IMPACT OF TASK ASSIGNMENT ON EFFECTIVENESS IN WORK TEAMS

. Managerial work in all businesses worldwide aims to achieve subordinates' successful completion of work. Assigning tasks is one of the daily activities of a manager and significantly impacts the quality of work submitted. This paper focuses on task assignments and their effectiveness in work teams. From October 2022 to January 2023, a questionnaire survey was conducted, which pursued the goal of task assignment efficiency. Respondents were asked about their preference for specific assignments, the types of information they prefer in projects, and their priorities within the work allocation. At the same time, respondents rated other aspects related to effective work assignments, such as the meaningfulness of the work, responsibility for performance or autonomy, competence to complete the task or their level of involvement and relationship with the person assigning the task. In January 2023, a focus group survey was conducted with ten students. The respondents carried out the assigned task, and the whole task process, including its outcome, was mapped. The paper presents the results of the questionnaire survey in the form of graphs, including the authors' comments with the support of more complex statistical methods; the results of the focus group are graphically displayed in a semantic differential, and the conclusion of the paper is oriented towards specific recommendations for teachers, managers, or leaders for whom assigning tasks is their daily bread.


Introduction and review of literature
Managerial work in all businesses in the world stands and falls with the successful completion of the work of subordinates. An important and often underestimated administrative art is correctly assigning the necessary work to subordinates. Delegating tasks is one of the daily activities of a manager and significantly defines the quality of work submitted. According to Svozilova (2016), a task is part of a complex activity, we can specify the desired outcome, and it has a relatively short duration. Koubek (2010) adds that a task can consist of one or more operations. The manager can choose from two options when assigning tasks and delegating them to specific performers (Pechová, Volfová, Jírová, 2022). The right style can determine employee satisfaction and, thus, productivity.
Good workplace relations and positive motivation of workers also enhance productivity. We distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. While achieving a result drives extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation is a preoccupation with a task or problem and a tendency to solve it. Employees with higher levels of intrinsic motivation perform better, are more efficient, more prosperous and appear more satisfied. There is also a direct link between motivation and the desire to succeed -the greater the passion, the greater the motivation to succeed. However, if there is a fear of failure, motivation decreases proportionally.
As business is usually associated with risk and uncertainty, the team must be able to adapt to changing conditions. They must find new ways to solve problems and adapt quickly to new situations. Especially in the early days of a business, when there are many unknown factors, the ability of the team to work together and adapt is crucial to success. In addition, entrepreneurs must have the ability to lead, inspire and motivate their team to work together to achieve common goals. A business can be very successful when a team works together and is motivated to achieve a common goal. In today's business world, teamwork is crucial to success. Entrepreneurs must be able to assemble a strong team and lead it to success. Cooperation provides the support and motivation necessary to achieve common goals. If entrepreneurs can build a team that can work together and adapt to rapidly changing conditions, they will be well-positioned to succeed in business (McGrath, 1984;Delfgaauw, Dur, & Souverijn, 2020).
Task management and teamwork are two critical elements for success in any organisation. Effective task management enables teams to plan, organise and complete tasks efficiently and on time, which is essential to achieving the organisation's goals and success. With proper task management, teams can be able to solve problems that were caused by ineffective task planning and management. Teamwork is based on the idea that a group of people working together is more efficient than individuals working alone. A properly managed team can be a powerful force for achieving the goals of an organisation. Teams that have clearly defined tasks and responsibilities can work better together and achieve more significant results.
Linking these two elements is crucial to an organisation's success. Effective task management can help teams better organise their tasks and improve performance. A good teamwork environment can help create effective teams and increase productivity. The benefits of good task management and teamwork are many. Organisations can reduce time delays, improve performance, and achieve goals more efficiently. In addition, adequately managed teams can produce creative and innovative solutions and improve the quality of an organisation's products and services. Ultimately, effective task management and teamwork are key elements to an organisation's success in a competitive and rapidly changing business environment. Organisations should invest in developing these elements and create an environment that fosters productivity, innovation, and sustainability (Truss et al., 2011;Jiang & Gu, 2015;Castellano, Davidson & Khelladi, 2017;Zhang et al., 2021).
