Belbin, R. (1981) Management Teams Could be seen as a functionalist – someone who saw a team as made up of constituent parts or roles – an organic group which needed all the roles filled to be effective. What follows comes with the necessary academic critique – a health warning that because it is a good theory it will not always work – providing the perfect balanced team is not a guarantee of results. Teams, especially in public services are not necessarily so focussed on the finished product – focus often has to be on a quick solution that is only a temporary solution – a means to an end. Public services are often involved in a product that is not going to be marketed – they rescue someone or shoot someone in quick time Belbin (1981) does though provide a framework to understand a team – particularly when a team is not functioning well

Not an exact fit for many Individuals –Your own skills –How you used them in the team Individuals could have a 'secondary' team role they could display –In debates –If no other team member had them –Or people were missing on the day

Overall Absence of any role weakens the team Too many plants can mean too many ideas that are never completed Too many completer finishers and the team may lack inspiration Too many team workers and the team may lack the necessary dynamic of conflict to produce ideas/results

Team Roles Co ordinator Ashley Dan Howard C Plant Lee Ashley DanShaper Katie Kerry Howard J Katie, Lee Kerry Phil Monitor Evaluator Jason Implementer Howard j Resource Investigator Jason Howard CTeam Worker Phil Dan Completer Finisher Specialist (added later).

Team Roles Co ordinator James Will Danni Plant Alex Shaper Charlene Aaron Kayleigh Monitor Evaluator Darren Ben Implementer Resource Investigator Nic Simon Matt Ben Company worker Charlene Andrew Aaron Team Worker Nic Adshana Darren Matt James Ben Kayleigh Completer Finisher Andrew Danni Specialist

Team Roles Co ordinator Plant Shaper Monitor Evaluator Implementer Resource Investigator Team Worker Completer Finisher Specialist (added later).

Coordinator Coordinates the efforts of the team to achieve its task Preoccupied with achieving the task Want to involve all members of the team as if they have the same motivation/preoccupation Good at recognising peoples strengths and weaknesses Active listeners, sum up peoples feelings and can articulate the groups views Not necessarily assertive people

Strengths - Weaknesses Mature Confident Clarifies goals Use individuals in the team effectively to achieve the recognised goal Can be manipulative

Plant The ideas person Source of original ideas Bring originality – an ability to think outside of the box Likely to be intelligent Ignore details concentrate on the objective Uninhibited – extrovert Can be prickly – cause and take offence Can even switch off if their ideas are questioned

Strengths - Weaknesses Creative – good at problem solving Need to be flattered Can loose sight of the objectives May just enjoy creating new ideas and this can be problematic when a task needs to be finished

Shaper Full of nervous energy Outgoing Emotional Impulsive Can be impatient Often seeking to prove they can be leader Quick to challenge Enjoy being challenged Have arguments but quick to forget Can be paranoid-see conspiracy where there is none Appear self-confident – as a cover for self-doubt Compulsive Can be arrogant but they make things happen

Strengths - Weaknesses Dynamic Outgoing Challenging Tenacious Prone to outbursts Insensitive

Monitor evaluator Likely to be intelligent Serious – lack charisma Dispassionate analysis Not an ideas person but someone who may stop dangerous idea – hold the team in check Unenthusiastic - Do not get carried along Objective - Team should listen to them – they are seldom wrong Can be too critical and negative - depressing

Strengths - Weaknesses Shrewd Objective Boring Lack drive Too negative

Implementer Effective systematic and methodical Practical organiser Identify the objectives – puts the team on track Once decisions are made will chart the way to achieving it Sees the reality – what can be done Will be phased/threatened by sudden changes Can be negative about new ideas (challenge the plant)

Strengths - Weaknesses Disciplined Reliable Efficient Inflexible

Resource Investigator Needs to be amongst the technology – gadget person Works within and outside of the team Networker Relaxed sociable Salesperson Need to be motivated by others (within or outside) Enthusiasm can be of the moment Vital in keeping the team in the real world – in touch with others Stable controlled May help to avoid group think (Janis 1972)

Strengths - Weaknesses Gregarious Good communicators Enthusiastic Easily bored Send too many s

Team Worker Sensitive to emotional undercurrents Active internal communicator Know about the team and their private lives Loyal to the team Will support ideas rather than be innovative Counterbalance any friction (caused by shaper plant or monitor evaluator with attempts to achieve unity Can be a bit woolly as a result of their team perspective

Strengths - Weaknesses Keeps relationships going Interested in people within the team Non threatening Accommodating Can be indecisive because of desire to maintain unity

Completer Finisher Worries about what might go wrong Good at checking detail Attention to detail can make them loose sight of the objective A sense of urgency or importance about the work Can be impatient with any casual approach – can find plant infuriating They are compulsive about meeting deadlines Can lower moral with their worries

Strengths - Weaknesses Thorough - Attention to detail Meet deadline Worrier Get bogged down in detail

Specialist A bolt on member of the team Accountant, IT, Designer, Statistician Comes in to do one job Focussed Unaware of the bigger picture Out of the politics

Strengths - Weaknesses Single minded Knowledgeable about their area Can only contribute in their specialist area

Overall Absence of any role weakens the team Too many plants can mean too many ideas that are never completed Too many completer finishers and the team may lack inspiration Too many team workers and the team may lack the necessary dynamic of conflict to produce ideas/results

Strengths - Weaknesses There can be a weakness in thinking that providing the right balance will actually produce the right result Although we can all recognise traits – does anyone actually fit any individual role Is it more likely that we fit a number of roles However without the ideas people and the details people and the team people and the finisher, teams engaged in routine tasks are unlikely to be successful There may well be an argument that special teams need more of one trait In public service where the outcome is not always so clear then there can be a need for more different balances During quick time incidents - too many thinkers can bog down the process – but a lack of thinking can result in wrong decisions The shooting of potential terrorists as opposed to the Stephen Lawrence murder

Bibliography Belbin, R. (1981) Management Teams: why they succeed or fail, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinnemann. Janis, I. (1972) (1972) Victims of Groupthink, Houghton: Mifflin Company. Tuckman, B. (1965) 'Developmental sequence in small groups', Psychological Bulletin 63(6):

Co ordinator Plant Shaper Monitor Evaluator Implementer Resource Investigator Team Worker Completer Finisher Specialist (added later).