Team Roles

Assumptions about Team

Roles
People working in teams tend to
adopt particular roles

They tend to prefer these roles &

stick with them
Certain combinations lead to more
effective teams

Descriptions on Team Roles (Belbin,

1981)

The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The

Chairman
Shaper
Innovator
Monitor-Evaluator
Company Worker
Teamworker
Resource Investigator
Completer

The Chairman
Involves others but retains control
Uses peoples abilities, shows faith in
colleagues
Pragmatic, focus on task
Bright, emotionally stable
Assertive but not domineering

The Shaper
Direct orders, task-centred
Wants action, quick results, makes
incisive decisions
Critical, assertive, competitive
Impatient, intolerant
Emotionally insecure,

The Innovator

Put in new ideas

Can transform a team
Sometimes unrealistic
Loner, radical, sensitive to criticism
If rejected, opts out

The Monitor-Evaluator

Put ideas to rigorous test

Keeps team goals in mind
Cautious
Over-critical, sometimes negative
Can lower morale
Enjoy confronting ideas people

The Company Worker

Accepts rules, procedures & constraints

Gets on with the job
Likes to do told what to do
Meticulous & determined
Conscientious, disciplined & reliable
Lacks vision
React badly to ambiguity & change

The Teamworker

Good at interpersonal skills

Promote team spirit
Works to achieve harmony
Emotionally stable
Not competitive
Sometimes too soft

The Resource Investigator

Link with outside, develop contacts
Seek ideas
Impulsive, may lose interest quickly
Needs variety, challenge &
stimulation
May focus on irrelevant issues

The Completer

Eager to get jobs completed

Meets deadline, nags colleagues
Communicate urgency
Prevents complacency & poor work
May upset people

The Ideal Team

A balanced team, in general

Each functions in his/her primary roles
Conflict between roles
Assign people to their secondary roles
Some roles are incompatible
Some qualities are inborn

The Best Composition

Chairman
Innovator
Monitor-Evaluator
Company Worker(s)
Teamworker(s)
Resource Investigator(s)
Completer(s)

Group Decision Making

Phenomena

Groupthink
Situations where group pressures for
conformity deter the group from critically
appraising unusual, minority, or
unpopular views
Hinders performance
Group shift
When discussing a given set of
alternatives and arriving at a solution,
group members tend to exaggerate the
initial positions that they hold. This
causes a shift to more conservative or

Groupthink
Symptoms:

Group members rationalize any resistance to the

assumptions they have made
Members apply direct pressures on those who express
doubts about shared views or who question the
alternative favored by the majority
Members who have doubts or differing points of view
keep silent about misgivings
There appears to be an illusion of unanimity

Minimize Groupthink by:

Reduce the size of the group to 10 or less
Encourage group leaders to be impartial
Appoint a devils advocate
Use exercises on diversity

Group Decision-making Techniques

Made in interacting groups where members meet face-to-face
and rely on verbal and nonverbal communication.
Brainstorming
An idea-generating process designed to overcome pressure
for conformity
Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
Works by restricting discussion during the decision-making
process
Members are physically present but operate independently
Electronic Meeting
Uses computers to hold large meetings of up to 50 people

Brainstorming
An unstructured, consensusbased approach to
generating ideas about a
problem
Suitable for multiple experts
All possible solutions
considered equally
Goal is to foster the
frequency of responses
during the session

BRAINSTORMING
Brainstorming was developed by A.F. Osborn, an
advertising executive, to increase creativity.
Brainstorming is used to help groups generate multiple
ideas and alternatives for solving problems.
In brainstorming a group is convened and the problem at
hand is reviewed. Individual members are then asked
to silently generate ideas/alternatives for solving the
problem. Next these ideas /alternatives are solicited
and written on a board . A second session is used to
critique and evaluate the alternatives.
Managers are advised to follow four rules when
brainstorming:-

Freewheeling is encouraged. Group members are

advised to offer any and all ideas they have: the
wilder, the better.
2. Criticism is discouraged.
3. Combination and improvement of ideas is
pursued. Group members are advised to
piggyback onto the ideas of others.
Brainstorming is an effective technique for generating
new ideas/alternatives. It is not appropriate for
evaluating alternatives or selecting solutions.
1.

Nominal Group Technique

(NGT)
An idea writing technique
A structured variation of
small group discussion
method
Prevents the domination by a
single expert
Encourages the more passive
experts to participate
Results in a set of prioritized
solutions or
recommendations

NGT (Steps 1-4)

Divide the people present into small groups
of 5 or 6 members, sitting around a table
State an open-ended question (What are
some ways we could encourage people to
car pool?)
Have each Person spend several minutes in
silence individually brainstorming all
possible ideas and write these ideas down
Have each group, collect the ideas by
sharing them in a round-robin fashion,
while recording them on a flipchart

NGT (Steps 5-7)

Have each Person evaluate the ideas
and anonymously vote for the best
ones (e.g., best idea gets 8 points,
next best 7 points, third best 6 points,
etc)
Share votes within the group and
tabulate. A group report is prepared
showing the ideas having most points.
Allow time for brief group
presentations on their solutions.

NGT (Advantages)
Effective in minimizing differences in
status among multiple experts
Each expert has an equal chance to
express ideas in parallel with other
experts in the group(s)
With the discussion proceeds in
controlled order, it can be more
efficient and productive than
brainstorming

NGT (Drawbacks)
Technique can be time consuming
Could promote impatience among
experts who must listen to discussions
with other experts
With multiple experts sharing expertise,
a cause of difficulty in adopting the best
solution

Delphi Method
A survey of experts
A series of questionnaires
developed to pool
experts responses in
solving a difficult problem
Each experts
contributions shared with
rest of experts by using
results of one
questionnaire to construct
the next questionnaire

Delphi Method (Pros

and Cons)
Pros

Anonymous response
Controlled feedback
Statistical group response

Cons
Poorly designed questionnaire can be
ineffective in capturing the complexity
of the problem domain
Experts may lack complete knowledge
to base their answers

THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

The Delphi technique is a group process the generates ideas or
judgments from physically dispersed experts. Unlike the NGT,
experts ideas are obtained from questionnaires as opposed to faceto-face group discussions.
A manager begins the Delphi process by identifying the issues he
wants to investigate. For e.g., a manager might want to inquire
about customers demand, customers future preferences, or the
impact of locating in a certain region of the country. Next,
participants are identified and questionnaire is developed The
questionnaire is sent to the participants and returned to the
manager. The manager then summarizes the responses and sends
feedback to the participants. At this stage, participants are asked to- review the feedback
- Prioritize the issues being considered
- Return the survey within a specified time period.

The Delphi technique is useful when face-to-face

discussions are impractical, when disagreements
and conflicts are likely to impair communication,
when certain individuals might severely dominate
group discussions.

Evaluating Group
Effectiveness
Type of Group
Interacting

Brainstorming

Nominal

Electronic

Number and quality of ideas

Low

Moderate

High

High

Social Pressure

High

Low

Moderate

Low

Money Costs

Low

Low

Low

High

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Task Orientation

Low

High

High

High

Potential for Interpersonal

Conflict

High

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Commitment to Solution

High

N/A

Moderate

Moderate

Development of Group
Cohesiveness

High

High

Moderate

Low

Effectiveness Criteria

Speed

Global Implications
Status and Culture
The importance of status varies with culture
Managers must understand who and what holds status
when interacting with people from another culture
Social Loafing
Most often in Western (individualistic) cultures
Group Diversity
Increased diversity leads to increased conflict
May cause early withdrawal and lowered morale
If the initial difficulties are overcome, diverse groups may
perform better
Surface diversity may increase openness