George IV: The Prince Regent (1811-1820).

George IV: The Prince Regent (1811-1820). When George IV died, on 26th June, 1830, The Times (founded in 1775) published a scathing obituary saying, as Hibbert (1975) quotes: ‘There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow-creatures than this deceased king. This was not an idiosyncratic view, for both as Prince Regent and later as King, George had been roundly criticised. Although he encouraged the idea that he was ‘the first gentleman of Europe and was doubtless a ‘patron of the Arts- notwithstanding the somewhat mercurial and superficial nature of this ‘patronage, in some cases his faults far outweighed his virtues and from his own family to the general populace he was the object of scorn and derision throughout his life. This is widely reflected in the Art and Literature of the era, where George sat as uneasily as Humpty Dumpty atop a mountain of creativity: not so much its head but its target. Prince George Augustus Frederick reigned as Regent from 1811 until the death of his father, George III, in 1820, when he ascended the throne. George III had bouts of perceived ‘madness (now generally thought to have been due to porphyria, which ironically his son inherited) and more than once his ability to rule was called into question by the parliaments of the time. When it was finally realised that he was unable to function sufficiently even to open Parliament, the nine year Regency began. A time of huge political change, encompassing riots, revolution and the abolition of slavery, and against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars, the years of the ‘Regency have come to be associated with an artistic renaissance in which architects such as Nash, encouraged by the Prince, would redesign London; artists like Reynolds and Gainsborough would significantly develop portraiture and the powerfully influential ‘Romantic Movement in Literature, which encompassed the work of poets as diverse as Blake, Byron and Wordsworth, began. Crucially, it was also the time when the novel became widely recognised as an important genre, with the writing of such perennially popular novelists as Sir Walter Scott and Jane Austen. Indeed, it is interesting to consider how Austen, not usually regarded as a ‘controversial writer, reflected the contemporary view of the Prince Regent. Austens novel, Emma, was first published in 1815, and ‘given a lavish supply of three Royal Highnesses in its dedication (Tomalin, 1998). However, Austen was not in favour of this effusive wording, since she disliked the Prince Regent intensely, principally because of his treatment of his wife. In a letter to Martha Lloyd, dated February 16th, 1813, (cited in Le Faye, 1997) she wrote: Poor woman, I shall support her as long as I can, because she is a Woman, because I hate her Husband but I can hardly forgive her for calling herself ‘attached affectionate to a Man whom she must detest the intimacy said to subsist between her Lady Oxford is bad I do not know what to do about it; but if I must give up the Princess, I am resolved at least always to think that she would have been respectable, if the Prince had beh aved only tolerably by her at first. Given that this was Austens profoundly held, if ‘private, opinion of ‘His Royal Highness it can only have been a source of great distress to her to accept the ‘invitation, otherwise ‘command, of the Prince, as an admirer of her work, to offer any dedication at all. Austen really had no choice but to agree, as was explained by his intermediary and librarian, John Murray. Her acquiescence is indicative of the Regents power; his failure to acknowledge the work personally, when published and sent to him as a gift, evidence of his rather superficial, vain nature, especially since he offered the suggestion that she write an ‘historical romance based on his family! Yet, more importantly, perhaps, this telling vignette reveals much of the general opinion of the public, if we take Austen as representative of such. Clearly, the Princess is not thought guiltless, yet she is held less culpable than the Prince: ‘she would have been respectable, writes Austen, surely an indictment against Regency Society in general. Certainly, she had parodied the excesses of the Regency mores in Mansfield Park (1814), where the Crawfords have been literally corrupted at the home of their uncle, ‘the Admiral. Austen simultaneously criticises the practices of Regency Society and the Prince Regent, since he is ‘the First Gentleman and director of this. Being privy to her naval officer brothers stories, she is able to show just how indelicate ‘polite society has become, when Mary Crawford makes use of a rather risquà © double-entendre when dining with the Bertrams. Her reference to having seen more of ‘admirals and rears and vices is shocki ng to both the meekly pious heroine, Fanny Price, and Fannys cousin, the future clergyman, Edmund Bertram. Austen also shows the difference between city and rural life when Edmund criticises Marys abrupt dismissal of the influence of the clergy by saying that, ‘We do not look in great cities for our best morality. The Court, at the centre of ‘City life, with the Prince Regent at its head is thus neatly and obliquely criticised. The fact that the Prince was an ‘admirer of Austens work, notwithstanding, displays her subtlety and his obtuseness. It also shows how wrong it is to think of Austen as uninterested in the ‘important events of her time. She is more than aware of the social evils of the Regency period and in no small measure lays the blame for this at the feet of the ‘immoral Regent himself. Criticism of the Prince is of necessity frequently subliminal, though he was often criticised openly, especially in the contemporary caricatures of such as George Cruikshank and James Gillray. These anti-establishment artists contrast strongly with the ‘official view evidenced in the commissioned portraits of the Prince Regent, and later the King, in the work of portraitists like Sir Thomas Lawrence. Peter Ackroyd, in his London: The Biography (2000) records George being referred to at his coronation as being ‘obliged to present himself, as chief actor in a pantomime. Since the coronation cost a small fortune, the Regents ‘play-acting may be seen as akin to Marie-Antoinettes and almost as dangerous. After all, this was uncomfortably close, chronologically, to the French Revolution, of 1789 and the earlier ‘defection of the Americas, in 1776. Indeed, there was a genuine fear of revolution in England at this time, especially after the assassination of the Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, in 1812, who the Prince had, surprisingly given his previous difficulties with him, confirmed in office. Events such as the Luddite Riots (the backdrop to Charlotte Brontà «s novel of 1849, Shirley) proclaim the unrest which the disparity between the rich and the poor, nowhere more clearly displayed than in the extravagances of the Prince of Wales, was beginning to provoke. The introduction of the Corn Laws, in 1815, made wheat too expensive for the ordinary people whilst increasing the wealth of the nobility via their land and they were simultaneously increasing their workers rents whilst decreasing their wages. As a result, riots erupted throughout the country and led to the Peterloo Massacre in Manchester where eleven people were killed and 400 wounded; an ostentatious heir to the throne was clearly the last thing that was wanted. The early Romantics, stressing emotion over reason, reflected this social unrest and the initial impetus for the writing of such as Blake, Wordsworth, Byron and Shelley was politically radical. Later, when the work of Wordsworth became so imbued in the â⠂¬ËœEstablishment that he was, after Robert Southey, created Poet Laureate, he was severely criticised by his contemporaries and earlier, in the ‘Dedication to his unfinished epic poem, Don Juan (1819-1824) Byron, whose political leanings were towards social reform (he even wrote ‘Song for the Luddites, in 1816) lampooned Robert Southey and, by extension, the Regent, referred to in the poem as ‘Fum the Fourth, our royal bird: Bob Southey! Youre a poet Poet-laureate,   Ã‚  And representative of all the race, Althought is true that you turnd out a Tory at   Last, yours has lately been a common case; And now, my Epic Renegade! what are ye at?   With all the Lakers, in and out of place?   A nest of tuneful persons, to my eye   Like four and twenty Blackbirds in a pye. Southey had mourned Robespierre as ‘the benefactor of mankind on his death (Storey, 1997) but had, like Wordsworth (and even the Regent himself, once a ‘supporter of the French Revolution) modified his views. Byron here castigates his erstwhile fellow reformer and puns on the word ‘pye to link it with the previous Laureate, Henry James Pye, in order to emphasise the satirizing of the principal role of the Poet Laureate i.e. to ‘flatter the ruler, in this case the Prince Regent. Moreover, in the nursery rhyme, the king and queen are diverted by money and pleasure, ‘the counting-house and the ‘bread and honey, a clear link to the excesses of the Regency court. It is worth noting that Byrons ‘Dedication was never published with the Cantos of Don Juan in his lifetime and that the original nursery rhyme is thought to satirise an earlier Kings greed, immorality and excesses, Henry VIII, whom Byron would use to attack the Regent in his poem, ‘ Windsor Poetics. Byron is also scornfully derisive about ‘the Lakers, obviously the ‘Lake Poets, such as Southey and Wordsworth, who Byron saw as having, in modern-day parlance, ‘sold-out to the Tories, having been ‘Renegades in their youth. Byron thus reflects the need for change and the corrupting nature of the Regency court which diverted men from reform by the temptations of the gorgeous trappings of wealth with which the Regent surrounded himself (such as the indulgent ‘Xanadu of the Royal Pavilion at Brighton, largely the work of John Nash). Byron was not altogether wrong to criticise his former ‘allies, for it is certainly true that Wordsworth, in line with the roots of the Romantic ideal crystallized by the ‘spirit of the French Revolution (i.e. to discard an outdated way of life and of thinking when it was illegal then even to speak or write of this) changed his ‘radical views ‘radically. In ‘The Prelude (begun in 1805) Wordsworth e xclaimed, ‘bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, echoing the feeling that this was the herald of a new spirit to be embraced: Yet in the regal sceptre, and the pomp Of orders and degrees, I nothing found Then, or had ever, even in crudest youth, That dazzled me, but rather what I mourned And ill could brook, beholding that the best Ruled not, and feeling that they ought to rule. The idea clearly expressed is that ‘the pomp/ Of orders and degrees is empty, vainglorious and unfair. The poet sees the injustices of the world and that ‘the best/Ruled not; nothing could be more critical of the Regency excesses of early Nineteenth Century England. It was, as Byron, Shelley et al believed, a ‘U-turn of epic proportions for Wordsworth, in later life, to ‘re-assess his work and take an Establishment view, and the mockery of Southey in ‘Epic Renegade is thus largely justified, though Byron was not wholly free of hypocrisy himself, of course, nor was Southey alone in his ‘defection to an altered interpretation of the term ‘Romantic, placing the emphasis far more on the harmony with nature which is nowadays usually associated with the movement. Quite the opposite was true of the early Romantic, William Blake. Never ‘in tune with any ‘movement per se, Blake retained a bold, idiosyncratic, reforming and largely anarchistic line throughout his life. In his poem ‘London, from Songs of Experience (1794) Blake openly criticises every level of authority, even the throne: I wander thro each charterd street, Near where the charterd Thames does flow, And mark in every face I meet Marks of weakness, marks of woe. In every cry of every Man, In every Infants cry of fear, In every voice, in every ban, The mind-forgd manacles I hear. How the Chimney-sweepers cry Every blackning Church appalls; And the hapless Soldiers sigh Runs in blood down Palace walls. But most thro midnight streets I hear How the youthful Harlots curse Blasts the new born Infants tear, And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse. T. S. Eliots famous remark that Blakes poetry has ‘an honesty against which the whole world conspires because it is unpleasant is clearly evidenced here. His view of London is characterised by being taken from the level of the ordinary man and woman. Like Dickens, later, he opted to be the ‘voice of the ‘common man not the ‘mouthpiece of the Establishment; his ‘sensibility causes him to react to the ‘blood on the ‘Palace walls and though a ‘great London visionary (Ackroyd, 2000, p.15) not blind to its faults. Blakes black ‘streets are ‘charterd, hence, governed, under rule, and therefore intended to be protected. The fact that they are not criticises the entire society from the throne down, encompassing the ‘blackning church which seems oblivious to the social evils embodied in ‘the Chimney-sweepers cry and ‘the youthful Harlots curse. The ‘double-standard of this corruptly led society is loathed by t he poet and he does not shrink from proclaiming his abhorrence. Moreover, in the ‘mind-forgd manacles he sees the hand of the monarch (especially since he first wrote ‘German forged links). The poet exemplifies the reforming zeal which informed early-Romanticism. Blake was a consummate uncompromising artist, whose written work was always accompanied by a painstakingly created engraving on bronze, colour washed, then printed. However, his art was as different from his contemporaries as his writing. The Regency saw the development of detailed Landscapes expressing profound emotional depth. This was very much encouraged by the Prince Regent, who developed his own collection and urged the government to do likewise, inspiring the later foundation of ‘The National Gallery. Samuel Palmers simplicity of style combines with the visionary religious feeling derived from Blake; John Constables peacefully, idyllic rural landscapes, innovatively created in the open air, evoked an England already felt to be slipping away and to be the more so with the coming of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, much Victorian Literature, written in the mid-nineteenth century, is set in the time of the Regency. For example, Emily Brontà «s Wuthering Heights, published in 1847, begins in 1801, with ‘flashbacks in the dual narrative to the late eighteenth century and Lockwood, the ‘intruder from London, and portrayed as a snobbish ‘dandy, represents the Regency idea that ‘the City was ‘the centre of the Universe. (Interestingly, the Brontà « sisters almost certainly took their models for the ‘wild, untamed heroes of their novels from the writing of this era, too, being ‘Byronic in nature; they were also influenced by their admiration of the Duke of Wellington, a critic of the Prince Regent.) This was quite widespread in the mid nineteenth century, to be found in the works of George Eliot and Thomas Hardy amongst others. Turners wild and deliberately indistinct ‘seascapes influenced later authors as well as artists and the Regents sensitivity to the importance of Art is evidenced in his patronage of it throughout his life. Like Kenneth Grahames ‘Toad, he often became obsessed with fads only to drop them without further thought but it is a testimony to its importance to him that this was not the case with Art, to which he remained devoted in his support and appreciation despite the many deprecating caricatures which satirised his life and reign, calling him, in later life, ‘the Prince of Whales (Le Faye, p. 44) due to his corpulent build; Keats even referred to him as ‘fat George'(Gittings, 1970). Indeed, to some extent, he lampooned himself more successfully, albeit unwittingly, by commissioning ridiculously flattering ‘official portraits by such as Sir Thomas Lawrence (1816). ‘Prinny, as he was known by his inner circle, was equally interested in architecture, commissioning John Nash to renovate Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, as well as to reshape London. In the course of this, the eponymous Regents Park was developed, initially for private use only, from the former Royal Hunting Grounds (Ackroyd, 2000); this, however, was unlikely to endear him to the starving populace of whom he seemed largely oblivious. Even his brother, William IV, later remarked that the Prince Regent had, ‘damned expensive tastes in ‘knicknackery (Brown Cunliffe, 1982, p. 148) but given his uneasy relationship with his family, it was inevitable that any aspect of his life that could be criticised, would be, especially since acknowledgement of Georges defects could only add to the popularity of his successors; the moral and sober replacing the immoral and facile. (This would culminate in the extravagantly ‘wholesome and respectable, Queen Victoria, who is recorded as having disliked being near ‘Uncle King, as she called George IV, saying it was: ‘too disgusting because his face was covered with greasepaint.) Nowhere was this more evident than in the Princes private life, which both as Regent and King, was always ‘very vulnerable; so much so that most of his correspondence was destroyed on his death (Aspinall, 1963). His ‘first love, Mary Robinson, an actress whose stage name was ‘Perdita, received passionate love letters from him in his youth signed ‘Florizel (probably a reference to Shakespeares A Winters Tale where characters so named fall in love: Florizel is a prince, Perdita a royal brought up by a shepherd). Cannily, given the Princes relative penury in later life, she extracted a financial ‘bond from him to be redeemed on his coming of age; surprisingly, the Regent honoured this but then, he was usually generous to his mistresses rather than his wives. Maria Fitzherbert, a twice-widowed Roman Catholic and the love of his life was much less successful financially. Indeed, the Prince frequently borrowed from her and hid from his creditors at her house. Her religion forbade their marriage, but George married her in secret, in 1785, without the consent of the King, thus rendering the union illegal. Nevertheless, he remained close to her to the end of his life and after his death, Wellington, not an admirer of the Prince but keen to preserve the dignity of the monarchy, made it his personal task as executor to burn his correspondence with Mrs. Fitzherbert. This was an exercise in retroactive ‘damage-limitation, because much of the criticism of George had surrounded his ‘marriages and liaisons. His indiscretions made it even easier for the popular press to lampoon him and continue to hold him in very low-esteem, although much of what he achieved was conveniently overlooked or regarded as ‘frivolous. The Times wrote of h im that he preferred ‘a girl and a bottle to politics and a sermon but overlooked the fact that he had this, at least, in common, with most of his contemporaries. George had been compelled by the King, for financial reasons, to marry his cousin, Caroline of Brunswick, in 1795. Caroline, it appears, was popular with everyone but the Prince