EFFECTS OF PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS ON WORKERS’ PRODUCTIVITY A CASE STUDY OF UNION BANK NIGERIA PLC AND NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC

ABSTRACT

 This research work is the Effects of Performance-Based Standards on Workers’ Productivity. A case study of Union Bank Nig. Plc and Nigerian Breweries Plc. However, the study investigated into most of the main factors  that are responsible for the improvement of job performance of the employee. For this  purpose,  data were collected  from primary and secondary sources. The principal instrument used was questionnaire; this was complemented by an interview. The simple techniques of frequency and percentage were used to analyse the data. Among the several findings of this study were; Adequate training which employees receive after performance appraisal results in improvement of job performance of the employee. Feedback on job performance of employee after appraisal leads to enhanced employee job performance. Based also on the findings discussed, some conclusion and recommendations were made, which includes; Promotion and salary increment of the employee in organizations are greatly influenced by properly  organized and  executed performance-based standards, which must be effective and efficient.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

EFFECTS OF PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS ON WORKERS’

PRODUCTIVITY

(A STUDY OF UNION BANK NIG. PLC AND

NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC)

 TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………………

CERTIFICATION…………………………………………………………………

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………………

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………..

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW

• Background of the Study…………………………………………….
• History of Organizations Under Study…………………………..
• Statement of Problem………………………………………………..
• Objectives of the Study………………………………………………
• Research Questions……………………………………………………
• Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………
• Scope of the Study…………………………………………………….
• Limitation of the Study……………………………………………….
• Significance of the Study………………………………………………
• Definition of Terms……………………………………………………..

References……………………………………………………………..…

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1     Performance-Based Standard Defined………………………….

2.2     Components of Performance-Based Standards……………..

2.3     Uses of Performance-Based Standards Components……..

2.4     Appraisal Methods……………………………………………………..

2.5     Problem Associated with each Components………………….

2.6     Feedback, a Tool for Evaluation of Standard…………………

References………………………………………………………………..

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1     Introduction……………………………………………………………….

3.2     Sources of Data………………………………………………………….

3.3     Population………………………………………………………………….

3.4     Sample Size……………………………………………………………….

3.5     Percentages………………………………………………………………

3.6     Instrumentation…………………………………………………………

3.7     Reliability of Instrument……………………………………………..

CHAPTER FOUR

4.1     Data Presentation and Analysis…………………………………….

4.2     Testing of Hypothesis………………………………………………….

4.3     Interpretation…………………………………………………………….

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1     Summary of Findings………………………………………………….

5.2     Conclusion…………………………………………………………………

5.3     Recommendations……………………………………………………..

Bibliography………………………………………………………………

CHAPTER ONE

 

INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW

1.1    BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

As organizational effectiveness is often equated with managerial efficiency, a manager has to ensure the full utilization of employees working under him to achieve organizational effectiveness; this underlines the need for measuring and appraising the performance of employees.

 

In an informal sense, performance based standards is as old as mankind itself. In a formal sense, performance based standards of    an  individual began in the Wei Dynasty (A.D. 261-265) in China, where an Imperial Rater appraised the performance of members of the official family. In 1883, the New York City Civil Service in USA introduced  a  formal appraisal  programme  shortly before world war.

However, formal appraisal of employees’ performance is believed to have been started for the first time during the First World War, when at the instance of Walter Dill Scott, US Army: adopted the “man-to-man” rating system for evaluating military personnel. This early employee appraisal system was called “merit rating”. In the early fifties, attention shifted to the performance appraisal has undergone tremendous change. Different experts have used different terms to describe this philosophy or concept. The common terms used include merit rating,  behavioural assessment, employee evaluation, personnel review, staff assessment, progress report and performance appraisal. Notwithstanding, the term ‘performance evaluation’/’appraisal’ is most widely used. (Khanka, 2007; 343).

Performance-based standards is defined as the process by which organizations evaluate employee performance by measuring and reporting employee’s behaviour accomplishment for a given period for the purpose of improving job performance. (Werther and Davis 1985; 282). Human beings are needed in all facets of business enterprise, be it Production, Finance or Marketing. Just as in management of other factors of production, so also personnel must be managed effectively and efficiently so that the organization will achieve its goals. The Personnel Manager must establish the fact that the new employee possesses the skills and knowledge claimed by him. The periodic assessment of the employee performance confirms the original opinion formed when he was employed for the job. According to Taylor (1972; 14), people should be carefully selected, trained and be given work that they can do best for them perform well (Akpala 1990; 18), insisted that systematic rational and deliberate, scientific approach should be applied to the procedure of selecting, training and development of man and not hunch, intuition or past experience. He further devised the time system technique by which the period it takes an average worker to perform a function could be determined and used as standard for judging individual workers’ performance.

