Belbin Teamwork
Improve Communication & Relationship Dynamics Using an Evidence-Based Assessment Tool Webinar 5 ăƒť November 2014
Let’s review how much we like working in teams
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
2
1.
Too much analysis leading to chronic indecision?
2.
Too much brainstorming, not enough practical thinking?
3.
Great plan but poor followthrough?
4.
Logistics and communication are disorganized and challenging?
5.
There is a reluctance to bring up hard truths about the team’s performance?
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
3
Q: Why are we here today? • Teams are crucial for efficiency and quality—and becoming more important • Bad team work experiences are common
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
4
Why Belbin team roles? 1. Intuitive vocabulary for discussing team dynamics 2. Simple tool for diagnosing sources of team conflict 3. Clear guidance on how to fix 4. Evidenced-based – so it works 5. Immediate ROI (same day) Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
5
Q: Is low conflict the touchstone of a high performing team? A: No. High performing teams reduce unproductive conflict. Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
6
1) Recognize and reduce unproductive conflict 2) Accept productive conflict in the service of quality and efficiency
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
7
Practical question asked in the context of MBA Executive Education: What factors explain high performing teams? Theory 1, Intellect: High performing teams are comprised of the members with high mental ability.
Professor Meredith Belbin Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
8
Practical question asked in the context of MBA Executive Education: What factors explain high performing teams? Theory 1, Intellect: High performing teams are comprised of the members with high mental ability. Not true
Professor Meredith Belbin Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
9
Practical question asked in the context of MBA Executive Education: What factors explain high performing teams? Theory 1, Intellect: High performing teams are comprised of the members with high mental ability. Not true Theory 2, Personality: High performing teams is explained by the presence or absence by specific personality types.
Professor Meredith Belbin Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
10
Practical question asked in the context of MBA Executive Education: What factors explain high performing teams? Theory 1, Intellect: High performing teams are comprised of the members with high mental ability. Not true Theory 2, Personality: High performing teams is explained by the presence or absence by specific personality types. Not true
Professor Meredith Belbin Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
11
Practical question asked in the context of MBA Executive Education: What factors explain high performing teams? Theory 1, Intellect: High performing teams are comprised of the members with high mental ability. Not true Theory 2, Personality: High performing teams is explained by the presence or absence by specific personality types. Not true
Professor Meredith Belbin
Theory 3, Team Roles: High performing teams have members who are balanced across a series of team roles. Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
12
“Team role is a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way.”
“I dislike this aspect of the work”
“I enjoying doing this type of work”
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
13
Performance principles • Team needs all nine roles; best all nine are someone’s preferred role
Thinking Roles − Plant (PL) − Monitor Evaluator (ME) − Specialist (SP) Social Roles − Coordinator (CO) − Resource Investigator (RI) − Teamworker (TW) Action Roles − Shaper (SH) − Implementer (IMP) − Completer Finisher (CF)
• Team members typically serve more than one role • Members experience stress when working outside preferred role • Performance problems stem from two sources: 1) Void – no team members’ preferred role 2) Surplus – several team members have the same preferred role. •
Problems fixed through: − Communication − Adaption − adding or subtracting team members
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
14
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
15
Q: Do high performing lawyers cluster in certain Belbin roles? A: No. High performers, as judged by peers, seen in all nine roles. Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
18
Plant – is a prime source of ideas and innovation Thinking
Contributions to the team • Brings creativity and imagination • Thinks out of the box often
Allowable Weakness Preoccupation with ideas and neglect of practical details.
• Solves difficult problems • Focuses on the ideas and possibilities
Disallowable Stubbornly hanging onto own ideas to detriment of group.
• Formulates new ideas
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
19
Monitor-evaluator – analyzes ideas for feasibility and practicality Thinking
Contributions to the team • Can be strategic and discerning • Sees and judges all options
Allowable Weakness Lacks drive and ability to inspire others. Overly critical.
• Evaluates ideas and decision-making • Assesses problems and solutions
Disallowable Cynicism without logic.
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
20
Specialist – brings expert knowledge and perspectives Thinking
Contributions to the team • Is single-minded, self starting, dedicated • Brings expert knowledge and skills • Contributes a specialized perspective needed for the task
Allowable Weakness Dwells on technicalities. Fails to see the big picture. Disallowable Ignoring factors outside own area of competence.
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
21
Coordinator – controls /organizes team to ensure efficient use of resources Social
Contributions to the team •
Acts as the chairperson
•
Clarifies objectives and sets agenda
•
Identifies and distributes roles
•
Provides performance feedback
•
Smooths over disagreements
•
Coordinates contributions
Allowable Weakness A tendency to delegate and facilitate rather than work Disallowable Taking credit for the effort of the team
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
22
Resource Investigator – explores outside resources and develops useful contacts Social
Contributions to the team •
Explores outside opportunities
•
Brings in information from outside the team
•
Keeps up to date on newest thinking
•
Connects with others on other teams
Allowable Weakness Overly optimistic. Prone to lose interest after initial enthusiasm has passed. Disallowable Letting people down by neglecting the follow-up arrangements.
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
23
Teamworker– helps colleagues achieve and maintain effectiveness Social
Contributions to the team •
Is co-operative, perceptive and diplomatic
•
Listens and averts friction
•
Builds on others’ suggestions
•
Fosters team spirit
•
Facilitates positive team dynamics
Allowable Weakness Can be indecisive in crunch situations. Disallowable
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
Avoiding situations involving conflict and pressure.
24
Shaper – gives shape and form to the team’s activities Action
Contributions to the team •
Sets objectives and establishes priorities
•
Co-ordinates the task
•
Intervenes when teams veer off course
•
Challenges and thrives on pressure
•
Possesses drive and courage to overcome obstacles
•
Commands respect and inspires enthusiasm
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
Allowable Weakness Prone to frustration, irritation; can be insensitive, too direct. Disallowable Inability to let go with good humor or apology.
25
Implementer – translates ideas into a practical plan to execute systematically Action
Contributions to the team • Helps structure tasks • Turns ideas into practical actions
Allowable Weakness Adheres to established ways. Slow to respond to new possibilities.
• Clarifies objectives and sorts out details • Commits easily to team objectives
Disallowable Obstructing change.
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
26
Completer-finisher – ensures team efforts are as perfect as possible Action
Contributions to the team •
Is painstaking in detail and conscientious
•
Searches out errors and omissions.
•
Sweats the small details
•
Delivers on time
Allowable Weakness Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to delegate. Perfectionist. Disallowable Obsessional behavior
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
27
Q: Do lawyers cluster in certain Belbin roles? A: Yes. − ME and IMP more common − RI and TW less common
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
28
Key to Belbin is balancing of roles Role
Team Member 1
Team Member 2
Team Member 3
Team Member 4
Team Member 5
Team Member 6
Team Member 7
Thinking
PL ME SP
Action
IMP CF SH
Social
CO RI TW © 2015 Lawyer Metrics
29
Example: Lawyer Metrics Team Role
Bill
Ramla
LM3
LM4
LM5
LM6
LM7
Thinking
PL ME SP
Action
IMP CF SH
Social
CO RI TW © 2015 Lawyer Metrics
30
Social
Action
Thinking
Example: Lawyer Metrics Team Role
Bill
PL
1
ME
3
SP
8
IMP
9
CF
6
SH
4
CO
7
RI
2
TW
5
Ramla
LM3
LM4
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
LM5
LM6
LM7
31
Social
Action
Thinking
Example: Lawyer Metrics Team Role
Bill
PL
1
ME
3
SP
8
IMP
9
CF
6
SH
4
CO
7
RI
2
TW
5
Ramla
LM3
LM4
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
LM5
LM6
LM7
32
Social
Action
Thinking
Example: Lawyer Metrics Team Role
Bill
Ramla
PL
1
8
ME
3
3
SP
8
2
IMP
9
1
CF
6
5
SH
4
6
CO
7
4
RI
2
7
TW
5
9
LM3
LM4
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
LM5
LM6
LM7
33
Social
Action
Thinking
Example: Lawyer Metrics Team Role
Bill
Ramla
LM3
LM4
LM5
LM6
LM7
PL
1
8
3
1
1
7
4
ME
3
3
2
5
3
5
8
SP
8
2
1
6
2
8
5
IMP
9
1
6
8
5
3
6
CF
6
5
7
2
4
6
9
SH
4
6
5
3
6
2
1
CO
7
4
8
7
8
4
2
RI
2
7
4
4
7
9
3
TW
5
9
9
9
8
1
7
© 2015 Lawyer Metrics
34
Q: What is evidence that balanced teams perform better?
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
35
A typical example of Belbin’s ability to predict the order of finish of teams in Henley Management Simulations
See R. Meredith Belbin, Management Teams: Why the Succeed or Fail (3rd ed. 2010), Figures 13.1 & 13.2
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
36
Q: How do we know if our role preference has become a disallowable weakness? A: Belbin Report that includes observer feedback (360)
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
37
Observers assign adjectives: 1) List for strengths 2) List for weaknesses
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
38
Observer Feedback based on 6 observers
Unanimous attributes Occasionally observed
Occasionally Observed Not seen
39
Disallowable if ratio of positive to negative is less than 5 to 1 Disallowable
Disallowable
Š 2015 Lawyer Metrics
40