Abstract
Consequent upon titanic competition that has beclouded business
environment of all sorts, organizations have employed myriad of strategies.
Positive reward to workers for good performance by management is among
the motivational tools employed by management to enhance productivity
and maintain high standard products. Organizations that are indifferent to
motivational tool suffer lack of productivity and standard products. To
achieve productivity and standard products, team work is imperative. To
achieve teamwork, a system of reward administration and implementation is
pertinent. To this end it is imperative to investigate the relationship between
system of reward administration and its implementation to establish the
influence of reward administration implementation. On this premise, this
study seeks examine the impact of reward administration implementation
has on total quality management (TQM). The object of this study aims at
understanding the influence of reward admini
1.1 Background To The Study
Consequent upon the myriad of changes which have beclouded the
operations of modern business organisations in recent times, including the
fundamental and core changes in the nature of work and organisations, the
dynamic nature of the competitive environment and the need to ensure a
convergence of shareholders interests in the way the organisations are run,
a need for new approaches in human resources management has arisen.
The paradigm shift, in other words, includes “total”. Put differently,
total quality management. This means that everyone in the organisation
must be involved in the continuous improvement effort. The concept quality
indicates a concern for consumer satisfaction. Management on the other
hand refers to the people and processes needed to achieve the quality
(Aragon, 2003).
Subsequently, reward management deals generally with the handling
of workers needs, drives and motivations in a way that will elicit the desired
behavior from employees. This becomes more reasonable going by the
submission of Brian Tracy (a world class management expert) in Omotosho,
(2002) that an average worker will only put in 40% – 50% of his capacity to
any job-function at a point in time. Therefore, for us to induce and trigger off
exceptional performance of 70% – 95% from workers we need to motivate
them using any or combination of the reviewed motivational theories as our
foundation.
From the foregoing, it becomes one of the ethical issues in staff
management in Caritas University, that is, stimulating reward to emerge
with total quality management implementation. Some experts contend that
total quality management can only be implemented when there is a critical
need for remunerative justice in organisation irrespective of teamwork
syndrome.
Again, the contradiction of an acceptable methodology in rewarding
employees is both inevitable and not universal. Therefore, for total quality
installation and implementation with a quest for objectivity (statistical tools)
there is a need for identifiable and acceptable techniques of rewarding
players in the total quality management mix. According to Dulewicz (2009),
“there is a basic human tendency to make judgments about those one is
working with as well as about oneself”. Appraisal, it seems, is both
inevitable and universal. In the absence of carefully structured system of
appraisal, people will tend to judge the work performance of others,
including subordinates, naturally, informally and arbitrarily. The human
inclination to judge can beat serious motivational, ethical and legal
problems in the work place. Without a structured appraisal system, there is
little chance of ensuring that the judgments made will be lawful, fare,
defensible and accurate.
For organizations to toe “total quality management” (TQM) and
rewarding variables for its implementation, astute methods of determining
the value of individuals not group needs to be delineated. Understanding the
context of the research work, (de-unionized workers operating in a
peripheral capitalist state, baptismal mission University), concentration on
collective responsibility and collaborating effort is replaced by
acknowledging individuals responsibility and achievement, even within the
context of a team approach (Cole, 2002).
On the above premise, the mechanics of this work is articulated on
rewards as stimulating performance/motivation which makes or mark the
implementation of total quality management not in the absence of
performance appraisal as a veritable tool in assessing rather than control of
processes of walk of paradigm shift.
The thrust of TQM concept is mainly to help work organisation cope
with changing environment and the need to integrate an organisations
human resource strategy and it?s cooperate strategy. There quality control
should be conducted as an integrate part of management control.
Thus, the purpose of this work therefore, is to examine the origin and
development of the reward valuation model in juxtaposition with
performance appraisal as technique for evaluating employees.
1.2 Statement Of The Problem
Work relation concern the control of the process wherein worker?s
capacity to labour is translated into actual work. In pursuit of profitability
those who own the means of production adopt control processes to ensure
that maximum effort is extorted from those who have to sell their labour for
wages.
Control strategy in relations may be located in the dimensions of
bureaucracy-hierarchy, specialization and division of labour, impersonality
and formalized rules as well as in the system of discipline and reward as
occurred in the workplace.
The direction of work, the procedures for evaluating workers
performance and the exercise of the firms? sanctions and reward becomes
subject with of the company policy work becomes highly stratified, each
given its distinct title and description and impersonal rules govern
promotion. Similarly the disciplinary system takes care of act of challenge,
recalcitrance and resistance, which inherently threaten „order? whilst the pay
system rewards compliance.
Paying people for performance or compliance to the procedure for the
installation and implementation of TQM in organisations particularly Caritas
University remains a mixture of paradoxes. The contradiction arises from
the never abating controversy about objectivity of the appraisal process on
one part and the link between individual?s performance and corporate goals
on the other hand.
Akata (2003: 211) argued that when objectives are stretched,
employees easily become disenchanted but to otherwise is to encourage
performance mediocrity. Akata further opined that different pay rate and
bonuses to high performers of the quality implementation team and others
who strive hard to attain average performance will feel aggrieved; Rewarding
underperforming executives with fat performance related bonuses and the
work force would grumble.
On the above premise, it could be deduced that part from noting the
human element in implementing TQM, other factors such as basic salary,
cash allowance (housing, electricity, transportation, medical etc), fringe
benefits (sale bonus/profit share, entrepreneurial reward, productivity
bonus etc), cash awarded for loyalty, honesty, long service etc, and quality of
leadership, workplace relationship and official recognition of employees
ability and contribution to corporate growth and development has great
influence on the level of quality expected from workers.
Taking cursory look at the reward variables, a process of determining
who gets what, and how, in terms of income. Quality implementation in
Caritas University however tends to be fixed on problems anchored on
perceived trust, mediocrity religious ethic and appliance of viable oppressive
apparatus on non mediocre workers. This translates into almost general
silence by rank and file staff amidst so much important welfare and
corporate issues to discuss. This is explained only in the context of fear of
being sacked and driven back to swollen labour market. To many staff, half
bread is better than none. Thus no matter the dehumanizing conditions of
service it is better than none. This is against the view of Alwitt and Berger,
(1993) that rewarding quality has been translated into economic vote which
ultimately influence the purchase and investment decision of individuals.
Most academic staffs are beclouded by visible and invisible spies. The
management system seems so operative that has attracted the slag hammer
of the National Universities Commission (NUC). But still, it seems unabated.
Student are not left out in this managerial mis-normed. History is empty
with the record of academic and general behaviour stimuli in terms of
reward of any kind. Thus monument of doubts have strange up in the mind
of staff and students regarding the expected positive impact of the NUC
forensic auditing. Is this obnoxious managerial flaw inherent that even NUC
appears too gullible in removing it? Derven, 1990 and lawrie, 1990
advocated for standardized performance appraisal as the most crucial
aspect to guarantee organizational life and growth.
Total quality management calls for the elimination of performance
assessments that rate employee in relations to each other and in mediocre
criteria. Lack of performance appraisal has conferred on the managers of
this University too power over employees and they most often abuse. Many
managers fill performance assessment will let them document employee
performance for possible reward, but some employee fear the assessment
might used against them in some disciplinary actions. Performance
assessments may give employees with grievances the documentation they
need to prove that managers are treating them unfairly.
Thus, the crux of this study, therefore, is to identify the inherent
contradictions in the workability of TQM and the manipulation of the reward
variables in furthering its implementation in Caritas University.
1.3 Research Questions
The following question shall guide this study.
1. What is the relationship between pay, general performance reward
and TQM implementation?
2. Is there any standard appraisal system or mechanism in operation in
Caritas University?
3. Dose reward has impact on TQM implementation?
4. What is the impact of management style on total quality management
implementation?
5. To what extent is TQM susceptible to performance assessment?
1.4 Objectives Of The Study
The general objective this study is to find out the influence of reward
administration on total quality management implementation.
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To understand the relationship between pay, general performance
reward and total quality management implementation.
2. To know if there is any standard appraisal system or mechanism in
operation in Caritas University.
3. To find out if reward has impact on total quality management
implementation.
4. To discover the impact of management style on total quality
management implementation.
5. To know the extent to which TQM is susceptible to performance
assessment.
1.5 Significance Of The Study
This study has both theoretical and practical significance.
Theoretically, reward administration on total quality management
implementation has not received adequate research interest in Nigeria in
comparison to the myriad of studies that have been carried out in other
aspect of work organization. This has created a gap in understanding the
influence of reward administration on TQM implementation. It is hoped that
this study will contribute in narrowing this gap. Besides, this study hopes to
add to the body of existing knowledge on the influence of reward
administration on TQM implementation.
Practically, this study hopes to contribute to the installation of TQM
via performance appraisal and reward as a stimulus tool for increasing
productivity and standardization of quality aimed at enhancing consumer
satisfaction confidence.
1.6 Definition Of Concepts
Management
A team of high ranking officers charged with the implementation of
organizational policy that is geared toward achieving specific goals. They are
also charged with general control of the work force including non human
material assets of the organization.
Performance Appraisal
This refers to a systematic evaluation of a worker to ascertain the level
of approximation to expected standards.
Reward
This is monetary and non monetary rewards such as promotion.
Total Quality Management (TQM)
This refers to a systematic and integrated and organizational way of a
continuous implementation of organizational standard, productivity and
general goal. It is not an end in itself but a means to an organizational end.
TQM Implementation
This is the installation of a standardized method of performance
appraisal and reward system aimed at quality improvement.