University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
52
PREFERRED AND EXHIBITED TEAM ROLES OF
CONSTRUCTION TEAM MEMBERS IN NIGERIAN
TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS
Nathaniel Ayinde Olatunde & Chukwuemeka Patrick Ogbu
Department Of Quantity Surveying,
University Of Benin,
Benin City, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
Key words: Belbin’s team role theory, construction team members, exhibited
team role, Nigerian tertiary institution, preferred team role
NTRODUCTIONTeams are needed for success in
construction procurement (Gould,
2002; Bower, 2003), because they enable
the complementary use of available skills
to achieve high productivity (Constructing
Excellence, 2004). The success of a
construction project depends partly on the
team roles and relationships among key
project team members (Chua, Kog & Loh,
1999; Sai, Henry & Kevin, 2004).
Consequently, in response to performance
improvement demands on the construction
The study examined the difference between preferred and exhibited team roles of
construction team members in Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife and Federal
Polytechnic, Ede, both in Osun State of Nigeria. A total of 100 respondents drawn from 35
project teams in the two institutions participated in the survey. Due to the unavailability of
data, the projects of interest were restricted to those executed between the years 2000 and
2013. Mean Score ranking and Mann-Whitney U test were used in the analyses. The key
findings were that a significant difference exists between the preferred team roles of
architects and structural/civil engineers and their exhibited team roles. It was
recommended that Nigerian tertiary institutions should make their consultant architects and
structural/civil engineers to undergo the Belbin Team Role test for the purposes of
ascertaining their team role prior to engagement. However, all the team members should
ascertain their team roles to enable them observe their own possible weaknesses and make
positive adjustments.
I
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
53
industry, research into project teams has
increased in recent years (Constructing
Excellence, 2004; Smith & Offodile,
2008; Ochieng & Price, 2009).
However, while it is widely acknowledged
that teamwork is critical to construction
project success (Sherratt, Sher, Williams,
& Gameson, 2010; Senaratne &
Gunawardene, 2015), and the construction
industry relies almost entirely on
teamwork (Chow, Then & Skitmore,
2005), there is inadequate literature on the
roles construction team members play in
the tertiary institutions in developing
countries like Nigeria. Huge
infrastructural deficits, and growing
numbers of university applicants in
Nigeria (Nwagwu, 1997) mean that
substantial construction activities must be
carried out in these institutions, for which
effective project teams will be required.
Besides, being professionally adept,
construction team members must work
together synergistically in a way that
positive natural traits are harnessed to
achieve project success. Dainty, Moore &
Murrey (2006: 97) observed that there
were still difficulties in achieving
teamwork in the construction industry.
This may be connected to the fact that
construction team members are still
assigned roles based on their various
professions (Cornick & Mather, 1999;
Azmy, 2012), rather than their inherent
natural abilities and behaviours.
Appointments into leadership and other
positions within a project team are done
mostly without recourse to the inherent
team role preferences and previously
exhibited team roles of team members
(Abbas, 1994). In Nigerian public tertiary
institutions, projects are predominantly let
based on the design-bid-build
procurement method (Mohammed and
Dahiru, 2012), which inadvertently
compels project team members to concern
themselves primarily with the terms of
reference of their respective engagements
(Baiden, Price & Dainty, 2006). This
method of procurement has been
associated with the fragmentation of
construction processes, and adversarial
relationships among project team
members (Jefferies, Chen & Mead, 1999).
Sometimes, heterogeneous ‘groups’ rather
than project ‘teams’ are the outcomes of
the assemblage of construction
professionals for Nigerian tertiary
institution projects. Consequently,
communication is impaired, and project
performance is adversely affected leading
to numerous instances of project time and
cost overruns (Ogunsemi & Aje, 2006)
and abandonment [Kareem, Asa & Lawal,
2014; Academic Staff Union of
Universities (ASUU), 2013].
Extant literature suggest that team
performance is scarcely related to the
competences of individual members of the
team (van Heerden, 1999). Impliedly, in
achieving project objectives, the
professional competencies of individual
project team members count less than their
ability to achieve a balance of roles within
the team (Belbin, 1993). Currently, little in
terms of research has been done to
ascertain the team roles played by the
different professionals in the construction
industry. It is also unclear whether team
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
54
roles preferred (claimed to be performed)
by each of the professionals, tally with
their exhibited team roles in practice as
observed by their peers in the same team.
