Belbin's Team Role Model: Development, Validity and Applications for Team Building

Introduction

  • Effective teamworking is crucial in most organizations.
  • Team member diversity in terms of roles is significant for team performance.
  • Belbin’s team role model is widely used, but studies show mixed results regarding its psychometric properties and associations with cognitive styles and personality traits.
  • The paper reviews published research to assess the model's support by available evidence, covering conflict management, personality traits, team performance, control, and power.

Role Theories

  • Belbin’s model was preceded by other role theories (Benne and Sheats, 1948; Graen, 1976; Holland, 1985).
  • Anthropological-Sociological Perspective: Roles combines values, attitudes, and behaviors assigned to a social position.
  • Psychosocial Perspective: Roles are defined as expected behaviors from an individual in a specific position, with cognition and expected behavior crucial for success (Biddle, 1979; Katz and Kahn, 1978).
  • Two types of groups studied since 1944: problem-solving groups and individual development groups.
  • Bales and Slater (1955) distinguished between 'task leaders' and 'maintenance or socio-emotional leaders'.
  • Benne and Sheats (1948) proposed 12 task roles and 7 maintenance roles.
  • These theories influenced the development of Belbin’s team role model (Belbin, 1981).
  • Role acquisition models:
    • Role-Taking Models: Individuals passively accept assigned roles (Graen, 1976); e.g., 'role episode model' (Katz and Kahn, 1978).
    • Role-Making Models: Individuals actively participate in defining and developing their roles (Graen and Scandura, 1987).
  • Holland (1985) classified individuals and job environments into six types: 'realistic', 'conventional', 'entrepreneur', 'social', 'artistic', and 'intellectual'.
  • Individual success depends on the alignment of personal abilities, interests, and personality traits with job requirements.
  • Belbin’s model links to these role theories, using the Team Role Self-Perception Inventory (TRSPI).

The Team Role Model

  • Belbin’s model focuses on how roles develop, change, and interact over time.
  • Based on a nine-year study of management teams in an executive management exercise (Lawrence, 1974).
  • Participants completed Cattell’s 16PF and Watson Glaser’s Critical Thinking Appraisal.
  • Observers recorded group processes using Bales’ interactive process analysis.
  • Eight team roles were initially proposed based on team members’ personalities, critical thinking, and behavior.
  • Early analysis showed a positive correlation between performance predictions based on team role composition and actual performance (Belbin et al., 1976).
  • A team role is defined as a pattern of behavior that facilitates team progress.
  • In 1993, some roles were renamed, and a ninth role was added.
  • Roles are defined by personality, mental ability, values, motivation, field constraints, experience, and role learning.
  • High-performing teams need a balanced representation of all team roles.
  • Team role (behavioral preference) differs from functional role (technical skills).
  • Different team roles are needed at different stages of team development:
    • Identifying needs.
    • Finding ideas.
    • Formulating plans.
    • Making ideas.
    • Establishing team organization.
    • Following through.
  • Shapers and Coordinators are needed in early stages; Completer-Finishers and Implementers in later stages.

Operationalizing the Model

  • The model is operationalized via a self-perception inventory (TRSPI) and observer assessments (OAS).
  • The original TRSPI (TRSPI-8R) was hand-scored; later modified to TRSPI-9R with Interplace software.
  • The OAS is used by colleagues to provide informed judgments.
  • Team roles can also be assessed using personality questionnaires like Cattell’s 16PF and the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ; Saville et al., 1992).

