Belbin Team Role Analysis, NEAMA Project, and Project Management

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of Belbin's team role theory and its application in project management, using the NEAMA project as a case study. It begins with an overview of the Belbin team roles, outlining their contributions and potential weaknesses. The report then delves into the NEAMA project, examining the roles and behaviors of key individuals, particularly the CEO and Managing Director, and how their team role preferences influenced the project's trajectory, including its successes and ultimate failure. The report analyzes the project's dynamics, including team beginnings, social influence, and power structures, and evaluates the effectiveness of different management approaches. The analysis includes a self-perception analysis and observer perceptions, highlighting the importance of understanding individual strengths and weaknesses within a team context and emphasizing the importance of adapting leadership styles to achieve project goals. The report concludes with a discussion on the project team dynamics and the influence of various factors on the NEAMA project.

PEOPLE IN PROJECT
MANAGEMENT

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................1
BELBIN TEAM ROLE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION.........................................................1
BTRSPI REPORT AND NEAMA PROJECT SUMMARY.................................................6
TEAM ROLE BEHAVIOUR AND INFLUUENCES.........................................................10
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................11
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................13

INTRODUCTION
The report will cover research to undertake and identify personality types and personal
styles associated with various theories and models effectively. Team roles are identified and
behavioural cluster focusing on performance and design of team will be discussed in this report.
Role theory of Bilbin and concept of emerged that individual behaviour could be predicted on
the team basis will be covered. Individual characteristics at workplace and conflicting
characteristics required for a successful business operational activities and response will be
discussed in this report. Team benefits, project management and personalities combining with
right benefits which optimise the behavioural strengths to minimise weaknesses will be discussed
in this report.
TASK 1
BELBIN TEAM ROLE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
Team Role Contribution Allowable Weaknesses
Plant Creative ideas, solve difficult
problems and free thinking
environment.
Ignore incidentals and also too per-
occupied to communicate.
Resource
investigator
Enthusiastic, communicative,
outgoing, explore opportunities and
develop contacts.
Over optimistic and loses interest
once initial enthusiasm has passed.
Co-ordinator Confident, mature, identify the talents
and clarify the goals and objectives.
It can be seen as a manipulative and
offloads own work share.
Shaper Dynamic, challenging, thrives on
stress and pressure. Has also drive
and encourage to overcome obstacles.
Prone to provocation and offends
feelings of people.
Monitor
evaluator
Sober, discerning and strategic. All
the options should be analysed and
judges accurately.
Lack of drive and ability to inspire
others and can be overly critical.
Team worker Co-operative, perceptive and
diplomatic in nature. Listen to all and
Indecisive in crunch conditions and
avoid confrontation.
1

averts friction.
Implementer Reliable, effective, practical and also
turn ideas into actions and organise
the work which needs to be done.
Some what inflexible and slow also
to respond new opportunities.
Complete
finisher
Painstaking, anxious, polishes,
conscientious and perfect.
Reluctant to delegate service and
inclined to worry unduly.
Specialist Single and broad market, self
starting, dedicated, provides effective
knowledge and skills related to
supply.
Contributes only on narrow and
dwells on technicalities.
Belbin team model and theory has highly and widely regarded across the world. It can be
said that it has not come with any critics (Kerzner and Kerzner, 2017). Academics have
questioned the true validity and reliability of the Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory
(BTRSPI) as the predictive tool underpinning the theory along with criticisms relating to the
“ipsative versus normative data debate” with stating that “no strong support was found for
Belbins team role balance”. Belbins research progressed from psychometric causative testing to
assessment methods that did not rely on forcing participants to chose when considering if a
weakness existed alongside a team role strength. There are some strength and weaknesses
associated with team role.
Team Role Allowable Not allowable
Plant Practical matters ideas are rejected. Strong ownership of idea when co-
operation with others would yield
effective results.
Resource
investigator
Loss of enthusiasm once initial
excitement is passed.
Letting clients down by neglecting to
follow arrangements.
Co-ordinator An inclination to be lazy if any one
else can be found to do work.
Taking credits from the efforts of
team.
Shaper A proneness to frustration and Responsibilities to recover situation
2

tension. and good humour or apology
Monitor
evaluator
Scepticism with logic at its core Cynicism without any logics.
Team worker Indecision with important issues Avoiding conditions that may entail
pressure and tension
Implementer Adherence to the perfectionism Obstructing change
Complete finisher Perfectionism Obsessional behaviour
Specialist Acquiring knowledge Ignoring factors outside the area.
Team role overview
Percentile
100
90 Key
Completer Finisher
80 CF
TW Teamworker
70
ME Monitor Evaluator
60
CO Co-ordinator
50
IMP Implementer
40
PL Plant
30 SH Shaper
20 RI Resource Investigator
10 SP Specialist
0
CF TW ME CO IMP PL SH RI SP
Team Role
Table 1: Team role report
3

