EVALUATION OF BELBIN S TEAM ROLES A CASE STUDY OF NIZWA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, SULTANATE OF OMAN

Transcription

1 EVALUATION OF BELBIN S TEAM ROLES A CASE STUDY OF NIZWA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, SULTANATE OF OMAN R. Renjith Kumar Lecturer, Department of Business Studies, Nizwa College of Technology Sultanate of Oman Abstract The aim of this paper is to conduct an empirical research by applying Belbin s team role model. It attempts to contribute to the team roles and team performance where researchers have pursued. The main purpose of this study is to make an evaluation of the students of Nizwa College of Technology, Sultanate of Oman, where team management has been experienced in accordance with Belbin s (1981) team roles theory. The study group of the research consists of 93 students from three departments. The data was obtained from the answers given to the questions in Belbin Team Roles Self Perception Inventory. The results indicate that team roles characteristics are related with the gender the students from three departments. Key words: Co-ordinator, Shaper, Plant, Resource Investigator, Monitor-Evaluator, Team worker, Finisher Introduction The fast-changing competitive environment in both local and global arenas has instilled the need for proactive and innovative stances by organisations across all business sectors. Organisations must be able to adapt quickly to technological innovations and the changing demands of markets and stakeholders (Partington and Harris, 1999). A popular response to these challenges has been the introduction of team working, which is seen to contribute to greater creativity, productivity, commitment and participation in a diversity of large and small operations. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) asserted that teams will become the primary unit of performance in high-performance organizations. In the USA, the team working trend has been followed by industrial giants such as Boeing, Chrysler, Corning, DuPont, Eastman Kodak, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard and Xerox (Fleming and Koppleman, 1997). A critical determinant of team performance is the quality of human resources which make up the team. Therefore the mix of individuals in a team has become an important issue for management development professionals. Statement of the problem In colleges of technology in Oman all the course offerings are job oriented. Students are moulded in such a way that they get maximum employability. Students should be aware about how they can perform in an organization. Through direct observation and discussion the researcher could find that students are unaware of their team roles, especially how they can perform in a team or a group. A clear knowledge about team roles helps the students to groom their personality as well as acts as catalyst for employability. No literature review so far supports such kind of a study in 1

2 Oman about the team roles performed by students. The study is thus attempted to understand the various team roles of students. Literature review Belbin (1993) lists the characteristics of the eight roles as follows: (1) Implementer is concerned with the practical translation and application of concepts and plans developed by the team. This entails a down-to-earth outlook, coupled with perseverance in the face of difficulties. (2) Co-ordinator organises, co-ordinates and controls the activities of the team. This involves the clarification of team objectives and problems, assigning tasks and responsibilities, and encouraging team members to get involved in achieving objectives and goals. (3) Shaper challenges, argues and disagrees. Is achievement motivated, extrovert, impatient, and has good insight. (4) Plant is concerned with putting forward ideas and strategies for achieving the objectives adopted by the team. Performance of this role requires creativity, imagination and innovation. (5) Resource Investigator explores the environment outside the team by identifying ideas, information and resources. Performance of this role involves developing contacts, co-ordination and negotiation with other teams and individuals. (6) Monitor Evaluator analyses ideas and proposals being considered by the team, to evaluate their feasibility and value for achieving the team's objectives. (7) Team Worker creates and maintains a team spirit. This involves improving communication by providing personal support and warmth to team members and by overcoming tension and conflict. (8) Finisher ensures that the team s efforts achieve appropriate standards, and that mistakes of both commissions and omissions are avoided. It also involves searching for detailed mistakes and maintaining a sense of urgency within the team. Team roles characteristics defined by creativity, co-ordination and co-operation are positively correlated with team performance. There is no strong relationship between team balance measured by the number of team roles and team performance (Eric Chong, 2005). Aitor, Stephen, Barbara (2007) used Team Role Self-Perception Inventory to assess a person s likely behavior in a team and tested theoretical associations between team roles and behavioural traits. Strong association between some team roles is observed indicating weak discriminant validity among scales in the inventory. A controlled experiment was conducted with senior software engineering students that demonstrates the utility of forming team based on Belbin s team roles. The study focuses on improving the effectiveness of teams- performance and team viability. The results are positive and concluded that Belbin s roles provide useful information to form teams (Sallie and Stevens, 2001). A study conducted in Sakarya Anatolian High School, Turkey, evaluated on five teams within the school where team management has been experienced in accordance with Belbin s team roles theory. There was no relation between the team and functional roles of the members of the five teams. The team roles were distributed equally balanced but it was also found that most of the roles were played by the members who were less inclined. Few members played plant role and no one played leader role (Hasan, 2008). 2

