Poor Performance Among Local Government Employees in Ebonyi State: Reasons and Solutions
Chapter One
Objective of the study
The objectives of the study are;
- To ascertain the causes of poor performance of local government employee in Ebonyi state
- To ascertain whether employee non motivation is the cause of poor performance in the local government in Ebonyi state
- To ascertain whether there is excessive politicking in the local government system in local government in Ebonyi state.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
introduction
Early researchers and writers discovered that a limited number of factors had the most impact on the productivity of workers. Taylor (1998) found that four key principles could be applied to dramatically improve workplace productivity. Taylor’s principles advised managers to systematically design each job, scientifically select and train the workers, cooperate closely with the workers and divide the work and responsibility equally between the worker and management. Other studies focused on the premise that the quality of leadership directly affects productivity. Fleishman (1973) identified two primary dimensions of leadership behavior: “initiating structure” and “consideration” (p. 6). Initiating structure involves the extent to which the leader organizes and defines group relationships, establishes communication channels, and specifies methods for job accomplishment. Consideration involves the degree of mutual trust, respect, and warmth between the leaders and followers. Fleishman noted that consideration can be best described as “the tolerance of the leader for two-way communications with the followers” (p. 8). The work of these early researchers led to similar insights by more recent scholars and popular writers. The leadership role in workplace productivity was further emphasized in the 1980s. In their best-selling book, In Search of Excellence, Peters and Waterman (1982) emphasized the role of leadership in guiding an organization toward success. The authors noted, “what we found was that associated with almost every excellent company was a strong leader (or two) who seemed to have had a lot to do with making the company excellent in the first place” (p. 26). According to Peters (1987), to gain the greatest performance, employees should be closely involved in all aspects of the organization’s operations. He said, “Involve everyone in everything” (p. 343). Echoing both Taylor and Peters, Creech (1994) advocated fully involving subordinates in organizational changes. He submitted that centralized control within an organization generally leads to failure and suboptimal performance. His mantra was “organize small to win big” (p. 283). More recently, Longenecker and Leffakis (2002) found that one overriding factor resulted in improved productivity in the modern workplace. That factor is revealed in the following statement. “White-collar productivity improvement requires effective leadership on a variety of fronts” (p. 34). Their conclusion is that leadership seems to be the single most influential factor affecting productivity in today’s workplace. The Society for Human Resource Management found that poor management was the primary cause of low productivity (St. Charles County Business Record, 2005). An HR Focus (HR Zeroes in on Productivity, 2005) study cited “streamlining procedures and improving communications” (p. 1) as central to productivity improvement. Pomeroy (2006) indicated that “inefficient planning of work and organizational structure by management” followed by “poor management leadership in demonstrating and leading change” (p. 1) are the two greatest obstacles to productivity in U.S. corporations. From the past into the 2000s, the research into workplace productivity has resulted in consistent indicators. Koretz (1995) cited three key productivity factors: “inadequate supervision and employee involvement in decision-making, too much work, and insufficient rewards and chances to advance” (p. 1). Leonard (2000) noted surveys indicating that less organizational bureaucracy, a greater sense of purpose, clear goals, and being able to see results were essential to productivity. From the continuous quality improvement movement, Juran made a concrete connection between quality improvement and productivity improvement: “Thus the improvement in quality results directly in an increase in productivity” (Gryna, Chua, & DeFeo, 2007, p. 18). Deming’s approach to total quality management showed direct impacts on productivity enhancement as well. Among Deming’s 14 points are key elements to improve productivity, including institute training and retraining, institute leadership, break down barriers between staff areas, and drive out fear (Walton, 1986). The point about fear received special emphasis by Deming. “The economic loss from fear is appalling” (Walton, 1986, p. 72). Deming described the effect of fear on worker performance. “Fear takes a horrible toll. Fear is all around, robbing people of their pride, hurting them, robbing them of a chance to contribute to the company” (p. 73). Ryan and Oestreich (1991) also described how fear impacts productivity noting that workers may begin to show the following traits: lack of extra effort; making and hiding mistakes; missing deadlines and budgets; poor problem-solving and work methods as well as a loss of creativity, motivation, and risk taking. Empirical evidence exists demonstrating the successful application of such principles. Byrnes (2006) highlighted Nucor Steel’s system of performance-based compensation in which workers’ pay is based on productivity measures. The result is a highly motivated workforce at Nucor. Although the news article portrayed the compensation/motivation plan at Nucor as unique and innovative, the steel maker’s approach to pay-for-productivity was remarkably similar to that used by the Lincoln Electric Company since 1915. While such dramatic productivity initiatives are evident in the private sector and are often well publicized, the quest to find ways to improve productivity in government continues. The dominant finding by government-focused researchers is that public-sector productivity has not kept pace with that of the private sector (de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001; Mandel, 2003; Williams, 2003). Insights have been gained about the various dimensions of public-sector productivity and the value of productivity improvement to society (Coggburn & Schneider, 2003), yet effective improvement strategies have proven to be elusive. This study builds upon the solid foundation of established productivity theory and knowledge, and provides concrete support for logical and systematic actions to enhance government workplace productivity.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research design
The researcher used descriptive research survey design in building up this project work the choice of this research design was considered appropriate because of its advantages of identifying attributes of a large population from a group of individuals. The design was suitable for the study as the study sought poor performance among local government employees in Ebonyi state
Sources of data collection
Data were collected from two main sources namely:
(i)Primary source and
(ii)Secondary source
Primary source:
These are materials of statistical investigation which were collected by the research for a particular purpose. They can be obtained through a survey, observation questionnaire or as experiment; the researcher has adopted the questionnaire method for this study.
Secondary source:
These are data from textbook Journal handset etc. they arise as byproducts of the same other purposes. Example administration, various other unpublished works and write ups were also used.
Population of the study
Population of a study is a group of persons or aggregate items, things the researcher is interested in getting information poor performance among local government employees in Ebonyi state. 200 staff of selected local government in Ebonyi state was selected randomly by the researcher as the population of the study.
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Introduction
Efforts will be made at this stage to present, analyze and interpret the data collected during the field survey. This presentation will be based on the responses from the completed questionnaires. The result of this exercise will be summarized in tabular forms for easy references and analysis. It will also show answers to questions relating to the research questions for this research study. The researcher employed simple percentage in the analysis.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Introduction
It is important to ascertain that the objective of this study was to ascertain poor performance among local government employees in Ebonyi state. In the preceding chapter, the relevant data collected for this study were presented, critically analyzed and appropriate interpretation given. In this chapter, certain recommendations made which in the opinion of the researcher will be of benefits in addressing the challenges of poor performance among local government employees
Summary
This study was on poor performance among local government employees in Ebonyi state. Four objectives were raised which included: To ascertain the causes of poor performance of local government employee in Ebonyi state, to ascertain whether employee non motivation is the cause of poor performance in the local government in Ebonyi state and to ascertain whether there is excessive politicking in the local government system in local government in Ebonyi state. In line with these objectives, two research hypotheses were formulated and two null hypotheses were posited. The total population for the study is 200 staff of selected local government in Ebonyi state. The researcher used questionnaires as the instrument for the data collection. Descriptive Survey research design was adopted for this study. A total of 133 respondents made directors, administrative staff, senior staff and junior staff were used for the study. The data collected were presented in tables and analyzed using simple percentages and frequencies
Conclusion
It appears that, just as private-sector employees, workers in state government respond productively to effective supervision, open communications, elimination of bureaucracy, a sense of achievement on the job, teamwork, and rewards and recognition. Management attention to these identified areas will likely lead to improvements in overall productivity in the state work setting. The broad concept of effective leadership retains its prominence as the primary factor influencing productivity. This study’s results can be used to validate that there are few, if any, differences in the most critical factors affecting productivity in either the private sector or the public sector. Attention to the productivity factors identified by this study and by others will enable managers to better adjust working conditions to enhance overall productivity in the state government workplace. The key factors are active and effective leadership, effective two-way communications, setting of clear goals and objectives, elimination of bureaucracy, creation of teamwork, and positive motivation through frequent recognition of employee achievement.
Recommendation
The congruence of this study’s results with previous research in the private sector indicates the potential for general applicability of the findings across organizations. The key factor appears to be effective leadership by supervisors and managers. The indications are that large service-oriented organizations will likely benefit from increased attention to setting of clear goals, institution of effective leadership, establishing training programs, improving supervision and management skills, building teamwork, and recognizing and rewarding employee performance. Organizations are well advised to attend to development of effective supervisors through both formal and on-the-job training. Enhancement of front-line supervisory effectiveness can be a critical first initiative toward productivity improvement in any organization. These results clearly support Human Resource Management initiatives to continue emphasis on training in leadership and supervision skills for both new and existing managers and supervisors.
References
- Armstrong, M. (2006). Handbook of human resource management practice (10th ed.). London, England: Kogan Page Ltd. Retrieved from Ebary online database at http://site.ebrary.com/ lib/librarytitles/docDetail.action?docID=10309992
- Bounds, G. M., Dobbins, G., & Fowler, O. (1995). Management, a total quality perspective. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
- Brodsky, R. (2010, September 28). Senators unveil bill to shape up agency performance. Government Executive. Available from www.govexec.com
- Byrnes, N. (2006, May 1). The art of motivation. Business Week, pp. 57-62.
- Clawson, J. G., & Newburg, D. S. (2005). The motivator’s dilemma. In M. Losey (Ed.), Future of human resource management: 64 thought leaders explore the critical HR issues of today and tomorrow (pp. 15-19). Alexandria, VA: Wiley. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/librarytitles/docDe tail.action?docID=10114166
- Coggburn, J. D., & Schneider, S. K. (2003). The quality of management and government performance: An empirical analysis of the American states. Public Administration Review, 63, 206- 213. Retrieved from EBSCOHost online database.
- Creech, B. (1994). The five pillars of TQM. New York, NY: Truman Talley Books/Plume.
- de Lancer Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61, 693-708. Retrieved from EBSCOHost online database.
- Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E. A. Fleishman & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership (pp. 1-37). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
- Fournies, F. F. (1978). Coaching for improved work performance. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
