Belbin team roles

A role could be defined as "a combination of values, attitudes and behaviour assigned to an individual who occupies a social position" (Aritzeta et al., 2007, p. 97); basically who we are in order to do a job. 'Who' we are will influence how we behave: "the behaviour expected from an individual occupying a specific position" (p. 97). 

We have long tried to work out what makes teams work: behaviouralists thought that we fell naturally into two groups; those of us who focus on the task, and those who focus on the relationships (Daft, 2008). Contingency theorists thought we also considered the situation. And then along came John Holland (1959) who proposed six environments: those of motoric, intellectual, aesthetic, supportive, persuasive, and conforming (1959, p. 35-36), which developed over time into occupational codes, or RIASEC: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional (Nauta, 2010). If we have certain attributes we are more naturally suited to some roles than others, because of who we are. 

There are six categories that Belbin came up with which drives our "tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way", including our personality, mental abilities, values and motivation, our work environment, our experience and cultural factors, and our role learning (Belbin, 2010, p. 24). Belbin also established the Team Role Self Perception Inventory, or TRSPI (Aranzabal et al., 2022). When I was doing my undergrad degree, I remember hearing about Belbin's team roles (1997), where each person in a team filled a different role depending on how they started with the team, and what the team needed:

• Advising: Gathering and reporting information
• Innovating: Creating and experimenting with ideas
• Promoting: Exploring and presenting opportunities
• Developing: Assessing and testing the applicability of new approaches
• Organising: Establishing and implementing ways of making things work
• Producing: Concluding and delivering outputs
• Inspecting: Controlling and auditing the working of systems
• Maintaining: Upholding and safeguarding standards and processes
• Linking: Coordinating and integrating the work of others

Belbin's team roles (2010), although not necessarily terrifically scientific, provides a useful lens to consider how people fit together as a team. 

Sam

References:

Aranzabal, A., Epelde, E., & Artetxe, M. (2022). Team formation on the basis of Belbin’s roles to enhance students’ performance in project based learning. Education for Chemical Engineers, 38, 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.09.001

Aritzeta, A., Swailes, S., & Senior, B. (2007). Belbin's team role model: Development, validity and applications for team building. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 96-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00666.x

Belbin, R. M. (2010). Team Roles at Work (2nd ed.). Butterworth Heinemann.

Belbin, R. M., & Brown, V. (2023). Team Roles at Work (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Margerison, C., & McCann, D. (2026). Team Management System. https://www.teammanagementsystems.com/

Nauta, M. M. (2010). The Development, Evolution, and Status of Holland's Theory of Vocational Personalities: Reflections and Future Directions for Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018213

read more "Belbin team roles"

Have you heard of the Ringelmann effect?

I was listening to a podcast last year (Agnew, 2025), and the Ringelmann effect was mentioned. My ears pricked up: a new theory! This effect is named after some late 19th century agricultural engineering research (in the 1880s), which showed that, as team size increases, member contributions drop; or how "individual effort [decreases] when performing in groups as compared to when [members] perform alone" (Kravitz & Martin, 1986, p. 936, citing Latane et al., 1979, p. 822; Ringelmann, 1913). It is the first study of social loafing... sort of.

When studying how processes and group productivity relate, these human factors efficiency experiments showed that group members working together on a rope pull meant that each person could put in significantly less effort than when if they were working alone (Ringelmann, 1913; Kravitz & Martin, 1986)... which is entirely logical. We go from an individual maximum strain to being able to do things more safely, with shared responsibility. That to me is the power of numbers; the benefit of working together which allows us to minimise individual harm.

But. As we add more people to our group, the collective becomes less efficient: teams become less productive as they get bigger. There is a sweet spot for team size (Kravitz & Martin, 1986, after Ringelmann, 1913)... and this too is logical. If not everyone can get a grip on the rope, collective returns decrease. No surprises there, either, with Ringelmann noting "coordination loss" (according to Kravitz & Martin, 1986, p. 936). For the rope pull, more than 7 people was where coordination loss outweighed productivity for manual handling (Ringelmann, 1913).

And, if we have ever tried to co-ordinate a group meeting, we will all know that the larger a group is, the harder it is to get everyone aligned and free at the same time. In my experience - NB: I have no empirical evidence for this! - the sweet spot for co-ordinating a team is somewhere between three and five people.

