Belbin Team Role

Further evidence concerning Self-perception

the Belbin Team Role Self- Inventory

perception Inventory
61
Stephen G. Fisher, W.D.K. Macrosson and Gillian Sharp
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Introduction
In an extensive survey of middle management[1] it was reported that, in the UK,
middle managers anticipated more of their work being undertaken in teams
than is presently the practice. Indeed, in that survey, sponsored by the British
Institute of Management, it was suggested that the possession of good team-
working skills will soon become a precondition for entry to the ranks of
management rather than an added bonus that some managers bring to their job.
Given the importance that employers currently appear to accord to team
performance, the validity and the reliability of the instruments employed to
gauge team potential, in particular the Belbin Team Role Self-perception
Inventory (BTRSPI), is now a matter of significance.
An assessment of the BTRSPI has appeared[2] which has questioned its
psychometric properties and cast doubt on the ability of the inventory to
provide a reliable measure of team role preferences. In a series of experiments
using not only subjects drawn from university courses, but also subjects drawn
from the ranks of full time managers, Furnham et al.[2] calculated from the
ipsative as well as the non-ipsative form of the questionnaire values for
Cronbach’s alpha (the statistic most widely accepted[3] as the best measure of
internal consistency). They found the alpha coefficients “not impressive” and
judged that the factor analysis results did not provide clear evidence of the
proposed team role structure. In his reply to the doubts voiced by Furnham et
al.[2], Belbin[4] has criticized their departure from the recommended method of
scoring the BTRSPI and, furthermore, has criticized the creation by Furnham
and his co-workers of their own “de-ipsativized” version of the BTRSPI. Indeed,
Belbin[4], in his reply to Furnham et al.[2], protests that the BTRSPI was never
intended to be a formal psychometric test and was meant only to be “a quick
and useful way of intimating to readers what their own team roles might be”.
The readers of Belbin’s first book[5], however, appear to have used the BTRSPI
as an established psychometric test. This is not particularly surprising in light
of Dulewicz’s[6] report that the BTRSPI was designed in order to attempt to
measure an individual’s team role scores without recourse to psychometric
instruments. Our experience aligns closely with that of Furnham et al.[7], who
have certain knowledge that a number of commercial organizations and
management consultancies use it not only in training courses, but in actual Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 2,
1996, pp. 61-67. © MCB
team building and development. University Press, 0048-3486
Personnel In view of the unresolved differences between Furnham et al.[7] and Belbin [4,8]
Review it appeared that further evidence on reliability and validity would be helpful.
25,2 Also, Furnham et al.[4] had noted that the relatively small samples in their
experiments meant that part of their results may well have been unstable. As the
test-retest reliability of the BTRSPI appears not to have been described in the
literature, we undertook to examine it for a sample of university students; this was
62 the first part of our study.
In the second part we examined the team role scores derived from a different
instrument. Belbin[5], in his original experiments, had employed several
dimensions of the 16PF as predictors of each team role and had evolved a method
for combining the 16PF scores to obtain team role scores; the equations for
calculating these scores are available in the open literature[6,9,10]. Thus, by
collecting the 16PF profiles, we were in a position to examine the closeness of the
match of team roles derived from the BTRSPI with those derived from 16PF data.
The results of that comparison are also given in this paper.

Method
A total of 149 undergraduate and 43 postgraduate students drawn from the
faculties of business, engineering and science at the University of Strathclyde
completed Cattell’s 16PF Personality Questionnaire, Form A[11] and Belbin’s[5]
Team Role Self-perception Inventory (BTRSPI). The students were all members
of classes taught by one of the research team and were told that they were
helping an enquiry into team roles. They were given the chance not to
participate, but none withdrew. They were not told at the first administration
that the Belbin Self-perception Inventory would be re-administered at a later
date. No feedback was given until all the field work had been completed. Seven
months later, 103 of these students, undergraduates only, completed the Self-
perception Inventory for a second time, the other 89 subjects having graduated
and left the university. The 16PF was administered only at the first round;
subjects were not asked to complete the 16PF at the retest administration
because data are available[12] to indicate that 16PF profiles are stable over
similar and longer periods. Test-retest reliability coefficients were calculated for
each of the eight team roles measured by the BTRSPI. Similarly, a test-retest
reliability coefficient for each individual item in the inventory was obtained.
Values for Cronbach’s alpha were calculated for each of the team roles for both
the test and the retest sets of data. The values for alpha were compared with
those published in the literature[2] by means of Friedman’s two-way analysis of
variance on the ranked data. Finally, using the 16 PF data, team role scores were
computed[10] and then used to calculate the correlation coefficients with the
team role scores derived from the BTRSPI data.

Results
The test-retest reliabilities and the associated probability levels for each of the
items in the Self-perception Inventory are shown in Table I. The coefficients of
reliability of individual items ranged from 0.17 to 0.58, for the 48 correlations
 Belbin Team Role
I II III IV V VI VII
Self-perception
SH 32* 64* 35* 44* 48* 37* 53* Inventory
TW 44* 44* 36* 38* 42* 31* 34*
CF 28* 37* 22* 37* 18* 57* 41*
ME 28* 58* 40* 26* 31* 41* 04* 63
PL 33* 17* 44* 54* 31* 48* 24*
CW 17* 22* 25* 35* 43* 09* 16*
RI 08 35* 17* 38* 10* 08* 45*
CH 16 21* 35* 33* 15* 43* 20*

Notes:
* p ≤ 0.05 (one-tailed); n = 103
Table I.
Roman numerals at column heads correspond to the items in the Belbin Self-perception Test-retest reliability
Inventory. Decimal points omitted from the reliability coefficients in the table coefficients for each
Team roles: SH = shaper; TW = team worker; CF = completer-finisher; ME = monitor-evaluator; item in the Belbin
PL = plant; CW = company worker or implementor; RI = resource investigator; CH = chairman Self-perception Inventory
or co-ordinator for team roles

which reached a level of statistical significance of p ≤ 0.05 (one-tailed). The

values for Cronbach’s alpha and for the test-retest reliabilities which had been
computed from our data are shown in Table II. For the initial administration of
the test the values of alpha range from 0.01 to 0.66; for the test re-administration
the values of alpha ranged from 0.24 to 0.61. The test-retest reliability
coefficients ranged from 0.32 to 0.68 with a median value of 0.45. The Friedman

Alphas
Team type Test Test re-administration Furnham Test-retest reliability

SH 0.66 0.61 0.71 0.68

TW 0.42 0.50 0.56 0.60
CF 0.40 0.43 0.53 0.47
ME 0.32 0.25 0.47 0.45
PL 0.38 0.46 0.40 0.45
CW 0.16 0.37 0.35 0.35
CH 0.17 0.24 0.33 0.33
RI 0.01 0.39 0.34 0.32

Notes: Table II.

Team roles: SH = shaper; TW = team worker; CF = completer-finisher; ME = monitor-evaluator; Internal reliability
PL = plant; CW = company worker or implementor; RI = resource investigator; CH = chairman (Cronbach’s alpha)
or co-ordinator and test-retest reliability
Also shown are the values for Cronbach’s alpha reported by Furnham et al.[2] coefficients
Personnel two-way analysis of variance by ranks on the values of Cronbach’s alpha shown
Review in Table II gave the following values for χ2: test/retest/Furnham, χ2 = 7.75,
25,2 df = 2, p = 0.021; test/retest, χ2 = 2.00, df = 1, p = ns; test/Furnham, χ2 = 8.00,
df = 1, p = 0.005; retest/Furnham, χ2 = 0.50, df = 1, p = ns. The correlation
coefficients obtained when the Belbin team role scores (calculated from the
16PF data) were correlated with the team role scores from the BTRSPI are
64 shown in Table III.

Cattell’s 16PF Belbin Self-perception Inventory

CW CH SH PL RI ME TW CF

CW –35* –03* –17* –20* –23* –05 –06 –31*

CH –11* –15* –06* –18* –11* –01 –19 –10*
SH –22* –05* –16* –08* –13* –16 –01 –05*
PL –13* –06* –05* –17* –02* –05 –04 –10*
RI –15* –20* –28* –19* –14* –06 –21 –21*
ME –31* –15* –19* –04* –17* –02 –07 –15*
Table III. TW –12* –15* –18* –16* –02* –04 –06 –02*
Coefficients of CF –13* –12* –11* –07* –17* –09 –02 –29*
correlation between
team roles measured
Notes:
by Belbin’s Team
Role Self-perception p ≤ 0.05 (one-tailed)
Inventory (BTRSPI) Team roles: SH = shaper; TW = team worker; CF = completer-finisher; ME = monitor-evaluator;
and calculated from PL = plant; CW = company worker or implementor; RI = resource investigator; CH = chairman
Cattell’s 16PF or co-ordinator

