What’s the ideal team size?

This question is often neglected when putting together a team, but numbers can significantly affect team performance.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, famously came up with the ‘two-pizza’ rule: the idea that every team should be small enough that it could be fed with two pizzas.

Optimal team size depends, to some extent, on team goals and function, but Meredith Belbin’s research gives us some important steers when it comes to team size.

Firstly, perhaps it’s important to define a team

Team: Meredith Belbin defines a team as a limited number of people selected to work together for a shared objective in a way that allows each person to make a distinctive contribution.

Group: By contrast, a group is a number of people who are brought together for a common purpose, however, they are too numerous for Team Role relationships to form.

Groups and teams behave differently

The bigger the group, the greater the pressures towards conformity. In addition, the stronger the group structure, the less opportunity there is for people to express disagreement.

On the other hand, if groups are unstructured, group members become anonymous. In a professional context, this is likely to mean that we don’t reap the full benefits of individual strengths.

The Ringelmann effect explains the inverse relationship between group size and individual contribution to completion of a task.

In other words, as numbers in the group increase, members of that group become less productive. Groups lose motivation (called social loafing) and coordination. Each person puts in significantly less effort than they would do if working alone, believing that others will pick up the slack. The group becomes increasingly inefficient as a result.

Forsyth (2006) demonstrated that social loafing could be countered (and individual performance boosted) by setting clear and challenging goals, and by identifying individuals’ strengths so that each person perceives themselves as indispensable to the group’s performance.

However, the larger the group, the more difficult it becomes to identify and separate out strengths in a meaningful way. And even if the group possesses the abilities and expertise required for a given task, they may not be able to co-ordinate their efforts effectively.

Syndicates

During his decade-long research at Henley Management College, Dr Meredith Belbin experimented with syndicates of ten or eleven members – a number which he hoped would allow for diversity without reducing group identity.

The syndicates took part in the Executive Management Exercise (EME), a high-intensity, interactive management game which displayed a number of management skills. Performance depended not only on the internal performance of each syndicate, but on the performance of others.

Dr Belbin discovered that a group of this size was found to reach its limits during round-table discussions designed to thrash out plans and policies with a view to making decisions. It became difficult to give each person enough ‘airtime’ in discussions without prolonging the decision-making process unduly or reducing efficiency.

Dr Belbin began experimenting by making teams smaller. Even with larger teams of eight, they found that a number of teams in the EME tended to be dominated by two, three or four members. One or two others would be working at the peripheries and the remainder would be disengaged and dissatisfied.

Smaller teams

When the researchers reduced the number to six, the team became more stable. (Teams of seven pitted against teams of six were unable to make the most of their numerical ‘advantage’.) But if there are nine Team Roles, why was this the case?

Well, larger numbers necessitated structure – a suitable chairperson and each person playing one defined Team Role. This is a difficult set of criteria for real teams to fulfil.

By contrast, a team of six could cover a broad range of technical skills and Team Roles with each person ‘doubling up’ on roles, so that, with the right composition, it was well balanced. Since most of us have more than one Team Role strength that can be played to good effect, this is more realistic and attainable for real teams.

It is not without significance that, for a period of at least a decade, six endured as the number that was found, on the internal evidence at Henley, to be most suitable for enabling a management team to tackle a complex problem.

Teams of four

If smaller is better, how do teams of four fare in comparison to teams of six?

Meredith Belbin’s research used another game, Teamopoly, a variation on Monopoly whereby property could change hands only as a result of auction, tender or negotiation.

The researchers increased the pressure on each team by limiting them to four members instead of six.

• Relationships

The result? The four-person teams were less well-equipped to tackle complex problems, but the teams achieved a degree of intimacy, involvement and engagement that the six-person teams couldn’t match.

As Meredith commented, “If they got on well, they were harmonious and positive on all fronts; but where relationships did not work out, the cross-currents seemed immensely complicated.”

• Strategy

In performance terms, every winning company made at least one major strategic mistake, compared to the six-person teams taking part in the EME. It was easier to achieve balance with six-person teams.

• Leadership

Having six in a team necessitated a chairperson (and a certain level of formality). On the other hand, four people often turned into a leaderless group, which became unstable at moments of crisis. As such, it was more dependent on Team Role complementarity for success.

In a four-person team where rotated leadership was understood and practised effectively, these negative effects might have been turned to a positive.

Don’t make teams too small

In teams of four or more, the team has a ‘life of its own’. Membership may change without threatening the team’s integrity or structure.

However, in a three-person team, this is not the case. Personalities have a greater impact upon decision-making. The team is more vulnerable, because even small changes may affect its cohesion.

Team size: a ‘compromise between conflicting forces’

As Meredith Belbin writes in Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, the ideal size of a team ‘is a matter of compromise between conflicting forces’.

We need enough team members to ensure diversity of behaviour (Team Role balance), knowledge, experience and ability.

Numbers can become inflated in an effort to ensure that all relevant individuals or departments are adequately represented.

However, for an effective team, it is important to ‘reduce noise’ and maximise involvement by keeping teams small.

“The ideal size of a team is a matter of compromise between conflicting forces.

On the one hand there is a need to widen the composition, bringing in the full range of knowledge, experience and ability. The wishes of individuals or representatives to participate through consultation or the political desirability of securing commitment of all departments are amongst the many pressures that operate to inflate numbers.

Yet on the other hand there is the need to reduce noise and maximize involvement and individual effectiveness by keeping the team small.”

Meredith Belbin | Management Teams

The post TEAM SIZE – GETTING IT RIGHT appeared first on Performance Capacity Development - PTY LTD.

Adapted by: Belbin SA

We are seizing opportunities for personal growth

Whatever our challenges throughout the year, we are in the right place, rising to the occasion, finding strategies and ways of coping. Adversity can provide opportunities for personal growth, discovering new skills and building resilience, even if we feel like we’re doing little more than getting by. Resilience is our ability to adapt well in a crisis and to recover quickly from difficulties. It’s developing the kind of elasticity that allows us to adapt. It doesn’t mean that we’re unaffected, it’s about our response, and that response can be learned and practised.

To develop resilience, we need to understand our strengths

According to the Bounce Back Project, there are five pillars of resilience: self-awareness, mindfulness, self-care, positive relationships and purpose. When it comes to work, gaining an awareness of our Belbin Team Role strengths can help with some of the other pillars.

When we are able to work to our strengths (and understand the strengths others have to offer), we are able to build more positive working relationships and work with more purpose. We might practise self-care by setting boundaries and switching off at set times without feeling guilty. We can learn to show ourselves the same compassion we show to others when it comes to the kind of work we struggle with.

We can work with others who have complementary skill sets, safe in the knowledge that they may not only be able to help out, but might actually enjoy the work in question.

It isn’t just us, teams and organisations need resilience too

Tired teams have been sprinting up until now, only to find that we are in a marathon. So how do we help our organisations adapt, and re-energise teams?

Just like resilient people, resilient teams need self-awareness. They need to take a virtual or in-person water cooler moment and examine their collective response to different types of challenges.

Three paths to progress

Researchers have identified three approaches to work which can help managers who are managing a team in volatile circumstances.

• Firstly, there are organisational routines which are efficient when work is predictable. Many of our established work processes fall into this category.
• Next, there are heuristics. These are rules of thumb that can provide shortcuts, speeding up processes and decision-making and prioritising the use of resources.
• Lastly, there is improvisation – spontaneous, creative efforts to solve problems that crop up at very short notice.

The researchers argue that any team will perform better and be more resilient, if it is able to move comfortably between the three and understand how the different approaches might interact and morph into one another. When a situation departs far enough from the team’s expectations, improvisation becomes necessary.

The team might then develop a simple rule (heuristics), based on their experience of how the improvisation worked. Heuristics are a good middle ground because they allow adjustment to a faster pace, without the team having to abandon their underlying principles. Once the situation stabilises, the simple rule might be developed into a new routine. Teams and organisations can be actively trained to alter the combination of routines, heuristics and improvisation to meet changing requirements.

Sounds great, but how do we ensure that we take everyone along with us?

When change is rapid, so is improvisation. This can alienate team members who did not originate the idea. They might feel left behind, excluded from the decision-making process and disengaged with the purpose of the change. 

So, in addition to understanding the three approaches, it’s crucial to know the strengths of your team members and the behavioural culture of your team. This way, you can predict how others are likely to respond to change and decide who to send into battle at which time.

You’ll know who needs to be sold on the benefits of heuristics and who will be desperate for the chance to improvise.

Practice makes perfect

Many resolutions fail because we set them over-optimistically and out of context, and then treat them as make-or-break.

If we fail, we might become reluctant to try again. Building resilience and elasticity in our approach is a long-term investment in ourselves and our teams. It requires reflection, self-forgiveness and a whole lot of practice.

