Work with in a Team
It is an undeniable fact that working with in a team may result in a conflict between the members if the interests and concerns differ substantially. Hence, the leader is to identify and satisfy the needs of team members for them to work efficiently and willingly. Otherwise, the conflict would be unavoidable. With the regard to the case study, it is increasingly important to determine the motivators and motivational theories that were applied to resolve a strong disagreement, which hindered the execution of the mission to Ghana for the Inter-cultural Development Bank.
Each member of the team pursued personal goals ignoring the main objective. For instance, the mission leader, Bjorn constantly feared project failure, which is why he set a rigid schedule for the team. As to Eduardo and Aziz’s motivators, the road construction was an interesting challenge for them, which gave them an opportunity to interact with other experts in order to get new working experience. Being a novice at the Bank missions, John Anderson was particularly interested in establishing a reputation of a good professional, while more experienced members, Durpe and Raj did not strive for extra-work and were satisfied by performing their direct duties.
It is worth admitting that the team members initially expressed opposing views on how the mission had to be proceeded. In other words, conflicting role requirements of each individual within the team contributed to escalation of the situation (Banerjee, 1995, p. 67). Eduardo and Aziz were focused on maintaining a contact with Ghanaian counterparts to succeed by the joint effort while Bernard Durpe and Raj Mathuri preferred to concentrate on the particular work they specialized in. Naturally, Bjorn wanted to remain a leader amongst the leaders but failed to correspond to statuses he held.
Behavior of the Mission Members
Furthermore, behavior of the mission members is culturally determined. For example, while it is natural for the American, John Anderson to leverage all his skills to get recognition, the Frenchmen, Bernard Durpe will refuse to perform excessive work. Allowing for this, it is highly recommendable to distribute the duties considering the cultural differences (Fenn & Gameson, 2005, p. 40). Apparently, the mission leader dismissed the idea about communication during the evenings as not worth thinking about. However, feedback is a useful mechanism in dealing with the representatives of different countries.
Besides, it is necessary to recognize fundamentally different motivational factors. Interpreting and comparing these factors will benefit to the success of the mission. Thus, whereas Bjorn, Mathuri, and Durpe were occupied with the recognition for their accomplishments from the authorities, Eduardo was concerned about the impact which the mission would produce upon the local people. Apart from that, the flexibility in schedule is a considerable advantage that may influence individual’s behavior at work. Hence, Eduardo and Aziz were dissatisfied with the substandard workday and insisted on granting a vacant evening. Moreover, the youngest member, John Anderson concentrated on the personal satisfaction and failed to foresee potential threats.
Thus, personal needs of each mission member may be represented in a hierarchical pyramid of Maslow. In such a way, Bjorn occupies the second layer of the pyramid, namely, the stage of safety needs. To be more precise, he needed freedom from fear which he experienced due to external pressure. Durpe’s needs are also found within the second layer, as he had never been a leader and preferred the stability at his role work. Further, Eduardo and Aziz are placed between the third and fourth stages. Clearly, these members tend to work in a group but need to gain respect from others as they lingered upon their own achievements. Raj Mathuri possesses leader’s qualities and need for self-respect, which belong to the fourth layer. Undoubtedly, Anderson epitomizes the leader who unlocks his personal potential and seeks for self-fulfillment. These needs are defined by the fifth stage.
Regarding McClelland’s theory, the mission members’ needs are subdivided into three profiles. Motivated by the need for achievement, Durpe and Mathuri tried to avoid challenging situations and continued to fulfill tasks of moderate difficulty. Eduardo and Aziz had a need for affiliation as their priority was put on maintaining social relationships. Needless to say that Bjorn and Anderson had a need for power. While Bjorn enjoyed influencing others, Anderson wanted recognition (Hoffmann, 2006, p. 98).
In addition, the case may be analyzed in terms of Process, Reinforcement, and Conformity and Obedience theories. According to a Process theory, Durpe, Mathuri, Eduardo, and Aziz made efforts and expected the direct results of their work. The rest of the team was convinced that they would be rewarded for a sufficient work. With respect to Reinforcement theory, Eduardo felt discomfort when his previously-held attitude to the work was challenged. Bjorn experienced the difficulties as well since he was highly criticized for his insensitive policy. Reinforcement theory suggests that Bjorn and Eduardo had the developed opinion. In fact, they are likely to select information which corresponds to their pre-existing beliefs in order to prove their accuracy. In the case of Conformity and Obedience theory, Bjorn was constantly conforming his ideas to those of the authorities to avoid looking inefficient. It needs to be mentioned that such behavior is not appropriate for the leader whose actions are to be instructive for all team members (Hoffmann, 2006, p. 124).
To conclude, it is necessary to admit that the considerable incompatibility was a result of lack of motivation. The leader of the team failed to coordinate the behavior of the team, and the situation precipitated a long-term conflict. Moreover, according to the motivational and psychological theories discussed above, the leader did not correspond to his status. Consequently, the other individuals in a group had a strong disagreement. As long as the mission members’ needs are not satisfied, the situation within the business environment will remain critical.