How can we make Microsoft Teams better?

Custom Team Member Roles

Currently for any given team, there are only two options: member or owner.

This only allows for two tiers of permissions. It would be great if there was the ability to either add custom roles to add more granularity for adding/removing permissions for different tiers of teammates.

258 votes
Sign in
Password icon
Signed in as (Sign out)

We’ll send you updates on this idea

Austin Brown shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →


Sign in
Password icon
Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Todd Roberts commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I agree this is needed, but to be clear, I would like to see only more roles with the same available permissions (although breaking out ability to delete the team or modify owners as suggested by Anonymous is a good idea). I do not believe permissions should be added to individual channels, as I think some commenters may be interpreting the suggestion.

  • Steve Ironside commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This would be grand - ideally this should also be something that could be done as part of a site design, so you could have a verb "createSPGroup"; then update "addPrincipalToSPGroup" to allow users to be added to the newly created role.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Agreed! This is exactly what is missing in teams. In clearer form, there should be one more option called "Creator". The Creator will be assigned to the one that created the team and only that user can delete the team and delete owners or members (Full permissions). Owners can only invite members or delete members and channels but cannot delete other owners or teams. This can allow us to create department-wide teams where we can have control on all the companies departments and users.

  • Roman Buchwald commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    No no no, please dont do allow this granularity. The flat right concept is a big advantage. Team contents must be transparent from scratch. Keep it simple.

  • Reidar commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I would like to have parents to see what I as a teacher have given the students in class notebook and assignments without having them being included in those who are going to get feedback on the assignment.

  • Tim Perry commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    A lot of good comments here. One that is important to us is simply a viewer kind of role. Not a member, but able to see what's going on. This allows creators/members to do work, and others to benefit without abusing the member listing.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Agreed. We used the recommended champion rollout and have a champion or two for each team who is in charge of "moderating" a team and the channels that are created.

    We'd like to create a role so that our "champions" (rollout method recommended by MS) can moderate these channels and create and delete the channels in their vision and direction rather than having someone create disorganization from spinning up too many channels or deleting valid channels.

  • Stephen commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This feature would make teams much more useful to us, as we'd be able to have a huge company-wide team (1,800 users) for certain events, with more levels of access. General users are view-only, and maybe don't even have access to some tabs at all. Some users are contributors who can contribute to conversations. Some users are managers who can create conversations and add tabs. Still higher managers could remove or edit tabs, or change individual user permissions (up to their own level). Lastly, owners can manage the team fully

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Along the same lines as the last poster I would like to see the ability to add additional custom columns to the members list. This isn't for the purpose of the actual "idea" here targeting permissions (likely need a new idea), but is more for a project team role, categorization/grouping/attributes such as partner, steering committee, working committee, etc. etc, per below.

    On a related note, being able to show relationships that would support the creation of a project org chart fed by this data would be awesome.

  • commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This would be very helpful actually. As a minimum, I'd like to be able to define someone as a "Partner"/"Stakeholder" *on the Outlook group level* to be able to send emails to that tier whenever we have a larger announcment as opposed to "Admins"/"Working members". This also would make it easier for people to identify who in a group is a regular and who just depends on the group, etc.

  • Tomas Westerhus commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    In our organization most Teams are public and users can choose to join a Team. This is a great way for the organization to keep informed on topics and projects of interest. The primary issue with this approach is that a given Team will have member not participating in the actual collaboration. I would like to see a new member role for read access only. It should also be optional if this role is included in the @team .... mention group.

  • MCarleton commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Additionally if you can accidentally change your own role as Owner to Member and be locked out of you team. I accidentally was changing other team members from owner back to member and accidentally clicked on my name. There was no warning or confirmation pop-up and once it was done I was locked out until I asked one of my remaining team members who was still an Owner to reinstate me as an Owner. When I am the only Team Member, it appears that I can still change myself to Member - if I did this, what would happen would I be locked out of my team and no one else would be able to reinstate me as an owner?

  • Alexander commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Dear team, there is only 2 roles atm: Owner and member

    Please add additional role: Reader

    Reader should have ability to read the chat where he is invited, but without permission to post. This feature will be great for groups with high amount of participants in conversation.

  • Julie Moorehouse commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    100% agree. I used to be an avid user of eRooms because of the permissioning. Very effective to team documents and version tracking was automatic. One of my team members invited me to a team, then went on vacation the next day. I want to add the rest of the team w/o bothering her on vaca!

  • Carl Kibler commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    The admins tend to be the most senior people on the team and you don't want to pester them to invite new people. Team membership can be very fluid and managing that is a burden and disruption today.

    Basically - separate the idea of a Private team from the idea of controlled access. A private team within a company can very well be open access where anyone can invite others.

    The other comment here about a publishable URL to join a Team is good too - all part of thinking through the onboarding process and making Team collaboration adjustable enough to suit different use cases.

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base