9 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies Vol. 10, No. 1, 9-18, 2023 ISSN(E) 2313-7401/ ISSN(P) 2518-0096 DOI: 10.20448/ajssms.v10i1.4391 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Effect of reward systems on workers' performance at the university of Abuja Innocent. U. Duru1 Millicent Adanne Eze2 Abubakar Yusuf3 Akpan Aaron Udo4 Abubakar Sadiq Saleh5 ( Corresponding Author) 1Department of Economics, Rhema University Nigeria, Aba, Abia State, Nigeria. Email: iud3x@yahoo.com 2School of Business, Law and Social Sciences, Abertay University, Dundee, United Kingdom. Email: ezemillicent@gmail.com 3National Metallurgical Development Centre, Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Email: bbkr_yusuf2000@yahoo.com 4Department of Business Administration, Akwa Ibom State University, Nigeria. Email: aaron4me2012@yahoo.com 5Department of Banking and Finance, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: abubakar.saleh@nileuniversity.edu.ng Abstract This study examined the effect of reward systems on workers' performance at the University of Abuja. It utilized descriptive and inferential statistics on a sample of 337 workers’ derived from 2145 workers through the random sampling technique. The results showed that employees are contented with the recognition accorded to them for executing good works, supervisors are open to assist or direct employees, supervisors encourage the ideas of employees’ and their styles of accomplishing things, supervisors’ expectations from employees in terms of job done are unclear to them and promotions and pay increases depend on the attainment of known performance goals exerted a positive effect on workers’ performance. However, this university does not automatically reward good performance, exceptional incentives and rewards are provided by management to all employees and the process of performance appraisal is connected to the reward system had a negative impact on workers' performance. The study recommends that the University of Abuja management should ensure that rewards are based on merit and matched with performance to inspire workers to perform optimally. In addition, reward management practices on rewards for good performance, promotions going to people that deserve them and celebration of excellent service should be reviewed and strengthened. Keywords: Financial rewards, Nigeria, Non-financial rewards, Reward systems, University of Abuja, Workers’ performance. JEL Classification: M52; M12; I20; I22. Citation | Duru, I. U., Eze, M. A., Yusuf, A., Udo, A. A., & Saleh, A. S. (2023). Effect of reward systems on workers’ performance at the university of Abuja. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 10(1), 9–18. 10.20448/ajssms.v10i1.4391 History: Received: 19 October 2022 Revised: 13 December 2022 Accepted: 26 December 2022 Published: 3 January 2023 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. Ethical: This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................................ 11 3. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 4. Data Presentation, Analysis and Discussion of Results ........................................................................................................... 14 5. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 17 References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 mailto:iud3x@yahoo.com mailto:ezemillicent@gmail.com mailto:bbkr_yusuf2000@yahoo.com mailto:aaron4me2012@yahoo.com mailto:abubakar.saleh@nileuniversity.edu.ng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.doi.org/10.20448/ajssms.v10i1.4391 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8958-0686 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2951-4027 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3773-8183 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1790-6330 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2063-9621 Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 10 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contribution of this paper to the literature This study was the first to the best of our knowledge to utilize 13 items of reward management systems to investigate the influence of reward systems on workers’ performance at the University of Abuja. 1. Introduction In the competitive environment of business of the twenty-first century where universities are facing severe competition and workers' retention questions, reward systems act as a management catalyst for the attraction, retention and motivation of high-performance workers that give it a competitive advantage in the realization of the vision, mission and overall improvement in terms of performance. No wonder Brewster, Mayrhofer, and Farndale (2018) maintained that a best-performing workforce is a sine qua non for the realization of an organization's vision, mission and goals spelt out on its strategic plan. Thus, the foundation stone of thriving organizations is workers that are rewarded. The University of Abuja is one of the public universities in Nigeria. Universities are crucial in the provision of quality human resources, particularly manpower requirements in the private and public sectors, advances in science and technology and economic growth and development of economies of the world. However, this can only be realized when the university workers' are adequately rewarded to attain their goals. The enrolment of students had continued to increase in the public universities without an equivalent increase in infrastructural facilities, the number of workers and funds. Owing to this expansion, the universities faced challenges ranging from heavy workload, inadequate physical facilities, overcrowding, poor working conditions, poor and uncompetitive salaries and disenchanted workers' among others. This partly explains the reasons behind the eight months of industrial action embarked upon by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) for partial implementation of its 2009 agreement with the Federal government of Nigeria for better conditions of service, better remuneration and to save public universities that started on 14th February 2022 and ended on 17 October 2022. These ugly scenarios resulted in the exodus of some of the best certified academic staff to the private sector or overseas in pursuit of better opportunities notwithstanding that these institutions invested a lot in training some of them. This demands rewards for workers so that they could be retained at public universities. Kathombe (2018) maintained that a good system of reward with emphasis on rewarding workers and their teams acts as a vehicle for workers to attain higher performance and accomplish organizational objectives. Furthermore, Barber and Bretz (2000) contended that the greatest impact of reward systems is felt through the ability of organizations to catch, motivate and retain a high calibre of workers and getting high levels of performance in return. This study could inform the development of competitive and comprehensive reward policies in the universities that are consistent with not only the objectives of the universities but mindful of the competitive realness