The Belbin team role preferences of the members of 55 teams were assessed by three independent methods: (1) Cattell's 16PF (Form 5) personality questionnaire, (2) video observation of a business simulation exercise and subsequent analysis with a Belbin behavioural checklist, and (3) Saville and Holdsworth's Occupational Personality Questionnaire. The 338 participants were drawn in approximately equal measure from managerial and non-managerial levels from equal numbers of manufacturing and public service organizations. A multitrait- multimethod correlation matrix derived from the data collected from the participants was employed to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validities of the Belbin team roles. Application of the Campbell and Fiske criteria to the matrix did not produce clear support for discriminant validity. Application of a correlated uniqueness model in a confirmatory factor analysis showed the Belbin team role model to be overparameterized and to lack both convergent and discriminant validity. Further modelling revealed that the Belbin team roles fit easily into a "Big Five" five-factor personality framework

Belbin's original management team model requires the presence of eight individuals, each of whom shows a facility for a particular role. Because many teams in industry have fewer than eight members, the issue of secondary team roles is important. A study was undertaken of data collected from UK managers (N = 1796) which showed that team roles fall into two general categories and which we labelled ‘task’ and ‘relationship’. These categories, which reveal the likely secondary team role for any given individual, were also shown to predict the degree of harmony and productiveness of dyads within a given team.

Against the background of a recent investigation into the internal reliability and the validity of the Belbin Team Role Self‐perception Inventory, two linked studies were undertaken. In the first, test‐retest reliabilities of the Belbin self‐perception inventory were measured and found to be unsatisfactory; in the second, correlations with team roles forecast on the basis of 16PF data were attempted and, with the exception of one team role, no substantial correlations were established. Provides support for the use of 16PF as the preferred method for estimating team role preferences rather than the Belbin self‐perception inventory data.

Factor analysis of FIRO-B data obtained from new software product teams had led to a reformulation of Schutz's ideas on team compatibility. The concept of Group-Warmth as a derivative of the FIRO-B Inclusion and Affection scales was developed and shown to be related to the commercial effectiveness of teams. In a like manner, the FIRO-B constructs of Control-Expressed and Control-Wanted were explored through concurrent factor analysis of 16 PF data. A new interpretation has been given to both FIRO-B Control scales, namely, Assertive-Impulsive.