Generationally, there are relatively large, even leapfrog changes in the abovementioned issues. The solution primarily focuses on proper task assignment, critically affecting all generations' bottom line. Practical task assignment is critical to successful job performance and overall team or organisational productivity. Good task assignment includes a clear description of the goal, precise task specifications, prioritisation, and a deadline for completion. In addition, when tasks are correctly assigned, employees know what is expected of them and are clear about their roles and responsibilities. This leads to better coordination and collaboration within the team and improves the overall efficiency of the work process (Černevičiūtė & Strazdas 2018).
A vast strand of literature is devoted to factors that must be considered while attributing particular tasks to employees. Weerasombat, Pumipatyothin, and Napathorn (2023) draw special attention to employees' skills. Anes et al. (2023) developed a methodology for considering each team member's performance to achieve the optimal assignment of the agile teams in open innovation projects. Kaur et al. (2022) suggest considering the

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2023 Volume 10 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2023.10.4(10) necessity of retaining employees in nonprofit organisations while distributing tasks. Ren et al. (2022) highlight procedural justice when assigning tasks. The authors claim that procedural fairness can be combined with performance goals to reap the valuable aspects of goal setting while minimising some of the unintended side effects. They draw attention to the fact that there is an ongoing discussion on the impact of goal setting (Ren et al., 2022).  focus on the difficulties of order assignments in conditions of uncertainty. Kamei & Markussen (2022) analysed free-riding effects caused by inappropriate attribution of tasks. Liu et al. (2023) stress the role of leadership, organisational environment and justice in job assignment mode. Delfgaauw, Dur and Souverijn (2020) claim that favouritism, employees' seniority, preferences over tasks, and fairness considerations often play a role while assigning tasks to employees. Employee preferences are essential in setting key targets . Hsieh & Lee (2023) focus on autonomist and autocratic characteristics of employees, which ultimately affect work team performance.
Anyway, there is still no answer to how managers must consider factors such as age, gender or speciality of an employee while assigning a task.
The main objective of this paper is to fill the gap by presenting an applicable managerial approach to effective task management for different sociodemographic groups defined by gender, generation and study focus. The subobjectives include the compilation of a literature review in the field of managerial practice with a focus on task management, task assignment, teamwork and generational differences. Based on this, the sub-objectives also include a preliminary validation of the possibility of applying motivational types theory to different groups of workers, and at the same time, in relation to these groups (sociodemographic factors, occupational/study focus), evaluating the importance of the different contextual components of task assignment. Among the sub-objectives, it can also be included in verifying whether other variables besides age define motivational types that can be successfully used in subsequent managerial work.

Task assignment
Task assignment is a sub-element of management. The literature agrees that the basic criteria that should be clearly defined when assigning a task include the desired outcome, time horizon, responsibility for performance, available resources, and specification of what is considered successful completion of the task (Pechová, Volfová, & Jírová, 2022). According to Plamínek (2009), expressing support and creating space for questions and discussion is also an important point, as understanding the assigned task is considered the basis for future success and acceptance. In some ways, a well-managed process of defining the work task and the associated responsibilities can optimise the worker's approach to the assigned work from the beginning (Kriek, 2019).
Without setting a goal, the task could not exist. The question remains, however, to what extent it is also necessary to determine the way in which it is to be achieved. In this case, the preferences of each leader/manager are radically different (and usually closely related to the management style chosen), as are the priorities of each performer/subordinate/employee. Some need fixed structures and roles to achieve results, the presence of which reduces uncertainty, ambiguity, and misunderstanding. Others, on the other hand, maybe demotivated by such an approach (Parkes, 2016;Wielenga-Meijer et al., 2011) When assigning tasks and delegating them to specific performers, the one assigning it -the leader or manager can choose from two options. He can choose either "HOW" assignment or "WHAT" assignment (Plamínek, 1999).