3 Objectives of the study The objectives of the study are as follows; 1. To assess the level of team role attributes of students in Nizwa College of Technology. 2. To analyse the important team roles that affect the performance of students in a team. 3. To identify the relationship between team roles between gender and departments 4. To find out the consistency and reliability of team climate attributes Hypotheses Ho: There is no significant difference between team roles performed by students and gender Ho: There is no relation between team roles performed by students and among departments. Research methodology The study was conducted among the students in Nizwa College of Technology, under the Ministry of Manpower, Sultanate of Oman during the academic year The eight team roles were measured by using a rating scale. Data pertaining to various attributes were collected through a structured questionnaire including relevant questions to eight roles; implementer, coordinator, shaper, plant, resource investigator, monitor-evaluator, team worker and completerfinisher. Data was collected randomly from 93 students from three departments in the college. Hypothesis testing is done with the help of Chi-square and the level of the attributes are measured as low, medium and high by using Average S.D. Team roles are analysed based on gender and department wise. Anova is used to identify the equality of means among the team roles. Results and Discussion I. Discipline (Implementor) Through this variable the researcher assessed the discipline, reliability, ability to take decisions and the capacity to take practical solutions by the students. The average discipline of the students in Nizwa College of Technology is 4.10 and the standard deviation is calculated as The discipline of the female students (4.15) is greater than the males (3.99). The average discipline of the male students is less than the overall average. Table 1.1 Gender and discipline Males Females Total To test whether there is any difference in discipline between genders, the level of discipline of the students is prepared and tested; Table 1.2 Gender and levels of discipline Males 6 (21) 17 (58) 6 (21) 29 Females 7 (11) 46 (72) 11 (17) 64 Total 16 (17) 62 (67) 15 (16) 93 From the sample respondents 72% of the female students in Nizwa College of Technology have medium level of discipline. 21% of the males have high level of discipline which is greater than 3

4 the overall average of 16%. Hence the following hypothesis is framed and tested. Ho: Female students are more disciplined than the male students in performing team roles. The calculated value of 2 (2.01) is less than the table value (5.99) at 5% confidence level with 2 degrees of freedom. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that female students are more disciplined than the male students in a team. Table 1.3 Departments and discipline Engineering Business Information Technology Total The average discipline score of Business students (4.19) is higher than the average of other departments. To test whether there is any difference in discipline among departments, the level of discipline of the students is prepared and tested; Table 1.4 Departments and levels of discipline Departments Low Medium High Total Engineering 5 (15.5) 22 (69) 5 (15.5) 32 Business 4 (9) 28 (65) 11 (26) 43 Information Technology 3 (17) 12 (67) 3 (16) 18 Total 16 (17) 62 (67) 15 (16) 93 67% of the students have medium level of discipline. 26% of the students in Business department has high level of discipline which is higher than other departments. Ho: Discipline is high for Business students compared with other departments. The calculated value of 2 (1.89) is less than the table value (9.49) at 5% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom. Hence it is concluded that Business department students have more discipline than other departments. II. Confidence (Co-ordinator) The researcher measured the maturity, confidence, clarity of goals, and whether promotes discussions together with other people. The average confidence of the students is 4.01 and the standard deviation is Table 2.1 Gender and confidence Males Females Total To test whether there is any difference in confidence between genders, the level of confidence of the students is prepared. Table 2.2 Gender and levels of confidence Males 4 (14) 21 (72) 4 (14) 29 Females 11(17) 42 (66) 11(17) 64 Total 18 (19) 60 (65) 15 (16) 93 4

