Read the case and then answer the questions which follow. Management and motivation in the Benefits Agency the Benefits Agency is responsible for delivering a range of UK state benefits to the public. Most Agency staff work in a network of local offices that are organized into district management units. The 159 districts are organized into 13 area units. Each area director is accountable to the Agency's top management team. The Benefits Agency used to form part of the Department of Social Security (DSS), the largest organisation in the UK Civil Service. Traditionally, the Civil Service provided a secure place to work. Staff usually joined straight from school and was expected to follow precisely defined rules in order to ensure equality of treatment to all citizens. The work was routine, and the Service valued conformist behavior; innovation was discouraged. The career path was predictable, jobs were secure, and a pension was guaranteed on retirement. The management structure was hierarchical; any unusual problem was referred up to the next level for decision. In the early 1990s government policy brought radical change; the Benefits Agency would become a separate organisation within the Civil Service. It would conduct the same functions on behalf of government but would be managed differently. A chief executive was appointed in 1991 on a three-year contract (which in itself sent out signals about the previous jobs for life culture). He defined a new vision: ‘To provide the right money to the right person at the right time and the right place.' To deliver this more customer-centered service he gave district managers more control over their budget, thereby reducing control by senior managers at HQ. Management in some areas ignored the new freedoms and continued to manage in the old, hierarchical way. One of the areas interpreted the freedom as giving authority to make very wide changes. The management board of this area defined their vision as: ‘To be the leading provider of Social Security services in the UK.' District managers in this area were encouraged to give more decision-making power to staff dealing with the public, and staff was encouraged to be innovative in their approach. A critical factor in achieving this vision was to have the right number of skilled and motivated staff. Behaviors that had been valued was now a barrier to promotion. Staff who had hoped to gain promotion by playing the rules now found they had little chance. Some became disillusioned but continued to deliver - at a reduced level of productivity. Some could not adapt and left. Others applied their efforts to a new goal - that of resisting change. Another group enthusiastically embraced the new culture where innovation, creativity and risk taking were valued. Districts introduced the ‘one-stop' approach, so that one member of staff (rather than several) could deal with all the benefits that a person claimed. This led to the creation of multi-function teams, and to big changes in the way staff worked. Staff responded enthusiastically to these changes, even though pay awards were still strictly controlled and promotion opportunities had become fewer. The mid-1990s brought further changes. A new chief executive was appointed in 1995. In line with the government's policy of controlling public expenditure, the Agency's budget was reduced drastically in 1996. At the same time the National Audit Office, the body responsible for auditing public organizations, criticized the inaccuracy of benefit payments and the scope the system offered for fraud. The new chief executive amended the Agency's vision to ‘pay the right money to the right person at the right time every time'. The top management team became uneasy about the increased freedom of the area directors. Examples of a return to the older structure began to appear, such as the introduction of centrally controlled checking teams and increases in the number of mandatory management checks. Staff in the region reacted with dismay, and management again had the problem of how to create a skilled and motivated staff. In 1998 another chief executive was appointed. The move towards tighter central control continued but lessons had been learnt. The Agency's senior management recognized that many improvements in service delivery had come from ideas generated by committed individuals with flair and imagination. There was no desire to lose this by going back to the strong command and control approach - but there had to be a balance between innovation and accountability. The Agency continued to encourage motivation but introduced a process to evaluate each idea against business objectives. On 16 March 2000 the prime minister announced far-reaching reforms to the way the government provides services to people looking for work and claiming benefits. A new Agency, Jobcentre Plus, would be created to combine the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency dealing with people of working age. This agency will deliver a single, work-focused, integrated service to employers and benefit claimants - helping people into work and helping employers fill their vacancies. Although the agency is new, the people working in it will transfer from the existing agencies. This means bringing together management and staff of two separate agencies. People who have been used to different cultures, values, personnel policies, pay and promotion structures and management styles will now be working together to create the new organisation. The need to establish common values has been identified by the chief executive of the new agency. Both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service have such values which they have introduced successfully over recent years. But Job centre Plus is a new organisation, with different objectives, and we need to build a new set of values to reflect its priorities and interests, and the aspirations of its staff and partners. This is probably the biggest change that staff in both agencies has encountered. The problem for managers in trying to motivate staff in this changing climate is immense. Staff is uncertain of the future - will the nature of the work change, will new skills be required, will there be job losses, will the staff from one agency be more valued than the other, are all the previous values worth nothing?

Questions

1 What attracted staff to work in the Benefits Agency before these changes when it used to form part of the DSS?

2 How are they likely to have reacted to the changes introduced in 1991?

3 What rewards did management of the Benefits Agency use when it was operating as part of the Department of Social Security?

4 How were these different after the change in approach?

5 How did staff react to the changes?

6 Why might staff feel demotivated when told about the creation of the new agency, Jobcentre Plus?

7 Make recommendations to the managers in terms of motivating staff within this changing climate.

8 Are any theories of motivation relevant to this situation?