In the case of the "HOW" assigning, or also the process type, it is mainly about specifying the methods and ways in which the performer's work is to be carried out, it contains an enumeration or direct description of working methods and yet it is burdened with frequent control and consultation, as a result of which the authority can manage only a small number of performers and its work becomes less efficient.

1 Charakteristics of the targer group
A total of 388 students from ŠKODA AUTO Vysoká škola o.p.s. and ŠKODA AUTO a.s. employees participated in the research survey between October 2022 and January 2023. The surveyed target group consists of 71% men and 29% women. A significant number (73%) of the respondents are aged 18-21 years and 22-25 years (14%). 78% of the respondents have a high school education, 20.6% have a bachelor's degree, and 1.4% have a master's degree, and their field of study is presented in Figure 1. In total 10 students from ŠKODA AUTO Vysoká škola o.p.s. and employees of ŠKODA AUTO a.s. participated in the follow-up qualitative research using the focus group method in January 2023. Of those surveyed, 60% were male, and 40% were female. All respondents were 22-25 years old and had completed a bachelor's degree, with the field of study shown in Figure 2.

2 Research methodology
To fulfil the objective of this paper, a questionnaire survey, focus group method, observation, facilitated discussion and evaluation of the respondents' performance on the task were carried out.
In the questionnaire survey, a goal-oriented task was given in a "WHAT" manner. According to Campbell (1988) and Wood (1986), who classify tasks into simple and complex, a complex task was given. Or also according to Bakken and Andersson-Bakken (2021) an open-ended task can be solved in multiple ways. Respondents were given the task by their direct supervisor. The exact assignment was as follows: "Create an invitation to a three-day work team meeting in the first half of 2023." A total of 25 questions were formulated as part of the survey. Each question pursued its own sub-objective with respect to the main objective. The aim of the questionnaire survey was to evaluate the effectiveness of the task assigned and each question in the questionnaire monitored the following criteria: - Preferences for the type of tasks -Willingness to work with risk -Fear of failure -Teamwork -Willingness to take responsibility -Motivation to complete the task -Level of commitment -Relationship with supervisor -Supervisor communication The last four questions of the survey aimed to identify respondents. After completing the questionnaire survey, another research investigation in the form of a focus group was conducted in which 10 participants carried out the above task. The task implementation involved process and outcome evaluation, including a facilitated discussion between the person assigning the task and the performers. The purpose of the facilitated discussion was to obtain additional information on the questionnaire survey and the effectiveness criteria of the assignment mentioned above. The results of the questionnaire survey and focus group are presented in Chapter 3.

Research investigations
To meet the objective of this paper, quantitative research in the form of a questionnaire survey was conducted to determine statistically significant relationships between sociodemographic variables and the evaluation criteria defined above. This was followed by a qualitative focus group method focusing on the differences brought about by the specific implementation of the assigned task, facilitated discussion and evaluation of the respondents' work in performing the task.
The results are presented using graphs and authors' comments. The author's comments are supported by expert theories, which are presented in chapters 2.1, 3.3 and at the end of the paper. The effectiveness of the individual performers was simultaneously evaluated according to the gender, educational level, and field of study of the respondents.
The research investigation aimed to assess whether significant statistical relationships exist between sociodemographic variables and evaluation criteria associated with task effectiveness. Two research questions then followed this objective:
The Pearson chi-square test of goodness of fit was used to detect underlying relationships and associations at the level of descriptive statistics using contingency tables. Only relationships with asymp. sig. less than 0.05 were recorded. If a value less than 0.05 is reached between two variables, they can be said to have a relationship with each other.
The chi-squared test is often used to test whether there is a statistically significant association between two categorical variables. Specifically, it is a test of independence between two variables. The chi-squared test uses the observed and expected frequencies to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the observed and expected results.
However, the chi-square test does not say anything more about the nature of the relationship between the variables, and it cannot be assumed that all relationships are significant enough to be generalised. For the interpretation of the research to be meaningful, it is necessary to know whether the relationship is conclusive with respect to individual identifying criteria such as age, gender, or job title. For this reason, so-called adjusted residuals were used in the contingency tables.
The adjusted residual is based on the difference between the empirical and expected frequencies, and when it is greater than 2.00 (or -2.00 for negative direction relationships), we can be certain (with 95% probability) that the difference between the frequencies is not due to coincidence. For values greater than or equal to 3.29 (or -3.29 for negatively oriented relationships), the probability of a random variation is less than 0.1%. Thus, the adjusted residuals determine the extent to which the assumption of independence is violated, which is satisfactory for evaluating these variables. Thus, it is possible to demonstrate relationships with sociodemographic variables and specify for which internal categories these significant relationships hold. Again, only statistically significant relationships were retained, and outliers were excluded.
Chapter 3. 3 also diagnoses the motivational types of respondents according to the theory of Jiří Plaminek, which is shown in Figure 3.

1 Results of the questionnaire survey
Respondents were tasked by their direct supervisor with creating an invitation to a three-day team meeting of the work team in the first half of 2023.
First, the results will be summarised in frequency analysis, which also shows interesting results.
In total 20.6% of the respondents believe that they have enough information to complete the task and 79.4% of the respondents need additional information in the assignment. The following types of information were most frequently identified by respondents (in the order determined by the frequency of responses): -Information on the exact date, programme, focus and objectives, -specific venue, -what is the deadline for completing the task, -the priority of the task, -the reason or purpose for carrying out the task, -whether the task is confidential or public -and a thank-you or appreciation from the person assigning the task.
Interestingly, 73.6% of the respondents believe that there are no follow-up steps associated with the task, thus not classifying the task as complex and 23.7% of the respondents, on the other hand, consider follow-up steps within this task as evident. The most frequently mentioned follow-up steps include -organisational responsibility, booking the venue, informing the participants what they need for the meeting, finding out about specific participation, wishing them a happy stay, information about accommodation, catering or transport or the requirement for initial complex organisational arrangements for the team building and only afterwards providing an invitation. Only 4.1% of respondents identified the task as the highest priority, 48.5% assigned a medium priority to the task, and 30.9% saw the task as a routine agenda. A significant factor for 54.7% of the respondents is the person assigning the task. For 24.7%, this is of moderate importance, and for 20.7%, this is not important.
At the same time, 46.4% of respondents wish to be addressed when assigning a task; the most pleasant way of addressing respondents is by first name, then formally (dear sir/madam, colleague, or title). At the same time, 33% of the respondents did not notice the absence of addressing at all when assigning tasks and 20.6% did not miss it.
Only 12.4% of respondents prefer the spoken form of assignments, 30.9% like the written form, and 56.7% like the combined form of assignments.
When asked whether respondents found the team or individual type of task more motivating, 31.9% of respondents favoured the team type of task and 39.2% favoured the personal kind of task. The remaining 28.9% were undecided.
A total of 58.8% of the respondents would find it easier to complete the task with specific instructions for the procedure, 41.2% do not require instructions for completing the task.
While 58.8% of respondents perceive the task as creative, 23.7% classify this task as a medium level of creativity. The remaining respondents rate the task as routine.
According to the respondents, the following skills (in order of frequency) are essential for completing the task: -Good interpretation of information, -Good knowledge of grammar and stylistics -Graphic skills, -Ability to motivate in written text -Fantasy and imagination The majority (73.2%) of respondents believe they will complete the task within hours, 14.4% within minutes and 12.4% within days.
Regarding the possibility of diagnosing motivational types among respondents, questions with a clear link to these researched categories of evaluation criteria were defined.
Criteria were relevant to classifying respondents into different motivational types will be evaluated. The methodology for assessing statistically significant relationships is outlined above; here, we present the results as statistically significant relationships (with 95% probability or higher) between the sociodemographic criteria and the related questions from the questionnaire survey.
