on posts at Unisa until recently, but more

importantly because of the ongoing reengineering process in the rest of the library

(Magubane, 1999).

Magubane (1999), who is the Project Implementation Manager for the critical success factor

56

'Organisational Design' in the present reengineering process in the Unisa Library says that

the present plan is to change the library into a team-based organisation. When the new

teams are created there will most likely be people working together who have not worked

together before and even people who have not worked in a team before. Team building will

be necessary and hopefully Belbin's team role training will be used for this purpose. A

possible problem here might be that the Observers' Assessment questionnaire can only be

completed by people who know the candidate already. People who have worked with him/her

previously could be asked to complete the questionnaires, although it is possible that team

role behaviour changes when the candidate is in a new team. In section 3.2.7 the factors

which influence a preferred team role were discussed such as organisational or situational

demands, which change from team to team.

Part of the team building was the identification of the Belbin team roles within each team. The

success of the application of the team roles differed from team to team depending on the

nature of the team. Some team members spoken to questioned whether the correct team role

had been assigned to them and expressed concern about the way in which individuals

generally complete questionnaires and manipulate the results because of preconceived

ideas. For example, if the four individuals completing a particular colleagues 'Observers'

Assessment' questionnaire are hoping that that person will fulfil the role of the team's

Coordinator because none of them would like that responsibility, they will sub-consciously

only tick those items which relate to leadership and coordinating qualities and possibly omit

other qualities the person may have. Generally the insight and knowledge gained from the

team role identification has been used in the spreading of responsibilities amongst team

members and the team building has been used to the advantage of team functioning.

As the whole library moves towards the implementation of teams, and as Belbin's team roles

seem to be the preferred model for team building, it is advisable that such a team building

exercise be analysed to determine what potential it does offer, as well as determining what

possible problems should be looked out for. This would create realistic expectations of what

this team role model can offer the future trainee.

4.5 THE SURVEY OF THE PE

ODOCAL PROVISION TEAM I

4.5.1 THE PERfiODICAL PROVISION TEAM

The team selected for this research is the Periodicals Provision Team in the Unisa Library. It

57

forms part of the Document Delivery Division of the library.

In terms of Katzenbach and Smith's (1993:3) team classification the Periodical Provision

Team is a team which "makes and does things" rather than a team which "recommends

things" or a team which "runs things". They are a semi-autonomous team and their workflow

is of a 'conveyer belt' - type nature as will be illustrated in figure 4.1. Each step in the process

is interdependent on the previous step and feeds into the next step of the process.

With regard to the choice of team the following: In 1994 a "Team of the year"-award was

made to this team. Due to both the transitions taking place in the country as well as at Unisa

and also in the Library the organisational culture is such that it is not advisable to make

awards at present. What is important here is that this team has shown exceptional team spirit

regardless of the circumstances.

The Periodicals Provision Team has a good team spirit and there are good relationships

between the team members. But they have until now focused very little on individual needs.

They are an administrative team they have been given very little attention with regard to

human resource development. The fact that they were selected for this project and that they

as individuals were given personal feedback in the form of personal counselling profiles which

this researcher discussed with them individually has answering this need to a limited degree.

A team like the Periodicals Provision Team needs to be an effective and high performance

team. The 'product' they are providing, namely articles to students who are remotely situated

from the library, is of utmost importance for marketing purposes. The Unisa Library is the

second largest in the Southern Hemisphere and this is a drawcard for attracting students to

study at the University of South Africa. Students who are dissatisfied with the provision of

articles necessary for their studies and research will discourage others from studying at Unisa

for this reason.

The aim of the Periodical Provision Team is to provide most of the articles requested to

clients within five days of receiving the request. The Library survey of May 1998 evaluating

the Periodical Provision Services rated the service as follows: "The majority of the

respondents (86,9%) rated the Periodicals Request Service as good or very good, while

11,5% said it was reasonable. Only 1,6% of the respondents felt that this library service was

poor" (1998:7).

58

As for the team members themselves, the team is made up of people with good mental

ability. To be appointed at Unisa, job applicants first need to pass a stringent examination

testing mental ability. Information Service work involves a lot of attention to detail and a high

level of accuracy is vital.

The team is unique in the following aspects:

.

There are only two English first-language speakers in this team. Most other research

with Belbin's theory has been applied to predominantly English first-language

speaking teams.

.

It is a predominately male group (i.e. only six of the staff are female) which is also

unusual in libraries in general;

.

It's a predominately black group (i.e. only four of the staff are white) which is unusual

in this particular library due to the moratorium on posts;

.

The team leader is a black lady who is a highly qualified and experienced librarian.

She has exceptional leadership qualities and fosters a good team spirit. Her deputy is

a black male. Relatively few sections in this library have black leaders and deputies;

. This team has an exceptional team spirit with the team members participating in its

own team tea club and a "stokvel", i.e. 14 of the 17 members each make a monthly

contribution of R80 to a fund and then in turn every 14 months they receive a payout

of R1 120;

.

This team carries the bulk of document delivery queries directed to the library from its

predominantly remote client base due to the fact that Unisa is a distance education

university and many of its students live in remote or rural areas with limited access to

resources (clients request more articles than they do books);

This team is responsible for the following aspects of the journals collection in the library:

The circulation of new journals to the relevant subject librarians and to the

departments ordering particular journal titles;

The making and sending out of copies of the tables of contents (TOC's) of particular

journal titles to departments who do not order the particular title but would like to see

the TOC's (one full-day and one half-day staff member work with this);

The processing of all incoming journal request cards (one staff member);

The shelving of all journals which have been used by clients or the photocopy team;

The finding of all the once-off article requests;

The arranging for photocopies to be made of the relevant articles (four staff members

59

are responsible for this);

The finding of the prescribed and recommended articles for the structured courses.

Five staff members are responsible for this - two for the law-related courses in

particular;

The postage of these articles to the clients (one person is responsible for this);

Answering of queries from both onsite and remote clients with regard to the location of

journals and article requests. All the team members are involved in this task, taking

turns to do counter duty and answer the phones.

Two important aspects of the nature of the work needs to be noted:

O

Most students are remotely situated and contact this team via the post, fax or phone;

O

Most requests are received from students registered for structured courses, for

example the honours courses, post-graduate law degrees and structured masters

courses such as the Masters in Business Leadership (MBL). These requests are for

prescribed and recommended articles required for assignments which have to be

handed in by certain dates. This creates a lot of pressure in the Periodicals Provision

Section at certain times of the year. Because of the new modular system recently

introduced at Unisa there are two peak periods in the year when the workload in this

section is overwhelming.

In their research with a team of undergraduate students working on a particular team project,

Watkins and Gibson-Sweet (1997:105) found it useful to apply an analogy of a yacht to

describe "how the individual components of the team pulled together to form a cohesive unit".

In the case of the Periodicals Provision Team an analogy of a 'conveyor belt' as illustrated in

figure 4.1 is appropriate.

As illustrated in figure 4.1 the input onto the conveyor belt is the incoming request cards for

journal articles which enter the analogy on the top left hand side of the belt. The activities

along the upper level of the conveyor belt need to be organised by a good Coordinator. The

upper level of the conveyor belt represents the filling of client requests for journal articles.

There is a team member who receives these queries, sorts them into categories and then

disseminates them to the relevant team member(s) responsible for filling these queries, who

in turn deliver the applicable journals with the request cards to the photocopying section.

They collect the photocopies, print out the address stickers and post the articles to the

clients. The output of the process is the posting of the retrieved and photocopied articles and

60

this is represented on the top right hand side of the belt. The wheels of the conveyor belt are

kept running by the Shaper, who gives the pace.

COORDINATOR

Input Output

Figure 4.1 : The conveyor belt analogue applied to the work of the Periodical Provision Team

The lower level of the conveyor belt represents the support activities, namely the shelving of

journals which have been used, the retrieval of articles, the photocopying of the articles, and

returning the journals to the shelves. With regard to the retrieval of articles, there are two

categories, the once off request for an article, and the multiple requests for recommended

and prescribed articles. The latter are prepared in advanced and filed for when the request is

received. These support, or back-room activities are just as important as the activities on the

upper level of the conveyor belt. The role of the Shaper is to keep the wheels of the conveyor

belt running at a speed which will ensure that requests are filled within five days of receipt.

Each person in the team has a role to play in the filling of these requests. If one task along

the conveyor belt slows down or builds up a backlog the whole process slows down. It is

therefore very important that this team works together harmoniously and productively.

61

4.5.2 APPLYING BELBIN'S TEAM ROLE THEORY TO THE PERIODICALS PROVISION

TEAM

4.5.2.1 BACKGROUND

The purpose of applying Belbin's team role theory to the Periodicals Provision Team is to

determine whether his team roles can be meaningfully applied in an information service

enterprise. This will be done in the context of a team building exercise.

Clark (1994:xiii) writes that team building can be seen as "one of the major vehicles for

changing the culture of the organization towards ... a more responsive and open form of

management".

Robbins, (1993:687) defines team building as facilitated "high interaction among group

members to increase trust and openness" . It is a process to improve productivity and morale

by helping the team members to work together more effectively and collaboratively. The goal

is to develop trust and open up channels of communication. The application of Belbin's team

role model to the Periodicals Provision Team is a structured attempt to improve the

effectiveness of this team, improve communication and build team spirit.

Many team building tools are available on the market, Belbin's being one of the most popular.

Hardingham and Royal (1994:163) write that they have found psychometric models like

Belbin's to be valuable because "they explain what goes on between people in terms of

dynamics (their emphasis), the inevitable consequence of similarities and differences. They

do not deal in blame, moral absolutes, or personal fault. And so (they use it) to establish a

climate of neutrality around some of the most emotionally charged issues that teams face".

The team roles which all have their own strengths and weaknesses are well-suited in a multi-

cultural context where many values can be represented in one team.

But, team building must be effective and the model used must be of value to the participants.

The Periodicals Provision Team will be asked to complete Belbin's two questionnaires (the

Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) as well as the Observers' Assessment

Questionnaires where they assess their colleagues as they perceive them to behave in the

team context. After receiving their personal results they will be asked to complete a

research/evaluation questionnaire which will indicate the value Belbin's team role model has

for the 'end-user' - the trainee. This feedback will be useful if or when Belbin's team role

62

model is applied again to the new teams which will be formed when the Unisa Library's

reengineering plan is implemented in the near future.

4.5.2.2 BELBIN'S TWO QUESTIONNAIRES: SELF-PERCEPTION INVENTORY AND

OBSERVERS' ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRES APPLIED TO THE

PERIODICALS PROVISION TEAM

Belbin's Team Role Self-Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) (Appendix 3) is made up of 79 items

with ten statements under each of the following headings:

0

What I believe I can contribute to a team;

0 If I have a possible shortcoming in team work it could be that I ...;

0

When involved in a project with other people I ...;

0

My characteristic approach to group work is that I ...;

0 I gain satisfaction in a job because I ...;

0

If I'm suddenly given a difficult task with limited time and unfamiliar people I ...;

0

With reference to the problems I experience when working in groups I ...;

The participant ticks the items which s/he believes applies to him/her. If s/he believes a

particular item is very relevant to his/her behaviour s/he can give it two or more ticks.

Belbin's Observers' Assessment questionnaire (Appendix 4) consists of a List A and a List B.

List A is made up of 46 possible 'positive' characteristics a team member can possess, such

as accurate, adaptable, analytical, etc. List B is made up of 26 possible not- so-positive

characteristics which a team member might observe of a colleague, such as aggressive,

critical, easily bored, empire-building, etc. Observers are asked to tick a maximum of 25

words in List A and more than 12 words in List B. As with the BTRSPI, if an item was

particularly descriptive two or more ticks could be allocated to that item.

The members of the Periodicals Provision Team were asked to complete Belbin's Self

Perception Inventories and Observers' Assessment questionnaires. It was interesting to note

that most of the participants found it easy to identify positive characteristics as listed in List A,

but they laboured over List B as they were concerned about offending their colleagues.

The answers were entered into the Interplace IV computer database and the required results

were printed namely:

the primary and secondary team roles based on the Self Perception Inventory;

the primary and secondary team roles based on the Observers' Assessment;

63

0 a combination of the first two with an overall ranking;

0 a counselling profile;

0 a list of the most common characteristics displayed in the team in ranked order;

0 a profile of the most prevalent and least prevalent team roles in the team.

A common response to the results was silence, then a few giggles and exclamations of

surprise. The individuals were being confronted with a holistic self-perception as well as

getting an indication of how other people see them. People can often not recognise their own

traits objectively. They are usually not consciously aware of the particular role they play within

a team. This self-insight is very valuable for team dynamics.

The researcher then explained the results to each individual. A problem during both the

answering of the questionnaires and the explanations of the results was the fact that English

is not the first language for most of the participants and terms and concepts had to be

explained. So for example, the sentence "I am generally effective in preventing careless

mistakes or omissions from spoiling the success of an operation" would lead to confusion as

it's a long sentence and words like preventing and success were interspersed with words like

careless, mistakes and omissions. The latter word was of course also unfamiliar to many of

them, and many were unsure of the exact meaning of words like asset, unbiased, apt,

reluctant, aptitude, 'in spite of', engaged, inclined, 'good at follow through', hard-driving,

shrewd, empire-building, erratic, insular, provocative and unorthodox within the context of the

questionnaire. As such the results can not be seen as one hundred percent accurate.

During a follow-up discussion with the team the following issues were covered:

0 an explanation of the roles and the value of each;

0

how they could be used to the teams' advantage;

0

how allowable weaknesses could be managed; and

0

the improvement of team synergy.

The result has been a better and more accepting team spirit, improved cooperation between

team members, and clearer expectations of one another, as well as improved team morale.

An important result has been the way in which each member now feels more valued for

his/her unique contribution to the overall success of the team. What will become apparent

only later is how the dynamics in the team change due to this new self-insight. Do individuals

start "playing" or "acting out" the "role" they have been assigned. Do they consciously

"become" what the characteristics of their role types indicate? Therefore, does this team role

64

classification alter their behaviour?

In terms of Adair's triangular figure (figure 2.2) indicating the balance necessary for effective

teams the aspects of both team needs and individual needs have been dealt with here.

4.5.3 THE RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

The averaged results of the Self Perception Inventory and the Observers' Assessment

produced the following team roles in the Periodicals Provision Team as indicated in Table

4.1.