Performance is the degree of accomplishment of the task that makes up an individual’s job (Byars and Rue 1970; 345), indicated how well an individual is fulfilling the requirement of his or her position on the basis of results achieved. For many organizations, the single most important personnel/human resources outcome involves the contributions that are generally called employee performance. Meaning how effectively an employee carries out job responsibilities and thereby makes a contribution to the objectives of the organization. Performance of a worker according to Ejiofor (1981; 7), is a function of  many  related and  inter-related variables.  The correlates of organizational performance OP, is a function of three critical variables namely: the person working in the organization (P), the organization itself (O), and  the environment in which  the organization is operation (E). Thus, (OP = F (P.O.E). Each of these critical variables is in turn a product of other factors.

The performance of a person (Pp) is a function of His ability, A

Motivation, M and

Integrity, I

Thus Pp = F (A.M.T)

The ability of a person AP is a function of Genetics G, the person’s felt need, and the environment, E. Thus AP = F (G.N.E). Each of these in turn is a function of other determinants. On motivation, the motivation of the person (MP) is a function of:

The reward given by the organization, R; the value of the reward, V; and the instrumentality of the person’s effort to reward, I.

Thus MP = F (R.V.I.).

The integrity of the  person, IP  is  determined  by the  value  system of the person; VP, the value system of the society, VS, and the reward given by the organization, Thus IP = (VP, VS, R).

A feature of all this correlation is that their relationship is multiplicative. If any has a value of zero, the individual cannot perform at all, and if any has a negative value, the person performs contrary to the objective of his organization, Ejiofor (op cit; 8).

McGregor (1960; 133) outlines three reasons for measuring employee performance. They include:

To provide systematic judgement to back up salary increase, promotions transfers and sometimes, demotions or terminations.

To provide a means of telling a subordinate how well he or she is dong and suggesting needed changes in behaviour, attitude and skill or job knowledge and letting the employee know ‘where he or she stands’ with the boss.

To provide a basis for coaching and counseling of the individual by the superior.

Employee performance involves certain common elements of most performance system. These include performance standards, performance measures, rater biases, incentives and motivation.

Performance Standards:

Performance appraisal requires performance standard. They are the benchmarks against which performance is measured. To be effective, they should relate to the desired result of each job, knowledge of these standards is collected through job analysis.

 

Performance Measures:

Performance appraisal also requires dependable performance measures. They are ratings used to evaluate   performance.  To  be     useful, they must be easy to use and be reliable, and report on the critical behaviour that determines performance. Performance measures can be made directly or indirectly. They can also be objective or subjective. Objective performance measures are those indications of job performance that is verifiable by others. Subjective performance measures are the rater’s personal opinion.

Rater Biases:

Biases are the inaccurate distortion of a measurement. The rater who fails to remain emotionally detached while appraising employee performance usually causes it. The most common rater biases include personal prejudice; the halo effect; the error of central tendency; the leniency effect; the strictness biases.

According to Rowland (1970; 8), current performance of an employee as it shows on the records may not necessarily indicate potentials. The next job up the ladder may require new knowledge, different personal characteristics or a different over all outlooks. Hence there must be some kind of formal appraisal that takes into account not only current performance of the employee but in addition, areas in which the employee needs development for better performance should be apparent from the appraisal if it is conducted properly.

Measures taken to meet the first object of performance appraisal (i.e., better performance on the job) will to be a large extent, further the second objective (i.e. a reservoir of trained employee capable of assuring greater responsibility). The appraisal itself can be made a tool for the encouragement of greater efforts and for ensuring that attempts at improvement take the right direction.

One primary purpose of appraisal is to help the person appraised, for this reason each appraisal must be followed by a counseling interview in which the appraiser sits down with the appraised and discuss the findings he gives praise where it is deserved and suggests how weak points can be undertaken at the organization’s expense. This is to ensure that the individual’s own efforts are directed towards the right goal. If the employee does not know what is expected of him, he is scarcely likely to know how he can show improvement.

Incentive:

According to Kreitner (1980; 299), incentive is a form of reward targeted at a particular performance outcome. It is designed to reward and therefore encourage positive employee action within dearly defined parameters, to achieve certain business outcomes.

These include:

• Increasing production costs or service times
• Reducing waste
• Enhancing customer retention and satisfaction
• Increasing market shares and sales volume.