The team role report is an overview of assessment and also comparison of observer and
self perception. Analysis of team role, composition, team role preferences and manageable roles
and preferred role and feedback advertising strategies (Schwalbe, 2015).
The behavioural analysis conduct in this report on the basis of critical self reflection and
evaluation of team role and also its contribution towards project. Managing behaviour within a
team; team role strengths and possible weakness assessments; feedback and development
suggestions; and suggested work styles combining behavioural traits of the top four team roles.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
John Mikel's Self-Perception IMP CF CO ME TW SP PL RI SH
Observers:
Omar Saber RI PL SH ME CF IMP TW SP CO
Hassan Ahmed PL CF ME SH SP RI CO TW IMP
Mohammed Omer SH SP PL CO TW CF ME RI IMP
Ali Omer PL SH IMP TW ME CO RI CF SP
Observers' Overall Views PL SH CF ME TW RI CO SP IMP
Your Overall Team Role
Composition CF TW ME CO IMP PL SH RI SP
Table 2: Team role composition
SPI Obs SPI Obs SPI Obs SPI Obs SPI Obs SPI Obs SPI Obs SPI Obs SPI Obs
CF TW ME CO IMP PL SH RI SP
Team Role
Key Self-Perception (SPI) Observations (Obs)
(Percentile) (Percentile)
CF Completer Finisher 87 50
TW Teamworker 83 47
ME Monitor Evaluator 83 48
CO Co-ordinator 87 42
4

IMP Implementer 91 34
PL Plant 0 78
SH Shaper 0 69
RI Resource Investigator 0 46
SP Specialist 11 39
Table 3: Self perception analysis
NEAMA PROJECT INTRODUCTION
NEAMA Project begins with a result of conversation between CEO and engineering
apprenticeship training and managing director. The conversation describe that the current
machining apprenticeship training framework is not fitting in the purpose (Harrison and Lock,
2017). This omission put the onus entirely on the employer for CNC training taking a skilled
tradesman away from production, regarded as an unnecessary and costly burden on the company,
whilst acting as a barrier to apprenticeship recruitment perpetuating a skills shortage within the
sector.
Project start: The project will be start with MD and CEO in order to make surveys of different
engineering firms which will help to identify training and meeting needs. This will also help to
create a solution for the problem (Walker, 2015). The preferred role for CEO is a shaper that
signify the achievement of orientated behaviour and drive performances with leadership. The
CEO identify the risk factors, opportunities, skills and knowledge as well as abilities with biggest
threats in the project. A Thorpe, however the CEO delivered the presentation and chaired the
meeting performing the Shaper role. From the beginning the MD suggested involving a local
college, however the CEO disagreed as sector companies may regard the college as being part of
the problem.
The CEO identified that the team workers score is very low on SPI which should be
managed well. External and internal relationships are necessary to maintain an effective
environment. The funding body and local authorities as a natural investigator resources will be
preferred second by CEO (Heagney, 2016). A lack of preferences within these two shift the
power and influence away from CEO. Managing director who provide leverage to power within
LA negotiation. Business expansion can be done by supporting its hidden agenda effectively.
PROJECT DISENGAGEMENT
The investigation report is challenging that the CEO decided to make it public in terms of
operational, strategic and potential future partnering consideration. This will also help to
5

superseded natural shape, positioning and behaviour as a primary role (Kerzner, 2018). The CEO
before visiting all companies assess the situation and potential plans and strategies response. The
CEO will evaluate the approaches to monitor and evaluate second preferred role.
The subsequent NEAMA consider huge funding and containing essential CEO employer
engagement data confirming sector commitment, was subsequently successful securing grant
funding for NEAMA. The college approach will be used by CEO to become re-engage in project
effectively. The CEO will analyse risk factors and return analysis to demonstrate diplomacy as
opposed to provocation.
The past behaviour will be evaluated in the initial stage of re-engagement and meeting
with MD and college. Challenging the MD is a mistake and should be apologised to continue
communication and maintaining relationship with CEO (Turner, 2016). As a Monitor Evaluator,
the CEO subsequently presented his detailed analysis to his Board with a recommendation to
leverage existing power to obtain preferential re-engagement terms consisting of no financial
investment.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The NEAMA bid had been written without involving any communication process or
financial viability and operational sustainability in order to increase progress towards achieving
desired goals and objectives. As a shaper the CEO challenged steering group by providing them
suggestions regarding business plan and strategies (Fleming and Koppelman, 2016). Operational
funding needs of NEAMA while performing the role of manager. Demonstrating element of all
the provided suggested ‘work styles’ consisting of ‘cross-examining’, ‘correcting’, ‘controlling’
and ‘enforcing standards’. These work styles were demonstrated in an attempt to bring ‘shape’ to
the Steering Group and NEAMA Project.
During re-engagement period MD and college challenged CEO decisions to make
financial efforts towards NEAMA and also provide the benefits of shaper in order to assess the
risk assessment and various factors. Characteristic associated with coordinator and finisher are
displayed by CEO.
A revised business plan and strategy towards NEAMA was produced in Dec. 2014. the
funding body refused the request of project to change financial and operational requirements
(Riol and Thuillier, 2015). This is all because that no project partner is prepared to evaluate the
financial risk factors of NEAMA. The project officially comes to an end.
6

