Masters 06 11 2005 V26 Amendments CW 114 02whole

User Manual: CW-114

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 152

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

Senior Management Teams:
Member Roles and Team Effectiveness
within Large Hospitality Organisations

Master of Business by Research and Major Thesis

Kathryn Zammit
Student ID: 3508072

Supervisor: Paul Whitelaw

School of Hospitality, Tourism and Marketing
Faculty of Business and Law
January 2006

3508072

Declaration

I certify that this thesis contains no material which has been accepted for an
award of any other degree or diploma in any institute, college or university,
and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material
previously published or written by another person, except where due
reference is made in the text of the thesis.

Kathryn Zammit
January, 2006

3508072

Table of Contents
1.0

Introduction to the Thesis _________________________________7

1.1

Background to the Research _________________________________ 7

1.2

Context of Research ________________________________________ 7

1.3

The Research ______________________________________________ 8

1.4

Expected Outcomes________________________________________ 10

1.5

Acknowledgments _________________________________________ 10

2.0

Literature Review _______________________________________11

2.1

Managerial Functions and Roles _____________________________ 11

2.1.1 Management Functions _________________________________________ 11
2.1.1.1
Front Line Managers ________________________________________ 12
2.1.1.2
Middle Managers ___________________________________________ 12
2.1.1.3
Senior Managers ___________________________________________ 12
2.1.2 Managerial Knowledge, Skills and Performance_____________________ 13
2.1.2.1
Technical Skills_____________________________________________ 13
2.1.2.2
Analytical Skills_____________________________________________ 14
2.1.2.3
Decision-Making Skills _______________________________________ 14
2.1.2.4
Computer Skills ____________________________________________ 14
2.1.2.5
Human Relation Skills _______________________________________ 15
2.1.2.6
Communication Skills________________________________________ 15
2.1.2.7
Conceptual Skills ___________________________________________ 15
2.1.3 Managerial Roles – Mintzberg’s Study _____________________________ 16
2.1.4 Successful Managers – Boston Consulting Group Research __________ 17
2.1.5 Comparison between Boston Consulting Group and Mintzberg’s Theory 19
2.1.6 Summary of Managerial Functions and Roles_______________________ 20

2.2

Groups and Teams_________________________________________ 22

2.2.1 Groups and Teams Defined ______________________________________ 22
2.2.2 Nature of Groups ______________________________________________ 25
2.2.3 Stages of Group Development ___________________________________ 25
2.2.3.1
Tuckman’s Five Stage Model__________________________________ 26
2.2.3.2
Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model _________________________ 27
2.2.3.3
Comparison between Tuckman’s Five Stage Model and ____________ 28
Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model__________________________________ 28
2.2.4 Characteristics of Groups _______________________________________ 29
2.2.4.1
Composition _______________________________________________ 30
2.2.4.2
Member Roles _____________________________________________ 30
2.2.4.3
Group Size ________________________________________________ 31
2.2.4.4
Work Group Processes ______________________________________ 31
2.2.4.5
Group Norms ______________________________________________ 32
2.2.4.6
Group Cohesiveness ________________________________________ 33
2.2.4.7
Group Think _______________________________________________ 33
2.2.5 Teams________________________________________________________ 34
2.2.5.1
Problem Solving Teams ______________________________________ 35
2.2.5.2
Cross Functional Teams _____________________________________ 35
2.2.5.3
Self Managed Teams ________________________________________ 36
2.2.6 Team Effectiveness ____________________________________________ 37
2.2.6.1
Characteristics to Promote Team Effectiveness ___________________ 38
2.2.7 Team Conflict _________________________________________________ 40
2.2.7.1
Types of Conflict ___________________________________________ 40
2.2.7.1.1 Relationship Conflict ______________________________________ 40
2.2.7.1.2 Task Conflict ____________________________________________ 41
2.2.7.1.3 Process Conflict _________________________________________ 42
2.2.7.2
Summary of Team Conflict____________________________________ 43

3508072

2.2.8

2.3

Summary - Groups and Teams ___________________________________ 43

Individual Differences and Managerial Behaviour _______________ 47

2.3.1 Understanding Individual Differences _____________________________ 47
2.3.2 Understanding Work Behaviour __________________________________ 48
2.3.2.1
Hereditary / Biographical Characteristics_________________________ 49
2.3.2.2
Abilities and Skills / Competency Characteristics __________________ 49
2.3.2.3
Perception / Values _________________________________________ 50
2.3.2.4
Attitudes __________________________________________________ 51
2.3.2.5
Personality ________________________________________________ 52
2.3.3 Characteristics influencing managerial behaviour ___________________ 52
2.3.4 Emotional Intelligence __________________________________________ 52
2.3.5 Stereotyping __________________________________________________ 54
2.3.6 Measures of Personal Differences ________________________________ 56
2.3.6.1
Myers Briggs Type Indicator __________________________________ 56
2.3.6.1.1 Bi-polar Dimensions ______________________________________ 57
2.3.6.1.2 The Sixteen Type Combinations_____________________________ 61
2.3.6.1.3 MBTI and the Hospitality Manager ___________________________ 63
2.3.6.2
Cattell’s 16PF ______________________________________________ 64
2.3.6.2.1 Five Factor Theory _______________________________________ 64
2.3.6.3
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ___________________________ 66
2.3.7 Positive use of Personality Inventories ____________________________ 67
2.3.8 Importance of Understanding Individual Differences _________________ 68
2.3.9 Summary – Individual Differences and Managerial Behaviour _________ 69

2.4

Belbin’s Team Role Model___________________________________ 71

2.4.1 Defining Belbin’s Team Role Model _______________________________ 71
2.4.1.1
Chairman _________________________________________________ 73
2.4.1.2
Company Worker ___________________________________________ 74
2.4.1.3
Monitor Evaluator ___________________________________________ 75
2.4.1.4
Plant _____________________________________________________ 76
2.4.1.5
Resource Investigator _______________________________________ 77
2.4.1.6
Shaper ___________________________________________________ 79
2.4.1.7
Team Worker ______________________________________________ 80
2.4.1.8
Complete Finisher __________________________________________ 81
2.4.2 Insight to Belbin’s Theory _______________________________________ 83
2.4.3 Criticisms of the Belbin Team Role Model __________________________ 85
2.4.4 Comparing Belbin’s Team Roles by Likely MBTI types _______________ 86
2.4.5 Summary – Belbin’s Team Role Model_____________________________ 88

2.5

Characteristics of the Hospitality Industry _____________________ 89

2.5.1 General Characteristics of the Hospitality Industry __________________ 89
2.5.2 Parameters to Hospitality Managerial Success______________________ 90
2.5.3 Formal Qualifications ___________________________________________ 91
2.5.4 Nature of the workforce _________________________________________ 92
2.5.4.1
Staff Turnover______________________________________________ 92
2.5.4.2
Career Advancement ________________________________________ 94
2.5.5 Tourism Industry_______________________________________________ 94
2.5.6 Service improvement and business performance ___________________ 95
2.5.7 Summary – Characteristics of the Hospitality Industry _______________ 96

3.0

Methodology___________________________________________97

4.0

Results ______________________________________________100

4.1

Quantitative Analysis ______________________________________ 100

4.1.1 The Sample Frame ____________________________________________ 100
4.1.1.1
Cohort - Senior Management Teams Defined ____________________ 100
4.1.1.1.1 Size of Establishment vs. Size of Senior Management Team _____ 100
4.1.1.1.2 Accommodation Star Rating vs Size of Senior Management Team 101
4.1.2 Descriptive Results____________________________________________ 102
4.1.2.1
Cohort - Hospitality Managers categorised by Belbin’s Team Roles___ 102

3508072

4.1.2.2

Composition of Senior Management Teams based on Belbin’s Team Roles
________________________________________________________ 103
4.1.2.2.1 Self Perception Interviews with Formal Leaders _______________ 104
4.1.2.2.1.1 Team A ___________________________________________ 104
4.1.2.2.1.2 Team B ___________________________________________ 105
4.1.2.2.1.3 Team H ___________________________________________ 105
4.1.2.2.2 Amalgamating Belbin’s Team Roles_________________________ 106
4.1.2.3
Hospitality Managers by Belbin’s Team Role Model and MBTI_______ 107
4.1.2.4
Establishment Teams by MBTI _______________________________ 108
4.1.2.5
Belbin’s Team Role Model and MBTI Bi-polar Dimensions __________ 109
4.1.2.5.1 Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Bi-polar Dimension 1_________________ 110
4.1.2.5.2 Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Bi-polar Dimension 2_________________ 110
4.1.2.5.3 Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Bi-polar Dimension 3_________________ 111
4.1.2.5.4 Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Bi-polar Dimension 4_________________ 112
4.1.2.6
Belbin’s Team Roles vs 16 MBTI Profiles _______________________ 113
4.1.2.6.1 Chairman – CH _________________________________________ 113
4.1.2.6.2 Company Worker – CW __________________________________ 114
4.1.2.6.3 Monitor Evaluator – ME __________________________________ 114
4.1.2.6.4 Plant – PL _____________________________________________ 115
4.1.2.6.5 Resource Investigator – RI ________________________________ 115
4.1.2.6.6 Shaper – SH ___________________________________________ 116
4.1.2.6.7 Team Worker – TW _____________________________________ 116
4.1.2.6.8 Complete Finisher - CF___________________________________ 117
4.1.2.7
Gender by Belbin’s Team Roles and MBTI ______________________ 117
4.1.2.7.1 Gender by MBTI _______________________________________ 117
4.1.2.7.2 Gender by Belbin’s Team Roles ____________________________ 118
4.1.2.8
Review of senior management teams based on Cattell’s 16PF ______ 119
4.1.2.9
Relationships between different Belbin Team Roles _______________ 121
4.1.2.10
Team Performance ______________________________________ 124
4.1.2.11
Effectiveness, satisfaction and extra effort of the team ___________ 125
4.1.3 Summary of Quantitative Results ________________________________ 126

4.2

Qualitative Analysis _______________________________________ 128

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7

5.0

Case Study __________________________________________________ 128
Belbin’s Team Roles vs. MBTI vs. Actual Team Roles _______________ 129
Peer assessment and its consistency in regards to MBTI and Belbin __ 133
Self Perceptions and their consistency with MBTI and Belbin ________ 135
Team Success According To Belbin______________________________ 136
Team Success According To MBTI_______________________________ 137
Summary of Case Study _______________________________________ 138

Discussion ___________________________________________140

5.1

MBTI Representation Amongst The Cohort____________________ 140

5.2

Representation of Belbin Team Roles Amongst The Cohort ______ 141

6.0

Conclusion ___________________________________________143

7.0

Further Research ______________________________________145

8.0

Bibliography __________________________________________147

3508072

Table of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:
Table 17:
Table 18:
Table 19:
Table 20:
Table 21:
Table 22:
Table 23:
Table 24:
Table 25:

Groups and Teams Key Characteristics _____________________________ 24
Similarities and differences of Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model (GPEM)
and Tuckman’s Model____________________________________________ 29
Intra-group conflict experienced at the relevant stages of group development 45
Traits Having A Bearing On Workplace Behaviour______________________ 49
Myer Briggs 16 Types ____________________________________________ 62
Team Roles Characterised By Internal /External Orientation______________ 84
Comparing Belbin’s Team Roles By Likely MBTI Types _________________ 87
Size of Establishment vs. Size of Senior Management Team ____________ 101
Accommodation Star Rating by Establishment _______________________ 102
Cohort – Hospitality Managers categorised by Belbin’s team roles ______ 103
Composition of Senior Management Teams _________________________ 106
Amalgamating Belbin’s Team Roles________________________________ 107
16 MBTI Profiles by Cohort_______________________________________ 108
Establishments by MBTI 16 Types _________________________________ 109
Bi-polar Dimensions vs. Belbin’s Team Roles ________________________ 113
Belbin’s Team Roles vs. 16 MBTI Profiles ___________________________ 117
Gender vs. Bi-polar Dimension____________________________________ 118
Gender vs. Belbin’s Team Roles __________________________________ 118
Total Respondents’ Underlying Personality Traits _____________________ 119
Anova _______________________________________________________ 120
Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Big Five Personality Factors and WGCTA _______ 121
Relationships between different Belbin team roles in terms of their defining
characteristics _________________________________________________ 123
Myer Briggs Type Indicator by Role Legitimacy _______________________ 125
Effectiveness, Satisfaction and Extra Effort of the team_________________ 126
Similarities and differences between MBTI and Belbin’s Team Roles ______ 130

3508072

1.0

Introduction to the Thesis

1.1

Background to the Research

Over the years many scholars have undertaken extensive research to
demonstrate the necessary qualities needed by a manager to achieve
success (Proehl, 1997).

These studies have identified principles such as

academic qualifications, industrial experience and personal achievements as
the common tools contributing to managerial success.

As the dynamics of doing business has evolved, organisations today are
forming work teams as a new approach in working towards the achievement
of goals.

Teamwork has emerged as a new managerial concept as

individuals can not possibly carry out the broad range of skills and functions
needed for managerial success. Therefore, a team of individuals can be more
effective than an individual due to their combination of strengths in varying
roles (Proehl, 1997).

1.2

Context of Research

The purpose of this research is to identify the attributes and characteristics of
senior management teams, at both the individual and team level in a
hospitality environment, that impact upon team performance.

Given the

changing environment in which hospitality organisations operate, there is a
continuing need for managers to develop, progress and embrace change
(Gilmore, 1998). At the same time, there is a pressing need to further explore
team composition and how the roles of team members affect or impact on
team performance (Belbin, 1996).

3508072

Teams are the primary unit of improving organisational performance by
bringing together individuals with a variety skills, experience and knowledge to
perform work and solve problems.

The urgency to understand team

functioning is at the forefront of business today as it is not practical for
individual managers to make decisions in isolation (Proehl, 1997).

By defining and understanding the roles of managers within the team, an
organisation can structure, compose or realign teams to improve individual,
team and business performance. Furthermore, by improving the alignment of
an individual’s personal characteristics, such as psychological type and
natural team role, to their formal team role, the effectiveness and efficiency of
the team can be enhanced (Belbin, 1996).

1.3

The Research

There have been few studies that have established a clear connection
between team composition and higher performance (Trent, 2003). It is logical
to assume that high-performing teams should produce outcomes that
significantly outweigh their costs. Furthermore, poor performing teams will
create an environment of great distress (Trent, 2003).

Groesbeck and Van Aken (2001) point out that effective team design and
implementation is only the beginning to achieving goals and improving
performance;

“as a team develops, it can progress from being a loosely

formed collection of individuals to a collective with compatible, shared mental
methods” (Groesbeck and Van Aken, 2001, p2).

Laske and Maynes (2001) suggest there is a focus on understanding the
mental ability of managers to be able to predict the logic of their decisions.
During the 1980s Belbin (1981) conducted a series of ‘action research
projects’ with participants from the Cranfield Business School participating in
its Executive Development Program. During these courses, Belbin formed the
participants into teams based upon an experimental design measuring their

3508072

intelligence (via the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal instrument) and
personality (measured via Cattell’s 16PF).

Based upon this work, Belbin hypothesised that there were eight archetypical,
but informal roles to be adopted by team members for the team to be
effective. Further, he suggested that team members filled both formal and
informal roles as a function of the comparative intelligence and personality
which impacted upon the performance of the team. Implicit in this research is
the assumption that the closer the fit between the formal and informal roles,
and the greater the coverage of the requisite eight roles, the more effective
the team will be. Therefore, an appropriate combination of members within
the team will allow for different strengths and characteristics to complement
one another and to be used to full advantage (Belbin, 1996). Belbin’s theory
has become one of the most widely used approaches for forming teams today
(Baruch & Lesson, 2000).

In a similar fashion, Briggs Myers and Myers (1980) and their followers
conducted extensive research into the relationship between psychological
type and workplace and team behaviour (Bak, Vogt, George and Greentree,
1994) (Bradley and Herbert, 1997) (Church, 1982) (Church & Alie, 1986)
(Church and Waclawski, 1998) (Hartmann and Patrickson, 1998) (Jessup,
2002). Whilst some of the work is inconclusive, there is sufficient evidence to
indicate that there are significant parallels between an individual’s
psychological type and their behaviour in a team and the team’s performance.

The psychological type model developed by Myer and Myer Briggs consists of
16 profiles formed by the combinations of four bi-polar dimensions. The four
dimensions deal with the ‘orientation of one’s energy’ (Introversion or
Extraversion), the way one prefers to receive information (Sensing or
Intuition), the way one prefers to express information (Thinking or Feeling)
and one’s bias for order and action (Judging or Perceiving).

To date, no research has explicitly sought to establish the correlation between
the Belbin Team Role Model and the Myer Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

3508072

Dulewicz and Higgs (1999), in developing an Emotional Intelligence
instrument, used both the Belbin Team Roles Inventory and the MBTI (as well
as the 16PF) to establish the validity of their instrument. However, they did
not seek to compare the Belbin and MBTI models. Whilst the eight Belbin
Team Roles were significantly correlated with the eight elements of the
Emotional Intelligence model achieving 31 out of 64 outcomes, the MBTI was
significant only 5 times out of a possible 64. This disparity might suggest that
they are not highly correlated.

1.4

Expected Outcomes

The aim of the proposed research is to:
•

Develop an understanding of individual behaviour in a senior management
team in the hospitality industry within a framework of team roles (as
conceived by Belbin (1980) and operationalised by Cattell and Watson and
Glaser), psychological type (as conceived by Jung and operationalised by
Myers and Briggs (1980));

•

Evaluate the efficacy of senior management teams in the hospitality
industry in the light of their composition within the Belbin and Myers Briggs
framework; and

•

Identify and evaluate the experience of members within a team in light of
an individual’s informal and formal team role and psychological type.

1.5

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge Victoria University and my employer at the time
for granting me the opportunity to actively participate in the inaugural
scholarship program by completing a Masters of Business by Research and
Major Thesis.

In particular, I wish to acknowledge and thank Paul Whitelaw and Laura
Christie who provided support, guidance and mentoring in developing a
coherent piece of literature.

3508072

2.0

Literature Review

2.1

Managerial Functions and Roles

This chapter will introduce the reader to managerial roles and functions within
medium to large organisations. A review of the different types and levels of
management will provide clarity on how these roles contribute in working
towards organisational goals.

The Boston Consulting Group and Mintzberg provide frameworks for
interpreting the skills and roles managers apply and adopt in their approach to
achieving managerial effectiveness.

2.1.1

Management Functions

Management is the process of “…control, coordination and development of
economic activities, encompassing operational (internal) and external
(strategic)

domains”

(Hampson

Morgan

2001,

p135)

simply

“management is generally defined as the art of getting things done through
and with people in formally organised groups” (McKenna, 2001, p35).
Organisations employ managers to plan, organise, lead and control resources
to the best of their ability in order to facilitate the achievement of goals
through the use of staff. The individual characteristics of the manager will
influence the approach in which they plan and complete work.

Organisations develop management structures to support the organisation’s
direction. The lines of managers range from Front Line to Senior Managers
and are defined below.

3508072

2.1.1.1

Front Line Managers

Front Line Managers are commonly referred to as Supervisors or Team
Leaders and comprise the initial tier of the wider managerial framework.
Primarily, Front Line Managers are responsible for the basic work of the
organisation by coordinating the work of line staff in accordance to the
standards, which have been set by higher management.

The chosen

candidate for this position is usually appointed for their ability to work (in the
form of the technical tasks involved in front line operations) and communicate
with people. Front Line Managers must endeavour to work closely with their
direct reports and peers to ensure work is completed in a timely manner
(Bartol et al, 1998).
2.1.1.2

Middle Managers

Middle Managers are known in industry as Department Managers. Primarily,
these managers are required to carry out the actions set by Senior
Management by planning, organising, leading and controlling the work
activities of business units.

Department Managers provide support and

leadership to Front Line Managers in ensuring work is completed (Bartol et al,
1998).

2.1.1.3

Senior Managers

Senior Managers are responsible for the performance and functioning of the
entire operation and are directly accountable to the owners of the
organisation. Their main responsibility is to set strategy, make decisions and
ensure that these actions are executed and implemented within the business
by the Department Heads (Bartol, 1998).

Just as Department Managers are dependent on Front Line Managers to
carry out tasks, Senior Managers are heavily reliant on Department Heads to
ensure the plans and objectives are being carried out and achieved.
Therefore, the senior manager’s ability to demonstrate strength in leadership

3508072

and foster discipline will ensure these plans are carried out and hence
improve organisational performance.

2.1.2

Managerial Knowledge, Skills and Performance

Ivancevich (2002) articulates that ‘successful managers’ need to adopt a
range of skills to perform a managerial role. “A skill is the ability to engage in
a set of behaviours functionally related to one another and that lead to a
desired performance level in a given situation” (Bartol et al, 2002, p21). Many
theorists would argue that depending on the level of management, the degree
to which certain skills are necessary would differ (Ivancevich et al, 2002).

Many people find managerial positions challenging due to the broad and
extensive range of skills required to be an effective manager (The Faculty of
Business and Law, 2003).

The personal characteristics and traits of the

manager will contribute to the approach adopted in working towards the
completion of tasks. These skills are defined below.

2.1.2.1

Technical Skills

Technical skills involve the use of specific knowledge, techniques and
resources in performing work. These skills are most important for Front Line
Managers as they are responsible for resolving daily problems. For example:
customer complaints may relate to the product or service being provided.
Therefore, a Front Line Manager’s knowledge of the work being performed
and ability to immediately correct it will assist in reaching a satisfactory
solution which benefits both the customer and the organisation (Bartol et al,
1998).

3508072

2.1.2.2

Analytical Skills

Analytical skills “…involve using scientific approaches or techniques to solve
management problems” (Ivancevich et al, 2002, p46). Managers with strong
analytical skills are able to identify the main issues in a given situation when
determining an appropriate course of action.

For example: a manager is confronted with a situation which requires an
assessment of many competing variables. Their ability to understand the
problem and its components by evaluating the situation will assist in
developing a plan of action.

Analytical skills are highly important to

management roles and are critical for long term managerial success
(Ivancevich et al, 2002).

2.1.2.3

Decision-Making Skills

Knowledge of the work environment is critical for making sound decisions. A
manager’s interpretation of the situation will influence the choices which are
selected. Poor analytical skills will impact on the quality of the decision, which
could have a major negative impact upon the performance of the organisation
(Ivancevich et al, 2002).

2.1.2.4

Computer Skills

Apart from operational processes, organisations are highly reliant on
computers as a source of information.

Computers and software can aid

managers in increasing productivity as they assist in: Financial Management,
Human Resource Management and can perform ‘what if?’ scenario analysis
to support effective business decision-making (Ivancevich et al, 2002).

3508072

2.1.2.5

Human Relation Skills

A common key performance indicator of managers is achieving work goals
through the use of staff. This skill is important at all levels of management as
the ability to liaise and interact with people contributes significantly to forming
positive working relationships and hence strengthening business opportunities
(Bartol et al, 1998).

2.1.2.6

Communication Skills

All managerial positions share the objective of getting tasks completed
through people.

Communication at all levels is critical, essential and

important in order for employees to understand satisfactory standards of
performance.

For example: for a manager to ensure that a task is carried out, the manager
will endeavour to assign the task to an employee. Communicating effectively
with the staff member (i.e. verbal, written), will ensure that a common
understanding of the objectives trying to be achieved is understood and that
the task is completed to the standards which have been specified.

2.1.2.7

Conceptual Skills

Conceptual skills refer to a manager’s ability to view an organisation in its
entirety and to understand the functioning of the business units. These skills
allow for continual improvements to business processes to remain competitive
in the industry (Bartol et al, 1998).

The skills mentioned above are incorporated in the roles of all managers
within an organisation. The ability to perform these skills effectively in working
towards improving organisational performance is influenced and characterised
by manager’s individuality (personality and cognitive intelligence) and hence
the type of managerial position held.

3508072

2.1.3

Managerial Roles – Mintzberg’s Study

“The roles that managers play in performing their jobs and the relationship of
managerial roles to managerial effectiveness and performance are the foci of
considerable research interest” (Bartlett & Mount, 1999, p160).

Over the

years, research has focused on the ways in which managers carry out their
jobs. Initially, research concentrated on understanding what managers do by
observing how they do their job and with whom they spend time. As studies
progressed, particular attention was paid to the specific roles performed by
managers. Research today is trying to understand the constraints, demands
and pressures that impact upon managerial performance (Barlett & Mount,
1999).

During the 1980’s, Mintzberg conducted a study to describe what managers
actually did and focussed on how they spent their time and the tasks which
were performed.

From his research, Mintzberg observed two distinct

concepts. He concluded that managers:
•

Carry out the traditional functions of planning, organising, coordinating and
controlling, and

•

Perform ten closely related roles, which constitute three main categories.
These are: interpersonal roles (figurehead, leader and liaison roles),
informational roles (monitor, disseminator and spokesperson roles) and
decisional roles (entrepreneur, disturbance handler, negotiator and
resource allocatur roles) (Barlett & Mount, 1999).

Mintzberg pointed out that managerial positions are generally similar and
therefore the ten identified roles are applicable to all levels of managers. The
importance of each role will change depending on the manager’s functional
role and position (Barlett & Mount, 1999). Mintzberg further suggested that
recognising these functions provides context and scope to the extensive roles
which a manager is required to fulfil. He continued that teams of employees
cannot function effectively if any of these roles performed by the manager are
overlooked, as each role needs to be performed consistently (The Faculty of
Business and Law, 2003).

3508072

Bartlett and Mount (1999) conducted research by focusing on Minztberg’s
study among three levels of hotel managers.

Level 1 managers were

identified as reporting directly to the General Manager (senior managers),
Level 2 managers were direct reports to level 1 (middle managers) and Level
3 managers were direct reports to level 2 (front line managers).

Bartlett and Mount’s (1999) research concluded that generally, role
effectiveness and frequency decreased as performance decreased and varied
at each level of management.

There was no significant difference in

effectiveness in role performance and it can be assumed that effectiveness in
role performance will increase, as managerial status increases within an
organisation.

2.1.4

Successful Managers – Boston Consulting Group Research

A company’s effectiveness hinges on the quality of its employees, therefore,
for an organisation to operate successfully and to sustain longevity,
employees need to be nurtured and led by successful managers.

A study prepared by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) identified ten
generic attributes which define a successful manager. “The profile seems to
fit managers regardless of age, sex, industry, size of the organisation or the
corporate culture” (Ivancevich, et al, 2002, p 44). These attributes are defined
below:

Provides clear direction: by establishing clear goals and standards
for employees. They involve staff in setting goals and communicate
both group and individual expectations by delegating responsibility.

3508072

Encourage open communication: by demonstrating sincerity in their
relations with people by being honest and open with information and
displaying an element of trust amongst staff.

Coaches and supports people: by creating a positive working
environment which fosters support and encouragement in the
satisfactory completion of work.

They’re able to coach staff when

performance challenges arise and are able to defend subordinates in
discussions with senior management.

Provides objective recognition: by recognising and rewarding
employees for outstanding performance and by positively encouraging
and motivating staff to continually produce outstanding results.

Establishes ongoing controls: by addressing concerns expressed by
employees and providing feedback on issue resolution.

Selects the right people to staff the organisation: by planning and
defining the job description needed in pursuit of the organisation’s
goals. The manager defines the parameters and scope for recruitment
and development of the position by ensuring the right candidate is
appointed.

Understands

the

financial

implications

decisions:

understanding the importance of fiscal management and how their
business unit contributes to the results generated on the bottom line.

Encourages innovation and new ideas: by allowing staff to actively
participate in idea generation and new initiatives.

Gives subordinates clear-cut decisions when they are needed: by
listening to the ideas generated and brings all suggestions together in
reaching a fair and equitable decision

3508072

10.

Consistently demonstrates a high level of integrity: by creating an
environment which fosters respect and integrity for all staff

The ten attributes identified by the BCG have not only provided an overview of
the skills and attributes necessary for successful managers but have
contributed to the discussion on the importance of developing an effective
manager.

2.1.5

Comparison

between

Boston

Consulting

Group

and

Mintzberg’s Theory

The research offered by the BCG focussed on a manager’s ability to develop
and strengthen interpersonal relationships with staff. The theory referred to a
manager’s ability to create a safe and responsive work environment by
nurturing the employee’s commitment, dedication and contribution to the
organisation (recruitment, selection, learning and development, appraisal,
recognition for performance).

Mintzberg’s theory takes a different approach which examines the functional
roles carried out by a manager and their ability to make decisions and share
information both internally and externally to the group. His study has been
subject to some criticism as no apparent link has been made to managerial
effectiveness (Barlett & Mount, 1999).

Both Minztberg’s study and the research conducted by the BCG have
provided two different perspectives on managerial behaviour and practice. It
can be assumed that an effective manager would need to recognise and
acquire the qualities identified by the BCG in order to utilise Mintzberg’s
model effectively. Their research has given credibility and an opportunity to
appreciate the array of activities which are confronted by managers today.

3508072

2.1.6

Summary of Managerial Functions and Roles

This chapter introduced the roles and functions of managers. Organisations
today are typically characterised by a managerial framework, which is
responsible and accountable for the performance of specific tasks and
actions. The three distinct levels of managers include; Front Line Managers
(focussed on coordinating the work of line staff), Department Heads
(responsible for managing the work activities of business units), and Senior
Managers (concentrate on the overall functioning and performance of the
business).

The chapter progressed to discuss the specific skills which are essential for
managers to carry out their role and responsibilities. The manager’s ability to
use these skills directly impacts on their performance and hence
organisational success. The main skills identified include technical, analytical,
decision-making, computer, human relations, communication and conceptual
skills.

As an understanding of the fundamentals of management began to emerge,
research conducted by BCG described the attributes of an effective manager
which concentrated on nurturing the employee lifecycle (recruitment,
selection, learning and development, appraisal, recognition for performance).

The work of Mintzberg took a different approach by identifying a review of
managerial roles.

His study concluded that managers spent their time

focussing on three main roles, which include interpersonal, informational and
decisional roles. Bartlett and Mount (1999) utilised Mintzberg’s study among
hotel managers and identified that the frequency and effectiveness of
managerial roles tended to decrease as performance decreased.

3508072

This introductory chapter demonstrated the role and importance of a manager
within an organisation. Furthermore, the approach and manner by which a
manager is able to demonstrate and apply these skills effectively is
characterised by their individuality, namely in the form of personality and
cognitive intelligence.

The thesis shall now progress to look at teams and individual behaviours
within them.

3508072

2.2

Groups and Teams

As chapter 2.1 looked at the functions and roles of managers within
organisations, this chapter will introduce the concepts of groups and teams,
which are commonly used by organisations today. An understanding of the
nature of groups and stages of development in particular Tuckman’s Five
Stage Model and Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model will be discussed at
length and in detail.

The chapter will seek to distinguish between groups and teams particularly
with regard to characteristics such as composition, member roles, size,
norms, cohesion and development.

As an understanding of the differing

characteristics begins to emerge, we recognise and appreciate how these
influence member behaviour and consequently impact upon the team’s overall
performance.

The importance and structures of teams will be discussed by specifically
detailing the four types of teams commonly created (problem-solving, crossfunctional, virtual and self managed teams) and will be further advanced by
understanding the importance of fostering and promoting team effectiveness.

Furthermore, the interactions between members will be discussed by
reviewing positive and negative consequences of intra-group conflict
(relationship, task and process). In addition, possible solutions to stimulate
and manage conflict within teams to promote operational effectiveness and
performance will be explored.
2.2.1

Groups and Teams Defined

Research has suggested that organisations today operate their business by
recruiting highly skilled individuals in order to use their skills, knowledge and
experience to work in groups or teams. Ingram and Desombre (1999) noted
that recent literature discusses the importance and value of staff as they
create and develop effective contacts in different groups or teams.

3508072

Each member of the group or team brings their skills, knowledge and
experience to the group in the pursuit of achieving its goals and objectives.
The collective interaction between members of the group or team is what
defines the organisation’s behaviour and performance.

An organisation’s

behaviour is not defined by individual employees alone but is a reflection of
the total workforce employed. Logically, it can be assumed that managers
who develop an understanding of group and team dynamics will be able to
positively influence employee behaviour and thus develop high standards in
performance which can contribute to improving organisational effectiveness
(The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

Groups can be defined as “…two or more interdependent individuals
interacting and influencing each other in collective pursuit of a common goal”
(Bartol et al, 1998, p601). In contrast, “a team is a temporary or ongoing task
group whose members work together to identify problems, form a consensus
about what should be done, and implement necessary actions for a particular
task or organisational area” (Bartol et al, 1998, p603). These differences are
outlined below in table 1: Groups and Teams: Key Characteristics.

3508072

Table 1:

Groups and Teams Key Characteristics
Groups

Team

Work on common goals

Total commitment to common goals

Accountable to a manager

Accountable to team members

Skill levels are often random

Skill levels are often complementary

Performance is evaluated by a

Performance

Culture is one of change and

Culture is based on collaboration and
total commitment to common goals

conflict
-

evaluated

members as well as leaders

leader
-

Performance

can

positive,

Performance can be greater than the

neutral or negative

sum of members contribution or

Success is defined by the leader’s

synergistic

aspirations

Success is defined by the members’
aspirations

(Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002)

It is important to note that the terms groups and teams are not the same and
shouldn’t be used interchangeably although some writer’s do. Members of
groups are individuals who may have varied skills but who share common
norms and expectations of performance.

They join the group in order to

achieve a common goal although they are not interdependent on each other
(The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

Teams

can

distinguished

from

interdependency and commitment.

groups

their

high

level

Team members are responsible and

accountable to their colleagues in working towards the achievement of goals.
As the team progresses towards achieving these objectives, the team
develops synergies that are greater than if members work independent of
each other (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003). Quite distinctly, teams
share a stronger sense of belonging and foster a sharing in “…culture,
processes and philosophy of working together” (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002,

3508072

p328) than groups. The difference between teams and groups will be further
explored throughout this chapter.

2.2.2

Nature of Groups

Formal groups are the most common type of groups and are intentionally
established by the organisation where employees are a part of the specific
group based on their position or role. A command group is a type of formal
group wherein staff are specifically chosen to complete a piece of work and
report to a direct supervisor. Task groups are also a subset of a formal group
and are characterised by employees working closely together to complete
specific tasks or projects. These three types of groups are developed within
the organisation because they are the best approach to achieving goals
(Bartol et al, 1998).

Employees who associate with one another regularly develop informal groups
that are said to evolve “naturally”. A type of informal group is an interest
group which is comprised of employees who bring their skills together to
achieve a shared purpose. Friendship groups are also developed within the
business when individuals identify and share common interests.

These

friendships can be held both in the workplace and socially (Bartol et al, 1998).

2.2.3

Stages of Group Development

Groups learn just as individuals do. The performance of a group depends
both on individual learning and how well the members learn to work with one
another. Two models can be used to describe the development process of
groups which present different perspectives on the dynamics of group
development – Tuckman’s Five Stage Model and Gersick’s Punctuated
Equilibrium Model.

3508072

2.2.3.1

Tuckman’s Five Stage Model

Tuckman’s five stages of group development provides a framework to
describe and analyse the phases through which a group grows over time.
Cacioppe (2001) points out that Tuckman’s framework does not sufficiently
describe the development of a team but merely describes the processes
through which a group works in completing objectives. These phases can be
difficult to determine at a particular point in time but nevertheless it is
important to understand the group behaviour that inevitably contributes to the
group’s end result.

The stages include forming, storming, norming,

performing and adjourning and are defined below.

Initially group members need to form an understanding of the group’s intent or
purpose, composition and leadership style. This stage is called the forming
stage and is the commencement of defining roles, objectives and tasks by
clarifying the group’s mission and purpose.

As individuals start to view

themselves as part of the group, the forming stage has concluded (Kur, 1996).

As the group clarifies tasks and job functions, it progresses to what is referred
to as the storming stage. Members of the group are generally confronted with
conflict during this stage as decisions are made to allocate assignments,
privileges and responsibilities. Each member’s personal intentions for what
the group might become could be different from what it actually is.

The

discomfort experienced in the group helps to strengthen the group’s position,
commitment and goals.

It is critically important for the group during the

storming stage to manage the conflict experienced rather than stifle it and to
determine group member’s commitment and effectiveness.

If common

ground cannot be reached, members may leave the group at this stage (Kur,
1996).

The norming stage follows the storming stage and is when group members
collaborate and cooperate with one another as they exchange information by
being open to opinions and actively working towards the agreement of
common goals. Members freely accept opinions to ensure the group feels

3508072

positive synergy. Behavioural norms are established (ie. leadership, written
and unwritten rules, standards of behaviour, performance standards) and
accepted at this stage of group development as the cohesion of the group
starts to strengthen (Kur, 1996).

As the group becomes active and functional in its intent, and the structure of
the group confirmed, the group’s status is defined as the performing stage.
Members of the group are focussed on achieving goals; therefore the
outcomes achieved are a direct result of the effort and effectiveness of the
group’s performance. Group members may change individual roles to reflect
changes within the group and may seek other’s opinions when completing
tasks (Kur, 1996).

As the group achieves its goals it is said to be adjourning. Members may feel
a sense of pride for achieving goals and accomplishing what was intended as
others may feel a sense of loss. It is common for organisations to create
temporary groups for project work. However, in many instances, groups may
never experience the adjourning stage, as they are permanently grouped to
achieve the company’s objectives (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002).

2.2.3.2

Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model

Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model suggests that the working life of a
group can be divided into three stages.

Initially, the group engages in

relatively unfocused activity and makes minimal progress on tasks. At the
‘midpoint’ of the project, the group reconvenes and develops or refines the
strategy to work towards the achievement of goals. The third stage sees the
group focussing on the achievement of predefined goals.

The model is

explained below.

3508072

•

Stage 1 - Inertia

During the Inertia stage, the group is engaged in ad hoc activity. The group
commences to determine norms and roles, which guide the group through the
first half of its existence. The inertia stage allows members of the group to
define the tasks and strategies for completing projects (Ivancevich et al,
1997).
•

Stage 2 - Mid Point

As the group has reached half way, the group assesses its progress and new
goals are determined to assist in the achievement of objectives.

As the

completion of its work approaches, the group becomes primarily focussed on
time constraints and commences to test solutions with people outside the
group. Once the group agrees on new goals, it works towards achieving them
(Ivancevich et al, 1997).
•

Stage 3 -Redirection

The group is now dedicated to working to the agreed action plan by becoming
task orientated. The group does not attempt to modify the strategy but uses it
as a guideline for achieving goals (Ivancevich et al, 1997).

2.2.3.3

Comparison between Tuckman’s Five Stage Model and
Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model

These two models have demonstrated two approaches to group development.
Tuckman’s five-stage model suggests that it takes time for groups to function
effectively and provides a basic understanding of group development.
Ivancevich et al (1997) point out that the Tuckman model doesn’t provide
clarity on what critical events move a group through the stages as it neglects
to consider the external environment.

In contrast, Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model provides greater insight
to the development of groups as it analyses project teams and how they
function ie: performance strategies, relationships between group members
28

3508072

and referral to people outside the group (refer table 2: Similarities and
differences of Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model (GPEM) and
Tuckman’s Model).

Table 2:

Similarities and differences of Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium
Model (GPEM) and Tuckman’s Model

Similarities
Differences
Defining goals, objectives, norms, Tuckman’s model doesn’t provide
responsibilities

and

accountabilities clarity on what critical events move

that occur during the initial stages of a group through the stages.
both models.
During the midpoint, the GPEM
Both

actively

work

towards

the reassess

and

evaluate

their

direction.

achievement of goals.

Experience differences of personal Although both models focus on
opinion when defining goals and achieving goals as the GPEM
reassess

norms.

their

position

their

achievement of goals may be
May have differing views of what is higher due to effectively ensuring
they

satisfactory performance.

are

achieving

what

expected.

2.2.4

Characteristics of Groups

As groups grow, they develop particular characteristics which make the group
and its working style unique.

These characteristics ultimately affect the

performance and effectiveness of the team. To analyse these concepts, a
group can be regarded as a system.

For example: a group requires

resources to engage in a transformational process in order to produce an
output as outlined and further described in the model below (Bartol et al,
1998).
Inputs
Group composition
Member roles
Group size

Processes
Group Norms
Group Cohesiveness
Group Development

Outputs
Group performance
Member need
satisfaction
Future work group
29
performance

3508072

2.2.4.1

Composition

“Group composition relates to the extent to which group members are alike”
(Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002, p319). Due to changing demands, groups are
becoming more diverse with members having varying skills, knowledge and
attributes. This enables the group to be better positioned by maximising each
member’s strengths.

Hackman (1987) suggests that managers need to

consider three important issues when developing groups. These include, to
appoint individuals; with task-relevant expertise, with interpersonal skills, and
with an element of diversity. Although it is a time and energy consuming
process, it is necessary for managers to develop an understanding of group
composition as it can influence group and individual performance and
behavioural outcomes (Bartol et al, 1998).

2.2.4.2

Member Roles

Within a group, individuals typically fulfill several roles, primarily their
functional role and a role that is associated with expected behaviours of
performance. For example, a functional role of a secretary is to distribute the
agenda prior to the meeting (Bartol et al, 1998).

The roles of individuals can become distorted when employees are faced with
conflicting role expectations or varied expectations due to their membership of
more than one group (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

This is

known as role conflict. Role clarity and definition assist in eliminating role
conflict and confusion and providing direction for members in achieving the
intended purpose of each group (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002). Member’s
roles within teams will be further explored throughout the thesis.

3508072

2.2.4.3

Group Size

The number of individuals in a group will impact on how the members interact
with each other. For example, a group of two people may not be able to
adequately resolve problems due to the limited idea generating resources of
two people. A group of five to seven members may assist in working towards
the achievement of goals especially when group interaction and idea
generation is needed. Groups with ten or more members tend to make group
work difficult as the ability to actively participate is weakened due to too many
individuals being in the group (Bartol et al, 1998). Group size has an impact
on group performance.

As more people enter the group, the group’s

productivity generally increases until it reaches its optimum size. Once the
group reaches beyond its optimum size for the task being performed and
more people become involved, the group’s productivity and hence
performance will decrease (Bartol et al, 1998).

2.2.4.4

Work Group Processes

Why do some groups achieve little whilst other groups are highly productive?
By looking at the ‘inner’ workings of the group, an understanding of
performance and productivity can be developed. As individuals work towards
the achievement of goals, energy needs to be dedicated to the group itself in
order to ensure that the group is maximising is resources. This is defined as
group synergy which is “the ability of the whole to equal more than the sum of
the parts” (Bartol et al, 1998, p880). When positive synergy occurs, the group
is making the best use of available resources to achieve goals. The three
major issues affecting group performance are defined below and are known
as group norms, group cohesiveness and group think.

3508072

2.2.4.5

Group Norms

When a group is formed, guidelines are established in order for members to
develop a common understanding about accepted behaviour. “Norms are
standards shared by members of a group, and they have certain
characteristics that are important to group members” (Ivancevich & Matteson,
2002, p322). According to Tuckman, group norms are established during the
norming stage whilst Gersick’s model suggests that norms are developed in
the initial stage of group formation known as inertia. These norms become
more evident as the group begins to establish acceptable standards of
performance and behaviour amongst group members.

It is quite common for norms to be informally communicated but still clearly
understood, accepted and observed by members.

Generally, norms are

based on productivity expectations that define the acceptable level of
performance (Bartol et al, 1998).

Depending on the level of importance, norms can be fully or partially accepted
by group members. For example: what may be accepted as a norm by staff
may differ from what is accepted by the leader.

These differences in

perception may cause confusion and uncertainty amongst the group as the
accepted standards of behaviour are viewed quite differently (Bartol et al,
1998).

It is becoming increasingly important for managers to understand why
members of a group conform to particular behaviours and standards.

understanding of norm conformity could explain why certain employees
perform above or below service standards. These norms can be formed by:
•

personal characteristics – which suggests that individuals with high
intelligence may be less likely to conform to group norms;

•

situational factors – such as group size and structure can impact on
group norms in that the smaller the group the stronger and more
explicit the norms; and

3508072

•

intergroup relationships - such as the pressures which arise within the
group that can impact on the group’s ability to develop uniform norms
(Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002).

2.2.4.6

Group Cohesiveness

Group cohesiveness can be defined as the strength of “…the degree to which
members are attracted to a group, are motivated to remain in it…and are
mutually influenced by one another” (Bartol et al, 1998, p613). Therefore, a
highly cohesive group comprises individuals who are motivated to work
together and produce positive and effective results. Consequently, a group
that is low in cohesion is unlikely to perform to its full potential.

Improving the cohesion of groups may bring about improvements in
performance. Managers endeavouring to alter the team need to be mindful
that the group may see this as a threat and be reluctant to improve
performance. Also, as cohesiveness improves, members of the group are
more likely to conform to the group norms (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002).

2.2.4.7

Group Think

Group think can have a negative effect on the performance and behaviour of
the group. It is the “…tendency for group when making decisions to seek
consensus rather than explore alternative courses for action” (Vecchio, Hearn
and Southey, 1996, p366). According to Vecchio et al (1996), Group Think
can cause groups to:
•

ignore issues that could affect the group or organisation,

•

not contemplate issues which differ from group consensus,

•

think they are self righteous, and

•

provide pressure for individuals to conform.

Vecchio et al (1996) suggest that members of the group should be
encouraged to ask questions in order to consider all options and alternatives
prior to making a final decision. The personal strengths of the individual will

3508072

determine their likelihood to conform to Group Think and can be addressed
when a manager can realise the importance of facilitating open discussion to
solicit comprehensive decisions (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

Research in the area of Group Think, suggests that highly cohesive groups
are not subject to the elements of Group Think if the group is composed of
strong individuals who can overcome the problem (Ivancevich & Matteson,
2002).

2.2.5

Teams

As mentioned previously, groups and teams are not the same and can be
distinguished from one another.

Teams are highly interdependent and

committed and as members work together they develop synergies that are
greater than if members worked independently.

Larson and LeFast (1989) suggest that “a team has two or more people, it has
a specific performance objective or recognisable goal to be attained and that
co-ordination of activity among the members is required for the attainment of
the team goal or objective” (Ingram and Desombre, 1999, p17).

Other

scholars view teams as having committed members who develop team
consciousness and have a shared sense of purpose (Ingram & Desombre,
1999).

Teams exist for different purposes and the type of team can be categorised
and identified based on “…the size, composition, organisational level,
duration,

objectives,

and

potential

contribution

organisational

performance…” (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002, p329). When reviewing the
methods in which managers plan for work to be completed, it is common to
conclude that there is a reliance on teams (Trent, 2003) as managers can no
longer individually deal with the complexities which confront them (Proehl,
1997).

3508072

Cacioppe (2001) suggest that managers need to form and develop teams due
to:
•

Downsizing where teams are formed to make better use of employee
skills with shrinking resources,

•

Changing social values which appreciate group work moving away
from directive and hierarchical leadership structures to flatter, more
democratic structures - a move from groups to teams, and

•

Changing customer requirements, where technology and competition
require the business to be highly responsive and adaptive (Cacioppe,
2001).

Organisations need to ensure that the right people are utilised in forming
teams in order for individual and team satisfaction/performance to be
achieved (Ingram & Desombre, 1999). Examples of common teams within
organisations are discussed below.

2.2.5.1

Problem Solving Teams

Problem solving teams are designed to deal with problems. These teams are
usually temporary and can last anywhere between a few days to a few
months.

Members of a problem solving team are usually dedicated to

identifying the issue, making a recommendation and solving the problem
(Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002).

2.2.5.2

Cross Functional Teams

In recent times, many medium to large sized organisations have begun to
operate using small cross-functional management teams because of their
ability to solve problems, make informed decisions and manage the operation
(Belbin, 1996: Proehl, 1997: Trent, 2003). These teams enable managers to
combine their skills, knowledge, experience and competencies in order to
operate a successful business and promptly respond to performance issues
and pressures (Proehl, 1997).

3508072

Although cross-functional teams are essential for the operation of a business,
they tend to be the most difficult to run (Proehl, 1997). Employees usually
represent a variety of different departmental and functional roles. Ivancevich
and Matteson (2002) point out that it may be challenging for cross-functional
teams to become effective due to previous impressions, attitudes and
relationships that are developed prior to the team coming together.

Cross-functional management teams are constituted to assist in effectively
using the expertise and functions of different areas within the business
(Proehl, 1997).

Parker (1994) suggests that organisations today create

management cross-functional teams to:

develop new products,

re-engineer organisational processes,

improve customer relationships, and

improve organisational performance.

The success of a cross-functional team is highly dependent on the members’
motivation to achieve the best possible results.

The team must have an

experienced team leader who is authorised to make decisions and accomplish
tasks. Management’s support in providing resources to effectively achieve
goals is critically important to the success of the team (Proehl, 1997).

2.2.5.3

Self Managed Teams

A Self Managed team (SMT) “is a work group given responsibility for a task
without day to day supervision and with authority to influence and control
group membership and behaviour” (Bartol et al, 1998, p625). Prior to the
implementation of SMT’s, it is beneficial for an organisation to ensure the
team’s direction is consistent with the business’ requirements, values and
goals. The success of the team hinges on the support and commitment of
management.

This will verify to employees that the managers value and

recognise the importance of the team’s position within the organisation
(Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002).

3508072

2.2.6

Team Effectiveness

Successful teams are reliant on the ability of their members and leaders to
perform and achieve the desired results. It is important to note that team
performance and effectiveness are not the only criteria by which to evaluate a
team. To develop and ensure that a team performs to the standards set by
management and achieves its intended purpose, several factors need to be
considered. Hackman (1990) identified three main principles for evaluating
team performance. These are:
•

the outputs meet the required quantity, quality and timeliness of the
end user,

•

the degree to which the work of the group enables members to work
interdependently in the future, and

•

the degree to which the work of the group influences the professional
development of its members (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

Several researchers have suggested that using teams to improve organisation
performance is very common.

Castka et al (2001) suggest that teams

produce higher quality results than individuals when:

the task is involved and complex,

there is clear direction,

there is a pressing need for creativity,

the use of resources is necessary,

the need to learn immediately is pressing,

commitment of the team is high,

implementation requires support from members, and

tasks require cross-functional skills (Castka et al, 2001).

Groesbeck and Van Aken (2001) point out that effective team design and
implementation is only the start to achieving goals and improving

3508072

performance.

“As a team develops, it can progress from being a loosely

formed collection of individuals to a collective with compatible, shared mental
methods” (Groesbeck and Van Aken, 2001, p.2).

Through the literature, five common factors have been constantly identified as
contributing to the success of teams (Proehl, 1997). These are:

team composition (functional representation, open-minded, highlymotivated members and representation of the end users),

skilled team leaders,

authority and accountability to accomplish tasks,

management support and adequate resources, and

adequate internal and external communications.

To develop an understanding of team effectiveness, the main factors
impacting on team performance are outlined below.

2.2.6.1

Characteristics to Promote Team Effectiveness

Members are appointed to a team for their ability and skills in carrying out a
specified role. In conjunction with their functional role, it is highly critical that
team members can work and liaise with other people especially in a team
environment.
•

Training

Training for members of the team is dependant on the purpose and aim of the
team, specific training courses may relate to problem solving, creative thinking
and the development of interpersonal skills. Developing teams without proper
training is a recipe for managers spending more time making poor quality
decisions (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

3508072

•

Communications

The development of a team increases the need for more information to be
circulated. Managers may be reluctant to share information particularly if it
can be regarded as confidential.

Managers who are opposed to sharing

information contribute to the ineffective performance of the team (The Faculty
of Business and Law, 2003).
•

Empowerment

Team empowerment gives the team the authority and responsibility to make
decisions to improve the team’s position. The empowerment of the team is
directly related to management’s support and trust in their efforts to succeed
in the task at hand (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).
•

Rewards

Effective and positive team performance should be recognised and rewarded
by management. The team should be rewarded and recognised for its ability
to work towards the achievement of goals and attainment of high
performance.

