Download paper


An earlier example of managerial complicity in subversion may well be found in the celebrated British Rochdale Co-operative Society (founded in 1844) in the failure of its Flour Mill experiment in co-partnership with flourmill workers in 1862. The facts are that external investors gained a majority control and out voted the worker members and the Rochdale Society shareholding. Their objective was that of abolishing profit sharing and reducing the workers to little more than employees rather than partners in production that had been the intention of the Rochdale Co-operative Society directors.

The general manager of the mill was JWT Mitchell who later becomes the general manager of the British CWS and a fierce opponent of worker co-operation and any idea of profit sharing with the workers. It was he along with Beatrice Potter (later Webb) who defined and promoted the idea of Consumer Co-operation as the true form of co-operation. It is hard to credit that Mitchell did not know what was happening in terms of the balance of power in the Rochdale Mill even if he did not actually orchestrate the takeover himself.

The last suggestion

The last suggestion is quite probable given his later public position on the question of worker cooperatives and profit sharing (Davis and Donaldson, 1997). Davis and Donaldson (1997) also identified that whilst fraud and embezzlement has been equally a feature of investor led businesses the cooperative form of business makes this a particular problem for three reasons. First, as Michelle noted the owners (members) are in terms of intellectual ability, knowledge and skills mainly at a disadvantage in relation to their managers.

Top Experts
Bella Hamilton
Verified expert
5 (234)
Writer Jennie
Verified expert
4.8 (467)
Verified expert
4.9 (546)
hire verified expert

Second, the ownership structure in a co-operative means that its non transferable shares are not subject to the external scrutiny of the capital market where any concerns about the profitability of a listed company will translate into a decline in share prices. Thirdly, the objectives of a co-operative are not ways easily clearly defined in quantifiable terms, particularly their social goals, which can make accountability and performance measurement complicated and sometimes easy to fudge. The insider attempt to subvert the former CWS Ltd, now the Co-operative Group, is still a fresh memory.

Today the economic realities of globalisation are forcing the co-operative sector to merge and even acquire new businesses. Under these conditions the lay board’s dependency on professional management can only grow. Given the disadvantages the lay boards will have vies a vies their managers the need to revise the relationship and move from a civil service model of division of powers to a value based model which incorporates a unified culture and recognises the role and responsibility of management for the whole co-operative enterprise.

Generating Alternatives

In order to generating alternatives of the given case data analysis, author can suggest the some motivational theories. According to Buchanan & Huczynsk (2004), motivation can be regarded as a broad concept, which includes preferences for particular outcomes, strength of effort (half-hearted or enthusiastic) and persistence (in the face of barriers). Wendy et. al (2003) suggest that motivation involves a conscious decision to perform one or more activities with greater effort than one performs other activities competing for attention.

Porter and Lawler (1968 cited in Canales and Kuster, 2008) believe that it is important to allow for the fact that extra levels of effort do not always lead to improved performance.

Maslow’s hierarchy theory

Maslow’s need hierarchy theory proposes that motivation should address five basic needs. They are physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. According to Maslow’s beliefs these needs “generally emerge in a predictable stair-step fashion” (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2003).

According to Kreitner & Kinicki (2003), Maslow’s given the hierarchy needs for employees expectation towards organisations, before starting about the employees’ expectation, the employees needs are important; usually they have some hierarchy needs which are; self actualization needs, esteem needs, belonging needs, safety and security needs and psychological needs .

The self-actualization needs: According to Robbins (2003), the term actualization means that the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what the organism is called self-actualization needs

Esteem needs: The term esteem means that need for things that reflect on self-esteem, personal worth, social recognition, and accomplishment. Social needs: The social needs includes love of family or friends, for example, the boy loves his girl friend, the relationship between husband and wife, one child belongs to one family This is called belongingness or love (Andrzej and David, 2004) Safety needs: The safety might include living in an area away from threats.

This level is more likely to be found in children as they have a greater need to feel safe (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2003). Physiological needs: It includes the very basic need air, warmth, food, sleep, stimulation and activity. People can die due to lack of biological needs and equilibrium common needs like food, water, oxygen and other common minimum needs are wanted for everyone to survive in the world (Wendy et. al, 2003).

Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor proposed two theories by which to view employee motivation.

He avoided descriptive labels and simply called the theories Theory X and Theory Y. Both of these theories begin with the premise that management’s role is to assemble the factors of production, including people, for the economic benefit of the firm. Beyond this point, the two theories of management diverge. According to Robbins (2003), “in theory X management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can. Because of this workers need to be closely supervised and comprehensive systems of controls developed.

A hierarchical structure is needed with narrow span of control at each level. According to this theory employees will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can”. According to Luthans (2005), “in theory Y management assumes employees may be ambitious, self-motivated, anxious to accept greater responsibility, and exercise self-control and self-direction”. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties.

It is also believed that if given the chance employees have the desire to be creative and forward thinking in the workplace. There is a chance for greater productivity by giving employees the freedom to perform at the best of their abilities without being bogged down by rules.

ERG Theory

According to McShane and Glinow (2005), Clayton Alderfer expanded on Maslow’s hierarchical theory. He proposed three need categories and suggested that movement between the need levels is not necessarily straightforward.

Failure to meet a higher-order need could cause an individual to regress to a lower-order need. These ERG theory categories are existence needs, which includes physiological and safety needs; relatedness needs, which includes affiliation and esteem needs; and growth needs, which includes self-actualization and self-esteem needs. All three needs categories can be presented at any one time, in contrast with Maslow’s “progression hypotheses”. Clayton added a “regression hypothesis”, arguing that we drop to a lower category when attempts to satisfy higher needs are frustrated.

McClelland’s Theory of Needs

McClelland’s (1991) motivation theory suggests that people are differently motivated towards achievement, power, affiliation and avoidance. Firstly, the achievement motive is a key to McClelland’s view of economic development. McClelland has identified four characteristics of people with a strong achievement need: a preference for moderate task difficulty; personal responsibility for performance; the need for feedback; and innovativeness.

In considering employees’ needs in the workplace, managers can better understand the, “… psychological processes if they are to successfully guide employees toward accomplishing organizational objectives” (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2003). Managing resistance to change through motivation will require, “… managers to use a contingency framework to pick and choose the motivational techniques best suited to the people and situation involved” (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2003).

Motivation through meeting employee needs, job design, and rewards systems can have positive affects in dealing with resistance to change.

Goal-Setting Theory

Goal-setting theory is a cognitive theory that is originally developed by Locke (1995). It uses many principles of information processing approaches and of reinforcement, most specifically social learning theory, to explain how goals motivate people. Wendy, Curtis and Phillip (2003) suggest difficult goals stimulate effort and commitment.

The use of goals to motivate performance draws on two primary attributes: the content of the goal and the level of intensity in working toward it.

Reward System

Robbins (2003) thought the organization’s reward system influenced decision makers by suggesting to them what choices were preferable in terms of personal payoff. According to Robbins (1992), rewards can be divided into two types of monetary rewards and non-monetary rewards. The purpose of monetary rewards is to reward associates for excellent job performance through money.

Monetary rewards include profit sharing, project bonuses, stock options and warrants, scheduled bonuses, and additional paid vacation time. Traditionally, these have helped maintain a positive motivational environment for associates. The purpose of non-monetary rewards is to reward associates for excellent job performance through opportunities. Non-monetary rewards include opportunity for achievement, giving of challenging responsibility, opportunity for advancement, and opportunity for growth in stature and peer recognition.

Cite this page

Stature and peer recognition. (2020, Jun 02). Retrieved from

Are You on a Short Deadline? Let a Professional Expert Help You