despite her indiscretions, for which many, like Jane Austen, blamed George (when the Prince first saw Caroline, he supposedly called frantically for brandy). They were separated immediately after the birth of their daughter and George banned her from his elaborate coronation. Caroline, not easily deterred, attempted to force her way in but was repelled by the boxers George had hired as pages (Brown Cunliffe, p.234). Nevertheless, she remained very popular with the general public. George was apparently incapable of achieving similar ‘popularity; indeed, he appears to remain largely indifferent to it, even though his coach was physically attacked in 1817. Instead of reacting positively to the unrest, he chose instead to ‘set styles, taking up Regency ‘dandies like ‘Beau Brummell and using them as his ‘model then dropping them in response to trivial quarrels. (Brummell famously retaliated by responding to a royal snub with the question: ‘Whos your fat friend? but paid for it.) George abandoned the use of wig powder when it was taxed, is largely credited with having spread (on Brummells advice) the adoption of the dark simplicity in male attire which replaced the more elaborate and colourful silks and satins of earlier times and he inspired the wearing of ‘tartan. However, in a time of revolution, war and social upheaval, with his people starving, it is, perhaps, easy to see how ‘accomplished tastes could not be acc epted as any kind of serious substitute for strong, moral leadership. Therefore, although much of the criticism of the Regents appearance was itself superficial, behind it lay a deep disquiet about the future monarch which was in no way dispelled when it became a reality. Byron wrote, in ‘Windsor Poetics, of seeing the Regent standing between the coffins of Henry VIII and Charles I, in the royal vault at Windsor (Byron, Poetical Works, p. 73): Famed for contemptuous breach of sacred ties, By headless Charles see heartless Henry lies; Between them stands another sceptred thing It moves, it reigns in all but name, a king: Charles to his people, Henry to his wife, In him the double tyrant starts to life: Justice and death have mixd their dust in vain, Each royal vampire wakes to life again, Ah, what can tombs avail! since these disgorge The blood and dust of both to mould a George. Byron traces an unhappy lineage to its present ‘sceptred thing: a combination of the arrogance of Charles I, ruling, he thought, by ‘Divine Right, and the corrupt, immoral and headstrong, Henry VIII, who tore the country apart for his own vain fulfilment. These ‘royal vampires, feeding in the style of contemporary Gothic horror from the ‘blood of their people, find a hideous reincarnation in the Regent, ‘the double tyrant, George. Byron does not paint a pretty picture but seems, overall, to reflect a common belief. As The Times printed on his death: What eye has wept for him? What heart has heaved one throb of unmercenary sorrow? If he ever had a friend a devoted friend in any rank of life we protest that the name of him or her never reached us. The birth of the future King George IV, initially announced as that of a girl to his disappointed parents, culminated in a more widespread disappointment. Wellington, Georges polar opposite in most things, called him ‘the worst man I ever fell in with in my whole life but later referred to him more appropriately, perhaps, as a ‘medley of a man. Certainly, both as Regent and King, George presided over a period whose influence is still much in evidence but little of this was due to its ruler. A study into the Indifferent Employee: A study into the Indifferent Employee: To Address the Issues of Indifference in the Workforce and to Consider the Motivational Remedies. Rationale for study Indifference can be described as a lack of interest in doing something, the perception of a task being unimportant or work being carried out with a reduced emphasis; sometimes no emphasis on quality and effort. An indifferent individual could be described as apathetic, with the suppression of emotion. Many companies and human resource departments simply do not acknowledge indifference as the widespread problem it truly is. It is difficult to see what a person or organisation is not doing; it is hard to monitor or observe and therefore the better the knowledge and understanding we have the more effectively we can combat the issue. There is little existing research in the area of indifference amongst the workforce, yet it has been highlighted as a contemporary HR phenomena. EVIDENCE Indifference is a term that is used in many different contexts, Indifferent attitudes and behaviour amongst pockets in the workforce ultimately cost organisations time, money and resources. Indifference cov ers a wide range of subjects such as psychology and sociology as well as business and management. It can no longer be ignored. The research aims to give us a better understanding of efficient and cost effective solutions that ensure successful short and long term motivational harmony for the indifferent elements consisting in the workforce. I will investigate and critically analyse the techniques of motivation and how effective they are in tackling todays generation of indifferent attitudes, this will assist me on making recommendations to quash the effect and impact of indifference. Implications Indifferent individuals reverse productivity and reduce efficiency, inevitably influencing others attitudes. I want to highlight the issue of indifference and suggest the appropriate combatant techniques required to effectively tackle and efficiently resolve the problem. Motivation as a subject has been widely debated over the years and the development of theories have allowed us to gain valuable insights and adopt best practises. Yet it is still important to debate the contemporary thoughts and beliefs on the subject as we enter a new age of indifference we need to think about contemporary motivational solutions, I will be considering the relevance of existing theories. Adopting the right motivational drivers and incorporating effective company culture is ever more helpful for successful business. Indifference and motivation have implications for a number of key functions and areas within all organisations; human resources, culture and performance to name but a few. There simply isnt enough contemporary theory considering the scale and implications of the widely disregarded indifferent