The effort to increase performance leads to improved

productivity and members’ satisfaction within the team (The Faculty of
Business and Law, 2003).
•

External Conditions & Organisational Context

The organisation’s strategy and culture impacts significantly on the team and
the resources provided to the team.

The organisation’s ability to allocate

resources and technology to support the direction of the team will assist in the
achievement of goals (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

3508072

2.2.7

Team Conflict

Organisations are continuously searching for opportunities to become
increasingly flexible, efficient and competitive. They do this by creating work
teams to complete work rather than assigning individuals to projects (Harris et
al, 2003).

“Teams bring assets – adding knowledge and creativity, increasing the
understanding and acceptance of ideas, and improving commitment and
motivation” (Jehn, 2001, p238).

Although teams are implemented to

capitalise on the various skills and knowledge of members to perform work,
they can also be detrimental to organisational success when intragroup
conflict emerges.

“Conflict is awareness on the part of the parties involved of discrepancies,
incompatible wishes, or irreconcilable desires” (Jehn et al, 2001, p239). In
general, members of teams can experience differing levels of conflict which in
turn can influence the team’s performance.

Early research regarding conflict suggested that it hindered performance and
therefore resolution was necessary to ensure problems had been addressed.
Recent literature has suggested that conflict can contribute to improving team
performance in certain situations (Harris et al, 2003). Three main types of
intra-team conflict have been identified in work teams, these are relationship,
task and process conflict (Jehn, 2001).

2.2.7.1

Types of Conflict

2.2.7.1.1

Relationship Conflict

Relationship Conflict (RC) can be described as disagreements which occur
between members, which are not directly related to the tasks which the group
performs. For example, personality and behavioural clashes among team
members (Harris et al, 2003).
40

3508072

Research has indicated that RC within a team can adversely affect
performance, as the tension and friction between members due to their
individual differences impacts upon the team’s ability to work together and
hence achieve optimal results (Harris et al, 2003). The negativity experienced
by the team can cause team members to feel rejected and to develop low
morale as they begin to dislike being a part of the wider team (Jehn, 1995).

Studies have continued to demonstrate that as the hostility between team
members ferments, the team becomes distracted from the tasks at hand
therefore jeopardising the team’s performance (Jehn et al, 2001). As most of
the team’s efforts are focussed on personal conflict, the team becomes less
receptive to new ideas and tensions begin to mount amongst team members.

It is evident that RC would not benefit a team at any stage of its development.
However, low levels of RC help a team to work cohesively towards the team
goals and tasks and develop appropriate behavioural patterns i.e. managing
disagreements (Robbins et al, 2003).

According to Tuckman’s theory of group development, during the storming
stage, if group consensus cannot be reached, a negative pattern of behaviour
is likely to occur. Gersick’s study also noted that teams who developed RC
early in their formation generally developed more difficulties between
members and achieved lower task performance (Jehn et al, 2001).

2.2.7.1.2

Task Conflict

Task Conflict (TC) can be described as disagreements which occur amongst
team members regarding differing ideas, opinions and suggestions related to
group tasks (Harris et al, 2003).

TC and team effectiveness contributes to the performance of the team. Open
and honest debate about differing views and opinions provide the team with
an ability to generate many ideas due to the varying experience of team

3508072

members. These differences encourage the team to enhance the quality of
their decisions by evaluating the range of alternatives (Robbins et al, 2003).

Research has continued to point out that variables such as the types of tasks,
norms, team size and friendships contribute to the interaction between team
performance and TC. These variables can provide insight as to why some
teams are able to utilise TC in a positive and proactive manner. Jehn (2001)
points out that teams who are stable and have low levels of RC are able to
utilise TC constructively without personally attacking other team members.

As TC enhances the performance of the team, the time taken to make
decisions can lead to distracting members from working towards goals and
hence implementing projects.

According to Gersick’s model, during the ‘midpoint’ of the group development
stage, the team concentrates on adopting new approaches to completing
work and discusses the strategy to ensure work is completed. As the team
debates the implementation plan, they experience an element of TC (Jehn,
2001).

2.2.7.1.3

Process Conflict

Recent research has identified a new conflict scenario known as Process
Conflict (PC) which is concerned with debate in regards to how tasks will be
completed. PC focuses on resolving responsibilities and accountabilities in
order to complete certain tasks (Robbins at al, 2003).

The PC stage assumes that as the roles and duties of members are
discussed, uncertainty and disagreement may arise. The tension experienced
within the team may cause members to want to resign from the team’s work
effort (Jehn, 2001).

During the initial stages of team formation, PC may be experienced as work
norms are determined and agreed upon. According to Tuckman’s model, PC

3508072

will be evident in the norming stage as responsibilities and deadlines are
decided. Gersick’s model experiences PC during the first stage as processes,
plans and timelines are discussed (Jehn, 2001).

2.2.7.2

Summary of Team Conflict

It is widely accepted that conflict is neither absolutely good nor bad but is an
issue that cannot be avoided. High levels of conflict can have a negative
effect on performance due to the ineffective use of time and other resources.
Alternatively, not enough conflict can also have a negative effect on
performance as the drive for change and innovation is seen as less important
than team harmony. Bearing this in mind, research suggests that conflict can
lead to improved decisions due to the critical evaluation of alternatives and
ideas that occur during this time.

As can be seen, conflict is unavoidable and inevitable in the workplace today.
Managers need to understand the dynamics of conflict and its subsequent
impact on organisational performance.

Developing an understanding of

conflict in the workplace will provide managers with an opportunity to proactively confront the issue and manage it rather than suppress it and
jeopardise future opportunities.

2.2.8

Summary - Groups and Teams

This chapter articulated the roles of groups and teams within organisations
and explained why organisations create groups and teams to perform work.
Groups and teams share similarities such as; member interaction to complete
work, fulfilment of technical roles, solving specific problems, and achieving
common goals. Teams can be distinguished from groups in that they have a
higher level of member interdependence and foster a stronger sense of
culture, processes and accountabilities.

3508072

The chapter proceeded to review the nature of groups and the stages which
groups move through to complete work based on Tuckman’s Five Stage
Model and Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium model.

It was found that

Tuckman’s model doesn’t provide clarity on what critical events move a group
through the five stages. Alternatively Gersick’s model provided clearer insight
as it analysed project teams and how they function. The chapter continued to
review the different characteristics which impact upon team performance such
as composition, member roles, group size, work group process, group norms,
norm conformity, group think and cohesiveness. Table 3: Intra-group conflict
experienced at the relevant stages of group development below provides a
comparative overview of Tuckman’s and Gersick’s model and identifies
examples of intra-group conflict experienced at the relevant stages of group
development.

3508072

Table 3:

Intra-group conflict experienced at the relevant stages of
group development

Tuckman’s Five Stage
Model

Stage 1 – Forming
Stage
defining
roles,
objectives and tasks by
clarifying the groups
mission
Stage 2 – Storming
Allocate assignments,
responsibilities
and
accountabilities

Gersick’s Punctuated
Equilibrium Model

Examples of intragroup conflict
experienced

- Differing views of the
Stage 1 – Inertia
intent
and
Determine roles, norms groups
and define tasks and mission
strategy
- Relationship Conflict Resistance to working
with certain individuals
within the group
- Personal intentions of
what the group should
be may differ from the
holistic group

Stage 3 – Norming
Actively work towards
the
agreement
of
common
goals,
determine norms

- Differing perceptions
on group norms and
standards of behaviour
- Task conflict – differing
ideas, opinions and
suggestions

Stage 4- Performing
Focussed on achieving
goals
and
accomplishing what was
intended

Stage 2 – Midpoint
Reassess the plan and
determines new strategy
if necessary to facilitate
work

- Plans and approach
may not be commonly
accepted by all
members to achieve the
defined goals
- Process conflict – how
tasks will be completed

Stage 5 - Adjourning
Group achieves goals
and accomplishes what
was intended

Stage 3 – Redirection
Group is dedicated to
working on the agreed
plan, no changes to
plans are made

- Differing views on the
standards to define
satisfactory
achievement of goals

3508072

As the chapter progressed, a specific understanding of teams was explored
and the importance of fostering and promoting team effectiveness was
emphasised. The chapter focussed on conflict environments and concluded
that negative conflict can create an environment of great distress. However,
conflict can be stimulated to generate positive results by moving the team
towards change and innovation.

The essence and importance of team development emerged by concentrating
on the main reasons why organisations create teams in the first instance.
Problem – solving, cross functional and self managed teams were seen as the
main team types established in organisations today.

It can be recognised and appreciated that team and/or group performance is
dependent upon many variables such as structure, composition, stages of
development and general team dynamics (composition, roles size etc).
However, this does not explain what makes a team unique and highly
effective?

It is reasonable to assume that although individuals who comprise the team
contribute to its performance based on their skills, knowledge and experience,
their individual differences, in terms of personality, intelligence and other
personal characteristics, will influence their contribution to the functioning of
the team.

The following chapter will develop a discussion of individual characteristics
and individual differences which impact upon an employee’s ability to perform
and hence their ability to contribute to team performance and outcomes.

3508072

2.3

Individual Differences and Managerial Behaviour

To develop a thorough understanding of organisational behaviour, it is
imperative to consider the importance of staff and their individual differences.
Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) suggest that because an organisation
comprises unique individuals, these individuals combine to define the
organisation’s culture and determine subsequent success.

Whilst the previous chapters focussed on the fundamentals of managers,
groups and teams, this chapter will endeavour to explore the individuals (and
their individuality) in the group or team. It is the individuals who contribute to
the uniqueness and performance outcomes of the team (Belbin, 1980).
Therefore, analysing individual differences amongst team members will assist
in explaining why some teams are better performers than others.

For

example: if managers develop an appreciation for the differences in individual
behaviour, their ability to understand the different individual traits of, and
interactions amongst, their team members will enhance their efforts to work
towards improved performance.

2.3.1

Understanding Individual Differences

Organisations employ staff to assist in the completion of work and therefore
the organisation’s performance will be influenced by the individuals employed
to complete the tasks at hand. People are unique for many reasons and their
individual differences are brought about by: cultural background, personal
characteristics, education and training, beliefs and behavioural patterns.
These factors, which distinguish individuals from one another, consequently
affect the approaches to completing work both individually and as a team
member. Furthermore, beliefs of what is and isn’t acceptable will influence
responses given the circumstances of what is expected. Therefore it is logical
to assume that our personality will have a bearing on the work relationships
developed

with

managers,

colleagues,

subordinates

and

customers.

Consequently, a manager’s understanding of individual differences will aid in

3508072

assessing the ways in which people behave and execute their tasks thus
enabling him/her to better construct and manage his/her work groups or
teams.

The attraction-selection-attrition framework (ASAF) provides organisations
with a model for understanding the importance of individual differences in the
workplace.

The ASAF, which can be defined as the “…attraction to an

organisation, selection by it and attrition from it…” (Ivancevich and Matteson,
2002, p108), helps determine organisation behaviour. In simple terms, it is
the cycle of events an employee moves through when entering and exiting an
organisation. The stages are defined as:
•

commencing when an individual is attracted to an organisation because of
their preference and perceived ability in fulfilling a role;

•

progresses when a decision to select and appoint individuals based on set
criteria which supports the organisation’s intent to achieve goals; and

•

concludes when an employee resigns or the organisation no longer
supports the individual’s role and termination occurs – known as attrition.

The cycle of the ASAF provides a platform for recognising and appreciating
individual differences and behavioural patterns and their impact on team and
job performance.

An understanding of individual differences will provide

clarity as to why some people are better suited to a position, role or function,
than others. Ignorance displayed by managers towards individual differences
will directly limit opportunities in maximising organisational and personal
performance (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002).

2.3.2

Understanding Work Behaviour

Effective management can be achieved by understanding individual
differences and their relationship with work behaviour. Work behaviour can
be defined as “…anything a person does in the work environment” (Ivancevich
and Matteson, 2002, p110) which contributes to the effectiveness of
workplace productivity.

3508072

Woods et al (1998) and Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) identified five
common traits in two separate models, which have a bearing on workplace
behaviour. Although the five stages have different names, the elements of the
models are consistent and are defined below in table 4: Traits Having A
Bearing On Workplace Behaviour.

Table 4:

Traits Having A Bearing On Workplace Behaviour

Ivancevich and Matteson (2002)

Woods et al (1998)

Hereditary characteristics

Biographical characteristics

Abilities and Skills

Competency characteristics

Perception

Values

Attitudes

Attitudes and perception

Personality

Personality characteristics

The traits which are identified in table 4: traits having a bearing on workplace
behaviour are defined below:

2.3.2.1

Hereditary / Biographical Characteristics

Hereditary factors provide justification of some human differences that may
impact on work behaviour. Some of these factors include age, gender, ethnic
background and seniority.

Particular focus is targeted towards gender

differences in the workplace with regard to professional and managerial
careers (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002).

2.3.2.2

Abilities and Skills / Competency Characteristics

An employee’s behaviour is distinguished by their ability and skill to perform
certain tasks. An ability can be defined as “a person’s talent to perform a
mental or physical task”, furthermore a “skill is a learned talent that a person
has acquired to perform a task” (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002, p111).

3508072

A manager’s ability to pro-actively plan and identify the competence of the
position including a review of behaviours, responsibilities, and formal
qualifications will ensure that the right incumbent has been appointed to the
position (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002). This process will ensure that the
standards of performance are achieved as the individual’s technical ability is
best matched to the demands of the job (The Faculty of Business and Law,
2003).

2.3.2.3

Perception / Values

This element is the differing point of view between the Wood et al (1998) and
Ivancevich and Matterson (2002) models although one could argue it’s a
difference in terminology.

Perception is “…the process that organises

sensations into meaningful patterns” (Sdorow, 1998, p152), and “… an
individual's values are determined by their attitudes (The Faculty of Business
and Law, 2003, p5). Therefore it is logical to assume that an individual's
values will influence their perception of the situation and vice a versa.

Perceptions are developed by one's own attitudes, motives, interests, past
experiences and expectations (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).
Individuals try to make sense of situations by observing, selecting and
translating the environment to form attitudes which then influence their
behaviour.

Further to perceptions in the workplace, Ivancevich and Matteson (2002)
articulate that “what an employee perceives to be real is in fact reality for the
employee” (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002, p 116). As personal interpretations
of events influence our life experiences, it is no surprise that our perceptual
processes contribute to the way in which we behave in different situations.
These differences in perception place pressure on managers when conflicting
perceptions are held by and between group members.

“Attribution Theory (AT) focuses on process by which individuals interpret
events around them as being caused by a relatively stable portion of the

3508072

environment” (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002, p116). AT assists in recognising
and appreciating why people interpret certain situations differently and their
subsequent behaviour.

In the workplace, AT can provide managers with a mechanism for
understanding the behaviours of employees. Conclusions can be drawn by
looking at the extent to which a person behaves similarly in different situations
(distinctiveness), the extent to which a person engages in the same behaviour
at different times (consistency) and the extent to which other people are
engaging in the same behaviour (consensus) (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002).
An understanding of these phenomena will provide a holistic view of the
behavioural patterns of employees in differing situations.

2.3.2.4

Attitudes

An attitude can be defined as “…a mental state of readiness learned and
organised through experience, exerting a specific influence on a person’s
response to people, objects and situations to which it is related” (Ivancevich
and Matteson, 2002, p118). Our attitudes encompass perception, personality,
feelings and motivation all of which combine to shape our behaviour.

In the workplace, managers are confronted with changing attitudes on a
regular basis. Given the impact of attitudes on performance, it would be best
practice for managers to monitor and promote positive attitudes within the
working environment to ensure performance is not hampered.

A positive

example of an attitude in the workplace is job satisfaction, is the extent to
which an individual is satisfied with their job. This attitude is derived from the
individual’s perceptions and the extent to which the individual’s goals and
organisation’s goals coincide.

3508072

2.3.2.5

Personality

Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) suggest that our personality is one of the
most complex and difficult aspects of our individuality to understand.
Personality can be described as “…an individual’s unique, relatively constant
pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving” (Sdorow, 1998, 442).

Personality traits are an element of our individual differences.

Traits are

“...consistent personality characteristics that are inferred from a person’s
behaviour” (Sdorow, 1998, p453). Recent research on personality has taken
into consideration unconscious motivations, learning abilities, cognitive
processes, experience and biological factors (Sdorow, 1998).

Personality

inventories will be discussed later in this chapter.

2.3.3

Characteristics influencing managerial behaviour

Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) point out that individuals commonly use
themselves as a point of reference in the process of perceiving others.
Therefore one will be accepting of those individuals who have similar traits.

In turn, managers tend to evaluate employees’ differences based on
themselves as a point of reference. If managers recognise and understand
that their own traits and values influence their perception, it is more than likely
that they will be able to make a more accurate evaluation on their employees.

2.3.4

Emotional Intelligence

The emergence of emotional intelligence as a field of study has become an
increasingly interesting phenomenon to academics and practitioners.
“Dynamic environments and increasing demands on businesses to outperform
the competition can serve as catalysts for organisations to view competitive
advantage as an ability to marshal and leverage their human resources”
(Murensky, 2000, p1).
52

3508072

Our understanding of Emotional Intelligence has developed from reviews of
social intelligence and the urgency to understand and manage people
(Thorndike & Stein, 1973). Goleman (1998b) has researched the concept of
emotional intelligence and defines it as a “…capacity for recognising our own
feelings and those of others, to differentiate between them and to apply this
information to guide personal thoughts and behaviours” (Murensky, 2000, p2).

Staff are influenced by the behaviour and leadership styles portrayed by their
managers. Therefore, it is an important skill for a manager to control and
display emotions constructively.

The deportment of the manager will

emphasise the desired ambience of the work environment by setting an
example to employees. Murensky (2000) suggests that those managers who
understand their emotions and how they affect themselves and other
employees (colleagues, superiors, line staff) have a high level of selfawareness which allows for the positive working atmosphere to be developed
and maintained.

Mayer and Salovey (1993) suggest that managers with high levels of
emotional intelligence are able to better manage their emotions because they
have an understanding and appreciation for what motivates and guides their
behaviour. Due to this awareness, these managers are able to effectively
manage their moods and come to terms with difficult situations quickly.
Furthermore, managers who are able to understand the emotions of
employees may be better placed to effectively achieve organisational goals.
Managers who are promoted primarily on technical ability ultimately may not
succeed because their ability to deal with ‘emotional’ behaviour may be weak.
As the individual rises through the ranks, these emotional intelligence skills
become increasingly important (Murensky, 2000).

An individual’s awareness of their emotions will impact on their ability to
perform tasks and duties. A manager’s ability to assess the situation and
better manage their emotions will allow them to focus on the task at hand.
Alternatively, a manager’s inability to control their emotions may contribute to

3508072

a negative effect on performance, altering the way in which they respond to
individual, group or team goals.

2.3.5

Stereotyping

“Stereotyping is a translation step in the perceptual process employed to
assist individuals in dealing with massive information processing demands”
(Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002, p115). In reality, stereotyping is useful for
quickly making sense of the environment although it can lead to errors in
perception particularly with regard to employees’ ineffectiveness and
inefficiencies.

Therefore, managers need to be mindful of stereotyping as it can lead to
social injustice, restricted decision making, limit innovation and\or under
utilisation of employees.

At this stage it can be noted that a manager’s ability to minimise the role of
stereotyping and make best use of their emotional intelligence will guarantee
a stronger position when achieving outcomes and hence outputs. Individual
differences

between

employees

and

the

characteristics

influencing

managerial behaviour can have consequential bearings on the development
and performance of a team. Therefore it is vital for a manager to recognise
that developing an understanding of and appreciation for these differences will
not only positively impact upon the interpersonal relations between
individuals. In turn this will help avoid low levels of motivation, morale and job
satisfaction that could hinder the performance of the collective team which
can have both short term and long term implications. Consequently, if the
team is lead by a manager who understands and ensures that the team
comprises a balance of employees with differing traits (identified by Woods et
al, 1998 and Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002) attitudes, values and
personalities, then the leader will be able to draw upon the resources of the
group due to the availability and wide range of skills, knowledge, attitudes and

3508072

experiences.

The thesis will now progress to look at some of these

differences.

3508072

2.3.6

Measures of Personal Differences

This section will introduce some of the instruments used to measure
differences in personality, psychological type, cognitive intelligence, and team
roles.

As mentioned earlier, personality can be defined as “…an individual’s unique
relatively constant pattern on thinking, feeling and behaving” (Sdorow, 1998 p.
442). Personality inventories are commonly used to operationalise differing
personality types and traits.

Many organisations, psychologists and

counsellors use these instruments to recognise and appreciate how and why
employees differ from one another and how these differences impact on
organisational performance (Martin,1997). They are typically incorporated as
part of the recruitment and selection process and for building and improving
team performance.

Myer Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Cattell’s 16 Personality Factors (PF)
are two very common inventories (Sdorow, 1998). They, and their underlying
theories, will be discussed in turn.

2.3.6.1

Myers Briggs Type Indicator

The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the leading inventories
which is based on Jung’s psychological theory (Sdorow, 1998). The indicator
is non-judgmental and allows people to gain an understanding of their
differences, particularly with respect to energy source, information gathering,
decision-making and lifestyle patterns based on our psychological type
(Martin, 1997).

“Type is about psychological preferences…they represent consistent and
enduring patterns of how we use our minds” (Martin, 1997, p1). The
psychological type model developed by Myer Briggs consists of 16 profiles
formed by the combinations of four bi-polar dimensions. The four dimensions

3508072

deal with the ‘orientation of one’s energy’ (Introversion or Extraversion), the
way one prefers to receive information (Sensing or Intuition), the way one
prefers to express information (Thinking or Feeling) and one’s bias for order
and action (Judging or Perceiving). Therefore one’s psychological type is
represented using one of the four pairs of bolded letters.

“As we act on our preferences, our behaviour and personality come to reflect
our unique approach to the world and relationships” (Martin, 1997, p2). There
is no right or wrong ‘type’ preference although our choices clearly
demonstrate that individuals have different interests, behavioural patterns and
views of the world (Martin, 1997). This in turn suggests that individuals will
have preferences for different types of work, tasks and roles. The bi-polar
dimensions are further defined below.

2.3.6.1.1
•

Bi-polar Dimensions

Bi-polar Dimension 1a:

Extraversion

Individuals who have extraverted characteristics enjoy being actively involved
in an array of activities. They enjoy being around people and tend to have an
energising effect on others. Extraverts like to make things happen and feel
content within the wider environment. When associated with the world around
them, extraverts find comfort in talking aloud and assessing what others think
of the problem.

Due to their colourful persona, extraverts tend to enjoy working in teams and
have an extensive range of acquaintances and friends.

As they are

constantly involved in many activities, they may forget to pause and reflect on
the aims and meaning of activities (Martin, 1997).
•

Bi-polar Dimension 1b:

Introversion

Individuals who are introverted enjoy deep personal involvement with their
ideas, images, and memories.

In contrast to extraverts, introverts like

spending time by themselves and tend to have one or two close colleagues in
the workplace, unlike the extraverts who tend to have a broad network of

3508072

colleagues. Introverts tend to thoroughly think about ideas to clarify the outer
world and often become so enveloped in their own ideas that they forget
reality.

They are seen as calm and reserved individuals who spend the

majority of their time reflecting (Martin, 1997).
In a team environment the extroverted leader would possess qualities that
encourage group discussion and involvement from all team members in order
to facilitate greater worker productivity. In contrast the introvert would take a
passive approach by reflecting on the situation and sifting through information
before a decision can be reached (Kroeger & Thuesen, 1988).

These

differences would ultimately impact on the performance of the team.
•

Bi-polar Dimension 2a:

Sensing

The sensing characters look towards their five senses for gathering
information and are concerned with what is actual, present and real. They
have a great memory for detail and excel when working with data. They
approach situations by looking for facts and see the practicality of ideas.
Their ability to learn flourishes when they can identify the relevance of what is
being taught. They tend to rely on their experiences to understand situations
and solve problems by paying attention to precise details (Martin, 1997).
•

Bi-polar Dimension 2b:

INtuition

The intuitive type prefers to accept information through insight rather than
through practical experience. Intuitive types enjoy looking at new approaches
and methods and are oriented towards the future.

Their memories of events are often an impression of what they thought was
the meaning of the event rather than a memory of the practical experience of
the event. Intuitive people can solve problems through quick insight and are
often interested in doing things that are new and different. They tend to work
from looking at the bigger picture and then work their way towards the facts.
As the intuitive type enjoys focusing on new possibilities, they may tend to
loose sight of the practical approach (Martin, 1997).

3508072

In a team situation, the differences in intuitive and sensing characters can
pose real problems for a leader. The leader will need to understand that team
members may prefer to understand the facts as others may take a more
random approach to information gathering.

An appreciation for these

differences will allow the leader to capitalise on each member’s strengths and
hence improve performance (Kroeger & Thuesen, 1988).
•

Bi-polar Dimension 3a:

Thinking

Thinking types are primarily concerned with understanding the logic in a
situation. They believe that they can make the best decisions by focusing on
the facts and paying no attention to personal issues. The thinking individual
looks for logical consistency when analysing a situation and utilises their
strength in logical analysis to determine the best possible outcome.

As the thinking type is focused on facts and truth, they notice inconsistencies
and make logical and balanced decisions. They have a strong belief that
telling the truth is more important than being tactful. The thinker, due to their
task-oriented approach, may forget the importance and value of people
(Martin, 1997).
•

Bi-polar Dimension 3b:

Feeling

The feeling character adopts a more personal approach when making
decisions as they feel that an understanding of what people care about and
value can contribute to the effectiveness of their decision. They are primarily
concerned with relationships between people and maintaining harmony.

Due to their people orientation, they appear warm, caring and tactful in
situations. They have a genuine concern for others and focus on what is
important to other people. They tend to make decisions with their hearts and
truly believe that being tactful is more important than telling the truth (Martin,
1997).

