Members of teams use these to satisfy their needs. Expectations are connected with this. If the team does not wish to have problems, it must fulfil these. So far, so good and as such nothing exciting or new. However, because the members absolutely don’t follow organisational interests in teams, the matter becomes difficult: people in teams (potentially) wish for recognition, appreciation, confirmation, security, a feeling of competence or at least not the feeling of being overburdened, autonomous working, a pleasant work place and chances for promotion (these are just the most important). None of these interests, per se, correspond to the interests of an organisation. And some of these interests, such as being valued by a superior, are more an expression of unfavourable self-direction by employees, rather than an appropriate requirement in the work context.
As a result, the team is, on the one hand, overwhelmed with the interests of the employees and must frustrate these, simply for reasons of time pressure and lack of resources. On the other hand, it cannot ignore the needs of the employees, because it depends on their motivation. From an organisational perspective, anything which does not lead directly to achieving performance would be a waste, if it were not for the needs of the employee. Thus, no team can escape the decision of how it utilises the organisation’s resources, such as time and money, in order to satisfy the interests of the team members as much as possible.
The team leader is, therefore, in a permanent conflict of roles. If he appears to the team as the representative of the organisation’s interests, he risks losing the support of his people. But if he positions himself as the representative of the team’s interests, he risks losing the support of the organisation. From this theoretical viewpoint, therefore, each team, and not just its leader, is entrusted with the task of maintaining the motivation of the team, even when the organisation does not function as would be desired.