711529

research-article2017
SGRXXX10.1177/1046496417711529Small Group ResearchDriskell et al.

Article
Small Group Research
1­–30
Team Roles: A Review © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
and Integration sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046496417711529
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417711529
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgr

Tripp Driskell1, James E. Driskell1,

C. Shawn Burke2, and Eduardo Salas3

Abstract
The concept of roles is ubiquitous in the social sciences, and a number of
scholars have examined the operation of roles in task teams. In fact, this
research has resulted in a seemingly unlimited number of roles that have
been described as relevant to team performance. In this study, we attempt
to integrate this research by deriving a model that describes three primary
behavioral dimensions that underlie team role behavior: (a) dominance, (b)
sociability, and (c) task orientation. Based on this model, we conduct a cluster
analysis of the 154 team roles described in previous research. We identify 13
primary team role clusters, and discuss the implications of this approach for
gaining further insight into team role structure and performance. We believe
this is one step toward speaking a common language in discussing team roles.

Keywords
roles, teamwork, team

Roles are important in teams because they represent patterns of behavior that
are interrelated with the activities of other team members in pursuit of the
overall team goal. The term role comes from the French rôle, which

1The Florida Maxima Corporation, Orlando, USA

2Universityof Central Florida, Orlando, USA
3Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:
Tripp Driskell, The Florida Maxima Corporation, 1231-B North Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL
32804, USA.
Email: tripp@floridamaxima.com
2 Small Group Research 00(0)

originally referred to the rolls of paper on which actors’ parts were written
(and often read to the actors if they forgot their lines). Thus, the theatrical
analogy is quite apt—the term role came to refer to the theatrical part enacted
by an actor in a play. However, in the theater, an actor adopts and sheds roles
easily, whereas in real-world teams, a role is a more internalized, enduring set
of behaviors. Accordingly, Stewart, Fulmer, and Barrick (2005) define a role
as a set of behaviors that are repetitive activities characteristic of a person in
a particular setting.
Sports teams often provide a clear illustration of how roles structure team
interaction. In a basketball team, for example, the five primary roles include
a point guard, a shooting guard, a center, a small forward, and a power for-
ward. Although these roles may vary within any particular team, it is gener-
ally accepted that some variation of this basic structure underlies the nature
of basketball team performance. Unfortunately, there is less consensus on the
nature of the basic role structure of task teams. For example, some team role
taxonomies have described primary task team roles in as few as two role
dimensions (Bales & Slater, 1955) to as many as 27 (Benne & Sheats, 1948).
Moreover, Gregory, Shimono, Burke, and Salas (2015) reviewed 23 existing
team role taxonomies and identified a total of 164 different roles described by
these taxonomies. This would lead one to conclude that there are a seemingly
infinite number of team roles, or that different researchers are using different
terms for similar role dimensions. We believe it is the latter.
In this article, we attempt to integrate existing team role taxonomies to
derive a primary or core set of team roles. We do this by presenting a model
that describes three primary behavioral dimensions that underlie team role
behavior: (a) dominance, (b) sociability, and (c) task orientation. We conduct
a cluster analysis of team roles identified in existing team role taxonomies to
identify primary role clusters or dimensions. We describe the results of this
analysis and the implications of this approach for further research.

Early Theoretical and Empirical Work

As Biddle (1986), Moxnes (1999), and others have noted, the concept of role
is one of the most central in social science. Yet, it has no single scientific
origin, nor a single core definition. Early proponents of the role concept
include Ralph Linton (an anthropologist), George Herbert Mead (a social
theorist), and Jacob Moreno (a psychologist), each with a different perspec-
tive on roles. In the audaciously titled book, “The Study of Man,” Linton
(1936) described how the functioning of a group depends on the patterns of
reciprocal behavior between individuals. Linton noted that when a person
puts a given set of rights and responsibilities (which he terms a status or
Driskell et al. 3

position, such as father or leader) into effect, he or she is performing a role.

Thus, Linton described a role as a set of patterned behaviors that are insepa-
rable from a position.
During the same time period as Linton, George Herbert Mead (1934)
examined how social structure is organized and maintained, and emphasized
the concept of role taking as a key to social control. In the process of role
taking, the individual takes the perspective of a significant other and is able
to view his or herself from that standpoint, and it is this reciprocal role taking
that makes social activity possible (Heimer & Matsueda, 1994). Another con-
temporary, Jacob Moreno (1934), viewed role playing as a mechanism of role
change, and emphasized the value of playing or practicing a role in a simu-
lated psychodrama setting in order to gain a more in-depth understanding of
the role. This work, couched within the psychodrama context, was influential
but perhaps less impactful on mainstream group research.
The influential early work of Mead, Linton, and others lead to a prolifera-
tion of research on various aspects of group roles. This included work on role
conflict (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), role ambiguity
(Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), role strain (Beehr, 1976), role transitions
(Nicholson, 1984), role overload (Kahn et al., 1964), role change (Turner,
1990), role efficacy (Beauchamp, Bray, Eys, & Carron, 2002), and person-
role fit (DeRue & Morgeson, 2007),
Roles have been defined as institutionalized sets of expectations, relation-
ships, and behaviors that ensure stable and predictable social interactions
(Stryker & Statham, 1985). Kreps and Bosworth (1993) note that:

In any situation where people interact there is a tendency for their behaviors,
sentiments, and motives to become differentiated into discrete entities called
roles (Turner, 1980, p. 126). Once roles have become differentiated, the behavior,
sentiments, and motives that appear subsequently in similar situations will tend
to become patterned (i.e., they will be performed conventionally). (p. 436)

However, roles are not simply static sets of expectations and behaviors, but
instead they change and adapt in response to role demands. In fact, two over-
arching goals of research on roles within teams are to account for both role
stability and role change.
Early research efforts were also devoted to determining the basic role
dimensions that define group interaction (see Hare, 1972). Stated simply, if
we define roles broadly as coherent sets of expectations and behaviors, then
what are the core roles that we observe in task teams? This fundamental ques-
tion has been posed by various researchers in various guises: “What are the
characteristics which can be evaluated by observing people interacting?”
4 Small Group Research 00(0)

(Carter, 1954, p. 477), “What are the ‘functional role behaviors’ that emerge
in small groups?” (Mudrack & Farrell, 1995, p. 542), and “What are ‘the
roles members play in executing critical team functions?’” (Mumford, Van
Iddekinge, Morgeson, & Campion, 2008, p. 250). In the following, we dis-
cuss attempts to develop a classification of team roles.

Team Role Taxonomies

Although Stewart et al. (2005) state that “A universally accepted taxonomy
of team member roles does not exist” (p. 346), this is not necessarily the case.
The fact is that, whereas there is no one way of characterizing team roles that
is used to the exclusion of others, there are a number of different types of role
taxonomies. A broad or higher order characterization of team roles may adopt
a simple two-factor model, distinguishing roles as either primarily task ori-
ented or primarily socioemotionally oriented (see Bales, 1950; Bales &
Slater, 1955). More detailed team role taxonomies include Belbin (1993),
who described nine team roles based on observations of management teams,
and Benne and Sheats (1948), who defined team roles in terms of 27 discrete
dimensions, including those of (a) initiator, (b) information giver, (c) coordi-
nator, (d) harmonizer, (e) encourager, and so on.
There are several problems with these and other role taxonomies. First,
there is a considerable divergence in terms of the team contexts examined.
For example, Belbin’s classification was based on observations of manage-
rial personnel who performed a 1-week computerized business game as part
of a general management course (Dulewicz, 1995). One of the most heavily
cited role taxonomies, proposed by Benne and Sheats (1948), was based on
observations of sensitivity training groups, or t-groups, that were popular in
the human potential movement of the 1960s, and whose primary purpose was
interpersonal growth. In fact, Benne noted that these observations were never
meant to apply to work groups, noting that it was a “mistake to think that a
group that was specifically created for learning . . . about self . . . could
become the prototype of a work group” (quoted in Freedman, 1996, p. 336).
Thus, while Benne and Sheats’ work is often described as “the earliest and
perhaps most pervasive” attempt at role classification (Mumford et al., 2008
p. 251), it is prudent to conclude that no one taxonomy constitutes a single
gold standard.
Second, within the existing team role taxonomies, there is also consider-
able divergence in terms of the roles described. For example, Gregory et al.
(2015) conducted a comprehensive inventory of existing team role taxono-
mies. To generate a list of task role taxonomies, Gregory et al. conducted a
search of multiple databases (including PsycNET, Sociological Abstracts,
Driskell et al. 5

EBSCOhost, Web of Science, and ProQuest) using the following search

terms: team roles, group roles, social roles, and emotional roles paired with
the term taxonomy. A series of additional searches were conducted using the
keywords role sets, role strain, role transition, role differentiation, and role
conflict paired with the terms teams, groups, and crew. Finally, a third search
was conducted using the keywords using the terms team [group] role mea-
surement, team [group] role assessment, team [group] role questionnaire,
and related terms. Based on this search, 187 articles were deemed to be
potentially relevant, from which a final set off 139 articles were selected,
which produced 23 unique team role taxonomies (including Bales, 1950;
Benne & Sheats, 1948; Helbin, 1981; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Kukenberger,
Donsbach, & Alliger, 2015; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2006;
Stempfle, Hübner, & Badke-Schaub, 2001; and 17 others). Cumulatively,
these 23 team role taxonomies rendered 164 role descriptors. Some roles
were similar across some of the taxonomies. For example, Williams, Morgan,
and Cameron (2011); Beck, Eng, and Brusa (1989); and Belbin (1993) identi-
fied leader, task leader, and chairman roles, respectively. However, many
roles were unique to specific taxonomies. For example, the procedural tech-
nician role was only identified by Benne and Sheats (1948), the shaper role
was only identified by Belbin (1993), and the contractor role was only identi-
fied by Mumford et al. (2006). As Neiman and Hughes (1951) observed some
60 years ago, “In surveying the literature, one is confronted with . . . a hope-
less mass of different definitions, usages, and implications” (p. 142). It seems
that little has changed.

The Nature and Structure of Team Roles

One question that group researchers have attempted to answer is what is the
basic structure of roles in task teams? In other words, is there a primary set of
role dimensions that are descriptive of role performance in task teams, and
can we use this model of the nature and structure of team roles to better
understand how role performance relates to team functioning and
performance?
Given that group roles can be viewed as patterns of behavior (Mumford
et al., 2008), Carter (1954, 1962) was one of the first researchers to attempt
to account for the regularities of behavior that are observed in task groups.
Couch and Carter (1952) observed small groups performing discussion, rea-
soning, and mechanical assembly tasks. They asked observers to rate their
behavior on a number of variables, including aggressiveness, cooperative-
ness, leadership, task orientation, talkativeness, and other characteristics. A
series of factor analyses found that, across differences in team tasks and
6 Small Group Research 00(0)

group sizes, three primary factors emerged. They labeled these dimensions
(a) Individual Prominence (behaviors associated with leadership, striving for
recognition, and aggressiveness), (b) Sociability (behaviors related to posi-
tive social interaction, sociability, and maintenance of group relations), and
(c) Group Goal Facilitation (behaviors related to achieving the group goal,
cooperation, and attainment of the task). Carter (1954) concluded that “It
seems apparent that the interaction behavior of individuals involved in small
group situations can be adequately described by three factors” (p. 284).
Couch (1960) replicated this research with a more comprehensive coding
scheme incorporating 55 team behavior measures and found a similar factor
structure, which he labeled (a) Interpersonal Dominance (prominence, activ-
ity, initiative), (b) Interpersonal Affect (positive affect toward others), and (c)
Task Serious versus Social Expressivity (seriousness of purpose in working
on the group task). Similar results were found by Mann (1961) and Borgatta
(1963). Mudrack and Farrell (1995) also found that three primary factors
emerged in examining behavior in small problem solving groups, which they
labeled (a) Individual Roles (e.g., asserts authority), (b) Maintenance Roles
(e.g., praises and encourages others), and (c) Task Roles (e.g., coordinates
task activities, suggests task solutions).
Drawing on the previous work of Parsons, Bales, and Shils (1953) as well
as Couch and Carter (1952), Bales (2001) argued that there are basic prob-
lems that must be addressed in all task groups (e.g., directing the group’s
progress, motivating group members, problem solving), and that discrete
roles develop to solve these problems. Bales described three functional prob-
lems that are faced by all groups: (a) activity or managing dominance or the
exercise of power (i.e., some people dominate group activity to the exclusion
of others), (b) likability or managing the maintenance of positive relations
(i.e., positive relations must be maintained to support the continuance of the
group), and (c) task ability or managing efforts to facilitate goal achievement
(i.e., efforts must be marshaled to pursue the solution of group goals).
Thus, at a broad level, Bales argued that these problems (dominance,
sociability, and task orientation) are essential to the effective functioning of
all groups. Accordingly, Bales (see Bales, 1970; Bales & Cohen, 1979) pro-
posed three primary dimensions to describe group behavior: Upward/
Downward (dominance or submissiveness), Negative/Positive (friendly or
unfriendly), and a third dimension labeled Forward/Backward that was
defined as instrumentally controlled or task oriented versus emotionally
expressive. Thus, Bales argued that regularities of group behavior emerge
along these three primary dimensions.
Finally, Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick (2007) have described what they term as
universal dimensions of social cognition. That is, when people attempt to
Driskell et al. 7

Table 1.  Behavioral Descriptors for Dominance, Sociability, and Task Orientation.

