Carrying out the investigation

What the standard actually asks you to do

• This is an investigation, not an essay about theories. You must:
  • collect evidence about the motivation practices used in a real business
  • present the results of that investigation with relevant examples
  • explain the relationship between the practice and a motivation theory
  • include a Māori business concept where it is relevant
• The grade ladder is about depth of evidence and strength of the link:

Grade	Evidence	The theory link
Achieved	Collect evidence relevant to the practice	State results with examples, explaining the relationship
Merit	Collect in-depth evidence	Fully explain the relationship between practice and theory
Excellence	In-depth evidence from a range of sources	Justify the link between theory and practice

Note what Excellence requires: a range of sources, and a justified link. One interview with a manager cannot reach it, however well written.

Choosing a business

• It must have identifiable motivation practices — schemes, systems or approaches you can actually observe or ask about.
• Access matters more than size. A business where you can interview a manager and several employees is worth far more than a famous one you can only read about.
• A workplace you or a family member knows, a local employer, or a business willing to host a visit are all suitable.

Planning the investigation

1. List the practices you expect to find — pay system, bonuses, recognition, training, teams, rosters, progression, conditions.
2. Decide which theory or theories you will test the practice against. Herzberg and Vroom are the most practical; Maslow is the best for diagnosing; McGregor for management style.
3. Write your questions before you start, and make them about what happens, not about theory. Never ask an employee "does this meet your esteem needs?"
4. Plan your sources — see below. This is what decides your grade.

Getting a range of sources

• A manager or supervisor interview — what the business intends its practices to do, and why they were introduced.
• Employee interviews — several, and ideally from different groups (permanent and casual, experienced and new). Different groups give different answers, and the difference is itself a finding.
• A short staff questionnaire — gives you numbers to set against the interviews.
• Observation — what actually happens on the floor: is the recognition board current, is the supervisor watching or coaching, do the teams talk to each other?
• Business documents — a job advertisement, an induction handbook, a pay structure, a staff newsletter, a values statement. These show what the business says about itself.
• Measured data — turnover, absence, output or complaint figures, if the business will share them. This is the strongest evidence available.

Questions that produce useful evidence

• "How does the pay system work here — what is someone paid for?"
• "What happens when someone does a really good job?"
• "What would make you stay another year?"
• "Do you think the target is achievable in a normal shift?" (Vroom — expectancy)
• "If you hit it, are you confident you'd get the bonus?" (Vroom — instrumentality)
• "Is the reward something you actually want?" (Vroom — valence)
• "How much say do you have in how you do your job?" (McGregor)
• "Which of these would you rather have: a $1 an hour rise, or guaranteed hours?" (Maslow / Herzberg)

Linking practice to theory — the three levels

Stating the relationship (Achieved).

"The business pays a piece rate. This relates to Taylor's theory, which says workers are motivated by money and should be paid by results."

Fully explaining it (Merit).

"The business pays a piece rate per bin. This is Taylor's scientific management in practice: pay is tied directly to measured output, so the harder someone works the more they earn, which is the mechanism Taylor argued raises productivity. The evidence supports it — the supervisor reported that output per picker rose by about a fifth after the rate was introduced. But three of the five pickers interviewed said they no longer check fruit as carefully, which is the quality weakness Taylor's approach is known for, and the packhouse's reject rate rose in the same period."

Justifying the link (Excellence).

"…The evidence justifies treating this as a genuine Taylor case rather than a superficial resemblance, on three grounds: pay is calculated solely on measured individual output; the method is prescribed and supervised rather than left to the worker; and the supervisor explicitly described the scheme's purpose as raising throughput, which is Taylor's stated objective. Where the fit breaks down is instructive — the business also runs a team breakfast at the end of each week and the pickers named it, unprompted, as a reason they return each season, which Taylor's framework cannot account for and Mayo's can. The practice is therefore Taylor in design and partly Mayo in effect, and the business's retention depends on the part it did not plan."

Presenting the report

• State the aim and the business — what you investigated and where.
• Describe the practices you found, with specific examples.
• Present the evidence — quotes, figures, observations, documents.
• Link each practice to theory, at the level you are aiming for.
• Include the Māori business concept where it genuinely applies — whanaungatanga for team and relationship practices; pūtake where the business's purpose is a motivator; manaakitanga where the business provides for its people.
• Evaluate — does the practice succeed for the business, measured against a goal?