Content area
Full text
Keywords Management roles, Managers, Teams, Team management index, Validity
Abstract Ascertains the preferred team roles of a substantial sample of UK managers using Belbin's model. Finds that coordinators and resource investigators are present in great numbers, but few completers, monitor evaluators, plants and shapers are encountered. Highlights the significance of this finding for firms seeking to create balanced and, hopefully, optimallystructured teams. Adduces some evidence for the validity of the Belbin team role construct.
Two decades ago Charles Handy (1978) forecast the eclipsing of management on the expectation that, aided by computers and advanced communications facilities, businesses would radically reshape themselves, the information processing function being better and more cheaply performed by machines than by humans. He noted (Handy, 1978, p. 307) that "managers would be well advised to have another string to their bow". Sadly for many, the wholesale downsizing of virtually all commercial and industrial enterprises and the stripping out of many layers of management over the past ten to 15 years now bear witness to the accuracy of his forecast. One corollary to the removal of such extensive swathes of management has been the inadvertent creation of a significant organizational lacuna; there were no longer the necessary personnel to lead, motivate, foster commitment and other such "soft" functions at these middle levels. However, many organizations reacted to this gap and, to an extent, have filled it by the creation of multitudes of teams. Not only are these teams now expected to produce the tangible deliverables asked of them but they are also expected to create the increased motivation and commitment (Dyer, 1994) so urgently sought after by the organizations' CEOs. Teams, therefore, have become a key component in many organizations; properly functioning teams are now central to many organizations' health. It is not surprising, then, that the structure, operation and dynamics of teams are now the subject of much research and even more writing. What is surprising, however, is that the current flow of books, magazine and journal articles from both practitioners and academics appears to be increasing rather than abating; this increase may well suggest that there is still much to be discovered about the structure and dynamics of teams.
A common theme present in much contemporary writing is...