Keywords

Bonus Payment; Employee Performance; Extrinsic Reward; Hazard Allowance; Overtime Allowance; Productivity; Regularity Salary Increase; Work Attitude.

Introduction

Employee performance is an important building block of an organization, a factor which lays the foundation for high performance by the organizations. Employee is part of an organization that has a significant role and impact to the performance of an organization. They run the operational process that lead to organizational success. Progress requires collective effort of all the members of the organization. Equipping employees with the relevant support and skills necessary to effectively perform their responsibilities is imperative. Employees feel happy when they know that their actions contribute to the overall performance of their organization. Performance is a major factor aimed to achieve results and has a strong link to strategic goals of an organization (Mwita, 2000; Abbas & Yagoob, 2009). Employees must be motivated so that they can think and work on their own and fulfil their tasks effectively and efficiently. Duvall (1999) defined success as achievement, accomplishment and attainment which is a consequence of empowerment. According to Bartram & Casimir (2007), motivation has positive correlation with performance. Thus, the importance of motivated employees cannot be highlighted enough in an organizational context (Lotta, 2012).

Aguinis et al. (2013) opined that financial remuneration will be successful in terms of enhancing employee performance. Financial remuneration is one of the most important factors leading employees to accept job offers (Feldman & Arnold, 1978). According to Aguinis et al. (2013), financial remuneration includes; basic pay, cost-of-living adjustments, short-term incentives, and long-term incentives. Extrinsic rewards have a critical role in determining the organization’s ability to attract high potential employees, to retain high performing employees, and to achieve greater levels of quality and performance (Fay & Thompson, 2001). Motivation acts on behaviour, is at the heart of an individual's actions and reactions. A well-motivated individual uses his energy in order to make the best out of his potentials, according to his aspirations and expectations. It is therefore necessary to know the individual, as well as the requirements he needs to meet in order to establish the motivational policies and measures that will enable motivate the individual (Murray, 1970). A motivated person is one who has a desire to work. Employers are very much interested to know how best to motivate their employees in order to be more efficient and productive. If we know what drives the people then we are able to make them to do what we want (Owens, 2004).

Ajang (2007) supports that it is a behaviour purpose and direction, a predisposition to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific unmet needs, and unsatisfied needs. Organizations fundamentally depend on motivation to influence performance of employees. Omollo (2015) expresses motivation as key to successful organizations to maintain the continuity of the work in a powerful manner and help organizations to survive. Money is therefore the fundamental inducement; no other incentive or motivational technique comes even close to it with respect to its influential value. It is the supremacy to magnetize, maintain and motivate individual towards higher performance (Muogbo, 2013).

In today's business environment, achieving improved performance in organizations is more important than ever, due to the need to improve Competitiveness, service delivery and cost reduction. Indeed, transformation may fail to deliver expected results if the underlying factors that extrinsically drive employees’ performance are not addressed properly. These facts are key to the viability of Cement Producing Firms in South-South, Nigeria. Cement demand in Nigeria generally has been on the rise since the conception of cement production in 1957. Striving to meet demand, players in the Nigerian cement industry have been aspiring to close up the gap between demand and supply. The modest but continuous growth in the Nigerian economy is a prospect for cement manufacturing firms in the South-South geopolitical zone to increase local production in order to meet the high demand of cement. However, the extent to which they can do so effectively depends on the proper application of the underlying extrinsic factors that could trigger better employee performance. These underlying factors include, but not limited to salary increase, bonus payments, overtime allowances, and hazard allowances. It is not clear how salary increase, bonus payments, overtime allowances and hazard allowances influence employees’ productivity, output, regularity and work attitude, respectively in these cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria. The gap between the demand for cement and local production has always been met by importation of the product. Cement industry report by Lead Capital Equity Research in 2013 revealed that as at 2006, demand for cement was estimated at over 10 million metric tons with an estimated growth rate of 3% per annum. This figure is expected to grow to 16 million and 19 million by end of 2017 and 2021 respectively. Due to external shocks such as importation and the inability of cement manufacturing firms to fully integrate backward towards ownership of factors of cement production and forward towards control of large markets, at least in Nigeria, it may be difficult to know how salary increase, bonus payments, overtime allowances, and hazard allowances in these cement producing firms influence employee productivity, output, regularity and work attitude, respectively. It is due to this uncertainty that this study has become necessary in the stated cement producing firms in South-South, Nigeria, in order to holistically appraise the co-variation between extrinsic reward and employee performance.

Conceptual Framework of Extrinsic Reward and Employee Performance

Extrinsic Reward and Employee Performance

Extrinsic rewards are external to the job itself. They comprise such elements as pay, fringe benefits, job security, promotions, training, etc. people are attracted to well-paying jobs, extend extra effort to perform the activities that bring them more pay, and become agitated if their pay is threatened or decreased (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2001). According to Hatice (2012) extrinsic rewards are used to show that organization is serious about valuing team contributions to quality. The need for continuous improvement requires employees to be innovators, devising novel solutions that improve a work process or that delight the customer. Extrinsic reward would include components like financial remuneration, working conditions, autonomy, job security, fringe benefits, bonuses and promotion in positions (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic rewards are also referred to as tangible rewards that are given out to employees which are genetically materialistic or observable by others (Bellenger et al., 1984). Zaman et al. (2011) revealed that there is a significant and positive relationship between extrinsic rewards and employee performance, but it has been observed that organizations are not offering right amount of financial rewards to their employees (a significant factor) which affect employee performance. Khan et al. (2010) highlights financial rewards among the various aspects necessary for motivating employees to improve their performance. They observe that there is a direct and positive relationship between financial rewards and employee performance. Reward is directly proportion to employee performance. The change in financial rewards offered to employees necessarily changes the performance of employees. Better the rewards, the higher and greater levels of employee performance (Figure 1).

Salary Increase and Employee Productivity

Salary is conceptually, a fixed amount of money paid to a worker usually measured at monthly and annual bases, not hourly, as opposed to wages, salary is a fixed amount of money or compensation paid to an employee by an employer in return of work done (Idrees et al., 2015). Salary connotes a set wage based on a set of expected duties performed. Wilfred et al. (2014) adds that basic salary is a fix periodical payment for non-manual employees usually expressed in annual terms, paid per month with generally no addition for productivity. Though, fixed salary in an organization can lead to complacency, with employees knowing they will get paid no matter how they produce the important of job satisfaction and a sense of purpose drive workers’ productivity. Hence, salary plays a critical role in how employees perform. Therefore, incentive pay based on the quantity of work delivered rather than on the time spent on the job is particularly beneficial for increasing workers’ productivity (Ray, 2016a). Taylor (2009) notes that productivity relates to profit earned for a company, but productivity need not be a monetary measurement. It is evident that people are easily motivated by money, for instance, the salary an employee received from his employer has influence on his productivity. A worker is seemingly happy with the salary he earns and will perform to his potential. This is because when a worker earns a high salary he feels motivated to do a job to maintain his position (Woods, 2016). Salary as a monetary incentive describes incentive payment plans which ties incentives directly to productive standard (Alaba & Owodunni, 2007). Sheridan (2005) opines that well-paid employees are the key to better productivity and ultimately a better performing organization. Kinicki et al. (2011) states that pay for performance is one of the popular monetary incentives, also known as merit pay. Different salaried employees might get different pay raises and other financial rewards depending on their overall job performance.

Productivity is an output-input ratio within a time period with due consideration for quality. Productivity is the state of efficiency in production where output is achieved from a given set of inputs. Syverson (2011) expresses that single-factor productivity measures a unit of a particular input though Habour productivity is the most common measure of this productivity. Productivity is measured in terms of output per labour hour. However, this measurement does not ensure that firm will make money. To test whether productivity has increased, the following questions should be asked; has the action taken increased output or has it decreased inventory?" Has the action taken decreased that operational expense? This would then lead to a new definition which states that productivity is all the actions that bring a company closer to its goals. Mathis & Jackson (2000) sees productivity as a measure of the quantity of work done considering the cost of the resources it took to do the work. Okoye & Ezejiofor (2013) added that organizational productivity measures how well an organization function and also an indication of efficiency and competition of angle department. Hence, productivity is a measure of how well resources are brought together in an organization and utilizes for accomplishing a set of set result. Productivity is at the highest level with least expenditure or resources. The need to attain and maintain high level of productivity is generally accepted by all organizations, employers, etc. because it is through such product increase the return to enterprises, investment can be maximized (Okoye & Ezejiofor, 2013).

Bonus Payment and Employee Output

Bonuses are other monetary incentives that can be used to motivate the employees. Bonuses are cash rewards given to employees who have achieve specific performance objectives. The employee incentives are designed to obtain the maximum performance from staff and help retain employee that is productive (Root, 2016). Employee bonus schemes are generally a positive strategy and can provide real motivation to workers. Employers with well-developed performance management system often connect compensation to performance appraisal rating to determine the amount of bonuses for employees who meet the company's performance expectations. Bonuses for whatever reason affect employee output in a number of ways. The importance of giving bonuses for achieving target on exceptional work makes employee satisfied with the organization and this increases the employee sense of loyalty toward the organization and become a custodian of the organization secret. According to Miller (2015) most employers seek for ways to maximize employee productivity and efficiency through employee, and one of the primary means that employers turn to in their efforts to improve employee motivation to be productive and efficient involve money. Therefore, bonuses schemes are looked at by employers as means to change employee behavior. The use of bonus as a monetary incentive to improve output in organization is quite benefiting to the growth of an organization. However, the use of bonus payment to motivate employees is found as an easy and seemingly straightforward way to influence specific behaviors, it is a way to give extra compensation to top performer; and it helps to achieve short-term goals of an organization (Miller, 2015). Though Pink (2009) differentiates how bonuses are being paid in organization, the methods of rewarding employee through bonus consists of contingent rewards which promise an up-front reward if a given level of performance is met, and reward based on evaluated performance. The strategic purpose of bonus payment in organization is that it is considered as a pertinent tool to attract and retain talent (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011). Though, bonus payment is accepted being an industrial standard, it helps to attract workers as organizations are engaged in designing bonus schemes with competitive terms and Conditions.

Lazear & Gibb (2009) notes that bonus payment is a flexible option to organization as employer is not making a permanent financial commitment, the risk of using bonus payment as pan or the compensation package is deemed lower than increasing the base pay. This provides the firm with a certain cost-flexibility. Gomez-Mejia et al. (2011) admit the use of bonus as a motivational tool to increase work effort. Lazear & Gibb (2009) supports that the most pertinent reason to tie pay to performance is to increase employee work effort. Yuping (2004) agrees that bonus payment is one of the important features of organization s practice. They amount to more than twenty percent of the annual wage of an average worker. Just like wages, the amount of the bonus at unionized companies is determined by the annual collective bargaining agreements. The decisive factor in the collective bargaining to determine the amount of bonuses is the company's economic performance. It is obvious that most organizations pay bonuses and certain portion of the bonus is assessed in accordance with the employees’ evaluation during the period in which it is applied, and even employees’ wage, the amount of their bonuses are generally different.

Overtime Allowance and Employee Regularity

Employee reaction to work overtime requires financial promises from the employer and this serve as motivation. A manager has to assess his employees to know what they required to complete overtime hour with a positive attitude (Measom, 2011). Employee need to be made known that working overtime helps to meet the organization goals. Overtime can improve the organization's competitive position in the local labor market because so many employees like the extra income. Overtime pay is a cash payment for work performs beyond the regular working hours in a day and those performed on rest days, holidays and nonworking days. The success and survival of any organization is determined by the way the workers are remunerated and rewarded. The reward system and motivating incentive such as overtime allowance determine the level of employees' commitment and their attitude to work. It must be noted that poor incentive packages have been a major factor affecting employees' commitment and productivity. However, for any organization to achieve its objectives, employers of labour must have a thorough understanding of what drives the employees to perform efficiently and reward them accordingly (Mueller, 2011). Besides, employees must be motivated through adequate overtime allowance and this will invariably encourage them to be proactive and exhibit right attitude to work, thereby promote organizational productivity (Armstrong, 2007).

Belcher (2016) stresses that mandatory overtime is necessity for company to meet its financial and production goals. The apparent advantage of overtime for employees is the extra cash they receive from the hourly work. Mandatory overtime periods arise from the busy sales season makes them entitled to the cash as they work. Increase productivity is another reason for overtime payment and this make employee to get the benefit of increased levels of productivity. Hence, as more task is perform over long hours for products to be delivered, employees gain more profit from the increased output of the company. An audit on overtime will help the manager to know the seasonal pattern of overtime. One of the causes of overtime in an organization may be lack of staff to cover the expected period of production. However, the option of employing temporary staff or subcontractor may be the right solution, but there is a need to weigh the cost of training and paying additional workers versus the availability of the existing employees and cost of paying them overtime premium. A manager that does not want to hire staff is expected to train the employees to perform the tasks for multiple positions to reduce overtime. This will give the organization the flexibility to easily re-allocate employees when faced with unexpected increase in demand or shortage of labour. This will minimize the dependency on certain groups of employees who are required to work overtime due to their expertise in their position. In addition, managing overtime involves knowing the current overtime situation (Loki, 2015). This will involve applying workforce management tool to gain data for business operation. These strategies will help to ensure that overtime is not an antagonizing liability to the organization.

Hazard Allowance and Employee Work Attitude

Hazard allowance is a form of compensation given to staff members who have been requested to remain and report for work in duly stations where very hazardous conditions such as war or active hostilities, prevailed and where the evacuation of families and non-essential staff had taken place. Hazard allowance is paid out to staff of an establishment due to health risk associated with the job they do. Hazard implies potential to cause harm. In workplace, hazard is harm to worker's health and usually takes the form of an illness. Hazard pay is a premium given to workers exposed to hazardous situations such as, but not limited to assignment in strife-torn or embattled areas, distressed or isolated stations, prison camps, mental hospital, radiation exposed clinics/laboratories/workshops, diseased-infected areas and areas declared under site of calamity or emergency which pose occupational risks or pains to life. Payment of hazard allowance to employees influences their work attitudes and this provides information about their performance and satisfaction. Noah & Steve (2012) classified job satisfaction and organizational commitment as work attitude that is based on availability of hazard allowance to workers.

Hettiararchchi & Jayarathna (2014) agreed that attitudes are reasonable good practices and provide clue to an employee's behavioral intentions to act in a certain way. This shows that positive job attitudes help to predict constructive behavior while negative job attitude help to predict undesirable behaviors. When employees are dissatisfied with their jobs, lack job involvement, and are low in their commitment to the organization, wide variety of consequences may follow and employee may engage in psychological withdrawal with unauthorized absences and extended breaks. Employee attitude to job is the evaluation of one's jobs that express one’s feelings toward the belief and attachment to one's job (Judge et al., 2012). Employee work attitude has been linked to work structure which emanate in many workplaces leading to mismatch between workers’ abilities and job demands, adverse working environment which affect well-being and attitude to work (Oludele & Solaja, 2014; Kiwekete, 2010). Meswani (2008) reveals that 2.9 billion workers are exposed to hazardous risks annually out of which 2 million deaths are attributed to occupational diseases and work related hazard globally. In addition, International Labour Organization in 2009 revealed that 2 million workers die each year from work related accident and disease and is underestimated because data for estimating work-related illness and injury in many developing countries are inadequate because a lot of workplace hazard goes unreported.

The payment of hazard allowance to workers is of great influence to workers involved in risky jobs. However, the attitude of employees in the workplace can have significant effect on the business as a whole. Though attitude is one hidden and hard to measure factor that ends up being crucial to the success of a company, employee attitude tends to have drastic impact on the productivity of an organization (Ray, 2016b). In the words of Spector (2003) employee attitude is not the major determinant of job performance but contributes to absenteeism, reduction in the wastage, industrial accidents and they help establish the culture of the organization.

Theoretical Framework

Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation is the theoretical underpinning of this study. Frederick Herzberg, an accountant by profession developed a dual-factor theory of motivation in 1966. His theory centred on the way the employees behaved and felt, the way they acted in their work place, especially whenever they were happy and whenever they were sad. In the 1950s, Frederick Herzberg and associates interviewed 200 accountants and engineers. They were asked to describe situations in which they were satisfied or motivated and dissatisfied or unmotivated. Their findings disagreed with the traditional view that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were at opposite ends of a continuum. He concluded that certain factors were responsible for the workers’ situation. These he called hygiene and motivators. Herzberg's theory focuses on outcomes that lead to higher motivation and job satisfaction, and those outcomes that can prevent dissatisfaction. Hygiene's are also called extrinsic factors because factors that motivate come from outside the job itself, such as pay increase, bonus payments, overtime payment, hazard payment, job security, job title, working conditions, fringe benefits, and relationships. Motivators are called intrinsic factors because motivation comes from the job itself, such as achievement, recognition, challenge, and advancement.

Herzberg contends that providing maintenance factors keeps people from being dissatisfied, but it does not motivate people. For example, if people are dissatisfied with their pay and they get a raise, they will no longer be dissatisfied; they may even be satisfied for a short period of time. However, before long they get accustomed to the new standard of living and will no longer be satisfied. They need another raise to be satisfied again. The vicious cycle goes on. To motivate, Herzberg emphasized that organizations must first ensure that hygiene factors are adequate. Once employees are satisfied with their environment, they can be motivated through their jobs, Motivation comes from doing what you like and enjoy doing, and the best way to motivate employees is to build challenge and opportunity for achievement into the job itself.

Empirical Review

This section reviews already conducted research investigations on extrinsic reward and employee performance. The following studies are the focus of this review:

Osibanjo et al. (2014) carried out a study on compensation packages: a strategic tool for employees’ performance and retention. They expressed concern that the rate at which employees in private universities in Nigeria jump from one university to the other is becoming more disturbing and that employees are the organization's key resource and the success or failure of organizations center on the ability of the employers to attract, retain and reward appropriately talented and competent employees. A model was developed and tested using one hundred and eleven valid questionnaires which were completed by academic and non-academic staff of the universities. The collected data were carefully analysed using simple percentages supported by structural equation modelling to test the hypotheses and relationships that may exist among the variables under consideration. The results showed strong relationship between compensation packages and employees’ performance and retention. Idrees et al. (2015) conducted a study on the effect of salary, training and motivation on job performance of employees. The study explained job performance of employees as an important area of concern of all the firms, no matter whether they stand for profit or for not profit. 310 questionnaires were administered to respondents in the 16 universities of twin cities of Pakistan i.e., Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Regression analysis was used in analyzing data. Findings of the study showed that salary, training and motivation have a positive relationship with job performance but salary has a stronger relationship with job performance than training and motivation.

Oludele & Solaja (2014) examined the effect of work system and workplace hazards on employee's behaviour. The study was aimed at addressing the issue of how work can be structured in order to reduce workplace hazards and produce affirmative employee work behaviour. Survey research method was adopted. Questionnaire was distributed to 120 staff of Nigerian Eagle Flourmill, lbadan who were selected through stratified and simple random sampling techniques. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used in analysis of data. Result showed a significant relationship between work system, workplace hazards and employees behaviour. Falola et al. (2014) conducted a study on incentive packages and employees' attitudes to work: A study of selected government parastatals in Ogun State, South-West, Nigeria. The study stressed that for any organization to compete favourably in the competitive society, employees' attitudes and commitment towards work goes a long way in determining the employee's performance and organization productivity. A descriptive research method was adopted using 120 valid questionnaires which were completed by members of staff of four selected government parastatals in Ogun State, South-West Nigeria. The data collected were carefully analyzed using percentage supported by standard deviation. The result showed a strong relationship between incentives packages and employees’ attitudes towards work, though the workers were not satisfied with the incentive packages.

Methodology

This study adopted a cross-sectional survey design to aid appropriate data collection. The population of the study comprised all staff of the three manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria with a total of 1,381 staff. The sample size of 310 was obtained scientifically using Taro Yamane formula. Content validity was done to ensure adequate coverage and accuracy of the research instrument, and the reliability test to ensure the stability and consistency of the research instrument. Cronbach Alpha was used to determine the consistency of the data instrument. According to Etuk (2010), the Cronbach Alpha is perhaps the most widely used method for estimating reliability of instrument in business research. The research instrument was certified reliable given the calculated Cronbach Alpha of 0.75. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated and used to test the hypotheses using SPSS version 21.

Results

Rate of Returns of Questionnaires during the Field Survey

The rate of returns of questionnaire that were distributed to the respondents during the field survey is shown below in Tables 1-9. Three hundred and eight (308) respondents returned their questionnaire which were analyzed and found appropriately filled.

Table 1 Rates of Returns of Questionnaires
Questionnaires	No. of Respondents	Percentage (%)
Returned	308	99.4
Not Returned	002	0.6
Total	310	100

 

Table 2 Correlation Analysis of Hypothesis One
		Salary increase (x)	Employee Productivity (y)
	Pearson Correlation	1	0.243
Salary increase (x)	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000
	N	308	308
Employee productivity (y)	Pearson Correlation	0.243	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	308	308

 

Table 3 Testing Employee Productivity (Y) and Salary Increase (X) In The Studied Firms
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	1	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta
(Constant)	4.054	0.134		30.154	0.000
Salary increase (x)	0.133	0.030	0.243	4.382	0.000

 

Table 4 Correlation Analysis of Hypothesis Two
		Bonus payment (x)	Employee Output (y)
	Pearson Correlation	1	0.113
Bonus payment (x)	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.049
	N	308	308
Employee Output (y)	Pearson Correlation	-0.113	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.049
	N	308	308

 

Table 5 Testing Employee Output (Y) and Bonus Payment (X) In The Studied Firms
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	1	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta
(Constant)	4.483	0.108		41.628	0.000
Bonus payment (x)	-0.053	0.027	-0.113	-1.981	0.049

 

Table 6 Correlation Analysis of Hypothesis Three
		Employee Regularity (y)	Overtime Allowances (x)
	Pearson Correlation	1	-0.558**
Employee Regularity (y)	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000
	N	308	308
Overtime Allowances (x)	Pearson Correlation	-0.558**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	308	308

 

Table 7 Testing Employee Regularity (Y) and Overtime Allowance (X) In The Studied Firms
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	1	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta
(Constant)	5.566	0.112		49.782	0.000
Overtime Allowances (x)	-0.326	0.028	-0.558	-11.756	0.000

 

Table 8 Spss Calculation on Correlation Analysis of Hypothesis Four
		Employee work attitude (y)	Hazard Allowances (x)
	Pearson Correlation	1	-0.283**
Employee work attitude (y)	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000
	N	308	308
Hazard Allowance (x)	Pearson Correlation	-0.283**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	308	308

 

Table 9 Testing Employee Work Attitude (Y) and Hazard Allowance In The Studied Firms
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	1	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta
(Constant)	5.420	0.164		32.954	0.000
Hazard Allowance (x)	-0.198	0.038	-0.283	-5.170	0.000

H01: Salary increase has no significant relationship with employee productivity in Lafarge, Atlas and Ibeto Cement Manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria.

H02: Bonus payment has no significant relationship with employee output in Lafarge, Atlas and Ibeto Cement Manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria.

H03: There is no significant relationship between overtime allowance and employee regularity in Lafarge, Atlas and Ibeto Cement Manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria.

H04: There is no significant relationship between hazard allowance and employee work attitude in Lafarge, Atlas and Ibeto Cement Manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria

Discussion of Findings

The first objective of this study was to ascertain the extent to which salary increase relate to employee productivity in the study firms. Salary increase and employee productivity Pearson Correlation Coefficient of 0.243 was ascertained. The correlation coefficient (r) was transformed to r2 (coefficient of determination) which shows the proportion of total variation in the dependent variable (y) that is explained by the independent variable (x). Therefore, r2=0.059049 or 0.06. This means that 6% of total variation in employee productivity is explained by salary increase. Furthermore, in testing the hypothesis, the covariates (employee productivity and salary increase) were subjected to t-test in order to determine the significance of the correlation. Using 5% level of significance, t-calculated value (4.382) was higher than t-tabulated value (1.980). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that salary increase has significant relationship with employee productivity in cement manufacturing firms in South-South Nigeria. In consensus with this finding, Bryson et al. (2010) reveals that employees are motivated by monetary rewards and they are induced to expend greater effort in a task if those efforts are rewarded directly through performance-related pay. This is fact because through performance related pay workers are able to receive an annual salary which has a beneficial impact on their wellbeing. The importance of salaried employment on productivity is that it minimizes fluctuations in pay which give workers some degree of certainty about their income into the future as they strive to reach the performance threshold necessary to retain their job and ensure the employer remains in business. Freeman & Kleiner (2005) add that a worker that is paid fixed salary in a given period is likely to exert effort because good performance will improve future contract or job. This reputational concern by workers would make them to exert more effort for performance. Though salary in organization may be long term or short based on effective productivity. In long-term salary, a good performance ill come in form of defer payment or benefit. While the reward for short-term salary contract comes in form of contract renewal.

According to Bryson et al. (2010) salaries smoothens income fluctuations for workers, offering income security which may be absent among those on shorter-term performance-oriented contract. In cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria, salaries are rationed based on productivity of the workers and this help to create competition among the workers to reach the set goals of the company. In the studied cement manufacturing firms in South-South Nigeria, the incentive pay of the company is based on the quantity of work delivered and it is particularly beneficial for increasing workers’ productivity. The second objective was to determine the extent to which bonus payment relate to employee output in the studied firms. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient showed a negative relationship of -0.113 existing between employee output (y) and bonus payment (x). The correlation coefficient (r) was transformed to r2 (coefficient of determination) which shows the proportion of total variation in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable. Therefore, r2 = 0.012769 or 0.01. This means that 1% of total variation in employee output is explained by bonus payment. Furthermore, in testing the hypothesis, the covariates (employee output and bonus payment) were subjected to t test in order to determine the significance of the correlation. Using 5% level of significance, t-calculated value (-0.174) was higher than t-tabulated value (1.980). Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted and it was concluded that bonus payment has no significant relationship with employee output in cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria. This indicates the absence of effective bonus scheme in cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria and further suggests that, the studied firms should not border about using bonus payments as rewards to enhance employee output. Herzberg (1959) posited that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors; motivation and hygiene factors, and employee's motivation and commitment to work is proportional to employees' satisfaction. In order words, as employees receive bonus and do not have effect on their output, the employer becomes dissatisfied.

This may be explained by the fact that reward systems are hygiene factors for an organization. According to Waal & Jensen (2011) use of bonuses or implementation of certain types of reward systems have neither a positive nor a negative effect on organizational performance. If an organization does not have an appropriate reward system (whether or not including bonuses) it will run into trouble with its employees and have difficulty improving its performance. If it does (a situation which employees expect and consider to be normal) it can start experiencing improvement in employees output. Tying bonuses directly to a strategic performance measurement system increases the feeling of fairness employees have toward the reward system (Burney et al., 2009). The third objective was to examine the relationship between overtime allowance and employee regularity in the studied firms. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient showed a negative significant relationship of -0.558 existing between employee regularity and overtime allowance. The correlation coefficient (r) was transformed to (coefficient of determination) which shows the proportion of total variation in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable. Therefore, r2=0.311364 or 0.31. This means that 31% of total variation in employee regularity is explained by overtime allowance. Moreso, in testing the hypothesis, the covariates (employee regularity and overtime allowance) were subjected to t-test in order to determine the significance of the correlation. Using 5% level of significance, the absolute t-calculated value (11.756) was greater t-tabulated value (1.980). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that overtime allowance has significant relationship with employee regularity in cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria.

Overtime allowance in the organization is determined when employees work more hours in a month to earn overtime pay. The act overtime payment helps the employees to be motivated and have behaviour for continuous overtime work. The need for overtime allowance in the studied cement manufacturing firms allows the respective managers to effectively manage higher workload without increasing the staffing level of their organizations. The practice of overtime in the organization is a tool for meeting workload demands and aid to minimize cost and maximize employee performance in the company. The essence of overtime work is to improve the company's competitive position in the market and help the employee to have extra income.

Mandatory overtime is a necessity for company to meet its financial and production goals in short term. The fourth objective was to assess the relationship between hazard allowance and employee work attitude in the studied firms. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient showed a negative significant relationship of -0.283 existing between employee work attitude and hazard allowance. The correlation coefficient (r) was transformed to (coefficient of determination) which shows the proportion of total variation in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable. Therefore, r2=0.080089 or 0.08. This means that 8% of total variation in employee work attitude is explained by hazard allowance. Moreso, in testing the hypothesis, the covariates (employee work attitude and hazard allowance) were subjected to t-test in order to determine the significance of the correlation. Using 5% level of significance the absolute t-calculated value (5.170) was greater than t-tabulated value (1.980). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that, there is significant relationship between hazard allowance and employee work attitude in cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria. This is an indication that if employees receive hazard allowance, they will exhibit good work attitude. According to Spector, (2003) employee attitudes such as satisfaction are not a major determination of job performance but contribute to (or discourage) absenteeism, reduction in the wastages, industrial accidents and they help in establishing the culture of the organization.

Conclusion

The use of monetary incentives to motivate an employee to better performance is an organizational practice which serves as a strategic tool for retaining best brains, and to enhance organizational productivity. Financial incentive packages can trigger and positively sustain employees’ work attitude, regularity, output and productivity in cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria. The following recommendations were also made:

1. That cement Manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria can be more productive if there is improvement in the various financial incentive packages given to employees especially increasing employee salary as at when due, as revealed in this research work.

2. The management of Cement Manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria should know that non-payment of bonuses to performing employees is a constant source of frustration to employees' output. Therefore, an effective bonus scheme should be established to help improve employees' output.

3. Cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria should intensify effort to ensure that employees are given what is due to them especially overtime allowance, without any delay.

4. It is evident from this study that employee work attitude is not positively influenced by hazard allowance. The implication is that, the more preferred the incentive structure, the more positive the employee attitude will be. Employees should be engage in good communication with subordinates in order to deal with factors that are responsible for employee poor work attitude. Therefore, management of cement manufacturing firms in South-South, Nigeria should make hazard allowance more attractive and see it as an important extrinsic reward factor that encourages positive work attitude.

 

References

Abbas, Q. & Yagoob, S. (2009). Effect of leadership development on employee performance in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review. 47(2), 267-292.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money. Business Horizons, 56(2), 241-249.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ajang, P.E. (2007). Assessing the role of work motivation on employee performance. Thesis submitted at University Malaysia Pahang.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Alaba, R.A., & Owodunni, A. (2007). Personnel testing and selection in organization. Lagos: Triumph Publishers.

Armstrong, K. (2007). Employee reward management and practice. London: Kogan.

Google Scholar

Bartram, T., & Casimir, G. (2007). The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader. Leadership and organization Development Journal, 28(1), 4-19.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Belcher, L.M. (2016). Advantages and disadvantages of mandatory overtime. CHRON.

Bellenger, D., Wilcox, J. & Ingram, T. (1984). An examination of reward preferences Tor sales managers. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,4(2), 1-6.

Google Scholar

Bryson, A., Buraimo, B., & Simmons, R. (2010). Do salaries improve workers performance. National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). A discussion paper, No. 366, 12th October 2010. London.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Burney, L.L., Henle, C.A., & Widener, S.K. (2009). A path model examining the relations among strategic performance measurement system characteristics, organizational justice, and extra-and in-role performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3-4), 305-321.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Duvall, C.K. (1999). Developing individual freedom to act empowerment in the knowledge organization. Participation and Empowerment (An International Journal), 7(8). 204-212.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Etuk, E.J. (2010). Business research methods: Concepts processes and applications. Calabar: University of Calabar Press.

Falola, H.O., Ibidunni, O.S., & Olokundun, A.M. (2014). Incentives packages and employees’ attitudes to work: a study of selected government parastatals in Ogun State, South-West, Nigeria. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 3(1), 63-74.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Fay, C.H., & Thompson M.A. (2001). Contextual determinants of reward systems' success: An exploratory study. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 40(3), 213-226.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Feldman, D.C., & Arnold, H.J. (1978). Position choice: Comparing the importance of organizational and job factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6). 706-710.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Freeman, R.B., & Kleiner, M.M. (2005). The last American shoe manufacturers: Decreasing productivity and increasing profits in the shift from piece rates to continuous flow production. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 44(2), 307-330.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Gomez-Mejia. L., Balkin, D., & Cardy. R. (2011). Managing human resources (7" ed.). New York: Pearson.

Google Scholar

Hatice, O. (2012). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on employee result: An empirical analysis in Turkish manufacturing industry. Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(2), 29-48.

Google Scholar

Herzberg, F. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hettiararchchi, H.A.H., & Jayarathna, S.M.D.Y. (2014). The effect of employee work related attitude on employee job performance: A study of tertiary and vocational education sector in Sri Lanka. Journal of Business and Management, 16(4), 74-83.

Google Scholar

Idrees, Z., Xinping, X., Shafi, K., Hua, L., Nazeer, A. (2015). Effect of salary, training and motivation on job: Performance of employees. American Journal of Business Economic and Management, 3(2), 55-58.

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 341-367.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Khan, K.U., Farooq, S.U. & Ullah, M.I. (2010). The relationship between rewards and employee motivation in commercial banks in Pakistan. Research Journal of International Studies, 14, 37-52.

Google Scholar

Kinicki, A., Williams, B.K., Scott-Ladd, B.D., & Perry, M. (2011). Management: A practical introduction. McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Kiwekete, H.M. (2010). Psychosocial risk assessment: Ensuring the well-being of employees. African Newsletter on Occupation, Health and Safety, 20(2), 38-40.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Lazear, E.P. & Gibb, M. (2009). Personnel economics in practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Loki (2015). Strategies to manage overtime more effectively. Loki Systems.

Lotta, L. (2012). The impact of financial and non-financial rewards on employee motivation. Bachelor’s thesis of Yurku University of Applied Sciences.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mathis, R.L., & Jackson, J.H. (2000). Human Resource Management. Ohio: South Western College Publishing.

Measom, C. (2011). Ways to motivate your cell center associates to work overtime.CHRON.

Meswani, H.R. (2008). Safety and occupational health: Challenges and opportunities in emerging economies. Indian Journal of Occupation Environment and Medical, 12(1), 3-9.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Miller, B. (2015). Pros and cons Moneta incentives. HR Daily Advisor.

Mueller, D.R. (2011). Financial incentive to increase employee motivation.

Muogbo, U.S. (2013). The impact of employee motivation on organizational performance: A study of selected firms in Anambra State, Nigeria. The international Journal of Engineering and Science, 2 (7), 70-80.

Google Scholar

Murray, H.A. (1970). Explorations in personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mwita, J.I. (2000). Performance management model: A system-based approach to system quality. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(1), 19-37.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Noah, Y. & Steve, M. (2012). Work environment and job attitude among employees in a Nigerian work organization. Journal of Sustainable Society, 1(2), 36-46.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Okoye, P.V.C., & Ezejiofor, R.A. (2013). The effect of human resources development on organizational productivity. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(10), 250-268.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Oludele, B., & Solaja, M. (2014). The effect of work system and workplace hazards on employee's behaviour. Global Journal of Management and Business Research. 14 (3), 1-10.

Omollo, P.A. (2015). Effect of motivation on employee performance of commercial banks in Kenya: A case study of Kenya commercial bank in Migori County. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 5(2), 87-103.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Osibanjo, O.A., Adeniyi, A.A., Falola, H.O., & Heirsmac, P.T. (2014). Compensation packages: A strategic tool for employees performance and retention. Leonardo Journal of Sciences, 25, 65-84.

Google Scholar

Owens, R.G. (2004). Organizational behaviour in education. Pearson Education, Inc.

Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivate us. New York: Riverhead Books practices a valuable firm resource? Strategic Management Journal, 32(4), 343-367.

Ray, L. (2016a). How does salary abject a worker's productivity? CHRON.

Ray, L. (2016b). The effect of employee attitude on productivity in the workplace. CHRON.

Root, G.N. (2016). The best employee incentives.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Extrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Sheridan, P. (2005). Show me the money: Salary level have greatest impact on job satisfaction.

Spector, P.E. (2003). Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Research and Practice (3rd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, P. (2001). Differential effects of incentives motivator on work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 4(3), 580-590.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2), 326-365.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Taylor, C. (2009). How does productivity influence wages and salary? CHRON.

Waal, A., & Jansen, P. (2011). The bonus as hygiene factor: The role of reward systems in the high performance organization. Presented during the 3 European Reward Management Conference, pp. 1.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Wilfred, O.N., Elijah, C.M., & Muturi, W. (2014). Effect of remuneration on employee performance in the Ministry of Internal Security: A case of Kisii County. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4(1), 223-231.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Woods, L. (2016). How can salary influence a worker's performance in an administration. CHRON.

Yuping, C. (2004). Composition system in Japan, United States and European countries. Institute for International Labor Studies, Ministry of Labor and Social Security, P.R.China.

Zaman, K., Hafiza, N. S., Shah, S.S. & Jamsheed, H. (2011). Relationship between rewards and employee's motivation in the non-profit organizations of Pakistan. Business Intelligence Journal, 4(2), 327-334.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Received: 06-Feb-2022, Manuscript No. JMIDS-22-11192; Editor assigned: 09-Feb-2022, PreQC No. JMIDS-22-11192(PQ); Reviewed: 23-Feb-2022, QC No. JMIDS-22-11192; Revised: 30-Mar-2022, Manuscript No. JMIDS-22-11192(R); Published: 06-Apr-2022