employee. Although the subject is relatively new, there is literature in relating fields, motivational tactics may provide us the answer; motivation as a subject has had a great deal of literature over the years. However with ever increasing globalisation and interconnectivity; divisions of labour attitudes, more mixed views and a more wide variety of people we need a more coherent and current idea of contemporary issues like indifference; motivation theory needs to evolve with the 21st century. Motivation and Engagement Through examining the different motivational theories I can gain a better understanding of how motivation has helped engagement and improve employee commitment. Ultimately I will be seeking to how appropriate these techniques are to todays managers with reference to tackling indifference in the workplace. Classic management theory such as Taylor (1911) based the early ideology of motivation. I will talk about the different needs based theories such as Maslows hierarchy, including extensions of the theory. Theories focused on extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, having a wider knowledge base of motivation will aid our understanding and provide better direction and through informed tactics to enable managers to adopt the best practise for the indifferent employee. This will help resolve the issues highlighted. Motivation is the driving force for productivity and efficiency within the workforce. Henri Fayol, an early pioneer of management theory, suggests there are four key elements of management; planning, organising, directing and control. Motivation would be categorised under directing, very similar definitions; directing is leading workers to accomplish the organisations goals and making them perform effectively. Theorizing the phenomenon of indifference will help managers eliminate the problem through motivational implementation they will create more competitive human resource base Cui, 2004 emphasises this point, explaining the; need to groom people to become a source of competitive advantage. The existing research directly regarding motivation contrasts with that of indifference; there is a great amount of literature and a variety of views, however the theory is dated and the methods by which some research was tested is ever increasing coming under scrutiny. The study of motivation w ill aid managers in distinguishing the indifferent employee and enable a higher level of understanding and considerations to effective resolutions for an engaged, committed and motivated workforce. Research Questions To examine the implications, gain a more coherent understanding and properly acknowledge the special needs for the indifferent attitudes amongst employees. To investigate the broader aspects in surrounding theory relating to indifference; to better our knowledge of the phenomena. To support the discussion of indifference and new age motivation resolutions, acknowledging the contemporary problem and considering the application of contemporary motivational theory. Discover the techniques adopted to enhance performance and satisfaction of the workforce and find out which motivational factors will influence the indifferent employee best. Literature review The literature review concerning this investigation leads us to various writings of opinions. Some of these opinions express continuity with one another, but other opinions convey more diverse views. The subject itself is multifaceted and carries a great deal of subjectivity through the questions what exactly is an indifferent employee, how can an organisation identify indifference within the workforce, and what are the best solutions to the problem? Indifference needs to be addressed, as Cuming highlights; what is good for the individual is good for the organisation as well (1993, p. 6). So eliminating indifference will benefit an organisation as a whole, its in the organisations intereset that its work force is engaged if not devoted. Indifference and its Repercussions on the Organisation Radwan, 2009 explains Indifference is the state of feeling where you just dont care about taking an action, the problem with indifference is that sometimes you are aware that doing that thing or taking that action will get you much benefit but still you do nothing, indifference is not like lack of motivation because you may lack motivation if you are not aware of the importance of the activity, however if you are aware but still take no action then you are indifferent. What causes the people to surrender and become indifferent is profound and pro-longed dissatisfaction (Geezla, 1998, 136). It is vital for employees to be engaged in their job and have a positive attitude towards their work and their contribution. I will be seeking to understand why and how indifference comes about in the workplace and from my findings conclude with an effective resolution for the problem. Eslami (2010) states people with (indifference) do not care about the future, because as far as they are concerned, there is no difference between present, future and past. This highlights the problems organisations face with elements of an indifferent workforce; how can an organisation implement tactics and strategic vision with employees that are not engaged in their work and sub sequentially do not conform to organisational culture? Indifferent employees deteriorate in behaviour; this has a negative effect on other colleagues and can slow productivity. The scope of indifference in an organization describes the behaviour of someone who carries out the organizations activities without using their talent or creativity. Indifference threatens to destroy encouragement of the employees; reducing their effort and acceptance of responsibilities (Tabaeian, 2001). Whereas Murphy, 2002 highlights indifference as having a more significant effect on organisational culture, he carried out a stu dy that revealed a perceived discrepancy between the official espousal of the values by the company and their actual enactment  The ambivalence of this group towards such values is reflected in the indifference of staff, for whom the values have little salience as drivers of company policy or practice. He then goes on to state the embedding of company values is represented as part of a larger descriptive framework of salience. It is also argued that political considerations, including powerful, unofficial cultural and sub cultural norms, will override the impact of officially espoused, but unembedded, values. Further highlighting the need for a better understanding and contemporary acknowledgement through his statement; Organizations that look to land a fast fix or play politics, rarely bridge isolated silos of discipline, culture, gender or beliefs. To fully understand the idea of an indifferent individual, I will be touching commitment and focusing on engagement. Literature relating to this field will help provide a better understanding of the motivational remedies.Commitment is a kind of devotion including feelings such as trust and reliability that organisations wish to gain from their employees. Whilst not a lot has been directly written on indifference, there is much literature on commitment. The employee should be a productive member of an organisation, rather than enter an employment relationship on the basis of submission and obligation. Submission and obligation can lead to feelings of indifference. Price states that employees should be committed to the organisations mission and values. Price explains that employees will show dedication and enthusiasm only if they want to, and not out of compliance. Prices model is based on an anti-authoritarian viewpoint, so his view is interesting when compared to managerial methods o f motivating indifferent employees. Price attributes the importance of commitment to an individual level. P15 Indifferent employees do not expect much from their organization, except a pay check and in some cases, benefits. Highly indifferent employees see their life as existing separate from work. Those employees who are low in indifference are generally believed to have orientations contrary to the highly indifferent workers. Behaviour plays a key role in understanding this problem. A reason why there has been so little research on this topic is because even if organisations acknowledge indifference they cannot tell what percentage of their workforce are indifferent; people are aware of its existence but they dont feel it occurs at a wide enough level to be taken seriously and have the perception of appropriate procedures in place to counter act the effects. (Grzybowska 2005) A recent study found that 68% of customers who leave do so because of a company employees indifference. How To Get Your Employees To Treat Customers Better Lisa Earle McLeod,  04.26.10, 01:21 PM EDT Indifference not only slows the company operations and efficiency down but can also lead to consumers having a negative experience with the organisation. Writing in an article regarding organisational brainpower, Weber (2010) explains that an organisation opting for a quick fix strategy for resolving issues regarding organisational discipline, culture and beliefs will not work, He stresses the importance of involvement from higher level management; It takes involvement from an institutes top leadership, a willingness to invest time, and talent within teams that come from many sectors of society. He suggests a balanced variety of workers will help engage individuals and improve performance. Indifference needs to be tackle head on, more interaction between low level workers and their superiors is important in reducing the problem, creating a culture that acts as a disincentive to indifference is important but actually noticing and monitoring the problem of indifference and understanding the wider implications and affects is the only way to implement a successful combatant strategy to effectively eradicate the problem whilst ensuring. Motivation Application and Engagement Effectiveness There has been an enormous amount of literature produced regarding motivation over the last century. Motivation theory was first introduced to the world of business by early pioneers such as Taylor. Latham, 2007, explains Taylors research found money was the primary incentive for motivating the workforce. The classical management theory suggests managers should adopt a militant style, authoritarian technique. I do not believe this attitude should be embraced by todays mangers for tackling indifference, although money may be a primary incentive for an indifferent employee, management need to intrinsically motivate, getting the individuals more engaged; this strategy was proven inefficient and not as productive as alternative methods. The importance of motivational factors and the needs of the employee lead to better management resolution, managers cannot go back to this perspective it will not work on a long term basis Prior to Maslow, researchers generally focused on separate motivational factors separately. Maslow (1954) developed the hierarchy of needs, this introduced a fundamental change to the way employee productivity and motivation was perceived and built the foundations for further motivational theory. The hierarchy of needs is a triangular dimension with five elements; Physiological needs, safety/security needs, need for belongingness, self esteem and finally self actualization. Maslow claims all employees will move along the hierarchy. In order to progress you need to fulfil the requirements a particular element to move up the hierarchy. The indifferent employee in many cases is a former team member and was at some stage a substantial contributor, this theory is not applicable with the indifferent employee due to them being at different levels of the hierarchy when the attitude sets in. Existence-relatedness-growth theory similar to Maslows hierarchy suggests motivation is a result of pe ople attempting to satisfy basic needs, unlike Maslows 5 needs Alderfer (1969) suggests there are three needs; existence, relatedness and growth. This theory is more appropriate for tackling indifference. Existence needs would cover the lower aspects of the hierarchy; physiological and safety needs. Related needs would come under esteem and belongingness and growth needs would tend to be towards the top of the hierarchy at the self actualization level. One conflicting view in this theory is that the needs are not progressive in the way that there is no hierarchy; managers having a more productive role in engagement and employee progression will reduce the potential for indifferent attitudes to establish themselves within employees; resolving the issues before they become a problem. Alderfer suggests people may work on satisfying all needs at once rather than satisfying one need to move on to the next. Process theories of motivation focus on relations between performance