Belbin - Scepticism as a negative?

[Minkster]

Had some guys at work dump a Belbin Oberver Assessment form on my desk today and asked me to complete it for them. Now, I remember doing this as part of an HR study a few years back (and maybe at uni too) but I hadn't noticed something until now.

The form (which can also be seen here : http://www.belbin.com/Downloadable-PDFs/BELBIN-A4-Observer-Assessment-online.pdf) has two list of characteristics. In List A there are a list of positive traits such as 'Caring', 'Challenging', 'Loyal' and so on. In List B there are a list of negative traits (or 'weaknesses') including items such as 'Easily Bored', 'Erratic', Manipulative' and 'Inflexible'.

What annoyed me somewhat is the inclusion - in the negative List B table - of the word 'Sceptical' (and, to a lesser extent - 'Unorthodox')

I can understand why such a work-related study may consider a sceptic/skeptic to be a bad thing by SOME organisations, however I for one would like my staff to be critically think about statements made by (for example) suppliers and question them to me. I wouldn't want staff who are mindless drones! On a wider level, I believe this technique is practiced in universities and workplaces all over the UK (at least) and even if the intention is very different, this is teaching that sc(k)epticism is a bad/negative thing and should be avoided.

Or maybe I'm just being too senstive about it.....

[Ashles]

So it is better to be a Challenging, Outspoken, Single-Minded Opportunist than a Secptic?

Also if Challenging, Accurate, Inquisitive, Impartial, Observant and Realistic are postives, why isn't Scepticism?

I think they are confusing the word with Cynicism.

Schoolboy error.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I believe Ashles has got it.

~~ Paul

[ond_magiker]

They are probably thinking of 'skeptical'.

[Minkster]

Originally posted by ond_magiker
They are probably thinking of 'skeptical'.

well it means exactly the same thing so they still have it incorrectly listed!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
So it is better to be a Challenging, Outspoken, Single-Minded Opportunist than a Secptic?

Also if Challenging, Accurate, Inquisitive, Impartial, Observant and Realistic are postives, why isn't Scepticism?

I think they are confusing the word with Cynicism.

Schoolboy error.

That's basically what the word skeptic means (although not of course sceptic).

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's basically what the word skeptic means (although not of course sceptic).
No it doesn't.

[Minkster]

I have fired off an email to the Belbin organisation about this mistake. Will be interesting to see their response and I will keep people posted.

Ian....I don't know what to say.....you can't just make up your own definitions for established words and expect everyone to take you seriously!

[Minkster]

Received a reply. I guess in a roundabout way they are conceding that a sceptic isn't necessarily a negative trait (although it still appears that way from the forms). Kudos to them for replying though

Thank you for your comments. The observer assessment words are
indicative of certain team roles.

You may be interested to read Meredith Belbin's book "Team Roles At
Work - Butterworth Heinemann 1993" which cover some of your points.
One would indeed expect a strong Monitor Evaluator to be sceptical.

KInd Regards

Peter Lancaster

[Benguin]

The detailed response forms (if you ever get to see them) make it pretty clear that those words are considered negative defining traits by their methodology.

There were a number of "Negative" words that I felt were, in fact, attributes I would expect from a competent member of my team, for instance, "fussy" is meant as a negative but seems a more realistic proposition than "perfectionist" in many environments. Couldn't handle a perfectionist in my place!

As, positive or negative, they merely go toward categorising you in a team role I don't suppose it matters much. Otherwise I'd vociferously protest the absence of "credulous" and "naive". All part of modern business philosophy that anyone who questions is negative, cynical and should be cast to the wolves. The more so when they are vindicated by events ....

I wonder more about whether the relationship between "team-role-types" in these exercises has ever been properly tested against actual behavioural observations ... I feel the test scoring is incredibly context-sensitive and maybe of limited use as subtle environmental changes could throw it totally.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by Ashles
So it is better to be a Challenging, Outspoken, Single-Minded Opportunist than a Secptic?

Also if Challenging, Accurate, Inquisitive, Impartial, Observant and Realistic are postives, why isn't Scepticism?


This is because Challenging, Outspoken, Single-Minded and Opportunistic people get things done.

Skeptics spend too much time posting on James Randi's forum to get anything worthwhile done.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by normdoering
This is because Challenging, Outspoken, Single-Minded and Opportunistic people get things done.

Skeptics spend too much time posting on James Randi's forum to get anything worthwhile done.
Oops.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Minkster
Had some guys at work dump a Belbin Oberver Assessment form on my desk today and asked me to complete it for them. Now, I remember doing this as part of an HR study a few years back (and maybe at uni too) but I hadn't noticed something until now.

...snip...

Or maybe I'm just being too senstive about it.....

Didn't notice this when you posted it, did you fill the form in?