ut a team can! Using the Steven Covey example quoted by Gijs Nooy van der Kolff copied below,

“Of course management and leadership are not the same. The best illustration of the difference I found in Steven Covey's excellent book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Imagine a party making his way through the jungle: the leader is the one who climbs the tree and decides which way to go, the managers are the ones handing out the machetes, who organize that people take turns in cutting through the forest, etc. So the leader sets the direction and the manager controls the scarce goods like labour and tools in order to reach that goal”

The guy who climbs the tree is probably a Belbin Resource Investigator. He brings the information back to the team where the Belbin Plant generates possible routes and the Belbin Monitor Evaluator helps discard those that are not good. The discussions are fac

This article is about building successful project teams and focuses on the work done Meredith Belbin and John Hartson in the 1970s at Henley. This has now become a branded method. Please note I have no connection with the Belbin Associates nor am I undertaking any MLM activities on their behalf. I include this reference as background for the interested reader.

The insights gained from the Belbin approach have implications on the discussions about leadership and management. I will first give a short background of how the research arose and a brief outline of what I would consider key findings, and then I will draw out the implications of these in the debate about Leadership and Management.

Belbin and his research team were interested in the question, “Can we predict which teams would be successful by looking at the roles played by team members?” As part of the Henley Executive programme, teams were judged on their performance in a management game; basically it was a project with an end goal that required team working. Using statistical analysis of responses to a self-assessment questionnaire, they identified some dozen or so team roles and looked at whether these would predict success in the game.

Over several iterations, they found that they could not predict which team would successful based on the roles but they could predict which teams would fail in the exercises. Teams failed because certain roles were not being fulfilled by team members. One of the roles needed was a role they originally called the Plant. They chose the name Plant because the experimenters ‘planted’ people with this role preferences in potentially failing teams. The Plant was a creative thinker who was interested in ideas and who would generate possible solutions to be evaluated by another predominantly thinking role, the Monitor Evaluator. They also identified roles such a Chairman (Co-ordinator), Shaper, Resource Investigators, Team Worker etc. I believe the role names have changed and additional roles have been identified from the original formulation.

The self assessment questionnaire classified what roles an individual would naturally prefer in a team context. Most people have a main role and one or two subsidiary roles that they could fulfil and these are identified using the Belbin Inventory questionnaire. Some people (very rare) have no pronounced preference for a particular role but could play several dependent on the mix of team. However, I have never come across anyone who could comfortably play all the team roles identified. The assertion is that people would adopt their predominant role in a project team. If there is someone in the team fulfilling your primary role, you might switch to your secondary role but it is almost impossible to fulfil a role that not in your profile particularly under stress. Further, in small teams, people might switch from primary to secondary roles depending on the situation.

In the last twenty years, I have used the Belbin approach to help people in project teams to understand the psychology of team working. On occasions I have included additional people in project teams to plug missing roles. Belbin is part of my tool set as a project and programme manager to be used when appropriate. By understanding each team members’ primary and subsidiary roles, the team could “play to each person’s strength and cover each person’s weakness”.

Where the Belbin findings have implications on the debate about Leadership and Management is that it focuses on teambuilding. No one person possesses all the characteristics or inclination to fulfil the role of a leader but a team can! Using the Steven Covey example quoted by Gijs Nooy van der Kolff copied below,

“Of course management and leadership are not the same. The best illustration of the difference I found in Steven Covey's excellent book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Imagine a party making his way through the jungle: the leader is the one who climbs the tree and decides which way to go, the managers are the ones handing out the machetes, who organize that people take turns in cutting through the forest, etc. So the leader sets the direction and the manager controls the scarce goods like labour and tools in order to reach that goal”

The guy who climbs the tree is probably a Belbin Resource Investigator. He brings the information back to the team where the Belbin Plant generates possible routes and the Belbin Monitor Evaluator helps discard those that are not good. The discussions are fac

s were judged on their performance in a management game; basically it was a project with an end goal that required team working. Using statistical analysis of responses to a self-assessment questionnaire, they identified some dozen or so team roles and looked at whether these would predict success in the game.

Over several iterations, they found that they could not predict which team would successful based on the roles but they could predict which teams would fail in the exercises. Teams failed because certain roles were not being fulfilled by team members. One of the roles needed was a role they originally called the Plant. They chose the name Plant because the experimenters ‘planted’ people with this role preferences in potentially failing teams. The Plant was a creative thinker who was interested in ideas and who would generate possible solutions to be evaluated by another predominantly thinking role, the Monitor Evaluator. They also identified roles such a Chairman (Co-ordinator), Shaper, Resource Investigators, Team Worker etc. I believe the role names have changed and additional roles have been identified from the original formulation.

The self assessment questionnaire classified what roles an individual would naturally prefer in a team context. Most people have a main role and one or two subsidiary roles that they could fulfil and these are identified using the Belbin Inventory questionnaire. Some people (very rare) have no pronounced preference for a particular role but could play several dependent on the mix of team. However, I have never come across anyone who could comfortably play all the team roles identified. The assertion is that people would adopt their predominant role in a project team. If there is someone in the team fulfilling your primary role, you might switch to your secondary role but it is almost impossible to fulfil a role that not in your profile particularly under stress. Further, in small teams, people might switch from primary to secondary roles depending on the situation.

In the last twenty years, I have used the Belbin approach to help people in project teams to understand the psychology of team working. On occasions I have included additional people in project teams to plug missing roles. Belbin is part of my tool set as a project and programme manager to be used when appropriate. By understanding each team members’ primary and subsidiary roles, the team could “play to each person’s strength and cover each person’s weakness”.

