We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk.
A rather obscure part of my professional life is the process through which I became a certified trainer. The opportunity appeared while I was also training as a psychotherapist and I accepted the challenge because I really wanted to teach people and work with groups. At the time, I knew that my people-skills were lacking in some aspects and becoming a trainer was a departure from my usual comfort zone. In the end, my dream of teaching did not become part of the reality, but the experience has opened my eyes in many aspects that are relevant even today. The Belbin roles are one aspect of my life as a trainer that keeps coming again and again in my mind when I try to understand the relationships in families and at the workplace. So, the time has come to write about this subject.
The man with the idea – Meredith Belbin – a British, is currently 98 years old. He has a website where you can read about him (here) and about the roles he described (here). I did the classical test years ago, but you should be able to get the idea behind this concept while browsing through his website. It appears that the test is paid now, but I’m sure that free versions are circulating online if you know where to find them… However, even without a test, you should be able to understand what roles you take in groups and what roles the others take while working collectively; it is rather intuitive and straightforward.
Now, in simple words, the Belbin Inventory is a test specifically designed for teams of people, describing the possible dynamics inside the group. Each individual has an unique personality, but inside a group he/she tends to assume specific roles (the relationships inside a group change us, as a certain hierarchy is negotiated and some people are more proficient with certain skills). There have been described 9 main roles and the aim in a team is to have as many different roles as possible, as diversity adds a lot to the success of the group as a whole.
Didactically, the roles are divided into thought, action and people-oriented roles. Each person can be good in some roles, but not in all of them. The good news is that, after some practice, one can develop new role competences, proving that we’re all flexible. But, in order to change something or acquire new skills, one must start by knowing his/her strong and weak spots.
Below is a description of the roles, in my own score order (or how I was years ago, which might be more or less different from how I am now).
Monitor-Evaluator or “The Analyst” – Thought Oriented – Analyzes the options.
Monitor-Evaluators are best at analyzing and evaluating ideas that other people come up with. These people are shrewd and objective and they carefully weigh the pros and cons of all the options before coming to a decision.
Monitor-Evaluators are critical thinkers and very strategic in their approach. They are often perceived as detached or unemotional. Sometimes they are poor motivators who react to events rather than instigating them.
Implementer or “The Executive” – Action Oriented – Puts ideas into action.
Implementers are the people who get things done. They turn the team’s ideas and concepts into practical actions and plans. They are typically conservative, disciplined people who work systematically and efficiently and are very well organized. These are the people who you can count on to get the job done.
On the downside, Implementers may be inflexible and can be somewhat resistant to change.
Specialist or “The Expert” – Thought Oriented – Provides specialized skills.
Specialists are people who have specialized knowledge that is needed to get the job done. They pride themselves on their skills and abilities, and they work to maintain their professional status. Their job within the team is to be an expert in the area, and they commit themselves fully to their field of expertise.
This may limit their contribution, and lead to a preoccupation with technicalities at the expense of the bigger picture.
Shaper or “The Driver” – Action Oriented – Challenges the team to improve.
Shapers are people who challenge the team to improve. They are dynamic and usually extroverted people who enjoy stimulating others, questioning norms, and finding the best approaches for solving problems. The Shaper is the one who shakes things up to make sure that all possibilities are considered and that the team does not become complacent.
Shapers often see obstacles as exciting challenges and they tend to have the courage to push on when others feel like quitting.
Their potential weaknesses may be that they’re argumentative, and that they may offend people’s feelings.
Completer-Finisher or “The Completer” – Action Oriented – Ensures thorough, timely completion.
Completer-Finishers are the people who see that projects are completed thoroughly. They ensure there have been no errors or omissions and they pay attention to the smallest of details. They are very concerned with deadlines and will push the team to make sure the job is completed on time. They are described as perfectionists who are orderly, conscientious, and anxious.
However, a Completer-Finisher may worry unnecessarily, and may find it hard to delegate.
Plant or “The Innovator” – Thought Oriented – Presents new ideas and approaches.
The Plant is the creative innovator who comes up with new ideas and approaches. They thrive on praise but criticism is especially hard for them to deal with. Plants are often introverted and prefer to work apart from the team. Because their ideas are so novel, they can be impractical at times. They may also be poor communicators and can tend to ignore given parameters and constraints.
Coordinator or “The Chairman” – People Oriented – Acts as a chairperson.
Coordinators are the ones who take on the traditional team-leader role and have also been referred to as the chairmen. They guide the team to what they perceive are the objectives. They are often excellent listeners and they are naturally able to recognize the value that each team members brings to the table. They are calm and good-natured and delegate tasks very effectively.
Their potential weaknesses are that they may delegate away too much personal responsibility, and may tend to be manipulative.
Resource Investigator or “The Explorer” – People Oriented – Explores outside opportunities.
Resource Investigators are innovative and curious. They explore available options, develop contacts, and negotiate for resources on behalf of the team. They are enthusiastic team members, who identify and work with external stakeholders to help the team accomplish its objective. They are outgoing and are often extroverted, meaning that others are often receptive to them and their ideas.
On the downside, they may lose enthusiasm quickly, and are often overly optimistic.
Team Worker or “The Team Player” – People Oriented – Encourages cooperation.
Team Workers are the people who provide support and make sure that people within the team are working together effectively. These people fill the role of negotiators within the team and they are flexible, diplomatic, and perceptive. These tend to be popular people who are very capable in their own right, but who prioritize team cohesion and helping people getting along.
Their weaknesses may be a tendency to be indecisive, and to maintain uncommitted positions during discussions and decision-making.
So, here they are, the 9 roles. It is important to emphasize that these roles appear when someone is working in a team, that is, they appear in relation to other people in a group. The roles can explain why some people are socially awkward, others are at ease in public, some are natural leaders while others tend to be more analytical and less practical – just to give some random examples. The trick is to always couple different people in a team and use the right person with the right skill in the right team role. On the other hand, it is important to understand – if things go badly – that perhaps someone is not ineffective because he/she has bad intentions or is lazy, but rather because he/she is forced in a role that does not come naturally and he/she is a misfit. In this situation, giving to that person a different role or providing a helping hand, often in the form of someone with complementary (therefore different) skills, is much more efficient.
