Managing People
Unit 1: Marketing and People
Managing People
FREE RESOURCES
EXAM RESOURCES
WorksheetsComing soon
PREMIUM
Treating staff as an asset means investing in them and expecting a return; treating them as a cost means minimising the outlay. Both are real strategies.
Every decision in this topic follows from one thing a firm has already decided without saying so: are the people an asset to be developed or a cost to be minimised? The specification puts it first, at 1.3.4 · 1a, because the answer decides how a firm recruits, trains, pays and leads.
Staff as an asset. The firm spends on training, keeps people and promotes from within, expecting the spending back as productivity, quality and fewer leavers. Sabari Textiles, a clothing manufacturer, spends $10,800 to recruit one supervisor — 30% of the $36,000 salary — so every leaver it prevents is $10,800 it does not spend again.
Staff as a cost. The firm buys labour as cheaply as it can, hires for the hours it needs, trains only what the job requires and replaces people when they go. Where the work is simple, demand is seasonal and training takes a day, that is the cheaper answer and the arithmetic supports it.
What decides which is right is how much of the work is in the PERSON. Where a job takes months to learn, a leaver takes the learning with them and the asset view pays; where it takes a morning, it does not.
Real Example: A clothing manufacturer running one line of skilled machinists and one line of seasonal packers will treat the two differently in the same building, and be right both times.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Explain as requiring a brief explanation of cause or effect supported by relevant knowledge. So this leaf needs a cause and its effect, not the two approaches side by side — which is knowledge without the link.
Multi-skilling trains one worker to do several jobs, so cover moves to wherever the work is without the firm employing anybody extra.
The specification's next leaf, 1.3.4 · 1b, is the flexible workforce, and it names five forms. This chapter takes them one at a time because they solve different problems and a student who lists all five as "flexibility" cannot say which one a firm should use.
Multi-skilling is training one worker to do several jobs, so cover moves to wherever the work is. The flexibility is INTERNAL: the same people, able to be moved.
Its value shows up where demand moves between jobs rather than up and down in total. If Sabari Textiles sells fewer shirts and more jackets, a multi-skilled machinist moves across; a single-skilled one waits while the other line works overtime.
It is bought, not found. Training is the cost — and a multi-skilled worker is worth more elsewhere too, so the firm that trains them has also made them easier to lose. That is the tension the asset-or-cost question was about.
Real Example: A vehicle workshop where every mechanic can also do the electrics never has a car waiting for the one person who can wire it.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Analyse as requiring a brief chain of reasoning, and says it focuses on depth rather than breadth. A chain on multi-skilling has to reach an effect on the firm — cover without extra headcount, or a training bill — and listing the five forms of flexibility is breadth.
These three match the hours the firm pays for to the hours it needs, and they differ in how much certainty the worker keeps.
The next three bullets of 1.3.4 · 1b all shift the SAME risk — that demand is lower than expected — and they shift different amounts of it from the firm onto the worker.
Read down that list and the firm's commitment falls at every step while its ability to match staffing to demand rises. A zero-hour contract is the end of it: the firm pays for exactly the hours it uses, and the worker cannot know what next week pays.
The cost is not zero. Somebody on no guaranteed hours takes the first steadier job they are offered, so the firm carries higher turnover — and at $10,800 a replacement, a saving on hours can be smaller than the recruitment bill it creates.
Real Example: A parcel depot near a port hires temporary staff for the three months either side of a shipping peak and keeps a permanent core the rest of the year.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Assess as requiring a coherent and logical chain of reasoning that considers the relative importance of factors, leading to a supported judgement. In Units 1 and 2 an Assess carries 10 marks; the judgement is the part students leave out.
The same hours, arranged differently or worked elsewhere. The firm gives up control over when and where, and gets a wider pool and lower premises costs.
The fourth bullet of 1.3.4 · 1b is "flexible hours and home working", and it is the one form on the list that does NOT change how many hours the firm buys. It changes WHEN and WHERE they are worked.
That makes it unlike the three contracts before it. A part-time contract cuts the hours; flexible hours keep them and move them. So it does nothing to match staffing to demand — which is what the other four forms are for — and it does two other things instead.
First, it widens who can take the job: somebody who cannot be at a workplace between fixed hours can still do the work. For a firm paying $5,400 in agency fees to fill one post, a wider pool is worth money. Second, work done away from the workplace needs less workplace.
Not every job can take it. A machinist cannot work a sewing line from home, and a supervisor cannot supervise one from elsewhere either. The leaf is about the CHOICE, and the choice does not exist for most of Sabari Textiles's staff.
Real Example: A clothing firm's design and accounts staff can work from anywhere with a connection; its cutting room cannot, and the same firm therefore offers home working to some of its people and not others.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Define as requiring students to define a term or phrase, for 2 marks. Two marks for a term with two parts means saying both: flexible hours are the same hours arranged differently, and home working is the same hours worked away from the workplace.
Outsourcing pays another firm to do the work instead of employing anybody to do it, turning a fixed wage bill into a bill that moves with output.
The last form of flexibility on the list is the one that removes the employment relationship altogether. Outsourcing is paying another firm to do the work instead of employing anybody to do it
Look at what it does to Sabari Textiles's wage bill. Its 16 machinists on $36,000 each are $576,000 a year whether the orders come or not. Outsourcing that work replaces the wage bill with an invoice per garment, which is zero when there are no orders.
The firm gives up three things for it: the skill leaves the building, quality is now somebody else's decision, and the supplier can raise the price once the firm no longer has the capacity to do the work itself.
That last point is the reason outsourcing is a strategic decision rather than a staffing one. A firm can re-hire a machinist in a month; it cannot rebuild a cutting room and thirty years of knowing how in a month.