The rationale behind any incentive plan is to encourage and motivate employee behaviour that contributes towards the achievement of business  objectives. To  be  successful,  an  incentive  plan must strongly influence behaviour and posses a number of fundamental characteristics,  which  combine to  motivate and   drive  individual and/or team performance. The effectiveness of an incentive plan at      an individual level is determined by:

• The individuals’ understanding of the path.
• The cognitive process of individuals, which determines whether the incentive plan will infact motivate a change in employee behaviour.
• The ability of the individuals to influence and control outcomes rewarded by the plan.

The likelihood than an incentive plan will influence behaviour in the desired direction is maximized when the incentive plan is designed to recognize the importance these three criteria mentioned above.

Any incentive plan must be clearly understood by those who participate in it. This is function of the complexity of the plan and how well the plan is communicated. It is essential that participants understand the following aspects:

• Plans, purpose and objectives.
• Standard against which performance will be measured.
• Principles and critical for the distribution of the plan payout.
• Link between individual and/or team performance payout.

Motivation:

Motivation is a common word often discussed by people in any given organization. One of the major problems confronting management is that of workers to perform assigned tasks to meet or surpass predetermined standards.

According to kreitner (op cit; 301), motivation is that energizing force that induce or compels and maintains behaviour. Human behaviour is motivated, it is goal directed. It is not easy to motivate an individual, for the success of any motivational effort depends on the extent to which the motivator needs of the individual employee for whom it is intended. Motivation is an internal psychological process whose presence or absence from observed performance.

He also mentioned motivation as one of the three factors in the function of directing. It is described as a process that arouses channels, sustains and gives people’s behaviours, purpose and direction.

According to Donnelly et al (1984; 129), motivation is concerned with the ‘why’ of human behaviour, that’s what it is that makes people do things, or simply is the stimulation of people to action to accomplish desired goals.

According to Hodgetts (1989; 40), sees motivation as a “psychological drive that directs someone towards and objective”. Motivation is a complex factor as it concerns individuals and their needs, and every individual is unique, but there is something individuals have in common, for example physical, social and growth needs except that the strength of these needs vary from time to time within the same person. Three characteristics of motivated behaviour include:

• It is sustained:- It is maintained for a long time until satisfied.
• It is goal directed:- It seeks to achieve an objective.
• It results from a felt need – An urge directed towards a need (Nwachukwu 1988; 181).

Uses of Performance-based standards include:

1. Performance Improvements: Performance standard feedback allows the employee, manager and personnel specialist to intervene with appropriate actions to improve performance.
2. Compensation Adjustment: Performance evaluation helps decision-makers determine who should receive pay raises. Many firms grants parts or all of their pay increase and bonuses based upon merit, which is determined mostly through performance appraisal.
3. Placement Decisions: Promotion, transfers and demotions are usually based on past or anticipated performance. Often promotions are reward for past performance.
4. Training and Development Needs: Poor performance may indicate untapped potentials that should be developed.
5. Career Planning and Development: Performance feedback guide career decision about specific carrier paths that one should investigate.
6. Staffing Process Deficiencies: Good or bad performance implies strength and weakness in the personnel department staffing procedures.
7. Information Inaccuracies: Poor performance may indicate errors in job analysis, information, human resources plans or other parts of the personnel management information system.
8. Job Design Errors: Poor performance may be a system of ill-conceived job designs. Appraisal helps diagnose these errors, (Werther and Davis op cit; 284). The success of failure of performance appraisal in an organization is dependent upon the philosophy on which it is established; the attitude of management and supervisory personnel towards it, and their skill in achieving its objectives. This study will examine the effects of performance appraisal on employee job performance. And in so doing, it will strictly focus on the feedback and training aspects of performance appraisal.

1.2    HISTORY OF ORGANIZATIONS UNDER STUDY

For the purpose of this study and because of the Nigerian economy, the researcher considered the following establishments; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Okpara Avenue, Enugu and Nigerian Breweries Plc Enugu. Their detailed historical backgrounds are as follows:

UNION BANK OF NIGERIA (UBN) PLC

Union Bank of Nigeria Plc is one of the Commercial Banks in Nigeria. It has grown to become a veritable colossus of the Nigerian banking industry.

Established in 1917 as a branch of the colonial bank, the bank was opened in February 1917 principally to serve international trade of the expatriate companies and assist the colonial government. The bank has since then nurtured the development of the Nigerian Financial Market.

In 1925, the bank was renamed Barclays Bank (Dominion) colonial and overseas and became Barclays Bank (DCO) in 1954. In 1969, it changed its name again to Barclays Bank of Nigeria Ltd in compliance with the banking decree enacted then which made it mandatory for banks and other foreign business operating in the country to register in Nigeria.

