7vol2no3

7vol2no3

• 1.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 303 Employee Motivation and Organizational Performance in Multinational Companies: A Study of Cadbury Nigeria Plc Oluyinka Solomon, Noor Hazarina Hashim Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru Malaysia Zohreh B.T. Mehdi, Musibau Akintunde Ajagbe Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru Malaysia Abstract--The study of human resource management (HRM) has been rejuvenated by the assurance that there is a best- practice, high-involvement management (HIM) that can guarantee better performance of employees in organizations. None the less, there remain concerns that contingency theory still rules, that is, the fit between the human resource systems and their context, and particularly the organization's management technique, is all important and, thus, that high-involvement will only surpass other systems in certain situations. Furthermore, incentivising organizational employees and job satisfaction have been acknowledged to be a controversial and widely debated topic for years now. This assertion is not unconnected to the discovery that university graduates, job seekers and more to say organizational managers are no more concerned whether job duties and scope are fulfilling rather their interest lie more on the magnitude of incentives attached to their job. Furthermore, complaints are bound from employees of most companies that their monthly income is stagnant and there exist discriminatory wage policy in many of the multinational organizations in Nigeria. The relationship between effects of employee’s motivation on organizational performance has elicited a debate among personnel management professisionals and academic researchers over the years. This investigation however seeks to look into the effectiveness of employee motivation for enhanced organizational performance in multinational companies in Nigeria, especially the manufacturing sector. A survey of personnel of Cadbury Nig Plc was undertaken. A total of 100 self administered questionnaires were distributed while 87 of them were returned. The data collated and analyzed using simple percentages and Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation. The findings show provision of adequate motivation by Cadbury Nigeria Plc and improvement in employee productivity and, a positive correlation between employee productivity .Senior managers are however advised to adapt continuous improvement in motivational programmes as a core ingredient for enhanced employee productivity. Keywords; Motivation; Organizational Performance; Employee; MNC; Nigeria 1.0 INTRODUCTION. It has been widely acknowledged that the western economies are largely driven by the manufacturing industry. In the United States alone, this sector accounts for more than 75 percent of the gross domestic product [1]. Thus, it follows that research directed at increasing an understanding of drivers of employee and organizational performance in this sector is of growing concern to human resource management scholars and practitioners [2, 3, 4]. The long held maxim in management circles that once employees are given enough incentives, they will produce in large quantities and of good quality has recently come under heavy criticism. Arguments advanced have ranged from those who maintain that money is not an effective means of enhancing increased and adequate productivity, to those who hold that job security and other non-financial rewards are much more effective as modes of incentives in an effort to increase productivity [5]. Organizational managers had for several years been saddled with the challenge to maximize industrial performance through either the maximization of human output or by increasing the potential capability of machines. Previous efforts in either direction have produced only little results [6]. According to the concerned managers, advances in industrial engineering through automation and mechanization of industrial processes were welcomed relief for management, yet this development sidelined the employees and brought about greater dissatisfaction. Management problem today therefore appears very much human than mechanical [7].With the realization therefore, greater efforts towards increasing productivity have taken the human approach and hence, the use of incentives. The use of incentives to spur workers however, is not known to be recent but has required more awareness in recent times, while the methodologies adopted by various company managers of incentives have widened in the use of money (economic incentive), the provision of amenities and fringe benefits (social incentives), involvement of decision making (participatory incentive), to the use of such factors as job security and promotion (psychological incentive). Popoola [5] postulated that several theoretical and empirical attempts have been made at understanding the connections between reward and productivity. Few studies have studied the role of financial compensation in industrial motivation [8, 9], while others have investigated incentives for their motivational consequence [9]. A relevant and popular technique has been the Path Goal Approach to Productivity by
• 2.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 304 Georgopoulous. Yet others have considered the multi- dimensionality of the topic. This study is not an effort to review of such studies; but referencing them will serve to indicate the worth and importance of the contemporary issues. Many authors believe that “high involvement” or “high performance” HR practices positively affect organizational performance outcomes [10], yet how HR affects outcomes is not yet fully clear. One important proposed mechanism suggests that this impact runs via individual employees. For example, Wright and others stress the crucial role of employee attitudes and behaviors in translating HR practices into performance [11, 12]. High performance HR practices are assumed to enhance employee motivation and performance, and, in turn, these more motivated and better performing employees improve firm performance. In line with this more central role