What follows are a number of views about Belbin

|The Belbin Team Roles |
|The Belbin Model is a robust and highly effective concept on teamwork that is the product of many years of research. British psychologist Dr Meredith Belbin has |
|worked to achieve a coherent and accurate system that explains individual behaviour and its influence on team success. These behavioural patterns are called "Team |
|Roles" and these nine roles cover the types of individual behaviour at work in a team. |
|1. Plant (PL) |
|Advancing new ideas and strategies with special attention to major issues and looking for possible breaks in approach to the problem that the group is confronting.|
| |
|2. Resource Investigator (RI) |
|Exploring and reporting on ideas, developments and resources outside the group, creating external contacts that may be useful to the team and conducting |
|negotiations. |
|3. Co-ordinator (CO) |
|Controlling the way in which the team moves forward towards the group objectives by making the best use of team resources; recognising where the team's strengths |
|and weaknesses lie and ensuring the best use is made of each members potential. |
|4. Shaper (SH) |
|Shaping the way in which the team effort is applied, directing attention generally to the setting of objectives and priorities and seeking to impose some shape or |
|pattern on group discussion and on the outcome of group activities. |
|5. Monitor Evaluator (ME) |
|Analysing problems, evaluating ideas and suggestions so that the team is better placed to take balanced decisions. |
|6. Team Worker (TW) |
|Supporting members in their strengths; eg. Building on suggestions, underpinning members in their shortcomings, improving communications between members and |
|fostering team spirit generally. |
|7. Implementer (IMP) |
|Turning concepts and ideas into practical working procedures; carrying out agreed plans systematically and efficiently. |
|8. Completer Finisher (CF) |
|Ensuring the team is protected as far as possible from mistakes of both commission and omission; actively searching for aspects of work that need a more than usual|
|degree of attention; and maintaining a sense of urgency within the team. |
|9. Specialist (SP) |
|Feeding technical information into the group. Translating from general into technical terms. Contributing a professional viewpoint on the subject under discussion.|
| |
|Renowned corporate psychologist Dr David Marriott (a colleague of Belbin and an expert on his work) is available for detailed team role profiling and reporting for|
|corporate teams and managers. |
|http://www.sabrehq.com/team_building_articles/belbin-team-roles.htm accessed 9-8-06 |

Belbin according to (Handy 1985)
Belbin's original book ("Management Teams - why they succeed or fail") is still in print and is a good place to go to understand his concept. Following the wide acceptance of the Team Roles concept, he later published "Team Roles at Work", exploring the practical application of his ideas in more detail. You can also buy team games that bring out each person's roles, as well as electronic or paper-based questionnaires.

| Belbin’s teams p.160 Belbin has made a long study of the best mix of characteristics in a team, based originally on research into teams of managers |
|involved in a management simulation as part of a training course. His first surprise was the Apollo syndrome — the discovery that a team composed of the |
|brightest did not turn out to be the best. |
|He ended up with a list of eight roles that are needed for a fully effective group: |
|The Chairman. He* is the one who presides over the team and co ordinates its efforts. He need be in no sense brilliant or creative, but would rather be |
|called disciplined, focused and balanced. He talks and listens well, is a good judge of people and of things: a man who works through others. |
|The Shaper. The shaper is highly strung, outgoing and dominant. He is the task leader and in the absence of the chairman would leap into that role, even |
|though he might not do it any too well. His strength lies in his drive and in his passion for the task, but he can be over-sensitive, irritable and |
|impatient. He is needed as the spur to action. |
|The Plant. Unlike the shaper, the plant is introverted but is intellectually dominant. He is the source of original ideas and proposals, being the most |
|imaginative as well as the most intelligent member of the team. He can, however, be careless of details and may resent criticism. He needs to be drawn out or|
|he will switch off. |
|The Monitor-Evaluator. The monitor-evaluator is also intelligent, but it is an analytic rather than a creative intelligence. His contribution is the careful |
|dissection of ideas and the ability to see the flaw in an argument. He is often less involved than the others, tucked away with his data, aloof from the |
|team, but necessary as a quality check. He is dependable but can be tactless and cold. |
|The Resource-Investigator. This is the popular member of the team, extrovert, sociable and relaxed. He it is who brings new contacts, ideas and developments |
|to the group, the salesman, diplomat or liaison officer. He is not himself original or a driver, and therefore needs the team to pick up his contributions. |
|The Company Worker. The company worker is the practical organizer. He it is who turns ideas into manageable tasks. Schedules, charts and plans are his thing.|
|Methodical, trustworthy and efficient, he is not ex cited by visions and can be unexciting himself. He does not lead, but is adept at administering. |
|The Team Worker. The team worker holds the team together in another way, by being supportive to others, by listening, encouraging, harmonizing and |
|understanding. Likeable and popular but uncompetitive, he is the sort of person you do not notice when he’s there but miss when he isn’t. |
|The Finisher. Without the finisher the team might never meet its dead lines. He it is who checks the details, worries about schedules and chivvies the others|
|with his sense of urgency. His relentless follow- through is important but not always popular. |
|Too many of one type in a team means a lack of balance; too few roles and some tasks do not get done. In a small team, therefore, one person may have to |
|perform more than one role. The full set is most important where rapid change is involved in the workforce, the technology, the market-place or the product. |
|More stable groups can often get by without the full set of roles. |
|R. M. Belbin, Management Teams, 1981 in Handy 1985 Box 6.3 |

Belbin’s Team Roles as seen by (Cartwright 2002)

Belbin saw that an individual had a dual role • Your own skills • How you used them in the team

Individuals could have a 'secondary' team role they could display if no other team member had the role as their primary one.

Allowable weaknesses

One of the key concepts in Belbin's work is that of allowable weaknesses. Every team type has its strengths but each also has an 'opposite side of the coin' - weaknesses. Where these weaknesses are such that if they were removed it might also impact on the effectiveness of the strengths then they are allowable and need to be managed rather than removed. An example is the lack of attention to detail in the team type known as a Plant (see later). A Plant - naturally creative as he or she is - can be forced to concentrate on details but the danger is that the creativity will be lost. A more effective solution is to ensure that there is a team member whose strength is attention to detail (A Completer-Finisher) working alongside the Plant as this allows both to play to their strengths.

Belbin's eight team roles

The eight team types which Dr Belbin and his colleagues originally identified were: • Co-ordinator • Plant • Shaper • Monitor-Evaluator • Implementer • Resource Investigator • Team Worker • Completer-Finisher • Specialist (added later).

Co-ordinator (Traits stable, dominant and extrovert).

Co-ordinators was originally entitled 'Chairman', a term that was both misleading and would today be considered politically incorrect. It was misleading, as a strong coordinator may well not be the leader of their team. However, it is team leadership that such individuals are best fitted for. The name was later changed to title that better expresses the nature of the team contribution.

