Positive aspects and outcomes of work have been discussed within positive psychology since its beginnings (e.g. Henry, 2004; Turner, Barling, & Zacharatos, 2002) and the role of character strengths at work has been extensively studied (e.g. Gander, Proyer, Ruch, & Wyss, 2012; Harzer & Ruch, 2014, 2015; Peterson & Park, 2006). The moral aspect of teamwork, in the sense of being a loyal, dependable team member, has also been included as one of 24 character strengths in Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) Values in Action (VIA) classification. However, most research within positive psychology focused on the individual level and did not consider other aspects of teamwork besides being a ‘good team player’. Thus, there seems to be a scarcity of research on teams and successful teamwork in positive psychology. This is surprising since it has been suggested that ‘teams will become the primary unit of performance in high-performance organizations’ (Katzenbach & Smith, 2005, p. 171) and indeed, working in teams has become more frequent in a variety of sectors and settings (Mueller, Procter, & Buchanan, 2000). Well-functioning teamwork has been linked to increased perception of autonomy (Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001), job satisfaction (Henry, 2004; Wilson, DeJoy, Vandenberg, Richardson, & McGrath, 2004), and performance (Hamilton, Nickerson, & Owan, 2003). This development can also be traced within science, where ‘research is increasingly done in teams’ and teams ‘produce more frequently cited research than individuals’ (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007, p. 1036). Also, it has been argued that teamwork has become a moral imperative in a broad array of positions (Mueller et al., 2005). Thus, more research on teamwork from a positive psychology perspective is warranted.

Role theory and team roles

It has been suggested that the composition of a team is a relevant factor for successful teams (Belbin, 1981; Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). Belbin (1981) argued that there are different team roles that should be balanced in a team for optimal team performance. Cattell (1963) already argued that it is important to distinguish between personality and roles while he acknowledged ‘no action is ever performed entirely out of a role’ (p. 4). He described a role as ‘that, which causes a characteristic change in response to a whole complex of situations from the values characteristic of the person when he is not in the role or of others who are never in the role’ (Cattell, 1963, p. 3). Thus, roles cause differences in behaviors that would be expected from an individual’s personality. Biddle (1979) provided a broader definition describing roles as ‘those behavior characteristics of one or more persons in a context’ (p. 58). In accordance with Belbin (1981), we assume that roles are behavior patterns that are adopted, and performed, as a consequence of influences of personality, ability, values, motivations, experiences, learning, and context.