This study examines effects of staff motivation on job performance, using Niger Delta University Non-academic staff in Bayelsa State. as a case study. Just like any long standing big organization Niger Delta University Non-academic staff in Bayelsa State is faced with the problem of developing and sustaining staff engagement through motivation to achieve high employee and organization productivity and prevent low employee morale and low overall organizational performance, the paper aimed at identifying various strategies andmotivational techniques that exist in the organization, determination of the best motivational techniques that bring the best out of employees and to determine ways of improving overall organizational performance through appropriate motivational approach. This study was carried out among the employees of Niger Delta University Non-academic staff in Bayelsa State, spanning through various departments. 450 well –structured questionnaire were administered in the organization. A total of 300 questionnaires received back and passed through statistical analyses. Research questions were raised based on the research objectives and hypotheses. Chi (  ) statistical test was deployed to test the various hypotheses formulated in the study. The result showed that quality of supervision has positive effect on employee motivation to work better. It was also found that workers perception on what obtained in his organization will motivate him to greater productivity. Financial motivation involving monetary rewards have greater impact on performance and job performance.




Motivation is one of the key elements in employee performance and productivity. Even when people have clear work objectives, the right skills, and a supportive work environment, they would not get the job done without sufficient motivation to achieve those work objectives. Mary (2000) refers to the forces within a person that affect his or her direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary behavior as motivation. Motivation is one of the most contemporary issues in both public and private sectors management.This is based on the understanding that motivation has a very significant role to play in the process of combining and utilizing organizational resources (men and materials) geared towards the accomplishment of organizational stated goals.Researchers have consequently sought to explain how and why people behave the way they do and how they can be made to behave in a manner supportive of the organizational goals. The problem of employee motivations has occupied the minds of employers and captains of industries since ages.

Basic to any explanation of why people behave in a certain manner is a theory of motivation. As Jones (1959), cited in Lawler (1969), pointed out that motivation theory attempts to explain “how behaviour gets started, is energized, is sustained, is directed, is stopped and what kind of subjective reaction is present in the organism.” The theory of motivation that will be used to understand employees‟ performance is “expectancy theory” (Vroom, 1964 as described by Robbins (1998). The expectancy theory used is based upon Lawier and Porter (1967), Porter and Lawier (1968) as quoted by Robert and Hunt (1991). According to this theory, an employee’s motivation to perform effectively is determined by two variables. The first of these is contained in the concept of an effort-reward probability. This is the individual’s subjective probability that directing a given amount of effort toward performing effectively will result in his obtaining a given reward or positively valued outcome. This effort-reward probability is determined by two subsidiary subjective probabilities: the probability that effort will result in performance and the probability that performance will result in the reward (Lawler, 1969). Robins (1998) explained thus, “Vroom refers to the first of these subjective probabilities as an expectancy and to the second as an instrumentality. The second variable that is relevant here is the concept of reward value or valence. This refers to the individual’s perception of the value of the reward or outcome that might be obtained by performing effectively. Although most expectancy theories do not specify why certain outcomes have reward value, the reward value of outcomes stems from their perceived ability to satisfy one or more needs. Specifically relevant here is the list of needs suggested by Maslow that includes security needs, social needs, esteem needs, and selfactualization needs (Herzberg, 1987). The evidence indicates that, for a given reward, reward value and the effort-reward probability combine multiplicatively in order to determine an individual’s motivation. This means that if either is low or not existing then no motivation will be present. According to Lawler (1969), they illustrate a case of a manager who very much values getting promoted but who sees no relationship between working hard and getting promoted. To him, promotion does not serve as a motivator, just as it is not for a manager who sees a close connection between being promoted and working hard but who does not want to be promoted. In order for motivation to be present, the manager must both value promotion and see the relationship between his efforts and promotion‟ Thus, for an individual reward or outcome the argument is that a combination of its value and the appropriate effort-reward probability is necessary. However, an individual’s motivation is influenced by more than one outcome. Thus, in order to determine an individual’s motivation it is necessary to combine data concerned with a number of different outcomes. This can be done for an individual worker by considering all the outcomes he values and then summing the products obtained from multiplying the value of these outcomes to him by their respective effort-reward probabilities. According to this theory, if changes in job design are going to affect an individual’s motivation they must either change the value of the outcomes that are seen to depend upon effort, or positively affect the individual’s beliefs about the probability that certain outcomes are dependent upon effort (Vastano, 1985). Mullins (1999), in his book ‘’Management and Organisational Behaviour, distinguished between two kinds of rewards. As previously seen, the first types are those that are extrinsic to the individual. These rewards are part of the job situation and are given by others. Hence, they are externally mediated and are rewards that can best be thought of as satisfying lower order needs. The second type of rewards is intrinsic to the individual and stems directly from the performance itself. These rewards are internally-mediated since the individual rewards himself. These rewards can be thought of as satisfying higher order needs such as self-esteem and self-actualization.