Reward System and Employees’ Effectiveness in Deposit Money Banks of Southeast, Nigeria

to one’s own country background. In view of the above, the aim of this research is to ascertain the impact of reward management on employee effectiveness in selected deposit money banks in southeastern Nigeria. Statement of the Problem Employee effectiveness should result to organizational effectiveness because when employees meet their given targets on the job, the organization will in turn be effective by meeting their goals and objectives. Employee effectiveness seems to be increasingly weak in many organizations resulting in lower morale and poor performance. Some have blamed the problem on poor motivating factors while others suggest that management of some organizations have not paid enough attention to employee needs . While some scholars believe that inadequate employee motivation is a deliberate act, others believe that many companies lack the ability to inspire their workers to arouse their inner talents for good success (Casey, Hilton, and Robbins, 2012; Fornaciari and Dean, 2015). There have also been debates on whether extrinsic or inherent fringe benefits are more successful in motivating workers to perform at their best in the workplace (Munir, 2013, Sabir Lodhi and Khan (Lodhi, Sabir, and Khan, 2016). All these empirical evidences prove that there is a strong correlation between reward system and employee’s effectiveness as well as organizational effectiveness. But, since these evidences are foreign based, the researcher is however in doubt whether these empirical evidences are applicable in the Nigerian setting. Although, a lot has been written on employee effectiveness yet there is a dearth of studies on employee effectiveness in deposit money banks in south east geopolitical zone of Nigeria. For this reason, this study intends to investigate reward system using reward criteria as pay raise and profit sharing. Relating the effects of the aforementioned reward criteria to productivity, employee innovativeness and employee Initiative, which are elements of employee effectiveness with respect to the Nigerian background. This work is intended to fill the gap by bringing in local experience in the bulk of empirical evidence to ascertain the relationship between JAFM JAFM JAFM reward system and employee effectiveness, thus improving our understanding of the subject matter as it applies to our geographical area. Objectives of the Study This study is aimed at evaluating the relationship between reward system and employee effectiveness in deposit money banks of southeast, Nigeria. The specific objectives are to: i. evaluate the relationship between pay raise and productivity. ii. investigate the relationship between profit sharing and productivity. iii. identify the relationship between pay raise and employee innovativeness. iv. investigate the relationship between profit sharing and employee innovativeness. v. examine the relationship between pay raise and employee Initiative. vi. evaluate the relationship between profit sharing and employee Initiative. Research Questions i. What is the extent of relationship between pay raise and productivity? ii. To what extent does profit sharing relate to productivity? iii. What is the extent of relationship between pay raise and employee innovativeness? iv. What is the extent of relationship between profit sharing and employee innovativeness? v. To what extent does pay raise relate to employee Initiative? vi. To what extent does profit sharing relate to employee Initiative? Hypotheses Based on the research objectives and research questions, the following hypotheses are formulated; Ho1: There is no significant relationship between pay raise and productivity. Ho2: Profit sharing does not significantly relate to productivity. Ho3: Pay raise does not significantly relate to employee innovativeness. Ho4: Profit sharing has no significant relationship with employee innovativeness. Ho5: Pay raise has no significant relationship with employee Initiative. Ho6: Profit sharing has no significant relationship with employee Initiative. Scope of the Study The various scope of this study was based on content scope, geographic scope and unit scope. The content scope examines the indices of reward (pay raise and profit sharing) and that of employee effectiveness (productivity, innovativeness and Initiative). The geographical scope of the study is south east Nigeria and the states selected include Imo, Abia and Ebonyi State while the selected towns in the three selected states are Aba, in Abia state, Owerri in Imo state and Abakaliki in Ebonyi state from where three organizations –Access Bank Plc, First Bank Plc and United Bank for Africa Plc has been studied as reference points. The researcher decided to use these banks because they are almost the first-generation banks and because of their proximity. The Unit scope of the study centers on employees who work as cashiers/tellers in the three organizations. Both male and female employees will be covered. JAFM JAFM JAFM Operational Conceptual Framework Source: Researcher Desk (2026) The above framework illustrates the relationship between the independent variable; reward system and the dependent variable; employee effectiveness. The indices for the independent variable are (pay raise and profit sharing); while the indices for the dependent variable are productivity, employee innovativeness and employee Initiative. These indices are examined to ascertain whether relationship exist between them thus the framework. Conceptual Review Concept of Reward Schaufeli (2012), Shah (2017) and Liu (2017) define reward as a gift or acknowledgement given to an employee by the management, for the accomplishment of a specific task or for attaining an exceptional level of effectiveness. Shrewd Mann (2017) defines reward simply as something valuable, such as money, which