fair pay or fair play? - college of...

University of Portsmouth

Institute of Criminal Justice Studies

Fair Pay or Fair Play?

An investigation into the effect the

removal of Special Priority Payments and

suspension of Competency Related

Threshold Payments might have on the

motivation of Police Constables

A dissertation submitted in part fulfilment for the

requirements of the MSc in Police Science &

Management

Matthew Crofts

September 2012

3

Institute of Criminal Justice Studies

MSc in Police Science & Management

Dissertation submitted as partial requirement for the award of MSc in

Police Science & Management

Fair pay or fair play? An investigation into the effect the removal of

Special Priority Payments and suspension of Competency Related

Threshold Payments might have on the motivation of Police Constables

Submitted by Matthew Crofts

Student Number 442630

Declaration

I confirm that, except where indicated through the proper use of citations

and references, this is my own original work. I confirm that, subject to final

approval by the Board of Examiners of the Institute of Criminal Justice

Studies, a copy of this dissertation may be placed upon the shelves of the

library of the University of Portsmouth or made available electronically in

the Library Dissertation repository and may be circulated as required.

Signed

Date

5

Abstract

The independent review of police officer remuneration and conditions

(2011) was the most comprehensive review of police pay and conditions

for thirty years. Two of the recommendations that were implemented are

the subject of this study – The removal of Special Priority Payments (SPP)

and the suspension of new applications for Competency Related

Threshold Payments (CRTP). An electronic survey was administered to

police constables on one of the eleven territorial policing divisions in

Greater Manchester Police in order to examine the possible effect that the

removal of those payments might have on police officer motivation.

The results, which were considered in the context of theories of

motivation, workplace motivation and public service motivation, found that

the SPP and CRTP scheme did not necessarily promote motivation, but

the removal of the payments appeared to contribute to feelings of de-

motivation. Officers felt frustrated about the changes that had been

imposed on them. The rhetoric relating to low morale in the police service

was supported, however public service motivation appeared to be high. A

comparison of current and future work effort in the wake of the

implementation of the removal of SPP and suspension of CRTP

suggested that there may only be so much reform that police officers will

accept before levels of public service motivation begin to erode.

7

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr Bob Golding for his patience,

understanding, guidance and support.

Appreciation is also extended to Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy and Chief

Superintendent Russ Jackson for their consent to conduct this research,

and to the constables of the North Manchester Division for their

cooperation and time in participating in this study.

9

Contents

Page

Tables and Figures - 13

Glossary of Terms - 15

Chapter One

Introduction - 17

Aim and objectives - 19

Why is this research worth doing? - 19

Chapter Two

Literature Review - 23

Defining motivation - 24

Early motivation research - 25

Content theories - 26

Process theories - 28

Expectancy theory - 28

Equity theory - 29

Goal theory - 30

Workplace motivation - 31

Private organisations v public organisations - 34

10

The theory of public service motivation - 36

Empirical evidence of public service motivation - 37

Chapter Three

The history of police pay and the independent review of

police officer and staff remuneration and conditions - 41

The Winsor review - 45

Special Priority Payments - 46

Competency Related Threshold Payments - 47

Chapter Four

Research Methodology - 49

Access - 50

Ethics - 51

Political considerations - 51

Voluntary v informed consent - 51

Anonymity and confidentiality - 52

Role conflict and researcher bias - 52

Questionnaire design - 53

Chapter Five

The Questionnaire Results - 55

Demographic data and respondent profile - 56

11



Morale, motivation and commitment - 66

Statistical analysis - 73

Chapter Six

Discussion - 75



Morale, motivation and commitment - 81

Chapter Seven

Conclusion - 87

Appendices - 91

A – Emails accompanying the questionnaire - 93

B – The questionnaire - 97

C – Results of the statistical significance tests - 107

References - 109

13

Tables and Figures

Table 1 - Respondent age

Table 2 - Length of service

Table 3 - Current role

Table 4 - Average length of service by role

Table 5 - Q1.5 The way in which SPP is allocated is fair

Table 6 - Q1.6 SPP causes tension when some groups

receive it and others do not

Table 7 - Q1.7 For those in eligible roles, SPP should be

paid to everybody, irrespective of length of

service

Table 8 - Q1.8 I am frustrated by the removal of SPP

Table 9 - Q2.4 By being linked to operational

competency, CRTP is allocated in a fair way

Table 10 - Q2.5 CRTP applications are appropriately

scrutinised by supervisors

Table 11 - Q2.6 There is a general expectation that if a p

person is eligible, an application will be

approved

Table 12 - Q2.7 It seems that everyone who applies for

CRTP receives it

Table 13 - Q3.5 I am satisfied with my job

14

Table 14 - Q3.6 I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work

I do

Table 15 - Q3.7 My personal morale is good at the

moment

Table 16 - Q3.8 The morale of my team is good at the

moment

Table 17 - Q3.9 I always do the best that I can when I’m

at work

Table 18 - Q3.10 Despite the removal of SPP and CRTP, I

will continue to do my best at work

Table 19 - Statistically significant probability values

(p<0.05) for Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test

Figure 1 - Q1.5 Breakdown by role





Figure 6 - Comparison of responses to questions 3.7 &

3.8



Figure 9 - Comparison of responses to questions 3.9 &

3.10

15

Glossary of Terms

24/7 - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

ACPO - Association of Chief Police Officers

CID - Criminal Investigation Department

CRTP - Competency Related Threshold Payment(s)

EPAA - Expertise and Professional Accreditation

Allowance

ERPB - External Relations and Performance Branch,

Greater Manchester Police

GMP - Greater Manchester Police

HR - Human Resource(s)

NMD - North Manchester Division

NPT - Neighbourhood Policing Team

PAT - Police Arbitration Tribunal

PFEW - Police Federation of England & Wales

PMAS - Police Mutual Assurance Society

PNB - Police Negotiating Board

PSM - Public Service Motivation

SPP - Special Priority Payment(s)

17

Chapter One

Introduction

18

“Reform of the system is long overdue. But we of course cannot ignore

the financial constraints in which the public sector is now operating.”

(Winsor, 2011).

On Friday 1st October 2010, the Home Secretary, Theresa May

announced the most comprehensive review of police pay and conditions in

30 years, calling for radical solutions to improve policing. The

announcement introduced Tom Winsor, the former rail regulator as the

person who would lead the first independent review of police officer and

police staff remuneration and conditions of its kind since 1978 (Home

Office, 2010). In the terms of reference for the review, Winsor was

challenged to, “...make recommendations that enable the police service to

manage its resources to serve the public more cost effectively, taking

account of the fiscal challenges...” (Secretary of State for the Home

Department, 2011).

Part one of the independent review, known as the Winsor review, was

published in March 2011 with a total number of 62 recommendations,

many of which, following relevant and necessary arbitration processes,

were implemented in April 2012. Two of those implemented

recommendations - the removal of Special Priority Payments (SPP) and

the two year suspension of new applications for Competency Related

Threshold Payments (CRTP) are the subject of this study. Both SPP and

CTRP are payments that can be awarded to police officers, over and

above their salaries, subject to certain criteria being met, such as

appropriate levels of service and competence or working in a qualifying

role. Both the SPP and CRTP schemes will be discussed in more detail in

chapter three.

19

Aim

To investigate the effect that the removal of SPP and suspension of

new applications for CRTP might have on police officer motivation

at the rank of constable

Objectives

To assess the value that police constables in Greater Manchester

Police (GMP) place on SPP and CRTP, particularly in respect of

their views on the fairness of payment allocation, and tension

caused when some groups receive the payments and others do not

To confirm or disprove the anecdotes that suggest that police

officers are angry and demoralised, particularly in the wake of the

Winsor review recommendations

To critically review how the removal of such payments could have

an effect on police officer motivation, both in the context of general

theories of motivation and theories of public service motivation

(PSM)

To identify any difference of opinion about morale, motivation and

future work effort between teams working on the same policing

division.

Why is this research worth doing?

The independent review of police officer and staff remuneration and

conditions is described as being the most comprehensive review of its kind

for 30 years. The UK is faced with significant financial challenges and the

public sector must take its fair share of the deficit (Secretary of State for

the Home Department, 2011, p. 323). The recommendations being made

in part one of the report are concerned with some of the short term

reforms, and many of them are financially based and will impact directly on

20

the earnings of police officers. There is a limited amount of empirical

evidence describing the way officers are feeling in relation to the reforms

that have been implemented thus far. Much of the rhetoric seen in the

media is based on anecdotes. Organisations such as the Police

Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) and the Association of Chief

Police Officers (ACPO) are both well rehearsed in their viewpoints on both

public sector reform and the work of the Winsor review, so, whilst the

Coalition Government’s firm position on police service reform shows no

sign of changing, it is felt that this research is important in order to get a

“view from the frontline”.

At the time of writing (July 2012), agreements on the recommendations

made in part two of the Winsor review are still being discussed through the

Police Negotiating Board (PNB) process, so this is very much a

contemporary issue, with further reforms still expected to be implemented.

It should be acknowledged however, that potential future changes to

conditions of service, ongoing reviews of police pensions, and the general

cost of living pressures being experienced by police officers (and a large

proportion of the UK population as well), may impact on the outcomes of

this study.

This paper will centre on a literature review of relevant theories of

motivation, workplace motivation and public service motivation (PSM),

followed by a case study of police constables on one of the eleven

territorial policing divisions in GMP, by way of an electronically

administered questionnaire. The research is intentionally limited in size for

logistical, time and administrative reasons, therefore it is intended to give

an indication of potential force or service wide outcomes relating to the

changes made from part one of the Winsor review, and not to highlight

internal resourcing and/or restructuring issues for GMP managers at either

divisional or force level.

The policing area chosen is the North Manchester Division (NMD) as it

was the location where the researcher was temporarily based at the time

21

of the study, however, he did not have any professional responsibility for

any of the constables on the division so was impartial and had little

influence over the target population. The basis of the survey is to

establish the views of police constables on the allocation and

administration of the SPP and CRTP schemes, and to assess their current

and possible future levels of morale, commitment and motivation following

the removal of those payments.

23

Chapter Two

Literature Review

24

The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate some of the prominent theories

of motivation, workplace motivation and the concept of PSM. Money,

financial rewards and the opportunity to earn more all feature heavily as

potential motivators across the theories, although in contrast, some

discuss the possible de-motivating effect that the removal or absence of

such payments may cause. Two particular payments have been removed

as a result of the independent review, and this chapter will provide a

theoretical context to understanding the possible effect the removal of

those payment schemes could have on police officers.

A great deal of contemporary work has focussed specifically on motivation

in the workplace and the concept of public service motivation, both of

which are generally based on empirical studies. The examination of these

is relevant in order to evaluate the relative weight that public servants

place on financial rewards compared to other motivations for working in

the public sector. Financial rewards and incentives in the police service

are generally set and agreed at a national level, which limits the scope for

local managers to implement their own systems, therefore this chapter will

also discuss the necessity for financial incentive schemes in the public

service to be linked directly to the public service motives of the individual.

Defining Motivation

Before examining some of the key theories of motivation, it is important to

explore the origins of the word and assess some of the definitions that

have been suggested over the years. “Motivation” derives from the Latin

word for movement, “movere”, and a number of definitions describe it as a

psychological process that determines a person’s perceptions, which in

turn influences their actions (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004, p. 379). In

the work environment, Beardwell and Claydon (2007, p. 491) define

motivation at the most basic level as, “…a certain level of willingness on

the part of the employee to increase their effort, to the extent that this

exertion also satisfies a predefined need or desire they hold”. They

25

continue by stating that motivation can be understood as, “…a

psychological process resulting from the interaction between the individual

and the environment”. Baron (1991, p. 1) suggests that motivation is, “The

internal processes that activate, guide, and maintain behaviour (especially

goal-directed behaviour)”. These definitions clearly show that a person’s

level of motivation is derived from within themselves, but that the level of

motivation can also be influenced by the environment and conditions in

which they work and the way in which they are managed, particularly in

the context of attaining goals and objectives.

Early Motivation Research

Some of the earliest practical research into motivation in the workplace

was carried out at the end of the nineteenth century by Frederick Taylor,

then, soon after in the 1920’s by Elton Mayo following the Hawthorne

experiments at the Western Electric Company in America. Taylor believed

that workers would be motivated by the highest possible wages for

working in the most efficient and productive ways. Mayo’s work concluded

that employees were complex beings with multiple motivational influences

and that group dynamics in a work environment were influential factors on

performance. Since the 1950’s there have been a number of theories of

motivation written, and which can be divided into two approaches

described as content theories and process theories. Content theories

identify people’s individual needs and the goals they aim for in order to

satisfy those needs, and can be applied to life situations as well as work

scenarios. Major content theories include the work of Maslow, Alderfer

and Hertzberg (Mullins, 2010, p. 259-268). Process theories are

concerned with how behaviour is initiated, directed and sustained, by

trying to identify the actions required to influence behaviour and actions.

Process theories tend to provide a greater insight into the nature of work

motivation (Mullins, 2010, p. 268-282). Many of the process theories

cannot be attributed to single writers, but various key models can be

26

considered under the headings of expectancy-based models, equity

theory, goal theory and attribution theory.

Content Theories

Maslow published his hierarchy of needs theory in 1954. The theory is

based on five levels of basic human needs which are placed in

hierarchical order. Those needs are Physiological, Safety, Love/Social,

Esteem and Self-actualisation.

Maslow (1970, p. 7) describes human beings as wanting animals that

rarely reach a state of complete satisfaction except for a short period of

time. Satisfactions generate new motivations; that is to say that, as one

desire is satisfied, another needs to be fulfilled. He asserts that it is a

characteristic of humans throughout their whole lives that they always

desire something.

The needs in Maslow’s hierarchy become increasingly complex as

progress is made from one level to the next. At the lowest levels are; the

basic requirements that humans need to exist; the need for safety and

security; a need to form relationships; a desire for relationships, and;

feelings of identity, respect and recognition. At the highest levels there is

ultimately a need for self fulfilment. Maslow later pointed out (1970, p.26)

that the hierarchy is not nearly as rigid as was originally implied. He

asserts that most people he encountered tended to have the basic needs

in more or less the order they appear, however there are a number of

exceptions at the higher levels of the hierarchy.

Adair (1990) provides an interesting proposal by inverting Malsow’s

hierarchy, suggesting that the lower level needs have the most limitations,

for example, to fulfil the physiological level, one can only eat so many

meals in a day, so it should therefore have the narrowest representation in

the hierarchy. Individuals will progress through the levels at different rates

27

as well as having different factors within those levels (Beardwell et al.

2007, p. 492-494; Harris & Kleiner, 1993, p. 1; Mullins, 2007, p. 257-260).

Alderfer (1972, cited by Mullins, 2010, p. 264-265) modified Maslow’s five

level hierarchy of needs model into his “ERG” theory which comprised

three levels. His three key needs were Existence, Relatedness and

Growth, hence “ERG”, and encapsulated Maslow’s five levels. Alderfer

states that an individual can satisfy needs from any level at any time.

Furthermore, if certain factors within the ERG needs are blocked or

impossible to achieve, effort can be concentrated on providing more

opportunity to fulfil lower level needs. (Beardwell et al. 2007, p. 494;

Mullins, 2007, p. 261).

Hertzberg’s two factor theory (1959) placed more of an emphasis on the

individual’s needs in a work situation and proposed two levels, naming

them hygiene factors and motivation (or growth) factors. Hertzberg

argued that those factors do not necessarily motivate the individual when

they are present, but would prevent the individual from being or becoming

dissatisfied. The absences of growth factors do not necessarily de-

motivate or dissatisfy. Hertzberg suggested that the opposite of

satisfaction is simply no satisfaction, and the opposite of dissatisfaction is

no dissatisfaction (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005, p. 929-934; Beardwell et

al. 2007, p. 494-495; Mullins, 2007, p. 261-263). Those that challenged

Hertzberg’s results did so on the grounds that the methodology was

flawed and suggested that his data was not consistent with his

interpretation, however they could not explain why Hertzberg’s methods

produced such consistency (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005, p. 933;

Hertzberg, 1968, p. 92-168).

There have been a number of criticisms levelled at content theories in the

past. They are some of the earliest theories on motivation and it could be

argued that performance management models and appraisal systems

have highlighted their limitations in that they tend to suggest a generalised

approach to motivating individuals. Maslow’s theory is perhaps the most

28

general or them all and translates least well to the work and employment

environment, although it has to be appreciated that it was not originally

intended to be applied to work situations. Hertzberg’s two-factor theory

was developed in the workplace and has received criticism for the

methods used, and there has also been suggestion that it is not

particularly relevant to “unskilled” or manual workers.

In some industries and work situations, and particularly in the police

service, managers may not have the ability to directly change or improve a

number of the hygiene, existence and psychological factors demonstrated

in the above theories, therefore it is essential for the manager to

understand and appreciate their existence and that they operate within the

employee both at work and in life generally. The manager plays a key role

in promoting the motivating, relatedness, growth and self-actualisation

factors, and organisations have their responsibilities also. (Beardwell et

al. 2007, p. 495; Mullins, 2007, p. 264-265).

Process Theories

Expectancy Theory

Perhaps the most widely cited expectancy based theory is that written by

Victor Vroom in 1964. His theory states that individuals expect particular

actions to achieve a desired result (they have “expectancy”), and that the

desired result is either something worth striving for, or something worth

avoiding (they have “valence”). He describes expectancy as, “A

momentary belief concerning the likelihood that a particular act will be

followed by a particular outcome”. The level of an individual’s motivation

is based upon how strong their expectancy is and how important the

outcome is to them. A person will be most motivated when expectancy is

strong and valence is either positive or negative (Hollyforde & Whiddett,

2002, p. 76-83). This theory concentrates on extrinsic outcomes and

rewards, which would generally equate to tangible rewards allocated by

29

the organisation or the manager. Satisfaction comes from the extrinsic

consequence of the action (Parker, Bindl & Strauss, 2010, p. 828). In

contrast, intrinsic outcomes are those related to the satisfaction that is

derived from carrying out the activity itself.

Porter and Lawler (Cited by Gagné & Deci, 2005 p. 331) built on Vroom’s

model in 1968, arguing that total job satisfaction could be achieved if roles

were enlarged to make them more interesting, and therefore more

intrinsically rewarding. Effective performance would lead to extrinsic

rewards such as higher pay and promotions.

Equity Theory

A key author of equity theory is J. Stacey Adams. Dating from 1965, this

theory focuses on the way in which people feel about how fairly they have

been treated when compared with the treatment received by others. A

person is likely to become dissatisfied if they feel there is inequity in the

way they have been treated in comparison to others. The theory states

that a person generally strives to turn inequitable situations (dissonance)

into equitable ones (consonance). In the work environment, situations of

equity are likely to lead to job satisfaction, however, there is likely to be a

negative impact on the individual in situations of inequity.

Equity theory is also relevant when a person feels that they are receiving

more from a situation than another person for the same number of inputs.

This situation would be one of dissonance, even though it is being felt by

the individual that perceives they are in a more favourable position. The

theory suggests that the individual will attempt to change the situation to

one of consonance. There is more support, however, for the seeking of

consonance by those that feel under-rewarded than those who perceive

that they are over-rewarded.

There was strong support in Adams’ research that people who feel

dissonance will generally strive to achieve consonance. The theory

30

received criticism for being unclear about how an individual selects groups

for comparison, although there is more support for the theory when

individual and referent groups have a close rather than distant relationship

(Mullins, 2005, p. 496; Adams, 1992; Hollyforde & Whiddett, 2002).

Goal Theory

Goal theory is mainly based on the work of Edwin Locke, and is based on

the premise that the goals or intentions of individuals play an important

part in determining behaviour, and that people are motivated to achieve

the successful attainment of challenging goals. Three main conclusions

came from Locke’s work in 1968; more difficult goals resulted in higher

levels of performance than easy goals; specific goals produced higher

levels of performance than general goals; and behavioural intentions

influence the choices people make. Latham and Locke (1992, p. 199-205)

found that it could be used as a highly effective stand-alone technique for

motivating employee performance, however warned that if used incorrectly

it could cause problems rather than solve them. They argued that goals

should be fair and achievable and should be agreed and accepted by the

employee, otherwise dissatisfaction and poor performance may result.

Goal theory is a widely used and widely accepted technique, as it

frequently forms the basis of performance management systems.

Locke and Latham (2004) acknowledge that a person’s reaction to the

plethora of existing work motivation theories can be one of bewilderment,

but also point out that although the theories are flawed in a number of

respects, they are not contradictory to one another, rather, they focus on

different aspects of motivational processes. It will be demonstrated later in

this paper that a number of factors from various theories can be at play at

the same time.

The remainder of this chapter will consider some of the contemporary

work by examining the practical elements of how to motivate (or move)

31

individuals and teams in the workplace. Employee engagement, a

comparison of employee motivation in the public and the private sector,

and the concept of PSM will be discussed.

Workplace Motivation

“Forget praise. Forget punishment. Forget cash. You need to make their

jobs more interesting”. (Hertzberg, 2003, p. 87)

Hertzberg describes how when giving lectures to industry on how to

motivate employees, audiences are regularly looking for quick and

practical tips for “moving people”. He describes the most direct way of

getting someone to do something is to tell them to do it or to administer “a

kick in the pants”, something he describes at KITA. With that advice he

warns that there is negative (both physical and psychological) and positive

KITA. The interpretation of negative KITA can be taken as the “kick in the

pants”, whether done physically or psychologically. He generally reasons

that when negative KITA is used and reinforced, movement is the result

rather than motivation. Similarly, Hertzberg argues that positive KITA also

results in movement. If an employee is offered some sort of incentive,

reward, promotion or recognition for completing a particular task, he

suggests that it is the manager that is motivated and the employee that is

moved. He likens these circumstances to that of giving a dog a biscuit. If

a dog is offered food for doing something correctly, the dog is “moved” to

do what it is told because of the promise of food, not because the dog

actually wants to do what it is told. Hertzberg stresses that an

overwhelming opinion from management professionals is that positive

KITA is motivation, when in fact it is not motivation until the individual

wants to complete the task. Raby (2001) argues that a manager cannot

actually motivate an employee, but instead can create a situation where

individuals will respond because they choose to. Hood (2002) agrees,

suggesting that the notion that motivation is a single activity that is brought

about by management is simplistic and naïve and that motivation must

32

come from the individual rather than being externally imposed by

management policy.

Hertzberg (2003, p. 88-91) describes a number “myths about motivation”,

suggesting that a number of positive KITA personnel practices were

developed as attempts to instil motivation, and included reducing time

spent in work. In fact, Hertzberg argues that, the motivated employee

looks for more hours at work, not fewer; spiralling wages have only

motivated individuals to seek the next pay rise; and, fringe benefits are not

only an expensive way of rewarding, but can have a negative effect on

employees if they are not continually increased. Hershey (2003)

describes these techniques as “persuasion devices” which can sometimes

be found to be agreeable to the employee, and as a result a particular

behaviour will be repeated out of intrinsic motivation.

“Engagement” and “employee engagement” are phrases that are now

regularly used when discussing motivation at work. In July 2009, Macleod

and Clarke’s report to Government aimed to set out what the government

could do to help promote an understanding of how greater employee

engagement can help improve innovation, performance and productivity

across the economy. Engaged employees are not just committed,

passionate and proud, but they have clear career aspirations and

understand the aims and objectives of the organisation in which they work.

An engaged employee will be enthused and use their talents and

discretionary effort to make a difference in their employer’s continuing

quest for success (BlessingWhite, 2011). BlessingWhite’s engagement

model considers that while organisations look to maximise the contribution

of each individual towards the corporate objectives, the individual

employees need at the same time to find purpose and satisfaction in their

work. BlessingWhite (2011, p. 5) believe that, “Aligning employee’s

values, goals, and aspirations with those of the organization [sic] is the

best method for achieving the sustainable employee engagement required

for an organization [sic] to thrive”, and it considers that full engagement

will be demonstrated when there is an alignment of maximum job

33

satisfaction with maximum job contribution. In BlessingWhite’s global

survey (2011), they found that only 1 in 3 employees are engaged, while

17% of employees are disengaged. Overall, they found that career

development and training were the top engagement factors for employees,

and in fact, the individuals who were motivated by money were generally

less engaged. The study found that the top drivers of job satisfaction

worldwide are career development and the opportunities to use talents

and skills.

This is a view also held by Ellemers, De Gilder & Haslam (2004), who

suggest that an individual’s motivation is projected on, informed by, and

adapted to the needs, goals, expectations or rewards of the team or

organisation in which the individual works. A relatively recent study

undertaken by the Ashridge Business School (Holton, Dent & Rabbetts,

2008) also found that whilst financial rewards were mentioned when

individuals talked about workplace motivation, the things most frequently

mentioned were the intrinsic motivators, most important of which was the

work itself and the need for it to be challenging, interesting, recognised

and valued by the organisation. Other aspects of work that featured as

being key motivators were recognition and praise from line managers,

having the freedom to make decisions, and having the power and authority

to deliver a task in the way that the individual thinks is right. Managers

who took part in the research indicated that intrinsic rewards led to better

employee engagement and higher levels of motivation, suggesting that a

key to success is a management style that helps staff to learn and

develop; a management attitude that respects staff and provides support

through mentoring and coaching; demonstrating a clear link between the

work of both the individual and the team with the organisational values and

objectives, and; a good team ethos (Dent & Holton, 2009, p. 39-40).

Listening to employees, valuing their contributions, and valuing them as

individuals with unique strengths and needs are also worthy management

styles for developing genuine engagement. In the UK, the most

successful companies listen to their employees and incorporate their

34

suggestions into company policy (Anonymous, 2008, p. 29; Seddon &

Davis, 1992; Romero & Kleiner, 2000, p. 14).

Private Organisations v Public Organisations

Having considered the concepts of work motivation, employee

engagement and the management styles that would appear to be

necessary to improve and increase engagement levels amongst

individuals and teams within organisations, it would seem appropriate to

examine the differences, if any, between work motivation in public and

private sector organisations.

The main conventional difference between public and private

organisations is their ownership and funding. Private firms are owned by

entrepreneurs and are funded by fees paid directly by customers. Public

organisations are owned collectively by members of political communities,

are predominantly controlled and driven by political forces and are funded

by taxation (Boyne, 2002, p. 98). Public organisations, with their focus on

general social welfare and protection of society and its citizens, often have

missions that are broader in scope and impact than those generally found

in the private sector (Baldwin, 1984).

“Question: Why doesn’t the civil servant look out her window in the

morning?” “Answer: So she’ll have something to do in the afternoon”

(Carroll & Siegel, 1999, p. 181). This kind of negative stereotype about

the lazy public sector employee is ever present, and polls have shown that

the public believes that government employees “work less hard” and are

“less productive...than their private sector counterparts” (Volcker, 1989, p.

82 & 91). Frank and Lewis (2004, p. 39) suggest that the belief that

extrinsic rewards are the primary source of work motivation may underlie

the popular perception of the “lazy bureaucrat”, as government agencies

have less ability to utilise financial compensation to motivate employees. A

significant amount of empirical research has been conducted to try and

35

answer the question of whether public sector employees do in fact work

less hard than their private sector counterparts. That research has also

established that there are differences in individuals’ motivation for working

in either the public or private sector, and from that research, the concept of

PSM has developed. Brewer and Selden (1998, p. 417) describe PSM as,

“The motivational force that induces individuals to perform meaningful

public service”, and Rainey and Steinbauer (1999, p. 23) define it as, “A

general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of

people, a state, a nation or humankind”. It is suggested that people with a

greater PSM are more likely to be found working in the public sector

because of the opportunities it offers to provide meaningful public service,

resulting in greater job satisfaction because the individual finds that type of

work intrinsically rewarding (Wright & Grant, 2010, p. 691-692). Research

has consistently found that private sector workers value pay, and

economic rewards and benefits more highly than public sector employees,

and in contrast, public sector employees tend to be more motivated by job

content, self-development, recognition, interesting work and the

opportunity to serve society (Brewer, Selden & Facer II, 2000; Frank &

Lewis, 2007; Buelens & Broeck, 2007; Wright & Grant, 2010; Taylor &

Taylor, 2011).

Houston (2006, p. 69) acknowledges that while a commitment to the public

interest, service to others, and self-sacrifice underlie the understanding of

PSM, it is a concept that defines the individual rather than it being a sector

specific concept, although PSM is more likely to characterise individuals in

public rather than private organisations. It should be noted that whilst pay,

high wages and financial rewards appear to be less of a motivating factor

for the public service employee, it does not imply that monetary rewards

are irrelevant to them, in fact, Crewson (1997, cited by Taylor & Taylor,

2011, p. 71) found that wages are an important motivator for

approximately 80% of employees across the public and private sector. It

should also be acknowledged that for most people, a desire and/or need

to earn an income is one of the primary reasons for working (Taylor &

36

Taylor, 2011, p. 69-72). Taylor and Taylor (2011, p. 72) also argue that an

employee who receives a small financial reward for a particular

accomplishment may not necessarily be motivated by the value of the

reward, but may be highly motivated by the recognition for the

accomplishment, so, they argue that the extrinsic reward is the vehicle

through which the intrinsic motivation travels.

The Theory of Public Service Motivation

One of the first scholars to study the concept of PSM and the differences

between public and private sector employees was Bruce Buchanan II

(1975), when he equated PSM with job involvement. He found that public

sector managers reported lower levels of job involvement than their private

sector counterparts, and rationalised this by suggesting that the public

managers were frustrated by bureaucracy and “red tape”. Rainey (1982)

reviewed these findings and questioned Buchanan’s methodology, instead

taking a more direct approach to the assessment of an individual’s “desire

to engage in meaningful public service”. He found that public employees

reported higher scores than private employees, but those scores were

strongly related to job satisfaction rather than job involvement as

previously concluded by Buchanan II. Rainey (1982, p. 298-299)

concluded that PSM is a broad multi-faceted concept that may be

conceived in different ways and therefore hard to define.

Building on Rainey’s conclusions, Perry and Wise (1990, p. 368) offered a

definition of PSM as, “An individual’s predisposition to respond to motives

grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions or organizations [sic]”.

They identified three theoretical motives within PSM – rational, norm-

based and affective, suggesting that people exhibit a varied mixture of

those motives throughout their careers and indeed throughout their

lifetime. Rational motives are operative when individuals want to take part

in the policy process and when they are committed to a public programme

because of a personal identification with it, which in turn satisfies their

37

personal needs as well as serving their social interests. Norm-based

motives are a desire to serve the public interest, no matter how “public

interest” is defined, and those individuals are generally altruistic, but are

also patriotic, demonstrate a loyalty to duty and to the government, and

are concerned with social equity. Affective motives are based in human

emotion and are characterised by a desire and willingness to help others.

In a development of Perry & Wise’s (1990) work, Brewer, Seldon and

Facer II (2000) identify four distinct conceptions of PSM, arguing that their

research provides a more systematic and comprehensive view of PSM

and a clearer understanding of the individual’s motives involved in

performing public service. Like Rainey (1982) and Perry & Wise (1990),

Brewer et al. (2000) argue that PSM is a multi-faceted concept, but

instead, involving at least four different orientations, each representing a

different viewpoint towards performing public service – they argue that an

individual is a Samaritan, a Communitarian, a Patriot or an Humanitarian.

Their findings acknowledge that the three types of motives put forward by

Perry and Wise (1990) are important to all four of their conceptions.

Empirical Evidence of PSM

Perry and Wise (1990, p. 370-371) argue that the level and type of an

individual’s PSM and the motivational composition of a public

organisation’s workforce will have an influence on individual job choice,

job performance and organisational performance, and as a result they

propose three, “Behavioural implications of public service motivation”;

1 - The greater an individual’s public service motivation, the more likely it

is that the individual will seek membership in a public organisation;

2 - In public organisations, public service motivation is positively related to

individual performance, and;

38

3 - Public organisations that attract members with high levels of public

service motivation are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian incentives

to manage individual performance effectively.

Buelens and Van den Broeck’s (2007) survey of 3314 private sector and

409 public sector employees in Belgium confirmed previous research that

public sector workers are less extrinsically motivated and more intrinsically

motivated by factors such as responsibility, self-development, security,

stability and a supportive working environment. Taylor and Taylor’s (2011)

study also supported the general assertions that although financial reward

and PSM both possess motivational properties, the effort levels of public

sector workers seem to be more affected by PSM than by wages.

With the use of Locke and Latham’s goal theory of motivation, Wright

(2007) proposes a theoretical model to explain the potential effects of

organisational mission on employee work motivation. He argues that goal

commitment, the extent to which an individual accepts a performance goal

and is determined to reach it whatever setbacks he or she may be

confronted with, is vital. Wright states that individuals are more committed

to their performance objectives, or those of the organisation, when they

believe that the objectives are achievable and will result in important

outcomes either for themselves or for the organisation.

From a PSM point of view, if the employee views the organisation’s goals

as consistent with their own values, they are more likely to find those goals

personally meaningful. Wright argues that public employees are more

likely to be motivated to perform their work when they have roles that are

clearly understood and challenging, and are set goals that they feel are

important and achievable. Wright’s work found that the intrinsic value that

employees see in their organisation’s mission was found to influence their

motivation by increasing the importance they placed on their work. He

argues that the basic framework provided by goal theory can support the

concept of PSM, in that intrinsic rewards may be more important to public

sector employees than extrinsic rewards. He adds a note of caution

39

though – performance expectations should be clearly explained, that is,

the employee should be clear on what the goal is, how it should be

achieved and also why it is necessary. Managers should emphasise how

employee values mirror organisational values and also how employee

performance contributes to organisational performance. Wright and

Pandey (2008, p. 515) and Wright (2003, p. 20) suggest that while the

organisation’s mission can be used to increase employee job satisfaction,

it is imperative that public sector organisations do more to provide the

rationale for their policies and procedures so that employees can

understand how they and the organisation can coexist with performance

expectations.

Public service motivation has significant implications for public sector

organisations, suggesting that some of the motivational tools that are

available and commonplace in the private sector may not be particularly

effective in the public sector. Houston (2006, p. 81) states that public

sector incentive structures must provide an opportunity for employees to

satisfy their public service motives, which contrasts with private sector

rewards systems that typically utilise extrinsic rewards, and he suggests

that this may be the reason why pay-for-performance systems have had

limited success in the public sector.

41

Chapter Three

The History of Police Pay and

the Independent Review of

Police Officer and Staff

Remuneration and Conditions

42

At the time of its launch, The Home Secretary described the Winsor review

as being the most comprehensive review of pay and conditions in 30 years

(Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2011). In making that

statement, she was referring to two previous reviews, one from 1978

carried out by the Committee of Inquiry of the Police, and known as the

Edmund-Davis review after its chairman Lord Edmund-Davis, and the

1993 Report of the Inquiry into Police Responsibility and Rewards, known

as the Sheehy review after the principle reviewer, Sir Patrick Sheehy.

As part of a pay agreement between the government and police

federations in 1977, the Edmund-Davies Committee’s terms of reference

were extended in order that consideration could be given to the

determination of police pay and the appropriate levels of remuneration.

Police officers had previously been classified as non-manual workers by

the Department of Employment, however, the argument was made that

the duties performed by officers were significantly different to those in

other sectors, particularly in relation to the independent status of the

constable, the risk of assault and injury, the unavailability of the right to

strike and the disruption to family life (Police Federation, 1978). As a

result, the Police Federations of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern

Ireland supported the Edmund-Davies recommendations, which were later

accepted in full in 1978 and police officers saw their salaries rise by

around 45%, and continue to rise on a regular basis through an index

linked pay formula (Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2011, p.

225).

Some fourteen years later, in July 1992, Sir Patrick Sheehy was charged

with leading the Inquiry into Police Responsibility and Rewards. Amongst

his objectives were to “reflect individual responsibilities and enhance

motivation through an effective and responsible reward system”. To do

that, the inquiry aimed to recognise that different roles and responsibilities

existed within ranks, and that any new structures should provide equitable

reward for those differing roles. The inquiry made recommendations that

would provide opportunities for career development within those ranks by

43

linking it directly to roles and responsibilities (Secretary of State for the

Home Department, 1993). Elsewhere in the report, recommendations

were made that many felt were too radical, in particular the PFEW, whose

vocal and sustained rejection campaign is felt to have played a significant

part in the resultant rejection of the majority of the recommendations.

Moving forward into the new millennium, the Government white paper,

Policing in the New Century: A blueprint for reform (Home Office, 2001),

aimed to establish a substantial improvement in the standard, reliability,

consistency and responsiveness of the police service. Like the Sheehy

Inquiry, it recognised that the pay structure within the service did not

account for the broad range of roles, responsibilities and specialist skills

that can be found within ranks, suggesting that there were too few

incentives for those who wished to work in front line policing and for those

who had reached the highest levels of professional competence. The

Government looked to the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) for advice,

specifically asking it to agree a way to provide a fairer and better system

for remunerating police officers. The PNB was specifically asked to find a

solution for additional payments for particularly demanding front line

policing roles and an additional competence related payment at the top of

each of the federated ranks pay scales for those officers that

demonstrated a high level of professional competence. The PNB is the

body that negotiates the pay and conditions of police officers and police

staff across the UK and makes recommendations to the Home Secretary.

The board is made up of representatives of Police Authorities, the

Secretary of State and chief police officers, as well as members of the

various staff associations and federations (Local Government Employers,

2012). An important point to note here is that it was the police service that

was asked to find the solutions.

In 2002, agreement was reached in the PNB for the introduction of SPP

and CRTP. The SPP scheme provided for one-off annual payments of

between £500 and £3,000 to be made to officers working in qualifying

roles. The PNB considered that qualifying roles were those that carried

44

significantly more responsibility than the norm for the rank, presented

special difficulties in recruitment & retention, or involved particularly

demanding working conditions. Whilst the scheme was to be determined

locally between the Chief Constable, Police Authority and local staff

associations, conditions were placed upon forces over the years which

dictated that the scheme should cost between 1% and 2% of the force pay

bill and that 30% to 40% of the workforce should receive the payment

(PNB, 2002; PNB, 2003).

