preferred and exhibited team roles of construction …

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


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


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,


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)


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


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)


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


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.


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


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.

http://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=i%26rct=j%26q=%26esrc=s%26source=images%26cd=%26cad=rja%26uact=8%26ved=0ahUKEwjS983B8aHJAhVIxxQKHb3_CpcQjRwIBw%26url=http://www.skillsyouneed.com/num/common-symbols.html%26psig=AFQjCNFeqHc1PDzX5vrL24F6ioFNZx-4dw%26ust=1448208004334645







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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.

http://resources.3circlepartners.com/h/i/110944715-a-guide-to-team-roles




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

http://www.webology.org/2008/v5n4/a62.html

http://www.webology.org/2008/v5n4/a62.html


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

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/gateway/files.php?file=cepmlp_car14_49_660473697.pdf



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/doSearch?ContribStored=Ogunsemi%2C+D+R

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/doSearch?ContribStored=Arroba%2C+T

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/doSearch?ContribStored=Wedgwood-Oppenheim%2C+F


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.

preferred and exhibited team roles of construction …

Documents