is given for a job done well. Grants & Nuperz (2016) define reward as financial or non-financial gift to an employee for good effectiveness or high productivity, and effectiveness. Rewards serve many purposes in an organization. Lois (2018) states that rewards help to build strong employer/employee relations. Grants & Nuperz (2016) recognize rewards as being vital for increasing people’s willingness to work in the organization and enhance their productivity. According to Grants & Nuperz, reward is a motivator; employees who are effective and efficient are likely to be limited if they are not motivated to perform. Concept of Reward System Armstrong (2010) explains that reward system is concerned with the formulation and implementation of strategies and policies, aimed at rewarding people fairly, equitably and consistently in accordance with their value to the organization and thus helps the organization to achieve its strategic goals. It deals with the design, implementation and maintenance of reward systems (reward processes, practices and procedures) that aim to meet the needs of both the Pay Raise Profit Sharing Productivity Employee Initiative Reward System Employee Effectiveness Employee Innovativeness JAFM JAFM JAFM organization and its stakeholders. Reward system practice is one of the strategies used by human resource managers for attracting and retaining suitable employees as well as facilitating them to improve their effectiveness. Therefore, human resource managers must design reward structures that facilitate the organizations strategic goals and the goals of individual employees (Maund 2011). Fundamental purpose is to provide positive consequences for contributions to desired effectiveness (Wilson, 2013). Rewards include; salaries and wages, awards and other forms of recognition, promotions, reassignments, non-monetary bonuses like vacations or simple appreciations (Kotelnikov2010). Gerhart and Rynes (2013) explain that reward relates to pay, both fixed in the form of salaries and wages, and variable through schemes such as fringe benefits and bonuses. Reward system practices have been conceptualized through the use of the ratio of base salary to short term bonus payments (Eisenhardt 2008; Bloom and Milkovich2008). Other scholars have widened this simple ratio to examine the proportion of base pay to cash compensation, including short-term and long-term fringe benefits (Tremblay et al 2013; Burke and Hsieh 2016). While some have used the closely related area of bonus to cash compensation (Gomez-Mejia et al 2017; Elvira 2011). The aggregate of financial and non-financial rewards that any employer offers are thus meant to attract, retain and elicit reciprocal effectiveness of its employees. This aggregate has been described as the new pay (Schuster and Zingheim 2012) or total rewards. (Armstrong 2017) first defined rewards as consisting of compensation, benefits and the work experience, with the latter component including acknowledgement, balance (of work and personal life), culture, learning and development as well as the work environment. The latest consists of five components; compensation, benefits, work-life balance, effectiveness and recognition, development and career opportunities (World at Work 2017) Intrinsic Reward A reward is intrinsic if it gives personal satisfaction to the employees receiving it (Lois, 2018). Shrewd Mann (2017) defines intrinsic reward as the satisfaction which an employee derives from performing the job. According to Shrewd Mann, intrinsic reward is independent of external benefits. It raises the amount of satisfaction which the employee derives from the job. As Jensen (2017) puts it: “intrinsic reward actually fulfills employee’s intrinsic factors or motivators and thus motivates him”. According to Jensen, examples include giving challenging task to the employee and involving the employee in decision making process. These rewards do not require to have increased salary and as such the employee may be working at a certain rank and stay motivated without any salary increase (Jensen, 2017) Nelson (2014) notes that praise and recognition are the most efficient intrinsic rewards that enhance employee effectiveness. Jensen (2017) see intrinsic rewards as “a tool that motivates employees to perform as expected”. Lois (2018) identifies examples of intrinsic reward to include recognition. Information/feedback and trust/empowerment. Recognition Lois (2018) describes recognition as a verbal, written or symbolized expression to appreciate an employee. It could take the form of being informal such as a pat at the back, or it could be formal, such as presentations or letter of appreciation to the employee. Lois (2018) and Shcaufeli (2002) argue that recognition is outstanding in boosting employee’s self-esteem and happiness, which will definitely result into additional contributing efforts. JAFM JAFM JAFM Information/Feedback Information and feedback intrinsic rewards are communicative guidance on how to accomplish a specific tax. According to Lois (2018) information/feedback reward is a successful and effective type of intrinsic reward which efficient managers never neglect. Lois states that information/feedback system can operate in two opposite facets –positive and negative. It is positive if the information prompts the employee to remain on track for the accomplishment of the task; and negative if it guides the employee to a new correction path. Lois (2018) argues that information rewards create a bond between the employee and the management as well as adds value to the relationship between managers and employees. Trust and Empowerment Jensen (2017) defines trust as an absolute belief in an employee that he/she will accomplish a particular task, which stems from the consistency of the employee in achieving the task as expected, from one trial to another. Empowerment is a kind of power vested into an employee or group of employees usually through delegation of authority (Shrewd Mann, 2017). In any organization, trust and empowerment are vital in building a strong relationship between employee and managers. Shrewd Mann envisages trust as a form of reliance on an employee’s ability to accomplish a job independently. Moreover, when managers delegate tasks to employees it makes the employee feel a sense of high esteem as being recognized and valued. Extrinsic Reward Shah (2017) describes extrinsic rewards as physical financial and non-financial motivators given to employees. Nelson (2014) defines it as “concrete rewards” that employees receive. It is tangible unlike intrinsic reward. Moreover, extrinsic rewards focus better on the effectiveness and activities of the employees in order to attain a certain outcome. Ahmed (2009), Carraher (2016) and Stoner (2012) posit that extrinsic rewards actually fulfill employees extrinsic or hygiene factors and thus do not let him start thinking about leaving the organization. Carraher (2016) advocates that there should be an effective reward system to retain the high performers in the organization and reward should be related with their productivity. Measure of Effectiveness According to George (2020) measuring your employees’ effectiveness is an important part of managing a team, and ensures your organization is running optimally. Some roles are easier than others to evaluate, e.g. fundraising roles usually have quantifiable targets to hit and the effectiveness of these employees is largely based on effectiveness against these goals. However, it can be much more difficult and more subjective, to evaluate the effectiveness of other employees, e.g., support staff. Managers in the past have heavily relied on being physically present with their team members and in that, having the ability to ‘see’ or ‘experience’ the productivity levels of their staff. Measuring effectiveness during the pandemic could be more complex and managers should consider taking into account the personal circumstances and working conditions for each individual. Everyone has had to adapt to a new way of working. When deciding which metrics to use, it’s worth bearing a couple of things in mind. Firstly, ask your employees how they measure their effectiveness. They have the best knowledge about their role and what success looks like, and allowing them to input into the metric used gives them ownership of the measurement process. Try to use a combination of objective (measurable numbers) and subjective (rating by a manager) measurements, and make sure you JAFM JAFM JAFM cover the whole of their role, to give you the full picture of how they are performing, whether that is back in the workplace or remotely. Below are some metrics to consider: (i) Management by objectives: This is probably the most common way to measure employee effectiveness. Objectives are set periodically and reviewed at the end of the target period. The target period could be weekly, monthly, quarterly, bi-annually, annually etc. Progress towards each objective is then scored and new goals set. (ii) Use rating scales: For subjective measurements, such as cooperativeness, dependability and judgment, a manager can rate their employee on a scale of 1 to 10. The rating should be done at regular intervals and be consistent in both what it measures, and the scale used, to track changes in staff effectiveness. Use the job description to set criteria necessary for the role. Ask staff to rate their own job satisfaction: Happier employees are usually more productive employees, and job satisfaction is a particularly important motivator for staff who work in the non-profit sector. This is also a very useful indicator about whether employees are likely to leave in the near future. (iv) Track digital trails: Computer software increasingly allows managers to track their employees’ work, e.g., through keystrokes made, tasks completed, or percentage of an employees’ time spent using a particular application. These metrics are especially useful for data entry or processing roles. (v) Team effectiveness: measuring the effectiveness of a team, as well as the individuals within it, will help determine whether they work well together, and if a reorganization may help boost productivity. (vi) Performance Appraisal ratings: Every organization will develop their own method of rating an employee's performance. At the beginning of the appraisal period, review these ratings and the performance standards for each position which reports to you so that you can fairly evaluate the employee’s performance. Other staffs members in similar roles can be asked to rate an employee’s effectiveness, on the basis that they know best what the job requires. This is also a good way to monitor an employee’s ability to work well with others. Goal Attainment: an organization is effective if it achieves its goals. This approach can only be used in organizations with clearly defined, time-sensitive, measurable and operational goals. In the literature relating to organizational effectiveness, it has been proposed that only a few organizations meet these criteria. Even so, it is difficult to determine an organization’s effectiveness without relating it to the organization’s goals, even if these are not clearly defined. Broadly speaking, the goal attainment approach reflects the views about effectiveness of senior management and shareholders. Quantity and quality: It is important to always make sure these measures are linked. For example, scoring Call Centre or Support care services staff purely on number of calls fielded or made, ignores whether many of these calls have a satisfactory outcome or not. Are emails more effective than calls, is the quality of the contact compromised by use of email instead of calls? (ix) Cost effectiveness: If the employee has some control over their budget, this can be a useful indicator of effectiveness. JAFM JAFM JAFM Relationship between Effectiveness and Efficiency According to Lodewijk (2016) effectiveness means 'doing the right things or occupying oneself with the right things. The concept 'effectiveness' is linked to the assumption that organizations are goal-oriented. The focus is on the actual attainment of organizational goals as well as on the means necessary to reach them and the speed at which they are reached. For this reason, not everything that is effective has to be efficient; but everything that is efficient has to be effective. Efficiency signifies a peak level of performance that uses the least amount of inputs to achieve the highest amount of output. It minimizes the waste of resources such as physical materials, energy, and time while accomplishing the desired output. The relationship between effectiveness and efficiency is that effectiveness is a measure of 'goodness' of output, while efficiency is a measure of the resources required to achieve the output. Thus, effectiveness of the system refers to the quality of outputs from the system. Working effectively and efficiently are clear signs of a good performance, although the variables are interdependent. But not only do the variables influence each other, they also influence and are influenced by other factors. Theoretical Review Theories of motivation provide a theoretical basis for reward management, although some of the best-known ones have emerged from the psychology discipline. Perhaps the first and best known of these comes from the work of Abraham Maslow followed by those by Meclelland and J.S. Adams (Kreitner, 1998). The study is anchored on Herzberg two factor Theory. Equity Theory by John Stacey Adams in 1963 (Adams, 1963), Equity theory postulates that employees are concerned not only with the absolute amount of rewards they receive for their efforts but also with the relationship of this amount to what others receive. Based on one’s input, such as effort, education, experience and competence one can compare outcomes such as salary level, pay increase, recognition and other factors. When people perceive an imbalance in their outcome/input ratio relative to others, tension is created. This tension provides the basis for motivation as people strive for what they perceive as equality and fairness (Rabbins, 1993). One of the prominent theories with respect to equity and fairness in organization reward was developed through the work of J.S. Adams (Robbins, 1993). Adam’s theory postulates how individuals evaluate social exchange relationships. The major components of the exchange theory are inputs and outcomes. In a situation where an employee exchanges his services for pay, inputs may include previous work experience, education, effort on the job and training. Outcomes are those factors that result from the exchange. The most important outcome is likely to be pay, with outcomes such as supervisory treatment, job assignments, fringe benefits and status symbol taken into consideration also. Equity theory rests upon three main assumptions (carrel, 1978). First, the theory holds that people develop beliefs about what is considered a fair and equitable reward for their contributions to their jobs second, the theory assumes that people tend to compare what they perceive to be the exchange they have with their employers. Third, when people (employees) believe that their own treatment is not equitable, relative to the exchange they perceived others to be making, they will be motivated to actions they deem appropriate. The challenge therefore to reward managers is to develop reward systems that are perceived to be fair and equitable and distributing the reward in accordance with employee beliefs about their own value to the organization (champagne 1999). JAFM JAFM JAFM Vroom’s Expectancy Theory This theory was the brain child of Victor Vroom. It is one of the theories that explain what makes one to or perform a given task. Vroom’s work emphasized individual differences. He used two concepts “valence” and “Expectancy” as workers’ assessment of the probability of attaining a desired goal. for example, if an employee highly values money (valence) and feels that his increases effectiveness will yield additional income (expectancy) he will probably work harder if he highly values promotion (valence) but feels that despite greater personal efforts he will probably not be motivated to put extra effort. It therefore holds that individuals’ valence and expectancy can adequately determine his motivational rate. The basic tenet of the theory is that high effort or motion will exist when an employee perceives there is a reward for efforts and effectiveness. Guest and Landy (1986) states that: i. there is a positive pay off in exerting effort because it leads to higher effectiveness. ii. whether actually results in higher effectiveness depends on the extent which the employee possesses the necessary knowledge and skills and has accurate appreciation of the appropriate role requirement How this relationship can lead to motivation is illustrated below: perceived ability to influence one’s own productivity level motivation to produce is perceived relationship a function of between productivity, goal and achievement strength, desire, goal and achievement. Source: Guest and Landy (1986) Scholar criticized the theory on the course of its underlying assumptions, its measurement and theoretical, preposition. Guest and Landy (1986) said many employers have been put off by its complexity and that the theory did not specify the kind of reward that will prove attractive to employees. It is important for Chief executive of organization to know that at different levels of their organization, not all workers will be motivated by the same stimuli, since what motivates one person or a group of persons, may not necessarily motivate others. Empirical Review Studies have been conducted on employee effectiveness and reward management. Iyke-Ofoedu, Nwankwo, and Okechukwu. (2023) investigated the effect of extrinsic reward system on employee productivity in deposit money banks in Nigeria. The specific objectives of the study are to: determine the effect of fringe benefits reward system on employee turnover intension and evaluate the effect of promotion reward systems on employee productivity. Research design was descriptive survey research. Study Area was Enugu State. Sample size of 378 respondents was drawn from 503 population of the study using Taro Yamane sample technique. The research question was answered with simple percentage, mean and standard deviation while JAFM JAFM JAFM methods of data presentation are table and simple percentage. The hypotheses were tested with regression analysis comprising student-t statistics. The following are the major findings of the study: the study reveals that fringe benefits reward system has significant effect on employee turnover intention since the fringe benefits reward promotes attention and focus of employee to render service without fear or favour (t-statistics (9.292) > P-value (0.000), the study reveals that promotion reward systems has significant effect on employee productivity since promotion reward system improves employee’s statue thereby enhancing their employee productivity (t-statistics (6.312) > P-value (0.000). The study concludes that there was positive and significant effect of extrinsic reward system on employee productivity in deposit money banks in Nigeria. The study recommends that managements of deposit money banks should embrace and prioritize the use of a performance-based reward system to encourage employee to give their best performance at all time. Hagan and Thomas (2022) conducted a study in Punjab, India to determine the effort of overtime wages on supervisory bank employee’s satisfaction. 84 supervisors constituted subject to the study, drawn from 18 commercial banks in Punjab, results of the statistical analysis showed that over time wages failed to produce a significant correlation with employee satisfaction (R2= 0.0693). Kagan and Thomas concluded that over time pay is accountable for only 6.93% of employee satisfaction. Research Methods Research Design Survey design was adopted for the study. Appropriate data instruments were used to draw the opinions and other manifestations of the study group concerning reward system and employee effectiveness. The data obtained was used to draw necessary inferences on the research variables and provide explanations about the hypothesized inter-relationship among the variables. Population of the Study Three service organizations in Southeast Nigeria were used as study units. The organizations and their estimated populations are as follows: Access bank Plc Owerri 340 UBA Aba 300 First Bank Plc Ebonyi 224 Total 864 The population of the study is 864. Sample Size Determination The appropriate sample size was drawn from the population since it is not necessary to study the entire population. The Taro Yamane’s formula for statistical relation for small sample was adopted to determine the appropriate sample size as follows: n = 2) ( 1 e N N + Where: n = Sample size N = Population size (864) e = Allowable errors (0.05) There: 2 ) 05 .0 ( 864 1 864 + = n JAFM JAFM JAFM 4177 . 273 16 .3 864 16 .2 1 864 ) 0025 .0 ( 864 1 864 = = + = + = n Approximately, n = 273 (to the nearest whole number). Base on the calculation, the sample size is 273. Stratified sampling method was used to determine the number in each bank. Stratified sampling involves a process of stratification or segregation of population nests for investigation into strata or categories. On stratified sampling method, to proportionately allocate all copies of questionnaire among different groups , Bowley’s formula was used as follows: N h nN h n = where h N = number allotted to each stratum n = Sample size h n = population of each stratum N = Population Access bank: 107 864 340 273 = = Access n UBA: 95 864 300 273 = = UBA n First Bank: 71 864 224 273 = = First n The three organizations contributed to the sample size in the proportions below. Access Bank = (107/273) * 100 = 39.2% UBA = (95/273) * 100 = 34.8% First Bank = (71/273) * 100 = 26.0% Instrument of Data Collection Questionnaire were used to collect the data. The questionnaire was structured to reflect the objectives of the study; thus, it consists of question items constructed in consideration of the research questions and objectives of the study. Sampling Technique Convenience sampling method was employed to select the three organizations for the study (Access bank, UBA and First Bank Nigeria Plc). Convenience sampling is a non-probabilistic sampling technique applicable to qualitative or quantitative studies. The researcher used convenience samples for reasons of accessibility and possession of the appropriate characteristics for the study, such as a separate Human Resource department where reward system was carried out, and possession of large heterogeneous workforce. Method of Data Analysis The research questions were answered with simple Pearson (r) correlation statistic, so as to establish the relationship between the dependent and independent variables in the study. The basis JAFM JAFM JAFM for the decision for the research questions’ conclusion was as follows: 0.00 – 0.20 = very low relationship, 0.21 – 0.40 = low relationship, 0.41 – 0. 60 = moderate relationship, 0.61 – 0.80 = high relationship and 0.81 – 1.00 = very high relationship. Research Question One What is the relationship between pay raise and productivity? The data for testing hypothesis one was obtained from questionnaire item 105 and 11-15. Test of Hypothesis One Ho1: There is no significant relationship between pay raise and productivity. Table 1.1: The data for testing hypothesis one was obtained from questionnaire items 1-5 and 11-15 Source: Extracted from SPSS Output (See Appendix III) Table 4.1 shows the result obtained in respect of research question one and hypothesis one. The result reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.578, which is moderate. This implies that there is a moderate relationship between pay raise and productivity. Furthermore, the table also displays that the t-calculated is 11.665, which is greater than the t-tabulated of 1.98 (alternatively p-value = 0.000, which is less than the level of significance 0.05), hence leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that there is significant relationship between pay raise and productivity. Research Question Two To what extent does profit sharing relate to productivity? Test of Hypothesis Two Ho2: Profit sharing does not significantly relate to productivity. Table 1.2: The data for testing hypothesis two was obtained from questionnaire items 6-10 and 11-15 Source: Extracted from SPSS Output (See Appendix IV) Table 4.2 shows the result obtained in respect of research question two and hypothesis two. The result reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.518, which is moderate. This implies profit sharing relate to productivity to a moderate extent. Furthermore, the table also displays that Variables n ∑ X SD R Decision Pay Raise 273 2553 9.3480 3.1424 0.578 Productivity α=0.05 df=271 ttab=1.98 273 2706 tcal =11.665 9.9121 p-value = 0.000 4.0256 Moderate Relationship Variables n ∑ X SD R Decision Profit Sharing 273 2874 10.5275 3.6952 0.518 Productivity α=0.05 df=271 ttab=1.98 273 2706 tcal =9.981 9.9121 p-value = 0.000 4.0256 Moderate Relationship RejectH0 RejectH0 JAFM JAFM JAFM the t-calculated is 9.981, which is greater than the t-tabulated of 1.98 (alternatively p-value = 0.000, which is less than the level of significance 0.05), hence leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that profit sharing does significantly relate to productivity. Research Question Three What is the relationship between pay raise and employee innovativeness? Test of Hypothesis Three Ho3: Pay raise does not significantly relate to employee innovativeness. Table 1.3: The data for testing hypothesis three was obtained from questionnaire items 1-5 and 16-20 Source: Extracted from SPSS Output (See Appendix V) Table 4.3 shows the result obtained in respect of research question three and hypothesis three. The result reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.822, which is very high. This implies that there is a very high relationship between pay raise and employee innovativeness. Furthermore, the table also displays that the t-calculated is 23.797, which is greater than the t-tabulated of 1.98 (alternatively p-value = 0.000, which is less than the level of significance 0.05), hence leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that Pay raise does significantly relate to employee innovativeness. Research Question Four What is the relationship between profit sharing and employee innovativeness? Test of Hypothesis Four Ho4: Profit sharing has no significant relationship with employee innovativeness. Table 1.4: The data for testing hypothesis four was obtained from questionnaire items 6-10 and 16-20 Source: Extracted from SPSS Output (See Appendix VI) Table 4.4 shows the result obtained in respect of research question four and hypothesis four. The result reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.840, which is very high. This implies that there is a very high relationship between profit sharing and employee innovativeness. Furthermore, the table also displays that the t-calculated is 25.448, which is greater than the t-tabulated of 1.98 (alternatively p-value = 0.000, which is less than the level of significance 0.05), hence leading to Variables n ∑ X SD R Decision Pay Raise 273 2552 9.3480 3.1424 0.822 Employee Innovativeness α=0.05 df=271 ttab=1.98 273 2950 tcal =23.797 10.8059 p-value = 0.000 3.1673 Very High Relationship Variables n ∑ X SD R Decision Profit Sharing 273 2874 10.5275 3.6952 0.840 Employee Innovativeness α=0.05 df=271 ttab=1.98 273 2950 tcal =25.448 10.8059 p-value = 0.000 3.1673 Very High Relationship RejectH0 RejectH0 JAFM JAFM JAFM the rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that Profit sharing has significant relationship with employee innovativeness. Research Question Five To what extent does pay raise relate to employee Initiative? Test of Hypothesis Five Ho5: Pay raise has no significant relationship with employee Initiative. Table 1.5: The data for testing hypothesis five was obtained from questionnaire items 1-5 and 21-25 Source: Extracted from SPSS Output (See Appendix VII) Table 4.5 shows the result obtained in respect of research question five and hypothesis five. The result reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.627, which is high. This implies that pay raise relate to employee Initiative to a high extent. Furthermore, the table also displays that the t- calculated is 13.256, which is greater than the t-tabulated of 1.98 (alternatively p-value = 0.000, which is less than the level of significance 0.05), hence leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that Pay raise has significant relationship with employee Initiative. Research Question Six To what extent does profit sharing relate to employee Initiative? Test of Hypothesis Six Ho6: Profit sharing has no significant relationship with employee Initiative. Table 1.6: The data for testing hypothesis six was obtained from questionnaire items 6-10 and 21-25 Source: Extracted from SPSS Output (See Appendix VIII) Table 4.6 shows the result obtained in respect of research question six and hypothesis six. The result reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.592, which is moderate. This implies that profit sharing relate to employee Initiative to a moderate extent. Furthermore, the table also displays that the t-calculated is 12.105, which is greater than the t-tabulated of 1.98 (alternatively p-value = 0.000, which is less than the level of significance 0.05), hence leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that Profit sharing has significant relationship with employee Initiative. Variables n ∑ X SD R Decision Pay Raise 273 2552 9.3480 3.1424 0.627 Employee Initiative α=0.05 df=271 ttab=1.98 273 2962 tcal =13.256 10.8498 p-value = 0.000 4.1342 High Relationship Variables n ∑ X SD R Decision Profit Sharing 273 2874 10.5275 3.1424 0.592 Employee Initiative α=0.05 df=271 ttab=1.98 273 2962 tcal =12.105 10.8498 p-value = 0.000 4.1342 Moderate Relationship RejectH0 RejectH0 JAFM JAFM JAFM Discussion of Findings The study has analysed the research questions and hypotheses and made findings based on the analysis. The findings from the first hypothesis showed that there is significant relationship between pay raise and productivity. The result reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.578, which is moderate. This implies that there is a moderate relationship between pay raise and productivity. Findings from the second research questions as well as the hypothesis showed that profit sharing relate to productivity to a moderate extent. Furthermore, the table also displays that the t-calculated is 9.981, which is greater than the t-tabulated of 1.98 (alternatively p-value = 0.000, which is less than the level of significance 0.05), hence leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis, concluding that profit sharing does significantly relate to productivity. The result obtained in respect of research question three and hypothesis three reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.822, which is very high. This implies that there is a very high relationship between pay raise and employee innovativeness. The result obtained in respect of research question four and hypothesis four reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.840, which is very high. This implies that there is a very high relationship between profit sharing and employee innovativeness concluding that Profit sharing has significant relationship with employee innovativeness. The result obtained in respect of research question five and hypothesis five reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.627, is high. This implies that pay raise relate to employee Initiative to a high extent concluding that Pay raise has significant relationship with employee Initiative. Research question six and hypothesis six results reveals that the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.592, which is moderate and implies that profit sharing relate to employee Initiative to a moderate extent which further concludes that profit sharing has significant relationship with employee Initiative. Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations Summary of the Findings From the data collected and analyzed based on the research questions and the tested hypotheses, the following findings were deduced from the study; 1. There is significant relationship between pay raise and productivity. 2. Profit sharing does significantly relate to productivity to a moderate extent 3. There is a very high significant relationship between pay raise and employee innovativeness 4. There is a very high significant relationship between profit sharing and employee innovativeness 5. Pay raise significantly relate to employee Initiative to a high extent 6. Profit sharing significantly relate to employee Initiative to a moderate extent. Conclusion From the findings, the study concludes that profit sharing and pay raise have influence on the employee effectiveness of deposit money banks in South East Nigeria. This implies that reward serve as a source of motivation to employee and boost their moral to work, thereby leading to organizational effectiveness in deposit money banks. Pay raise and profit sharing serve as drivers to productivity, Initiative decree and innovativeness of employee in deposit money banks in south east Nigeria. JAFM JAFM JAFM Recommendations In light of the findings and conclusions, the following policy recommendations were made: 1. The management of deposit money banks as a matter of urgency periodically ensure that the salary of their workers are increased and raised to a considerable standard considering the declining nature of Nigerian economy. This makes the workers to be more productivity in their respective area of specialty. 2. Management has to ensure that they enroll their employee in their profit-sharing plan. It is up to the company to decide how much of its profits it wishes to share. The basis for profit sharing is to reward employees for their contribution to the company’s achieved profit goal. It encourages commitment and discourages employee turnover by setting the reward for those employees who remain with organization. This enhances employee productivity as it makes them have a sense of belonging in the deposit money banks business transactions. 3. An innovative employee is one that has the capacity to be creative and this can be actualize when employee sees that his/her pay is increased. It will bring concentration on the employee. The management of deposit bank should ensure that they consider pay raise in order to ensure effective innovativeness. 4. The management of deposit money banks should understand the findings based on the empirical done by the researcher and other research analyst in the course of carrying this study and know that profit sharing enhances innovativeness of employees. 5. Workers should be trained for employees to understand the negative effect of Initiative; this would enable them not to depend solely on pay raise as bases for their commitment to duty. 6. This work would educate workers to understand that Initiative is a negative effect and should not base their level of Initiative as a result of the management inability to include in their plan of profit sharing. JAFM JAFM JAFM References Ahmed, A. (2009). Business Strategies for Growth and Effectiveness (4th Ed). Lusan: Heinemann Ed. Ajini I. O. (2018). Tenets of motivation in developing countries-An Integrated Approach. Ikeja: ABC Pub. Ltd. Alugbuo M. A (2015). HumanBehaviour in Third World Organization. A Systematic Behaviour and Contingency Approach. Versatile Publishers Owerri. Carraher, E.C. (2016). Theory of Motivation–the Workers Perspective. Andover: Catherine Roxer. Carrell, M.R., Elbert, N.F. & Hatfield, R.D. (1978). Human resources management: Global strategies for managing a diverse workforce. Fifth edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Chan, k., Gee, B. & Steiner, I. (2000). Organization Exit Management. Miami: Irwin Company. Drucker P. F (2006). The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done. New York: Collins. Egbe, S. E. (2022) Organizational Reward System and Employees’ Productivity in Faith Plant Limited Cross River State, Nigeria; International Journal of Business Systems and Economics; 13 (6); 32 – 43. Ejim, E. P., Ajagu, E. H. & Onah, S. C. (2021) Reward system and turnover intentions of employees: a study of deposit money banks in south east, Nigeria; Management and Human Resource Research Journal; 10 (10); 94-106. Ezeanyim, E.E., Ufoaroh, E.T. & Ajakpo, (2019) The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance in Selected Public Enterprise in Awka, Anambra State; Global Journal of Management and Business Research: Administration and Management 19(7), 1-11 Eziokwu, C. D. and Onuoha, B. C. (2021) Reward systems and organizational performance of deposit money banks in Rivers State; African Journal of Business and Economic Development 1 (6); 12-21. Gants, N. &Nupez, J. (2016). Financial or Non-Financial Rewards – A Choice for Managers. http://www.onlinearticles. Com. George T (2020) “13 ideas on measuring employee effectiveness” MIRP Grimaldi, T.K. (2015). Stock options at function – the choices you can make.http://www.grimaldiarticles.org. Guest, D (2022) What New in Motivating in Landy F. J (ed) Reading in Industrial and Organization, Psychology.Doprsan press Chicago. Higs, G &Skelter, O. (2001). The Total Reward Model. Draham: Bonne Publishing. Iyke-Ofoedu M. I, Nwankwo E. C. and Okechukwu S. C. (2023). Effect of extrinsic reward system on employee’s productivity in deposit money banks in Nigeria. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(03), 458–469 Kimani N. J.; Thomas K.N. & Arasa R. (2017) Effect of Reward system on Employee Performance: A Case Study of Mombasa Cement Limited; International Journal of Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research 5(3):25-42 Liu, S.T. (2017). Understanding the Role of Rewards. Old Lordon: jack Pello& Coy Press. Lodewijk Noordzij (2016) What is employee effectiveness? © Effectory - Leading in employee feedback Longman, Pearson (2011). 'Effective - Definition from Longman English Dictionary Online.' Longman English Dictionary Online. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/effective>. JAFM JAFM JAFM Murlis, Michael Armstrong & Helen (2004). Reward management: A handbook of remuneration strategy and practice (5th ed.) London (u.a): kogan page. ISBN 978-0749439842 Noorazem, N.A., Sabiroh, M. S. and Eliy-Nazira, M. N. (2021) The Effects of Reward System on Employees’ Performance; International Journal of Recent Research in Commerce Economics and Management; 16 (4); 1-14. Okosi, L.I. (2020) Effect of Reward System on the Performance of Sachet Waters Companies in Anambra State, Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research 8(4):20-31. Panker, G. & Liz, R. (2011). Strategies to Employee Rewards. http://www.educational articles. Co.uk/rewards. Rabia Inam Khan, Hassan Danial Aslam and Irfan Lodhi (2011) Compensation Management: A strategic conduit towards achieving employee retention and Job Satisfaction in Banking Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Human Resource Studies. Reward System on Organisational Effectiveness: A case study of Brentwood Suppliers Limited in Lusaka, Zambia. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 10 Rizwan, D., Lodhi, R. & Sabir, M. (2016). Employee Commitment – The Indicators.http://www.lodhiandgroup.org Robbins S. P (1993). Organizational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies and application. Englewood, Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Saman, M.O. (2018). Impact of Rewards on Motivation Level in Marine Workers. Journal of Industry 6 (13), 196-208. Schaufeli, G. (2012). Rewards Management and Employee Productivity. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 8 (2), 302-330. Shah, W.K. (2002). Conceptualizing Rewards in Relation with Job Effectiveness. Journals of Industrial Psychology 9 (2) 308 – 331. Shrewd Mann, K. (2007). Reward Management. Boston: Irwin Press. Stoner, O.D. (2012). Structure and Strategy for Boosting employee effectiveness. http://www.lumaronline educational. com. Telecommunication Workers in Denver. Journal of Industry and Commerce. 6 (2), 631-648. Teo T. C and Low, K. C (2016) The Impact of Goal Setting on Employee Effectiveness to Improve Organisation Effectiveness: Empirical study of a High-Tech Company in Singapore. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, vol 3. Uzor C. and Mbata H (2019). Boosting Employee Effectiveness. http///www.edubook.org//Boosting. Washington, G. & Tetrive S. (2001). Rewarding Strategies. Farmington DC: Luxton & Bryan. Yapa, O. (2014). Motivation Theory. (4th Ed). Kent: Laurel &Sunirtham. Zaman, O. J. (2018). Reward management and organizational Effectiveness.Journal of Human Resources Management 4 (4), 282-307. JAFM JAFM JAFM