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
2
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
4
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.
6
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.
8
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
Special Priority Payments - 58
Competency Related Threshold Payments - 62
Morale, motivation and commitment - 66
Statistical analysis - 73
Chapter Six
Discussion - 75
Special Priority Payments - 77
Competency Related Threshold Payments - 78
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
12
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 2 - Q2.4 Breakdown by role
Figure 3 - Q2.5 Breakdown by role
Figure 4 - Q3.5 Breakdown by role
Figure 5 - Q3.6 Breakdown by role
Figure 6 - Comparison of responses to questions 3.7 &
3.8
Figure 7 - Q3.9 Breakdown by role
Figure 8 - Q3.10 Breakdown by role
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)
16
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.
22
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.
40
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 %
Strongly agree 36 23.8
Agree 82 54.4
No opinion 12 7.9
Disagree 19 12.6
Strongly disagree 2 1.3
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 %
Strongly agree 30 20.0
Agree 66 44.0
No opinion 7 4.7
Disagree 40 26.7
Strongly disagree 7 4.6
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 %
Strongly agree 67 45.0
Agree 55 36.9
No opinion 15 10.1
Disagree 6 4.0
Strongly 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 %
Strongly agree 19 12.6
Agree 63 41.8
No opinion 34 22.5
Disagree 23 15.2
Strongly disagree 12 7.9
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 %
Strongly agree 2 1.3
Agree 34 22.5
No opinion 76 50.4
Disagree 28 18.5
Strongly disagree 11 7.3
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 %
Strongly agree 20 13.4
Agree 76 51.0
No opinion 34 22.8
Disagree 16 10.8
Strongly disagree 3 2.0
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 %
Strongly agree 14 9.3
Agree 53 35.1
No opinion 62 41.1
Disagree 20 13.2
Strongly disagree 2 1.3
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 %
Strongly agree 13 8.6
Agree 60 39.8
No opinion 7 4.6
Disagree 56 37.1
Strongly disagree 15 9.9
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 %
Strongly agree 3 2.0
Agree 63 41.7
No opinion 5 3.3
Disagree 59 39.1
Strongly disagree 21 13.9
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 %
Strongly agree 4 2.6
Agree 35 23.2
No opinion 5 3.3
Disagree 73 48.3
Strongly disagree 34 22.6
Totals 151 100.0
Table 16
Q3.8 The morale of my team is good at the moment
Response Number %
Strongly agree 1 0.7
Agree 15 9.9
No opinion 8 5.3
Disagree 76 50.3
Strongly disagree 51 33.8
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 %
Strongly agree 60 39.7
Agree 84 55.6
No opinion 2 1.3
Disagree 3 2.1
Strongly disagree 2 1.3
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 %
Strongly agree 44 29.1
Agree 86 57.0
No opinion 10 6.6
Disagree 8 5.3
Strongly disagree 3 2.0
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.
86
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
92
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**
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**
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
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 1.7 For those in eligible roles, SPP should be paid to everybody,
irrespective of length of service
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 1.8 I am frustrated by the removal of SPP
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
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
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 2.6 There is a general expectation that if a person is eligible, an
application will be approved
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 2.7 It seems that everyone who applies for CRTP receives it
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
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
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 3.2 I chose this career just for the money
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 3.3 I chose this career for other reasons (eg helping others, nature of
the role etc)
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 3.4 Meaningful public service is important to me
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
103
Q 3.5 I am satisfied with my job
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 3.6 I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work I do
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 3.7 My personal morale is good at the moment
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 3.8 The morale of my team is good at the moment
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Q 3.9 I always do the best that I can when I'm at work
Strongly Disagree
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
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
Agree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
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
Drop-down menu online
Q 4.3 Please state your length of service (number of complete years)
Drop-down menu online
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
Drop-down menu online
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 >>>
106
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
Statistical significance probability values (p) for Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test
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
Statistical significance probability values (p) for Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test
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
Edition). Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Mullins, L. J. (2010). Management and Organisational Behaviour (Ninth
Edition). Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
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.