Motivation, Group Dynamics, and Team Leading in Business

Introduction

Contemporary tendencies in business increasingly require the use of teams and teamwork in order to make companies more competitive and successful. Human resources have become a strategic asset for any organization, regardless of its field of action. Under these circumstances, the importance of coherent team functioning within a company has become fundamental, with direct implications for the area of motivation.

The expectancy theory provides a complex analytical instrument from this point of view, helping us understand the relationship between the expectations people hold and the amount of effort they are willing to exert in order to achieve a goal. In addition, the principles of effective team leading and the management of group dynamics must be recognized as relevant to the successful running of any business.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relationship between motivation and the dynamics of groups, as well as team leading. The hypothesis the paper seeks to demonstrate is that motivational techniques have a positive impact on the functioning of groups and on the process of team leading.

A working place is no longer a mere place of employment. It is an environment where people attempt to satisfy their needs and desires, and where an individual constructs one of his or her social roles. What you do is, in many ways, what you are. The workplace is thus an environment in which one component of an individual's social status is created.

Taking all these aspects into consideration, the financial dimension of motivational techniques is clearly insufficient on its own. Psychological stimulation is also needed, and people require a variety of daily incentives. As Steel and Konig (2006) observe, "wages cannot always be increased, especially with global competition; work motivation is usually diminished by job simplification; and improving employee satisfaction is a worthy goal in itself. Consequently, theories focused on improving motivation and satisfaction were developed."

Human resources have become a strategic asset for all companies, regardless of their operational field, since technological resources are more or less equally available to everyone. The difference in a company's development and success therefore depends significantly on its employees. Contemporary perspectives on employees no longer regard them as mere task performers, but as members of an integrated team. In this context, the job of team management is particularly challenging when it comes to satisfying the needs of each individual — a difficulty that arises directly from the differences between people. While managers should strive to preserve these differences and exploit each individual's potential at a maximum level, they must simultaneously keep teams functioning in a coherent manner.

Motivation and the Expectancy Theory

Regarding the approach taken in this paper, the most comprehensive frameworks available have been selected for each concept analyzed. The expectancy theory is used to address motivation. The second major theme — group dynamics — is examined through the five-stage model of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. The third theme, team leading, is approached from the perspective of creating effective teams.

The limitations of this approach lie in its theoretical scope and the restricted number of theories employed. There are various research studies and case studies that examine the themes discussed here, and many of them could have provided deeper insight into motivation, group dynamics, and team leading. Nevertheless, the paper does not aim to offer an exhaustive view of its subject, but rather to demonstrate its hypothesis using the theories considered most relevant.

There are numerous theories that attempt to explain the mechanisms through which a company can properly motivate its employees. Motivation may be defined as the means by which the needs and desires of an individual are fulfilled so that he or she is stimulated to perform certain actions. Basic needs — such as those for food, water, and shelter — must be satisfied first. More complex needs, such as belonging to a group or achieving personal development and self-actualization, must also be addressed. Although the issue may not appear problematic on the surface, the complex variables involved make it a genuine challenge.

In theory, the satisfaction of the needs mentioned above should be sufficient to motivate employees. Practice, however, reveals a different reality. The question arises: why are people not satisfied and motivated even when they earn high salaries and hold prestigious positions? And if people remain unmotivated under such favorable conditions, how can one effectively motivate individuals in routine jobs? The solution lies in the perspective from which one approaches the matter.

Beyond basic needs, people require a sense of direction in their lives. Career development, success, and personal growth are crucial motivational factors — but apparently not sufficient ones. The values of the individual must be in a synergistic relationship with the values of the company he or she works for. Furthermore, the sense of boredom and routine must be minimized in order to keep individuals passionate about their work. It is equally important to organize working hours and tasks in a manner that allows individuals to maintain a life outside the office while still pursuing career development.

All of this may sound straightforward, but it is an almost impossible task. Companies are primarily focused on profit. The contemporary tendencies of globalization and the maximum exploitation of technology make the adage "time is money" more relevant than ever. It is here that theory proves helpful in supporting and enhancing practice.

Among the numerous theories that analyze the motivational process, the expectancy theory is one of the most complex. "Many researchers have proposed that expectancy theory provides an appropriate theoretical research framework that examines a user's acceptance of and intent to use a system" (Chen & Lou). The expectancy theory was originally conceived by Vroom in 1964 to explain human behavior by accounting for individuals' capacity to reason about their actions and environment.

The core hypothesis of the theory is that people assess the efforts they make in order to reach a certain outcome, and further evaluate the probability that a specific outcome will occur. "The choice of the amount of effort exerted by the individual is based on a systematic analysis of the values of the rewards from these outcomes and the likelihood of reaching these outcomes through his or her actions and effort" (Chen & Lou).

Two interrelated models must be considered when analyzing the expectancy theory: the valence model and the force model. The valence model refers to the overall attractiveness of a process, defined as the sum of the products of attractiveness implied by that process, evaluated in association with the probability that the process will produce the desired outcome. The essential variables of the valence model are valence (the perceived attractiveness of a certain outcome) and the perceived probability of obtaining that outcome.

The force model deals with motivational force, the expectation that a certain level of effort will produce the desired outcome, and the valence obtained using the valence model. "The motivational force is the product of the attractiveness of the system and the probability that a certain level of effort will result in a successful contribution to the system" (Chen & Lou).

The core elements of the expectancy theory — value and expectancy — also appear in other theories, such as "the self-efficacy theory, or in Gollwitzer's theory stating that feasibility is related to expectancy, while desirability is a form of value" (Steel & Konig, 2006). The way in which this theory models likely courses of action is represented by the multiplication of expectancy and value — that is, the probability of reaching the desired outcome multiplied by the subjectively perceived value of that outcome.

Moving to a deeper cognitive (rather than behavioral) analysis, the terms "value" and "expectancy" can be replaced with "amount" and "rate." The cognitive approach underlines the fact that these variables do not carry equal importance; their impact varies from individual to individual and is extremely difficult to measure accurately. Amount describes "the perceived attractiveness or aversiveness of the outcome," while rate "refers to the frequency that actions lead to rewards or, alternatively, the probability of acquiring the expected outcome" (Steel & Konig, 2006).

By establishing a relationship of synonymy between amount and value, and between rate and expectancy, the resulting equation moves the expectancy theory toward picoeconomics — a theory according to which people, when choosing among multiple actions with rewarding outcomes, tend to favor short-term positive results over long-term ones, even when the latter are more significant in practice (Steel & Konig, 2006).

Group Dynamics and Team Development

Vroom further divided the expectancy theory into two components: expectancy and instrumentality. "In this case, expectancy refers to whether the intended course of action can be completed successfully. Instrumentality refers to whether, having been successful, the expected rewards will be forthcoming" (Steel & Konig, 2006, p. 894). However, studies have shown that this division complicates matters in a way that does not appear to yield important advantages.

The second major theme of this paper is group dynamics. The complexity of the issue is evident when one considers all the variables involved and reflects on the relationship between motivation, groups, and group dynamics. Groups are gatherings of people, while teams are also groups — but groups that amount to more than the sum of their individual members.

The relationships between the members of a group or team are complex and highly important for the efficient and effective functioning of the group itself. The roles played by individuals, their status, and their actual behavior toward one another are all key variables in any discussion of group dynamics. Even when group functioning is regulated by formal rules, those rules are not always strictly followed, because people have changing needs and emotions and cannot function as mere automatons.

Uniformity among group members has been shown to be counterproductive. Effective group outcomes have been demonstrated to rely on the diversity and multiplicity of skills. Team members are typically characterized by different levels of expertise — a circumstance that presents both an opportunity and a challenge. "On the opportunity side, expertise differences can enhance learning within a team when more expert team members share knowledge and skill with less expert team members — to promote individual learning — or when different areas of expertise are combined to generate novel insights — to promote team learning" (Van der Vegt, Bunderson, & Oosterhof, 2006). The challenge lies in stimulating individuals to work at maximum capacity while simultaneously maintaining group cohesion and synergy.