However, I hesitate to say that Ringelmann's theory (1913) is about social loafing. My take on this is on optimisation: together we maximise collective safe physical effort, getting the job done without anyone busting a gut; until the group becomes too unwieldy to manage.

Sam

References:

Agnew, P. (2025, September). Why (often) you’re less effective in a team [Podcast]. Nudge. https://pod.link/1457621005/episode/ZjA3MzU2ZjQtOGUyNS0xMWYwLTk2ZmEtZjcyYjk0NzkzZjUx

Kravitz, D., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann Rediscovered: The Original Article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 936-941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.936

Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animés: Travail de l'homme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]. Annales de l'Institut National Agronomique, 2(12), 1-40. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54409695.image.f14.langEN

read more "Have you heard of the Ringelmann effect?"

Searching for people on LinkedIn

If you are like me and want to search for fellow travellers within groups you are a member of on LinkedIn, then you will have found that LinkedIn's general search function is fairly rubbish.

However, there is a better way to find and filter group member searches. Following is a great How To tip by Nick Manarangi (www.nickmanarangi.com) on search:



I hope that makes your life easier!


Sam

• Reference: Manarangi, Nicholas (16 November 2015). How to use #Linkedin to Search in Groups 2015. Retrieved 12 January 2016 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXSSxU3eVTw

read more "Searching for people on LinkedIn"

Lemon Moves from LinkedIn

I read a very interesting comment by Doris Schweppe on a LinkedIn thread recently.

The group statistics were a great function for the group managers. They provided health statistics which helped group owners ensure that their groups flourished (read more on the stats here). However, LinkedIn axed group statistics functions in a round of changes made in June 2015.

Narendra Babu posted a thread request to the LI Group Moderator Community group, asking how he could now find the statistics for the LI groups which he manages.

Doris replied "stats are no longer available because it would be too easy for Wall Street investors to see/track and measure the decline of LI groups, lack of time-on-site and the decline of overall page views across the LI platform--which are very important data points for how LI is priced as a publicly traded stock".

Doris's reply struck me as being a stellar insight. I had not thought about the statistics showing trends which could be interpreted by stock brokers, and therefore affecting the listed price of LI's stock.

It is a darn good point.


Sam

References: 

• Babu, Narendra (8 January 2016). Group Moderator Community: Help!! How to find Group Statistics?? Retrieved 12 January 2016 from https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8285624/8285624-6090731374321418244
• LinkedIn (n.d.). LinkedIn Statistics Search. Retrieved 12 January 2016 from https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/list/search/1/d/c/sort/active/topic/group+statistics

read more "Lemon Moves from LinkedIn"

The Death Knell for LinkedIn Groups?

Ryan McDougall from LinkedIn created a thread recently entitled "Changes Coming to LinkedIn Groups", outlining new changes in the works. None of the proposed changes will, in my opinion, address the issues that have arisen recently about automatically flagging posts (and moving the poster to the naughty corner), non-notification of threads and lack of ability to contact the entire group directly.

If your posts are moved by the LI algorithms to the naughty corner, you stay in the naughty corner for a week, before being able to continue posting or commenting. The algorithms are buggy, and quite effectively disengage group members. When you suddenly can't post to your groups, you feel alienated - slapped in the face - and don't necessarily realise that it is LI, not your group moderators or fellow posters who have shut you out.

Fellow poster, Jonathan Case, commented that, in his view, as LinkedIn is "free, you truly can't complain too much about it".

However, I feel that we unpaid members can and should complain when we aren't happy.

That is because LinkedIn (LI) can - and does - monetise the platform through recruitment and recruiters. Recruiters are paid, professional members with access to all of we unpaid members.

We, as the raw recruitment material, are the cattle. As such, we provide the potential for LI's monetisation. And LI should be concerned, because when cattle no longer get palatable food, they will roam onward to richer pastures. That decreases LI's ability to monetise.

I joined LinkedIn because it was great for my profile, but I stayed for the groups.

Prior to June I felt an incredibly strong sense of thriving community on LI. 'Thriving' is no longer a term I would use. Since the June changes I have spent less and less time on LI. The groups that once teemed with live now feel closed, one-way, and stifled.

'Dying' is a more apt term.

Unfortunately we can no longer check our group statistics to find out just how much they are dying by, as LI scrapped access to those statistics in June.

The Group daily digest mailers which once included all links are a part of the death of LI: people can no longer scan the activity in their groups, so they don't check in. That habit has been compounded in the thousands.

Fascinating how pervasive this is. Other people who were regular contributors have stopped posting. Discussions have dried up. The herd is starting to roam.

I am about to informally survey my LI contacts, and see how they feel. The survey link is here, if you would like to contribute your views. I will collate and publish the results on LI, or you can send me a message if you are interested.

...and I am actively looking for a new platform. "Oh give me a home, where the buffalo roam..."


Sam

References:  

• LinkedIn Help (2015). New Groups Features. Retrieved 10 October 2015 from https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/61173/ 
• McDougall, Ryan (2015). Changes Coming to LinkedIn Groups. Retrieved 10 October 2015 from https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/8285624-6057149522113552386

read more "The Death Knell for LinkedIn Groups?"

It started with a ...Like

I have posted a couple of articles recently on getting involved with LinkedIn groups (Leap of Faith and Building a Presence). Remember the words of that old, old song by Hot Chocolate, which goes "It started with a..."? Perhaps we should think about that with Likes.

My involvement with my first LinkedIn group started with a Like.


Using a soft approach helps us to test our own fit in any new environment. So as we are getting used to how things work in our new group, liking some posts will help us feel connected, will ensure we get updates for that particular thread, and also helps get other group members to know us better, with low risk for either party. We are also likely to get people asking to connect with us, and to broaden our networks. We can like the post itself, like statements within the post by other group members, or do both.

It helps us create connection, which is what networking is all about, right?

After Likes, we can progress to simply saying thank you to the thread creator. Good manners really help in creating a professional online presence!

Next we can consider making a few quiet comments within posts that spark our imagination... or ask questions of the poster, or others who have contributed to the thread.

And once we are feeling at home, connected, safe and confident, we can move onto posting our own ideas, and getting a feel for what sparks other group members to respond to your threads (some ideas on this at Creating LinkedIn Posts).


Hopefully this sparks some ideas for you!


Sam

References:

• Brown, George; Berry, Christina Ginger & Young, David (1982). It Started With A Kiss (Album: Mystery). UK/USA: EMI America Records. 
• Taxedo (2015). Tagxedo - Creator. Retrieved 26 June 2015 from http://www.tagxedo.com/app.html
  
  

read more "It started with a ...Like"

Building A LinkedIn Group Presence

In a previous post, I talked about taking a Leap of Faith and posting to our LinkedIn groups. I posted a link to this to a few of the groups I belong to.

I got a few responses and questions from that post. I was asked about my groups, and about how I find things to post. And I realised that I had another couple of chunks of strategy that I could share with you.

What Groups?

On being asked asked what groups I belonged to, I realised that I belong to 16 groups within my fields of interest, which are in management, academia, leadership, sports and careers. Some groups I have made a strategic decision to join, others have arisen in a more happenstance kind of way.

If you are new to LinkedIn, taking a planned approach to what groups will get you the best exposure in your chosen field will help you to build good, enduring networks.

Many of the groups I belong to are closed, and when I applied for membership, the group managers would ask me to provide my reasons for joining. Because my LinkedIn profile is pretty complete, as well as replying with my reasons, it was easy to provide additional evidence of my interest. Ensuring that you select groups that fit with where you want to go at this stage in your professional life will make it easier to demonstrate 'fit' for you too.

My current groups include the Institute of Management (IMNZ), Institute of Directors (IOD), Academy of Management (AOM), Human Resources Institute (HRINZ) groups, Higher Education Teaching and Learning (HETL), the Centre of Creative Leadership, International Leadership Association (ILA), Association of Leadership Educators and Women on Sport Network, as well as several careers groups (Career Development Association of NZ, Collaborative Career Conversations, Career Services Professionals and the US National Career Development Association).

What to Post?

How I find things to post is from having signed up to a few emailers that really interest me, through my tailored Google News feed, and in cross-pollinating posts between LinkedIn groups.

In other words, I have built up good information feeds in, so I can pass those things that really spark a response in me on to others. That might be things that please me, items that I feel are insightful, or things that appall or provoke me.

My news-feed emailers include Computerworld, TechRepublic, Fast Company, HBR Blog, FacultyFocus, Career FAQs, HR Daily, CERIC's ContactPoint, ILA Connector, my alumni organisations, and the professional organisations of many of the groups listed above. My feeds tend to keep me relatively fresh and up to date :-)

Questions

When I write post, I try to ask questions about what others in the group think. I am not just 'delivering accepted wisdom', but wanting to create a conversation with other members (you can also read an earlier post on this here).

