Teams are widely recognized as the basic building blocks of most modernday organizations (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Team-based designs enable organizations to quickly align their human resources with the multitude of changing work demands and competitive pressures. Enhancing team effectiveness offers a powerful means by which organizations can gain and maintain competitive advantage. Team effectiveness can be driven by a number of factors such as a supportive organizational environment, team-oriented external leadership, design features, dynamic processes and emergent states, and a host of other variables (Mathieu et al., 2008). However, research and practice have suggested that the best teams are well designed up-front. Teams that have an optimal mix of members’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) are better positioned to work well together and to perform effectively than are teams composed of a less-optimal combination of members (Bell, 2007; Ilgen, 1999). In short, team composition serves as the foundation upon which other team factors are built, and represents a key enabling feature of teams. Moreover, understanding how a team is “composed” can provide insights for targeted team development activities.
Numerous characteristics have been used to index team composition, including personality, functional expertise, competencies, goal orientations, teamwork orientations, and a host of other attributes (Klimoski & Zukin, 1999; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014). Importantly, these individual attributes motivate and enable individuals to occupy different team roles (Stewart, Fulmer, & Barrick, 2005). A role is generally defined as a cluster of related and goal-directed behaviors taken on by a person within a specific situation (Stewart, Manz, & Sims, 1999). Teams rely on different members to fulfill different critical needs such as organizing work, maintaining group harmony, and aligning their efforts with those of others in an organization (Aritzeta, Swailes, & Senior, 2007; Stewart et al., 2005). Accordingly, both research and practice will benefit from a greater understanding of individual differences that are associated with team role fulfillment, and from tools to assess those differences.
Team Role Theories
Roles are often considered to be one of the fundamental and defining features of both organizations (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Sluss, van Dick, & Thompson, 2011) and teams (Hackman, 1990). Aritzeta et al. (2007) noted that there are two heritages in the team role literature. One approach, which we could term role as position, equates roles with expected behavior associated with the particular position that a team member occupies (e.g., Katz & Kahn, 1978). Essentially, this view focuses on the characteristics and demands of jobs and how they give rise to certain expected role behaviors of occupants. A second approach, “role as person,” suggests that roles can be defined as a combination of the values, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals who occupy particular locations in a social network. From this perspective, roles emerge from a combination of members’ natural inclinations or preferences, as well as the social-psychological dynamics of the group (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). We adopt this latter approach because we are interested in developing indices of individual differences that may predispose people to fulfill particular roles in teams.
(Source: The Official Guide to Belbin Team Roles from Belbin HQ - What is Belbin? , 2014)
The interest in team roles gained momentum in the 1980s with the publication of Belbin’s (1981) work on successful management teams. Belbin’s (1981) theory advanced eight distinct team role types:
(a) idea generator,
(b) resource investigator,
(c) chairman,
(d) shaper,
(e) monitor evaluator,
(f) team worker,
(g) company worker, and
(h) completer–finisher.
(Source: Smartsheet Contributor Becky Simon August 7, 2017)
In later editions, he changed various names (i.e., chairman to coordinator, company worker to implementer) and introduced a new role called specialist. Belbin (1981, 1993) examined management teams playing executive simulations (e.g., computerized management and business exercises) during training courses where team performance was measured in terms of winning or losing.
In addition to the possible gender basis, the lack of consistent results across studies may be related to the type of team being assessed and the original sample and context. Belbin’s work focused extensively on management teams, and while certainly of interest, others have argued that top management teams are qualitatively different from other types of teams (Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012).
Employee motivation and engagement are critical sources for employees’ high performance both in manufacturing and services companies (Boss, 2014; Kwenin, Muathe, and Nzulwa, 2013; Reilly, 2014; McMullen, 2013; Trus, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, Delbridge, 2013). Such motivation and engagement have to be generated by effective leadership with clear managerial concepts are critical to influence the employee behavior to bring company to success performance (Boss, 2014; Johnson & Nandy, 2015).
According to the IT sectors if leaders trying to micromanage their employees it will affect team members work load and they will get frustrated instead of motivations.
(Source: Why employee motivation important , 2020)
Companies increasingly realize the important of their work forces to sustain corporate growth, especially in the midst of environmental uncertainty and fierce competition (Bao & Analoui; 2011; Gupta, Ganguli, and Ponnam, 2015). Hence, it calls for clear alignment of the individual workforce and the organization, especially through motivation and engagement (van Marrewijk; Joanna Timmers , 2003).
