Vol 6 (1) - Cont. J. Soc. Sci. - Semantic Scholar

Continental J. Social Sciences 6 (1): 1 - 8, 2013 ©Wilolud Journals, 2013 Printed in Nigeria

ISSN: 2141 - 4265 http://www.wiloludjournal.com doi:10.5707/cjsocsci.2013.6.1.1.8

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY OF MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES? THE PERSPECTIVE OF STUDENTS 1

Yeboah Asuamah Samue1l; Samuel Abeka-Donkor2; Cynthia Gyamfi3 Marketing Department, Sunyani Polytechnic, Ghana, BOX 206, 2Sunyani Polytechnic, Commercial Studies, Ghana, 3 BOX 206, Cynthia Gyamfi, Sunyani Polytechnic, Ghana, BOX 206 ABSTRACT The aim of the paper is to contribute to the body of knowledge in the area of employee motivation and job satisfaction by assessing student’s perception and attitude towards the current condition of work in relation to motivation. The study is based on quantitative survey design using sample of student in marketing department of Sunyani Polytechnic in Ghana. A sample size of 200 workers was selected using convenience sample methodology. Primary data were obtained using self-designed questionnaire and secondary data obtained by archival research. Primary data were analyzed using percentages, frequencies and One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Respondents are not satisfied with the current conditions of workers. They are also motivated most by promotion, good salaries and full appreciation of work done. Policy makers should ensure that the motivational scheme is total and not only financial rewards. Future research should look at the issue of causality and also increase the sample size in a more comparative manner. KEYWORDS: Motivation; Demographic variables; Promotion; Theory of motivation; intrinsic motivation Jel Classification: J33; M52: M54 Received for Publication: 23/10/12 Corresponding author: [email protected]

Accepted for Publication: 14/01/13

INTRODUCTION Researchers have written a lot on the various ways of motivating employees in various organisations. The productivity of employees is the survival of any organization and as such there have been many researches on how to increase the productivity of employees. The thinking is that with well-motivated employees effort will increase to the benefit of the organization because they become satisfied. Motivation has been defined by many researchers. According to Greenberg and Baron (2003) motivation is “The set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain human behaviour towards attaining some goal”. The definition shows that employees need to be motivated so that they will increase effort. The various views of researchers are found in the theories such as; ERG theory (Alders), Need theory (Maslow), Expectancy theory (Vrooms), Adams (Social Equity Theory (Adams), Productivity theory (Taylor), Two factor theory (Herzberg), Theory X and Y (Mac Gregory) and Reward theory (Skinner). These theorists explain the various sources of motivation of employees. Each theorist thinks of different ways of motivating different kinds of employees. According to Alder there are three basic human needs that need to be met in order to be motivated. These are existence, relatedness and growth. Without these factors employees are not motivated. In the thinking of Maslow (1943) the needs (physiological, security, belongings, esteem and self-actualization needs) of employees are hierarchal and that the basic needs (physiological) are to be satisfied first. Vroom (1964)

All rights reserved This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

1

Yeboah Asuamah Samuel et al.,: Continental J. Social Sciences 6 (1): 1 - 8, 2013

indicates that employees are motivated by how much they want something and how likely they think they will get what they are looking for. According to Vroom (1964) employees performance is a function of factors such as effort and skills of employees as well as environmental factors. In Adams (1965) view employees are motivated when they see their rewards as equitable to what other employees are receiving and these rewards are assessed by the calculation of ratios and they become satisfied if the ratios are high. He indicated that outcome from job is a function of variables such as intrinsic reward; social relationship; promotion; recognition and pay. Employees according to Adams (1965) employ inputs such as experience, education, loyalty, effort and time in performing their assigned jobs to receive their rewards. In the written of Taylor (1911), he asserts that workers intentionally slow the pace of work in order not to increase productivity for fear of being dismissed because of increase productivity. This behaviour of workers cannot be entertained in contemporary economies where employees are assessed on productivity. This concept of intentional slowing of effort by employees is termed soldering. Herzberg (1987) identifies two factors such as intrinsic (motivators) and dissatisfies (Hygiene factors) and that employees are motivated to increase effort when motivational factors are met at the job place. To him productivity is a function of the meeting of motivators. Mac Gregory (1960) also identified lazy employees (Theory X) and ambitious employees (Theory Y) and argues that the lazy employees need to be motivated to increase effort. When they are not motivated they will not work hard and productivity will go down. Empirical studies on the most effect way of motivating employees have produced various results indicating that different factors influence employees in different ways. For example, in the survey by Ajang (2007) respondents ranked the top five factors that best motivate them as Job Satisfaction, Promotions/Expectations, Recognition, Good salary, and Organizational/Management styles. The most important factor in the study is job satisfaction (20.9%). The study was based on respondents who are students and the research considered them as important participants in the labour force in future. In a study by Hersey and Blanchard (1969), respondents ranked the factors that motivate them as full appreciation of work done; feeling of being; sympathetic help with personal problems; job security; and good wages/salaries when presented with ten motivational factors. The study by Kovach (1987/1986) indicated that factors that motivate workers change with time. He reported that between 1981 and 1986 employee’s preferred different factors. In 1981 interesting work was the most ranked factor whiles sympathetic help with personal problems picked the ninth position out of the ten factors. In his study in 1986 the top five ranked variables were interesting work; full appreciation of work done; feeling of being (recognition); job security; and good wages/salary. Harpaz (1990) ranked Job satisfaction as the most important motivational factor. Wiley (1997) reported in his survey that the order of ranking by respondents were; Good wages; full appreciation of work; job security; promotions/expectations and Interesting work. Lindner (1998) established different order of ranking by respondents as; Interesting work; good wages/salary; recognition; job security; good working conditions. According to Ahmed et al. (2010) workers are motivated and they experience higher job satisfaction by the recognition, work itself, opportunity for advancement, professional growth, responsibility, and good feelings about organization, Demographic variables have also been identified as influencing motivation in various studies (Nelson, 2001; Wiley, 1997; Harpaz, 1990; Kovach, 1987). These variables are gender; age; and personality type. The results on


2


demographic analysis have been inconsistent in the literature. Some studies have yielded insignificant results whiles others have produced significant results. Park and Wood (2009) reported in their study that “nonprofit managers are more motivated by a work environment that allows for a balance between work and family than public managers”. They indicated that “Public managers are more inspired by monetary motivation than nonprofit managers”. It was also established in their study that nonprofit managers were much more motivated by benefits that helped them achieve a work life balance. These motivational factors are considered as intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. According to Park and Wood (2009) intrinsic factors such as Security; Ability Utilization; Social Service; Variety; Moral Values; Activity; and Authority significantly affect motivation of employee positively. In the case of extrinsic motivation factors such as Recognition; Supervision-Human Relations; Advancement; and Co-workers significantly affect motivation positively. Statement of problem/Justification/significance The issue of motivation is so important to the heart of employees as well as employers because of productivity. When workers are well motivated they give out their best for the organization to grow. In most economies when employees consider their reward system as not motivating they cut back effort in some cases whiles in other case they embark on strike and demonstrations. In Ghana there have been many strikes by employees from organizations such as education and health due to poor reward system. Most of these strikes are based on low salaries and poor conditions of work. In view of these the researchers examine the most ranked motivational factors from the perspective of students in order to determine what future employees would want their future employers to motivate them with. In most survey on motivation current employees are used and not future employees. In the knowledge of the researchers relatively few works have been done on students and no known work exists in the study area and as such the paper fills the literature gap. Also the findings have been inconsistent in the literature and as such more empirical studies are worth doing. The findings provide further understanding of theories underlying the paper by providing answers to the research questions provided in the paper. The findings also provide policy guide to employers on how best to motivate their employees. Researchers will also find the findings useful when doing similar study. General Objective/Specific Objective The paper aims at contributing to the body of knowledge in the area of motivation by assessing what students consider as most important in motivating them as future employees. Specifically, the paper among other things; Identify the most ranked motivating factor by respondents, Examine the effect of demographic variables on motivation, Research Questions/Hypotheses The paper is based the following research questions; What factors motivate employees most and why? How is demographic variables related to motivation? Hypotheses These hypotheses are tested in the paper based on the survey results using ANOVA analysis. Age significantly affect preferences of motivation, Gender significantly affect preferences of motivation,


3


Other demographic variables influence preferences of motivational factors.

Limitations/Scope The paper is not without limitations. The sample was based on convenient sample and as such the finding may lack external validity. The findings are based on self-reported responses of the respondent and any respondent biases may not been known by the researchers. On the issue of scope, the focus is not on assessing the satisfaction level of respondents and also to whether they are motivated or not. Hence, articles on the satisfaction of employees are not reviewed in the paper. It does not also use workers but students who are potential workers. METHODOLOGY The paper is based on descriptive quantitative survey research design using sample of 200 students of the marketing department selected through convenient sample method. Primary data was collected using self-designed questionnaire, administered during lectures. Data was analysed using frequencies, percentages, ANOVA and Chisquare and presented in tables and charts. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Demographic features of respondents Of the 200 respondents in the study, 117(58.5%) were males and 77(38.5%) were females with 6(3%) missing responses. Majority 128(64%) belong to the age group of 18-22years, followed by 52(26%) in the age group of 2327years, then 9(4.5%) in the age group less than 18years, with 5(2.5%) in the age group of 28-32years, 1(0.5%) in the age group above 42years and 5(2.5%) missing response. Majority 169(84.5%) of them were Christians, followed by Muslims 20(10%) then those who are not in any religious group 9(4.5%) with 2(1.0%) missing response. On marital status majority 69(60%) were married; 32(27.8%) never married; 7(6.1%) were widowed; while 1(0.9%) was in informal relationship, with 1(0.9%) missing response. In the case of employment significant majority 113(98.3%) were teachers, with 1(0.9%) lecturer and 1(0.9%) account clerk. On family income status most 80(40%) belong to medium income level followed by those in high income level 63(31.5%) then low income level 32(16%) and those who played neutral 25(12.5%). Personality types of respondents were also assessed. Majority 120(60%) of the respondents are individualistic followed by collectivistic group 67(33.5%) and those who played neutral 13(6.5%). Respondents belong to various regions in the country. Most 81(40.5%) of the respondents are Ashantis followed by Brong Ahafo 38(19%) then Western region 18(9%) and Upper East 14(7%) and Eastern 13(6.5%). The other groups are Northern region 12(6%), Upper West 9(4.5%), Volta 7(3.5%), Central 4(2%) with 1(0.5%) missing response. On the prefered sector of work after graduation, majority 112(56%) prefer public sector while 78(39%) prefer private sector with 10(5%) played neutral. Respondent’s perception of the current conditions of employment of workers Majority 133(66.5%) of the respondents are not satisfied with the current conditions of workers while 40(20%) are satisfied with the current conditions of work of employees. On the issue of motivation of employees majority 124(62%) are of the view that workers are not well motivated while 59(29.5%) consider workers to be well motivated, with 15(7.5%) staying neutral and 2(1%) missing responses. Majority 137(68.5%) think workers in the private sector are well motivated than those in public sector with 12(6%) been neutral and 1(0.5%) missing response. These results indicate that workers are not well motivated to give their