High dominance Low dominance

Dominate, control, direct, influence,
assert, take charge, lead, command,
active
High sociability
Friendly, interested in others, cordial,
warm, gregarious, supportive
High task orientation
Achievement-oriented, organized,
reliable, dependable, conscientious,
planful, responsible, serious
Defer, comply, follow, compliant,
submissive, support, take orders,
passive
Low sociability
Withdrawn, aloof, avoids contact with
others, prefers working alone, solitary
Low task orientation
Careless, irresponsible, disordered,
impulsive, spontaneous, untrustworthy,
inactive, work-shy

interpret behavior or form impressions of others, they do so in terms of the

basic dimensions of competence (industrious, intelligent, skillful) and
warmth (sociable, good-natured). Fiske et al. also note a third dimension,
Bales’ activity or dominance dimension, which they note is likely more rele-
vant to actual interaction than to perceptions.
Following Carter (1954, 1962) and Bales (2001) et al., we believe that role
behavior in groups can be described in terms of the three broad dimensions of
(a) individual prominence, or Dominance, (b) Sociability, and (c) group goal
facilitation, or Task Orientation. The dominance dimension captures the dis-
tinction between behavior that is dominant versus submissive, active versus
passive, or seeking control versus deference. The sociability dimension cap-
tures the distinction between behavior that is sociable, friendly, and agreeable
versus behavior that is withdrawn, unfriendly, and aloof. The task orientation
dimension captures the distinction between behavior that is oriented toward
the solution of task problems versus behavior that shirks or evades task respon-
sibilities. Table 1 presents behavioral descriptors for these dimensions.
We present a three-dimensional model (termed TRIAD [Tracking Roles In
and Across Domains]) that comprises the dimensions of Dominance (high
dominance vs. low dominance), Sociability (high sociability vs. low sociabil-
ity), and Task Orientation (high task orientation vs. low task orientation).
Figure 1 presents a three-dimensional representation of the TRIAD model.
The horizontal (left to right) axis represents low versus high Task Orientation,
the vertical (down to up) axis represents low versus high Sociability, and the
third axis coming out from back to front represents low versus high
Dominance. The assumption is that any role can be mapped onto this
8 Small Group Research 00(0)

Figure 1.  The TRIAD model.

Note. TRIAD = tracking roles in and across domains.

three-dimensional space. For example, we may expect that the Team Leader
role would occupy a high Dominance, moderate Sociability, high Task
Orientation space.

The Present Study

We believe that this model can be useful in several ways. First, it represents
a seeming consensus on three primary behavioral dimensions that underlie
team task behavior. Second, it provides a means by which to map team roles
in order to determine core roles that occupy a similar conceptual space. In
pursuit of this second goal, we developed a rating scale designed to tap each
of the three dimensions of the TRIAD model. We utilized this scale to rate
each of the 154 role descriptors identified by Gregory et al. (2015).1 Cluster
analysis is then used to determine the extent to which certain roles cluster in
adjacent spaces in order to identify primary or core role categories.

Method
Cluster analysis is logically appropriate for suggesting underlying structures
in data. We can take as an operating hypothesis that among the 154 distinct
roles that have been drawn from the research literature, there are some roles
that are similar to one another and which form a distinct subset, and that there
are other roles that group together to form a subset unique from the first, and
so on. That is, we assume that there is an underlying structure within the data
Driskell et al. 9

that may be informative in terms of understanding the data. In the present

case, the 154 roles can be sorted by similarity on the TRIAD dimensions of
Dominance, Sociability, and Task Orientation. In performing a cluster analy-
sis, the purpose is to join together objects into successively larger clusters
according to their similarity, such that the clusters have maximum internal
homogeneity and maximum between-cluster heterogeneity (Bortz, 2005). Or,
as described by Bailey (1975), cluster analysis attempts to divide a set of
objects into a smaller number of relatively homogeneous groups on the basis
of their similarity over N variables. That is, cluster analysis is a means to
draw boundaries in multidimensional space such that objects are grouped by
their similarity on all variables considered simultaneously. Once significant
clusters have been identified, this emergent structure may suggest an entirely
new way of approaching the data. This approach has been applied in a variety
of domains, including medical research (e.g., Moore et al., 2010), marketing
research (Punj & Stewart, 1983), and psychological research (e.g., Kivlighan
& Tibbits, 2012). For example, Meyer and Glenz (2013) describe a cluster-
analysis-based faultline measure to quantify the subgroup structure of work
teams.

Procedure.  Two raters (doctoral-level researchers) independently rated each

of the 154 role descriptions on the dimensions of dominance, sociability, and
task orientation. The rating scale included three items describing each of
these three dimensions. These items were chosen based on concurrence with
Bales (2001), Couch (1960), and Couch and Carter (1952). Specifically,
dominance was assessed by the following bipolar items: takes a leading role–
takes a supporting role, directs activities–follows direction, and dominant
behavior–passive behavior. Sociability was assessed by the following bipolar
items: friendly–unfriendly, warm–cold, and interested in others–aloof.
Finally, task orientation was assessed by the following bipolar items: hard-
working–work-shy, focused on task–unfocused, and conscientious–careless.
Each of the 154 role descriptions, from Gregory et al. (2015), was derived
from the original source documents, similar to the following:

Encourager. Praises, agrees with and accepts the contribution of others. He

indicates warmth and solidarity in his attitude toward other group members,
offers commendation and praise and in various ways indicates understanding
and acceptance of other points of view, ideas and suggestions. (Benne &
Sheats, 1948)

Ratings were completed on a 7-point Likert-type scale. After scoring was

completed, the scale was transformed from a range of 1 to 7 to a range of (−3)
10 Small Group Research 00(0)

to (+3). This was done so that, for each item (such as dominance, for exam-
ple), zero would then represent the midpoint of the scale, +3 would represent
high dominance, and −3 would represent low dominance. This also allows
scores to be more easily represented in a three-dimensional plane.
Interrater agreement was assessed by ICC(2) scores. Overall agreement
was high with all items scoring over .85. Subsequently, the ratings of the two-
raters were averaged to compute a single score for the nine total items. To
obtain a single score for each facet, the three items representing each facet
were averaged, thus creating an overall score for dominance, sociability, and
task orientation. Cronbach’s alpha was used as justification for data aggrega-
tion. Alphas for dominance, sociability, and task orientation were .99, .99,
and .99, respectively.

Results
First, we performed a hierarchical cluster analysis on the 154 roles extracted
from the literature. Overall ratings for dominance, sociability, and task orien-
tation were used as input variables in the analysis. The analysis using Ward’s
method produced 13 clusters. The resultant dendrogram is represented in tabu-
lar form in Table 2. Table 2 shows the 13 clusters and the specific roles (i.e.,
the titles of the roles from the original sources) that comprise each cluster.
The hierarchical cluster analysis was supplemented by a two-step cluster
analysis. Analogous to the hierarchical analysis, a 13-cluster solution pro-
vided the best fit for the data. The output from this analysis is provided in
Table 3. Table 3 shows the rated levels of task orientation, sociability, and
dominance for each cluster. These data points provide the necessary coordi-
nates to map each cluster in a three-dimensional plane (see Figure 2). In this
three-dimensional space, the midpoint of each dimension is zero, and the
high end of the dimension is represented as +3, with the low end represented
as −3. Thus, as shown in Figure 2, Cluster 5 is situated at the low end of the
Task Orientation dimension (−2.46), and at the approximate midpoints of the
Social dimension (0.00) and the Dominance dimension (0.50). For purposes
of interpretation, we have chosen 2 to 3 to represent high scores on the scale,
0.75 to 1.9 to represent moderately high scores, 0.74 to −0.74 to represent
average scores, −0.75 to −1.9 to represent moderately low scores, and −2 to
−3 to represent low scores. Table 4 provides a summary description of each
of the 13 role clusters.
The naming or labeling of clusters is a subjective process, similar to nam-
ing a factor in a factor analysis (see Kivlighan & Arseneau, 2009). However,
representative names were selected for each cluster based on (a) the original
labeling of the roles that comprise each cluster and (b) consideration of the
 Table 2.  Role Clusters and Corresponding Role Descriptors.
Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 5 Cluster 10 Cluster 12 Cluster 13
Cluster 1 Task Power Cluster 4 Attention Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Cluster 8 Cluster 9 Teamwork Cluster 11 Problem Task
Team leader motivator seeker Critic seeker Negative Social Coordinator Follower support Evaluator solver completer