It is important also to investigate the
predominant team roles played by
different members of a typical
construction project team in the Nigerian
tertiary institutions. Most times, design
professionals (architects and engineers)
are made to lead project teams in the
execution of projects designed by them. In
doing this, the team role preferences of
such professionals, as well as their
exhibited team roles are ignored. The
objective of this study therefore is to
determine the differences between the
preferred and exhibited team roles of
construction team members in the
Nigerian tertiary institutions.
Theory of Team Roles
Senaratne & Gunawardene (2015) made a
distinction between ‘functional roles’ and
‘team roles’. In their opinion, functional
roles relate to the exact job a person is
engaged to carry out. Aritzeta, Ayestaran
& Swailes (2005) explained that
functional role refers to technical and
operational competences relevant to a job.
Contrastingly, team roles are the patterns
‘of behaviour characteristic of the way in
which one team member interacts with
another in order to facilitate the progress
of the team as a whole’ (Arizeta, Swailes
& Senior, 2007: 99).
Without diminishing the importance of
experience and competence in the
selection of project teams, many authors
view team roles as more critical to project
success than individual competence levels
of the team members (Carson & Isaac,
2005; Senaratne & Gunawardene, 2015).
Prior to the identification of the widely
accepted eight, and later, nine team roles
(Belbin, 1981; Belbin, 1993), a number of
authors had tried to unravel the underlying
constructs that enable teams achieve better
results than their individual members
working independently (Arizeta, Swailes
& Senior, 2007). Examples of such studies
include the works by Benne & Sheats
(1948) and Bales (1950) in which ‘task
and maintenance’ roles, and ‘task and
socio-emotional behaviours’ of group
members were discovered respectively.
Contemporarily, the work of Belbin
appears to be the dominant model, having
been translated into 16 languages, and
being in use by multinational agencies,
governments and human resource
consultants across the globe (Chong,
2007).
Belbin (1993) identified nine (9) team
roles (Table 1) that could be played by
members of a team. These team roles can
be grouped into action-oriented (SH, IMP,
CF), people-oriented (CO, TW, RI) and
cerebral or thinking roles (PL, ME, SP)
(Yeh, Smith, Jennings, and Castro, 2006).
The import of Belbin’s team role theory is
that a balanced mix of these roles within a
team, and the ability of team members to
recognise and adjust themselves to the
relative strengths and weaknesses of the
team roles will result in high team
performance and effectiveness (van
Heerden, 1999: 24). As shown in Table 1,
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
55
each of the team roles has its strengths and
weaknesses. For instance, chairman or
coordinator seen as a stable and confident
character, who assesses and accepts
others’ contributions on their merit.
However, the weakness of the chairman or
coordinator role is that other team
members often view it manipulative and
seeking to transfer its responsibilities to
them.
Table 1: Belbin's Team Roles
General
Role Type
Belbin Team Role Strengths (Allowable) Weaknesses
Cerebral PLANT (PL) Creative, imaginative, unorthodox.
Solves difficult problems.
Ignores incidentals. Too
pre-occupied to
communicate effectively.
SPECIALIST (SP) Single-minded, self-starting,
dedicated. Provides knowledge and
skills in rare supply.
Contributes only on a
narrow front. Dwells on
technicalities.
MONITOR
EVALUATOR (ME)
Sober, strategic and discerning.
Sees all options. Judges accurately.
Lacks drive and ability to
inspire others.
Action-
oriented
IMPLEMENTER
(IMP)
Disciplined, reliable, conservative
and efficient. Turns ideas into
practical actions
Somewhat inflexible.
Slow to respond to new
possibilities.
SHAPER(SH) Challenging, dynamic, thrives on
pressure. The drive and courage to
overcome obstacles.
Prone to provocation.
Offends people's feelings
COMPLETER
FINISHER (CF)
Painstaking, conscientious,
anxious. Searches out errors and
omissions. Delivers on time.
Inclined to worry unduly.
Reluctant to delegate.
People-
oriented
TEAM- WORKER Co-operative, mild, perceptive and
diplomatic. Listens, builds, averts
friction.
Indecisive in crunch
situations.
CO- ORDINATOR
(CO)
Mature, confident, a good
chairperson. Clarifies goals,
promotes decision-making,
delegates well.
Can often be seen as
manipulative. Off loads
personal work.