I aim to be accepting of all points of view, and to ask people their reasons when I find myself at odds with their posts. That way I learn something too.

Bonus!



Sam

read more "Building A LinkedIn Group Presence"

Take a Leap of Faith: Post to your LinkedIn Group!

How many of you are LinkedIn members? And of you, how many of you are members of one or more LinkedIn groups?

The reason I ask is that I was wondering how many people actually post to LinkedIn groups which they are a part of, when they find an interesting article, resource, book or idea.

So: do you post to your LinkedIn groups? And if not, why not?

I am a member of a number of LinkedIn groups - and the manager of a couple of those - and I tend to find that the same people post. Over time, that means that the points of view being explored in each group can become a bit narrow, simply reflecting the views of those who are actively posting.

Again, over time, the group's point of view can become perceived as being too narrow by the general membership. The group culture can be adversely affected by the activity of a few, and the passivity of the majority. People who don't contribute with posts can start to feel that the group no longer reflects their points of view, and no longer aligns with their reasons for joining the group in the first place.

So they leave.

The resulting group is then left with a point of view which is narrower than ever.

So my suggestion for the day is, the next time you find an interesting article, resource, book or idea - or the next time you have a great discussion with someone - post to your group about it.

Share, and help shape the culture around you. I, for one, would LOVE to hear your ideas!

Sam

read more "Take a Leap of Faith: Post to your LinkedIn Group!"

Where Brainstorming Comes From

I posted the question "Does anyone know the history and creator of SMART goals" on the HRINZ LinkedIn group page in late October, and had a number of fascinating replies.

However, the post soon started to explore other models of decision-making, which led to brainstorming. One of the posters, Ed Bernacki, blogger, writer and creative thinker, related the history and development of the brainstorming idea, which I thought I would share with you all.

"In 1942 an advertising executive in Buffalo, Alex Osborn, started to write about meetings he had to create solutions for the problems of his advertising clients. He wrote a short book called 'How To Think Up' (as in, how to think up ideas).  In 1953 he wrote 'Applied Imagination'. I found a copy of the first edition [as] I wanted to read the exact context for brainstorming. 

"The first 20 chapters talked about why creativity is important and how you can apply your imagination in more structured ways to create better ideas to solve your challenges or problems.

"This covered 287 pages of the 307 page book.

"He then started to talk about group processes. Only the final chapter focused on groups."

Ed also said of Alex's book that "Everyone has the imagination to create new ideas, be it artistically, or to solve the challenges we face. Our results may differ based on how we apply our imagination".

Ed continued that in 'Applied Imagination' Alex Osborn explored how to apply our imagination in more 'structured' ways. Alex "suggested that we have two types of imagination: our creative mind, which visualizes, foresees and generates ideas, [and] our judicial mind, which analyzes, compares and chooses ideas".

Ed also had some interesting insights into how the group idea of brainstorming, and a focus purely on idea generation has subverted the author's original intentions of generating new ways of thinking creatively. "If you can’t solve a problem by applying your own imagination, Osborn’s book includes 20 extra pages to help you engage other people to solve it [also suggesting we should initially start brainstorming in pairs, not in larger groups]. This is when he introduced the idea of brainstorming. To quote Osborn, ‘brainstorm’ means '… using the brain to storm a creative problem … and do[ing] so in commando fashion, with each stormer audaciously attacking the same objective!'."

In his last chapter in 'Applied Imagination', Alex's guidelines for harnessing group minds to solve a problem are:

1. Quantity of ideas is more important than quality—at first!
2. Don’t judge ideas until all are raised.
3. Word your ideas in a positive and enthusiastic way.
4. Record and save ideas—some will be gems.

Summarising his explanation, Ed says that Alex "ends the book with this thought 'We need new ideas to win wars. We need even more and better new ideas to win peace'. So much of our current thinking and writing on creativity simply reworks these ideas".

Thanks, Ed. Very insightful.

References

• Bernacki, Ed (1 November 2013). Does anyone know the history and creator of SMART goals? Retrieved 1 November 2013 from http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=5795224742134824962&gid=3017817&commentID=5801770263011930112&trk=view_disc&fromEmail=&ut=1voSz9JNOoS5Y1 

Sam

read more "Where Brainstorming Comes From"