Motivation
Motivation has an important role in encouraging someone to do the work to achieve their personal or group or company goals. The executive leaders and managers of the companies need to apply effective methods or approaches to influence the employee motivation in order to achieve better performance. Motivation of the employees can be sourced from internal (intrinsic) and external (extrinsic) value for the organization (Zamer, et. al., 2014).
Authors and researchers explained the concepts of motivation from different angles, three of them are: Abraham Maslow (1954), who developed the concept of motivation since 1940s, and explained that the motivation for someone to do something driven by a series of stages of need, as follow: (a) biological and physiological needs, such as: air, water, food, sex, sleep, etc; (b) Safety needs, such as protection, security, law, order, stability, etc; (c) Social needs (belongingness and love needs), such as friends, family, relationship, work group, etc; (d) Esteem needs, such as: achievement, status, self esteem, responsibilities, reputation, confidence, achievement; (e) Self-actualization needs (personal goals and fulfillment), such as: creativity problem solving; spontaneity, authenticity. In 1969, Clayton P Alderfer simplified Maslow’s theory to be three categories, as existence needs (physiological and safety needs), relatedness needs (belonging needs) and growth needs (self esteem and self actualization). While, Frederick Herzberg (1966) with his twofactors theory developed in 1959s known as the hygiene theory. He suggested that people have two sets of factors affecting motivation, namely (a) hygiene factors, they are extrinsic factors and this factors determine dissatisfaction, such as salary or remuneration, job security and working conditions; (b) motivators, they are intrinsic factors and this factors determine satisfaction such as sense of achievement, recognition, responsibility, and personal growth. Furthermore, David McClelland (1961) identified three basic needs, which are: needs for achievement; needs for affiliation and need for power. McClelland’s theory explains the inspiration human needs to be met or avoid failure (Zamer et. al., 2014; Aworemi et. al., 2011).
Employee Engagement
To survive and sustainable growth in the rapid business development and tight competition, the company have to manage their human resources effectively, encourage the employees to keep their high commitment and strong engagement to the company (Markos and Sridevi, 2010). Beside of the employee motivation, Harvard Business Review in 2013 reported the results of a study of 568 entrepreneurs from five countries, namely North America, Asia, Europe, MEA, and South / Central America, explained that the employee engagement to the company is an important thing to be maintained and improved, because it can encourage successful effort for the company (HBR-Report, 2013). It means that if the company is able to build and maintain as well as keep the employee engagement are strong, it is believed the employee and the company will have a good performance. Another reviewed have been done by Markos and Sridevi, (2010); Siddanta & Roy (2010) and Truss, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, Delbridge, (2013) summaries that the employee engagement can improve the performance of the employees.
According to Kahn, (1990); Purcell, (2006); Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, (2010) Engagement is defined as the attachment actions of members of the organization to carry out their role of work better. It means that an employee is said to be involved and bound if he could freely express himself physically, cognitively and emotionally in his official role consistent with the organizational goal (Gupta; Ganguli & Ponnam; 2015).
In addition, Reilly (2014) mentions 5 method to improve the employee engagement, as follow:
(1) use the right employee engagement survey;
(2) focus on engagement at the local and organizational levels;
(3) select the right managers;
(4) coach managers and hold them accountable for their employees engagement;
(5) define engagement goals in realistic.
Performance of the Employees
Many factors affect the performance of employees at the manufacturing and services companies, which are sourced from internal or external domain (Kenichi & Kreitner, 2003). Employee performance can be reflected from the height of togetherness and the level of employee satisfaction (Zuriekat, Salameh & Alrawasdeh, 2011; Pandla, 2016), also the concept of rewards that are implemented (Tze San, Mei Theen & Boon Heng, 2012). Even though many factors influence employee performance, but this study will emphasize on motivation and employee engagement as dominant factors in influencing the performance of employees and believed would affect the performance of the company. Beside the financial, nonfinancial interest or other rewards and the management support (Zamer et. al., 2014; Uzonna, 2013) that the high employee engagement also will strengthen the spirit of employees to improve their performance (Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Trus, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, & Delbridge, 2013; McMullen, 2013; Ram & Prabhakar, 2011).
Reference List
Aworemi, Abdul-Azeez, Durowoju (2011), An Empirical Study of the Motivational Factors of Employee in Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 3, No. 5.