RESOURCE
INVESTI- GATOR
(RI)
Extrovert, enthusiastic,
communicative. Explores
opportunities. Develops contacts.
Over - optimistic. Loses
interest once initial
enthusiasm has passed.
Source: Belbin (1981, 1993)
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
56
An individual can assess his team role
using the Belbin Team Role Self
Perception Inventory (BTRSPI), which
has 7 sections and 10 statements in each
section, e. g. ‘I can be relied upon to see
that work that needs to be done is
organised’. The respondent is required to
allocate 10 points to the 10 statements in
each section based on the extent the
statements relate to him or her. The
BTRSPI is contrasted by the Observer
Assessment Questionnaire (OAQ) with
which other team members can assess the
member for the purposes of determining
the member’s primary and secondary team
roles. Observer assessment is of particular
interest to this study. Obagun (2016:2)
referred to OAQ as an ‘additional/optional
measure used between team members to
assess each other’s behavior’. Aritzeta et
al. (2007) observed that in many team role
assessments, only the BTRSPI is used,
leaving out the OAQ. Ignoring the OAQ
means that team members’ assessments of
themselves are the sole determinants of
their team roles, which makes the
assessment subjective and reduces the
psychometric properties of the instrument
(Fulham, Steele & Pendleton, 1993). In
reality, however, a team member’s
perception of his team role preferences
may differ from his colleagues’ perception
of his roles. Although some studies have
established the validity of BTRSPI and
OAQ, (Aritzeta, et al. 2007), the present
study adopts a normative version of the
instrument to enable comparison of results
from the self-perception and observer
assessment inventories. This study argues
that observers can only assess their
colleagues’ exhibited team roles, while
members can only assess their own
preferred team roles. Abbas (1994) found
that contractors of tertiary institutions in
Nigeria preferred to be supervised by in-
house professionals of the clients, rather
than by external consultants. It should
therefore be ascertained whether the team
roles of external consultants tally with
their exhibited team roles. Carson & Isaac
(2012) pointed out that team members
could benefit immensely by realising the
difference between their exhibited and
preferred team roles. Such knowledge
could lead to positive behavioural
adjustments by team members, and
ultimately improve team effectiveness.
Tertiary Institution Projects in Nigeria
Tertiary institutions in Nigeria are
Universities, Polytechnics, Colleges of
Education, Institutes of Technology and
other professional institutions (Famade,
Omiyale, & Adebola, 2015). These
institutions can be grouped by ownership
type into federal, state and private
institutions depending on whether they are
owned by the public sector (state or federal
government) or private sector. This
study’s interest is on public sector (federal
government owned) tertiary institutions
only.
Public tertiary institutions in Nigeria are
generally compelled to follow ‘due
process’ in their procurement
arrangements (Kareem, Asa & Lawal,
2014). This entails that projects must be
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
57
fully designed and priced, and tender
committee ethics observed in the
procurement cycle. As a result, the
institutions engage their in-house
professionals (normally from the Physical
Planning and Development Units), as well
as external consultants – quantity
surveyors, architects, and engineers to
form construction teams for construction
procurement purposes (Abbas, 1994).
Figure 1 depicts a typical flow of
information and relationships among
construction project team members in a
Nigerian tertiary institution. Usually, the
client appoints the consultants separately
or as a consortium. Once appointed, the
architect/engineer assumes a leadership
role among the consultants, primarly
seeing to the development of designed
information and other tender documents.
Usually, the quantity surveyor receives
project design information from the
architect, services and structural
engineers, but submits bill of quantities
and other tender and contract documents
to the architect. Figure 1 is based on the
functional roles of the professionals.
However, hardly has any study focused on
the team roles of these professionals.
Figure 1: Typical flow of information between construction team members in
NigerianTertiary Institution projects
Source: Adapted from Love, Gunasekaran, and Li (1998)
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
58
An understanding of this could help stem
or reduce incidences of adversarial
relationships between the three key
players in the procurement processes –
consultants, clients and contractors. The
Procurement Act 2007 (applicable in
Nigeria) makes it mandatory for public
tertiary institutions to use the design-bid-
build procurement route, except in very
exceptional circumstances. This almost
makes it compulsory that key roles must
be played by the trio of consultants, clients
and contractors. In reality, however,
misunderstandings and conflicts do occur
among these professionals leading to
expensive delays and sometimes ligations.
Thus, an understanding of the gap between
a professional’s exhibited role and his
preferred role is germane to eliminating
the incidences of conflicts among these
professionals.