The Co-ordinator is the one who presides over the team and coordinates its efforts to meet external goals and targets. Co-ordinators are distinguished by their preoccupation with objectives and an ability to include all team members in discussions.

Co-ordinators are intelligent but not in any sense brilliant - and not outstanding creative thinkers: it is rare for any of the creative ideas to originate with them. They often display charisma, a concept to be considered in later chapters under leadership. Co-ordinators also possess natural 'people skills.' Co-ordinators are dominant, but in a relaxed and unassertive way - they are not domineering. They may, however tend to be manipulative, but in a covert manner Co-ordinators tend to trust people unless there is very strong evidence that they are untrustworthy and they are singularly free from jealousy.

Co-ordinators have the ability to see which member of the team is strong or weak in each area of the team's function, and they focus people on what they do best. They are conscious of the need to use the team’s combined human resources and synergy as effectively as possible. This means they are the ones who establish the roles and work boundaries of the others and also w ho see the gaps in the team wheel (see earlier) and take steps to fill them

They are easy to talk to and comfortable with others. Their two-way communication is excellent. They are not compulsive talkers nor people of few words - they know how to listen actively.

One of the main roles of the Co-ordinator is to clarify the group's objectives and set its agenda. While they are responsible for establishing priorities in consultation with senior managers, they do not attempt to dominate the team's discussion of meeting the objectives. Their own early contributions are more likely to take the form of questions than assertions or proposals. They listen, they sum up group feelings and articulate the group's views, and if a decision has to be taken, they take it firmly after everyone has had their say.

Strengths of the Co-ordinator

Mature, confident, clarifies goals, uses available talents.

Allowable weaknesses

A tendency to be manipulative.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

• Is there a Co-ordinator among them?

• How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

Plant (Traits: dominant, very high IQ, introvert)

The title Plant was conceived when it was found that one of the best ways to improve the performance of an ineffective and uninspired team was to 'plant' a person of this type in it. The Plant can also be thought of as the team role that scatters the seeds which the others nourish until they bear fruit.

The Plant is the tean~s source of original ideas, suggestions and proposals - i.e. the Plant is the ideas person. What distinguishes the Plant's ideas from those of their team colleagues is their originality and the radical-minded approach they bring to problems and obstacles. Plants are usually the most imaginative as well as the most intelligent member of the team, and the most likely to start searching for a completely new approach to a problem if the team starts getting bogged down, or to bring a new insight to a line of action already agreed. They are much more concerned with major issues and fundamentals than with details, and indeed they are liable to ignore details and make careless mistakes, an unfortunate allowable (if managed) weakness.

Plants tend to be uninhibited in a way that is fairly uncharacteristic of an introvert, indeed the first impression may be that they are extroverts. Plants are actually extroverts. The Plant van he prickly and cause offence to other members of the team, particularly when criticising their ideas. The criticisms Plants make are usually designed to clear the ground for their ideas and are usually followed by their own counter-proposals.

The danger with the Plant is that he or she will devote too much of their creative energy to ideas which may catch their fancy but do not fall in with the team's needs or contribute to its objectives. They may be bad at accepting criticism of their own ideas and quick to take offence and sulk if their ideas are dissected or rejected: indeed, they may switch off and refuse to make any further contribution. It can take quite a lot of careful handling and judicious flattery (usually by the Coordinator) to get the best out of them. But for all their faults, it is the Plant who provides the vital spark that can set a project in motion or the team in a new and profitable direction.

Strengths of the Plant

Creativity, ideas, good at problem-solving.

Allowable weaknesses
Communicating ideas and sticking to the objectives – can have a butterfly mind that flits from one idea to another.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

• Is there a Plant among them?

• How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

Shaper (Traits: anxious, dominant, extrovert).

The Shaper is full of nervous energy. He or she is outgoing and emotional, impulsive and impatient, sometimes edgy and easily frustrated. If they are not the leader of the team they may constantly be vying with the appointed leader for that role. They are quick to challenge and quick to respond to a challenge (which they enjoy and welcome). They often have arguments and rows, but they are quickly over and they do not harbour grudges. Of all the team, the Shaper is the most prone to paranoia' quick to sense slight and the first to feel that there is a conspiracy afoot and that they are the object or the victim of it. The principal function of a Shaper is to provide shape to the team's efforts (hence the designation) and to provide challenges where necessary.

Publicly the Shaper exudes self-confidence although this often belies strong self-doubts. Only results can reassure Shapers. Their drive, which can have a compulsive quality, is always directed at their objectives. They are usually the team's objectives too, but then the Shaper, much more than the Coordinator, sees the team as an extension of their own ego. They want action and they want it now. They are personally competitive, intolerant of woolliness, vagueness and muddled thinking, and people outside the team are likely to describe them as arrogant and abrasive. Even people inside the team are in danger of being steamrollered by them on occasions, and they can make the team uncomfortable; but they do make things happen. The abruptness, rudeness and insensitivity are allowable weaknesses provided that the rest of the team understand them and realise that without a Shaper to make things happen the team will be less effective.

Strengths of the Shaper

Dynamic, outgoing, challenging, tenacious.

Allowable weaknesses

Prone to bursts of temper, insensitive.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

• Is there a Shaper among them?

• How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

Monitor-Evaluator (Traits high IQ, stable, introvert).

In a balanced team it is only the Plant and the Monitor-Evaluator who need a high IQ, but by contrast with the Plant, the Monitor-Evaluator is much less creative. Monitor-Evaluators are likely to be serious and not very exciting. Their contribution lies in measured and dispassionate analysis rather than creative ideas, and while they are unlikely to come up with an original proposal, they are the most likely to stop the team from committing itself to a misguided project. Teams should always listen to a Monitor-Evaluator, for they are seldom wrong.

Although they are by nature a critic rather than a creator, they do not usually criticise just for the sake of it; only if they can see a flaw in the plan or the argument. Monitor-Evaluators are often the least highly motivated of the team: enthusiasm and euphoria simply are not part of their make-up. This, however, has the compensating advantage that ego-involvement does not cloud or distort their judgement. They are slow to make up their mind, and like to be given time to mull things over, but they are the most objective mind in the team.

Their most valuable skills are in assimilating and interpreting and evaluating large volumes of complex written material, and analysing problems and assessing the judgements and contributions of the others. Sometimes they can do this tactlessly and disparagingly, which does not raise their popularity, and they can lower the team's morale by being too much of a damper at the wrong time. Although they are not overly ambitious and have low drive, they can be competitive, especially with those whose skills overlap with their own, which means in most cases either the Coordinator or the Plant.

It is important for Monitor-Evaluators to be fair-minded and open to change, as there is a danger that they will turn depressingly negative and allow their critical powers to outweigh their receptiveness to new ideas.

Although they are solid and dependable they lack warmth imagination and spontaneity. Nevertheless, they have one quality that makes them indispensable to the team their judgement is hardly ever wrong.

Strengths of the Monitor-Evaluator

Shrewed and objective.