3508072

In terms of team leadership, an understanding of the preference type
thinking/feeling will encourage improved decision making as thinkers bring
objectivity to the group whilst the feelers bring an awareness of how the
decision will impact upon and be received by others (Kroeger & Thuesen,
1988).
•

Bi-polar Dimension 4a:

Judging

The Judging character prefers a planned and orderly approach to life. They
appreciate organised environments and feel at ease when decisions are
made as it brings an element of stability to their lives.

The Judging type adopts a task-oriented approach to completing duties and
appreciates the use of checklists to ensure all tasks are finished. They plan
and prioritise to avoid rushing just before deadlines are due. They prefer to
complete their work before socialising and may tend to make quick decisions
without enough information (Martin, 1997).
•

Bi-polar Dimension 4b:

Perceiving

Perceiving types take a more flexible and spontaneous approach to life as
they tend to appreciate and adapt to changes as being a part of new
experiences. The perceiving person likes to be aware of the environment in
order to respond to whatever is happening around them. They take a casual
approach to situations and enjoy mixing work and play together. They tend to
work in bursts of energy and thrive on rushing just before deadlines.

Their tendency to stay open to new information allows for thorough decisions
to be made. However, their casual approach and the time spent on searching
for new information can restrict their ability to focus on a direction or plan
(Martin, 1997).

3508072

In a team environment, a good combination of these roles would bring stability
to the team as perceivers bring excitement to the group whilst the judgers
bring the skills necessary to follow through on projects (Kroeger & Thuesen,
1988).

Therefore, the leader’s ability to integrate these preferences will

ultimately improve the team’s performance.

2.3.6.1.2

The Sixteen Type Combinations

The results achieved on these four preference scales provide the individual
with a four-letter pattern which characterises their psychological type. The
four preferences interact in a dynamic and complex way which provides a
generic profile of how individuals approach the world (Kroeger & Thuesen,
1988). These are defined below in table 5: Myer Briggs 16 Types (Briggs
Myers, 1980).

3508072

Table 5:

Myer Briggs 16 Types
INFJ

INTJ

and

Succeed by perseverance, originality

Usually have great minds and

Work devotedly to

and desire to do whatever is needed

great drive for their own ideas

meet their obligations. Lend stability

or wanted. Put their best efforts into

and purposes. In fields that

to any project or group. Thorough,

their

forceful,

appeal to them, they have a fine

See to it that everything is well

painstaking, accurate. Their interests

conscientious, concerned for others.

power to organise a job and

organised.

ISTJ

ISFJ

Serious, quiet, earn success by

Quiet,

concentration and thoroughness.

conscientious.

Practical, orderly, matter-of-fact,
logical, realistic and dependable.

friendly,

responsible

work.

Quietly

responsibility.

are usually not technical. Can be

Respected for their firm principles.

carry it though with or without

Make up their own minds as to

patient with necessary details. Loyal,

Likely to be honoured and followed

help.

what should be accomplished and

considerate, perceptive, concerned

for their clear convictions as to how

independent,

work toward it steadily, regardless

with how other people feel.

best to serve the common good.

sometimes

Take

Sceptical,

critical,
determined

stubborn.

Must

learn to yield less important

of protests or distractions.

points in order to win the most
important.
ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

Cool onlookers – quite reserved,

Retiring, quietly friendly, sensitive,

Full on enthusiasm and loyalties, but

Quiet and reserved. Especially

observing and analysing life with

kind, modest about their abilities.

seldom talk about these until they

enjoy theoretical or scientific

detached curiosity and unexpected

Shun disagreements, do not force

know you well. Care about learning,

pursuits. Like solving problems

flashes

humour.

their opinions or values on others.

ideas, language and independent

with logic and analysis. Usually

Usually interested in cause and

Usually do not care to lead but are

projects of their own.

Tend to

interested mainly in ideas, with

effect, how and why mechanical

often loyal followers. Often relaxed

undertake too much, then somehow

little liking for parties or small

things work and in organising facts

about getting things done because

get it done. Friendly, but often too

talk.

using logical principles.

they enjoy the present moment and

absorbed in what they are doing to

defined interests. Need careers

do not want to spoil it by undue haste

be sociable. Little concerned with

where some strong interest can

or exertion.

possessions

be used and useful.

original

physical

Tend

have

sharply

surroundings.
ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

Good at on the spot problem

Outgoing, easy going, accepting,

Warmly enthusiastic, high-spirited,

Quick, ingenious, good at many

solving.

enjoy

friendly, enjoy everything and make

ingenious, imaginative.

things.

Tend to

things more fun for others by their

almost anything that interests them.

alert and outspoken. May argue

like mechanical things and sports

enjoyment. Like sports and making

Quick with a solution for any difficulty

for fun on either side of a

with

things happen. Know what’s going on

and ready to help anyone with a

question. Resourceful in solving

and

Find

problem. Often rely on their ability to

new and challenging problems,

than

improvise instead of preparing in

but

Are best in

advance. Can usually find compelling

assignments. Apt to turn to one

reasons for whatever they want.

new

not

worry,

whatever cones along.

friends

Adaptable,

the

tolerant,

side.

generally

join

eagerly.

conservative in values. Dislike long

remembering

explanations. Are best with real

mastering theories.

things

worked,

situations that need sound common

sense

that

handled,

can

taken

be
apart

put

and

facts

easier

practical

ability

together.

people as well as with things.

ESTJ

ESFJ

Practical, realistic, matter of fact,

Warm-hearted,

with a natural head for business or

conscientious,

mechanics.

active committee members.

Not

interested

Able to do

born

may

neglect

interest

after

company,

routine

another.

Skilful in finding logical reasons

with

for what they want.
ENTJ

ENFJ
talkative,

Stimulating

popular,

co-operators,
Need

Responsive

and

responsible.

Hearty, frank, decisive, leaders

Generally feel real concern for what

in activities.

others think or want, and try to

anything that requires reasoning

Usually good in

subjects they see no use for, but

harmony and

handle things with due regard for the

and intelligent talk, such as

can

creating it. Always doing something

other person’s feelings. Can present

public speaking. Are usually

necessary. Like to organise and

nice for someone.

a proposal or lead a group discussion

Well informed and enjoy adding

run activities.

encouragement and praise.

with

in their fund of knowledge. May

apply

themselves

when

May make good

may be

good

Work best with
Main

ease

and

tact.

Sociable,

administrators, especially if they

interest is in things that directly and

popular, sympathetic. Responsive to

sometimes

remember

visibly affect people’s lives.

praise and criticism.

positive and confident than their

consider

feelings and points of view.

other

appear

experience in an area warrants.
(Briggs, Myer, 1980)

3508072

2.3.6.1.3

MBTI and the Hospitality Manager

There exists a near universal stereotype of the typical hospitality worker,
particularly with regards to those dealing directly with guests and customers.
Discussions about the development of the hospitality curriculum, the
hospitality industry and the practice of hospitality management have
suggested, and continue to suggest, that the typical hospitality worker exhibits
a number of traits and characteristics, irrespective of their racial and cultural
background. These characteristics, which can be conceptually aligned to the
underlying concepts of the MBTI, tend to reinforce the position description of
hospitality occupations; friendly and outgoing (Extraverted), task oriented
(Sensing) empathetic and naturally civil, courteous with a strong desire to be
of service and to please (Feeling), and with a strong bias for action (Judging)
or to use the four letter code ESFJ.

Many of the behaviours desired in

hospitality workers can be attributed to the fundamental personality and
psychological types of the individual (Gillet and Whitelaw 2003; Whitelaw and
Morda 2004; Whitelaw and Morda 2005).

The sixteen different combinations of psychological type explains behavioural
style and how the interaction of these preferences combine to influence the
needs, interests and relationships of someone categorised to that type
(Martin, 1997). The MBTI preference scale will be used in conjunction with
Cattell’s 16PF which will be defined below to develop an understanding of
individual and team performance.

Although the MBTI is becoming increasingly popular when developing teams
and evaluating the possibilities of differing personalities comprising the teams,
MBTI is also used for the professional development of senior managers either
one on one or within a group. Furnham and Strongfield (1993) suggest that
the MBTI helps managers to understand differences in team building
exercises, improving customer service, reconciling group differences,
adapting to change, analysing troublesome behaviour between employees
and facilitating strategic thinking.

3508072

2.3.6.2

Cattell’s 16PF

The 16PF Personality Factor questionnaire is another commonly used method
for assessing personality traits. The questionnaire was designed by Raymond
Cattell who utilised factor analysis to identify 16 basic traits.

The

questionnaire contains 182 multiple-choice questions which are plotted on a
bar graph to determine the individual’s personality profile. Researchers have
utilised this personality trait measure to identify if trait characteristics are
common amongst the same profession (Sdorow, 1998). The 16PF is one
instrument which is used to operationalise the Big Five Model of personality –
also known as the Five Factor Theory, which is discussed below.

2.3.6.2.1

Five Factor Theory

The Five Factor Theory personality model developed by Costa and McCrae in
1990 describes five broad traits that describe an individual’s personality.
These have been revised from Cattell’s 16PF and are known as Big Five
Factors. The Five Factors are:

The Extroversion trait measures the level of social engagement preferred by
an individual. At one extreme of the scale, a person with a high extroversion
score can be described as being sociable, talkative and friendly. In contrast,
at the other extreme of the scale, someone with a low extroversion score can
be described as being quiet and reserved. Generally, a person with a high
extroversion score would be seeking a position where there is a high level of
human interaction as they have a strong desire for companionship and social
interaction. In contrast, a person with a low extroversion score would seek a
job where contact with other people, particularly customers would be
minimised (McCrae & Costa, 1999)

The Neuroticism personality trait measures the level of anxiety and disposition
to worry of an individual. At one extreme, a person high on the neuroticism
scale can be described as an individual who has a tendency to suffer from
extreme anxiety, sadness or hopelessness. They often experience low self

3508072

esteem and tend to hold a pessimistic view. Alternatively, an individual who is
low on neuroticism experiences positive emotions and tends to feel
psychologically secure and calm (McCrae & Costa, 1999).

The Agreeable personality trait measures the level of interpersonal
agreeableness of an individual. At one extreme, the highly agreeable person
is appreciated by others for their ability to develop and maintain interpersonal
relationships, although they can develop a reputation for being a push over.
Alternatively, a person with a very low agreeable score will be seen as highly
independent, inflexible and taciturn (McCrae & Costa, 1999).

The Conscientious personality trait measures the level of a person’s
commitment and dependability.

At one extreme, the highly conscientious

person can be described as dependable, organised, and hard working with a
strong sense of achievement. They have a desire to strive by having long
term plans. Their strength in technical expertise can assist in working towards
their plans. In contrast, a person with low levels of conscientiousness will
have difficulty applying themselves and persevering at challenging tasks
(McCrae & Costa, 1999).

The Openness to experiences trait measures the willingness of an individual
to contemplate new ideas or experience new opportunities. At one extreme,
the extremely open person enjoys taking risks, is broad minded, imaginative
and often very intelligent.

They have a fond interest in travel and are

characterised by their diverse vocational interests. In contrast, the person
with low levels of openness to experience will tend to prefer routine, tradition
and strict observance of the rules (McCrae & Costa, 1999).

In summary, the Five Factor Theory provides organisations with useful
information when developing or creating high performing teams. The ability of
the team to perform effectively would be based on the balance of various
team members possessing moderately distinctive scores on each of the five
traits.

3508072

For example: it would be reasonable to assume that a team who acquired a
leader who was high in extroversion, low in neuroticism, balanced in
agreeance, highly conscientious and open to new experiences would lead a
team that was collaborative, innovative and highly motivated in setting out to
achieve predefined goals and objectives. Therefore, the leader would draw
upon the strengths, skills, knowledge and experience of team members within
the team to achieve the best possible outcome.

Alternatively a team who possessed a leader who scored low extroversion,
high anxiety would focus on adhering to rules and routines therefore being
stagnant in their approach, unaccepting of new ideas and limited to innovative
approaches to improving the collective team performance.

2.3.6.3

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Leadership can be defined as the process of influencing a group towards the
achievement of goals (Robbins et al, 2003, p534). There are two main forms
of leadership transactional and transformational leadership.

Transactional leaders guide and motivate their staff by establishing goals and
clarifying task and role requirements. Transformational leadership hinges on
transactional leadership but provides individualised consideration, intellectual
stimulation and charisma to the work environment.

Renowned business

leaders who demonstrate transformational leadership tendencies include
Dame Anita Roddick (founder of The Body Shop) and Richard Branson (Virgin
Group) (Robbins et al, 2003).

Bass & Avolio (1985) developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ)

which

was

designed

measure

both

transactional

and

transformational leader behaviour and to investigate the nature of the
relationship between leader styles, work effectiveness and satisfaction (Lowe
et al, 1996).

3508072

The MLQ will be utilised in this study to assess the performance of the team in
terms of three key elements proposed by Bass and Avolio which are
effectiveness, satisfaction and extra effort.
2.3.7

Positive use of Personality Inventories

Because the MBTI and Cattell’s 16PF, which is used to operationalise the Big
Five, help in understanding the differences between individuals, organisations
can benefit from these tools.

They provide managers with feedback in

regards to the differing elements and characteristics (there are only
differences with the MBTI – no strengths or weaknesses). These differences
can assist organisations to:
•

identify specific roles to which individuals are most suited,

•

develop comprehensive training and development programs to assist
with professional and personal development opportunities for staff,

•

improve performance review and planning both individually and at a
department level,

•

assist in workforce planning including skills, knowledge and abilities,

•

identify different approaches to working and solving problems,

•

improve communication between staff,

•

build effective teams,

•

solve problems and resolve conflict, and

•

better understand and appreciate different leadership and management
styles (Martin, 1997).

Furthermore, an understanding of the different personality types of individuals
will provide clarity as to the type of people needed to fulfil the different roles.
For example: a team comprising a highly introverted leader and extraverted
members may develop issues with regards to high performance (and vice
versa) because the introverted leader, who has a preference for solitude, may
find the gregariousness of the extraverted team members a challenge to his
authority.

Furthermore, the domineering presence of extraverted team

members may make it challenging for the introverted leader to facilitate
discussion and make decisions.

3508072

2.3.8

Importance of Understanding Individual Differences

Managers who endeavour to understand the complexities and importance of
human behaviour and individual differences should be able to use this
knowledge to improve business performance by:
•

improving and making informed decisions when recruiting selecting and
appointing individuals;

•

understanding how potential employees handle, deal and relate to
stressful situations;

•

appreciating how people work in teams and respond to differences in
leadership styles; and

•

improving

performance

the

team

blending

complementary

personality styles (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

Managers have minimal control over an individual’s personality (Ivancevich
and Matteson, 2002).

Furthermore, in the workplace managers are not

concerned with an employee’s personality but rather the way in which it
impacts upon their work (Murensky, 2000). Therefore, an understanding of
the personal variations in individuals provides managers with an opportunity
for personality styles to be matched to the tasks at hand in order to increase
effective performance (McCrae and Costa, 1999). “Managers who ignore the
importance of these variables do themselves, employees and organisations a
disservice” (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002, p131).

It can be concluded that an individual’s personality can be described by a
unique set of personal characteristics.

Although similarities exist between

individuals, it is important to remember that the differing combinations of these
characteristics is what makes individuals different from one another
(Murensky, 2000).

A mismatch of these personality types can create

problems within the team. For example: individuals who have strength in
tough mindedness may be resistant to new ideas and strategy development.

3508072

Ensuring that a blend of open-minded individuals is present will encourage the
team to take these issues into consideration.

Therefore, neglecting

personality types may cause the team to ignore new and differing work
approaches which may contribute to improving the performance.
2.3.9

Summary – Individual Differences and Managerial
Behaviour

This chapter introduced the concepts of the individual as a team member and
how individual differences make an important contribution to managerial, team
and group performance. Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) and Wood el at
(1998) developed two similar models which include elements hypothesised to
have a bearing on workplace performance including hereditary/biographical
characteristics, abilities and skills, perception, attitudes and personality.

The chapter progressed to discuss how managerial behaviour can influence
and challenge the status quo in the work environment. Emotional Intelligence
and Stereotyping emerged as being relevant to behaviour which can influence
managerial performance.

3508072

Two models of individual differences, psychological type (operationalised by
the MBTI) and the big five of personality (operationalised by Cattell’s 16PF)
were identified and used to develop an understanding of differences,
particularly with respect to energy, information gathering, decision making and
lifestyle work patterns as well as extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness,
conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Therefore it is imperative to
note that along with the principles of group dynamics which were identified in
a previous chapter, both personality and psychological type plays a major role
in determining preferred team role.

In closing, understanding individual differences provides managers with
further insight as to why the functioning of teams in any organisational setting
change when different individuals are assigned to the roles. Therefore, it is
not just the management function that determines the outcomes, rather, it is
the individual that occupies the role or position, which influences the
outcomes. Understanding individual differences fosters an appreciation as to
why individuals excel in certain roles and settings and not in others.

3508072

2.4

Belbin’s Team Role Model

Whilst the previous chapters focussed on managerial behaviour, team and
group composition and the importance of recognising individual difference
which impact upon team performance, this chapter will introduce and detail
Belbin’s Team Role Model.

The chapter will define and discuss the eight team roles for developing a
successful and effective team. These roles are Chairman (CH), Company
Worker (CW), Monitor Evaluator (ME), Plant (PL), Resource Investigator (RI),
Shaper (SH), Team Worker (TW) and Complete Finisher (CF).

Whilst Belbin’s team role model is widely accepted and acknowledged,
Furnham et al (1993), provides a detailed critique of Belbin’s team
effectiveness theory.

2.4.1

Defining Belbin’s Team Role Model

During the 1980’s Belbin studied management teams and developed a theory
which endeavoured to draw logical conclusions about what constitutes a
successful and effective team.

Belbin’s work in this area has made a

significant contribution as most prior research focussed on individual
managers rather than teams (Belbin, 1996).

Belbin’s research was one of the most rigorous and extensive studies
completed on team building and the model has become one of the most
widely used approaches in forming teams today (Belbin, 1996). The study
looked at the personality characteristics and critical thinking abilities of
members in order to compare successful and unsuccessful teams (Dulewicz,
1995).

3508072

Belbin’s extensive research suggests that within a team, individuals take on
different roles that directly impact upon team effectiveness. Belbin identified
the existence of eight key roles and defines a role “…as a pattern of
behaviour characteristic of the way in which one team member interacts with
another so as to facilitate the progress of the team as a whole” (Dulewicz,
1985, p82). More to the point, this interaction is a function of personality and
intelligence.

Belbin suggests that an appropriate combination of these roles can form an
effective team where the individuals’ varying strengths and characteristics
complement one another. Belbin’s team composition theory enables the team
to capitalise on the strengths and characteristics of the members in working
towards optimal team performance (Belbin, 1996). Further, he suggested that
the team members filled both formal and informal roles which impact upon the
performance of the team. Implicit in this is the assumption that the closer the
fit between the formal and informal roles, the greater the coverage of the
requisite eight team roles.

From his study, eight clearly defined team roles for developing a successful
and effective team were identified by using the 16 Personality Factor Model
(16PF) and Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal models (WGCTA).
Therefore, it can be concluded that a person who fulfils a specific team role
will behave in a manner which is consistent with the personality and critical
thinking ability expected of someone in that role (Dulewicz, 1995).

Belbin’s eight defined team roles for developing a successful and effective
team are described in detail below.

3508072

2.4.1.1

Chairman

The Chairman (CH) “specifies controlling the way in which a team moves
towards the group objectives by making the best use of team resources;
recognising where the team’s strengths and weaknesses lie; and ensuring
that the best use is made of each team member’s potential” (Belbin, 1981,
p154).

The CH is primarily committed to achieving goals and objectives and can
greatly enhance team performance by creating a positive working
environment. Ideally, the team would be composed of individuals with varying
levels of mental ability, personal attributes and defined team roles which
allows the CH to work with the team's most appropriate contributors
(depending upon the task at hand) by utilising their skills, knowledge and
experience to make firm and sound decisions (Belbin, 1996). The CH is able
to set the scene for the group by organising an agenda, selecting problems for
consideration and establishing priorities. The CH establishes roles within the
group and attempts to close gaps of performance by effectively drawing upon
the team’s intellectual assets (Jay, 1980).

Within the group, the CH facilitates work activities by actively asking questions
and encouraging discussion and will only ever exert authority in a manner that
fosters improvements of performance. Their ability to bring the team together
by asking all members to participate prior to a decision being made, is what
characterises them as an effective CH (Jay, 1980).

The CH portrays a positive self image by thinking optimistically. The CH uses
concepts to demonstrate approval for team members who have exerted
substantial effort in the achievement of goals.

The CH is continuously

endeavouring to complete tasks in a practical manner and is genuinely
enthused about the tasks at hand (Belbin, 1996).

3508072

The CH is renowned for having great interpersonal skills, whereby team
members feel comfortable discussing issues. The CH has great trust in team
members to carry out work that has been assigned and planned. If team
members betray the maturity and independence of their role, the CH will
intervene and assess the nature of the problem (Jay, 1980).

The typical CH can be described as being calm, confident and in control of
situations. They encourage and reward team members on their merits without
prejudice or unfairness (Belbin, 1996). Although the CH is not the smartest of
the group, with an average IQ level, and is not particularly clever at generating
new and innovative ideas, it is their inner strength which fosters team
members and encourages those members to capitalise on their strengths,
which enables the group to perform effectively (Jay, 1980).

2.4.1.2

Company Worker

The Company Worker (CW) “specifies turning concepts and plans into
practical working procedures; carrying out agreed plans systematically and
efficiently” (Belbin, 1981, p154). Management teams who acquire a CW tend
to generate satisfactory results as the CW holds the company’s interests at
heart and completes work in a practical and realistic manner.

The CW is usually a capable manager within an organisation who assumes
great responsibility and holds a high rank within the organisational structure.
Over time, the CW develops and enhances skills that are a real asset to a
team. These skills contribute to strengthening their opportunities for career
advancement because of their practical approach to completing jobs,
including those that may be far from interesting and pleasant (Belbin, 1996).

The CW is the practical individual of the team who works towards turning
decisions into feasible plans which the company can pursue. This individual
has great strength of character and exerts strong and positive self-image (Jay,
1980).

3508072

The CW is heavily reliant on structure and systems to support the
organisation’s direction.

As they appreciate plans and structure, any

alterations to this model will disrupt their approach to completing work. As the
CW is able to motivate the team and ensure the work performed is to a
standard, it is logical to assume that if members need to clarify tasks they will
approach the CW in the first instance (Jay, 1980).

The typical CW can be described as being well organised, disciplined yet
tolerant, ensures all internal and external obligations to the organisation are
taken into consideration and uses common sense when completing tasks.
They portray themselves as having a strong sense of self image and are
professional in their approach.

Consequently, the CW can tend to be

inflexible at times and may lack enthusiasm for unproven ideas because they
are primarily focussed on getting the job done and achieving “achievable”
goals effectively and efficiently (Belbin, 1996).

2.4.1.3

Monitor Evaluator

The Monitor Evaluator (ME) “specifies analysing problems and evaluating
ideas and suggestions so that the team is better placed to take balanced
decisions” (Belbin, 1996, p157).

The ME is the member of the group along with the Plant (PL) (defined later in
this chapter) who is recognised as the “sheer genius”.

The ME is not

renowned for generating new ideas but is able to assist the group by
evaluating proposals and suggestions. Their attention to detail at evaluating
all possibilities and alternatives ensures that the best possible decision is
implemented (Jay, 1980). The ME takes time in making decisions or voicing
their opinion as they judge the circumstances, weigh up the options and draw
logical conclusions. The more frequent and diverse the suggestions from the
team, the more important the role of the ME becomes. The ME assumes the
role of a decision making specialist who can generally override the need for
team agreement (Belbin, 1996).

3508072

They pride themselves on never being wrong and can defend their views in
debate due to their ability to critically evaluate suggestions (Jay, 1980). The
ME does not become aggravated by the time needed to make decisions but
takes advantage of the ability to develop comprehensive solutions (Belbin,
1996).

The ME is typically an introvert, serious minded, “boring” and not highly
motivated. Their ability to scrutinise, evaluate and analyse data can often
dampen the morale of the team, as they tend to view issues from differing
perspectives. As the ME has a dull and negative outlook on new initiatives,
this can discourage members from generating new ideas for the group as they
are conscious of the feedback from the ME (Jay, 1980).

As the ME generally tends to lack “bounce” and “energy”, the ME role is
ineffective at inspiring and motivating other team members. The dull, dour
and lifeless characteristics of the ME suggest that they aren’t a positive team
player.

Their

ability

eliminate

poor

suggestions

and

make

recommendations based on the best interests of the team is what makes the
ME a valuable team role (Jay, 1980 and Belbin, 1996).

2.4.1.4

Plant

The Plant (PL) is the team role who “specifies advancing new ideas and
strategies with special attention to major issues and looking for possible
breaks in approach to the problems with which the group is confronted”
(Belbin, 1996).

The PL is the creative member within the team who sits quietly thinking things
through and sometimes generates winning ideas. Their skills and abilities
tend to narrow their options for career advancement as they become involved
in specialist technical positions (Belbin, 1996).

Although other people

contribute to the generation of ideas, it is the outrageous approach adopted
by the PL which makes this role the ultimate ‘idea generator’. As suggested
earlier, the PL is the most intelligent person in the group and the first member

3508072

to seek new approaches to resolve issues. Although they are intellectually
smart and knowledgeable, they tend to be blasé at times and are likely to
disregard practical details and protocols (Jay, 1980).

As the PL is continually working on creative ideas, the perceptions of other
team members in regards to their contribution to the team is greatly reduced if
they act ‘out of line’. The development of the PL role is increasingly evident in
newly formed organisations but is highly uncommon in secure and established
firms (Belbin, 1996).

The PL is primarily interested in the high level

fundamentals of projects and therefore is susceptible to not paying particular
attention to detail. The PL is inclined to offend people within the group if the
ideas generated by members interfere with their ideas (Jay, 1980).

The major flaw of the PL is that they tend to loose focus of the team
objectives when they are concentrating on developing new and innovative
ideas. The PL tends to be poor at accepting of criticism and is quick to get
offended if the team rejects their ideas.