The only guidance given to forces was that which is detailed above, so

forces were free to decide individually how they would administer the

scheme. This inevitably led to varying policies for implementation

(Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2011, p. 135-140).

Over the years GMP convened a committee to review the scheme on an

annual basis. The force attempted to follow the ethos of the scheme,

particularly in relation to rewarding the three types of role described by the

PNB, however, such were the constraints on the availability of funds that

as well as there being a need to determine which roles would be eligible, a

length of service criterion of four years was also applied to those roles.

The force also made it clear to staff each year that there was no guarantee

that eligible posts would remain eligible, and similarly, that excluded posts

may not remain excluded (Greater Manchester Police, 2002-2011). In the

earlier years, eligible roles did change slightly, however, in the last three

years of the scheme (2009-11) there were no changes to the departments

which are the subject of this study. Of those departments, officers working

in Response, Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPT) and Proactive teams

were eligible, as were qualified and trainee detectives. Constables

working in volume crime units and certain support functions were not

eligible. It may be argued that the scheme made it impossible for the force

to please everybody. There would always be officers “missing out”, either

because of the role they performed or their length of service, and this

naturally led to strong feelings of inequity amongst some groups of officers

every year.

45

The CRTP scheme was implemented on 1st April 2003. A form of

performance related pay, it was worth just over £1,000 in its first year and

increased each year in line with the annual pay award. It was available to

officers in the federated ranks who had served a full year at the top of their

pay scale, who could demonstrate a high level of professional competence

against four national standards. The standards were concerned with

professional competence, commitment to the job, teamworking and a

willingness to learn. The process involved eligible officers submitting an

application that demonstrated examples relating to good performance

against the four standards. Line managers were then required to assess

those examples and either approve or reject the application (PNB, 2002a).

The Winsor Review

The Home Secretary’s terms of reference for the Winsor review (Secretary

of State for the Home Department, 2011, p. 323) were to make

recommendations on how to;

Use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and

staff deployment to frontline roles where their powers and skills are

required;

Provide remuneration and conditions of service that are fair to and

reasonable for both the public taxpayer and police officers and staff;

Enable modern management practices in line with practices

elsewhere in the public sector and the wider economy.

These were set in the context of the numerous public sector reform

agendas and the unprecedented economic crisis facing the UK during the

term of the coalition government.

The review (2011, p. 16) acknowledges that most of the pay reviews

conducted in the 20th century were prompted by issues relating to

recruitment and retention of police officers, or of unrest within the service

as a result of extremely poor pay. In contrast, the 2011 review was

46

commissioned in the context of the budget deficit and the need to

modernise the police service to make it more flexible and adaptable to the

demands placed upon it.

A number of organisations and interested parties provided detailed

submissions to the Winsor review consultation, and some of those

viewpoints are described below in the context of SPP and CRTP.

SPP

In its submission to the Winsor review, the PFEW (2010, p. 37) stated that

it was never in favour of the SPP scheme and continued to argue that

SPPs are divisive and should be redistributed into other elements of police

pay, however, in a seminar on performance and post related pay, hosted

by the Winsor review team (Independent review of remuneration and

conditions, 2010), the Police Federation representative suggested that

there is nothing wrong with the scheme provided it could be made less

restrictive. ACPO (2010, p. 25-26) shared the view that SPPs are divisive

and argues that they create more dissatisfaction in those that do not

receive it, than satisfaction in those that do. ACPO (2010, p.25-28)

argued for SPP funds to be redistributed into rewarding advanced skills

and continuous professional development in terms of externally approved

professional accreditation and “certificates to practice”.

The Police Mutual Assurance Society ((PMAS) 2010) also provided a

submission to the review. In their study of around 2,000 members, it

concluded that there was a potential significant risk to the welfare of

around a third of police service employees as a result of changes to their

financial circumstances and their attitude to financial matters. This may

become relevant in chapter six.

The Winsor review (2011, p. 135-148) found that there was disparity

amongst police forces in relation to the proportion of the pay bill spent on

SPPs, the range of roles awarded the payment, length of service criteria

47

applied and the size of the payment itself. It recommended that SPPs

should be abolished, instead to be replaced by an interim Expertise and

Professional Accreditation Allowance of £1,200, that should be paid to

firearms officers, accredited detectives, certain public order trained officers

and neighbourhood officers who have served on the same neighbourhood

for at least three years.

CRTP

The PFEW (2010, p. 35-36) favoured the retention of CRTP, arguing that

the vast majority of officers have their applications approved because they

are doing a good job. In contrast, ACPO (2010, p. 23-24) suggests that

there is no evidence that CRTP has any impact on performance and

argues that CRTP should be removed in its present form and be re-

distributed to support its view that officers should be rewarded according

to qualification, skills and achievement.

Research and analysis conducted during the Winsor review suggests that

99% of those that apply for CRTP receive it (2011, p. 125). The review

argues that the CRTP scheme has not worked in the way it was intended

and has simply become another point on the pay scale for federated

ranks. The review asserts that individuals should not be paid more for

being competent, and instead suggests that the finances used to support

the CRTP scheme would be better redirected to recognise officers who

work unsocial hours. Recommendation 29 of the review (2011, p. 129)

calls for the CRTP scheme to be abolished.

Following the submission of the Winsor report in March 2011, the Home

Secretary referred the CRTP and SPP recommendations to the PNB for

consideration and agreement. A failure to agree resulted in the matters

being taken to the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT), who in January 2012

awarded that CRTP would continue, but with a two year freeze on new

48

applications, and SPPs would be abolished from 1st April 2012 (Police

Arbitration Tribunal, 2012).

49

Chapter Four

Research Methodology

50

This methodology chapter will describe the considerations and decisions

that were made during the process of designing the chosen research

methods. The choice of sample population will be explained and there will

be discussion on the ethical issues that the researcher faced. In

summary, an electronic email based survey was circulated to all police

constables on the North Manchester Division of GMP, followed by a small

number of short semi-structured one to one interviews with a number of

the survey respondents who were prepared to assist further with the

research.

Access

Consent to conduct the research was considered essential. In order to

make the request, the researcher met with Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy

and the North Manchester Divisional Commander, Chief Superintendent

Russ Jackson, to describe the broad aim and objectives of the study, as

well as to discuss some of the ethical deliberations being considered.

Both senior officers gave their consent.

As a serving Police Sergeant in GMP, access to the sample population

was considered by the author to be relatively simple, particularly as at the

time the questionnaire was administered, he was temporarily based on the

NMD.

The External Relations and Performance Branch (ERPB) is the

department within GMP that manages the relevant computer software for

conducting in-house surveys and questionnaires. The researcher also

met with relevant managers within ERPB to request permission to use the

GMP email based survey system, as well as to obtain the required online

access in order to build the survey, distribute it and access the responses.

51

Ethics

Researchers should recognise that they have a responsibility to ensure

that the physical, psychological and social wellbeing of an individual

participating in research is not adversely affected by participation in the

research. This means that a researcher should aim to protect the rights,

interests, sensitivities and privacy of those they study (British Society of

Criminology, 2006). A number of considerations in respect of key ethical

principles are discussed below.

Ethics - Political Considerations

The local NMD representative for the PFEW was consulted and again, the

aim and objectives of the study were discussed. The researcher

considered that it might also be appropriate to consult with the chair of the

Greater Manchester section of the PFEW, however he was reassured

during the meeting with the local representative that it would not be

necessary as this was proposed to be a local study.

Ethics - Voluntary v Informed Consent

Participation in the study was voluntary, however consent was implied

when a participant responded to the questionnaire or gave their details to

confirm that they were prepared to take part in a short semi-structured

interview. The email that accompanied the link to the questionnaire

explained the purpose of the research and the fact that the study was

independent. It was also felt necessary to explain that consent had been

given by the Chief Constable and Divisional Commander, and that the

local PFEW representative had also been consulted. The message also

explained that if any recipients had any questions they could either contact

the researcher or the PFEW representative. A copy of the accompanying

email can be found in Appendix A.

52

Ethics - Anonymity and Confidentiality

Assurances were given that the system being used for the questionnaire

would not identify respondents. The software automatically transferred

responses into a spreadsheet, and gave each completed questionnaire a

consecutive identification number, so there was no reference to the

identity of the respondents and no way that they could be traced, even if

they chose to complete the free text section of the questionnaire.

Although there was opportunity for the respondents to give their name and

contact details, they were asked to do this only if they were prepared to

take part in a short semi structured interview at a later date. Again,

assurances were given that no opinions, views or comments would be

attributed to any individual.

Ethics - Role Conflict and Researcher Bias

The ACPO Workforce Development portfolio was responsible for engaging

with the Winsor review team, and the researcher had previously worked as

staff officer to the portfolio lead. The portfolio was responsible for

producing the ACPO submission and response to the Winsor review, so

through the course of those duties, the researcher had been involved in

meetings and discussions on the subject. At the time of performing those

duties the researcher therefore had legitimate access to papers and

emails, from various sources, relating to the Winsor review. In order to

minimise researcher bias, it was considered essential for the author to

ensure that only publically available documents (either internally on the

GMP intranet or externally on public websites) were used and referenced

in the production of this paper.

At the time of the study on the NMD, The researcher was temporarily

based on the division, however had no local responsibilities there. He had

never been permanently based on the division and knew very few people

there, so had no direct influence over particular groups of constables.

53

Questionnaire Design

An electronic, self completion questionnaire was selected as the means by

which the views and opinions of a large number of officers would be

obtained. “Pen & paper” questionnaires generally generate a lower

response rate than personal face to face interviews (Collins & Cordon,

1997, cited by Klassen & Jacobs, 2001, p. 717), and by comparison, email

return rates are generally lower than those of pen & paper (Shuldt &

Totten, 1994, cited by Klassen & Jacobs, 2001, p. 717). Face to face

interviews, an electronic questionnaire and a hard copy “pen and paper”

questionnaire were all considered during the design stage of this research.

Due to time pressures on both the researcher and more importantly the

target population, face to face interviews were quickly eliminated. The

availability of specifically designed software (used with the consent of the

ERPB) allowed the researcher to administer an electronic survey by way

of a link within an email, which was considered to be a quicker, cheaper

and more environmentally friendly method than circulating a hard copy.

The chosen method would guarantee anonymity, thereby hopefully

eliciting more honest responses. The electronic survey would also

automatically list the responses in a spreadsheet, which would eliminate

any need for manual inputting of data. It is acknowledged that a number

of potential drawbacks could be experienced when conducting surveys of

this kind, in that those that respond may not be a representative sample of

the population, which could result in a margin of error when comparing

responses from different groups.

In an attempt to minimise the risk, a number of Bryman’s steps to improve

response rates to postal questionnaires (2008, p. 220-221) were

considered relevant to this study and were implemented. The explanatory

email (which also contained the link to the questionnaire) was sent to all

constables to inform them of the reason for the study, of the consent given

by the Divisional Commander and other important information. A three

week deadline was given, however a reminder email was sent with one

week remaining. The email can also be found in Appendix A.

54

An attitudinal survey comprising of four sections; SPP; CRTP; morale,

commitment & motivation; and personal details, was prepared and a

version of it can be found in Appendix B. A small number of closed

questions were asked in order to establish facts, but for the majority of the

questionnaire, a number of statements were posed. The respondents

were given a five point Likert scale (Hayden & Shawyer, 2007, p. 106-113)

and asked to state whether they strongly agreed, agreed, had no opinion,

disagreed or strongly disagreed with each of the statements. There was

also a section available for “freetext” views and comments.

Respondents were asked to give their name and contact details if they

were prepared to take part in a semi-structured interview at a later date.

Of those who gave their details, a small number of individuals were

selected from the four key departments described below. They were

asked to elaborate on why they answered a particular way to certain

questions as well as to comment on the responses of their department as

a whole, where departmental differences were noted. Whilst this allowed

the researcher to give context to the responses, it also gave an

opportunity to clarify any ambiguities in the questionnaire design.

Completed questionnaires were immediately available to the author in a

spreadsheet on the closing date. Comparisons were drawn between the

responses of the whole sample and responses from particular

departments. The key departments chosen for comparison were the

Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Hub, NPT and Response. For

ease of reference and to enable calculations to be made the Likert

responses were assigned a number from 1-5. Comparisons were drawn

between the total sample and the individual departments named above.

55

Chapter Five

The Questionnaire Results

56

Demographic Data and Respondent Profile

Demographic data and personal details were captured at the end of the

survey in section 4, however they will be dealt with first here. Of the 450

police constables on the division from whom data could be collected, 152

officers responded to the survey. This equates to a response rate of

33.8%. There were 109 men (71.7%) and 42 women (27.6%) in the

sample. One person (0.7%) chose not to answer the gender question.

The ages of the respondents are outlined below in Table 1.

Table 1

Respondent age

Age Number %

18-24 3 2.0

25-34 45 29.6

35-44 61 40.1

45-55 39 25.6

Over 55 3 2.0

No answer 1 0.7

Totals 152 100.0

This gives an average age of approximately 38.5 years, because those

over 55 years were simply asked to state, “Over 55”.

Question 4.3 was concerned with length of service and is outlined in table

2 below.

Table 2

Length of service

Years Number %

0-5 23 15.1

6-10 58 38.2

11-15 31 20.4

16-20 15 9.9

21 + 21 13.8

No answer 4 2.6

Totals 152 100.0

57

The average length of service on the division, based on the responses, is

12 years.

Question 4.4 asked respondents about the role they were performing at

the time of completing the questionnaire. The breakdown of results is

shown in table 3, which also details the divisional strength for each of the

groupings and the percentage response rate from each group. It should

be noted that roles were categorised in the survey according to broad

functions, most of which are self explanatory. The group listed as “the

Hub”, which consists of the Crime Desk, Customer Service Desk, Offender

Management Team and Demand & Resource Management Unit, is a

group of units that are considered to perform a “middle office” role that

supports the activities of divisional front line policing. The group titled,

“other” includes the Prisoner Processing Unit and other discrete teams.

Notable groups that are not examined within this study are officers working

in the custody suite as they form part of the Criminal Justice & Custody

Branch, officers from Domestic Violence, Sexual Offences Investigation

and Child Protection Units, who are managed from within Public Protection

Division and finally, the likes of Roads Policing, Tactical Aid Units, dog

handlers, mounted and firearms officers, all of whom form part of the

Specialist Operations Branch.

Table 3

Current role

Role Number % Divisional strength

% Response

rate by group

CID 24 15.8 43 55.8

Hub 17 11.2 37 45.9

NPT 44 28.9 156 28.2

Partnerships 2 1.3 3 66.7

Proactive 3 2.0 10 33.3

Other 21 13.8 31 67.7

Response 27 17.8 141 19.1

Volume crime 12 7.9 29 41.4

No answer 2 1.3 - -

Totals 152 100.0 450 -

58

Table 4 below shows the average length of service by role/unit

Table 4

Average length of service by role

Role Average

CID 10.5

Hub 16.8

Neighbourhood (NPT) 10.7

Partnerships 17.0

Proactive 10.0

Other 15.9

Response 8.9

Volume crime 11.3

Given that officers begin their careers on a Response team, it is perhaps

not surprising that the lowest average service is found in Response. Of

the other main contributors, CID and NPT are similar, with around a year

to 18 months less service than the divisional average, and the Hub officers

average at just under 17 years service.

Question 4.4 asked respondents about the length of time they have been

in their current role. 21 people (13.8%) stated that they had been in post

for less than one year, 61 (40.1%) had carried out their role for between

one and three years, 29 (19.1%) for 4 to 6 years, 18 (11.8%) for 7 to 8

years, 13 (8.6%) for 9 to 10 years and 9 (5.9%) respondents had held their

position for over 10 years. One person (0.7%) chose not to answer the

question.

Special Priority Payments

The questions contained in section 1 of the survey were concerned with

SPP. Question 1.1 asked respondents if they have enough service to

qualify for SPP. 139 (91.4%) answered “Yes”, 12 (7.9%) answered “No”

and one person (0.7%) did not answer. For those that answered “Yes”,

they were asked to continue the questionnaire. For those who answered

“No”, they were requested to proceed directly to question 1.5.

59

Question 1.2 asked officers with the qualifying level of service to confirm

how many times they had received SPP in the last three years (December

2009, 2010 and 2011). 20 officers (14.4%) had not received SPP at all in

the last three years, 36 (25.9%) had received it on one occasion, 19

(13.7%) twice and 64 (46.0%) had received it in each of the previous three

years.

In question 1.3, respondents were asked if they had received an SPP

payment in December 2011. 97 of the 139 (69.8%) answered positively

and the remaining 42 (30.2%) answered, “No”.

For the 139 respondents who progressed to question 1.4 where they were

asked if they budget for and rely on receiving SPP, 54 (38.8%) confirmed

that they do indeed budget for and rely on receiving the payment whilst 85

(61.2%) said they did not. Interestingly, of the 54 who rely on the

payment, 3 have not received it at all in the last three years, 6 received it

once, 10 twice and 35 each year in the last three. For those who do not

budget for the payment, 17 have not received it at all in the last three

years, whilst the remainder have received a combination of one, two and

three payments.

Questions 1.5 to 1.8 were concerned with the fairness surrounding the

way in which SPP is allocated and the frustration the officers are feeling

following its removal. Respondents were asked to state the extent to

which they agreed or disagreed with the statements made. Tables 5, 6, 7

and 8 illustrate the results across all respondents, and figure 1 shows

comparisons between the four biggest contributing roles – CID, Hub, NPT

and Response, in question 1.5. As detailed in table 3, there were 24

returns from the CID, which equates to an overall CID response rate of

55.8%. 17 returns came from the Hub, which means a response rate of

45.9%. NPT officers contributed 44 returned surveys, equalling a 28.2%

response rate for the Neighbourhood, and Response officers generated 27

returns, which equates to a return rate is 19.1%. When taken together,

60

these four departments contribute 73.7% of the total number of returned

questionnaires.

Table 5

Q1.5 The way in which SPP is allocated is fair

Response Number %

Strongly agree 10 6.7

Agree 50 33.3

No opinion 12 8.0

Disagree 42 28.0

Strongly disagree 36 24.0

Totals 150 100.0

Figure 1 below shows the responses broken down into the four main

contributing roles mentioned above – CID, the Hub, NPT and Response.

Figure 1

61

Question 1.6 asked respondents for their opinions about whether the

decision to award SPP to certain groups caused tension. The results are

shown below in table 6.

Table 6

Q1.6 SPP causes tension when some groups receive it and others do not

Response Number %


Agree 82 54.4

No opinion 12 7.9

Disagree 19 12.6


Totals 151 100.0

The purpose of question 1.7 was to discover if officers felt that SPP should

be paid to everybody in qualifying roles, irrespective of their legnth of

service. Table 7 demonstrates the level of feeling.

Table 7

Q1.7 For those in eligible roles, SPP should be paid to everybody,

irrespective of length of service

Response Number %


Agree 66 44.0

No opinion 7 4.7

Disagree 40 26.7


Totals 150 100.0

62

The final question in relation to SPP sought to establish whether officers

were frustrated by the removal of SPP. Table 8 details the responses.

Table 8

Q1.8 I am frustrated by the removal of SPP

Response Number %


Agree 55 36.9

No opinion 15 10.1

Disagree 6 4.0


Totals 149 100.0

Competency Related Threshold Payments

Section 2 of the survey was concerned with the payment of CRTP.

Question 2.1 asked respondents to state whether they are currently in

receipt of the payment. 54 (35.5%) officers answered “Yes”. Similar to

section one, those answering “Yes” were asked to continue, whilst those

answering “No” were directed to continue from question 2.4. Of the 54

officers currently in receipt of CRTP, only 1 (1.9%) had ever had their

application refused. A further two officers, not currently in receipt of the

payment but eligible for it, stated that they had previously had their

application turned down. This means that 3 of the 70 (4.2%) eligible

officers have at some stage had a CRTP application refused. 37 (68.5%)

of those currently in receipt of CRTP budget for and rely on receiving the

payment.

Questions 2.4 to 2.8 were concerned with the perceived fairness of the

way in which the payments are approved and allocated, the results of

63

which can be found in tables 9, 10, 11 and 12 and figures 2 and 3, which

in a similar vein to figure 1 above, detail the responses by role.

Question 2.4 asked if officers about their feelings towards the fairness of

CRTP allocation.

Table 9

Q2.4 By being linked to operational competency, CRTP is allocated in a fair

way

Response Number %


Agree 63 41.8

No opinion 34 22.5

Disagree 23 15.2


Totals 151 100.0

Figure 2

64

In question 2.5, officers were asked for their opinion on the way in which

CRTP applications are scrutinised by supervisors.

Table 10

Q2.5 CRTP applications are appropriately scrutinised by supervisors

Response Number %


Agree 34 22.5

No opinion 76 50.4

Disagree 28 18.5


Totals 151 100.0

Figure 3

65

Table 11

Q2.6 There is a general expectation that if a person is eligible, an

application will be approved

Response Number %


Agree 76 51.0

No opinion 34 22.8

Disagree 16 10.8


Totals 149 100.0

Table 12 below details the answers to question 2.7, which asked for the

respondents’ opinion on whether it seems that those who apply for CRTP

are guaranteed the payment.

Table 12

Q2.7 It seems that everyone who applies for CRTP receives it

Response Number %


Agree 53 35.1

No opinion 62 41.1

Disagree 20 13.2


Totals 151 100.0

66

Morale, Commitment and Motivation

In section 3 of the survey, respondents were asked to state the extent to

which they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements relating to

morale, commitment and motivation at work.

Question 3.1 sought to discover whether people liked working as police

officers. The vast majority of respondents (84.7%) either agreed or

strongly agreed with the statement. 13.3% chose the disagree options

and 2.0% had no opinion. Question 3.2 posed a statement about money

being the only reason a career in the police service was chosen. A total of

88.1% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the

statement posed. The four main contributing groups also disagreed in

broadly the same way as the sample.

Building on the statment posed in question 3.2, questions 3.3 and 3.4

sought to establish how important non financial reasons and meanginful

public service were factors for respondents when choosing their career in

the police service. 94.0% stated that they chose their career for reasons

other than money, and in relation to meaningful publc service, 91.3% of

the sample stated that it was important to them, 6.0% had no opinion and

only 2.7% said that it wasn’t important to them.

Again, the outcomes for the four groups broadly followed those of the total

sample for questions 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

Question 3.5 sought to establish the extent to which respondents are

satisfied in their roles. The results are detailed below in table 13.

67

Table 13

Q3.5 I am satisfied with my job

Response Number %


Agree 60 39.8

No opinion 7 4.6

Disagree 56 37.1


Totals 151 100.0

Figure 4 below considers the same data, broken down by role.

Figure 4

Question 3.6 asked officers to consider whether they felt they are

adequately paid for the job they perform. Table 14 details the responses.

68

Table 14

Q3.6 I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work I do

Response Number %


Agree 63 41.7

No opinion 5 3.3

Disagree 59 39.1


Totals 151 100.0

66 (43.7%) respondents either agree or strongly agree with the statement,

while 81 (53.0%) either disagree or strongly disagree. Figure 5 below

shows the breakdown by role, where there appears to be differences of

opinion in the sample groups.

Figure 5

Very few CID officers feel they are paid a fair amount when compared to

their colleagues in the Hub, Neighbourhood and Response. 12 (70.6%) of

69

Hub officers agree or strongly agree that they are paid a faid amount for

the work they do, compared with 15 (55.6%) Response officers, 18

(40.9%) NPT officers and only 4 (16.7%) CID officers. 18 (75.0%) CID

officers feel they are not paid a fair amount compared to 4 (23.6) Hub

officers, 26 (59.1%) NPT officers and 12 (44.4%) Response officers.

Questions 3.7 and 3.8 asked about personal morale, then team morale.

The answers are detailed below in tables 15 and 16.

Table 15

Q3.7 My personal morale is good at the moment

Response Number %


Agree 35 23.2

No opinion 5 3.3

Disagree 73 48.3


Totals 151 100.0

Table 16

Q3.8 The morale of my team is good at the moment

Response Number %


Agree 15 9.9

No opinion 8 5.3

Disagree 76 50.3


Totals 151 100.0

70

All 24 (100%) CID officers felt that morale is poor in the department,

compared with 9 (52.9%) in the Hub, 39 (88.6%) in the Neighbourhood

and 23 (85.2%) on Response.

Figure 6 compares the responses to questions 3.7 and 3.8 for all

respondents

Figure 6

Questions 3.9 and 3.10 asked respondents about the amount of effort they

put into their work and how much effort they will expend in the future

following the removal of SPP and suspension of new CRTP applications.

The results are detailed in tables 17 and 18, and figures 7 and 8 detail the

responses of the CID, Hub, NPT and Response groups.

71

Table 17

Q3.9 I always do the best that I can when I’m at work

Response Number %


Agree 84 55.6

No opinion 2 1.3

Disagree 3 2.1


Totals 151 100.0

Figure 7

72

Table 18

Q3.10 Despite the removal of SPP and CRTP, I will continue to do my best

at work

Response Number %


Agree 86 57.0

No opinion 10 6.6

Disagree 8 5.3


Totals 151 100.0

Figure 8

Similar to figure 6, figure 9 below compares the answers given to

questions 3.9 and 3.10.

73

Figure 9

Although subtle, there appears to be a downward trend in the effort that

will be expended in the future compared with the effort that officers

currently put in.

Statistical Analysis

The outcomes of questions 1.5-1.8, 2.4-2.7 and 3.1-3.10 were subjected

to statistical analysis. The responses were grouped according to role in

order to ascertain whether certain departments provided statistically

significant responses. The CID, Hub, NPT and Response teams were

chosen for comparison against the remainder of the sample population. In

this study, respondents were asked to select the level to which they

agreed or disagreed with the statements made, therefore in order to

compare the outcomes from the Likert scale, a nonparametric statistical

test was required. As a result, parametric tests such as the paired t-test,

ANOVA and MANOVA tests were rejected. The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon

test was chosen as it is a common and appropriate test to use when

comparing two groups of different sample sizes where the sample

74

population have been asked to rank their answers (Motulsky, 1995, chap.

37).

An online calculator (Holliday, 2012) was used to obtain the probability (p)

values to a significance level of p<0.05. A number of statistically

significant differences were found, the details of which are contained

below in table 19. A table containing all of the statistical significance test

results can be found in Appendix C.

Table 19

Statistically significant probability values (p<0.05) for Mann-

Whitney-Wilcoxon Test

Q 1.5 Q2.4 Q2.5 Q3.5 Q3.6

CID v Others 0.016 0.020 N/A 0.046 N/A

HUB v Others 0.021 0.008 0.047 0.021 0.044

Response v Others 0.035 0.021 N/A N/A N/A

As well as the tests described above, the responses of officers with

enough service to be eligible for CRTP were compared against those

without enough service for questions 1.5-1.8, 2.4-2.7 and 3.1-3.10. No

statistically significant differences were found. The results of question 3.9

were also compared with those of 3.10, however, no significant differences

emerged.

These and other results are to be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

75

Chapter Six

Discussion

76

The purpose of this chapter is to draw together the themes identified in

chapter five and to attempt to apply some meaning and explanation to the

results.

The composition of the data has already been discussed, however some

interesting facts were found in relation to the role performed by the

respondents and the length of time they had spent in those roles, both of

which may need to be taken into account when comparisons are drawn

between groups. The four main roles that were considered in the previous

chapter contributed 15.8% (CID), 11.2% (Hub), 28.9% (NPT) and 17.8%

(Response) to the total sample, however, the views expressed by those

groups were equal to 55.8% of the total NMD CID population, 45.9% of the

Hub, 28.2% of NPT officers and only 19.1% of Response officers, so the

outcomes will need to be assessed with a degree of caution if it is to be

suggested that certain viewpoints are held across the whole of those

groups.

Furthermore, in relation to length of time in the current role, over 53% of

the whole sample had been in post for less than three years, perhaps

demonstrating the somewhat transient nature of policing on a territorial

division. Unfortunately, a comparison between the sample and the entire

population of constables on the division could not be drawn because the

data was not easily obtainable on the GMP Human Resource (HR)

systems. Whilst it is a cultural norm within the police service to change

roles on a relatively frequent basis, it should be noted that as a result of

this, where an officer has changed roles, their individual viewpoints may

have also changed over the years, particularly in relation to SPP fairness

and eligibility.

Moving to the remainder of the questionnaire, the sections that were titled

SPP, CRTP and Morale, Motivation & Commitment will be discussed next.

77

SPP

Turning to the results in more detail, only one fifth of the sample had not

received SPP at all in the last three years. This is perhaps not surprising

given that the study was based on a territorial division, which is where the

majority of eligible roles can be found (GMP, 2002-2011). The proportion

of respondents that budget for and rely on receiving SPP (38.8%) was

interesting, particularly given that GMP stressed on an annual basis that

payments in the future could not be guaranteed. Three people stated that

they budgeted for the payment even though they had not received it in at

least three years. This could of course be down to errors in completing

the questionnaire, however, the result that 38.8% of respondents did

budget for the payment may lend support to the PMAS (2010) findings

about potential financial hardship described in chapter three.

Question 1.5 sought to establish officers’ feelings about the fairness of

SPP. At first glance it would appear that the sample is fairly evenly spread

between those that agree that the payment was allocated fairly and those

that did not. Upon examining different roles it appeared clear that Hub

officers felt more strongly about the fairness when compared with the

other respondents, in fact, a statistically significant difference emerged

from this dataset (p=0.021), and similarly so for the CID (p=0.016) and

Response (p=0.035). Over the years, the roles which make up the Hub

group have not been eligible for SPP, so this may go some way to

explaining the statistically significant strength of feeling in Hub officers.

The CID also felt that allocation was unfair, and again, historically there

was a time when “trainee detectives” were not eligible (GMP, 2002-2011),

although in later years that situation was reversed. As discussed in

chapter three, both ACPO and PFEW considered SPP to be a divisive

scheme, in particular ACPO suggest that it has done more harm than

good. This can be summed up by one of the respondents who wrote,

“...you have 4 years service and your partner has 6, you do the same work

yet they get a £1200 SPP bonus at the end of the year. How is that fair?”

78

Perhaps in support of the ACPO view about SPP potentially creating more

harm than good, over 78% of the sample agreed that SPP causes tension

when some groups receive it and others do not. As mentioned in chapter

three, the award criteria changed slightly over the years and this may have

affected individual viewpoints as discussed at the beginning of this

chapter. A lack of statistically significant data here is interesting in itself,

and could be evidence of a common belief across the division, force and

perhaps the service. The majority of respondents (66%) also tended to

agree that SPP should be paid to everybody in an eligible role, irrespective

of length of service.

Whilst these outcomes would appear to further support the views that the

SPP scheme was divisive, they would also tend to support Hertzberg’s

(1968) two factor theory of motivation, in particular the argument that

hygiene factors may not necessarily motivate when they are present,

although, it will be seen later in this chapter that the removal of some of

those factors may in fact lead to dissatisfaction. These observations also

demonstrate that Adams’ (1992) equity theory has some relevance in the

context of the SPP scheme, both across and within teams.

CRTP

The CRTP section of the questionnaire was similar in format to that which

examined SPP. The early questions established how many respondents

were in receipt of CRTP (35.5%) and how many had previously had

applications refused. Of the 70 respondents eligible to apply for and

receive CRTP, 3 (4.2%) had previously had their application turned down.

Whilst it could be argued that this is somewhat higher than the 1% figure

quoted in the Winsor review (2011, p.125), it is still a very small number of

people to have been refused the payment. This would tend to support the

Winsor review (2011, p. 127) assertion that submission of an application

will lead to “almost universal success”. The fact that 68.5% of eligible

officers budget for and rely on CRTP may also support the view that

79

receipt of the payment year on year is considered to be far more likely

than SPP (38.8% of the sample budget for and rely on the payment) on an

annual basis.

As described in chapter three, the process for receiving CRTP differs from

SPP. Question 2.2 considered the fairness of the process and the

majority of the sample (54.4%) tended to agree that it was a fair system for

awarding and allocating the payment. However, more detailed

examination of the data revealed three statistically significant results in the

datasets of CID (p=0.020), Hub (p=0.008) and Response officers

(p=0.021). In the case of CID officers, 50.0% agreed with the statement,

and the other half were evenly spread across the two “disagree” options

and the “no opinion” answer. When compared with the total sample and

other groups, the CID responses suggest that they disagree with the

statement more than the others. The Hub officers tend not to feel strongly

either way, with the bulk of their responses concentrated across the

“agree”, “no opinion” and “disagree” options. A total of 53% of

respondents, however either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Over a third of Response officers had no opinion about the fairness, a

reason for which is perhaps because the average service of that group is

the lowest in the sample. In fact, only six officers from the Response

sample had enough service to be eligible for the payment.

A further statistically significant dataset was found for Hub officers

(p=0.047) in relation to CRTP applications being appropriately scrutinised.

Examination of the outcomes suggests that the Hub tend to agree with the

statement to a greater extent than their colleagues in other departments.

Of the 17 Hub respondents, 13 are eligible for CRTP and within that

group, 11 are currently in receipt of the payment and only one has ever

had their application refused. An argument could be made that the Hub

officers’ experience of applying for and being awarded CRTP may be a

generally positive one. It should, however, be pointed out that over half of

the Hub sample (52.9%) had no opinion about the issue of appropriate

scrutiny of applications. This outcome is possibly as a result of the

80

expectation that payment is virtually guaranteed following submission of

an application, and that officers perhaps give little thought to the process

after making their application.

Perhaps in support of the issue in the above paragraph, observation of the

results of questions 2.6 and 2.7 would suggest that the general feeling

amongst the sample is that there is indeed an expectation that when an

officer is eligible to apply for CRTP, their application will be approved, with

64.4% of the sample either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the

statement. Furthermore, for those that held an opinion about the

perception that everybody who applies for CRTP receives it, the majority

were in agreement (69 out of 83 respondents = 75.3%).

Like with SPP, receipt of CRTP could be considered to be a Hertzberg

(1968) hygiene factor, which doesn’t necessarily motivate when present,

but could certainly de-motivate if not present or if removed. The CRTP

scheme does not fit especially well with Vroom’s (1964) expectancy

theory. Whilst he asserts that motivation comes from an expected

outcome following a particular act, the results discussed above suggest

that there is a feeling amongst officers that the initial act does not need to

be done, because a positive outcome is already highly likely. From this,

one could argue that in the context of Vroom’s expectancy theory, CRTP

has no positive motivational effect. Similarly, the CRTP scheme would

appear not to contribute to satisfaction in terms of the work of Porter &

Lawler (2005) and Parker, Bindl and Strauss (2010) discussed in chapter

two. Adams’ (1992) equity theory is also, to a certain extent, at play in the

context of CRTP. One respondent commented that they felt fortunate that

they were not affected by the suspension of CRTP, but continued saying,

“...but this is wrong when colleagues working alongside me who should be

eligible are now effectively penalised simply for joining [the service] at a

later date”.

81

Morale, Motivation and Commitment

The aim of this section of the questionnaire was to provide some insight

and confirmation (or otherwise) of relative levels of public service

motivation and work effort.

The majority of respondents (84.7%) stated that they generally like

working as police officers, and again, a large proportion (88.1%) stated

that they did not necessarily choose a career in the police service purely

for the money. Questions 3.3 and 3.4 established that most officers in the

sample (94.0%) chose their career for reasons other than financial ones

and most (90.3%) considered that meaningful public service was important

to them. The four groups described above were examined individually,

and perhaps not unsurprisingly each group broadly answered in the same

way, indeed there were no significant results found. Whilst it is

appreciated that the questionnaire only posed four generalised statements

(questions 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 & 3.4), these results suggest an almost unanimous

view (which would perhaps be replicated across the service as a whole)

that police officers choose their careers for the reasons described in

chapter two, for “...motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public

institutions or organizations [sic]” (Perry & Wise 1990, p. 368).

Significant differences appeared in question 3.5. Casual observation of

table 13 showed that there was a relatively even split of officers who did

and did not feel satisfied. Statistical analysis however, revealed significant

results for the CID (p=0.046) and for Hub officers (p=0.021) and at this

point a pattern began to emerge for each of these groups in this section of

the survey. Closer examination of the data in figure 4 reveals that 58.3%

of CID officers are dissatisfied with their jobs. By almost complete

contrast, Hub officers responded in the opposite way with 64.8% of them

expressing satisfaction with their role. Explanations for this are perhaps

best described by two of the officers who took part in the semi structured

interviews. One Hub officer suggested that it was down to favourable

shifts, the knowledge that you will be going home on time and the fact that

82

Hub officers tend not to carry an ever changing workload from one day to

the next. By contrast, a CID officer described the continuous heavy

workload, pressure to perform and lack of time to complete enquiries and

investigations as contributing factors.

Feelings about being paid fairly for work undertaken were also mixed

when observing the data for the whole sample. 43.7% of respondents felt

that they are paid a fair amount, and in contrast, 53.0% of officers felt that

they are not. Those results alone are difficult to interpret and to assign

explanations, however, the examination of the four groups revealed some

interesting, and contrasting results. The majority of Hub (70.5%) and

Response officers (55.6%) feel that they are paid a fair amount, in fact the

responses from the Hub officers generated another statistically significant

difference from the remainder of the sample (p=0.044). Again, perhaps a

reasonable explanation for this comes from one of the interview

participants, who said, “You’re getting paid to do an admin role...it’s a 9 to

5 office job”.

The positive view of Response officers would appear to relate to the way

in which GMP has restructured the delivery of front line services.