Allowable weaknesses

May be seen as boring and lacking drive.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

• Is there a Monitor-Evaluator among them?

• How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

Implementer

Originally designated with the title of Company Worker, the Implementer is the practical organiser. He or she is the one who turns decisions and strategies into defined and manageable tasks that people can actually get on with. Implementers are concerned with what is feasible, and their chief contribution is to convert the team's plans into an implementable form. They sort out objectives, and pursue them logically.

Implementers tend to be sincere and disciplined and known for their integrity and trustworthiness by their colleagues, and they are not easily deflated or discouraged; it is only a sudden change of plan that is likely to upset them, because they are less comfortable unstable, quickly changing situations.

As Implementers need stable structures, they are always trying to build them within the team. Given a decision they will produce a schedule; given a group of people and an objective they will produce an organisation chart. They work effectively, systematically and methodically but sometimes a little inflexibly, and they are unresponsive to speculative ideas that do not have visible immediate bearing on the task in hand, unlike the Plant who thrives on such ideas. At the same time they are usually perfectly willing to trim and adapt their schedules and proposals to fit into agreed plans and established systems.

The Implementer can be over-competitive for team status, which can be damaging if it expresses itself in the form of negative, unconstructive criticism of suggestions put forward by other members of the team. Normally, however, they are close to the team's point of balance.

Strengths of the implementer

Disciplined, reliable and efficient.

Allowable weaknesses

Inflexible.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

Is there an Implementer among them?

How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

Resource investigator (Traits: stable and controlled).

Probably the first team member to fill up their filofax and the one who is uncomfortable if parted from their mobile telephone or Internet connection. The Resource Investigator is probably the most immediately likeable member of the team. Resource investigators are relaxed, sociable and gregarious, with an interest that is easily aroused. Their responses tend to be positive and enthusiastic, though they are prone to put things down as quickly as they pick them up.

The Resource Investigator is the member of the team who goes outside the group and brings information, ideas and developments back to it - hence their interest in communications technology. They make friends easily and have masses of outside contacts. They are rarely in their office or workplace, and when they are, they are probably on the telephone, using email or surfing the Internet. They are the sales people, the diplomats and the liaison officers, always exploring new possibilities in the wider world outside. The ability to stimulate ideas and encourage innovation by this activity would lead most people to mistake them for an ideas person, but they do not have the radical originality that distinguishes the Plant: for all that, they are quick to see the relevance of new ideas.

Without the stimulus of others, for example in a solitary job, the Resource Investigator can easily become bored, demoralised and ineffective. Within the team, however, they are good improvisers and active and efficient under pressure. They can fail to follow up tasks they undertake in one of their frequent bursts of short-lived enthusiasm. Their range and variety of outside interests can lead them like the Plant to spend too much time on irrelevances that interest them: nevertheless theirs is the most important team role in preserving the team from stagnation, fossilisation and losing touch with reality. The Resource Investigator has a vital role in maintaining the team's links with the external environment and preventing it becoming too insular. This role has grown in importance as teams have become more dispersed as new technology has allowed the formation of virtual teams linked electronically.

Strengths of the resource investigator

Gregarious, has many contacts, enthusiastic, good communication skills.

Allowable weaknesses

Easily bored.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

• Is there a Resource investigator among them?

• How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

Team Worker (Traits stable, extrovert, low in dominance).

The Team Worker is the most sensitive of the team - s/he is the most aware of individuals' needs and worries, and the one who perceives most clearly the emotional undercurrents within the group. Teamworkers also know most about the private lives and family affairs of the rest of the team. They are the most active internal communicators, likeable, popular, unassertive, the cement of the team. They are loyal to the team as a unit (though this does not mean they cannot take sides when there is a split) and support all the other members. If someone produces an idea, his or her instinct is to build on it, rather than demolish it or produce a rival idea.

They are good and willing listeners and communicate freely and well within the team, and they help and encourage others to do the same. As promoters of unity and harmony, they counterbalance the friction and discord that can be caused by the Shaper and the Plant, and occasionally by the Monitor Evaluator. They particularly dislike personal confrontation and tend to try and avoid it and cool down tempers in others.

When the team is under pressure or in difficulties, the Team Worker's sympathy, understanding, loyalty and support are especially valued. Their lack of competitiveness and dislike of friction may make them seem a bit soft and indecisive, but they also make them a permanent force operating against division and disruption in the team.

While the value of their individual contribution may not be as immediately visible as most of the other team roles, the effect is very noticeable indeed when they are not there, especially in times of stress and pressure.

Strengths of the Team Worker

Makes excellent relationships, accommodating, non-threatening.

Allowable weaknesses

Can be indecisive.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

• Is there a Team Worker among them?

• How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

Completer-Finisher (Traits: anxious, introvert).

The author has a friend who is the ultimate Completor-Finisher. Both are interested in in model railways. The friend built a 7mm to the foot (0 Gauge) model of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) locomotive out of brass . Finished in lined red livery it was complete to the (apparently) last rivet. The rivets were reproduced by carefully punching the brass from the reverse side. The model had pride of place in his house until he discovered that there were too many rivets around the cab. He tried to fix the problem but couldn't and ended up selling his pride and joy. Only he knew that it was slightly incorrect (it is doubtful if anybody else would have known) but once it was wrong, it had to go.

The Completer-Finisher worries about what might go wrong. They are never at ease until they have personally checked every detail and made sure that everything has been done and nothing has been overlooked. It is not that they are overtly or irritatingly fussy - their obsession is an expression of anxiety. They make excellent proof readers as they are good at checking details and ensuring that all the spellings and good are correct.

The Completer – Finisher is not an assertive member of the team, but s/he maintain a permanent sense of urgency that they communicate to others to galvanise into ativity. They have self-control and strength of character and are impatient of and intolerant towards the more caual members of the team. They often find Plants infuriating.

If the Completer-Finisher has one major preoccupation, it is order; they are a compulsive meeter of deadlines and fulfiller of schedules. If they are not careful they can be morale-lowering worriers with a depressing effect on the rest of (lie team, and they can too easily lose sight of the overall objective by getting 1)ogged down in small details. Nevertheless their relentless follow-through is an important asset.

Strengths of the Completer-Finisher

Attention to detail, meets deadlines.

Allowable weaknesses

Worries and can become over anxious and bogged down in detail.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

• Is there a Completer-Finisher among them?

• How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

Specialist (Traits: Intelligent, introvert, stable.)

The Specialist was a role that was added to the theory at a later stage. It will be noted that the original eight roles do not have any specialist skills attached to them. Any of them could come from any part of the organisation. Work by the author in 1992 (further information on the web site for this text) suggested that certain professions and jobs attracted particular team roles as discussed later in this chapter.

There are times, however, when the team needs specialist input - often for technical, financial or statistical reasons. The Specialist makes a valuable input at these times, as while his or her focus is narrow, it is very detailed and knowledgeable. Then the problem may arise that the Specialist is unable to see the larger picture.

