Customer Reviews

Managing Without Power

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Belbin is known for his Team Role's Theory. In his book "Managing without Power" he is leaving his subject and tries to explain "Gender relationships in the story of human evolution". He states in his foreword that he did a lot research to answer this special question. The reader, however, wonders where the outcome of all this research remained and wishes that Belbin never would have left the subject he is familiar with. The book is easy to read, the topic is fascinating and it seems that Belbin gives answers to some important questions, but a closer look reveals that everything is based on very weak groundwork and many of his "conclusions" are highly speculative, and sometimes even socially dangerous.
Belbin starts a journey through human development from the very first beginning till nowadays. He begins with a statement about the original relationship of men and women in ancient times. Men were hunters and therefore stronger than women, who acted as gatherers, had less physical strength and counterbalanced this by their ability to manipulate men through the level of their communication and psycho-sexual skills. It is a scientific fact that human sexuality does not only have the function of reproduction, but also serves to strengthen the pair-bond. But Belbin is wrong if he states repeatedly that the human sexual behavior is UNIQUE. Bonobos, a Chimpanzee like species, show a very similar behavior and even know sex face to face, something Belbin discusses as the origin of kisses and communication. Every student of Zoology knows that kisses derived from feeding behavior where female pre-chewed the food and then fed their offspring mouth to mouth. It is poor of Belbin that he does not know about these examples, especially since he would have been able to use them to support his hypothesis. The reader starts to wonder what else Belbin may have overlooked in his literature-search, not only in supporting discoveries, but especially in data which may argue against his ideas.
Belbin describes human development in distinct phases. During the "Age of respect" the human species developed and lived in peace, and in balance with and respect for nature. Mankind evolved at river-banks, concludes Belbin, because the oldest remains were found here. But is it not just as possible that the oldest remains were found here, because the fluidal sediments were best suitable to preserve organic remains compared to other areas of the land and that the human origin is located somewhere else?
Overpopulation then forced people to inhabitate new territories and to migrate, leading to new adaptations and habits. Belbin states that these changes are based on selection, surviving of the fittest and genetic alterations. He does not consider that successful genetic changes need much time, and that cultural evolution which is based on curiosity, the ability to learn and language, is much quicker and more successful. The basis for all these qualities is already visible in our relatives, the Chimpanzees and Bonobos.
There came a time where all habitable land was already occupied by others and here is the beginning of the "Age of Power". Belbin defines "Power" as force or threat, as power over somebody, because now different groups had to fight with each other for territories. Belbin states that during this age men were selected for their special characteristics: warriors for fighting qualities, slaves for their capacity for hard physical work and acceptance of authority and professionals for their superior skills and talents. Raping of women was a reward for soldiers during these ages and since resisting women were killed and complient women were more likely to be spared, this selected women for their rediness to entertain and serve men, their beauty and submissive sexual and social behavior. But Belbin even goes further, since he is convinced, that these differences not only between men and women, but also amongst the different groups he defines amongst men (warrior, slaves, professionals) are genetically determined phenotypes. The following shall be quoted as just one example, how he tries to prove his view:

"Once slavary was abolished in America, many Blacks failed to earn a living in a free labour market and congregated in urban areas where they formed part of a growing underclass..."

These ideas are not only foolish - the freed slaves never had equal chances to compete with the white population - they are also very dangerous. Similar ideas of genetically based differences served to justifiy the horrible crimes done by Nazis during the second world war. Belbin should be aware of this possible dangerous outcome of his ideas and very careful in formulating them, especially since there is no hard evidence supporting them.
Belbin is right that the recorded history only covers 2% of the human story. But if this is so, how can Belbin get his detailed information about the time before? He is using archaeological findings and the results of anthropologists, observing native societies. He cites biological discoveries and historical events. He picks those data which comform to his ideas. But he ONLY picks those data SUPPORTING his view, a good scientist would also discuss data, which are arguing against the presented theory. Belbin's arguments remain highly speculative and his examples are taken from different periods of human history without any consideration of their real time frame.
A reference-list used in his "research" is missing. The short list of recommended reading does not satisfy and hopefully is not the only literature Belbin used. And where is Belbins research? Where are the psychological tests confirming that the groups he defines - premieval, warrior, slave and professional - really exist in the society and where are the genetic screens, showing that these groups indeed are based on a genetical background and are not only an intuitive classification?
Belbin's book is a hypothesis, not more. It may be used as a basis for research, not as its result. Belbin is strongly advised to do proper research and publish a well substantiated theory founded on hard evidence, but not these immature ideas.

Meredith Belbin has, in Managing Without Power, given an uncompromising account of the world's history from a gender-based perspective. He is apt at covering the opposition which is to be expected to his theses. I doubt that Managing Without Power will remain undebated. As soon as any redhearted or rat- faced feminist gets his hands on it, it will be dissected with a razor. Why? Belbin tries to explain human charactersitics and behaviour through archetypes acquired by mankind through history's hardships. Even today, archetypical Primaevals, Professionals and Warriors roam offices and factories, distinguished, not as some may have hoped, by their external characteristics, but the way they behave, talk, find mates and probably eat, drink and sleep as well. So no-one can be sure of not being termed cavie. This far, there may only be the very odd PC left reading this review, hence I can attest that Belbin may be right in one respect. He does not manage to explain how archetypical behaviour, i e that of Slaves, is inherited and carried on by mainly the male parts. Of the population, that is, hence the inappropriate plural. This smells somewhat of the kind of Darwinism that is called social but really is inside the DNA of everyone of us.

Hansi Elsbacher, journalist