Primary roles preferred Secondary roles which

can be assumed if

necessary

Roles best avoided

1st role

highest

score

2nd

role

3rd

role

Total

primary

roles

4th

role

5th

role

6th

role

7th

role

8th

role

9th -

lowest

score

Total of

avoided

roles

PLANT 11 - 1 12 1 2 1 - 1 - 1

TEAM

WORKER

2 4 3 9 2 1 - 4 - 1 5

SHAPER 2 3 1 6 2 2 2 1 - 4 5

COMPLETER

FINISHER

1 1 3 5 2 1 2 3 1 3 7

IMPLE-

MENTER

- 2 3 5 4 3 2 - 1 2 3

COOR-

DINATOR

- 4 1 5 2 5 - 1 3 1 5

MONITOR

EVALUATOR

- 1 4 5 1 1 6 3 1 - 4

RESOURCE

INVESTI-

GATOR

1 1 1 3 2 - 1 3 7 1 11

SPECIALIST - 1 - 1 1 2 3 2 3 5 10

Table 4.1 : The team roles of the Periodicals Provision Team

Considering the top three scores of each person the most enacted roles in order, are:

Plant - 12 people in the team are primarily Plants, in fact eleven of the 12 have it as their first

ranked role! This is a team full of ideas, but, as their job does not call for ideation this is

problematic. As Fowler (1995:41) writes If the nature of a team's tasks ... (require)... a fast-

65

moving implementation plan (as is required by this team)... the need for a Plant diminishes. In

this case, (he writes) the Shaper may have a leading role".

This is the case where both the team leader and her deputy are primarily Shapers.

A rather interesting observation here is that when the self-perception scores are looked at in

isolation the role of Plant scored the second lowest.

Teamworker - nine people are primarily Teamworkers. This probably accounts for the good

team spirit and the willingness of the team to work together well.

Shaper - six people are primarily Shapers. This could account for the fact that there is

sometimes friction within the team, but also why the over-representation of Plants does not

seem to affect productively too much.

Completer Finisher - five people are primarily Completer Finishers. This could account for the

good level of productivity.

The following three team roles ranked equally in the fifth place: Implementer, Coordinator,

and Monitor Evaluator.

The roles of Specialist, Resource Investigator are the least represented team roles.

A result of concern is the high incidence (seven) team members who have the role of

Completer Finisher as a role best avoided. This indicates that it is both a reasonably strongly

and a weakly enacted role which could indicate that the productivity of the team hinges on the

five people who indicated Completer Finisher to be a preferred role. Three of the five who

have this as a preferred role are white staff. A possible reason for this is their moral-religious

background, as discussed in section 3.2.7.

Eight team members indicated the role of Teamworker as a preferred role, whereas four team

members indicated it as a role best avoided. This indicates that the good team spirit is due to

the strong Teamworkers and is not a total team phenomenon and could possibly indicate

another cause for some team conflict.

The high incidence of Specialist and Resource Investigator in the roles best avoided is not a

matter of concern in this team as only one person in the team does Specialist work (and it

ranked as her second strongest role) and because this team is very process-based and

doesn't require much exploring of new opportunities or developing of contacts. Whatever

needs to be done in this sphere is being done well by the person who scored it as her

seconde strongest role.

With regard to the phenomenon of the over-representation of one particular team role (here

66

the Plant team role) the following: According to Belbin this would indicate an imbalance which

could result in poor performance if the team does not make arrangements to compensate for

this. He writes (1981:19) that this tendency for certain roles to be over-represented in certain

enterprises or departments can be for the following reasons:

Firstly, individuals with particular personality characteristics tend to be drawn towards

particular occupations. Information service enterprises may be an attractive choice of job for

people who are known for having good ideas. Further it must be mentioned here that a major

attraction in employment with Unisa is that staff members pay a nominal fee to study through

Unisa as do their children.

Secondly , it is possible that when these staff members were recruited the personnel officer

was looking for a particular type of person who would fit into the corporate culture of the

organisation. This is called the principle of selective homogeneity. Botha's (1994:106)

research findings reinforce both these reasons.

But, the fact that it is the `Plant' team role which is over-represented is a matter of concern as

this indicates the Apollo-syndrome discussed in section 3.2.1. Plants have good ideas and

can become focused on proving their viewpoints to the detriment of completing their work.

Belbin's advice for a team which is made up of too many Plants and can't change their team

composition is for them to focus on looking for points of agreement in their ideas, rather than

spending time on spotting the flaws in one anothers' suggestions.

The over-representation of Plants in the team under discussion is of particular concern in this

particular team as 'producing the product', namely sending the requested articles to the

clients as soon as possible, is an essential part of the service provided to Unisa researchers

and students. This aspect needs to be carefully managed in this team for the team to function

optimally. The fact that the team leader is a Shaper is a big advantage here. If she should

ever need to be replaced another Shaper or preferably a Coordinator would be ideal for the

position. According to Belbin (1993a:62-63) Shapers are not good team leaders of Plant-

dominated teams as they can be too blunt which could account for some team conflict. A

Coordinator team leader would be more diplomatic. The reason this is not a problem in this

team is the fortunate first role (Shaper) and second role (Coordinator) combination of the

team leader. Her bold, `shaping'-style is mostly tempered by the diplomacy of her

`coordinating'-role. In fact Belbin (1993a:63) found that the best team leader for Plants is a

Coordinator . He writes that Plants need to be "orchestrated by another - to have a backer or

67

a champion... Coordinators are good at discovering human talent and knowing where and

when to use it". The fact that four of the seventeen team members were identified as

representing the Monitor Evaluator role as one of their first three roles, i.e. primary roles, is

important as they balance the Plants lack of attention to detail and practicality with their sober

and discerning judgement. Furthermore the fact that eight of the seventeen team members

also have the role of `Teamworkee, two have the role of 'Resource Investigator' and four have

the role of 'Coordinator - all social roles - helps to balance the over-representation of

members holding the 'thinking role' (Plants) (Belbin, 1993a:63).

Teambuilding and... (1994:8) makes an interesting observation that if teams "are balanced in

terms of the preferences of their members (they) will consist of very different kinds of people

whose contributions may thus be difficult to link together, since there is likely to be conflict

between the differing 'world views' of individual team members. The alternative, homogenous

team is ... unlikely to be successful in the long run, because it will suffer from 'group think'

and thus have a blinkered-approach". These are issues the Periodical Provision Team need

to contend with as there are already differing 'cultural views' in the team. This team is unlikely

to have a problem with 'group think' though because of its' over-representation of Plants and

because of the variety of team roles present in the team.

4.5.4 TEAM ROLES AND THE PERIODOCALS PROMSOON TEAM

With regard to the cultural differences in the team of the case study the following can to be

noted:

Examining the preferred team (first and second) roles of the four white (and female) team

members in the Periodicals Provision Team the following:

One of the two Completer Finishers (first role); the only Monitor Evaluator (second role); one

of the two Resource Investigators (second role); one of the two Implementers (second role);

and the only Specialist (second role) were from this cultural group. Within this cultural group it

was also interesting to note that the three Afrikaans-speaking people rated themselves as

Completer Finishers either as first role or second role in the self-perception questionnaire.

This could reflect the cultural value they would like to see themselves living up to (see section

3.2.7).

The roles linked to values which are important in the white culture and more especially the

Calvinistic culture such as Completer Finisher and Implementer were Oeast chosen by the

68

majority of the black team members; whereas roles linked to values which are important in

the black culture especially the Ubuntu-vision such as Teamworker were most chosen by the

majority of the black team members. This would be in line with the Ubuntu-principle of: "You

are, therefore I am". Yet, it is interesting that during the individual follow-up interviews with

the team members to explain their team roles many indicated that to them team culture was

more important at work than ethnic culture.

In general Belbin's team role model is predominantly applied in the management context and

seldom to the every-day work team involved in a task flow process. Most of these

administrative jobs in the Unisa library are still filled by previously disadvantaged workers as

they often don't have the qualifications to apply for jobs on higher grades or there have been

no opportunities as yet due to the freezing and moratorium on posts at Unisa until recently.

The posts advertised during the last few months have attracted thousands of applicants in

some cases which reduces the chances of these staff being able to advance in the near

future. The fact that most of the team members are black, junior staff and that all but one of

the team members does purely administrative work makes this particular piece of research

unique in South Africa.

The role between culture and team role preference will be discussed further in the section on

the results of the research/evaluation questionnaire (4.6).

69

The most highly rated responses from the Observers' Assessments' attributes are listed in

table 4.3.

The most frequently selected

attributes

Score

frightened of failure 56

co-operative 53

caring 52

fearful of conflict 48

calm and confident 48

knowledgeable 48

clever 45

loyal 45

discipline 43

logical 43

Table 4.3 : The ten most frequently selected attributes in the Observers' Assessment

questionnaire

The high rating of qualities such as co-operative, caring, fearful of conflict and loyal could

account for the good relations within the group. Their desire to be a successful team could be

attributed to their high 'fear of failure' and their loyalty and discipline-ratings. The high ratings

of qualities such as knowledgeable, clever and logical account for the high 'Plant'

representation within the team.

The high rating of a the 'fear of conflict' quality could indicate that observers were not

perfectly honest in their answers as they may not have wanted to offend their fellow team

members.

It is of interest that the team role profiles and the personal skills required for tasks allocated in

the team did not always correspond. Some of the most outgoing people are doing routine

administrative work and have very little to do with library clients. Insights gained in team roles

and knowledge of individuals' strengths and weaknesses may lead to more effective task

allocation in the future with the reengineering of the library.

70

4.6 THE RESEARCH/EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

4.6.1 THE CHOICE OF MEASUREMENT SCALE

The aim of the research/evaluation questionnaire was to determine the attitudes of the

respondents to Belbin's team role identification. As this researcher has minimal knowledge of

dealing with questionnaire statistics the staff in the Unisa Library who compile and process all

the library's questionnaires were approached for advice. They agreed to do all the

calculations and suggested the Likert scale for its simplicity and because its relatively easy to

construct.

The Likert scale is also recommended for library surveys by Line (1982:63). A further reason

was that a week prior to this questionnaire being handed to the team another Unisa-wide

questionnaire had been completed which had also used the Likert method. It was decided to

rather stay with a question method the subjects were already familiar with.

Likert's scale is a summated rating scale where "a set of attitude items, all of which are

considered of approximately equal 'attitude value', and to each of which subjects respond

with degrees of agreement or disagreement (intensity). The scores of the items of such a

scale are summed, or summed and averaged, to yield an individual's attitude score ... ( the

purpose being) ... to place an individual somewhere on an agreement continuum of the

attitude in question" (Kerlinger, 1986:453-4). The respondents would grade their attitude

regarding each statement on an attitude continuum varying from: strongly disagree (0),

disagree (1), not sure (2), sometimes (3), agree (4), to strongly agree (5). Oppenheim

(1979:141) writes that the Likert scales also "provide more precise information about the

respondent's degree of agreement or disagreement, and respondents usually prefer this to a

simple agree/disagree score ". The simple scoring method would also be an advantage. It

was decided that a high score would consistently indicate a favourable attitude to a

statement.

4.6.2 THE CHOICE OF QUESTIONS

The aim of the research/evaluation questionnaire was to determine the attitudes of the team

members to the value of the team roles identified. After discussing each individual's profiles

with him/her the team was called together to provide a holistic impression of the balance of

team roles and the overall impressions gleaned with regard to their team dynamics. The

71

issues which came out of the discussion formed the basis of the questions asked in the

research/ evaluation questionnaire (See Appendix 5). The issues were:

0

the role of self-insight (Q2.1);

0

the accuracy and truthfulness of the team roles identified (Q2.2 and Q2.3);

0 why people prefer certain roles and whether they consciously choose the roles or

whether the roles are related to their personalities (Q2.4, Q2.5, Q2.6);

0

whether personality, values, culture and/or self-perception influence team role

preferences (Q2.7, Q2.8, Q2.9);

0

whether team roles are work-related or not (Q2.10);

0

fear of how others would rate them (Q2.11) (which links with the high scoring of the

'frightened of failure' characteristic in the observers assessment);

0

the value of identifying individual strengths and weaknesses (Q2.12, Q2.13, Q2.14);

0

the value of the team role identification for the future reengineering of the library

(Q2.15);

0

whether the role identification could be used to improve cooperation and problem

solving in the team (Q2.16, Q2.17).

The research/evaluation questionnaire was divided into two sections:

0

Section One which would deal with biographical information such as gender,

qualifications, home language, age, years of working in the Unisa Library, and what

the respondents two strongest roles were;

0

Section Two which would include questions about Belbin's team roles and what the

identification of their team roles had meant to them as discussed informally during a

team meeting.

A draft questionnaire was submitted to two of the team members to identify any possible

misunderstandings. After a few changes had been made the questionnaire was submitted to

the Periodicals Provision Team.

72

4.7 THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH/EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

4.7.1 BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND OF THE TEAM MEMBERS

As background the following biographical information about the respondents is provided:

The Periodicals Provision Team is a relatively large team (17) working in one geographical

area of the library (with the exception of the little-used section which is situated on another

floor and is staffed by one staff member). The team in the main office includes two half-day

staff members. The rest are all full-day staff.

Of the 17 staff members eleven (64,7%) are male and six (35,3%) are female. The highest

qualification of six (35,3%) of the staff members is a matric, five (29,4%) have degrees in

progress, two (11,8%) have non library degrees and four (23,5%) have library degrees or

diplomas. Therefore 64,7% of the team is either in possession of a post-matric qualification or

one in process. This places these workers in a difficult situation as 11 of them have studied

or are studying further and their work is very administrative with little scope for development.

For most of these workers this job is hopefully a stepping-stone to something better and more

stimulating. So for example, one of the women working towards a library science degree and

who scored very high as a Resource Investigator and Teamworker is mainly involved in shelf-

packing and retrieval of journals.

Furthermore two staff members are English-speaking, two are Afrikaans-speaking, five are

Northern Sotho, two Zulu, two Tswana/South-Sotho, one Ndebele and three Tsjonga. This is

therefore a multi-lingual team representing a variety of associated cultures. For 15 of the 17

team members English is a second language.

The ages of the team are as follows: One person (5.9%) is between 18 and 24;

six people (35.3%) fall into the 25-29 age category, four (23.5%) into the 30-35 age category,

and six people (35.3%) into the 36+ age category. Generally speaking these team members

are still young which is important as their work is reasonably physical in nature: shelving,

retrieving journals, drawing recommended articles from the cabinets and standing and making

photocopies.

With regard to their years of service in the Unisa Library: Four people (23.5%) have been

there for 0-3 years, two people (11.8%) for 4-6 years, four people (23.5%) for 7-9 years, five

73

people (29.4%) for 10-12 years, and two people (11.8%) for 13+ years. Most of the staff in

this team have only worked at Unisa.

4.7.2 A DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH/EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Each question from Section 2 with it's answers will be discussed separately:

(The amount of respondents who marked a particular attitude is indicated in brackets)

Question 1: When completing the self-assessment questionnaire, I had to think long and hard

about which statements applied to me.

This question was aimed at determining the self-insight of the respondents.

Strongly

disagree (3)

Disagree

(4)

Not sure

(0)

Sometimes

(5)

Agree

(2)

Strongly

agree

(3)

Seven of the 17 (41,1%) did not have to think long and hard about their answers, and another

five (29,4%) only sometimes had to think long and hard about their answers. In total 12

(70,5%) thought they had good self-knowledge.