METHODOLOGY
This study focused on two public tertiary
institutions in Osun State, South-West
Nigeria. The institutions are Obafemi
Awolowo University (OAU), Ile Ife
(founded in 1961), and Federal
Polytechnic, Ede (FPE) (founded in 1992).
OAU is regarded as a first generation
University in Nigeria (Nwagwu & Agarin,
2008), which makes it to receive a higher
subvention from the Federal Government
for capital projects. Despite this, ASUU
(2013) revealed that 7 projects were
abandoned in OAU. FPE was chosen for
this study because it is a newer tertiary
institution (Polytechnic), and therefore has
relatively lower federal government
funding (Sanni, 2009). The two
institutions covered by this study are from
the same state. It is expected that opinions
obtained from the respondents will be
comparable. The two institutions were
purposively selected due to the
reaserchers working relationship which
aid data collection.
The exhibited and preferred team roles of
the respondents were compared using
Mann-Whitney U Test conducted in SPSS
version 20. This test statistic was
employed because the data was collected
in the ordinal scale. Respondents were
required to rank their agreement with
behaviourial statements in the BTRSPI on
a Likert Scale with 5=strongly agree,
4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree 1=strongly
disagree. A respondents’ preferred team
role was considered to be that for which
statements the respondent allocated the
highest aggregate scores. Similarly, the
respondent rated other members in his
team on the same scale which was
analysed as their exhibited team roles.
Data Collection
The study was based on 35 (OAU: n=10,
FPE: n=25) projects in the OAU and FPE.
Data were collected from the Physical
Planning and Development Units of the
two institutions, only for projects in which
consultants had been engaged from year
2000 to 2013. The choice of this time
frame was solely based on the availability
of required records in the Physical
Planning Units of the institutions. The
functional roles of the respondents
covered by the study are shown in Table 2.
The six different categories of team
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
59
members chosen for this study agree with
Belbin’s optimum number of persons in a
team (Belbin, 1993). A questionnaire was
made for all the respondents (n=191), but
only 100 copies of the questionnaire
(52%) of the questionnaire sent out were
returned and fit for analysis. Copies of the
questionnaire were issued only to team
members that participated in each project
(i.e. the representative of each
participating firm), and to Assistant
Directors and Directors in the case of
clients (staff of the Physical Planning and
Development Units).
Table 2: Population size of each group of respondents
S/N Respondent Population
A Clients Representatives 35
B Contractors 35
Consultants
C Architects 31
D Quantity Surveyors 35
E Civil/Structural Engineer 30
F Service Engineers 25
Total 191
Source: Physical Planning and Development Units, FPE and OAU, 2013
RESULTS
Table 3 shows the general characteristics of
respondents. It was observed that 17%,
16%, 17%, 16%, 17% and 17% of the
respondents were quantity surveyors,
architects, structural/civil engineers,
services engineers, clients and contractors
respectively. The average year of working
experience of the respondents was
calculated to be 15 which could be
considered adequate for the study. 9%,
26%, 22%, 41% and 2% of the respondents
had HND, PGD, Bachelor, Master and
PH.D as their highest academic
qualification respectively. 96% of the
respondents were members of different
professional bodies. This was expected
because a client may not necessarily be a
member of any professional body. Of this,
23%, 24%, 9%, 42% were members of
NIQS, NIA, NIOB, and NSE respectively
while 2% were members of other
professional bodies. Majority of these
professionals are corporate (associate)
members which represents 78%, while
Graduate, fellow and other categories of
membership was 15%, 1% and 2%
respectively. The average number of
project handle or executed by the
respondents was calculated to be 29. This
was considered appropriate as the
respondents had sufficient experience.
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
60
Table 3: Summary of characteristics of questionnaire respondents
Category Classification Frequency Percent
Role played Quantity Surveyor 17 17.0
Architect 16 16.0
Civil/structural Engineer 17 17.0
Services Engineer 16 16.0
Client 17 17.0
Contractor 17 17.0
Total 100 100.0
Years of experience 0-5 7 7.0
6-10 17 17.0
11-15 39 39.0
16-20 11 11.0
21-30 24 24.0
Above 30 2 2.0
Mean 15 100.0
Academic qualification HND 9 9.0
PGD 26 26.0
BACHECLOR 22 22.0
MASTER 41 41.0
PH.D 2 2.0
Total 100 100.0
Membership of professional
bodies:
NIQS 22 23.0
NIA 23 23.0
NIOB 9 9.0
NSE 40 40.0
Others 2 5.0
Total 96 100.0
Type of Memberships Graduate 15 16.0
Associate 78 81.0
Fellow 1 1.0
Others 2 2.0
Total 96 100.0
Number of projects executed 1-10 14 14.0
11-20 18 18.0
21-30 34 34.0
31-40 9 9.0
41-50 7 7.0
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
61
ABOVE 50 18 18.0
Mean 29 100.0
Based on mean scores (Table 4), quantity
surveyors predominantly ranked
themselves 1st as Resource investigators
(RI), while architects, clients and services
engineers ranked themselves 1st to be more
of Coordinators; structural/civil engineers
– Completers, and contractors - Monitors
(Table 4). There appears to be a tendency
for the different team members to prefer
team roles that correspond to their
respective functional roles. Quantity
surveyors are generally investigative
because of the dynamic nature of the cost
function. This requires them to consider
the details of contract information
carefully, and develop wide contacts to
enable them to quickly update their cost
databases. The quantity surveyors were
however ranked 1st as specialists by their
peers. This means that, while Quantity
Surveyors consider themselves to be
playing people-oriented roles as resource
investigators, other team members
consider them to be playing cerebral or
thinking roles as specialists. Table 5
Shows that a significant difference does
not exist between the assessment of the
observers and that of Quantity Surveyors
on the latter’s team roles (p=0.436).
Belbin (1993) posited that a team player
can play 2 team roles – a primary and a
secondary team role. It may be that
quantity surveyors play both roles –
Resource Investigator ( ETR=4.25,
PTR=4.65) as primary role and specialist (
ETR=4.12, PTR=4.71) as a secondary
role.
Architects, Clients and Services Engineers
are often assigned project coordinating or
management roles. This tallies with their
preferred team role rankings (1st as
coordinators) obtained from the analysis
of the research data. However, Architects
and Clients were ranked 1st as completers,
while services engineers were ranked 1st as
monitors by their peers. Architect, Clients
and Services Engineers prefer the people-
oriented team roles coordinator, while
other team members perceive Architects
and Clients 1st as completers (action-
oriented role), and Services Engineers 1st
as monitors (cerebral or thinking role).
The results show (Table 5) that a
significant difference exists between the
preferred team roles of Architects
(p=0.031) and Structural/Civil Engineers
(p=0.024) and their observer-assessed
exhibited team roles. These two
professions are often assigned design and
leadership roles in the construction
procurement arrangements of tertiary
institutions in Nigeria. Architects see
themselves 1st as coordinators (
PTR=4.58), while they are ranked 1st as
completers ( ETR=4.50) by other project
team members.
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
62
Table 4: Ranking of exhibited and preferred team roles
Team Roles ETR PTR ETR PTR
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
QUANTITY SURVEYORS STRUCTURAL/CIVIL ENGINEERS
Implementer 3.39 6 3.06 8 3.67 8 3.35 6
Completer 4.02 5 4.29 4 4.18 1 4.24 1
Shaper 3.13 8 3.59 7 3.59 9 3.53 5
Team worker 4.20 2 4.24 5 3.75 6 4.00 2
Resource investigator 4.25 1 4.65 2 4.08 3 3.65 3
Coordinator 4.2 2 3.76 6 4.04 4 3.35 6
planter 3.33 7 3.00 9 3.69 7 3.41 3
Monitor 4.10 4 4.53 3 3.88 5 3.59 4
Specialist 4.12 3 4.71 1 4.16 2 3.29 7
ARCHITECTS SERVICES ENGINEERS
Implementer 3.85 6 3.44 4 3.83 6 3.63 5
Completer 4.08 3 4.5
1
3.56 9
4.06 2
Shaper 3.31 9 3.31 6 3.69 7 3.31 8
Team worker 3.75 7 3.44 4 3.98 5 3.88 3
Resource investigator 3.56 8 2.69 8 4.21 3 3.25 9
Coordinator 4.58 1 3.81 2 4.42 1 3.56 6
planter 4.06 4 3.00 7 3.58 8 3.38 7
Monitor 4.02 5 3.38 5 4.02 4 4.19 1
Specialist 4.44 2 3.56 3 4.27 2 3.81 4
C
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
63
CLIENTS ONTRACTORS
Implementer 3.94 6 4.24 3 3.31 9 3.29 7
Completer 4.22 3 4.53 1 3.84 3 3.65 3
Shaper 3.69 9 4.00 6 3.35 8 3.53 4
Team worker 3.96 8 4.18 4 3.9 2 3.18 8
Resource investigator 4.12 4 4.06 5 3.76 4 3.94 2
Coordinator 4.37 1 4.06 5 3.55 6 3.41 6
planter 3.90 7 4.29 2 3.73 5 4.18 1
Monitor 4.02 5 4.29 2 4.04 1 3.47 5
Specialist 4.25 2 3.88 7 3.51 7 3.47 5
ETR= Exhibited Team Role, PTR=Preferred Team Role
Table 5: Mann-Whitney U Test of Difference between the Preferred and Exhibited Team Roles of the
Respondents
Functional Role GROUP N
Mean
Rank
Sum
of
Ranks
Mann-
Whitney
Wilcoxon
W Z
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Exact
Sig.
