360 degree assessments of team role behaviours in different contexts

Purpose – This article aims to present and discuss research findings on 360 degree assessments of team role behaviours in different contexts. In so doing, it brings together and develops two themes previously explored by the author, namely: the need to introduce a significant social dimension into thinking about team roles; the need to recognise that appropriate leadership behaviour is not universal but contingent upon context. Design/methodology/approach – A mixed sample of public sector managers in the UK completed a team role self-assessment questionnaire and had a 360 degree assessment completed on them. The research looked at the degree of correlation between the self-assessments and the 360 assessments and its statistical significance, exploring the ways in which the nine team roles are more or less valued in different contexts. Findings – Statistically significant relationships were found between measures of leadership contexts and team role behaviours. More importantly for this research, 360 degree assessments of team role behaviours were also found to vary in different contexts. Similarities and differences were found in the team roles behaviours that were typical in particular contexts and those that were valued in such contexts. Research limitations/implications – The range of contexts explored in this article was limited. Two contextual variables derived from the model of “dynamic” leadership were examined, namely the level of influence over change and the level of influence over others. In both cases, high and low levels of influence were considered. It would be useful to explore other contextual variables. It would also be useful to see if the observed relationships were found in situations other than the UK public sector. Practical implications – First, the findings reinforce the view that there is a significant social dimension to team roles, they cannot be viewed merely as clusters of personality traits, they are related to social roles and the influence people have in such roles. Second, teams are likely to be more effective if the behaviour of individual team members is appropriate to the social roles and contexts that they find themselves in. Third, what people tend to do in particular situations is not necessarily the same as that which is valued in such situations. Originality/value – The findings reinforce the conclusions of earlier research by the author and associates. In so doing, they lend support to original team role and leadership models developed by these individuals, as well as highlighting links between the two models. They also highlight differences between what people tend to do in particular situations and what is likely to be valued in such situations.