4


best according to the respondents who are students. The respondents are tertiary students and as such there is the possibility of some being workers and students. Responses on what motivate respondents most Using Likert scale, respondents were asked to rank 15 statements relating to how best they will be motivated given that they are workers. The orders of ranking of the ways respondents will want to be motivated are: promotion of employees (96%); good wages or Salaries (95.5%); full appreciation of work done (94%); job satisfaction (184%) and company loyalty to employees (90%); whether workers goals are satisfied (89.5%); recognition of workers contribution (88%); job security for employees (87%); team spirit(86.5%); sympathetic help with personal problems (83.5%); possible dismissal of employees (81.5%); organizational and management styles (80%); tactful discipline (69%); less working hours (52%) and interesting work (31%). The results are shown in Table 1. These findings are not consistent with the order of ranking by respondents in Ajang (2007) study in which respondents ranked job satisfaction as the most important factor of motivation followed by promotion, recognition, good salary and organizational styles. The results are also inconsistent with the ranking in Hersey and Blanchard (1969) paper in which ranked full appreciation of work done followed by feeling of being, sympathetic help with personal issues, job security and good salaries. Kovach (1987/1986) indicated that motivational factors change with time. According to Harpaz (1990) job satisfaction is the most important motivational factor which is not consistent with the findings in this paper. Park and Wood (2009) indicated that public managers are more influenced by monetary motivation than nonprofit managers who are motivated by work environment that allows for a balance between work and family. One-Way ANOVA Analysis of variance was performed to determine if there is statistical difference in the responses provided by respondents in relation to the demographic variables. The results on One Way analysis of variance revealed that gender, age, religion, region, family income level, personality type have significant effect on some of the responses given by respondents on the best ways of motivating employees. For instance there is a significant difference between age and the means of the response given by respondents on questions such as: ‘Possibilities of layoffs or dismissal for not working hard’ (F=2.992; p=0.020); ‘interesting work’ (F=3.607; p=.007); ‘organisational or management styles’ (F=2.095; p=0.080) and ‘Less working hours’ (F=3.598; p=0.007). There is a statistical significant difference between gender and the means of the response given by respondents on three questions which are ‘Are you satisfied with the current condition of work of employees’ (F=7.521; p=0.007); ‘Do you think workers are well motivated to work hard’ (F=4.296; p=0.04) and ‘job satisfaction’ (F=4.516; p=0.035). There is also a statistical significant difference between religion and the means of the response given by respondents five questions which are ‘Are you satisfied with the current condition of work of employees’ (F=3.376; p=0.036); ‘promotion of employees’ (F=5.984; p=0.003); ‘Recognition of worker contribution’ (F=3.542; p0.031); ‘team spirit’ (F=3.491; p=0.032) and ‘job satisfaction’ (F=3.283; p=0.040) There is a statistical significant difference between region and the means of the response given by respondents on five questions which are: ‘if Possibilities of layoffs or dismissal for not working hard’ (F=1.909; p=0.053); ‘interesting work’ (F=2.124; p=0.029); ‘company loyalty to employ Which sector do you think workers are well


5


motivated’ (F=1.670; p=0.099); ‘Good working conditions’ (F=1.934; p=0.049) and job satisfaction (F=2.524; p=0.009). Family income status statistically influences two responses given by the respondents which are: ‘Do you think workers are well motivated to work hard’ (F=3.101; p=0.028) and ‘Recognition of worker contribution’ (F=2.658; p=0.050). Personality type significantly affected one response which is ‘Which sector do you think workers are well motivated’ (F=3.116; p=0.047). These results indicate that demographic variables statistically affect responses significant which are consistent with the findings of researchers such as Nelson (2001); Wiley (1997) and Harpaz (1990) who established that demographic variables affect motivation significantly. This implies in developing motivational policies demographic variables must be considered.

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The current conditions of work are not satisfying according to respondents. Promotion of employees, good wages and full appreciation of work done matter most for respondents who are future employees of organizations in Ghana. Demographic variables significantly affect motivation of respondents in the study. Management of organizations should pay attention to demographic variables in designing policy on motivation since what will motivate one worker may be different from what motivate another worker. In providing motivation a combination of these factors must be considered to meet the expectation of all employees. Managers must think in terms of total rewards and not just financial rewards system. Managers must develop employee motivation systems that are directed toward work environment or organization climate, work-life balance and the nature of the job and quality of the work, and career opportunities. Future research on comparative manner must be done using students and workers to determine if these findings will be replicated. Causal studies must be done to address issues of causality since causality has not been addressed in the paper. The sample size must be increased in future studies to ensure more generalisations of the findings.


6


Statements

Possible dismissal Full appreciation of work done Job security

Strongly Agreed Freq.% 82(41%) 134(67%)

Table 3. Distribution of Responses on prefer ways of motivation Agreed Neutral Disagreed Strongly Freq.% Freq.% Freq.% Disagreed Freq.% 81(40.5%) 11(5.5%) 12(6%) 13(6.5%) 54(27%) 6(3%) 4(2%) 1(0.5%)

Missing Response Freq.% 1(0.5%) 1(0.5%)

Total Freq.%

200(100%) 200(100%)

110(55%)

64(32%)

15(7.5%)

8(4%)

3(1.5%)

n.a

200(100%)

promotion

136(68%)

56(28%)

4(2%)

3(1.5%)

1(0.5%)

n.a

200(100%)

Company loyalty to employees Interesting work

110(55%)

70(35%)

12(6%)

6(3%)

n.a

2(1%)

200(100%)

56(28%)

6(3%)

3(1.5%)

4(2%)

n.a

70(35%)

200(100%)

Goods wages or salaries Tactful discipline Recognition of worker contribution Sympathetic help with personal issues Team spirit Whether workers goals are satisfied Organisational styles Job satisfaction Less working hours

161(80.5%)

30(15%)

5(2.5%)

2(1%)

1(0.5%)

1(0.5%)

200(100%)

54(27%) 101(50.5%)

84(42%) 75(37.5%)

39(19.5%) 15(7.5%)

15(7.5%) 5(2.5%)

5(2.5%) 1(0.5%)

3(1.5%) 3(1.5%)

200(100%) 200(100%)

95(47.5%)

72(36%)

18(9%)

5(2.5%)

9(4.5%)

1(0.5%)

200(100%)

109(54.5%) 108(54%)

64(32%) 71(35.5%)

18(9%) 14(7%)

6(3%) 5(2.5%)

2(1%) 1(.05%)

1(0.5%) 1(0.5%)

200(100%) 200(100%)

72(36%)

88(44%)

25(12.5%)

7(3.5%)

5(2.5%)

3(1.5%)

200(100%)

124(62%) 54(27%)

60(30%) 50(25%)

9(4.5%) 36(18%)

2(1%) 32(16%)

4(2%) 26(13%)

1(0.5%) 2(1%)

200(100%) 200(100%)

(Source: field survey; October, 2012)


7


REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press. Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., Iqbal, N., Ali, I., & Usman, A. (2010). Effect of motivational factors on employee on employee job satisfaction a Case of university of the Punjab Parkistan, International journal of business management, 5(3), 70-80. Ajang, P. E. (2007). ‘Assessing the Role of Work Motivation on Employee Performance’, student thesis, Umea University, Sweden 2007, [Online] available at http://umu.diva-portal. org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=1&pid=diva2:140549, accessed on December 15, 2011. Greenberg, J., & Baron, Robert A. (2003). Behavior in organizations, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall. Harpaz, I. (1990), “The importance of work goals: An international perspective”, Journal of International Business Studies, 21(1)75-100. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1996). “Management of Organisational behaviour”, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, pp.34-35. Herzberg, F. (1959). The Motivation to Work; 2nd edition, John Wiley Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons, 30. 58-65. Maslow, A. H. (1943). ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’, Psychological Review, no. 50, pp. 370-396. McGregor, D. (1960). The Human side of the Enterprise; McGraw-Hill Nelson, B. (2001). “Motivate employees with intangible benefits”, Available at: http://www.findarticles.com. Park, S. M., & Word, J. (2009). Motivated to Serve: Constructs and Consequences of Work Motivation for Public and Nonprofit Managers. Paper presented at the International Public Service Motivation (IPSM) Research Conference, June 7-9 2009, Bloomington, Indiana. Taylor, F. (1911). “Principles and Methods of Scientific Management.” Journal of Accountancy, 12/2: 117-24. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Wiley, C. (1997). “What motivates employees according to over 40 years of Motivation surveys. ”International Journal of Manpower, 18(3), 264-280.


8

Continental J. Social Sciences 6 (1): 9 - 16, 2013 ©Wilolud Journals, 2013 Printed in Nigeria

ISSN: 2141 - 4265 http://www.wiloludjournal.com doi:10.5707/cjsocsci.2013.6.1.9.16

AN APPRAISAL OF THE OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PRIVATE TERMINAL CONCESSIONAIRES IN LANDLORD PORT MODEL Obed Boniface Ndikom Department of Maritime Management Technology, Federal University of Technology, Owerri ABSTRACT This paper explains the nature, characteristics, operational purpose, mission, policy aberrations, operational performance and limitations of the private terminal concessionaires in a landlord port model, within the confines of the maritime industry. Concessioning is a restructuring process that is to achieve optional efficiency and to make our ports. Concessioning is a process where Government hands over the management and infrastructural facilities of a public corporation to a private company to manage for a period of time. Landlord port model reflects a situation where the ports authority provides the land and regulates all the ports activities at the end. It also reflects a transformational change of the Port’s system from labour intensive to autonomous system for the purpose of increasing the turn-round time of vessels as well as cargo delivery process and thus increasing the efficiency of the port at the end. Therefore, effort can be made in this paper to have a comprehensive review of the operational limitations as it concerns private terminal operators in a landlord port model KEYWORDS: Operational limitations; private terminal concessionaires, landlord Port model, concessioning and port’s system. Received for Publication: 23/10/12 Corresponding author: [email protected]

Accepted for Publication: 25/01/13

INTRODUCTION Over the years, the sector’s reform and the ancillary services have become a major challenge faced by port managers all over the world, particularly countries undergoing economic restructuring or contending with financial problems (Ndikom, 2006). Observably, the private participation has not be impressive and foreign investment is seriously marginal, because of disincentives like high capital flight, and debt-costs in the Nigerian financial markets (Ndikom, 2004). The fiscal reforms for the shipping and maritime sub-sectors are more lucrative in terms of tax concessions and have adopted a more friendly policy culminating in the concessioning of port terminal to private concessionaires. Over a decade ago, government has initiated well-syndicated structural reforms in our ports due to lopsided malfunctioning of the system, culminating in serious fraudulent sharp practices and other operational difficulties that has affected efficiency and productivity of the port (Ndikom, 2006). Presently, the concept of port restructuring process is to achieve efficiency and to make our ports productive within its operational environment. The ports have witnessed some negative operational vices in the past years that do not go down well with the past tenets of world maritime operational standards and modalities. To this end, the ports and its operations require some sort of reforms to reshape the systems and the services, as it wasn’t the best, hence the reforms. Reforms in the ports, call for extensive modernization of the port system and require proper transportation of the sector from Labour intensive to autonomous system for the purpose of increasing the turn-round time of vessels as well as cargo delivery process and thus increasing the efficiency of the port at the end (Ndikom, 2008).


9

Obed Boniface Ndikom: Continental J. Social Sciences 6 (1): 9 - 16, 2013

Port Operation’s Concept: Over the years, the operations of the ports and its attendant services to users of the port have never been efficient and effective in anyway and the operational performance as at then, has nothing to write home about. The ports were noticed to present various forms of operational vice that culminated into reduced cargo throughput, diversion of cargo to other neighbouring port, concealment, under valuation, under declaration of goods, over-invoicing leading to capital flight. The shipping company operation has never shown any positive signals due to lack of managerial abilities, professional incompetence and other operational vices that has impaired operational efficiency and productivity. Since the consessioned era, the operational service of shipping companies has improved considerably, as they collaborate with the terminal concessionaires in improving the operational services of the port system. In the last seven years of take-over of port-terminals, there are remarkable impact in the services of both the shipping companies and concessionaires in terms of improved infrastructural facilities, and services, thereby enhancing operational efficiency; productivity and improved ship turn-round time (Ndikom, 2008). The impact of shipping company and terminal concessionaires operation in the last seven years of take-over of port’s operations, has been impressive and wonderful in terms of operational performance and functioning, as vessels discharge rate, operational documentation, cargo delivery process and customers job satisfaction are something worthy of note. The segmentation reflection of port operations in line with different terminal operators agenda, visions and missions has been the best thing that has happened to the port’s industry (Ndikom, 2008). Port Terminal Operations Terminal operations in Nigeria were, for many years, carried out inefficiently and imperfectly too, due to varying degrees of vices that pervaded the entire economic system. There was thus need for the government to reform and transform the operations at the terminals to conform to international standards. This was achieved during the port concessioning period. Hence, port terminal operations have moved from former operation to a more sophisticated and mechanized system of operations, due to technological applications of information highways and byways. The fundamentals of terminal operations involve the movement of containerized cargo from and through the terminal. This implies that terminal operations must be able to actually absorb in practice the heavy containerized cargo traffic that are expected to move through it; that ports or its terminal operations exist solely to handle the available cargo traffic. Its ability to sustain such cargo traffic at every given point in time is anchored on the provision and availability of critical superstructures and infrastructure. Improvement in port infrastructure has helped in coping with the increasing tide of cargo traffic at today's ports. Port terminal is a potent infrastructure, which is vital to the survival of the port system, and without which it would be almost impossible for cargo to move in and out of a port. The management of such infrastructure is vital to the system, as a loose system of control can jeopardize its essence (Ndikom, 2008). The Landlord Port Model In a landlord port, the public ports authority is responsible for providing port infrastructure, such as access channel, wharves and terminal yards, while the superstructure, such as cranes, handling equipment and warehouses as well as stevedoring services are owned and employed by private parties. The landlord concept of port management is seen as a clear separation of roles and tasks of the public and private sectors. It involves the grouping of berths and related facilities, such as sheds and storage area, into operational units, under separate managements. The concept does not mean selling out valuable assets such as lands, waters and/or port infrastructure to private sector. In this reflective concept, government still maintains the ownership status of these strategic assets while only concessioning them out to the private sector for a limited period of time. In other words, the arrangement is such that: (a) the private sector is therefore responsible for managing the terminals, operations, investments and maintaining port’s super-structures and equipment; while (b) the public sector is responsible for port planning and development, regulatory task (safety, security, rules of the game, etc) nautical management, ownership and concessionaire of port, land and infrastructure (Ihenacho, 2005). Benefits of the Landlord Concept 1. Bureaucratic tendencies and management bottlenecks are removed. 2. Productivity and efficiency are highly enhanced.


10


3.

Duties are carried out in accordance with specific expertise.

Table 1.1: Terminal A Terminal B Total in 25 years

Terminal Terminal A Terminal B Total

Month April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 Aug 2006 Sept 2006 Got 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Mar 2007 Total

Table 1.2: April 252982 65181 318163 Table 1.3: No 18 10 20 19 15 16 18 18 13 17 13 17 194

Projected annual cargo throughput of ABTL at Apapa, 2007 1,827,752.50 metric tonnes 1,285,467.50 metric tonnes 3,1 13,220 metric tonnes x 25 = 77,830,500 metric tonnes

Cargo throughput for terminals A & B (April 2006 - February 2007) June August October December February FYTD (mt) 328790 320057 284941 202084 209159 3089289 88889 62785 47145 42144 47223 644733 417697 364842 332083 244228 256382 3734062 Vessels handled in terminal A and B (April 2006-March 2007) NRT CRT %No. of %NRT vessels 148752 275,429 9.3 8.7 125,618 328,594 5.2 7.4 187,660 333,755 10.3 11 155,148, 178804 9.8 9.1 177,477, 305985 7.7 10.4 210,821, 379159 8.2 12.4 222,847 378,396 9.3 13.1 159,593, 277564 9.3 9.4 116,551 223,341 6.7 6.9 140,672, 221189 8.8 8.3 118,303 225,579 6.7 7 161,712 290,380 8.8 9.5 1702333 3418175 100 100

%GRT 8.1 9.6 9.8 5.2 9 11.1 11.1 8.1 6.5 6.5 6.6 8.5 100

Total number of vessels calls is 194 with 3,418,175 Gross Registered Tonnage; Average Ship Turnaround Time is 9.75 days, while Berth Occupancy Rate is 19.87%. Royalties paid between April 2006 and March 2007 was US$ 3,392,035.05 Lease Fee paid between April 2006 and March 2007 was US$ 2,799,999.96 (Source: The Guardian, 17 April 2008: 49) Public-private Partnership in the Nigerian Maritime Transport Sector Institutional restructuring and provision of efficient port administration and management are top priority for improving port performance. Over the years, the Nigerian shipping sector has witnessed less foreign investment, especially with regard to private sector participation. Fiscal reforms for the shipping sectors are often lucrative, especially tax reforms, and have adopted a more market-friendly sentiments. These institutional challenges require that a great deal of homework is done by the government with regard to existing statutory laws and other regulatory administrations. The resuscitation of an investment climate in the maritime sector requires that appropriate regulatory norms and practices be in place. Reforms in this direction must delineate the role of government and market forces in their respective areas of competence and control, based on rational linkages between various activities. Public-private partnership (PPP) means that concessionaires will have to invest heavily in the construction of port-quay, walls, jetties, and so on. A good example of such gesture is the development of the RoRo Port by Grimade Group at the New Tincan Island extension.


11


The concept of PPP has opened a new vista of opportunity to earn high return on investment in Nigerian ports. Private investors and the banking community have used innovative techniques to attempt to make public-private partnership a success in Nigerian ports. If this trend continues alongside the process of transferring expertise and know-how to governments, public sector institutions and end users, the success of PPP in Nigerian ports may pass the tests applied to them in developed markets (Ndikom, 2008). With the cabotage regime and the paradigm shift in government policies towards local content and national treatment, there is likely going to be increased private sector participation in the maritime industry in Nigeria. But one challenge ahead is that, government must ensure that, there are infrastructure improvements to support trade and commercial growth and those sufficient personnel are trained and equipped with the necessary tools to increase efficiency while improving safety and value of services (The Guardian, 17 April 2008). With the growing need for modernization and technology, seaports need massive capital investments and private sector participation is the better alternative for responding to the challenges posed by the world trend in the ports industry (Ndikom, 2006). Given the present trend towards public-private partnership in port sector development, port terminals - such as, A and B, ENL Ltd and Al-Molar - offer an opportunity for equal participation by foreign and local investors. An example of the improved performance by one of the terminal operators is x-rayed in Tables 1.1 - 1.3. Infrastructure Development and Management in Post-port Concession Era At the inception of the official handover of port terminals to private operators, the system witnessed structural changes in terms of operational performance and functioning, culminating in enhanced efficiency, cargo throughput and optimal productivity. This is as a result of increased infrastructure, provision at various terminals through massive injection of funds into the system by private operators. No doubt, the port reforms are already yielding fruits. The post-concessioning era of port terminals is witnessing a restructured ports industry, tight control measures in the area of jurisdiction, and a port system that is run under the landlord model. More so, the amount of funds injected into the system has led to enhanced infrastructure, within this period, and has increased operational efficiency of the port system. For instance, at the terminals of ENL Ltd, AP-Molar Ltd and AST Ltd, vessel discharge and loading time has reduced to the mandated maximum 72-hour period, a situation far better than what was obtainable when the ports were managed under the service model. The new RoRo Port, developed by the Grimade Group, is also a testimony of improved infrastructure. The industry has thus witnessed tremendous growth and development, even in the area of manpower development. But this does not mean that the nation's ports are at their perfect state now. There is still need for more investment in infrastructural facilities by different concessionaires, so that the ports can remain positive, efficient, functional, purposive and reflective in the nation's quest to achieve optimal productivity in the maritime sector (Ndikom, 2006). Inter and Intra-port Competition The dividends of the current ports reform policies of the government include inter and intra-port competition which has pervaded the emerging port terminals and among operators in the maritime environment. This signposts a healthy port environment, in terms of improved operational services, infrastructural development and managerial proficiency and competence. One of the powerful motives for ports reform is the impact of competition on a port's existing or perceived future business. Reform can be viewed as the best way to make a port more competitive. Competitive pressures can be exerted on ports and their users and operators at different levels of operation. Competition at this level allows port substitution, without any change in the origin and destination of cargo. What would only change are shipping service and port facilities used for transporting the cargo, internal competition can play an important role in connecting with the provision of some port services. However, costs of capital equipment or storage facilities limit the necessary economies of scale for the effective competition in most ports. Interestingly, this may not be true for the provision of information technological and intensive services, such as information gateways and electronic commerce/trade facilitation services between industries, communities and firm’s IT systems. Since the takeover of the port terminals by concessionaires, inter and intra-port competitions have been


12


intensive and encouraging, thereby justifying the essence and relevance of the port reform agenda of the government. Concessionaires Emergence The restructuring of our ports in conformity to government reform agenda in the last seven years obviously saw the emergence of port concessionaires that have taken over the management and running of sections of the nation's terminals. The final emergence of the concessionaires went through a complex and integrated due process procedure, which no doubt still gave ample advantage to foreign shipping firms, more than local stakeholders. It is common knowledge that, some of the most outstanding concessionaires that emerged as successful bidders, such as ENL Ltd, and AP Moller for Apapa ports; Comet Shipping, Sifax Ltd and Denca Services for Tincan Island ports, went through these rigorous processes. The successful bidders have emerged in the Port Harcourt axis, Calabar ports and Onne ports. After a successful bidding process, through due procedure, terminals won were handed over to concessionaires and operations have started at the terminals. Government handed over sheds 6 to 15 at the Apapa ports to ENL Ltd, while the container terminal at the ports was to AP Moller. In Tincan Island port, some of the terminals won were handed over to Comet Shipping, Sifax Ltd and Denca Services Ltd. Some of the contentious issues of severance package for port workers are now being laid to rest, as NPA had to step into the matter. It is understood that these concessionaires, soon after taking over the operations of allocated terminals, had restructured the face of the ports in terms of provision of basic infrastructural facilities, port structures, employment and engagement of own personnel, aimed at improving productivity, efficiency and performance. Table 2: New terminal arrangements in Nigerian ports S/No. Ports Concessions 1 Apapa Port Terminal A & B (Berth 1 - 5) Terminal Complex (C7D) (Berths 6 - 14) Container Terminal C & D (Berths 15 18a & Lillypond Container Freight Station Terminal E (Berths 18b - 19) 2 Tincan Island Port Greenfield Development Terminal A Terminal B Terminal C

Concessionaires Apapa Bulk Terminals Lts. ENL Consortium AP Moller Greenview Development Nig. Ltd

Grimaldi Line Josephdam & Sons Tincan Island Container Ltd Ports and Cargo handling Services Ltd 3 Port Harcourt Port Terminal A Ports and Terminal Operators Ltd Terminal B BUS International Ltd 4 Onne Port Terminal A FLT Terminal B FLT and Brawal Services Ltd Intels Nig. Terminal A FOT Ltd 5 Calabar Port Terminal A Intels Nig. Ltd Terminal B Ecomarine Consortium 6 Delta Ports Terminal A Warn Old Terminal B Intels Nig. Ltd Warri New Gulftainer Bel Consortium KOKO Port Warri Old Port Terminal Asso. Maritime Ltd Julius Berger Warri Canal Berth Nig. Pic. Source: Nigerian Ports Authority, 2007

It is common knowledge also that, the emergence of some of these concessionaires has led to the laying off of NPA staff, and that this was not done in good faith and in conformity to international labour conventions. It is also known that these concessionaires had engaged their own stevedoring companies, which obviously means the


13


jettisoning of the crops of government-approved stevedores in the system. Most of them engaged large number of experienced NPA staffers, which is a positive trend. Ports Infrastructural Development The end of the concessioning exercise and the taking over of the terminals by various concessionaires over seven years ago, had indeed witnessed massive financial investments in terms of infrastructural development at the various terminals. Investments in infrastructure are mostly in the areas of human resource and super-structures which are key to efficiency and productivity. Evidently, some concessionaires have been involved since takeover of terminals in the development of human capital, which is central to the development of the organization and terminal operations. Recently, APM Terminals Apapa Limited, operators of the Apapa Container Terminal, Lagos Port Complex, organized a five-day intensive ship handling training course for six senior pilots of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) at Force Technology, Kgslyngby Denmark. The objective of this training exercise was to provide NPA pilots ship handling experience and training programme for 294 metre container ships arriving and departing APM Terminals Apapa. Other concessionaires have also embarked on development of human capital and massive investments on super-structures, such as cranes, fork lifts, etc. This development has positive effects on the operationalization of the port system. It has also affects the total throughput of the port, thereby increasing the desired revenue to government. It has also helped in reduction of the problem of congestion at the ports. Also, in June 2008, APM Terminals sent 10 of its Nigerian workers to Salak a, Oman, for training on operation of its recently acquired gantry cranes which will double the operational capacity at the terminal and thereby increase efficiency and performance (Ndikom, 2008). At APM Terminal and ENL, the turnaround time has noticeably increased, as vessels discharge can now be done within 72 hours, a situation that has increased cargo throughput at both terminals. Also, APM Terminal and ENL have made arrangements in the last six months of 2008 to send some of their staff to Denmark and Singapore to undergo training in terminal operations, as to assist them in the management on port operation in Nigeria. Other concessionaires have also taken steps to send both pilots and other staff to update their knowledge on terminal operations. Government Policy Summersault It is common knowledge that the maritime industry and shipping operational services have witnessed some policy inconsistency over the years which indeed affected negatively the operations and services of the ports system. The initiation of the port reform process which culminated into the establishment of over 24 private port terminals which took-over the operations of the port for the last seven (7) years now have indeed improved the operational structure and trends of the port’s system inspite of obvious government inaction in regard to non-passage of the port reform act over these years. It is really most regrettable to note that, inspite of the huge investments made by these terminal operators over these years can be rubbished by any government in power which does not share in the visions and mission of the port reform structure. The obvious limitations by the terminal operators are in the area of fear of the unknown as regards non-passage of the port reform by the National Assembly which portends serious dangers in terms of further commitment and investments by the terminal operators. The occasional interjection of government and obvious streamlining of control measure of tariff of these terminal operators are possible checks that could reflect limitations in terms of operational performance by terminal operators in a landlord port model. Inspite of the tariff control measures, it is obvious that, the terminal operators have indeed raised the operational standards and performance of the port system at the end of the day. CONCLUSION Since the ports industry is vital to the economy of a nation, there should be some form of national control to prevent needless competition, duplication of efforts and any measure, which may harm the overall development of the industry. The heart of the problem was the reconciliation of public interest with economic efficiency and financial soundness. Public interest therefore necessitated that privatization and reform strategies be built on solid legal


