Non-Monetary Intangible Rewards and Teacher Performance in Secondary Schools in the Central Region of Uganda

Non-Monetary Intangible Rewards and Teacher Performance in Secondary Schools in the Central Region of Uganda

Muhamad Aisa, Frank-Pio Kiyingi, Esther Namugumya

Department of Educational Management, Nkumba University: P.O BOX; 237 Entebbe Uganda

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803182S

Received: 05 July 2024; Accepted: 11 July 2024; Published: 13 August 2024

ABSTRACT

This study examined the impact of non-monetary intangible rewards on teacher performance in secondary schools in Uganda’s central region. The study was guided by both Herzberg two factor theory and Adam Stacey’s Equity theory. Using a deductive research approach and a cross-sectional correlation survey design, data were collected via closed-ended questionnaires and interview guides from head teachers, deputy head teachers, directors of studies, district education officers, and teachers across four districts: Kampala, Wakiso, Butambala, and Luweero. The sample included 168 respondents from 40 schools (20 government, 20 private) which was determined using Krecjies Morgan sample size calculation (1970). A pilot study was carried out for reliability and validity test of instruments used.

Data was analyzed using at.lasti software for qualitative data and STATA for quantitative data analysis. Pearson’s correlation analysis revealed significant positive correlations between non-monetary intangible rewards and teacher performance. Specifically, there were strong positive relationships with academic performance (r = 0.5696, p < 0.05), non-academic performance (r = 0.5261, p < 0.05), and overall performance (r = 0.638, p < 0.05). Regression analysis showed that non-monetary intangible rewards significantly predict teacher performance (β = 0.484, p < 0.01), explaining 35.6% of its variance. Structural equation modeling also revealed that procedural fairness partially mediates the relationship between non-monetary intangible rewards and teacher performance showing that fairness in reward management enhances teacher performance. Recommendations include diversifying non-monetary rewards, implementing monitoring systems, gathering teacher feedback, and ensuring fair reward distribution.

Keywords: Equitable Non-monetary Intangible rewards system (ENMIRS), Non-monetary intangible rewards, Perceived fairness, Teacher performance

INTRODUCTION

Employee rewards and teacher performance are critical aspects of organizational management and educational systems that have garnered significant attention in scholarly literature. Employee rewards encompass a wide range of incentives, including financial compensation, recognition, promotions, and intrinsic motivators such as job satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. According to Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (1985), intrinsic motivation is key in fostering sustained performance and engagement of employees in organization responsibilities. Their theory asserts that providing autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the workplace facilitates intrinsic motivation, which leads to improved performance results (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Teacher performance is a crucial determinant of student achievement as shown by numerous studies (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012; Hattie, 2009). Effective teaching practices such as student engagement, teacher professionalism and supportive classroom environments, are key determinats of student learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009). Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959) suggests that there is a relationship between rewards management and employee performance where both motivators (such as work itself, autonomy, engagement in decision making, recognition, professional development, job security) bring about employee satisfaction and motivation, the hygiene factors (such as salary and allowances) prevent dissatisfaction and subsequently improve their performance (Herzberg & Snyderman, 1959).

Moreover, research indicates that the alignment between rewards and performance expectations is essential for maximizing their impact on employee motivation and engagement (Lawler, 1971). In the educational context, effective teacher performance evaluation systems that provide constructive feedback and recognize excellence can serve as catalysts for professional growth and development (Danielson, 2007).

However, it is essential to acknowledge the potential challenges and complexities associated with implementing reward systems in educational settings. Critics argue that an overemphasis on extrinsic rewards may undermine intrinsic motivation and diminish the quality of teaching (Kohn, 1993). It is upon this basis that this research focused on examining the effect of non-monetary intangible rewards on the performance of Teachers in the selected secondary schools in the central region of Uganda. In Uganda, the teaching profession grapples with significant challenges, including a concerning rise in teacher absenteeism. Nationally, teacher absenteeism rates are alarmingly high, reaching 27% at the school level and 59% at the classroom level (Aguti, 2019). Ssebuyungo et al. (2016) report that over 56% of secondary school teachers exhibit reluctance in delivering assigned lessons, with 64% expressing demoralization due to continuous student assessment. Moreover, many schools show limited engagement in extracurricular activities, resulting in minimal student participation in such endeavors (Bakabulindi & Sekabembe, 2017; Mbetegyerize, 2010). Additionally, secondary schools’ involvement in sports activities remains relatively low, accounting for only 25% of overall participation rates. Interestingly, a mere 2% of schools dominate this sector, leaving a significant portion of schools with minimal participation (Uganda Secondary Schools Sports Association, 2019). Furthermore, there exists a general lack of investment by secondary schools in non-academic performance activities, with overall involvement estimated at 15% across Uganda.