[2*(1-
tailed
Sig.)]
QUANTITY
SURVEYORS
Exhibited
Team
Role
9 8.44 76.00 31 76 -.839 .401 .436b
Preferred
Team
Role
9 10.56 95.00
Total 18
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
64
ARCHITECTS
Exhibited
Team
Role
9 12.22 110.00 16 61 -
2.167
.030 .031b
Preferred
Team
Role
9 6.78 61.00
Total 18
STRUCTURAL/CIVIL
ENGINEERS
Exhibited
Team
Role
9 12.28 110.50 15.500 60.500 -
2.210
.027 .024b
Preferred
Team
Role
9 6.72 60.50
Total 18
SERVICES
ENGINEERS
Exhibited
Team
Role
9 11.61 104.50 21.500 66.500 -
1.679
.093 .094b
Preferred
Team
Role
9 7.39 66.50
Total 18
CLIENTS
Exhibited
Team
Role
9 8.11 73.00 28.000 73.000 -
1.105
.269 .297b
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
65
Preferred
Team
Role
9 10.89 98.00
Total 18
CONTRACTORS
Exhibited
Team
Role
9 10.67 96.00 30.000 75.000 -.928 .354 .387b
Preferred
Team
Role
9 8.33 75.00
Total 18
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
66
DISCUSSION
The results confirmed the work of
Aritzeta, et al (2007) which posited that
co-coordinators seem to fit better in
dynamic contexts. This is because
Architects, Clients and Services Engineers
perceive themselves 1st as co-
coordinators. However, this study
contradict the finding of Arroba &
Wedgwood-Oppenheim (1994) which
stated that shaper and implementer roles
occurred more among public sector senior
managers. Clients in this study who were
public sector employees of the 2 tertiary
institutions of interest preferred
coordinator team roles, but were regarded
mainly as completers. This result may also
have been affected by most staff of the
physical planning units considering
themselves as leaders and chairpersons,
whereas, the consultants and contractors
consider them to have the traits of
completer-finishers – being anxious and
searching out for errors and omissions.
Yang, Huang & Wu (2011) found that
project manager’s leadership style, team
work and project performance are all
related. The present study indicates a
significant difference between the
preferred and exhibited team roles of
Architects and Structural/Civil Engineers.
Possibilities are that this divergence of
team role perception accounts for the poor
performance of Nigerian universities’
projects highlighted by ASUU (2013) and
the lack of adherence to due process noted
by Kareem, Asa & Lawal (2014). In
addition to design and supervision roles,
Architects for instance, are always given
further powers by the Client to act as a
coordinator of the procurement process
(O’Connor, 2012). Similar responsibilities
are conferred on the Engineers by the
general conditions of contract prepared by
the Bureau of Public Procurement of
Nigeria. Divergence between preferred
and exhibited team roles of architects and
Structural/Civil Engineers will therefore
portend challenges for project teams in
tertiary institutions in Nigeria.
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
This study focused on whether a
significant difference exists between the
preferred and exhibited team roles of
tertiary institution construction project
team members. Insight gained from this
study could help team building for projects
in Nigerian tertiary institutions. The
results show that a significant difference
exists between the preferred and exhibited
team roles of Architects and
Structural/Civil Engineers, whereas
apparent differences observed between the
preferred and exhibited team roles of the
other team members are not statistically
significant.
Stemming from this conclusion, the study
recommended that:
• the need for tertiary institutions to
consider using the BTRSPI to
confirm the team role of Architects
and Engineers prior to their
engagement.
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
67
• in cases where these professionals
are expected to play coordinators’
team roles in the project team, the
BTRSPI should be used alongside
the OAQ to ascertain that the
professionals’ assessments of
themselves tally with their
observers’ assessments.
• furthermore, each of the team
members in Nigerian tertiary
institution projects should undergo
the Belbin Team Role test.
Ascertainment of one’s team role
will help the individual to make
positive adjustments, or employ
other people to play team roles that
will make up for the individual’s
inadequacies.
REFERENCES
Abbas, S. A. (1994). In-house
professionals in project
development and implementation
( the case of some Nigerian
Universities), Unpublished M.Sc
Thesis submitted to the
Department of Building,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria,
Nigeria
Academic Staff Union of Universities
(2013). Saving Nigeria’s
University System (online) asuu-
ng.org/test/OctNewsletter.
pdf (accessed March 6, 2016).
Aritzeta, A, Ayestaran, S. & Swailes, S.
(2005). Team role performance
and conflict management styles
The International Journal of
Conflict Management 16(2): 157 -
182
Arizeta, A., Swailes, S. & Senior, B.
(2007). Belbin’s team role model:
development, validity, and
applications for team building.
Journal of Management Studies
44(1): 96-118
Azmy, N. (2012). The Role of Team
Effectiveness in Construction
Project Teams and Project
Performance". Graduate
Theses and Dissertations
submitted to the the Department
of Civil Engineering, Iowa State
University, Iowa.
Baiden, K. N., Dainty, A. & Price, A. D.
F. (2006). The extent of team
integration within
construction projects
International Journal of Project
Management 24 (2006) 13–23
Bales, R. F. (1950), ‘A set of categories
for the analysis of small group
interaction’, American
Sociological Review, 15,
257-63
Belbin, R.M. (1993). Team roles at work.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
68
Belbin, R.M. (1981). Management teams,
why they succeed or fail. London:
Heinemann.
Benne, K. D. & Sheats, P (1948),
‘Functional roles of group
members’, Journal of Social
Issues, 4, 41-9
Bower, D. (2003). Management of
procurement. London: Thomas
Telford Ltd.
Carson, A. & Isaac, M. (2005). A guide to
team roles: how to increase
personal and team effectiveness
(online)
http://resources.3circlepartners.co
m/h/i/110944715-a-guide-to-
team-roles (accessed March 4,
2016).
Chong, E. (2007). Role balance and team
development: a study of team role
characteristics underlying high and
low performing teams. Institute of
Behavioral and Applied
Management 202 - 217
Chow, L. J., Then, D. & Skitmore, M
(2005). Characteristics of
teamwork in Singapore
construction projects.
Journal of Construction Research
6(1):pp. 15-46.
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C. & Loh, P.K
(1999). Critical success factors for
different project objectives,
Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management,
ASCE 125(3) 142–150.
Constructing Excellence (2004). Effective
Teamwork: A Best Practice Guide
for the Construction Industry,
London: Constructing Excellence
Cornick, T. & Mather, J. (1999).
Construction project teams:
Making them work profitably.
London: Thomas Telford
Dainty, A. Moore, D & Murray, M.
(2006). Communication in
Construction: Theory and Practice.
Canada: Taylor and Francis
Famade, O. A, Omiyale, G. T. &
Adebola, Y. A. (2015). Towards
Improved Funding of Tertiary
Institutions in Nigeria
Asian Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences (AJHSS)
3(2), 2320- 9720
Fulham, A., Steele, H. & Pendleton, D.
(1993), ‘A psychometric
assessment of the Belbin Team-
Role Self Perception Inventory’,
Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, 66,
245-257
Gould, F.E. (2002). Managing the
construction process (2nd Ed). NJ:
Prentice Hall.
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
69
Hassan, B. G. (2008). An Evaluation on
Belbin’s Team Roles Theory,
World Applied Sciences Journal
Vol.4 , No3, pp 460-469.
Hayes, N. (2002). Managing Teams: A
strategy for success (2nd Ed.)).
London: Thomson Learning.
Jefferies, M. C., Chen, S. E. & Mead, J. D.
(1999). Project team performance
managing individual goals, shared
values and boundary roles in:
Ogunlana, S. O. (Ed.) Profitable
partnering in construction
procurement. London: E & FN
Spon
Kareem, W.A., Asa, O. A. & Lawal, M.