Response units provide a 24/7 service and generally attend emergency

and priority calls. Historically, Response officers have always received the

SPP payment in GMP, and one could argue that they certainly fulfil the

conditions for eligibility. Since the restructure, the major difference in their

role is that they no longer “carry” their own investigations after attending

the scene of the incident or crime. This appears to have led to lower

stress levels amongst Response officers, a point made by one of the

interviewees who said, “We don’t take stuff home with us. When we were

carrying crimes it was always hectic because you never had time to do

them because the radio never stops”.

Detailed in figure 5 are the results of the CID officer sample. Whilst not

significant as far as the statistical analysis was concerned, the outcome

that 75.0% of the CID sample felt that they are not fairly paid is of interest,

83

and again, an explanation was given by an interviewee, who said, “There

just aren’t enough hours in the day to get your things done, and often you

come into work and there’s a job in that’s more urgent than your own

enquiries...” The offers further support to the effect that feelings of

inequity can have on motivation as described by Adams (1965).

Tables 15 and 16 detail the outcomes of questions 3.7 and 3.8, which

explored personal and team morale. Casual observation of figure 6

suggests that personal morale is slightly higher than group morale for the

whole sample. However, although no statistically significant outcomes

were identified, the datasets for the CID and Hub officers tend to stand out

from the overall sample and the two other groups. 73.4% of CID officers

who completed the questionnaire admitted that their personal morale was

not good. Further to the personal answers, 100.0% of participating CID

officers stated that the morale of their team is not good.

Freetext questionnaire responses and face to face interviews suggested

that the removal of SPP and CRTP payments are contributing to the

strength of feeling, but there were also comments that pension reform,

excessive workloads and associated pressures were also contributors.

Hub officers were not so strong in their views about the morale of their

own teams. 23.5% of Hub officers felt that their team morale was good,

and only 52.9% suggested that their team morale was the opposite.

Whilst this is still the majority answering in the negative, it is a much

smaller proportion than the overall sample. Whilst the views expressed

above by Hub officers may be relevant here again, a note of caution

should be given – the Hub officer group is the combination of a number of

small units, each with their own supervisors, therefore there may even be

differences of opinion across the Hub group. Individual analysis of those

units is not possible in this study.

Morale across the police service is arguably at an all time low

(Constabulary, 2012), and whilst these results may support the view that

84

police officer morale is not as good as it perhaps could be, the assertion

that it is at an all time low cannot be confirmed or proven in this study.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the data in table 17 shows that the vast majority

(95.3%) of the sample always do their best at work, however a slight shift

in attitude can be seen when comparing the responses in table 18. Figure

9 demonstrates the difference between the two data sets. The change of

opinion is subtle, and did not generate any significant differences as far as

the statistical analysis was concerned, however, observation of the data

suggests that some respondents may have chosen an answer lower down

the scale for question 3.10 than they did for question 3.9. Closer

examination of the raw data from the questionnaire confirms that 34

officers (22.5% of the total sample) in fact gave a lower answer on the

Likert scale. There is an assumption here that respondents understood

the questions, and particularly in relation to question 3.10, that

respondents gave their answers by only considering the removal of SPP

and CRTP.

The outcomes of the morale, motivation and commitment section of the

questionnaire would tend to confirm that PSM is present in police officers,

however money will, to varying degrees, be an important motivating factor

for the majority of people (Armstrong & Murlis 2005, p. 65; Crewson,

1997). Hertzberg’s argument that spiralling wages have only motivated

individuals to seek the next pay rise (2003) is relevant given the years of

financial growth the police service has enjoyed, however, the outcomes of

the Winsor review, which in part has been prompted by the current austere

financial conditions, could take their toll on engagement and commitment

in the future.

To sum up the findings in this chapter, the frustration about the removal of

payments suggests that financial reward is a factor for police officers in the

context of satisfying the lower levels of Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of

needs, and also plays a part in Stum’s (2001) performance pyramid. A

particular point of contention and frustration is that of the perceived

85

fairness of the SPP scheme. Equitable distribution of financial rewards is

a criterion for assessing their effectiveness as a means of motivation

(Armstrong & Murlis, 2005, p. 66). The results for SPP and CRTP have

also been discussed in the context of the work of Vroom (1964), Adams

(1992), Hertzberg (1968) and others, perhaps confirming the point made in

chapter two that theories of motivation focus on different aspects of

motivational processes (Locke & Latham, 2004). Some of the anecdotes

so often recited by the likes of ACPO and PFEW have also, to a certain

extent, been confirmed.

87

Chapter Seven

Conclusion

88

The primary focus of this work was to examine motivation amongst police

officers following the removal of SPP and suspension of new applications

for CRTP. There is clear evidence from the survey that public service

motivation is strong, however the study raises questions about the

motivational effects of the SPP and CRTP schemes, and possible future

work effort following the Winsor review. Meaningful public service is

important to the majority of officers, however it would appear that there is

frustration about the removal and suspension of payments.

This study also aimed to examine how constables feel about the SPP and

CRTP schemes, as well as attempting to confirm or disprove some of the

anecdotes about morale.

There is also evidence from the survey that police officers placed a fair

degree of reliance on receiving the payments, in some cases, even when

they were not eligible to receive them. Additionally, it would appear that

officers viewed the SPP scheme as being generally unfair, inequitable and

tension causing, which is interesting given the frustration they apparently

feel about the removal of the scheme.

The results relating to the CRTP scheme were arguably less contentious

in comparison to those for SPP. There were fewer definitive opinions

about the administration of the scheme, however for those who did hold a

view, there was a generally common held belief that whilst the scheme

appeared to be fair in terms of the process and eligibility & application

criteria, expectations were extremely high that receipt of payment would

be virtually guaranteed provided an application is submitted.

In part, the results tend to confirm the findings in the literature review, in

that the SPP and CRTP schemes were generally enjoyed by those that

received them, and served to prevent dissatisfaction. A large proportion of

officers simply expected to receive the payments if they worked in an

eligible role or had accrued the relevant length of service, therefore one

could argue that neither payment has served to motivate officers to work

harder or develop their professional skills and competence. In contrast,

89

particularly with SPP, those that were not eligible felt a sense of inequity,

particularly when working alongside colleagues who were in receipt of the

payment. Arguably these results demonstrate that both the SPP and

CRTP scheme had little or no positive motivational effect on police

officers, but the removal and suspension of the payments would seem to

have had a detrimental effect on engagement and commitment.

Irrespective of any changes still to be imposed or introduced in the future,

there is a significant continuing challenge for first line supervisors and

managers to create an atmosphere in the workplace that will maintain

engagement and commitment as much as possible, as described by

Hertzberg (2003) and Raby (2001).

Public service motivation would appear to be high, with police officers

mainly choosing their careers for reasons related to the ethos and motives

of public service. Some of the differences across the departments about

levels of job satisfaction and feelings of being paid a fair amount for the

work they do appear to be related to internal GMP resourcing and

structuring, which was not in the scope of this study. These issues may

ultimately have an impact on motivation. The fact that BlessingWhite’s

(2011) findings that the top drivers of job satisfaction worldwide are not

financial, but actually relate to individual career development and

opportunities to use talents are potentially relevant here, however further

work would be necessary to investigate this in more detail.

What could all of this mean for the future? The SPP scheme has arguably

now been consigned to police pay history. The future of CRTP remains

uncertain and will no doubt be reviewed (and possibly removed) at the end

of the two year suspension period. Perhaps the most significant finding in

this study is the suggestion that neither scheme particularly contributed

towards the promotion and development of motivation in police officers,

but would certainly appear to have contributed to feelings of inequity,

frustration and anger about the policies on which the payments were

allocated and awarded. This appears to be having a de-motivating effect.

90

SPP and CRTP were developed by the police service for the police

service, with the best of intentions, but the lack of clear guidance and

limited funds led to the situation that has been identified in this study. The

Winsor review recommendation for the EPAA discussed in chapter three

proposes a £1,200 payment for officers with certain skills and

qualifications, but in one circumstance a length of service criterion is also

recommended. There are striking similarities to SPP here, so it is

essential that when the detail of this proposal is discussed at a national

level, cognisance is given not only to the effect and impact that the

previous SPP implementation policies have already caused, but also to

the opportunities available to link any new payment structures with the

aspects of PSM that matter most to employees (Holton et al. 2008;

Houston, 2006; Wright, 2003; Wright, 2007; Wright & Pandey, 2008).

Whilst this study has found that PSM is high amongst respondents, the

subtle difference identified between current and possible future work effort

may have the potential to become significant in time. Pay, conditions and

pensions are all under review, and when considered alongside the

continuing financial pressures at both national and individual levels, one

might legitimately ask how much reform police officers can take before

their motivation and public service motivation begins to erode.

91

Appendices

93

Appendix A

Emails Accompanying the

Electronic Questionnaire

94

Original Email and Front Cover of Electronic Questionnaire Dear Colleagues, My name is Matt Crofts and I'm a Sergeant in GMP, currently working on the North Manchester Division at Central Park. I am currently studying for a Masters degree in Police Science & Management at the University of Portsmouth and this is my dissertation year. I am looking into the effect that the removal of SPP and suspension of new applications for CRTP might have on the motivation of police officers at the rank of Constable and I'd be really pleased if you could spend just five minutes giving me your views on SPP and CRTP on the attached survey. The results of this questionnaire will be studied in the context of theories of motivation and theories of public service motivation. My work is completely independent, however both the Chief Constable and Chief Superintendent Jackson have given me their consent to carry out this survey on the North Manchester Division. I have also consulted with Lance Thomas, your divisional Federation rep. The survey should take no more than 5 minutes to complete and your views and comments will be completely anonymous. Please click on the link below and the survey will open in another window. Notes Link Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me by email or on the number below, or alternatively, contact Lance Thomas who has offered to field any questions.

The closing date for responses is Friday 8th June.

Many thanks for your time Matt Matt Crofts Sergeant 19958 Mob. 07554xxxxxx **Not Protectively Marked**

notes:///80256BE4004867FE

95

Removal of SPP and Suspension of New Applications for CRTP PLEASE READ THIS PAGE CAREFULLY BEFORE COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE 1. This questionnaire should take around 5 minutes to complete.

2. This study is investigating the effect that the removal of Special Priority

Payments and suspension of new applications for Competency Related Threshold Payments might have on the motivation of police officers.

3.

To begin, click on the 'New Questionnaire' icon located here --

4. To submit it, please click on the icon 'submit' at the end of your completed questionnaire. The closing date for responses is Friday 8th June 2012.

5. If you have any difficulties accessing or completing the questionnaire, or would prefer a paper copy, please contact Sgt Matt Crofts on 07554xxxxxx.

96

Reminder Email Dear colleagues, Many thanks to those of you who have completed the questionnaire so far. For those of you that haven't had an opportunity yet, there is still a week to go before the survey closes (Friday 8th June). I'd be really grateful if you are able to spend just five minutes completing it to offer your views on the removal of SPP and suspension of new applications for CRTP. The more returns I can get, the more meaningful the results will hopefully be. The original message is copied below, and I have reattached the link directly below this. Simply click on it and the survey will open in a new window. Notes Link Many thanks again for your time. Regards Matt Matt Crofts Sergeant 19958 Mob. 07554xxxxxx

**Not Protectively Marked**

notes:///80256BE4004867FE

97

Appendix B

The Questionnaire

(Copy of the electronic version)

98

Investigation into the effect that the removal of Special Priority

Payments and suspension of new applications for Competency

Related Threshold Payments might have on the motivation of police

officers

Section 1 - Special Priority Payments (SPP)

On 1st April 2012, Special Priority Payments were abolished. This section

asks about whether you have received SPPs and also asks your views

and opinions about the process.

Q 1.1 Do you have enough service to be eligible for SPP? If yes please

continue. If no, please go to question 1.5

Yes No

Q 1.2 In the last three years, how many times have you earned SPP?

Drop-down menu online

Q 1.3 Did you receive SPP in December 2011?

Yes No

99

Q 1.4 I budget for and rely on receiving SPP

Yes No

Q 1.5 The way in which SPP is allocated is fair

Strongly Disagree

Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree

Q 1.6 SPP causes tension when some groups receive it and others do not

Strongly Disagree


Q 1.7 For those in eligible roles, SPP should be paid to everybody,

irrespective of length of service

Strongly Disagree


Q 1.8 I am frustrated by the removal of SPP

Strongly Disagree


100

Section 2 - Competency Related Threshold Payments (CRTP)

An officer is eligible to apply for CRTP when they have completed 12

months at the top of the pay scale. The scheme was suspended to new

applicants for a period of two years on 1st April 2012. Those in receipt of

CRTP before that date can continue to apply in the future. This section

asks if you are in receipt of CRTP and also asks your opinions about the

way in which the scheme is administered.

Q 2.1 Are you currently in receipt of CRTP. If yes, please continue. If no,

please go to question 2.4

Yes No

Q 2.2 Has your application for CRTP ever been refused?