Real Example: A manufacturer that outsources its deliveries pays per consignment instead of running vans, and discovers at the next contract renewal that it no longer has anybody who knows what a delivery should cost.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Evaluate as requiring fully developed, coherent and logical chains of reasoning showing a range of cause and effect, leading to a supported judgement. A 20-mark Evaluate on outsourcing needs both directions argued and a judgement that rests on the firm's own circumstances.
A dismissal is about the person and the post is usually refilled. A redundancy is about the post, which ceases to exist.
1.3.4 · 1c asks for the distinction between dismissal and redundancy, and the whole of it is one question: has the person failed, or has the job gone?
Dismissal ends the contract because of the worker — conduct or capability. The work still needs doing, so the firm advertises the post again and spends the $10,800 of chapter 2 doing it.
Redundancy ends the contract because the POST is no longer needed: demand has fallen, the work has been outsourced, or a level of the hierarchy has been removed. The firm does not advertise, because there is nothing to advertise. Redundancy carries statutory redundancy pay; a dismissal carries notice.
The practical test is what the firm does next week. If the job is being advertised, it was a dismissal. If it is not, it was a redundancy — and a firm that advertises a post it has just made redundant has made a dismissal and called it something else.
Real Example: A firm that closes its own delivery operation and buys the service in makes its drivers redundant: the vans are gone and the posts with them. A firm that lets one driver go for repeated accidents dismisses them, and recruits another driver.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Explain as a brief explanation of cause or effect supported by relevant knowledge. The cause is what the 4 marks are for here: naming which of the two has happened and why that follows from the facts given.
Pay and conditions can be agreed one worker at a time or once for everybody through a union. How alike the jobs are decides which fits.
The last leaf of the chapter, 1.3.4 · 1d, names two ways a firm and its staff settle pay and conditions. Only one of them involves a union, and the choice between them is not about who is stronger.
The individual approach: the firm agrees terms with each worker separately. Pay can follow the person's own skill and scarcity, which suits the firm where those differ widely — and leaves the worker with no weight behind their own case.
Collective bargaining: a union negotiates one agreement covering all its members. The firm reaches one settlement instead of 16, which is cheaper to negotiate and harder to move; the worker gains the weight of the group and loses the chance to be paid differently from it.
Which fits is not a matter of taste. Where 16 machinists do the same work on the same machines, one agreement describes all of them accurately. Where a designer's skills are rare, no collective rate can price them, and an individual contract will pay more than one.
Real Example: A manufacturer can run collective bargaining for its production floor and individual contracts for its designers in the same year, because the two groups differ in how alike their jobs are.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Discuss as requiring logical chains of reasoning in context showing causes and effects, closing with a brief assessment that shows an awareness of competing arguments. In Business a Discuss carries 8 marks, and that brief assessment is required — not an evaluation of both sides at length.
Internal recruitment fills a post from inside and moves a vacancy down a level. External recruitment fills it from the labour market and pays to do so.
1.3.4 · 2a has one bullet under the recruitment and selection process — "internal versus external recruitment" — so the comparison IS the requirement.
External: advertise, use an agency, shortlist, interview, appoint. Sabari Textiles pays $5,400 in agency fees and $900 of induction for a supervisor recruited this way, and gets somebody who does not yet know how the firm does things — which is a cost if the firm is working well and a benefit if it is not.
Internal: appoint somebody already employed. No agency fee, a shorter induction, and a known quantity. Promotion is also visible to everybody else, which is a Herzberg motivator arriving free — chapter 4 comes back to this.
And the row students leave out: filling a supervisor's post internally does not fill a post, it MOVES one. The firm recruits anyway, one level down, more cheaply. So the real question is not which is cheaper but at which level the firm wants to be recruiting from outside.
Real Example: A firm that promotes a machinist to supervisor still has to recruit a machinist, so its external hiring happens at the level where training is shortest.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Calculate as requiring students to perform a calculation based on given data, for 4 marks, and says calculators may be used. A Calculate on recruitment is a sum of named items; show the workings, because the marks are in them.
Recruiting, selecting and training one supervisor costs $10,800 — 30% of the salary — and the largest item never appears on an invoice.
1.3.4 · 2b is a single line — "costs of recruitment, selection and training" — and it is a SUM. Here it is for one supervisor at Sabari Textiles on a $36,000 salary. Every figure comes from two day rates: a supervisor across 200 working days is $180 a day, and a manager on $72,000 is $45 an hour.
That totals $10,800, which is 30% of the salary the post pays. By stage: recruitment $6,600, selection $900, training $3,300.
The item worth arguing about is the last. $1,800 of output lost while the new supervisor learns is the second largest cost here and arrives as no invoice, which is why firms under-estimate what turnover costs them: losing 4 supervisors a year is $43,200 spent getting back to where it started.
Real Example: A factory that counts only the agency fee thinks a supervisor costs a few thousand to replace; a factory that counts the lost output of the first fortnight finds it is nearer a third of the salary.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 says a Calculate question requires a calculation based on given data and that students are advised to show workings. Where a total is asked for, the workings are what make a wrong total worth marks.
Induction is the training given on arrival: the job, the place, the people and the rules. Its purpose is to make somebody useful and safe sooner.
1.3.4 · 2c names three types of training and induction is the first. A definition of it is not enough to answer a question with, because what a question asks for is its PURPOSE — so this subsection has both.
What it covers. The job and who does what around it; the place, including where things are and how to be safe in it; the people, so the new starter knows who to ask; and the rules, from hours and breaks to what to do when something goes wrong.
What it is for. Three things. It shortens the time before the new starter produces anything, so every day saved is $180. It reduces early mistakes, which in a factory means accidents and scrap. And it reduces early LEAVING: a new starter who does not know who to ask is the one most likely to go, at $10,800 a time.