of the labour market. Furthermore, the results would assist the employees' Union, the International Labour Organization, the human resource planners in the universities and other organizations of government to initiate a reward management structure that meets the desires of the workers. Armstrong (2013) and Hafiza, Shah, Jamsheed, and Zaman (2011) maintained that reward systems could be formal and informal, monetary and non-monetary, and tangible and intangible. Furthermore, Mahaney and Lederer (2006) contended that the reward practices of several organisations are of two types. These are intrinsic (non-monetary) and extrinsic (monetary) rewards. Extrinsic rewards are tangible. In contrast, intrinsic rewards are intangible or psychological. Intrinsic rewards include achievement, appreciation, autonomy, attractive and challenging job, career development, empowerment, feeling of accomplishment, participation in decision-making, personal growth, praise, recognition, responsibility, training opportunities and vacations. On the other hand, extrinsic rewards include fringe benefits, bonuses, incentives, promotions, salary, supervision and working conditions. Rewards could either be extrinsic or intrinsic or a mixture of both. No wonder, Kabuki (2019) contended that the pronounced performance of employees ultimately would result from a correct mix of strategies of reward management like developmental rewards, financial rewards, intrinsic rewards and social rewards. Furthermore, Armstrong (2009) maintained that rewards had been documented as a critical management tool that propels workers' to realise the objectives of organizations. Dewhurst, Guthridge, and Mohr (2009) emphasized that a total reward system is an efficient tool of management for the motivation of low- performance workers, and for boosting the job satisfaction of great achievers. In a research conducted in Asia, Gohari, Ahmadloo, Boroujeni, and Hosseinipour (2013) opined that demographic characteristics of employees like age, marital status and gender had inconsequential significance on their performance. However, factors such as bonuses, empowerment, fringe benefits, pay, promotion and recognition had an enormous significance on their performance. Furthermore, Ndung’u and Kwasira (2016) stressed that the implementation of reward management practices for the boosting of competitiveness, employee satisfaction and profitability is no more a philosophy that institutions can ignore since today's world is now lively with unceasing demands on institutions. The objective of the University of Abuja is to have contented, productive and fulfilled workers. However, these goals have not been realized and the workers' have been displaying numerous trials that impact their performance and indirectly on the realization of the university's vision and mission. These include demanding working conditions, frequent labour-management crises, irregular structure of promotion, irregular payment of workers' salaries, inadequate staff development, lack of recognition of employees' achievements, lower workers' motivation, low workers' morale, low salaries, neglect of legislation of employment by the university, neglect of labour laws and edicts, numerous industrial strikes, partial implementation of ASUU's 2009 agreement with the Federal government of Nigeria, poor working environment, shallow skills training not aligned with the career path of workers', unhealthy competition between workers', unnecessary deductions from salary without prior consultations, the unpleasant and tough economic condition in Nigeria and high turnover of staff. This poor performance had been blamed on management's inability to pay sufficient attention to the needs of the workers. As a result of these challenges, this study consequently intends to investigate the effect of reward systems on workers' performance at the University of Abuja. The question then is: What is the effect of reward systems on workers' performance at the University of Abuja? The rest of this paper is organized as follows: The literature review and theoretical framework would be presented in section two. Section three focuses on the Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 11 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group methodology. Section four would dwell on data presentation, analysis and discussion of results while the conclusion and recommendations would be displayed in section five. 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 2.1. Empirical Literature Numerous studies have been executed on reward systems and workers' performance in both developing and developed economies of the world. Some of these empirical studies are as follows: Eze (2012) examined the role of reward management in the performance of the organization with a focus on the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria. Employing a descriptive research design, descriptive statistics and Chi-square methodology on a sample of 364 employees obtained from 4000 employees through the simple random sampling procedure, the findings indicated that there was a positive and significant relationship between monetary rewards and employee performance. In addition, the findings showed that non-monetary rewards had a significant impact on employee performance. Again, the results indicated that there was a positive link between reward and employee motivation. Furthermore, the results revealed that there was a positive association between total rewards systems and job satisfaction. Similarly, Sajuyigbe, Olaoye, and Adeyemi (2013) investigated the effect of reward on employees’ performance with emphasis on chosen manufacturing firms in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Utilizing a survey research design and multiple regression methodology on a sample of 100 participants obtained through the purposive sampling technique, the findings showed that performance bonuses as an element of reward had a positive impact on employees' performance. However, other elements of reward like pay, recognition and praise exerted a positive and insignificant impact on employees' performance. In another similar study, Arikwera (2015) examined the influence of reward management on employee performance with a focus on Integrated Community Based Initiatives (ICOBI). Using survey research design, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics on a sample of 100 employees selected from 120 employees through the purposive and simple random sampling methods, the results showed that pay, promotion opportunities and training had a positive and significant impact on employees’ performance at ICOBI. In Kenya, Rugami, Wambua, and Mwatha (2016) examined the influence of reward systems on employees’ performance in Kenya’s media industry. Employing a survey research design, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics on a sample of 105 employees of Daily Nation, Standard, People Daily and the Star derived from 980 employees, the findings showed that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards had a positive impact on employees' performance in Kenya’s media industry. Furthermore, Ndichu (2017) investigated the effects of incentives and rewards on employee productivity in small banks in Kenya. Employing a survey research design, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics on a sample of 164 employees of First Community Bank in Nairobi selected through a simple random sampling procedure, the results showed that financial incentives exerted a positive and insignificant impact on employee productivity. However, non-financial incentives had a positive impact on employee productivity. Furthermore, reward systems had a positive impact on employee productivity. Moreover, in another related study, Agbenyo (2018) examined the effect of reward systems on employee performance at the University of Ghana. Using a survey research design, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics on a sample of 169 employees’ out of 300 senior employees of the College of Basic and Applied Sciences of the University of Ghana selected through the simple random sampling technique, the results showed that intrinsic and extrinsic rewards exerted a positive and significant impact on employee performance. Likewise, Kathombe (2018) employed a descriptive research design to examine the influences of reward management strategies on employees’ performance in chosen universities in Nakuru County, Kenya. The study used regression methodology on a sample of 242 employees obtained from 620 employees of Egerton and Kabarak Universities through purposive and proportionate stratified sampling procedures. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed for the analysis of data. The findings indicated that financial and non-financial rewards had a positive and significant effect on employees' performance. Relying on the survey research design, Rashid, Hamza, and Said (2018) examined the effect of promotions, rewards and supervisor support on academic employee performance at Malaysian Universities. Using regression techniques on a sample of 200 employees derived from the University of Malaya and the National University of Malaysia through purposive and simple random sampling procedures, the findings revealed that promotions, rewards and supervisor support had a positive impact on employee performance at Malaysian Universities. In a like manner, Kabuki (2019) utilized survey research design and inferential statistics to examine the influence of reward management strategies on employees' performance in Kenya's impact sourcing firms. Using a sample of 45 permanent employees of Cloud Factory Kenya Limited, the results revealed that financial reward, developmental reward, social reward and intrinsic reward had a strong positive link with employee performance at Cloud Factory Kenya Limited. Mudey (2019) examined the influence of reward management on employee performance in private universities in Mogadishu, Somalia. Using survey research design, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics on a sample of 273 employees derived from 862 employees of Universities of Jaamacada SIMAD, Jaamacada Banaadir, Jaamacada Muqdisho, Jaamacada Plasma and Jaamacada Jamhuriya employing the Slovene’s formula, purposive and simple random sampling techniques, the findings showed that financial reward, non-financial reward and reward management had a positive and significant relationship with employee performance at the private universities in Mogadishu, Somalia. In Nigeria, Ejikeme, Ifedioranma, Onyemaechi, and Donatus (2020) investigated the effect of reward management on employees’ performance in chosen manufacturing companies in Enugu State. Using a survey research design, descriptive statistics and t-statistics on a sample of 350 employees obtained from 2821 employees utilizing the Yamane (1967) formula, the findings showed that intrinsic and extrinsic rewards had a positive impact on employees’ performance. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 12 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Agbaeze and Ebirim (2020) in another similar study examined the relationship between reward systems and organizational performance in the manufacturing industry in South-South Nigeria. Employing a descriptive research design and inferential statistics on a sample of 257 employees obtained from 450 employees of the five chosen manufacturing firms from Bayelsa, Delta, and Rivers States through Gordon's formula, the results disclosed that financial rewards had a positive and significant influence on employees' performance. In addition, non-financial rewards had a positive and significant influence on employees' performance. In a similar study, Ogbu, Ewelike, and Udeh (2020) investigated the influence of rewards management on the performance of employees utilizing selected private sector organizations in Anambra State. Using survey research design, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics on a sample of 286 employees' derived from 1009 employees' of every registered private sector establishment in Anambra State that hired from 20 persons and over using the (Yamane, 1967) formula, the results revealed that extrinsic and intrinsic rewards exerted a positive and significant impact on employees' performance. Kampororo, Wafula, and Mwangi (2021) investigated the influence of reward systems on employees’ performance in public institutions in Rwanda with a focus on the Rwanda Housing Authority. Utilizing a descriptive research design and inferential statistics on a sample of 85 employees obtained from 108 employees using the Yamane (1967) formula, purposive and stratified sampling techniques, the findings showed that compensation, performance recognition, career development opportunity and employee benefits had a positive and significant relationship with employee performance. In another related study, Noorazem, Sabri, and Nazir (2021) examined the influence of reward systems on employees’ performance at McDonald's. Using a survey research design and inferential statistics on a sample of 132 employees’ from McDonald's in Perlis and Penang province obtained through convenience sampling procedure, the results indicated that appreciation, bonuses, medical benefits and salary exerted a positive and significant impact on employees’ performance. Utilizing survey research design and inferential statistics, Pradhan (2022) explored the influence of reward systems on performance of employees’ of service oriented organizations of Nepal. Using correlation and regression methodologies on a sample of 425 employees, the findings showed that achievement, appreciation, bonus, empowerment, promotion and salary had a positive and significant impact on employees’ performance at eservice- oriented organizations of Nepal. After a comprehensive and up-to-date review of important literature, we discovered that several studies have been executed on the nexus between reward systems and workers’ performance in both the developing and developed countries of the world. Numerous studies outside Nigeria probed the relationship between reward systems and workers’ performance in universities (Afriyie, Twumasi, Sarpong, & Darko, 2020; Agbaeze & Ebirim, 2020; Kathombe, 2018; Kawara, 2014; Mudey, 2019; Nalweyiso, 2012; Rashid et al., 2018). To the best of our knowledge, Eze (2012) was the only study conducted in the university in Nigeria that investigated the effect of reward systems on the performance of organizations. He examined the role of reward management in the performance of organization with focus on the University of Nigeria. However, the focus was on University of Nigeria rather than the University of Abuja. Contrariwise, some of the studies on reward systems executed in Nigeria focused on the relationship between reward systems and employees’ performance (Agwu, 2013; Akpoviroro, Akanmu, Olalekan, & Alhaji, 2018; Akpuruku, 2019; Emejulu, 2020; Francis, Zirra, & Mambula, 2020; Muogbo & Chineze, 2018; Ogbu et al., 2020; Sajuyigbe et al., 2013). Some dwelt on the effect of reward systems on organizational performance (Agbaeze & Ebirim, 2020; Eze, 2012). The rest were on the effect of reward systems on employees’ attitude and motivation (Ekeoma, 2014). Previous studies conducted in Nigeria indicated that most of the scholars have addressed the effect of reward systems on employees’ performance. Only few investigations were done on the educational sector in Nigeria regarding the dimension of reward system. Furthermore, only a few studies have been executed on the influence of reward systems on employees’ performance in universities in Nigeria. This study is required to bridge this gap by examining the relationship between reward systems and workers’ performance at the University of Abuja. 2.2. Theoretical Framework This study would be shepherded by the Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory. The theory was created by Herzberg (1964). This theory is a yardstick for explaining the factors that affects performance at the workplace. Again, an organization decision on the strategy and administration of contingent pay is based on it. This study was anchored on this theory because motivators and hygiene factors connect precisely to intrinsic and extrinsic reward systems. Herzberg (1964) made a distinction between the factors that leads to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction at the work station. The factors that lead to job satisfaction were identified as motivators (satisfiers) whereas the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction were pinpointed as hygiene factors (dissatisfiers). Motivators are also known as intrinsic factors. When motivators are in a workplace, it would inspire workers to work harder (Herzberg, 1966). They comprise achievement, advancement, autonomy, chance to do something important, challenging work, feeling of importance to an organization, growth, participation in decision making, recognition, responsibility and the work itself. In contrast, hygiene factors cannot inspire workers to work harder but if they are not present in the workstation, would result in the demotivation or dissatisfaction of workers’. Hygiene factors are also regarded as extrinsic factors. These factors comprise administration, fringe benefits, good pay, interpersonal relations, job security, level and quality of supervision, organizational policies, paid insurance, salary, status, supervisory practices, vacations and working conditions. Motivators deals with the actual work (Guest, 1995). This entails the level of attractiveness of the work and the opportunities for extra responsibility, promotion and recognition. On the other hand, hygiene factors deal with the factors surrounding the work rather than the work. For instance, in the contention of Guest (1995) if a working condition that is safe and a satisfactory salary were offered by the management, workers would come to work. However, these factors would not inspire them to work harder. Hence, financial and non-financial strategies of reward can encourage workers performance or work against the needed motivation. Thus, the two-factor theory of Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 13 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Herzberg elucidates how monetary and non-monetary strategies of reward or by implication motivators and hygiene factors affect workers’ performance. Herzberg (1964) claimed that the factors resulting in work satisfaction are detached from those that result in work dissatisfaction. Thus, administrators pursuing the elimination of work dissatisfaction factors may achieve peace but certainly not motivation. Their workforce may be pacified rather than being motivated. Furthermore, the relevance of this theory for this study is based on the ground that it stated the two elements that influence work performance. These are intrinsic and extrinsic reward systems. The extrinsic factors comprise promotion and salary. In contrast, the intrinsic factors comprise praise and recognition. Thus, when workers at the University of Abuja are rewarded through intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, workers’ performance would be affected. This confirms the contention of Blinder and Choi (1990) that when certain conditions subsist, rewards motivate performance. The management of University of Abuja can thus enhance their workers’ performance by influencing them through numerous reward management policies, strategies and processes. However, this theory proposes that managers should utilize both motivators and hygiene factors for the improvement of workers’ attitudes and productivity and not think that boosting satisfaction would results in a decline in dissatisfaction. No wonder, Robbins (2001) argued that Herzberg two-factor theory gives a better knowledge that a person’s connection to job is fundamental and that one’s attitude to job can actually decide success and failure. Notwithstanding the benefits of this theory, it has a few limitations. First, the link between satisfaction and performance was not estimated. Second, there was no evidence to show that productivity would result from factors of motivation. Third, the underpinning assumption that everybody’s needs were alike was unproven. 3. Methodology A survey research design was employed for this study. The 2145 employees’ of the University of Abuja would constitute the population for this study. This comprises of the 640 academic staff and 1505 non-academic staff of the university. The sample size was established with a 95% confidence level utilizing Yamane (1967) formula. 𝑛 = 𝑁 1 + 𝑁(𝑒)2 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: 𝑛 = 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒. 