an empirically-based assessment of belbin's team roles

54 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3

P articipation in group and team working can occur for two reasons. First, a person

may be a member of a team by virtue of their functional role in the organisation; for

instance, because they belong to a particular specialism or grouping, have

particular task skills or because of their position in the organisational hierarchy.

Alternatively or additionally, membership might be given on the basis of an individual’ s

capacity to generate novel ideas, co-ordinate contributions from others, encourage

harmonious relationships or ensure implementation of decisions; in other words, on the

basis of their team role as opposed to their functional role.

Many academics, consultants and others claim to have identified sets of team roles,

which, when fully repres ented among members, are said to ass is t the team’ s

performance. Among these categorisations, those of Belbin (1981, 1993) are among the

earliest, yet still among the most popular, in terms of their use by consultants and trainers

to assist in the composition of new teams and in team-building activities for teams

already in existence.

Belbin’s latest work on this subject describes nine possible team roles. Figure 1 gives

details of the strengths and weaknesses of each. It also illustrates one person’s team role

pro® le in terms of `natural’ role(s) (team role behaviour preferred by that person); role(s)

`able to be assumed’ (team role behaviour which, although not natural preferences, can be

assumed if necessary); and role(s) to which they are most unsuited and so best avoided.

A number of issues arise in the application of Belbin’s theories. One is the link which is

said to exist between a `balanced’ team, with all team roles strongly represented among

members, and a team’s performance. Another is the validity and reliability of the Belbin

Team Role Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI). Yet a third is the contention that there are

nine unique team roles with associated assumptions that all combinations are equally

likely in anyone’ s team role profile and that all roles are equally represented among

members of de® ned populations.

The ® rst two of these issues have received limited attention with differing results. For

instance, while the link between team role balance and team performance has received

some support in Senior ’ s (1997) study of 10 occupational teams, the psychometric

properties of the BTRSPI have been criticised strongly by Furnham et al (1993) and

Broucek and Randell (1996). The third issue has received little attention and is, therefore,

the subject of this article.

The aims of this study are to investigate:

1. The factor structure of the nine role version of the BTRSPI;

2. The possibility that some team roles are so different from others that they are unlikely to

co-exist as natural team roles within one person; and

3. The frequency with which any team role is likely to be represented among populations of

interest and, therefore, whether some team roles are `scarcer’ to come by than others.

