· Completer/Finisher - The completer/finisher’s strength lies in care, attention to detail and the ability to meet deadlines. I am going to be very honest here.
People Skills Oriented Role:
· Co-ordinator - The co-ordinator’s strength lies in enabling and facilitating interaction and decision making.
Teamworker -The teamworker’s strength lies in being a good listener, being collaborative, co-operative, easy going and tactful.
· Resource Investigator - The resource investigator’s strength lies in being an extrovert who can develop contacts, communicate well, explore new ideas and opportunities, and bring enthusiasm and drive to the team effort.
Cerebral/Intellectual Role:
· Planter - The planter’s strength lies in problem solving and out-of-the-box thinking.
· Monitor/Evaluator - The monitor/evaluator’s strength lies in good judgment and good strategic thinking ability.
· Specialist – The specialist’s strength lies in being a dedicated and focused individual who likes to learn and constantly build his or her knowledge. The specialist likes to dig deep and is therefore a good resource who can contribute information and knowledge in a team situation.
Action Oriented Role:
· Implementer – I personally felt that subject 4 was like this because they interpreted team’s decisions and ideas into easy to deal with and practical tasks. They went out and performed the task which showed and reflected their practical abilities.
· Shaper – I would say subject 7 was like this because they challenged other members of the group especially the lazy ones. They also worked under pressure and dealt with the pressure them self. I would say that they rather enjoyed the pressure of work because they wanted to work hard and show to others they are one of those people who can do it.
· Completer/Finisher - I personally felt that subject 5 in my group would come under this category because they meet all the deadlines for this project. So, I can not put any one else under this category accept from subject 5 may be because they were organised and completed the tasks which we agreed in the meetings.
People Skills Oriented Role:
· Co-ordinator - I felt that subject 1 would come under this category mainly because they contributed ideas and took part in decision making. The amount of ideas coming from subject 1 were awesome and subject 1 was also more than willing to take decisions. However, I felt that most of the other members in the group will not fall under this category because although most of them suggested ideas but when it came to making them happen, the practical bit, not a lot of them were willing to do it which was a bit annoying.
· Teamworker - I would place subject 8 in this category, she has shown great listening skills in the group and is also very easy going. In my opinion she was the best listener in our whole group as she listened to nearly every word which was discussed in the meeting. She was easy going because we could all ask her if we had missed anything and she was more than happy to tell us. How far she was hardworking or practically good can not be said. However, she was defiantly a good listener and a very easy going member of our team.
· Resource Investigator - I believe that subject 3 was a bit like this because they were extrovert and could communicate well in a team but they felt like giving up sometimes after seeing all the laziness and de-motivation coming from some of the other members of the team. Although at couple of times they tried to raise their point and be more extrovert but they were interrupted couple of times and were told not to share ideas which was a bit annoying to see and this de-motivated subject 3 a bit during this project.
Cerebral/Intellectual Role:
· Planter - I have to say that very few people in my group were like this accept from subject 2 because people only contributed ideas and wanted to look smart front of the whole group but even those ideas came form any where and did not involve any thinking. This also reflected when it came to doing the practical tasks, no one was willing to do the tasks especially those who were the first ones to suggest ideas. I personally felt some of our group members were “creative” while some of them were not the “can doers”
· Monitor/Evaluator - I felt that some of the members in the group just came up with ideas from any where but I felt that subject 6 thought through on the ideas before putting them on the table while others babbled what ever they could out of their mouths without good and effective judgment and good strategic thinking.
· Specialist – I think I will be the main person (subject 9) to fit into this role because I was the one who was keen to learn and build my knowledge. I also dig deep and identified the strengths and supported the weaknesses of my other team members. I felt subject 5 was also a bit like me because they were keen to learn but did not dig deep at all and accepted what others had to say which was mainly supporting their ideas even if they were undeveloped and immature sometimes. I felt that I supported the team but also engaged with other team members and agreed where I felt that they were right but also helped their undeveloped ideas by helping them develop those ideas.
Analysis of Belbin Team Roles and linking it to my group
Belbin’s roles are identified based on a series of statements that constitute the ‘Self-Perception Inventory’ (SPI). The statements have to be answered by an individual based on personal perceptions of what he or she would do in different team situations. Based on the statements that you pick, and the weight that you assign to those statements, the final scores are computed. What you get is a score for each of the roles. The roles where you score high are the ones that define your natural inclination within a team. I felt that in my group I was the person who had strengths in more than one role and there were a lot of members in my group who had deficiencies or weaknesses in many of the other roles.
To be honest I feel hat Belbin’s theory might not be applicable to our group situation because all the roles he identifies are quite positive roles and each identity special qualities which might be found in individuals who specialise in special skills which was not the case in our group. I also found it hard to put people into Belbin’s roles because they simply did not have those qualities which Belbin had identified for example some were really good at keeping records but were lazy when it came to doing the tasks. In my group a lot of the members were very lazy and unmotivated. They were creative in a way but in my opinion every one can give ideas but how many people actually do what they say is what matters and counts which a lot of the members did not do in our group and left it either to me or others to do it.
However, one good thing about Belbin’s theory is that he identifies several qualities and puts the member in each special role. For instance, I was a good “Specialists” and a good “Completer/Finisher” but not a very good team worker. This means that I am meeting all the deadlines on time and can manage with practical tasks but I am not a very good listener and these roles help me see this clearly. This also helps me understand the role that I am capable of playing within a team. It helps me deal better with the demands of the team environment.
Another problem with our group was that, we all choose to work in a team and we did not have choice either ,simply because we were studying the same course so there was nothing we could do. Some of the members were very unmotivated and we had to cope with them, we could not choose people with special skills to work in our team. Where as if it was in real business, we could actually choose people with special skills and qualities and who could promote their expertise in the team.