Question 2: / was surprised at how accurate the results were.

This question was aimed at determining the accuracy of the results as well as the

respondents' self-insight to some degree.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (1) (0) (11) agree (3)

Fourteen of the 17 (82,3%) agree and strongly agree with the accuracy of the results.

Interestingly enough the three respondents who answered 'disagree' and 'sometimes' are all

three strong Monitor Evaluators. It is in their nature to be sceptical. When their team roles

were examined two out of three of their self-perception team roles were very similar to the

overall rated team roles which indicates that their team roles were in fact in line with their

self-perception.

Question 3: / was satisfied with the truthfulness of the results

This question is the same as Question 2, just asked differently to check the accuracy.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (0) (0) (10) agree (4)

74

Here fourteen (82,3%) of the respondents 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with the accuracy. This

confirms the result of Question 2.

Question 4: People make a conscious decision about the role they will enact within a team

This question was aimed at determining whether personality or a conscious decision

determine a team members' preferred team role.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (3) (3) (8) (3) agree (0)

Here only three (18,8%) agree that people make a conscious decision about how they will

behave in a team. This links with Question 5.

Question 5: People unconsciously act out a role within a team, in accordance with their

personalities

This question is the flip -side of Question 4 to test the accuracy of their answers.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (1) (2) (3) (11) agree (0)

Here eleven respondents (64,7%) agree that people unconsciously act out a role within a

team, in accordance with their personalities. This is in line with the basic research on team

roles which links roles to personality types.

Question 6: A team role reflects your personality

This question is similar to Question 5 except that the emphasis has changed from "people.."

to "your" which focuses on which of the options applies to them personally.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (1) (0) (2) (10) agree (4)

Here fourteen respondents (82,3%) indicate that they 'agree' or 'strongly agree' that their

team roles reflect their personality. This reinforces the answer to Question 5.

Question 7: A team role reflects your values

This question takes the origin of team roles further. This is against the background of Belbin's

diagram (figure 3.2) in this regard in section 3.2.7. It also links with the theory that the family

environment influences the choice of team roles (table 3.6) also in section 3.2.7.

75

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (0) (2) (4) (8) agree (3)

Here eleven respondents (64,7%) 'agree' and 'strongly agree' that their values are reflected in

the preferred team role and another four (23,5%) agree that team roles sometimes reflect

values. This makes up a total of 88,2%.

Question 8: A team role reflects your culture

This question links with question 7 as often a person's values are a reflection of his/her

culture.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (2) (2) (4) (6) agree (3)

This statement is not supported as well as is the statement on values. Here nine (52,9%)

'agree' or 'strongly agree' that their culture is reflected in their preferred team role and if the

four (25%) who answered 'sometimes' are added it totals 76,5% which is not close enough to

the result in Question 7 (88,2%). This could be a reflection of people wanting to move away

from cultural stereotypes, or it could be that the question was misunderstood. In later

discussions with the team it appeared that many thought that 'culture' here referred to 'team

culture'. The fact that 88,2% of the respondents are not English-first language speakers could

have led to this misunderstanding.

Question 9: A team role reflects your self-perception

This question links with questions 1,2 and 3.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (0) (2) (2) (11) agree (2)

Thirteen respondents (76,4%) either 'agree' or "strongly agree' that their team role reflects

their self-perception. This links with the thirteen (76,4%) respondents who also 'agreed' or

'strongly agreed' with the truthfulness of the results as found in Question 3.

Question 10: People have the same roles at home as at work

This question was aimed at testing Macrossan and McCann's theory (as discussed in section

3.3) that the roles preferred in the home situation or not necessarily those preferred in the

workplace.

76

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (3) (2) (3) (2) (6) agree (1)

There seems to be some support for this theory. Only seven respondents (41,2%) 'agreed' or

'strongly agreed' that people have the same roles at home as at work, with another two

(11,8%) answering 'Sometimes' which makes up a total of 53%. This research therefore does

not find support of Macrossan and McCann's theory in this regard.

Question 11: I was concerned about how my colleagues would rate me

This question was asked to assess the self-confidence of the respondents and to gauge how

important the other team members' opinions are to them. This would reveal something of

their team dynamics.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (1) (5) (0) (0) (8) agree (3)

Respondents appear to have had definite opinions on this statement as their responses

appear on the opposite ends of the continuum. Eleven respondents (64,7%) 'agree' or

'strongly agree' whereas six (35,3%) 'disagree' or 'strongly disagree. This links with the high

scoring of the characteristic 'fearful of failure' listed in the Observers' Assessment. It is

interesting that the four white team members fall into the 'disagree' or 'strongly disagree'

category here, and five of the six who fall into this category are women.

Question 12: Identifying both my strengths and weaknesses helps me to accept myself as I

am

This question aims to determine the team members' response to knowing what strengths and

weaknesses their colleagues think they have.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (0) (1) (1) (6) agree (9)

Fifteen respondents (88,2%) 'agree' or 'strongly agree' that the identification of their strengths

and weaknesses has improved their self-acceptance. This appears to be the most valuable

aspect of the exercise for most of the respondents.

Question 13: The feedback regarding my strengths and weaknesses will enable me to relate

more constructively to my colleagues in future

This question aimed to gauge whether the self-insight gained might make a difference to

77

teamwork.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (0) (2) (5) agree (8)

Thirteen respondents (76,5%) 'agreed' or `strongly disagreed' with the statement. This is

marginally less than the percentage for question 12 (88,2%) which reinforces the premise of

the value of identifying peoples' strengths and weaknesses.

Question 14: Knowing what my unique contribution to the overall success of my team is, I

now have more confidence.

This question aims to reinforce the point made with Questions 12 and 13.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (0) (0) (7) agree (7)

Fourteen respondents (82,4%) `agreed' or `strongly agreed' that their confidence had

increased due to the identification of the teams' roles. The two respondents who `disagreed'

to question 13 also `disagreed' to this question. These people already had an abundance of

self-confidence before the team role exercise.

Question 15: The team roles could be used to reorganise the task flow of our team

This question was asked in the light of the intended reengineering of the library, to determine

whether team members thought the application of Belbin's team role theory would be of value

in the future.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (1) (0) (1) (10) agree (5)

Fifteen respondents (88,2%) 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with the statement. A further

dimension to this answer is the fact that many of them have been assigned to jobs which do

not suit their personalities . At present jobs are 'cast in stone' in the library, i.e there is very

little job flexibility and no transfers or secondments are allowed. Reorganisation of the task

flow of the team with the implementation of the reengineering project would bring welcome

relief.

Question 16: The knowledge and insight gained from the Be/bin team roles (with regard to

individual strengths and weaknesses) could be used to improve cooperation within my team

This question aimed to determine whether the exercise might improve working relationships

78

within the team.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (0) (1) (2) (8) agree (6)

Fourteen respondents (82,4%) 'agree' or 'strongly agree' that cooperation may improve

because of this exercise. Improved cooperation should result in improved effectiveness due

to the interdependent nature of their work.

Question 17: The knowledge and insight gained from the Belbin team roles could be used to

improve problem solving within my team

This question aimed to reinforce the value the team roles have in effective problem solving in

teams.

Strongly Disagree Not sure Sometimes Agree Strongly

disagree (0) (1) (0) (2) (6) agree (8)

Fourteen respondents (82,4%) 'agree' or 'strongly agree' that problem solving could be

improved due to the team role exercise. The identification of which team roles would be good

with problem solving should be useful when the reengineering of this sub-division is

investigated during the reengineering project. The knowledge and self-insight gained may

also help with interpersonal problem solving.

In conclusion of this discussion of the results it can be noted that the participants perceived

the following to be primarily the most valued aspects of the Belbin team role identification:

0

self-acceptance of strengths and weaknesses;

0

more constructive relations with colleagues due to the feedback on their strengths and

weaknesses;

0

the value of team roles in reorganising the task flow of the team in the future (in the

light of the future reengineering implementation).

The following were also identified as of value:

0

the knowledge of their unique contributions to the overall success of the team had

lead to increased confidence;

0

the knowledge and insight gained from the Belbin team roles could be useful for

improved team cooperation and team problem solving.

Other statements that were also strongly supported were:

79

O the agreement with both the accuracy and truthfulness of the results; and

O that the team roles are predominantly a reflection of personality, and less of values

and culture.

4.8 THE ROLE OF SELF-PERCEPTION AND SELF-INSIGHT IN THE RESULTS

4.8.1 SELF-PERCEPTION

As discussed in section 3.2.3 a clear self-perception is an important aspect in team role

identification. A renewed self-perception based on the team role results can lead to an

increased self-understanding. Based on the combined self-perception and observers' results

three overall primary roles were allocated to each of the seventeen members which total fifty-

one primary roles within the team. Of these only six corresponded with their self-perception

rankings. There are another twelve instances of a positive correlation between their team

ranking and self-perception for their second role, or where their first role and the observers

second role, or their second and the observers' role corresponded. There are another ten

instances of a positive correlation between their team ranking and self-perception for the third

role or where the first, second or third roles corresponded. This amounts to a 54,9% correct

self-perception in the team members. Yet 82,3% were surprised by the accuracy of their

counselling profiles and 76,4% were satisfied with the truthfulness of the results. This seems

to indicate that individuals did not feel at ease about marking positive behavioural statements

with regard to themselves. Watkins and Gibson-Sweet's (1997:108) suggestion that: "some

team members do not have a realistic impression of themselves" seems to be the case here.

4.8.2 SELF-INSIGHT AND SELF-CONFIDENCE

Self-knowledge is essential to success in life. It results in inner self-confidence. The team

roles profile and counselling profile provided to team members with this team building

exercise is highly beneficial in helping individuals to reflect on their personalities and

behaviour and to understand themselves better. One of the participants in this exercise

responded that when she was made aware of the strengths and weaknesses of her primary

team roles she made peace with herself. She had always been worried about the negative

view (the 'allowable weaknesses') of her preferred way of behaving, and had been unaware

of how important the positive view of her preferred way of behaving is. She could then accept

herself the way she is, and be aware of the weak side of her role and see it as an area for

development. In this regard Belbin (1993a:55) writes: "What matters is that the self-image

80

and the projected image cohere and that a strategy exists for coping with areas of deficiency".

Self-management of strengths and weaknesses is vital.

Another participant commented that he was now more aware of his likes and dislikes, and

that hearing what his colleagues believed to be his strengths had increased his morale and

that he now believed more in himself and what he does. He appreciated his increased self-

confidence. Another participant reinforced the value of hearing what her colleagues

appreciated about her and expressed that it was good to know that her colleagues valued her

for her contribution to the team.

Amid the business of team members' day-to-day work there is little time for reflection. Such a

team building exercise creates such an opportunity. Against the background of Adair's

triangular illustration (figure 2.2 : which emphasises the importance of acknowledging the

task, the team and the individual when looking at effective teams), this exercise has hopefully

satisfied the need of the individual to some extent.

An interesting result has been that participants who have since applied for other jobs have

attached their personal counselling profile which outlines their strengths, to their applications.

In some cases the fact that they were made aware of their strengths has given them the

confidence to apply for jobs which they may, in the past, not had the confidence to apply for.

4.9 EVALUATION OF THE PERIODICALS PROVISION TEAM

The average for the self assessment profile for the whole team as produced by the Interplace

programme (Appendix 6) reads as follows:

"This group is likely to get on well together with good team atmosphere and a sense of

shared responsibility. This will all make for a very pleasant working environment. Its

strength will be in its caring attitude and ability to adapt and respond to others.

At its worst, this group may become too inward looking and insufficiently interested in

what is going on in the world outside (their team). This may not matter in some

circumstances, but if it does, the group should look for someone who enjoys exploring

and making new contacts" .

With regard to the introduction of new technology this team has not stayed up to date with

new trends. During the reengineering of the library it would do well to start looking into new

81

ways of streamlining its' processes based on new technology available. The Resource

Investigator in cooperation with a few Plants could do this.

The average for the Observers Assessment profile for the whole team as produced by the

Interplace programme (Appendix 7) reads as follows:

"At its' best, this intelligent and intellectually able group has the capability of making

major advances. However, if this is to come about its talents will need to be carefully

nurtured and deployed. The danger of this group may be that there are too many

generalists and not enough specialists".

The need for the careful nurturing and deployment of this teams' talents have been brought to

the attention of the team leader. Fortunetly the administrative process-based work the team

deals with at present requires a generalist approach.

When the Self Perception profile averages per team role and Objective Assessment profile

averages are printed out separately (see Appendices 6 and 7) then the role of Teamworker

features very strongly. Most of the team members rated themselves as primarily good

Teamworkers (as a first role) and the observers rated their colleagues as good Teamworkers

(in the second role). This is very similar to what Botha (1994:83-4) found in her research.

When these two aspects were printed out separately in her research the role of Teamworker

was placed as the first role by both the participants themselves and their observers. This may

reflect a general willingness by South African participants to work well in teams, or it could

reflect a self-consciousness amongst participants and a need to be seen as cooperative and

easy to get along with. Unfortunetly De Swardt (1994) did not include the separate self and

observers' assessment printouts in her thesis, as this may have been able to confirm the

above perception. This would also confirm the British consultant Parkinson's (1995:24)

observations when using Belbin during training, that the team role results show a bias

towards 'social desirability'.

In his experience with team building, Clark, a trainer and consultant found that effective

teams are rare. This is mainly due to the way in which employees are rewarded. Very few

enterprises reward teams and most performance appraisals are still individual rather than

team-based (Clark in Teambuilding..., 1994:11).

The Unisa Library is moving towards a competency-based selection, training and

82

renumeration approach. In future planning the concept of 'Team competencies' as outlined in

the "Capable Team model" (Cook,1994:30) could be used to manage team performance.

These competency areas are:

Cooperation: the quality of the interpersonal relationships within the team;

Activities and discipline: the use of systematic work practices and decision making

processes;

People: the balancing of team role strengths and weaknesses (the Belbin roles have

already been identified for this team);

Advancement: The review and improvement upon practices and preparation for new

challenges and demands;

Brief (mission): The team has a shared and clear vision of its goals;

Leadership: residing in one person or shared amongst team members;

Environmental responsiveness: The team scans and responds to new trends and

opportunities.

The difference between this competency model and Belbin's team role model is that the

competency model "concentrates on the attributes of the team as a whole, while (Belbin)

focus(es) on the individuals in the team, and how work should be allocated within the team to

get the best out of each member" (Teambuilding..., 1994:11). It is vitally important to not

focus exclusively on a team's internal dynamics to the detriment of its external clients.

4.10 THE VALUE OF TEAM ROLES ON PRACTICE

Belbin advocates the necessity of team role balance in a team. Yet he notes that 'balance'

may depend on each team's stage of project development and the need for particular team

roles relevant to each stage. Therefore, the notion of "balance" can differ from team to team.