Chairman Gives Ineffective People diagnoser Concealer Blocker People Conciliator Listener Information Ineffective Orienter Collaborator
orientation Supporter supporter seeker collaborator
Information Manipulative/ Squelcher Flaw-finder Eager Shows Ineffective Model Gatekeeper Summarizer Naysayer Opinion Proceduralist
giver persuasive beaver tension challenger member seeker
Explainer Challenger Dominator Nonconformist Playboy/ Pessimist Mediator Coordinator Conformist Conciliator Evaluator Opinion giver Elaborator
playgirl
Flight- Talker Challenger Social pleader Self- Debunker Tension- Gate-keeper/ Follower Mediator Monitor- Information/ Mechanical/
operations confessor reliever expediter evaluator opinion technical
seeker
Standard Recognition Aggressive Brilliant one Help-seeker Bored one Social Social Follower Ineffective Controller- Information/ Intellectual/
setter/ego seeker One leadership knowledge inspector opinion analytic
ideal contributor giver
Organizer Motivator Shaper Emotional one Wannabe Silent one Personnel- Explorer- Assessor- Recorder Idea Logical/precision
support promoter developer generator
Leader Energizer Aggressor Suspicious one Spoiler Encourager Team Communicator Environmental- Gatekeeper Scientific
worker support investigative
Envisioning Recognition Dominator Blocker Coat-tails Harmonizer Consul Cooperator Procedural Imaginative/ Production
leadership seeker technician aesthetic
Organizing Special interest Defiant Plant Resource Agrees Recorder Evaluator- Contributor
leadership pleader Leader investigator critic
Spanning Energizer Playboy Helper of Group-observer/ Compromiser Completer-
leadership others commentator finisher
Thruster- Challenger Creator-innovator Upholder- Questioner Clarifier Knowledge
organizer maintainer contributor
Concluder- Calibrator Scapegoat leader Linker Factual Idea creator  
producer contributor
Task leader Gives Disagrees Emotional Agreeable Critical tester  
suggestion leader enabler
Contractor Shows Communicator Supportive Critic  
antagonism worker

11
(continued)
12
Table 2.  (continued)
Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 5 Cluster 10 Cluster 12 Cluster 13
Cluster 1 Task Power Cluster 4 Attention Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Cluster 8 Cluster 9 Teamwork Cluster 11 Problem Task
Team leader motivator seeker Critic seeker Negative Social Coordinator Follower support Evaluator solver completer

Contributor Shows solidarity Company worker Coordinator  

Initiator- Shows tension Reporter-adviser Gives opinion  
contributor release
Creator Completer Asks for  
orientation
  Process observer Asks for  
opinion
  Collaborator Asks for  
suggestion
 Table 3.  Two-Step Cluster Analysis Results.

1 2 3 5 10 12 13
Team Task Power 4 Attention 6 7 8 9 Teamwork 11 Problem Task
Cluster leader motivator seeker Critic seeker Negative Social Coordinator Follower support Evaluator solver completer

Task 2.58 0.64 −0.43 −0.92 −2.46 −2.75 −0.03 1.69 0.56 2.24 2.30 1.28 2.64
Soc 0.04 −0.04 −2.43 −1.31 0.00 −2.22 2.84 2.15 1.24 0.11 −2.23 0.02 −0.08
Dom 2.35 1.96 2.13 −0.30 0.50 −2.22 −0.45 0.56 −2.39 −2.15 −0.10 −0.25 −0.56

Note. Task = task orientation; Soc = sociability; Dom = dominance.

13
14
Table 4.  Summary Role Clusters.
2 3 10 13
1 Task Power 4 5 6 7 8 9 Teamwork 11 12 Task
Cluster Team leader motivator seeker Critic Attention seeker Negative Social Coordinator Follower support Evaluator Problem solver completer

Description Directs, Acts as a Seeks Adopts a Seeks attention Displays Contributes Coordinates Embraces Supports Inspects Involved in Performs
organizes, and second in power critical, and resources negative to group task activities followership team task and generation detail-
leads the team command and fault- but does little affective harmony and within the activities of accompli- evaluates of ideas, oriented,
toward task or task recogni- finding, work behavior maintenance team and listening, shment team problem routine
accomplish- manager tion or devil’s of inter- with those agreeing, outputs solving. activities
ment to through advocate personal outside the and related to
stimulate domin- role relations team cooperating complet-
the group ance ing the
to action task
Location
 Task High Average Average Moderately Low Low Average Moderately Average High High Moderately High
Orientation low high high
 Sociability Average Average Low Moderately Average Low High High Moderately Average Low Average Average
low high
 Dominance High Moderately High Average Average Low Average Average Low Low Average Average Average
high
 Behaviors Guides, brings Prods the Asserts Disagrees, Seeks attention Shows Relieves Facilitates team Participates in Pitches in to Analyses Asks for Adheres to
order, group to authority shows without tension, tension, functions, discussions, achieve and information, proced-
convenes action, or super- cynicism, responsibility, with- mediates coordinates listens to team goals, evaluates offers facts ures and
the group, stimulates iority, judges seeks draws, disagree- activities, others’ implements propos- and opinion, deadlines,
structures the group, interrupts others sympathy, com- ments, facilitates ideas, plans, sums als, clarifies detail-
the task, energizes and expresses plains praises participation conforms to up and focuses inconsis- oriented
commands and the group belittles personal others, tasks, seeks clarifies, on facts tencies, and
organizes others, views shows cooperation records team and offers orderly
seeks warmth activities figures solutions
power
Driskell et al. 15

Figure 2.  Three dimensional scatterplot of the 13 role clusters.

Note. SOC = sociability; TASK = task orientation; DOM = dominance.

themes and behavioral descriptors that described the original roles. The 13
derived role clusters include the following.

Cluster 1: Team Leader

Cluster 1 is characterized by high task orientation (2.58), average sociabil-
ity (0.04), and high dominance (2.35). We define Cluster 1 as comprising
the Team Leader role. This cluster is primarily defined by roles identified
as leader, chairman, task leader, and organizing leadership. Descriptive
behaviors (drawn from the role descriptions in the original team task role
taxonomies) that define this role cluster include guiding and controlling,
facilitates activities, brings order, convenes the group and acts as guide to
task accomplishment, structures the task, organizes and coordinates, and
commands.

Cluster 2: Task Motivator

Cluster 2 is characterized by average task orientation (0.64), average socia-
bility (−0.04), and moderately high dominance (1.96). We define Cluster 2 as
comprising the Task Motivator role. This cluster is defined by roles identified
as energizer, challenger, motivator, and manipulative/persuasive. We view
this cluster as representing a 2nd in command or task manager role that
16 Small Group Research 00(0)

supports the team leader. Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster
include prods the group to action, stimulates the group to keep going, encour-
ages the team, and energizes the team.