and satisfaction; Equity theory was introduced through Adams, J, S. (1965). According to Jones R, G. George, J, M. (2003) the equity theory is defined as a theory of motivation that focuses on peoples perceptions of the fairness of their work outcomes relative to their work outputs. The theory is based on a ratio of input and output. The theory argues that inputs such as training and skills will result in outcomes such as pay and fringe benefits. Similar to performance related pay, equity theory suggests the ratio will create absolute fairness. Having the opportunity to earn on a level playing field will satisfy employees and motivate them to better their performance. Equity theory supports the view performance will increase as a result of increased job satisfaction. With successful application of Alderfer; the equity theory will be more effective or justified. Financial reward is not the best incentive for fully engagement of the indifferent employee; intrinsic motivation is more desired and more beneficial for the organisation as a whole. In contrast to this Vroom developed expectancy theory. His views based on that of Lewin (1935) and Rotter (1955) suggest people expect a certain level of effort or performance to achieve desired objectives and goals. Increasing job satisfaction will come as a result of increasing job performance. Vroom (1964) defines two key elements to the theory: expectancy; a momentary belief concerning the likelihood that a particular act will be followed by a particular outcome. Valence; affective orientations toward particular outcomes valence either comes negative or positive, for example a person who prefers attaining an outcome rather than not-attaining the outcome has positive valence. Expectancy theory suggests motivation depends on how strong the expectancy is and how valiant the person finds the task. This is aligned to that of the indifferent employee; one that has lost their way. This indicates job design is crucial for effective performance. Forde Whiddett, (2002) explain the concept of Instrumentality, also developed through expectancy theory, unlike expectancy; instrumentality suggests one outcome will lead to another important outcome. Porter and Lawyer (1968) researched expectancy theory and their findings supported that of Vroom. One criticism they did have was the theory did not take into account ability and job clarity, expectancy theory focused on extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic. The indifferent employee needs a shift in philosophy to a more intrinsically motivated state of mind in order to resolve the issue indefinitely. McClelland Atkinson (1965) introduced achievement motivational needs theory, the theory is based on behaviour in achievement orientated activities, there are three specific motivational conditions; willingness to participate, ability or perception to achieve the goal; expectancy and there must be an incentive to carry out the task. Achievement theory categorises everyone into different personalities and needs. McClelland found three different types of need; the need for achievement, need for power and the need for affiliation. All have specific traits and tendencies which are explained in detail. This could be a solution, a balance between fairness and progression will help engage indifferent attitudes. Task motivation theory, or better known as goal setting theory was developed through Locke (1968) his study found three important points, Precise goals which can be measured are a much better tool of motivation rather than just giving general goals. More difficult goals lead to a gre ater level of performance compared with easy goals, Peoples decisions are influenced by their behavioural intention. Indifferent attitudes will be hard to stimulate progressive goals setting may have a negative impact for indifferent individuals yet is an appropriate motivator for the common worker aligned to the organisations culture and has a reasonable level of commitment. Latter theories of motivation include Herzberg (1987) who describes motivation as a function of growth from getting intrinsic rewards out of interesting and challenging work. Herzbergs two factor theory is separated between causes of job dissatisfaction named hygiene factors and positive elements of the job leading to satisfaction, named motivators. In his research he points out the opposite of job dissatisfaction will not lead to job satisfaction rather no job satisfaction. The same is true with the other side of the theory regarding motivators. He highlights extrinsic motivation as hygiene factors which will inevitably lead to no job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction. He also suggests the motivational factors i.e. motivators will lead to motivated or unmotivated workforce. Forde, Whiddett. (2002) explain If job satisfaction leads to greater productivity, it makes sense that any improvements in motivators should lead to an improvement in performance. Satisfaction for the job is c rucial, early motivational remedies can help solve the problem. A paternalistic managerial stance will improve communication and the manager can re-bridge the commitment and increase the performance enabling an all round more vigorously engaged individual. More recent theories and expansions on motivation include the development of emotional intelligence, Goleman (1995) deriving from early ideas on social intelligence from Thorndike (1937). Butler and Waldroop acknowledge the importance of four dimensions of relational work: intelligence, interpersonal facilitation, relational creativity and team leadership. This more common theory should be adopted in order to abolish the indifference before it arises. It can provide the employee with more responsibility and a new calling so to speak although risky in the hand sof the indifferent it may have an outstanding affect on engagement and motivation, management intuition and general people skills and assessment should provide an inkling into what needs the indifferent employee is requiring and what can possibly help drive them and reinstate a good level of commitment. Conclusions and Recommendations for further research Classical Management theory and Maslows Hierarchy of Needs are not best appropriate if wanting to motivate the indifferent employee. Alderfers three needs of existence, relatedness and growth are more applicable, indifference could occur from a lack of these needs, building