Talk:Team effectiveness
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Team effectiveness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Team effectiveness has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 14, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria for inclusion team effectiveness models (and citations)
[edit]A number of team effectiveness models are included here (e.g. Katzenbach & Smith, Lencioni). I suggest that the Belbin model should be included as it is has been a world-renowned theory of team effectiveness since the 1980s. Suitable links for citation would be: https://www.belbin.com/about or https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles
@Proclasher97 has indicated that https://www.belbin.com is too promotional for this purpose. I note that the link to Lencioni's model (https://www.tablegroup.com/product/dysfunctions/) is similar in tone, advertising products and services.
I suggest that both theories are given the same treatment, even if that involves a different citation for each. Victoria at Belbin (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've become aware of this through a help request on IRC, and I'm of the opinion that this sentence is a) almost inviting spam additions, and b) not well integrated into the wider article. It's not clear that this is something relevant to the specific focus of this article. I'm gonna WP:BOLDly remove it entirely, which should resolve the fairness complaint that you seem to have here as well as hopefully improving the article more widely. Iff there's sufficient sources in existence, it might be good to have a separate article discussing the different models while this one focuses on the concept as a whole? Specifically for you, Victoria at Belbin, this would still mean we don't want you pushing links to your own company. stwalkerster (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Scope and sourcing for team effectiveness models
[edit]I have added a short sentence in the opening section noting that team effectiveness models exist, and I have also added a section briefly summarising several well-known models with sources. I hope this improves coverage of the topic. Given prior discussion about the scope of model coverage, I would be grateful for views on whether the material is best kept here, trimmed, or moved to a separate list/article to better fit the article's scope and due weight. Tens49 (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)