Its cost here is $900 — 5 days at $180 — paid time before anything is produced, which is why a firm treating staff as a cost cuts it first and pays for it later in the lost-output line.
Real Example: A factory that walks a new machinist round the floor for a week before they touch a machine loses a week of output and avoids the accident that costs a month of it.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Analyse as requiring a brief chain of reasoning, explanation and/or justification, and says it does not include evaluation. A chain on induction runs from what it covers to an effect the firm can count — days to productivity, accidents, early leavers — and stops before judging whether it is worth it.
On-the-job training happens while the work is done and costs output; off-the-job happens away from the work and costs a fee. Both are training and neither is free.
The other two types in 1.3.4 · 2c differ in one thing: whether the work is being done while the learning happens.
On-the-job. Learning while doing the work, alongside somebody who already does it It needs no fee and no premises, and it is the cheaper option on any invoice. Its costs are real but invisible: the trainer's output falls while they teach, the learner's output is low and their mistakes are made on real orders. Sabari Textiles's $1,800 of lost output is exactly this cost with a number on it.
Off-the-job. Learning away from the work, on a course or at a provider It costs a fee — $600 for the supervisory course here — and takes the person away from the work. What it buys is training the firm could not give: a technique nobody inside has, and a learner who can make mistakes without spoiling an order.
So the choice follows from whether the firm already knows the thing being taught, and not from the invoice: the $1,800 of lost output is larger than the $600 course, and only one of the two produces a bill.
Real Example: A workshop teaches a new mechanic to service an engine by standing them next to somebody servicing one, and sends the same mechanic on a course to learn a diagnostic system nobody in the workshop has used.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Assess as requiring a chain of reasoning that considers the relative importance of factors and leads to a supported judgement. The 10-mark Assess in Units 1 and 2 needs a judgement that says WHICH factor mattered most, not a list of both sides.
A hierarchy is the levels of authority in a firm. The chain of command is the route an instruction travels down them, counted in links, not levels.
1.3.4 · 3a names four terms and the next three subsections take them in turn. They are not four definitions to learn separately: they are four readings of the same arithmetic, and Sabari Textiles is about to be organised two different ways to show it.
Hierarchy is the levels of authority in a firm, from the top to the shop floor. Sabari Textiles has 31 staff. Organised with each manager supervising 2 people, that takes 5 levels: 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16.
Chain of command is the route an instruction travels down those levels, and it is counted in links rather than levels. 5 levels give 4 links, because the number of steps between 5 points is 5 minus one. An instruction from the top reaches a machinist after being passed on 4 times — and can be changed 4 times on the way.
That is the whole cost of a long chain: not delay alone, but distortion, and information travelling back up it is distorted the same way. A problem on the floor reaches the top 4 retellings later, if it reaches it.
Real Example: In a firm where an instruction passes through four people before it reaches the floor, the version that arrives is the fourth person's version of it, and nobody in the chain thinks they changed anything.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Construct as requiring students to draw an accurately labelled diagram, for 4 marks. The labelling is part of the command word rather than decoration on top of it: an org chart wants the levels, the span of control marked on a manager, and the chain of command shown as a route.
The span of control is how many people report directly to one manager. For a given headcount, a wider span means fewer levels and a shorter chain.
Span of control is how many people report directly to one manager — directly, not in total. A Managing Director with 2 direct reports has a span of 2, whatever the 31 people below them do.
The span and the number of levels are not two independent choices. For a firm of a given size they are the SAME choice made once, because a span of 2 repeated over 5 levels reaches 31 people and so does a span of 5 repeated over 3: 1 + 5 + 25.
The arithmetic is worth holding on to. A span of s repeated over L levels reaches (s^L − 1) ÷ (s − 1) people. (2^5 − 1) ÷ 1 is 31 and (5^3 − 1) ÷ 4 is 31, which is how the same 31 staff can be drawn two completely different ways.
What decides how wide a span can be is how much supervision the work needs. Routine, similar work that goes wrong visibly can be supervised 5 at a time; work that is varied, skilled or dangerous cannot. So the structure follows from the WORK, and not from a preference for flat firms.
Real Example: A supervisor can watch five people doing the same task on five identical machines. The same supervisor cannot oversee five people each doing something different in a different room.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Calculate as requiring a calculation based on given data. Where a span and a number of levels are given, the headcount is (s^L − 1) ÷ (s − 1), and the chain of command is the levels minus one.
Centralised means decisions are taken at the top; decentralised means they are passed down the hierarchy. It is about authority, not about the shape of the chart.
The fourth term in 1.3.4 · 3a is the one most easily mistaken for the shape of the chart, and it is not about the shape at all. It is about WHO IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE.
Centralised: the decisions are taken at the top and passed down as instructions. Decisions are consistent across the firm, the people taking them can see the whole picture, and they are taken by the people with the most experience. They are also taken by people who are not there when the problem happens.
Decentralised: the authority to decide is passed down the hierarchy. Decisions are taken by whoever is closest to the problem, they are taken faster, and taking them is itself a motivator — the delegation of chapter 5. They are also less consistent, and they need people trained well enough to take them.
The thing to be clear about: this is a separate choice from tall or flat. A flat firm can be tightly centralised — 6 managers can still refer everything upward — and a tall one can push real authority down to its 16 machinists. The chart shows the levels; it does not show who decides.
Real Example: Two clothing firms with identical org charts can differ entirely in who may authorise a discount: in one it is the Managing Director, in the other any supervisor.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Discuss as requiring logical chains of reasoning in context showing causes and effects, closing with a brief assessment that shows an awareness of competing arguments, for 8 marks. Context is the word doing the work: a discussion of centralisation has to be about the firm in the extract.