Strengths of the Specialist

Single-minded, knowledgeable in his or her own field.

Allowable weaknesses

Can contribute on only it narrow front.

Think/discussion point

Consider those you work with.

• Is there a Specialist among them?

• How does this person(s) manifest the role's strengths and allowable weaknesses?

The balanced team

The team role concept has been validated in both academic and organisational trials across the globe. When used in organisations, team role profiling has confirmed the special advantages of a full and balanced team. The absence of one of the roles obviously weakens any team, but equally the presence of too many of one type produces predictable kinds of failure: for instance, with too many Plants, many good ideas are produced but never taken up: a team composed entirely of Plants and Shapers may look brilliant, but will be beaten by a combination that is properly furnished with the less conspicuous and coruscating members who help to compose a full and balanced team. Too many Completer-Finishers and the team may have few ideas and can quickly be bogged down in detail. Too many Team Workers and the conflict that is actually necessary to maintain momentum may be missing.

Think/discussion point • Based on what you have read above, what do you think y our natural primary an dsecondary team roles are? • Are there any roles that y ou are not equipped for?

An extra role?

Is it scientifically permissible to ask whether the Solar System contains a 10th planet that is so far from the sun that it is difficult to detect? Some astronomers believe there may be. In the same vein is the question of whether there is a 10th team role type.

The author noted while working with a large number of teams that when things became difficult, humour often helped to lighten the situation. This is particularly noticeable in military situations where the humour might be very black indeed and yet serves a vital psychological process by lightening the tension.

It may be that the Joker (Figure 6.11) is a necessary team role type. Like all team roles the strength of lightening tension will carry with it acceptable weaknesses, possibly involving inappropriate timing. This is an area that merits further research.

Cartwright, R. (2002) Mastering Team Leadership, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Pages 90 - 105

|Belbin - chairman, shaper, plant, monitor evaluator, resource investigator, company worker, team worker, finisher |
|Belbin also suggests that people ask questions of themselves when they join a group: |
|1 Who am I in this group? What is my occupational role here? What are the role expectations of me? Am I here to listen or to lead? Am I a |
|representative or present in my own right? Who is judging me on my role performance? |
|2 What is the influence pattern? Who has the power? What kind of power is it? Do I want to change the influence pattern? If so, how do I do it? |
|3 What are my needs and objectives? Are they in line with the group? Should they be? What do I do about them if they are not? If one of these needs|
|is to be liked and accepted, how important is that for me? |
|When people put groups together, they select individuals mostly on the basis of their official function in the organization (e.g. someone from |
|finance, someone from personnel, someone from operations). Seldom do they think in advance of the other functions, the ways we behave, which have a|
|profound effect on the success of the group. The bag of agendas that individuals bring to the group, the roles they choose or are cast in, and the |
|network of forces influencing them, are at least as important as their knowledge of the problem. |
|Forming, storming, norming, performing |
|Groups mature and develop. Like individuals they have a fairly clearly defined growth cycle. This has been categorised as having four successive |
|stages: |
|Forming. |
|The group is not yet a group but a set of individuals. This stage is characterized by talk about the purpose of the group. The definition and the |
|title of the group, its composition, leadership pattern, and life-span. At this stage, too, each individual tends to want to establish his personal|
|identity within the group, make some individual impression. |
|Storming. |
|Most groups go through a conflict stage when the preliminary, and often false, consensus on purposes, on leadership and other roles, on norms of |
|work and behaviour, is challenged and re-established. At this stage a lot of personal agendas are revealed and a certain amount of inter-personal |
|hostility is generated. If successfully handled this period of storming leads to a new and more realistic setting of objectives, procedures and |
|norms. This stage is particularly important for testing the norms of trust in the group. |
|Norming. |
|The group needs to establish norms and practices. When and how it should work, how it should take decisions, what type of behaviour, what level of |
|work, what degree of openness, trust and confidence is appropriate. At this stage there will be a lot of tentative experimentation by individuals |
|to test the temperature of the group and to measure the appropriate level of commitment. |
|Performing. |
|Only when the three previous stages have been success fully completed will the group be at full maturity and be able to be fully and sensibly |
|productive. Some kind of performance will be achieved at all stages of development but it is likely to be impeded by the other processes of growth |
|and by individual agendas. In many periodic committees the leadership issue, or the objective and purpose of the group, are recurring topics that |
|crop up in every meeting in some form or other, seriously hindering the true work of the group. |
|When the task is very important, when the individuals are highly committed to the group, or when individual and group objectives are identical then|
|these stages may become almost perfunctory. Certainly the group will ‘grow up’, will mature very rapidly and reach its optimum performance level. |
|More often the issues are not dealt with specifically and the group’s maturing process is driven underground, particularly the ‘storming’ stage. |
|When this occurs you have the backstage covert politicking, the hidden agendas, the abuse of negative power. In other words, the storming, not |
|culturally acceptable in the open, goes on all the same but often in a much more disruptive manner, concealed under the heading of performance, but|
|subverting that performance. |
| |
|Box 6. For ‘self’ or for ‘group’ |
|Fouriezos, Hutt and Guetzhow studied the effects of low ‘group task motivation’ upon group productivity in the seventy-two conference groups in the|
|Conference Research Project of the University of Michigan. The groups were rated on the extent to which the members expressed self-oriented needs, |
|i.e. motives resulting in behaviour ‘not necessarily directed towards a group’s goals, or. . . a solution of group’s problems’ but ‘primarily |
|toward the satisfaction of the need itself, regard less of the effect on attainment of the group goal’. The experimenters found that the amount of |
|such self-orientated behaviour correlated negatively with measures of member satisfaction. In other words, groups in which there was a high |
|frequency of self-orientated behaviour were relatively dissatisfied with the meeting as a whole, with the decisions arrived at, with the procedures|
|used to reach decisions, and with the chairmanship. These ‘self-oriented’ groups were also high in the amount of conflict they exhibited. |
|Finally, measures of productivity showed significant inverse relations with amount of self-oriented behaviour. For example, groups rated high on |
|such behaviour tended to complete fewer items on the agenda, although their meetings lasted longer. |
|Abridged from Fouriezos, Hutt and Guetzhow, ‘Measurement of self- oriented needs in discussion groups’, I. Abnormal Soc. Psych. |
| |
| |
|Whether a particular group needs to be fully mature to do its job will, of course, depend on the importance of that job. In many instances the cost|
|of developing a group to maturity, in sheer time, the displacement of other priorities, the displacement of other groups in importance to the |
|individuals, will not be worth the increased gain in effectiveness. But in many instances — the start-up of a new operation for the top management |
|team, or a new group resulting from a re-organization — it is worth spending time specifically to build a group. Many organizations now recognize |
|the benefits in doing this. There are known techniques built around the theories of Group Dynamics which can help. Essentially these techniques |
|help the group to analyse and improve its ‘process’, as opposed to its work on particular tasks, and to hasten its maturity by focusing |
|specifically on each of the stages of development. Process consultation, T-groups, Coverdale training are some of these techniques. |
|(Handy 1985) |
| |

The impact of knowledge about aspects of personal learning style on team effectiveness.