Where the Belbin findings have implications on the debate about Leadership and Management is that it focuses on teambuilding. No one person possesses all the characteristics or inclination to fulfil the role of a leader but a team can! Using the Steven Covey example quoted by Gijs Nooy van der Kolff copied below,

“Of course management and leadership are not the same. The best illustration of the difference I found in Steven Covey's excellent book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Imagine a party making his way through the jungle: the leader is the one who climbs the tree and decides which way to go, the managers are the ones handing out the machetes, who organize that people take turns in cutting through the forest, etc. So the leader sets the direction and the manager controls the scarce goods like labour and tools in order to reach that goal”

The guy who climbs the tree is probably a Belbin Resource Investigator. He brings the information back to the team where the Belbin Plant generates possible routes and the Belbin Monitor Evaluator helps discard those that are not good. The discussions are fac

g role, the Monitor Evaluator. They also identified roles such a Chairman (Co-ordinator), Shaper, Resource Investigators, Team Worker etc. I believe the role names have changed and additional roles have been identified from the original formulation.

The self assessment questionnaire classified what roles an individual would naturally prefer in a team context. Most people have a main role and one or two subsidiary roles that they could fulfil and these are identified using the Belbin Inventory questionnaire. Some people (very rare) have no pronounced preference for a particular role but could play several dependent on the mix of team. However, I have never come across anyone who could comfortably play all the team roles identified. The assertion is that people would adopt their predominant role in a project team. If there is someone in the team fulfilling your primary role, you might switch to your secondary role but it is almost impossible to fulfil a role that not in your profile particularly under stress. Further, in small teams, people might switch from primary to secondary roles depending on the situation.

In the last twenty years, I have used the Belbin approach to help people in project teams to understand the psychology of team working. On occasions I have included additional people in project teams to plug missing roles. Belbin is part of my tool set as a project and programme manager to be used when appropriate. By understanding each team members’ primary and subsidiary roles, the team could “play to each person’s strength and cover each person’s weakness”.

Where the Belbin findings have implications on the debate about Leadership and Management is that it focuses on teambuilding. No one person possesses all the characteristics or inclination to fulfil the role of a leader but a team can! Using the Steven Covey example quoted by Gijs Nooy van der Kolff copied below,

“Of course management and leadership are not the same. The best illustration of the difference I found in Steven Covey's excellent book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Imagine a party making his way through the jungle: the leader is the one who climbs the tree and decides which way to go, the managers are the ones handing out the machetes, who organize that people take turns in cutting through the forest, etc. So the leader sets the direction and the manager controls the scarce goods like labour and tools in order to reach that goal”

The guy who climbs the tree is probably a Belbin Resource Investigator. He brings the information back to the team where the Belbin Plant generates possible routes and the Belbin Monitor Evaluator helps discard those that are not good. The discussions are fac

secondary role but it is almost impossible to fulfil a role that not in your profile particularly under stress. Further, in small teams, people might switch from primary to secondary roles depending on the situation.

In the last twenty years, I have used the Belbin approach to help people in project teams to understand the psychology of team working. On occasions I have included additional people in project teams to plug missing roles. Belbin is part of my tool set as a project and programme manager to be used when appropriate. By understanding each team members’ primary and subsidiary roles, the team could “play to each person’s strength and cover each person’s weakness”.

Where the Belbin findings have implications on the debate about Leadership and Management is that it focuses on teambuilding. No one person possesses all the characteristics or inclination to fulfil the role of a leader but a team can! Using the Steven Covey example quoted by Gijs Nooy van der Kolff copied below,

“Of course management and leadership are not the same. The best illustration of the difference I found in Steven Covey's excellent book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Imagine a party making his way through the jungle: the leader is the one who climbs the tree and decides which way to go, the managers are the ones handing out the machetes, who organize that people take turns in cutting through the forest, etc. So the leader sets the direction and the manager controls the scarce goods like labour and tools in order to reach that goal”

The guy who climbs the tree is probably a Belbin Resource Investigator. He brings the information back to the team where the Belbin Plant generates possible routes and the Belbin Monitor Evaluator helps discard those that are not good. The discussions are fac

ut a team can! Using the Steven Covey example quoted by Gijs Nooy van der Kolff copied below,

“Of course management and leadership are not the same. The best illustration of the difference I found in Steven Covey's excellent book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Imagine a party making his way through the jungle: the leader is the one who climbs the tree and decides which way to go, the managers are the ones handing out the machetes, who organize that people take turns in cutting through the forest, etc. So the leader sets the direction and the manager controls the scarce goods like labour and tools in order to reach that goal”

The guy who climbs the tree is probably a Belbin Resource Investigator. He brings the information back to the team where the Belbin Plant generates possible routes and the Belbin Monitor Evaluator helps discard those that are not good. The discussions are facilitated by the Belbin Chairman who ensures that the rest of the team are enrolled into adopting the preferred option. When the decision has been made, the Belbin Shaper will encourage the team to take action and the Belbin Implementer will start hacking the jungle. The team’s morale will be kept up by the Belbin Teamworker who ensures the cohesion of the social group.

Reading the qualities and attributes required of leaders advocated by some, it is almost impossible to find one individual who possess both the qualities and inclination to fulfil these roles. In my experience, Chairman, Shaper, Resource Investigator role preferences never exist in the same person. Rare individuals may have two out of the three. Such an individual may exist but they are extremely rare in the general business population. I am not clear that asking someone to undertake a task or activity to which they are neither suited nor inclined to do is anything other than a complete waste of time.

A suitable leader may not always be available. If you have leadership responsibilities, you do not have to force yourself to undertake activities that you find uncomfortable. You could instead create a leadership team to get the results you want. Isn’t this just the art, science and practice of good management?