The same 31 people can be drawn with a span of 2 over 5 levels or a span of 5 over 3. Removing levels widens spans; it does not remove people.
1.3.4 · 3b names three types of structure and the first two are the same firm. Sabari Textiles has 31 staff and can be organised either way, which turns an opinion into a subtraction.
Tall: span 2, 5 levels, chain of 4 links. 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 = 31. The first 4 levels are 15 managers and the bottom one is 16 machinists.
Flat: span 5, 3 levels, chain of 2 links. 1 + 5 + 25 = 31. Now 6 managers and 25 machinists.
So 9 posts have moved from supervising to making and the headcount has not changed. The wage bill falls from $1,656,000 to $1,332,000 — $324,000, which is 9 × $36,000, the difference between what a manager and a machinist are paid. And the chain falls from 4 links to 2, so an instruction is retold twice instead of four times.
None of that is free. Each remaining manager supervises 5 people instead of 2, and the whole firm offers 2 promotions instead of 4: a trade of supervision and prospects for cost and speed.
Real Example: A manufacturer that removes a layer of middle managers has not reduced the work those managers did: it has given it to the layer above, whose spans of control have just widened, and to the layer below, which now decides things it used to refer upward.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Construct as requiring an accurately labelled diagram. The labels examiners can credit here are the levels, a span of control marked on one manager, and the chain of command drawn as a route and counted in links.
A matrix keeps the functions and adds a project across them, so somebody on the project has two managers: the project manager and their function head.
The third type in 1.3.4 · 3b is the one an org chart cannot draw, because it is not a tree. A matrix keeps the functional structure and lays a project ACROSS it.
Sabari Textiles wins the school-uniform contract. It needs somebody from Design, Production, Quality and Sales, working together for the length of the contract. In a matrix, each of those 4 people reports to the project manager for the project and to their own function head for everything else.
What it buys. The contract gets every skill it needs without the firm creating a permanent department for it, and the 4 functions talk to each other about a shared output instead of passing work over a wall. When the contract ends, nothing has to be dismantled.
What it costs. Two managers can ask for the same hours, and somebody has to decide which wins — so a matrix needs a rule about priority before it needs an org chart. That is the real cost, and it is a cost in management time rather than in wages.
Real Example: A manufacturer bidding for a single large contract can put one designer, one production planner, one quality inspector and one salesperson on it for six months without any of them leaving their department.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Explain as a brief explanation of cause or effect supported by relevant knowledge. The cause here is the dual reporting line; the effect is either the cross-functional working or the conflict over hours, and an Explain needs one of them followed through.
Structure affects efficiency through the wage bill and the chain of command, and motivation through how much authority and promotion a job carries.
1.3.4 · 3c asks for the impact of different organisational structures on business efficiency and employee motivation — two separate questions, and the chapter has the figures for both.
Efficiency. Flattening Sabari Textiles cuts the wage bill by $324,000 and the chain of command from 4 links to 2, so instructions arrive less distorted and decisions are taken sooner. Against that, each manager now supervises 5 people rather than 2, and supervision that is spread too thin shows up as scrap and rework — costs on the other side of the same ledger.
Motivation. A flatter firm pushes authority down, because 6 managers cannot decide everything for 31 people: delegation and empowerment arrive as a by-product of the structure. But it leaves 2 promotions in the firm instead of 4, and a job with nowhere to go is one an ambitious machinist leaves — at $10,800 a time.
So the two effects do not point the same way, and neither does either one on its own. That is what makes this leaf an evaluation question rather than a description, and why an answer has to say which firm: how much supervision the work needs, and whether its people expect to be promoted.
Real Example: A factory that flattens its structure gains speed and loses the career ladder that kept its best supervisors, and finds out which mattered more only in the following year's turnover figures.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Evaluate as requiring fully developed chains of reasoning showing a range of causes and effects, leading to a supported judgement. This leaf names two effects — efficiency and motivation — so an answer that reaches only one has not covered the requirement.
Motivation reaches the accounts through four routes: productivity, retention, quality and absenteeism. Each of them has a number attached.
1.3.4 · 4a is a leaf of its own — "the importance of employee motivation to a business" — and it is a business question before it is a psychological one. A firm cares about motivation because of what it does to four figures.
Those four are the routes by which everything in the next two chapters reaches the profit. A theory of motivation is only useful to this course because it predicts which of the four a particular method will move.
And the direction runs both ways, which is why this leaf comes before the theories. Low motivation raises turnover, turnover raises the recruitment bill, and a firm spending $43,200 a year replacing supervisors has less to spend on keeping them.
Real Example: A factory that cuts its leavers from four a year to one has not improved anybody's mood as a matter of policy: it has stopped spending three recruitment bills on standing still.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Analyse as requiring a brief chain of reasoning, and says it focuses on depth rather than breadth. One of the four routes followed through to a cost is depth; naming all four is breadth.
Taylor held that workers are motivated by money, so the way to raise output is to find the best method, train everybody in it and pay by the piece.
1.3.4 · 4b names four theorists and the specification gives each of them a name for their theory. Taylor's is scientific management, and it is first because everything after it is an argument with it.
Taylor's claim is that a worker is motivated by money and by nothing else that matters at work. From that, three things follow: study the job to find the single most efficient method, train every worker in exactly that method, and pay by the amount produced so that effort and income rise together.
Piecework is therefore Taylor's method made into a payment system, and chapter 5 does the arithmetic: 240 garments at $1.50 pays the same $360 as a basic wage, and 280 pays $420. The link between effort and pay is the whole design.
What it gets right is that pay matters and that a better method raises output. What it misses is everything the next three theorists are about — and, on its own terms, it also assumes the firm can measure each worker's output, which a supervisor or a designer's employer cannot.