Discussion
Test-retest reliabilities
The test-retest reliabilities have here been calculated from the original ipsative
form of the BTRSPI. The claims made by Saville and Willson[13] that
individuals can be as validly compared on a scale-by-scale basis on ipsative as
normative, that ipsative data can be factor analysed legitimately and that
neither reliabilities nor validities appear to be overestimated have re-energized
the ipsative versus normative data debate and have drawn adverse criticism[14].
Doubts expressed regarding the Saville and Willson[13] claims may lead
readers to conclude that the use of scores derived from ipsative questionnaires
for the calculation of reliabilities is universally unsound. However, using such
scores for the purposes of intra-individual comparisons has been found
legitimate[15] and is confirmed by Cronbach in personal correspondence[13].
The reliability coefficients obtained from the test-retest data are shown in
Table I and clearly signal a lack of stability over the seven months between the
first and second administrations. This result is perhaps not surprising in view
of the criticisms of Furnham et al.[2], but the size of the reliability coefficients Belbin Team Role
does prompt the question as to whether Belbin’s[4,8] objective for the BTRSPI is Self-perception
achieved. Inventory
In addition to high test-retest reliability, internal consistency is essential for
the validity of tests[15]. In this regard, Furnham et al.[2] have reported values
for the BTRSPI in both ipsative and “de-ipsativized” form, values which they
considered “unsatisfactory” for Cronbach’s alpha. Notwithstanding the fact 65
that the derivation of values for Cronbach’s alpha from data obtained from an
ipsative questionnaire may well be inappropriate, we have calculated these
values following the lead of Furnham et al.[2] in an effort to provide comparable
data. Our results yielded values for Cronbach’s alpha which were also well
below the level which is generally recognized as acceptable, namely 0.7, thus
confirming the results and conclusions of Furnham and his co-workers. Only
the value for the team role of “Shaper” approached that level, but, overall, the
internal consistency of the BTRSPI does not reach an acceptable level, median
values of C. 0.4 being obtained.
The majority of subjects used by Furnham et al.[2] were all full-time
employees of large, private or public organizations and were used to working in
teams, whereas the subjects used for our work were all students; our results
must always be viewed in light of this fact. Nonetheless, the Friedman analysis
of variance by ranks of the values of Cronbach’s alpha obtained by ourselves
and by Furnham et al.[2] suggested that both groups reacted similarly to the
items in the BTRSPI. This result is, perhaps, less surprising than initially might
be thought, for two reasons. Project work in teams is commonplace in the
undergraduate curriculum of the subjects used in this study and, second, the
majority of the subjects are of management calibre as is evidenced by the fact
that many of these students subsequently proceed into managerial careers.
Thus, although the sample used in our study was not drawn from practising
managers, the use of undergraduates is by no means indefensible.

Comparison of the 16PF and the Self-perception Inventory questionnaires as

sources for team role data
In his early work on team roles Belbin[5] depended substantially on the data
obtained from the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, the Cattell 16PF
questionnaire and the Personal Preference Questionnaire (a personality
questionnaire developed by the Industrial Training Unit at Cambridge, claimed
to give insight on personality complementary to the 16PF) to derive team roles.
The results of the personality questionnaires appear to have been very
important in these early determinations of team roles; indeed, one of Belbin’s co-
workers in the research claimed the 16PF to have been “a key tool”[9]. Since that
time, Belbin[8] has done much work on team roles and has expanded his model
regarding the determinants for team behaviour to embrace six separate factors
– namely, personality, mental abilities, current values and emotions, field
constraints, experience and role learning – but he still holds personality as an
important factor. Commercial publishers of personality tests, alert to Belbin’s
Personnel use of personality test data, have produced formulae for indicating Belbin team
Review roles. One of these, based on the Occupational Personality Questionnaire[16]
25,2 has been derived with the help of Belbin[8] himself; another, with the help of a
former co-worker of Belbin[17]. However, some caution needs to be exercised.
Different versions of the 16PF questionnaire give rise to different formulae for
the team role scores and users require to be alert to this complication. The
66 emergence of these formulae from a diverse variety of questionnaires and the
substantial agreement between them[6] does reinforce the importance of
personality in determining team role.
Recognizing the importance of personality in determining preference in team
role we, at the start of our work, anticipated detecting agreement between the
BTRSPI and the 16PF derived team role scores. Bearing in mind that Belbin[5]
has always maintained that team roles are obtained by combining several
measures (and in this study we have used only the personality measures) the
magnitude of the correlations were not expected to be particularly high,
although substantial values were anticipated. In the event most of the
correlations were small: shaper r = 0.16 ( p ≤ 0.05); team worker r = 0.06;
completer-finisher r = 0.29 (p ≤ 0.05); monitor-evaluator r = 0.02; plant r = 0.17
(p ≤ 0.05); company worker r = 0.35 (p ≤ 0.05); resource investigator r = 0.14
(p ≤ 0.05); chairman r = 0.15 (p ≤ 0.05). One possible explanation for this result
may lie with the poor reliabilities and alphas obtained from the Belbin Self-
perception Inventory. The one exception to these poor values was found with
the shaper team role. However, on examination of the shaper team role, the
correlation between the scores derived from the BTRSPI and from the 16PF
questionnaire was shown to be small, although statistically significant.
The failure to find the expected relationships between the team roles derived
from the BTRSPI and the 16PF data raises the question in regard to what
constructs are being accessed by each of the instruments. Furnham et al.[2]
were unable to obtain a factor structure reflecting the Belbin team model from
their study of the BTRSPI, but equally, researchers[18] have, for decades, been
unable to reproduce the complete factor structure for Cattell’s 16PF model.
Since each instrument appears less than perfect, which one gives the more
meaningful constructs? Evidence exists[6,19] to give empirical support for team
roles calculated from 16PF questionnaire data; no corresponding evidence has
appeared in the literature with regard to the BTRSPI; the balance of credibility,
thus, appears to lie with the 16PF questionnaire data team roles.