The value of team role analysis can lie in its ability to reveal which behaviour a team tends to

display and as such can indicate where training is needed. For example, if a team rates very

low on Completer Finishers then time management would be a recommendation.

Table 4.4 outlines the team roles relevant to different stages of a team's project or activities

according to Senior (1997:247). This researcher has added another column indicating the

position with regards to the Periodicals Provision Team .

83

Key stages of team

activity

Team roles relevant to

particular stages

How strongly

represented in the

Periodical Provision

Team? (1st 3 roles)

Identifying needs Need individuals with a

strong goal awareness

(SH's & CO's)

Shapers (SH's) (6)

Coordinators (CO's)

(5)

Finding ideas Once an objective is

set, the means of

achieving it are

required.

Need PL's & RI's

Plants (PL's) (12)

Resource Investigators

(RI's) (3)

Formulating plans Turning ideas into

plans:

*Weighing up the •

options (ME's);

*Making good use of

all relevant experience

and knowledge to

ensure a good

decision (SP's)

Monitor Evaluators

(ME's) (5)

Specialists (SP's) (1)

Making contacts Persuading the team

to buy into the plan

(RI's) and appeasing

the unsure (TW's)

Resource Investigators

(RI's) (3)

Teamworkers

(TW's) (9)

Establishing the

organisation

Turning plans into

procedures, methods

and working practices

to become routines.

Need IM's & CO's

Implementers

(IM's) (5)

Coordinators

(CO's) (5)

Following through Need attention to detail

(CF's) and

efficiency (IM's)

Completer Finishers

(CF's) (5)

Implementers

(IM's) (5)

Table 4.4 : Team roles relevant to different stages of a team's project or activities

84

Noteworthy in Table 4.4 is the fact that the Periodicals Provision Team is strong in all the

activity stages accept that of 'formulating plans' . This is an area for future development.

Table 4.5 indicates the pairs/dyads which Belbin (1981:123) suggests work well together.

NEGOTIATORS: MANAGER- INTELLECTUALS: TEAM LEADERS:

Resource Investigator: WORKERS: Monitor Evaluator: Coordinator:

creative negotiator Implementer: analyser of problems team controller

& Teamworker: effective organiser & Plant: & Shaper:

internal facilitator & Completer Finisher:

guarantees delivery

source of original

solutions

slave-driver

Table 4.5 Pairs/dyads which work well together

To explain, it is good to have a Coordinator (who focuses on organising people) and a Shaper

(who focuses on getting the task done) working together as their skills complement one

another. The Periodicals Provision Team is particularly fortunate in this regard as the team

leader's first role is that of Shaper, her second role, Coordinator, and her third role,

Teamworker. Her deputy's first role is that of Plant, his second role, Shaper , and his third

Teamworker. Therefore the Shaper and Coordinator pair are present in the management pair

of this team. This is an ideal combination of workers as their Shaper-style is tempered by

their Teamworker-qualities and this could contribute to the good team spirit within the group.

It is encouraging to note that Monitor-Evaluators and Plants work well together. If this

combination is well utilised in the team under discussion this would be very positive.

When observing the Periodicals Provision Team it is interesting to note that many 'task pairs'

already reflect 'role pairs' as well.

Fisher, Hunter and Macrosson (1994:286) experimented with Belbin's pairs, or what Belbin

also refers to as his 4x2 typology of team roles. (Note that this only applies to the original

eight team roles as identified by Belbin). They also found evidence of these pairs working

together well, eventhough they are not totally convinced of the Plant and Monitor Evaluator

pairing. They suggest that the team roles can be divided into the:

0

Task-category: Plants, Shapers, Completer Finishers, Monitor Evaluators,

Implementers (and Specialists would also fall into this category); or the

0

People-category: Resource Investigators, Teamworkers and Coordinators.

85

When two people must work together on a task the ideal is to select one of the pairs/dyads

recommended by Belbin. Where this is not possible, an alternative would be to select one

task-dominant team member and one people-dominant team member instead.

Both these orientations are also necessary in a team as a whole. For task-orientated team

members the task takes precedence over the person, whereas with people-orientated team

members people are more important than the task. If the dominant role of most of the people

in a team falls into the task category the team members will work productively, but not

harmoniously. Whereas if the dominant role of most of the people in a team falls into the

people category then team members will work harmoniously, but not particularly productively.

The ideal is to have a balance between the two to achieve both harmony and productivity as

illustrated in table 4.6 compiled by this researcher.

Task orientation

People orientation

Plants, Shapers, Completer Resource Investigators,

Finishers,

Monitor Evaluators,

--> The ideal <--- Teamworkers and

Coordinators.

Implementers and Specialists

<--- Productivity Harmony --->

Table 4.6 : An indication of how the task or people orientation of a team can be determined

When this is applied to the first team roles of the Periodicals Provision Team then thirteen of

them fall into the task category and only two into the people category. When the second roles

are added then twenty one fall into the task category and eight fall into the people category.

When the third roles are added to these then thirty one fall into the task category and fourteen

fall into the people category. This indicates that the team focuses primarily on the task and

secondly on building good relationships. Due to the many team members who scored very

low on the Completer Finisher team role (seven members fall into this category) it is possibly

a blessing in disguise that this team is predominantly task orientated.

86

4.11 CONCLUSION

Belbin's team building model is widely used internationally without question. Many see him as

the 'founder' of team roles. It is important to note the foundation laid in this regard by Benne &

Sheats (1948). Secondly the lack of psychometric analysis of the team role scores used by

Belbin also needs to be acknowledged. It is also important to note that most of the criticism of

Belbin's work comes from 'academics'.

As important as these criticisms, is the value of Belbin's team role model in practice.

The practitioners - the consultants and human resource managers - the people who are

actually using the questionnaires use the Interplace IV package seemingly without question.

Why is this? Could it be the convenience of the computer package? It could even be the fact

that Belbin's product is being well-marketed? Or is it the fact that it worked well in the Eighties

and consultants have stayed with what works for them, rather than investigating alternative

options? Or is it that teams 'buy into' Belbin's team roles because of its intrinsic value?

Regardless of all the questions surrounding Belbin's work the fact remains that his 'product' is

being used extensively both in South Africa and internationally. Cognisance needs to be taken

of its popularity. Until a 'better', more convenient 'product'/'package' is brought to the

attention of the people who are presently using Belbin's product, it seems that Belbin's team

roles are here to stay.

Most importantly the 'end-users', the trainees have the last word. Many of the authors of

articles which evaluate Belbin's theory end with thanks to the participants who were so

enthusiastic about the research. The Belbin team role model with it's illustrations, categories,

lists of strengths and weaknesses and typical sayings of the team roles, the personal profile,

pie diagrams and the video offers a very humane and personalised product to the trainee.

The results encourage increased self-awareness, self-confidence and team spirit and the

end-product is a higher morale amongst staff. This intrinsic value and appeal is what makes

this team role model so unique and so popular.

Belbin Associates has produced a video called "Building the perfect team" which can be used

as an aid in team role training. It provides a humorous glimpse of team roles in action.

Visualising the 'team role in action' makes a greater impact on the trainee. The video was

unfortunetly not available when the above team building took place, but this researcher would

suggest that if the Unisa Library intends to use Belbin's team roles for its' team building with

87

the reengineering of the library that this video be purchased for this purpose.

It is also very important that the total Interplace package is used as the Self Perception

Questionnaire does not appear to provide very reliable results as discussed by critics earlier

in this research report.

As for the prediction of success of team work in the organisation the following: In 1996 after

more than twenty-five years of experience with team dynamics Belbin (1996:viii-ix) wrote that:

"A good team cannot fulfil itself in an unsatisfactory environment or where there is a problem

with the quality of decision making" and more especially "where there is a faulty

organisational design". This is applicable to the team under discussion.

Den Hertog and Tolner (1996:1705, 1713) reinforce this idea when writing: "organisation

design and organization development are two sides of the same coin. New structures will not

help when the members of the team stick to old behavioural patterns and when they do not

make any progress in the development of satisfying social relationships", constructive team

atmosphere and a general state of well-being in the teams. When the reengineering takes

place in the Unisa Library and the new organisational design is implemented the aspect of

organisational development and more particularly team development must also receive

attention.

It must be remembered that Belbin's team roles are intended for the creation of the ideal

team, i.e. where selectors are in the position to make choices. This does not happen very

often in reality. But, if the Unisa Library decides to use the Belbin team role model then it will

be important to do so at the start of the process.

Linking with this is the fact that Belbin's team role model should only form part of team

building. It is just a tool - it is not the be all and end all of team development. Once

internalised, and decisions have been taken about the team role spread in the team, a team

trainer could introduce them to a further tool such as Blake, Mouton and Allen's (1987:22-3)

'Teamwork Grid' which would help them to diagnose where they stand with regard to their

'concern for production' and their 'concern for people'. This links closely with Belbin's whole

premise of dividing teamwork into tasks (which focus on the work) and roles (which focus on

the people). A careful balance needs to be maintained between these two dimensions of

teamwork. The team can determine where it is now on the grid, and where it would like to be,

and discuss what the best way would be for them to move to a desired point on the grid.

88

In conclusion, in this chapter the sub-problem of determining the value of the Belbin team role

theory in an information service enterprise has been addressed. This theory has been

fruitfully applied to the Periodicals Provision Team in the Unisa Library. The management

context in which this team functions was sketched and it was noted that the anticipated

reengineering plan in process will change the future work context. The results of the

research/evaluation questionnaire proved that the participants perceived the team role results

as accurate and truthful and that they found the identification of their team roles and their

associated strengths and weaknesses helpful both personally and within the team context.

The most important finding was the self-acceptance and self-insight gained by the

participants. The other strongly supported notions were the positive responses with regard to

improved cooperation and problem solving anticipated within the team due to the knowledge

and insight gained from the Belbin team roles. In the evaluation of the team it was noted that

the team roles contained in this team 'make for a very pleasant working environment', but that

it needs to be more outward-looking with regard to new trends. It was also noted that these

team members need a lot of nurturing and that their talents need to be deployed. Hopefully

the self-insight gained will encourage the team members to develop their talents. The time

spent with the individual team members has been part of a nurturing process. Other similar

research confirms the predominance of the Teamworker role which indicates team members'

willingness to be cooperative in team context (Botha, 1994:83-84). Once the library's

reengineering plan has been implemented successfully then the competency areas outlined

by Cook (1994:30) can be applied to this team. If this is done, it will progress to a highly

effective team.

89

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

5.1 SUMMARY

In this study the importance of teams and more specifically team roles has been identified.

The value of Belbin's work has been investigated looking at Belbin's books, what his critics

have to say about his work, what the practitioners have to say and how Belbin's work has

been applied in the Unisa Library context. The conclusion reached is that the convenience

and applications of Belbin's computer package plays a role in its present-day popularity, as

well as the user-friendly nature of his team role model and its' acceptability to the trainee, i.e

the end-user. The insight such role identification questionnaires provide into people's

strengths and weaknesses and how other people see them is very important in improved

team dynamics.

In chapter two the concepts of team, team roles and effective teams, as well as the value of

teams and their importance in present-day organisations were addressed. The

interdependent nature of teams and the importance of team members complementing one

another in terms of the task and their roles were highlighted.

In chapter three two sub-problems were addressed: Belbin's team role theory was explained

in detail and it's uniqueness in comparison to other similar theories was identified. Criticisms

against Belbin's team role theory were evaluated, the problems with his theory were noted

and it was concluded that the benefits of Belbin's team roles outweighed the criticisms

against it. The application of this theory to an information service enterprise was also

determined.

In chapter four the research from chapters two and three was applied to a particular team to

determine the potential value of Belbin's team role theory in practice. It was found that this

team role theory can be applied meaningfully in such an enterprise. The main value appears

to be in the increase in self-insight and self-confidence gained from such a team role

exercise, as well as its value in the context of the intended implementation of the

reengineering plan in the Unisa Library. This chapter addressed the third sub-problem

namely, the value of Belbin's team role theory for information service enterprises.

As for the Periodical Provision Team in the Unisa Library the team role identification has

resulted in more commitment to the roles, to the team and to their work. The team members

90

have enjoyed participating in the project. This team building exercise has resulted in

increased trust and openness amongst the team members. The increased self-

understanding, self-insight and self-acceptance and the resulting increased self-confidence

has been of great value. Hopefully this development in the areas of the 'individual' and the

'team' will reflect positively in the area of the `task'.

Whether the roles will enable them to become a more effective team is not clear. Due to the

present working environment at Unisa improved team dynamics can not necessarily lead to

high performance due to the transitional nature of the context in which this team is working.

As to the question of whether Belbin's team role model should be accepted without question

as the 'best' team role model, it is practically the most convenient model at present due to the

user-friendly Interplace software, as well as the value of the various profiles, especially the

personalised counselling profiles. Until the other team role models produce a comparable

product Belbin's team role model will probably remain the model of choice. It must also be

noted that consultants indicate that trainees "buy into" the Belbin team roles more readily than

the others. It has popular appeal and offered great team building potential.

From a theoretical point of view there is a need for a variety of team role theories to be

comparatively applied to effective teams for the `better' theory to be identified. It may be found

that certain team role theories are more applicable in certain enterprises and other team role

theories more applicable in other enterprises.

5.2 CONCLUSION

It has been found that Belbin's team role model is a good instrument for team building and

can be applied meaningfully in an information service enterprise.

It will also be of value in the future recruitment of new staff and can be used as tool to

improve team cooperation when the reengineering is implemented in the Unisa Library and

new teams are formed.

It is personalised and helps team members to understand themselves better. It makes a great

contribution in the use of individual talents in the identification and solution of problems.

Team members will be more inclined to take up tasks which they appear to be ideal for with

more confidence, and leave those tasks which others appear to be more suited to, to them.

91

This will lead to better usage of talents and time.

It is very important to note what Barker (in Bluck, 1994:239) found when examining libraries:

that "a team system and its participative management style cannot be imposed on an

unwilling staff or on a hostile organisational culture". Whereas Bluck (1994:238) who was

working in a "very positive climate in terms of staff commitment, open management style, and

a supportive institution" found that team working was a great success.

Team leaders can use the Belbin-approach to gain insight in themselves and their team

members, and to improve efficiency and team work. It is also of value for individual team

members to gain a greater understanding of their team as a whole and better empathy for

other individuals and their roles. Participants can even be encouraged to consciously

experiment with other team roles not familiar to them so that they do not feel restricted by the

team roles identified for them. This researcher would therefore recommend the usage of the

Belbin approach, keeping in mind its' possible limitations, when the Unisa Library implements

its' reengineering plan in the near future.