of employees, researchers emphasize the need to include employee perceptions in human resource research [13, 11]. The organization’s designed human resource approach preferably reflects its strategy and context, and as organizations make choices about how to manage their employees, such approach also communicate information about the organization to employees. However, having a well- crafted human resource system in theory may not be enough to positively affect employees as rhetoric about the ideal human resource system and the reality of what is implemented may differ from each other [14]. Den Hartog et al. [15] postulated that Line managers play an important role in implementing the designed systems, and differences in implementation might occur at this level. While Nishii and Wright [11] point out that besides the intended or designed HR system that firms develop theoretically, there is the need to differentiate the human resource system as implemented (what managers put into practice) as well as the perceived HR system (how employees interpret practices). Nishii et al. [16] portends that if care is not taken, there is the likelihood that a disconnect between intended HR practices as reported by managers and the effect of actual HR practices would occur, that is, at least partially explained by differential meanings imposed on those practices by employees. This disconnect is problematic if the performance effects of HR practices are argued to come about as a result of the perceptions of individual employees. Dyer and Reeves [17] distinguish four types of human resource outcomes (employee, unit/organizational, financial, and market). Employee outcomes can be affective (e.g., satisfaction) or behavioral (e.g., citizenship). Several authors have stressed that HR can contribute both to “happy” and “productive” workplaces [18]. In that scenario, both well- being and performance-oriented HR outcomes are of interest, and hence, include job satisfaction and perceived unit performance [19]. The purpose of the present study was to contribute to this knowledge base through an empirical investigation. Specifically, this study examined the effects of employee motivation on organizational performance. Specifically, we looked at the effect of feedback from six departments of a multinational company in the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. We wanted to see if feedback from this source could be used to enhance the motivation effectiveness of employees on the performance of organizational personnel in the manufacturing industry especially the multinationals in Nigeria. Prior to conducting this study, there was no evidence to suggest that employee performance and the performance of the multinationals where they worked would increase or decrease as a result of this intervention. Thus, we wanted to ascertain whether motivation of employees of direct reports based on feedback provided on a seemingly random, albeit systematic schedule from the selected sample population affects employee and organizational performance positively. 2.0 UNDERLYING THEORIES OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The necessity of providing employees feedback on their performance has been supported by at least three human resource management theories of organizational behavior, and opined that Feedback is a moderator variable in goal setting theory [20, 21] because it is important for effectively guiding goal setting and pursuit. Social cognitive theory emphasizes the importance of feedback for increasing self-efficacy for the achievement of organizational goal [21]. The theory also explains the significance of feedback for allowing employees to see the connection between what they are doing and the result they expect to achieve. None of this theory indicates the frequency with which feedback should be given. The answer is suggested in Skinner’s [22] theory of reinforcement. Although the philosophy underlying reinforcement theory namely, behaviorism [23] has been disapproved for neglecting to acknowledge cognition as a mediating variable [24], this failure does not negate the effectiveness of this theoretical framework for suggesting ways of managing performance [25]. Voluminous experiments show that when learning a response, a continuous schedule of reinforcement results in higher performance than a variable schedule [26]. Once the response is learned, and reinforcement is subsequently administered on a fixed interval such as once every minute, the responses increase rapidly only as the end of the predetermined time period approaches. 2.1 Employee Perceptions of Human Resource As noted, individual-level mechanisms are seen as potentially important in the Human Resource performance relationship. Individual-level mediators that have been proposed include perceptions of climate [27], commitment [28]), and skills, attitudes, and motivation [29]. Thus, one way in which Human Resource systems are assumed to affect firm performance is through their impact on employees as the degree to which employees are motivated to behave in line with organizational goals is believed to be very important company performance [30]. In view of this, [11] put forward that planned and executed Human Resource Management practices affect results through the manner employees perceive these human resource practices. Human Resource practices can be viewed as signals of the organization’s intentions toward employees