Conclusion
Two conclusions may be drawn from this study. First, our results appear to
confirm and extend the findings of Furnham and his co-workers and suggest
that parties interested in establishing their team role preference would do well
to reconsider the value of the BTRSPI as published[5] and examine the
alternatives, perhaps one of the formulae utilizing an established personality
questionnaire or the new “Interplace” system[8]. Second, this study suggests a
cause for the confusion that Dulewicz[6] has encountered among managers
(namely, variability in team roles scores from the BTRSPI which neither Belbin Team Role
correlate with those derived from personality questionnaires nor remain steady Self-perception
over time). However, since Belbin’s team role model has both intuitive appeal Inventory
and empirical support it would be a great pity if this confusion pitched his
constructs into disrepute, causing them to be set aside. More rigorous studies,
encompassing both managers and non-managers, designed to further validate
the constructs in commercial and industrial settings, would help reduce this 67
confusion as well as being welcome to personnel practitioners.

Notes and references

1. Wheatley, M., The Future of Middle Management, British Institute of Management, Corby,
1992.
2. Furnham, A., Steele, H. and Pendleton, D., “A psychometric assessment of the Belbin Team-
role Self-perception Inventory”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 66, 1993, pp. 245-57.
3. Nunnally, J.O., Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1978.
4. Belbin, R.M., “A reply to the Belbin Team-role Self-perception Inventory by Furnham,
Steele and Pendleton”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 66,
1993, pp. 259-60.
5. Belbin, R.M., Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Heinemann, London, 1981.
6. Dulewicz, V., “A validation of Belbin’s team roles from 16PF and OPQ using bosses’ ratings
of competence”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 68, 1995,
pp. 81-99.
7. Furnham, A., Steele, H. and Pendleton, D., “A response to Dr Belbin’s reply”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 66, 1993, p. 261.
8. Belbin, R.M., Team Roles at Work, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1993.
9. Mottram, R.D., “Building effective management teams using the 16PF”, in The Analysis of
Personality Research and Assessment, by Colleagues and Associates of R.B. Cattell,
Independent Assessment and Research Centre, London, 1988.
10. Fisher, S.G. and Macrosson, W.D.K., “Early influences on management team roles”, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 7, 1995, pp. 8-15.
11. IPAT, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., Champaign, IL, 1993.
12. Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M., Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing Inc., Champaign, IL, 1992.
13. Saville, P. and Willson, E., “The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative
approaches in the measurement of personality”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 64,
1991, pp. 219-38.
14. Cornell, J.M. and Dunlap, W.P., “On the questionable soundness of factoring ipsative data:
a response to Saville and Willson”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 67, 1994, pp. 89-100.
15. Hicks, L.E., “Some properties of ipsative, normative and forced-choice normative
measures”, Psychological Bulletin, 1970, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 167-84.
15. Kline, P., The Handbook of Psychological Testing, Routledge, London, 1993.
16. Saville, P., Holdsworth, R., Nyfield, G., Cramp, L. and Mabey, W., Occupational Personality
Questionnaire Manual, SHL, Esher, 1992.
17. Life, A.E., Calculating Team Role Scores from 16PF Primary Factor Sten Scores, NFER-
Nelson, Berkshire, 1993.
18. Matthews, G., “The factor structure of the 16PF: twelve primary and three secondary
factors”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 10 No. 9, 1989, pp. 931-40.