What is important is that more time is spent by teams discussing the implications of the team

roles, mis-balances in the team, strengths and weaknesses and how they can be managed. A

specific time must be set aside for this. If team roles are dealt with in an hour session of a

day-long workshop on team building then the value of Belbin's team roles does not come into

its own. This was found in the Technical Services division of the Unisa Library where certain

teams went back to their offices and set time aside to discuss how they could make the most

of their teams' team roles. Other teams which never talked about the team roles again did not

gain the benefit of their team role identification and how it could improve their team dynamics.

Time and resources need to be made available for such a team building exercise to be of

great value. Because of the tremendous workload of the team which participated in the

survey there was little time for discussion and for the internalisation of the results. There was

therefore no opportunity to objectively study the strengths and weaknesses of the team as a

whole and to decide what could be done about it. Due to organisational constraints such as

the reengineering process and the bureaucratic nature of the organisational structure the

Periodicals Provision Team can not "put into practice" all they have learned at present.

This research was limited to one department in the library which makes up close on 10% of

the total staff component in the Unisa Library. In the future this research could be applied

92

more widely to a variety of other teams in the library. A better spread of observers for the

completion of the Observers' Assessment would also be recommended. Participants tended

to ask their 'friends' in the team, rather than the people they work with directly. This might

result in a slightly more realistic picture.

An important recommendation here is that team building should be an ongoing process, not a

single event. "Teamwork is not an end in itself but rather a valuable means of tackling

problems and getting things done" (Pinfield, 1995:35) . The Centre for the Study of Work

Teams at the University of North Texas is of the opinion that "getting the best from teams

requires work on the teams themselves" and they recommend that teams "receive extensive

training, peaking at about ten percent of the employee's time during start-ups and major

change efforts, and continuing at about four percent for maintenance" (Joinson, 1999:30,35).

With the implementation of the reengineering and the accompanying new organisational

structure, training must form an integral part of the process. As the new structure will involve

a move towards a team-based organisation, team building will form a vitally important part of

this training.

5.3 RECOMMENDATPONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Based on this research possible future research fields could include:

. A comparison between the application of Belbin's team role theory and Margerison

and McCann's team role theory to see whether similar results are achieved;

o A comparison between two different divisions in an information service enterprise,

example support service staff such as cataloguers on the one hand and front-desk

staff who work with clients all day, on the other, to see whether different tasks attract

people with certain team roles;

Applying Belbin's team role theory to these same team members after the

implementation of the reengineering plan in the Unisa Library and assessing their

progress and/or whether their team roles change if they are placed in a new team

when the design of the library is changed.

93

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adair, J. 1986. Effective teambuilding. Aldershot: Gower.

Argyle, M. 1994. Social skills, in Companion Encyclopedia of Psychology, volume 1, edited by

A.M. Coleman. London: Routledge: 454-481.

Bales, R.F. & Strodtbeck, F.L. 1951. Phases in group problem solving. Journal of abnormal

and social psychology, 46:485-495.

Belbin, M. 1981. Management teams: why they succeed or fail. London: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Belbin, M. 1993a. Team roles at work. Oxford: Butter worth-Heinemann.

Belbin, M. 1993b. A reply to the Belbin team-role self-perception inventory by Furnham,

Steele and Pendleton. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 66:259-260.

Belbin, M. 1996. The coming shape of organization. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Benne, K.D. & Sheats, P. 1948. Functional roles of group members. Journal of social issues,

4(2):41-49.

Blake, R.R., Mouton, J.S. & Allen, R.L. 1987. Spectacular teamwork: how to develop the

leadership skills for team success. New York: John Wiley.

Bluck, R. 1994. Team management and academic libraries : a case study at the University of

Northumbria. British journal of academic librarianship, 9(3):224-242.

Bluck, R, 1997. Personal e-mail communication. 5 November 1997.

Booysen, L. 1999. Personal communication. August 1999.

Botha, W. 1994. 'n Ondersoek na die verband tussen die Myers-Briggs type indicator en

Belbin se indeling van spanrolle. Unpublished Masters-thesis, University of Stellenbosch.

94

Broucek, W.G. & Randell, G. 1996. An assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin self-

perception inventory and observer's assessment from the perspective of the five-factor

model. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 69:389-405.

Clark, N. 1994. Team building: a practical guide for trainers. London: McGraw-Hill.

Cook, A,. 1994. The 'capable team': a new approach to defining team competency.

Competency: the journal of performance through people, 1(3):30-34.

Contribute: team-role game. 1998. [Online]. Available WWW:

http://www.belbin.com/contribute/html

Dawson, C., Lord, P. & Pheiffer, G. 1996. Management team composition: a spurious

balance? Iconoclastic Papers:1-11. [Online]. Available WWW:

http//www.solent.ac.uldiconoclastic/Lord/lord.html

De Jager, G.J.J. & Du Toit, A.S.A. 1997. Self-directed work teams in information services: an

exploratory study. South African journal for library and information science, 65(4):1-5.

Den Hertog, F. & Tolner, T. 1996. Groups and teams. In International encyclopedia of

business & management, volume 2, edited by M. Warner. London: Routledge :1705-1715.

De Swardt, W. 1994. Spanrolle vir die effektiewe bestuur van gemeenskapapteke.

Unpublished Masters-thesis, University of Pretoria.

Don Porter Associates, Inc.. 1997a. Interplace - Belbin's team role expert system. [Online].

Available WWW: http://www.dpaglobal.com/IntPg1/html

Don Porter Associates, Inc.. 1997b. lnterplace outputs or reports. [Online].

Available WWW: http://www.dpaglobal.com/Intpg5/html

Dulewicz, V. 1995. A validation of Belbin's team roles from 16PF and OPQ using bosses'

rating of competence. Journal of occupational & organizational psychology, 68(2):81-99.

Fisher, S.G., Hunter, TA & Macrosson, W.D.K. 1994. The structure of Belbin's team roles.

Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 71:283-288.

95

Fisher, S.G. & Macrosson, W.D.K. 1995. Early influences on management team roles.

Journal of managerial psychology, 10(7): 8-15.

Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K., & Sharp, G. 1996. Further evidence concerning the Belbin

team role self-perception inventory. Personnel review, 25(2): 61-67.

Fowler, A. 1995. How to build effective teams. People management, 1(4): 40-41.

Furnham, A., Steele, H, &, Pendleton, D. 1993. A psychometric assessment of the Belbin

team-role self-perception inventory. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology,

66:245-257.

Goodman, P.S. et. al. 1986. Current thinking about groups: setting the stage for new ideas, in

Designing work groups, edited by P.S. Goodman & Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers: 1-33.

Graen, G. 1973. Role-making processes within complex organizations, in Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology, edited by M.D. Dunnette. New York: John Wiley &

Sons: 1201-1245.

Hardingham, A. & Royal, J. 1994. Pulling together teamwork in practice. London: Institute of

Personnel and Development.

Joinson, C. 1999. Teams at work. HR magazine, May 1999:30-36.

Katzenbach, J.R. & Smith. D.K. 1993. The wisdom of teams: creating the high-performance

organization. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kerlinger, F.N. 1986. Foundations of behavioral research. 3rd ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace

Jovanovich College Publishers.

Line, M.B. 1982. Library surveys: an introduction to the use, planning, procedure and

presentation of survey. 2nd ed. London: Clive Bingley.

Magubane, S. 1999. Personal communication. October 1999.

96

Makin, P.J., Eveleigh, C.W.J. & Dale, B.G. 1991. The influence of member role preferences

and leader characteristics on the effectiveness of quality circles. International journal of

human resource management, 2(2):193-204.

Margerison, C. & McCann, D. 1984. High performing managerial teams. Leadership &

organization development journal, 5(5):9- 13.

Margerison, C. & McCann, D. 1990. Team management: practical new approaches.

London: Mercury.

Martins, N. 1997. Empowerment training for teams in the Unisa library. Johannesburg:

Organisational Diagnostics.

McCrimmon, M. 1995. Teams without roles: empowering teams for greater creativity.

Journal of management, 14(6):35 -41.

Mestre, M. 1996. The coming shape of organisation (book review). Human resource

management journal, 6(3):94-5.

Moody, M. 1999. Father of the team. Director, 52(6):72.

Mottram, R.D. 1982. Team skills management. Journal of management development,

1(1):23-33.

Mumma, F.S. 1994. Team-work and team-roles. Wynnewood, Pennsylvania: Organization

Design and Development.

Nicholson, N. 1995. Group roles, in The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of organizational

behaviour, volume 6, edited by N. Nicholson. London: Blackwell: 205 -206.

Oppenheim, A.N. 1979. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. London:

Heinemann.

Parkinson, R. 1995. Belbin's team role model: a silk purse from a sow's ear? Organisations &

People, 2(1):22-25.

97

Peters, T. 1988. Thriving on chaos. London: Macmillan.

Pinfield, S. Team building and team working in libraries. Managing information, October 1995:

33-35.

Polzer, J.T. 1995. Role, in The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of organizational behaviour,

volume 6, edited by N. Nicholson. London: Blackwell: 495-498.

Prof iVielck takes the lead with the 7-point plan. 1999. Unisa bulletin: staff newsletter, 24(1):

1,4.

Robbins, S.P. 1993. Organizational behaviour concepts, controversies, and applications. 6th

ed. New Yersey: Prentice-Hall.

Senior, B. 1996. Team roles and team building: self-perception is no basis on which to build a

team. Iconoclastic Papers, 1(1), December. [Online]. Available on VVVVW:

http://www.solent.ac.uk/sbs/iconoclastic/Senior/senior.html

Senior, B. 1997. Team roles and team performance: is there 'really' a link? Journal of

occupational and organizational psychology , 70(3): 241-257.

Smit, P.J. & Cronje, G.J. de J. (eds.) 1997. Management principles: a contemporary edition

for Africa. 2nd ed. Kenwyn, Cape: Juta.

Soete, G.J. 1998. The use of teams in ARL libraries. (SPEC Flyer 232).

[Online]. Available WWW: http://www.arl.org/spec./232fly.html

Teambuilding and development: the analytical framework. 1994. Industrial relations review &

report, 564, July 1994: 2-11.

Unisa Library. 1998. Periodical request services evaluation, May 1998. Unpublished survey

report. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Watkins, B. & Gibson-Sweet, M. 1997. Sailing with Belbin. Education and training, 39(3): 105-

110.

98

Woods, M. 1992. Improved teamworking using a computer system: a review of the Belbin

Interplace III expert system. Executive development, 5(3):10-15.

BeI

bin

Ast

oci

ole

s TE

AM

-RO

LE

PR

OFI

LE

APPENDIX 1

AL

LO

WA

BLE

WE

AK

NE

SSE

S R

OL

ES A

ND

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

S TE

AM

-RO

LE C

ON

TRIB

UTIO

N

stru

ng.

Cha

lleng

es, p

ress

ur

izes

, fin

ds

way

s ro

und

obs

tacl

es.

MO

NIT

OR

EV

AL

UA

TO

R:

So

ber,

• s

tra

teg

ic a

nd

disc

erni

ng.

See

s a

ll op

tion

s. J

udg

es a

ccu

rate

ly.

NA

TU

RA

L RO

LE

S 70

80 9

0

100

RO

LES

AB

LE T

O B

E A

SSU

ME

D

30 4

0 5

0 6

0

ed X gl: IS a

ROL

ES B

EST

AV

OID

ED

0 1

0 2

0

a) E O

1 2 3 4 5 6 . . 7 8 9

SH • CF SP IMP •M5 PL 1W . RI CO SH. CP ME SP IMP CO PL RI TIN . SH RI SP PL . ME IMP CO CF 1W SH PL CF IMP ME CO TW RI SH SP RI CF CO ME Imp, PL TW SH SP RI IMP CF ME PL CO TV! SH RI ME PL IMP CO SP CF 1W SH RI SP Mg CO CF IMP PL TIN

Candidate: Thatcher Observer* Assessment

Team roles:

1. 2 3

5 6 7 8

APPENDIX 2

Assessment results in ranked order

Candidate: Reagan Observer° Assessment

Team roles: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 RI TW Co ME IMP SP CF PL SH RI 2 RI . SH TW SP CO IMP ME CF PL

3 RI SH TW CO SP CF ME IMP PL TW IMP RI SH SP CF CO FL ME

5 CO PL RI 1W ME SH SP CF IMP 6 RI CO SP TIN PL IMP SH ME CF 7 SH RI SP CO CF IMP TW PL ME 8 RI CO TW ME CF IMP PL SH SP

TUN

Observers

Assissment results in ranked order

CF

RI

Observers

°Observers at management seminar using an assessment technique.

Profiles of two former world leaders. Political co-operation was facilitated by complementary team roles

C 3.

2 44*

HAT EE DINE EX TOT

0.

z

BELBIN SE SELFFERSEPSIE-VRAELYS

THE BELBIN SELF-PERCEPTION INVENTORY

DIRECTIONS

.0 0 0 I+ .1:1 C 1I umwoua 0 .....4momom 9 .0 00. 0 m

.0

) 94 0 A.4 la .0.4.0.14.4.-4M •

140001400 14 C 9 41 U 01 9 C .1

1.394 0 0000 34.)

a/ > al 41 9 01 a -I 3 wil SI 4 .0 0 0 044, 010 UC 409 11 al 0. 0 0 19 4 9 11 0 al 0 01 0. 9 0 44 14 al 441 7 LO 9 01 CI 0 4 0 01

...0114 9 1413

0 al 00 441 9

w0 C 9 4

a V

ac m Y C 1> m 0

0 0 14 9 0 la ta 14.0 a a a+ 0 0 ..i 0 .0 :. 9 0 0 0 9 01 04 0 . 14 -44 9 0 0 0 0 .3 3. C es a. U

0 4 14 4 7 0

0 V 0 4 0 0 0 0

4, 0

0 >. 4 0

440 0.0

9Ca 9 0 41

0400 09 0 14 al 0 0 0

0.0 9 a.9 04 9 0.0•409 C

OM304 0,1 C >. 0 a 0 0 34

.LI 0 14 0

41 00.0 JO)0E0

3. :4) .5

0130.0 1 4. I .4 4 I3 14

a o. A U 0 di A X 0 14

Mu03 .0 46400 0 0 O 0 .0

al 0 C 14 >.4 4 9 4

0 140

.4 •C 4•1 • .0 V >, 9

.0 4

4 01 . 1 04 ..13A

.-1 0 0 0 0 C • 0 .4

0. a. 0 al 0 0 014.

434.40000 C C 9 14 90 MU 9 03 "a 0 7 14 4 . (.1 LI 0

C 0 C

0 44 01

0.0 0 0 0 9 0 4 4 000 0

14 0 0 .3a

C 4 4 0 W. 03 11 0 9 9 17• 4 0

0 V 01 C 0 V 0 0 .9 el A al 0 U004040 II C

0 CP 14 0.

9

1 10 0 0 4 C

I a a 410 4 4

> 0 . 0 0 11 9 14 V 0 .0 0 0 4 0 .3..119.4 7 371 0 0 0 > OW 14 al

9 0 4 C 0 0> 0 4.14

a0. 9 0

C 0 41 0 0 I. 0.4 00.000. et 0.

