It's not just fashionable these days to support the concept of democracy, it's virtually unthinkable in many parts to even question its status as " the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried" (Churchill in characteristically tongue-in-cheek mode, see here)
Recent news stories attacked GW Bush for his decision against allowing embryonic stem cell research. There are two main apparent discrepancies: the papers focused mainly on Bush's emphasis in saving children's lives contrasted with the widespread death in Afghanistan, Iran and Lebanon; I'm interested here in thinking about Bush's many speeches about promoting "democracy" in other countries while he takes an executive decision that goes against the majority public opinion in his own country.
I think Bush had no choice other than to veto the legislation, and I think that it is the workings of democracy itself that gave him no choice. Having said that, you'll be glad to hear that I agree with Winston that democracy is better than "all those other forms that have been tried"!
When we look at team leadership, is democracy the best system? Is it better for the team leader to be elected by members, someone liked and popular, someone with the popular support fo the team?
As you know from previous posts, I've been reading Belbin's seminal book Management Teams. His research at Henley Managment College seems to suggest that teams with democratically elected team leaders don't perform as well as those where the leader is appointed from outside for having appropriate skills and characteristics.
I wonder whether to some extent the elected team leader is hamstrung by their own popularity in the same way that Bush is hamstrung by the party machine that backs his campaigns?
I also wonder how many of us have ever worked in a team where we got to vote for the leader?
That's enough politics. Good night, everyone!
All the best,
Dave Bull
Team Coaching Network Ltd
http://www.teamcoachingnetwork.com
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 09, 2006
What NOT to do with Belbin's Team Roles
In the 80s, I was involved with a campaign group trying to get an arts centre set up in Newport. One of our publicity stunts was to organise a festival drawing together many of the artistic organisations within the borough (as it then was).
We had a fantastic and effective Chair. She facilitated discussions, gave her own views no greater weight than anyone else's and ensured that everyone was both able to contribute and understood what they were commiting to.
Chairman is one of the team roles described by Dr R Meredith Belbin in his 1980 book, Management Teams; many of you will already be familliar with the rest of that roll-call: Shaper, Plant, etc. etc. etc. (Going a bit Yul, there!)
I was surprised to find out yesterday that Wikipedia had no article on Dr Belbin and his model. Wikipedia being what it is, I was able there and then to start to correct this oversight. Please do have a look at the article and of course, feel free to add to it in the spirit of true Wiki.
What I was not able to put in the article of course was my personal opinions. That's what blogs are for! Here's my ten pence worth:
1) Do not treat team roles like personality types. There are similarities: shapers and resource investigators are more likely to be extraverts; team workers and completer finishers are more likely to be introverts. But tools like MBTI and Insights describe our Jungian psychological preferences, while team roles describe jobs that have to be done within a team in order for it to manage its processes effectively.
2) Do not photocopy the Belbin questionnaire you were given last time you did a half-day course on Team Building for £50 funded by your local Business Link. The questionnaire is a) Copyright; and b) 26 years out of date - his website says there's a new one which has been "fully normed". (Any statisticians out there can plain-English-ify that for us?)
3) Do not deselect an otherwise qualified team member simply on the basis that they do not fit your preconception of the "roles" that will be needed in the team. Rather, ensure that the team understands what these roles are and let them allocate them accordingly. These are jobs to be done, not personality types.
Of course, you could hire a talented facilitator to make sure your team did this and did it effectively...
Anyway, enough gratuitous self-publicity, back to Lindsay. She was a highly effective Chair. Clearly naturally introverted but with a great interest in process and balance. You might think. Nope. Lindsay was a passionate and determined campaigner for the things she believed in, just not while she was in our committee meetings. Her personality type fitted Shaper to a T, but she knew her role as Chair, and she stuck to it and did it well.
Don't treat roles as pigeon-holes.
All the best,
Dave Bull
Team Coaching Network Ltd
http://www.teamcoachingnetwork.com
We had a fantastic and effective Chair. She facilitated discussions, gave her own views no greater weight than anyone else's and ensured that everyone was both able to contribute and understood what they were commiting to.
Chairman is one of the team roles described by Dr R Meredith Belbin in his 1980 book, Management Teams; many of you will already be familliar with the rest of that roll-call: Shaper, Plant, etc. etc. etc. (Going a bit Yul, there!)
I was surprised to find out yesterday that Wikipedia had no article on Dr Belbin and his model. Wikipedia being what it is, I was able there and then to start to correct this oversight. Please do have a look at the article and of course, feel free to add to it in the spirit of true Wiki.
What I was not able to put in the article of course was my personal opinions. That's what blogs are for! Here's my ten pence worth:
1) Do not treat team roles like personality types. There are similarities: shapers and resource investigators are more likely to be extraverts; team workers and completer finishers are more likely to be introverts. But tools like MBTI and Insights describe our Jungian psychological preferences, while team roles describe jobs that have to be done within a team in order for it to manage its processes effectively.
2) Do not photocopy the Belbin questionnaire you were given last time you did a half-day course on Team Building for £50 funded by your local Business Link. The questionnaire is a) Copyright; and b) 26 years out of date - his website says there's a new one which has been "fully normed". (Any statisticians out there can plain-English-ify that for us?)
3) Do not deselect an otherwise qualified team member simply on the basis that they do not fit your preconception of the "roles" that will be needed in the team. Rather, ensure that the team understands what these roles are and let them allocate them accordingly. These are jobs to be done, not personality types.
Of course, you could hire a talented facilitator to make sure your team did this and did it effectively...
Anyway, enough gratuitous self-publicity, back to Lindsay. She was a highly effective Chair. Clearly naturally introverted but with a great interest in process and balance. You might think. Nope. Lindsay was a passionate and determined campaigner for the things she believed in, just not while she was in our committee meetings. Her personality type fitted Shaper to a T, but she knew her role as Chair, and she stuck to it and did it well.
Don't treat roles as pigeon-holes.
All the best,
Dave Bull
Team Coaching Network Ltd
http://www.teamcoachingnetwork.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!
Posts
