Interpersonal characteristics associated with different team roles in work groups

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this study is to investigate interpersonal characteristics associated with Belbin's team roles in work groups. Design/methodology/approach -The SYMLOG Interpersonal Effectiveness Profile (an interpersonal measure of personality), the EPQ (an intrapsychic measure of personality) and a revised version of Belbin's behavioural checklist measure of team roles were administered to 145 UK managers. Findings -Canonical correlation analysis showed that SYMLOG personality dimensions were much more clearly and strongly related to team roles than were EPQ personality dimensions. The dominance (upward) SYMLOG dimension was positively associated with the roles of implementer, coordinator and resource investigator, and this was the most important canonical variate. The accepting authority (forward) SYMLOG dimension was positively associated with the roles of completer finisher, monitor evaluator and negatively associated with plant and shaper, and this was the next most important canonical variate. The friendly (positive) SYMLOG dimension was positively associated with the roles of team worker and plant and this was the least important canonical variate. Only the extraversion dimension of the EPQ was clearly associated with team roles (implementer, coordinator, resource investigator and team worker).Research limitations/implications -The present findings are too dependent on self-report questionnaires which are prone to biases such as positivity, leniency and halo effects. Research using observational analysis of behaviour in groups would be useful for extending the present findings. Practical implications -Organizations might improve the functioning of their teams by analysing the sorts of interpersonal characteristics that are duplicated or lacking in their personnel so that a balanced mix of personalities can be established across different roles. Originality/value -There has been little research on the interpersonal as opposed to the intrapsychic personality characteristics of different social roles in small groups.

The role of star performers in software design teams

“…We found that the expert member in task functions was never also the expert member in team functions. Our study adds to the recently growing research interest in team roles (Davies and Kanaki, 2006; Humphrey et al , 2009) and extends earlier research on team composition (Bell, 2007) by suggesting that one needs to specifically consider expert members beyond the averaged team expertise level when examining team performance.…”

Trainee Teachers’ Intention to Incorporating ICT Use into Teaching Practice in Relation to their Psychological Characteristics: The Case of Group-based Intervention

“…Besides, educational literature lacks models of effective teamwork (den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006).This lack of evidence contradicts with ample data showing that group operation (e.g. team communication and co-operation, Davies & Kanaki, 2006) and group effectiveness largely depend on the personality characteristics among group members (Barrick & Mount, 1991;1993;Halfhill, Sundstrom, Lahner, Calderone, & Nielsen, 2005;Peeters, Van Tuijl, Rutte, & Reymen, 2006). The Big Five model (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is the most well-known and scientifically rigorous one in exploring group personality diversity on the basis of five parsimonious traits, namely openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.…”

Human Resource Management on Social Capital

“…In this sense, if the actors of a network perceive that the achievements of other members ease the attainment of theirs, in order words, if they appreciate the collectivist culture leading to a better trust, coordination, communication and cooperation among the employees and try to minimize the importance of social stereotypes, then it is possible to access to resources and gain advantages that would be unachievable individually (Cohen & Prusak, 2001;Adler & Kwon, 2002). Added value benefits may be obtained by sharing skills, knowledge and experiences (human capital) among the employees (Davies & Kanaki, 2006). Consequently, social activities are crucial in our current economy, since they allow the possibility of creating and sharing the necessary knowledge to generate sustainable competitive advantage.…”