Is Staff Motivation part of the Organisational Culture at Queen’s Sport? Do management of Queen’s Sport understand the factors which motivate their employees?
By Frank McCusker
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Literature Review
2. Literature Review
2. Research into Staff Motivation at Queen’s Sport
1. Is there a culture of staff motivation within Queen’s Sport management?
2. Do employees recognise the importance staff motivation and do they believe there is a ...view middle of the document...
This definition highlights the two strata functions needed to facilitate motivation in the workplace, intrinsic forces being the individual’s physiological and psychological needs to perform and extrinsic forces being the organisations motivational strategy such as rewards or verbal reinforcement which encourage performance.
In this study I will attempt to highlight the levels of staff motivation within my own organisation, Queen’s Sport. Queen’s Sport is a modern sporting and leisure provider within Queen’s University Belfast. Its Organisational structure includes Operations, Administration and Sales, Health and Lifestyle as well as Sports Development. It is a hierarchical design with each section having a management and employee tier. The Organisational structure of Queen’s Sport may be viewed in Appendix 1.
By interviewing 3 managers as well as surveying 12 of their staff (4 from each section) I hope the feedback will allow me to gauge the following:
• Is there a culture of staff motivation at Queen’s Sport and how do managers motivate their staff
• Do employees believe there is a culture of staff motivation at Queen’s Sport
• What motivates Queen’s Sport employees to work
• What do management recognise as the key staff motivating factors
By interviewing and surveying 15 staff in total or 35% of the total workforce I hope my results would be a fair reflection of staff feelings towards motivation. Obviously there would be a greater certainty to my findings if all staff were surveyed.
2. Literature Review
It could be argued that as soon as man organised himself into a working unit the role of leader and worker or manager and employee was born. The ancient philosopher Mencius (370 – 286 BC) recognised this division of labour defining it as;
“Those who labour with their minds govern others; those who labour with their strength are governed by others” The Chinese Classics: Vol. 2 the Life and Teachings of Mencius (1875)
From these early teachings the role and qualities of the manager are defined not as someone of physical strength but someone who instead governs using a more psychological approach.
It was much later (early twentieth century) with the emergence of Scientific Management that motivational theories came to the fore. Taylor (1911) made the assumption that all workers were lazy and motivated only to work for pay. Making tasks easier to perform Taylor argued would result in higher productivity. The reward for higher production would be higher pay and thus a satisfied worker. With the emergence of a mass production demanding economy this “Piece – Meal” approach to worker motivation was adopted by many firms, most famously Ford motor cars. In adopting this approach firms would invariably adopt or strengthen their autocratic approach to management. Staff were in essence mechanised and those who sought any form of social recognition for work...