Once they are offended, they’re

susceptible to sulking, abruptness and a reluctance to proactively contribute
to the team. With the nurturing characteristics of the CH, the strengths of the
PL can be restored (Jay, 1980).

The typical PL is individualistic, serious minded and eccentric in their
demeanour.

The PL is the brightest in the team in terms of imagination,

intellect and knowledge although their casual approach can contribute to
losing focus of the strategic objectives (Belbin, 1996).

2.4.1.5

Resource Investigator

The Resource Investigator (RI) is the team role who “specifies exploring and
reporting on ideas, developments and resources outside the group; creates
external contacts that may be useful to the team and conducts any
subsequent negotiations” (Belbin, 1996, p159).

3508072

The RI is usually the team member, who is liked by all team members. They
are relaxed, sociable, outgoing and have an extensive network of external
contacts. The RI actively looks outside the team for news ideas, information
and interesting development prospects. Their ability to liaise with external
contacts provides opportunity for the RI to actively search for new phenomena
to assist with enhancing the competitive position of the team (Jay, 1980).
Without the interaction of other members, the RI can very easily become
bored and ineffective due to their short attention span. As the RI is primarily
interested in working with external contacts, they may tend to lose focus on
the teams objectives (Jay, 1980).

The RI is the manager who is never in the office, but if so, will be on the
phone. They possess the ability to do business (gift of the gab) and are fond
of getting new initiatives started. The RI is well accepted in the management
team and their "can do" approach to innovation encourages enhanced
management performance (Belbin, 1996).

Typical features of the RI include extraverted characteristics that are
enthusiastic and curious. They explore opportunities by talking with people
and possess an ability to respond positively to challenge but are prone to
losing interest in the initiative once the initial excitement has passed (Belbin,
1996).

The RI and PL in their own unique approach, possess the skills to bring about
the innovation the team needs. The differing abilities and qualities of the RI
and PL suggest that the roles may be taken by distinct individuals. However,
in some circumstances, the brightness of the PL and the imaginative
capabilities of the RI can be combined in one individual who can make
effective use of their interpersonal and intellectual skills (Belbin, 1996).

3508072

2.4.1.6

Shaper

The Shaper (SH) “specifies shaping the way in which team effort is applied
directing attention generally to the setting of objectives and priorities and
seeking to impose some shape or pattern on group discussion and on the
outcome of group activities” (Belbin, 1996, p160).

The SH is full of nervous energy, they are outgoing, emotional, impulsive,
impatient, sometimes edgy and easily frustrated. Of all the team members,
the SH is the most prone to paranoia and the first to sense there is a
conspiracy against them (Jay, 1980). The SH is generally a disruption to a
well balanced team. They are a part of the team who is likely to challenge
and change the point of equilibrium which will enables the team to take on
other opportunities which may have been bypassed. The SH is persistent and
uses negotiating skills to alter the direction of the team’s decisions.

The SH is effective at guiding the implementation of slow moving systems to
ensure that an end is reached.

If the SH is successful in their ability to

implement the system, they will have acquired skills which are highly
desirable and thus be very promotable (Belbin, 1996).

The CH and SH often complement each other and bring coherence to a team.
They can both operate effectively as leaders of the team provided one
contains themselves or switches to another role within the team. Yet, it is
common that a team may need these individuals at different times (Belbin,
1996). The SH is self-confident and relies upon factual results to review the
performance of the team. In contrast to the CH, the SH tends to view the
team as an extension of their self-image. The SH is personally competitive,
intolerant of vagueness and likes strong direction. People outside the group
often see this character as abrasive and arrogant. Further, they can make
people within the team feel uncomfortable. Due to their strength in character,
the SH is able to make things happen (Jay, 1980).

3508072

Typically, the SH is outgoing, dynamic and has an ambition to challenge
disinterest and ineffectiveness to ensure that the team is well placed with their
strategic direction. The SH tends to be prone to frustration and unsociability
and becomes irritated and impatient (Belbin, 1996).
2.4.1.7

Team Worker

The Team Worker (TW) “specifies supporting members in their strengths;
underpinning members in their shortcomings; improving communications
between members and fostering team spirit generally” (Belbin, 1996, p161).

The TW is the member of the group who is genuinely concerned with the
welfare of members. They have an ability to encourage people to generate
ideas and show praise and recognition for people’s efforts within the team.
The TW is seen to have an energising effect on the team as there is an
increase in morale, cooperation and positive member interactions that
manifest when the TW is present (Jay, 1980).

During times of great distress other team members value the sympathetic,
understanding and supportive characteristics of the TW, because they are
able to foster a nurturing environment. Due to their interactions with members
of the team, the TW is renowned for being able to counter the tension within
the team, which may be generated by the stronger team roles such as PL or
SH (Jay, 1980). The TW is competent at listening to others suggestions, can
involve difficult members in discussion and optimistically fosters positive team
spirit which is above and beyond their own interest (Belbin, 1996).

As the name suggests, it is no wonder that the TW doesn’t enjoy competitive
environments.

Their concern with emotions and the well being of team

members substantiates why they are inclined to being indecisive.

Their

reserved approach to making decisions may make them look like a ‘fence
sitter’ as they do not want to offend members of the team (Jay, 1980).

3508072

As the TW is primarily concerned with the general well being of members,
their direct contributions to the team’s performance is not always evident.
When the TW is not present, the team feels their absence as hostile
interactions between members begin to emerge.

Due to their ability to

embrace the team members in working together, the TW can be regarded as
the “team’s backbone” for improving performance and team cohesion (Jay,
1980).

Teams which are led by TW create an environment where the tactful and
observant skills of the TW become highly important to the team’s performance
(Belbin, 1996).

Typically, the TW is the "socialite" of the team and acquires the ability to
promote positive team spirit amongst the members. However, because they
are prone to being overwhelmed by events, they can freeze in urgent
situations (Belbin, 1996).

2.4.1.8

Complete Finisher

The Complete Finisher (CF) can be defined as the team role who “specifies
ensuring that the team is protected as far as possible from mistakes of both
commission and omission, actively searching for aspects of work which need
a more than usual degree of attention; and maintaining a sense of urgency
within the team” (Belbin, 1996, p155).

The CF is the team member who follows through to the completion of
projects, tasks or initiatives that have been assigned to the team. They do so
comprehensively and to a high standard. The CF is reluctant to commence a
project if they have doubts about its completion, therefore, they will prepare
detailed plans to ensure that nothing has been overlooked and that the project
will achieve the required goals and objectives (Belbin, 1996).

The CF is

constantly worried about things that can go wrong, and are never satisfied
until every detail has been thoroughly checked. This ‘worry or tension’ is an
example of their anxious persona (Jay, 1980).

3508072

Managers are usually skilful and capable but commonly lack the urgency to
complete tasks once they have been commenced. The CF pays particular
attention to detail and is well recognised and acknowledged by their
colleagues for this contribution (Belbin, 1996).

The CF is known for maintaining a constant sense of urgency, has good selfcontrol and cannot tolerate members who adopt a casual working approach.
As the CF is focused on the completion of tasks, their constant worry can
bring about low morale to the team environment and hence decrease
performance. As many managers fail to follow through with projects, it is the
rare trait of the CF, which promotes them as a real asset to the team (Jay,
1980).

The CF experiences personal satisfaction by their consistent and effective
work effort to produce results.

The role of CF is quite difficult for

organisations to recruit for as the skill is not self evident in the recruitment and
selection process (Belbin, 1996).

The typical CF has an orderly and conscientious approach with the capacity to
follow through. As the CF is highly diligent, they may tend to worry about
minor issues which may not be crucial to the completion of the project (Belbin,
1996).

The work of Belbin concludes that each member of the team carries a dual
role which includes a functional role (specialised skills) and a team role. For
example; if person A likes to resolve issues and person B likes to challenge
the status quo, these traits which the team members possess will be evident
in any team in which they are members. As a result of his research, Belbin
has concluded that an individual’s persona never changes and therefore will
be evident in any team and situation they are in. He has substantiated his
theory by demonstrating that the eight team roles will always need to be
apparent for effective team work (Jay, 1980).

3508072

2.4.2

Insight to Belbin’s Theory

Belbin’s team role theory has become one of the most commonly used team
building theories in business.

The nine years of research supporting the

theory provides organisations with confidence that is a valid and reliable
instrument (Wong, 1998). His research in this area has provided academics
and practitioners with compelling answers which have extended knowledge
on how organisations work and how they can work more effectively by
exploring topics such as team diversity, management behaviour and individual
differences (Jay, 1980).

From the extensive research conducted, Belbin has determined five key
factors that are necessary to create an effective team and produce
consistently good results (Dulewicz, 1995; Wong, 1998). These are:
•

each member works towards the achievement of goals and objectives
by carrying out a functional role;

•

a favourable equilibrium in a functional role and team role is needed
although this is somewhat dependent on the goals and tasks;

•

team effectiveness is reliant on each member’s ability to accurately
recognise and modify their contribution to the team;

•

personality and mental abilities of members may limit their chances of
fulfilling various team roles ; and

•

a team can use its technical resources to full advantage only when it
has the right balance and mix of team roles (Dulewicz, 1995).

Belbin encouraged many organisations to participate in his study which
provided substantial data to hypothesise, test, revise, modify and retest the
theory until a universal anatomy of teams was derived.

Continual

development of the theory confirmed and reiterated the importance of the
roles in using the team to full advantage (Belbin, 1996).

Belbin points out that eight people are not essential for the effective
performance of the team. If there are less than eight, some members may
need to take on more than one team role to ensure the effectiveness of the
83

3508072

team is not diminished. Obviously, the absence of roles weakens the team’s
ability to perform. Similarly, too many roles of the same type may cause
conflict and failure. An analysis of the team roles demonstrates that equal
attention should be paid to the internal and external orientation of the roles
which can influence the performance of the team (Jay, 1980). These roles
are categorised below in table 6: Team Roles Characterised By Internal/
External Orientation.

Table 6:

Team Roles Characterised By Internal /External Orientation
Internal Focus:

External Focus:

Looks predominantly within the team

Orientated to the world outside the team

Company Worker

Chairman

Monitor-Evaluator

Plant

Team Worker

Resource Investigator

Completer Finisher

Shaper (Jay, 1980)

It is important for organisations to recognise that:
-

the composition of a team may need to differ as the organisations’
objectives will vary;

reorganising long established management teams doesn’t happen
overnight; and

the introduction of team role evaluation in an organisation can take
time with already established teams, although it may add instant value
in creating project teams (Jay, 1980).

Belbin’s

research

gave

consideration

the

development,

training,

qualifications and experience needed by teams to ensure that the strengths of
individuals are optimised. His research provides organisations with an ability
to review and assess the psychological, motivational, composition and
behaviours needed by members to foster effective team work and hence
improve operational performance (Jay, 1980).

3508072

As briefly mentioned earlier, no research to date has explored the relationship
between Belbin’s Team Role Model and MBTI.

This comparison will be

supported in the research later in the thesis.

Whilst Belbin’s team role model has gained wide acknowledgment and
acceptance by practitioners, his theory has also undergone criticisms which
are noted below.

2.4.3

Criticisms of the Belbin Team Role Model

Initially, Furnham and his colleagues understood Belbin’s theory as one in
which the various team roles that individuals fulfil in a team and the team’s
ability to function effectively is dependant on the team’s composition
(Furnham et al, 1993).

Furnham et al (1993) subsequently carried out three studies to verify the
psychometric properties of Belbin’s questionnaire as they harboured
uncertainty about its reliability and validity. From their study, Furnham et al
(1993) arrived at three conclusions with regard to the Belbin. These are:
•

the test was ipsative (forced choice answer questionnaire which skews
the respondent’s choices in answering the questions);

•

the sequence in which the questions were asked was too broad
therefore losing specific focus on groups, and

•

the measure was neither theoretically nor empirically derived.

Belbin countered Furnham et al’s (1993) commentary on his instrument as he
believes that the test is not a forced choice but a restricted choice
questionnaire. He continues to suggest that Furnham’s criticisms examine
the team roles as if they were just personality traits although Belbin’s book
refers to team roles as a cluster of related traits (Dulewicz, 1995) such as;
mental ability, current values, motivations, field constraints, experience and
role learning, all of which have an effect on team behaviour (Wong, 1998).
Further research by Broucek and Randell (1996) argue that what the

3508072

inventories lack in psychometric soundness could be related to deeper
psychological issues rather than their psychometric properties. However, the
critical point to note is that Furnham’s criticisms were directed at the
subsequent instrument and not the model, nor the foundation instruments,
namely the WGCTA and 16PF which are used in this research.

As mentioned previously, Belbin’s theory is broadly used in business in
selecting, counselling and developing management teams (Furnham et al,
1993).

Furnham et al’s (1993) position on Belbin’s theory is mindful of

organisations applying it in making important decisions, training courses, team
building and development exercises and therefore suggests that organisations
would be disadvantaged to make decisions based on data from an unreliable
instrument, despite the soundness of the fundamental model (Furnham et al,
1993).

2.4.4

Comparing Belbin’s Team Roles by Likely MBTI types

Whilst this literature review has defined both MBTI and Belbin’s Team Role
model, to date no research has explicitly sought to establish the correlation
between the two models. Table 7: Comparing Belbin’s Team Roles By Likely
MBTI Types identifies the likely MBTI trait combinations in relation to the
specific team roles identified by Belbin. Due to the distinct characteristics
portrayed by each team role, it may be reasonable to assume that the MBTI
Belbin trait combinations will be supported in the research.

These

combinations are direct assumptions based on the individual team roles
dominant characteristics.

3508072

Table 7:

Comparing Belbin’s Team Roles By Likely MBTI Types

Belbin's Team Roles

Dominant trait

Key elements
of MBTI Type

Likely MBTI
Types

Chairman – CH

Extroverted, strategic, decisive,
self confident, controlled

ENxJ

ENTJ, ENFJ

Company Worker – CW

Attention to detail, conservative,
dutiful, predictable

xSxx

ISTJ, ISFJ,
ISTP, ISFP

Monitor Evaluator - ME

Intellectual, critical, logical,
cautious

IxTJ

INTJ, INTP

Plant – PL

Intellectual, strategic, serious
minded, eccentric

xNxP

INTP, INFP,
ENTP, ENFP

ESxJ

ESTJ, ESFJ

Resource Investigator –
RI

Extraverted, communicative,
net -worker, decisive, enthusiastic

Shaper – SH

Attention to detail, decisive,
challenging, logical, out-going

xSTJ

ESTJ, ISTJ

Team Worker – TW

Harmonious, socially oriented,
sensitive, mild demeanour

ExFx

ENFP, ENFJ,
ESFJ, ESTP,
ESFP, INFJ

Completer Finisher – CF

Focussed, attention to details,
orderly, decisive, conscientious,
anxious

xSTJ

ISTJ, ESTJ

It should be noted that the categorisation of the 16 MBTI trait types does not
mean an individual will always demonstrate consistent behaviour in relation to
their type.

The MBTI trait types imply and provide an explanation of the

differing styles and preferences individuals adopt in the world in which they
live.

Although individuals may well demonstrate behaviours of another type
because of the situation, the most preferred approach to responding is
categorised by their MBTI type. This suggests that individuals will respond
naturally and most comfortably to the situation by using their dominant traits
from the four bi-polar dimensions (Extravert vs. Introvert, Thinking vs. Feeling,
Sensing vs. INtuition, Perceiving vs. Judging).
87

3508072

2.4.5

Summary – Belbin’s Team Role Model

This chapter introduced the reader to Belbin’s Team Role Model which has
added to the body of knowledge surrounding organisational management and
hence the performance of teams. Belbin’s theory has become one of the
most widely used instruments today by identifying eight key roles which
contribute to creating an effective team working environment.

Whilst Belbin’s team role model is widely accepted and acknowledged
amongst leading practitioners and insights to the theory are explored,
Furnham et al (1993) pointed out criticisms of Belbin’s team effectiveness
instrument suggesting that organisations should be mindful of utilising the
instrument because of the aforementioned flaws.

The chapter progressed to identify likely MBTI trait combinations in relation to
the specific team roles identified by Belbin based on the profiles and
similarities of the two models. This comparison is the focus later in the thesis.

3508072

2.5

Characteristics of the Hospitality Industry

An understanding of managerial behaviour, performance of groups and
teams, and recognition of individual differences within organisations, with
particular reference to the MBTI framework and Belbin’s Team Role Model,
has emerged through this literature review to report on a key factor which
bears upon organisational effectiveness.

As the hospitality industry is the setting for this research, the characteristics
and variables which define the industry will be explored. This will provide
context for understanding the relationship between member roles and team
effectiveness within large hospitality organisations which will be discussed
later in this thesis.

This chapter will explore the general setting of the hospitality industry
including communication barriers, defining hospitality managerial success,
formal qualifications, characteristics of the workforce, tourism and travel and
implications on service and business performance in a dynamic, challenging
and ever changing industry.

As a holistic appreciation of the hospitality industry begins to emerge, a profile
of a hospitality manager in relation to Belbin Team Role Model and MBTI will
be discussed.

2.5.1

General Characteristics of the Hospitality Industry

The hospitality industry, located within the service sector, is internationally
characterised by small to medium sized organisations which service
customers.

The diversity in culinary expectations, service standards and

cultures (for both service providers and customers) within a common
framework of meeting the needs of customers makes the hospitality industry
unique.

3508072

Generally, many medium to large sized hospitality organisations operate a
twenty-four hour, seven day a week business (Hisle & Stevens, 1996). To
meet the volatile operating demands of the business, management needs to
establish flexible approaches in working towards the completion of tasks and
jobs by ensuring sufficient resources are readily available to service clientele.
These general characteristics of the hospitality industry are discussed in more
detail.

Nature of the workforce: In meeting the operational demands of the business,
it is common practice in the hospitality industry to employ a workforce
characterised by part time and casual positions (Hisle & Stevens, 1996).

Communication barriers: The variation to the traditional approach of recruiting
permanent full time employees places constraints on developing effective
communication strategies as the work schedules of these employees usually
reside outside the standard nine to five working arrangements (Hisle &
Stevens, 1996).

Diversity: The hospitality industry employs and services many people from
diverse backgrounds. Cross-cultural issues are a major concerns to providing
services which meets the needs of all visitors, these include: language
barriers, level of education, life experiences, cultural backgrounds, service
standards and expectancies and many more (Hisle & Stevens, 1996).

2.5.2

Parameters to Hospitality Managerial Success

Dependent on the nature and size of the establishment, researchers hold
different views on what constitutes a successful manager in the hospitality
industry.

Peacock (1995) suggests that the quality and success of a manager is
commonly perceived as an objective measure which is subject to quantifiable
analysis. These include:

3508072

•

the ability to control costs;

•

positive customer feedback and therefore a reduction in complaints;

•

customer satisfaction resulting in increased volume and repeat
business;

•

effective and efficient processes to ensure the smooth running of the
business;

•

positive job satisfaction of the manager against their own performance
standards;

•

ability to retain staff, therefore reducing staff absenteeism and turnover
hence recruitment costs;

•

positive staff morale and feedback; and

•

affirmation of performance by their direct manager (Peacock, 1995).

Peacock (1995) observes that managers who base their success on their
interaction with staff are likely to be employed in larger hospitality
organisations. These larger organisations usually develop managers who are
focussed on relationships with staff and are likely to have implemented quality
assurance programs to ensure consistent achievement of high performance
(Peacock, 1995).

2.5.3

Formal Qualifications

Compared to other professions, formal qualifications are not essential to
hospitality managerial positions. Research suggests that managers who have
a strong focus on staff, have usually completed a degree in Hospitality
Management (Peacock, 1995).

Similarly, Practical or Operational Managers tend to have nationally
accredited Hotel and Catering Diplomas. With many competing objectives
confronting managers, they are mindful of utilising the time to build rapport
and support line staff (Peacock, 1995).

3508072

As the industry progresses, hospitality managers are constantly looking for
flexible approaches of providing staff with work based (on the job) education,
coaching and training.

These innovative approaches to learning and

development are being adopted by organisations to encourage and support
firms in moving away from traditional and inefficient working methods (Teare,
1996).

Due to no academic barriers to the Hospitality Industry it can be assumed that
over representation of particular types, characters and roles will be evident in
the Results section of this thesis.

To assess the critical thinking ability of the cohort the Watson Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) tool will be utilised. A former study utluised the
WGCTA tool and concluded that MBA students scored 79.1 (out 100), Third
Year Medical Students 79.9, Sales Representatives 71.5 and Police Officers
66.6.

Given that Peacock (1995) outlined above the successful Hospitalty

Manager would focus on operational success it can be suggested that the
cohort will demonstrate a WGCTA score of between 65 – 72 which will
demonstrate consistency with the WGCTA study (Watson et al, 1980).
2.5.4

Nature of the workforce

“Effective Human Resource Management has become a vital component for
creating and maintaining a competitive edge in today’s hospitality industry”
(Blum, 1996, p20). The hospitality industry is regarded as being one of the
lowest paid industries in the global economy and staff are renowned for
developing low self esteem due to the simplicity and nature of the work.
These negative attitudes and feelings expressed by employees contribute to
the high levels of staff turnover experienced by the industry (Teare, 1996).

2.5.4.1

Staff Turnover

Staff turnover is a contentious and continuing problem faced by the hospitality
industry. It is a major expense for any business as the cost of losing an

3508072

employee and appointing a replacement can place great strain on staff, the
department and most importantly, the customer (Harbourne, 1995).

Harbourne (1995) notes that loyalty is lower and turnover is higher amongst
younger workers in the industry. Two main reasons why these people depart
include:
•

they seek employment in the hospitality industry for a predefined time
whilst they work towards their careers in different sectors; and

•

people who are looking for a career in hospitality are mindful of the
value of, and the importance in gaining, experience in other leading
hospitality organisations.

3508072

2.5.4.2

Career Advancement

The hospitality industry provides a range of employment opportunities that
allows potential employees to seek a promising future of career development
and allows others to ‘just do their job’. An understanding of these two factors
gives managers an ability to recruit for specific roles and functions
(Harbourne, 1995).

The hospitality industry is also characterised by many positive and intriguing
qualities which invite and encourage potential employees to sample
employment particularly in regards to part time employment. These include:
•

high level of job satisfaction – provides people with the opportunity to
meet diverse people of differing backgrounds, origins and culinary
experiences;

•

teamwork – allows staff to work in a team environment where people
are interdependent on one another to complete tasks which more than
likely creates a positive atmosphere in the workplace;

•

flexible working hours – provides staff with the ability to work various
shifts over a rotating seven day roster;

•

staff development – training and coaching exercises assists in
improving job performance therefore improving job satisfaction; and

•

2.5.5

Travel opportunities in a global economy (Harbourne, 1995).

Tourism Industry

The hospitality industry is highly dependent on the tourism industry. The
tourism industry brings in foreign revenue to a region, which contributes to its
economic development and sustainability.

The relationship between the

hospitality and tourism industry places great emphasis on ensuring that
transportation, infrastructure, hotel and restaurant facilities, safety and
security requirements are sufficient to meet the demand for potential tourists
(Teare, 1996).

3508072

The variety and choices of hospitality services provide customers with a range
of alternatives in visiting particular establishments. Such alternatives include
location, brand, image, ambience and amenities, all of which are quite difficult
variables to measure.

Therefore, it is critical for the organisation to

understand and know how to reach their customer in order to maximise the
opportunity of gaining and potentially increasing market share (Blum, 1996).

2.5.6

Service improvement and business performance

The nature and expectations of the hospitality industry are constantly
changing and therefore it is vital for establishments to remain competitive. It
is logical to assume that for a hospitality organisation to remain competitive it
must become more responsive to the change (Blum, 96).

“Changing customer needs, increased competition, technological advances
and globalisation are all current patterns which will lead towards a system
level redesign of tomorrows hospitality organisation” (Blum, 1996, p2).
Organisations stay afloat by learning and adopting new practices, skills,
attitudes and competencies to reflect changes in the industry (Teare, 1996).

Managers must continue to develop a clear understanding of the strategic
direction the company is working towards to meet both internal and external
challenges. As the industry moves forward, businesses and managers need
to create an environment which views guests’ and employees’ safety and
privacy as major legal compliance issues in order to be regarded as operating
in an ethical manner (Blum, 1996).

3508072

2.5.7

Summary – Characteristics of the Hospitality Industry

In this chapter an understanding of the fundamental characteristics of the
hospitality industry emerged.

Many establishments within the hospitality

industry operate a twenty-four hour seven day a week operation, which places
constraints on staffing, communication, and product and service delivery.

The chapter progressed to discuss a range of characteristics which define
managerial success in the hospitality industry. For example; cost reduction,
low staff turnover, repeat business and increase in customer satisfaction. The
method which managers determine their success is related to their individual
characteristics in terms of performance.

Due to the dynamics of the hospitality industry it is seen to be unique mainly
due to its flexible working hours, world wide travel opportunities, team work
and different culinary standards and experiences. The chapter concluded that
the hospitality industry is highly dependent on the tourism industry in order to
bring about foreign revenue which will contribute to regional development and
sustainability.

Although the hospitality industry is quite distinct from other formal industries
(ie: law) Belbin’s theory and MBTI can still be applied.

Due to the high

customer interaction it would reasonably expected that successful hospitality
managers to be Extraverted, Sensor, Feeling and Judging people according
to MBTI and a Resource Investigator (RI) with reference to Belbin’s team role.
The essence of team performance and effectiveness of the hospitality industry
is assumed to be the same as other industries although relying on differing
skills to best management their business, therefore the application of Belbin
and MBTI can benefit the hospitality industry just as all others.

3508072

3.0

Methodology

The primary objective of this research was to develop an understanding of
individual and team performance within a framework of critical thinking skills,
psychological type and personality inventory of the team members.

Well

established psychometric instruments (two of which were used by Belbin)
were used to test the personalities and critical thinking of the managers.
These instruments have been identified based on the preliminary literature
review.

