PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Making the team

Gordon Smith outlines the role of team building and team
leadership in successful project management

eing in a team has become an power and discretion. Also, a sports team is

B inescapable feature of modern life. We

are all, you might say, ‘team players
now’. In the work context, the received
wisdom is that teamwork delivers real
organisational benefits, improving productivity,
given time to practise, and an orchestra to
rehearse; project teams are, somehow, expected
to gel and perform from day one.
Clearly, different teams work in radically
dissimilar environments, although it can be
enhancing employee satisfaction and reducing argued that it is the project team environment
absenteeism. that is the most complex to analyse, as each
In the wider world, teams have a clear, highly project is unique and the conditions for team
positive image, embracing the likes of sporting selection and motivation are often less than
teams such as Manchester United, the British ideal. All this implies an overwhelming case for
and Irish Lions, or maybe a symphony giving more attention to the art and science of
orchestra. A place in such teams confers clear project team building.
status, a place in the sun – you compete to get A variety of factors are involved in build-
into the team, and you have to perform ing high-performing teams, including the
consistently well if you want to keep your place. contributions made by individual members,
When it comes to work-based project teams, leadership, communications and internal power
things are a little different. My own research relationships. Each of these will have an effect
with project managers suggests a team selection We are all on whether or not your team performs
process more reminiscent of schoolchildren team players now successfully.
picking a football team at break time (Who
wants the nerdy weakling then?). In
reality, project managers don’t
get to choose – they take
what they can get.
Other differences
between the likes
of a sports team
and a project team
are evident in the role
and power of the manager
and the importance of
practice. A sports team is
managed by someone external to
the team, e.g. the club coach. An
orchestra is managed by a
conductor. These individuals are
the arbiters of standards
and their decisions
are final. Project
managers have to
operate in a
more complex
managerial
environment, which,
inevitably limits their

IEE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2001 33

 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Table 1 Belbin’s roles—their strengths and weaknesses

Preferred role Contribution Allowable weaknesses

Plant creative, imaginative, ignores details, often

unorthodox, solves too preoccupied
difficult problems to communicate effectively

Resource investigator extrovert, enthusiastic, overoptimistic. loses

communicative, explores interest once initial
opportunities, develops enthusiasm has passed
contacts

Co-ordinator mature, confident, a good can be seen as

chairperson, clarifies manipulative, delegates
goals, promotes decision personal work
making and delegates well

Shaper challenging, dynamic, can provoke others, hurts

thrives on pressure, has the other people’s feelings
drive and courage to
overcome obstacles

Monitor evaluator sober, strategic and lacks drive and the ability
discerning, sees all to inspire others, overly
options, judges accurately critical

Team-worker co-operative, mild, indecisive in crunch

perceptive and diplomatic. situations, can be easily
listens, builds, averts influenced
friction and calms the
waters

Implementer disciplined, reliable, somewhat inflexible, slow

conservative and efficient, to respond to new
turns ideas into practical possibilities
actions

Completer/finisher painstaking, conscientious, Inclined to worry unduly,

anxious, searches out reluctant to delegate, can
errors and omissions, be a nit picker
delivers on time

Specialist single minded, self contributes on only a

starting, dedicated, narrow front, dwells on
provides knowledge or skills technicalities, overlooks
that are in short supply the big picture

The power of nine to feel valued. They work well with co-
Team building is a, more or less, obligatory ordinators, and can also thrive where a team
module on every management course – worker is the project manager. Shapers and
commonly taught with reference to the work of implementers are unlikely to have a great deal of
Meredith Belbin1. According to Belbin, the success managing plants; and, given that Belbin
characteristics of individual team members can identifies these roles as the most likely to reach
be categorised by a combination of nine senior levels in organisations, this effectively
distinct roles. These comprise: ‘plant’, ‘resource places a glass ceiling on the plant’s career
investigator’, ‘co-ordinator’, ‘shaper’, ‘monitor progression. On the positive side, plants make
evaluator’, ‘team worker’ ‘implementer’, stimulating colleagues, and work well with the
‘completer/finisher’ and ‘specialist’. Table 1 ‘sociable’ roles such as team workers, co-
indicates Belbin’s assessment of the distinct ordinators and resource investigators. But
contribution and allowable weaknesses of each warning bells should sound when plants and
role type. resource investigators are paired. Their values
Belbin provides a valuable perspective on and basic aims have little in common and their
team composition. Project managers need to methods of working lead to conflict if not open
know whether their team contains a good war. Paradoxically, a plant-implementer/chief-
balance between the different roles, or whether subordinate relationship can be highly effective
there are particular combinations of roles that – provided it can become established. How
can lead to conflict and non-performance. many times have you heard the remark: ‘He’s a
Plants need a champion, a backer – they want pretty good ideas man, but needs someone to

