Why does food allowance discourage student employees’ effort in reducing wastage at the Barrie Super Subs?
The manager’s discretion to completely remove food allowances, resulted in a lack of motivation by employees to reduce food wastage at Barrie Super Subs. This decision unfortunately removed any interest in helping management achieve their bonus goals. The intrinsic, or core reasons for adhering to company policies were removed. The lack of benefits, coupled with low wages left staff feeling as though there was nothing to be gained by adhering to what they felt were onerous working conditions. The managers, only concerned with their own reward, were very short-sighted and did not understand how to motivate their staff. They removed both intrinsic motivation, which meant employees took no personal interest in reducing wastage, and extrinsic motivation, meaning employees did not receive tangible rewards either such as pay, promotions, and in this case simply a food allowance.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Consider Expectancy Theory of Motivation".
The staff retaliated by wasting food unnecessarily and this was in direct response to what was perceived as an already unfair food allowance policy. The manager and assistance manager, even though they did not verbally say so to their staff, made them feel unimportant and insignificant. This was done by purposely adjusting work schedules to avoid giving food allowances. The initial policy was unfair since most staff were part-time students and usually worked just under the four hour and thirty minute criteria to receive free food. Punishing the staff by increasing the number of hours to six in order to receive a food allowance had the opposite effect. Instead of reducing food wastage, it actually increased. This is because the staff saw no benefit, and the low salary was not enough to keep them motivated to do an excellent job.
Not everything can be blamed on the managers, since the corporate headquarters supported a sense of separation of managers and the hourly staff. The managers were discouraged from pitching in and helping the staff with food preparation and interacting with customers. The managers were not personally invested in the success of its staff. It is interesting to note that Barrie Super Subs were failing in their overall profit and it seems to point to their management style.
Based on A.H. Maslow’s needs motivation there are several criteria which must be met to incite people to act. These are the need to be self-fulfilled, to belong, to feel secure, to feel good about oneself, and to provide for basic physical needs (McShane & Steen, 2012). The managers at Barrie Super Subs failed on all of these accounts. The obvious perk to working at Barrie’s was the food allowance, and once that was removed or deemed unattainable, this according to Maslow failed to meet even the employee’s basic needs.
The need to belong was somewhat met initially, because at some point at least the atmosphere was enjoyable, and perceivably this could have fostered the motivational aspect of feeling secure. However, eventually this was need went unmet and the feeling of self-gratification, when the lack of bonuses drove the managers to remove food allowances altogether. When this happened, the work atmosphere grew unpleasant and the staff began discouraging friends from applying and several others decided to quit.
The tense atmosphere coupled with a lack of motivation, the loss of a food allowance actually gave the employees justification for purposely incurring wastage. The managers were highly ineffective at motivating employees to meet the company’s wastage goals and were unwilling to take any responsibility. The managers failed to hone in on a key motivational value, which was the need to make employees feel great about their work and their potential. This encouraged negativity and retaliation, and the employees did not take ownership of their respective positions. When the food allowance was taken away the staff felt devalued and unappreciated, and therefore unmotivated to help managers meet their bonus goals.
The relationship between managers and staff is one of give and take and it goes well beyond an hourly salary. John Stacey Adams introduced in 1963 an equity theory that has much to do with whether or not people perceive a work environment as fair. He supports that the higher the inequities, then the lower the loyalties and work product, because this is how workers compensate for their inequities (McShane & Steen, 2012). However, the lower the inequities, then the higher the loyalties and work product. High inequities equal low motivation, and low inequities equal higher motivation. Barrie’s managers encouraged high inequities and the workers compensated with increased spoilage and wastage.
- McShane, S., & Steen S. (2012). Canadian Organizational Behaviour, (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
