Team Analysis - Week 9

This week we have to analyse our team for Assignment 2. We have to model the workings of our team using the Belbin team roles.

Belbin team roles can be either functional or team roles, and states that people can play different roles in different teams and several roles in one team. Team roles are interpreted according to behaviour - they are influenced, but not determined by, personality. The different Belbin team roles are split into the ideas people, the do-ers, the leaders, and others.

I believe Kelly showed aspects of Team Worker from the 'Others' section of the Belbin team roles. I found her thoughtful and perceptive about the work at hand, and was the most sociable of the group, keeping us socially sane. For example, she offered to do a back-up write up if Joel hadn't finished his on time, and also gave us good research from her first Assignment. This showed thoughtfulness for the success of the group, and a good use of previous information. I did not find her indecisive, but still believe that the Team Worker role suited her best.

Joel was a Resource Investigator from the 'Ideas people' section of the Belbin team roles. I thought he was very good a research, as he initially found us good, solid information for our topic. However, he did come across as easily bored, despite his strong start at the beginning of the assignment. For example, when Joel broke his arm, he offered to do the majority of the research, and seemed really keen to do as much as he possibly could. Unfortunately, after this, there didn't seem to be a lot of follow on in terms of participation. This shows that he was practical, and got his research done quickly from outside sources, but seemed easily bored after his portion of the Assignment was finished.

I would say that I was a Co-ordinator from the 'Leaders' section of the Belbin team roles. I thought that I was good at noticing the group's strengths and weaknesses, and delegating roles accordingly. I feel like I was a good motivator, but found directing the group a little tricky. For example, when one member expressed that they didn't feel confident in the work they had produced for Assignment 1, I delegated the roles accordingly so that that member felt like they had a role in the group that they could fulfill successfully.

I believe that Virginia was a Plant from the 'Ideas people' section of the Belbin team roles. I found that whilst she had good ideas for the Assignment, they were often unrealistic for the time-frame we had for the group. For example, in the week that was dedicated to editing, she was suggesting that we do more research and possibly more interviews. These ideas would have been helpful if we had more time as a group to complete the Assignment, or if they were presented earlier on in the task.

Ami was a Co-ordinator and The Shaper, both from the 'Leaders' section of the Belbin team roles, as she was both task-orientated and highly motivated. For example, she was very focused regarding the editing aspect of the Assignment, and motivated others in the group to complete their within good time, so that she had enough time to edit. I didn't find her aggressive, but often her motivation for others could come across a little strongly.

The leadership of our team was shared between Ami and myself, however I was dubbed 'Team Leader' because of my communication skills and fast internet. Whilst I was on holiday, Ami took on the brunt on the leadership, as this was editing week. Though I believe that the leadership in our team worked well, I think some improvements could have been made; I feel I could have communicated better with my group and enforced deadlines better. On the whole, communication was a weakness in our group as it was difficult to get in touch with certain people, and only occasional posting on the Facebook page when clarification was required. In saying this, when complete communication was possible, it went smoothly and clearly. Meeting as a group was also difficult, as we were never able to fully meet in person as a group - there was always at least one member absent. Our main strength as a group was our ability to work well and efficiently together, and meet deadlines. Our meetings were effective and fun, and kept morale up within the group.

In hindsight, I think I should have delegated roles slightly differently, specifically with regards to write ups and research. I believe I should have focused one group member solely on research, and another solely on interviews.

I think we were reasonably successful as a group in terms of completing the objectives of the task. I believe we produced a great report that meets the requirements for Assignment 2.

I think we were a great group that worked well and had fun.