As a result of the reduction in Barclay Bank, shareholders funds were reduced by 20% and the bank’s name changed to Union Bank of Nigeria to reflect the new ownership structure of the bank.

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT:

The bank had about 68 branches between 1917 to 1970. By 1970, the bank had 128 branches spread across the country. In 1987, it grew to 207 with an offshore branch in London. In 1995, a representative office of the bank was opened in Johannesburg South Africa to compliment the operation of the London branch.

In 1997, there was tremendous growth both in the number of branches of about 266 to the staff strength from 5805 to 11226. However, in 1988, the bank embarked on re-engineering exercise aimed at trimming down the staff strength of the bank to a manageable position in order to meet up with many challenges ahead.

Union Bank of Nigeria Plc embarked on a strategy of establishing a number of specialized institutions that would handle emerging opportunities and challenges.

The bank presently is into retail and related banking services. Some of the banks subsidiaries are,

• Union Homes Savings and Loans Ltd to service customers mortgage demands.
• Union Trustees Ltd responsible for trusteeship for corporate customers.
• Union Merchant Ltd for wholesale banking.
• Consolidated Discount Ltd to carryout the business of a discount house.
• Union Assurance Ltd to carry out insurance and assurance business

 

Arrangement under conclusion for the establishment of Union Properties Ltd.

Union Bank remained big, strong and reliable in spite of industry, synergizing and restructuring of the bank’s operations, the bank has continued to improve its revenue base. The balance sheet, profit and loss figures are quite impressive. The bank remained solid with the total assets of the parent company and the group increasing by 70% and 72% to N214.9b and N238.b as at 31^st March 2001 respectively, while the total deposit increased from N93.0b to N102.8b and N171.0b to N189.6b respectively. Similarly, loans and advances grew by 33% and 38% to N36.9b and N39.6b within the same period. Union Bank Annual Reports and Accounts (2001; 10).

The bank gross earnings from N18.3b in 1979 to N35.b in 2001 while that of the group followed same pattern increasing by 92% from N21.2b to N40.7b.

The bank returned an impressive profit after taxation/monitoring interest of N5.0b for the 18 months period ending 31^st March 2001. Also, to be able to cope with the challenges of the time, the bank has in place, some innovations which include:

1. Automated Teller Machine in many branches, which facilities instant cash withdrawals.
2. Computerization of some of its operations in many branches to facilities customers’ service.

• Customer self-service window, which enables customers to interact with a computer system and make enquiries on balances, statement of accounts, cheque books, etc.

1. Corporate Treasure Window, which allows customers to view information on their accounts through a computer terminal (monitor/screen), located in their offices. This system is already operational at chevron Nig. and Nolchem, which are among the blue chip customers of the bank.
2. Electronics fund transfer which links up major commercial branches in a network and makes possible for customers to transact their business from locations other than where they have accounts.

At the international level, the bank has commenced operations as an appointed agent for the society for World Inter Bank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to speed up international financial transactions.

Union Bank of Nigeria Plc as listed above has made tremendous growth in financial strength, branch network, institutional diversification and product development and even in human capital.

For the future, the bank will want to consolidate and strengthen the capacity already established with the aim of ensuring a systematic growth and maintaining the leadership position in the banking industry. The bank also looks forward to establish a standard of service that will meet the challenges of the 21^st century. Union Bank Annual Report (2007).

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT:

Union Bank of Nigeria Plc has Board Directors who formulates the policy of the Bank. The GMD/CE runs the day-to-day activities of the bank assisted by Executive Directors who administers the various sections of the bank, namely:

1. Operations Up Country (OUC)
2. South West Operations (SWOP)

• Financial Services

1. Corporate Banking Group
2. Internal Banking Department

The Executive Directors are in turn, assisted by Deputy General Managers (DGM) and Assistant General Managers (AGM) etc. The country was divided into 10 area offices, which are headed by the AGM’s they also control the area offices and branches within their area.

The bank has put in place an organizational structure to improve its management capacities. This was aimed at developing more authority and responsibilities down the line as a way to ensure quick and qualitative decision making.

Incentive package obtained in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc are as follows:

1. Good Training Programme
2. Loan Facilities

• Medial Facilities

1. Long Service Awards
2. Good Working Environment
3. Promotional Facilities

• Pension Scheme etc.

THE BIRTH OF THE FIRST INDIGENOUS BREWERY IN NIGERIA NBL:

Nigerian Brewery Limited (NBL) was incorporated in November 16^th 1946 the year following the end of World War II. Although the company was to be involved in the manufacture and marketing of range of mineral waters, it was primarily set up to brew lager beer. What was the beer market in Nigeria like? Beer of different brands and from different countries was being imported into Nigeria before World War II. Germany, France, England and the Netherlands were the main exporters, in that order, in the term of the qualities imported. The mainland European countries produced lager because of its shelf life. Thus, much of the English beer that was imported into Nigeria was consumed by English colonial officials.