34 IEE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2001

 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

follow up on the detail’? The plant-monitor or transformational? Writing in the Journal of

evaluator relationship can also be very Leadership Studies, Gill et al2, closely identify
successful, with the monitor evaluator the laissez-faire approach – more of a
occupying the role of devil’s advocate. non-leadership style – with bureaucracies. Such
In any project team there are bound to be organisations, it is argued, are characterised by
some individuals who see their input as being don’t-care managers, and business processes
very closely defined. These are the specialists that are simplified to the point where creativity, Shapers are thrusting,
gung-ho, take-no-
who, more than any other role, are defined by inspiration, help and support become, prisoners, get-the-job-done
their jobs, both professionally and personally. So effectively, redundant. Under such circum- types
what do specialists need to perform well? First, stances, many of the defining features of a
their boss must believe in their professionalism; successful team would appear to have little
secondly, they should have a relatively free hand meaning or value. Team membership
when it comes to matters they see as being in does not confer status, nobody
their domain, and finally, they should be free competes to join the team or to
from interference by meddling colleagues who retain their place, and the team
don’t understand the situation. As a certainly isn’t
consequence, specialists like working with team managed by a
workers and co-ordinators, but don’t get on strong
with the likes of resource investigators and
shapers, who are inclined to present their views
in a forward and highly assertive manner.
Specialists tend to resent such behaviour,
and this can lead to demarcation lines
becoming established, adversely
impacting project performance.
Every project needs a completer/
finisher – often seen as ‘the detail
people’, rather than dynamic go-getters.
Completer/finishers make good subordinates
for resource investigators, plants and shapers.
They do not, unfortunately, tend to work well
with their own kind. The familiar complaint:
‘Either he wants me to do it or he wants to do it
himself. And if he wants to do it, why I am
here?’, typifies the problems of completer/
finisher interworking.
Resource investigators are the project fixers,
sociable, tolerant, and not too bothered who
they work with.
Shapers are thrusting, gung-ho, take-no-
prisoners, get-the-job-done types. Their sub-
ordinates need to be chosen with care, and team
workers are probably best able to handle the
shaper’s management style. The lower-profile
monitor evaluators would be seen as too slow
by the shapers of this world.
Analysis is always useful, but it’s far from
being the whole story. Having analysed your
team and found it to have more plants than a
garden centre, more specialists than a hospital
and more monitors than a school, you now
need to be able to pull it all together, and
complete on time and on budget. The vital extra
ingredient that will ensure the realisation of this
goal is effective leadership.

The three-fold way

Is your leadership style laissez-faire, transactional

IEE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2001 35

 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

external party, free to set standards and make networks of power and influence. In tomorrow’s
decisions. brave new world, it is argued, a new
Given such a situation, it’s reasonable to ask organisational culture characterised by teams,
whether you have a team at all. You certainly networking, empowerment and calculated risk
haven’t got a learning organisation, and maybe taking will replace a rapidly vanishing era of
your project’s in deep trouble. (But, expressed in rigid hierarchies and misplaced certainties. The
the best tradition of laissez-faire management: advocates of this view maintain that we now
Who cares?) Maybe a bureaucracy is not the need to develop a transformational management
place to undertake projects, while such projects style, distinguished by a concern with
as are undertaken would appear to have little identifying and supporting the individual’s
chance of being delivered on time and on unique needs and abilities. Transformational
budget. leaders stimulate the intellect and imagination
Transactional leaders, on the other hand are of their followers, and inspire by articulating
the carrot and stick types, the individuals that and communicating their vision of the new
set performance targets, monitor and enforce world. In this new organisational paradigm, the
rules, regulations and procedures. The risk of predominating characteristics are empower-
such an approach – which echoes the rigidity of ment of the worker, a shift in emphasis from
Frederick Taylor’s mechanistic management management to leadership, and the importance
theories – is that it can inhibit initiative. Project of vision and scenario thinking – all vital aspects
team members are at risk of developing a of project management.
mindset characterised by: ‘If I do nothing, then
I’ll have done nothing wrong’. As a con- Change, not decay
sequence, risk taking and em- Finally, we need to recognise that there is no
powerment will be absent, people will not such thing as the ‘dream team’ that fits all
Transactional leaders are perform at their full potential, and an situations, so keeping the same team members
the carrot and stick types,
who set performance organisation will be unable to learn from its throughout the life of a project may not be the
targets and enforce rules mistakes. optimum solution. As projects evolve,
The relevance of particularly as completion approaches, the
transactional leader- appropriate skill set of the team will change. A
ship for today’s high proportion of plants can be extremely
complex project beneficial at the early stages of a project’s
environments is development, but less of a good idea when the
being increasingly need for idea generation has long passed. Whilst
questioned 2 – notably being part of a team gives an individual
on the grounds their place in the sun, sometimes your
that in a post- responsibilities as project manager mean that
you just have to ‘let people go’. Like a good
football manager, you have play your part as an
effective leader, making those vital substitutions
that, throughout the project lifecycle, will keep
your project on track and poised for ultimate
success.

References
1 BELBIN, M.: ‘Team Roles at Work’ (Butterworth
Heinemann, 1993)
bureaucratic/post-industrial 2 GILL, R., LEVINE, N., and PITT, D. C.: ‘Leadership
society the vertical hierarchies of and organisations for the new millennium’, The
bureaucracy and industrialism are Journal of Leadership Studies, 1998, 5, (4), pp. 46-59
being replaced by horizontally
organised © IEE: 2001
Gordon Smith is a lecturer in Operations Strategy
and Operations Management at Plymouth Business
School, visiting Lecturer in Operations Management
at Strathclyde Graduate Business School. He can be
contacted at Plymouth Business School,
University of Plymouth, Drake Circus,
Plymouth, PL4 8AA (tel +44 (0)1752 232818;
[Link]@[Link]).

36 IEE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2001