Real Example: A factory that times each stage of sewing a shirt, fixes the method and pays per completed garment is applying Taylor, whether or not anybody there has heard of him.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Define as requiring the meaning of a term or phrase. Two marks for scientific management means the method and the payment that goes with it: one best way, found by studying the job, and pay linked to output.
Mayo found that output rose when workers were given attention and consulted, and when the group they worked in mattered — not only when pay changed.
The specification calls Mayo's theory human relations theory, and its claim is the first argument against Taylor: what happens BETWEEN people at work changes how much they produce.
Mayo's studies changed the working conditions of a group of workers — the lighting, the breaks, the hours — and found output rose. Then the changes were reversed, and output rose again. The conclusion was that the changes were not what mattered: being noticed, consulted and treated as a group was.
Three things follow for a firm. Working in teams with an output of their own motivates; being consulted before a change motivates; and taking an interest in the people doing the work motivates, at no cost in wages. All three are non-financial methods, and all three appear in chapter 5.
At Sabari Textiles that means the flat structure's 5-person teams may motivate for a reason the org chart does not show, and it means a change to the shift pattern that nobody was asked about will cost more in output than it saves in hours.
Real Example: A workshop where the supervisor asks the team how to rearrange the benches, and then does what they suggested, gets more out of the new layout than a firm that installs a better one without asking.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Explain as a brief explanation of cause or effect supported by relevant knowledge. The cause in Mayo is the attention or the consultation; the effect is the output. An answer that names the studies without the mechanism has the knowledge and not the explanation.
Maslow ordered needs in five levels and held that a level only motivates once the one below it is met. Pay reaches the bottom two.
The specification names Maslow's theory as the hierarchy of needs, and the hierarchy IS the theory: five levels, and a level only motivates once the one below has been met.
The order tells a firm which method will do nothing. Offering a machinist the chance to redesign the line — the top level — moves nobody just told their contract may not be renewed, because safety sits three levels below and is unmet.
It also explains a result that looks strange: raising pay often changes very little. Pay reaches the bottom two levels, and once those are met, more of it works on levels it cannot reach — which is where Herzberg arrives from a different direction.
Real Example: A firm offering extra responsibility to staff on temporary contracts finds nobody wants it, and concludes its people are unambitious rather than insecure.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Assess as requiring a chain of reasoning that considers the relative importance of factors and leads to a supported judgement — 10 marks in Units 1 and 2. With Maslow that means naming the LEVEL a method reaches and whether the levels below are met.
Herzberg separated hygiene factors, which can only stop dissatisfaction, from motivators, which are the only things that can cause satisfaction.
The specification names Herzberg's theory as the two-factor theory, and the two factors sit on two separate scales rather than at the two ends of one. That is the whole theory, and collapsing the two into one axis leaves nothing of it.
Hygiene factors — pay, company policy, supervision, working conditions, job security — run from dissatisfied to NOT dissatisfied. Get them wrong and people are unhappy; get them right and people are not unhappy. They cannot reach satisfied, because satisfied is not on their scale.
Motivators — achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement — run from not satisfied to SATISFIED. They are the only things on that second scale, and every one of them is a property of the WORK rather than of its surroundings.
Pay is a hygiene factor, which is the claim with consequences. Sabari Textiles raising a machinist from $9 to $9.45 an hour — $18 a week — removes a grievance and adds nothing to the second scale. Job enrichment, which adds responsibility, is on the second scale and costs nothing in wages. Chapter 5 is largely a list of methods sorted by which scale they act on.
Real Example: A firm that fixes the canteen, the car park and the pay and then wonders why nobody is enthusiastic has spent its money entirely on the first scale.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Evaluate as requiring fully developed chains of reasoning showing a range of causes and effects, leading to a supported judgement, for 20 marks. An Evaluate using Herzberg has to use the separation: which scale each proposed method acts on, and whether the firm's problem is dissatisfaction or the absence of satisfaction.
Both pay for output rather than for time — piecework per unit made, commission as a share of what is sold — so both move the risk onto the worker.
1.3.4 · 4c names five financial methods of improving employee performance, and the figures below are all set against one basic wage: a standard week of 40 hours at $9, which is $360. The two methods in this subsection REPLACE that wage and are set to equal it exactly, so the comparison between them is about risk rather than about generosity. The three in the next subsection ADD to it.
Piecework pays per unit produced. At $1.50 a garment, 240 garments pays $360 — the same as the basic wage. A slow week of 200 pays $300 and a good week of 280 pays $420.
Commission pays a share of sales. At 4%, $9,000 of sales pays $360; $7,500 pays $300 and $10,500 pays $420.
The two are the same design applied to making and to selling, and they have the same consequence: in a bad week the worker's income falls and the firm's wage bill falls with it. The worker carries the risk that demand is low, which is what a basic wage exists to prevent. Piecework also pays for quantity and not for quality, so a firm using it needs inspection it would otherwise not need.
Real Example: A garment factory paying per finished piece finds its output rises and its rejects rise with it, and ends up employing an inspector to hold the quality the piece rate stopped rewarding.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Calculate as requiring a calculation based on given data, for 4 marks, with workings advised. A piece rate and a quantity, or a commission rate and a sales figure, is exactly that calculation.
A bonus is an extra payment for hitting a target; a profit share divides a slice of the profit among the staff. Both pay for a result nobody achieved alone.
The third and fourth methods in 1.3.4 · 4c both pay for a GROUP result, which is what separates them from piecework and commission — and from each other, because one is set against a target and the other against a profit.