As one commentator put it, when such beer arrived in Lagos, say on Friday, it was rushed to the IKOYI club and the motor boat club, where most of it was consumed within three days, since it taste deteriorate in the heat thereafter. In the year 1945, the majority of beer drinkers were the Europeans in Nigeria, though Nigerians gradually began to acquire a taste for the European beer. In other words, as the years passed, so the demand for the beer grew as more Nigerians joined the beer-drinking population. The leading European trading companies-the United Africans Company (UAC), its self a subsidiary of Unilever Ltd Companies Franchise de I’ occidentale; John Holt and Company (Liver Pool) Ltd: G.B. Ollivant, Societe commerciale de I’ Guest African (S.C.O.A.); (U.T.C), a Swiss company – were the main importers and distributors of the European beer which came into Nigeria, beer being just one item I the list of goods traded across West Africa.

The quality of beer imported into Nigeria and Africa was poor, compared to the standards we have gotten used to. This was a function of the state of the technology that was available in those years. The quality continued to improve in the 1920s and 30s as the brewing technology improved. This issue of low quality beer in the war years was to affect the perception of the quality of Nigeria’s first indigenous beer-STAR LAGER BEER – when it was introduced in 1949. In the period immediately after the Second World War! There was an increase in the quality of the beer that began to be imported into Africa, Nigeria included. To take one example; whereas Netherlands had exported 25,000 hectolitres per annum to Africa before World War!, by 1947, her export has risen to 76,614 hectolitres, more than three times the pre-war figure, and most of this came to West Africa, mainly Ghana and Nigeria. The incorporation of Nigeria Brewery thus took place at a time when more and more European beer was being exported to Africa – Tennets, Beck’s Heineken, Bergedoff, Allsops, Carlsberg to name the leading brands.

Existing published accounts about the foundation of Nigeria Breweries usually go back to 1938 as the year discussions began, led by UAC, about the desirability of establishing a brewery in Nigeria, John Holt, who joined the Brewery Department of Unilever in 1952 and retired in 1982, takes the story back to 1929. According to him, it was in that year that UAC first examined the feasibility of building a brewery in West Africa where none existed as at that time. According to Hunt, UAC sent out a team in 1929 to survey the possibility and the potentials of the beer market in Nigeria. The team returned to England with a recommendation that a brewery be established in Port Harcourt. The board of UAC reportedly received the recommendation with some enthusiasm and was working out plans in the early 1930s when there heard that a Swiss Brewing Company, known as the Nathan Institute had decided to build a brewery in Accra, Ghana.

 

The Nathan Institute according to Hunt, was a Swiss Brewing Society which got the backing of a big Swiss Bank and built a brewery in Accra, Ghana. The beer they produced had the brand name of club. According to this account, when UAC discovered that the Nathan Institute was building a brewery in Accra, plans for a brewery in Port Harcourt were shelved. It may be that UAC was not ready at that time to build a rival brewery in Nigeria. When the brewery was opened in Accra in 1931, UAC in fact joined other companies in marketing club beer in the West African Market. By 1938, the beer market in Nigeria expanding. The late Frank Samuel, then Managing Director of UAC Ltd in Nigeria, again re-opened the issue of building a brewery in Nigeria. Once again a team was sent out from England to report on the feasibility of such a project. It was decided at the end that a brewery be built in Lagos, albeit as something of a gamble. There were obvious risks in the projected venture. Given the fact that of the raw  materials needed for brewing, as well as the packaging materials, had to be shipped from abroad; having regard to the fact that a large number of expatriate staff would be needed to build and man the brewery as well as run the commercial side of the business; given the relatively higher energy costs, would the product of the projected brewery not attract a price that could well be higher than imported beer? How would the Nigeria beer drinkers react to a home – brewed beer? Would the new beer be able to win a sufficient share of the Nigeria beer market from those brands that had been on the market for decades? These posers were being considered, and plans were being laid and studied, when World War II broke out. The plan has to be shelved for the duration of the war.

The war itself led to an increase in the consumption of beer    because of the needs of the serving forces. By the end of the war, more people had acquired a taste for European beer than before it. As indicated earlier, the quantity of beer imported into Nigeria increase tremendously  after the war. The leading brands like Beck’s and Heineken were soon       locked in fierce competition. UAC was a major player in the beer business     in Nigeria, since it marketed a number of the available brands through its outlets in West Africa.

