TheTwo-Factor Hygiene Theory, developed byFrederick Herzberg, explains what drives employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction at work. Herzberg argued that there are two categories of factors that affect motivation.

The first category isHygiene Factors. These are extrinsic elements such as pay, working conditions, company policies, job security and supervision. If these are poor or absent, employees become dissatisfied. However, their presence alone does not create motivation – they simply prevent dissatisfaction. For example, in procurement, if buyers do not have fair pay or adequate systems, they will feel frustrated, but improving pay alone will not guarantee enthusiasm or creativity.

The second category isMotivators. These are intrinsic to the job itself, such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and personal growth. When present, these factors actively increase motivation and job satisfaction. For instance, giving a procurement professional ownership of a supplier relationship, recognising their success in a negotiation, or offering training opportunities can significantly boost motivation.

The impact of Herzberg’s theory on motivation is significant. Managers cannot rely only on hygiene factors like pay and working conditions to motivate staff. These need to be in place to avoid dissatisfaction, but true motivation comes from providing meaningful work, opportunities for growth, and recognition.

In practice, this means managers should:

Ensure hygiene factors are adequate (fair pay, safe environment, supportive policies).

Focus on motivators such as giving responsibility, offering progression pathways, and recognising achievement.

Design jobs with variety and challenge, rather than only repetitive tasks.

Encourage intrinsic motivation through empowerment and involvement in decision-making.

In procurement and supply, applying Herzberg’s theory could mean ensuring staff have reliable systems and clear processes (hygiene), while also providing opportunities to lead supplier negotiations, recognise cost savings achievements, or involve staff in strategic sourcing projects (motivators).

In conclusion, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory shows that avoiding dissatisfaction through hygiene factors is not enough. Managers must also provide motivators to create true engagement and drive performance. For procurement leaders, balancing both sets of factors is essential for building high-performing, motivated teams.

Definition of Group Norms (10 marks):

A group ‘norm’ refers to the shared standards of behaviour, values, and expectations that develop within a group. Norms guide how members act and interact, creating predictability and cohesion. They can be formal (set by rules and policies) or informal (emerging naturally over time).

Examples include:

A procurement team having anorm of punctualityfor meetings.

A social norm where colleaguesshare supplier insights openly.

A negative norm, such as tolerating late submission of purchase orders, which may undermine performance.

Norms act as unwritten rules that shape group behaviour and influence the culture of the organisation.

Impact of Group Norms on Performance (15 marks):

Positive norms can enhance performance.For example, a norm of collaboration and knowledge sharing improves innovation and decision-making in procurement projects.

Negative norms can reduce performance.If the team develops a culture of cutting corners in supplier evaluation, this may damage compliance and reputation.

Norms create consistency and cohesion.Members know what is expected of them, reducing conflict and ensuring smoother teamwork.

Peer pressure reinforces norms.High-performing norms, such as meeting deadlines, encourage all members to contribute fully, while low-performing norms, like tolerating absenteeism, can lower standards across the team.

Norms influence motivation and morale.Supportive norms (e.g., recognising achievements) motivate employees, whereas destructive norms (e.g., ignoring contributions) lead to alienation and disengagement.

In procurement specifically, if the norm is strong ethical conduct, the team will collectively avoid corruption risks. If the norm is to focus only on cost savings, the team may neglect sustainability or supplier relationships.

Conclusion:

Group norms are the unwritten rules that shape behaviour within teams. They can have a powerful effect on performance, either enhancing collaboration and accountability or reducing standards and morale. Managers must actively shape positive norms through leadership, communication, and role-modelling to ensure that group behaviour supports organisational goals.

Groups are an essential feature of organisational life. A group can be defined as two or more individuals who interact and work together to achieve a purpose. Groups may be formally created by management or may form informally through social interaction. There are several reasons why groups form in organisations.

The first reason istask and goal achievement. Formal groups are created to achieve organisational objectives that require collaboration. For example, in procurement, a cross-functional sourcing group may be formed to run a tender process involving operations, finance, and procurement staff. Individuals form these groups because working together helps them achieve outcomes that they could not accomplish alone.

The second reason issocial and psychological needs. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people seek belonging and relationships. Informal groups often form to meet these needs, providing friendship, support, and a sense of identity. In Star Fish Ltd, for instance, employees working remotely may form a social group using Teams or WhatsApp to stay connected and reduce feelings of isolation.

The third reason issafety and security. Groups can give members confidence and protection when facing uncertainty or change. For example, during organisational restructuring, employees may form informal groups to share information and support each other, making them feel less vulnerable. In procurement, staff may collaborate in groups to manage supplier risks or market volatility.

The fourth reason ispower and influence. Groups provide individuals with a stronger collective voice. Trade unions are a formal example, but informal groups can also lobby management or resist unpopular changes. In procurement, buyers might form a group to influence senior managers on issues such as introducing sustainable sourcing practices. By forming groups, individuals can increase their bargaining power and impact decisions.

In conclusion, groups form for task achievement, to satisfy social needs, to provide security, and to increase power and influence. Managers must understand these dynamics because groups can both support organisational objectives and create challenges if informal groups resist change. Effective leaders harness the benefits of group formation while addressing the risks to ensure both cohesion and productivity.