Testing Belbin’s team role theory of effective groups

Jane S. Prichard; Neville A. Stanton

doi:10.1108/02621719910371164

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

Journal of Management Development

ISSN: 0262-1711

Online from: 1982

Subject Area: Human Resource Management

Content: Latest Issue | Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Testing Belbin’s team role theory of effective groups

Document Information:
Title:	Testing Belbin’s team role theory of effective groups
Author(s):	Jane S. Prichard, (Engineering Psychology Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK), Neville A. Stanton, (Engineering Psychology Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK)
Citation:	Jane S. Prichard, Neville A. Stanton, (1999) "Testing Belbin’s team role theory of effective groups", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 Iss: 8, pp.652 - 665
Keywords:	Organizational development, Team building, Teamwork
Article type:	Research paper
DOI:	10.1108/02621719910371164 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	MCB UP Ltd
Abstract:	Belbin’s Team-Role Theory is extensively used as a counselling and team development tool by organisations and management consultancies in the UK. However, there is little empirical support for his work, largely because there has been scant research. This study sought to redress this situation by testing Belbin’s proposal that teams in which a wide range of team-roles are represented perform better than those where there is an imbalance of roles because certain roles are over-represented. The task performance of six teams of four individuals identified as shapers by the Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory (Belbin, 1981), was compared with that of six mixed teams of four individuals; one co-ordinator, one plant, one completer finisher, and one team worker. It was found that consistent with Belbin’s proposal the “mixed” teams performed better than teams consisting of shapers alone. Some possible explanations and implications of the findings are discussed.