Perfect Pizzeria - Case Study Example

Perfect Pizzeria1. In the situation where the manager changed the time period required to receive free food and drink from 6 hours to 12 hours of work, it could be deduced that the manager was restricting the provision of rewards to the employees. Instead of the perceived rewards (free food and drink) being provided four times per day, by adjusting (extending) the length time within which this particular reward could be availed, the manager actually limited the reward to only two times a day.

The motivational theory that seems to be applied here is Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory which actually suggests that the factors involved in producing high job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those that allegedly lead to job dissatisfaction (Schermerhorn, Osborn, Uhl-Bien, & Hunt, 2012). In the situation, the reward is not linked to the employees’ job performance; but this stimuli is actually linked to the performance of the manager. Thus, the stimuli could be considered hygiene factors (company policy regarding percentage as a determinant of bonus for the manager; and quality of supervision); the absence of which evidently lead to high job dissatisfaction.2. In the situation where the manager worked beside the employees for a time; and then later to his office; it was evident that the same motivational theory applies.

The aim of the manager to work beside the employees is to take the place of inefficient employees; while at the same time, train new employees for the position. As such, the stimulus for the needed action was to address the high turnover rate; and not to motivate employees. Thus, as in the first scenario, the absence of quality supervision evidently leads to high job dissatisfaction which is manifested clearly through employees returning to untoward conduct and behavior as soon as the manager returned to his office.3. In the third situation, the manager designed a penalty system through providing a notice in the bulletin board which stated that “if the percentage remained at a high level, a lie detector would be given to all employees.

All those found guilty of taking or purposefully wasting food or drinks would be immediately terminated” (Schermerhorn, Osborn, Uhl-Bien, & Hunt, 2012, p. W-110). This is a worse off situation since again, the apparent sanction which aimed to improve the performance of the employees was not effectively linked to their needs – but rather, was linked to the need of the manager (to get the bonus). As such, the needs theory of motivation failed to provide the needed rewards – punishment sanction that would coerce the employees to change the behavior towards the better.4. The needs motivational theory that would be deemed effective to be designed using the third scenario was to revise the percentage system that links performance of the employees to the bonus of the manager.

A more appropriate system would be to link the costs minimization or profits maximization generated within a defined period to the performance of all workers, including the manager. For instance, if the net profits for the period increased, by say 10% over the last period, then, a pro-rated bonus would be given to all employees, including the manager for the incremental incease. This way, the employees would be motivated to work well by reducing wastage, containing costs, and maximizing profits, because any increase in profits would reward them according to their performance.

Also, the system would focus more on rewards than sanctions, which have a negative impact to the performance of workers. By designing the rewards system in such a way that employees would benefit for their good or exemplar performance, they would exhibit greater job satisfaction which would also lead to lower rates of turnover and higher morale.ReferenceSchermerhorn, J. J., Osborn, R. N., Uhl-Bien, M., & Hunt, J. G. (2012). Case 6A: Perfect Pizzeria. In J. J. Schermerhorn, R. N. Osborn, M. Uhl-Bien, & J. G. Hunt, Organizational behavior (12th ed.). NY: John Wiley.