Artikel: AN0002389Aktualisiert: 27.12.2018
Die vorgegebene Sprachenversion vom Artikeltext wird angezeigt, weil es kein Text von der ausgewählten Sprache und Version gibt.
Team work is a great example of 1 + 1 not being 2, but more e.g. 3. The thing is that in the team work we do not sum up performance of particular team members because people in the team do not work in isolation. Their joint performance is not a summary of individual performance that they would deliver alone but the synergy gets in: an extra bonus provided by collaboration, joining forces, coordination and using various talents. When speaking about teams, team roles are a very important topic. Probably the most famous classification is a team role typology by british professor Meredith Belbin. He defines team role as "a tendency to behave, contribute and mutually react to other people in a particular way". Maybe you have passed Belbin test that can help you to understand your natural conditions for particular team roles and how to avoid weaknesses that are associated with each role. Like any other human trait which is becoming problematic and gets significantly negative aspects when brought to an extreme, also people tending to particular team roles will be susceptive to certain weaknesses. And these should be avoided.
Below picture divides roles to three groups - oriented on thinking, action and people.
Another interesting view distinguishes creators, leaders, introducers, finishers and specialists.
| Type |
Description |
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
| Creators |
|
|
|
| Plant |
Tends to be highly creative and good at solving problems in unconventional ways. |
Creative, imaginative, free-thinking, generates ideas and solves difficult problems. |
Might ignore incidentals, and may be too preoccupied to communicate effectively. They could be absent-minded or forgetful. |
| Resource Investigator |
Uses their inquisitive nature to find ideas to bring back to the team. |
Outgoing, enthusiastic. Explores opportunities and develops contacts. |
Might be over-optimistic, and can lose interest once the initial enthusiasm has passed. They might forget to follow up on a lead. |
| Leaders |
|
|
|
| Coordinator (Chairman) |
Needed to focus on the team's objectives, draw out team members and delegate work appropriately. |
Mature, confident, identifies talent. Clarifies goals. |
Can be seen as manipulative and might offload their own share of the work. They might over-delegate, leaving themselves little work to do. |
| Shaper |
Provides the necessary drive to ensure that the team keeps moving and does not lose focus or momentum. |
Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles. |
Can be prone to provocation, and may sometimes offend people's feelings. They could risk becoming aggressive and bad-humoured in their attempts to get things done. |
| Introducers |
|
|
|
| Team Worker |
Helps the team to gel, using their versatility to identify the work required and complete it on behalf of the team. |
Co-operative, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens and averts friction. |
Can be indecisive in crunch situations and tends to avoid confrontation. They might be hesitant to make unpopular decisions. |
| Implementer, (Company Worker) |
Needed to plan a workable strategy and carry it out as efficiently as possible. |
Practical, reliable, efficient. Turns ideas into actions and organises work that needs to be done. |
Can be a bit inflexible and slow to respond to new possibilities. They might be slow to relinquish their plans in favour of positive changes. |
| Finishers |
|
|
|
| Monitor Evaluator |
Provides a logical eye, making impartial judgements where required and weighs up the team's options in a dispassionate way. |
Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees all options and judges accurately. |
Sometimes lacks the drive and ability to inspire others and can be overly critical. They could be slow to come to decisions. |
| Completer (Finisher) |
Most effectively used at the end of tasks to polish and scrutinise the work for errors, subjecting it to the highest standards of quality control. |
Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors. Polishes and perfects. |
Can be inclined to worry unduly, and reluctant to delegate. They could be accused of taking their perfectionism to extremes. |
| Specialists |
|
|
|
| Specialists |
Brings in-depth knowledge of a key area to the team. |
Single-minded, self-starting and dedicated. They provide specialist knowledge and skills. |
Tends to contribute on a narrow front and can dwell on the technicalities. They overload you with information. |
Source: www.belbin.com
In order the team works well its members should have first good relations between themselves. They should know well each other and openly share their strong and weak points. Both from the work and team role perspective. Therefore, it is not only important how one team member analyzes customer requirements, another develops an application, another performs testing and another presents to the customer...In particular it is important which team role team members play and how they contribute to the team performance in order one plus one is more than two.
If people know their team roles, they usually have more understanding each for another. If people (often without realizing that) perform a role that does not fit to their personality and force themselves to it, they will not perform well, will lose motivation and get frustrated. If you play role that is suitable for you, you will enjoy the work and will also contribute to the team in the best way.
We all can hold more roles at the same time and we usually do it like this. This is why there are typically teams where you do not find exactly nine people according to the nine above stated roles. Some roles are represented by more people and some people hold more roles.
Good teams have four to cca eight people. With four people all roles can be covered well and till eight people you do not have communication issues that gain greater dimensions with more people. Sometimes one of roles may not be represented even in such a bigger team. This might be a serious issue. Try to think whether you really have at least one person for each role in the team. Even if in various cases, various roles might have various weight, in general each role is important and an absence of each role can be critical for your team.
Ability to work in a team, which is given by personal features, is according to number of managers more important than professional qualification and this becomes more and more valid in the modern times when everything accelerates and people interact much more at work.