5 From the table it is clear that 65% of the students have medium level of confidence. 16% of the students have high level of confidence. The confidence level is high for females (17%), which is higher than the males (14%). Moreover the average confidence level of females (4.05) is greater than the males (3.92). Hence the following hypothesis is tested. Ho: Female students are more confident than the male students in a team. The calculated value of 2 (0.42) is less than the table value (5.99) at 5% confidence level with 2 degrees of freedom. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that female students are more confident in performing their roles in a team than the male students. Table 2.3 Departments and confidence Engineering Business Information Technology Total The average confidence of all the departments is the same. To test whether there is any difference in confidence among departments, the level of confidence of the students is prepared. Table 2.4 Departments and levels of confidence Departments Low Medium High Total Engineering 6 (19) 20 (62) 6 (19) 32 Business 8 (19) 30 (70) 5 (11) 43 Information Technology 4 (22) 10 (56) 4 (22) 18 Total 18 (19) 60 (65) 15 (16) 93 The average high level of confidence is 16%. Students from information technology have high level of confidence (22%) which is greater than the average. The confidence level of Business students is 11% which is less than the average. Ho: Information technology students show more confidence in a team than other departments. The calculated value of 2 (1.61) is less than the table value (9.49) at 5% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom. It is concluded that information technology students show more confidence in a team work than the other departments. III. Dynamism (Shaper) This variable is used to measure whether students are challenging, dynamic, and courageous to overcome obstacles. The average dynamism score of the students is 3.81 and the standard deviation is The score of dynamism for females (3.82) is higher than the male students (3.80). Table 3.1 Dynamism gender wise Males Females Total To test whether there is any difference in dynamism and gender, the level of dynamism of the students is prepared. Table 3.2 Gender and levels of dynamism Males 4 (14) 21 (72) 4 (14) 29 Females 12 (19) 40 (62) 12 (19) 64 5

6 Total 20 (22) 57 (61) 16 (17) 93 It is clear that 61% of the students have medium level of dynamism. 72% of the male students have medium level of confidence which is greater than the average. The level of dynamism is high for females (19%), which is higher than the males (14%). Hence the following hypothesis is tested. Ho: Female students are more dynamic and courageous in team work than the male students. The calculated value of 2 (0.87) is less than the table value (5.99) at 5% confidence level with 2 degrees of freedom. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that female students are challenging, dynamic, and courageous to overcome obstacles than the male students. Table 3.3 Dynamism department wise Department No of responses Average Above average Below average Range Engineering Business Information Technology Total The average dynamism is 3.81 and in engineering and Information technology departments this average is higher than the average. To test whether there is any significant relationship between dynamism and departments, the level of dynamism of the students is prepared. Table 3.4 Departments and levels of dynamism Department Low Medium High Total Engineering 6 (19) 20 (62) 6 (19) 32 Business 5 (12) 31 (72) 7 (16) 43 Information Technology 4 (22) 11 (61) 3 (17) 18 Total 20 (22) 57 (61) 16 (17) 93 From the table it is revealed that 61% of the students have medium level of dynamism. 17% of the students have high level of dynamism. 19% of the students from engineering department have high level of dynamism which is higher than other departments. Ho: Engineering students have more dynamism than other departments in performing their roles in a team. The calculated value of 2 (1.52) is less than the table value (9.49) at 5% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom. It is thus concluded that dynamism is more for engineering students and comparatively less for business students. IV. Creativity (Plant) Through this attribute the researcher measured the creativity, imaginativeness and whether students are able to handle difficult situations. The average creativity score of students is 3.77 and standard deviation is The average creativity score of female students (3.78) is greater than the overall average and the male students (3.74). Table 4.1 Creativity and gender Males Females Total The level of creativity is prepared to analyse whether there is any significant difference between gender and creativity. 6