Cluster 3: Power Seeker

Cluster 3 is characterized by average task orientation (−0.43), low sociability
(−2.43), and high dominance (2.13). We define Cluster 3 as comprising the
Power Seeker role. This cluster is defined by roles identified as dominator,
aggressor, and defiant leader. We view this cluster as representing a domineer-
ing or autocratic role that may have negative consequences for the team.
Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster include asserts authority or
superiority, interrupts the contributions of others, belittles team members,
attempts to seize control, opposes the leader, and is aggressive toward others.

Cluster 4: Critic
Cluster 4 is characterized by moderately low task orientation (−0.92), moder-
ately low sociability (−1.31), and average dominance (−0.30). We define
Cluster 4 as comprising the Critic role. This cluster is defined by roles identi-
fied as disagrees, shows antagonism, flaw-finder, and blocker. We view this
cluster as representing a critical, fault-finding, or devil’s advocate type of
role. Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster include negativistic
and stubborn, disagrees and opposes, shows cynicism, judges others, tends to
go against the rest of the group, and may make others defensive. Note that the
devil’s advocate role can be useful in decision making, but tends to be a nega-
tively evaluated role.

Cluster 5: Attention Seeker

Cluster 5 is characterized by low task orientation (−2.46), average sociability
(0.00), and average dominance (0.50). We define Cluster 5 as comprising the
Attention Seeker role. This cluster is defined by roles identified as spoiler,
coat-tails, concealer, and wannabe. We view this cluster as representing a
primarily negative role in which the incumbent seeks attention from the
group but shirks actual taskwork. Descriptive behaviors that define this role
cluster include uses team to express personal views, seeks attention without
responsibility, seeks attention and sympathy from group, expects others to do
work, withholds information until it is personally advantageous, and leaves
serious thinking to others.
Driskell et al. 17

Cluster 6: Negative
Cluster 6 is characterized by low task orientation (−2.75), low sociability
(−2.22), and low dominance (−2.22). We define Cluster 6 as comprising the
Negative role. This cluster is defined by roles identified as shows tension,
pessimist, bored one, and silent one. We view this cluster as representing
negative affective behavior. Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster
include shows tension, withdraws, has nothing to contribute, possesses a
“can’t do” attitude, gripes and complains, erodes team spirit, and views effort
as a waste of time.

Cluster 7: Social
Cluster 7 is characterized by average task orientation (−0.03), high sociabil-
ity (2.84), and average dominance (−0.45). We define Cluster 7 as compris-
ing the Social role. This cluster is defined by roles identified as harmonizer,
helper of others, emotional leader, people supporter, and encourager. We
view this cluster as representing positive social behavior, or behavior that
contributes to group harmony and maintenance of socioemotional relations.
Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster include relieves tension and
jokes, mediates disagreements, praises others, shows warmth and solidarity,
promotes group cohesiveness, supportive of others, and maintains morale.

Cluster 8: Coordinator
Cluster 8 is characterized by moderately high task orientation (1.69), high
sociability (2.15), and average dominance (0.56). We define Cluster 8 as
comprising the Coordinator role. This cluster is defined by roles identified as
coordinator, team worker, conciliator, gatekeeper, and consul. We view this
cluster as representing coordinating task activities within the team and with
those outside of the team. Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster
include facilitates team functions, coordinates activities of team members of
subgroups, clarifies task relationships, keeps communication channels open,
facilitates participation of others, and promotes ideas to others inside and
outside the team.

Cluster 9: Follower
Cluster 9 is characterized by average task orientation (0.56), moderately high
sociability (1.24), and low dominance (−2.39). We define Cluster 9 as com-
prising the Follower role. This cluster is defined by roles identified
18 Small Group Research 00(0)

as follower, cooperator, agrees, listener, and communicator. We view this

cluster as primarily comprised of taskwork behaviors of listening, agreeing,
and cooperating. The Follower role is generally viewed as reciprocal to the
Leader role. Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster include partici-
pates in group discussion and decisions, builds on others’ ideas, effective
listener and facilitator, conforms to assignments, seeks cooperation, and
avoids disagreements.

Cluster 10: Teamwork Support

Cluster 10 is characterized by high task orientation (2.24), average sociability
(0.11), and low dominance (−2.15). We define Cluster 10 as comprising the
Teamwork Support role. This cluster is defined by roles identified as support-
ive worker, summarizer, recorder, process observer, company worker, and
completer. We view this cluster as comprising behaviors that support team
task accomplishment. Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster
include implements plans, does things for the group, makes records of group
processes and output, takes initiative to ensure group’s success, puts informa-
tion together, prepares for team meetings, sums up and clarifies, and pitches
in to achieve team goals.

Cluster 11: Evaluator

Cluster 11 is characterized by high task orientation (2.30), low sociability
(−2.23), and average dominance (−0.10). We define Cluster 11 as comprising
the Evaluator role. This cluster is defined by roles identified as monitor-eval-
uator, controller-inspector, and evaluator. We view this cluster as comprising
behaviors related to inspection and evaluation. Descriptive behaviors that
define this role cluster include analyzes and evaluates proposals, is careful
and meticulous, and focused on facts and figures of the task.

Cluster 12: Problem Solver

Cluster 12 is characterized by moderately high task orientation (1.28), aver-
age sociability (0.02), and average dominance (−0.25). We define Cluster 12
as comprising the Problem Solver role. This cluster is defined by roles identi-
fied as opinion seeker, opinion giver, clarifier, idea creator, information
seeker, information giver, and critical tester. We view this cluster as com-
prised of behaviors related to idea production and evaluation, problem solv-
ing, and decision making. Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster
include orients the group to the task; asks for opinion; asks for information;
Driskell et al. 19

asks for clarification; offers facts, information, and opinions; points out
inconsistencies and clarifies them; synthesizes new ideas and comes up with
solutions; and repeats, clarifies, and confirms.

Cluster 13: Task Completer

Cluster 13 is characterized by high task orientation (2.64), average sociability
(−0.08), and average dominance (−0.56). We define Cluster 13 as comprising
the Task Completer role. This cluster is defined by roles identified as com-
pleter-finisher, proceduralist, logical/precision, and production. We view this
cluster as representing detail-oriented, routine behaviors oriented to comple-
tion of the task. Descriptive behaviors that define this role cluster include
focused on details and deadlines, conscientious and orderly, adheres to respon-
sibilities, focused on procedures, and performs explicit and routine tasks.