In the light of the above, did it make sense for UAC to want to  build a brewery in Nigeria? Any answer to this question must take            cognizance of the changing politico-economic environment in British West Africa after World War II. As is well known, the post-war years saw an intensification of nationalist agitation. Admittedly, in 1945, just after the war, nobody could foresee that in a matter of two decades all of the British West Africa colonies would have to consider what would be the consequences for its operations of such economic decolonization as could accompany flag independence. UAC’s traditional preoccupations in West Africa were buying and exporting products and importing and selling general merchandise. Traced back through predecessor companies, UAC had been involved in West Africa’s commerce for over 200 years. It had easily the best distribution network in West Africa, as well as excellent knowledge of prevailing conditions in the region. With specific regard to the merchandising of beer, UAC was a clear leader, holding, according to account, at least 30% of the entire West African Market.

UAC’s knowledge of the West Africa region was such that it knows that the bulk of the population was made up of poor peasants who could only afford cheap consumer goods. As it considered the desirability of establishing a brewery, it had to convince itself whether, in the light of the issues earlier raised, profitability could be assured. UAC’s answer had to be, and it was, holistic. It had to ensure its existing interests were not jeopardized. At the same time, if there were going to be industrial project, it was in UAC’s interest to see how best to be involved in such projects, into which it could bring its vast knowledge of the West Africa region, its unrivalled distribution outlets and marketing expertise. The decision to go ahead with the brewery project, it has been claimed, was also affected by news that another European firm was considering building a brewery in Nigeria. It would be recalled, that, according to John Holt, the building of a brewery in Accra in 1931 had led to UAC’s earlier thoughts on brewery being shelved. This time, however, UAC’s decided to go ahead with the project.

The decision to build a brewery in Lagos having been taken, UAC            had to work out the modalities. It has no beer brewing experience or expertise in Africa. In the post-world war II years, the leading beer brands in Nigeria come from continental Europe not Britain. The beer drinkers in Nigeria can thus be said to have acquired a taste for continental Europe beer rather than for British beer, despite the fact of Nigeria being a British colony. This reality may well have informed UAC’s choice of Heineken as technical partner for the brewery venture.

Another issue which UAC had to address was what would be the            reaction of the other major European trading firms to the manufacture of  a local beer. Like UAC, these other companies were involved in the importation of the various European beers into Nigeria. Each of them had its own distribution network. The beer to be produced locally will be in competition with the established brands which these companies marketed. How would they react to this development? Clearly, there was the need to ensure that these companies did not fell estranged by UAC’s venture into the brewing of beer in Nigeria. UAC’s therefore decided to secure their interest and support in the project venture.

First, UAC entered into an agreement with the “Nathan institute  S.A. for the creation of a brewery plant and the use of the Nathan process in Nigeria? Then on 10 July, 1946, UAC (London) entered into an agreement with the companies listed here under:

1. B. Olivant, Manchester, England.
2. Societe Anonyme Des Bieres Bomortiet Pyramiked, Ghizeh, Egypt (.B.B.P).
3. John Holt & Co., Livepool, England.
4. Companies Francaise de I’ Afrique occidentale (whose head office in England was in Liverpool).
5. Societe Commerciale de I’ ouest African (whose head office in England was in Manchester’s).
6. Peterson Zochains & Co. Ltd., Manchester, England.
7. Union Trading Company, Basle, Switzerland.
8. Heineken’s Bierbrourji Mathschappi N.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Heineken).

UAC London, (later to be known as UAC International) was the prime mover in this venture. The agreement with “Nathan Institute” was negotiated by UBC and the companies listed above were called upon to acquiesce in it, and they did john Holt suggests that after some time, Heineken did not feel completely happy with the Nathan process and had to introduce certain changes into the process. What is clear from the agreement of 10 July, 1946 is that the “Nathan Institute” had  responsibility for building the brewery in Lagos.

All the companies involved in the agreement as listed above          agreed to take up shares in the company that was to be established, to be known as Nigeria Brewery Limited. UAC was to be responsible for ensuring that the company was duly registered in accordance with the Laws of England and Nigeria. It was provided that although some of the companies (SCOA, CFAO, UTC) were non-British, they were for the purpose of the agreement to be treated as if they were British. Presumably, this meant that if any disputes arose among the parties to the agreement, such disputes were to be resolved in accordance with the laws in force in Britain. It was agreed that Nigerian Brewery, when incorporated, would appoint UAC its Managing Agents in the United Kingdom, in Nigeria and elsewhere. While a certain remuneration was agreed upon for the services UAC was to render in the interim, the agreement provided that the Board of Nigerian Brewery was, after its inauguration, to fix the remuneration. The appointment of UAC as Managing Agents was to be subjected to review every two years, and either party could terminate it upon twelve months notice in writing.