Bonus. An extra payment for reaching a target. Sabari Textiles pays 10% of a quarter's basic pay if the quarter's output target is met: 10% of $4,680 is $468, which is $36 a week spread over the 13 weeks. Unlike piecework it is all-or-nothing, so a team that misses the target by one garment gets nothing.
Profit share. A slice of the profit divided among the staff. 5% of $111,600 is $5,580, and split between all 31 staff that is $180 each.
Both have the same strength and the same weakness. They reward what the firm actually cares about — the whole result rather than one person's output — and they therefore reward everybody equally for it, including whoever did least. And a profit share settled once a year on $111,600 of profit rewards nothing a machinist does this week, which is the standing objection to it.
Real Example: A factory paying a quarterly team bonus finds the team helping its slowest member in week twelve, which no individual piece rate would have produced.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Analyse as requiring a brief chain of reasoning without evaluation. A chain on a group payment has to reach the group effect — co-operation, or the free-rider — rather than stopping at the size of the payment.
Performance-related pay raises the rate itself after an appraisal, so it rewards a judgement about the person rather than a count of their output.
The fifth method in 1.3.4 · 4c is the one that works where the other four cannot: it pays for performance as assessed, not for output as counted.
Sabari Textiles appraises each machinist annually and raises the hourly rate by 5% for a good appraisal: $9 becomes $9.45, which over a 40-hour week is $378 instead of $360 — $18 more a week, permanently.
Two things follow from the fact that it raises the RATE. The reward is permanent rather than one-off, so it compounds for somebody appraised well twice; and it is available for jobs whose output nobody can count — a supervisor's, a designer's, a quality inspector's — which is most of the 31 staff in the flat structure.
Its weakness is the appraisal. The payment is only as good as the judgement behind it, and a machinist who believes the appraisal was unfair has been given a grievance rather than an incentive. Herzberg's separation makes the sharper point: pay is a hygiene factor, so $18 a week removes a complaint and puts nothing on the second scale.
Real Example: A workshop that ties a pay rise to an annual appraisal gets the behaviour the appraisal form measures, which is why the form ends up describing the firm's real priorities whether anybody intended it to or not.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Assess as requiring a chain of reasoning that considers the relative importance of factors and leads to a supported judgement, carrying 10 marks in Units 1 and 2. Here the factor worth weighing is the quality of the appraisal, because the method cannot be better than it.
Delegation passes a task and the authority to decide how it is done. Consultation asks before deciding. Both motivate and neither costs a wage.
1.3.4 · 4d names eight non-financial methods. The first two are the ones most closely tied to the structure of chapter 3, because a firm's hierarchy decides how much of either it can offer.
Delegation is passing a task and the authority to decide how it is done — and the authority is the part that matters. Handing somebody a task while keeping the right to decide how it is done is not delegation; it is an instruction. What motivates is being trusted to choose, which is why delegation reaches Herzberg's second scale and a pay rise does not.
Consultation is asking staff before deciding, and being seen to have listened It is weaker than delegation — the decision is still the manager's — and it is the method Mayo's studies point at directly: workers who were asked produced more, and the asking cost nothing.
Both follow from the decentralisation of chapter 3. A flat Sabari Textiles with 6 managers for 31 people HAS to delegate, because 6 people cannot decide everything — so the structure delivers a motivator as a by-product, and the tall version of the same firm has to choose to.
Real Example: A supervisor who tells a machinist which order to run next has given an instruction; one who tells them the week's orders and leaves the sequence to them has delegated, and the work takes the same time either way.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Explain as a brief explanation of cause or effect supported by relevant knowledge. The cause in delegation is the transfer of AUTHORITY; an answer whose cause is the transfer of the task has explained something else.
Empowerment gives staff control over how the work is done, within limits the firm sets. It is delegation made permanent and general rather than task by task.
Empowerment is giving staff control over how they do the work, within limits It is the third of the eight, and it differs from delegation in scope rather than in kind: delegation passes one task, empowerment is a standing arrangement about how the job is done.
The phrase "within limits" is not a hedge. Empowerment without limits is abdication, and the limits are what make it safe to give: a machinist empowered to stop the line when the stitching is wrong is empowered to stop the line, and not to change the order book.
What it buys the firm is decisions taken by whoever is closest to the problem — the same argument as decentralisation in chapter 3, one person at a time. A machinist who can stop a bad batch stops it at ten garments rather than at four hundred.
What it costs is training and tolerance. An empowered worker who decides badly has to be allowed to have decided badly at least once, or nobody decides anything again — and a firm that empowers people without training them has arranged for the wrong decisions to be taken faster.
Real Example: A production line where any operator may halt it to fix a fault catches the fault at ten units; a line where only the supervisor may halt it catches the same fault at the end of the shift.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Discuss as requiring logical chains of reasoning in context showing causes and effects, closing with a brief assessment that shows an awareness of competing arguments, for 8 marks. That assessment is compulsory and short: not an evaluation, a sentence or two weighing the arguments the chains have set up.
Team working organises the work around a group with a shared output, so the group covers for itself and belonging becomes part of the job.
Team working is organising the work around a group with a shared output — and the shared output is what makes it a team rather than a set of people sitting near each other.
It is the method with the most theory behind it. Mayo's finding was that the GROUP changes output; Maslow's third level is belonging; and a team that is measured on a shared result has a reason to help its slowest member, which no individual piece rate can produce.
In the flat Sabari Textiles, one supervisor and 5 machinists is already a team-shaped unit — so the structure of chapter 3 delivers this method too, provided the 5 are measured on something they share.
Its cost is the free-rider, and it is the same cost the group payments of this chapter carry: where the result is shared, so is the credit, and somebody can take the credit without the work. Teams small enough for everybody to see everybody's contribution are the usual answer.