Based on a survey on the Wakiso Secondary School Head-teachers Association (WAKISSHA, 2019), teachers in Uganda’s central region often receive inadequate pay, with some earning below the minimum wage, particularly in private secondary schools and as part-time teachers in government schools. Moreover, there are limited opportunities for promotion and inconsistent recognition for exceptional performance. There is also disparity in salary payments in government schools, where science teachers are paid more than arts teachers, with science teachers earning Shs. 4,000,000/= and arts teachers earning Shs. 1,000,000/=. (UNATU survey,2022)

In terms of academic performance, secondary schools in the central region of Uganda can be classified into two groups: high-performing schools such as St. Mary’s Kitende, St. Mary’s Kisubi, and Nabbingo SS, and the majority of schools with declining performance. Out of 580 schools, only 100 are considered top schools.

The executive secretary of the WAKISSHA joint mock exam stated that over 70% of schools in the central region of Uganda participate in the exam. However, the results are often unsatisfactory. According to the 2018 WAKISSHA joint UCE mock report, 4.6% of students achieved first grades, 12.0% second grades, 30.2% third grades, and 53.2% fourth grades.

However, in 2019, only 1.12% of students attained first grades, 3.77% second grades, 21.01% third grades, 61.371% fourth grades, and 13.74% failed. Additionally, only 40% of schools had students who achieved first grades, 31% had no students with first grades, and over 81% of schools had fewer than 5 students with first grades (WAKISSHA, 2019). These declining trends in performance indicate a need for improvement.

In 2018, only 3% of teachers in the central region of Uganda prepared their students for science fairs, compared to just 1% in 2019. The participation in the SESEMAT workshop training decreased from 545 teachers in 2018 to 264 teachers in 2019, indicating a decline of 24%.

Additionally, only 2% of teachers participated in the MDD, while 49% focused on football and netball, and 10% on other games such as table tennis, volleyball, athletics, wood-ball, handball, basketball, and board games for extra-curricular activities in the central region of Uganda (WAKISSHA, 2019), highlighting a low performance in these areas. Low teacher engagement in extracurricular activities indicates lack of emphasis on holistic student development beyond academic performance.

The study was guided by the following objectives: To establish the nature of the non-monetary intangible rewards offered to teachers, to analyze the level of teacher performance, to examine the relationship between non-monetary intangible rewards and teacher performance, and to analyze the mediating effect of perceived fairness in the relationship between non-monetary intangible rewards and teacher performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study was guided by Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (motivators and hygiene factors) and complemented Adam Stacey’s Equity Theory. This study leaned on the motivator factors that Herzberg defined. Motivators include; recognition, appreciation, sense of achievement, decision making that play key role in motivating employees (Herzberg 1959). Numerous studies have consistently highlighted the significant impact of perceived fairness in the provision of intangible non-monetary rewards on employee performance. Intangible rewards encompass various aspects such as praise, supervisory gratitude for work well done, career development opportunities, vacations, and recognition and promotion (Eshun, 2011; Güngör, 2011; Kayongo, 2013; Kumar et al., 2015; Manyaka-Boshielo, 2017; Mohammed & Sebyala, 2020). Similarly, ample research has demonstrated the positive influence of fairness in other perceived aspects of the work environment on teacher performance. Factors such as job security, job meaningfulness, responsibility, autonomy, and sense of achievement have been found to significantly contribute to teacher performance (Cassidy & Lynn, 1989; Male, 2009), echoing the broader findings on employee performance. Specifically, Manyaka-Boshielo (2017) highlights the importance of these factors in enhancing teacher performance within educational settings

Manyaka-Boshielo (2017) study results showed the significance of employee recognition and appreciation within organizational settings serving as motivators for employees to strive towards achieving optimal teacher performance. Building upon this, Al-Jarradi (2011) identifies training and career development opportunities as additional intangible rewards that can either inspire or demoralize employees, contingent upon the perceived fairness in their provision. This notion is echoed by Lee et al. (2010), who assert that when employees are afforded opportunities for self-improvement, they tend to exhibit greater loyalty towards the organization, ultimately contributing positively to its overall performance.