Bruce Tuckman conceived a model to better explain how a team reaches maturity. He identified several stages through which a group passes, corresponding to changes in the style of leadership: "Beginning with a directing style, moving through coaching, then participating, finishing delegating and almost detached. At this point the team may produce a successor leader and the previous leader can move on to develop a new team" (Tuckman, as cited in transactional analysis models literature).

The stages of group transformation are: forming (the creation of the group), storming (searching for the best manner to function), norming (agreeing upon the best norms to follow), performing (executing actual tasks), and adjourning. The forming stage is characterized by a high dependence on the team leader, with roles and tasks not yet clearly defined. The storming stage is characterized by difficulty in decision-making; it is important at this phase to focus on what best serves the team's goals rather than on emotional tensions. The norming phase sees successful collaboration emerge among team members, while the performing stage has the team "strategically aware" and operating with "a high degree of autonomy."

The different skills, capacities, and knowledge that team members bring can be called expertise diversity. "Expertise diversity has been shown to promote team effectiveness when members emotionally identify with their team, when team members engage in debate and dialogue, when expertise domains overlap, and when task environments are nonroutine" (Van der Vegt et al., 2006). Teams composed of highly skilled and talented members tend to obtain better results; nonetheless, factors such as communication and collaboration between members must also be taken into account, since a team is more than the mere sum of its parts.

Research has shown that the perceived level of expertise regarding a given task tends to structure patterns of interpersonal relating within the group (Van der Vegt et al., 2006). In other words, it is not the objective status of group members that plays the central role in the development of intra-group relations, but rather the perceived value of each individual. Two types of interpersonal relations deserve mention in this context: interpersonal commitment and interpersonal helping, the latter being supported by the former. "The perceptions of expertness constitute a source of power and status within a group and tend to be associated with greater opportunities for involvement and influence" (Van der Vegt et al., 2006).

Those perceived as the best in a given field are considered valuable by others because they contribute to the effective accomplishment of the team's task. Studies have shown that individuals tend to feel more connected to colleagues upon whom they rely for valuable resources. Consequently, people who are perceived as better experts tend to help other individuals who are also considered experts (Van der Vegt et al., 2006).

Among the basic rules intended to make group functioning effective, communication is fundamental — ensuring that everyone is discussing the same issue when deliberating on a given matter. Another rule concerns the proper matching of people and positions. Group dynamics implies that individuals move up or down the hierarchy according to their skills and competencies, and it is important for team managers to place people in positions suited to their abilities.

While diversity is the engine of group dynamics, it is important that this diversity be channeled in a positive, constructive direction. Diversity can give rise to conflict; however, diverse teams are said to anticipate conflicts and therefore be better prepared to handle them compared to homogeneous teams (Credit Union Magazine, 2006). Conflict as a component of group dynamics is a positive trait when it takes the form of intellectual debate, but a threat when it becomes destructive. Related to this is the matter of cohesion, which is a fundamental regulator of group dynamics.

"Cohesion is defined as the tendency of a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of instrumental objectives and the satisfaction of members' affective needs" (Forrester & Tashchian, 2006). Research has demonstrated that cohesion influences the amount of effort a team exerts as well as the overall effectiveness of team functioning. Cohesion helps groups function coherently, guiding group dynamics toward the successful achievement of team goals. Accordingly, "there should be incentives to ensure that group members have an ongoing commitment to these goals" (Forrester & Tashchian, 2006).

Conclusion

All in all, motivation is a process that cannot be absent from any business, since people are the engine of any organization. Motivation drives group dynamics in a positive and creative direction and supports team leading, guiding organizations toward their desired levels of performance.