An empirically-based assessmentof Belbin’s team roles

Barbara Senior, Nene University College, Northampton


55HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 3

FIG

UR

E 1

Ex

amp

le o

f a t

eam

rol

e p

ro®

le w

ith

des

crip

tion

s of

th

e n

ine

dif

fere

nt

team

rol

es

Ro

les

be

st

av

oid

ed

R

ole

s to

be

ass

um

ed

N

atu

ral

role

sR

ole

s a

nd

de

scri

pti

on

s

All

ow

able

wea

kn

ess

es

1020

3040

5060

7080

9010

0

PL

XP

LA

NT

Cre

ativ

e, i

mag

ina

tiv

e, u

no

rth

od

ox

Ign

ore

s in

cid

enta

ls

So

lves

dif

®cu

lt p

rob

lem

sT

oo

pre

occ

up

ied

to

co

mm

un

icat

e ef

fect

ivel

y

RI

XR

ES

OU

RC

E I

NV

ES

TIG

AT

OR

Ex

tro

ver

t, e

nth

usi

asti

c, c

om

mu

nic

ati

ve

Ov

er-o

pti

mis

tic

Ex

plo

res

op

po

rtu

nit

ies,

dev

elo

ps

con

tact

sL

ose

s in

tere

st a

fter

in

itia

l en

thu

sias

m

XC

OC

OO

RD

INA

TO

R

Mat

ure

, co

n®

den

t, a

go

od

ch

air

per

son

Can

be

seen

as

ma

nip

ula

tiv

eC

lari

®es

go

als,

pro

mo

tes

dec

isio

nm

ak

ing

Of¯

oad

s p

erso

nal

wo

rk

Del

egat

es w

ell

SH

XS

HA

PE

R

Ch

alle

ng

ing

, dy

nam

ic, t

hri

ves

on

pre

ssu

reP

ron

e to

pro

vo

cati

on

Dri

ve

and

co

ura

ge

to o

ver

com

e o

bst

acle

sO

ffen

ds

peo

ple

’s f

eeli

ng

s

XM

EM

ON

ITO

R E

VA

LU

AT

OR

So

ber

, str

ateg

ic a

nd

dis

cern

ing

La

cks

dri

ve

and

ab

ilit

y t

o i

nsp

ire

oth

ers

See

s a

ll o

pti

on

sJu

dg

es a

ccu

rate

ly

X T

WT

EA

MW

OR

KE

R

Co

op

erat

ive,

mil

d, p

erce

pti

ve,

dip

lom

ati

cIn

dec

isiv

e in

cru

nch

sit

uat

ion

sL

iste

ns,

bu

ild

s, a

ver

ts f

rict

ion

IMP

XIM

PL

EM

EN

TE

R

Dis

cip

lin

ed, r

elia

ble

, co

nse

rvat

ive,

ef®

cien

tS

om

ewh

at i

n¯

exib

leT

urn

s id

eas

into

pra

ctic

al

acti

on

sS

low

to

res

po

nd

to

new

po

ssib

ilit

ies

CF

XC

OM

PL

ET

ER

-FIN

ISH

ER

Pa

inst

ak

ing

, co

nsc

ien

tio

us,

an

xio

us

Incl

ined

to

wo

rry

un

du

ly

Sea

rch

es o

ut

erro

rs a

nd

om

issi

on

sR

elu

ctan

t to

del

ega

te

Del

iver

s o

n t

ime

XS

PS

PE

CIA

LIS

T

Sin

gle

min

ded

, sel

f-st

arti

ng

, ded

ica

ted

Co

ntr

ibu

tes

on

a n

arro

w f

ron

t o

nly

Pro

vid

es k

no

wle

dg

e a

nd

sk

ills

in

rar

e su

pp

lyD

wel

ls o

n t

ech

nic

alit

ies

An empirically-based assessment of Belbin’s team roles


METHOD

Sample

Two samples were used in this study:

Set A consisted of 352 junior and middle managers from many different organisations. The

majority had completed or were studying, part-time, for management quali® cations of degree

level and above. This sample set extends that used by Swailes and Senior (1996), in an earlier

investigation of the factor structure of the BTRSPI, in that an additional 134 people were

added to the Swailes and Senior sample of 218 ± an increase in sample size of 62 per cent;

Set B consisted of 46 full-time students on masters-level management courses.

The results from the two sets of respondents are treated separately because of their

different experiences. Set A had experience of managing and having characteristics similar to

the managers who made up the samples on whose team behaviour Belbin ® rst formulated

his theories, while set B had little experience of managing but were studying management

and business at a high level. Overall, a total of 398 people took part in the study. The average

age of set A (managers) was mid-30s. Approximately 60 per cent were men. The average age

of set B was 24 and 54 per cent were male.

Measures

The BTRSPI was used to identify respondents’ team role scores and pro® les. This measure

consists of seven sections, each containing 10 items. A sample item is: `I am generally

effective in preventing careless mistakes or omissions from spoiling the success of an

operation.’ Respondents are asked to distribute 10 points in each section according to how

much they feel each item re¯ ects their behaviour. Thus, someone could give all 10 points to

one item or distribute fewer points to a greater number of items. Analysis, using Belbin

Associates’ Interplace’ computer programme, gives a normalised sten score of between zero

and 100 on each of the nine team roles. Belbin advises that a score of 70 or above indicates a

person’s most `natural’ team role, with scores between 30 and 70 indicating roles `able to be

assumed’ and scores below 30 indicating roles to be avoided (see Figure 1). For any

individual, their score could result in one team role only being identi® ed as a natural team

role. On the other hand, a person could score such that more than one team role achieves a

score of 70 or above. The pro® le in Figure 1 shows such an example.

Analysis

Team role scores were computed for each respondent, giving nine team role scores for each

person. Subject to item ratio was 39:1 for set A (managers) and 5:1 for set B (full-time

management students). Frequency counts of different scores for each team role were made

to ascertain the frequency of occurrence of natural team roles (scoring 70 or over) in each of

the respondent sets. Factor analysis using Varimax rotation (based on Principle

Components Analysis) was carried out to examine the factor structure of the team role

measures. All factors which, individually, accounted for 10 per cent or more of the variance

were selected as significant for inclusion in the results. Items loading above/below the

commonly accepted criterion of +0.3000 (eg see Child, 1990; the GAP programme) were

taken as signi® cant.



RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows the results of the factor analysis of the team role scores for both sample sets,

together with the frequency of `appearance’ of each team role in each sample set.

Factor structure of BTRSPI

Factor analysis of the data from both sample sets produced a four-factor solution in each

case, although the factor structure for set A shows some differences from that of set B ±

hence the different labelling of factors in Table 1. The similarities and differences in how the

team roles load on to different factors are of interest. The ® rst similarity is that the team

roles of shaper, implementer and monitor evaluator are independent of one another in that

they load on to single different factors in both sets of results. Secondly, the team role of

shaper appears to be mutually exclusive to that of teamworker, given the high loadings of

each of these team roles at opposite poles of factor 1 in both sets of results. This is, perhaps,

not surprising given the assertive characteristics of the shaper compared to the cooperative

characteristics of the teamworker and longstanding theories about the dif® culties of team

members assuming a task-oriented as well as a people-oriented role (see, for instance,

Bales, 1950).

A third similarity across the results is the strong positive relationship between the clearly

de® ned implementer and slightly less well de® ned completer-® nisher roles; a ® nding which

confirms that of Broucek and Randell (1996) in their study correlating results from the

BTRSPI with those from observers of the team members in question. There appears,

therefore, to be a lack of independence between these two roles and the question arises as to

whether they are indeed two separate roles; the results here suggest they are not. Swailes

and Senior (1996) conceptualised these two roles together as the `doing’ end of a thinking-

doing’ dimension of behaviour. Their finding that the other end of this dimension was

characterised by the plant and resource investigator roles together is repeated in this study

TABLE 1 Factor matrix and frequency of occurrence of team roles for sample sets

Decimal points for factor loadings omitted. Signi® cant loadings of variables shown in italics

SET A (n=352) SET B (n=46)

Factor Factor Factor Factor % scoring Factor Factor Factor Factor % scoring

1A 2A 3A 4A 70 or above 1B 2B 3B 4B 70 or above

Team role

PL 11 75 36 -07 23 -14 -17 78 -05 22

RI 59 40 -06 -40 26 16 -60 02 66 17

CO 07 05 -90 03 25 38 -26 -01 -74 33

SH 78 05 -13 05 26 77 -25 -12 -21 26

ME 09 02 -02 89 23 27 03 72 26 20

TW -74 07 -12 43 34 -95 -04 -03 -01 54

IMP 11 -80 24 -12 46 11 78 -22 08 22

CF -39 -52 30 23 40 -29 75 -07 04 46

SP -54 -02 49 11 44 10 13 -72 08 35

Eigenvalue 2.49 1.51 1.22 0.99 2.33 1.92 1.17 0.98

% variance 27.7 16.8 13.6 11.0 25.9 21.3 13.0 10.9



by taking into account both sets of results. For instance, while the `opposite’ of the

implementer and completer-® nisher roles in the managers’ results is the role of plant which

is positively associated with that of the resource investigator, the corresponding opposite

role in the students’ results is quite clearly the resource investigator, but this time

overlapping signi® cantly with the monitor evaluator role.

Given these similarities and differences between the two sample sets, two team roles

remain to be explained ± the coordinator and specialist roles. Belbin’ s (1981) original name

for the coordinator role was `chairman’ , indicating its leader-type nature. As a more

generalist role it gains validity from being negatively associated with the specialist, as

shown in the results for set A. It might, therefore, be conceptualised as being at one end of

what might be termed a `generalist-specialist’ dimension, or what Trompenaars (1993)

terms a universalistic-particularistic dimension, with the specialist role lying at the other

end. However, the specialist role is to some extent unresolved, given its position in relation

to other different roles in the two samples. The specialist role was added later by Belbin

(1993) to the original eight roles and is arguably less behaviourally oriented compared with

the other eight roles.

Probable and improbable team role pro® les

Overall, the factor structure which emerges from these two sets of results suggests that there

are, at most, seven team roles (PL, CO, SH, ME, TW, IMP/CF, SP) and perhaps only six, if

the PL and ME roles are as positively associated, as shown by the results from set B. How-

ever, as this set only contains 46 respondents, it is prudent, until further data accumulates, to

accept seven roles. Given this, what also emerge are suggestions about the likelihood of

certain team roles appearing together as natural roles in any individual pro® le. Thus, while

natural plant and monitor evaluator-type thinking’ roles are likely to coexist in team role

pro® les, they are unlikely to feature as natural team roles in pro® les denoting preferences for

an implementer/completer-® nisher-type `doing’ role. Individuals with preferences for a

shaper-type role are unlikely to be able to assume a teamworker role. In addition, the more

generalist coordinator role is unlikely to coexist with the more particularistic specialist role,

if indeed the latter can be conceptualised as a role in its own right. The resource investigator

role, according to the results found here, has little standing as a role in its own right.

Scarcity versus abundance of natural team roles

Table 1 shows that the most frequently occurring team roles among managers in set A are

implementer, completer-finisher and specialist. The role of teamworker occurs less

frequently, but not as infrequently as plant and monitor evaluator, which appear to be

particularly scarce among managers. By comparison, the most frequently occurring team

roles among full-time management students (set B) are those of teamworker and completer-

finisher. Only 17 per cent of management students included resource investigator as a

natural team role (scoring 70 or above) in their team role pro® les. Other scarce team roles for

set B are monitor evaluator, plant and implementer. The coordinator and specialist roles

occupy a middling position in terms of frequency of occurrence in this sample.