7 Table 4.2 Gender and levels of creativity Males 5 (17) 19 (66) 5 (17) 29 Females 4 (6) 49 (77) 11 (17) 64 Total 9 (10) 66 (71) 18 (19) 93 The table shows that the 71% creativity level of students is in medium level. 17% of the students are having high level of creativity which is same. The overall creativity level is high (19%), but both the male and female students have equal level of creativity. Hence the following hypothesis is tested. Ho: There is no difference in creativity between male and female students when they work in a team. The calculated value of 2 (2.82) is less than the table value (5.99) at 5% confidence level with 2 degrees of freedom. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that the creativity level is same for both the males and the females. Table 4.3 Creativity and departments Engineering Business Information Technology Total The average creativity is 3.77 and the average score of creativity of engineering students is 3.80 which is higher than other departments. The level of creativity is prepared to analyse whether there is any significant difference among the departments and creativity. Table 4.4 Departments and levels of creativity Departments Low Medium High Total Engineering 3 (9) 23 (72) 6 (19) 32 Business 5 (12) 31 (72) 7 (16) 43 Information Technology 5 (28) 10 (55) 3 (17) 18 Total 9 (10) 66 (71) 18 (19) 93 The table shows that 71% of the students have an average level of creativity. 19% of the students have high level of creativity. It is also revealed that engineering students have more creativity than the other departments. Ho: There is a significant difference between levels of creativity and the departments. The calculated value of 2 (3.75) is less than the table value (9.49) at 5% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that engineering students have more creativity than other students in this college. V. Sociability (Resource Investigator) Sociability is a parameter that people perform as a team role. The researcher tried to measure the social and friendly nature of students, enthusiasm, communication, and whether they are able to explore opportunities. The average score of sociability is 3.90 and the standard deviation is The average scoiability is the same for both the males and the females. Table 5.1 Sociability and gender Males Females Total

8 The level of sociability of the students of Nizwa College of Technology is assessed gender wise. In order to find any significant relationship, the following table is prepared. Table 5.2 Gender and levels of sociability Males 5 (17) 22 (76) 2 (7) 29 Females 12 (19) 38 (59) 14 (22) 64 Total 21 (23) 56 (60) 16 (17) 93 From the table it is clear that 76% of the male students have medium level of sociability which is greater than the average. 17% of the students have high level of sociability, enthusiasm and communication. 22% of the females have high level of sociability which is higher than the males (7%). Hence the following hypothesis is tested. Ho: Female students are more sociable and enthusiastic in team work than the male students. The calculated value of 2 (3.47) is less than the table value (5.99) at 5% confidence level with 2 degrees of freedom. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that females have more sociability than the male students. Table 5.3 Sociability department wise Engineering Business Information Technology Total The level of sociability of the students of Nizwa College of Technology is assessed department wise. In order to find any significant relationship, the following table is prepared. Table 5.4 Department and levels of sociability Engineering 5 (16) 24 (75) 3 (9) 32 Business 9 (21) 24 (56) 10 (23) 43 Information Technology 3 (17) 12 (66) 3 (17) 18 Total 21 (23) 56 (60) 16 (17) 93 The table shows that 60% of the students have an average level of sociability. 17% of the students have high level of sociability. It is also revealed that business students have more sociability than the other departments. Ho: There is a significant difference between levels of sociability and the departments. The calculated value of 2 (3.44) is less than the table value (9.49) at 5% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that business students have more sociability than other students. VI. Seriousness (Monitor-Evaluator) This is another team role that are performed by individuals and in this role they are serious minded, highly alert and attentive, and judges accurately. The average score of seriousness and attentiveness is 3.72 and the standard deviation is The average score of females is higher than this average and for the males (3.67) is less than the overall average. Table 6.1 Seriousness and gender Males Females Total

9 The level of seriousness and attentiveness is evaluated gender wise and to find any significant relationship the following table is prepared. Table 6.2 Gender and levels of seriousness Males 4 (14) 20 (69) 5 (17) 29 Females 14 (22) 36 (56) 14 (22) 64 Total 22 (24) 52 (56) 19 (20) 93 It is revealed from the table that 69% of the male students are in the medium level. 22% of the females have high level of seriousness which is greater than the males and the overall average. Ho: Female students are more serious and attentive and judges accurately in a team than the male students. The calculated value of 2 (1.42) is less than the table value (5.99) at 5% confidence level with 2 degrees of freedom. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that females are more attentive and serious minded than the males. Table 6.3 Seriousness department wise Engineering Business Information Technology Total The level of seriousness and attentiveness is evaluated department wise and to find any significant relationship the following table is prepared. Table 6.4 Departments and levels of seriousness Departments Low Medium High Total Engineering 3 (9) 24 (75) 5 (16) 32 Business 10 (23) 24 (56) 9 (21) 43 Information Technology 1 (5) 14 (78) 3 (17) 18 Total 22 (24) 52 (56) 19 (20) 93 It is clear from the table that 56% of the students have an average level of seriousness. 20% of the students have high level of seriousness. It is also revealed that business students (21%) have more seriousness than the other departments. Ho: There is a significant difference between levels of seriousness and the departments. The calculated value of 2 (5.43) is less than the table value (9.49) at 5% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that business students have more seriousness than other students. VII. Cooperativeness (Team worker) Another variable that contributes for team role of individuals in a group is cooperativeness. The researcher measured the cooperativeness, sensitiveness and diplomacy. The average score of cooperativeness is 3.88 and the standard deviation is The average cooperativeness score of females is less (3.83) than the average and less than the male students (3.98). Table 7.1 Cooperativeness and gender Males Females Total The level of cooperativeness is evaluated gender wise and to find any significant relationship the following table is prepared. 9

10 Table 7.2 Gender and levels of Cooperativeness Males 7 (24) 17 (59) 5 (17) 29 Females 4 (6) 50 (78) 10 (16) 64 Total 18 (19) 60 (65) 15 (16) 93 From the table no it is clear that 65% of the students have only medium level of cooperativeness. 16% of the students have high level of cooperativeness. 17% of the male students have high level of cooperativeness which is higher than the average and the females. Hence the following hypothesis is framed and tested. Ho: Male students are more cooperative in team than the female students. The calculated value of 2 (6.49) is greater than the table value (5.99) at 5% confidence level with 2 degrees of freedom. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that there is no significant relationship between gender and the level of cooperativeness. Table 7.3 Cooperativeness department wise Engineering Business Information Technology Total The level of cooperativeness is evaluated department wise and to find any significant relationship the following table is prepared. Table 7.4 Departments and levels of Cooperativeness Departments Low Medium High Total Engineering 7 (22) 20 (62) 5 (16) 32 Business 3 (7) 33 (77) 7 (16) 43 Information Technology 2 (11) 13 (72) 3 (17) 18 Total 18 (19) 60 (65) 15 (16) 93 The table shows that 65% of the students have an average level of cooperativeness. 16% of the students have high level of seriousness. It is also revealed that Information Technology students (17%) have more cooperativeness than the other departments. Ho: There is a significant difference between levels of cooperativeness and the departments. The calculated value of 2 (3.75) is less than the table value (9.49) at 5% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that Information Technology students have more cooperativeness than other students. VIII. Carefulness (Completer-Finisher) This parameter is performed by students as a team role in a group where they would be careful, hard-working, and does work on time. The average score of carefulness is 3.94 and the standard deviation is The carefulness score of females (3.99) is greater than the males (3.83). This shows that females are more hardworking and careful when they perform their roles in team compared with the males. Table 8.1 Carefulness and gender Males Females

11 Total The level of carefulness is evaluated gender wise and to find any significant relationship the following table is prepared. Table 8.2 Gender and levels of carefulness Males 4 (14) 19 (65) 6 (21) 29 Females 11 (17) 43 (67) 10 (16) 64 Total 21(23) 59 (63) 13 (14) 93 The table shows that 63% of the students have medium level of hardworking attribute in a team. 14% of the students have high level of carefulness character. 21% of the males have high level of this attribute which is greater than the females. But the average score of females is higher than the males. Hence the following hypothesis is framed and tested. Ho: There is a significant relationship between gender and carefulness. The calculated value of 2 (0.45) is less than the table value (5.99) at 5% confidence level with 2 degrees of freedom. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that there is a significant relationship between gender and carefulness. Table 8.3 Carefulness department wise Engineering Business Information Technology Total The level of carefulness is evaluated department wise and to find any significant relationship the following table is prepared. Table 8.4 Departments and levels of carefulness Departments Low Medium High Total Engineering 4 (13) 20 (62) 8 (25) 32 Business 10 (23) 29 (68) 4 (9) 43 Information Technology 3 (17) 11 (61) 4 (22) 18 Total 21(23) 59 (63) 13 (14) 93 It is revealed from the table that 63% of the students have an average level of carefulness. 14% of the students have high level of carefulness. It is found that Engineering students (25%) have more carefulness than the other departments. Ho: There is a significant difference between levels of carefulness and the departments. The calculated value of 2 (4.26) is less than the table value (9.49) at 5% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that Engineering students have more carefulness than other students. Table 8.5 Coefficient of variation Team roles Average SD CV Implementor Co-ordinator

