Employee Motivation and Productivity in Nigerian Local Government Service (2010-2013)

By Famous S. Eseduwo, PhDPolitical Science Department

Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State – Nigeria+2348035082435; E-mail: eseduwoson@yahoo.com

ABSTRACTThree decades ago (‘80s), the unified Nigerian local government service (NLGS) was veryattractive and there was notable influx of labour mobility from the state and federalcivil services. The reverse is the case today, as the local government service (LGS)became extensively known for low productivity and ingrained job dissatisfaction. Isthere any active employee motivation strategy stimulating employee productivity in theNLGS? Have experts’ advice been sought and utilized in strategizing employeemotivation in the NLGS? What is the rate of employee productivity in the NLGS? Thus,this paper specifically seeks: (i) Any employee motivation strategy that stimulatesemployee productivity in the NLGS; (ii) Whether experts’ advice have been sought andutilized in strategizing employee motivation in the NLGS; and (iii) The rate of employeeproductivity in the NLGS. The paper employs the Class Theory of the State as itstheoretical framework of analysis which corresponds with its methodology i.e. theobservation and interview methods of data collection - a hybrid of quantitative andqualitative research methods. The paper argued that so long as service-delivery to therural people is compromised for personal gains by the top operators of the Nigerianlocal government service, local government employees will wait in vain for bettermotivational regimes and employee productivity will remain low in the NLGS. Thearticle, therefore, recommends that, the goals of NLG employees (personal values)should be synchronized with the goals of the NLG service to stimulate employeemotivation, productivity and attendant improved service-delivery to the teeming ruralpopulace in Nigeria.

Key Words: (i) Employee Motivation, (ii) Employee Productivity, (iii) Nigerian Local Government Service, (iv) Bayelsa State LocalGovernment Service.

1

INTRODUCTIONThere is no way the Nigerian local government service can achieveits ostensible goals of service-delivery to the rural populacewithout a productive workforce. A good organizational structuredoes not by itself guarantee good performance. It has been arguedby Drucker (1978:273) that human resource is the life of theexistence, survival and development of an organization as food isto man. It has been also argued (Likert 1976:9) that of all thetasks of management, managing the human component is central andthe most important task because all else depend on how well it isdone. No doubt, therefore, that the ability of the Nigerian localgovernment service to accomplish its primary task of service-delivery to the teeming rural populace is a function of amotivated and productive workforce. This was established by Orewa(1991:166) that:

Local government is essentially a service-orientedinstitution. Once the roads and drains are constructed,the incinerators installed, the health centresconstructed and equipped and stocked with drugs, schoolbuildings constructed and furnished…all that is left tomake the local government function effectively ismanpower, to operate and maintain these institutionsand facilities…

Local government in Nigeria is institutionalized as a third tierof government encumbered with the responsibility to providepublic goods and services at the grassroots towards improving theliving conditions of the local populace. As a component unit ofdevelopment, Local governments in Nigeria are yet to impress thepeople in terms of their responsiveness to the yearnings andaspirations of the rural people. This existing abysmalperformance of the Nigerian local government service has beenlargely linked to lack of a supported workforce and total neglectof many factors affecting job performance. Again, it has beenaptly contended by Koontz, et al, (1983:167) that what people arewilling to strive for is dulled or sharpened by theorganizational climate in which they operate. At times, a climatemay repress motivation and at other times, it may arouse them.

A great deal of issues of staff motivation, utilization,selection, recruitment, placement and development for higher

2

productivity exists in Nigeria’s Local government service, year-in-year-out. This is symptomatic of the question of ruraldevelopment in Nigeria. A number of scholars (Orewa and Adewumi1983:167 and Nkala 1985:95) have pointed out the inadequacies ofthe foregoing stimulants of organizational productivity in theNigerian local government service, severally and in a scorchingmanner. The resultant effect of this is that local governmentworkers tend to be more idling and unproductive under theexisting system of patronage rather than being active andproductive in a merit-based and result-oriented system.

The Nigerian local government service is fast becoming a breedingground for ghost workers, absenteeism, over-employment,redundancy, and so on. Seemingly, the performance of localgovernment workers has been shortchanged for over-politicizationof the age-old bureaucratic values of local governmentadministration. As a good example of the falling standard of theNigerian local government service, the Bayelsa state localgovernment service, since its creation from the old Rivers Statein 1996, has been witnessing scores of anti-motivational trends.These include over-placement of subordinate officers to bosssuperior officers, high degree of nepotism by way of workersusing their relations in government to forcefully occupyseemingly juicy positions in the service to the detriment oftheir superiors, continuous and countless adjustments ofretirement dates, unwarranted accelerated promotions,politically-motivated transfers, appointment of unqualifiedpersons into positions of high responsibility, and so on. Thisunderscores the emerging work-shy attitude amongst localgovernment staff and attendant low employee productivity in theBayelsa state local government service over the years.

The contentious issue of employee motivation and the attendantquestion of productivity in the Nigerian local governmentservice, therefore, constitute a major problem for politicalscience inquiry. It is against this backdrop that this articleexamines the employee motivation regimes and productivity inNigerian local government service, using the Bayelsa state localgovernment service between 2010 and 2013 as our point ofdeparture.

The problematic of this paper, therefore, is the existingcontending debate on motivation and productivity which basically

3

highlights the assumptions of the two great theoretical dividesin management studies viz: the classical theorists linkedorganizational productivity to the structure and mechanics oforganizations (process theorists), whilst the human relationstheorists pointed to the human factor (content theorists) as thedesideratum for organizational productivity. These two contendingschools of thought on organizational productivity can best beunderstood from the two distinctive backgrounds of classicaltheorists who were practising managers while the human relationstheorists have been academics i.e. social and managementscientists.In the eyes of classical management thinkers, productivity is afunction of how well the processes and structures involved in anorganization are properly put in place. In essence, they seeproductivity as a role of machine. Proponents of this thread ofargument include (Smith 1770; Fayol 1816; Taylor 1911; Frank andGilbreth, 1912; Urwick and Brech 1952), and so on. On the otherside of the machine model, are the human relations theorists whoargued that organizational productivity is a function of how wellthe obvious needs of individuals are recognized and met in an organization.Basically, they see the ‘human factor’ as the most crucial factorto organizational productivity. The proponents of this strand ofargument include (Mayo 1933; Maslow 1954; Herzberg 1954; Mcgregor1960; Likert 1961 &1967; McClelland 1963; Vroom 1964; Argyris1978; Schein 1980; Cole 1993 &1995), and so on. From which strand of the foregoing dialectics, therefore, can wefind plausible answers to the question of motivation and employeeproductivity in the Nigerian local government service? Do weblame the problem of employee productivity in the Nigerian localgovernment service on organizational structure or employeemotivation regimes in the local government service? It is againstthe above background that the following research question isposed to guide our enquiry on ‘Motivation and EmployeeProductivity in the Nigerian local government service: Areemployee motivation regimes in the unified Nigerian LG Servicestimulating employee productivity in the LG system? For easyunderstanding and measurement of the main research question,therefore, the following derivative questions are raised:

(i) Is there any functional employee motivation strategythat stimulates employee productivity in the NigerianLG service?

4

(ii) Were Experts’ advice sought and utilized instrategizing employee motivation in the Nigerian LGservice?

(iii) What is the rate of employee productivity in theNigerian LG Service between 2010 and 2013?

Specifically, the study seeks:

(i) Any employee motivation strategy that stimulatesemployee productivity in the Nigerian LG service;

(ii)Whether experts’ advice is sought and utilized instrategizing employee motivation in the Nigerian LGservice; and

(iii) The rate of employee productivity in the NigerianLG service between 2010 and 2013.

This will be done within the context of the class character ofthe Nigerian state.