These results, taken together with those above, suggest that the incompatibility of, or

signi® cant overlap with, some roles compared with others is compounded by the differential

availability of them in populations of managers and aspiring managers. However, the team

role frequency pro® le emerging from these results is probably helpful in that, in any team,

there is likely to be less need for large numbers of leading roles (coordinators and shapers)



and thinking type roles (plants and monitor evaluators) than there are for the more doing

type roles (implementers combined with completer-® nishers). In addition, while suf® cient

numbers of teamworkers are valuable in terms of team processes, too many monitor

evaluators would delay action too long while details were checked and re-checked.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEAM MANAGEMENT

Two major questions which arise from the results of this study are how far Belbin’ s measure

of team roles can continue to be regarded as a helpful tool in team management and should

managers and others modify their understanding of team roles in the light of the ® ndings of

this study? The results of this study and others certainly throw doubts on the reliability of

the BTRSPI as a measure of team roles. However, the team-role concept remains strong. In

addition, its application in practice shows that the concept continues to be recognised and

accepted and that Belbin’s measure continues to be widely used in many different settings. It

is unrealistic, therefore, to suppose that the use of the BTRSPI will be discontinued.

Consequently, until an improved measure can be developed, practitioners’ interpretations of

the results gained from using the BTRSPI should be modi® ed as follows.

First, although the concept of team roles which can be distinguished one from another

remains current, the idea that there are nine of these is debatable. It certainly seems futile to

try to distinguish between implementer and completer-finisher roles; in the author ’s

experience, many people ® nd it dif® cult, in practical terms, to separate these two roles.

Consequently, HR managers and particularly trainers could regard people with strong

preferences for either of these roles as interchangeable in terms of their contributions to the

work of teams.

In the case of natural resource investigators, particularly given the ambiguity of this role,

composers of teams should examine such individuals’ team role pro® les to ascertain what

other overlapping roles they might play, particularly if there is more than one resource inv-

estigator in a team and a shortage of other roles such as shaper and plant with which the

role overlaps.

A strong shaper role needs to be balanced by a strong team worker role, given the

unlikelihood of shapers having team worker characteristics and vice versa. While shapers

will drive the task along, there is still the necessity for team members to be cared for as

people as well as being driven to complete tasks. This is especially important for newly-

formed teams where good and stable member interrelationships have yet to be established.

Managers generally should cherish people with natural plant and/or monitor evaluator

roles. Being relatively rare team role species, they are a scarce team resource which is needed

to counteract the more numerous action-oriented people with implementer/completer-

® nisher roles, who are unlikely to carry out the careful thinking and checking of details so

necessary for the successful achievement of team goals. In addition, it is better to recognise

that plants and monitor evaluators are unlikely to implement decisions enthusiastically or

effectively. Managers should not, therefore, expect this type of behaviour from people

having these team role preferences.

Finally, in organisations which increasingly value innovation and dynamism, care should

be taken not to overlook people who are not `go-getters’, do not have brilliant ideas and are

not particularly interested in doing a task themselves . These are the relatively rare

coordinators who, on the whole, do not overlap other roles but who are indispensable for

keeping the team effort together and on course.



REFERENCES

Bales, R. F. 1950. À set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction’. American

Sociological Review, Vol. 15, April, 257-63.

Belbin, R. M. 1981. Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, London: Heinemann.

Belbin, R. M. 1993. Team Roles at Work, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Belbin Associates. Interplace IV Human Resource Management System User’s Manual.

Cambridge.

Broucek, W. G. and Randell, G. 1996. Àn assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin

Self-Perception Inventory and Observer ’s Assessment from the perspective of the ® ve-

factor model’. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 69, 389-405.

Child, D. 1990. The Essentials of Factor Analysis, London: Cassell.

Furnham, A, Steele, H. and Pendleton, D. 1993. À psychometric assessment of the Belbin

Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory’ . Journal of Occupational and Organisational

Psychology, Vol. 66, 245-247.

GAP computer analysis programme run by the Manchester Computing Centre.

Senior, B. 1997. `Team roles and team performance: is there ª reallyº a link?’ . Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, no. 70, 241-258.

Swailes, S. and Senior, B. 1996. `Looks good, but...?: The validity of learning style and team

role measures’. Published proceedings of the British Academy of Management Annual

Conference, September.

Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

an empirically-based assessment of belbin's team roles

Documents