A Comparative Analysis of Belbin and Tuckman Frameworks

Belbin’s Framework

Belbin postulates management terms that can help individuals to advance their professional goals from the viewpoint of the organisational team (as cited in Smith and Yates 2011, p. 38). The theory draws logical conclusions regarding what establishes a successful and effective team (Betts and Healy 2015, p. 02; Bole, Fink and Prašnikar 2016, p. 199).

Belbin’s framework supports employees in a particular organisation to have the tendency to behave, participate, and interrelate with one another in a workplace in a particular way. The framework has improved my personal learning in building a productive team environment and connection between my colleagues and me (Cash-Baskett 2009, p. 90; Smith, Polglase and Parry 2012, p. 586). Additionally, the outline proposed by Belbin has imparted the spirit of teamwork and coordination in the workplace (Anderson and Sleap 2004, p. 429; Aritzeta, Ayestaran and Swailes 2005, p. 158).

As a team-worker, I have used my communicative and practice during leadership to gel the department that I am in charge of. I used my versatility to identify the required work and complete them in a timely manner on behalf of the team when necessary (Golonka and Mojsa-Kaja 2013, p. 33). Through cooperation, I have been willing to listen and avert friction between members (Higgs 2006, p. 162; Scherrer et al. 2016, p. 693). These skills and experiences have greatly improved my personal and career learning (Swailes and Aritzeta, 2006, p. 293).

As a coordinator, I have acquired a wealth of experience in devising team objectives, delegating duties to my juniors as well as drawing the goals of the team.

Tuckman’s Framework

However, Tuckman’s framework provides an outline that helps employees and personnel to develop teamwork quality to prosper in all the undertakings (Cassidy 2007, p. 414; Levasseur 2011, p. 205; Tuckman and Jensen 2010, p. 44). The context has four major aspects that influence the development of a group and they include forming, storming, norming, and performing (Bonebright 2010, p. 112; Garfield and Dennis 2012, p. 44).

The framework allows a group of people to build basic expectations, which support them to have a common goal. Tuckman’s outline also helps a team to identify power and have control over specific issues (Ibn-e-Hassan et al. 2014, p. 92; Miller 2003, p. 121). Finally, it allows members to agree concerning the roles and processes for resolving concerns within the workplace as well as attaining effective and satisfying outcomes (Palmer et al. 2008, p. 132; Rickards and Moger 2000, p. 273).

The implications of the two frameworks are considerable in my personal and career development in future.

References

Anderson, N. and Sleap, S., 2004. An evaluation of gender differences on the team role self-perception inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 1(3), 429.

Aritzeta, A., Ayestaran, S. and Swailes, S., 2005. Team role preference and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(2), 157-182.

 Betts, S. and Healy, W., 2015. Having a ball catching on to teamwork: an experiential learning approach to teaching the phases of group development. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(2), 1-9.

Bole, V., Fink, L. and Prašnikar, J., 2016. Customer focus competencies and the dynamics of project teams. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(1/2), 198-214. doi:10.1080/14783363.2014.970876

Bonebright, D. A., 2010. 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111-120.

Cash-Baskett, L. J., 2009. A case study: improving virtual team development at company V. Consortium Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 14(1), 89-97.

Cassidy, K., 2007. Tuckman revisited: proposing a new model of group development for practitioners. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 413-417.

Garfield, M. J. and Dennis, A. R., 2012. Toward an integrated model of group development: disruption of routines by technology-induced change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(3), 43-86.

Golonka, K. and Mojsa-Kaja, J., 2013. Emotional intelligence and team roles - analysis of interdependencies with regard to teamwork effectiveness. Contemporary Management Quarterly / Wspólczesne Zarzadzanie, 12(4), 32-44.

Higgs, M., 2006. What makes for top team success? a study to identify factors associated with successful performance of senior management teams. Irish Journal of Management, 27(2), 161-188.

Ibn-e-Hassan, Talib, N., Riaz, A., and Iqbal, M., 2014. Influence of national and engineering culture on team role selection. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 24(1), 91-105. doi:10.1007/s10798-013-9242-z

Levasseur, R. E., 2011. People skills: optimizing team development and performance. Interfaces, 41(2), 204-208.

Miller, D. L., 2003. The stages of group development: a retrospective study of dynamic team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences), 20(2), 121.

Palmer, R., Cragg, R., Wall, D. and Wilkie, V., 2008. Team and leadership styles of junior doctors. International Journal of Clinical Leadership, 16(3), 131-135.

Rickards, T. and Moger, S., 2000. Creative leadership processes in project team development: an alternative to Tuckman’s stage model. British Journal of Management, 1(4), 273.

Scherrer, J. L., Olcoń, K., Butterfield, A. K. and Kebede, W., 2016. Bringing experiential educational groups to the United States: an analysis of group development in an international travel and study program. Social Work Education, 35(6), 693-705.

Smith, G., & Yates, P. (2011). Team role theory in higher education. Training Journal, 37-40.

Smith, M., Polglase, G. and Parry, C., 2012. Construction of student groups using belbin: supporting group work in environmental management. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36(4), 585-601.

Swailes, S. and Aritzeta, A., 2006. Scale properties of the team role self-perception inventory. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 14(3), 292-298. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00349.x

Tuckman, B. W. and Jensen, M. C., 2010. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, 10, 43-48.