AWA.Dix 3

0 .4 04 0 0 .4 14 C II

C

C C al 9 al ..90>. V .,-1.-er a -4 Le ...4 ,401400 0 00 ,40 IT al 3 • 09.0000 C 03 01 OA C 61

C al C 111 al 61 01 61 0 4•1 111 . 9 ....40 00 14 V V CU 149

e-eal 0 0 0 0 0>

a1 0 0 00

al 0 •13 13 0 0 01 9 14 C 41 0 4.141 7 CI 0 C a 439 41 .34 > E. 4 C 30.

14 40 0

41.1 5 9 .12 C13. 0E 01 141• 0 > 0

II13 • 43 9 0 • V 4-4

--4.0 c•-■ 0 II 0 di d .1 a DI 0 AC > IT 11 al C 0

.14 C V CO ... 30

A al .1 0 0 4 al V .X V 01 la a 0 al 0 at cAm 00 00 0 414, 4111441 0. a .4

aa 0

J a 5 •a a ...1 C 70 01 0 14 0 9 4, el 0 0 9 0 . 0 0, 4, 0 . 13. 9 9 C C C 11 9 0 01 CI . 7 C 7

19 al > . O. d 9 a a a 42 .4 . . . 7 42 C

X V 9 0

al 01 V 0 0 . A4 0 .44.1 C 0:0 12. 47 *A 9 0

00 .0 0 0 9 > a) 9 9 . > 14 41 d 0, 9.01 0.4 0 V

.4 13 0,. 0 3099 0 14

.4..... V 4.70 0 a

AC OP. OM.44 m 00410 .44

..4 gm

E al 0 C ) 03

14 0 4, 70.14

171 9 444 90 9 C fi al • C 7 9 .4 IT 0 >10 Co 0 3 .-4 0 0 A LI PI 44.4 0 . .41e 44 0 994 V 0 al 0 al 03 9 19 0 0 00

70 al

099 4 . 17104 0 41 64 a As al 41 7 C 0 0 41 0

al 0 YOM 40 .14 > 0. • SI 0 ...1 C C V 0

a; 0 4411 dl C 407070 14 9

1.1). 0.0941 0 El

X I 0 0 I Y 0 C a.1 -A 14

C • a to a 0 0 0 .0 9 4 9

WU 1• 0 al

..o •a ..o a c a a V 0 >a a. -4 ..4

0 0.0 • V 41 44

0, 49 al al 0 >

413 0 t. g 0 9 II

0 9 .44

4. 14 .14 AC .44 A 0, 41 .54

0 9 9 co al 4.1

3 3 0 0 0. 0 14 . 03

g . m m c -4 a

0 9 4 0 0 14 41

9 4 el 9 . 01 9 . 0 al

C 9 GI 4 ) 0 'V o. 0

0 a a.4 a o a

04 9 4 14 0 0 14 41 AC

as .0 0.0 to 0 C 4 40

AC 0 9 0 9 4 >4 41 0

01 0 .4 al G. 3 E 0 3,

7 .04 -4 13 0/ 01 .0 IL

.14 ..,e 3 V 0 ...1 et 14 0 14 4 ... 0 .-.

A 9 0 0 0 VI 0 44 9 0 0

0 C 9 13

0

.0 a. ..o a 0 0

..4 13 04 0 al 9 434 al 9 0 0 14

0 0 CI 9 IT 3 40 49 0

0 0 A C al 61 0 0 0 0 0 C 3, 0 a) C Co 1.1 14

.0 0 o B 0 o O. C 0

44 0 V 9 01 01 4 0

.7 C -4 C E -4 al . >

4 401 03 al 4 14 01 0 CP 0. 0

e ..it > 0 0, in ,-. A 14 7 C

1.1 .CIal C C

13, 14 C 0 11 7 O• 0

0

0 . 61 61 9 0 4

0 4 > 9 7 3 4 C 44 C V

10 C t I'

0 99

0 4-1 41 01 0 C W

0 al 0 al 01 0 4" OW

.0 3 0 a) A -el 10 V O.

m 0 14 01 0 9 C 7 0 14 0

.0 0 01 9 00 al la 0 IT 0 al 0 0 9 al 61 0

C 0. C V 0 al 01 01 14 .14 Cd

0 • . 14 al . 4. 61 >

.-1 0

9 0 > 0 g C 0 C 10 413

40 14 9 a 43 0 8 ,......

01 4 41 > O. .0 '0 A l.0 • 3 .0 •••1

Cl .a 71 X .1i 4 a) 714 al G

3 C el C V V 0 la 0 41, • C 4 7 4 0 4.4 C Cl 51 0 Cl ... 0

C .13 a .0

01 V 4 4 -.a 4 C Y 0 A

.4

a. 0 0. a) 01 to 00 01 21

0 AC • 0 0 .= 14 34 ... A al AC 01 0 0, X 0.1 14 • 4, 9 al

C 0. 9 lae-e ea •-1 4.0

.34 0.4 43 01 .0 id ea .14 4

5.3 5 > 41 0 41 a sa .o z 01 . 440, 54 °

14

0 0 . 4,1 in .0• 01 4.0 N 01 1.1 al al .4 al al . .1 .4 al .4

1-I

0

41 U .0 0 0

0 .C; 0 1.1 .-1

0 0 0

0 9 9 U 0

44 > 13 • 9 • C .4 01

9 al 01 Cl .4 AD 14

44 C. HO 9 .34 14 0

C U D. 0 4 a o

0 0 1., -.1 0 a 0. U 61.M.

1, 54

14 > El W . 41 10

0 al V 61 0 0 >

o. .4 0 ..-. ,--• a ...

0. Cl 0.0 a 0 al

0 3 0 0 a 0;1 ,... a, •

s 0 O. Cl ia 4 al C

0 14 V 7 0 e U al 0

C a - 00 4 al 9

01 0 la ... 3, 41 3

al

. 0 .1 05 a .4 .0 9

O 41 0. 0 01 .4 9 4

C 0 ...4 V 9 01 14

0 . 01 • Cs 9 C 0 c V 0

1.11 0 O. al 0 7 9 .41 . ..

43

0. a 0) di 0 C .... "a 9 C. 9 1-4 14 01

4

C A LI 0 0 7 • 0

.44 0 9 0

403

01 ) .0 0 •

> 04 Al 4 10 . 03 0 C U

V .4 IT la 14 01 0 0. 4

0 U C .0 9 0 4.1 U 9 .-i V

0 4 4 C C ., o. a

0 O. 14 14 0 0 >., 0 0 Cl

.0 01 0 V U C al 0 41 4

a m a

4

11 V 413 4 0 0 CI V .0

al C ea 9 0 0. C 1.4 0

V 4 0 /4 4 41/

44 .1

a

a 7 0 6

a 9 V

4 0.1

.4 13 C 04 C

0 14 0 Yr 0 0• 444 C .0 4

04 61 . > 0 al > a -I s

a c 0 o A a,

4 4 0 .a ... a a a

34 M C 0 01 Cl v. C

C al 0 0 0 V .0 • .1 0

0 0 a ACT 0 7 C m 13

U 4., -4 ta C 0. .1 0 al 9 4

. 0 3 al 0.4 7 3 :a o. a

g. A 44.0

.-1 9 of a. 13 0 0. CO .0 0 P..

14

4 e-I 4 di 0 0 .7 6.1 .0 .4 4

C 0 7 33 140 . 14 ..

4 3 .0 0 .0 .4 ON a 44

U c ...1 3.9 14 U 0 41 0. 01 0 41

Y AC 41 9 C 9 • 04

. C 14 M .40 .4 14 .4 0 C .

41 0 0 .-4 > 11 A 0.4 0 0

1 2 , U .04 44

... 4. • 0 a C C

.4 0 C 0 4 C m 0 a. 4 .3 40

.7 U Pr al 4. 04 U U .S

.... 3 '0 0 U 0, ..., ,

I-I 5 . 0• 5 9 . 3 1. 14 1-1 0 14 4

5

g 0 .4 ea In .0. w., .0 0.4. CD Cl

44 .1 .1 -4 .1 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 v. 4-4 S

ECTION 1

1 o la C 4.1 C o a+ X al 0 3 0'

0

14 43 V CU H4 • 41 C

Ca 0

4 ..4 a 0.0

03

la -.03

4 41

as C 01 04 0 0 to to

14 al V 0 tn

0 0 C .)4 17 111 *4

0 11 03 04

14 *1 0 C 01 .00

131 01 03 43 0/ a A

*1 CO 0 II a, A 0 C m m CP a

CU c tn

0 14 E 0 0 0 > •

03 0 0 44

0 Ca *I

00 a

4 8 aa

A V CO 0 0 141 131.0 0 0 0 > a 0 131

C

...4 a) -1 L C

.4 H E .4 al

0 al IM 0 0

0 C til 0 to a) .4 01

0 *4 0 4 C 13

.4 a. ..4 0 H

w-1 Ca 01

v

e 0 ...I

D 4 A

Z 0 a .0

V ao 0 a 0 VI

a 04, 4

41

M

o. e se . 0

0 La C A

0 0 17 0 0

0 se a 0 ...1 •o

LA 4 El

0 al to 14 .14 0

1 EI.A 0

= o.

o o O.0 C 4 0

3 A 4114 a e e

- 4 *4 A 3 0 A

0. >4 AO 0 3

0 A 0 4 0 0 •

M ..4 M m M0 m

0 Ei as *4 0 ..4

*4 >4 4 /4 V 0

V e WM m ..le C

0 ...4

.4 c .4 a ..x

0 C 01

0 0 - -V 0 •ci T. 0 E C a*

0 W E .0

C 03 A

V *4 0 C 4

0 0 CO 02 44 el

m b.. 41 0 %a V

0 ..,

0 0 .0

a El

0 0

is om in

sette

to le

ver tensy dit g

aan

oor

'n g

able

d va

t

C31 C .4 0 14 03 3 .4 4/

V

A 171

04 91 0

C

ai id 3

0 e e a .-• Cu

.... o 0 .-I .4 •

4441 m

0 0 00 > 03

0 WM 0 oC

al /31 113 a 13 .40

ATDELI

NO III AS

ER SAM M

ET ANDE

R MENSE BY 'N

PRO

JEIC

SET

ROKKE

IS:

L na NNA Cl N

.1 0 .0 a 0 -4 M > H *4 • 94 al • 0 ••4

A la ea I .24 u Li n1 4.9 0 0 0 4 0. 00 0 ./.4 44 4.1 44 14 0 4 0 0 C V 7 0 0 LI .4 ..4 Ca

31 0 03 0 14 11 0 411 13 0 02 01 0 43 ..4 131 C C 0 44 > 0. CO *1 14 0 14 E 0 0 41 14 0 all 0 *

•0nn 4 n. se

5.. ). 0 El VI ea 01 0 V -4 V *I la El 0 4 8 V 1

0 4 H C *4 140 14 V Oa

C 41 0 E 0 04 VW >> OM 004 AM 01 7 01 0

0 0 .34 0 02 0 03 14 V *I *1 .0 al ..4 0 a 41 4 0 HI 01 *4 44 0 *I .0 *1 131 V IT *4 V 03 4 0 .4 fil .4 IT L0 0 C 0 -I 0 C 4 .1 .34 RI 0 Et 0 03 0 V

*1 01 E ...1 LC 9 .4 .4 A .0 0 CI 0 A 0 0 V 0 A 0 0 0 121 V 01 C 41 .0 0

41 4 0 > AC Ag

CO at 14 4 ,1

2e 41 WI 4 CO 0 03 V X

am ba

ie to

praat so

dra

.411

aa Ek g

aneig

is om die

waarde

van

I 1/ 0 0 .4 C a o m

0 14 0 O V

111 Ill C

174

0 *1 4 01 1.1 0 0 0 -4 a E .

0 m e e • 03 0 41 03 01 *4 .4 4 4 A> CO 01

14 U La .0 0 al

0 0 i l 0 0 ex 1-,

01 0 0 .0

LI 0 C *I 0

C 2 0 C

11 A C 04

Ae 0 0

0 0 > 0 0 61 B 0 4 03 • 0. 0

A La

U 4+ C

U C 0 A

-4 9 03

0 .04 LI

>0 LL ...4 .0 0 IT 1.I .11 0 *4

14 ta U 0 13. 4141 00 44 .11 44 Ca 0 1.4 0

.4 al .-4 7. •-1 00 . co a) 14 .•1 co 14 0

La 8

C0 14 0 0 El

a, 44 0 44 0 in m

a .EC 0

IS -I" ..4 0 *1 0

94 Ca 14 33

C

41

0.

=

0

>,1 4.1

13. • 01 C

34.64

0 LI > 0 0 • 0 V .0 *4 HI 0 C 0 .0 .0 0. 10J Co

A 14 LI

17.

CO 03

0.

0 .0

44

0

0. 0 0 0.

01 C

C .41

0

0.

C

0 •

4 .0 0

.0 HI 0

be counte

d on to contr

ibute something orig

inal.

C

1-4 I tr

y to main

tain

my s

ense

of

pro

fess

iona

lism.

relied on to br

ing an org

anised appro

ach to

the de

mands

of

help

to br

ing

abo

ut the

0 A

El 0 0 .4 n4 Cl .4. VI ket V. as 01 4.. el el Cl Cl Cl en Cl ell Cl Cl 94

INVOLVED IN A PROJECT WITH OTHER P

EOPLE:

SEC

TION II

I

common

inte

rest.

0 -C LI

I am alw

ays ready to back a

good suggestion in

One can be

I am

quic

k

sure I will

just be

my natura

l se

lf.

new ide

as and de

velo

pments.

to see the poss

ibili

ties

V. I O 00

tn • 1:1 3 w a) 0. 0 Cl L.

0 a. co ... 0 to 0 .... W > C se 0 0

0 .4 a 03 L m as 14 .4

■•I ...1 41 *1 0 0. HI

:

C 0 43 no 0 a 0' 0 0 4/ 14 43. M 1.1

V 13 0 44 .4

0 0 E a)

a > 14 C

La la tr. 0 1 0 3 Cl

0 m .0 o

." e 0.

.3 C

0 se0 00 mai 0

V la LC

>. 44 .4

0 *4

0 0 A 0

.X 4 0.

14 ...I *1 H 0 0 0 0

V 0 01 V 44 C C C > •3 X a m V V 01

0 4 11 .4 C 0 g .

m 4,0 ..-1, .4H4 ..4 04

A 01 0 >

V CO C HI C *1

0 0 0 0 0

0 44 0 0 3.1 LI

>

0 *I, 0.14 satia

> ...1 0 E 0

C 2 • 03 A

0 A a Sa

L A 0 0 4 0 0 4

.0 0

_40 ....017 .,401. .0.04 00 >0 C

C m4 4

:4

V 10 03 A 0 03 4 0° 4° A a) to

.4 0 41 *1 *4 .0 0 0 L V

0 0 to o. *4 0 V 14 0' 01 al

H 0 se .4 g _ v

AC

e ..4 0 0 8 ' E v ° = _ .0 14 44 V 44 13 0 13

14 0 0 14 E 0 0 W a 0 0 0 0 a o o o 0 ..., Of 3 4' H > 0 3

> li if m 4 . :0 0 0 4

0 0 0 13 al .0 c• a,. ........2 E 0 .,,,C -4

0 co 0

A 0 V 4$ 0 0 A V 0 a

0 C 0 m >. 14 .0 0 0. la C > 4 0 0 0

e 0 13) .... 0

0 *1 14 1:9X1

'0 al 0 ai -I T.'n Val>. 07 0°W tnA V 0 8 i-I al '0

0 3 44 41 0 -I

4 m -V • SC C AC IT O. to T.

as LI al ...9 0 .344 40 CU 0 0 r.

.1.. 44 C 0 7 if C .• C .-10 OW 0° 4° 0 0 41 0 0 0 4 en 0 4

La

= o X V A V X A A 14 0 3 m a

on .1 N 91 ••T In 10 9. al 17 0 Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl el es Cl

re

a0

41 41

13. CU • 0 0

4.1

V A 0 CU a m L la .4 o .4 V .4 O ...1 3 g

a al

14 * 0

4 al C

0 0 41 H 0 •C

C > 0 ad 0 V 0

C O rt1 03 C 0 7 m a

4:1 a 4 a •-a e 7 U to a. 41 0

.0 C 0 8 0 .0 ta

V 0 0 0 0 03 0 4 14 .0 • 44 0. en 0 3 tn 01 10 14 HI

C • 01 .0 0 4 U co -1 14 U co

1. 4 La 0 .4

m n

m E

0 m U 0

0 M

L .0 4 0 0 Cl .11 A Li 14 - a i.

0 LI ol o .0 c o• • A 0 A C .0 .4 in O. 0 0 4 0 1 03 '0 0 A &I LI 0 •-e 3 4 14 44 L .•1 7 41 m .4

03 0. L W 7 • a 0 131 43 0 3 0 u m m • 0 0 .1.1

W 04 03 U 'AO AO V 00 a a, 0 e B A2 C 44 14 .1 .4 V

0 0 0 ' A 01 0 C 03 M 0 A A * a .e e .4 T. IT 7> C 4 0 V 0 0 CU A 0.-I C O .4 7 0 41 A 7 14 03 04 ..1 • 4 Cl A M 4A 411 A 0

8 12.

al V 0 0 A 0 7 . A 5 0 0 C C 4 01 U .10 LI 8 .4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 al 4 M LI B 0 010 A 4 0 41 0 0 A 12 m4

n .Q .4 .4 a .7 4 na A 0. 13.4 0 A 0 V 0 4 *

> 1 73. 7 2 C 000

03 0 0 al LA 4 0 00 40 117 00 40 C 0 an 4 La U 0. 0.m ..4 0 C 0 0 V A A 01 Oa I4 C C 0 t) La C 0 A C .1.1

A .0 In 0 A 0 A 0 82 ° -1 0 .4 al 0 A A 0 0 • 7L 4 04

00 0A al U 0 Lo 01 03 U 03 44 0 01 I .1.1 C L VA 0 AO 44.4 2 ' " CO • 0 a 0 n a> 0 0 CI

>. V al C V al 0 0 44 *4 01 41 c as .-I 0 A 0 • C 0 0 8 01 .4 0 0 4 0

LI .4 C al Li .4 0 > -4 A A V 0 0 A a/ Al 4 0 .4 U -I a .4 0 43 0 4 3 0 02

4 A a 7 0 L7 0 4 L0. 78 LI 0 0 C A 3 4 O 041 8 0 A 0 4 41 A 0 0 0 0 A in 0 11

m ama 0 0. 0 0 0

C 0 A 0 4 21 a • V 14 0 14 C Us 0 > 0 31 La C I It HI

g Fl. .4

15 21°. 1 ,0

O o

a. C V I ° 411 I% 10 Oa

14 .9 9 la 14

Hal 1431 14H HA Zal 14 0 14 41 44 4 0 z

121 al 0 .1 N 44 .2. 'Cl 4:1 I. m 01 41 N N N N N N N r4 Cl N 14 S

ECT

ION II

I

MY KENMERKENDE BENADE

RING TOT.

GROKPWERK IS DA

T:

APDELING IV

HY CHARACTERISTIC APPROACH TO GROUP WORK IS THAT:

SECT

ION IV

Eft PUT BEVEEDIGIN

G UIT WERE ONDAT:

AFD

ELING V

foste

rin

g good working r

ela

tions

hips.

0

.-1

influence

on de

cis

ions.

I can ha

ve a

I ha

ve a chance

of mee

ting

I can get people

to ag

ree on pri

orit

ies and obj

ecti

ves

.

'0 0

S

a

a 0

O

C a

4 a

• 01

0 .4

4.1 a1

0 C 14

14 40 03 >

to bevraagte

ken, of om

self 'n

• 03 0 171.1 C C

C 01 a C

03 0 a

C II -4

c C

C0 V

a 0

al .43

V 7 .4 0 0

14 41 0 C

C we

40

S

•-•

11

0 0

0

C.

O

a

a

Ek gewo

onli

k argum

ente

Take

wet ek ondern

eem van 'n tikkie perfe

ksio

nis

me getu

ig.

of fi

rma

meek.

0.

O

.0

Ek graag di

e een i

s we

t konta

kte

sosia

le aepek

van werkv

erhoudings genie

t.

0 0

C

L

01 C

C C

C 3

a o

02 al

a2

el 0, C

4-4

4 ta

0 LI

tn

0 0

-■ al •

m co m H

0, C

4 0 00 3

a al 0 a

C 0

N 0 E 0

LI o

a e V at 0

0 0 .30 ..3 C

4 0 0,

3 0 0 .4 0 0.4 .0

.4 a 03

0 m .0

'0

0 •

0

0

o .0 .0

0

0

.0

rn C

a

U

0 • 1.4

11 0 C

4. D.

as -1 0 44 LI

a )4 0 11 C

H I. El

interest in getti

ng to know co

lleag

ues

bett

er.

main

tain a quie

t

I kn

ow w

hat

I am t

alking

contr

ibute

where

a

.4

0 C.

0.

C -4 .e 01

S

0

a

0

aaa

3'

0 -■

C 0 0

.0 4-4 I

am in

terested in fi

nding pra

ctic

al solu

tio

ns to pro

blems.

C 0

11

-4

.54

0 U

Da•

C

0

s-e

chance

to e

xpre

ss myse

lf.

usua

lly find a job

gives me the

imag

inati

on.

ca

n find an oppor

tunity

to s

tretc

h my

0

ti 11

0 C

O a

U

a

C.

a

0

a

I am us

ing

t. u ci

sa

to 0

a

C .c4 C

.4 C 14 a a -o 91 0. 0

C C

xia

-

m a • a

0 3 ta

0 X a a

c -a

a CA 3 a

a a n..

E

.0

a

tn

> 9 a

a a a 4

a

C . .Z ..4 ...1 -.1 4:1 V •-•

14 a > .4 4 0 0

.0

.-4 9 0

V a o 0 a F a 0

.-1.4 0, X C a

...4 • a m 12 V

14 40 -4 .4

o e .40 3, El 0

v u o11

AC 0 m m 0 0 0 >

44 4 El A 0 C ..•1 14 .4 .4 0 0 C 03 a > 0 . 0,

X 0 A 0 w0, ta C

C

O .1

112

O

0 • ID

al 9 .e

E -•

F O

-•

11:1

0 X C CP

U 14 .4 al o 3

0 0 V

'44 114 0

.0

9 0

4 0 C 41 .0 U . 0 0 0 C 4 .4 Y C a 0 44 4.1 03

al 14 CI 13 al 91

C ...‘ 4 0 0 ea -a

0 Cla > 9 • a) 0

g >. > 0 0 .4 CO a to .4 >. .4 .0 0 0 al o

at .... 0

a o I. C .4 a 0 g 0.

0

a3 41 1.10, al 0 0 4 M it art .4

C a ea a c 0 IT C 0 •••I = a .4 .14 • 0 C

o a j 8 Vt. 14 C II

O. m .o .1 n m ... .44 .4

...I 0 .4 .0 0 ... a 14 .3 e-4,0 44 14 .1 14 :C E4

0

131 0 I. NP n P vL t. 0 01 .4

0.4

C 0) a

4 a

13. 04 -4 4 H 0 0 a

13 >.

-1 a, 0 0

...s > at m e o C

c0 a > a

0 0 m a 1.I a

0 .... 0 0,

8 . ..4.1 01

g 03 C 4 0,

0 a 41 d 0 0 ea 1,4 .-1 > H 0.

a 11 • 4. al 0 ma 0 91 C a

X 0 .4 0

lai " 8 5 IS 0 03 03

a .4 0 0 ..Z =

3 0 a ...,

0 H 0 a Li

0 C

0 0 0 4) a) a) 0 al

-■ .... 0 H 0 a .1 ..-4 a

ea 0 .0 .0 o c .0 a -4

0 • 0 C H 0

0 as es 0. 10 na a es

.hs m o -4

L. ; H CD

tl) A 0 A 0 0. 0 ... 0 3 0 V .0 111 .0 111

13-4

*I 41

91 a) 0 a, C .4 14 0 .-• .14 .-4

0 0 ...1 -4 CO a 0 0 m C

.0 0 la > 0 en 0

a 0 .14. 0 .-4 V 0

C as > 40 to m 0 a 0

t -5

1

0 al m -4 ..4 V 0, . .0 0 0 0 0 >. ,c)

e • .4 0,

a 0 >. c • p... b. 0 • >.•

a 11 c e • a) m CS 0 0u 0

V c 0' - as e4.1 ..4 >0 •

0 4.4 0 a C a C a a

.10 CU 4 .1.0 ...4 0 4 .4 4 a ... A 0 ..1 01

03 a, 142 02 0 8 63 3 ea a a 03 .0 0 CM Li C

8 0 0 .4 44 PI .2 V. a n CO Os

a VI Y1 IA to to N art v, DI DI

I.

O .4 et r, P V1 AO 4- ea m. to In IA IA In N Ln IA on

I GAIN SATISFACTION IN A JOB BECAUSE:

SECT

ION V

0 z a

C a

O DI b n CO O. 4

M

to

refute

unsound p

roposi-

c thin

gs work

once

a p

lan

has

to

job I

un

derta

ke.

3. C

O

find a line of

tn

ta

a

C 0 -4

•

b

outs

ide the g

roup

or

the

a 0 ea 2

X

0 At

1 al C 0

0 a)

1 .4 0 0 '0

X 4 4 11

e _

0 4 .a II

.. 0 .0 H

.I .0 '0 ...I C -V ....

0 Li C 4 III 0 CD

.0 C 0 a.

0 0 0

0 C 0 E ...4 ...4 C .4

14 a 0 9 0 0 111

H 0, el H

LI > C 0 0 o •0 m a 0 m 01 0

al

0 .-1 a g al .0

a 0 0 E 0 > a m 9

0 a c 0 a 0

.-a4 ..0 C 0 a 0 > X .0

.4

a La ea 3 .4

C 0 A 0 a >. >.. .4 a > c u e B .1 91

.-•

01 a C

E Co E a 0 C 4 C a.

0 4J 4 .4 0 4 a 0 a

..a e 0 -1

>

AFDE

LING

VI

0 au E 0

A 0 C -4

0 0 A

0 of

A A 41 0 A

0 5 0 La -4 A 0 0 ..4 0 0 • 34 A '0 0 tn 14

• C am 0 '0 0

A 0 -di V 0

A La 0

Xi X al ..4a

0 al A . 0 a

C0 .0 0 .a4 0 of

0 A N. 0

..0 0 ca c

0 e 0 , 1.1

m 0 0 .... tm 0 e o 0 e g

01 0 01 12

0 A 0 r .

.CIA

0 . 0 0 -4

14 In a Tv N OA E

V C E A CI 24

0 0 0 0 A 4A A A. mr a .o em m o o

.ice 0 • •0

V > m C en N L. 0 0 al A co

A A Ill a • CI HI 0

s o > 0 E ..14.4

M .4

34 .A C o

0 0 0 0

A0 C 6 C 0 41 A 44 V 44 03

44 0 0 0 0 0... 14 6 A A Oa MO A O. 20 AA .0A0 m= 07 Am 0

tn 0 1 a Ivo X .4

X N m X 0 X 7 m 44 z a Ca m Ca V ca

O M N

0

.0

as

0

AM

BLIN

G VII

dari

ng v

ertr

aag

. is om to oorr

eag

to

0

01

H Sla

ag e

k gewoon

lik

ten

a 03

H

44

U2

44 U

0. H

a ca

4 0

ZW Ca a. 9 ACC 04

a A

M I A MI

g 3/3

QQ

/4

1-1 24

SECTIO

N VI

solu

tio

n

I conveniently can on the

view t

o stim

ula

ting

new

.0 • mtn Ac 2 A

m0 Cu 0 A In

OW 7 .0 Ua 00

EI VO

0

0 me

0 ca

om 0

.0

A

o 1 a a 0 C .4 14 0

0 Li U M .4 0 0

H

A CO 0 A 01 .4 0 HI

A 0 A C A 0 C 0

m .0 ea U H0 11 I A a.

01 0 , 01 14 03

M OM 11 0 HI C M 0 I:I1 0

0 H 12, A

0 0 C 17, a O. ..• a. C .0 A 0

.0 0

0 0 A 4

C4

3.. A .1 (13 0 43 .4 as .0

0 0 g o $4 0. 0 0 0 -4 0 Li 03 0. A . Li 0. U C 03 0 0 0 7 to .0

0 a .e e v u I. o cm a 0 a

A 0 a 0 H i4 0 C

0 Of 14 0 of 0 C Mi

mA

E to of 0 41

.4 0 L. C C 0 •••1 0 0 04 0

0 4 0 >

C .4 0 0 .1.0 0 TT 0 .0 C a

0 al 0 0 La V 0

C U 0 0 a.

0 0 .0 u 00

. 0 .0 • .4 0 0 0 2 U4 0 0

0 414 w a 0

0 o a • ..• o m 14

A 0 03 0 .0 , .40

.-I M .61 0 0

2 0 0 0 0. a al co 0 14 a 0 .4 E C 0 A 0 0 0 • . au m '0 0. '0 ca LI o4 TS N. 0 N C c H 0 0

2 .1 C 40 g • 2,40 ILI .:1 0 0 Of A A of

NA A 0 N 0 X CI H A 4.1 04 M .4 a I-I ....

