Team Building Theories Analysis Report

This report analyzes team dynamics using Belbin's team role theory and Tuckman's theory of group development. It examines how these theories apply to a specific team project, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of different team roles and the stages of group development. The report also discusses how to overcome team issues by applying these theories, emphasizing the importance of understanding individual roles and group dynamics for effective team performance. The analysis reveals contradictions between the theories and the actual team experience, suggesting that a more tailored approach to role assignment could improve team outcomes. The report concludes that while the presentation was successful, a better understanding and application of team building theories could lead to even better results.

team building theories

Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
What is Team Building?..............................................................................................................................2
TYPES OF TEAM BUILDING THEORIES..............................................................................................2
Belbin’s team role theory............................................................................................................................3
Tuckman’s theory of group development....................................................................................................5
Stages of Group Development.................................................................................................................5
Analysis of team issues by applying both the theories.................................................................................6
Ways to overcome issues by applying both the theories..............................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................7
References...................................................................................................................................................8
1

Introduction
Working with a team and leading teams is one of the key elements of success. But it is not an
inherent skill possessed by all. Thus, many researchers have developed various team theory in
order to illustrate and develop the skills needed to ensure success while working in a team. To
become effective in teams, one requires having an understanding of a mixture of theories,
reflection, and experience.
TYPES OF TEAM BUILDING THEORIES
There are a number of theories given by various researchers relating to team building. Some of
them are as follows:
 Beldin’s team role theory,
 Abraham Maslow Hierarchy of Needs theory;
 John Adair Leadership theory;
 Isabel Briggs-Myers’s MBTI theory;
 Douglas McGregor X and Y theory;
 Tajfel, Social Identity theory,
 Tuckman’s theory of group development; and
 Jung’ color works theory
Our team which consisted of five individuals who were all different gave a group presentation.
We had mainly applied two major theories of group building namely; Tuckman’s theory of
group development and Beldin’s team role theory to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of
our team (Raes, 2015).
2

Belbin’s team role theory
Belbin, in his theory, has explained various roles to be played by each individual while working
in a team. These can be categorized as:
Action oriented roles are played by following:
Shaper’s role is to challenge the team in order to improve. Implementer’s role is to put the ideas
into action. Completer’s role is to finish the task with timely completion.
People Oriented Roles are played by following:
The coordinator is acting as a chairperson. Team Worker who encourages cooperation. Resource
Investigator who explores outside opportunities.
Thought Oriented Roles are played by following:
A plant, whose role is to present new ideas and approaches. Monitor-Evaluator who analyzes the
options. A specialist who provides specialized skills (Seck, 2014).
Besides the role to be played by each individual in a team, Belbin’s theory also gave various
strengths and weaknesses pertaining to those different roles which we could relate to ourselves
while we were playing those roles in the real situation. These strengths and weaknesses are given
ROLE STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Plant
(played by S)
creative solves difficult
problems, imaginative,
unorthodox
ignores incidentals and too
much preoccupied to
communicate effectively
Resource-investigator extrovert, communicative,
enthusiastic, develops
contracts, explores
opportunities
overoptimistic loses interest
once initial enthusiasm has
passed
3

Co-ordinator
(played by ‘N’)
mature, confident, a good
chairperson, clarifies goals,
promotes decision-making,
delegates well
can be seen as manipulative,
offloads personal work
Shaper is challenging, thrives on
pressure, dynamic, the drive
and courage to overcome
obstacles
which are prone to
provocation, offends
people's feelings
Monitor–Evaluator
(played by A)
sober, strategic and
discerning, sees all options,
judges accurately
and lacks drive and ability
to inspire others
Team-worker
(played by E)
co-operative, mild,
perceptive and diplomatic,
listens, builds, averts
friction
indecisive in crunch
situations
Implementer
(Played by E and A)
disciplined, conservative,
reliable and efficient, turns
ideas into practical actions
can be inflexible, slow to
respond to new possibilities
Completer–Finisher painstaking, conscientious,
anxious, searches out errors
and omissions
inclined to worry unduly,
reluctant to delegate
Specialist single-minded, self-starting,
dedicated, provides
knowledge and skills in rare
supply
contributes on only a
narrow front, dwells on
technicalities
in the table below:
Tuckman’s theory of group development
Bruce Tuckman brought this model for group development in the year 1965. This theory talks
about the development of the team from the starting of the project till its end (Senaratne, 2015).
4

Tuckman has given four main stages of team development, in which a fifth stage was also added
later in his career. So now it is said to be a five stage model of team development.
Stages of Group Development
Stages Development theory
Forming Stage  It is the first stage and denotes uncertainty.
 Members join and define the purpose, structure, and leadership of
the group.
Storming Stage  It is the second stage and denotes intragroup conflict.
 Individuals resist to control by the group and disagree about
leadership.
Norming Stage  It is the third stage and denotes close relationships and
cohesiveness.
 The group becomes cohesive and sets norms for acceptable
behavior.
Performing Stage  It is the fourth stage and denotes that group is fully functional.
 This structure allows the group to focus on performing their task at
hand.
Adjourning Stage  It is the final stage and denotes concerns regarding wrapping up
activities instead of performance.
 Here the project is complete, and the team wants to disburse. There
is a feeling of fulfillment and a loss of team unity at the same time.
Analysis of team issues by applying both the theories.
All the group members in my team played various roles as described by this theory. Every
individual team member was assigned an initial in which mine was ‘I,' ‘I' had already worked
5

with ‘E.' ‘I’ played the role of an implementer and a team worker. ‘E' who is a female played the
role of an Implementer/team worker. An individual ‘A' who is a male played the role of an
Implementer/monitor and evaluator. An individual ‘N' who is a male played the role of chairman
and individual 'S,' who was a male played the role of a plant.
It has been observed that I, E and A, are sharing the same role of an Implementer, thereby
sharing common weaknesses and common strengths. Also, E and I have shared the role of a team
worker. If we go as per the two theories, it has been observed, that most of our team members in
the forming stage of the team are positive and polite. While few people were anxious as they
could not understand the work to be done by our team. Others were simply excited about the task
to be performed by the team. Also if any team members have common weaknesses, then the
team as a whole will tend to have those weaknesses (Mathieu, 2015). Similarly, if any team
members have common strengths, then they might start to compete with each other rather than
co-operating for the tasks and responsibilities of the team. But in the case of our team, the
scenario was totally opposite. Despite sharing the same roles, I, E and A used to always work
together with good communication. There was no feeling of competition felt between them.
Which is totally opposite of what is given by Belbin's theory. Also, the chairman of the group, N,
remained absent but his work was somehow done. As per the Belbin’s theory, a chairperson is
the one who delegates work to others in the team. But again the situation with our team was
totally opposite as the chairperson was absent. S was given the role of a plant whose task is to
bring new ideas in the group. But he used to perform his task in the last minute and never
participated in the group. So again it is in contradiction with the Belbin’s theory. Thus, it can be
analyzed that almost all the theories had been contradicted.
6

Our group never had any arguments, and on the day of presentation, everything went well, and
all participated in good spirit. I, A and E made the PowerPoint. I had given the ideas for the
design. N had given the idea of a group in WhatsApp so as to share everyone’s work and to
communicate better. I had worked with E earlier. Also, I had worked with E before also so I had
an idea about her weaknesses and strengths while working in a team. It was a bit stressful to
work with her because although E was a good team worker but at the same time also liked to be
on top, and this was not possible in this group.
It has also been observed that most of our team members in the forming stage of the team are
positive and polite. While few people were anxious as they could not understand the work to be
done by our team. Others were simply excited about the task to be performed by the team.
Ways to overcome issues by applying both the theories
Thus by analyzing our group based on the principles given by two theories, it can be found that
though the presentation went well, but it could have been much better it the roles were assigned
to all according to their personal strengths and weaknesses. That would have ensured
participation of all in the group. To overcome this, we could have taken following steps based on
the two theories discussed earlier:
 Step one is related to observing the behavior of each individual members of the team over
a period of time while in the forming stage itself, and it should be seen that how those
individuals behave with each other within the team.
 Step two is making a list of all the members of the team and noting down their strengths
as well as weaknesses that were observed while observing their behavior in order to avoid
the occurrence of any kind of conflict as stated by the storming stage.
7

 Comparing each person’s strengths and weaknesses and assign the role as per Belbin’s
theory which best suits them to ensure the building of close relationships among team
members as defined in the Norming Stage (Meslec, 2015).
 Considering the team roles that are missing from your team to make sure team is not
unbalanced, and the group is fully functional at the performing stage.
 If the team is found unbalanced, then considering the options to improve or change this.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that the group that we had formed for giving the presentation was
subject to some issues. We had assigned the same role to I, E and S, that is, the role of the
Implementer and also the role of team worker was given to I and E. Thus, this needed to be
corrected in accordance with the Beldin’s team role theory and Tuckman’s theory of group
development. As I used to give ideas for designs, so would have been given the role of a plant. S
used to remain absent from the group, so assigning him the role of a plant was not a right step.
Thus, it can be concluded that though the presentation went well, but it was not in line with the
principles laid down by the two team building theories Thus, with respect to our team, it can
finally be concluded that it was not the best structure of the team that was adopted by us and if
some corrections were made, the results would have been even better.
8

References
Raes, E., Kindt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P. and Dochy, F., 2015. An exploratory
study of group development and team learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(1),
pp.5-30.
Seck, M.M., and Helton, L., 2014. Faculty development of a joint MSW program utilizing
Tuckman's model of stages of group development. Social Work with Groups, 37(2), pp.158-168.
James, J., 2015. Team Coaching: What is going on when I am coaching the team?
Senaratne, S. and Gunawardane, S., 2015. Application of team role theory to construction design
teams. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(1), pp.1-20.
Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kukenberger, M.R., Donsbach, J.S. and Alliger, G.M., 2015.
Team role experience and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group &
Organization Management, 40(1), pp.6-34.
Meslec, N. and Curşeu, P.L., 2015. Are balanced groups better? Belbin roles in collaborative
learning groups. Learning and Individual Differences, 39, pp.81-88.
9

10