Cross- cultural Communication This page intentionally left blank

TEAM ROLE
Contribution
Allowable Weaknesses
Plant
Creative, imaginative, 
free- thinking.
Generates ideas and solves 
difficult problems
Ignores incidentals. Too 
preoccupied to communicate 
effectively
Resource 
Investigator
Outgoing, enthusiastic, 
communicative. Explores 
opportunities and develops 
contacts
Over- optimistic. Loses interest 
once initial enthusiasm has 
passed
Coordinator
Mature, confident, identifies 
talent.
Clarifies goals. Delegates 
effectively
Can be seen as manipulative. 
Offloads own share of the work
Shaper
Challenging, dynamic, thrives 
on pressure. Has the drive and 
courage to overcome obstacles
Prone to provocation. Offends 
people’s feelings
Monitor Evaluator
Sober, strategic and discerning. 
Sees all options and judges 
accurately
Lacks drive and ability to 
inspire others. Can be overly 
critical
Teamworker
Cooperative, perceptive and 
diplomatic. Listens and averts 
friction 
Indecisive in crunch situations. 
Avoids confrontation
Implementor
Practical, reliable, efficient. Turns 
ideas into actions and organizes 
work that needs to be done
Somewhat inflexible. Slow to 
respond to new possibilities
Completer Finisher
Painstaking, conscientious, 
anxious. Searches out errors. 
Polishes and perfects
Inclined to worry unduly. 
Reluctant to delegate
Specialist
Single- minded, self- starting, 
dedicated. Provides knowledge 
and skills in rare supply
Contributes only on a narrow 
front. Dwells on technicalities
Figure 8.1 Summary descriptions of Belbin’s Team Roles (www.belbin.com)
usually perform better. Too many members with the same type of role may 
cause tension in the team and reduce overall cohesion and effectiveness.
Some cultures show more preference for certain roles – for example, the 
French are concerned with innovative ideas, the Germans concentrate 
on structuring the task, the Swedes are strong on obtaining the neces-
sary resources and the Americans tend to be assertive and impatient to 
achieve results.
•

---

International Team Building and Teamworking 145
Groups made up entirely of people with high intelligence tend to display 
the Apollo Syndrome and are actually less likely to be effective than a more 
balanced and diverse group. An example could be the management team of 
a hospital made up entirely of clinicians and consultants, which would be 
less effective than a more balanced team that would include finance, per-
sonnel and other departmental heads. Apollo Syndrome groups are often 
difficult to manage and have problems making decisions. Such groups are 
better suited to high- technology companies where there is a need to allow 
for quick turnover as newcomers enter to reinvigorate the technology.
Belbin stressed the value of selecting a team as opposed to concentrating on 
the search for the right individual. This was a different approach from the 
aims of previous research in which there was a natural tendency for organi-
zations to recruit in their own image. Belbin’s research remains a significant 
benchmark study. It emphasizes the ability of a team to:
renew and regenerate itself by new recruitment;
find within itself all the desired characteristics;
build up a store of shared and collectively owned experiences.
Research undertaken at Cranfield University in association with 3i in 1992 
highlighted the perceptions of managers from different European cultures 
and an awareness of their national prejudices by measuring ‘perception 
distance’, that is, the difference between the self- perception of one nation 
compared to the perception of it held by other nations. The larger the 
perception distance, the greater the difference between what that nation 
and other Europeans see as its managers’ competences.
High- perception 
distance indicates barriers of prejudice often based on national stereotypes; 
for instance, the British tended to have a higher opinion of themselves than 
their European colleagues, especially the Italians and the French. It was 
therefore considered likely that it would be those nationalities that they 
may well have most difficulty working with.
Apart from the essential prerequisites of technical and professional ability, 
those who will be working as members of international teams need strong 
self- motivation, cultural sensitivity and the ability to manage ethical and 
cultural differences.