Team Roles and Hierarchic System in Group Discussi

Authors: Manabu Fujimoto

Publish Date: 2015/09/23

Volume: 25, Issue: 3, Pages: 585-608

PDF Link

Abstract

Conventional systems for classifying team roles refer only to the function criterion and two categories task and social in addition roles and behaviors are unspecialized a onetoone correspondence being assumed between them These theoretical problems have resulted in overly fragmented roles as well as oversimplified categories Therefore this article aims to reveal essential roles and a unified system to classify them In order to elucidate the team roles essential for discussion a questionnaire survey was administered for Study 1 with the result that just ten discussantroles were identified For Study 2 in order to verify a classification system for the discussantroles participant groups were asked to discuss itineraries for an overnight group trip during the winter holiday The results showed that a threecriterion model based on the deep roles is superior to the traditional model In this hierarchical system characteristic behaviors are expressed according to ten discussantroles which are divided into six categories using a combination of three criteria This system not only solves the theoretical issues but also contributes to improving members’ discussion behaviorsWork teams have been formed in many organizations Devine et al 1999 Ilgen 1999 in order to improve productivity and worker satisfaction Banker et al 1996 Cohen and Ledford 1994 The roles within such teams promote team cohesion and responsibility Mudrack and Farrell 1995 foster positive interdependence and individual accountability Brush 1998 and stimulate members’ awareness of the overall group performance and of each member’s contribution Strijbos et al 2004For these reasons roles are considered to be a fundamental element of teams Hackman 1990 Indeed many researchers have noted the importance of team roles cf Hackman 1987 McGrath 1984 Sundstrom et al 1990 However little has been said about the actual distribution of the roles in a team Hare 2003In teams group discussions are central to social activities Miller 1978 claimed that groups should be perceived as systems in which individuals interact Most studies on teams focus chiefly on emergent social activities among individuals particularly the function of discussion Pavitt 1994 rather than on the team itself Homans 1961 Social interactions and group discussions do play an important function in overall group dynamics and for that reason the roles that members of a team play in such discussions are important Therefore in focusing on group discussions this article identifies and categorizes functional discussantroles ultimately aiming to elucidate a system of team roles Because such a system has not yet been fully explored some theoretical defects have given rise to the following two problemsThe first problem stems from an excessive proliferation of roles in the literature Previous studies dealing with the identification of team roles have focused mostly on two types of contributions task and socioemotion Hare 1994 The former has been concerned with “functional roles” as explicated by Benne and Sheats 1948 They identified 27 roles to describe members’ functions in team discussions and since that study varying numbers of roles have been identified in different studies Belbin 1993 Margerison and McCann 1990 Mumford et al 2006 note that since Benne and Sheats researched the issue about 120 team roles have been identified in the literature However these are fragmentary and inconsistent the reason being that roles have been operationally defined according to single concrete behaviors Mudrack and Farrell 1995Roles have been conceptually defined as clusters of relationship or goaloriented behaviors Belbin 1981 1993 Forsyth 1990 Stewart et al 2005 suggesting that the first problem is a gap between the conceptual definitions and the operational definitions In reality a series of behaviors may be expressed by the same person with a particular intention Therefore we should try to understand not individual behaviors but rather a person’s series of behaviors which reflect his or her role and intentOne merit of role theory is that the subject’s intent may be assumed as the background for a series of behaviors thus facilitating prediction of his or her behaviors However recognizing roles by a single behavior has not only led to an excessive proliferation of roles but also made this concept worthless and obscured individual differences Mumford et al 2008 Arguing that personality and roles are linked Newcomb and Charters 1950 therefore focuses attention on individual differences which in roleacquisition are referred to as “role repertoire” an aspect similar to personality Possessing broad role repertories enables members to adapt to various situations Ginnett 1990 McIntyre and Salas 1995 Parker 1996 This role repertoire can be expressed as the frequency pattern of one’s usual roleacquisition That is individuals shift into appropriate roles out of their own repertoire as a stable trait depending on the current team activitiesIn order to solve the problem of regarding a single behavior as a role we need to identify only the necessary and sufficient roles that are the common factors behind observed behaviors in team activities Thus on principle and in order to achieve a good interface with the conceptual definition this research defines team roles operationally as the background factor for a series of related behaviors

Keywords: