3.6.4 Making human resource decisions: improving motivation and engagement

'The One Best Way - biography (sums up approach to management). Saw it as management's task to decide how every task should be completed, then devise tools needed to allow worker to achieve task as efficiently as possible.  Believed peopple work only for money - task of manager to decise system to maximise efficiency. Would generate profit to pay worker higher wage - view of human nature - 'economic man'. Manager could best motovate w/ incentive or threat. 

Methods: Observe workers, recording + timing what they do, when they do it, how long they take. Identify most efficient workers, see how achieve better efficiency. Break task down to small components, can be done quickly + repeatedly. Devise equipment to set up tasks. Set out how work should be done in future. Devise pay scheme to reward those who complete tough targets, penalise those who can't.

Interested in practical outcomes. Effect profound. Used widely. After Taylor, workers more likely to have limited, repetitive tasks, forced to work at pace set by manager. Eventually workers rebelled - Trades union membership thrived in factories w/ Taylor's approach, workers wanted to organise against suffocating lives. Western countries, further developments made in motivation theories -> new, more people-friendly approach.

Everyone same needs. Order lowest to highest -physical needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, self-actualisation. Can only move up hierarchy when previous need fulfilled eg once physical needs fulfilled, can move on to safety needs. When employees earn enough to reach self-actualisation, motivating power lessens. 

Issues raised:
 - do all people have same set of needs? Some people who need no more from job than money?
 - do diff people have diff degrees or need?
 - can anyone's needs ever be fully satisfied?

Very analytically usefulness. Theory stems from research conducted in 1950s into factor's affecting job satisfaction + dissatisfaction. 200 accountants + engineers in Pennsylvania, USA. Despite limited nature of sample, Herzberg's conclusions still influential. Asked employees to describe recent events had given rise to exceptionally good feelings about jobs, probed for reasons why. 5 factors stood out most: achievement, recognition for achievement, work itself, responsibility + advancement - last 3 greater importance. Each concerned job itself - 'motivators'. Researchers asked about events giving rise to exceptionally bad feelings about jobs - separate 5 causes: company policy + admin, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations + working conditions' - concluded common theme 'surround the job' - hygiene factors. Fulfilling would prevent dissatisfaction instead of causing motivation.

Motivators - power to create job satisfaction, little downward potential. Hygiene factors cause job dissatisfaction unless provided for, don't motivate. Pay hygiene factor, not motivator. Herzberg keen to distinguish b/ween movement + motivation. Movement occurs when somebody does smth - motivation when want to do something. Essential to understand Herzberg's theory. Advised against payment methods eg piece rate pay - would achieve movement, but make them resistant to change. Salaried, motivated employee work hard, care about quality + welcome improved working methods.

Herzberg's method for improving motivaiton - job enrichment - giving people opp to use ability. Suggested for job to be enriched, would have to contain:
 - complete unit of work: people need to work on full challenging task as well as small repetitive fragment of job. Herzberg disliked 'idiot jobs' resuting from Taylor's view of high DOL
 - direct feedback: job should enable worker to judge immediately quality of what they've done; direct feedback gives satisfaction of knowing how well performed. H disliked systems that pass quality inspection off onto supervisor - felt worst was annual appraisal, feedback delayed too long
 - direct communication: needed for people to feel committed, in control + to gain direct feedback. Avoids delays of communicating via supervisor. -> important conclusion: communications + motivation irrelated

Herzberg's research followed up in diff countries. Main insight to show unless job is interesting, no way to make it satisfying. -> companies eg Toyota in Japan to rethink factor layouts. Changed to provide more complete units of work. Workers grouped into teams, focused on signif parts of manufacturing process eg assembling + fitting gearbox, then checking quality of work.

All theories - criticisms. Maslow, criticisms about existence of any hierarchy as no research evidence. Some people diff hierarchies of needs chosen. Herzberg - original research small sample size, only on m/c employees eg accountants + engineers.

Working in return for payment per unit produced. No basic/shift pay, no sick pay, holiday pay or company pension. Used extensively in small-scale manufacturing eg jeans/jewellery. Attraction for managers - makes supervision almost unecessary - only needs to operate quality control system that ensures finished product worth paying for. Workers relied upon to work fast enough to earn living wage.

Disadvs:
 - scrap levels may be high if focus only on speed
 - incentive to provide acceptable quality, not best quality
 - workers work hardest when want higher earning eg Christmas - may not coincide w/ seasonal patters of customer demand
 - change - Herzberg pointed out worst way to motivate is piece rate - reinforces behvaiour. Focusing on maximising earnings by repeating task makes them reluctant to produce smth diff or in diff way.

(PRP) - financial reward to staff working above average. Used for employees whose work achievements can't be assessed w/ numerical measures. Awards usually made after appraisal process evaluated performance. Usual method: Establish targets at appraisal interview. End of year, discuss individual's achievements against targets. Outstanding achievements - Merit 1 pay rise/bonus worth around 6% salary; others b/ween 0-6%.

Lack of evidence for benefits of PRP: employees rarely able to provide evidence for benefit. Institude of Personnel Management - not unusual to find organisations intro'd merit pay while ago less certain of continued value - time to move on to something else, poss for team achievement. Rewarding does nothing to promote teamwork. Could create unhealthy rivalry b/ween managers, each going for same Merit 1 spot.

Why continue?:
 - makes it easier for managers to manage/control staff
 - reduce influence of collective bargaining, therefore trade unions.

Bonus earned on top of basic salary - usually in line w/ specific achievement eg meeting sales target. Used widely to incentivise staff in clothes shops, furniture shops etc where can take effort + skill to get sale - would be incorrect to write about commission as 'motivator' - Herzberg's terms, it's a hygiene factor.

Herzberg - best way to pay peopleis salary. Considered every attempt to motive through financial incentives doomed to fail as people would be incentivised to do wrong thing. Proved true in 2008/09 finanical crisis - mayhem in financial sector often result of faulty financial incentives.

Herzberg - paying 'right' salary - goal. Underpaying just as bad as overpaying. Also liked non-incentivised benefits eg company pensions, holiday + sick pay scemes - to apply all staff w/in organisation.

Herzberg - job enrichment - giving opp to use ability. Job enrichment put into practice - key to realise enormity of rask. Not cheap, quick or easy to enrich job of production line worker. H's defintion implies giving range or responsibilities + activities - to provide enrichment, workers must have complete unit of work (not repetitive fragment), responsibility for quality + self-checking + be given opp to show abilities.

Full job enrichment - radical approach. Eg car assembly line, workers have single task carried out on own. Job enrichment can be achieved only by rethinking production line - new job design. Car assembly line could be reorganised, more enriched job - work in groups instead of on own. Teamwork helps meet social needs, also can be given time slot to discuss how to improve work, given budget when new equip needed - meet w/ suppliers. Become managers of own area of work. 

Expensive - rebuilding may cost millions, disruptive in ST. Worry team-wroking could be less productive as can talk more than high DOL.

Research shows financial reward systems diff to get right. Important influence - can rewards be clearly related to quantity + quality of work done. Eg, clothes factory, may be paying piecework is effective.

Results of careful measurement of past reward systems - what was impact of financial incentives last time used?

Timescale - if urgent requirements for production over next 6 months, financial might be effective, but in long run, want people to give best all time, so non-financial may be better for LT.

Level of change business faces; financial incentives diff to change b/c some already do well, fear lower earnings if change.