Format: MS WORD | Chapter: 1-5 | Pages: 65-80
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 administration on total quality management.
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?