Bao, C, Analoui, F (2011). An Exploration Pf The Impact Of Strategic International Human Resource Management On Firm Performance: The Case Of Foreign MNCs In China. International Journal of Management & Information Systems Vol. 15, No. 4, 2011. ABI/INFORM.
Boss, Jeff (2014). 3 Principles Leaders Must follow to Build Employee Engagement. http://forbes. com/sites/jeffboss/2014/10/27/3-principles-leaders-must-follow-to-build-employeeengagement/.
Gupta.M, Ganguli, S, & Ponnam,A. (2015). Factors Affecting Employee Engagement in India: A Study on Offshoring of Financial Services. The Qualitative Report 2015 Volume 20, Number 4, Article 8, 498-515. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/4/gupta8.pdf.
Herzberg, F (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Co.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kenichi,A & Kreitner, R (2003). Organizational Behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (international ed). Nwe York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Kwenin, Muathe & Nzulwa (2013). The Influence of Employee Rewards, Human Resourse Policies and Job Satisfaction on the Retention of Employees in Vodafone Ghana. European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5, No. 12, 2013.
Van Marrewijk. M.V and Timmers.J (2003), Human Capital Management: New Possibilities in People Management. Journal of Business Ethics, May 2003; 44, 2/3 ABI/INFORM.
Markos, S & Sridevi, MS (2010). Employee engagement: the key to improving performance. International journal of business and management. Vol. 5. No. 12, Dec 2010.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality, New York: McGraw-Hill.
McMullen (2013). Reward Strategy and Practice: Eight recommendations to improve Employee Engagement. Journal of Compensation and benefits. July/August 2013 Thomson Reuters.
Purcell, J. (2006). Change agenda, reflections on employee engagement. London: CIPD.
Ram, P & Prabhakar, G.V (2011). The role of employee engagement in work-related outcomes. Interdisciplinary journal of research in business. Vol. 1 March 2011.
Reilly, Robyn (2014). Five ways to improve Employee Engagement Now. Business Journal GALLUP.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Siddanta & Roy (2010), Employee Engagement – Engaging the 21st century workforce. Asian Journal of Management Research. 2010.
Truss, C; Shantz, A; Soane, E; Alfes, K & Delbridge, R (2013). Employee engagement, organizational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory. The international journal of human resource management, 2013.
Uzonna, U.R (2013). The impact of the motivation on the employee’s performance: a case study of creditwest bank Cyprus. Journal of economics and international finance. Vol. 5 August 2013.
Why employee motivation important (2020) [Video].Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyEpGMNjtdk&t=126s [Accessed on 04 December 2022]
Zameer, Hashim; Ali, Shehzad; Nisar, Waqar & Amir, Muhammad (2014). The impact of the motivation on the employee’s performance in beverage industry of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic in Accounting. Finance and Management Sciences. Vol. 4 No. 1 Jan 2014.
Zuriekat, M,, Salamah R, & Alrawashdeh S (2011). Participation in Performance Measurement Systems and Level of Satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 8 May 2011.
Vroom‟s expectancy theory (1964) is different from other motivation theories such as Maslow‟s and Alderfer‟s, in the sense that Vroom‟s theory provides the cognitive process of variables according to individual differences in the work place rather than mentioning what exactly motivates members of an organization. Moreover, Vroom (1964) was the first scholar who developed an expectancy theory with direct implications in workplace settings based on employees‟ beliefs. In any work environment, people believe that there is a direct correlation between the effort they put into performing their best at work, the reward they receive from their hard work, and their final performance. As educational leaders who hold administrative positions, Vroom‟s expectancy theory can best explain motivating factors affecting employees by taking into account three main factors of “effort-to-performance expectancy, performance-to reward expectancy, and reward valences” (Lunenburg, 2011a).
More about Vrooms Expectancy Theory simply explain below video
Vrooms Expectancy Theory (Source: Vrooms Expectancy Theory , 2019)
This practical viewpoint is based on four assumptions. One assumption describes people’s motivation to joining an organization based on how they react to the organization considering their needs, motivations, and past experience. A second assumption focuses on individual conscious choices, which are people’s own expectancy calculations. The third assumption is that each individual demand different things from the organization, such as job security and higher monetary compensation. The last assumption of Vroom is that people have the tenancy to pick alternative choices among available options in order to increase their personal outcomes. Vroom believed that motivation is the amount a person will be driven to do or not to do something depending on the situation they find themselves in. To sum up, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory has three key factors: Expectancy (individual’s estimate of the results of the job-related effort), Instrumentality (the extent an achieved task will lead to expected result(s)), and Valance (the reward of the archived task) (Vroom, 1964) (Figure 4).
