ABSTRACT
This paper shed light on how employee welfare package could help to improve labour productivity in the service sector. It reveals that employee welfare benefits and services have positive effects on labour productivity. They are capable of attracting and holding employees, assisting employees in meeting their needs, better helping in lowering unit cost of production, improving morale, increasing employee security and blunting the sharp edges of managerial autocracy. The paper goes further to advance suggestions for mending the loopholes discovered in the administration of welfare package for workers.
Keywords: Employee welfare, Labour productivity, Low awareness level, Intra-organisation inequity
INTRODUCTION
Workers are the most essential resource for the achievement of the goals of any organization. Accordingly industrial workers, workers in all institutions or organizations, should be motivated through welfare schemes so as to continue to perform their statutory duties. These welfare schemes are expected to be inducing enough for the workers to be motivated to attain maximum productivity. However, for desired production in industries to be achieved, there must be human and social actions in their proper perspectives. Human action in this regard, involves the technical know-how required in the production of goods and services, in terms of expertise of human labour. Human labour should be enhanced through the provision of welfare schemes to motivate them for improved performance. Moreover, in order for industries to provide consumers befitting services, they must live up to the challenges of providing adequate welfare packages for their workers so as to boost the egos of the workers. Additionally, the Nigerian economy is globalizing (struggling to meet world standard), hence consumers may demand higher quality goods and services like their counterparts worldwide. Inadequate welfare schemes could cause industrial disputes, crises and a situation that would affect productivity.
To avert such situations, a properly coordinated welfare scheme should be introduced. According to Yesufu (1996: 28), an industry is a social system deliberately established to carry out a definite purpose and consists of people in creative relationship. In other words, organizations being a social system, the people they engage as workers, need to be treated well
for them to be effective. This treatment includes energizing, coercing and placating these workers by their employers. Wikipedia (2010) averres that, before the Industrial Revolution in Europe, workers were treated like underdogs. This means that owners of companies never bothered about the welfare of the workers. With the Industrial Revolution things started changing, and in Africa, when the Europeans established the Royal Niger Company in 1947, the workers borrowed the ideas of the Industrial Revolution and formed trade unions to protect their rights. These rights were in terms of short working hours, payment for overtime, bonuses for special tasks performed and even pay rise to suit the inflationary trends.
Current trends in the world of business show that organizations are not merely established and designed to make profit only. Okozu (2002) contends that the promotion of welfare, human relations and interdependence (symbiosis) bring about economy of scale, whereby companies specialize in the production of one material and depend on other companies for their own needs. Workers would be satisfied with the situations that will assure them of their future. They look forward to situations that will promote their ego and stabilize their financial standing in the society. For instance, if they run into bad health, they were sure to have their bills paid, if theirwives gave births, visitation would follow, if car loans, leave allowances and other statutory allowances were paid, the workers are bound to be happy thereby putting more efforts in their workplace. Ireogbu (2008) submits that in unionized industries, workers rely on their unions for negotiation on their welfare packages. Often times, staff welfare are nottreated with the seriousness and due regard attached to their work.
Consequently, based on available literature, not much effort, has been made on relatingstaff welfare schemes to their productivity in an institution.
THEORETICAL REVIEW
Economists, as far back as the time of Plato and Aristotle, and reappearing again in the work of Fisher in the thirties and Colin Clark in the forties, developed the convention of dividing the economy into three, namely. Primary, Secondary and Service Sectors (Aderinto, 1981).
i) Primary Sector: This sector is concerned with the provision of tangible goods in agriculture, forestry and hunting.
ii) Secondary Sector: It consists of industries which cover mines, manufacturing and such institutions as gas, electricity and water supply. All these involve activities with a tangible and product.
iii) Service Sector: This includes business organisations providing services, trade and public services.
The focus of this paper is not easy to define as regards the service sector, for it is not associated with any particular of industries and to some degree it could be claimed that all industries provide services. However Aderinto (1981) views service sector as ‘residual sector’ which includes such industries as wholesale and retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate, professional, personal and repair services, public administration, health and education. Meanwhile, service sector is conceived in this paper as educational and related institutions where services are produced by employees.
Meanwhile, both labour and management in all the sectors of the economy are conscious of the implications of productivity on the enterprise’s investment. Apart from the fact that productivity of labour determines the standard of living in a country, it is one of the weapons that could be employed by the management to reduce workforce, especially in case of low productivity. Realising the importance of productivity to the economic growth of a nation, certain questions need to be asked at this juncture, namely: What is productivity? What is labour productivity? How do we measure labour productivity in relation to service sector?
Productivity, according to Aderinto (1981), Fashoyin (1983), Osundahunsi (1988) and Ibraheem (1989), is the ratio between output and the total input of factors required to achieve it. Input is conceived in terms of men, machines, materials and money; and output is considered as products and services. Thus, productivity is the end result of a complex social process of production.
Defining productivity as the ratio of output to input by industrial groups is considered as economists’ view (Udo-Aja,
1983). Therefore, according to Udo-Aka, productivity should be seen as a measure of overall production efficiency, effectiveness, and performance of the individual organisation. He believes that productivity means quality of output, work- manship, adherence to standards, and customer satisfaction. Also, productivity means absence of disruption, trouble and other evidence of difficulty in organisations, as well as such quantitative measurements as units produced or volume of sales. Furthermore, productivity in educational and related institutions could mean effective performance of individual employees, client satisfaction, and absence of disruption in academic programme.
The term labour productivity is commonly used to refer to the volume of goods and services produced per worker within some specified unit of the year, month, day of hour (Oloko, 1983). The difference between productivity and labour productivity is that while the former stresses relationship between input and output the latter emphasises and result- output. The practice of using labour, especially direct labour inputs and costs can be ascertained and quantified more easily than those of other factors, and partly due to a legacy of classical economic thought which not only tends to regard direct labour as the sole source of value but also tends to regard all forms of indirect labour as ‘unproductive’labour.
From the foregoing, it can be deduced that labour needs to be improved first before we could have increased productivity. There are a number of ways by which this can be carried out. These include: improvement in worker’s skills, availability of resources, conducive environment, and provision of welfare package. Consequently, effort is made in this paper to highlight how welfare programmes can help to increase labour productivity in the service sector of the Nigeria economy. It also states some of the problems hindering the implementation of welfare programmes for workers. In doing so, emphasis is laid on educational setting, a sub-sector of the service sector of the economy.
It is noteworthy that measuring labour productivity in the service sector such as insurance, health and education is different from those of manufacturing industry. Thus, only general conclusions are possible in area of service sector as not only is the output of services difficult to measure but variations in the quality of the input and the output make any measures of productivity speculative (Aderinto, 1981).
2. Meaning of Employee Welfare package
Employees’ welfare package has been defined in various ways by many authors. Yoder et al (1958) define the term as a wide variety of services provided by companies for employees, and in some cases, for members of employees’ families. Shubin (1957) sees it as additional incentives given to employees by management to argument their wages. Moreover, Ejiafor (1986) perceives employee welfare package from monetary and non-monetary perspectives when he defines it as something of value, apart from agreed regular monetary payments of salaries and wages given by an employer to an employee.
A fine distinction is made by Ejiofor between benefits and service. According to him, benefits are when direct monetary reward accrues to the individual worker. For example, pension, leave pay, and salary advance, while services involve no direct and identifiable monetary benefit. Examples of such include the establishment of staff clubs, recreation facilities, picnics, dances and festival parties. It is in line with this the Ekpiken (1983) and Yesufu (1984) describe welfare programme as including the provision of well ventilated offices, drinking water, end-of-year parties, rest rooms, toilet, and first aid facilities by the management to the employees. They also opine that providing employees with such things as canteens, subsidized meals, medical facilities, recreational facilities, subsidized transport facilities, housing or housing allowance are regarded as welfare programmes.
This paper views employee welfare package as provision of additional monetary and non-monetary incentives to employees by the management. Examples of such will include the ones reviewed above. Besides, in an educational setting, other welfare package could be provision of ventilated and well furnished classrooms and lecture theatres, laboratories, well equipped library, vacation and holiday practices, giving room for labour union activities, cooperative credit ventures, and establishment of bookshops.
3. Labour Productivity and Employee Welfare package
Many scholars argue that there exists somewhat a kind of relationship between labour productivity and employee welfare benefits and services. For instance, Onitiri (1983) opines that poor standards of living, bad health, lack of education, bad housing, poor transportation to and fro work, bad conditions in the work place reduce workers’ productivity, and low productivity in turn reduces the capacity of the society to improve working conditions, most especially housing, transportation, food and health facilities could substantially improve the workers productivity.
The increased concern for labour productivity on the part of union and management is hinged on three factors. The first, according to Aderinto (1981), is the awareness that labour welfare cannot increase beyond the capacity generated by a given economy. Consequently how much union can increase the welfare of their members depends largely upon the resources generated by the productivity of total work force. Secondly, the age old traditional that productivity issue is an exclusive discretion of management is fast fading out. This is so because of the widespread adoption of the principle of labour participation in management at the enterprise levels. The third reason is the labour increasing awareness of its social responsibility not only to its employer, but also to its consumer – user of labour output.
Furthermore, Yesufu (1984) and Ejiofor (1986) argue that employee welfare benefits and services are capable of attracting and retaining employees, assisting employees in meeting their needs better, helping in lowering unit cost of production, improving morale, increasing employee security and blunting these sharp edges of managerial autocracy. All these, according to these scholars, have a positive effect on labour motivation and productivity.
Relating labour productivity to welfare benefits, in the study carried out by the Kilby (1969) in a study, found out that there was relative efficacy of incentive payment schemes in inducing increased labour productivity. The study shows that Nigerian workers employed in places where the management made use of an incentive based payment system, are as productive as workers elsewhere. Similarly, Ekpiken (1983) believes that a worker will put in more effort and produce more goods and services if he knows that he will be paid more for his efforts. He quickly adds that this is more efficacious among junior workers in the industry. The limitation of this system is that purely financial view of productivity pays off for only a short while after which the effects of the traditional pay wear off and the workers return to their old pace of working.
Consequently, one observes that a combination of welfare benefits and services could likely induce labour productivity. Thus, Oloko (1983), in a study carried out among workers in Muddy Water Company in Nigeria, using rank order correlation, finds out that welfare benefits such as pension scheme, payment of salaries and wages and welfare services like health facilities, working conditions, vacation and holiday practices motivate workers to exert effort to achieve higher productivity.
SOME PROBLEMS FACING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EMPLOYEE WELFARE PACKAGE
Labour productivity vis-à-vis employee welfare package is of great importance not only to the work force and management, but also to the society. There is also an obvious positive relationship between welfare benefits and services labour productivity. Inspite of this, management in some industrial organisations exploit the ignorance of workers about welfare package in their work place and so refuse to implement such welfare programmes. There is no wonder, then; why Ejiofor (1986) identifies some problems inhibiting the implementation of welfare package for workers. Some of these are presently discussed below:
False Paternalistic Assumptions
One of the notions which colours management attitude to employee welfare programmes is that workers should see fringe benefits as kind gestures from employers which they should reciprocate. Looking at the various letters of appointment and promotion emanating from our tertiary institutions, for example, one word used to permeate such letters: ‘The Governing Council has graciously…’ whereas many employees believe that the employer returns to them much less than they contribute to the organisation.
Low Awareness Level by Beneficiaries
Partly because employees see the benefits as their right, and partly because of communication barriers between management and workers, many employees are not even aware of the existence of welfare package. A worker cannot be motivated by a benefit he is not aware of.
Doubtful Valence
For any reward to motivate employees, it has to be attractive to the prospective recipients. Intrinsic value of reward is not critical. Different people value different things at different stages of their lives and working careers. As a result of differences in valence, while some employees are enthusiastic about some to the benefits, other employees are, at best, indifferent or even hostile, to some of the welfare package
Intra-Organisation Inequity
Many employee package turn out to be morale depressants, instead of stimulants, because they fail the internal alignment test. They are inequitably dispensed between the senior and the junior staff and between the academic and non-academic staff in tertiary institutions.
Bad Management of Good Benefits
Benefits not properly administered can cause frustration. Such mismanagement may arise out questionable integrity of the dispensing officer. Also, many desirable employee benefits get mismanaged because what should accrue to the workers as rights is, at times treated as privileges. This is particularly true in the allocation of official vehicles to academic and non-academic staff. While many senior members of the academic staff are denied official vehicles, their counterparts in the non-academic staff have many to themselves.
IMPACTOF WELFARE PACKAGES AND REWARDS ON WORKERS PERFORMANCE IN AN ORGANIZATION
According to McCormick and Tifflin (1979), rewards can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic rewards stems from rewards that are inherent in the job itself and which the individual enjoys as a result of successfully completing the task or attaining his goals. While extrinsic rewards are those that are external to the task of the job, such as pay, work condition, fringe benefits, security, promotion, contract of service, the work environment and conditions of work. Such tangible rewards are often determined at the organizational level, and may be largely outside the control of individual managers. Intrinsic reward on the other hand are those rewards that can be termed ‘psychological rewards’ and examples are opportunity to use one’s ability, a sense of challenge and achievement, receiving appreciation, positive recognition, and being treated in a caring and considerate manner.
An intrinsically motivated individual, according to Ajila (1997) will be committed to his work to the extent to which the job inherently contains tasks that are rewarding to him or her. And an extrinsically motivated person will be committed to the extent that he can gain or receive external rewards for his or her job. He further suggested that for an individual to be motivated in a work situation there must be a need, which the individual would have to perceive a possibility of satisfying through some reward. If the reward is intrinsic to the job, such desire or motivation is intrinsic. But, if the reward is described as external to the job, the motivation is described as extrinsic.
Good remuneration has been found over the years to be one of the policies the organization can adopt to increase their workers performance and thereby increase the organizations productivity. Also, with the present global economic trend, most employers of labour have realized the fact that for their organizations to compete favourably, the performance of their employees goes a long way in determining thesuccess of the organization. On the other hand, performance of employees in any organization is vital not only for the growth of the organization but also for the growth of individual employee. An organization must know who are its outstanding workers, those who need additional training and those not contributing to the efficiency and welfare of the company or organization. Also, performance on the job can be assessed at all levels of employment such as: personnel decision relating to promotion, job rotation, job enrichment etc. And, in some ways, such assessment are based on objective and systematic criteria, which includes factors relevant to the person’s ability to perform on the job. Hence, the overall purpose of performance evaluation is to provide an accurate measure of how well a person is performing the task or job assigned to him or her. And based on this information, decisions will be made affecting the future of the individual employee.
Therefore, a careful evaluation of an emp- loyee’s performance can uncover weak-nesses or deficiencies in a specific job skill, knowledge, or areas where motivation is lacking. Once identified, these deficiencies may be remedied through additional training or the provision of the needed rewards.
The view that specific rewards will encourage increases in production has not always been substantiated, even though management has often attempted to spur production by such offerings and has often attributed production increase to them. Throughout the years production has increased for many reasons in addition to the particular motivation and has erroneously over simplified a highly complex phenomenon. Since then psychologists have been is especially concerned with understanding an individual through his motives and acquired a body of knowledge in this field that often differs from the layman’s knowledge. It is necessary to review briefly, from the psychologist’s point of view what is known about motivation at the present time.
EQUITY THEORY ON WELFARE PACKAGE
An important factor of welfare package is whether individuals perceive the reward structure as being fair or not .One way of addressing this issue is through “ Equity Theory”, which refers ti an individual ‘s subjective judgement about the fairness of the reward he or she got related to the input ( which include Many factors , such as effort, experience s, and education) in comparison with the rewards of others.
Equity theory is another approach to motivation and was postulated by Adams, J. Stacey in 1963.
According to him , most individuals use equity theory on a regular basis . They may not recognize it by name , but they use it just the same. An individual compares the ratio of his or her input and output to the ratio of someone else,s input and output.
Equity can however be explained as the ratio between the individual’s job input and output such as efforts , skills and rewards like pay and promotion compared with the rewards of others for similar job input ( stoner &Wankel, 1988).
In this consideration money is used as the basis of the comparison I.e pay packet. This is because Money is considered as the most significant factor in the work place . Ordinarily it means that people compare what they earn or are being paid for their input with what others put in and earn in the same job situation .
When they feel or observe inequality , unfairness, being cheated , tention develops within the individual . This people can respond by appropriately adjusting their behavior . In human resource this cann manifest in form of protest , strike, showing down Pace of work , short time of work , spending unnecessary time outside the job,prtending to be working yet not working . extreme cases lead to absenteeism, poor quality work, increase spoilage , etc.
A worker, who perceive he has no welfare package , may try to reduce inequality exerting less effort . Equity theory has begun to explain the importance of welfare package on employee performance .The theory provide managers ‘ insight into the relationship between rewards and employee efforts.
MAIN THESIS OF EQUITY THEORY.
The major cause (motive) leading to job performance and satisfaction is the degree of inequity or equity the employee perceive at the work place.
An employee perceives equity by calculating the ratio of his input to the outcome of his reference person or persons.
If inequity is perceive tension set in .
A person perceives inequity if he or she is under-rewarded .there is also inequity when one is over-paid.
A person who is overpaid in an hourly pay system will perceive inequity and still produce more than will the equitably paid person .a person who is over paid in a pieces rate system will produce higher-quality product than the equitably paid person .
A person who is underpaid in an hourly paid system will decrease his input
If aperson perceives inequity he can reduce tension by changing his\her calculation of the ratio.
Inequityis rarely reduced by changing by changing the reference person or people.
For example you came to work early each day , rarely take a launch , work late twice a week , have a graduate Degree and have been on the job for three years. These are your input,they are what you bring to the organization , if you make #30000 this is your output or your reward: that is, what you get in exchange for your input, also some in the next office work the regularly scheduled hours and has just finished his undergraduate Degree , and has been working in the company for one year. If you believe that his salary is # 37000 you perceive as inequitable. that is, the ratio of your input and output to his input and output is not equal .Your input is greater than, that of his own and your out put is less that of his own.
However, there should be a balance of the outcome input relationship for one person in comparison with that for another person.If people feel there are inquitable rewards they may be dissatisfied , reduce the quantity and quality if output, or leave the organization since few people have the power to increase their output (the welfare package). if people received the rewards as equitable , they probably will continue at the same level output. If people think the welfare package or rewards are greater than what is considered equitable they may work harder.It is possible they discount the rewards.
THE IMPACT OF WELFARE PACKAGE ON EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY
Welfare package and employee productivity has a lot to do with the success of any organization either public or private using the key factors highlighted below:
1. Quality of Work Life:
Quality of Work Life (QWL) might have different connotations to different persons but in academicsit means the degree to which the members of workorganization are able to satisfy important personalneeds through their experiences in theorganization. It refers to fair remuneration, safe andhealthy environment, opportunities for growth and the like. Better quality of work life leads tomotivation and satisfaction (Mamoria; 2002). The welfare aspect of the quality of work life plays a very significant role in increasing the productivityof manpower in the organization.
2. WELFARE MEASURES
The welfare measures involve three major aspectswhich are - occupational health care, suitable working time and appropriate salary. It refers to the physical, mental, moral, and emotional well-being of an individual (Aswathappa; 2004). The safe work environment provides the basis for the person to enjoy working. The work should not pose a health hazard for the person. The welfare measures aimat integrating the socio-psychological needs of employees, the unique requirements of a particular technology, the structure and processes of and the existing socio-cultural environment. It creates a culture of work commitment in organizations and society whichensure higher productivity and greater job satisfaction to the employees. The welfare measures are defined in the same way as defined
by the I.L.O. at its Asian Regional Conference "A term which is understood to include such services,facilities and amenities as may be established in or in the vicinity of undertakings to enable the persons employed in them to perform their work in healthy, congenial surroundings and to provide them with amenities conducive to good health andhigh morale."Due to the welfare measures, the employees feel that the management is interested in taking care of the employees that result in the sincerity, commitment and loyalty of the employees towards the organization. The employees work with full enthusiasm and energetic behavior which results in the increase in production and ultimately the increased profit. The measures of welfare give result after a long period of time. It is a long process, so the management has to keep patience while providing the welfare facilities for the employees. While deciding the welfare facility for the employees, the management has to do discussions with the persons who are now going to avail the facilities.The communication increases the cohesiveness between the management and the employees and thus industrial relations improve Welfare measures in factories:
Analyzing the benefits of the welfare provisions, the management bears the huge cost spend on the welfare activities. The experts have a firm opinion that by providing the welfare facilities to the employees the productivity of the employees increases and ultimately profit increases. According to Section 49 of 'The Factories Act, 1948' –"In every factory where in five hundred or more workersare ordinarily employed the occupier shall employ in the factory such number of welfare officers as may be prescribed".The major role of welfare officer is to facilitate and observe the welfare measures for the employees in the organization.
3. WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT
Workers Participation in Management (W.P.M.) is the tool of employee welfare and this encourages the employees to work hard for more productivity which ultimately increases the turnover of theorganization. In WPM method, the management takes the decision with theconsultancy and consensus of the workers. The workers are given the proper role and participation in the decision making process.
It has been found that the workers, the executives and the management people are all responsible for the proper implementation of the welfare measures in the organization.
3. Manpower Productivity:
The term 'Productivity' means goods andservices produced in a specified period oftime in relation to the resources utilized.It is defined as the ratio of output to input. Higher productivity means efficientuse of input and vice-versa. Therefore, theterm 'Manpower Productivity' means the'Productivity of Labor'. It refers output to the corresponding input of labor. There is a difficulty in arriving at the homogeneity concerning labor due to difference in scale, energy, training, environment, incentive, rates of pay etc.
The ratio of output to labor is universally acknowledged to have some uniformity.
4. Correlation between welfare package and manpower productivity
It has been found that there is a correlation between the welfare measures and manpower productivity i.e. if the proper welfare measures are taken then the productivity of the employees will increase and ultimately the profit of the organization will increase.
The welfare measures increases the productivity of the organization as well as it enhances the morale and motivation of the employees which gives a positive impact on the efficiency level of the organization.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
In this paper, it is reviewed that there is a positive relationship between employee welfare programmes and labour productivity. Many employees are ignorant of welfare programmes in their places of work. These no doubt have far reaching implications for employers of labour and management in various industries in service sector in general and tertiary institutions in particular. The bane of industrial peace in our tertiary institutions in Nigeria has been the refusal of governments and various authorities to implement agreed employee welfare benefits and services. Thus, we have witnessed industrial strikes among the university lecturers, in recent years, over debilitating state and non-availability of teaching and research materials. Strikes have also taken place among trade unions in tertiary institutions in Nigeria over non-implementation of welfare programmes and non implementation of 2009 agreement reached with the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) for their members.
The dichotomy between academic and non-academic staff in our Universities, Polytechnics and College of Education over welfare programmes has led to industrial actions in the past. In some cases, this contentious issue is yet to be resolved. Besides, shortly after the presentation of 1998 budget by a Military Administrator in the South West of Nigeria, his Commissioner of Finance disclosed government intention to tax employee welfare benefits –housing and transport allowances. In the end, the government was unable to implement its proposal
SUMMARY.
People are the firm's most important resource and understanding people,how they behave,and why are they a significant part of the manager's job .Manager who have not studied human behaviour can fall into the habit of stereotyping or oversimplifying people's attitude and bahaviour.
Therefore, this paper sets out to introduce you to individual differences in people and why these differences develop. The contingency approach to management is built on individual differences in relation to good welfare packages for staff at all level in the organization.
Each individual develops unique personality that direct his/ her thinking, attitude ,and working effort towards the attainment of organizational objective when they are exposed to reasonable welfare package at the end of the month or year as the case may be.
Management plays an important role in developing good welfare scheme or programme that can sustain/ boost worker interest in the job they are currently doing.
Another point to hold here is that management must involve the employee in planning the various welfare package intended as this will go a long way in helping both sides to reach a compromise as regards what and what are needed and at what time should they be provided to the employee in doing this, workers will be motivated to exert more effort to the work of the organization and this invarably will improve the productivity of the institution or organization.
CONCLUSION:
The impact of good welfare package on workers’ productivity is no doubt crucial to the development of all organization because workers will be prompted to give in their very best towards the attainment of the organization’s objectives, if an organization has a reasonable welfare package designed for them either at the end of every month or at the end of the year.
However the welfare package of an organization should be properly implemented not just having it in place but they should ensure that it is properly and regularly implemented and organization should as well involve workers at all level in planning the welfare package that can boost their morale . Therefore this will enable management to derive maximum output from the workers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the scenario stated in this paper, there is need for certain remedies and these are stated below:
It is suggested that there should be increased flow of communication between union members, on one hand, and the management on the other. Related to this is that union members in an organization of learning should take it upon themselves to familiarize themselves with various employee benefits and services available in their places of work and how they can obtain them.
Management in an organization should device functional approach to welfare benefit and services distribution so as not to favour one side to the detriment of the other.
In order to derive maximum output from the workers, it is advisable that management should concentrate on the provision of welfare benefits and services.
if managers want to improve employees' attitudes and performance, managers must be active in influencing the employee through reasonable welfare package.
Before managers attempt to improve the wlefarescheme,they should have a clear view of their own motive ,strengths and weaknesses and how they themselves are perceived by others at work.
Work attitudes are important to performance and productivity managers needs to use attitude surveys more frequently to assess employees so as to know whether they really deserver welfare package or not.
References
Aderinto, A. (1981): Improving Labour Productivity in the Service Sector in Nigeria: The before Labour and Management, Perman, Journal of the Institute of Personal Management of Nigeria, 8(2), 17 – 38.
Chinwoh, K. (1989): Fringe Benefits: Are you aware of all you are entitled to? Management in Nigeria.25(2), 34.
Ejiofor, P.O. (1986): Employee Welfare Programmes: Dilemmas during depression in Damachi, U.G., and Fashoyin, T. (eds): Contemporary Problems in Nigeria Industrial Relations: Lagos: Development Press Ltd.
Ekpiken, C. (1983): Measures taken to improve productivity in Nigeria Industries and the results, in Osoba, A.M. (ed): Productivity in Nigeria: Proceedings of a National Conference: Ibadan: NISER.
Fashion, T. (1980): Industrial Relations in Nigeria (Development and Practice): Ikeja: Longman.
Fashoyin, T (1983): Improving Productivity: Labour and Management Approaches, in Osoba, A.M. (ed): Productivity in Nigeria: Proceedings of a National Conferences: Ibadan: NISER.
Ibraheem, D. (1989): Productivity Improvement in Nigeria in the 90’s: Management in Nigeria: 25(2), 55-56.
Kilby, P. (1989): Industrialisation in an Open Economy – Nigeria: 1945 – Cambridge: University Press.
Odimegwu, F.A. (1987): Productivity Management: A Consolidated Operational Approach: Management in Nigeria: 25(1 & 2), 7 – 17.
Oloko, O. (1983): Factors in Labour Productivity in, Osoba, A.M (ed): Productivity in Nigeria, Proceedings of a National Conference: Ibadan: NISER.
Oshundahunsi, D. (1988): Behind Increased Productivity: Management in Nigeria: 24(5), 6.
Shubin, J.A. (1957): Business Management: An Introduction to Business and Industry: London: Banes and Noble Books.
Udo-Aka, U. (1983): Measuring Productivity: Issues and Problems, in Osoba, A.M. (ed): Productivity in Nigeria, Proceedings of a National Conference: Ibadan: NISER.
Yesufu, T.M. (1984): The Dynamics of Industrial Relations: The Nigerian Experience: Ibadan: University Press Limited.
Yoder, D. et al (1958): Handbook of Personal Management and Labour Relations: New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