Pauline Hunt and Liz Beaty
Reproduced with permission from Gibbs, G. (ed.) Improving Student Learning - Through Assessment and Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development (1995)
[pic]
Introduction.
There are a great many different descriptions of individual learning styles, (Mumford, 1986) and individual style of working within groups ( Belbin, 1981). These descriptions are seen primarily as traits of the individual where their particular style will influence their approach to group tasks. Other descriptions refer more to an intentional aspect of study such as Orientation (Beaty, 1983) which is more context-dependent and implies some control by the learner. These differences are also shown to influence the outcome of learning.
This study is concerned with how awareness of these learning constructs impact on teamwork. Firstly, we wanted to test whether an awareness of learning constructs improved team-working. Secondly, we were interested to discover how far raising students’ awareness of their own orientations and styles, as identified by inventories etc., would influence their learning about teamwork. Thirdly, we wondered which constructs about learning would be most useful to students in understanding teamwork.
The aim of the case study was therefore twofold; to identify how to create favourable conditions for effective working teams and concurrently to identify the impact of raising awareness of learning constructs on learning about team-working.
Research Approach
Improving student learning in groups is a complex task and one that does not sit easily with the intention to advance our knowledge about how students learn. Advances in knowledge about how students learn must take account of complex contextual issues. Theoretical descriptions of styles of learning do not in themselves imply a use. How does a teacher use a knowledge of learning differences to enable students to learn most effectively? Should we test for learning styles and then offer carefully tailored teaching events to match? Should we only take students who have similar learning styles and approaches to our own or our preferred ones? Should we offer so much choice in our teaching and learning environment so that students can opt for that which is consistent with their style? This last suggestion is getting closer to our position and yet it assumes students are able to make appropriate choices and that we have the resources to make it available.
Raising student's awareness is, in our view, fundamental to enhanced learning. When students are aware of their own tendencies and their preferred approaches; when they are clear about their needs and wishes for learning, they are likely to make better strategic choices within the opportunities that are offered to them (Boud, 1988).
In relation to teamwork, awareness of different styles may be important in learning about how teams work. In addition, learning about their own individual learning through these constructs may enhance their learning about how they individually work within teams. Reflection is an important part of learning from experience (Boud, et al., 1985; Warner Weil and McGill, 1989) and awareness is key to this reflection. In addition to awareness raising through reflection on what happened is an awareness based on ideas. This conceptual awareness, we argue, enhances effective reflection leading to learning: we need to reflect on what happened and then be able to thematize what happened with the aid of concepts and models. It is possible for concepts and models of learning to be generated by the group, generalizing from their own learning experience. We believe, however, that conceptual frameworks already existing in the literature are useful as catalysts for effective learning.
We have taken an approach to the case study which could be seen as action research. This approach to educational research has been recommended by Gibbs (1992) and Zuber-Skerritt (1992) as a way of improving teaching while generating knowledge about how students learn. As such it is an approach consistent with our needs to focus primarily on these particular students and their learning while learning from it to enhance and improve our future teaching. The results remain tentative rather than clearly conclusive. This report aims at a rich description which allows understanding of the complex situation. Teachers may learn from it in so far as they can empathize with it. Researchers may learn from it as far as it provides a case study of use of concepts within a particular setting. As usual with research this report will raise more questions than it answers.
Background to the Study
In the construction industry many activities are carried out in project teams. Hence, the MSc course in Construction Management, run at the University of Brighton, actively encourages student group learning and team development.
This chapter examines a group of 16 part-time MSc Construction Management students who currently work full time for the same large construction company. They were commencing their first year of study, on a two-year course. In the first two months of the course they attended two five-day residentials, at a local hotel. The first residential was an introduction to study skills and personal development, and their second was concerned with people management. The case study was carried out by one of us (Pauline Hunt) who is a member of the MSc staff course team.
The aim of this part of the course was to create favourable conditions for effective learning teams, so that they would accomplish far more than the sum of the efforts of individuals. I believed that considerable educational benefit could be derived by deliberately making students aware of their own Belbin preferred team roles, and their Kolb preferred approaches to learning and their Orientation to study. I expected that the students heightened awareness of themselves and others would lead to more effective support of one another and create more efficient team process working.
The First Residential
During the first residential I welcomed the students onto the course and ran an informal workshop on student learning expectations. This workshop gave the students an opportunity to discuss with one another the reasons why they had chosen to study for the MSc in Construction Management, and the various hopes they had concerning what they each wanted to get out of the course. During this workshop Beaty's orientation typology (1983) was completed by each student. The results of this typology were not made known to the students at this stage.
During a later seminar session with the students I discussed the various approaches to learning that students could adopt. I asked them to complete a Kolb's learning style inventory (1984). After they had completed the inventory we discussed their results and what implications these may have on their approaches to learning and studying. The students seemed to enjoy discovering what their preferred learning style was and comparing it to their colleagues. It emerged that some of the participants had completed a Kolb's inventory before, on an in-house course, but on that occasion they had not been informed about what each style meant! They had merely been given the label without any discussion about the significance. Those participants were particularly interested to see any shifts in their learning style.
A training manager from the company joined the course team on the third day of the residential. He was writing a PhD on 'Effective Teams in the Construction Industry', and was therefore very keen to lead a seminar and workshop on team-building skills. He encouraged the students to participate in brainstorming sessions to discover what they thought a group and a team was. They were then asked to discuss the differences between groups and teams, and to debate, with reference to their own work experience, what they considered was an effective team. This session worked well, as these students really appreciated the opportunity to participate fully, and in some ways 'drive' the workshop session.
After lunch, we shared the seminar session, which aimed to develop the students' awareness of themselves as team players and also to develop their awareness of others within the team. The seminar focused on team processes and development. After these discussions, students were asked to complete Belbin's self- awareness inventory (1981) to discover their preferred team roles.
The students spent some time analysing the results of their own Belbin preferred team role. Some students seemed to take on board their type description wholeheartedly, others seemed to doubt the reliability of the inventory, and a few seemed disappointed, and would rather have been identified as another type. An example of this was where one student was classified as a Team worker, but really she wanted to be a Chair, this desired type was her lowest score! This is an interesting phenomenon. It suggests another dimension along which learners can be affected by a raised awareness of concepts about learning.
The students were then asked to arrange themselves into three groups for a fairly simple negotiation exercise. Interestingly, they choose to group themselves according to their Belbin types. Despite a few cynics, the students in general seemed to accept that teams with a balanced diversity of Belbin types would be more effective.
The First Team Exercise
A fairly straightforward negotiation exercise was distributed to the three student groups. Each group ws instructed to have an observer to record the team's process of working on this exercise. They were given one hour and a half to work together, before the full class re-assembled to hear the individual groups comment on their progress, and their observers comments.
The observers' comments on the group processes were quite enlightening. For example, Group 1's observer commented that the whole group was a good mix of people with no one dominant personality. He stressed that everyone chipped in and that they were all very conscious of process and behaviour. The group members commented that the Belbin types were useful for discussion, to get to know team members' strengths and weaknesses. This information was used actively in the negotiation exercise, when one opposing team member address a group one member and said 'What's your offer?' This question was posed very early on in the negotiation exercise, and when the group discovered that the questioner was a Shaper, the group then decided to take a recess and discuss 'What's really the question?'
Group 2's observer commented that the group deliberately considered who was best suited for the negotiation roles. They decided that the Chair should adopt a listener, questioner, non-aggressive role, and the rest of the team should be more aggressive. The team members thought that it was a useful exercise to look at styles, because they then had the benefit of choosing the right person for the lead and for summarizing and for closing the deal at each stage fo the negotiation process.