• 3.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 305 well being [13]. However, these management practices transmit messages frequently and in unintended ways, and messages can be understood distinctively, whereby two employees interpret the same practices differently” [13]. Differences in personal experiences and distinctive preferences may lead employees to react differently to practices [13, 15]. Differences in implementation and communication may also lead to variation in HR perceptions of individual employees [16]. Because misalignment implies that employees do not have an accurate perception of HR policies and practices, the impact of these practices on employee outcomes is likely to be attenuated. 2.2 Performance Management Performance management in the multinational manufacturing industry is typically problematic. Requiring a manager to thoroughly assess each employee is often not logistically possible [31]. In the many cases, an employee cannot consistently be observed interacting with a customer who is being served. Nonetheless, employees in this new millennium want relatively immediate performance feedback. Previous research have shown that this request is justified. A wider and deeper study carried out in experimental and organizational psychology throughout the twentieth century have established that feedback is critical for organizational learning (i.e., ability) and the choice to exert effort and persist in attainment of goal (i.e., motivation) [32, 33]. It is also vital to note that knowledge of outcomes that are delayed are far less effective than relatively immediate feedback for facilitating learning and maintaining effort and persistence. Because performance appraisals are classically done on a fixed interval basis—that is, annually—the feedback an employee may need to act upon to improve performance is not given in a timely manner. Employee training and development, in addition to performance appraisals, is viewed by many practitioners [31] as an important way to develop and motivate employees.Cardy [34] opined that performance management is a critical aspect of organizational effectiveness. His views is based on the fact that performance management is the main process through which company task is accomplished, it is seen as the “Achilles Heel” of managing human capital [35] and should therefore be a major focus of professional managers. Nonetheless, not more than a third of employees believe that their company's performance management process assists them in improving their performance, and performance management regularly ranks among the lowest topics in employee satisfaction surveys [35, 31]. 2.3 HR bundles and high performance work systems One of the earliest empirical studies examining human resource management systems was published by [36, 37]. In that study a sample of steel minimills operating under two different HR systems were used (control vs. commitment), the findings revealed that commitment HR systems in contrast to control systems, lead to higher productivity, lower scrap rates, and reduced turnover. Moreover, another result indicated that the impact of turnover on manufacturing performance was moderated by the type of HR system. Arthur’s pioneer work signified the commencement of a stream of study on HR systems and the search for “bundles” of HR practices and high performance work systems (HPWS) that influence organizational performance. Dyer and Reeves [17] set the stage for the more integrative perspective on HR systems. They took stock of the strategic human resource management literature to date and noted that bundles or configurations of HR practices may be more important than single activities. Similarly, in the same year, two of the most significant strategic human resource management empirical research investigating HR bundles were published, one by Huselid [10], and the other by [38]. High performance work systems were defined as those including comprehensive employee recruitment and selection procedures, incentive compensation and performance management systems, and extensive employee involvement and training. Huselid [10] found that the relationship between HPWSs and corporate financial performance was mediated by turnover and productivity. HPWSs reduce turnover and increase productivity, thus having a positive effect on corporate financial performance. McDuffie [38] used a 1989–1990 survey of 62 international automotive assembly plants to test whether HR bundles affected plant productivity and quality. HR bundles were defined as interrelated and internally consistent HR practices. These HR bundles were hypothesized to create multiple, mutually reinforcing conditions that support employee motivation and skill acquisition. He also hypothesized that an HR bundle or system must be integrated with the firm's overall business strategy to be effective (i.e., the contingency perspective). McDuffie found support for the effect of HR bundles on plant productivity and quality. Furthermore, he found that flexible production plants consistently outperformed mass production plants. 2.4 Requirement of a Good Motivational System Human capital professionals and expert researchers have investigated that there are several kind of motivational systems that forward thinking multinational organizations can put in place to encourage their personnel to put in their best on the job, hence, resulting to higher employee productivity and inorderwords better organizational performance. Although incentives and benefits are two types of additional compensation schemes that employees may receive according to this current study. They are also believed in many quarters as the effective and efficient requirement needed to motivate workers to give out their best possible for organizational goal attainment. Furthermore they opine that this two category of compensation have a different emphasis that is to say, from basic pay an employee receives [6, 39]. As a result of workers effectiveness which has led to increased productivity, concerns are bound about how best to reward such workers who have contributed immensely or above average performance to organizational outcomes and
