Positions of the nine team roles within the SYMLOG space model
Beck and Fisch research, 2005
(Click image to enlarge)
Note in the field diagram representing the results of the study, eight of the roles
are located in the Forward part of the SYMLOG space, either Positive-Forward (P-F),
Negative-Forward (N-F), or merely Forward (F) as is the case with the Resource Investigator.
Only the Plant is in the Backward (B) part of the space which represents values
on opposing authority, and encompasses both rebellious and nurturing, training,
empathic behavior—all necessary for effective social interaction. “…the location
of the team roles within the SYMLOG space shows some bias of the team roles neglecting
to some extent the interpersonal dimension and nonconformistic (sic) and emotionally
determined behavioral values.” p. 30.
“The team role approach and SYMLOG present instruments to identify differences between
group members with respect to team role preferences and behavioral values. The factor
analysis of the team role self-perceptions, and the location of the team roles within
the SYMLOG space model, suggest potential lines of polarization of team role diversity
which have to be overcome for the realization of effective group work: Polarization
may arise from different degrees of personal orientation, differences between ‘worker’-roles
and ‘leader’-roles, differences between the roles ‘special and ‘generalist’ and
from differences in managing change and innovation. These results indicate different
aspects where tolerance for diversity has to be focused.” pp. 32-33.
The team member roles show individual preferences. The choice alone of a role shows
the potential for polarization within the group, but not the value-orientation of
the members. Using SYMLOG in conjunction with the Belbin team roles can help clarify
the interpersonal conflicts and diversities within the group, and thus address and
formulate strategies to mediate these differences effectively.
References
Beck, Dieter, and Rudolf Fisch. Dynamics of Group Role Diversity in Work Teams:
Belbin’s Team Role Approach. In Analysis
of Social Interaction Systems, Hare, A.P., Sjovold, E., Baker, H.G.,
and Powers, J. (Eds.). Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 2005,
pp. 17-34.
Beck and Fisch compared the theoretical and methodological foundations of the Belbin
team role approach to the more general social interaction theory of Bales.
Belbin, Meredith. Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Ltd.,
1993.
Davies, Martin F., and Eleftheria Kanaki. Interpersonal characteristics associated
with different team roles in work groups. London: Goldsmiths University
of London, 2006.
Davies and Kanaki used the SYMLOG Interpersonal Effectiveness Profile (a self-report
26 item trait adjective instrument) as a measure of personality, the EPQ, and Belbin’s
checklist of team roles to investigate the interpersonal characteristics associated
with Belbin’s team roles in work groups.
Among other findings, the authors determined that the SYMLOG dimensions were more
strongly correlated with team roles than the EPQ measures. Specifically, the SYMLOG
Upward-Downward (U-D) dimension, measuring dominance and submissiveness, was positively
associated with the roles of Implementer, Coordinator, and Resource Investigator.
The SYMLOG Forward-Backward (F-B) dimension, relating to accepting or opposing authority,
was positively associated with the roles of Completer/finisher, Monitor Evaluator,
and negatively associated with Plant and Shaper. The Positive-Negative SYMLOG dimension
(P-N), measuring orientation to others or self, was positively associated with the
Belbin roles of Teamworker and Plant.
To quote their abstract for practical implications of their research findings, “Organizations
might improve the functioning of their teams by analysing the sorts of interpersonal
characteristics that are duplicated or lacking in their personnel so that a balanced
mix of personalities can be established across different roles.”