Organisation Behaviour

BELBIN’S TEAM ROLE THEORY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 3

1. Introduction 3

2. Groups & Teams 5

3. Belbin’s SPI and 9 Team Roles 7

4. Critical Analysis 9

5. Application Value 13

6. Supporting Studies 14

7. Conclusion 15

8. Bibliography 16

Abstract

Acumen Software Ltd., a leading software company has been constantly facing problems with some of its project teams. Although these teams comprise of very skilled and experienced solution architects and developers, yet they are failing to achieve deadlines for delivering the business critical solutions to their clients. The team members are embroiled in the blame game for lack of contribution from their team mates. Acumen Software has sought help from Accenture Consulting to advise them on why their project teams are failing to meet the deadlines despite considerable experience and what can be done to improve the situation.

This study reports attempts to study the poor performance of the Acumen team using Belbin’s team role theory as a base and also suggests measures that can be taken by the company to improve the performance of their teams.

1. Introduction

The situation prevailing in the Acumen project teams is familiar to the following interesting “Team problem” quotation in Buchanan & Huczynski (pg.318).

There were four team members named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

There was an important job to do and Everybody was asked to do it.

Everybody was sure Somebody would do it

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Everybody was angry about that, because it was Somebody’s job.

Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised it that Everybody wouldn’t

In the end, Everybody blamed Somebody, when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

The study carried out by Accenture Consulting revealed that albeit the team had experienced and skilled members, their performance was limited to the formal role assigned to them. Some team members had the perception that they did not have the kind of work they would have liked to do in the team. Some members who were good at Analysis and resolving issues were involved in the coding and development instead of writing design specifications. Some members were indecisive about what technology to implement, while