Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy

Apollo syndrome
A study on assigning roles for group work
M. O. B
(Military organizational behavior)

Coordinator: Assistant professor RUSU Raluca

Editor: Student corporal IORGA Alexandru

Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy

Abstract
The difference between the work output of an individual within a group and the work output of
the entire group indicates the efficiency of the group. (West, 2005) Personality is an important
aspect of the group`s functioning and roles1. Reaching the peak of organizational performance is
only possible by considering both the individuals cognitive intelligence and the relationships
within the team. The Apollo syndrome acts at a group level by diminishing its efficiency, but not
necessarily its organizational performance.

Table of contents

I. Theoretical grounds
Teamwork paradox
Belbins teamwork theory
Interpersonal conflicts and the Apollo
syndrome
II. Practical grounds
Objectives
Hypothesis
The sample frame and sampling
Measurement method
Interpretation and Calculation
Data analysis
1 West M., Lucrul in echipa: lectii practice, Iai, 2005, p.209
2

Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy

Conclusion

Part I
Theoretical grounds

Teamwork paradox
The group`s performance can be better or worse than the sum of each individual`s contribution
taking into consideration effort, the quality of the decisions and creativity. 2 Cognitive
intelligence is a key factor in anticipating performance for an individual task (Schmidt & Hunter,
1998) 3. This paradox will be researched in this paper.

Belbins team role theory

This theory indicates that there are 9 types of team roles in a group, which need to be present in a
certain proportion in order to maintain the balance. Belbin4 suggested that an individual`s
personality could be suitable for simultaneous multiple roles within the group. Even in a group of
less than 9 people, the tendency is to cover the whole spectrum. These are the roles and their
characteristics:
1. The Coordinator
This individual will lead the rest of the team. He has to inspire authority, be selfconfident, tolerant and also dedicated to the team`s objectives and targets. The coordinator is as
tolerant as to listen to the other members, but as decisive as to reject their advices. (Belbin &
West, 2005) People in this role are not always remarked, but they are usually intellectually
gifted.

2 West M., 2005, p.33

3 Apud. West M., 2005
4 First publicated science report of dr. Meredith Belbin was in 1981
3

Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy

2. The Shaper
The person in this role is responsible for the task. The shaper is usually someone with a
lot of energy and strong will. These traits will provide him the motivation needed to be
successful. This individual will organize people by telling them what to do. The desire to succeed
will reveal his aggressiveness. Therefore, he will approve, challenge or disapprove of others
ideas. According to Belbin, the presence of multiple shapers can lead to conflicts, fights or
internal disputes.
3. The Plant
The plant tends to be very good at solving problems in an unconventional way. He can
make the difference between a well-functioning team and an unproductive team. Individuals in
this role focus on important matters and would rather be forgetful about details. Some of his
allowable weaknesses include his predisposition to be forgetful and his lack of effective
communication, as the individual might be slightly absent-minded.
4. The Resource Investigator
The individual in this role would not normally sit behind a desk. He is the one analyzing
the odds of succeeding and networking with potential competitors. The resource investigator
provides inside knowledge on the problem and improves others ideas. His initial interest on the
problem keeps him engaged, but it diminishes with time. He is sociable, enthusiastic and skilled
in networking.
5. The Implementer
The implementer is practical, highly reliable, tolerant and respectful of the current
practices. He is needed to plan the teams strategy and assure that the plan is followed. He is
usually given the responsibility of leading people in large companies, as he understands the plan
fully. The implementer has also shown remarkable skills at disciplining his team. His weakness
is that at times he is slow to relinquish his conservative plans in favor of possible positive
changes.
6. The Monitor Evaluator
The monitor evaluator is a lucid, careful person driven by success. He plays a part in
deciding major changes, as he is capable of evaluating contradictory ideas. The person in this
role is not easily persuaded by the use of emotional reasoning. Moreover, he is professional,
showing patience in decision-making situations. Also, the monitor evaluator is proud of his low
rate of failure. His weaknesses define him as an easily bored or overly critic individual. He lacks
the ability to motivate people in his group. Often, people of high standing are monitor evaluators.
4

Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy

7. The Team worker

Team workers have proven important in alleviating political divergences and helping
members overtake difficult moments. The person in this role is usually the one to boost the
morale of the team. Their political abilities and their humor are highly valued within the team.
The team worker is a receptive person. In crisis, he tends to be indecisive and he will hesitate to
do anything that could harm his team members.
8. The Completer/ Finisher
The completer/finisher is a detail-oriented person focused on task completion. He is not
driven by the thought of achieving extraordinary results, as he would rather work at a certain
pace. According to Belbin, the completer/finisher exaggerates about his work and he is often
afraid of leaving his projects and letting someone else continue his work.
9. The Specialist
The specialist usually is knowledgeable about everything else that has not been covered
by his team members. He is introverted and vigilant, but responsible. Therefore, he will start the
work on his own. He will focus his undivided attention on the project. His weaknesses revolve
around his inability to realize his members contribution and his unilateral approach towards
work.

Intrapersonal conflicts and the Apollo syndrome

Both the efficiency of the team and the outcome of the project are immeasurably
improved by choosing the right team members. Assembling a team requires the proper mixture
of skills and personalities to ensure the maximum effectiveness and minimum friction. Members
are usually chosen based on their tendencies and preferences as individuals. Most common
factors that need to be analyzed are the following: working alone/ team working, individual/
collective approach, collaboration, theoretical/practical skills, interpersonal skills, and
motivation. Conflicts would appear as a result of having two members competing for being the
coordinator. Also, an upsurge of conflicts would become imminent if two shapers would exist in
the team. The monitor-evaluator will not ponder any creative enthusiasm, considering that his job
is to make things happen according to a logical, well-defined plan. The plant could be easily
offended by his actions and lack of initiative. Moreover, their working style could come inbetween and spark contradictory arguments. This syndrome has been named after the Apollo
space mission. The best scientists have been chosen to take part in this mission, but they, as a
team, proved to be inefficient due to their pride, which affected their communication. Their
efficiency has proved to be less than the efficiency of a team comprised of random chosen
members. The latter showed better communication, which helped them choose a leader much
5

Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy

faster and ultimately deliver a better result. It is meaningful to mention that there is a difference
between discussing the Apollo teams efficiency and its organizational performance.

Part II
Practical grounds

Objectives
Pick a certain role for each member of the 26A group
Analyze the differences between the roles and their importance

Hypotheses
Females have been assigned to: The Completer/ Finisher and The Team worker & males
have been assigned: The Implementer and The Resource investigator
The Apollo syndrome has been unconsciously taken into consideration when picking
team members

The sample frame and sampling

The sample frame includes a total of 17 students of which 15 members from group 25A
and 2 members from group 26A. Out of those 15 members, 5 are females. Even though the
sampling process involved the members of one of the academys microstructure, the various
results show that the sampling frame could be extended at the academy level.

Measurement method
The Belbin team inventory or BTRSPI 5 test has been used to determine the members
roles. The test comprises of 7 questions with multiple choices hierarchically ordered according to
their degree of reality.

5 1st enclosure
6

Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy

Interpretation and Calculation6

Data analysis
Perso
n ID

First & Last name

First role

Second role

Revealed
weaknesssecondary role

Revealed
weaknessmain role

Arsene Mirela

Shaper

Team
worker

Coordinator

Resource
investigator

Bogos Livioara

Completer/
Finisher

Implementer

Resource
investigator

Coordinator

Buciuman Flaviu

Team worker

Implementer

Shaper

Monitorevaluator

Braileanu Bogdan

Plant

Implementer

Shaper

Coordinator

Buricea Gabriel

Implementer

Team
worker

Plant

Shaper

Dumitriu Catalin

Coordinator

Shaper

Completer/
Finisher

Implementer

Dura Diana

Coordinator

Team
worker

Shaper

Completer/
Finisher

Iorga Alexandru

Shaper

Plant

Completer/
Finisher

Monitorevaluator

Nedelcu Mihai

Implementer

Team
worker

Plant

Shaper

10

Petrasciuc Madalina

Implementer

Monitorevaluator

Shaper

Plant

11

Popp Adrian

Shaper

Plant

Implementer

Completer/
Finisher

12

Preda Roxana

Team
worker

Monitorevaluator

Plant

Completer/
Finisher

6 2nd enclosure
7

Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy

13

Radu Cristian

Shaper

Implementer

Monitor-evaluator Plant

14

Stanciu George

Completer/
Finisher

Plant

Resource
investigator

Monitorevaluator

15

Stroe Georgel

Shaper

Resource
investigator

Completer/
Finisher

Plant

16

Ilina Alexandru

Shaper

Implementer

Team worker

Completer/
Finisher

17

Talpan Silviu

Shaper

Resource
investigator

Implementer

Monitorevaluator

Individuals with the highest scores in multiple sections have been highlighted in bold.
The following pairs have been considered as relatively stable:
Arsene-Preda; Bogos-Dura; Stanciu-Popp; Dumitriu-Nedelcu;

Conclusion
To put it in a nutshell, according to the results, the first hypothesis has been infirmed. Analyzing
the data, it has been concluded that there is no specific main role for either males or females.
Therefore, sex is irrelevant in assigning roles.
The second hypothesis has been confirmed. The concord of the groups predominated by students
who have known each other since first year, has shown better results in terms of role assignment.
In all of the 4 relatively stable teams it can be observed that there are certain pairs of roles:
Coordinator-Implementer and Shaper-Team worker. Not only, these pairs are more efficient by
avoiding the Apollo syndrome, but they are also a proof of the synergy between dominant type of
roles and subdominant type of roles.

Bibliography
West, Michael A.(2005), Lucrul in echipa: Lecii practice, Iai
Popescu, Doina I.,(2013), Comportament organizaional, Bucureti

Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy