Compare and contrast two different approaches to changing individual behaviour at work Over many decades and even

centuries, managers have tried out various different methods to change individual behaviors at work with the intention to increase the efficiency of their company. It is quite obvious that the working environment from for example the times of the Industrial Revolution, where death tragedies and terrible injuries were not rare, have changed quite a lot for a worker in the UK. However, comparing and contrasting the ideas of management people had then with those from more recent times, as we will see in this essay, is quite interesting and useful, if we consider the context and historical background each time. I will specifically analyze the theory of Taylor and Ford during and around the Industrial Revolution in the UK, a similar approach called McDonaldisation, and then compare and contrast them with Hackman and Oldhams Expectancy Theory. F.Taylor (1910) was convinced that persuading, controlling, punishing, rewarding and directing were things a manager should do to fulfil the needs of his company. His philosophy assembled McGregors Theory X in the sense that people could not be trusted or have any authority, freedom of working or variation given at work, because they were naturally lazy, stubborn and had a tendency of foolishness. According to Taylor, the person higher up the ladder was the one with the brain power, and ensured that the company was working efficiently. His approach to reach organizational goals was to be very scientific. He made use of scientifically tested methods in the recruitment and selection process and tried to determine the best and most cost and time efficient way for doing the job. Furthermore, Taylor advised managers to compile the best possible training for their employees, who should learn exactly one way to do the job in a specific and precise manner. For the company to operate like clockwork, Taylor wanted to guarantee that every worker had close supervision and that every job was made completely routine. This resulted in high levels of deskilling. As a result, such jobs took little intellect and creativity of the worker and were so repetitive that they needed workers, who asked for little challenge or meaning in their job. In fact, the job was so basic that if someone decided to confront his manager and grouch, he could be replaced with a finger flip. A similar concept to Taylorism is called McDonaldisation. Ritzer (1993, 2002) builds on earlier ideas of both Taylor and of Weber, and argues that McDonalds fast food restaurants provide a current example of rationalizing work. McDonadlisation has four main principles: Calculability (quantity rather than quantity), Predictability (things are the same over time and place), Efficiency (taking the best route) and Non-Human technology/Control. Like Taylorism, McDonaldisation aims at a rational, methodical and efficient approach to work tasks. Both Taylorism and McDonaldisation end up deskilling workers and it could be argued that both dehumanize work, with bad results for not only the workers but also for the organization as the creativity and initiative of workers is lost. A completely different idea to enrich job variety and autonomy of workers was developed by Hackman and Oldham in 1980. They produced a formula called the Motivational Potential Score: MPS = (Skill variety + Task Identity + Task significance) 3 x Autonomy x Feedback

In other words, fundamental to the level of motivation are both Autonomy and Feedback. No Autonomy or no Feedback in your job meant no motivation, according to Hackman and Oldham. Thus, the question arises as to whether we could do all kinds of meaningless jobs as long as we get

autonomy and feedback. The rates of Skill variety, Task identity and Task Significance determine the meaningfulness of work, autonomy gives us responsibility for our work, and Feedback is the knowledge of the actual results of our produced outcome. With all of them being at a high level, our intrinsic motivation would be immense, the quality of work would be high and we would never be absent. As a conclusion, I cannot say which of them is the best theory for the worker and for the organization, because it depends on the individual, on the type of organization and task. I asked my mother, who is a school teacher, if she thought that her pupils needed close supervision and control or if she could trust them and give them autonomy. Her answer was that some children work better, when they otherwise get shouted at, while others work so independently that they dont need to be looked after that closely. Similarly to children, some workers have the attitude to work hard and give their best, a good social influence that contributes towards a determined and goal-orientated performance, where social expectations work great as motivatiors.

Comments
Paragraph 1 - Introduction:
Good to give an introduction. And good that in the last sentence of the paragraph, the writer says what they will be covering in the essay - this sentence is an excellent example of what should be included in an introduction. This introduction is, however, perhaps a little long, especially as it does not contain a definition or discussion of what is meant by behaviour or individual behaviour. Focus on both effectiveness (doing the right thing) and efficiency (doing the thing right at lowest cost, in the shortest time). A focus on effectiveness leads us to think more about the overall objectives, the value of the activities we are engaged in.

Paragraph 2
Good link between Taylor and McGregors Theory X. First sentence summarises some of the aspects of Taylors views. See below for some further notes on Taylors Principles Good to emphasise that Taylor believed that it is the job of the managers to think. The wording here is a little informal though. I would word it more like: According to Taylor, it was the responsibility of management to think about a problem, and the responsibility of the workers to follow managers instructions, without thinking. It was not so much that workers asked for little challenge or meaning in their job, but rather that workers were prepared to be in jobs that provided little challenge or meaning. Taylor advocated paying monetary incentives to efficient workers, and given the levels of unemployment, there were indeed people prepared to work in such conditions. This is an important distinction referring back to Maslows hierarch of needs: we will be motivated to meet our basic physical needs before we look to achieving higher level needs such as selffulfilment. Someone who needs to feed themselves and their family and cannot find work easily, will be more likely to accept meaningless work than someone who has already met their basic food and safety needs.