Based upon the work of Belbin and Myer Briggs, three psychometrically
sound instruments were used. These were:
•

Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) – critical thinking

•

Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor (16PF) personality

•

Myer Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) – psychological type

Each of these instruments are self complete, self reflective, closed choice
instruments with well-documented analysis and prognosis algorithms.

For

example, the MBTI consists of 132 questions. Based upon the answers to
these questions, the respondent is allocated into 1 of 16 groups.

These instruments were chosen because of their robustness, reliability and
validity. Furthermore, the general acceptance in the academic and business
community supported the use of these instruments.

In particular, the MBTI continues to be an important tool which is used within
organisations and is primarily adopted to understand individual differences
and personality preferences. It also assists in employee relation functions
such as recruitment, selection, counselling, career progression programs and
training and development (Gilligan, Treasure and Watts, 1996; Zemke, 1992).

3508072

The responses received were collated and entered into SPSS for analysis.
As SPSS assists to quickly and easily produce the statistics from the data,
attention can be focused on critically analysing and interpreting the results.

The various statistical techniques employed in this study were done to move
the analysis beyond a simple description of the profile of the respondents to a
more rigorous exploration.

The MBTI classified respondents into groups

based upon their type whilst the 16PF produces scores on an interval scale
from one to ten. The WGCTA result is shown as a percentage score.

A statistical analysis method called cluster analysis was used to “…identify
groups of cases, which share common characteristics” (Francis, 2001, p143).
Using the results from the 16PF and the WGCTA, eight clusters were formed
into which the respondents were allocated.

This process allowed for the

respondents to be allocated into naturally occurring groups based on their
responses to the two instruments (WGCTA & 16PF). The emergent eight
groups were then identified within the framework identified by Belbin to
parallel the eight groups of Belbin’s model. As a consequence, the members
of each group were then identified in terms of their Belbin team role as
determined by their team membership.

The data was further analysed using:
•

frequency distributions - to determine patterns in answers,

•

cross-tabulations - to relate variables together

•

percentages - to give meaning to the data.

The research also utilised more sophisticated techniques such as MANOVA,
ANOVA and t-tests to determine whether there was statistical significance
based on two or more dependent variables (Francis, 2001) which are defined
below.
•

MANOVA function to test for the existence of Belbin’s model from the
Cattell’s 16PF and WGCTA data.

•

ANOVA function to test for the existence of a model across several
groups being the 8 Belbin’s team roles and the16 MBTI trait types by

3508072

Cattell’s 16PF and WGCTA one at a time (ie: Plant v Cattell’s 16PF
and WGCTA).
•

t-test function to test for the difference between two groups (ie: Plant
(PL) v Chairman (CH) in terms of Cattell’s 16PF and the WGCTA.

A convenience population of 11 senior management teams in the Melbourne
hospitality industry, incorporating 121 people were surveyed during May –
July 2003 using the abovementioned instruments. The establishments from
which these senior management teams were invited to participate in the study
were company owned and were business orientated rather than focussing on
leisure markets.

In addition to the abovementioned instruments the performance of the
management team were assessed by a senior manager within each
organisation.

Furthermore, a case study of one team was conducted. The purpose of the
case study was to obtain a richer body of information to further support the
data gathered by the structured self-complete questionnaires. The interviews
focussed on member’s experiences within the team, perceptions of others
members within the team and how this impacted on the team’s ability to
perform; and general discussion in regards to their personal results from MBTI
framework and Belbin’s team role model.

The research was marked by five key stages. These were:
Stage 1:

Extensive literature review,

Stage 2:

Gathering of individual data by administering the three
abovementioned psychometric tests,

Stage 3:

Assessment of team performance by interview with senior
managers to whom each team reports,

Stage 4:

Detailed case study of one team, to provide indepth individual
team discussions with team members. and

Stage 5:

Analysis of the results.

3508072

4.0

Results

This chapter reports the results of the analysis. The section will progress to
further analyse and interpret the results from the cohort. It will identify the
commonalities between Belbin’s Team Role Model and the MBTI, as well as
the differences between the two models.

Finally it will provide and

explanation of how these gaps may prove problematic for the Hospitality
Industry.

4.1

Quantitative Analysis

4.1.1

The Sample Frame

4.1.1.1

Cohort - Senior Management Teams Defined

The senior management teams who participated in the study were drawn from
the accommodation sector of the hospitality industry. The properties range
from three to five star rating and are located in Melbourne.

To provide context to the data, the establishments can be categorised as
small and large hotels. A small hotel has been defined for the purposes of the
research as an establishment consisting of less than 200 accommodation
rooms, and large establishments containing 201 or more rooms.

4.1.1.1.1

Size of Establishment vs. Size of Senior Management Team

Six small and five large management teams participated in the research to
assist in defining member roles and team effectiveness with reference to
Belbin’s Team Role Model and MBTI. Table 8: Size Of Property By Senior
Management Team identifies that smaller hotels comprise teams with
approximately seven members.

Alternatively, larger properties have an

average of thirteen members per team.

It could be assumed that senior

management teams would be comprised mainly of men.

Surprisingly 51.4%

of participants were females with males representing 48.6% of the cohort.

100

3508072

Table 8:

Size of Establishment vs. Size of Senior Management Team

Establishment

Number of respondents per team
Property Size

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Total

4.1.1.1.2

Large

Small

201 accommodation
rooms and above

200 accommodation
rooms and below

Total
members
per team

4
5
8
7
14
13
26
4
10
13
7
111

5
8
7
14
13
26
4
10
13
67

7
44

Accommodation Star Rating vs Size of Senior
Management Team

The senior management teams participating in the study were further
categorised based on their accommodation star rating.

Table 9:

Accommodation Star Rating by Establishment depicts the size of the senior
management team based upon their accommodation star rating which
generally suggests that the higher star rating, the larger the senior
management team.

101

3508072

Table 9:

Accommodation Star Rating by Establishment
Number of Team Members
Accommodation Star Rating

Establishment

3 Star
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Total

3.5 Star

4 Star

4.5 Star

5 Star
4

5
8
7
14
13
26
4
10
13
13

7
31

Total
members
per team
4
5
8
7
14
13
26
4
10
13
7
111

4.1.2

Descriptive Results

4.1.2.1

Cohort - Hospitality Managers categorised by Belbin’s
Team Roles

In all 111 Hospitality Managers surveyed responded to the study thus showing
a response rate of 91.7%. Of these 23.4% were categorised as Company
Worker’s (CW), followed by Shaper’s (SH) 18.0%, Completer Finisher’s (CF)
13.5% and Chairman (CH) 12.6% (refer to table 10: Cohort – Hospitality
Managers categorised by Belbin’s Team Roles).

The Plant (PL)

demonstrated low representation amongst the senior management teams with
only 2.7% of respondents fulfilling this important role.

The Belbin Team Roles portrayed by the cohort are reflective of a typical
hospitality management team which are generally composed of operational
managers who are primarily focused on the front line functioning of the hotel.

102

3508072

The need to recruit employees who acquire the skills to efficiently and
effectively service the needs and wants of their guests demonstrates why the
majority of the cohort were classified as Company Workers (CW) (23.4%),
Complete Finishers (CF) (13.5%) and Team Workers (TW) (11.7%) within
Belbin’s team role model (refer to 3.0 Methodology for how the clusters of
Belbin’s Team Roles were developed).

Table 10:

Cohort – Hospitality Managers categorised by Belbin’s team
roles

Belbin's Team
Roles

CH
CW
ME
PL
RI
SH
TW
CF

4.1.2.2

Chairman
Company Worker
Monitor Evaluator
Plant
Resource Investigator
Shaper
Team Worker
Completer Finisher
Total

12.6%
23.4%
8.1%
2.7%
9.9%
18.0%
11.7%
13.5%
100.0%

Composition of Senior Management Teams based on
Belbin’s Team Roles

Each of the eleven senior management teams which participated in the study
have identified different team compositions based on the model. From the
results it is evident that:
•

55.0% of the eleven teams comprised an RI and ME,

•

73.0% of the teams had a TW, CH and SH present,

•

80.0% comprise a CW and CF, and

•

20.0% had a PL within their structure (refer to table 11: Composition of
Senior Management Teams).

This would suggest 55.0% of the teams had an external networking role and
an evaluator of alternatives; more than 70.0% of teams had a form of
leadership whilst 80.0% of the teams had roles to carry out planned duties
through to completion.

A minimal 20.0% of teams had a PL who is

considered the ‘genius’ of the team in developing innovative and
entrepreneurial ideas.

103

3508072

4.1.2.2.1

Self Perception Interviews with Formal Leaders

In adding rigour to the research, the formal leaders of the senior management
teams were interviewed to develop an understanding of the team’s
performance based on the formal leader’s perception.

In conducting the

interviews the formal leaders identified areas of concern for their team.

Interestingly, their comments were consistent with the overall team results
identified from the surveys. This included strengths and weaknesses of the
team which can be attributed to the present and missing Belbin team roles.
Findings from interviews conducted with Formal Leaders of teams A, B & H
are discussed below.

4.1.2.2.1.1

Team A

Team A had four of Belbin’s team roles represented including CW, ME, TW
and CF. According to Belbin, the missing leadership roles CH and SH will
hinder the group’s ability to collectively use the skills of the team in order to
work towards the achievement of goals (Belbin, 1996). Further, the team role
shortage of the PL and RI limits the team’s ability to generate logical yet
outrageous ideas therefore minimising innovative and entrepreneurial
performance.

When the formal leader was invited to comment on the team’s performance in
terms of effectiveness, satisfaction and extra effort, it was suggested that the
team was comfortable with the daily operations of the hotel but lacked focus
to drive new and innovative business. These comments reflected the team’s
lack of CH, SH, PL & RI. Therefore increased representation of these
members’ roles may assist in addressing these issues by introducing
members who focus on strategic direction and hence improved operational
performance.

104

3508072

4.1.2.2.1.2

Team B

Similarly, Team B also had four team roles present, these being CH, ME, CW
and CF. In contrast to Team A, Team B possessed a CH to lead and draw
upon the team’s resources to complete work but didn’t possess the role of a
CW to ensure that the systems and procedures were in place to complete
planned work. Similar to Team A, Team B is also deficient in the roles of the
RI and PL which are considered important by Belbin in order to embrace new
business challenges. Although the SH was not evident, the presence of the
CH (the formal leader) compensated the Leadership role for this absence.

Team B’s formal leader displayed charismatic tendencies and felt that the
team demonstrated inconsistent patterns of performance.

With the

introduction of a CW, Team B could enhance team performance based on the
CW ability to ensure work is carried out to plan and within a timely manner.

4.1.2.2.1.3

Team H

Interestingly Team H, possessed only a RI (75.0%) and TW (25.0%). The
lack of the other six important member roles indicates that the team is
deficient in leadership, radical idea generation, the ability to see projects
through to completion, the capacity to critically evaluate ideas and the ability
to ensure the work is carried out (Belbin, 1996). According to Belbin, the
performance of this team based on their composition and team roles present
will be less effective than that of teams who possess all eight team roles.

The formal leader’s comments in regards to this team’s performance was
particularly focussed towards the business entity being under staffed and
under resourced. In a similar fashion, the management team, whilst having
sufficient members, is psychologically and intellectually under resourced
according to Belbin’s Team Role model.

105

3508072

Although team’s A, B and H have differing patterns of role composition based
on Belbin’s model, improvements can be made to their performance. If the
absent team roles were introduced it would be reasonable to assume that
each team would demonstrate improvements based on the needs of the team.
Further research into the impact of making changes to the composition of
these teams would more fully assess the efficacy of Belbin’s team role model
in relation to the Hospitality Industry.

Table 11:

Est.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K

Chairman
12.6%

Composition of Senior Management Teams
Company
Worker
23.4%
25.0%

20.0%
14.3%
7.1%
15.4%
15.4%

25.0%
14.3%
28.6%
23.1%
30.8%

Monitor
Evaluator
8.1%
25.0%
20.0%

Plant
2.7%

Resource
Investigator
9.9%

12.5%
14.3%
7.1%
30.7%

7.1%
11.5%

Shaper
18.0%

12.5%
28.6%
21.5%
15.4%
19.6%

75.0%
10.0%
23.1%
14.3%

4.1.2.2.2

20.0%
23.1%
28.6%

15.4%
14.2%

20.0%
7.7%

7.7%

30.0%
15.3%
28.6%

Team
Worker
11.7%
25.0%
40.0%
25.0%
28.6%
14.3%
7.7%
25.0%
10.0%

Complete
Finisher
13.5%
25.0%
20.0%
25.0%
14.3%
15.4%
15.4%
10.0%
7.7%
14.3%

Amalgamating Belbin’s Team Roles

In relation to Belbin’s model, an appropriate combination of the eight team
roles can form an effective team wherein the individuals’ varying strengths
and characteristics complement one another (Belbin, 1996).

Belbin suggested that in some instances, particular team roles can
compensate for others which are not present within the team. For example:
the CH and SH are the leadership type roles within the team and therefore if
the CH was not present, the SH could substitute the formal leadership
position.

106

Total

100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

3508072

It is evident that team C could draw upon the resources of the SH to fulfil the
absent role of the CH as opposed to teams A and H, who had neither roles.
This lack of leadership in teams A and H may contribute to patterns of poor
performance which will be identified subsequently in this thesis (refer to Table
12: Amalgamating Belbin’s Team Roles). In interpreting Table 12, note that
the bolded columns are those representing the combined roles.

Table 12:

Est.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K

Amalgamating Belbin’s Team Roles

Chairman/
Shaper
30.6%
20.0%
12.5%
42.9%
28.5%
30.8%
34.6%
40.0%
38.5%
42.9%

Company
Worker
23.4%
25.0%
25.0%
14.3%
28.6%
23.1%
30.8%
20.0%
23.1%
28.6%

Monitor
Evaluator
8.1%
25.0%
20.0%

7.1%

Plant/
Resource
Investigator
12.6%

12.5%
14.3%
7.1%
30.8%

11.5%

15.4%
14.3%

75.0%
20.0%
15.4%

Team
Worker
11.7%
25.0%
40.0%
25.0%
28.6%
14.3%
7.7%
25.0%
10.0%

Complete
Finisher
13.5%
25.0%
20.0%
25.0%
14.3%
15.4%
15.4%
10.0%
7.7%
14.3%

Total
100%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

As can be seen, even with amalgamation of roles, some teams, particularly
Team A is seriously deficient in two key roles.

4.1.2.3

Hospitality Managers by Belbin’s Team Role Model
and MBTI

As identified previously, the Myers Briggs model consists of 16 profiles formed
by the combinations of four bi-polar dimensions, which deal with the
‘orientation of one’s energy’ and is used to determine the psychological types
of the cohort.
Overall, the respondents were categorised as:
•

60.7% - Extraversion - 39.3% - Introversion;

•

49.8% - INtuition – 50.2% - Sensing;

•

70.4% - Feeling – 29.5% - Thinking

•

28.9% - Perceiving – 71.2% Judging

107

3508072

The most common trait combinations in the cohort were ISTJ (23.0%)
followed closely by ESTJ (20.5%) which is not inconsistent with previous
research in regards to MBTI and the Hospitality Industry (refer to table 13: 16
MBTI Profiles by Cohort).

Table 13:

16 MBTI Profiles by Cohort

MBTI 16 Types

Total

ESTJ
ESTP
ESFJ
ESFP
ENTJ
ENTP
ENFJ
ENFP
ISTJ
ISTP
ISFJ
ISFP
INTJ
INTP
INFJ
INFP
Total

20.5%
5.4%
6.3%
2.7%
7.2%
5.4%
8.1%
3.6%
20.0%
1.8%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
8.1%
1.8%
0.9%
100.0%

4.1.2.4

Establishment Teams by MBTI

In reference to table 14: Establishments by MBTI 16 Types it evident that
90.9% (ten teams) and 81.8% (nine teams) of establishments participating in
the study have an ESTJ and ISTJ type present within their teams respectively.
Establishment G in particular has 81.2% of the 16 types present therefore
having a good representation of all bi-polar dimensions.

On average, Establishments had between five and seven types present with
ESTJ (17.1%), ISTJ (23.4%), INTP (8.1%), ENFJ (8.1%), ENTJ (7.2%), and
ESFJ (6.3%) being the most common. The least common types found in the
Establishments were INFP (0.9%), INFJ (1.8%), ISTP (1.8%), and ESFP
(2.7%).

These finding demonstrate that the majority of teams are

predominantly characterised by ExTJ types with low presence of the IxFP
types.

108

3508072

The next section will further discuss the MBTI bi-polar dimensions and profiles
and in reference to Belbin’s Team Roles which were demonstrated by the
cohort.
Table 14: Establishments by MBTI 16 Types
MBTI
16
Types
ESTJ
ESTP
ESFJ
ESFP
ENTJ
ENTP
ENFJ
ENFP
ISTJ
ISTP
ISFJ
ISFP
INTJ
INTP
INFJ
INFP
Total

Establishments
A

50.0%

20.0%

37.5%

28.6%

7.1%
14.3%

23.1%
7.7%
15.4%

3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
7.7%

25.0%

20.0%

23.1%
15.4%
23.1%

3.8%
15.4%
7.7%
26.9%

25.0%

20.0%
20.0%

14.3%

21.4%

14.3%
20.0%

12.5%
37.5%

42.9%

14.3%
14.3%

23.1%
7.7%
7.7%
7.7%

12.5%
7.7%
50.0%

20.0%

100.0%

4.1.2.5

21.4%

100.0%

7.1%
100.0%

100.0%

10.0%

14.3%

25.0%

3.8%
7.7%
7.7%
3.8%
3.8%

25.0%

100.0%

7.7%
7.7%

14.3%

20.0%
50.0%

15.4%

28.6%
14.3%

100.0%

7.7%

14.3%
14.3%

100.0%

Belbin’s Team Role Model and MBTI Bi-polar Dimensions

Further to aligning MBTI trait combinations to particular Belbin Team Roles, it
is interesting to note the similarities and differences from the bi-polar
dimensions (refer to table 15: Bi-polar Dimensions vs. Belbin’s Team Roles).
These are discussed below:

109

TOTAL
20.5%
5.4%
6.3%
2.7%
7.2%
5.4%
8.1%
3.6%
20.0%
1.8%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
8.1%
1.8%
0.9%
100.0%

3508072

4.1.2.5.1

Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Bi-polar Dimension 1

Bi-polar Dimension One concentrates on the direction to which individuals
focus their energy and attention. Individuals can be classed as Extraverted or
Introverted types. According to Belbin, the CH, RI, SH & TW demonstrate
Extraverted characteristics. The cohort confirmed that the CH (78.6%) (that
is, 78.6% of CH were Extraverts), RI (63.6%) and TW (76.9%) were
Extraverted types.

The SH results showed a close relationship between

Extravert (55.0%) and Introvert (45.0%), which may be reflective of the limited
respondents categorised as a SH.

Belbin’s Team Role model also suggests that the ME & CF portray Introverted
type characteristics. The ME (77.8%) was the only team role dominated by
Introverts. The CF showed an equal representation as an Introvert (53.3%)
and Extravert (46.7%).

In contrast, the PL were exclusively Extraverts. As the cohort consisted of
hospitality managers, this may have skewed the results as hospitality
employees are typically regarded as being somewhat Extraverted whilst PL
are typically Introverted characters.

The CW demonstrated an even balance between Extraversion and
Introversion and is reflective of Belbin’s model suggesting that the CW can
demonstrate equal use of this bi-polar dimension.

4.1.2.5.2

Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Bi-polar Dimension 2

Bi-polar Dimension Two concentrates on the approach people adopt to take in
information and what kind of information they prefer to receive. These types
are classed as INtuitive or Sensing types.

110

3508072

According to Belbin’s team role model the CH, CW, PL, RI, TW, CF were
identified as adopting a Sensing approach to receiving information. The CW
(76.9%) PL (66.7%), RI (63.6%), TW (69.2%), CF, (73.3%), support Belbin’s
theory of utilising their Sensory preference type for absorbing information.

The cohort demonstrated that the Hospitality CH preferred to use their
Sensory function (57.1%) to gather information more so than their INtuition
(42.9%).

It would be assumed that the CH would be highly INtuitive,

nevertheless the SH’s predominant use of their INtuitive (60.0%) type can
accommodate the CH weaknesses in this area.

The respondents also demonstrated that the ME was inclined to adopt an
INtuitive approach (55.6%) to receiving information. As their position within
the team is based on evaluating alternatives, it would be assumed that this
type would have been predominantly higher within the cohort.

4.1.2.5.3

Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Bi-polar Dimension 3

Bi-polar Dimension Three concentrates on the manner by which individuals
like to make decisions or achieve closure with the information they have
received. It is known within the MBTI framework as Thinking or Feeling.

Belbin’s team role model illustrates that the majority of roles would revert to
using their Thinking sense when making decisions. The cohort indicates that
each team role had at least 66.7% of the respondents allocated to using their
Thinking types to make decisions.

Belbin suggests that the TW is focused on the members of the group and has
a genuine interest in the welfare of people. The respondents are not reflective
of Belbin’s theory in that 69.2% of TW respondents preferred to communicate
with their Thinking function rather than their Feeling function. This difference
could be due to the characteristics of the cohort as TW within the hospitality
industry may be prone to utlising their Thinking ability to liaise with members
of the team although in a highly nurturing manner.

111

3508072

4.1.2.5.4

Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Bi-polar Dimension 4

Bi-polar Dimension Four focuses on how individuals like to structure their
lives. These traits are known as either Judging or Perceiving.

According to Belbin, six roles were identified as preferring Judging type
characteristics. The data set supported this with PL (100.0%), RI (63.6%), CF
(80.0%), SH (70.0%), CW (73.1%), ME (55.6%) preferring Judging
tendencies.

It is interesting to note that the PL is characterised as the smartest of the team
who takes a radical approach to their work. Therefore, in light of Belbin’s
theory, one would suggest that a PL would predominantly utilise their
Perceiving function to make decisions and not their Judging function as
Judgers tend to be very disciplined and conservative. It is reasonable to
assume that this difference may be attributed to the Hospitality Industry’s
inability to sustain an undisciplined genius in the form of the PL.

The CH of respondent’s equally utilised both their Perceiving and Judging
preferences to make decisions.

According to Belbin, the CH would be

renowned for capitalising on using their Judging function to make decisions.

Belbin also suggests the TW would demonstrate balance amongst their
perspective on the outer world although the data suggested that 76.9% were
Judging characters. This difference can be attributed to the nature of the
typical Hospitality Manager who would be primarily concerned with servicing
the needs of the guests. In order to ensure that duties are carried out in a
timely fashion, a possibly ‘stern’, but friendly individual may act as the
Hospitality TW which is somewhat at odds with Belbin’s traditional TW.

112

3508072

Table 15:

Bi-polar Dimensions vs. Belbin’s Team Roles

Chairman
12.6%

Company
Worker
23.4%

Monitor
Evaluator
8.1%

Plant
2.7%

Resource
Investigator
9.9%

Shaper
18.0%

Team
Worker
11.7%

Complete
Finisher
13.5%

Introverts

21.4%

57.7%

77.8%

0.0%

36.4%

45.0%

23.1%

53.3%

Extraverts

78.6%

42.3%

22.2%

100.0%

63.6%

55.0%

76.9%

46.7%

Intuitive

42.9%

23.1%

55.6%

33.3%

36.4%

60.0%

30.8%

26.7%

Sensing

57.1%

76.9%

44.4%

66.7%

63.6%

40.0%

69.2%

73.3%

Feeling

28.6%

26.9%

33.3%

18.2%

25.0%

30.8%

40.0%

Thinking

71.4%

73.1%

66.7%

81.8%

75.0%

69.2%

60.0%

Perceiving

50.0%

26.9%

44.4%

0.0%

36.4%

30.0%

23.1%

20.0%

Judging

50.0%

73.1%

55.6%

100.0%

63.6%

70.0%

76.9%

80.0%

4.1.2.6

Belbin’s Team Roles vs 16 MBTI Profiles

Based on the four bi-polar dimensions of the MBTI which were discussed
within the literature review, it can be assumed that certain types within the
MBTI framework will have a parallel type within the Belbin Team Roles Model.
In reference to Table 16: Belbin’s Team Roles vs. 16 MBTI Profiles, it is
apparent that 50.0% of likely MBTI trait combinations were consistent and well
matched with the results produced by the cohort being consistent with to the
Belbin Team Role model.

The MBTI trait combinations and Belbin Team

Roles are discussed in detail below.

4.1.2.6.1

Chairman – CH

Twenty one percent of respondents who were categorised as a CH were an
ENTJ type. This result is supportive of the literature which suggests that a
CH is predominantly characterised as an ENxJ which enables him or her to
lead the team in being efficient and productive.

113

3508072

The next possible matches for a CH from the cohort, demonstrated
Extraverted, Feeling and Perceiving traits for the role of a CH with ESFP
(14.3%) and ENFP (14.3%). Although ENTJ reflected the true making of a
CH if the next best possible match is an xxFP, the Hospitality Industry could
be facing a real issue as the strength of xxTJ is what categorises them as a
CH.

4.1.2.6.2

Company Worker – CW

The respondents who were categorised as a CW demonstrated consistent
results with the literature with clearly identified ISTJ (30.8%) and ESTJ
(23.1%) type combinations. Given that the CW is classified by Belbin as the
team member who ensures plans are turned into practical working methods
and are carried out to a strategy, the ‘STJ’ characteristics demonstrate a
disciplined and consistent individual which is typical of the traditional CW
(Belbin, 1996).

4.1.2.6.3

Monitor Evaluator – ME

Respondents who were categorised as an ME team member (33.3%) typically
presented as an INTP.

According to the literature, the ME would be

categorised as an INTJ or ISTJ as they are the members of the group who
utilise their Judging characteristics to evaluate alternatives, ensure the team
has considered all possibilities and then leads the group to make a decision
(Belbin, 1996).

This inconsistency of results among respondents could be reflective of the
missing PL as the ME ensures the radical ideas produced by the PL are given
the attention needed for a proper functioning team.