They concluded that knowing your own role is important - but knowing who you are negotiating with is even more important: if you know your adversary you can match the the best person to meet and negotiate with them. They observed that it is best to select a team member who could respond to the weaknesses of the style of management over the table. For example, 'If you were facing an aggressive shaper, you need to use someone good listening skills, who is patient and will not short fuse and throw petrol over the situation, but at the same time, still stand their ground' (Group 2 team member).
Group 3's observer remarked on the importance of knowing the person you are working with, and suggested that if the relationship was already good it makes all the difference. The team expressed the view that high performing teams do not happen overnight - Belbin and self-awareness more generally can speed up the learning stage, but high-performing teams need maturity.
This last sentiment is interesting, because as well as improving thinking and learning skills, the course team believed that deliberately making students aware of aspects of their learning, and in particular their Belbin preferred team role would increase the effectiveness of team development. If we consider the development of the team process as being composed of the stages of: forming, storming, norming and performing, we believed that the teams may be facilitated into the norming stage almost immediately. This has the effect of reducing the sometimes painful storming phase, and shortens the time necessary to get the teams to perform effectively.
In general all the teams reported that the tangible result, i.e. the deal the reached with each other in the final negotiation stage, had been an acceptable one, and the exercise was seen to have been a useful learning experience.
The Second Team Exercise
In the second residential concerning people management, the course team wanted to develop further effective student team working. A rather complex strategic management brief, relating to a large construction company, was distributed to the same three team groupings of students. The students were asked to work together, in their separate teams, during set working periods over three days. Their task was to put together a convincing verbal presentation, to the company's Board of Directors. This presentation was to cover the devising of an appropriate strategic plan for the Directors to consider. All three groups were given identical briefs, and asked not just to concentrate on the project tasks, demanded of the groups, but also to pay attention to the process of team working.
As well as working on the project brief, students were expected to attend some complementary workshops on management theory and team building. During this time they were reminded of their Belbin's preferred team roles, and Kolb's preferred styles of learning. I also asked them all to complete another Beaty's orientation typology. This time I fully discussed what the results of this typology meant, and the students were interested to discover any changes that may have occurred since they last completed the typology, one month previously.
During the time that the three groups were given to work together on their project brief, the course team periodically visited each group. On these facilitating visits, the staff actively encouraged each group to develop their process aims, as distinct from satisfying the brief's content aims. It was noticeable that there was a developing of diverse relationships within every group. Students in all groups tended to be choosing what they wanted out of the learning experience. Some groups were voluntarily putting in a 16-hour working day, often working until after midnight to prepare for the next day.
When asked for assistance by individual groups, I acted as a facilitator, questioning and reflecting back what I observed or heard. I later thought that the students would benefit from actually seeing themselves working together in groups. Following discussions with the students, it was agreed that each group would be videotaped for approximately two hours while working on the brief, and all three final presentations would also be videotaped.
From watching the videotapes and observing groups in action, I could detect that there were critical incidents within each of the groups, which, although they were completely different, seemed to help move the group to the performing stage of their development. For example, Group 1 successfully managed a very aggressive situation, involving two individuals of different workplace rank. Essentially, an aggrieved middle manager was criticizing a senior manager for completely monopolizing the group discussions. This situation was highly emotional, but managed fairly successfully by the group. The group members persuaded the two not to come to physical blows. A lengthy discussion then followed which increased self-awareness and identified new choices of behaviour for the group members concerned. This resolution of conflict meant that the group was moved on to the performing stage.
In this critical event, other individuals within the group took responsibility for helping those two dissenting members to adapt in order to successfully execute the set task, i.e. the management project. Despite obvious difficulties the aggrieved member and the senior manager began to attempt to see the situation through each other's eyes, in order to resolve issues and reach a new understanding. A wonderful throwaway line came from one of the members in the group: 'Goodness John, I did not know you were such an Activist.' This incident did, however, enable the group to undertake the project successfully, and incidentally score the highest mark!
The Debrief
A couple of weeks passed before I was able to give students a debriefing session. This was held at the very beginning of their third residential concerning procurement procedures. My input was to provide feedback from my observations of the videotapes taken of each group working together and giving their presentations.
I made it clear from the outset that my own view of what was happening was just that, an interpretation. I informed the students that I was also interested in their own individual perceptions of what it was like working together in a group. In particular, I was interested in whether they believed that my deliberately increasing their awareness of their Belbin team roles, Kolb's preferred learning styles and Beaty's orientation types, had influenced the way they worked together on the management brief.
Following my very general feedback, I asked the group members to complete individually a detailed questionnaire (see Appendix 2). This questionnaire asked students to comment upon the degree of impact/influence they thought their awareness of each individual learning construct had over their group process.
The groups seemed energized by my feedback and were keen to complete the questionnaire, which formed the basis for subsequent discussions. The responses to the questionnaire questions were very diverse. For example, a member from Group 3 commenting on his awareness of his learning style, stated:
'I do not think I have worked as I should have done, mainly because I had trouble motivating myself during the session. I believe that later on my style was reflected.'
This answer clearly demonstrates the importance of other influences on the learning process, notably lack of motivation. On the other hand, in the same group an individual comments, 'I am a theorist and made a point of studying the text we had to work with - I knew I had to be the role of reader.'
The subsequent discussion with Group 3 revealed far more about the group process. It reinforced my impression that the learning process is also shaped by an array of emotional processes, including anger, frustration, impatience, confusion, anxiety and occasional satisfaction!
One individual from Group 3 actively took advantage of the debrief session, to speak about his discomfort with the relationship he had with the other individuals in this group. He was very aggressive towards the group members, suggesting that he was made to feel isolated because he was the only 'personal intrinsic' member in the group. In his opinion the other group members orientation - all being 'vocationally extrinsic' - was the major reason why he was prevented from being able to make a successful contribution to the group process. His general remark on his questionnaire read: 'You have observed aggression in the debrief as I have particularly tried to illustrate it.'
The individuals he was criticizing responded to his attack and were clearly quite upset that they had ignored his frustration and annoyance with them throughout the management exercise. They all expressed regret at not listening or paying attention to his contributions, and felt that they had probably all missed out as a group for not doing so. One of these members added that it was only now, at this debrief, that he felt 'real learning' had taken place. The aggrieved member later privately requested to the course team, never to be placed in this grouping again. He added that he felt more at peace following the debrief, and stated that he felt that this was his most powerful learning experience on the course so far.
However, I am clear that some individuals did leave the debrief session with some unresolved issues. For example, in Group 1, a member stated that the debrief session 'made me realise I can be pushy and susceptible to criticism, I did not like it. I always thought I was easy-going, which I suppose I am not. Does that mean I am an actor?'
More positively, a contradiction for another member in Group 1 was resolved. Here the group member was wrongly informed by another (on video!), 'You should be acting like a Plant!' When his Belbin type was actually a Shaper/Chair! This contradiction was evident by his responses on his questionnaire, for example 'I tried to behave as a "Plant" but found it very difficult to restrain myself from being more assertive in my contribution', and again he wrote, 'As a Plant - I think I was restrained forcibly.'
His confusion was lifted when I explained the misunderstanding, and he was able to justify his feelings of frustration and conflict.
In Group 2, there was general dissatisfaction that the group did not score high marks on the presentation. It was revealed by the group members that they had been acting to safeguard members in their group from failing the residential assessment. The situation was that there were three members of that group that had not delivered presentations successfully, and needed to do so if they were to be allowed to remain on the course. As one member responded on his questionnaire, 'all our self-awareness concerning team roles and learning styles went out of the window . . . the over-riding factor was of ensuring three team members were helped to make presentations', and another statement from another group member stated that - for the betterment of the team - 'I decided to withdraw and let others (the three concerned) take on tasks that they did not usually get on with.'
