I found this weeks lecture on Belbin team roles equal parts illuminating and frustrating. I have come across similar systems in the past, where different behaviours or personality traits are categorised in different ways. Over the years I have been classified as everything from an an elephant, to a fish, a number 3 and even a sail on a boat. I always struggle with these classifications as by their nature they are generalisations. I realise for the most part they are only meant as guide lines but I believe human beings are just too complicated to be shuffled away tidily into different boxes.
The Belbin system turned out more or less the same. I can see how it could be useful when evaluating roles within a team, but again I felt the generalistaions too broad. I could relate to aspects of a wide variety of roles: the plant, the coordinator and the implementer for example, but felt that none of them really seemed to fit me all that completely. Take the implementor role for example, I really enjoy getting stuck in and "doing" but I see this as an important part of leading. In fact I think that there are many situations where a good leader should lead by example and therefore a healthy dose of the implementer comes in very handy.
Maybe I am taking it all just a little too seriously (is that the monitor evaluator coming through?), if so I apoligise. I do believe systems such as this one have their place, it is just that when it comes to individuals there is a whole lot of grey between the black and white.
1 comment:
I agree. I've always found these roles far to general. I can see why they are helpful in evaluating a team to ensure you have the right team to complete the required tasks. But I find myself in all the roles (and definitely in many of the weaknesses), and I imagine most people fall into all of these to some degree.
It is interesting however to look around at teams you're working in and consider if a project/task is missing something.
Post a Comment