Discussion
This analysis integrates previous taxonomies within the team roles literature,
provides further insight into the nature and structure of team roles, and pro-
vides some new directions for role research. Moreover, the role clusters identi-
fied resonate to the original roles literature. Consistent with the early work of
Bales and colleagues (Bales, 1950; Bales & Slater, 1955), we capture the two
primary roles of task leader (team leader role) and socioemotional leader
(social role). Consistent with Benne and Sheats (1948), we capture the roles of
energizer (task motivator role) and coordinator (coordinator role). Consistent
with Belbin (1981, 1993), we capture the roles of completer-finisher (task
completer role) and opinion giver (problem solver role). Furthermore, this
classification captures both positive team roles as well as potentially negative
team roles (power seeker, critic, attention seeker, and negative roles).
It is useful to discuss the relationship between team roles and team com-
position models. Team composition models describe how factors such as
team roles may be configured to optimize team composition and, subse-
quently, team effectiveness. For example, Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach,
and Alliger (2014) have presented an overview of four types of team compo-
sition models, offering different perspectives on how roles may affect team
effectiveness. The first type of team composition model is a traditional per-
sonnel-position fit model that emphasizes the particular set of individual
knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) that contribute
to successful performance in a specific position or role. The second type is a
personnel model with teamwork considerations model that emphasizes team-
generic competencies such as collective orientation (Driskell, Salas, &
20 Small Group Research 00(0)

Hughes, 2010). The third type is a team profile model that considers team
member’s KSAOs collectively in terms of how they are distributed in the
team. The fourth type of team composition model is a relative contribution
model that examines the relative or disproportional impact that some charac-
teristics may have on team effectiveness, such as a negative or overly critical
team member (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006).
Furthermore, Mathieu et al. (2014) propose that team composition can be
more comprehensively examined by integrating these different team composi-
tion approaches. They provide the example in the context of replacing a team
member. In this case, the examination of position-specific KSAOs would be
consistent with a traditional person-fit model. The further examination of
teamwork-oriented KSAOs would be consistent with a personnel with team-
work considerations model. The impact of the KSAOs of the team member
replacement in terms of the distribution of KSAOs across the team would be
consistent with a team profile model. Finally, the relative impact of the spe-
cific KSAOs subtracted and added to the team and the interrelationship with
specific team roles would be consistent with a relative contribution model.
Moreover, this organizing framework suggests that we can examine the
impact of team roles on team effectiveness in a similar manner. From a per-
son-position fit perspective, we would focus on the individual team member
and how he or she would fill specific roles to support team effectiveness. For
example, we have proposed that the team leader role is comprised of behav-
iors related to high task orientation, average sociability, and high dominance.
KSAOs related to this role may include comprehensive knowledge of the
task, skills such as organizing and directing team members, as well as other
characteristics such as initiative. Generally, a person who possesses these
characteristics should be more adept at meeting team leader role demands.
Adopting a personnel model with teamwork considerations perspective,
we would further examine the contributions of team competencies such as
performance monitoring (Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe,
1995) or teamwork knowledge (Stevens & Campion, 1994). Although these
types of team-generic skills are viewed as valuable for any team setting, we
would propose that some team roles such as the social role may place a higher
value on a competency such as interpersonal relations; whereas, another team
role such as coordinator would place a higher value on a competency such as
coordination.
A team profile perspective leads us to examine how team member’s char-
acteristics collectively fit team requirements. For example, we would pro-
pose that effective teams require a balance within the three-dimensional
space shown in Figure 2. That is, too much activity located in the leftmost
dimension of the three-dimensional model reflects a team that is not task
Driskell et al. 21

oriented, whereas too little activity in the uppermost dimension of the model
suggests that team maintenance functions may be compromised. (Although it
is difficult to represent on the printed page, the 3-D scattergram illustrated in
Figure 2 can be rotated for visualization on each of its three axes.) An optimal
team profile would involve team members enacting role activity that spreads
over the high task orientation, high dominance, and high sociability spaces.
On the other hand, we may consider that a team profile in which multiple
team members attempt to perform the same role may impair team effective-
ness. Too many people performing a single role may be not only redundant
but lead to inefficiencies and conflict. Dynes (1986) noted that, under emer-
gency conditions, you may have more people trying to assume relevant roles
than there are relevant roles to fill. Furthermore, in an examination of group
performance in polar winter-overs, Johnson, Boster, and Palinkas (2003)
found that role collision may occur when multiple individuals in a group
attempt to perform roles which overlap.
Finally, a relative contribution perspective allows us to examine whether
some roles may be more influential than others. For example, Mann (1961)
and others have suggested that for teams performing a task that is primarily
social, interpersonal, or emotionally nuanced, team maintenance activities
may be more relevant; whereas, for teams performing a primarily instrumen-
tal task, task-oriented activities may be more relevant. Or, we may examine
the interplay among roles. For example, the social role may be disproportion-
ally important in a situation in which the task leader is especially dominant.
Team roles that are negatively valenced (in the leftmost space in Figure 2)
such as the critic, attention seeker, or negative roles may disproportionally
affect team effectiveness in that negative emotionality can be contagious and
spread throughout the team (Barsade, 2002).
In brief, the team composition models described by Mathieu et al. (2014)
provide a perspective for examining the various ways in which team roles
may affect team effectiveness. Whereas traditional person-fit models have
been adopted to study team roles (Burke et al., 2017), team profile perspec-
tives can suggest more complex analyses of how various roles may supple-
ment or complement one another.

Research Implications
There are several implications for further research that can be drawn from the
present study. Foremost, research is needed to empirically test and instantiate
the model presented. First, can an independent set of raters obtain similar
results to that of the expert raters in the present study? Second, can observers
use the model presented in situ to distinguish among role behaviors in
22 Small Group Research 00(0)

real-world groups? Third, we offer suggestions for the use of this model for
examining personality-role fit, the impact of contextual factors such time or
temporal dynamics, and effects of the type of task on team role requirements.
Early in the past century, Linton (1936, p. 476) observed that “It is vitally
necessary for the functioning of society that the personalities of its members
be at least superficially adapted to their statuses” (or roles). Research on per-
sonality-role fit is still sparse (DeRue & Morgeson, 2007). Personality-role
fit refers to the compatibility between a team member’s personality charac-
teristics and his or her role within the team. In terms of personality/role fit,
we can imagine that those role clusters that are located in the high social
space in Figure 2 (Cluster 7, Social; Cluster 8, Coordinator; Cluster 9,
Follower; and Cluster 10, Teamwork Support) would all have a strong link to
the big five extraversion or sociability personality dimensions. That is, a per-
son scoring low on trait sociability is probably ill-suited to roles that fall
within the upper zone of this three-dimensional space.
In fact, we may hypothesize linkages between personality and each of the
broad TRIAD dimensions (see Driskell, Goodwin, Salas, & O’Shea, 2006;
Stewart et al., 2005). For example, dominance may be predicted by the big
five factor of extraversion (particularly the subfacets of dominance and ambi-
tion). Sociability may be predicted by the factors of agreeableness and low
neuroticism, and cognate subfacets of sociability, warmth, and expressive-
ness. Task orientation may be predicted by the factor of conscientiousness
and cognate subfacets of achievement-orientation and dependability.
Empirical research is needed to examine these relationships.
Further research can utilize this model to examine role performance under
various contexts or conditions. Note that there are no preferential spaces per se
in the three-dimensional model—that is, a role that enacts low task orienta-
tion, low sociability, and high dominance (i.e., the power seeker role) may not
be highly functional or supportive of team effectiveness under normal task
conditions, but may perhaps be more functional under emergency conditions
when authority needs to be asserted. Furthermore, a specific role, such as com-
pleter, may be more or less functional over time, such that the role may be
prominent at Time A, but less so at Time B. In brief, teams and team roles are
dynamic. Team performance conditions may change over time, team members
may change over time, and the task itself may require different types of activi-
ties as it evolves over time. In fact, the importance of examining how some
roles become more relevant or less relevant over time has been noted by Mann
(1961) and others but remains an underresearched area of group dynamics.
As Driskell and Salas (2013) have noted, “it is important to note that
almost any overall statement regarding teams must be qualified by factors
such as the type of task” (p. 745). Holland (1966) has presented a RIASEC
Driskell et al. 23

classification of task environments based on the activities that describe each

category, including realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and
conventional tasks (see also Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987). The visualiza-
tion of role dimensions in the TRIAD model presented in Figure 2 suggests
potential linkages between roles and types of task environments. For exam-
ple, realistic tasks are production tasks that typically involve little interaction
with others but may require the production and completion of activities.
Realistic tasks may be most dependent on effective role enactment in the low
dominance, low sociability, high task orientation space (i.e., problem solver,
completer). Social tasks require personal interaction with others and may
involve assisting or supporting other team members and behaviors related to
maintaining team harmony. Social tasks may be most dependent on effective
role enactment in the low dominance, high sociability, average task orienta-
tion space (i.e., social, coordinator). Further research is needed to elaborate
and test these assumptions.