It is worth noting, however, that these findings have primarily been derived from studies conducted in diverse organizational contexts, and their applicability within the specific setting of secondary schools in the central region remains to be validated. Therefore, there was a need for further research to confirm and contextualize these observations within the unique dynamics of secondary education institutions in the central region.

According to Apolot et al. (2018), sincere commendation from supervisors stands out as one of the foremost factors influencing the motivation of school employees to enhance teacher performance, particularly when delivered with appropriateness and authenticity. Building upon this, Reader et al. (2017) highlight the pivotal role of perceived fairness, particularly in terms of safety and security within school environments, in driving teacher performance by fostering a sense of confidence and assurance among employees to effectively carry out their duties. These assertions find support in the work of Gaceri et al. (2015), who emphasize the significance of implementing health and safety standards that are deemed appropriate by employees, as it serves to incentivize improved job performance and consequently, organizational effectiveness.

It is important to note, however, that these insights have primarily been gleaned from studies conducted within organizational contexts in European countries. Therefore, there was a need for further investigation to ascertain the applicability and extent of these observations within the specific milieu of secondary schools in Uganda, particularly those situated in central Uganda.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework posits that non-monetary intangible rewards are the independent variable, while teacher performance is the dependent variable. Non-monetary intangible rewards include a sense of recognition, job security, job meaningfulness, autonomy, achievement, participation in decision-making, vacations, and career development opportunities. Teacher performance is measured using academic indicators (teaching quality, student evaluations, and academic grades from UCE and UACE exams) and non-academic indicators (development of students’ extracurricular talents and skills). Perceived fairness acts as a mediating variable, influenced by rewards management and affecting teacher performance. Perceived fairness is further divided into distributive fairness (proportional fairness and fairness of equality) and procedural fairness.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study adopted a deductive research approach, which involves formulating hypotheses for testing during the research process (Bryman, 2008; Saunders et al., 2015). This approach facilitates the exploration of causal relationships between variables and allows for the quantification of concepts, aiding in generalizing research findings (Saunders et al., 2015).  A cross-sectional correlation survey design with quantitative approach was utilized (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Data were obtained via closed-ended questionnaire items and analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Respondents from selected secondary schools in Uganda’s central region were targeted, including head teachers, deputy head teachers, directors of studies, district education officers, teachers in charge of extracurricular activities, and class teachers. The study concentrated on the central region of Uganda, specifically in four districts: Kampala, Wakiso, Butambala, and Luweero, chosen due to the high concentration of secondary schools in the region (MOES, 2019b). With 49% of all secondary schools in Uganda located in this region (MOES, 2019b), it offered convenient access to the target population. Out of 1578 schools targeted, 40 secondary schools (20 government, 20 private) were selected using a proportionate sampling technique, with 10 schools chosen from each district (MOES, 2019b). The G-Power software was utilized to calculate the sample size for the study (Kang, 2021). Based on assumptions of a medium effect size of 0.28, a significance level of 0.05, and maximum power of 0.95, the software computed the required sample size as 40 schools (Kang, 2021). The study recruited a sample of 168 respondents. A structured questionnaire was devised to align with the study hypothesis, comprising primarily close-ended items.  A 5-point Likert scale was employed to measure variables such as Teacher performance and rewards management, utilizing close-ended questionnaire items. Content validity was ensured through pre-testing and computation of the content validity index (CVI) for the interview guide and questionnaire (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using the Cronbach Alpha method, ensuring consistency across studies (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015). Quantitative techniques were employed for data analysis. Completed questionnaires were entered into IBM SPSS Statistics and STATA for data transformation, screening for outliers, and analysis. Inferential methods such as Pearson’s correlation analysis, linear regression models and structural equation modeling were used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The table below presents correlation coefficients between non-monetary intangible rewards and different performance metrics, along with their significance levels. The correlations indicate the strength and direction of the relationship between these variables.

Table 1: Correlation analysis for non-monetary intangible rewards and Teacher Performance

Source: Primary data (2022)

For academic performance, the correlation coefficient is 0.5696, indicating a moderately strong positive relationship between academic performance and non-monetary intangible rewards. The p-value associated with this correlation is 0.0000, which is below the conventional threshold of 0.05, indicating that the relationship is statistically significant.

Similarly, for non-academic performance, the correlation coefficient is 0.5261, suggesting a moderately strong positive association between non-academic performance and non-monetary intangible rewards. The p-value of 0.0000 indicates that this relationship is statistically significant.

When considering overall teacher performance, the correlation coefficient is 0.638, indicating a relatively strong positive correlation with non-monetary intangible rewards. The p-value of 0.0000 suggests that this relationship is statistically significant.  The high significance levels show that improved management of non-monetary intangible rewards highly improves teacher performance.

The findings are in line with conclusions drawn by (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kayongo, 2013; Manyaka, 2017) and  (Chay et al., 2005) who perceived that fairness in the provision of intangible rewards such as praise, supervisory gratitude for work well done, career development opportunities, vacations, recognition, and promotion have are a strong positive influence on employee performance.

The table 2 below shows the regression analysis results for non-monetary intangible rewards and different teacher performance metrics. The regressions show how non-monetary intangible rewards modify teacher performance

Table 2: Regression analysis for non-monetary intangible rewards and Teacher Performance

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

The regression analysis results indicate a statistically significant positive relationship between non-monetary intangible rewards and teacher performance. The coefficient for non-monetary intangible rewards is 0.484, with a standard error of 0.0517. This coefficient suggests that for every unit increase in non-monetary intangible rewards, teacher performance is expected to increase by approximately 0.484 units, holding all other variables constant. Furthermore, the constant term in the regression equation is statistically significant, with a coefficient of 1.849 and a standard error of 0.192. This constant represents the expected level of teacher performance when the value of non-monetary intangible rewards is zero. The overall model fit is assessed using the R-squared value, which indicates the proportion of the variance in teacher performance that is explained by the independent variable (non-monetary intangible rewards) in the model. In this case, the R-squared value is 0.356, suggesting that approximately 35.6% of the variance in teacher performance can be attributed to non-monetary intangible rewards.

The findings agreed with Ramnens (2010), honest praise from supervisors was ranked among the most important factors school employees put into account to feel encouraged to improve Teacher performance has a significant relationship, especially when the praise is delivered appropriately.

Path evaluation

Figure 2; the figure 2 below shows path evaluation developed from the conceptual framework

Path 1: The researcher came up with a model that shows the path of Non-Monetary Intangible Rewards directly to Teacher performance.

Path 2: The results further show that procedural fairness for non-monetary intangible rewards mediates the relationship between non-monetary intangible rewards and Teacher performance.

Path Coeficients For Non-Monetary Tangible Rewards And Teacher Performanceof Fit For The Model

The results show that procedural fairness for non-monetary intangible rewards mediates the relationship between non-monetary intangible rewards and Teacher performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-monetary intangible rewards provided in secondary schools include appreciation, sense of job security, recognition, sense of achievement, work itself, responsibility, Career development opportunities are very crucial to teacher performance especially in the new competent Based Curriculum, SDG’s 4 and the Uganda National Teacher Policy. The reports teachers provide that they engage in effective practices such as marking exercises during lessons and facilitating discussions, qualitative and observational findings indicate a decline in teacher performance in the selected secondary schools in central region of Uganda, this suggests a discrepancy between the reported performance reports and practices with actual learners’ outcomes, showing the need for further investigation into the effectiveness of these practices. Non-Monetary intangible rewards directly influence Teacher performance in the selected secondary schools in central region of Uganda. The more the Non-Monetary intangible rewards, the higher the performance of teachers. The perceived fairness of the provided non-monetary intangible rewards and their management highly determines teacher performance in the selected secondary schools central region Uganda.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Objective one: Ministry of education and school administrators should Offer a diverse range of non-monetary intangible rewards, such as recognition, professional development opportunities, and increased autonomy in decision-making. This can help determine which types of rewards are most effective in improving performance.