First, sets of questions were defined from the questionnaire survey, which corresponds in their nature to the different types -process orientation, goal orientation, risk orientation or certainty orientation, presented in Table 1. The table shows that some groups have a precise orientation within motivational types. The division is evident at the gender level, with women dominated by a process and certainty orientation, while men are goal-oriented and do not mind taking risks.
A similar orientation is also seen in individual study specialisations. Soft specialisations such as Sales and Human Resources Management are more process-oriented and prefer certainty. In contrast, more technical professions such as Industrial Management or Business Informatics emphasise a well-defined goal with the possibility of taking risks.
In terms of age, the youngest generally prefer a goal orientation and are not afraid to take some risks, while career orientation and security become more important with increasing age.
The level of study also plays a relatively important role, with respondents at the bachelor's level again being more willing to take risks and more likely to address goals, but this confirms previous findings regarding the emphasis on process and certainty later in life.
The results can also be displayed graphically in a matrix of motivational types to show which groups of respondents belong to each group (Fig. 4). The position in the quadrant is not significant within this method.

2 Results of the focus group
The follow-up qualitative research using the focus group method involved ten respondents who had completed the assigned task. The individual outputs are archived in the Škoda Auto Vysoká škola o.p.s. academic information system.
To determine the motivational personality type of each team member according to gender, educational attainment, and field of study (Chapter 2.1), the task was first rated on a bipolar scale (Chapter 2.2). The extremes of the scale were assigned values of 5 (risk) and 1 (stability), as well as 5 (process) and 1 (goal), to respect the matrix format of the theory. The more respondents were willing to take risks, for example, by engaging creativity outside the assignment, the more points were assigned and vice versa. In the second case, they were then scored according to how comfortable they were with the what-type or how-type assignments. They scored higher if they needed a transparent process to reach the goal. They were assigned fewer points if they were satisfied with just the task they had thought about. The results are recorded in the semantic differential and then transferred to the matrix of motivational types in Section 3.3.
For greater clarity, the results are divided into two graphs. Figure 5 presents the results of the five respondents under the risk or certainty orientation and the process or goal task orientation, whilst Figure 6 shows the results of the other five respondents.  Fig. 5, respondent 1 prefers procedural task assignment at level 3, and goal assignment at level 2. He is rated at level 2 in risk orientation and level 3 in certainty orientation. Respondent 1 felt slightly dissatisfied with the assignment; however, the assignor assessed the result of his work as almost fulfilled.
Respondent 2 has wholly fulfilled the task and is process oriented at level 1, and goal-oriented at level 4 with zero preference for certainty and maximum risk orientation. Respondent 2 completed the task willingly with a high level of commitment. Respondent 3's task orientation is rated process orientation at level 4, goal orientation at level 1, risk orientation at level 2, and certainty orientation at level 3. Respondent 3 completed 80% of the task with a moderate level of concern, and a reluctance to take responsibility was noted.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2023 Volume 10 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2023.10.4(10) 162 Respondent 4 accepted the assignment but still needs to complete it. Respondent 4 was strongly demotivated by the type of task given, which was reflected in his low level of engagement. Respondent 4 is maximally processoriented in task assigning, has zero goal orientation and prefers maximum certainty with zero risk acceptance.
Respondent 5 showed a high willingness to complete the task, even above and beyond. Unlike respondent 4, a respondent is process oriented at level 1, and goal-oriented at level 4 with maximum risk orientation and zero certainty preference.  Figure 6, respondent 6 is process oriented at level 4, and goal-oriented at level 1, with high certainty orientation and minimal risk orientation. Respondent 6 accepted and completed the task at 20%. He conditioned his further task performance only after precise tasking within each step by the supervisor.
Respondent 7 is maximally process oriented with zero goal orientation and prefers a maximum degree of certainty with zero risk acceptance. Respondent 7 hardly completed the task and was highly demotivated; a shallow commitment followed this.
Respondent 8 has completed the task 100% and is process oriented at level 2 and goal-oriented at level 3. Risk orientation was scored as level 2, and certainty orientation was scored as level 3. The respondent fully completed the task but felt uncomfortable. Respondent 9 completed the task 100%, with a process orientation at level 2, a goal orientation at level 3, a risk orientation at level 2, and a certainty orientation at level 3. Like respondent 8, he completed the task but with slight concerns.
Respondent 10 also fully completed the assigned task, demonstrating high engagement and maximum satisfaction with the autonomous assignment. Respondent 10 was noted to have a process orientation at level 1, a goal orientation at level 4, a risk orientation at level 4, and a certainty orientation at level 1.

3 Evaluation of the results of research surveys
The focus group results are recorded in the semantic differential in Chapter 3.2, and in Chapter 3.3 they are transferred to the matrix of motivational types and complement the questionnaire survey results (Fig. 7). The focus group's results confirmed the questionnaire survey's results in several ways. Specifically, the focus group results demonstrate a preference for procedural task assignment among women (respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 are female). Whilst 5 male respondents were motivated more by goal-based task assignments, one male respondent occupied a middle position between procedural and goal-based task assignments.
Any women did not occupy the motivational type "Discoverer" position, and the goal and risk-oriented respondents were 2 and 10 -men.
For the different study specialisations, the so-called soft disciplines, such as Sales Management and Human Resources Management, hold more process-oriented preferences (respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7). Respondents of the so-called hard disciplines such as Industrial Management, Financial Management or logistics are motivated more by goal-oriented task assignments and hold the motivational type of "Discoverer" (respondents 2 and 10) or "Specifier" (respondents 5, 8 and 9).
Plaminek's theory of motivational types can be helpful for managers in practice in the context of working with the new generation of workers. Generation Z and Millennials often have different work motivation preferences and evaluate work differently than previous generations (Hee & Praveen, 2016). Research conducted by PwC in 2011 showed that younger employees (i.e., Generations Y and Z in particular) prefer work that allows them to develop their skills and gain new experiences. They prefer flexible working conditions and greater involvement in decision-making processes.
On the other hand, older employees (Generation X and Baby Boomers) prefer more stability and security, more responsibility, and a focus on results. Research conducted by EY in 2017 showed that the most motivating factor for Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2010) is the opportunity to grow and develop, both in their careers and personal lives (Gursoy Chi & Karadag, 2013).
Generation Z also prefers a work environment that allows for diversity, innovation, and flexibility. Conversely, financial reward, job security and stability are essential to older generations (Baby Boomers and Generation X).

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2023 Volume 10 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2023.10.4(10) 164 Then, research conducted by Gallup in 2016 showed that the most motivating factors for employees from all generations are: clear goals and expectations, the opportunity to develop their skills and gain new experiences, positive feedback from supervisors and co-workers, and the opportunity to be involved in decision-making processes. At the same time, however, research has shown that different generations may have other preferences regarding how they prefer to interact with supervisors and co-workers and how they prefer to communicate these factors (Benson & Brown, 2011). This paper also highlights the relation of the assignment of the task type "WHAT" to the optimal span of control. Determining the optimal span of power creates a hierarchical organisation, and the wider the span of control, the flatter the organisational pyramid. Conversely, if the optimal span of control is narrower, the number of managerial levels increases, and the corporate pyramid becomes steeper.
Suppose the number of organisational levels influences administrative (overhead, indirect) costs. In that case, the greater the number of levels in the corporate hierarchy, the greater the need for management staff. Thus, administrative costs rise sharply with the number of organisational levels. At the same time, the possibility of communication is also negatively affected. The high number of managerial levels also makes planning and control more difficult.
Vytautas Andrius Graicunas dealt with the determination of the optimal control margin in the 1930s.