Yes No

Q 2.3 I budget for and rely on receiving CRTP

Yes No

101

Q 2.4 By being linked to operational competency, CRTP is allocated in a

fair way

Strongly Disagree

Disagree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree

Q. 2.5 CRTP applications are appropriately scrutinised by supervisors

Strongly Disagree


Q 2.6 There is a general expectation that if a person is eligible, an

application will be approved

Strongly Disagree


Q 2.7 It seems that everyone who applies for CRTP receives it

Strongly Disagree


Q 2.8 I am frustrated that the opportunity to make a new application for

CRTP has been suspended

Yes No

N/A

102

Section 3 - Morale, Commitment and Motivation

In this section, please state to what extent you agree or disagree with the

statements below.

Q 3.1 In general, I like working as a police officer

Strongly Disagree


Q 3.2 I chose this career just for the money

Strongly Disagree


Q 3.3 I chose this career for other reasons (eg helping others, nature of

the role etc)

Strongly Disagree


Q 3.4 Meaningful public service is important to me

Strongly Disagree


103

Q 3.5 I am satisfied with my job

Strongly Disagree


Q 3.6 I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work I do

Strongly Disagree


Q 3.7 My personal morale is good at the moment

Strongly Disagree


Q 3.8 The morale of my team is good at the moment

Strongly Disagree


Q 3.9 I always do the best that I can when I'm at work

Strongly Disagree


104

Q 3.10 Despite the removal of SPP and suspension of CRTP applications,

I will continue to do my best at work

Strongly Disagree


Q 3.11 If you wish, please add any further views, opinions or comments

about the removal of SPP and suspension of new CRTP applications

Section 4 - About You

Q 4.1 Please state your gender

Male Female

Q 4.2 Please state your age


Q 4.3 Please state your length of service (number of complete years)


105

Q 4.4 Please state which department you currently work in

CID Hub NPT Response Partnerships Proactive Volume Crime

Other

Q 4.5 Please state the length of time (complete years) you have been in

your current post


Section 5 - Would you be prepared to take part in a semi-structured

interview to discuss your views further?

Names of people willing to take part will not be divulged further and any

comments made during the interview will remain anonymous and will not

be attributed to individuals

Q 5.1 Please give your name, collar number and contact telephone

number

Thank you for taking part in this survey The closing date for responses is Friday 8th June 2012. Click here to >>>

107

Appendix C

Results of the Statistical

Significance Tests

108

Statistical significance probability values (p) for Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test

Q 1.5

Q1.6 Q1.7 Q1.8

CID v Others

0.016 0.074 0.059 0.093

Hub v Others

0.021 0.057 0.054 0.057

NPT v Others

0.090 0.293 0.209 0.209

Response v Others

0.035 0.172 0.093 0.093


Q2.4

Q2.5 Q2.6 Q2.7

CID v Others

0.020 0.142 0.075 0.115

Hub v Others

0.008 0.047 0.059 0.060

NPT v Others

0.056 0.248 0.310 0.249

Response v Others

0.021 0.172 0.075 0.116


Q3.1 Q3.2 Q3.3 Q3.4 Q3.5 Q3.6 Q3.7 Q3.8 Q3.9 Q3.10

CID v Others

0.075 0.402 0.340 0.203 0.046 0.094 0.056 0.091 0.289 0.094

Hub v Others

0.091 0.115 0.246 0.248 0.021 0.044 0.242 0.290 0.203 0.092

NPT v Others

0.402 0.290 0.290 0.672 0.402 0.421 0.222 0.209 1 0.530

Response v Others

0.173 0.249 0.396 0.203 0.075 0.093 0.116 0.346 0.246 0.168

109

References

110

Adair, J. (1990). Understanding Motivation. Guildford: The Talbot Adair

Press.

Adams, J. S. (1992). Inequity in social exchange. In V. Vroom and E.

Deci (Eds.) Management and Motivation (pg. 129-138). Harmondsworth:

Penguin.

Anonymous (2008). Feeling valued is the best motivation: Perks and pay

incentives cannot beat feeling needed. Human Resource Management

International Digest, 16(3), 28-31.

Armstrong, M. & Murlis, H. (2005). Reward Management: A handbook of

remuneration strategy and practice (5th Edition). London: Kogan Page.

Association of Chief Police Officers (2010). ACPO Submission:

Independent review of police officers and staff remuneration and

conditions.

Baldwin, J. N. (1984). Are we really lazy? Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 4(2), 80-89.

Baron, R. (1991). Motivation in work settings: Reflections on the core of

organisational research. Motivation and Emotion, 15(1), 1-8.

Bassett-Jones, N. and Lloyd, G. (2005). Does Hertzberg’s motivation

theory have staying power? Journal of Manamgement Development,

24(10), 929-943.

Beardwell, J. and Claydon, T. (2007). Human Resource Management, A

Contemporary Approach (5th Edition). Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice

Hall.

111

BlessingWhite Research (2011). Employee Engagement Report 2011.

Beyond the numbers: A practical approach for individuals, managers and

executives. Princeton, New Jersey: BlessingWhite Research.

Boyne, G, A. (2002). Public and private management: Whats the

difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122.

British Society of Criminology (2006). Code of Ethics [Electronic version].

Retreived 13 June 2012, from:

http://www.britsoccrim.org/codeofethics.htm

Brewer, G. A. and Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal

civil service: New evidence of the public service ethos. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 8(3), 413-439.

Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C. and Facer II, R. L. (2000). Individual

conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review,

60(3), 254-264.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd Edition). New York:

Oxford University Press Inc.

Buchanan II, B. (1975). Red tape and the service ethic. Administration

and Society, 6(4), 423-444.

Buelens, M. and Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An analysis of differences in

work motivation between public and private sector organisations. Public

Administration Review, January/February, 65-74.

Carroll, B, W. and Siegel, D. (1999). Service in the Field: The World of

Front-Line Public Servants. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Universty Press.

112

Constabulary (2012). The Constabulary interview - Paul McKeever, Police

Federation Chairman – “I feel outrage at the way my colleague are being

expeced to take these cuts”. Retreived 6th August 2012, from:

http://www.constabulary.org.uk/features/the-constabulary-interview-paul-

mckeever-police-federation-chairman-i-feel-outrage-at-the-way-my-

colleagues-are-being-expected-to-take-these-cuts/

Dent, F. and Holton, V. (2009). Employee engement and motivation.

Training Journal, Novermber 2009, 37-40.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D. and Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating

individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership

and group performance. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3),

459-478.

Frank, S. A. and Lewis, G. B. (2004). Government employees: Working

hard or hardly working? The American Review of Public Administration,

34(1), 36-51.

Gagné, M. and Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work

motivation. Journal of Organisation Behaviour, 26, 331-362.

Greater Manchester Police (2002-2011). Chief Constables Orders 2002-

2011. Retrieved 15th July 2012, from: Greater Manchester Police

Intranet.

Harris, C. and Kleiner, B, H., (1993). Motivational Practices at America’s

Best Managed Companies. Management Research News. 16(9/10), 1-5.

Hayden, C. and Shawyer, A. (2007). Research Methods and Research

Management: Masters Level. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.

113

Hershey, R. (2003). A practioner’s view of “Motivation”. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 8(3), 1-13.

Hertzberg, F. (1968). Work and the Nature of Man. London: Granada.

Hertzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees?

Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 87-96.

Holliday, I. E. (2012), Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test (v1.0.4) in Free

Statistics Software (v1.1.23-r7), Office for Research Development and

Education, URL http://www.wessa.net/rwasp_Reddy-

Moores%20Wilcoxon%20Mann-Witney%20Test.wasp/

Holton, V., Dent, F. and Rabbetts, J. (2008). Ashridge Management Index

2008: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century. Ashridge: Birkhamsted,

Hertfordshire.

Hollyforde, S. and Whiddett, S. (2002). The Motivation Handbook.

London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Home Office (2010). Police Pay Review Launched. Retrieved 9th June

20011, from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/police-pay-

review

Home Office (2001). Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform (Cm

5326). London: The Stationary Office.

Hood, P. (2002). Motivation and Movement. Organisations & People,

9(1), 28-33.

114

Houston, D. J. (2006). “Walking the walk” of public motivation: Public

employees and charitable gifts of time, blood, and money. Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory. 16(1), 67-86.

Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and

Conditions (2010, November). Review of remuneration and conditions of

service for police officers and staff: Seminar on performance and post

related pay. Transcript of the seminar, White & Case, 5 Old Broad Street,

London, EC2N 1DW.

Klassen, R.D. and Jacobs, J. (2001). Experimental comparison of Web,

electronic and mail survey technologies in operations management.

Journal of Operations Management, 19 (2001), 713-728.

Lathom, G. and Locke, E. (1992). Goal setting: A motivational technique

that works. In V. Vroom and E. Deci (Ed.) Management and Motivation

(198-205). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Local Government Employers (2012). Police Negotiating Board.

Retrieved 12th July 2012 from:

http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=119225.

Locke, E. and Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of

goal setting and task management: A 35 year odyssey. American

Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Locke, E. and Latham, G. (2004). What should we do about motivation

theory? Six recommendations for the twenty first century. The Academy

of Management Review, 29(3), 388-403.

115

Macleod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: Enhancing

performance through employee engagement, a report to Government.

London: Department of Business Innovation and Skills.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality (Third Edition). New York:

Harper & Row.

Motulsky, H. (1995). Intuitive Biostatistics: Choosing a statistical test

[Electronic version]. Retrieved 13th July 2012, from:

http://www.graphpad.com/www/book/choose.htm

Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour (Seventh

Edition). Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Mullins, L. J. (2007). Management and Organisational Behaviour (Eighth


Mullins, L. J. (2010). Management and Organisational Behaviour (Ninth


Parker, S., Bindl, A. and Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A

model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4) July, 827-

856.

Perry, J. L. and Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public

service. Public Administration Review. May/June, 367-373.

Police Arbitration Tribunal (2012). Decision of the police arbitration

tribunal: Winsor Report Part 1 (ACAS 108/ 2011-12).

116

Police Federation of England and Wales (2010). PFEW Submission to the

independent review of police officers’ and staff remuneration and

conditions.

Police Federation of England and Wales, Scottish Police Federation and

Police Federation for Northern Ireland (January 1978). Evidence on

Police Pay to the Edmund-Davies Committee, Supplement to POLICE.

Police Mutual Assurance Society (2010). Submission to the Winsor

review of police remuneration and conditions.

Police Negotiating Board (2002). PNB Circular 02/9 (Advisory).

Police Negotiaing Board (2002a). PNB Circular 02/17 (Advisory).

Police Negotiating Board (2003). PNB Circular 03/16 (Advisory).

Raby, G. (2001). Motivation is response. Industrial and Commercial

Training, 33(1), 26-28.

Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private

managers: In search of the service ethic. American Review of Public

Administration. 16(4), 288-302.

Rainey, H. (2001). Work Motivation. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.),

Handbook of Organizational Behavior (19-39). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Rainey, H. G. and Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing

elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1-32.

117

Romero, J. and Kleiner, B. H. (2000). Global trends in motivating

employees. Management Research News, 23(7/8), 14-17.

Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011). Independant Review

of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions: Part 1 report

(Cm 8024). Norwich: The Stationary Office.

Secretary of State for the Home Department (1993). Inquiry into Police

Responsibilities and Rewards Report, Volume 1 (Cm 2280). London:

HMSO.

Seddon, J. and Davis, R. (1992). Contribution matters, not status.

Managing Service Quality, September 1992, 325-327.

Steers, R., Mowday, R. and Shapiro, D. (2004). Introduction to special

topic forum: The future of work motivation theory. The Academy of

Management Review, 29(3), 379-387.

Stum, D. (2001). Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment

pyramid. Strategy & Leadership, 29(4), 4-9.

Taylor, J. and Taylor, R (2011). Working hard for more money or working

hard to make a difference? Efficiency wages, public service motivation

and effort. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 31(1), 67-86.

Volcker, P. A. (1989). Leadership for America: Rebuilding the Public

Service. Washington DC: National Commission on the Public Service.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

Winsor, T. (2011, 18 March). Fair Pay for Police? Police Review, 14-15.

118

Wright, B. E. (2003). Toward understanding task, mission, and public

service motivation: A conceptual and empirical synthesis of goal theory

and public service motivation. Paper presented at the 7th National Public

Management Research Conference, Washington DC.

Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter?

Public Service Administration, January/February, 54-64.

Wright, B. E. and Grant, A. M. (2010). Unanswered questions about

public service motivation: Designing research to address key issues of

emergence and effects. Public Administration Review,

September/October, 691-700.

Wright, B. E. and Pandey, S. K. (2008). Public service motivation and the

assumption of person-organisation fit: Testing the mediating effect of value

congruence. Administration and Society, 40(5), 502-521.

fair pay or fair play? - college of...

Documents