Tired teams? Struggling with how to manage teams? If your team’s energy is flagging, we’re here to help. Please contact us at beatrix@capacityinc.co.za or nicole@capacityinc.co.za

The post Building Resilient Teams: Shaping Working Behaviour appeared first on Performance Capacity Development - PTY LTD.

With Belbin, you find out what you are – a Plant, a Resource Investigator etc – and then you tell everyone in your team and stick to the work that suits you. Right?

Not exactly.

At Belbin, we hesitate to say someone is a particular role. First off, each of us typically has two or three preferred roles we can play, and these all interact to shape our behaviours, forming a unique Team Role ‘fingerprint’, not a pigeon-hole.

Secondly, Belbin Team Roles can be used to describe our approach to the work we do, not just our behaviours. And the interplay between the two can be interesting and complex, because few of us can play to our strengths all the time. In reality, we often face opportunities – and challenges – to move beyond our preferred behaviours.

At the moment, with many of us working remotely and dealing with additional stressors, chances for misunderstandings and miscommunications are rife, and clarity is more important than ever.

So, how do we use Team Roles to help define and delegate tasks and responsibilities?

Here is our guide to describing work in Belbin Team Role terms, all of which can be heard around Belbin HQ on a regular basis!

“I think we need to ME this” (Monitor Evaluator)

Often heard at the end of the ideas phase, where lots of Plant contributions have been made, and there is perhaps a temptation to press forward with one idea in particular. This is a way of creating time and space between idea and implementation, because the ME’s considered, logical analysis is needed to ensure that all implications have been fully considered, rather than going with the most eye-catching prospect.

“Please could you CF this for me?” (Completer Finisher)

If you’re seeking a Completer Finisher touch to a document or project, it means that it needs to be checked for errors or omissions. Those with high Completer Finisher spot the details that others might miss and will work as long as it takes to reach the highest standards. It’s important to note that this instruction indicates that the work is close to completion, so suggested changes should be restricted to ‘polishing’ it to perfection, not evaluating the overall idea or strategy.

“I’m going to put my Co-ordinator hat on.”

Note: spoken by the person with high Co-ordinator in their profile, since they’re more than likely to be the one describing what is needed! Often means that others are becoming caught up in ideas, processes or details and failing to step back and look at the bigger picture. Or perhaps that efforts are disparate and not working towards the same outcome.

“We need to be fairly Implementer about this.”

Means that an organised, systematic approach is required for a task, particularly one where something might otherwise slip through the net or efforts might be wasted. Variation: “We’re being too Implementer about this” – when the desire to complete a task overwhelms the point of the task, such as working methodically through a spreadsheet of contacts without considering the intended outcome.

“We need a Specialist approach.”

The Specialist role is all about a love of learning and delving into subjects in depth. If you’re investing in this kind of work, you want someone to work autonomously to navigate their way all around a particular topic and report back. This kind of research is likely to take time.

“Can we be a bit Planty about this?”

Often invoked at the very beginning of a project when staring at a blank page, or in desperation when none of the usual suspects has worked and you need completely fresh ideas. People with Plant high in their profile are highly creative and able to think of solutions which haven’t occurred to others. Signals that you don’t want ideas to be critiqued yet, just volunteered.

“I’m going to have to be the Shaper on this one.”

Everything is drifting and the deadline is rapidly approaching. Someone needs to get everyone moving and keep an eye on the clock. Note: it’s rarely other team members requesting this contribution, because they’re likely to be having a lovely time and not realise that Shaper behaviour is needed until it’s too late.

“Let’s RI the heck out of this.”

Often said with considerable enthusiasm, especially if more than one RI is present and excited about a new prospect. Means exploring, making good use of relevant contacts and discovering possibilities, without the threat of a strong Monitor Evaluator bringing them back to Earth with a bump.

“Let’s take a Teamworker approach.”

Perhaps said if providing support above and beyond what is required, or giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Those with Teamworker high in their profile are perceptive and diplomatic, and prioritise others’ feelings, especially within the team. So this might be more commonly said to those who don’t have such high Teamworker!

We know that times are tough. We’re here to make communication and collaboration a little less bumpy. Communication is vital right now, especially as we are working from home.

Contact us to see how Belbin Team Roles can help you and your team.

The post Does your team speak ‘Belbin’? appeared first on Performance Capacity Development - PTY LTD.