BTRSPI REPORT AND NEAMA PROJECT SUMMARY
Author regards the overall team composition and SIP in the majority and agrees with
overall report associated with preferred with team roles (Scott, 2016). Apart from this, author
does not agree with the regards himself and natural perspectives are also affecting the workplace.
Large discrepancies also exist between observer perception and SPI. Team member
should ensure that they will effectively play their roles and responsibilities in order to supplant
the roles and functions of missing members. This phenomenon can be describe as team role
dynamics.
This can be also described as an agreement which identify the strengths in order to
increase profitability. Preferring support will also help to demonstrate NEAMA project with
energy and drive to overcome different obstacles and get thing moving and sparking in project
team effectively (Hornstein, 2015). It can be said that there is a risk of alienating with the
disengagement stage of project management and CEO is trying to solve the problems in a
structured and systematic approach manner. However he thinks that he can demonstrate the roles
and responsibilities provided to him and this ability can be improved by practising diplomacy at
formal investigation level.
Finally the authors agreed to suitable suggestions and working styles based on the table in
order to determine overall comparison which demonstrate the working abilities as well. The
different circumstances should be determined by CEO and highlighted through three stages of
NEAMA project effectively.
PROJECT TEAM DYNAMICS
There are three dynamic themes considered to be have influential interaction with
NEAMA project team staff and behaviour associated with them (Rowell, 2016). The three
themes for the critical evaluation will be beginnings, social influence and power effectively.
Power and social influence is evaluated within the project NEAMA.
TEAM BEGINNINGS
The main focus of team beginnings is to evaluate critically the team developed and
formed which utilising the Tuckmen team development model and group development theory
effectively. It is one of the best theories of group development. The theory is developed in 1965
and stages involved in this such as forming, norming, storming and performing. Conjunction is
the fifth stage added later by Tuckman.
7

From the research, I have understood that the projects come in a variant sizes, ranging
from very simple to straightforward and complex. Thus, to manage them in a very effective way,
an efficient team is required. An effective team will help in the better management of the
different team operations in a better way (Vukomanović, Young and Huynink, 2016). The better
grouping of the people is important for the better formation of team. Thus, in this case, I used
Tuckman's 5 stage group development model which is as follows:
Forming: this stage will help in the better handling of the different operations which will
involve the people with common objective and goals are coming together to form a group or
team (Riol and Thuillier, 2015). The group member will be cautious over their behaviour in the
team and will try to avoid any sort of conflict or controversy to effectively get the work done.
The team member's will be highly anxious and will be trying to know the aims and objectives of
the project. The team leader will be dominant in this phase as the roles and responsibilities are
not allotted.
Storming: It is the second stage which will involve the better handling of the various operations
to get the better idea about what and hoe to perform the project tasks (Fleming and Koppelman,
2016). It is the stage where the maximum number of conflicts occur and the team member's and
group leader will look after the various measures that will help in the better handling of the
different operations to avoid them. This will help them to effectively plan the different
functionalities of a project.
Norming: This is the phase where the things will settle down. The group members in team will
try to resolve their conflicts and differences and the code of conduct will be set to properly
deliver the output (Turner, 2016). The team mates will respect the ideas and differences of each
other and provide help to their co workers to carry their tasks in an effective and significant
manner. In this phase the process statrt making progress towards its successful completion. The
prolonged norming stage, although, will relapse the project in storming phase.
Performing: It s the forth stage where all the team members will act together to develop a better
product or service in order to gain a better productivity and meet the operational requirements of
the company's project (Kerzner, 2018). The leaders, team members and the delegates will work
together for effective fulfilling of project in a very successful manner. The group members enjoy
being the part of the team and will contribute in successful execution of project.
8

Adjourning: It is he final stage of the project where the finished project is been delivered and
the formed team will be disbanded to work upon other project. The team members will develop a
close relationship that will help them to achieve the better productivity and fulfil the project
successfully (Heagney, 2016). Although it creates the uncertainty about the future of the team
members in post project phase.
The major problems and conflicts between members and unbalanced personalities after
forming session the project team believes that one of the main factors causing storm to project
and conflicts is the storming stage.
It is proposed that the dysfunctional team beginnings is largely affected by attempts to
maintain and observe power and social influences within the project NEAMA in order to achieve
the personal agendas.
POWER AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE
These two are the main elements in terms of internal and external affecting the project.
These factors influencing project in terms of preventing team development and improvement
(Walker, 2015). According to Hinkin it is one of the most effective process which include
motivation which should be present in firms.
Types of power: Personal and soft power are the two elements of power which will include as
foloow:
Expert: Power is based on someone's credibility or perceived expertise in a area.
Referent: In this the power is based on any other liking and admiration.
Information: The power is based on information and knowledge one who has about the topic
and project (Harrison and Lock, 2017).
Positional and Harsh power
Legitimate: In this the power is based on recognition and acceptance of personality authority.
Reward: The behaviour should be desired and ability to achieve rewards.
Coercive: It is the ability to threaten or provide punishment for undesirable behaviour.
As the project team was self managed no member possessed ‘legitimate’ power by virtue
of project management hierarchy, however the MD exercised ‘legitimate’ and ‘expert’ power as
the ‘lead employer’ leveraging influence over project funding gained from the successful
Employer Ownership of Skills Pilot bid. The MD power base manifested itself as ‘harsh’ during
the ‘storming’ stage of group development.
9

Illustration 1: Team roles
The trust level between MD and other members of team declined as the power based
information with equipment suppliers defaulting. The power agenda of MD to acheiev the hidden
agenda is waste with Van and Poppe (Schwalbe, 2015). Incompatible preferences can be an
effect of peoples motivations to have power. Possessing or exercising power can be appreciated
because it is instrumental in reaching desired ends, such as wealth or status.
TEAM ROLE BEHAVIOUR AND INFLUUENCES
The team role should be placed well team worker, suppliers, shaper, implementer, team
player, plan, finisher, resources investigator and specialist should play their major roles and
responsibilities in order to provide effectiveness towards project effectively.
10

Manning, Pogson and Morrison, suggest a ‘shaper’ will use an causing strategies based
on “assertion and partnership” supporting NEAMA developments with the CEO gaining the
supports of sectors company whilst asserting ‘sector needs’ as the primary driver insisting on the
exclusions of the college from initial discussion (Kerzner and Kerzner, 2017). CEO behaviour
further support this theory by adopting the influencing style of “strategist and shotgun” by
imposing CEO company terms for re-engagement whilst guiding project direction bringing
shape to the Project Steering Group and ensuring all partner understood and agreed projects role
within the capacity of Project Managers.
CONCLUSION
The Bilbil assessment and behaviour of CEO with project NEAMA which supports and
validates the Bilbin theory and roles and responsibilities associated with different behaviours.
Evidence is also supporting in a special manner roles are also least for behavioural characteristic
and emphasising relationship between preferred team roles and ability to perform well in team.
NEAMA project team dynamics played a crucial role in project failure as team members came
together without a shared understanding of purpose or common goal. Unsuccessful ‘forming’
and ‘storming’ stages combined with the need of the MD to exploit ‘information’ and
‘legitimate’ power in support of a hidden agenda ultimately led to the failure of the NEAMA
project.
11

12

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Kerzner, H. and Kerzner, H.R., 2017. Project management: a systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Schwalbe, K., 2015. Information technology project management. Cengage Learning.
Harrison, F. and Lock, D., 2017. Advanced project management: a structured approach.
Routledge.
Walker, A., 2015. Project management in construction. John Wiley & Sons.
Heagney, J., 2016. Fundamentals of project management. AMACOM Div American Mgmt
Assn.
Kerzner, H., 2018. Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence. John Wiley
& Sons.
Turner, R., 2016. Gower handbook of project management. Routledge.
Fleming, Q.W. and Koppelman, J.M., 2016, December. Earned value project management.
Project Management Institute.
Riol, H. and Thuillier, D., 2015. Project management for academic research projects: balancing
structure and flexibility. International Journal of Project Organisation and
Management, 7(3), pp.251-269.
Scott, L., 2016. Gower handbook of people in project management. Routledge.
Hornstein, H.A., 2015. The integration of project management and organizational change
management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2),
pp.291-298.
Rowell, C.J., 2016. Book Review: Project Management for Information Professionals. Library
Resources & Technical Services, 60(4), pp.280-281.
Vukomanović, M., Young, M. and Huynink, S., 2016. IPMA ICB 4.0—A global standard for
project, programme and portfolio management competences. International Journal of
Project Management, 34(8), pp.1703-1705.
13