Operationalizing Key ConceptsFor purposes of clarity, the following key words or phrasesrequire operational definitions:

(i) Employee Motivation: In this paper, employee motivation refersto the processes and strategies required in the Nigerian localgovernment service to stimulate LG employees towards theeffective and efficient discharge of their responsibilities infulfillment of their primary task of service delivery to therural people. Consequently, the following units of observationare imperative to this article: (i) The existence or non-existence of any factors other than routine salaries andpromotion exercises leading to extreme employees’ satisfaction atwork in the LG service, e.g. achievement, recognition,responsibility, career advancement, growth potentials, and so on;(ii) Whether priority is given or not to the human factor in theorganization of work to deliver services to the rural people inthe Nigerian LG service, e.g. proper consultation and utilizationof experts’ advice in designing programmes to induce employees’feelings of satisfaction about their jobs or the contrary; (iii)Whether the operators of the Nigerian LG service imbibe or not,the communal culture and traditional human relations values ofNigerians in work-place decision-making, e .g. is decision-makingshared at all levels or is decision-making an exclusive right of

5

a selected few? Is there a high degree of mutual trust andloyalty between management and employees or is the reverse thecase? Is there any strong sense of collective responsibilitytowards the success or failure of the local government system,and attendant encouragement or discouragement of cooperativeeffort rather than individual achievement? Is the Nigerian localgovernment service supported by a highly-competitive merit systemor mediocrity and nepotism, and so on? These are some of theverifiable and measurable values assigned to the independentvariable of this paper, ‘Employee Motivation’ in the Nigerian LGservice.(ii) Employee Productivity: Employee productivity, in this paper,refers to the whole gamut of desired outputs of LG employees inthe task of service delivery to the teeming rural populace inNigeria. Employee productivity, as our dependent variable, therefore,will be observed under the following units of observation: (i)whether LG employees are regular at work or not in the Nigerianlocal government service e.g. workers are always in theirrespective offices or the reverse; workers are always going abouttheir responsibilities or are work-shy, and so on; (ii) whetherLG employees are developing new ideas and techniques (creativity)for service delivery to the grassroots or not e.g. initiating newtechniques for policy implementation and advocacy e.g. their LG’sprimary health care policy and/or primary education policy, andso on; initiating new methods of seeking the priority needs ofthe rural people, practising new ways in their offices inattending to individuals and community representatives seekinghelp from the local government, rendering guidance to ruralpeople on issues of Local government concern, and so on; (iii)whether LG employees are discharging their duties with passion ornot e.g. unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers such as workattendants (labour/cleaning), technicians, marine staff, healthworkers, clerical/executive staff, administrative officers,accounting staff, works superintendents, agricultural workers,and so on, are taking their jobs, seriously. These are some ofthe verifiable and measurable values assigned to the dependentvariable of this study, ‘Employee Productivity’ in the Nigerian LGservice.

(iii) Nigerian Local Government Service: - In this work, Nigerian LocalGovernment Service refers to the unified public service at the thirdtier of government in Nigeria. The unification denotes the same

6

status, structure, composition, funding, staffing, schemes, rulesand conditions of service, financial regulations, patterns ofcontrol, and so on that are operational in all the 774 localgovernments in Nigeria.

(iv) Bayelsa State Local government Service: - This refers to the unifiedpublic service at the third tier of government in Bayelsa state.In essence, it denotes the unified local government service inthe eight local governments of Bayelsa State.

LITERATURE REVIEW/THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVEOn the issue of Motivation and Employee Productivity in the Nigerian LocalGovernment Service, extant literature and views expressed byscholars and managers are hereby reviewed towards profferinganswers to the research questions raised in this paper. It isimperative, therefore, to collate the results of other studies onmotivation and employee productivity in organizations to guidethe perspective of this article. Thus, this section reviews someextant works on motivation and productivity under the broadtheme; what motivates employee productivity in an organization? What Motivates Employee Productivity in an Organization?First popularized by Frederick W. Taylor (1911), through hisclassical Scientific Management Theory argued that money is primaryincentive. And that punishment, especially in the form ofwithdrawal of benefits or threat of dismissal is a proper part ofemployee motivation. Taylor and a number of classical managementtheorists, therefore, recommended the ‘Carrot and Stick’ approachto motivation and employee productivity administration inorganizations (Smith 1770; Fayol 1816; Taylor 1911; Frank andGilbreth, 1912; Urwick and Brech 1952; and so on). Mayo (1933) inhis classical work, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilizationpopularized the human factor of organizational productivity insocial science discourses. The main conclusions drawn from hisfive-stage Hawthorne study in search of the motivators ofemployee productivity include thus: (i) individual workers cannotbe treated in isolation, but must be seen as members of a group,(ii) the need to belong to a group and have status within it ismore valued than monetary incentives and/or good physicalconditions of work, (iii) informal groupings at work exercise astrong influence over behaviour of workers, (iv) prioritizingsocial needs and catering for workers stimulate collaborativeefforts to organizational productivity. Mayo (1933, as quoted in

7

Cole 1993:32-33) concluded that the social relations at work areevery bit as important as monetary incentives and good physicalworking conditions. Thus, Mayo (1933) in his Social Man model arguedthat ‘humanization of work’ is vital to employee productivity inan organization. Maslow (1954) in his studies on human motivationtheorized human needs based on a hierarchical model with basicneeds at the bottom and higher needs at the top. He argued thatmost people are motivated by the desire to satisfy specific groupof needs, viz: (i) physiological needs i.e. needs for food,shelter, clothing, sex, and so on; (ii) safety needs i.e. needsfor stable environment relatively free from vulnerability tothreats to life and property; (iii) love needs i.e. needs relatedto affectionate relations with others and status within a group(social acceptance); (iv) esteem needs i.e. needs for self-respect, self-esteem and the esteem of others; and (v) self-actualization needs i.e. the needs for self-fulfillment. Maslow(1954, as quoted in Cole 1993:33-34) concluded that people tendto satisfy their needs systematically, one after another,beginning with the basic needs and then moving up the ladder. Andthat until a particular group of needs is satisfied, a person’sbehaviour will be likely dominated by them.Herzberg (1954) while studying employee satisfaction at work withan initial sample of two hundred engineers and accountants askedthem to recall when they had experienced satisfactory feelingsabout their jobs. Herzberg (1954, as cited in Obikeze & Anthony2004:301-302) concluded that certain factors such as achievement,recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement lead toextreme satisfaction (motivators), whilst others such as companypolicy/administration, supervision, salary, interpersonalrelations and conditions of work lead to extreme dissatisfaction(hygiene factors). Thus, argued (Herzberg 1954) that employeemotivating factors are intimately related to the content of work,while the dissatisfactory factors are more related to the contextor milieu of work. Mcgregor (1960) while in search of whatmotivates employee productivity and appropriate style ofpersonnel management in an organization also proposed two sets ofassumptions about human behaviour through Theory X and Theory Y.According to Mcgregor (1960, as quoted in Legge 1995:176), thefirst set of management assumption regards employees as beinginnately lazy, requiring force and control, avoidingresponsibility and only seeking security i.e. Theory X. And thesecond set of assumption perceives man as inherently liking work

8

as natural as rest or play; and as such, do not require coercionand control, when they are committed to the organization’s goals.These are the assumptions of Theory Y.Likert (1961) in his contribution to the question of motivationand its applicability to the world of work through his popularbook, New Patterns of Management, theorized about the high-producingmanagers. According Likert (1961), the high-producing managersare the supervisors who achieve the highest productivity at thelowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. Likert(1961, as quoted in Cole 1993:37) contended thus:

…Researches indicated that the high-producing managerstended to build their success on interlocking andtightly-knit groups of employees, whose cooperation hadbeen obtained by thorough attention to a range ofmotivational forces. These included not only economicand security motives, but also ego and creativitymotives (self-actualization, in Maslow’s terminology).Another key feature is that, although the high-producers utilized the tools of classical management –work study, budgeting, etc – they did so in a way whichrecognized the aspirations of the employees, byencouraging participatory approaches.

A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these ‘new patterns ofmanagement’ is the importance of supportive relationships.Management can achieve high performance when employees see theirmembership of a work group to be ‘supportive’, that is to saywhen they experience a sense of personal worth and importancefrom belonging to it. High-producing managers tended to fosterjust such relationships with, and within, their groups (Cole1993:37). Thus, as contended by Likert (1967) while modifying hisstance, that the idea of supportive relationships should be builtinto the ideal organization structure in order to stimulateeffective work groups which can interact with other effectivegroups in an overlapping form of organization for increasedproductivity. Likert (1967:9), therefore, aptly concluded that:

All activities of any enterprise are initiated anddetermined by the persons who make up that institution.Plant, offices, computers, automated equipment, and allelse that a modern firm uses are unproductive exceptfor human effort and direction.

9

As developed by McClelland (1963) in his needs theory through theuse of the Thematic Appreciation Test (TAT), the three most importantneeds of an individual were identified as; (i) need forachievement i.e. the desire to accomplish difficult but cleargoals, effectively; such individuals are interested in assumingpersonal responsibility, have a high sense of initiative andgoal-oriented; they value immediate feedbacks based onachievement, and they value immediate rewards; (ii) need foraffiliation i.e. the desire to be accepted by others – desire forcompanionship and social interaction; and (iii) need for poweri.e. the desire to be influential and have control over others.The desire to control others stimulates their performance inorder to attain their aim of becoming very influential in thegroup. McClelland’s TAT was unique and scientific, as he usedseries of human pictures to show to people and asked them towrite stories about the characters in the pictures. McClellandbelieved that the story would help reveal the writer’s motivesand needs. In identifying human priority needs McClelland (1963,as cited in Obikeze and Anthony 2004:303) remarked thus:

If you want to find out what is on a person’s mind,don’t ask him, because he can’t always tell you. Studyhis fantasies and dreams. If you do this over a periodof time, you will discover the themes to which his mindreturns again and again. And these themes can be usedto explain his actions.

It has been also argued by Vroom (1964) in his popular ExpectancyTheory, that an individual’s behaviour is informed not on somesense of objective reality, but on his own perception of realityi.e. how he actually sees the world around him. Vroom’s coreargument on employee motives or needs is that an individualperceives the relationships amongst three things viz: effort,performance and rewards. According to him (Vroom 1964), the strengthof the attraction of particular outcomes or rewards for anindividual is termed valence, while the degree of belief that aparticular act will produce a particular outcome is termedexpectancy. And that valences and expectancies depend on theindividual’s own perception of a situation. Schein (1980) in hiscontribution to understanding the complex matter of humanmotivation made a classification of the assumptions about peopleimplicit in managerial ideas about what motivates employees. Heidentified four sets of assumptions, viz: (i) Rational-economicMan i.e. the pursuit of self-interest and the maximization of

10

gain are the prime motivators of people. It stressed man’srational calculation of self-interest, especially economic needs;(ii) Social Man i.e. people are predominately motivated by socialneeds, and finding their identity through relationships withothers; and that productivity and morale can be improved wheremanagement deliberately foster social relationships in order toimprove cooperation and teamwork; (iii) Self-actualizing Man i.e.not social needs but self-fulfillment needs that are the primedriving-force behind individuals. And the self-actualizing manneeds challenge, responsibility and a sense of pride in his work;and (iv) Complex Man i.e. man is more complex and more variablethan the other models described above. And that the ‘complex man’concept requires managers to be intelligent, sensitive and ableto diagnose the various motives which may be at work in theirworkforce. A consequence of this, according to Schein (1980, ascited in Cole 1993:29) is that managers need also to be dynamicand adapt to the changing behaviour of man in accordance with themotivational needs of particular individuals and teams. Schein(1980) thus opined that motivation is a psychological contract basedon the expectations that the employee and the organization haveof each other, and the extent to which these are mutuallyfulfilled. He, therefore, concluded that the relationship betweenan individual and his organization is an interactive one. It hasbeen argued (Schein 1980), therefore, that we shall only come toan understanding of motivation when we recognize thisinterdependence.Argyris (1978) in his study on the relationship between people’sneeds and the needs of the organization argued also that thereason for so much employee apathy is not so much because oflaziness, but rather because people are being treated likechildren. This led to Agyris’ Theory of Immaturity-Maturity whichcontended that the human personality develops from immaturity tomaturity in a continuum, in which a number of key changes takeplace. Figure 1 shows the immaturity-maturity continuum.

11

Figure 1: Immaturity-Maturity Continuum

12

Immaturity __________________ Maturity

Passivity ……………………………. Activity

Dependence ……………………………. Relative independence

Behave in few ways …………………… Behave in many ways

Erratic, shallow interest ………………… Deeper interest

Short time perspective ………………….. Long time perspective

Subordinate position …………………Equal or superior position

Lack of awareness of self ……….. Awareness and control of self

Source: Adapted from Cole (1993:38)

Agyris ((1978)) concluded that the impact of the foregoing modelof organization on the individual commands passive, dependent andsubordinate, and the expected behaviour is immaturity. Thus, forrelatively mature individuals, such environment is a major sourceof frustration at work. And this frustration, according to Agyris(1978), leads to individuals seeking informal ways of minimizingtheir difficulties such as creating informal organizations whichwork against the formal hierarchy. No wonder, it has beensummarized by Cole (1993:39) that the lessons for motivation areimportant. For the more we can understand human needs, the moreit will be possible to integrate them with the needs oforganizations. Hence, it was argued (Cole 1993:39) that if thegoals of the organization and the goals of individuals can bebrought together (synchronized), the resultant behaviour will becooperation rather than defensive or downright antagonism. Cole(1995:122-123) in another work entitled, Organizational Behaviour, wasfairly elaborate on the question of motivation and employeeproductivity. Cole (1995:122-123) used a model to highlight themajor factors influencing individual motivation at work andattendant productivity in an organization. In explaining hismodel, Cole (1995:123) contended that:

…An individual’s motivation is not just a matter ofsatisfying needs and wants, vital though these are.Motivation is also influenced (i) by internal factorssuch as the type of personality, perceptual and abilitylevels, and the individual’s personal value-system, and

13

(ii) by external factors such as the individual’s workand domestic environments. Thus, managers who want toassess the motivational needs of their particularemployees must take into account more than just theapparent needs and personal goals of these employees.They have to recognize the influence of other factors,such as different personality types and differingskills and talents. They also have to take into accountthe effect of organizational factors such as the designof jobs, the nature of the organization culture, andthe pay and rewards system. And, as if that were notenough, they also need to evaluate the employees’external environment, checking the domestic, social andeconomic pressures that might adversely affect jobperformance.

Cole (1995:122-124), therefore, remarked that although much ofthe emphasis in recent years has been on the process ofmotivation, most of the well-known theories of motivation havefocused on the ‘triggers for human behavior’. These well-knowntheories are, in fact, only attempts at a theory, as most oftheir exponents would admit. The general question they haveraised is ‘What are the major factors that influence an individual’s motivationalprocesses at work? Cole (1995:123-124) aptly concluded that there aredifferences between motives that push people towards certainkinds of behaviour, and those that pull them, i.e. attract them.Push motives, according to Cole (1995:123), might include physicalappetites, deeply-felt psychological needs (e.g. achievement),and economic pressures i.e. drives, because that is precisely whatthey do – drive the human organism to certain kinds of behaviour.And, the pull motives literally draw people to certain forms ofbehaviour, which they see as producing attractive outcomes, e.g.intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic interests, and higher levelpsychological needs such as the need to seek greater self-knowledge and fulfillment. Finally, Cole (1995:124) contendedthat people seek both intrinsic and extrinsic goals in theworkplace. Consequently, Cole (1995) likened his push-pullalternatives to what psychologists refer to as approach-avoidancebehaviour. A great deal of the works of scholars and management thinkersreviewed only addressed the question of motivation and employeeproductivity in industrial organizations in advanced economies.None of the scholars reviewed had specifically addressed the

14

issue of motivation and employee productivity in the context ofNigeria’s local government service which is ostensibly a service-delivery organization in a Third World country, and of a fact,our main concern. Fairly, a good number of the works reviewedhave bearing on the employee motivation and employee productivitynexus, be it the content theorists, context or process theorists, and mixedscanners. To verify, therefore, a clear-cut of these indicators inpractice, is reasonably necessary. That is when we can easilyblame the low employee productivity in the Nigerian localgovernment service on faulty employee motivation regimes as afundamental factor. This underscores the necessity of the casestudy on motivation and employee productivity in the Nigerianlocal government service. These are the major gaps this article,therefore, wants to fill.Theoretical FrameworkThis paper employs the Class Theory of the State as its theoreticalframework in analyzing the question of Motivation and EmployeeProductivity in the Nigerian Local Government Service. The Class Theory of the Statederived its theoretical foundation from the Marxian Analysis thatdeals with a wide spectrum of social phenomena, their past,present and future, and examines political systems with referenceto their class character. The theory contended that since thecapitalist system of production is designed to serve the economicinterest of the bourgeoisie, its political super structure cannotbe made to serve the people (Gauba 2003:449-450). As Marx andEngel (1848) aptly remarked that “the executive of the modernstate is but a committee for managing the common affairs of thewhole bourgeoisie”. Marxian Analysis argued that in the economicsphere, society is divided into “dominant class” and “dependentclass”, i.e. the “haves” and “have not”, or the “bourgeoisie” andthe “proletariat”, and their interests are completely opposed toeach other. Thus Marxian Analysis posits that it is natural thatpolitical institutions of such systems, whatever the outer namei.e. democracy or otherwise, are bound to serve the interest ofthe bourgeoisie (the ruling class).

Some of the main tenets of the Class Theory of the State employed here,among others are that:

With the emergence of private property, society is divided into‘dominant’ and ‘dependent’ classes; and the dominant class,in other to maintain its stronghold on economic power,invents a new form of power - political power. The state is the

15

embodiment of political power and as such, an instrument ofthe dominant class. (Engel, 1884 and Lenin, 1917, all ascited in Eseduwo 2010a:22).

So long as the capitalist mode of production prevails,society remains divided into two antagonistic classes viz:capitalists and workers, who represent the dominant anddependent classes, respectively, and the state as the agentof the dominant class serves the interest of the capitalistsat the expense of the workers or the masses (Maguire, inMarxist Theory of Politics 1978)

Government policies geared towards rural development havealways been to the advantage of the few individuals whoconstitute the privileged class (Okoli 1995:125).

The state is an instrument of class exploitation (Marx andEngels 1848); …institutions which are intended to functionin the interest of the rural population, invariably promotethe interest of a few individuals who control and manipulatethem (Okoli and Gadzama, 1988:119-135).

It is those who choose what to produce and for whom, whocontrol the production process and who also rule ordetermine who rules (Ogban-Iyam, 2005, as cited in Eseduwo,2010a:23).

The Class Theory of the State essentially captured the ‘top operators’of the Nigerian local government service as serving the interestof the ruling class to the detriment of LG employees and therural populace. Consequently, the theory is very relevant tounderstanding and explaining the question of motivation andemployee productivity in the Nigerian local government service.In locating the theory in the present discourse andcontextualizing the discourse in the theory, therefore, employeemotivation and productivity in the Nigerian local governmentservice is conditioned by the following independent variables:(1) The nature of the Nigerian state as an instrument of theruling class denotes local government as merely an instrument ofstate governments that predominantly serves the interest of theruling class at the state level. Impliedly, top operators of theNigerian local government service (comprising positionalpolitical leaders at both state and local levels), used the localgovernment service as means for accretion of personal wealthrather than service-delivery. The likely resultant effects areweak motivation regimes, job dissatisfaction and attendant lowemployee productivity in the Nigerian local government service.

16

(2) The class character of the Nigerian state as exacerbated bysteady class struggles intra and inter the various institutionalgroups and the attendant share of it in the local governmentservice defines the content and context of motivation regimes andthe general crisis of employee productivity and service-deliveryto the rural populations. It is illogical to expect a result-oriented employee motivation regime from a local governmentleadership that compromises service-delivery for personal gains.Thus, an average non-performing local government leadership maysee the workforce as a mere bureaucratic instrument to formalizeinformalities i.e. to make-right the processes of accumulation ofpersonal wealth through corrupt practices, other than employeesto be motivated towards utilizing their varied skills andpotentials to deliver services to the teeming rural populace. (3)The Nigerian local government service as an instrument for classexploitation and a rentier economy that lives by monthly federalsubventions. Inexorably, in spite of oil revenues received fromthe federation account every month as federal allocations and/orexcess crude receipts for rural development and staffremuneration/welfare, the Nigerian local government service islikely to invest very little or nothing in the development of ahighly motivated workforce to deliver services to the grassroots.If top operators (ruling class) of the LG service are engrossedin the exploitation of the workers who represent the rural people(ruled class), a feasible employee motivation regime in theservice is likely to be an optical illusion. Consequently, theNigerian LG service can hardly witness any sombre efforts foremployee motivation. The resultant effects are unappetizing job,low employee productivity in the LG service and attendant dearthof rural development.

The problem of motivation and employee productivity in theNigerian local government service, therefore, can be located andexplained from our theoretical foundation, as fundamentally thefailure of the top local government operators to appreciate theprimary reason for which the third tier of government is createdin Nigeria i.e. bringing government closer to the people forservice-delivery at the grassroots level. The theory impliedlysees local government as an institution intended to function inthe interest of the rural populace. Thus, if such an institutionestablished ostensibly to promote the general good of ruraldwellers is ravaged by the trappings of class exploitations andinvariably ends up promoting the parochial interest of the few

17

individuals who control and manipulate the local governmentservice, issues of motivation and employee productivity canhardly receive the deserved attention. An overlook of one ofthese interrelated factors portends failure of the Nigerian localgovernment service. Thus, the central thesis of this paper isthat, so long as service-delivery to the rural people is short-changed for personalgains by the top operators of the Nigerian local government service, local governmentemployees will wait in vain for better motivational regimes and employee productivitywill remain low in the local government service.

It is against the above backdrop of the class character of theNigerian local government service that we can properly explainthe perennial problem of employee motivation and employeeproductivity in the unified local government service of Nigeria.Thus, it is hereby hypothesized that, employee motivation regimesin the unified Nigerian LG Service are not stimulating employeeproductivity in the LG system. For clarity and testing of thishypothesis, therefore, the following hypothetical units areraised:

(i) There is no any functional employee motivation strategystimulating employee productivity in the Nigerian LGservice.

(ii) Experts’ advice is not sought and utilized instrategizing employee motivation in the Nigerian LGservice.

(iii) If there is no functional employee motivation strategy,the rate of employee productivity in the Nigerian LGService will be likely low.

METHODOLOGYThe methodology of this study is a hybrid of quantitative andqualitative methods of research. This encompasses data fromprimary and secondary sources. The primary source includes datafrom top LG operators and LG employees of the eight localgovernments in Bayelsa state of Nigeria on their experiences andfeelings on the question of ‘employee motivation and employeeproductivity, through structured/personal interviews of randomlyselected respondents. The secondary source includes theconsultation of relevant official documents, books, journalarticles, the internet, and so on, also to find out the nature ofemployee motivation regimes and employee productivity in theNigerian LG service between 2010 and 2013. Employing the hybridapproach, the paper uses the Observation Method for the collection

18

of data from both primary and secondary sources. Everyoneobserves the actions of others by watching at them as they act orby studying what has been earlier acted and recorded ordocumented. We look at other persons and listen to them talk orwe look at their works as documented. As aptly contended byKerlinger (1964:537) that; “we infer what others mean when theysay something, and we infer the characteristics, motivations,feelings and intentions of others on the basis of observations”.The Observation Method, therefore, has the potency not only tocollect information from subjects or participants throughstructured and/or personal interviews but also to observesecondary documentary data sources. Consequently, through the observation of the relationship between‘employee motivation regimes and employee productivity in theNigerian local government service’, the paper observes theexistence or otherwise of any feasible employee motivationstrategy and the rate of employee productivity in the Nigerianlocal government service between 2010 and 2013, specifically, thelink between the use of experts’ advice and the personnelpolicies made. This we achieved through the observation of thefollowing units of observation as considered empirical indicatorsof our independent (X) and dependent (Y) variables i.e. ‘EmployeeMotivation in the Nigerian local government service’(X) and ‘Employee Productivityin the Nigerian local government service’ (Y), viz: (i) evidence of factorsand/or conditions leading to extreme employees’ satisfaction atwork in the Nigerian LG service (X) and corresponding evidence ofLG employees’ regularity at work in the Nigerian local governmentservice (Y) (ii) Evidence of priority attention to the humanfactor in the organization of work and proper consultation andutilization of experts’ advice in designing programmes to induceemployees’ feelings of satisfaction about their jobs to deliverservices to the rural people in the Nigerian LG service (X) andcorresponding evidence of LG employees’ development of new ideasand techniques (creativity) for service delivery to thegrassroots e.g. initiating new techniques for policyimplementation and advocacy (Y); and (iii) Evidence of theoperators of the Nigerian LG service imbibing the communalculture and traditional human relations values of Nigerians inwork-place decision-making (X) and corresponding evidence of LGemployees discharging their duties with passion (Y). Thus, thetest of the hypothesis, “Employee motivation regimes in the unified NigerianLG Service are not stimulating employee productivity in the LG system” relied on

19

the foregoing observations through the use of both primary(internal) and secondary (external) sources of data. Thestructured/personal interview methods were used for the gatheringof information from a randomly selected sample of 100 respondentson the empirical indicators of Employee Motivation Regimes, and at thesame time, another sample of 50 randomly selected respondents fortheir experiences on the aforementioned empirical referents ofEmployee Productivity.

The population of this study, therefore, includes allresearchable elements of personnel administration in the eightlocal governments of Bayelsa State between 2010 and 2013. Thisencompasses top local government operators, personnel policiesand the entire local government workforce.Finally, the simple percentage method and tabular presentationswere used to analyze both the secondary and primary datacollected for this study.PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION OF FINDINGSIn finding answers to our research questions towards testing thehypotheses raised in this paper, a presentation/discussion offindings based on the data collected from the field isimperative. Thus, we now turn to a specific-issue-based discourseof findings.Employee Motivation Strategies in the Nigerian LG ServiceOn the issue of whether there is any functional employeemotivation strategy that stimulates employee productivity in theNigerian LG service, responses were gathered from respondents andrelevant documents consulted. A comparative analysis betweenlocal government service and state government service was alsocarried out. In sum, all pointed to an absence of a functionalemployee motivation strategy in Nigeria’s third tier ofgovernment. This is evident in the tables 1- 4. Table 1: Responses from Top Operators of the Nigerian LG Service

S/NO

QUESTION MEASUREMENT OF EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION STRATEGIES INNIGERIAN LG SERVICE

TOTALRESPONDENTSEmployee

Inclusion inDecisionmaking

ConcernforEmployeeAchievements

EmployeeRecognition in thescheme ofthings

GivingResponsibilitytoEmployee

ConcernforEmployeecareerAdvancementand

Don’tKnow

20

GrowthPotentials

1.

As a top operator ofLG in Nigeria, whichof these activitieshave you encouraged inyour LG?

1 (10%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 3((30%)

2 (20%) 1(10%)

10

2.

How many of theseactivities have youdone well in your LG?

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (40%) 2 (20%) 4(40%)

10

3.

How many have you donemoderately in your LG?

1 (10%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 2 (20%) 1(10%)

10

4.

How many have you notremembered to do inyour LG?

3 (30%) 3 (30%) 2 (20%) 0 (%) 2 (20%) 0(0%)

10

Source: Field work (2013)

Table 1 shows the data collected from the policy-makers of theeight local governments in Bayelsa state between 2010 and 2013.It is observed that factors that motivate employee productivityare not given much attention in the service. The data revealedthat only 10% of the top operators of local government encouragedemployees’ inclusion in decision-making, 10% showed concerned foremployees’ achievement, 20% encouraged employees’ recognition inthe scheme of things in their local governments, 30% gaveresponsibility to their employees, 20% showed concern foremployees’ career advancement and growth potentials, and 10%declined with a confession of not having idea on the issue(s)raised. In rating their own commitment to employee motivation,40% of the top operators of local government rated theirperformance ‘high’ in only giving responsibility to employees,20% high in showing concern for employee career advancement andgrowth potentials, and 40% declined. Also, 10% of the policy-makers rated their performance ‘moderate’ in employee inclusionin decision-making, 10% moderate in showing concern for employeeachievement, 20% moderate in encouraging employee recognition inthe scheme of things, 30% moderate in giving responsibility toemployees, 20% moderate in showing concern for employee careeradvancement and growth potentials, and 10% declined. On theextreme, 30% of the top operators of local government rated theirperformance ‘low’ in employee inclusion in decision-making, 30%low in showing concern for employee achievement, 20% low in

21

employee recognition, and 20% low in issues of employee careeradvancement and growth potentials. When probed further, this setof top operators confessed that they have not remembered toencourage such factors in their local governments. They alsoconfessed that most of their workers did not merit such specialattentions as they are permanently absent from duty. On the issue of encouraging employee career advancement andgrowth potentials, the policy-makers drawn from both the BayelsaState Local Government Service Commission (BYSLGSC) and the eightLocal Governments pointed to the federal government-approvedstaff training programme in the University of Nigeria, Nsukka,and the Administrative Staff College of Nigeria (ASCON) as theirmain sources. It implies that, apart from the said two programmesfor only generalist staff, there is no other regular stafftraining programme to encourage career advancement in the Bayelsastate local government service. The officials from the BYSLGSCconfessed that there are several protests from other cadres of LGstaff like technical, health, agriculture, and so on, for notincluding them in the aforementioned training programmes. We now turn to the responses, experiences and feelings of all thecadres of local government employees on motivation regimes of theNigerian local government service between 2010 and 2013. Theseare presented and analyzed in Table 2.

22

Table 2: Responses from All Cadres of Employees in the Nigerian LGService

S/NO

QUESTION MEASURING EMPLOYEE EXPERIENCES AND FEELINGS TOWARDSMOTIVATION STRATEGIES OF NIGERIAN LG SERVICE

TOTALRESPONDENTS

EmployeeInclusioninDecisionmaking

Mgt.ConcernforEmployeeAchievements

EmployeeRecognition in thescheme ofthings

GivingResponsibilitytoEmployee

Mgt.ConcernforEmployeecareerAdvancementandGrowthPotentials

NotAware

1.

Which of thefollowing factorshave youexperienced inyour work place?

10 (9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40(36%)

48(44%)

12(11%) 110

2.

Which of thesefactors has mgt.shown highconcern?

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (9%) 30(27%)

70(64%)

110

3.

Which of thesefactors has mgt.shown moderateconcern?

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10(9%) 60(55%)

40(36%)

110

4.

Which of thesefactors has mgt.shown lessconcern?

40 (36%) 40 (36%) 30 (27%) 0 (%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 110

Source: Field work (2013)

Table 2 demonstrates the data collected from all cadres ofemployees of the Nigerian local government. It is revealed in thedata that local government employees in Nigeria experiencedlittle or no factors of job satisfaction within the period underreview (2010-2013). This corroborates the responses from the topoperators of government in Table 1. In measuring employeeexperiences and feelings towards motivation strategies of theNigerian LG service between 2010 and 2013, therefore, 99% oflocal government employees rated employee motivation regimes‘low’. This is expressed in the following views of the employees,viz: 36% rated employee inclusion in decision-making low, 36%also rated management concern for employee achievements low, and

23

27% rated employee recognition in the LG scheme of things low,respectively. However, 55% rated management concern for employeecareer advancement and growth potentials moderate, and 36%confirmed being given some level of responsibility at theirplaces of work. Interestingly, the data revealed that 64% of LGemployees declined having awareness of LG top operators showingany serious concern for factors stimulating job satisfaction.When asked how far the LG Service Commission’s concern for careeradvancement and growth potentials have created job satisfactionand motivated them to work, it led to another Pandora’s Box ofcanker worms. Our special informants revealed thus: (i) theselection process is not merit-based but highly politicized i.e.only relatives and friends of top LG operators are considered forthe in-service training programmes at the University of Nigeria,Nsukka, and the ASCON, (ii) the training programmes are sectionali.e. only the administrative/executive/clerical and allied cadresare considered for the training to specialize in personnel and/orfinancial management, (iii) upgrading of graduates of the in-service training programmes is often over-delayed, (iv) the rateof utilization and proper placement of the graduates of the in-service training programmes is low, (v) some beneficiaries of theprogrammes transferred their services from the local governmentto the state public service due to underutilization and lack ofchallenges in the LG service, and so on.Having presented the primary data on the existence or non-existence of any functional employee motivation strategies in theNigerian local government service between 2010 and 2013, we nowturn to some secondary data (documentary evidence) to crosscheckthe evidence given by our respondents above. If the employeemotivation regimes were not actually functional within the periodunder review, the following indicators will be likely evident inthe local government service of Nigeria between 2010 and 2013:(a) The number of employees transferring out of the LG servicewill be greater than the number transferring into the service;(b) The number of employees reporting to their duty posts will belower than the number absent from duty; (c) The aggregate numberof car owners in the LG service will be low compared to the statecivil service and mostly top LG operators/management staff alonewill own personal cars; (d) The aggregate number of male LGemployees formalizing their marriages will be low compared totheir state counterparts; (e) The aggregate number of LGemployees owning personal houses will be low compared to their

24

counterparts in the state civil service; and so on. Tables 3 and4 depict this.Table 3: Two Indicators of Weak Employee Motivation Regimes in the LG Service and theState Civil Service (2010-2013)

Type ofService

Indicators of Weak Employee MotivationRegimes

EstimatedWorkforce

Transfers of Service AggregateNumber ofEmployees

Regular at WorkOut In

Local Govt.Service

160 (1%) 12 (0.1%) 5,308 Staff(33%)

15,925Staff

State CivilService

5 (0.0%) 165 (0.8%) 13,005 (67%) 19,508Staff

SOURCES: Culled from Records of BYS Local Govt. Service Commission (2010-2013); BYSCivil Service Commission (2010-2013).

Table 3 illustrates two indicators of weak employee motivationregimes in the Nigerian LG service using the Bayelsa state localgovernment service, viz: transfers of service and the aggregatenumber of employees regular at work, compared to what happens inthe State civil service. It was observed that 1% of Employees ofthe Local government service transferred their services ‘out’ andonly 0.1% of employees from other services transferred theirservices ‘into’ the local government service between 2010 and2013. Comparatively, at the State civil service, the rate oftransfers ‘out’ of the service was as insignificant as 0.0%,whilst transfers ‘into’ the State civil service was relatively ashigh as 0.8% between 2010 and 2013. Axiomatically, more than 80%of transfers ‘out’ of the local government service went ‘into’the State civil service within the period under review. Thisindicates poor employee motivation regimes in the Nigerian localgovernment service. We now turn to another set of indicators ofweak employee motivation regimes. Table 4 presents thus:

25

Table 4: Three Indicators of Weak Employee Motivation Regimes in the LGService

and the State Civil Service (2010-2013)

SOURCES: Culled from Records of BYS Motor Licensing Office (2010-2013); National Population Census Office, Yenagoa (2010-2013);Marriage Registry, Yenagoa (2010-2013); Marriage Registries of theother 7 LGAs (2010-2013).

Table 4 demonstrates three indicators of weak employee motivationregimes in the local government service of Nigeria between 2010and 2013, viz: car ownership, house ownership and male employees’capability to formalize their marriages. The table alsoclassifies employees of both the local government service andState civil service into three statuses i.e. LG Service: (i)management staff (SGL 14-17), (ii) senior staff (SGL 07-13), and(iii) junior staff (SGL 01-06); then the State civil service: (i)management staff (SGL 14-17, and Permanent Secretaries), (ii)senior staff (SGL 07-13), and (iii) junior staff (SGL 01-06). Thedata revealed that only 0.9% of LG employees at management levelown personal cars, 0.8% own personal houses and 0.1% were able toformalize their marriages within the period under review. Whilst,in the State civil service, 1.5% of employees at management levelown personal cars, 1.1% own personal houses and 0.1% were able toformalized their marriages. Also, only 0.7% of LG employees atsenior staff level own personal cars, 0.3% own personal houses

26

Type ofService

Status ofEmployee

Indicators of Weak Employee MotivationRegimes

EstimatedWorkforce

CarOwnership

HouseOwnership

MaleMarriages(2010-2013)

Local Govt.Service

Mgt (SGL14-17)

150 (0.9%) 130 (0.8%) 8(0.1%)

15,925Staff

Local Govt.Service

Senior(SGL 07-13)

106 (0.7%) 48 (0.3%) 25 (0.2%)

Local Govt.Service

Junior(SGL 01-06)

24 (0.2%) 8 (0.1%) 12 (0.1%)

SUB-TOTAL = 280 (1.8%) 186 (1.2%) 45 (0.3%)State CivilService

Mgt (SGL14-17 andPerm.Secs)

293 (1.5%) 215 (1.1%) 22 (0.1%)

19,508Staff

State CivilService

Senior(SGL 07-13)

222 (1.1%) 162 (0.8%) 72 (0.4%)

State CivilService

Junior(SGL 01-06)

139 (0.7%) 55 (0.3%) 30 (0.2%)

SUB-TOTAL = 654 (3.4%) 432 (2.2) 124 (0.6%)

and 0.2% of male employees were capable of formalizing theirmarriages. Comparatively, 1.1% of senior staff at the State civilservice own personal cars, 0.8% own personal houses and 0.4% wereable to formalize their marriages. Again, only 0.2% of LGemployees at the junior level own personal cars, 0.1% ownpersonal houses and 0.1% were able to formalize their marriages;while at the State civil service, 0.7% of employees at juniorlevel own personal cars, 0.3% own personal houses and 0.2%formalized their marriages within the period under review.It implies that even the ‘junior’ employees in the State civilservice are operating at the same social status with the ‘senior’employees in the local government service in terms of employeeachievements. This is evident in table 4 where the percentage ofjunior staff in the State civil service that own personal cars,houses and formalized their marriages were equivalent to that ofthe percentage of senior staff of the LG service. Implicit in theforegoing data is that employee motivation regimes in theNigerian LG service are weaker than those in the state civilservice. Nonetheless, as a whole, the low percentages of employeeachievements observed above portray that employee motivationregimes are generally weak in the Nigerian public service i.e.both at local and state civil services (see table 4 above).

27

Personnel Policy-Making in the Nigerian Local Government ServiceA good number of evidences on the non-existence of a functionalemployee motivation strategy that stimulates employeeproductivity in the Nigerian local government service between2010 and 2013 have been presented. Nevertheless, there is need toexamine the processes of personnel policy-making in the Nigerianlocal government service. Experts here connote the careermanagers/directors of the various departments in the LG service.These include; the Head of LG Administration (HLGA), the Directorof Administration and General Services (DAGS), the Director ofFinance and Treasurer (DFT), the Director of Works (DW), and theDirector of Health and Primary Health Coordinator (DHPHC). Thesecareer civil servants in the local government service are‘experts’ by training (social scientists, management scientists,engineers, nursing and environmental scientists, and so on), and‘experts’ by experience (long years of service throughprogression from junior/young officers to managerial/directoratelevels). Thus, their expertise is imperative for any workablemotivation strategy in the local government service. We,therefore, turn to data collected from the managers/directors inthe Nigerian LG service on consultancy and utilization ofexperts’ counsel in strategizing employee motivation. This ispresented in Table 5.Table 5: Responses from Experts of the Nigerian LG Service

S/NO

QUESTION EXAMINING PROCESSES OF EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION STRATEGYIN THE NIGERIAN LG SERVICE

TOTALRESPONDENTS

EmployeeInclusion inDecisionmaking

ConcernforEmployeeAchievements

EmployeeRecognition intheschemeofthings

GivingResponsibility toEmployee

ConcernforEmployeecareerAdvancementandGrowthPotentials

NoneofThem

1As an Expert ofLG, which ofthese activitieshave you beenconsulted inyour LG?

2 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10(25%)

5 (13%) 23(58%)

40

28

2Which of theseactivities haveyour advice beenutilized in yourLG?

1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8(20%)

2 (5%) 27(68%)

40

3Which of theseactivities yourLG have shownconcern?

2 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10(25%)

5 (13%) 23(58%)

40

4Which of theseactivities haveyour LG plannedfor?

1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0(0%) 5(13%)

3 (8%) 31(78%)

40

Source: Field work (2013)Table 5 shows the data gathered from the experts in the Nigerianlocal government service. It is observed that 58% of therespondents revealed that they were not consulted on any of theactivities for employee motivation, viz: inclusion of Employeesin Decision-making, Concern for Employee Achievements, EmployeeRecognition in the Scheme of Things, Giving Responsibility toEmployee, and Concern for Career Advancement and GrowthPotentials. Only 13% admitted that they were consulted on careeradvancement and growth potentials, 25% confirmed that they wereconsulted on giving responsibility to employees, and 5% said theywere consulted on inclusion of employees in decision-making.Again, 68% confirmed that their advice was not utilized in any ofthe activities concerning employee motivation in the Nigerianlocal government service between 2010 and 2013. However, 20% ofthe respondents stated that their counsel was utilized in plansto give responsibility to employees, 5% confirmed their advicewas utilized in plans to encourage career advancement and growthpotentials, and 3% said their counsel was utilized in plans forinclusion of employees in decision-making. In all, 58% of therespondents confirmed that their LGs have not shown concern foremployee motivation activities within the period under review.And 78% confirmed that local governments did not plan foremployee motivation activities in earnest between 2010 and 2013.The result of this data, therefore, corroborates the datacollected from the All Cadres of LG Employees (Table 2) and thatof the Top LG Operators (Table 1).In sum, the Top Operators of the Nigerian local governmentservice only show little concern for “giving responsibility toemployees” and “employees’ career advancement”. This is also doneinadvertently i.e. these activities too, were not carried out to

29

motivate employees, as they were done without any properconsultation and utilization of experts’ counsel and tangibleplanning. Having observed a good number of data on employeemotivation strategies of the Nigerian local government servicebetween 2010 and 2013, we now turn to the rate of employeeproductivity in the local government service within the periodunder review.Employee Productivity in the Nigerian LG ServiceEmployee productivity in the Nigerian local government servicebetween 2010 and 2013 was measured by observing the followingempirical indicators: (i) evidence of LG employees’ regularity atwork, (ii) evidence of LG employees’ development of new ideas andtechniques (creativity) for service delivery to the grassroots,and (iii) evidence of LG employees discharging their duties withpassion. The outcome of the observation of the above threeindicators is presented in Table 6. Table 6: LG Heads of Department/Unit Rating of Employee Productivityin the Nigeria LG Service (2010-2013)

S/NO

QUESTION RATING EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY IN THENIGERIAN LG SERVICE

Total No. ofRespondentsEmploye

eRegularity atWork

EmployeeCreativity inServiceDelivery

EmployeePassioninServiceDelivery

NoneofThese

1As a Head of Department or Unitin your LG, which of theseaspects of employeeproductivity would you rate‘high’?

0(0%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 37(93%)

40

2Which of these aspects ofemployee productivity would yourate ‘moderate’?

3 (8%) 4 (10%) 3 (8%) 30(75%)

40

3Which of these aspects ofemployee productivity would yourate ‘low’?

26(65%)

6 (20%) 8(15%)

0 (0%) 40

Source: Field work (2013)Table 6 demonstrates the data collected from the Heads ofDepartment and/or Unit in the Nigerian local government service.It is observed that their candid rating for employee productivityin the eight local governments is ‘low’ between 2010 and 20113.

30

This is evident in the above table, as 65% of the respondentsrated employee regularity to work in their respective localgovernments ‘low’, 20% judged employee creativity ‘low’ and 15%rated employee passion in service-delivery ‘low’. Again, awhopping 93% of the respondents revealed that LG employees’ inNigeria have not recorded ‘high’ performance in any of the threeaforementioned aspects of employee productivity within the periodunder review. Also, 75% of the respondents admitted that LGemployees’ productivity in Nigeria have not even recorded‘moderate’ performance between 2010 and 2013. When probed further on the likely causes of the striking rate ofemployees’ irregularity to work in the local government service,more than 80% of the Heads of Department/Unit interviewed ondifferent dates/times/venues adduced similar reasons and theseinclude: (i) LG employees complained severally that they do notknow what is going on in the LG i.e. apart from payment of amonth salary in often every two-month period through the bank,nothing serious happens again until the ‘next salary time’. (ii)Most LG employees got their jobs without due process i.e. norecruitment interview, no orientation, no schedule of duties, andso on. Most of such employees are relatives, friends andpolitical supporters of the Top LG Operators; hence, they stayback at home to receive salaries. And this trend is continuouslykilling the zeal of those employees who were regular at work.Accordingly, they often asked in protest that if irregularemployees are paid the same salaries, then why should we beregular at work? (iii) The LG service is not showing concern forstaff welfare and the Unions – Nigeria Union of Local GovernmentEmployees (NULGE), the Nigeria Health workers Union (NHWU), andso on, are helpless. (iv) LG Top Operators’ negative attitudetowards the primary responsibility of local government – service-delivery to the rural people i.e. Top Operators stay put in thestate capital to collect monthly federal allocations and paysalaries often after one-month overlap. The LG headquarters,therefore, operate at low ebb. For instance, nothing is happeningat the LG secretariats. (v) Lack of modern paraphernalia in LGsecretariats e.g. electricity, cable television, airconditioners, refrigerators, good office space and furniture, andso on. It is implied from the above explanations that the ‘salary’ isthe only umbilical cord holding the employer-employeerelationship in the Nigerian local government service. This trend

31

also corroborates the five empirical indicators of weak employeemotivation regimes in the local government service earlierobserved, viz: (1) transfers in or out of the LG service, (2)regularity at work, (3) aggregate number of car owners in the LGservice, (4) aggregate number of LG employees owning personalhouses, and (5) aggregate number of male LG employees formalizingtheir marriages (see Tables 3 and 4).Motivated LG Workforce and Rural DevelopmentAs discussed, the results of this study confirm the tenets of theClass Theory of the State. The results are consistent with the pointersof the scholars earlier reviewed on what motivates employeeproductivity in organizations. Specifically, the results validatethe earlier propositions of this study that the issue of employeemotivation and productivity in the Nigerian local governmentservice is conditioned by: (i) the nature of the Nigerian stateas an instrument of the dominant class that sees local governmentas merely an instrument of the state to serve the interest of theruling class; (ii) the share of the class character of theNigerian state in the Nigerian local government service definesthe content and context of motivation regimes and the generalcrisis of service-delivery to the rural populations and employeeproductivity; and (iii) the Nigerian local government service asan instrument for class exploitation and a rentier economy thatlives by the monthly federal allocation, in spite of the oilrevenues received from the federation account every month forrural development and staff remuneration/welfare, is likely toinvest very little or nothing in the development of a highlymotivated workforce to deliver services to the grassroots. Theresultant effects of all these negative trends in the Nigerianlocal government service include; job dissatisfaction, lowemployee productivity and piecemeal rural development.

The results of the field study on employee motivation regimes andemployee productivity in the Nigerian local government servicebetween 2010 and 2013 exposed not only the low attention LGemployees receive from their respective local governments and theattendant low rate of employee productivity within the periodunder review, but also the low attention for rural development.This was clearly demonstrated in the consistent revelations fromour respondents that the Top Operators of the Nigerian localgovernment service are equally irregular at work. It is logicalthat the more regular at work the Top Operators of localgovernment are, the more concern they will show to questions of

32

rural development, and the more attention for rural development,the more concern for employee productivity, and the moreattention for employee productivity, the more concern foremployee motivation strategies. This chain of responsibilities ismissing in the Nigerian local government service as typified inthe results from the field study. In sum, the study unearths that employee motivation cannot besourced only from showing concern for employees personal goalsand provision of modern facilities in the offices, but also thepositive attitude of the Top decision-makers of the organizationtowards the attainment of the overall organizational goal. Thisis evident in the results from our field work that one of thesalient factors responsible for LG employees’ high rate ofirregularity at work is a combination of the patron-clienteleperception and attendant poor attitude of LG policy-makerstowards service-delivery to the teeming rural populace and theresultant high rate of absenteeism amongst Top LG Operators fromoffice. CONCLUSION/POLICY IMPLICATIONSBased on the results of this study, therefore, the paperconcludes that employee productivity in the Nigerian localgovernment service is low and it is a function of lack offunctional employee motivation strategies in the local governmentservice. This is as a result of the ‘Top LG Operators’ negativeattitude towards service-delivery to the grassroots asexacerbated by the existing patron-clientele relations betweenthe ‘Top Operators’ of LG and their political godfathers at thestate level. The importance of the local government workforce,ostensibly, as the engine room of government at the third tier isfast diminishing, day-in-day-out. The less attention for ruraldevelopment, therefore, is the highest undoing of the Nigerianlocal government service.Thus, until the Top Operators of the Nigerian local governmentservice change their attitude positively towards the avowedresponsibilities of local government – delivering public goodsand services to the grassroots, issues of employee motivation andattendant employee productivity would remain at the lowest ebb inthe scheme of things in the Nigerian local government service.This implies that, more interest for rural development by the‘Top Operators’ of local government, more attention for employeeproductivity and attendant concern for employee motivation. It is

33

only then that policy-makers in the local government service willappreciate the counsel of experts (principal career officers) inthe service on issues of employee motivation planning, advocacy,and implementation. Policy ImplicationsIn line with the conclusion drawn from the results of this study,the following recommendations are imperative:

Top Operators of the Nigerian local government serviceshould see service-delivery to the grassroots as their toppriority.

Top Operators of the Nigerian local government serviceshould show good example to their workers by being regularat work.

LG employees should be given the deserved recognition,included in the appropriate levels of decision-making, andbe given appropriate responsibilities.

The goals of LG employees (personal values) should besynchronized with the goals of the local government service(service-delivery).

Experts’ counsel should be sought and utilized from time totime to put in place a functional employee motivationstrategy in the Nigerian local government service.

Nigeria should explore other staff development programmesapart from the three University-based in-service stafftraining programmes, the ASCON, and the School of HealthTechnology for LG employees. Also, the existing in-servicestaff training programmes should be redesigned to includeall cadres e.g. technical, health, and so on, and theselection processes should be merit-based. In addition,existing conditions for study-leave-with-pay can beliberalized i.e. by increasing the duration of study-leave-with-pay from 2 years to 4 years with a break-time workingclause, towards encouraging degree-based scholarship amongstLG employees in Nigeria.

Top Operators of the Nigerian local government serviceshould make conscious efforts to bring back the lost gloryof the LG service by making it highly attractive andcompetitive in terms of increased attention for employeeachievement and job satisfaction. This if considered wouldstimulate centrifugal mobility of labour i.e. movements away

34

from the federal and state civil services to the LG serviceas it was in the ‘80s.

35

REFERENCESBabbie, E. 1983. The practices of social research. California: Wadsworth

Publishing Company.Banjoko, S.A. 2007. Human resource management: An expository approach.

Ibadan: Oluseyi Press Limited.Borisov and Libman 1985. A reader on social sciences. Moscow: Progress

Publishers.Cole, G.A. 1993. Management: Theory and practice. London: DP

Publications Limited._________ 1995. Organizational behaviour: Theory and practice, London: Thomson Limited. Drucker, P.F. 1978. The practice of management. New York: Pan Books.Engels, F. 1980. Socialism-utopian and scientific. Moscow: Progress

Printers.Engels, F. 1984. The origin of the family private property and the state. Moscow:

Progress Printers.Eseduwo, F.S. 2010a. State-local government relations and rural development in

Nigeria. Nsukka: University of Nigeria Press.Ezeani, O.E. 2004. Local government administration. Enugu: Zik-Chinks Printers.Federal Republic of Nigeria. 1976. Guidelines for the local government

reform. Kaduna: Government Press.Federal Republic of Nigeria. 1986. The views and comment of the federal

military government on the findings and recommendations of the committee onthe review of local government administration in Nigeria. Lagos:Government Press.

Gauba, O.P. 2004. An introduction to political theory. New Delhi: MacmillanIndia Limited.

Gboyega, A. 1990. Political values and local government in Nigeria. Lagos:Mathouse Press.

Guest, D. 1992. Motivation after Herzberg in Armstrong and employee reward management and practice. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman 1959. The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley Press.

36

Imafidon, D.O. 2003. The motivational effects of pay on Nigerianworkers: An overview of the enterprises. International journal ofresearch for development, Vol.5, No.1. pp.223-240.

Keplan, A. 1963. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioural sciences. New York: Chandler Harger and Row Publishers.

Kerlinger, F.N. 1964. Foundations of behavioural research (Second edition.), New York: University Press.

Koontz, H., O’Donell, C. and Weihrich, H. 1983. Management. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill.Leege and Francis 1964. Political research, design, management and analysis.

New York: Basic Brooks Publishers.Legge, K.1995. Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. New York:Palgrave.Lenin, V.I. 1921. The state and revolution. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Likert, R. 1976. The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Maguire, J.M. 1978. Marx’s theory of politics. Cambridge UniversityPress.

Marx and Engels 1948. The communist manifesto. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.McClelland, D. 1961 The achieving society. Princeton N.J.: Van Nostrand.

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprises. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nachimias and Nachimias 1981. Research methods in the social sciences. London: St. Martins Press Inc.

Nkala, N.O. 1985. Staff control in local government under thelocal government administration concept. Nigerian journal ofpublic administration and local government. Vol.III, No.2. pp.56-76.

Obikeze and Anthony 2004. Public administration in Nigeria: A developmental approach, Onitsha: BookPoint Limited.

Ogban-Iyam, O. 2005. Social production and reproduction, social conflicts and the challenge of democracy in Nigeria. Journal of Political Enquiry, Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Vol.1, No.2. pp.25-44.

37

Okoli, F.C. 1995. Pathologies of local government administration:Community and rural development programmes. In Ikejiani-Clark and Okoli (ed), Local government administration in Nigeria: Current problems and future challenges. Lagos: Mangrove Publication.

Okoli, F.C. and Gazama, M. 1988. Agricultural and rural development programmes in Nigeria: The Gujba project and thepeasant survival. In Sanda, A.O. (ed.), Corporate Strategy for Agricultural Development in Nigeria, Lagos: Mangrove Publishers.

Orewa, G.O. 1991. Principles of local government. Badagry: AdministrativeStaff College.Orewa and Adewumi 1992. Local government in Nigeria: The changing scene, Vol.

II, Benin City: Ethiope Publishing Corporation.Schein, E.H. 1980. Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Scott, C.J. 1972. Comparative political corruption. Eagle Wood Chiffs:

Prentice Hill.Seltiz, C.C. 1976. Research methodology in social relations. London:

Methuen.Stokers, G. 1990. The politics of local government. London: Macmillan

Press.Stevenson, W.J. 2005. Operations management (Eight Edition). New

York: Mcgraw-Hill.Taylor, F.W. 1911. Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.Vroom, V. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley Press.Wayne, R. et al. 1980. Management: Concepts and practices. London: Allan

and Beacon Inc.

38