Paragraph 3
Good summary of the four main principles of McDonaldisation. Good style in making comparisons between theories Good brief summary of the negative impact of this theory last sentence

Paragraph 4
Good explanation of the formula some people only include the formula. This writer has however explained it such an explanation is absolutely necessary as a minimum. Could have been improved by giving some examples.

Paragraph 5
Remember when you are asked to compare and contrast you are not required to say which of the options you think is best. Instead, you are being asked to think about the different ways you might compare them, and the different criteria you might use to do so. Good that the conclusion includes it depends and it would have been even better to say what it depends on for example if an organisation is structured around lowest cost, fastest speed, with no interest in teamwork or increasing the motivation of individuals to improve business results then a rational approach may be fitting. However, if an organisation is structured around innovation, being able to respond quickly to changes in the commercial environment, then it becomes necessary to increase the thinking and involvement of all organisational members (i.e., management and workers). Interesting attempt to provide an example however this example needs further analysis. What were the reasons that the teacher judged some of her pupils as needing further supervision and control: Personality? Motivation? Intelligence? This example hopefully would not translate into a work environment: shouting at workers could result in the manager being taken to a tribunal for harassment or bullying.

Overall
Some good examples of concise summaries of different theories. Some good concise comparisons. Does it answer the question? It goes some of the way However it focuses more on how to manage the behaviour of workers. It does not specifically refer to changing behaviour that already exists. For example, if workers are working in an unsafe, or inefficient, way, how would each of these approaches help to change such behaviour? It would be possible to use Hackman and Oldhams (1980) Motivational Potential Score: a manager might increase the feedback given to the workers about the levels of safety there could be a monthly chart showing a score for the site as a whole on their safety practices safety could be included as a criterion for bonus payments etc. It is important to relate examples back to the actual question Overall, a good summary of two scientific/rational approaches and one job enrichment approach in need of a focus on how to change current behaviour.

Probably a borderline 2.2 / 2.1

Principles of Scientific Management Frederick W. Taylor (18561915) is best known for defining the techniques of scientific management, the systematic study of relationships between people and tasks for the purpose of redesigning the work process to increase efficiency. Taylor believed that if the amount of time and effort that each worker expended to pro- duce a unit of output (a finished good or service) could be reduced by increasing specialization and the division of labour, then the production process would become more efficient. Taylor believed that the way to create the most efficient division of labour could best be determined by means of scientific management

techniques, rather than intuitive or informal rule-of-thumb knowledge. Based on his experiments and observations as a manufacturing manager in a variety of set- tings, he developed four principles to increase efficiency in the workplace:

Principle 1: Study the way workers perform their tasks, gather all the informal job knowledge that
workers possess, and experiment with ways of improving the way tasks are performed. To discover the most efficient method of performing specific tasks, Taylor studied in great detail and measured the ways different workers went about perform- ing their tasks. One of the main tools he used was a time-and-motion study, which involves the careful timing and recording of the actions taken to perform a par- ticular task. Once Taylor understood the existing method of performing a task, he tried different methods of dividing and coordinating the various tasks necessary to produce a finished product. Usually this meant simplifying jobs and having each worker perform fewer, more routine tasks, as at the pin factory or on Fords car assembly line. Taylor also sought ways to improve each workers ability to per- form a particular taskfor example, by reducing the number of motions workers made to complete the task, by changing the layout of the work area or the type of tool workers used, or by experimenting with tools of different sizes.

Principle 2: Codify the new methods of performing tasks into written rules and standard operating
procedures. Once the best method of performing a particular task was determined, Taylor specified that it should be recorded so that the procedures could be taught to all workers performing the same task. These rules could be used to standardize and simplify jobs furtheressentially, to make jobs even more routine. In this way, efficiency could be increased throughout an organization.

Principle 3: Carefully select workers so that they possess skills and abilities that match the needs of the
task, and train them to perform the task according to the established rules and procedures. To increase specialization, Taylor believed workers had to understand the tasks that were required and be thoroughly trained in order to perform the tasks at the required level. Workers who could not be trained to this level were to be transferred to a job where they were able to reach the minimum required level of proficiency.11

Principle 4: Establish a fair or acceptable level of performance for a task, and then develop a pay system
that provides a reward for performance above the acceptable level. To encourage workers to perform at a high level of efficiency, and to provide them with an incentive to reveal the most efficient techniques for performing a task, Taylor advocated that workers should benefit from any gains in performance. They should be paid a bonus and receive some percentage of the performance gains achieved through the more efficient work process.