𝑁 = 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝑒 = 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 (%). Substituting into the formula: 𝑛 = 2145 1 + 2145(0.05)2 𝑛 = 2145 1 + 2145(0.0025) 𝑛 = 2145 1 + 5.3625 𝑛 = 2145 6.3625 𝑛 = 337.13 Based on this formula, a sample size of 337 was realized. The probability and non-probability sampling methods were used in the study. The purposive and random sampling methods were employed in this study. The University of Abuja was chosen due to the gap in the literature and because Lecturers and students from the whole Federation plus the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) are there. Thus, their views on this issue could approximate that of the country. The simple random sampling technique was utilized to choose 337 workers’ from the academic and non-academic staff. The simple random sampling method was utilized because it ensures that all workers’ have equal chances of being selected. Furthermore, it prevents bias in the process of selection. Hence, 337 questionnaires were administered to workers’ in the University of Abuja. The study used primary and secondary data. The structured questionnaire formed the basis for the derivation of the primary data. Conversely, existing and systematic works on the effect of reward systems on the performance of employees’ in form of books, internal and external reports of government, journal articles, magazines, newspapers, reports and publications of development partners and Ministries, international organizations, Non-Governmental (NGOs), and Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) constituted the secondary data. We utilized 13 items for the measurement of reward management systems. The thirteen items of reward management systems established by Husin, Chelladurai, and Musa (2012) would be used for this. The performance of workers’ was measured through 11 items. The performance of workers’ was proxied by productivity. This was due to the fact that it was usually employed in the literature by scholars to measure performance. The validity and reliability of the instruments of measurement and the existence of unique elements in the data was determined through the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Cronbach-alpha coefficients. A Cronbach-alpha coefficient of 0.70 and above is deemed acceptable. Hence, the certainty, reliability and stability of the measurement instrument would not be in doubt if Cronbach-alpha coefficient falls within this range. We employed descriptive and inferential statistics for the analysis of the collected data. The International Business Machines Corp (IBM) Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for data analysis. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 14 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 4. Data Presentation, Analysis and Discussion of Results Three Hundred and Thirty Seven questionnaires were administered to workers’ at the University of Abuja. However, we recovered 300 questionnaires. The response rate was 89%. In contrast, 11% of the employees’ did not answer to the questionnaire. We realized a Cronbach-alpha reliability score of 0.916 and 0.969 for the reward management systems construct and measures of work performance respectively. The instrument revealed an overall Cronbach Alpha value of 0.883. This coefficient was considered reliable for this study. The demographic characteristics of respondents are depicted in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents. Variable Items Frequency Percentage (%) Type of staff Academic staff Non-academic staff Total 220 80 300 73.3 26.7 100.0 Number of years worked Less than 5 years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21-25 Years 26 Years and above Total 40 49 116 29 40 26 300 13.3 16.3 38.7 9.7 13.3 8.7 100.0 Marital status Married Single Widowed Separated Never married Divorced Engaged to be married Total 225 75 0 0 0 0 0 300 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Gender Male Female Total 235 65 300 78.3 21.7 100.0 Age 21-25 Years 26-30 Years 31-35 Years 36-40 Years 41-45 Years 46-50 Years 51-55 Years 56-60 Years 61-65 Years 66-70 Years Total 4 41 124 14 42 15 45 15 0 0 300 1.3 13.7 41.3 4.7 14.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Education No education Primary education Secondary education Polytechnic education Tertiary education Total 0 0 16 12 272 300 0.0 0.0 5.3 4.0 90.7 100.0 Source: Field survey, 2022. The demographic features of the respondents are shown in Table 1. It indicated that 220 or 73.3% were academic staff while 80 or 26.7% were non-academic staff. The findings revealed that a mass of them (73.3%) were the academic staff. It indicated that 116 or 38.7% had been employed at the University of Abuja for a time of between 11-15 years. On the other hand, the rest (61.3%) were distributed between the periods of less than 5 years, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 and 26 years and beyond. Consequently, the years of experience of majority of the workers’ qualifies them to pass judgment on the matter under study. Also, their marital status showed that 225 or 75% of them were married, 75 or 25% of them were single. The divorced, engaged to be married, never married, separated and widowed equally shared 0 or 0%. The results indicated that the majority of the respondents (78.3%) were male and the remaining (21.7%) were female. Furthermore, 124 or 41.3% were in the age category of 31-35 years. However, the rest (58.7%) were distributed between the age categories of 21-25, 26-30, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, 51-55 and 56-60 years. From the perspective of education, 272 or 90.7% had tertiary education. Those with secondary education trailed with 16 or 5.3%. On the other hand, 12 or 4% had polytechnic education. To determine the effectiveness of the reward management practices at the University of Abuja, we employed a five-point Likert tool. This was depicted in Table 2. The reward management practices were obtained due to an in- depth literature review, interviews and participant observation. We pinpointed thirteen reward management systems created by Husin et al. (2012) and built it into the questionnaire and the employees of the University of Abuja were demanded to specify the choice that matches their view. The decision on each view was based on 3.00, the mean of a five points rating scale. Since the average of a five points rating scale tallies with the agreed view, 3.00 was employed to determine the effectiveness of each element of reward management systems at the University of Abuja. An opinion with a mean rating of 3.00 and above was deemed as agreed. In contrast, opinions with a mean rating of less than 3.00 were deemed as not agreed. To a great degree, most of the respondents agreed that this university does not automatically reward good performance. It was ranked first among the reward management practices under consideration. This was because it had the highest frequency of 944 and a mean score of 3.15. It was the only reward management practice rated above a mean score of 3.00. However, most of the respondents concurred that the remaining reward management practices were not effective at the University of Abuja. This was premised on the fact that views on all these reward management practices were rated below a mean score of 3.00. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 15 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Table 2. Distribution of respondents based on reward management systems at the University of Abuja. Code Opinion Strongly agree (X5) Agree (X4) Undecided (X3) Disagree (X2) Strongly disagree (X1) Sum Mean Std. dev. Rank RM1 This university does not automatically reward good performance. 265 356 168 106 49 944 3.15 1.35 1st RM2 Employees are contented with the recognition accorded to them for executing good works. 145 316 177 176 45 859 2.86 1.24 3rd RM3 This university gives promotions to the individuals that merit them. 70 340 105 186 73 774 2.58 1.26 4th RM4 Exceptional incentives and rewards are provided by management to all employees at each level. 50 252 123 160 106 691 2.30 1.24 6th RM5 Excellent service is remarkably celebrated by this university. 30 300 129 128 112 699 2.33 1.26 5th RM6 Supervisors acknowledge employees for executing jobs of high- quality. 40 288 114 124 120 686 2.29 1.29 7th RM7 Supervisors are open to assist or direct employees. 55 64 276 110 126 631 2.10 1.12 10th RM8 Supervisors encourage the ideas of employees’ and their styles of accomplishing things. 50 100 258 134 112 654 2.18 1.12 9th RM9 Supervisors utilize the rewards at their disposal to show employees that they have executed good jobs. 0 84 222 122 144 572 1.91 1.00 11th RM10 Supervisors’ expectations from employees in terms of execution of job are not always clear to them. 70 368 243 200 13 894 2.98 1.00 2nd RM11 The process of performance appraisal is connected to the reward system. 0 136 222 246 69 673 2.24 0.94 8th RM12 Promotions and pay increases depend on the attainment of known performance goals. 0 188 198 200 87 673 2.24 1.04 8th RM13 The standards for job performance evaluation are regularly revealed to employees by the managers. 30 120 144 112 160 566 1.89 1.13 12th Note: RM represents reward management systems. Source: Field survey, 2022. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 16 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Table 3. Principal component analysis results of the construct of reward management systems. Code Factors and observed variables Loadings Eigenvalues Percentage of variance Factor: Reward management systems RM1 This university does not automatically reward good performance. 0.397 6.841 52.626 RM2 Employees are contented with the recognition accorded to them for executing good works. 0.508 1.913 14.719 RM3 This university gives promotions to the individuals that merit them. 0.877 1.345 10.347 RM4 Exceptional incentives and rewards are provided by management to all employees at each level. 0.839 0.809 6.225 RM5 Excellent service is remarkably celebrated by this university. 0.877 0.557 4.283 RM6 Supervisors acknowledge employees for executing jobs of high-quality. 0.904 0.358 2.754 RM7 Supervisors are open to assist or direct employees. 0.814 0.288 2.217 RM8 Supervisors encourage the ideas of employees’ and their styles of accomplishing things. 0.850 0.213 1.640 RM9 Supervisors utilize the rewards at their disposal to show employees that they have executed good jobs. 0.884 0.209 1.611 RM10 Supervisors’ expectations from employees in terms of execution of job are not always clear to them. 0.494 0.178 1.369 RM11 The process of performance appraisal is connected to the reward system. 0.587 0.112 0.860 RM12 Promotions and pay increases depend on the attainment of known performance goals. 0.538 0.104 0.799 RM13 The standards for job performance evaluation are regularly revealed to employees by the managers. 0.569 0.071 0.549 Total variance explained by reward management systems 100 Note: Extraction method: Principal component analysis. KMO measure of sampling adequacy = 0.847, Bartlett’s chi-square 3564.32 with 78 d.f., p < 0.05, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 0.000. Table 3 depicts the items and factor loadings of the construct of reward management systems. To ascertain the number of items under this construct that would represent it best, a PCA was conducted. To improve clarity, the proposition that loadings less than 0.40 should be ditched from the analysis was implemented. This was because a factor loading with a value of 0.4 and beyond was considered valid. Once more, factor loadings lower than 0.30 were deemed to be low while loadings more than 0.40 were deemed to be high. The results indicated that all the loadings were valid for further analysis. A check was carried out to confirm that the variables were correlated at a moderate level and that minimum conditions were satisfied. We realized the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measurement assumption. The KMO estimate of 0.847 indicated the relevance of the investigation. This was because it fulfilled the first assumption for factor analysis. The significance of the Bartlett test of sphericity (Chi- Square with degrees of freedom 78 = 3564.32, p=0.000) further showed that it was right to conduct factor analysis. These elements were subjected to final analysis. Table 4. Principal component analysis results of the factors of work performance. Code Factors and observed variables Loadings Eigenvalues Percentage of variance Factor: Work performance WP1 Quality services 0.770 8.520 77.454 WP2 Effectiveness 0.850 0.985 8.952 WP3 Service delivery 0.884 0.427 3.880 WP4 Productivity 0.918 0.291 2.643 WP5 Mental production (Decisions) 0.750 0.228 2.077 WP6 Return to government 0.891 0.146 1.323 WP7 Investment in research 0.902 0.117 1.063 WP8 Web ranking 0.902 0.104 0.947 WP9 Task done 0.931 0.082 0.749 WP10 Observable action 0.931 0.061 0.558 WP11 Rate of innovation 0.931 0.039 0.355 Total variance explained by work performance 100 Note: WP denotes work performance. Extraction method: Principal component analysis. KMO measure of sampling adequacy = 0.924, Bartlett’s chi-square 4800.98 with 55 d.f., p < 0.05, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 0.000. In Table 4, a PCA was conducted on work performance to derive information on the number of elements that represents the data best. However, no element was rejected from it. All the elements revealed good internal reliability and were endorsed for further analysis. A check was carried out to confirm that the variables were correlated at a moderate level and that minimum conditions were satisfied. We realized the KMO measurement assumption. The KMO estimate of 0.924 indicated the relevance of the investigation. This was because it fulfilled the first assumption for factor analysis. The significance of the Bartlett test of sphericity (Chi-Square with degrees of freedom 55 = 4800.98, p=0.000) further showed that it was right to conduct factor analysis. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 17 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Table 5. Regression results. Factor/Model Unstandardized coefficients Standard error T- statistic Sig. Constant 0.301 0.227 1.326 0.186 This university does not automatically reward good performance. -0.214 0.067 -3.212 0.001 Employees are contented with the recognition accorded to them for executing good works. 0.715 0.080 8.917 0.000 This university gives promotions to the individuals that merit them. 0.174 0.109 1.592 0.112 Exceptional incentives and rewards are provided by management to all employees at each level. -0.263 0.104 -2.539 0.012 Excellent service is remarkably celebrated by this university. -0.172 0.117 -1.476 0.141 Supervisors acknowledge employees for executing jobs of high-quality. -0.106 0.130 -0.821 0.412 Supervisors are open to assist or direct employees. 0.333 0.092 3.633 0.000 Supervisors encourage the ideas of employees’ and their styles of accomplishing things. 0.372 0.099 3.767 0.000 Supervisors utilize the rewards at their disposal to show employees that they have executed good jobs. 0.130 0.115 1.134 0.258 Supervisors’ expectations from employees in terms of execution of job are not always clear to them. 0.134 0.073 1.847 0.066 The process of performance appraisal is connected to the reward system. -0.286 0.094 -3.047 0.003 Promotions and pay increases depend on the attainment of known performance goals. 0.177 0.101 1.757 0.080 The standards for job performance evaluation are regularly revealed to employees by the managers. 0.020 0.093 0.218 0.828 Parameters of the model R2 0.561 Adjusted R2 0.542 F-statistic (Sig.) 28.164 (0.000) Dependent variable: Workers’ performance Table 5 revealed the results of the regression analysis. The results showed that this university does not automatically reward good performance, exceptional incentives and rewards are provided by management to all employees at each level and that the process of performance appraisal is connected to the reward system had a negative impact on workers’ performance at the University of Abuja. In contrast, employees are contented with the recognition accorded to them for executing good works, supervisors are open to assist or direct employees, supervisors encourage the ideas of employees’ and their styles of accomplishing things, supervisors’ expectations from employees in terms of execution of job are not always clear to them and promotions and pay increases depend on the attainment of known performance goals exerted a positive effect on workers’ performance at the University of Abuja. The plausible reason for the positive and significant relationship between supervisors’ expectations from employees in terms of execution of job are not always clear to them and their performance could be explained by the extra effort devoted by them to knowing what the supervisors want. In addition, the plausible reason for the negative and significant relationship between the process of performance appraisal is connected to the reward system and workers’ performance could be explained by the nepotism that characterizes the process of performance appraisal in most economies of the world, particularly the developing ones. Thus, people get rewarded for doing nothing. Furthermore, the plausible reason for the negative and significant relationship between exceptional incentives and rewards are provided by management to all employees at each level and workers’ performance at the University of Abuja could also be partly explained by nepotism. If nepotism is allowed a place in the reward system, no objectives would be attached to these excellent incentives and rewards by the university management. Hence, employees would be rewarded despite their levels of performance. Furthermore, it explains why good performance does not automatically get rewarded at the University of Abuja. The results showed that 56% of workers’ performance at the University of Abuja could be explained by reward management systems. The F- statistic of 28.164 and its significance value of 0.000 revealed that the model had a good fit. 5. Conclusion and Recommendations Based on the results, this university does not automatically reward good performance, exceptional incentives and rewards are provided by management to all employees at each level and that the process of performance appraisal is connected to the reward system were the reward management practices that affected workers’ performance negatively at the University of Abuja. In addition, employees are contented with the recognition accorded to them for executing good works, supervisors are open to assist or direct employees, supervisors encourage the ideas of employees’ and their styles of accomplishing things, supervisors’ expectations from employees in terms of execution of job are not always clear to them and promotions and pay increases depend on the attainment of known performance goals were the reward management practices that affected workers’ performance positively at the University of Abuja. The study recommends that the University of Abuja management should ensure that rewards are based on merit and matched with performance to inspire workers to give their best. In addition, the university management should sustain their reward management practices on recognition of workers for doing good jobs, supervisors’ assistance to workers, supporting of workers’ ideas and ways of getting things done by supervisors and linkage of promotions and pay increases to attainment of documented performance objectives. Furthermore, reward management practices on rewards for good performance, promotions going to people that deserve them, celebration of exceptional service, recognition of workers by supervisors for doing high-quality work, use of rewards by supervisors to let workers know when they have done fine jobs, linkage of performance appraisal process to reward system and consistency of dissemination of standards for job performance evaluation by managers to workers should be reviewed and strengthened. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2023, 10(1): 9-18 18 © 2023 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group References Afriyie, E. O., Twumasi, A., Sarpong, E., & Darko, L. O. (2020). The effect of compensation on employees’ performance: A case of a technical university in Ghana. International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research, 8(6), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.20431/2349- 0349.0806005 Agbaeze, K. E., & Ebirim, O. C. (2020). Reward system and organizational performance in the manufacturing industry in South-South Nigeria. International Journal of Management Social Sciences Peace and Conflict Studies, 3(4), 241–254. Agbenyo, C. K. (2018). Reward systems and employee performance at the University of Ghana. Master’s Thesis University of Cape Coast Ghana. Agwu, M. (2013). Impact of fair reward system on employees job performance in Nigerian Agip Oil company limited port. Harcourt. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioral Science, 3(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.9734/bjesbs/2013/2529 Akpoviroro, K. S., Akanmu, P. M., Olalekan, A., & Alhaji, S. A. (2018). Moderating influence of organizational reward system on employee’s performance. Socio Economic Challenges, 2(4), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.21272/sec.2(4).114-122.2018 Akpuruku, B. W. (2019). The impact of reward systems on employee performance: A study of selected oil servicing companies in Bayelsa State. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research Social and Management Sciences, 5(4), 7–21. Arikwera, G. (2015). Reward management and employee performance at ICOBI – sheema district. Uganda Master’s Thesis Uganda Management Institute Uganda. Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong’s handbook of performance management (4th ed.). London: Kogan Page. Armstrong, M. (2013). A handbook on human resource management. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Barber, A. E., & Bretz, R. D. (2000). Compensation attraction, and retention. In S.L. Rynes & B. Gerhart (Eds) compensations in organizations: Current research and practice. CA. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blinder, A. S., & Choi, D. H. (1990). A shred of evidence on theories of wage stickiness. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(4), 1003-1015. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937882 Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Farndale, E. (2018). Handbook of research on comparative human resource management. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Dewhurst, M., Guthridge, M., & Mohr, E. (2009). Motivating people: Getting beyond money. McKinsey Quarterly, 1(4), 12-15. Ejikeme, O. F., Ifedioranma, U. J., Onyemaechi, N. D., & Donatus, N. C. (2020). Reward management and employee performance in selected manufacturing firms in Enugu State. International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 139–157. Ekeoma, M. C. (2014). The impact of organizational reward system on workers attitude and motivation to work: Case study of coca-cola Sokoto Postgraduate Diploma’s Thesis Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto Nigeria. Emejulu, G. (2020). Employee rewards and its performance implication: A South Eastern Nigeria experience. Asian Journal of Economics Business and Accounting, 15(2), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2020/v15i230209 Eze, C. A. (2012). The role of reward management in organizational performance: A case study of University of Nigeria Nsukka. Master’s Thesis University of Nigeria Nsukka Nigeria. Francis, F., Zirra, C. T. O., & Mambula, C. J. (2020). Reward system as a strategy to enhance employees performance in an organization. Archives of Business Research, 8(6), 156-164. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.86.8403 Gohari, P., Ahmadloo, A., Boroujeni, M. B., & Hosseinipour, S. J. (2013). The relationship between rewards and employee performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(3), 543-570. Guest, D. E. (1995). Human resource management: Its implications for industrial relation and trade union. In J. Storey (Ed.) Human resource management: A critical text. In (2nd ed., pp. 1-399). London: Routledge. Hafiza, N. S., Shah, S. S., Jamsheed, H., & Zaman, K. (2011). Relationship between rewards and employee’s motivation in the non-profit organizations of Pakistan. Business Intelligence Journal, 4(2), 327-334. Herzberg, F. (1964). The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower. Personnel Administration, 27(1), 3–7. Herzberg., F. (1966). Work and nature of work cleveland. Cleveland: World Publishing. Husin, S., Chelladurai, P., & Musa, G. (2012). HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviors and perceived service quality in golf courses. Journal of Sport Management, 26(2), 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.26.2.143 Kabuki, S. W. (2019). Effect of reward management strategies on employee performance in impact sourcing companies in Kenya: Case of cloud factory Kenya limited. Master’s Thesis Africa International University Nairobi Kenya. Kampororo, D., Wafula, A., & Mwangi, E. N. M. (2021). Effect of reward system on employee performance in public institutions in Rwanda. A case of rwanda housing authority. The Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 8(4), 498 – 513. Kathombe, M. W. (2018). Reward management strategies on employee performance in selected universities in Nakuru county Kenya. Master’s Thesis University of Eldoret Kenya. Kawara, P. (2014). Effects of reward systems on employee productivity in Catholic University of Eastern Africa. International Journal of Recent Research in Commerce Economics and Management, 1(2), 1-4. Mahaney, R. C., & Lederer, A. L. (2006). The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for developers on information systems project success. Project Management Journal, 37(4), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700405 Mudey, M. A. (2019). Reward management and employees’ performance in private Universities in Mogadishu Somalia. Master’s Thesis Kampala International University Kampala Uganda. Muogbo, U., & Chineze, J. (2018). Effective reward management as a tool for improving employee performance in a private sector organisation: A study of selected zenith bank branches in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 7(04), 106-117. Nalweyiso, D. (2012). Rewards and commitment of the non-teaching staff in public Universities in Uganda: A case of Makerere college of education and external studies. Master’s Thesis Makerere University Kampala Uganda. Ndichu, J. N. (2017). Effects of incentives and rewards on employee productivity in small banks in Kenya: A case study of first community bank. Master’s Thesis United States International University Africa. Ndung’u, A. W., & Kwasira, J. (2016). Role of reward systems in enhancing employee motivation in commercial banks in Nakuru Town Kenya. International Journal of Economics Commerce and Management, 4(10), 797-820. Noorazem, N. A., Sabri, S. M., & Nazir, F. (2021). The effects of reward system on employee performance. Universiti Teknologi MARA Perlis Branch Intellectual Journal, 16(1), 41 – 51. Ogbu, K. C., Ewelike, U. E., & Udeh, O. J. (2020). The effect of reward management on employee performance in selected private sector organization in Anambra State Nigeria. Journal of Applied Management Science, 6(1), 17–33. Pradhan, G. M. (2022). Impact of reward systems on employee performance of service sector institutions in Nepal. The Batuk, 8(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3126/batuk.v8i2.47008 Rashid, S., Hamza, M. B., & Said, H. M. (2018). Impacts of rewards promotions and supervisor support on academic staff’s performance: An empirical study in Malaysian Universities. International Journal of Academic Research in Business Social Sciences, 8(9), 1983-1998. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i9/4877 Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behaviour (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall Inc. Rugami, I., Wambua, P., & Mwatha, S. (2016). Reward systems and employee performance in the print media sector in Kenya. European Journal of Business and Strategic Management, 1(1), 100-116. Sajuyigbe, A., Olaoye, B., & Adeyemi, M. (2013). Impact of reward on employees performance in a selected manufacturing companies in Ibadan Oyo State Nigeria. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 2(2), 27-32. Yamane, O. T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0349.0806005 https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0349.0806005 https://doi.org/10.9734/bjesbs/2013/2529 https://doi.org/10.21272/sec.2(4).114-122.2018 https://doi.org/10.2307/2937882 https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2020/v15i230209 https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.86.8403 https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.26.2.143 https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700405 https://doi.org/10.3126/batuk.v8i2.47008 https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i9/4877