Using exact computations, Graicunas established a progression between the number of subordinates and the possible number of relations in the unit. From Figure 8 below, it can be seen that there is a steep increase in the number of relations from the number of five subordinates. It can also be seen how the number of relationships changes when a third ( 1 V  ) is added to two subordinates, compared to the sharp increase in relationships when, for example, a seventh ( 2 V  ) is added to six workers. This is also why Graicunas argued, based on his computational analysis, that the maximum number of workers per manager should be five (Černevičiūtė & Strazdas, 2018). If Graicunas had considered in his calculations the individuality of each manager, the variability of the work environment, the development of today's technological approaches, and the motivation and ability of today's young generation to perform a given "WHAT" task, his maximum number of workers per manager would have been several times higher. Suppose a manager assigns a "WHAT" task -i.e. a goal-oriented task to be performed by the subordinate himself without the need for frequent consultation with the manager on single sub-steps while taking advantage of other aspects of today's times. In that case, he will significantly save his organisation, not only overhead costs.

Novelty, practical value, and limitations of the research
The article is based on the theory of motivational types, published in 1977. Even though more than thirty years have passed, it has seen clear application potential that can help identify ways of working with different workers. With the steady increase in retirement and the technological, psychological and social shift in the perceptions and behaviours of younger generations, ways need to be found to manage individuals and teams across the organisation effectively.
Motivational theory links areas that are key to business development -effective managerial work, the development of team collaboration and the importance of correct task assignment. Increasingly, workers of different generations, genders, and professional backgrounds work together in cross-functional teams, and their composition is critical to the final project outcome (Gegenfurtner, 2018).
Thanks to applying the theory of motivational types in both types of research, the findings presented in the literature review were confirmed concerning generational characteristics. The model was also enriched with results based on statistically significant dependencies on gender and occupational orientation. This, therefore, simplifies the processes aimed at the effective composition of work teams and task management strategies, precisely task assignment. Simplifying processes can be essential for managers as it allows for more efficient use of time, resources and workforce. If processes are too complex, they can lead to unnecessary delays and errors in work. Simplifying processes can also lead to greater transparency, increasing collaboration and trust. In addition, simplifying processes can reduce costs and improve manager and business performance.
The undeniable practical benefit of applying this theory is its simplicity and clarity. Using clear, simple and understandable theories is very important for managerial work. More complex or clear theories can lead to misunderstandings, inefficiency, loss of motivation and productivity, and even loss of trust. When theories are too complicated, managers and, indirectly, workers can feel lost or confused, leading to mistakes and unsatisfactory results. It is, therefore, important to apply theories that are understandable and applicable to all involved. The theory of motivational types follows four basic factors, which it evaluates. The output is four motivational types with sufficiently specified congruent features. Thus, internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity are ensured, as these groups differ.
In addition to deepening the theory of motivational types, both kinds of research conducted worked with a specific and defined task. This task management component also deserves ample attention as it provides concrete insights regarding communication, task type, authority or task complexity that need to be respected in managerial practice. Managing work teams effectively requires giving them quality task assignments. This is an added value, as the task under investigation in both types of research was quite specific; the respondents used their knowledge and competence framework to the maximum extent to answer and perform the job (in a focus group) in real-time. This makes it possible to compare the differences between the assignment and the actual performance and to check the theoretical knowledge and the outcomes defined by quantitative research.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2023 Volume 10 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2023.10.4(10) In this case, the practical aspect is defined from two perspectives. Since sustainable business must be primarily future-oriented, university students were the leading group of respondents. It is, therefore possible to use the findings from both surveys not only when they actively enter the labour market and become a whole part of it but also as a basis for a more effective teaching and learning approach. Learning styles broadly define future work habits, so the choice of modern and agile approaches will also be reflected in this way.
However, it cannot be assumed that the chosen research has no limitations. Quantitative analysis in the form of a questionnaire survey has several limitations that are important to consider. First, there may be bias in respondents' answers due to ignorance, misunderstanding or forgetting of information. Second, some questions may need to be clarified or understood differently, leading to inconsistent results. Third, some factors, such as the context or personality of respondents, may influence their answers. The primary focus was given to a group of university students in the qualitative framework. Students represent a specific group of people who have their interests, motivations, and preferences. These factors may influence the research results and make it difficult to generalise the data obtained to the whole population.
Furthermore, higher education may influence students' opinions, attitudes and behaviours, and these factors may differ from the rest of the population. As mentioned above, in this case, the focus was purposive, i.e. to find valuable and helpful information about this group that will actively enter the labour market in the near future and to help better understand the specific issues that concern them. However, for the results obtained to apply to the population as a whole, it would be necessary to ensure that the sample is representative and to try to minimise the influence of factors that could bias the results. Such research would have to be carried out on an order of magnitude larger scale, however, and this was not the paper's primary aim.
Finally, quantitative research often focuses on specific aspects and may overlook the complexity and contextuality of real life. These limitations should be considered when interpreting results and selecting methods for future research.
On this basis, the quantitative research was complemented by a qualitative study using the focus group method, especially in confirming or refuting the preliminary results. The focus group method has several limitations, including small sample size, social desirability bias, where respondents may be more vigilant about what they say, limited time, dominant participants, or more complex interpretation of results, which in this case was, however, ensured by a clear set of surveyed and scored indicators.

Conclusions
In this paper, the objectives that were set were met. In the theoretical part, a literature review has been compiled on the issues of managerial practice -task management, task assignment, teamwork and generational differences. Furthermore, according to Plaminek (1999), the theory of motivational types was introduced, while the possibilities of its practical application were subsequently explored in the practical part of quantitative and qualitative research. Among the sub-objectives of the thesis was also the verification of the possibilities of applying these theories to different groups of workers with different sociodemographic and professional/studying characteristics, which is evident from the synthesis of the results of both conducted researches. It has been shown that not only the belonging to a particular generation largely determines the identifying motivational type of the respondent, but also gender and study or professional background are influential. The most statistically significant variables influencing task assignment were also defined. Overall, the objectives of this thesis were met and the results presented can be used in managerial practice for effective task management. This paper deals with the effectiveness of work teams in assigning tasks and is intended for a target group of managers who will lead major companies in the future. It is also intended for HR professionals or educators to

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2023 Volume 10 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2023.10.4(10) prepare this future successful generation of managers. Managers of major companies will have to cope with changes in value orientations, various aspects of globalisation, the need for flexible responses, and pressing environmental, social, and political factors in managing and leading work teams. That is, managers need more and more time for strategic activities, and effective task assignments can help them gain this valuable time. Task assignment of the "WHAT" type is almost timesaving for the manager. You need to assign the "WHAT" type task to those subordinates who are truly motivated by this type of task.
The paper Impact of Task Assignment on Effectiveness in Work Teams emphasises the importance of assigning tasks to teams in two different ways. The paper presents the results of several research investigations. The frequency analysis results are presented, demonstrating the necessity of assigning tasks in different ways based on defined criteria for assignment effectiveness. At the same time, with the help of Pearson chi-square and adjusted residuals, it was shown that the respondent's approach to receiving tasks of both types differs according to gender, age, the field of study and educational attainment. The implementation phase of the focus group task confirmed these findings.
With the assignment of tasks, other observed criteria such as willingness to work with risk, fear of failure, teamwork, willingness to take responsibility, motivation to complete the task, and level of commitment or communication of the manager were defined.
Based on the conducted research investigations, goal-oriented task assignment motivates younger workers, especially men, to study fields such as Logistics and Quality Management, Financial Management, Industrial Management or Business Informatics.
For older workers and women in the humanities fields, the "HOW" type of assignment is motivating. These workers prefer a process guide, i.e., task assignments in the form of sub-steps and ongoing checks from the supervisor are important to them and influence the overall outcome of the task.
It can also be noted that employees who request combined assignments (written and spoken) usually wish to be addressed by their first name. Assignments should include precise specific information, the deadline for completing the assignment, the reason or purpose for completing the assignment, the degree of confidentiality, and a thank you or appreciation from the person assigning the task. But is this really how managers assign tasks in everyday practice?