7 times when balancing the team doesn’t work

I was recently talking to a customer about balancing teams. When I began to ask questions about their teams and objectives, something quickly became obvious. They were trying to balance their teams because they thought that was what Belbin was all about.

They were expecting to balance teams in terms of Team Roles and then sit back and watch the magic unfold.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work quite like that.

During his extensive research into teams, Dr Meredith Belbin discovered key clusters of behaviour needed to facilitate team progress. He called these clusters ‘Team Roles’.

Dr Belbin discovered that it was the combination of these Team Roles – and not intelligence or other factors – which enabled teams to succeed.

Subsequent studies have reinforced the finding that cognitive diversity is crucial to team performance.

But balancing the team won’t always be a silver bullet. Why?

Let’s look at some potential situations where balancing the team won’t be effective.

1. When balance doesn’t fit with the team’s objectives

It sounds obvious, but balancing the team won’t work in situations where the team doesn’t actually require Team Role balance.

The starting point should be the team’s purpose – its objective. What is it there to do? Which behaviours are required to serve that purpose?

A project team might need lots of creative input from Plants and Resource Investigators at the start. As the project progresses, different contributions might be required – Monitor Evaluators and Implementers to plan and then Completer Finishers to ensure quality control at the end.

So behavioural diversity is needed, but the team doesn’t necessarily need all contributions at the same time.

If the team keeps the ‘ideas people’ for the duration of the project, they’re likely to become disengaged and check out, because they’re no longer playing to their strengths. What’s more, they might be missing out on other opportunities to shine, generating ideas for new projects in other teams.

2. When the team isn’t really a team

We sometimes use ‘team’ to refer to people in a particular department, or who share office space.

But really, a team is much more than that. It’s a group of people with a shared objective, working towards a common goal.

A sales team, for example, are really – more often than not – a group of individuals with individual objectives – their sales targets.

In Belbin terms, we’re likely to find lots of people with Resource Investigator strengths in this kind of job. Resource Investigators are natural salespeople – they’re outgoing, enthusiastic and good at building rapport.

Should we add Monitor Evaluators and Completer Finishers, simply for the sake of balance? Probably not. They’re unlikely to be a good fit for the role – or to enjoy it much.

So, let’s say we are dealing with a real team – and we do need all Team Roles represented in some shape or form. When might balance still not be enough?

3. When self-awareness is lacking

Many personality or psychometric tests rely on self-reporting — asking people to assess their own strengths. This approach depends heavily on self-awareness, which can vary greatly from person to person and may not reflect how others in the team see them.

When you put all this ‘data’ together, what you have is not an evidence base, it’s a collection of subjective (maybe aspirational) opinions.

Carry these ‘errors’ of judgement forward to a team assessment and you may not have a balanced team at all – just something that has the appearance of one, but doesn’t work well in reality.

Belbin is different because we gather data from the rest of the team, so that you can look at each person’s strengths in the round.

As a result, people often become better at announcing their strengths, or discover hidden strengths which can be developed. Either way, you get a more accurate picture of what contributions each person has to offer.

4. When others don’t know the strengths present in the team

We need to know our own Team Role contributions – and the strengths of those around us. In other words, to be really effective, a team needs to be a network of available strengths that can be called upon when needed.

For example, a high Co-ordinator might rely on a strong Completer Finisher in the team to proofread a document before it is sent out. But do they know who is best to play this role and what makes that person tick.

This is where the Belbin Team report comes in. It analyses teams to suggest how each person might contribute and where difficulties may arise. This helps the team to collaborate more effectively and ensures that conflicts (or just differences in approach) are handled constructively.

5. When the learning isn’t embedded

It isn’t enough to hand teams their Belbin reports and send them on their way. To facilitate team success day by day, we need an everyday language that teams can use to describe how they’re working.

In other words, team interventions are for life, not just for away days. We know that learning needs to be used and applied or it is lost.

A recent study of Belbin at a university in the Basque country included a reflective learning process whereby team members reflected on their own contribution at various stages of group work, and shared their reflections with staff.

The results? Not just better team performance, but higher attendance and engagement, and better relationships with team members and staff alike. You can read about the study here.

6. When the team is too big

Team size was an important part of Dr Belbin’s study of teams. He experimented extensively with team size and settled on four as the ideal number.

This was, he said, big enough for all Team Roles to be represented if required (since we can each play more than one role) and small enough for strong bonds to form, but maintaining a level of structure and formality. Crucially, an even number meant that no one had a casting vote, so teams needed to work towards consensus through discussion.

Most ‘teams’ we encounter are much larger. As mentioned above, these can sometimes encompass entire departments. These aren’t real teams, they’re groups – and the psychology of groups is very different.

In groups, it is harder for some voices to be heard, and behaviour tends towards conformity.

Even if Team Roles are balanced in the grand scheme of things, it can be difficult for effective strengths networks to form.

7. When there are no strong examples

Your Belbin Individual report will show you a score for each Team Role. This is a percentile score out of 100 – a measure of our strength in the role compared to everyone else.

Someone who is in the 85th percentile for Co-ordinator is likely to be stronger in the role than someone at the 60th percentile. The stronger Co-ordinator might demonstrate more Co-ordinator behaviours. (Remember that each Team Role is a cluster). They might announce their strengths more clearly and manage the associated weaknesses of the role more effectively to minimise impact on the team.

As a rule of thumb, someone at or above the 80th percentile is considered a strong example of the role.

If we put together a balanced team of people who are mediocre examples of their Team Roles, we wouldn’t achieve high performance solely on the basis of Team Role balance, because the contributions aren’t being made as effectively.

In this case, role learning is required – how can they hone those strengths? How can they ensure that others see them too? Are weaknesses holding them back and if so, how can these be managed more effectively?

Behavioural diversity is a prerequisite for success… but balance alone is not enough to ensure it.

We need to:

• consider what the team is there to do and – in light of that – when each contribution should be made.

• ensure we’re dealing with a ‘real team’ and not a group – a small unit with shared purpose and objectives.

• collect useful data that reflects the real situation on the ground – and compensates for limitations in our self-awareness.

• embed Team Role learning, allowing individuals to develop and cultivate their strengths, announce them and build strengths networks within their teams.

  
  

By Victoria Bird, Director of Research and Development, Belbin. July 2025.