When the assessment evaluation placed this team in second place, they felt cheated. Group 2 felt that they should have been the 'favourites' to score the highest marks on the presentation. They had the most senior manager in their group, and had regularly worked until after midnight on their project. It seemed fairly clear that following this debrief they would modify their behaviour in another team setting. However, working through their frustrations, resolved many issues for the members, particularly the guilt felt by the three presenters who felt they owed their 'stay on the course' due to the sacrifice of the other group member's overall marks. A couple of group members stated that this debrief session had made the sacrifice worthwhile, and on reflection felt that they had gained the most insights into their group processes at this debriefing session. The three presenters offered to buy me a drink!
Discussion
The major observation is that students appear to be able to learn from reviewing and reflecting on their own experiences, particularly through the relative safety of a debriefing session. The MSc students were invited to reflect on their team working experience, prompted by my evaluation of the team work recorded on video. This session encouraged discussion and the completion of a questionnaire, where groups relived parts of their experience in a private supportive environment.
Most students seemed fairly at ease, giving and receiving feedback in an informal discussion setting. It was here where all of them felt they had benefited the most from the group exercises. It was recognized that just to experience team working was not enough, the students were so deeply involved in the experience itself that they were unable to step back and reflect upon what they were doing. The debriefing session gave them the opportunity to do just that. It addressed the fundamental questions of - what happened? How did you feel? How important was your awareness of your learning style etc. In particular the discussion revolved around the 'there and then' and I feel seemed far less risky to the students than would have been the case, if the discussion was focused on the 'here and now'.
The debriefing session seemed more powerful because I was reflecting back from a position of involvement, I felt part of the discovery process. I was not commenting from a position of detachment, or speaking with 'expert judgement'. It seemed very important to allow time for students to be able to integrate their learning experiences. The feedback I was offering was in the service of the learner, each student felt able to accept or reject the information, and this became the basis for subsequent discussion, which was felt to be fruitful for all concerned.
However, within the feedback session, it became apparent that individual group members had differing perceptions of events, particularly over causes of conflict and progress within the group working experience. It is worth remembering that facilitator and student accounts of what happened are only perceptions of reality, and these have obviously strong subjective dimensions.
Many students were unsure about whether my deliberate attempts to increase their awareness of different aspects of their learning, actually influenced their behaviour or group process, although most stated that the preferred Belbin team role was the most important influence on their group role/behaviour. However, by discussing the outcomes of process, the awareness of different aspects of their learning actually served to engage the students in the process of analysing and evaluating their individual and group learning processes. Many claimed to be thinking about how they learn, in the debriefing session, for the first time in their lives!! My role was therefore transformed into helping students make sense out of their learning experiences.
This case study proved to be a process of experiential learning for me as well as for the students. My interaction with the students was fairly intensive and most felt that the powerful learning experience of the debrief occurred because of the interactions between group members and myself. The students commented that during the debrief, they were able to make more sense of the differences in individual perceptions concerning group processes, among group members. The students stated that they felt they had all realized a common understanding of the learning process, and this was the main source of satisfaction for them all.
Conclusion.
It is inappropriate to suggest prescriptive generalizations from a specific case study experience. However, we feel able to offer a set of suggestions for how to improve student learning awareness about process. They are: 1. It is important to use the constructs in forming groups. It would not be sufficient just to inform participants of the information, they need to be able to see it in action. This is probably why most students reported that the Belbin preferred team role had the most influence on their behaviour. 2. It is advisable to use a rich array of learning constructs, as this gives more self- awareness and peer awareness than just using one at a time. The study shows how individuals chose to focus on one construct rather than another, and this may change over time. Facilitators should impart information in the service of learners, it is then up to them whether they believe, or use it. An array of constructs provides the information that can enhance the learning experience. 3. Feedback from facilitators, and observers in groups, during the group work tasks, seems to be very important. This needs to be given sufficient time slots in the course programme for students. It can become the focus for discussion, and may serve to legitimise group participants own observations in a relatively 'safe environment'. In this case study it promoted healthy debate and discussion among students. 4. An appropriately timed debrief session is an essential learning experience for all participants. It is important for a debrief session to be divorced from the task. It is also useful to debrief students after any assessment has taken place.
Once an assessment has taken place (in this case the residential assessment had already been completed, some two weeks earlier) participants are able to speak more freely, as they feel they have less to lose. Also, by allowing some time to pass before the debrief session, it seems safer for the participants to discuss the 'there and then', and how they may do things differently in the 'here and now'! It also serves to heighten the students' critical awareness and judgement.
The fundamental conclusion about the debrief session is that this session gives the students the opportunity to reflect, discuss and write about their learning experience and, arguably, this is where real learning occurs. Students are able to relive the experience and form their own individual and group understanding that is personal and relevant.
Suggestions 3 and 4 really hinge on the ability of the facilitator to identify and develop the necessary interventions to help individuals learn and change. Facilitators need to have the necessary temperament and intuition to apply feedback and debriefing sessions successfully, and at appropriate times. These sessions may generate controversy, and/or uncertainty, so it is essential that the facilitator plans carefully the nature and frequency of interventions in the learning process.
Research Conclusions
The case study was carried out with the aim of deliberately increasing the awareness of aspects of student learning. The question underlying the case study was asking which aspect would be more useful for the students to learn and understand about group processes. This case study has demonstrated that this is the wrong question to ask. It is not so much the information you make available to the student to increase their awareness, but what they choose to use. Individuals differ as to what they find useful. It is the reflection time and the debrief where many students realize, sometimes for the first time, that they have gained significantly out of being aware of their individual learning constructs and participating in the group exercises. This is because they are using their learning processes as the focus of reflection and critical debate. This is the point at which the students move beyond reflection on what happened to reflection about what it signified; a thematic learning outcome. This could be seen as a 'deep approach' to reflection in Marton and Saljo's terms (1984).
Important research questions are raised by this case study, which merit further investigation. For example, arising from the use of the learning constructs: what is the importance of student acceptance, rejection (or disappointment) of the categories in which they find themselves? In essence, does it matter whether the results of the instruments are accurate? A further concern may be whether the student by continually reflecting on say, the Belbin team role construct, ends up fulfilling the expectations of this team role? If there is a danger of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy', how can we use the learning constructs to mitigate against this occurrence happening? Finally, how far do already existing conceptual frameworks enhance learning from reflection, more than self-generated ones?
We are left with further questions about the nature of the link between experiential learning, reflection and knowledge about learning. In particular, this case study (in its current stage) cannot answer the question about the longevity or transferability of the students' learning. The students worked very intensively throughout the residentials. Our concern is whether the speed at which their learning takes place lessens its potential lasting effect. In addition, the artificial conditions present in the residential environment raise doubts about whether the students will be able to transfer their learning to their workplace.
It would be interesting to follow the individuals and the group into further activities involving teams to find out more about what they have learnt about teamwork, about themselves as learners and about themselves within teams and how this affects their development of skill within teams. It would also be interesting to examine whether the students feel that they have been able to use their learning in their day-to-day working environment.
References
Beaty, E. (1983). Orientations to Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Surrey.
Belbin, M. (1981). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. Heinemann.
Boud, D. (ed.) (1988). Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. Kogan Page.
Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (eds.) (1985). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. Kogan Page.
Bligh, D. (ed.) (1986). Teach Thinking by Discussion. SRHE and NFER, Nelson.
Clark, N. (1991). Managing Personal Learning and Change. McGraw-Hill.
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning. TES.
Jacques, D. (1984). Learning in Groups. Croom Helm.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to Learning. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.) The Experience of Learning. Scottish Academic Press.
Morgan, A. (1993). Improving your Students' Learning, Reflections of the Experience of Study. Kogan Page.
Mumford, A. (ed.) (1986). Handbook of Management Development. Gower.
Warner Weil, S. and McGill, I. (ed.) (1989). Making Sense of Experiential Learning; Diversity in Theory and Practice. SRHE and OUP.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action Research in Higher Education - Examples and Reflections. Kogan Page. [pic]