and growing predominately worse over time as a result of managers failing to acknowledge potential capacity for improvement and an individuals workplace progress or even evolution. For effective engagement and sufficient commitment addressing these needs will help the employees stay focused and committed to the job at hand and ensure successful and proud representation. Equity Theory can in some cases help stimulate the employee and reengages them back into good work ethic. Performance related pay structures for example will motivate employees in the short term, with a less impact on that of the indifferent however financial reward is not top priority for routing out the cause and permanently eradicating indiffere nt attitudes within employees. Intrinsic motivation theory provides the best answer; Herzberg 1987 for example, the motivators on this two factor theory can be adopted and utilised in attempting to reverse the effect of indifference. In order to resolve the issue it is necessary to reverse the growing entrenchment of negative work ethic as soon as possible. A number of motivational drivers should be adopted finding the one that works for the employee swiftly is advocated. Managers need to be effective in reforming the philosophy, ethics and morality of its indifferent employees; it is of the upmost importance; Murphy, 2002 states. leaders need charisma to generate the awareness and sentiment. Indifference in employees based in customer faced roles will have a profound negative impact on the customers perception of the organisation. Helpful and useful customer interaction is ever more desired if not required in todays business world. It improves the organisations competitiveness, retains custom and advocates the reputation of the business. Ensuring customers are more than satisfied with their experience is a top priority; the point of interaction with representatives of the organisation plays an important part in credibility. Evidence Without managerial acknowledgement and a suitable, proactive, response; departments will not be as fully efficient and will suffer from poor representation. This low morale should be addressed through changing managerial tactics and applying different motivational engagement tools. There needs to be a change; one of which implements more desire and passion for indifferent members. Motivation drives the workforce; influencing capacity and capability, it is also crucial for implementing the companys mission and image throughout all levels of organisational structure. Motivation enables employees to better embrace the organisations culture. The indifference issue is very real; individuals will persist and their attitudes will free fall. Failing to resolve the matters effectively will result in a wider and more severe impact over time. Changing the mindset of the individual employee in order to fully engage them will reverse any entrenched attitudes. Through the correct motivational and managerial manner they can become exceptional employees once again. Returning the sound work ethic and standard will result in a noticeable and improved individual contribution; a benefit all human resource managers like to see. Managers should have the opportunity for a more decentralised, motivational policy in order to tackle indifferent attitudes. More managerial discretion for methods that will bridge the needs of the indifferent with that of the goals of the organisation should be promoted. There needs to be a change in perspective away from the mainstream motivation, that of one predominate policy applying to all employees is not the path for the solving the indifference problem. When tackling indifference we need to change the motivational approach for different cases; the manager should be able to pick up on key indicators and measures; productivity for example. (Bratton and Golds, 1999) quest model also highlights main functions of HR and provides other aspects and indicators such as absenteeism. Indifferent employees need to perceive management as sufficiently addressing their needs and wants whilst balancing the organisational or departmental goals, desires and expectations, in a fair way. This i s not best done through an appraisal structure but more similar to that of an informal meeting. Individuals are unique and indifference is best tackled when treating cases individually; assertiveness for individual needs will result in a better management practise and are more likely to settle the issue amongst the individual indefinitely. Further research Relatively long term case studies into finding, observing and documenting individual cases will provide a clearer understanding. Implementing different techniques spoken about can truly test the theories; accumulating a wealth of indifferent strategies for individual types perhaps. I recommend these further research ideas; Comparing Indifference in a number of public and private sector organisations will enable a better insight; revealing the issue to see if it is more prone to certain structures, management styles or sectors. A case study observing different effects of a range of motivational tactics using set trial periods for each. Doing this on indifferent employees would be enlightening; By researching further and obtaining these findings this could enable us to categorise different levels or types and potentially identify key catalysts for indifference amongst the workforce. Ethical considerations may have to be taken into account; if observation is carried out without employee knowledge and consent, it will cause concern. Some will argue this is necessary so the outcome is not manipulated; in order to sustain more accurate findings. There are also many variables to take into account, company culture for example, but identifying indifferent employees needs to be acknowledged. if managers are well equipped with the knowhow and can differentiate between a lack of progress or temporary spells of poor performance with an actual indifferent employee then they can see what works best and gain a wider knowledge base for the themselves and the field of interest. Through using productivity measures and observing progress the issue can be studied effectively. Implementing other comparative and assessable variables will enable a more solid base on which findings can be assessed more reputably; ultimately attaining more conclusive and accredited research will drive the issue into the mainstream.