CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0  BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

       Choosing the right reward and benefit system to improve employee productivity is tricky. If an employee chooses a reward that holds little meaning for her employees, productivity suffers. In addition, the employer losses the time and money spent on the ineffective rewards system. To select an effective recognition system to increase productive, an employer should set specific and measurable productivity goals, understand what motivates her employees and consider using a variety of rewards and benefits.

WORKER REWARD: Is however one of the most germane activities of management. It has been the preoccupation of all the management of multifarious organization ranzing from small-scale organization to multinational corporations.

WORKER REWARD: In an organization involves the process of taking action by some official person or body to approve, modify or reject a preferred position or an group of issue. This could be the form of enactments of legislation or an issuance of an executive order in an organization. This process involves the art of day –to-day.

WORKERS REWARDS: That are applied in the running of an organization.

FOR WORKERS REWARD To be assumed to be effective there must exist competing alternatives. Before effective WORKERS REWARDS: Are taken some proposals will be rejected, others accepted, still others modified. The differences will be narrowed bargains will be struck until ultimately, in some instances, the workers reward will be assumed to be only a formality. In other words, the question will be in doubt until the votes are counted or the workers reward is announced. Managers many at times consider workers reward making to be the heart of their job that they must always choose what is to be done, who will do it, when where and most of the time how it will be done.

Traditionally, managers influence the ordinary employees and specifically, their immediate subordinates in the organization. This has resulted in managers making unnatural workers reward even in case areas effecting their subordinates.

In Germany, around 1951, a Law enacted which provides for code termination and requires labour membership in the supervisory board and executive committee of certain large corporations. However the participation of labour in workers reward making process resulted to relatively and peaceful labour management notation.

1.2  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Was conceived in 1970s as a joint venture between the federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) 35%, and Daimler-Benz AG (“Daimler” 40% of Germany and others 25% to import and assemble completely knocked down units of Mercedes Benz trucks and business in Nigeria.

       By its memorandum of Association, ANAMMCO is established to carry on the business of important of completely knocked Down sets of Mercedes Benz commercial vehicles and passenger cars as well as spare parts pertaining there and the assembling of same in Nigeria under license from Daimler or from Local suppliers.

       Daimler and ANAMMCO entered into manufacturing and agency agreements whcib gave ANAMMCO selling rights in respect of trucks and buses imported in completely Knocked Down version and assembled and/or manufactured by ANAMMCO in Nigeria only and the spare parts.

ANAMMCO was designed to manufacture and assembly range of Mercedes Benz commercial vehicles, agricultural tractors, cars and spare parts Buy, sell, Let or hire, repair, alter or deal in machinery components parts, accessories and fithings of all kinds for vehicles and tractors employees. The company has 800 staff Facilities:

The company is rich in assets. Machinery and equipment, Buildings, Hospital. Recreational Facilities: Tennis court and swimming pool, branch offices in major cities like Lagos, Abuja and Port-Harcourt for procurement, maketing and distribution 300,000 sq/m of Land training school/centre. Utilities, water and electricity services. NOTE: the company imports completely knocked Down from Daimler “CBenz AG, Germany, Brazil, Spain and P.T. German Motors, Indonesia.

1.2  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

There has been lots of controversy to whether an employee should participate in managerial workers reward making or not. Some writers argued that employees should contribute in making workers rewardmore especially where it affects them or their jobs. It is expected that such participation will serve as training and testing ground for future members of upper management.

       In Nigeria, experts that refuted above assertion see the arrangement as a symptom of mal-organization. They maintained that, qualified, reasonably, honest and company oriented individuals are not available at these lower organizational levels. But, the big question is, all qualified individuals really availabet. All these underlay the need for an investigation study.

1.3  OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The general purpose of this empirical study is to assess the impact of employee’s participation in managerial Workers Reward making in public sector organization in Nigeria with reference to ANAMMCO Ltd.

To ascertain the impact of employee participation or non-participation in management WORKERS REWARD on productivity of the organization. To make recommendations based on the research findings.

1.4  SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The research work will be relevant to the managers and employees ofANAMMCO Ltd. It will also be beneficial to other public sector organization in Nigeria it will also be of prodigious importance to government, academicals potential and future researchers on the issue of employee participation in managerial Workers Reward making.

This empirical study is also germane to the researcher since it is partial requirement for the award of B.sc. Degree in SCHOOL of Business.

1.6SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study takes a look into the organization reward activities of Nigeria workers to increase productivity using ANAMMCO Ltd as the case study. Because of time and other factors involved, the research was limited to the study of a particular ANAMMCO Ltd, port-Harcourt. It examines the reward system and it’s impact on the productivity of workers.

1.6  RESEARCH QUESTION

In a view to accomplishing this research work effectively the research poses the followings. Do management staff make Workers Rewardwithout pre and post discussion and consultation with employees?

Do management change-workers reward when rejected by employees?

To what extent do employee participate in Workers Reward making?

How often do employees meet to discuss with managers?

1.7  RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

The researcher formulates the following hypothesis based on the objectives and problems of this research work.

Hypothesis1

H0: management staff makes Workers Reward without prior discussion and consultation with employees.

Hypothesis11

H0: That the management of ANAMMCO Ltd change Workers Rewardswhen rejected by employees.

H1:  That the management of ANAMMCO Ltd change Workers Rewardswhen rejected by the employees.

1.10LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

A work of this nature is not easy to consummate or accomplish. And, as a result of financial problem, time constraints, apathly on the part of respondents and bureaucratic procedures involved in releasing data seriously affected the study.  

1.11DEFINITION OF TERMS

1)         WAEC- West Africa Examination Council

2)         NECO- National Examination Council Organization

3)         ANAMMCO- ANAMBRA Motor Manufacturing Company

4)         CKD- Completely Knocked Down

5)         BSC-Bachelor in Science