114

3508072

4.1.2.6.4

Plant – PL

In contrast, the PL would typically be categorised as an xNxP. Belbin (1996)
indicates the PL is the undeniable genius of the team who is highly intelligent
and knowledgeable but is likely to also be undisciplined and somewhat
eccentric. From the research, the PL was categorised as an ESTJ (66.7%)
followed by an ENFJ (33.3%) both of which demonstrate a preference for the
ExxJ type.

It should be noted that if the closest MBTI type combination hospitality can
offer to a traditional PL is an ESTJ, then hospitality management teams may
have acquired a set of unique characteristics compared to other professional
industries. This could be due to the ‘operational and hands on’ focus which is
adopted by managers within the hospitality industry instead of a highly
elaborate, strategic and innovative focus.

Furthermore, the inconsistent type combinations of the PL (ESTJ) and ME
(INTP) suggest that research is needed to better understand the typical
characteristics of the ME & PL within the Hospitality Industry.

4.1.2.6.5

Resource Investigator – RI

Generally ESTP (27.3%) and ISTJ (27.3%) were the strongest MBTI trait
combinations identified to fulfil the role of the RI. Their ability to utilise the
Sensing and Thinking traits were commonly found as strengths of the RI.
However, according to the literature, RI’s should demonstrate ESxJ traits as
they are the members of the team who network externally in order to develop
and generate logical new ideas.

115

3508072

4.1.2.6.6

Shaper – SH

With reference to Belbin (1996), the SH is concerned with changing the
group’s point of equilibrium.

The research shows that ISTJ (25.0%) and

ENFJ (20.0%) are the most representative of the SH character.

This is somewhat at odds with the theory. The ISTJ and ENFJ types are
almost completely opposite people. A typical ISTJ is bound by rules and
supports Belbin’s (1996) view of the SH adopting an organised approach to
ensuring work is carried out to plan as an ENFJ is a highly charismatic “rule
breaker”.

Although the ENFJ is not a representation of Belbin’s conventional SH, this
outcome could be unique for the Hospitality Industry. As mentioned earlier,
the Hospitality cohort demonstrated xxFP characteristics for a CH, which
could be attributed to weaknesses in Leadership qualities. Therefore, if
Hospitality can not produce a traditional CH, the strength of the xxFJ
demonstrated by the Hospitality SH may help overcome this deficiency in
team role profile.

4.1.2.6.7

Team Worker – TW

ESTJ (23.1%) and ISTJ (23.1%) were common to the role of the TW with the
Sensing and Judging traits being the most common. According to Belbin, it
would be assumed that the Extraverted Feeling (ExFx) characteristics would
have been apparent as the TW has a genuine interest in people’s feelings
(Belbin, 1996).

Due to the nature of the Hospitality Industry, one would assume that the
Industry would be dominated by xSFJ individuals, yet the cohort demonstrates
minimal representation of this type.

116

3508072

4.1.2.6.8

Complete Finisher - CF

The CF trait combinations were well represented by the Sensing and Judging
characters with ESTJ (20.0%) and ISTJ (26.7%) representing the CF team
role. This is an accurate reflection of Belbin’s theory, suggesting that they
appreciate a planned and organised approach and use their senses actively
to understand the environment (Belbin, 1996). The MBTI trait combinations
support these results as ESTJ and ISTJ represent the typical CF Belbin team
role.
Table 16:
MBTI
16 Types
ESTJ
ESTP
ESFJ
ESFP
ENTJ
ENTP
ENFJ
ENFP
ISTJ
ISTP
ISFJ
ISFP
INTJ
INTP
INFJ
INFP
Total

Chairman
12.6%
14.3%
7.1%
14.3%
21.4%
7.1%
14.3%
14.3%
7.1%

Belbin’s Team Roles vs. 16 MBTI Profiles
Company
Worker
23.4%
23.1%
7.7%
3.8%

3.8%
3.8%
30.8%
3.8%
7.7%
7.7%
7.7%

100.0%

Monitor
Evaluator
8.1%

Plant
2.7%
66.7%

Resource
Investigator
9.9%

11.1%

27.3%
9.1%

11.1%

9.1%
9.1%
9.1%

33.3%

11.1%
11.1%
11.1%

27.3%

11.1%
33.3%

9.1%

100.0%

Shaper
18.0%
15.0%

5.0%
10.0%
20.0%
5.0%
25.0%

Team
Worker
11.7%
23.1%

Complete
Finisher
13.5%
20.0%

15.4%
7.7%
15.4%
7.7%

13.3%
6.7%
6.7%

7.7%
23.1%

26.7%
6.7%
6.7%

100.0%

5.0%
15.0%

100.0%

6.7%

100.0%

4.1.2.7

Gender by Belbin’s Team Roles and MBTI

4.1.2.7.1

Gender by MBTI

6.7%
100.0%

Further analysis of the four bi-polar dimensions were categorised in reference
to the gender of respondents.

Table 17: Gender vs Bi-Polar Dimension,

demonstrates relatively balanced use of each bi-polar dimension in relation to
Extravert vs. Introvert and INtuitive vs. Sensing and Thinking vs. Judging.

117

Total
20.5%
5.4%
6.3%
2.7%
7.2%
5.4%
8.1%
3.6%
20.0%
1.8%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
8.1%
1.8%
0.9%
100.0%

3508072

Bi-polar dimensions Feeling and Perceiving showed a major difference
between the genders with males (37.5%) and females (62.5%) respectively.

Table 17:

Gender vs. Bi-polar Dimension

MBTI Bi-polar

Male

Female

Dimension

(48.6%)

(51.4%)

Extravert

43.5%

56.5%

100.0%

Introvert

55.3%

44.7%

100.0%

INtuitive

43.2%

56.8%

100.0%

Sensing

52.2%

47.8%

100.0%

Thinking

51.9%

48.1%

100.0%

Feeling

37.5%

62.5%

100.0%

Judging

53.2%

46.8%

100.0%

Perceiving

37.5%

62.5%

100.0%

4.1.2.7.2

Total

Gender by Belbin’s Team Roles

In reference to the cohort, it is evident that both females and males compose
the teams although 80.0% of the team roles were dominated by males within
the sample. It is interesting to observe that 19.3% of females adopted the role
of the CH, stereotypically it would be assumed that the role of the CH would
be held by males (refer to table 18: Gender vs Belbin Team Roles).

As previously discussed, the PL accounted for 2.7% of the total respondents.
Males dominated this role with 5.6% as no female PLs were identified.

According to Pearson’s Chi Square (sig = .086) gender is not statistically
significant amongst Belbin’s eight defined team roles.
Table 18:

Gender vs. Belbin’s Team Roles

Chairman
12.6%

Company
Worker
23.4%

Monitor
Evaluator
8.1%

Plant
2.7%

Resource
Investigator
9.9%

Shaper
18.0%

Team
Worker
11.7%

Complete
Finisher
13.5%

Total

Male

5.6%

25.9%

11.1%

5.6%

11.1%

20.4%

9.3%

11.1%

100.0%

Female

19.3%

21.1%

5.3%

0.0%

8.8%

15.8%

14.0%

15.8%

100.0%

Gender

Pearson’s Chi square - sig = .086

118

3508072

This chapter will now progress to review the cohort in comparison to Cattell’s
16PF, the relationship between Belbin’s Team Roles and general Team
Performance.

4.1.2.8

Review of senior management teams based on Cattell’s
16PF

As discussed in the methodology, Cattell’s 16PF (personality) and the Watson
Glaser Critical Thinking (WGCTA) (critical thinking) instruments were used to
allocate respondents into the eight roles identified by Belbin by using cluster
analysis. The responses from the cohort were assigned to a particular group,
based upon these scores on these instruments which reflects the eight team
roles identified by Belbin.

Table 19:

Total Respondents Representing Belbin’s Eight Team Roles

provides a summary (mean scores) of the five personality factors and
WGCTA amongst the eight roles. It was hypothesised in the literature review
that the cohort would demonstrate a WGCTA score of between 65 – 72 (out of
100) given that a Sales Representative role revealed a WGCTA score of 71.5.

Table 19:

Total Respondents’ Underlying Personality Traits

Extraversion (scale 1 – 10)
Anxiety
Tough Mindedness
Independence
Self Control
Watson Glaser Critical Thinking (scale %)

Mean
5.83
5.32
5.31
6.44
4.96
67.74

Standard
Deviation
1.91
2.06
1.91
1.67
1.53
11.69

The MANOVA of Belbin’s Team Roles for the six measures mentioned above
(16PF and WGCTA) were statistically significant (F=4.813, df=42, sig=.000)
(refer to Table 20: ANOVA).

119

3508072

Using the mean scores of the eight groups based on the 16PF and WGCTA
scores, it can be seen that the ANOVA analysis indicates that the groups are
significantly different. However, subsequent ANOVA analysis identified that
not all items were significant. With reference to Table 20: Anova, Self Control
is clearly not significant (F=0.543, df=7, sig=0.8).

Table 20:

Anova
ANOVA

Extraversion (scale 1 – 10)
Anxiety
Tough Mindedness
Independence
Self Control
Watson Glaser Critical Thinking (scale %)

F
3.415
2.384
1.623
4.151
0.543
381.095

df
7
7
7
7
7
7

Sig.
0.003
0.027
0.137
0.000
0.800
0.000

To strengthen the results, a comparative analysis was conducted in relation to
Belbin’s Team Roles and the Big Five Personality Factors (refer to table 21:
Belbin's Team Roles vs. Big Five Personality Factors and WGCTA).

The CH demonstrated a higher significant score in relation to WGCTA than all
team roles except for the PL.

This result supports Belbin’s theory as he

continually suggests that the PL within the team is the sheer genius of the
group and is the first member of the group to seek new approaches to
resolving issues (Belbin, 1996).

It is also apparent that the TW (49.4%), CF (57.3%) and RI (60.8%) have
lower WGCTA readings than the other team roles.

These results are in

support of Belbin’s theory as the:
•

TWs role in the group is to encourage other members to generate
ideas and show praise and recognition for people’s efforts, and not
necessarily generate the ideas themselves, therefore critical thinking is
not a necessity for their role;

•

CF concentrates on the completion of tasks therefore the high anxiety
rating (6.62) supports the CF’s concern to complete tasks; and

•

RI is concerned with developing contacts outside the group and this
tends to demonstrate a lower WGCTA score (60.57) (Belbin, 1996).
120

3508072

The WGCTA results demonstrate that the TW, CF and RI are not members of
the group who need to consistently rely on the strength of their critical thinking
ability to fulfil their role within the group.

The results from the data also illustrate that the TW generally demonstrates
strong extroversion (7.02) and independent (7.25) traits in comparison to
other team roles. As the TW is concerned with encouraging members to
capitalise on the strengths to improve performance, their interpersonal skills
and hence extraversion skills needs to be relatively better than other
members of the group in order to facilitate this kind of communication. Their
ability to have an energising effect on the team in terms of increasing morale
and cooperation relies on their ability to independently encourage positive
member interactions within the team.

Table 21:

Belbin’s Team Roles vs. Big Five Personality Factors and
WGCTA

Mean Scores – Belbin team roles vs. Big Five Personality Factors & WGCTA
Total
Sample
Extraversion (scale 1 – 10)
Anxiety
Tough Mindedness
Independence
Self Control

5.83
5.32
5.31
6.44
4.96

CH
12.6%
6.66
4.96
5.00
6.65
4.64

Watson Glaser Critical
Thinking (scale %)

67.74

79.55

4.1.2.9

CW
23.4%
5.27
5.88
5.70
6.09
5.17

ME
8.1%
4.63
5.82
4.72
6.17
4.41

PL
2.7%
7.10
4.93
5.03
6.57
5.10

RI
9.9%
6.90
4.35
4.01
8.17
5.34

SH
18.0%
5.47
4.85
5.21
6.25
4.69

TW
11.7%
7.02
4.33
5.61
7.25
5.13

CF
13.5%
5.14
6.62
6.19
5.26
5.14

65.58

86.39

93.33

60.57

73.75

49.42

57.25

Relationships between different Belbin Team Roles

Table 22: Relationships Between Different Belbin Team Roles In Terms Of
Their Defining Characteristics provides meaning to the results by statistically
confirming the characteristics of each team role and how they impact upon
other team roles in terms of the unique contributions which each team role
needs to fulfil in order for the team to be effective.

121

3508072

In terms of Self Control, no combinations were found to be significantly
different using t-tests; all results were greater than 0.05. However, Tough
Mindedness (TM) was of interest where RI was found to have a significant
lower level of TM than CF (sig=.001), TW (sig =0.015) and CW (sig=0.005).
The SH just missed out with a score of (sig=0.051). In a similar fashion the CF
was different to the ME (sig=0.051) and CH (sig=0.044) in terms of TM.

122

3508072

Table 22:
CH

Relationships between different Belbin team roles in terms of
their defining characteristics

CW
Extraversion

ME
Extraversion

CF
Anxiety

Independence
CH

WGCTA

Extraversion

WGCTA
Extraversion

Tough
Mindedness

WGCTA

WGCTA
Extraversion

Independence

WGCTA
Extraversion
Anxiety
Tough
mindedness
Independence

WGCTA

WGCTA
Extraversion

WGCTA

Anxiety

WGCTA
Extraversion
Anxiety

WGCTA

Independence
WGCTA
Extraversion
Anxiety

WGCTA

Tough
Mindedness
Independence

Independence
ME

WGCTA

WGCTA
Extraversion

WGCTA

Independence

Tough
mindedness
Independence

WGCTA

WGCTA
Extraversion

WGCTA

WGCTA
Extraversion
Anxiety
Tough
Mindedness

WGCTA

WGCTA
Extraversion

WGCTA

WGCTA
Extraversion
Anxiety
Tough
mindedness
Independence

Extraversion

WGCTA
Extraversion
Anxiety

Tough
mindedness
Independence
Self Control
WGCTA

Independence

Independence
WGCTA

WGCTA

Tough
Mindedness

Extraversion

Anxiety

Independence

WGCTA

Extraversion
Extraversion

Extraversion

WGCTA

Extraversion
Anxiety

Independence

WGCTA

Anxiety
Tough
M1indedness

Tough
Mindedness

Independence
CF

WGCTA

WGCTA
Extraversion
Anxiety
Tough
Mindedness

Extraversion

WGCTA
Extraversion
Anxiety

Tough
mindedness
Independence

Independence

WGCTA

Independence

Extraversion
Anxiety
Tough
mindedness
Independence

WGCTA

Anxiety

Extraversion
Anxiety

Independence
WGCTA

WGCTA

Note:
•

Read down column, BOLD means sig. higher and ITALICS means
sig. lower; and

•

Read across row, BOLD means sig. lower and ITALICS means sig.
higher.

123

3508072

4.1.2.10

Team Performance

Based upon the generally accepted criteria of team performance as proposed
by Bass and Avolio, an assessment can be conducted on the performance of
the different management teams (refer to table 23: Myer Briggs Type Indicator
by Role Legitimacy). The analysis focuses on the emergence of “formal” and
“legitimate” leaders and followers and their psychological type, as measured
by the MBTI. What is particularly interesting, and counter intuitive, is that the
formal and legitimate leaders are exclusively IxTx. Furthermore, six of the
seven formal, but not legitimate leaders were xxTx.

Firstly, the teams were classified in terms of the presence of “formal” (actual)
leaders (based upon organisational rank) and “natural” leaders (as proposed
by Belbin). The management teams were classified into four categories:
•

Those whose actual leader is also the “natural” leader (CH or SH) and
who is supported by a higher number of followers than “natural”
leaders;

•

Those whose formal leader is supported by only one, but no more,
“natural” leaders;

•

Those whose formal leader is supported by many “natural” leaders;
and

•

Those who formal leader is outnumbered by the existence of “natural”
leaders amongst the team members.

124

3508072

Table 23:

Myer Briggs Type Indicator by Role Legitimacy

Formal and
Legitimate Leader
ESTJ
ESTP
ESFJ
ESFP
ENTJ
ENTP
ENFJ
ENFP
ISTJ
ISTP
ISFJ
ISFP
INTJ
INTP
INFJ
INFP
TOTAL

4.1.2.11

Formal Leader
and Legitimate
Follower
13
5
7
1
3
2
5
1
17
1
2
3
1
6
2
1
70

Formal but not
the legitimate
leader
1

1
1

Not formal but
legitimate leader
5
1
2
4
3
4
3
5
1

1
1

1
2

Total
19
6
7
3
8
6
9
4
26
2
3
3
3
9
2
1
111

Effectiveness, satisfaction and extra effort of the
team

Next, a set of external senior organisational members were invited to assess
the performance of the team in terms of the three key elements as proposed
by Bass and Avolio on a scale of one to four where one is where the group
was ineffective and four is where it was highly effective (refer to table 24:
Effectiveness, Satisfaction and Extra Effort). It should be noted that one of
the teams, in which the formal leader was challenged, was disbanded before
the assessment could be made.

It would be logical to assume that based on the leadership structure of the
team, the performance and effectiveness of the team would differ between
those with a natural / formal leader and formal challenged leader, that is,
where the formal leader did not fulfil a CH role whilst there was a member in
the team who did fulfil a CH role. From the results, it is evident that groups
where the formal leader was “challenged” by an informal leader consistently
underperformed compared to other groups.

125

3508072

Table 24:

Effectiveness, Satisfaction and Extra Effort of the team

Legitimate & Formal Leader
Unchallenged (n=3)
Effectiveness
3.27
Satisfaction
3.24
Extra Effort
2.91

Formal Leader
Unchallenged (n=4)
3.28
3.35
3.02

Formal Leader Challenged
(n=3)
3.22
3.25
2.66

Note:
•

Legitimate & Formal Leader Unchallenged: actual leader of the team
and identified leader in regards to the psychometric instruments;

•

Formal leader unchallenged: Formal leader of the team; and

•

Formal leader challenged: Another individual within the team has been
identified as the formal leader of the team.

4.1.3

Summary of Quantitative Results

This section aimed to identify the results from the eleven senior management
teams who participated in the research. The section progressed to elaborate
on the similarities and differences between MBTI and Belbin’s theory and the
implications for the Hospitality Industry.

The chapter focussed on drawing conclusions based upon:
•

Belbin’s team roles,

•

MBTI categorisation within Belbin’s team roles,

•

Interpretation within the hospitality industry,

•

Impact upon role legitimacy within the team, and

•

Team compositions impact upon effective team performance based on
Belbin and MBTI.

Generally, it was commonly observed that the cohort were identified as
Company Worker (CW) (23.4%) or Complete Finisher (CF) (18.0%) in light of
Belbin’s theory.

126

3508072

From the respondents, only 2.7% were identified as PL, posing great concern
for Hospitality Senior Management Teams. Some of the senior managers
suggested that the teams were stagnant and reluctant to take on new roles.
The absence of the PL provides little opportunity for teams to be highly
innovative, attentive to major strategic issues and to sustain global market
competitiveness. Further research focussing on the PL is needed to better
understand its importance and position within the hospitality industry.

The section progressed to categorise respondents in terms of the MBTI
framework. It can be noted that the cohort were identified as:
•

60.7% - Extraversion - 39.3% - Introversion;

•

49.8% - INtuitition – 50.2% - Sensing;

•

70.4% - Feeling – 29.5% - Thinking

•

28.9% - Perceiving – 71.2% Judging

Throughout the literature review it was discussed that the stereotypical
Hospitality Manager would be seen as an ESFJ due to their friendly and
outgoing persona (Extraverted), them being task oriented (Sensing),
empathetic and naturally civil, courteous with a strong desire to be of service
and to please (Feeling), and with a strong bias for action (Judging).

From the cohort the typical Hospitality Manager was described as an ESTJ
(20.5%) or an ISTJ (20.0%). As the Hospitality Industry deals with servicing
the needs of ‘people’ it is reasonable to assume that the Industry would be
dominated by xSFJ individuals, yet the cohort is clearly under represented.
To develop stronger conclusions in regards to MBTI, Belbin’s Team Roles and
the Hospitality Industry, further research needs to be carried out to better
understand the confounding results obtained from this analysis.

127

3508072

4.2

Qualitative Analysis

4.2.1

Case Study

The analysis and research of member roles and team effectiveness of senior
management teams within large hospitality organisations has provided an
opportunity to develop an understanding of the differing roles and personality
types of team members. The composition and strength of characters within
the team defines the approach the team adopts in working towards the
achievement of goals and hence the team’s performance.
As part of this research, a senior management team was invited to participate
in a case study. The purpose of this case study was to obtain a richer body of
data in addition to the structured self complete questionnaires and previous
quantitative analysis. The case study will focus its attention on psychological
type (MBTI), Belbin’s team role model and the formal roles of team members.
As mentioned in 2.3.6.1, the MBTI is a non-judgmental tool which allows
people to gain an understanding of differences, particularly with respect to
energy source, information gathering, decision-making and lifestyle patterns
based on psychological type (Martin, 1997).

This tool is used in organisations to recognise and appreciate how and why
employees differ from one another and how these differences impact on
organisational performance by looking at the employee’s preferred behaviours
as proposed by their psychological type.

The four bi-polar dimensions that underpin the MBTI provide clarity as to how
and why individuals act and respond to situations differently (refer to section
2.3.6.1.1 for further information).

In reference to the literature, Belbin

suggests that within a team, individuals take on different roles and that an
appropriate combination of these roles can form an effective team, where the
individuals varying strengths and characteristics complement one another.

128

3508072

Eight clearly defined team roles for developing a successful and effective
team were developed from the research, which suggest that a person who
fulfils a specific team role will behave in a manner which is consistent with the
personality and critical thinking ability expected by that role (refer to section
2.4.1 for further information).

The correlation between the MBTI framework and Belbin’s team role model
has been investigated at the macro level by using a case study team to draw
conclusions between these two renowned theories.

Personal interviews were conducted with each senior manager of the case
study team to gain insight on their personal experiences of being an active
member of the team. The interviews focussed on:
•

positive and negative experiences within the team;

•

perceptions of others members within the team and how this impacted
on the team’s ability to perform; and

•

general discussion in regards to their personal results from MBTI
framework and Belbin’s team role model.

The solicited responses will be discussed in greater detail. For reference
purposes only this team will be identified as Team 1.

4.2.2

Belbin’s Team Roles vs. MBTI vs. Actual Team Roles

Table 25: Similarities and differences between MBTI and Belbin’s Team
Roles, highlights the relationships and variances between the 16 MBTI Types
and Belbin’s eight team roles. It also identifies members of the team, their
actual MBTI type and their formal role. Team 1 demonstrated that two
members within the team (Person E and Person G) produced a consistent
MBTI and Belbin team role result.

129

3508072

Table 25:

Similarities and differences between MBTI and Belbin’s Team
Roles

Person

Formal Role

Belbin Team
Role

Actual Type
from Case
Study

Likely
MBTI Roles

Member of senior
management team based
on functional role

Chairman – CH

ESFP

ENTJ / ENFJ

Member of senior
management team based
on functional role
Member of senior
management team based
on functional role

Company Worker
– CW

Formal Leader*

Monitor Evaluator
– ME

INTP
ISTJ / ISFJ /
ISTP / ISFP
INFJ

Member of senior
management team based
on functional role
Member of senior
management team based
on functional role

Shaper – SH

Member of senior
management team based
on functional role

Complete
Finisher – CF

ISFJ

INTJ / ISTJ

ISTJ
ESTJ / ISTJ
ENTP

ISTJ

ESTJ / ISTJ

*Note: According to Belbin this member should be a CH and an ENTJ in
reference to MBTI.
•

Person A

Person A within Team I was identified by MBTI as an ESFP and Chairman
(CH) in regards to Belbin’s defined team roles. Table 25: Similarities and
differences between MBTI and Belbin’s Team Roles indicates that the likely
MBTI type of a CH would be ENTJ or ENFJ, therefore, the only consistent trait
from Person A’s MBTI result is Exxx.

Kroeger and Thuesen (1988) interpret an ESFP as acquiring great
interpersonal skills, having an acceptance of others a strong belief that people
should enjoy life.

Therefore this MBTI combination would reflect the

characteristics of a true Team Worker (TW).

130

3508072

•

Persons B & C

Persons B & C were both depicted as Company Workers (CW) with MBTI
type combinations being INTP and INFJ respectively. Both of these types
were inconsistent with the likely MBTI types as (refer to table 25: Similarities
and differences between MBTI and Belbin’s Team Roles) a CW due to their
xNxx preference to gather information. In reference to Belbin, a CW would be
characterised to predominantly utilise the xSxJ function due to their
disciplined and practical approach in completing tasks.
•

Person D

Person D was portrayed as an ISFJ and a Monitor Evaluator (ME) which
demonstrates consistencies with the ISxJ functions of likely MBTI trait
combinations (INTJ, ISTJ). This suggests that a hospitality senior manager
classified as an ISFJ and ME would appear to:
•

be an individual who is introverted in demeanour and who actively
works behind the scenes;

•

take commitment and obligation very seriously and is likely to stop the
team from committing to misguided projects;

•

be loyal which may make them appear quite serious and can dampen
the team’s morale with their low key or clever style;

•

allow themselves to be susceptible to become a ‘door mat’ due to their
high level of obligation and ability to assimilate and interpret large
volumes of complex material (Kroeger and Thuesen, 1988 & Belbin,
1996).

The difference in the thinking/feeling characteristic demonstrates that person
D possess an element of being mindful of other members’ thoughts and
decisions whereas the group, which a ‘traditional’ ME would be seen to make
decisions based solely on the facts.

131

3508072

•

Person E

Person E was identified as an ISTJ in relation to MBTI and a Shaper (SH) as
suggested by Belbin. In comparing the ISTJ and SH, it is apparent that a SH
has a tendency to be characterised as an extrovert which contradicts, to some
extent, the style of an ISTJ. However, Kroeger and Thuesen (1988) propose
that an ISTJ “…can be so outgoing under clearly defined circumstances that
they are sometimes mistaken for extraverts” (Kroeger & Thuesen. 1988,
p215). Therefore it can be assumed that Person E feels comfortable as a
member of the senior management team and their ISTJ and SH disposition
can be described as:
•

being highly responsible as a task leader who manages projects;

•

being intolerant of vagueness and ‘free stream’ thinking;

•

being results orientated and generally having prescribed ways of
completing tasks; and

•

appreciating order and structure (Kroeger and Thuesen, 1988 &
Belbin, 1996)

•

Person G

With reference to MBTI and Belbin, Person G was identified as an ISTJ and a
Complete Finisher (CF).

The traits identified by both of these roles

demonstrate consistency between MBTI and Belbin, as it is suggested that an
individual of this calibre would be seen to:
•

be highly responsible and in self control;

•

appreciate order and structure to ensure that work is carried out to
plan;

•

demonstrate impatience for individuals of a different type who take a
casual approach to work or have abstract thinking tendencies or even
interpersonal spontaneity;

•

have a strong sense of responsibility and may appear to be anxious by
maintaining a permanent sense of urgency; and

•

have an eye for detail to ensure all processes have been carried out
correctly (Kroeger and Thuesen, 1988 & Belbin, 1996)
132

3508072

4.2.3

Peer assessment and its consistency in regards to MBTI &
Belbin

In reviewing the interviews with the senior managers, it was noted that the
patterns in their responses were consistent with the theory suggested by the
Belbin’s Team Roles and the MBTI framework.

This part of the analysis

provides an understanding of personal peer assessment and how these views
relate to their personal MBTI profile and Belbin Team Role.
In participating in the research, Person B was identified within Team 1 as an
INTP & a CW.

In reference to Kroeger & Thuesen (1998) an INTP is

categorised by trying to make logical sense of data which is presented to
them. In doing so, they can appear distant as they are deep in thought and
when absorbed in discussion about issues can appear rude and inconsiderate
to other members of the group.

General discussion from their colleagues suggested that Person B was seen
to use their thinking preference and based their decisions on the facts as they
were presented, a typical representation of a traditional CW.

The team

continued to suggest that Person B was tactless at times by having little or no
consideration for other members prior to voicing their opinion or view on
certain matters.

Interestingly, the members of the team who recognised Person B were xxFx
type people. These responses are consistent with the theory (Martin, 1997)
which suggests that ‘feeling’ type individuals have a genuine concern for
others and believe that being tactful is more important than telling the truth.

Discussion in regards to Team 1 continued with Person C being identified as
an INFJ and a CW. According to Kroeger and Thuesen (1998), an INFJ
generates ideas and possibilities for the team’s consideration although
adopting a very orderly approach. They enjoy working in groups and have an
appreciation for product development to assist in business growth.

133

3508072

Person C felt the team lacked clearly defined vision and was frustrated by the
lack of goal congruence.

They were considerate of their colleagues and

thought more time should be spent on product development and revenue
growth strategies.

Team members sensed that Person C experienced

difficulties with the concept of the team’s meetings as they tended to loose
focus and strategic direction.

This peer assessment of Person C demonstrates consistency in regards to a
CW as this role is concerned with ensuring the tasks which have been set for
the team are completed in a systematic approach and therefore discussion
which does not align to the agenda could frustrate this team role.

Interestingly, the team members who thought Person C was grappling with
the lack of strategic direction were predominantly xxTx members of the group.
Their thoughts about Person C may have arisen from their ability to
understand the group’s situation logically.

The personal interviews continued to uncover interesting concepts and
themes amongst the team. In discussion with the formal leader of the team, it
was noted that the team would often feel a sense of ‘routine’ with generating
new ideas or improved methods of completing tasks.

The formal leader recognised within the team that another member of the
team (Person E) could influence discussion and potentially the outcomes of
the team’s decisions. In order for this to occur, the formal leader would step
back and encourage Person E to lead discussion from another point of view to
challenge the team’s mindset.

With closer analysis of Belbin’s team role model, Person E was identified as a
Shaper (SH). Belbin (1996) suggests that the Chairman (CH) and SH often
complement each other and bring coherence to a team.

They can both

operate effectively as leaders of the team provided one each contains
themselves. This interesting finding supports Belbin’s Team Role model as
the formal leader has recognised the SH quality of Person E and that in order

134

3508072

for Person E to be effective the formal leader must step back. This finding
from the case study is quite remarkable.

Person A was described as member of the team who was nurturing, had a
genuine concern for the welfare of team members and was actively trying to
improve the morale and hence the performance of the individuals within the
team.

Interestingly Person A was categorised as an ESFP which in hindsight
portrays the trait characteristics of a Team Worker (TW). In reference to the
case study, Person A was identified as a Chairman (CH) obviously displaying
significant differences between the role of a CH and TW.

To develop a

thorough understanding of the relationship between an ESFP and CH within
the Hospitality Industry will require further research and analysis.

4.2.4

Self Perceptions and their consistency with MBTI and
Belbin

The personal interviews continued with senior managers discussing their
ability to fulfil their Belbin team role and the MBTI type.

Due to time

constraints, a brief profile of their team role was communicated. A few of the
self perception interviews are detailed below:

Person E was identified as a Shaper (SH) and believed they were able to fulfil
this role by demonstrating the ability to challenge convention and to alter the
point of equilibrium, but felt it was a responsibility of all team players to
implement better practices, efficiencies and effectiveness.
In contrast, Person C was depicted as a Company Worker (CW) and felt this
was not an accurate profile of their contribution to the team. Consistent with
the behaviours of a CW and an INFJ, Person C is an impatient person and
has minimal time for superfluous conversation and ‘loosely’ thought ideas.

135

3508072

The Monitor Evaluator (ME) role was represented by Person D who
acknowledged at times they carried out the activities of the ME depending
with whom they were liaising. They felt that in fulfilling the role of the ME they
needed to be mindful of other individual’s feelings in order to manage the
situation and achieve the best results.

Although Person D was categorised as an ISFJ, their outlook on their
personal performance tended to demonstrate their ‘feeling’ trait being more
predominant in decision making.
4.2.5

Team Success According To Belbin

In relation to section 2.4, Belbin clearly suggests that in order for a team to
perform successfully, all eight team roles need to be present as each team
role brings specific characteristics to the team which subsequently impact
upon the team’s performance.
Along with Belbin’s clearly defined team roles, he suggested that the following
key ingredients will assist in enhancing the performance of the team. These
include:
•

that each member works towards the achievement of goals and
objectives by carrying out a functional role;

•

a favourable equilibrium in a functional role and team role is necessary;

•

team effectiveness is reliant on each member’s ability to accurately
recognise and modify their contribution to the team;

•

personality and mental abilities of members may limit their chances of
fulfilling various team roles ; and

•

a team can use its technical resources to full advantage only when it
has the right balance and mix of team roles.

136

3508072

The composition of Team 1 had representation of 5 roles identified by Belbin
which included:
•

1 * Chairman (CH)

•

1 * Monitor Evaluator (ME)

•

2 * Shaper’s (SH)

•

2 * Company Worker’s (CW)

•

1 * Complete Finisher (CF)

The composition of Team 1 suggests that the team is lacking representation
of members known as the ‘idea generators’ - Plant (PL) and Resource
Investigator (RI).

Therefore the position and role of the ME can not be

brought to fruition as they aren’t mentally challenged with ‘outrageous’ or
‘radical’ ideas.

Team 1 is also deficient with the absence of the Team Worker (TW).
Although formally the TW is not evident, Person A demonstrates
characteristics of a TW and members of the team adopting IxFx
characteristics will bring an element of emotional support to the group.

Section 2.4 discusses the notion of Belbin suggesting that team roles can
combine due to similarities in the roles. These roles include: Chairman and
Shaper as well as Plant and Resource Investigator. In Team 1 the absence of
the PL and RI limits its ability to compress the roles. As the CH in Team 1
demonstrates TW characteristics, the role of the SH to lead the team is highly
important in terms of driving the direction and hence achieving effective
performance for the team.
4.2.6

Team Success According To MBTI

In relation to the MBTI type combinations, Team 1 demonstrated full
representation of all types as either their dominant and auxiliary preference.
Team 1 was highly Introverted, although Introverts can demonstrate
Extroverted characteristics when they are in an environment in which they feel
comfortable (Kroeger & Thuesen, 1988).

137

3508072

The team had a balanced representation of INtuitive and sensing type
individuals. Generally in a team environment, the alternative methods of
gathering information can pose real problems. The SH or CH of the team
needs to understand these differences to capitalise on each member’s
strengths.

Team 1 also possessed an even balance of ‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ type team
members. This combination of members creates an opportunity for Team A to
flourish as the ‘Thinking’ individuals focus their energy on being objective and
the ‘Feeling’ members of the group bring an awareness of the how the
decision will impact upon the team’s emotional well being.

In terms of composition, Team 1 also had a balanced representation of the
‘judging’ and ‘perceiving’ kind. In the team, the combination of these roles
brings stability as ‘Perceivers’ create excitement and the ‘Judgers’ ensure
projects are followed through.

4.2.7

Summary of Case Study

Although Team 1 doesn’t carry all eight team roles identified by Belbin, the
team has a fair representation of the roles necessary to be considered
generally effective. The team experienced difficulties in creativity and being
open to new and ‘outrageous’ ideas because of the absence of the PL and RI.

The full representation of MBTI types through their dominant and auxiliary
functions has given Team 1 a competitive edge in challenging the status quo
as the group is able to see both sides of the spectrum. As the team is highly
characterised by Introverts their ability to perform is not hindered as there is
minimal representation of the ‘louder personalities’.

138

3508072

However, the fundamentally conservative nature of the Introvert, coupled with
the lack of the PL and RI suggests that this team may become bogged down
in internal, self absorption at the expense of being outward looking and
pursuing business opportunities.

139

3508072

5.0

Discussion

The Discussion section aims to identify the main similarities and differences
between the Belbin’s Team Role Model and the MBTI and how these gaps
and overlaps create or clarify issues for the Hospitality Industry.
5.1

MBTI Representation Amongst The Cohort

From the cohort, Hospitality Managers were mainly characterised as
Extraverts (60.7%), Feeling (70.4%) and Judging (71.2%) types (refer to
section 4.1.2.3: Hospitality Managers by Belbin’s Team Role Model and
MBTI).

It is reasonable to assume that the Hospitality Industry would predominantly
be categorised by Extraverted managers given that it’s primary focus is to
serve the needs of their clientele.

This could demonstrate areas of concern for the Hospitality Industry given that
the quiet achievers - Introverted roles according to Belbin are generally the
smarter roles within the team ie: PL and ME. Therefore, it can be concluded
that an over representation of Extraverted individuals within these senior
management teams could help explain why few PL and ME’s were identified
in the cohort.

The lack of Perceiving types is also problematic for the Hospitality Industry as
these individuals push the boundaries and are open for new and innovative
approaches to work. Therefore, acquiring the majority of disciplined Judging
type characters are limiting the teams’ ability to gain market competitiveness
and create challenges by considering new possibilities.

140

3508072

5.2

Representation of Belbin Team Roles amongst the cohort

As stated by Blum (1996), for hospitality organisations to remain competitive
they must be more responsive to the changing needs of their guests and the
strategies and actions of their competitors. It is apparent that Hospitality does
not produce the traditional Belbin team roles as suggested in the literature.
These differences could be attributed to the nature, diversity and uniqueness
of the industry compared to other professions and industries.

It is interesting to note from the results that only 2.7% and 8.1% (refer to table
10) of respondents were categorised as PL and ME respectively. Within a
team, the PL “specifies advancing new ideas and strategies with special
attention to major issues and looking for possible breaks in approach to
problems with which they are confronted” (Belbin, 1996, p159).

The absence of a PL within the cohort can pose major problems for the
Hospitality Industry based on routine practice with minimal room for innovative
business development. In reference to Belbin, teams who do not possess a
PL will be less innovative, reluctant to change the point of equilibrium and
hence may not be exposed to the new and changing dynamics of business.

The incidence of the ME (8.1%) (refer to table 10) supports Belbin’s theory
which indicates that the ME “specifies analysing problems and evaluating
ideas and suggestions so that the team is better placed to take balanced
decisions” (Belbin, 1996, p157). As there is minimal presence of the PL
(2.7%) (refer to table 10) within the cohort, it is no surprise that the ME
achieved a low representation. This is due to lack of outrageous ideas being
generated by the PL and hence the ME having no need to evaluate
alternatives.

Whilst small differences were noted in the results section, no other major
differences were demonstrated by the cohort in relation to Belbin’s Team
Roles.

141

3508072

Furthermore, Belbin also suggested that the RI and PL roles could
compensate for one another where the brightness of the PL and the
imaginative capabilities of the RI can be combined in one individual who may
make effective use of their interpersonal skills (Jay, 1980).

As the PL

demonstrated low representation amongst the Hospitality cohort, it is
promising to know that the role of the RI (which was seen within 63% of
teams, refer to table 12) can contribute to minimising the gap of missing
characteristics of the PL.

For the hospitality industry the under representation of the PL and RI can
pose great threats in respect to innovation and market competitiveness.
Further research in this area could contribute to a better understanding of why
they are not present and how to enhance or create highly effective teams
within the hospitality industry.

142

3508072

6.0

Conclusion

The thesis and research aimed to:
•

develop an understanding of individual behaviour in a senior management
team in the hospitality industry within a framework of team roles (as
conceived by Belbin (1980) and operationalised by Cattell and Watson and
Glaser) and psychological type (as conceived by Jung and operationalised
by Myers Briggs (1980));

•

evaluate the efficicacy of senior management teams in the hospitality
industry in the light of their composition within the Belbin and Myers Briggs
framework; and

•

identify and evaluate the experience of members within a team in light of
an individual’s informal and formal team role and psychological type.

The study allowed for an understanding of behaviour in senior management
teams within the Hospitalty Industry based on Belbin’s team roles and the
MBTI.

Within the literature review it was hypothesised that due to high customer
interaction it would be reasonably expected that successful hospitality
managers to be Extraverted, Sensor, Feeling and Judging people. It was
concluded and confirmed that the cohort of Hospitality Managers were
characterised by Extraverts (60.7%), Sensing (50.2%), Feeling (70.4%) and
Judging (71.1%) types.

In reference to Belbin’s Team Roles the cohort was highly characterised by
CW (23.4%). Given that the Hospitality Industry comprises the servicing of
customers it would have been reasonable to assume that RI were increasingly
evident. The under representation of the PL and ME pose great areas of
concern for Hospitality Industry given that these roles are the substantive
achivers within the team. The lack of these team roles provide limited ability
for the teams to make strategic decisions, develop innovative solutions or
challenge the status quo therefore limiting the teams ability to become
challenging competitors in the industry.
143

3508072

The study continued to identify and evaluate the experience of members
within a team in light of their informal/ formal role and psychological type. The
case study allowed for an indepth review and analysis of the teams
performance. It was very interesting to note that comments made by the
participants could be attributed to their MBTI psychological type profiles.

Therefore in conclusion if teams within the Hospitality Industry can recognise
the importance of the spread of roles (formal/informal) and psychological
types (according to MBTI) within their senior management teams they will
have a competitive advantage of influencing solicited improvements to the
team’s performance.

The introduction of ‘missing’ team roles and

psychological types to these teams and a subsequent review of the team will
draw stronger conclusions for improving team performance.

144

3508072

7.0

Further Research

The research and study of member roles and team effectiveness within large
hospitality organisations has led to an understanding of differing team
compositions and dynamics in relation to Belbin’s Team Role model and the
MBTI framework.

Further research into senior management teams within the Hospitality industry
is warranted to enhance our knowledge of the:
•

expectations and performance of management teams;

•

individual differences which shape the composition and performance of
teams; and

•

implementation of team models such as Belbin and MBTI and how they
can assist in developing highly effective teams within the Hospitality
industry.

As this research project only focussed on a convenience sample of eleven
senior management teams within Melbourne, broadening the scope and
looking at a wider range of teams from differing sectors of the hospitality
industry throughout Australia could further enhance our knowledge and
application of Belbin’s member roles. This more extensive research could
enhance understanding by highlighting similarities and differences in team
composition and hence performance based upon a variety of variables i.e.
geographic location and market sector.

Furthermore, sound conclusions

could be formed regarding Belbin’s model and the MBTI within the Hospitality
industry such as:
•

the under representation of the Plant (PL) amongst teams;

•

the consistent MBTI identification of ESFJ as the typical Hospitality
Manager; and

•

the ability to amalgamate Team Roles and its improvements to team
performance.

145

3508072

In addition further research surrounding team development (Gersick’s and
Tuckman’s models) could prove invaluable in light of Belbin’s Team Role
Model and MBTI. This further research could assist in drawing conclusions
based on the individuals team role, MBTI type and its bearing on the teams
stage of development and hence its impact on overall performance.

The case study of one specific senior management team that was identified
as Team 1 provided a ‘real life’ insight into a team based on Belbin’s Team
Role Model and the MBTI framework. Using multiple senior management
teams as case studies from varying establishments may provide both context
to and clarity of understanding MBTI type combinations, Belbin’s team role,
formal role and the manager’s self and peer assessments.

The research could also compare smaller and larger hospitality operators to
assess if there are differences in the compositions of teams based upon
number of staff employed, rooms available and the differing product and
service offerings.

To evaluate the senior management teams in terms of team performance,
Bass and Avolio’s approach was used. A more comprehensive and rigorous
approach to assessing a team’s performance based on the responses from
the formal leader of the team, team members and team superiors may
address a range of issues which were not addressed in this research.

146

3508072

8.0

Bibliography

Bamber, C, Belohoubek, P, Castka, P & Sharp, J. 2001, ‘Factors affecting
successful implementation of high performance teams,’ Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, vol.7, no.7/8, pp.123-134.

Bartlett, A & Mount, D. 1999, ‘The managerial role assessment survey, design
and test of an instrument measuring Mintzberg’s roles among hotel
managers,’ Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, vol.23, pp.160-175.

Bartol, K, Martin D, Matthews, G & Tein, M. 1998, Management: A Pacific Rim
Focus, The McGraw Hill Companies, Australia.

Belbin, M. 1996, Management Teams: why they succeed or fail, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford.

Belbin, M R. 1993, ‘A reply to the Belbin Team-Role Self Perception Inventory
by

Furnham,

Steele

and

Pendleton,’

Journal

Occupational

and

Organisational Psychology, pp.259-260.

Berr, S, Church, A & Waclawski, A. 2000. The Right Relationship Is
Everything: Linking Personality Preferences to Managerial Behaviours,’
Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol.11, no.2, pp.133-157.

Bradley, J & Herbert, F. 1997, ‘The effect of personality type on team
performance,’ Journal of Management Development, vol.6, n.5, pp.337-353.

Briggs Myers, I & Myers, P. 1980, Gifts differing: understandung personality
type, Davies Black Publishing, CA.

Blum, S. 1996, ‘Organisational trend analysis of the hospitality industry:
preparing for change,’ International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, vol.8, pp.20-32.

147

3508072

Broucek, W & Randell, G. 1996, ‘An assessment of the construct validity of
the Belbin self perception inventory and observer’s assessment from the
perspective of the five factor model,’ Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, vol.69, pp.389-405.

Dulewicz, V. 1995, ‘A validation of Belbin’s team roles from 16PF and OPQ
using bosses’ ratings of competence,’ Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, pp.81-99.

Fisher, S, Macrosson, W & Wong, J. 1998, ‘Cognitive style and team role
preference,’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol.13, pp.544-557.

Francis, G. 2001, Introduction to SPSS, Prentice Hall, Sydney.

Furnham, A & Steele, H. 1993, ‘A response to Dr Belbin’s Reply,’ Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology, vol.66, pp.261.

Furnham, A & Steele, H. 1993, ‘A psychometric assessment of the Belbin
Team-Role

Self-Perception

Inventory,’

Journal

Occupational

and

Organisational Psychology, vol.66, pp.245.

Furnham, A & Stringfield, P. 1993, ‘Personality and occupational behaviour:
Myer-Briggs type indicator correlates of managerial practices in two cultures,’
Gale Group Information Integrity, vol.46, n.7, pp.827 – 839.

Gillet, S & Whitelaw, P. 2003, ‘When the girls take over,’ Travel and Tourism
Research, vol.28, pp.41 – 50.

Gilligan, J, Treasure, T & Watts, C. 1996, ‘Incorporating psychometric
measures in selecting and developing surgeons,’ Journal of Management in
Medicine, vol.10, no.6, pp.5-16.

148

3508072

Groesbeck, R & Van Aken, E. 2001, ‘Enabling team well: monitoring and
maintaining teams after start-up,’ Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, vol.7, no.1/2, pp.11-20.

Hackman, J. 1990, Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating
conditions for effective teamwork, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Hampson, I & Morgan, D. 2001, ‘The professionalising of management?
Functional imperatives and moral order in societal context,’ Management and
Organisational Behaviour.

Harbourne, D. 1995, ‘Issues in hospitality and catering,’ Management and
Development Review, vol 8, pp.37-40.

Harris, K & Nibler, R. 2003, ‘The effects of culture and cohesiveness on
intragroup conflict and effectiveness,’ Journal of Social Psychology, vol.143,
pp.613.

Hisle, J & Stevens, B. 1996, ‘Hotel managers’ perceptions of upward and
downward communication,’ International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, vol.8, pp.29-32.

Ingram, H & Desombre, T. 1999, ‘Teamwork: comparing academic and
practitioners’ perceptions,’ Team Performance Management, vol.5, pp.16-22.

Ivancevich, J & Matteson, M. 2002, Organisational Behaviour and
Management, McGraw Hill Irwin, New York.

Ivancevich, J, Matteson, M, & Olekalns, M. 1997, Organisational Behaviour
and Management – First Edition, McGraw Hill, Australia.

Jay, A. 1980, ‘Nobody’s perfect - but a team can be,’ Observer Magazine,
vol.20, pp.27.

149

3508072

Jehn, K. 1995, ‘A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict,’ Administration Science Quarterly, vol.40, pp.256.

Jehn, K & Mannix, E. 2001, ‘The dynamic nature of conflict: a longtidunial
study of intragroup conflict and group performance,’ Academy of Management
Journal, vol.44, pp.238.

Kroeger, O & Thuesen, J. 1988, Type Talk: The 16 personality types that
determine how we live, love and work, Tilden Press, New York.

Kur, E. 1996, ‘The faces model of high performing team development,’
Management Development Review, vol.9, pp.25-35.

Laske, O & Maynes, B. 2002, ‘Growing the top management team,’ The
Journal Of Management Development, vol.21, no.9, pp.702-727.

Lowe, K, Kroeck, K & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996, ‘Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the
MLQ literature,’ Leadership Quarterly, vol.7, pp.385-425.

Martin, C. 1997, Looking at Type: The Fundamentals, Centre of Applications
for Psychological Type, Gainesville, Florida.

Mayer, J & Salovey, P. 1993, ‘The intelligence of emotional intelligence,’
Intelligence, vol.17, pp.433-442.

McKenna, R, 2001, ‘Identity, not motivation: the key to employee –
organisation relations’ Management and Organisational Behaviour.

Murensky, C. 2000, The relationships between emotional intelligence,
personality, critical thinking ability and organisational leadership performance
at upper levels of management, Bell and Howell Company.

Parker, G. 1994, Cross functional teams, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

150

3508072

Peacock, M. 1995, ‘A job well done: hospitality managers and success,’
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol.7, pp.4851.

Proehl, R. 1997, ‘Enhancing the effectiveness of cross-functional teams’,
Team Performance Management, vol.3, no.3, pp.137-149.

Robbins, S, Bergman, R, Stagg, I & Coulter, M. 2003, Foundations of
Management, Prentice Hall, NSW.

Robbins, S, Millet, B, Cacioppe, R & Waters-Marsh, T. 2001, Organisational
behaviour: Leading and Managing in Australia and New Zealand, 3rd edition,
Pearson Education, NSW.

Sdorow, L.1998, Psychology, McGraw Hill.

Teare, R. 1996, ‘Hospitality operations: patterns in management, service
improvement

and

business

performance,’

International

Journal

Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol.8, pp.63-74.

Teare, R. 1997, ‘Supporting managerial learning in the workplace,’
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, pp.304-314.

The Faculty of Business and Law. 2003, Organisational Behaviour, Deakin
University.

Trent, R. 2003, ‘Planning to use work teams effectively,’ Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, vol.9, no.3/4, pp.50-58.
Vecchio, R, Hearn, G & Southey, G. 1996, Organisational Behaviour, 2nd edn,
Harcourt Brace, Sydney.

151

3508072

Watson, G & Glaser E. 1980, Manual: the watson-glaser critical thinking
appraisal, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio.

Whitelaw, P & Morda, R. 2005, ‘Competent and Sensitive Leaders? I'd Like to
See That! Exploring Leadership Styles and Emotional Intelligence in
Hospitality,’ CAUTHE 2005, Alice Springs, Charles Darwin University.

Whitelaw, P & Morda, R. 2004, ‘Leadership in the Hospitality Industry.
Boadecia v Attila – bring it on,’ Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, vol. 11, pp.139-148.

Wood, J, Wallace, J & Zeffane, R. 1998, Organisational Behaviour: An AsiaPacific Perspective, John Wiley and Sons, Brisbane.

Zemke, R. 1992, ‘Second Thoughts About The MBTI,’ Training Magazine,
vol.29, pp.43.

152

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.4
Linearized                      : Yes
XMP Toolkit                     : 3.1-701
Producer                        : Acrobat Distiller 7.0 (Windows)
Creator Tool                    : PScript5.dll Version 5.2
Modify Date                     : 2006:04:24 15:05:03+10:00
Create Date                     : 2006:01:20 08:51:14+11:00
Metadata Date                   : 2006:04:24 15:05:03+10:00
Format                          : application/pdf
Title                           : Microsoft Word - Masters - 06 11 2005 v26 - amendments.doc
Creator                         : kathrynz
Document ID                     : uuid:e461d344-1971-483a-842b-cf449355024c
Instance ID                     : uuid:d07cd000-16ab-4baf-ab6c-74a09e002d0c
Page Count                      : 152
Author                          : kathrynz

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

Masters 06 11 2005 V26 Amendments CW 114 02whole

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation