(Leadership styles 2007)
Key elements of Belbin theory
The key to all of Belbin’s work is the acknowledgment that every individual is unique. "What is needed is not well balanced individuals; but individuals who balance well with each other." Dr Meredith Belbin
There are two important elements in Belbin's analysis. The first element is the recognition that human strengths convey offset weaknesses. The second element is some mixtures of these roles have an immense likelihood of team success than others. Some may accomplish completing productivity whilst others are likely to end up in intra group competition.
David Marriott explains that many of us have seen that nobody's perfect but a team can be and we have seen a team produce a quality and quantity of work far higher than the sum of what the separate members could have produced on their own. It follows that in organisations where priority is given to the selection, training and development of teams, to their psychology, motivation and composition, these organisations will out - perform those in which teams are composed merely according to the functional roles that are needed.(David Marriott 2010).Using the Belbin model with its nine different patterns of behaviour provides an excellent means of assessing and predicting both individual and team performance, building perfect teams and a means of matching people to people and people to jobs.
How it is relevant
Teams are a key component of modern work practice. Building a team requires considered thought. This has highlighted the importance of theories relating to the operation and effectiveness of team work (Buchanan, 2004). Much work has been devoted to seeking a formula for success. (Pritchard, 1999). One of the best known and widely used methods is Meredith Belbin’s work on team roles which is based on research commenced in the 1970’s and was published in 1981. According to Meredith Belbin (1993), there are nine roles that successful teams should have: Coordinator, Shaper, Plant, Resource investigator, Implementer, Team worker, Completer, Monitor evaluator and Specialist. Belbin put forward that management teams require a mix of individual characteristics working together to be most effective. His roles numbered 8, this was revised to 9 later with the addition of the specialist role (Belbin,1981).
Belbin made some experiences that consisted the fundamentals of his theory. The results of his experiments, which constituted a model of management teams, based on the roles required for the success of the team. Belbin described team roles as a servant member’s, who facilitated the progress of the team as a whole with his performance, structure of behavioural attributes considering the interaction with others. She believes that team members have two types of roles. The first one, as described in role theory, typical functional role. The second type is the team role(s). Team role describes how suitable the member is for the team, not he functions.
Belbin began her study with the simple idea of “different people interact differently”. As a beginning, she analysed the teams comprising almost similar members. Afterwards, she observed the teams in the work environment and analysed different types extensively. For instance, she labelled one type as plant because he was, just like a real home plant, sitting still in his corner without any interaction. But, when he interacted he could produce an original idea and came up with brand new plans.
When a new team is formed it goes through several stages. Tuckman produced the most well-known theory on these stages in 1965. He found that there were four main stages that a team goes through as they develop. These were Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing.
Theories of group development
It is important to distinguish between groups and teams within the workplace when assessing behaviour. R. Meredith Belbin (2000) ran an exercise asking participants to distinguish between the two. He noted that many features that the participants saw as typifying teams were also present, to some extent in groups. The two factors that Belbin identifies as having the most radical effect on collective behaviour are size and selection, with teams being smaller in size and needing a more crucial selection of members. Huczynski and Buchanan (2001) distinguish between the two by stating a group is, “stuck in the forming, storming, norming stage of Tuckman and Jensen’s model while a team is a group that has successfully arrived at the performing stage”.
According to Tuckman and Jensen (1977), there are five stages of group development. The five stages are “forming”, “storming”, “norming”, “performing”, and “adjourning”. Forming is when everyone is instructed to group together for a particular purpose and understand the task to be accomplished but there are sceptical between each other. This is the period of "testing-out" our group members. Storming is where some minor confrontations will arise that is quickly dealt with. These may relate to the work of the group itself or to responsibilities within the group. The conflict will be more or less suppressed, but it'll be there, under the surface and here is where leader is being chosen by everyone or subconsciously. Norming is they now understand each other better, can appreciate each other's skills. Individuals listen, support each other, and are prepared to change pre-conceived views. They feel they're part of a cohesive, effective group. Performing is the group can begin to get some work done on a relatively stable structure. Everyone knows each other well and can work together, trusts each other to allow independent activity. Adjourning is about completion and disengagement, both from the tasks and group members. Individuals will be proud of having achieved much and they reflect on what they've done, and consciously move on. (Knights & Willmott 2010, p91
Conflict management
Within each and every society there will be a time when individuals will have different opinions; these differences may be due to the individual and collective reason. When opposing individuals or groups consciously attempt to abolish, ambush one another in order to get certain task, conflict comes into place. Conflict occurs when there is a disagreement in which individual’s feel there is a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Conflict can expressed in various forms it can be observed nonverbally through the silence and awkwardness of an uncomfortable group member. Conflict stems from the tiniest quarrel to the largest battle. "If conflict is not dealt with constructively, it can be a powerful destructive force between people and within organizations. If it can be managed effectively, conflict can be turned into a constructive force" (Kur, E 1996p. 28). In any group environment conflict can represent destruction or production.
There are five levels of conflict these are personal, Interpersonal, Intergroup, Inter-organisational and international. Everyone had a different style of managing conflict, these are outlined below
Owl
Owls value their own goals and relationships. They see conflict as a dispute to be resolved and to seek solution that achieves both their goals and the goals of the other person. Owls see conflicts as a means of enhancing relationships by reducing tensions. Owls are not satisfied until a solution is found that achieves their goals and the other person’s goals.
Turtle
Turtles withdraw into their shells to avoid conflicts. They give up their goals and relationships, keeping themselves away from the problems where the conflict is as well as the individual they are in conflict with, turtles believe it’s best to withdraw themselves from the conflict that way they don’t have to face it
Shark
Sharks love to overpower individuals by putting pressure on individuals to agree to their solution to the conflict. Their goals and moral is essential and forming relationships are not fundamental to them. They will do what they can to achieve their goals, they have no concern with other individuals and have an intimidating attitude.
Teddy Bear
Teddy bears value their relationship; however their goals are not a fundamental issue. Teddy bears wanted to be approved and accepted by others, they strongly believe that conflict should be prevented as it can damage relationships
Fox
Foxes are concerned with their own goals and their relationship with others. Their willing to compromise in order to come to an agreement, their willing to sacrifice part of their goals and try to persuade the other individual in conflict, their aim is to gain a solution where both sides have gained something.
Leadership styles
Leadership means working and guiding individuals in order for them to succeed. Leadership is both crucial and pragmatic as it promotes all individuals of a team to reach their potential. A good leader creates high levels of productivity.
Leaders provide that bit of encouragement into a team by keeping them on their feet, setting each individual aims, plan what individuals need to do in order to achieve their goals. There are 4 different styles in which a leader may work in, it are the style that suits them the best and the style that keeps the team running these styles are:
Democratic
This is a style of leadership where the leader keeps control of the group. Individual’s opinions and views are encouraged and the leader informs the team about potential concerns which may hinder progress. The democratic approach allows individuals to participate in the decision making progress. The leader still has a management over the group and any final agreements but proposals put forward are encourages and the leader will advise members of the group about factors that could have an impact on the team.
Autocratic
An Autocratic type of leader does not consult individuals within the group. They make their own decisions taking full responsibility for any decision made. Individuals in the group must accept this without questioning the leader
Paternalistic
Paternalistic style of a leader creates a family atmosphere in the organisation. He acts just like a parent of his subordinates. He advises, guides and helps his subordinates with their personal problems. This style of leadership will be successful in a small organisation having a very few employees and only one leader.
Laissez-faire
The laissez-faire approach differs from the others this is because they have very little control over members of the group and they ensure that the group that they are responsible for establish their own roles and responsibilities. They provide little guidance however group members have a great amount of power, in which they must use to establish goals, make decisions and resolve difficulties should they arise.
Mary Brown Case study
The case study I will use to discuss is Mary brown. I am going to use Belbin’s theory to analyse my experience of working in a group. My group was formed of seven individuals who each had their own role; this consisted of Welfare officer, Police officer, Teacher, Social worker Youth worker, Drugs councillor and an observer.
As a whole all participants within the group performed well however, there were disagreement’s and conflict between participants. What occurred was members of the group formed their own group within the actual group so it was almost impossible to come to an agreement when making the final decision. The welfare officer was very empowering towards members of the group she also mentioned that she was in a strong position as she played an important role. I played the role of the school teacher; I disagreed with this statement as I said all roles are vital as they all need to work in partnership with each other in order to come to an agreement. At first the group was very disorganised everyone was talking over each other, problems started to occur when members of the group disagreed with what had been said, this would turn into a debate which was very time consuming. When the group saw this way wasn’t working we took it in turns to listen to one another putting forward out ideas as one, this was very successful. The group encouraged the youth worker and the drugs councillor to put forward their ideas as they had very little to say. The police officer had very strong beliefs and felt that the rest of the group had made the wrong decision therefore we failed as a group to decide what was best for Mary brown’s children.
I believe we failed to come to a decision as there was lack of communication, and too much conflict within the group, also members of the group tried to put in a hierarchy status ranking according to each individuals roles ranging from the most and least important which did not help the situation. If the group had to carry out this again there are several issues that need to change in order for it to be successful. Firstly the group needs to communicate with one another listen and taking into account the view of everyone within the group as this also avoids conflict. Secondly group members should not overpower one another as it may make other members feel uncomfortable. Lastly group members need to respect each other and not talking or shouting when that person is putting their view across. Belbin’s theory is relevant as it helps ensure that essential team roles are covered, and potential weaknesses among the team member are addressed. By understanding my role in a team, I can manage my weaknesses, and so improve how my contribution to the team.
Conclusion
To conclude from studying teamwork, I have learnt the various different aspects which need to be considered when constructing a team such as size and roles and leadership. It’s reasonable that the potential of a group relies on their dexterity to work with one another. Group norms and communication have an immense contribution to teamwork. The more the group members like to work together the more the output will be affected positively. Henry Ford is quoted as saying “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.” (Harrell 2003, p. 198).
References
Books
Adair, J. (1998) Leadership Skills. Institute of Personnel and Development, London
Belbin, M. (1993) Team Roles at Work. Heineman, Oxford
Broom, A. (1990) Managing Change. Palgrave Macmillan
Sheard, AG & Kakabadse, AP 2002, ‘From loose groups to effective teams’, Journal of Management Development, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 133-151.
Pillai, R & Williams, EA 2004, ’Transformational leadership, self efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment and performance’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 144-159.
Kur, E 1996, ‘ The faces model of high performing team development’, Management Development Review, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 25-35.
Lawforg, GR 2003, ‘Beyond success: achieving synergy in teamwork’, Journal of Quality & Participation, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 23-27.
Websites