Expectancy is the likelihood that a person will succeed on a given task, and it is associated with the risk that is intertwined with carrying out the task. If the task involves higher risk of failure, there will be lower motivation to invest in no chance of accomplishment. Surprisingly, the same will happen if the tasks involve low risk of failure. In this instance, no significant result is foreseen and therefore the task would not be worth investing in. On the other hand, if there is only some risk involved with carrying out a task, there will be optimal motivation since success is likely in such task. In the first two scenarios, the doer of the task will experience failure identity associated with apathy, insecurity, and indifference, whereas in the later situation, the doer of the task will experience self-worth along with feelings of confidence, effort, and interest. At any task, the value that comes with accomplishment is the other important entity. The value may trigger intrinsic (personal) or extrinsic (social) factors. One may find a task worthy of accomplishment because of personal likes and dislikes, needs and drives, or to satisfy social approval, acquire status, power, or recognition. All above factors are intricately related and combined to influence the development of a goal.
In other words, according to Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory, when an individual indicated that he/she can do a task, Ability Beliefs and Expectancy for success will be differentiating factors which determine final achievement of the task (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). Ability belief refers to “a person‟s current sense of competence in being able to complete a task” and expectancy for success is “how successful an individual believes he or she can continue to be in the future” (Macdonald et al., 2014: 76) which is the “expectancy” section of Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory. Furthermore, each task comes with a value, or as Eccles et al. (1998) categorized the factors of an individual‟s engagement, intrinsic value, utility value, attainment value and cost. The first three types of values influence an individual‟s desire to complete a task positively and has direct relationship between increases value and motivation, whereas the last factor, cost, is the negative aspect of engaging in a task.
There are first and second order outcomes in Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory. First order outcomes refer to results which are directly related to employees‟ behaviors, such as performance at work, showing creativity in doing one‟s job, being punctual and meeting deadlines, and representing oneself as a reliable individual at work. On the other hand, second order outcomes are any positive or negative result of the first order outcomes; e.g. while high performance at work would lead to the boss‟s praise and would result in salary increase; being tardy and not meeting project deadline may result in demotion and losing one‟s job security and acceptance by co-workers (Small et al., 2010).
Components of Vroom’s expectancy theory Expectancy Expectancy is “a person‟s estimate of the probability that job-related effort will result in a given level of performance” (Lunenburg, 2011b: 127). In other words, in a workplace environment, employees‟ expectancy is fulfilled when there is probability that their effort will result in their ideal level of performance and, on the contrary, may not be satisfied if employees know that despite their effort, they will not reach the preferred outcome. It is the perception that “effort will result in performance” (Lunenburg, 2011: 127) and has a direct correlation with performance. Hence, the value of expectancy resonates between 0 and 1. In this study the expectancy for nontenured faculty is to gain tenured status by activity engaged in academic productivity. Efforts in this component will lead to first order outcomes.
Vroom‟s expectancy theory was later expanded and refined by Porter and Lawler (1968) and others (Pinder, 1987) (Lunenburg, 2011: 127). Figure 5 depicts the first and second order outcomes according to Small et al. (2010).
Reference list
Eccles JS, Wigfield A, Schiefele U (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, New York: Wiley. 3:1017-1095.
Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of psychology 53(1):109-132.
Lunenburg FC (2011). Expectancy theory of motivation: motivating by altering motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 5(1):1-5.
Lunenburg FC (2011). Decision making in organizations. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 15(1):1-9
MacDonald SK, Williams LM, Lazowski RA, Horst SJ, Barron KE (2014). Faculty Attitudes Toward General Education Assessment: A Qualitative Study about Their Motivation. Research and Practice in Assessment 9:74-90.
Pinder CC (1987). Valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory. Motivation and Work Behavior 4:69-89.
Porter LW, Lawler EE (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.
Small R, Chauncey S, McKenna P (2010). Motivation at a Glance: An 100 Int. J. Educ. Admin. Pol. Stud. ISchool Collaborative. Retrieved from: http://sites.google.com/site/motivationataglanceischool/
Vroom V (1964). Expectancy theory. Work and motivation.
Vrooms Expectancy Theory (2019) [Video].Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpnzW06shsM [Accessed on 03 December 2022]
.png)