Real Example: A cutting room organised as one team responsible for a whole order finishes it faster than five people each responsible for one stage, because the queue between the stages is now somebody's problem.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 says Analyse focuses on depth rather than breadth and does not include evaluation. Depth here is one mechanism — the shared output, or the free-rider — followed through to an effect the firm can see.
Flexible working lets staff choose when or where the hours are worked. It appears twice in this topic: as a way to staff the firm, and as a way to motivate.
The fifth non-financial method is flexible working, and it is the same practice as chapter 1's "flexible hours and home working" asked about for a completely different reason. The specification lists it in both places, at 1.3.4 · 1b and again at 1.3.4 · 4d.
In chapter 1 the question was what it does for the FIRM: a wider pool to recruit from, less premises, and no help at all in matching staffing to demand.
Here the question is what it does for the WORKER, and the answer is control. Somebody who chooses when the hours are worked has authority over part of their own job, which is the same mechanism as delegation and empowerment — and on Herzberg's scales it is a property of the work rather than of its surroundings.
Which is why it is worth having twice. A firm offering it only to widen its recruitment pool gets the motivation free; a firm offering it as a motivator to machinists who cannot sew from home has offered nothing, because the same method is available to some jobs and not others.
Real Example: A firm that lets its accounts staff choose their start time and cannot offer the same to its cutting room has one motivator available to part of its workforce, and has to find another for the rest.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Define as requiring the meaning of a term or phrase, for 2 marks. Flexible working is choice over WHEN or WHERE the hours are worked, and the two marks are for saying which of those the case is about.
Job enrichment makes the work harder and adds responsibility. It is the one method on the list that is a Herzberg motivator by construction.
Job enrichment is adding harder tasks and more responsibility to a job — harder tasks and more responsibility, not more tasks. The distinction is the whole of the next subsection, and it is where marks are most often lost.
It is the method Herzberg's theory predicts directly. His motivators are achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement, and enrichment adds two of them — the work itself and responsibility — by changing what the job consists of.
At Sabari Textiles that means a machinist who also inspects their own output and signs it off has a richer job: the work is harder, the responsibility is real, and the firm has moved inspection to the person who can fix the fault.
Its cost is training and its risk is the worker who does not want it. A job made harder without the training to do it is a job somebody fails at, and enrichment offered to somebody worried about their contract is aimed at Maslow's fourth level while the second is unmet.
Real Example: A machinist who signs off their own quality has a harder job, and the firm has one fewer inspection queue, because the person who made the fault is now the person who finds it.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Evaluate as requiring fully developed chains of reasoning showing a range of causes and effects, leading to a supported judgement, for 20 marks. An Evaluate of a motivation package is expected to weigh the financial methods against the non-financial ones and conclude for a particular firm.
Rotation moves a worker between jobs of the same difficulty; enlargement adds tasks of the same difficulty to one job. Neither adds responsibility.
The last two of the eight non-financial methods are the two that look like enrichment and are not, because neither changes the DIFFICULTY of the work.
Job rotation is moving staff between jobs at the same level of difficulty A machinist who spends alternate weeks at the cutting bench is rotating. It relieves boredom, and it produces multi-skilling as a side effect — chapter 1's first form of flexibility, arriving through a motivation method.
Job enlargement is adding more tasks at the same level of difficulty to one job A machinist who also labels and boxes what they have sewn has an enlarged job. The work is broader and no harder.
On Herzberg's scales, neither reaches the second one: nothing about either adds achievement, recognition or responsibility. Both can be received as more work for the same pay, and enlargement especially — which is why the honest summary is that rotation treats boredom and enlargement treats a staffing gap, and enrichment is the only one of the three that treats motivation.
Real Example: A packer moved between three benches in a month is less bored and no more responsible, and the firm has quietly acquired somebody who can cover all three when anyone is away.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Explain as a brief explanation of cause or effect supported by relevant knowledge. Naming which of the three a case describes is the knowledge; saying what it therefore does to motivation is the explanation, and the marks are on the second part.
Management is concerned with the work getting done and takes its authority from the post. Leadership is concerned with where the firm is going.
1.3.4 · 5a has one bullet — "the distinction between management and leadership" — and it is the chapter's opening idea rather than an aside, because the four styles that follow are styles of taking DECISIONS and the last leaf is about a founder who cannot make the change.
Management is about the work getting done: allocating it, checking it, and solving what goes wrong this week. Its authority comes from the POST — a supervisor is obeyed because they are the supervisor.
Leadership is about where the firm is going and why: setting a direction and persuading people to follow it. Its authority comes from the PERSON, which is why it can exist without a post and why a post does not confer it.
The same person usually does both, which is what makes the distinction hard to see and worth drawing. A supervisor allocating 5 machinists to 5 machines is managing; the same supervisor persuading them to accept a new shift pattern is leading, and only one of those two jobs is in the job description.
Real Example: The person a workforce actually listens to during a change is often not the person whose title says they should be, which is the distinction in one observation.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Define as requiring the meaning of a term or phrase. Two marks for the distinction means naming what each is concerned with — the work, and the direction — rather than describing one and implying the other.
The autocratic leader decides alone and tells. It is fast and it is right where speed matters or where staff do not yet know the work.
1.3.4 · 5b names four styles and they differ in exactly one thing: who takes the decision. They run in the specification's order from the leader alone to the staff alone, and the four subsections that follow take them in that order.
Autocratic: the leader decides and tells. No consultation, and the reasons need not be given.
What it is for: speed, and situations where the staff genuinely do not know enough to contribute. A fire, a safety failure, a new starter's first week, an order that has to ship tonight — in all four, asking 5 machinists what they think costs more than it adds.