With regards to Heineken, it was provided that Nigerian Brewery  will enter into an agreement with the former for two yearly periods, terminable upon given at twelve month’s notice in writing by either party, whereby Heineken would provide “European staff trained and employed by them, such as Chief Brewer, Chief Engineer, Cellar-man or any other employee whom the company (NBL) may request”. Nigerian Brewery was to pay for the services of persons so provided in addition to transport and other cost. The agreement also stated that staff chosen by Heineken for services in Nigerian Brewery had first to be approved by the Nathan Institute. Heineken shall advise the Managing Agents in regard to the technical purchases required by the company such as purchases of malt, hops, chemicals, bottles, crown corks, technical sundries, etc. and Heineken will as far as it reasonable provided that the company shall secure the advantage of any contracts which Heineken may have made for the procurement of such supplies. Heineken in giving such advice will make all such tests and investigations as are customary for them to make in purchasing such supplies. Heineken will also at the request of the company supply as required quantities of pure yeast of their own culture for use by the company.

It is clear that the two companies that were to play key role in the operation of Nigerian Brewery were UAC and Heineken. At this point one may be permitted to say a few more words that Heineken in order to underline what the UAC – Heineken involvements with Nigeria Brewery represented. In 1945 – 46, when the negotiations took place, Heineken was a major supplier of the beer which UAC exported to Nigeria. The phenomenal increase in the volume of Heineken beer on the West African market in the years 1945 – 47 was, by Heineken’s own admission, made partially possible by the fact that one of its leading trading partners, UAC, controlled some 30% of the West African market. Heineken beer was one of the most established brands in the world.

By the time Nigeria brewery was being established, Heineken was not just exporting its most of the world, it was also involved in        brewing beer in other countries of Europe, Asia and Africa (Egypt and the Belgian Congo). UAC and Heineken more truly giants in their respective Fields. It is generally agreed that the success of Nigerian Breweries Plc, as it is now, has been made possible by the services which these two giant international companies have been able to put at its disposal over the years. Needless to add, these services have earned profit for the two companies.

It was against the background here sketched that on 16    November, 1946, Nigeria Brewery Limited was incorporated as a private company for the purpose of carrying on in Nigeria the business of manufacturing and selling beer and mineral waters, with a share capital of ₤300,000 sterling.

On November 30, 1946, Mr. Douglas, Douglas Jones, Mr. John Stanley, Huygles and Mr. George Cotgreave were appointed the first Director of Nigeria Brewery Ltd. At a meeting of the Directors held on December 27, 1946, D.D. Jones was appointed Chairman of the Board.

The company having been incorporated, Board of Directors inaugurated and pioneer staff appointed it was time to build both brewery and offices.

A site was acquired at Iganmu where the Lagos Brewery now stands, and actual building began in 1947. Virtually all the machinery and technical personnel came from abroad. It took some two years for the work to be completed, and for test brewing to be done. On 2 June, 1949, Nigeria produced her first “made in Nigeria” larger beer. The brand name chosen was STAR. History has been made: the First Brewery in Nigeria had gone into production-NIGERIA BREWERY LIMITED later NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC. Presently NB PLC has five functional breweries, and a big farm. It has built a N48 billion brewery at UMUEZEANI AMEKE NGWO near Ninth Mile Corner Ngwo, Enugu – State.

1. Lagos Brewery situated at Iganmu established in 1947.
2. Aba Brewery, established in 1962.
3. Kaduna Brewery, established in 1981.
4. Ibadan Brewery, established in 1981.
5. Enugu Brewery, established in 1993.
6. NBL Farms at Gbakoji, Niger State, established in 1986.

1.3    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Performance-based standards are inevitable in any organization for effective performance of the employees. But unfortunately, such programme are not effectively designed and implemented in many organizations. It is regrettable that obtaining management commitment for implementing such programme has been difficult in both Union Bank of Nigeria Plc and Nigerian Breweries Plc both in Enugu. Apparently, this has made it even more difficult for Management to examine the extent the training employees receive their feedback reported after their performance appraisal at to improve their performance so as to determine its relative effect on job performance.

Besides, identification of those employees who need to be trained, appraised, comparing the job performance of employees who received feedback after their performance appraisal and those who did not, so as to determine the effectiveness of feedback report as a necessary tool for employees to improve their performance is now difficult in many organizations. Tribalism and favoritism are not left of out.

1.4    OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The primary objective of this study is to examine how performance-based standards can be used to motivate workers in an organization. It aims at explaining the necessity for managers to motivate their subordinates so that they act in a desired manner.