Reviewing the Evidence

  • The review includes 43 studies using the TRSPI, OAS, and personality inventories.
  • Psychometric Evidence:
    • Initial evaluations of TRSPI were critical (Furnham et al., 1993a, 1993b; Broucek and Randell, 1996).
    • Recent studies are more supportive (Swailes and McIntyre-Bhatty, 2002, 2003).
    • Concerns raised about statistical properties and theoretical basis (Broucek and Randell, 1996).
    • The ipsative nature of TRSPI affects psychometric evaluation.
  • Furnham et al. (1993a) reported low reliability values for TRSPI versions; factor structures differed between normative and ipsative scoring.
  • Senior (1998) and Beck et al. (1999) reported a four-factor structure for the ipsative TRSPI.
  • Furnham et al. (1993a) questioned the theoretical basis of the inventory, noting its inductive development.
  • Broucek and Randell (1996) raised concerns about internal consistency and discriminant validity of TRSPI and OAS; they are not parallel forms.
  • Senior and Swailes (1998) reported low convergent validity between TRSPI and OAS.
  • Swailes and McIntyre-Bhatty (2002, 2003) reported more positive assessments of TRSPI reliability.
  • Evidence from Personality Measures of Team Roles:
    • Dulewicz (1995) correlated and factor-structured team roles using 16PF and OPQ, reporting low discrimination between roles.
    • Fisher et al. (1996, 1998a, 2001a) researched team roles derived from 16PF.
    • Fisher et al. (1998a) grouped roles into ‘relationship’ and ‘task’ clusters.
    • Fisher et al. (2001a) combined different methods and used multitrait-multimethod analysis, finding support for convergent validity but less for discriminant validity.
    • They reduced trait multicollinearity by combining pairs of team roles, fitting with the NEO-PI-R five-factor model.
  • Factor Structures:
    • Bipolar factor structures (Furnham et al., 1993a; Senior, 1998; Beck et al., 1999) have no counterparts in 16PF or OPQ.
    • Studies using ipsative and normative versions of TRSPI and personality questionnaires show different result patterns.
    • Some predictable results have appeared such as Plant contrasting with Implementer, and Shaper contrasting with Team Worker.
    • In normative versions, task-oriented roles loaded on one factor, and team roles concerned with others loaded on another.
  • Fisher et al. (1996) showed that test-retest reliabilities of team roles measured by the TRSPI were lower than for measures derived from 16PF indicating that TRSPI may be more dynamic.

Empirical Studies

  • The team role model has been associated with teamworking and team performance.
  • The ‘team role balance hypothesis’ states that high-performing teams need all nine team roles.
  • Studies have observed team roles in relation to gender, organization type, cognitive styles, and conflict management.
  • Of 27 empirical studies, five reported negative evidence, and 18 reported positive evidence.
  • The Balanced Team Performance Hypothesis:
    • Senior (1997) showed that performance was related to team role balance.
    • Prichard and Stanton (1999) showed teams with diverse roles perform better than teams mainly composed of Shapers.
    • Jackson (2002) found no evidence to support team roles predicting performance.
    • Aritzeta and Ayestaran (2003) found positive evidence for the team role balance hypothesis.
    • Park and Bang (2002) could not find evidence to support the hypothesis.
  • Gender Differences:
    • Balderson and Broderick (1996) found differences between men and women on Monitor Evaluator and Plant roles.
    • Sommerville and Dalziel (1998) showed a higher predominance of Team Workers among women and Implementers and Coordinators among men.
    • Anderson and Sleap (2004) showed women scored higher on Team Worker, and men on Shaper, Plant, and Monitor Evaluator roles.
  • Type of Management and Organization:
    • Lessem and Baruch (2000) found managers prioritizing change prefer Coordinator, Plant, and Shaper roles.
    • Heterogeneous organizations favor Plant and Resource Investigator roles (Shi and Tang, 1997).
    • Stable organizations favor Implementer and Completer-Finisher roles.
    • Arroba and Wedgwood-Oppenheim (1994) indicated Shaper and Implementer roles occurred more among senior managers in local government than in private sectors where Plant, Team Worker and Completer-Finisher occurred more frequently.
  • Cognitive Styles and Conflict Management:
    • Fisher et al. (1998b) found a positive correlation between Resource Investigator and Shaper and innovative cognitive style.
    • Completer-Finisher, Implementer, and Monitor Evaluator were associated with an adaptive cognitive style.
    • Coordinators display adaptive behaviour and act as a bridge between adaptors and innovators
    • Recent work (Aritzeta et al., 2005b) corrected KAI sub-scale misinterpretation.
    • Aritzeta et al. (2005a) found Plant and Shaper related to dominating behaviors, and Implementer, Completer-Finisher, and Team Worker with avoiding behavior.
    • Co-ordinator and Resource Investigator showed compromising behaviour.
  • Control, Power, and Machiavellianism:
    • Fisher et al. (2001b) analyzed control and power in team roles finding that the Co-ordinator, Resource Investigator and Shaper roles expressed higher levels of control.
    • Macrosson and Hemphill (2001) argued that definitions of team roles could be hiding Machiavellian behavior showing that Shaper and Plant were positively related to Machiavellian behavior.
  • Management Team Roles for Non-Managers?
    • Fisher et al. (2002) found that models can also be applied to non managerial positions.
    • They found no differences between managers and non-management teams in terms of team role frequencies and team performance.
    • Fisher and Macrosson (1995) predicted team role preferences from an individual’s family environment.
    • Dulewicz and Higgs (1999) correlated dimensions of emotional intelligence with team roles.

