Peter Lever (4530616)

Working in A team
Human beings spend most of their lives working as a collection of individuals with
regular contacts known as groups. These groups can be used to help make
decisions and to succeed in goals by listening to other peoples opinions. In most
circumstances quality of life is dependent on the group within which we work or
socialise (West, 2004). This essay will look at different factors within group
participation, and will analyse the behaviour that occurred during the management
exercise.
Social scientists such as Dr Meredith Belbin and Dr Peter Honey study how
individuals act in a group while working as a team. This assessment includes
feedback from observers as well as the individuals own evaluation, so can be used
to compare and contrast these views. Belbin created a model with nine
different team roles, which can be used to measure the personalities of
each individual.
According to Belbin (Belbin 2004) these nine roles are defined as:
The Plant
These group members are very creative, open minded and free thinkers. They tend
not to get to involved, or tied down, with detail.
The Resource Investigator
These tend to be enthusiastic people who are in touch with the outside world. They
are very good at networking and can make possibilities happen.
The Coordinator
Individuals that are able to contribute to the discussion in a fair manner are
coordinators. Some members may want to make a quick decision, but the
coordinator makes sure that all the team members are considered before the
decision is final.
The Shaper
Someone who is focused on the task in hand, and losing is not an option to them is a
shaper. They will try to shape the team and will argue, challenge and disagree with
anyone as long as they can acquire their goals.
The Monitor Evaluator
Monitor evaluators are generally very fair and logical and will analyse what is going
on in the team. They tend to come up with the right decision, but this may take time

as they tend to be very cautious and like to cover every possibility. At times they can
be very critical logically, and can reduce the enthusiasm amongst team.
The Team worker
These are sensitive people who ensure the relationships within a team are
maintained. They like all team members to be included in group activities and
discussions. If a team member is looking or feeling slightly excluded, the team
worker will usually approach them with concerns. Their role plays a large part in the
communication, and the interpersonal relationships, amongst the team. They can
frustrate those who are keen to get on with the task quickly.
The Implementer
These people are very practical thinkers who are able to create systems and
produce what the team wants. Their strengths are working out how a problem can
be practically addressed. They tend to have their feet on the ground in the real
world, which may reflect on their lack of enthusiasm and radical thinking. But having
the ability to turn those radical ideas into something workable is an important part of
their strength.
The Completer Finisher
Members within teams that have a great eye for spotting flaws and gaps in ideas are
known as completer finishers. They are very good in knowing where the team are in
relation to its schedule. They have an analytical approach to work with fine detail,
ensuring the work is finished to the highest standards.
The Specialist
Such people bring specialist knowledge to the team. These people enjoy imparting
knowledge and have high levels of focus and concentration. However they tend to
show little interest outside their specialty.
According to Belbin, winning teams have people with personal qualities associated
with each team role. Furthermore a diversity of skills, personalities and
characteristics making up the rest of the team, is useful, such that there will be
someone suitable for every job which comes up. (Larson and Lafasto, 1989).
In addition to Belbins team role theory, theres another model that is helpful to look at
when considering team behaviour. In the 1970s David Kolb and Roger Fry
developed the Experiential Learning Model (ELM).

Fig 1.0. David Kolbs Experiencial Learning Model (ELM) (www.googleimages.com).

The ELM cycle seen in figure 1.0 contains four main functions showing how
individuals behave in their learning styles. Concrete experience is the initial
experience which is followed by reflection on that experience personally. This can be
followed by the forming of rules and theories known as abstract conceptualisation,
which can in turn lead to the any modifications, that is active experimentation, which
in turn leads onto further concrete experience (Kolb,1984).
Honey and Mumford built upon this cycle defining the four types of learners as
activists, reflectors, theorists and pragmatists. Activists like to do things, reflectors
like to think about things, theorists like to come up with rules and theories, and
pragmatists like to have a go and see what results are gained (Davis, 2008).
For our group activity we were given 10 sheets of A4 paper and asked to find a way
to use them to raise Dr Martin Loftus 1cm from the ground. In our team of six we
started by mind mapping. Every person apart from group member F came up with
some good ideas. Group members A, B ,C, D and E started to discuss positives
and negatives about the ideas suggested. Group member F rarely said anything, but
occasionally group member B would try to bring them into the conversation, showing
that team member B had the quality of a team worker. Group member A finally came
up with the main idea of what we were going to present. This was an idea which
was completely different to the other teams. The idea proposed was unique and went
against the normal reaction of trying to build something out of the paper that would
be strong enough to support someone.

According to Belbins definitions, group member B acted as a team worker

encouraging all members to participate. Group member A demonstrated behaviour of
a plant coming up with the final idea. Team members C and D worked together to
coordinate the action plan, therefore can be labelled as coordinators. And team
member E was very specific with the final details of the task, and therefore behaved
as a completer finisher. Finally member F displayed little group behaviour, remaining
silent much of the time, and individualistic in opinion.
Looking at Kolbs experiencial learning cycle, team members A and E could be called
activists, displaying practical qualities preferring to do something. Members B and F
were reflectors, calculating and considering the ideas. The members who displayed
active qualities also displayed pragmatic behaviour. Finally team members C and D
could be assigned as theorists, as they coordinated the ideas well.
Additionally the S.M.A.R.T acronym is a useful tool when assessing goals. There
are a few variations of the meaning of the letters, but the general meaning is the
same.
S

Specific

Measurable

Attainable

Relevant

Time bound

When undergoing group activity, it is advisable to consider if the goal is a smart goal
or not. Our goal was a SMART goal.
Our goal was a SMART goal. The goal was defined and clear to each team member.
This goal was obtainable, and agreed by the team. The idea was realistic using the
sources available, and could be achieved in the time set by Dr Martin Loftus.

References:
Belbin. M.R (2004). Management Teams. Why they succeed or fail. pp,88-106.
Davis,L, (2008). Informal Learning pp, 15 24Gower Publishng Limited, Gower
House, Croft,Road, Aldershot, Hampshire GU11 3HR, England
Kolb, D.A, (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of
learning and development pp, 25-33. Publish by Prentice Hall. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, USA

Larson.E.C and LaFasto. M.F, (1989). Teamwork, What must go right / what must go
wrong, pp, 92. Sage Publications Inc, 2455 teller Road, Newbury Park, California
91320
West.M.A, (2004). Effective Teamwork 2nd Edition, pp, 6-7. Blackwell Publishing, 305
Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA
www.google.images.com