As a class, we were supposed to form different groups. In which we had to apply our computer knowledge on how to solve real-time problems in an organization using various programs. The teams and the groups that were to experiment were formed before the experiments were started; we were to meet at the computer laboratory where they were to conduct their tests. The whole group comprised of 24 individuals and was supposed to be divided into seven teams, with each requiring only one computer for their experiment. One machine was to be used by the examiner whose role was to test and accept solution offered (Belbin 2012). Each group was issued with the problems to solve. We were needed to solve the problems with a maximum of one hour through some team ended up requiring an addition of one hour. To make everything balanced among the team, we were supposed to work at only one station. Each team was supposed to create a database were all customers information was. We had to make sure that offering customer services were made easy, fast and user-friendly.
After the experiment, we were to email the results to the examiner that was only if a group was satisfied with what they had done. The examiner then looked at the results with his or her correct data that was not to be revealed to the partakers. Once the completed solution was correctly tested with the accepted information, the end time for every team was documented (Meslec and Cur??eu 2012). Despite the problem statements having some test information, we were required to create test data for their answer to pass all the approval tests. The test was done in four different lab periods, in each session; the teams were to conduct the four sessions at four different times. The means of all meetings were then evaluated and compared.
Every team was made up of three participants with different working roles under the observation of the Belbin Self-perception Inventory. Every group was to belong to a team that was applied in the examination of the hypothesis in the problem. Each team had a leadership team and a non-leader team about what was expected in the experiment.
To ensure that the role that was being investigated was the cause why the groups worked in a specific manner, the other parts were made to be the same across all teams, and the group members experiences that were self-related were used as blocking factors. To determine the potential position of each member, some elements had to be kept into consideration (Senaratne and Gunawardane 2015). Each person had to fill multiple roles by having essential scores for different positions, that is, two or three roles. Another factor was that if a person had skills or personality that made him or she fills a specific role, that person was not allowed to take that position because he or she would fill other roles correctly. In some cases, other members of the group would have prevented a person from filling a particular role if another person would take that role stronger. Some of the underlying assumptions of the research were that some characters would not align with a specific team, since some teams would be better without that role in the team. This was found to be working with some tasks such as Shaper, where conflict was expected.
A chairperson is described as a person has the authority over a team. The chairperson guides the team towards the team’s objectives in the best way. A chairperson is expecting to be calm, collaborative and having natural ability enhance the workers’ ability. He or she should also know the strengths and capacity of the whole team. The second role demonstrated in the Belbin roles is the sharper. A Sharper can be described as a slave driver, and he or she is expected to find the best models for solving the problems. He has the role of leading the team in making the members to challenge any ineffectiveness, inertia and complacency (Meslec and Cureu 2012). If a team indicates the possibility of having a chairperson and a Shaper, they are either supposed to cooperate in the readership role or the team will experience conflict due to leadership conflict.
Plant is the third role that acts as the reformer of the team. He or she is expected to initiate better ideas and approaches while also creating distinct attention to primary matters. A Plant is scheduled to be introverted, intelligent and imaginative but also expected not to take practical protocols or details. The Plant is treated as the brainchild of the team and has to be occasionally improved occasionally since they at sometimes tend to stay dormant (McHarg and Coombes 2012). Monitor-Evaluator analyzes the team for any approaches, decisions and methods to make sure that the team is strategized in the best competitive manner. The Monitor-Evaluator evaluates the ideas implemented by the Plant and is the only body that can brainstorm with the Plant to make the required approaches.
The other duty is the Resource Investigator that is taken as among of those who takes the negotiation roles. He takes a similar role as that of the Plant although he or she is not viewed as an equal. They are both considered as creative members of the team (Senaratne and Gunawardane 2015). The only difference is that the Resource Investigator gets their ideas from external sources due to their extroverted nature. They have a high ability for socializing with individuals and venturing into new things. They, however, have the tendency to lose interest when the problems become too complicated.
The team worker takes the complementary role. He ensures that there is collaborative working among the team members towards achieving its goals. The other role discussed by Belbin Company Worker who has the purpose of converting the company plans and concepts into operating procedures. They tend to have the personality of being predictable, hard-working, dutiful and self-disciplined. They are however resistant to ideas that have not been proven and inflexible. The Completer-finisher is the last role in the Belnin model. He or she complements the work done by the Company Worker when relating to the role of manager and workers. They focus on delivering of projects I the light cost estimate and on time (Senaratne and Gunawardane 2015). The team worker takes the role of avoiding the mistakes of both commission and commission, while actively focusing on work aspects that need more aspects. They make sure that the team kept on toes for them to meet the set goals and attention of the company.
Belbin, R.M., 2012. Team roles at work. Routledge.
McHarg, J., Kay, E.J. and Coombes, L.R., 2012. Students’engagement with their group in a problem?based learning curriculum. European Journal of Dental Education, 16(1).
Meslec, N. and Cureu, P.L., 2015. Are balanced groups better? Belbin roles in collaborative learning groups. Learning and Individual Differences, 39, pp.81-88.
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.
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox
I'm Chatbot Amy :)
I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.Find Writer