What it costs is everything the last chapter was about. Nobody is delegated to, nobody is consulted, nobody is empowered, so no motivator on Herzberg's second scale is available at all — and a firm led this way permanently has trained its staff not to decide, which is expensive the first time a decision has to be taken without the leader.
Real Example: A supervisor who stops the line and reassigns everybody the moment a machine catches fire is being autocratic and is right; the same supervisor choosing next month's shift pattern the same way is not.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Assess as requiring a chain of reasoning that considers the relative importance of factors, leading to a supported judgement, for 10 marks in Units 1 and 2. Assessing a style means weighing the situation against the staff, not listing advantages.
The paternalistic leader still decides, but explains the decision and weighs what it does to the staff. It buys loyalty and does not transfer authority.
The second style in 1.3.4 · 5b is the one most often left out of a list of four, and the one most often mistaken for a softer version of the first.
Paternalistic: the leader decides, as an autocrat does, and then explains the decision and takes the staff's interests into account in making it. The authority does not move. What changes is that the reasons are given and the effect on the staff is part of the calculation.
That makes it a separate style rather than a softer word for autocratic, and the test is a question: who decided? If the answer is the leader, it is not democratic, however consultative it felt. If the reasons were given and the staff's position was weighed, it is not autocratic either.
What it buys is loyalty and trust, and it works where the staff believe the leader is acting in their interest — a long-standing workforce, a firm that has looked after people before. What it costs is that nobody learns to decide: the staff are looked after rather than trusted, so the motivators of delegation and empowerment stay unavailable.
Real Example: A firm that moves a shift pattern, explains exactly why, and adjusts it for the people with the longest journeys has decided paternalistically: the decision was never the staff's, and their position changed it.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Explain as a brief explanation of cause or effect supported by relevant knowledge. The knowledge here is the definition and the cause is the loyalty; an answer that describes a kindly manager without the retained authority has not defined the style.
The democratic leader decides with the staff, or lets them decide. It is slower, and it is right where the staff know the work better than the leader.
Democratic: the leader decides WITH the staff, or hands the decision to them. This is the first style on the list where the authority actually moves, which is why it is the first that can motivate.
What it is for: decisions where the staff know more than the leader. Nobody knows how a sewing line should be arranged better than the 5 people who work it, and a decision taken with them is a better decision as well as a more popular one.
It also delivers the motivators of the last chapter by construction. Being consulted is Mayo's finding; being trusted to decide is delegation; the responsibility that comes with it is on Herzberg's second scale. None of that costs a wage.
What it costs is time, and it fails in two specific cases: where the decision is urgent, and where the staff do not know enough to take it. Consulting new starters about a method none of them has used yet produces a decision nobody should act on and a leader who looks unsure.
Real Example: A cutting room asked how to sequence a difficult order produces a sequence the supervisor would not have thought of, and then holds to it, because it was theirs.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Discuss as requiring logical chains of reasoning in context showing causes and effects, closing with a brief assessment that shows an awareness of competing arguments, for 8 marks. Context decides which style is right, so a Discuss that never mentions the firm in the extract has nothing to assess.
The laissez-faire leader sets the goal and leaves the staff to it. With expert, self-directed staff it works; without them it is abdication.
Laissez-faire: the leader sets the objective and leaves the staff to decide everything else. It is the far end of the list — the staff decide, and the leader is not in the room.
The condition it needs is expertise. A design team, a research group, a workshop of time-served specialists: people who know the work better than any leader could and who expect to be left to it. For them, anything else is interference and a reason to leave.
The line between this style and abdication is whether a goal was set. A leader who says the line must run 60 hours this week and leaves the pattern to the team is laissez-faire; a leader who says nothing is absent, and the two look identical from a distance until something goes wrong.
Applied to the wrong staff it is the most expensive style on the list. Leaving 5 new machinists to work out a method produces four methods, none of them checked, and the quality problem arrives at the customer rather than at the supervisor.
Real Example: A group of experienced specialists given an objective and a deadline organises itself better than any instruction would have; the same freedom given to a new team produces four ways of doing one job.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 says Analyse focuses on depth rather than breadth and does not include evaluation. A chain on laissez-faire runs from the staff's expertise to the quality of the decisions they take, and stops before judging the style.
A founder decides everything and knows everyone. A leader of 31 people cannot, so the move requires delegating, structuring and leading through others.
The last leaf of the topic, 1.3.4 · 5c, asks why moving from entrepreneur to leader is difficult. Everything in the previous five chapters is the answer.
A founder with four staff does every job: recruits, trains, decides, sells and leads, and their authority comes from being the person who started it. Nothing has to be structured, because the founder is the structure.
At 31 people none of that survives. Somebody has to be recruited rather than known, so recruitment costs $10,800 a post. Decisions have to be delegated, because one person cannot take 31 people's decisions. A hierarchy has to exist, so authority starts coming from the POST rather than from the person — and that is the transition, in one sentence.
Which is why it is hard for the specific reason the specification implies: the skills that built the firm are the ones now in the way. Deciding fast was an advantage at four people and is a bottleneck at 31; knowing everything personally was the founder's edge and is now the thing preventing anybody else from being trusted. The founder has to stop doing what made them successful, on the evidence of nothing going wrong yet.
Real Example: A firm whose founder still authorises every discount at thirty staff has not failed at anything: it has outgrown the one habit that worked best when there were four of them.
Exam Matters: Appendix 6 defines Evaluate as requiring fully developed, coherent chains of reasoning showing a range of causes and effects, leading to a supported judgement, for 20 marks. This leaf reaches across the whole topic, which is why it is the section's 20-mark question.
Treating staff as an asset means investing in them and expecting a return; treating them as a cost means minimising the outlay. Both are real strategies.
Multi-skilling trains one worker to do several jobs, so cover moves to wherever the work is without the firm employing anybody extra.