Objective two: Ministry of education and sports and school administrators should:

Provide more targeted support and feedback to help teachers align their practices with student learning goals and improve overall performance. Implement a system for monitoring and evaluating teacher performance to track progress and identify areas for improvement. This could include regular classroom observations, student performance data analysis, and teacher self-assessments. Establish regular feedback mechanisms for teachers to receive input on their teaching practices. This could include peer evaluations, student feedback surveys, or observations by school administrators.

Objective three:

Implement feedback mechanisms to gather teachers’ perspectives on the effectiveness and desirability of different types of rewards. This can help tailor rewards to better meet teachers’ needs and preferences. Collaborative effort between school administrators and teachers is crucial to establish SMART performance reward evaluation criteria. Continuously monitor the implementation of reward systems and their impact on teacher performance. This can help identify any issues or challenges early on and make adjustments as needed.

Objective four: School administrators should encourage delegation and promotion of teachers to participate in decision making processes such as curriculum development and policy formulation

Fair and consistent implementation of evaluation criteria is essential for effective reward systems.

Open and transparent communication channels should be maintained to gather feedback from teachers. Adjustments in reward allocation processes should be made based on received feedback to ensure fairness and effectiveness.

CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE

The study extended Herzberg’s theory to integrate perceived fairness of reward management in supporting teacher performance. It emphasized the importance of competitive performance-based criteria implementation. Integration of reward management and fairness with Herzberg’s theory aimed to enhance teacher performance. Competitive performance-based criteria proposed to support teachers in selected secondary schools in Uganda’s central region. The study contributes insights into fostering teacher performance through a combination of reward management, fairness and performance-based criteria.

The study developed a model (equitable non-monetary intangible reward system (ENMIRS)) from its conceptual framework showing how non-monetary intangible rewards can be fairly, effectively and sustainably managed to foster teacher performance. Below is the developed model;

Figure 3: Equitable Non-Monetary Intangible Reward System (Enmirs) Model

The model ENMIRS above shows that management of provided non-monetary intangible rewards should be done in a systemic approach were the provision of the rewards is based on a fair sustainable system.  It shows that the non-monetary intangible rewards should be given based on employee perception of how fair the rewards are in terms of equality, proportionality and procedural fairness and through an equitable system which is transparent, consistent, considers inclusivity of employees’ and appeal processes. Only through this channel will the teachers be motivated and become committed to improve their teaching practices, engage students in extra-curricular activities, regularly evaluate students’ assignments and exercises and at the end students will have quality academic grades and improved creative skills and talents.

