ABSTRACT
Background Geographers regularly encounter group work situations, be it on fieldwork or as teams addressing broadmulti-disciplinary problemswhich forma central theme for environmental management. There is a longstanding recognition of the need to incorporate group work projects in higher education curricula (Springer et al., 1999), reflecting the requirement of graduate recruiters for work-related or transferable skills. Both in the UK and internationally, there has been increased recent effort to develop employability statements, generic graduate attributes or personal development plans that clarify the role of education offered to students, beyond disciplinary content knowledge (Bowden et al., 2000; Barrie, 2006, 2007; CBI/UUK, 2009). These core outcomes of higher education are often produced by individual institutions seeking to demonstrate the quality of their graduates, or they may be developed at a national or international scale to ensure comparability and compatibility of education systems (e.g. the European Higher Education Area). A common theme of graduate attributes worldwide is inclusion of the ability to work flexibly in a team, to communicate, to collaborate, to listen seriously to the insights of others and to compete in the future economic environment (e.g. Kuh, 2008; WAG, 2009). Wheatley (1992) reports the anticipation by managers in the UK that more of their work will be conducted in teams and that possession of good team-working skills is becoming increasingly necessary. Recent
evidence suggests that team working is now the structural norm in high-performance organizations seeking to react and adapt to dynamic pressures of markets and shareholders (Partington & Harris, 1999). The formulation of group work activities is driven by any of a wide range of motivating
forces, including those directly aimed at addressing the employability agenda (Gedye, 2009), encouraging enterprise skills (Healey, 1992), implementing a problembased learning exercise (Spronken-Smith, 2005; Pawson et al., 2006), efficiently deploying teaching resources (Gibbs, 2010) or may be part of a broader tradition of group work, in fieldwork projects for example. Livingstone and Lynch (2002, p. 218) note that group projects “can be a method of increasing complexity in the learning experience, which thus strengthens students’ preparedness for the complex environments into which they move after completing their degrees.” Yet, several observers have noted that group work at undergraduate level can be
problematic (Gold et al., 1991) and may reduce individual student motivation (Kerr & Bruun, 1983). Perceived difficulties include issues of high workload associated with group work exacerbated by unproductive time in group meetings (Healey et al., 1996), freeloading group members and the ‘sucker effect’ where hardworking students reduce their effort in response to such freeloaders (Houldsworth & Matthews, 2000). Personality clashes are reported frequently suggesting that students lack group management and facilitation skills. Rather than reflecting on inherent weaknesses in the concept of group projects, such problems emphasize the importance of designing group projects carefully and supporting students throughout the process (Gibbs, 2010). Reported problems may be down to insufficient opportunities to develop or rehearse group work skills at university level; such unfamiliarity may manifest itself as anxiety and disorientation upon encountering a group work situation for the first time (Gibbs & Dunbar-Goddett, 2007). Given the current competitiveness in graduate recruitment schemes, the focus on
project-orientated employment and emergence of ‘portfolio’ careers (Henderson & Robertson, 1999), it seems appropriate that the benefits of existing group work projects should be maximized and some opportunity for student reflection on transferable skills be incorporated into project design. Reflection need not be particularly onerous or time consuming; it can be accomplished relatively easily. Bradshaw (1989) points to the use of team role classifications as a way of making more of group work in higher education and developing the inter-personal and team skills understood in employment. Moreover, a well-balanced team, which works well together, should experience an enhanced learning opportunity as the focus is on the task at hand and not on personalities. It has long been recognized that the performance of a group, as a mix of individuals, is
influenced by the combination of personality styles within that group. Attempts to design ideal teams through categorization of individuals into team roles date back over 60 years (Benne & Sheats, 1948; Bales, 1950). In recent decades, the team role categorization scheme of Belbin (1981, 1993a) has built up considerable momentum with management development professionals (Partington & Harris, 1999). Based on extensive observations of the behaviour of managers during training courses during the 1970s, Belbin (1981) hypothesized that team balance was more important for success than combined intellect, focusing on the emergence of informal, functional roles during training exercises. Rather than considering collective team behaviour, Belbin (1981) categorized individual behaviour within the team into eight types, later expanded to nine (Belbin, 1993a). These
are described in Table 1. Since different people interact in different ways, successful teams are characterized by the compatibility of the preferred roles of their members. An individual’s natural team role preferences are rapidly identified through the Belbin
self-perception index. There is a general acknowledgement that the Belbin scheme’s intuitive appeal, ease of application, empirical support and widespread use in many organizations including government bodies, FTSE-100 companies and multinational agencies render it a useful tool for managers (Parkinson, 1995; Aritzeta et al., 2007). The central claim of the Belbin team role theory is that a ‘balanced’ team, as judged by a spread of high-scoring individuals in each team role, has a greater propensity to perform highly. However, a variety of different group balance metrics (GBMs) have been reported previously (e.g. Senior, 1997; Partington & Harris, 1999). The Belbin theory also recognizes that behaviours are contextual and will change over time in response to new circumstances. While some studies have questioned the psychometric properties and reliability of the
Belbin team role self-perception inventory (Furnham et al., 1993; Fisher et al., 1996), Belbin (1993b) emphasizes that it is not a psychometric instrument. Team roles measure behaviour rather than personality (one of several factors that influence behaviour). A recent review by Aritzeta et al. (2007) identified mixed evidence on the convergent validity of the self-perception index. Indeed, more support exists for the Belbin team role model (e.g. Fisher et al., 1994; Dulewicz, 1995; Fisher et al., 2000), which assesses the potential for team role contribution of individuals based on behaviours and clusters of characteristics (Belbin, 1981). The main criticisms of Belbin question the identification of an individual’s preferred team roles based on self-perception alone (Parkinson, 1995; Senior, 1996). The latest version of Belbin, administered through the e-Interplace computer program, offers the additional option to integrate observers’ assessments into the analysis. When the observers are familiar with the individual, this offers a good opportunity to increase the robustness of the analysis. Broucek & Randell (1996) found significant correlations between self-and observer assessments; however, Senior & Swailes (1998) and van Dierendonck & Groen (2011) note that little research has been conducted using these observers’ assessments. This paper documents the inclusion of both the Belbin team role self-perception index
and observer assessments into a large second-year undergraduate geography module. The aim of this project is to introduce team role analysis to support the student learning experience and provide students with a greater understanding of the roles of individuals within groups. It is hoped that this experience will encourage students to engage with employability issues and focus on the transferable skills they have acquired during their degree. Moreover, the implementation of the Belbin analysis on such a large student cohort permits empirical assessment of the central argument of the Belbin scheme: that more ‘balanced’ groups are more successful. This study is novel in that it documents a Belbin analysis using both self-and observer assessments on a large number of student groups (42) within the standardized assessment of an undergraduate module, thereby controlling for many variables confounding workplace empirical tests (e.g. differences in group tasks, environments and experience). Two main research questions are addressed:
(1) Does the performance of student groups support the underlying assumption of the Belbin scheme that more differentiated groups function better?