Applications
The examination of team role is relevant to various types of applied organiza-
tional activities, including the selection of team members, the removal of team
members, and the replacement of team members (see Mathieu et al., 2014). In
selecting team members, one should be cognizant of the type of team, the type
of task, the type of roles to be filled, and the characteristics (KSAOs) of those
who may potentially fill those roles. In general, the optimal strategy is to select
the individuals that have the optimal KSAOs to match specific team roles,
although there are certainly elaborations on this rule. For example, for a small
team (two to three members) it may be advantageous to select generalists (that
have moderate levels of task orientation, dominance, and sociability) who
would be able to fulfill an idealized team role. Larger teams would provide the
affordance to select more specialists, that is, persons who could fill separate
task leader, social, problem solver, and other roles. Caution should be exer-
cised in selecting too many high dominance task leaders or too many highly
sociable members. At least one person fulfilling these roles may be ideal, but
there may be diminishing returns with multiple team members attempting to
lead or multiple team members engaging in social activity.
Our model suggests that the removal of some negative team roles may be
beneficial to the team. For example, the power seeker role is characterized by
very high dominant behavior and very low social behavior, which may repre-
sent an overbearing team member with little concern for others. The attention
seeker and negative roles are characterized by very low task orientation, which
suggests that persons fulfilling these roles contribute little to overall team goals.
24 Small Group Research 00(0)

In replacing team members because of turnover or attrition, the TRIAD

model provides a means to examine role balance in the team. The 3-D repre-
sentation of the 13 role clusters within the TRIAD conceptual space (Figure
2) provides insight into the topography of role performance. For example, the
examination of Figure 2 reveals that some role clusters are relatively close in
distance. Thus, we see that Cluster 10 (teamwork support) and Cluster 12
(problem solver) are close and thus somewhat related (suggesting, for exam-
ple, that these roles could perhaps be performed by a single person). Figure 2
also provides insight on what role clusters are dissimilar and spatially distant.
Thus, Cluster 7 (social) and Cluster 11 (evaluator) are spatially separated
(and suggests that these two roles are more disparate and would be more dif-
ficult to perform by a single person). Furthermore, in terms of role shifts or
role replacement, this model also provides potentially useful insight on how
to replace or change a specific role incumbent (e.g., ideally, with the role
incumbent that is spatially nearest to that location or cluster).
Team training interventions may also serve to support effective role per-
formance. For example, cross-training of team members may enhance team
member’s understanding of their own and other team members’ roles
(Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998; Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002).
Ellis, Bell, Ployhart, Hollenbeck, and Ilgen (2005) found that generic team-
work skills training enhanced overall team performance, and that this training
was more valuable for some roles than others. Other team training interven-
tions that may support effective role performance include team building
interventions (Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999) and facilitating
knowledge building across team members (Rentsch, Delise, Salas, & Letsky,
2010).
One further applied research task is to identify the competencies, or
KSAOs that underlie effective role performance for a given task. For exam-
ple, the leader role requires both task-specific taskwork skills as well as role-
relevant teamwork skills. That is, an effective leader possesses skills that are
relevant to the specific task at hand (taskwork skills) as well as skills that are
required to support effective teamwork (teamwork skills; Morgan, Glickman,
Woodard, Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986; Stevens & Campion, 1994). In the model
presented, we have tended to emphasize teamwork skills that are relevant
across tasks. For example, leader role activities include organizing, explain-
ing, giving information, and leadership behaviors (Figure 2). These types of
teamwork behaviors can be trained generically. However, taskwork compe-
tencies (such as knowledge of the task requirements) are tied to the specific
task. In an applied setting, it is necessary to define both the taskwork compe-
tencies as well as the teamwork competencies that are required to perform a
given role.
Driskell et al. 25

Conclusion
The present research is an attempt to integrate a large and disparate number
of team role descriptions within the research literature and derive a smaller,
core set of team roles, using a cluster analytic approach. To accomplish this
task, we first proposed a model that describes three primary behavioral
dimensions that underlie team role behavior: (a) dominance, (b) sociability,
and (c) task orientation. We use this three-dimensional model to map team
roles in order to determine “core” roles that occupy a similar conceptual
space. We believe that the value of this approach is twofold. First, we have
attempted to reduce as complex data set into a smaller, homogeneous set of
categories that represent a theoretically based and quantitatively derived set
of 13 core team roles. We believe the resultant team role classification pro-
vides a reasonable approximation of the nature and structure of team roles.
Second, the TRIAD roles model presented suggests a number of potentially
valuable, yet untested, avenues to examine the linkage between role perfor-
mance and different types of team tasks, team member personality, and team
performance over time. Although, at this point, these links are only specula-
tive, we believe that further research will yield greater insight into team role
structure and performance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by funding
from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NNX09AK48G) and
the National Science Biomedical Research Institute (NCC-9-58-401/NBPF03402).

Note
1. We eliminated 10 roles from the original list of 164 roles aggregated by Gregory
et al. (2015) because they were viewed as irrelevant (e.g., programmer).

References
Bailey, K. D. (1975). Cluster analysis. In D. L. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology
(pp. 59-128). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.2307/270894.
Bales, R. F. (1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction.
American Sociological Review, 15, 257-263. doi:10.2307/2086790
26 Small Group Research 00(0)

Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Bales, R. F. (2001). Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-making
groups. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization and interaction
process (pp. 259-306). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675. doi:10.2307/3094912
Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2002). Role ambiguity,
role efficacy, and role performance: Multidimensional and mediational relation-
ships within interdependent sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 6, 229-242. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.3.229
Beck, A. P., Eng, A. M., & Brusa, J. A. (1989). The evolution of leadership during
group development. Group, 13, 155-164. doi:10.1007/BF01473148
Beehr, T. A. (1976). Perceived situational moderators of the relationship between
subjective role ambiguity and role strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 35-
40. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.61.1.35
Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams. Why they succeed or fail. London, England:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of
Social Issues, 4, 41-49. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent development in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology,
12, 67-92. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Borgatta, E. F. (1963). A new systematic interaction observation system: Behavior
scores system (BSs System). Journal of Psychological Studies, 14, 24-44.
Bortz, J. (2005). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Statistics for the
human and social sciences] (6th ed.). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Burke, C. S., Driskell, J. E., Howell, R., Marlow, S., Driskell, T., & Salas, E. (2017,
January). Team roles revisited. Presented at the 2017 Human Research Program
Investigators Workshop (NASA), Galveston, TX.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Team performance and training in com-
plex environments: Recent findings from applied research. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 7, 83-87. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10773005
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining
team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo
& E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations
(pp. 333-380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carter, L. F. (1954). Evaluating the performance of individuals as members of small
groups. Personnel Psychology, 7, 477-484. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1954.
tb01049.x
Carter, L. F. (1962). Recording and evaluating the performance of individuals as
members of small groups. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta & R. F. Bales (Eds.),
Small groups: Studies in social interaction (pp. 492-497). New York, NY: Knopf.
Driskell et al. 27

Couch, A. S. (1960). Psychological determinants of interpersonal behavior (Doctoral

dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Couch, A. S., & Carter, L. F. (1952, March). A factorial study of the rated behavior
of group members. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological
Association, Atlantic City, NJ.
DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and per-
son-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general
self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1242-1253. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.92.5.1242
Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good
team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics, 10, 249-271.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249
Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance.
In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group process and intergroup relations (pp. 91-112).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (2013). Personality and work teams. In N. D. Christiansen
& R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 744-771). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Hughes, S. (2010). Collective orientation and team perfor-
mance: Development of an individual differences measure. Human Factors, 52,
16-328. doi:10.1177/0018720809359522
Dulewicz, V. (1995). A validation of Belbin’s team roles from 16PF and OPQ using
bosses’ ratings of competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 68, 81-99. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1995.tb00574.x
Dynes, R. R. (1986). The concept of role in disaster research. Newark: Disaster
Research Center, University of Delaware.
Ellis, A. P., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (2005).
An evaluation of generic teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects
on cognitive and skill-based outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 641-672.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00617.x
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples
spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175-222. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cog-
nition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
Freedman, A. M. (1996). The values and legacy of the founders of NTL: An inter-
view with Ken Benne. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 332-344.
doi:10.1177/0021886396323007
Gregory, M., Shimono, M., Burke, S., & Salas, E. (2015). Development of a litera-
ture-driven, integrative team role taxonomy. Unpublished manuscript.
Hare, A. P. (1972). Four dimensions of interpersonal behavior. Psychological Reports,
30, 499-512. doi:10.2466/pr0.1972.30.2.499
Heimer, K., & Matsueda, R. L. (1994). Role-taking, role commitment, and delin-
quency: A theory of differential social control. American Sociological Review,
59, 365-390. doi:10.2307/2095939
28 Small Group Research 00(0)

Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.

Johnson, J. C., Boster, J. S., & Palinkas, L. A. (2003). Social roles and the evolu-
tion of networks in extreme and isolated environments. Journal of Mathematical
Sociology, 27, 89-121. doi:10.1080/00222500305890
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY:
John Wiley.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Arseneau, J. R. (2009). A typology of critical incidents in
intergroup dialogue groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
13, 89-102. doi:10.1037/a0014757
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Tibbits, B. M. (2012). Silence is mean and other misconcep-
tions of group counseling trainees: Identifying errors of commission and omis-
sion in trainees’ knowledge structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 16, 14-34. doi:10.1037/a0026558
Kreps, G. A., & Bosworth, S. L. (1993). Disaster, organizing, and role enact-
ment: A structural approach. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 428-463.
doi:10.1086/230270
Linton, R. (1936). The study of man: An introduction. New York, NY: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Mann, R. D. (1961). Dimensions of individual performance in small groups under task
and social-emotional conditions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
62, 674-682. doi:10.1037/h0041180
Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of
cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3-13.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.3
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014).
A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a
dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130-160.
doi:10.1177/0149206313503014
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., &
Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experience and orientation: A measure and
tests of construct validity. Group & Organization Management, 40, 6-34.
doi:10.1177/1368430201004002005
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Meyer, B., & Glenz, A. (2013). Team faultline measures a computational comparison
and a new approach to multiple subgroups. Organizational Research Methods,
16, 393-424. doi:10.1177/1094428113484970
Moore, W. C., Meyers, D. A., Wenzel, S. E., Teague, W. G., Li, H., Li, X., . . .
Bleecker, E. R. (2010). Identification of asthma phenotypes using cluster analy-
sis in the severe asthma research program. American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine, 181, 315-323. doi:10.1164/rccm.200906-0896OC
Moreno, J. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human
interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease.
Driskell et al. 29

Morgan, B. B., Jr., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E.
(1986). Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment (NTSC Tech.
Rep. No. 86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
Moxnes, P. (1999). Understanding roles: A psychodynamic model for role differen-
tiation in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 99-113.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.3.2.99
Mudrack, P. E., & Farrell, G. M. (1995). An examination of functional role behavior
and its consequences for individuals in group settings. Small Group Research,
26, 542-571. doi:10.1177/1046496495264005
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2006). Situational judgment
in work teams: A team role typology. In J. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.),
Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, & application (pp. 319-343).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mumford, T. V., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2008). The
team role test: Development and validation of a team role knowledge situational
judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 250-267. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.3.2.99
Neiman, L. J., & Hughes, J. W. (1951). Problem of the concept of role: A re-survey of
the literature. Social Forces, 30, 141-149. doi:10.2307/2571625
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 29, 172-191. doi:10.2307/2393172
Parsons, T., Bales, R. F., & Shils, E. A. (Eds.) (1953). Working papers in the theory
of action. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review
and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134-148.
doi:10.2307/3151680
Rentsch, J. R., Delise, L. A., Salas, E., & Letsky, M. P. (2010). Facilitating knowledge
building in teams: Can a new team training strategy help? Small Group Research,
41, 505-523. doi:10.1177/1046496410369563
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity
in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
doi:10.2307/2391486
Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J. E. (1999). The effect of team build-
ing on performance: An integration. Small Group Research, 30, 309-329.
doi:10.1177/104649649903000303
Stempfle, J., Hübner, O., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2001). A functional theory of task role
distribution in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 138-
159. doi:10.1177/1368430201004002005
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability require-
ments for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of
Management, 20, 503-530. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(94)90025-6
Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). An exploration of member
roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes.
Personnel Psychology, 58, 343-365. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00480.x
30 Small Group Research 00(0)

Stryker, S., & Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interaction and role theory. In G. Lindzey
& E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 311-378). New
York, NY: Random House.
Turner, R. H. (1980). Strategy for developing an integrated role theory. Humboldt
Journal of Social Relations, 7, 123-139.
Turner, R. H. (1990). Role change. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 87-110.
doi:10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.000511
Williams, K. C., Morgan, K., & Cameron, B. A. (2011). How do students define their
roles and responsibilities in online learning group projects? Distance Education,
32, 63-76. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.565498

Author Biographies
Tripp Driskell is a research scientist at Florida Maxima Corporation, USA. He
received his PhD in applied experimental and human factors psychology from the
University of Central Florida.
James E. Driskell, PhD, is president and senior scientist at Florida Maxima Corporation,
USA. His research examines team interaction in high demand environments.
C. Shawn Burke is a professor (research) at the University of Central Florida, USA.
Her expertise includes team adaptability, team training, measurement/evaluation, and
team effectiveness. All of the above work is conducted with an interest in team leader-
ship and the training of teams operating in complex environments.
Eduardo Salas, PhD, is the professor and Allyn R. & Gladys M. Cline chair of psy-
chology at Rice University. He received the 2016 American Psychological Association
Award for outstanding lifetime contributions to psychology.