14


foundations that would adequately balance the interests of the public and those of private firms. This will lend credence to the operations and modalities of the ISPS code in Nigeria (Ndikom, 2005). REFERENCES Adeniji, K. (1991). "Urban Mobility Crisis": Where do we go from here? Ogun State public service forum lecture delivered at the Gateway Hotel, Abeokuta, 18th April. International Union Public Transport, (1991), proceedings of seminar on satisfying urban transport demands, Brussels (UTTP). Amiwero, L. (2005).critical Appraisal of Ports Congestion and Increase in Cargo Freight Charges: An overview: A paper presented at National Workshop on Modernization and Development of Nigerian Ports through greater private sector involvement held in Lagos at Airport Hotel, Ikeja. Badejo, B.A. (2000). The role and implications of government policies: Charting, the course of the maritime industry. A paper presentation on the occasion of the National Seminar on Eradication of Corruption and Sharp Practices in our Seaports. Bako, E.T. (2004). Maritime Search and Rescue: Strategy for Disaster Management in the maritime Environment: A paper presented at a National workshop on Maritime Authority in Lagos. Bird, J. (1988). Freight-forwarders speak: The perception of route competition via seaports in European Communities. Research Project - Part II. Maritime Policy and Management. Vol. 107-25. Buderi, C.L.O. (1980). "Us Policy on Regulation of Lmefl Shipping in the 1980s. A view from Washington". Journal of Maritime Law and Commence. Vol.18. No. 1, p. 112. Buxton, I.L, Daggitt, R.P and King, J. (1978). Cargo Access Equipment for Merchant Ships, (London Dev. Spon). Chida, T. and Davies, P.N. (1990). The Japanese Shipping and Shipbuilding Industries (London: The Atlantic Press). Ekwenna (1990). Route analysis and freight rates strategy: A paper presentation on National Maritime Authority Personnel Development Workshop, Lagos, 1990. Firenwa, O. (1996). "Periscoping the maritime industry on boards". A paper presented at the 3rd National Conference of the Nigerian Shipping Companies Association (NSCA), on December 15th, at Sheraton Hotel, Lagos. Ifezue, H. (1996). "A welcome respite for sanity at the port". A paper presented at the 3rd National Conference of the Nigerian Shipping Companies Association (NSCA), on December 15th at Sheraton Hotel, Lagos. Ihenacho, E. (2005). Policy Imperative for Development of Viable Shipping Industry: A paper presentation at a stakeholders forum, in Lagoon Restaurant in Victoria Island. Lagos on 15th Sept. 2005. Organized by National Maritime Authority. Maduka. J.O. (2004). Port safety and environmental management concept of publication, 17 Olorunsogo Street, Shomolu. Lagos. Ndikom, O.B. (2005). "Port Operations under a Concessioned port system: A paper presented at port concessioning and workers orientation workshop, organized by Grand vision consult Ltd, Sponsored by NPA held at AWABAT Executive Hotel, Shagamu, Ogun State, 25th May.


15


Ndikom, O.B. (2005). A critical appraisal of port terminal operations and cargo security management in conformity to and commercial viability of a containerized concept: A paper presented at the Nigerian Institute of Shipping mandatory professional training programme for 2005 workshop on: Container operational logistics and terminal management. Held at Lagos Airport Hotels, Lagos, 18th May. Ndikom, O.B. (2005). Goals of Change of Port Reforms and Impacts by Types: Process of Concessioning and its Contracts; International Ship and Port Facility Code (ISPS Code) Ports Facility Security Plans (PFSPIS) Compliance: A paper presentation at the in-house seminar organized by NPA in collaboration with Intermodal Associates, held at Gateway Hotel, Ogun State, 27th of June - 13th of July, 2005. Ndikom, O.B. (2006). The kernel concept of shipping operations, policy and strategy: The stakeholders’ overview. Published by Bunmico Publishers, Lagos. Onwukwe, K. (2005). Cabotage, Ports Safety, marine Resources and Environmental Protection. A Nigerian Chamber of Shipping (NCS). Maritime Digest Publications, No. 2. Vol. 1, 2003, Lagos. Osifoh, V. (2005) Problems and dangers of congestion to Ports Productivity: A paper presentation at the National Workshop on Modernization and Development of Nigerian Ports through greater private sector involvement held in Lagos at Airport Hotel. Osnin, N. A and Shah, S.B.(2003). The implication of ISPS code for Malaysia: A paper presented at the Centre for Ocean Law and Policy, maritime Institute of Malaysia (MIMA) in December. Sekibo, P.A. (2006). Government new strategies and regulations to decongest ports: A paper presented at the sensitization workshop on Presidential Committee on Ports Decongestion held in Abuja. Usman, H.M. (2000). "Decentralization and restructuring in the Nigerian Seaports". A paper presented at the National workshop on modernization and development of Nigerian Ports through greater private sector involvement.


16