A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF BONUSES AND INCENTIVES ON THE MOTIVATION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN CAMEROON

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study Motivation plays an essential role in achieving organizational goals and objectives across the globe. It becomes even more significant in work environments that rely heavily on teamwork or demand a high level of autonomy from employees. Aligning the personal goals and values of individuals with the overarching mission and vision of an organization is key to maintaining a strong sense of motivation. When this alignment is achieved, it can lead to improved productivity, higher work standards, and financial gains across various departments. Sender, Arnold, and Staffelbach (2016) argue that if organizations fail to properly motivate their employees through financial rewards, the performance of complex tasks may suffer. In such cases, organizations may become overly focused on profit at the expense of other critical factors that influence overall effectiveness. The concept of Public Service Motivation (PSM) emerged as a distinct research area within the field of public administration in the late 20th century. According to Althaus, Bridgman, and Davis (2017), PSM refers to an individual’s tendency to be driven by motives that are primarily, or even exclusively, tied to public institutions and organizations. This form of motivation reflects values such as a strong commitment to serving the public good, loyalty to democratic principles, and a profound sense of responsibility towards others (Lewis, 2015a). Various studies have highlighted the impact of PSM on shaping the attitudes, behaviors, and work preferences of public employees. It also significantly influences how public organizations perform and deliver services efficiently (Nielsen & Baekgaard, 2015). In recent decades, public sector institutions have increasingly adopted the use of bonuses and incentives as tools to recognize and motivate employees. Bonuses are typically financial rewards based on either individual or organizational performance, used to encourage higher effort and achievement (Taylor, 2015). On the other hand, incentives encompass a broader range of both financial and non-financial benefits, such as promotions, training opportunities, and public recognition. The effectiveness of these motivational tools has drawn interest from both academics and practitioners. Supporters believe that incentives and bonuses can enhance employee performance, boost creativity, and improve morale. Despite their growing use in the public sector, there is still limited and inconsistent empirical evidence on how well these tools actually motivate government workers. This study, therefore, aims to explore how bonuses and incentives influence the motivation of public servants in Cameroon. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Over the years, numerous researchers have studied workplace motivation and its implications. These investigations have aimed to evaluate how motivation affects individuals’ lives, careers, and goals both generally and within professional settings (West & Blackman, 2015). One of the key responsibilities of management is to engage and motivate employees effectively (West & Blackman, 2015). The public service sector plays a pivotal role in governance and in delivering essential services to the public. It helps shape national development and directly affects the welfare of citizens (Chuang & Liao, 2019). Given this critical role, the motivation of public servants directly impacts their level of commitment, efficiency, and service delivery. Bonuses and incentive schemes are commonly employed in the public sector to foster motivation and enhance employee engagement (Grant, 2020). However, the degree to which these rewards influence motivation can vary depending on several contextual factors, including organizational culture, leadership style, and socio-economic conditions. This study, therefore, seeks to examine the influence of bonuses and incentives on motivating public servants in Cameroon. 1.3 Objective of the Study The primary aim of this research is to investigate how bonuses and incentives influence the motivation of public servants in Cameroon. The specific objectives include: i. To identify the various types of bonuses and incentives available to public servants in Cameroon. ii. To evaluate the effectiveness of these bonuses and incentives in motivating public sector employees. iii. To examine the relationship between bonuses/incentives and job satisfaction among Cameroonian public servants. 1.4 Research Questions To guide the study, the following research questions have been formulated: i. What types of bonuses and incentives are offered to public servants in Cameroon? ii. How effective are these bonuses and incentives in enhancing employee motivation? iii. Is there a significant relationship between bonuses/incentives and job satisfaction among public servants in Cameroon? 1.5 Significance of the Study This study is expected to provide valuable insights to management within the Ministry of Education and other public institutions, helping them understand how bonuses and incentives can be effectively used to drive employee motivation and improve job performance. Furthermore, the findings will be useful for policymakers tasked with designing competitive incentive structures and reward systems that motivate public servants to meet acceptable standards of performance. The research will also contribute to academic literature by offering a deeper understanding of the topic and serving as a useful resource for future scholars who wish to explore employee motivation in the public sector. 1.6 Scope of the Study This research focuses specifically on the role of bonuses and incentives in motivating public servants in Cameroon. Empirically, it will explore the types of rewards available, evaluate their effectiveness, and analyze how they relate to job satisfaction. Geographically, the study is limited to the Ministry of Education in Cameroon. 1.7 Limitations of the Study As with most research efforts, this study encountered a few challenges. Limited financial resources affected the researcher’s ability to access materials, gather data, and utilize tools like online platforms, questionnaires, and interviews. As a result, a modest sample size was used. Additionally, the researcher had to balance this study with other academic obligations, which restricted the amount of time that could be devoted to the research process. 1.8 Definition of Terms Bonuses: Financial rewards given to employees in addition to their regular salary, often as recognition for outstanding performance or achieving specific targets. Incentives: Motivational tools, which may include monetary and non-monetary benefits, designed to encourage improved employee performance or job satisfaction. Public Servants: Individuals employed by government agencies or public institutions who provide essential services or perform administrative duties on behalf of the state. Motivation: The internal processes that drive individuals to act toward achieving goals. In this context, it refers to the elements that encourage public servants to perform their duties effectively. Job Satisfaction: The level of contentment and fulfillment employees experience in their jobs, influenced by various factors including pay, work conditions, relationships, and opportunities for advancement REFERENCES Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., and Davis, G. (2017). The Australian Policy Handbook, 6th edn. (Sydney: Allen & Unwin). Chuang, C. H., & Liao, H. U. I. (2019). Incentive pay and individual performance: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 29(2), 180-196. Grant, A. M. (2020). Rethinking the Extrinisic Reward in Public Service: How Performance-Based Bonuses Can Enhance Public Servant Motivation. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 97-108. Lewis, J. M. (2015a). ‘The Politics and Consequences of Performance Measurement’. Policy and Society 34(1): 1–12. Nielsen, P. A., and Baekgaard, M. (2015). ‘Performance Information, Blame Avoidance, and Politicians’ Attitudes to Spending and Reform: Evidence from an Experiment’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(2): 545–569. Nielsen, P.A., and Moynihan, D. (2017). ‘Responsibility for Performance? Negativity Bias and Interest Group Advocacy’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(2): 269–283. Sender, A., Arnold, A., & Staffelbach, B. (2016). Job Security as AthreatenedResource: Reactions to Job Insecurity in Culturally Distinct Regions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-27. Shermerorn. John S.(2005), "Management " 8th Edition , Willey ,New Jersey. Taylor, J. (2015). ‘Closing the Rhetoric-Reality Gap? Employees’ Perspective of Performance Management in the Australian Public Service’. Australian Journal of Public Administration 74(3): 336–353. West, D., and Blackman, D. (2015). ‘Performance Management in the Public Sector’. Australian Journal of Public Administration 74(1): 73–81.