12 Shaper Plant Resource Investigator Monitor evaluator Team worker Finsiher Among the students of Nizwa College of Technology, team roles of implementor and team worker are highly consistent and reliable. The reliability, ability of the students to take decisions, cooperativeness, sensitiveness and diplomacy are consistent among the students. The team role which is least consistent and reliable is the shaper. Students are not consistent in taking challenging, dynamic roles in a team and are not courageous to overcome obstacles. Findings of the study 1. Business department students have more discipline compared with students from other departments 2. It is proved that female students are more confident in performing their roles in a team than the male students 3. Information technology students show more confidence in a team works others. 4. Female students are challenging, dynamic, and courageous to overcome obstacles than the male students. 5. Dynamism is more for engineering students and comparatively less for business students. 6. Engineering students have more creativity than other students in Nizwa College of Technology. 7. Females have more sociability than the male students. Moreover business students have more sociability than other students. 8. Females are more attentive and serious minded than the males. Business students have more seriousness than students from other departments. 9. Information Technology students have more cooperativeness than other students. 10. Female students have more carefulness than the males when working in a team. Engineering students have more carefulness than other students Conclusion Team roles are directly related with the performance of a team. However there is a difference in the roles performed by male and female students as well as the students from different departments. This may be related with the stages of team formation. Further research is required to establish definitive behaviours characterizing team development stages. It is also revealed with the study that the actual roles played by the members match up with the team roles anticipated by Belbin Team Roles Self Perception Inventory. As a result of this, it can be said that Belbin s team roles theory is applied to educational organizations as well. In the educational organization which adopts team based management type, this model can be made use of in the process of forming the teams. This will have positive effect on the performance of the organization. 12

13 Recommendations The confidence level of the students should be improved by conducting participatory games or events. Team work exercises should be implemented across departments so that students will learn how well they can coordinate in a team. Students should be encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities and events. Intra collegiate competition should be conducted so that students will interact across departments and they learn how to develop their roles in a group. In most of the roles, female students are better performers in a team than the male candidates. Hence the male students should be motivated to show case their talents and potential by giving suitable opportunities. Students of Nizwa College of Technology are found better in implementor and team worker roles when they are in a group. Hence an orientation and awareness is to be given to the students to develop the remaining roles that they perform in a team. References Aitor Aritzeta, Stephen Swailes, Barbara Senior (2007), Belbin s Team Role Model: Development, Validity and Applications for Team Building, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.44, Issue 1, David Partington and Hilary Harris, (1999) Team role balance and team performance: an empirical study, Journal of Management Development, Vol.18, No.8, pp Eric Chong (2005), Role Balance and Team Development: A Study of team role characteristics underlying high and low performing teams, Victoria Management School, Working Paper Series, Vol.1, No.4, Fleming, Q.W. and Koppleman, J.M. (1997), Integrated project development teams: another fad...or a permanent change? ', Project Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp Hasan Basri Gunduz (2008), An Evaluation of Belbin s Team Roles Theory (The Case of Sakarya Anatolian Profession High School, Profession High School and Vocational High School for Industry), World Applied Sciences Journal 4 (3): Katzenbach J.R. and Smith, K. (1993), The discipline of teams, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp Meredith Belbin.R, (2010) Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, 3rd ed Butterworth Heinemann, Sallie M. Henry and K. Todd Stevens, (2001) Using Belbin s Leadership role to improve team effectiveness: An empirical investigation, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech. 13