The objectives:

1. To examine the role of performance-based standards in the organizations under review, taking cognizance of the appraisal, incentives and motivational factors available in the organization.
2. To evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the performance-based standards adopted in the organizations to be reviewed.

• To examine the degree to which performance based standards have served as security and performance enhancing tool.

1. To measure how performance-based standards have enabled the management to achieve its goals.
2. To suggest ways to improve the performance-based standards in the organizations under review.

1.5    RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What are the existing performance-based standard packages available in the organizations under review?
2. To what extend and how is performance appraisal an effective motivator.

• What are the benefits of performance-based standards to the employee?

1. It is performance-based standards package adequate for the workers inducement to greater productivity?

1.6    HYPOTHESIS

Hypothesis I:

Adequate training which employee receives after performance appraisal results in improvement of job performance of the employee.

Hypothesis 2:

Feedback on job performance of employee after appraisal leads to enhanced employee job performance.

Hypothesis 3:

Properly organized and executed performance-based standards leads to enhanced employee job performance.

Hypothesis 4:

Properly organized and executed performance-based standards results in salary increment of employees in organizations.

 1.7    SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of this study covers the effects of performance-based standards for the effective productivity of the Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Enugu and Nigeria Breweries Plc Enugu.

1.8    LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The gathering of all needed data for a research study of this magnitude is usually met with a number of obstacles and constraints. This study however, was no exception owing to the scope and nature of the study. The problems encountered were as follows:

Unco-operative attitude of some employees: In as much as literature abounds on performance-based standards, it’s not always easy for a researcher to obtain all the primary information needed from the organization’s staff. Some of them could not co-operate during the interview for the reason that they were afraid of divulging official or confidential information. Consequently, the researcher depends on the information     provided by those few who responded and also on published and unpublished works for other vital information.

The researcher’s traveling to the company’s office, to various respondent places of abode or business and to so many other places      for the materials used, costs a lot of money.

Finally, because of other academic work placed on the         researcher, the little time available was used to carryout this work.

1.9    SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will be found useful by different categories of people. First of all, it will be very useful to management of organizations as well as the government. It is known that performance-based standards are inevitable if workers productivity should increase. In the course of this study, the researcher examines the objectives and needs for such performance-based standard programme. The information provided will be useful to human resource managers and other top management staff. This will make them to be more committed to such exercise for the growth of the organization. Besides, the implementation strategies will be useful to those responsible for the planning of the performance-based standards.

Secondly, all levels of government will also benefit from this study. Those responsible for human resource development in the ministry of establishment and management services will see the need to resuscitate the performance-based standard programmes in the public sector. This will help the government in achieving its objectives of enhancing productivity in the public sector.

Finally, the study will be useful for academic purposes. The data and information obtained will be useful to students that will carryout studies in related fields. Furthermore, the researcher findings can provide the bases for further studies.

1.10  DEFINITION OF TERMS

For the purpose of the study, it is pertinent to define some functional concepts to enable a clear understanding of our              discussion; these concepts include performance standards and workers productivity.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The appraisal process begins with the establishment of performance standards. The managers must determine what outputs, accomplishments and skills will be evaluated. These standards should have evolved out of job analysis and job descriptions. These performance standards should also be clear and objective to be understood and measured. Standards should not be expressed in an articulated or vague manner such as “a good job” “a full day’s work” as these vague phrases tell nothing. (Khanka op cit; 347).

WORKERS

Oxford’s encyclopedia (1995: 714), defined workers as, ‘The number of people working or available for work’.This means that the workforce must be available and willing to offer their labour services for hire in the labour market. Workers if seen from the economic perspective is the managerial scientific technical craftsman and other skills which are employed in creating, designing, developing organizations, managing and operative productive and service enterprise and economic institutions.

PRODUCTIVITY:

According to (Khanka op cit; 165), “productivity can be expressed as production in relation to time unit”. Productivity increases production and decreases cost. As per the principle of payment by performance, if the productivity of the workers is high, wage/salary rates will be high. Conversely, if productivity has its impact on the wage level of the worker.

It is important to mention that productivity increases are not due to the worker efforts alone. It may also be due to better organization management, technological available to the employer need to be distributed in a manner acceptable to the employees, the management, and the customers. However, there has not been any productivity index that can measure only the productivity of a specific factor including worker. Therefore, though theoretically sound criterion, it is operationally complicated one.

According to (C.C. Nwachukwu 1988: 218), productivity could be defined as, ‘The measure of how well resources are brought together in organizations and utilized for accomplishing a set of results. Productivity is reaching the highest level of performance with the least expenditure of resources.

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :