Belbin's Definition of What a Team Is - Essay Example

BELBIN’S ‘TEAM ROLES INVENTORY’ In most organizations in the world, ability to measure up to the company or an organizations objectives and benchmarks is one of the most significant way of assessing the growth and ability to be sustaining. In achieving the company’s projection, there is always the need to do the necessary arrangement of the human resource available such that individuals are slotted in areas they can best perform in. In pursuit of these, the company always encourages group work, which is a combination of the very talented people in different area of production. The deliberate combination ensures smooth running of affairs with little hiccups on the way. Ostensibly, this is to enhance efficiency coupled with specialization and division of labor. According to Belbin’s definition of what a team is (1993), he gave an insightful opinion about what a team is in this sense; he said that a team is not just a collection of individuals that are given specific job titles in an organization. Instead, he defined it as a deliberate conglomeration of persons who best understand one another in the sense that they work in tandem in areas they are best proficient in with the sole aim of achieving a specific objective. With regard to these, a team is fragmented into simpler units of individuals who are charged with different responsibilities and all these coalesce at a point to further a single interest. In his journal ‘understanding groups at work’, Alcorn (1989) stressed the need of applying the Belbin model in work place. He argues that in putting it in practice, the management of an organization is able to come to terms with its employees strengths and weaknesses and use these in strengthening the performance of the organization by utilizing the strengths of the persons and ignoring their weaknesses. I.e. duties will be assigned to the most appropriate person who will execute them skillfully and with little efforts. Application of this model is also aimed at not bringing confusion and multiple assignment of duties to the employees as these may result into absconding of duties. The information accrued from the Belbin’s model can be extensively used in a work place to help undertake to some duties that are equally helpful. It helps identify and nurture a highly skilled and work-oriented persons to keep in the work place, it enhances a sense of belonging and an attitude of can do to the employees in the work place. Not enough, Belbin’s model also inculcate high-level trust and understanding that brings about coherency in the work place besides instituting a productive and efficient working relationship. Lastly, it can also help in recruitment of employees such that only the best are engaged (Hayes, 1997). In relation to the fact that in an organization group work is necessary, the groups are composed of the different people who work hand in hand to achieve a specified objective. All the members of the group are assigned specific duties that they can best perform in and these are called team roles, Benders and Hootegem (2000) defines team roles as the tendency to demonstrate and manifest proper conduct that are ethical and rational to fellow team members in pursuit of the certain benchmarks in the organization. It also warns that the aim of teamwork is not to gauge personality but to establish the correct behavior that can be tolerant others in a work place. Though the number of team roles might be different from one organization to the next, Belnin in his perception proposed the existence of nine different team roles. Of all the team roles, each had a peculiar role to play given on grounds that it is his/her best performing area. This is according to the evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses- the strengths prevail upon weaknesses. The nine team roles advanced by Belbin Belbin advanced nine possible team roles that are necessary in teamwork, these roles are all-important and are peculiar, and each seems to be the driving force of the other. All are important and forms the integral part of realizing an aim, objective, or benchmark for that matter. Though they might seem to be running parallel to each other, they only compel the other scions of the team to the realization of success. In his category, Belbin further grouped the team roles in to three wide categories; action oriented, peoples oriented, and finally thought oriented. Action Oriented In the action-oriented category, Belbin considered three team roles; Shaper (SH) Shapers are the kind of people who ensures that the workers are challenged so that improvement can be registered. They are people with the can do spirit, they do not relent easily even in areas where success seem to be impossible. They do consider all the possibilities of doing things in a bid to ensure that the best one is identified. Another characteristic of these people is that they can question and challenge the norm with the view of bringing new ways of doing things. Unlike others, shapers will always view possible obstacles as just mere challenges that can be given a solution ( Hayes, 1997) . The weakness of these people is that their chances of rubbing shoulders with others are imminent as they are very argumentative for no apparent reason. Implementer (IMP) Implementers are the equally important to an organization in the sense that they are the people who transform the proposed ideas as well as the concepts into real actions. With the present of these people, you can be confident that the work will be done and none will be left pending (West, 1994). Implementers are known to be very organized and disciplined; they exercise some degree of conservativeness and always aspire that efficiency be the epitome of operation. Due to the nature of their roles, they tend to be very rigid and are overtly resistant to change however good it might be. They believe in one way of doing things and that any other thought cannot work. That is their shortcoming (West, 1994). Completer-Finisher (CF) These people ensure that no work is pending. They do strive to see into it that all that are due are accomplished on time and in the desired state. They are very much conscious about time and the quality of the work outcome as they always ensure that there is no room for errors and omissions ( Feldman, 1984). Other workers at times perceive these people to be nit picking as they look into very small issues otherwise considered negligible. Mostly they are fondly referred to as perfectionists. Again hinged on the nature of their work, these people always shows unnecessary worry and this always make them hesitant to delegate duties on fear that it will not be accomplished either on time or as required (Feldman, 1984). People Oriented Roles: Coordinator (CO) These are very rational people at work place and are known to be very good listeners. They are known to be very calm and able to delegate duties effectively having considered the opinions of the team members, factored them in, and give a verdict that is inclusive of all the divergent opinions that might have been raised during the contribution time (Van and Ellemers, 1990). They are analogous to the traditional group leaders otherwise known as the chairperson. These people have the weakness that is exactly opposite that of the completer-finisher. They tend to delegate to the extent that they become manipulative to some extent (Van and Ellemers, 1990). Team Worker (TW) Team workers are those give support in all manner of sense to perpetuate the cordial relationship that exist between workers and that they are working in support of one another. Because of their flexibility and diplomacy, they are perceived to be negotiators (Tjosvold, 1991). One of the outstanding qualities of these people is that they are able to do things on their own but will give priority to that of the group for the purpose of cohesive existence of the group and these ensures that everybody belongs to the success realized. These people shows high level of indecisive and mostly maintain positions that are not committing (Tjosvold, 1991.) Resource Investigator (RI) These are people are very outgoing and are good negotiators; they act on behalf of the team in terms of resources and other necessities. These people are innovative and have the tendency of exploring all the available options in doing things to allow them single out the best method. They are able to create the external links with other relevant stakeholders in propelling the team objectives and desires. People tend to allow for their ideas and perceptions owing to their extrovert nature. These people tend to lose their enthusiastic spirit easily and at times become optimistic in vain (Tjosvold, 1991). Thought Oriented Roles: Plant (PL) These people develop very new ideas as well as approaches. Plants are introverts and will always prefer to work alone. Their ideas may also be impossible to implement at times. These people are dependent on praises, as they cannot adequately deal with criticism. Communication is a major challenge to this lot and they will find it not alien to ignore any advanced parameter or constraints (Baron, Kerr, and Miller, 1992). Monitor-Evaluator (ME) These people critically analyze any proposal advanced most likely by the plant or any other team member. They weigh options in a very rational, objective, and balanced manner to arrive in to the most appropriate one to adopt ( Baron , Kerr, and Miller, 1992). These people are critical thinkers and demonstrate sobriety in their decision. These people have no capacity to motivate and thus cannot instigate any. In such doing they only react to outcomes. Specialist (SP) These are people with professional and specialized training; they use this to give insights that are obviously lacking in any of the group members. Their role is rather expertise; they are deliberately trained in their areas of specialization and provide exceptional advice to the team on the best move to take. Interestingly, these people do not think outside their area of expertise this do limit their contributions. They remain confined to the limits of their professional contributions ( Feldman, 1984). List of references Van Knippenber, A. and Ellemers, N. (1990), ‘Social identity and intergroup differentiation processes’ in W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (eds) European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 1 Chichester, Wiley. Alcorn, S. (1989), ‘Understanding groups at work’, Personnel Journal, 66: 28-36. Belbin, R.M (1993), Team Roles at Work. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann. Feldman, D.C. (1984), ‘The development and enforcement of group norms’, Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53. Hayes, N. (1997), Successful Team Management. London, International Thomson Business Press. West, M.A. (1994), Effective Teamwork, Leicester, BPS Books. Tjosvold, D. (1991), Team Organization, An enduring competitive advantage, Chichester: Wiley. Hayes, N. (1997), Successful Team Management, London, Thompson. Baron, R.S., Kerr, N., and Miller, N. (1992), Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action, Buckingham, Open University Press. Benders, J. and Van Hootegem, G. (2000), ‘Teams and their context: Moving the team discussion beyond existing dichotomies’, Journal of Management Studies, 36(5), 609-628. Read More