SECT

ION VI

I

that we get the

import

ant de

tails rig

ht a

re n

ot

0 =

E1 0 44 N ei a. IM CI 3-. 0 0. A r- N 1.. N N N N r• Is r- M

4 01 0

0.

Some people

critic

ise me for

bein

g too an

aly

tica

l.

I am a

pt to over-rea

ct when people

ho

ld up

and would do

be

tter o

n

fron

t of di

ffic

ult or

4 0 .4

0.

a

0 La 0.

'0

•

0 -4

0 0 0 0 La 0.

0 aA C• 0 7 Ac ww

04

S 0 0 a

mo mm

to fo

al I am w

astin

g my

0 0 0 .1 0 I C .1

.0 .4 03 0 -4 A C •.4 0 EI 0 al 0 d 0 0 0 t. 0

" C > ed 0 0 0

03 . A 5 0 0 C 4 0 0 4 0 a. 0 El .0 0 .0 of m

X B H

au V 0 14 0 0 -4 0 of 0 14

11 0. 0 A al a 0 A 02 > CI1 .0 0

G1 a .o • - o .L.

cm s 14 O. -I -4 .... Ca A 41 0 .4 E V c 0 2 0 a C 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 of M A 0 La A a 0 43 of V 0 01 7 X > A 03 A 4 0 C A :0 0, 6 14 0) TI CI 0 0 . 44 0 0 01 0. 0 0 e . ii

0 . A •CI tn V 0 .4 0 0 0 e 0 C 04 .4 0 M MI 0 0 > A X 0 4 0

0 V EI 19 C

V C N 0 2 91 41 6 B 7

la O. 0 MA M C > O 0 6 0 'O • C m

.0 0 al 0 V El m 0 X 41 4.4 14 •••I C 0 11 .4 t4 0 0 .4 C 0 >4 0 0.1 . 0 0 0 > la C •

0 >. 0. e .4 g 0 11 t. O. T 41 a

0 0 .0 A 0 tr. 41

A 0 A 6 0 0 CI 0 0 14

8 A 4 1:1 > 0 a 0

0 a 0.1s t1 O. mw .3 .

> 0 03 44 V. 0 14 161

0 > 401 0 .1 0 cm 0 0

11 CI

V

0 41 C

0 M 0

. MO 00 AC AO

01 C A CD HI 0 VI 0 0 0 0 44 A 0.41 a 0 01

M AA V0

0 .V4 7A

ma .01 0.4 0 14 A

> L A CE 0 V

MO wA VC co 00

50 C 0. 0 lal a/ A 0 14_ 4 A 0

a .0 14 A I4 X ...4 al ea al

a

0m .k.g ' .0 0 0 ).. 0.4 0 •

A

0 0 .004 41 0 0

.14 A A

0 03 0 0 Aso 0'

...0 0 -la -Iv cs .... ...c ow 01 CI CI 0 0 01 .4310 11 d alA N01 HA 43144 w0 QA NC 4/3 w'0

34

0 ■••• co aa 0 10 0 0 10 IC 10 10 10 113 10

H

.

0 .

- ..

. 0 ....

... !

0 . 0

. ... 0 0

0 ,,

m >. e

-04 A a to

c A 0

0 0. a

A 5 o

0 0 L. m

.L. 0 0 •0 a a a

2 M 0 C

0 A •••i IT V

al 0 C Of •

Z Of 0 70

Av

al N to 0

> a s. 0 0 ax

0 g 6 A

O. 0 m .

...I 01

M 0 A H C

I 0

0

Ow C m

14 N al 14

0 .0 El -4 0

V N M 0.

M .4 OA

M "I AM

C M A -4 0

CI 0 C ..•1 44

> C H CM

0 0 o .4

la o

CD A 01 0

CD 0 U

A .4 OM

0 C A 0. 0 CI 0

a. V a. CTI 0 E 6 a HI HI

14 0 6 0 01 03 0 •

14 0 AA 3

.0

c >

0 0 .4 0 WO ..

.0 A 0 0

H0I .1 0 C. 0

C C CI E HI 13 0 .3 • 00 LI

a C 0

X 0 14 0 -4

0 IM 0 2

0 V 0

4C e ..1 0

.4 -4 >

0 4 CO 0 SI c a H C A M

Ca H HI X of .0 11 it 0 AC 0 03 A 441 0 43 0 03 A

Le

0 z

in spit

e of

the

cir

cums

tance

s.

I A w

I .Ca4 5

0 a)o

A CI •4 Y 0

ir o a 0 0 aa

. O. a 0

ri M to' m al .4

c 2

.0 0 0 4 0 o a.. 11 44 al C .0 A

of 0 5 .0 As A A

a Ca N a

MI

.0 1) L 0 0 0 • A .0 34 0 0 U 4 0

4.A 0

.0 , 7 0. 0 co .0 0 m

11.1 .4 U 0 M

.°C w L. a

.c a, 0 a. 0. A 7 03 0 a a

34 0 V a C 44 LI Y C 44 6 0 0 A 7

M 0 0 0 ea Fe 0 m ...1 5 a 00 a

.0 0 a s

. LA A A a

0 to c V g 0

A A a 0

LI 11 44 '0 C 7

.0 U eel a 0 7 0 a 0 V A m a 44 03 0

O1 14 0 4) o w

LI A A 44:1 g U

1 ' •w 0

k 0. 0 tr.

A 9 • -4

01 43 12. 1.1 °. 0 0 0 A 4 V 7 0 5 41 41 . A U

0 0 0 7 A .1 0

0 7 .0 til N. 0 C 0 0 A do C 0 A '0 0 0 oll .0 7 C 0

O .0 •-i m 0 • co 14 C U 0 0 .0 U al .0 al .0 0 0 al 2 0 g a 44 A II I) X 43 0

34 0 0 C 44 X H 44 A 0

0 0 a o A .4 .4 c oo a. 0 a+ a. .0 S4 .4 ICJ 03 A ea •

A 0 0. LI .0 > al 0 1.1 A V 0 V O. .0 Z 7 al 0 2 0 0 0 . A . 0 .4 0 4.1 A .4 O. -1.0 7 .# 7 o 7t of .4.4 0.0 0 41 0 .4 0 M 0

CA 03 4 03 V

7 . 5 . 34 > 5 Cm A .0 14 0

34 . .0 .0 .. X44 .0 .0

0 .4 N 4.1 •Ci. N *a N co 0•4 30 ie. 10 113 10 m .0 .0 10 40

I wo

uld take the lead if the gro

up

no p

rogre

ss.

THE BELBIN SELF-PERCEPTION INVENTORY

ANSWER SHEET

NAME

DATE

FIRM

DIRECTIONS: A total of ten points should be distributed within each section among the sentences which most accurately describe your behaviour.

1SECTION I II III IV V VI VII

ITEM

NU

MBE

R

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 I I

11 21 31 41 51 61 ' 71

12 22 32 42 52 62 72

13 23 33 I43 53 63 73

14 24 34 44 54 64 74

15 25 35 45 • 55 65 75

16 26 36 46 56 66 76

17 27 37 47 57 67 77

18 28 38 48 58 68 78

19 29 39 49 59 69 79

Belbin Associates

APPENDIX 4

OBSERVER'S ASSESSMENT SHEET.

Name of observer Name of observed

Relationship of observer to the observed : Boss/subordinate/colleague

Date Firm Department

Tick the words from List A which you think are descriptive of the person being observed. Then tick any of the words in List B if you believe them to be at least partly applicable. If you think a word in either list is very descriptive, give it a double tick. Should you consider that there is a shortage of appropriate words in either list, add some of your own.

LOST A accurate adaptable analytical aware of priorities broad in outlook challenging clever competitive conscientious consultative curious diplomatic disciplined efficient encouraging of others enterprising enthusiastic friendly hard-driving imaginative inventive knowledgeable logical loyal objective organising original painstaking perceptive persistent persuasive pioneering practical professional realistic reliable resilient responsive rounded self-reliant single-minded sociable strategic technically skilful thorough tough

LOST IS aggressive critical disinterested in others easily bored empire-building erratic forgetful frightened of failure fussy impatient impractical indecisive inflexible insecure insular manipulative opinionated over-sensitive reluctant to delegate resistant to change sceptical slow-moving talkative territorial unadventurous unorthodox

Belbin Associates

Dawie Gouws-Genote

WAAMEMERIREOOIRDEL

Van en voorletters van waarnemec

Van en voorletters van persoon wat waargeneem word:

Dui verhouding van waarnemer tot persoon wat waargeneem word aan. (Trek asseblief 'n kring daarom) Hoof/Ondergeskikle/Kollega

Dal um: Organisasle: Department:

Mask asseblief regmerkles teenoor die woorde in Lys A wet die persoon wat u beoordeel die bests beskryf. Merit dawns die woorde in Lys B wat minetens gedeelielik van toepassing Is. As u dink dat enige woord bale beskrywend Is, mask dubbele regmerkie daarteenoor. As u dink aan beskry. wende woorde welt rile in een van di twee lyste Is n18 ken u dit gerus byvoeg.

NB: As is veel woorde afgemerk word sal die program dit verwerp, aangesien dit clan nie genoeg onderskeidenda Inligting gee nie. Probeer om nie meer as hoogstens 25 woorde in Lys A of meet as 14 woorde in Lys B of te merle nie (insluitende die wat dubbeld gemerk is).

L1! [83

akkuraet ainpasbaar males bewus van prioriteite bre6 perspektlef ultdgend skrender wedywerend pligsgetrou reafOlegend

nuuskierig diplomatles gedIssipl°.nerd doeltreffend mock ander aan ondememend entoesksties vriendelik stet holl else ver seeldingryit vindingryk kundig loglee lodasl objekileg orrgenisser nder oompronkilk nouleite, ,Q aorgvuldig omegas am t.o.e medewerkers volhardend ooffedend doer bEvanbrekerswerk oFekties protessionee resilisties behoubser word Ms ondsrgekry nie shipeglek evuevrtgld, slen geheelbeeld mask 'sheet op els kennis era insig het sieli teen doeg vow . 0E. gesenig dhk sires ,. es ieghles veardig dank tsar onwrikbaar

LYS A

10

48.

aggressief krities a& min belong in nder reek you verveeld bou eie koninkryk wisselv vergeetagtig bang vir mislukkihg puntenerig, perfeksionisties ongeduldig onprakties besfulteloos onbuigssam onseker afgeslote, eng siening geneig tot manipulasie elewys, koppig Bigger sit onwillig om te delegeer weeretandig teen verandering skepties stadige besluitnemer spra ksaam Jaloers op eie spesialisgebled ongenee tot risiko onortodoke

Belbin Associates

1., I RE

APPENDIX 5

TEAM ROLE TRAINING : EVALUATION QUESTIONN

Please mark each pion wlih an X.

1. What is your gender?

male I female

2. What are your qualifications?

matric

under-graduate degree in progress

a B-degree (excluding B.Bibl)

B.Bibl or another Library qualification,

please specify

post-graduate degree

other, please specify:

3. What is you home language?

English

Afrikaans

Northern Sotho

Zulu

other, please specify:

4. What is your age group?

I 18-24 I 25-29 J 30-35 36+ I

5. How many years have you been working in the Unisa Library?

0-3 years 14-6 years 1 7-9 years I 10-12 years I 13+ years

What time do you work with the Periodicals Requests Team?

half-day I full-day

What did Belbin's team role exercise indicate as your strongest team role?

plant

team worker

shaper

completer finisher

implementer

resource investigator

coordinator

monitor evaluator

specialist

What did Belbin's team role exercise indicate as your second strongest team role?

plant

team worker

shaper

completer finisher

implementer

resource investigator

coordinator

monitor evaluator

specialist

' "4--"''"" AWL A6rOVINMEetZEkif:

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statements by marking the applicable blocks

with an X. (Please answer all the questions)

• Strongly

disagree

Dis-

agree

Not

sure

Some-

times

Agree Strongly

agree

1 When completing the self-assessment questionnaire, I had to think long

and hard about which statements applied to me

2 I was surprised at how accurate the results were

3 I was satisfied with the truthfulness of the results

4 People make a conscious decision about the role they will enact within a

team

5 People unconsciously act out a role within a team, in accordance with

their personalities

6 A team role reflects your personality

7 A team role reflects your values

6 A team role reflects your culture

9 A team role reflects your self-perception

10 People have the same roles at home as at work

11 I was concerned about how my colleagues would rate me

12 Identifying both my strengths and weaknesses helps me to accept

myself as I am

13 The feedback regarding my strengths and weaknesses will enable me to

relate more constructively to my colleagues In future

14 Knowing what my unique contribution to the overall success of my team

is, I now have more confidence

15 The team roles could be used to reorganise the task flow of our team

16 • The knowledge and insight gained from the Belbin team roles (with

regard to individual strengths and weaknesses) could be used to improve

cooperation within my team

17 The knowledge and insight gained from the Belbin team roles could be

used to improve problem solving within my team

If KT!: .g.angVis23

selepossv um1e8 9661. (3)

smopumio1 30tr1dN31NI

spewoo meu Bu!New pue 6uuoldxe sAofue owit euoewos Job Nool moils dnoi6 eye 'seop 1.!1! gseouelswnalp

mos LI! Jepew 1.ou Aew sp.!" •ep!smo ppom eyU ui uo 6u!o6 s! leym ui pelseiew! Anuopylnsu! pue &I!)poi pieMui ooh ewooeq Aew dnoi6 s!i. Ai■ sl!

sietpo puodsei pue ldepe Ame pue slime 6uueo SI! ui eq !pm Lgue.!Is si.! luewuallitue Buppomlueseeld AileA e j. eNew Ble inm siyi •Amq!suodsei palegs esues e pue eieydsowle weal. poo6 ql!miegieBol. Hem uo Am!l si dnoi6 sp.!!

: se4epipue3 JeqwnN

Ob

1c1

HS

A3 dS ONO 00 GM,

esiun : uopespealo

R.11ondeam'd ..1186 Ic1210/HOOLVSOMSEM UEDA 638\1-LIRAW 31HOUcl

9 XBON2IdeN

selepossv welea 9661. (o)

SMOpqM JO/ 30V1d1:131N1

•sisNepeds Onoue you pue sisHeieue8 Auew och ale a eq ieq eq Aew dnoi6 sow Je6uep eq

-peAgidap pue peinpnu Aiinjaieo aq pew lip sweiel al! lnoqe sumo s! j.! '.19A3MOH *seousApe .10feW Bupiew

Amqedeo aye seq dno.16 eiqe Alienpellem pue lue6Nialu! Iseq W

LI : seleppue0 jo JaqwnN

cIS

d3 MS dbillil 03 NFil NU id

0

0E

09

0

CO&

es!un : uogespealo

OMABeeq0 idEIC/MOMr7SW6a00O SRIOVEIEW 3ill 0Md

CION2ddV