APPENDICES

[pic]

APPENDIX 1

STUDENT ORIENTATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE

Please allocate a TOTAL of 10 points across the Aims displayed in the table below.
STUDENT ORIENTATIONS EXPLANATORY TABLE |Aims |Concerns |
|Training |Relevance of course to future career |
|Qualification |Recognition of worth of qualification |
|Following intellectual interest |Room to choose stimulating lectures |
|Educational progression |Grades, academic progress |
|Broadening or self-improvement |Challenge, interesting material |
|Compensation or proof of capability |Passing course, feedback |
| Having a good time |Facilities for sport and social activities |

This table represents a very simplified version of the categorisation of orientational types which was originally developed from a longitudinal interview study over three years. The most reliable to gain an understanding of a students orientation is, in our view through an in-depth individual interview. In this case however a number of different ideas were being used with students to raise their awareness of aspects of their learning. This version of the description of types of orientations was therefore developed for this particular context.
While orientation types themselves may seem fairly obvious, the distinction between intrinsic interest and extrinsic interest variants of the orientation is crucial. This distinction refers to whether the course content is directly involved in the students gaining what they want from study or not. So that for students who are vocationally orientated some are interested in the content of the course (intrinsic interest) while others mainly interested in the outcome qualification (extrinsic interest). In this latter case their interest in the content is spurious or coincidental. The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic interest therefore greatly affects their wish to engage with the subjects of study and alters the nature of their concerns in giving feedback on their experience of learning.

|Orientation |Interest |Aim |Concerns |
|Vocational |Intrinsic |Training |Relevance of course to future career |
| |Extrinsic |Qualification |Recognition of worth of qualification |
|Academic |Intrinsic |Following |Room to choose intellectual interest, |
| |Extrinsic |Educational |stimulating lectures |
| | | |Grades, academic progression, progress |
|Personal |Intrinsic |Broadening or self-improvement |Challenge, interesting material |
| |Extrinsic |Compensation or proof of capability |Passing course, |
| | | |feedback |
|Social |Extrinsic |Having a good time |Facilities for sport and social activities |

APPENDIX 2

INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: ...........................
Learning Style: ........................
Belbin: .......................
Orientation: .......................
Please answer the questions below relating to the Group project experience, try to answer each question as fully as possible:
1. General Introductory Question
Reflecting back on Group xxx group process; what impact/influence do you think the seminars concerning effective groups and teams had upon Group xxx decision- making processes?
2. Learning Style Question
What effect do you think that your awareness of your own learning style affected the way in which YOU worked in the group?
3. Learning Style Question
What effect do you think that your awareness of your own learning style affected the working of the group as a whole?
4. Belbin Group Role Question
Reflecting on the group processes again, what effect do you think that your awareness of your Belbin team type role affected the way YOU worked in the Group?
5. Belbin Group Role Question
What effect do you think that your awareness of your Belbin team type role affected the working of the group as a whole?
6. Student Orientations Question
On reflection, what impact did the knowledge of your own learning orentation have on the way YOU worked in the group?
7. Student Orientation Question
What impact did the knowledge of your own learning orientation affect the working of the group as a whole?
8. Priority Question
Out of the three aspects of learning you are aware of - Learning Style, Belbin Team Type Role and Learning Orientations - which do you think had the most impact on the group process?
9. Evaluation Question
Did these three aspects of learning - Learning Style, Belbin Team Type Role and Learning Orientation - reinforce one another, or were there contradictions?
Was your learning style interfering with the team role prescribed by the Belbin test?
Was your learning orientation at odds with your Belbin team role?
Please write any other comments about your group working experience which you consider to be important.
OCSLD Publications
[pic]
http://www.city.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/ocsd-pubs/islass-hunt.html accessed 9-8-06

Cartwright, R. (2002). Mastering Team Leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Handy, C. (1985). Understanding Organizations. London: Penguin.