• 4.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 306 enhancing cost reduction through unit output. An incentive is an additional compensation given to employees for additional performance in an organization. A benefit on the other hand is an additional compensation that is paid to an employee as an organizational member. Incentives can be divided into two categories namely; financial and non-financial incentives. On-financial incentives as the name implies are non-monetary, they include such things as recognition of achievement, feeling of participation and pride in superior performance, which tend to stimulate good performance. Financial incentives on the other hand, are monetary and there are two types-direct and indirect incentives. Indirect incentives includes such things as equitable pay structure, merit increase ,pension and profit sharing, and other benefits that are financial in nature but are not directly dependent upon the contribution of an individual or group [6, 39]. Direct financial incentives provide an opportunity for higher pay through increased productivity or effectiveness. They are based upon the concept of plus performance. Authors such as [39] have enumerated some of the important elements that may be considered for a successful wage incentive system; • There must be two-way communication between employees of their association and management; and participation of the employees representatives in the development, installation and administration of the incentive system. • The wage system should be simple and easily understood by employees so that they can easily calculate their wage. • Workers on incentive system should earn about 20 to 30 percent more than the base rates, and preferably in direct proportion to the individual’s efforts or increase in output above standard. • Already accepted and established standard and rates should be guaranteed against changes, except when there are substantial changes in methods, materials and equipment. • the incentive system should be tied as much as possible to performance 2.5 Types of Incentives Schemes There are three types of incentive schemes • individual system (price rate) • group system (group bonus) • organizational system (profit sharing) 2.5.1 Individual incentive plan Individual incentive scheme as the name implies are incentives made on an individual basis, relating individual effort to individual reward. Basically, the individual is paid in direct proportion to what he produces. It should, however, be noted that individual incentive does not entail only financial incentive. It could also be non-financial, depending on the individual desire. Similar view was expressed by [6, 40] when they pointed out that individual incentive systems may have to be tailored to individual desires. Thus if a worker wants additional time off instead of additional take-home pay, the incentive system may have to provide that option to be effective. In all instances however the purpose of the individual incentives is to encourage the employee to produce work of the quantity above that which is specified. There are a wide variety of individual incentive schemes. These schemes include; the piece rate, the standard hour plan, bonus system, suggestions scheme, and merit rating. 2.5.1.1 Problems with individual incentives There are a number of problems associated with individual incentives. A list of these problems according to [6, 40] is; • Problems of keeping the system current since changes in inflation may require changes in bonus payment to compensate for inflation. • Employee compensation for incentives may produce undesirable results. E.g. producing unhealthy rivalry among employees. • The much needed climate of trust and co-operation between the employer and employee required to make the individual system work may not exist in the organization. • an incentive system can lead to over-emphasis on one dimension of a job; if you are not careful, you get more of what you emphasize than you wanted.eg an employee in a factory who receives incentives based on the number of units produced may turn out large number of products, but of lower quality. • Unions may resist individual incentive systems because unions are built on security, seniority and group solidarity instead of the total productivity of an individual. • Finally incentive systems may favor only the highly motivated, competent workers and actually degree an average workers earning. 2.5.2 Group Incentive Scheme Group incentive systems have been developed to overcome the numerous challenges with the individual incentive plans.Goup plan is designed to provide rewards to all workers in a unit [40]. The group incentive system is most appropriate under the following conditions; • When it is difficult to accurately measure individual performance or contribution. • where a job cannot be performed by an individual but by a group • when group work is to be encouraged rather than individual performance • There is a community of interest among the members of the group 2.6 Employees Motivation on Organizational Performance
• 5.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 307 According to Rosenbloom [41], employee benefits constitute a major part of almost any individual’s financial and economic security. Such benefits have gone from being considered ‘fringe’ to the point where they may constitute about 40% of an employee’s compensation, and the plans under which they are provided are a major concern of employers. The American chambers of commerce survey of employee benefits [41] includes the following; • Employers share of legally required payments • Employer’s share of life insurance and death benefit payments • Payment for time not worked (paid rest periods, sick leave,vacations,holidays,parental leave) • Employer’s share of medically related benefit payments • Miscellaneous benefits payments (employee discounts, severance pay, educational expenditure and child care. • Paid time off is still the most common benefit for employees in the US private organizations. According to the bureau of labor statistics, us department of labour,paid vacations were available to 80% of employees and paid holidays to 77% of employees in private industry during the year 2000.The data comes from the national compensation survey (NCS),which provides comprehensive measures of occupational earnings, compensation cost trends and details of benefits provision [42]. Some 52% of employees in private industry participated in medical care plan premiums were fully paid by the employer for 32% of those with family coverage. The majority of medical plan participants were required to contribute a flat monthly amount, averaging USD54.40 from single coverage and USD179.75 from family coverage. • Around 48% were covered by retirement benefits of at least one type: a defined plan (19%); a defined contribution plan (36%).Both types covered approximately 7 percent. • life insurance was available to cover half of all employees of private industry • Short term disability benefits were available to 34% of employees, while long term disability benefits were only available to 26%. • non-production bonuses were offered to 48% of employees • Work-related educational assistance (38%) severance (20%) • Job-related travel accident insurance (15%) 2.6.1 Worker Characteristics According to Human Resource Brief [43],a survey was carried out to show the characteristics of various workers. This analysis looked at three categories of employees; 50% of clerical and sales employees and 39% of blue-collar and services employees. Work-related educational assistance was available to 62% of professional, technical and related workers, 37% of clerical and sales workers and 28% of blue- collar and service workers. Full-time employees were far more likely to have benefits than were part-time employees: 55% of full-time employees were covered by retirement benefits compared with 18% of part- time employees. The disparity in healthcare benefits was even greater 61% of full time employees were covered by medical care plans compared with 13% of part time workers. 2.6.2 Establishment Characteristics According to Human Resource Brief [43, a survey was carried out to show the characteristics of various establishment. As an example, 65% of workers in establishments with 100 employees or more (medium and large) were covered by retirement benefits compared with 33% or employees in small establishments (less than 100 workers);86% of employees in medium and large firms had paid holiday benefits compared with 70% small firms. Benefits costs also vary by industry, retirement benefits covered 57% of workers in good-producing industries compared with 45% in service-producing industries. Long- term disability coverage was also more common in goods- producing industries (31%) compared with 24% of employees in service-producing industries. Short-term disability benefits covered 45% of employees in good-producing industries and 30% of those in service-producing industries [43]. 2.7 Pay and Performance Many commentators severally criticized the apparently chaotic and disorganized nature of pay management between the 1950s and 1980s.In recent years there has been an attempt to remedy the situation. The fashion has been towards the development of performance-related pay schemes that are related to assessments of performance through individual employee appraisal. Wolf [44] sums up a common view that Pay for Performance is the only grail of modern compensation, but it is easier said than done. He opined that the main problem is defining performance properly, so the organization pays for results and not for effort. Once over the hurdle there remains the large impediment of finding enough money to make the reward from top performance meaningful. Pay is a sensitive issue, most employers have been cautious with the introduction of performance related pay. Often it is applied to senior managers first, and then extended to other employees. Usually it has been an add-on to normal pay. 2.7.1 Relationship with Performance It was however put forward by [45,44] that there is no correlation between company performance and performance related pay schemes as used by both high and low performing organizations [46]. He further highlighted that Performance related pay benefits about 20 percent of employees at the
• 6.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 308 expense of 80 percent, concluding that it rather de-motivates far more than it encourages. 2.7.2 Performance Related Pay and Flexibility Management experts and academic researchers have found that Performance related pay increases the likelihood of flexibility and management power. However also the opined that it has created more hostility and ill-feelings from many union members, as collective bargaining is sidestepped. Enchantingly, however, performance related pay schemes have largely been focused on relatively permanent, well-paid non-manual employees, rather than peripheral often lower- paid and lesser-skilled workers [45] 2.7.3 Criticism of Performance Related Pay System There is a widespread opinion among senior managers that Performance Related Pay must be a good thing, but the evidence for its effectiveness is not overwhelming. Indeed, the search for a positive relationship between Performance Related Pay and good performance has been described as being like looking for the Holy Grail [45,44,46].As one variable in complex situation, it is not surprising that a connection cannot be proven. 3.0 METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH 3.1 Research questions • What is employee turnover? • How do u determine those factors that stimulate potential employees to apply for jobs? • Is employee motivational package relevant in management organization? • To what extent does employee motivation attract and retain employees? • Does employee motivation contribute to workers performance? 3.2 Hypothesis Ho: There is no significant relationship between employee motivation and organizational performance H1: There is significant relationship between employee’s motivation and organizational performance. 3.3 Population of the study The population of the study was a sizeable number of employees of Cadbury Nig Plc.In this study the researcher only focused on, six key departments and is used for the purpose of this investigation. They selected departments are mentioned in Table 1 below and the number of participants and percentage of participation presented thus; Table 1 Sample Population Department Respondents %age Finance and admin 10 10 Marketing 26 26 Human resource 25 25 Supply chain 17 17 Engineering 10 10 Sales 12 12 Total 100 100% For the purpose of this study, a survey descriptive method was adopted through the use of quantitative research technique. The questionnaires were administered to the personnel of Cadbury Nig Plc at the corporate headquarters at Ikeja- Lagos State. The reliability of the study was confirmed by carrying out a test-retest. This was done with the use of another 25 sample as retest which is a part of the total population. The response rate of completed questions returned is 87% meaning that 13% of the questions were not returned by the respondents. This percentage is high enough for the validity of this quantitative study. The questionnaire questions were properly verified by experts in the field of management who are professors in the faculty of management with experience in human resource practices in the industry. These experts who verified the suitability of the survey instruments were carefully selected from four reputable Universities in the south west region of Nigeria. In order to properly analyze the responses obtained from the participants of this survey, the researcher chose to make use of simple percentages distribution method and the presentation and interpretation of data collected are shown in Table 2. Furthermore, the data collected from members of staff of Cadbury Nig Plc who returned their completed questionnaires are tabulated in a frequency distribution form and the corresponding percentage equivalent are calculated and recorded respectively. For the researcher to test the hypothesis earlier formulated, the Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was also used. Table 2 Demography of Respondents S/N Feature code frequency %age A Male 1 68 78.2 Female 2 19 21.8 Total 74 100 B Age 20-30 years 1 34 39.1 31-40 years 2 37 42.5 41-above 3 16 18.4 Total 87 100 C Education Bachelors 1 69 79.3 Masters 2 10 11.5 Others 3 8 9.2 Total 87 100 D Position Top management 3 5 5.7 Supervisory 2 21 24.1 Lower cadre 1 61 70.2 Total 87 100
• 7.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 309 E Length of service 5 years below 1 30 34.5 5-10 years 2 39 44.8 11-15 years 3 12 13.8 16 years-above 4 6 6.9 Total 87 100 F Marital status Single 1 35 40.2 Married 2 52 59.8 Separated 3 - - Divorced 4 - - Total 87 100 From the analysis of the above table 2, reveals that 78.2% of the total respondents were male while 21.8% of the respondents were female. The table also reveals that 39.1% of the total respondents fall within the age bracket of 20-30 yrs, 42.5% within 31-40 yrs while 18.4% within 41 yrs above. The above table also reveals that 79.3% of the total respondents are post secondary degree holders such as BSc, HND, also 11.5% of them are MSc/MBA graduates while 9.2% hold professional qualifications like ICAN, NIMN. Also 5.7% of the respondents are in top mgt positions, 24.1% in supervisory positions while 70.2% are in lower level cadre of the company. The population in the table shows that 34.5% of the respondents have spent below 5 years in service, 44.8% have spent between 5-10 years in service, and 13.8% have spent 11- 15 years while 6.9% 11-15 years, from the observation also 59.8% are married while 40.2% are not married. 4.0 Presentation of analysis of data The respondents were required to answer some questions that are meant to show relationship between the level of motivation received by the respondents and the productivity level of the organization. The response given by the respondents are shown in Table 3 below. Table 3 Measurement of Motivation Factors S/ N Statement SA (%) A (%) UD (%) D (%) SD (%) 1 There are notable factors that made you apply for job in this organization 48 (55.1 ) 18 (20.7) 10 (11.5) 7 (8.1) 4 (4.6) 2 Your salary compared to the work that you do in Cadbury is satisfying 8 (9.2) 20 (23.0) 14 (16.1) 40 (46.0) 5 (5.7) 3 Monetary incentives are used in Cadbury to reward good performance 15 (17.2 ) 62 (71.3) - 10 (11.5) - 4 Cadbury gives the 13th month salary to workers - 75 (86.2) 3 (3.4) 9 (10.4) - 5 There is a relationship between incentive system and 25 (28.7 ) 43 (49.4) 10 (11.5) 6 (6.9) 3 (3.5) employee attitude to work in Cadbury 6 Cadbury reward system fosters effective relationship between workers and management 10 (11.5 ) 65 (74.7) 7 (8.1) 5 (5.7) - 7 I can boast of loan facilities of any kind in Cadbury - 87 (100) - - - 8 Cadbury pays salaries to workers promptly - 87 (100) - - - Source: Self administered questionnaire From Table 3 above it was observed that 5.1% of the total respondents strongly agree with the notion, 20.7% agree, 11.5% were undecided, 8.1% of the respondents disagree while 4.6% of the respondents strongly disagree. Thus, from the above result, it can be adduced that multinational manufacturing firms attract and retain some of the best hands in the industry in Nigeria. From the table, it becomes quite obvious that the salary received by the employees of Cadbury Plc cannot be compared to the service they render 9.25% strongly agree that their salary is commensurate with the work they do while 23% agree to this notion 16.1% of the total respondents are undecided on this notion. On the contrary, a great majority of the employees (46%) disagree with the notion while 5.7% strongly disagree. When asked if monetary incentives are used to reward good performance, 17.2% strongly agree to this, 71.3% agree, while 11.5% do not agree with the notion. Thus a total of 88.5% of the entire respondents agree with the notion that monetary incentives can be used to reward good performance. However, the table shows that there is a small fraction (11.5%) of the respondents who are of the opinion that non-monetary incentives can equally be used to reward good performance. Table 4 Measurement of Employee Performance S / N Statement SA (%) A (%) UD (%) D (%) SD (%) 1 My supervisor always commend the quality of my output 15 (17.2) 62 (71.3) 7 (8.1) 3 (3.4) - 2 I turnout the required level of output 24 (27.6) 47 (54.0) 8 (9.2) 5 (5.7) 3 (3.5) 3 I am able to work with little or no supervision 14 (16.1) 43 (49.4) 15 (17.3) 11 (12. 6) 4 (4.6) 4 When am commended I am able to put in more effort into my work 20 (23.0) 63 (71.3) 5 (5.7) - - 5 Criticism serve as a set back to my work ability 18 (20.7) 52 (71.3) 7 (8.0) 10 (11. 5) -
• 8.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 310 6 Given the right tools and materials, as well as the right compensation, I work at my utmost ability 38 (43.7) 49 (56.3) - - - Source: Self administered questionnaire The Table 4 above shows that majority of the respondents are commended when their output is of good quality, 17.2% of the respondents strongly agree with this assertion, 71.3% agree, 8.1% are undecided while 3.4% of the total respondents disagree with the assertion. In summary, 88.5% of the respondents agree their supervisors commend the quality of their output. From the above analysis, it is obvious that majority of the respondents produce up to the required level of output allocated to them, i.e. they attain their own quota of production. A good number of respondents attest to the fact that they are able to work with little or no supervision, 16.1% of the respondents strongly agree to this while 49.4% agree to this notion, 17.3% of the respondents were undecided, 12.6% disagree to this while a small proportion of the respondents 4.6% strongly disagree to the idea of working without supervision. A great majority of the respondents 94.3% are in support of the notion that commendation encourages them to put in more efforts in their work, while 5.7% are undecided. The above analysis shows that employees do not like criticisms.20.7% of total respondents strongly agree that criticisms act as a set back to their working ability, 59.8% agree, 8.0% are undecided while 11.5% of the respondents disagree with the notion. The above table shows that the respondents are of the opinion that with the right tools, materials and compensation, they are able to put in their utmost ability in their respective assignments. 4.1 Test of Hypothesis Having examined the social economic background of the sample population, we shall now proceed to test the hypothesis formulated earlier in the study. This is part of the measure needed to provide empirical support for this study. 4.2 Hypothesis Ho: There is no significant relationship between incentive system and employee motivation in Cadbury Nigeria Plc. H1: There is significant relationship between incentive system and employee motivation in Cadbury Nigeria Plc. To test the above hypothesis, we use the Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Co-efficient, the formula is stated below: = 0.4 4.3 Interpretation of Result It is clear from the above result that there is a positive correlation between motivation and employee productivity vis- à-vis organizational performance. An increase in employee productivity will increase organizational performance tremendously. The above analysis shows that there is a significant relationship between the independent variable (motivation) and the dependent variable (employee productivity).The underlining motion here is that once there is a significant increase in the level of employee motivation, there is bound to be a great increase in organizational performance[ 46]. This assertion is consistent with the findings of [46] in their current study. 5.0 DECISION: Thus, from the analysis of findings and the discussion presented therewith, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected while the alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted. This implies that there is a significant relationship between incentive system and employee motivation in Cadbury Nigeria Plc. The implication of this is that there is an adequate provision of motivation by Cadbury Nigeria Plc and improvement in employee productivity and, a positive correlation between employee productivity. Senior managers in both manufacturing companies whether multinational or domestic companies are however advised to adapt continuous improvement in motivational programs as a core ingredient for enhanced employee productivity and organizational performance [46]. 6.0 REFERENCES [1] G. Ford, R.C and Bowen, D. A service dominant logic for management education: Its time. Academy of Management Journal of Learning and Education, vol.7, pp. 224-243, 2008. [2] H. Chesbrough and J. Spohrer, A Research manifesto for services science. Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, pp. 35-40, 2006. [3] H. Liao, Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance in customer perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 92, pp. 474-489, 2007. [4] B. Schneider., G.M. Ehrhart., M.D. Mayer and L.J. Saltz, Understanding organizational-customer linkages in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 48, pp. 1017–1032, 2005.
• 9.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 311 [5] E. Popoola, Magnitude of incentive, shift differential and productivity in an industrial production line. Journal of Business and Social Studies. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lagos Press, vol.4, issue 1, 2003. [6] F.V. Peretomode and O. Peretomode, Human Resources Managment.Lagos:O.O.P.Publishers Limited, 2005. [7] L.R. Henderson, Compensation Management in a Knowledge-Based World.London: Prentice Hall, 2000. [8] L.R. Opsahl and D.M. Dunnette, The Role of Financial compensation in industrial motivation. Psychological bulletin, pp. 94-118, 2006. [9] O. Oloko, Incentives and Reward for effort, Management in Nigeria, vol.13, issue, 5, June/July, 2002. [10] A.M. Huselid, The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 38, pp. 635-672, 1995. [11] L. Nishii and M.P. Wright, Variability within organizations: Implications for strategic human resources management. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations: pp. 225-248. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008. [12] M.P. Wright and R.W. Boswell, Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, vol. 28, pp. 247-276, 2002. [13] E.D. Bowen and C. Ostroff, Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, vol. 29, pp. 203-221, 2004. [14] K. Legge, Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. [15] N. D. Den Hartog., C. Boon., R. M. Verburg and M. A Croon, HRM, Communication, Satisfaction, and Perceived Performance: A Cross- Level Test Journal of Management published online 3 April 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0149206312440118. The online version of this article can be found at http: //jom. Sagepub .com/content /early/ 2012/04/ 02/0149206312440118. [16] H.L. Nishii., P.D. Lepak and B. Schneider, Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 503-545, 2008. [17] L. Dyer and T. Reeves, Human resource strategies and firm performance: What do we know and where do we need to go? International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 6, issue 3, pp. 656−670, 1995. [18] R. Cropanzano and A.T. Wright, When a “happy” worker is really a “productive” worker: A review and further refinement of the happy- productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, vol. 53, issue 3, pp. 182-199, 2001. [19] D. Gallie., Y. Zhou., A. Felstead and F. Green, Teamwork, Skill Development and Employee WelfarebBritish Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2010.00787.x50:1, March, pp. 23– 46, 2012. [20] Latham, G.P.and Locke, E.A. New developments in and directions for goal setting. European Psychologist, vol. 12, pp. 290-300, 2007. [21] G. P. Latham., R. C. Ford and D. Tzabbar, Enhancing Employee And Organizational Performance Through Coaching Based On Mystery Shopper Feedback: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Human Resource Management, March–April 2012, 51(2), pp. 213– 230 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI:10.1002/hrm.21467. [22] F.B. Skinner, About behaviorism. Oxford, UK: Knopf, 1974. [23] B.J. Watson, Behaviorism. New York, NY: Norton, 1924. [24] P.G. Latham, Work motivation: History, theory, research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007. [25] D.M. Dunnette, Mish-mash, mush and mile-stones in organizational psychology. In H.Meltzer and F.R.Wicker (Eds.), Humanizing organizational behavior (pp.86-102).Springfield, IL: Charles C.Thomas, 1976. [26] B.C. Ferster and F.B. Skinner, Schedules of reinforcement. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton Century Crofts, 1957. [27] A.G. Gelade and M. Ivery, The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, vol. 56, pp. 383-404, 2003. [28] S. Ahmad and G.R. Schroeder, The impact of HRM practices on operational performance: Recognizing country and industry differences. Journal of Operations Management, vol. 21, pp. 19-43, 2003. [29] J.H. Park., H. Mitsuhashi., F.C. Fey and I. Bjorkman, The effect of human resource management practices on Japanese MNC subsidiary performance: A partial mediating model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 14, pp. 1391-1406, 2003. [30] O. Gottschalg and M. Zollo, Interest alignment and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, pp. 418-437, 2007. [31] J.A. Grumen and A.M. Saks, Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, vol. 21, pp.123- 136, 2011. [32] J. Annett, The role of knowledge of results in learning: A Survey.U.S.Navtradevcen Technical Document report, pp. 342-343, 1961. [33] A.E. Locke and P.G. Latham, Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist, vol. 57, pp. 705–717, 2002 [34] L.R. Cardy, Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2004. [35] E.D. Pulakos, Performance management: A new approach for driving business results. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. [36] B.J. Arthur, Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37, pp. 670-687, 1994. [37] L. M. Lengnick-Hall., C.A. Lengnick-Hall., L. S. Andrade and B. Drake, Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review, vol.19, pp. 64-85, 2009. [38] P.J. McDuffie, Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 48, pp. 197-221, 1995. [39] P. Pigors and A.C. Meyers, Personnel Administration: A Point of View and A method.NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2001.
• 10.
  IRACST- International Journalof Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563 Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 312 [40] E.J. Heyel, The Encyclopedia of Management,(6th Edition),NY Van Nortrand Reinhold Co, 2002. [41] H.D. Rosenbloom, Essentials of Labour Relations, Reston, V.A, 2001. [42] A.Price, Human Resources Management in a Business Context, 2nd Edition, Australia: Thompson Learning, 2004. [43] CBI. Human Resources Brief, 1996. [44] F. Wolf, Performance Management in the U.K.Journal of Management, vol.1, issue 11, 1999. [45] L. Kesser, Reserved System Choice in J.Storey (ed) Human Resources Management: A Critical Text, 3rd Edition.Australai: Thompson Learning, 2001. [46] M.A. Ajagbe., O. Solomon and C.S.Long,The Relationship between Strategic Planning and the Effectiveness of Marketing Operations.International Journal of Innovation,Management,and Technology,vol.2,Number 5,pp.390-396, 2011. AUTHORS PROFILE M.A. Ajagbe (corresponding author) has an MBA in marketing management from Ambrose Ali University Ekpoma, Nigeria. He worked as assistant sales manager, regional sales manager and area sales manager with Dansa Foods Ltd. (Dangote Grp Nig.), Danico Foods Nig. Ltd. and Fareast Mercantile Company Nig. Ltd. respectively. He is currently a Doctoral Degree Student with Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. His research interest is in Financing Technology Entrepreneurs through Venture Capital. He has about 25 publications to his credit in reputable International Conferences and Journals which cut across disciplines. He is an active member of these professional bodies; Associate Member, National Institute of Marketing of Nigeria, Associate Member, Nigerian Institute of Management, and British Council Management Express Forum, Nigeria. Ajagbe is also a research assistant with K-Economy, Integrity Research Alliance and Innovation and Commercialization Centre (UTM). Award; Best participant and Contributor, Business Strategy Building Workshop (Dangote Group Nigeria) 2006.International Doctoral Fellowship Award (UTM) 2011-Date ([email protected]). O. Solomon (principal author) is currently a Masters in Management Technology Student at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. His current Research Interest is on E-Commerce in Nigeria ([email protected]). Zohreh. B. T. Mehdi, studied BSc Pure Mathematics and is currently a Masters degree student at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.Her area of research interest is in E-Service quality and customer satisfaction and loyalty. ([email protected])