Summary of Empirical Studies

  • There is sufficient evidence that definitions of team roles are valid and results are consistent with other theoretical models.
  • Knowing associations between team roles, cognitive styles, and conflict management helps understand team dynamics.
  • Plant relates to innovative cognitive style and dominating conflict management; Implementer relates to adaptive cognitive style and avoiding conflict.
  • Shaper is associated with innovative cognitive style and controlling behavior; Team Worker with adaptive cognitive style and avoiding behavior.

Discussion

  • The team role theory is not flawed it can be linked to role theory base.
  • The TRSPI does have psychometric support.
  • Effect sizes should be interpreted considering the knowledge field of the research.
    • Correlation values, strictly speaking, can be considered as effect sizes and using correlations to establish low, medium and high effect sizes for psychometric studies are:
      • values below 0.20 Low.
      • Between 0.20 and 0.34 Medium.
      • Above 0.34 High.
    • Correlation values, strictly speaking, can be considered as effect sizes and using correlations to establish low, medium and high effect sizes for empirical studies are:
      • values below 0.21 Low.
      • Between 0.21 and 0.45 Medium.
      • Above 0.45 High.
  • Neither TRSPI-8R nor TRSPI-9R has unequivocal psychometric support; most studies show low or average effect sizes.
  • Initial concerns about reliability have been challenged by recent studies with large samples.
  • The nine team roles cannot be clearly differentiated from each other.
  • Pairings can be proposed being:
    • Plant vs. Team Worker or Implementer and Shaper vs. Team Worker or Monitor Evaluator.
  • Two Groups that can be proposed:
    • Team Worker, Implementer and Completer-Finisher (and in part Monitor Evaluator) and Shaper and Plant (and in some aspects Resource Investigator).
  • TRSPI measures dynamic configurations, while personality questionnaires measure stable traits.
  • Most empirical studies showed average or high effect sizes, indicating acceptable convergent validity.
  • Factor structures for TRSPI are coherent in ipsative and normative forms, as well as with personality measures.
  • High-performing teams are defined by member complementarity and interaction.
  • The model combines self-perception with the perceptions of others.
  • Task and emotional processes are jointly considered which makes it easier to solve problems and ensure healthy work team development.

Conclusions

  • The dominant psychological approach needs to be complemented by socio-technical considerations.
  • Psychological approaches require robust measurement instruments.
  • The team role model is used on an international scale.
  • Relationships between team roles and other constructs should help to develop more robust methods.
  • The review will help practitioners design interventions and apply the model to team environments.
  • The ways an individual interacts can now be associated with cognitive style, conflict management behavior, power, control, or Machiavellian behavior.