It’s fair to say that the word “type” has a bad press in the English language. We associate the phrase “typecasting” with actors who have fallen into a rut and cannot perform a variety of roles. The word “stereotyping” comes from the Greek stereos meaning “firm” or “solid” and typos meaning “impression”, hence “solid impression”. Stereotyping carries with it the idea of making a sweeping generalisation which prefers easy categorisation to more sophisticated nuances of understanding.
So, inherent in the word “type” is the idea of conformity and even a limited view. Whilst some like to be within a group of individuals who share a similar outlook on the world, others react strongly to a phraseology which categorises human beings. This is one of the major stumbling blocks with thinking in terms of key personality types. When so much of modern life is about celebrating individual difference, it is unsurprising that some should denounce personality types as a threat to individuality.
We have long been fascinated by the psyche, but if measuring personality can cause this negative and protective response, ought we to question whether key personality types are the best way to promote harmony and build teams?
In a team, we might have what we refer to as “different personalities”, but it is the way that individuals behave and interact – in short, their behaviours – which can affect relationships within the team for better or worse.
Unlike key team personality types, Belbin’s Team Roles promote the idea of change and adaptation, rather than pigeon-holing. Note the changes in language: the focus moves from an individual “personality” to a “team” and from “types” to “roles”; in other words, parts which can be played and discarded, rather than types which are tantamount to a permanent state. Whilst personality can influence an individual’s behaviour, there are other factors too. Behaviour can be motivation- or context-dependent, with an individual in the team adopting different Team Roles when assigned a new task or responsibility. Those most adept at understanding Belbin’s Team Roles will be able to adapt their Team Role behaviour to get the best from their colleagues. When scepticism of team building comes from a feeling of powerlessness, a sufficient understanding of Team Role behaviours and how to use them puts building relationships back within the individual’s locus of control.
Moving from key team personality types to Belbin Team Role behaviours requires a more fluid approach to measuring individuals and teams. Whilst it might be less categorical, it is arguably better equipped to appreciate individual difference: the eddies and whorls which make up subtle and dynamic interactions of behaviours.
By Victoria Brown, Belbin Associates
