Team Roles Essay

To work in a team is something almost everyone must do or have done at one time, and they
will all either experienced working with a good team or a bad team. Belbin has developed a
theory of the different roles that exist and a composition of these roles to create a good and
effective team. This essay will explain the different roles in Belbin’s theory, how the theory
was used on group ‘C1 Charity Foundation’ and how the roles were allocated by using
Belbin’s theory.

The Belbin theory was the result of a study by Raymond Meredith Belbin and the Cambridge
Industrial Training Research Unit over a long period (Cottrell, 2010). They discovered and
published in 1981 eight different roles one can have on a team (Belbin, 2010). This theory
was updated in 1993 (Belbin, 2010) by renaming “the chairman” to “the co-ordinator” and
“the company worker” to “the implementer”, but also adding a ninth role, “the specialist”.
Belbin and his team also found strength and weaknesses with each role.
An implementer is a person who turns ideas into practical actions (Cottrell, 2010).
They are reliable, well disciplined, gets things done and are organised, but they may expect
too much from others and they are not happy about changes or new ideas as supported by
Aritzeta, Swailes and Senior (2007)
Co-ordinator are focused and delegates tasks well. They also work to make the
whole team feel include and are good to identify talents on the team ([Link], 2017). The
team might see the co-ordinator as manipulative, and feel that they over-delegate tasks or
passes their work on to others (Macrosson and Hamphill, 2001).
The shaper is driven to solve problems and motivate the rest of the team so they do
not lose focus. They are outgoing, blunt and speaks their mind, which may hurt the feelings of
others on the team. They may also become irritated or impatient with the rest of the team
(Belbin, 2010). But they also have a dominant and Machiavellian behaviour, that likes to have
control over the other group members (Aritzeta, Swailes and Senior 2007).
Plant are creative and often solves problems by thinking outside the box. They are
the ones that generate ideas. But they often ignore details and live in their own dream-world
which often means that they do not communicate well with the others on the team (Cottrell,
2010). This is supported through Manning, Parker and Pogson (2006) that states that plants
are introverted individuals.

1
 Resource investigator develops contacts the team can use, find new ideas and likes
to try out new things. They are outgoing, curious and likes to meet new people. But since they
are curious about new people and things they often lose interest over time ([Link],
2017).
This is backed up by Manning, Parker and Pogson (2006) stating that resource
investigators are extroverted individuals and investigator.
Monitor evaluator looks at ideas and problems from all angles and then decide.
They are good at making decisions and weighing up all the evidence (Senior, 1997). They do
not create creative ideas and they do not often inspire the others on the team (Cottrell, 2010).
Team worker often averts friction between the other roles on the team and they put
the team first. They are good listeners, diplomatic and sensitive to others, but this may
creative problems since they do not want to make unpopular decisions ([Link], 2017).
They will also avoid conflicts as stated by Aritzeta, Swailes and Senior (2007).
Completer-finisher delivers on time and they often step up at the end of the task to
polish and look for errors. They are reliable, anxious and have a good eye for details, but this
makes them bad at trusting others and therefore bad at delegating tasks (Belbin, 2010). As
supported by Fisher, W.D and Wong (1998) that they are accurate, reliable and efficient, and
they also solve problems using tried and tested ways.
Specialist brings knowledge of a topic to the team. They are self-motivating and offers
skills and knowledge that are hard to find, but they may overload the rest of the team with
information and often they do not collaborate with the rest of the team (Belbin, 2010). Which
means that they have little control over the team and project as supported by Fisher, W.D and
Semple (2001).
There are some studies that are contradictory to Belbin’s theory. Such as McCrimmon
(1995) that states that Belbin’s team roles might hinder creativity in a group and that it is
difficult to say that a person will behave the same at all times. Although Belbin’s theory is
good to find weaknesses and strength in a team, one can instead look at a person’s skill sets,
attitudes, values or perspectives without placing them in one certain a role.
By looking at [Link] (2017) there are several points made about
the limitations of Belbin. One of them is that Belbin’s theory only measure a person’s team
related behaviour and not the personality, so when making a decision in a group the whole
team should other factors than only Belbin’s. Another is that when Belbin did his
foundational research the test-group was middle-class white men in Britain in the 1970’s,

2
working at the upper-management level. Of course, one cannot say that this theory can be
applied to different cultures, but the theory is based on one specific demographic area.

Group ‘C1 Charity Foundation’ consist of five group members. Before they started their
project, every member completed the Belbin’s ‘Self-Perception Inventory’ test (Belbin,
1996). They then found out what their primary and secondary preferred team roles were. The
group all had different primary team roles: an implementer, a plant, a co-ordinator, a shaper
and a resource investigator. As secondary team roles, they had two team workers, an
implementer, a resource investigator and a plant. As stated by Belbin (Aritzeta, Swailes and
Senior, 2007) there are six different stages of a project, starting with identifying the needs,
finding ideas, formulating plans, making ideas, organising the team and following through. At
the earlier stages of group work team roles such as co-ordinator and shaper are needed, but at
later stages implementer and completer finisher are needed. This because at the start they are
focused, delegates tasks, makes everyone feel included and motives the rest of the team. But
they can also be manipulative, over-delegate and impatient to the rest of the group, which
may create conflicts in the group. At the later stages, other roles are needed because they turn
ideas into actions, are reliable, organised, delivers on time and polish the work. But they can
also be set in their ways and bad at trusting other in the group, this may create trouble if the
group encounters problems that mean they must change their plan.
Belbin found combinations of team roles that works well together (Cottrell, 2010). That
group would consist of a co-ordinator, a plant, a monitor evaluator, a completer finisher or an
implementer and a spread of other types. In this group, they were missing a monitor evaluator
and a completer finisher, this might create problems for the group when making decisions and
executing them on time, but since they have two implementers and two resource investigators
this will not be a big problem. According to Belbin (Belbin UK, 2017), the nine different
team roles can be divided into three categories; action-oriented roles, people-orientated roles
and thinking roles. To make a group well-rounded at least one person should fulfil a role in
each category. In group C1, they have a shaper and two implementers in the action-oriented
role, two plants in the thinking-orientated role and a co-ordinator, two team workers and two
resource investigators in people-orientated roles.
In group C1, Cecilie is a Plant and an implementer this was shown as Cecilie not only came
up with ideas, but also ways to turn them into actions, but David is a shaper and a plant as
well. This benefits the group since they create the main ideas and ways to solve different
problems. But it can also create friction since they both will come up with ideas that may

3
clash. As a plant, they may cause irritation as they do not communicate well (Manning, Parker
and Pogson 2006), and the shaper may hurt the other group members’ feelings as they are
blunt and speaks their mind (Belbin, 2010). Karolina is also an implementer and may clash
with a plant or shaper since they do not like changes or new ideas (Aritzeta, Swailes and
Senior, 2007), but since Karolina and Brittani are also team workers, they will avert conflicts
and try to create harmony in the group ([Link], 2017). As Brittani and Emma are
resource investigators they used their connections and their personalities to get raffle prizes
(Manning, Parker and Pogson, 2006). Emma is also co-ordinator which fits the rest of the
group well since she will work hard to make everyone feel included ([Link], 2017). The
statement by Macrosson and Hamphill (2001) that a co-ordinator often over-delegates or are
manipulative was not the case in our group since Emma often wanted more tasks to do.
Group C1 was missing three team roles which were a monitor-evaluator, completer finisher
and a specialist. The lack of a monitor-evaluator may cause problems as they are good at
making decisions using all available data (Senior, 1997), especially since the group have two
team workers who do not like confrontations. Without the presence of a completer finisher,
this might affect the group negative when finishing on time and on overlooking the finishing
‘product’ (Belbin, 2010). But these two missing team roles were replaced by the group’s
shaper and co-ordinator that took control and drive of the group (Cottrell, 2010). That the
group did not have a specialist to bring knowledge about the project was not noticeable to the
group since they could contact Margaret Jones from the charity (Fort Royal Community
Primary School) for any questions, insights or expertise.
Belbin’s theory about team role diversity in a group has later been tested and they found no
evidence to support Belbin’s theory. Teams that were composed by all different roles, or
teams that had team roles from the three different categories did not outperform teams with
low diversity (Batenburg, van Walbeek and in der Maur, 2013)

When group ‘C1 Charity Foundation’ was delegating roles on the team, Cecilie and Brittani
asked for specific roles, as HR Director and Advertising and Marketing Director, since they
are undertaking a degree in it. As stated by Medlin and Green (2009) following your goal has
a positive impact on motivation, and in the end performance, therefore they may still deliver
the same result by using goal setting theory.
Still, because Cecilie is an implementer and a plant she will fit the role as HR Director well
since she will use her creativity to solve problems the other team members may experience
and she will organise the allocations of tasks needing to be done. Since she is sensible and

4
reliable she will deal with problems at may occur in a professional way. She is also well
organised and this will be needed when planning and executing different tasks. But she might
expect too much from the other team members or not always communicate her ideas to them.
Since Brittani is a resource investigator and a team worker she will work well as an
Advertising and Marketing Director since she likes to get to know new people she will then
easily communicate our project to others. She will as a team worker also oversee the design
ideas without causing friction to the group. She is curious and interested in new things and
will try out new ways to design our project. But she might lose interest over time or be easily
influenced and will avoid making any decisions.
Karolina was then allocated the role as Managing Director since she is an implementer and
a team worker she will be able to set the team need first, get things done and listen to the
other team members. The group might encounter some problems with this since Karolina as a
team worker does not like conflicts or making unpopular decisions and as Managing Director
she may have to do that to get things done on time.
David was allocated the role as Development Director since he is a shaper and will be able
to remove information that is not needed and he will speak his mind freely. And as a plant, he
will find new and creative ways to collect data. But David may not have the patient this
project will need, may ignore details or hurt the other team member’s feelings.
Emma was given the role as Research Director, this since she is a co-ordinator and a
resource investigator. She will then use her team roles to explore new information and she
will be able to make decisions based on the information but she might lose focused or interest
in the different tasks.

In conclusion, Belbin’s team role theory is a useful tool when working in groups, but as
mention, in this essay, this theory should not be exclusively used. There are other factors and
theories to include when delegating roles and tasks, such as personality and personal goal
settings theories. Belbin’s theory is especially useful to find weakness and strength in the
group dynamics, but also to locate missing roles and how to fulfil that void.

References

Aritzeta, A., Swailes, S. and Senior, B. (2007). Belbin's Team Role Model: Development,
Validity and Applications for Team Building. Journal of Management Studies, [online]

5
 44(1), pp.96-118. Available at: [Link]
6486.2007.00666.x/epdf [Accessed 10 Mar. 2017].

Batenburg, R., van Walbeek, W. and in der Maur, W. (2013). Belbin role diversity and team
performance: is there a relationship?. Journal of Management Development, [online]
32(8), pp.901-913. Available at:
[Link]
0098 [Accessed 10 Mar. 2017].

Belbin UK, (2017). [online] [Link]. Available at:

Belbin, M. (1996). Team roles at work. 1st ed. Oxford: Butterworth - Heinemann.

Belbin, R. (2010). Management teams. 3rd ed. Amsterdam; London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Belbin, R. (2010). Team Roles at Work. 2nd ed. Amsterdam, London: Butterworth-
Heinemann.

[Link]. (2017). Belbin Team Roles | Belbin. [online] Available at:

[Link]. (2017). The Limitations of Belbin : Belbin North America —

Cottrell, S. (2010). Skills for success. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fisher, S., W.D., K. and Semple, J. (2001). Control and Belbin’s team roles. Personnel
Review, [online] 30(5), pp.578-588. Available at:
[Link]
940 [Accessed 10 Mar. 2017].

Fisher, S., W.D., K. and Wong, J. (1998). Cognitive style and team role preference. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, [online] 13(8), pp.544-557. Available at:

6
 [Link] [Accessed 10
Mar. 2017].

Macrosson, W. and Hemphill, D. (2001). Machiavellianism in Belbin team roles. Journal of

Manning, T., Parker, R. and Pogson, G. (2006). A revised model of team roles and some
research findings. Industrial and Commercial Training, [online] 38(6), pp.287-296.
Available at:
[Link]
[Accessed 10 Mar. 2017].

McCrimmon, M. (1995). Teams without roles: empowering teams for greater creativity.
Journal of Management Development, [online] 14(6), pp.35-41. Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 10
Mar. 2017].

Medlin, B. and Green, K. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement,
and optimism. Industrial Management & Data Systems, [online] 109(7), pp.943-956.
Available at: [Link]
[Accessed 10 Mar. 2017].

Senior, B. (1997). Team roles and team performance: Is there ‘really’ a link?. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, [online] 70(3), pp.241-258. Available at:
[Link]
[Link]?v=1&t=j09swcwj&s=c5eeb0a3e49ff412aaf779a38c7254ef530
da76b [Accessed 10 Mar. 2017].