O. (2014). Due Process
Compliance in Capital Projects
Execution In Tertiary
Institutions In Southwest Nigeria.
Developing Country Studies, 4(6):
138-145
Kieser, A. & Nicolai, A.T. (2005).
Success factor research:
Overcoming the trade-off between
rigor and relevance, Journal of
Management Inquiry, 14(3), 275-
279.
Lewis, J. P. (1998), Team-Based Project
Management, Beard Books
,Washington D.C.
Lingham, T., Rezania, D. & Dolan, S.
(2006). The dynamics of team
development in information
technology projects, Proceedings
of the EURAM Conference, Oslo,
Norway, May 17-20, pp. 33-39.
Love, P., Gunasekaran, A. & Li, H.
(1998). Concurrent engineering: a
strategy for procuring construction
projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 16(6): 375-
383
Mohammed, I. Y. & Dahiru, A. (2012).
Exploring opportunities of design
and build procurement approach
for infrastructure projects
development in Nigeria. Journal of
Environmental Science and
Resource Management. 4, 18-28
Mohsini, R.A. & Davidson, C.H. (1992).
Determinants of performance in
the traditional building process.
Construction Management &
Economics 10(4), 343– 359.
Nwagwu, C. C. (1997). The Environment
of crises in the Nigerian Education
System. Comparative Education,
33(1): 87-95
Nwagwu, W. E. & Agarin, O. (2008).
Nigerian university websites: A
webometric analysis. Webology
5(4) (online)
http://www.webology.org/2008/v
5n4/a62.html (accessed March 6,
2016)
Obagun, O. (2016) An Evaluation Of
Belbin’s Team Role Self
Perception Inventory: To Help
The Project Office Construct An
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
70
Optimal Team (online)
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/
gateway/files.php?file=cepmlp_ca
r14_49_660473697.pdf. (accessed
March 4, 2016)
Ochieng, E.G. & Price, A.D.F.(2009).
Framework for managing
multicultural project teams,
Engineering Construction and
Architectural Management, 16 (6),
527–543.
O’Connor, H. (2012). Architectural
Services during construction:
duties and liability, PerkinsWill
Research Journal 4(1): 7-13
Ogunsemi, D. R, & Aje, I. O. (2006) "A
model for contractors’ selection in
Nigeria", Journal of Financial
Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 11 Iss: 1, pp.33
- 44
Sai, O. C., Henry,C.H. S. & Kevin K.W.
C. (2004), “PPMS: a Web-based
construction Project performance
monitoring system”, Automation
in Construction, Vol.13, pp. 361–
376.
Sanni, M. R. (2009). The Conversion of
Federal Polytechnics into
Universities:
The Funding Aspect, African
Research Review 3(4): 507-522)
Senarante, S & Gunawardane, S. (2015).
Application of team role theory to
construction design teams.
Architectural Engineering and
Design Management 11(1)
Sherratt, S., Sher, W., Williams, A., &
Gameson, R. (2010).
Communication in Construction
Design Teams: Moving into the
Virtual World. In R. Taiwo (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on
Discourse Behavior and Digital
Communication: Language
Structures and Social Interaction
(pp. 218-234). Hershey, PA:
Information Science Reference.
doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-773-
2.ch014
Smith, A.D. & Offodile, O.F. (2008),
“Strategic importance of team
integration issues in product
development processes to improve
manufacturability”. Team
Performance Management,
Vol.14, No.5/6, pp. 269–292
Arroba, T. & Wedgwood‐Oppenheim, F.
(1994) "Do Senior Managers
Differ in the Public and Private
Sector?: An Examination of Team
Role Preferences", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 9 (1): 13
- 16
Van Heerden, D. L. (1999). The
application of Belbin’s team role
theory in information service
enterprises. Unpublished M.Sc
dissertation in the Faculty of Arts,
Rand Afrikaans University
University of Benin Journal of Humanities, Vol. 6.1, December, 2018
71
Yang, L, Huang, C. & Wu, K (2011).
The association among project
manager's leadership style,
teamwork and project
success ̧International Journal of
Project Management 29
(2011) 258– 267
Yeh, E., Smith, C., Jennings, C., &
Castro, N. (2006). Team building:
A 3-dimensional teamwork
model. Team Performance
Management, 12(5/6), 192–197.