REFERENCES

1. Aguti, B., Emmanuel. (2019). Effectiveness of Teachers’motivation on Job Performance in Public Primary Schools in Kitagwenda County, Kamwenge District, Uganda
2. Al-Jarradi, K. S. (2011). An investigation into the effectiveness of the reward system in the government sector in the Sultanate of Oman and the potential for introducing a total reward strategy. The University of Manchester (United Kingdom). https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/an-investigation-into-the-effectiveness-of-the-reward system-in-th
3. Apolot, H. M., Komakech, R. A., Kamanyire, V., & Otaala, J. (2018). School practice supervision and performance of student teachers in higher institutions of learning in Uganda: Empirical evidence from Kyambogo University and Ndejje University. Journal of Education and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 16-35. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED583752.pdf
4. Bakabulindi, & Sekabembe, B. (2017). Influence of Involvement in Sports on Students’ Involvement in Academic Activities at Ndejje University. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 3(2).
5. Bryman, A. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research. Advances in mixed methods research, 21(8), 87-100. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6-Why-do-Researchers-Integrate-Combine-Mesh-Blend-Bryman/a5a679190120c0e4d49191ca82cb10cdd455ffa9
6. Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(4), 301-312. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-11259-001
7. Chay, K. Y., McEwan, P. J., & Urquiola, M. (2005). The central role of noise in evaluating interventions that use test scores to rank schools. American Economic Review, 95(4), 1237-1258.
8. Committee, W. E. (2019). Action plan analysis and report. Wakiso: WAKISSHA Executive secretary.
9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. https://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog 609332/objava 105202/fajlovi/Creswell.pdf
10. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. ASCD.
11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media
12. Education, M. O. (2021). UGANDA SECONDARY SCHOOL SPORTS ASSOCIATION (USSSA). Retrieved from International school sport federation: https://www.isfsports.org/index.php/members/uganda
13. Eshun, F. K. D. (2011). Rewards as a motivation tool for employee performance. In.
14. Fadeyi, O., Maduenyi, Oke, A., & Ajagbe, A. (2015). Impact of Organizational Structure on Organizational Performance. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291336611 Impact of Organizational Structure on Organizational Performance
15. Gaceri, M. A., Al Sabhi, G. S. A., & Rad, B. B. (2015). Service Quality Provision in Higher Education: Case Study of Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284096722 Service Quality Provision in Higher Education Case Study of Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation
16. Güngör, P. (2011). The relationship between reward management system and employee performance with the mediating role of motivation: A quantitative study on global banks. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1510-1520. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042811015576
17. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). The distribution of teacher quality and implications for policy. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 131-157.
18. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
19. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
20. Kang, H. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G* Power software. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34325496/
21. Kayongo, P. (2013). An analysis of the key factors determining the levels of motivation of the academic staff of ndejje university. BSc esis, Brookes Oxford University, Oxford, UK. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271172565 University Lecturers’ Professional Empowerment and Turnover in Uganda
22. Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
23. Kumar, D., Hossain, M. Z., & Nasrin, M. S. (2015). Impact of non-financial rewards on employee motivation. Asian Accounting and Auditing Advancement, 5(1), 18-25. http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/75621/Kathure Influence% 20 of % 20 non % 20 financial % 20 rewards % 20 on % 20 employee % 20 commitment.pdf?sequence=3#:~:text=Indeed %2 C% 20 non % 20 financial % 20 rewards % 20 increase % 20 performance.&text=there% 20 is % 20 more % 20 to % 20 rewarding, addresses% 20 a % 20 broad %20 of % 20 issues.
24. Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. McGraw-Hill.
25. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2015). Practical research. Pearson. https://pce-fet.com/common/library/books/51/2590 % 5 B Paul D. Leedy, Jeanne Ellis Ormrod % 5 D Practical Res (b-ok.org).pdf
26. Male, L. (2009). The perceived teachers’ motivation and its effect on students’ academic performance at A’level in selected secondary schools in Masaka District Makerere University]. http://makir.mak.ac.ug/handle/10570/3676
27. Manyaka, J. (2017). Types of recognition awards. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/list-7241301-types-recognition-awards.htm
28. Manyaka-Boshielo, S. J. (2017). Social entrepreneurship as a way of developing sustainable township economies. HTS: Theological Studies, 73(4), 1-10. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/Social-entrepreneurship-as-a-tool-for-sustainable-development-in-South-Africa:-A-literature-review-1939-4675-26-S5-137-pdf.pdf
29. Mbetegyerize, G. (2010). Motivational factors and job performance of secondary school teachers in Kiruhura District, Uganda.
30. MOES. (2019b). Reforming the Ministry to Improve Education: An Institutional Analysis of the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES) of Nepal. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) UNESCO.
31. Mohammed, B., & Sebyala, N. M. (2020). Non-financial rewards, motivation and employee performance in Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA)–Uganda. Islamic University Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(4), 246-265. https://www.iuiu.ac.ug/journaladmin/iumj/ArticleFiles/28981.pdf
32. Reader, T. W., Mearns, K., Lopes, C., & Kuha, J. (2017). Organizational support for the workforce and employee safety citizenship behaviors: A social exchange relationship. Human relations, 70(3), 362-385.
33. Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., & Bristow, A. (2015). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
34. Ssebuyungo, E., Kyohairwe, S., & Lubwama, A. N. (2016). Factors Affecting Academic Performance of Ordinary Level Students in Selected Government Aided Secondary Schools in Kiboga District. In: Uganda Management Institute.