DOWNLOAD PDF
AUTHOR
CHIOMA SABINA IFEANYI-EWUZIE
+2348063164096
ABSTRACT
The study investigated incentives and teachers’ job performance. The research design adopted for this study was correlational survey research design. The population was seventeen thousand, one hundred and eighteen (17,118) teachers from one hundred and ninety (190) public secondary schools in Delta Central Senatorial District. The sample size for the study was four thousand, two hundred and eighty (4280) teachers representing 25% of the population. The questionnaire was the main instrument for data collection. The instrument of the study was subjected to thorough screening by the researcher’s supervisor and two other principal lecturers in the Department of Educational Management. The reliability of the instrument was determined by Cronbach’s Alpha reliability Method and was computed as 0.72. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (PPMCC) was used to answer the research questions while the hypotheses were tested using Simple Linear Regression Analysis. The conclusion shows that rewards, salary advancement, awards of teachers, seminar/workshops attendance, technology integration and teachers leadership development have significant influence on academic performance of students. It was recommended that the researcher recommends that monetary and non-monetary incentives should be made available for the teachers in order to boost their moral in achieving teachers’ job performance, she also recommends that awards and rewards should be made available for teachers from time to time in order to ensure that teachers in Delta Central Senatorial District feel better treated and technological integration, seminar/workshop attendance and leadership development are also seen as important factors that promote teachers’ job performance hence should not be treated with levity.
INTRODUCTION
Incentives are considered as one of the most important factors that encourage teachers to put forth great efforts and work more efficiently. Incentives direct teachers’ capabilities into more efficiency in their work in an attempt to achieve the institutions’ goals (Gana and Bababe, 2021). In addition, absence of suitable incentives and capacity building may negatively affect teachers’ job performance. It may also weaken their productivity at work, which decreases the chances of attaining the promising goals of the institution (Palmer, 2022).
Therefore, incentives are significant factors in encouraging teachers’ and increase their enthusiasm at work, which results in improving the general performance and increasing their productivity. Incentives and capacity building also, help in attaining job satisfaction, which increases the interaction between the teachers’ and the organization. Incentive is a reward, benefit or motivation that encourages teachers to take specific actions, achieve goals or exhibit desired behaviours. Incentives can be financial, non-financial, material or experimental. They are used to boost motivation and productivity, encourage desired behaviours and outcomes, reward outstanding performance and achievements, and foster a sense of competition or achievement. Overall, incentives are a powerful tool for motivating individuals and teams to achieve their goals and strive for excellence.
Today’s teachers need to be competent to meet the requirements of changing classroom practices. As agents of change, teachers could promote quality education and improve students’ performance in secondary schools. Equipping teachers with necessary teaching competencies will contribute to effective implementation of education reforms. Obanya (2024) posited that teachers remain essential actors and catalyst for change in all efforts aimed at promoting quality education in schools. In order to develop a responsive and effective teacher capable of undertaking the forgoing, it was reiterated that teacher require opportunities for continuous self-improvement; both career long and career-wide opportunities that will enable them to acquire skills, knowledge and techniques needed for quality on the job performance. Thus, the ability of teachers to have access to capacity building programmes determines their level of effectiveness in their profession.
The effectiveness of any particular educational system is in large part dependent on the quality of teaching and learning that occurs in classrooms, workshops, laboratories, and other places where education is delivered. Educators have a responsibility to their schools and communities to facilitate the integration of students with a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, to demonstrate sensitivity to issues of culture, language, and gender, to foster an environment of acceptance and unity, and to meet the needs of all students. Teachers have a responsibility to ensure their students are equipped for life in the digital world once they graduate from secondary school by teaching them to utilize new technologies and keeping up with quickly evolving areas of knowledge. Teachers are saddled with the responsibility of ensuring that students become independent researchers and builders of their own educational settings while keeping communication lines open with the surrounding neighbourhood. This is why no country in the world can develop beyond the quality of its instructors (teachers); the calibre of the educators who shape their students’ educational experiences is crucial (Loyalka, et. al 2019).
On the other hand, the teachers should try to create confidence and an environment of tranquility, security and respect in an honest and actual manner. One must know that appreciating peoples’ work and praising their achievements do not affect one’s own success, so one must do this directly to those who deserve it or just in front of a group of people by praising their accomplishment (Locke and Braver, 2018). Through the need for improvement on academic performance of secondary school students in Delta State, it becomes imperative to evaluate incentive and teachers’ job performance in Delta central senatorial district, Nigeria.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Incentives are those things that motivate or encourage someone to do something. With respect to teachers and job performance, incentive are steps taken to motivate teachers by rewarding good performance, encouraging them to expend more efforts in teaching and preparation, or even to show up in the classroom. It can exist in the form of award of certificates, praises and gifts and recognition for outstanding practices, is essential (Buregeya, 2011; World Bank, 2010). By investing in the development and enhancement of instructional leadership, schools can create positive learning environments that lead to improved teacher performance and student achievement.
The provision of incentives can also have a significant influence on teachers’ job performance (Hooper et al., 2020). Incentives are rewards or benefits offered to teachers in exchange for improved performance, increased motivation, or achieving specific goals. These incentives can take various forms, such as financial bonuses, promotions, recognition, professional development opportunities, and improved working conditions (Warrah et al., 2018). The impact of incentives on teachers’ work performance can be observed in the following ways: increased motivation, improved job satisfaction, enhanced productivity, and fostering a positive work culture (Wei et al., 2021).
An important factor that influences the job performance of teachers is how teachers get incentives, which makes them motivated and satisfied with their jobs and organization. Performance-based incentives for teachers have considerably attracted attention as a policy tool to improve the job performance of teachers. Teachers’ job performance in any school is only achievable through effective incentives given for teachers (Hanushek et al., 2015). In order to enhance the job performance of teachers, teachers should enjoy all the incentives that take part to motivate teachers. Teachers can get these incentives through monetary, which occur, in two ways: direct monetary incentives and indirect monetary incentives. Two of the most known monetary compensations are salary and commissions. Indirect monetary compensations may include insurance scheme and paid leave. Teachers also acquire tangible non-monetary incentives, which include awards and certificates given to the teachers based on their performance. Lastly, they obtain intangible non-monetary rewards such as praise and recognition. However, being a teacher in a school is one of the lowest standards working conditions. It is the lowest paid job in many poor countries which Nigeria is one of them; the working hours are so many; five days with seven (7) to nine classes per day. School teachers have no both tangible monetary incentives such as awards and certificates of appreciation; even they do not have intangible monetary incentives such a praise and recognition. Remark that the success of students in their academic achievement is associated incentives and capacity building that their teachers have.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The research design adopted for this study was correlational survey research design. The researcher’s choice of correlational research design was because, the study was aimed at ascertaining whether there is a relationship or association between the incentives and job performance of teachers in secondary schools in Delta central senatorial district.
Area of the Study
The study was conducted in Delta central senatorial district of Delta State. The target population has its emphasis on public secondary School students in Delta Central Senatorial District in Delta State. Delta Central Senatorial District covers eight (8) local governments which include Ethiope East, Ethiope West, Sapele, Uvwie, Okpe, Ughelli North, Ughelli South and Udu.
Population of the Study
The population for this study was seventeen thousand, one hundred and eighteen (17,118) teachers from one hundred and ninety (190) public secondary schools in eight Local Government Areas (Ethiope East, Ethiope West, Sapele, Uvwie, Okpe, Ughelli North, Ughelli South and Udu) in Delta central senatorial district, Delta state.
Source: Post Primary Education Board, Asaba.
Sample and Sampling Technique
The sample for the study was four thousand, two hundred and eighty (4280) secondary school teachers selected from different clusters of public secondary schools in Delta central senatorial district, Delta. This is twenty five percent (25%) of the population of the study. The sampling technique adopted for this study was Multi-stage research design.
Instruments for Data Collection
The researcher used questionnaire as the major source of data collection. The questionnaire will be tagged, ‘Incentives and Teachers’ Job Performance in Delta Central Senatorial District’ (IATJPIDCSD) Questionnaire. The questionnaires were constructed using the modified likert type of four response options of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD). The questionnaires were divided into two (2) sections. 2.5 was used as the critical point. Any item with more than 2.5 will be accepted while any item with less than 2.5 will be rejected. The first section of each questionnaire consisted of items which were used to generate the biographic data of the respondents. The second section of the questionnaire was made up of questions that the respondents were expected to give honest response on.
Validity of the Instruments
The instrument of the study was subjected to thorough screening by the researcher’s supervisor and two other principal lecturers in the Department of Educational Management. They restructured the questions and pointed out very clearly where amendments and corrections need to be made to establish face and content validity. After which, the researcher effected all the necessary corrections to give the original draft of the instrument a meaning and lift.
Reliability of the Instruments
The reliability of the instrument was determined using Cronbach’s Alpha reliability method of IBM SPSS version 26 for its computation. The computation shows 0.72 indexes of correlations, an indication of high positive reliability.
Administration of the Instruments
The questionnaire was the main research instrument used for collection of data. The researcher administers the questionnaire to the respondents in the company of two other research assistants.
Methods of Data Analysis
The study employed Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient Analysis and to answer the research questions. For the hypotheses, linear Regression was applied greater than 0.05. Simple Linear Regression Analysis was utilized in testing the research hypotheses. It was used to analyze the data in order to obtain the level of significance of the relationship or correlation between incentives and teachers’ job performance in Delta Central Senatorial District. The decision criteria for significant correlation, sig. (2-tailed) will be less than 0.05 while for insignificant correlation, sig. (2-tailed) will be greater than 0.05
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Presentation of Data
This chapter deals with the analysis and presentation of data extracted from the questionnaire and the testing of hypotheses. The structured questionnaire comprises of seven sections (A – H) and a total number of seventy-three (73) questions. The questionnaires were distributed and their answers to each of the question are analyzed in this section.
4.1.1 Research Question One
How does reward correlate with teachers’ job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District?
Table 4.1: Relationship between rewards and teachers’ job performance
| Correlations | |||
| 1 | TEACHERS’ JOBPERFORMANCE .773** | ||
REWARDS TEACHERS’ JOB PERFORMANCE | Pearson Correlation | ||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .047 42801 4280 | ||
| NPearson CorrelationSig.(2-tailed) | 4280 .773** | ||
| N 4280 | |||
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
For significant correlation, sig. (2-tailed) will be less than 0.05. From the above table 1, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient for research question 1 being .047 is less than 0.05. This shows that the test is significant. Also, the strength of the relationship is given by the numeric value of the correlation coefficient. From 0.10 to 0.29 means small or weak correlation, from 0.30 to 0.49 means medium correlation, 0.50 to 0.99 means large or strong correlation while 1 means perfect correlation.
The sig (2-tailed) is 0.773 which is equivalent to 77.3%. We can conclude that under research question one, there is strong significant, large and positive correlation between reward and teachers job performance.
4.1.2 Research Question Two
How salary advancement correlates with teachers’ job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District?
Table 4.2: Relationship between salary advancement and teachers’ job performance
| Correlations | ||
| SALARY ADVANCEMENTTEACHERS’ JOB PERFORMANCE | ||
| SALARY ADVANCEMENT TEACHERS’ JOB PERFORMANCE | Pearson Correlation1 .842** | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .027 42801 | |
| NPearson Correlation 4280.842** | ||
| Sig. (2-tailed).027 | 4280 | |
| N 4280 | ||
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
For significant correlation, sig. (2-tailed) will be less than 0.05. From the above table 1, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient for research question 1 being .027 is less than 0.05. This shows that the test is significant. Also, the strength of the relationship is given by the numeric value of the correlation coefficient. From 0.10 to 0.29 means small or weak correlation, from 0.30 to 0.49 means medium correlation, 0.50 to 0.99 means large or strong correlation while 1 means perfect correlation.
The sig (2-tailed) is .842 which is equivalent to 84.2%. We can conclude that under research question two, there is strong significant, large and positive correlation between salary advancement and teachers’ job performance.
4.1.3 Research Question Three
How does award of teachers relates to their job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District?
Table 4.3: Relationship between awards and teachers’ job performance
| Correlations | ||
| AWARDSTEACHERS’JOB PERFORMANCE | ||
| AWARDS TEACHERS’ JOB PERFORMANCE | Pearson Correlation 1 .855** | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) .037 | ||
| N 4280 4280 Pearson Correlation .855** 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0.037N 4280 4280 | ||
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
For significant correlation, sig. (2-tailed) is than 0.05. From the above table 1, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient for research question 1 being .037 is less than 0.05. This shows that the test is significant. Also, the strength of the relationship is given by the numeric value of the correlation coefficient. From 0.10 to 0.29 means small or weak correlation, from 0.30 to 0.49 means medium correlation, 0.50 to 0.99 means large or strong correlation while 1 means perfect correlation.
The sig (2-tailed) is .855 which is equivalent to 85.5%. We can conclude that under research question three, there is strong significant, large and positive correlation between awards and teachers’ job performance
4.2 Hypotheses Testing
The Hypotheses Testing for this study will be shown thus:
Ho 1: There is no significant relationship between rewards and teachers’ job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District
Table 4.7: Linear Regression Result showing the relationship between rewards and teachers job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District(n=4280)
| Model Summaryb | |||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Durbin-Watson |
| 1 | .817a | .803 | .802 | 2.1122 | 1.931 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), REWARDS | |||||
| b. Dependent Variable: TEACHERS JOB PERFORMANCE | |||||
| ANOVAa | ||||||
| Model | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 15.329 | 1 | 15.329 | 3.436 | .046b |
| Residual | 499.662 | 4279 | 4.461 | |||
| Total | 514.991 | 4280 | ||||
| a. Dependent Variable: TEACHERS JOB PERFORMANCE | ||||||
| b. Predictors: (Constant), REWARDS | ||||||
Coefficientsa | ||||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | T | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 20.3821 | 2.3246 | 8.7681 | 0.05 | |||
| REWARDS | 3.1869 | 0.1008 | 0.1725 | 1.8537 | 0.046 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: TEACHERS JOB PERFORMANCE | ||||||||
Source: Field Work, 2025
Based on an analysis of the results in table 4.7, the R-squared value is .803. This indicates that approximately, 80.3% academic performance is explained by rewards. The Adjusted R-squared value is .802. This is slightly lower than the R-squared which is due to adjustments for the number of predators in the model. Remember that the value of Durbin Watson statistics lies between 0-4. From 0-1.49 shows presence of positive first order autocorrelation. From 1.5 to 2.5 shows absence of first order autocorrelation. The Durbin Watson statistic is 1.931. This is asymptotically 2 which show absence of first order autocorrelation.
The F-Statistic is 3.436 with a p-value of 0.046 which is less than 0.05. This indicates that the overall regression model is highly statistically significant. The standard error of the estimate is 2.1122 representing the average deviation of the observed values from the regression line. The beta coefficient for rewards is 0.1725. This suggests a strong positive relationship between the rewards and teachers’ job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District. The t-value for the reward is 1.8537, with a very low p-value of 0.046. This indicates that the coefficient for reward is highly statistically significant.
The tolerance and VIF values are both 1.00, indicating no issues with multi-collinearity in the model. The coefficient for teachers’ quality is 3.1869. This suggests that for every unit increase in the reward, the teachers’ job performance increases by approximately 3.1869 units. The regression analysis indicates that reward has a strong positive relationship with teacher job performance. However, the positive coefficient suggests that higher scores on rewards may paradoxically be associated with higher teachers’ job performance
Ho 2: There is no significant relationship between salary advancement and teachers’ job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District
Table 4.8: Linear Regression Result showing the relationship between salary advancement and teachers’ job performance (n=4280)
| Model Summaryb | |||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Durbin-Watson |
| 1 | .842a | .802 | .797 | 2.14243 | 1.959 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), SALARY ADVANCEMENT | |||||
| b. Dependent Variable: TEACHERS’ JOB PERFORMANCE | |||||
| ANOVAa | ||||||
| Model | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | .911 | 1 | .911 | 2.199 | 0.006b |
| Residual | 514.080 | 4279 | 4.590 | |||
| Total | 514.991 | 4280 | ||||
| a. Dependent Variable: SALARY ADVANCEMENT | ||||||
| b. Predictors: (Constant), TEACHERS’ JOB PERFORMANCE | ||||||
Coefficientsa | ||||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | T | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 25.8587 | 2.6633 | 9.7093 | 0.05 | |||
| SALARY ADVANCEMENT | 3.0408 | 0.0916 | 0.0421 | 0.446 | 0.006 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: TEACHERS’ JOB PERFORMANCE | ||||||||
Source: Field Work, 2025
Based on an analysis of the results in table 4.8, the R-squared value is .802. This indicates that approximately, 80.2% teachers’ job performance is explained by salary advancement. The Adjusted R-squared value is .797. This is slightly lower than the R-squared which is due to adjustments for the number of predators in the model. Remember that the value of Durbin Watson statistics lies between 0-4. From 0-1.49 shows presence of positive first order autocorrelation. From 1.5 to 2.5 shows absence of first order autocorrelation. The Durbin Watson statistic is 1.959. This is asymptotically 2 which show absence of first order autocorrelation.
The F-Statistic is 2.199 with a p-value of 0.006 which is less than 0.05. This indicates that the overall regression model is highly statistically significant. The standard error of the estimate is 2.1424 representing the average deviation of the observed values from the regression line. The beta coefficient for salary advancement is 0.0421. This suggests a strong positive relationship between the salary advancement and teachers’ job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District. The t-value for the salary advancement is 1.8537, with a very low p-value of 0.046. This indicates that the coefficient for salary advancement is highly statistically significant.
The tolerance and VIF values are both 1.00, indicating no issues with multi-collinearity in the model. The coefficient for salary advancement is 3.0408. This suggests that for every unit increase in the 3.0408, the academic performance increases by approximately 3.0408 units. The regression analysis indicates that salary advancement has a strong positive relationship with teachers’ job performance. However, the positive coefficient suggests that higher scores on salary advancement may paradoxically be associated with higher teachers’ job performance.
Ho 3: There is no significant relationship between awards of teachers and job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District
Table 4.9: Linear Regression Result showing the relationship between awards of teachers and job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District (n=4280)
| Model Summaryb | |||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Durbin-Watson |
| 1 | .855a | .827 | .816 | 2.13647 | 1.852 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), AWARDS OF TEACHERS | |||||
| b. Dependent Variable: JOB PERFORMANCE | |||||
| ANOVAa | ||||||
| Model | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 3.766 | 1 | 3.766 | 2.825 | .037b |
| Residual | 511.225 | 4279 | 4.565 | |||
| Total | 514.991 | 4280 | ||||
| a. Dependent Variable: JOB PERFORMANCE | ||||||
| b. Predictors: (Constant), AWARDS OF TEACHERS | ||||||
Coefficientsa | ||||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | T | Sig. | Collinearity Statistics | |||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 25.7358 | 1.0019 | 25.6880 | 0.05 | |||
| AWARDS OF TEACHERS | 2.0670 | 0.0621 | 0.1015 | 1.0801 | .037 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: JOB PERFORMANCE | ||||||||
Source: Field Work, 2025
Based on an analysis of the results in table 4.9, the R-squared value is .827. This indicates that approximately, 82.7% academic performance is explained by award. The Adjusted R-squared value is .816. This is slightly lower than the R-squared which is due to adjustments for the number of predators in the model. Remember that the value of Durbin Watson statistics lies between 0-4. From 0-1.49 shows presence of positive first order autocorrelation. From 1.5 to 2.5 shows absence of first order autocorrelation. The Durbin Watson statistic is 1.852. This is asymptotically 2 which show absence of first order autocorrelation.
The F-Statistic is 2.825 with a p-value of 0.037 which is less than 0.05. This indicates that the overall regression model is highly statistically significant. The standard error of the estimate is 0.0621 representing the average deviation of the observed values from the regression line. The beta coefficient for award is 0.1015. This suggests a strong positive relationship between awards of teachers and job performance in secondary schools in Delta central Senatorial District. The t-value for the awards of teachers is 1.0801, with a very low p-value of 0.037. This indicates that the coefficient for awards is highly statistically significant.
The tolerance and VIF values are both 1.00, indicating no issues with multi-collinearity in the model. The coefficient for teachers’ teaching experience is 2.0670. This suggests that for every unit increase in the 2.0670, the academic performance increases by approximately 2.0670 units. The regression analysis indicates that awards of teachers has a strong positive relationship with job performance. However, the positive coefficient suggests that higher scores on awards of teachers may paradoxically be associated with higher job performance.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study’s summary looks like this:
- The regression analysis indicated that reward has a strong positive relationship with teacher job performance.
- The regression analysis indicated that salary advancement has a strong positive relationship with teachers’ job performance.
- The regression analysis indicated that awards of teachers has a strong positive relationship with job performance
- The regression analysis indicated that seminar/workshops attendance has a strong positive relationship with teachers’ job performance
- The regression analysis indicated that technology integration in education has a strong positive relationship with teachers’ job performance
- The positive coefficient suggested that higher scores on leadership development may paradoxically be associated with higher teachers’ job performance in secondary schools.
Conclusions
Consequently, the study’s results were as follows:
5.2.1 The comprehensive final data results showed that reward, salary advancement, awards of teachers, seminar/workshops attendance, technology integration in education and leadership development all positively impact teachers job performance.
5.2.2 Based on the study findings, the researcher concludes that financial rewards were poor and these were related to the current poor job performance of teachers in public secondary schools in Delta Central Senatorial District thus, if schools are to improve the job performance of teachers, they need to offer favourable financial and non-financial rewards to teachers.
5.2.3 On the basis of finding of the study, it was concluded that, salaries advancement of staff have significant impact on teachers’ job performance in senior secondary schools in Delta Central Senatorial District, Delta State. The interplay of salary advancement, competitive salaries and transparent promotion pathways creates an environment that not only motivates teachers but also supports teachers’ holistic well-being. However, the study findings also revealed that when teachers did not get their rights; leave and promotion to promote their professional standard, this may discourage teachers to work effectively.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made:
- The researcher recommends that monetary and non-monetary incentives should be made available for the teachers in order to boost their moral in achieving teachers’ job performance.
- She also recommends that awards and rewards should be made available for teachers from time to time in order to ensure that teachers in Delta Central Senatorial District feel better treated.
- Technological integration, seminar/workshop attendance and leadership development are also seen as important factors that promote teachers’ job performance hence should not be treated with levity.
References
Akpan, C. (2019). Teacher Motivation and School Performance, the Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction: Survey from Secondary Schools in Mogadishu. International Journal of Education and Social Science, 3(1), 24–38.
Akinbode (2016). Achievement effects of individual performance incentives in a teacher merit pay tournament. Labour Economics, 44, 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. labeco.2016.12.008
Ananti, U. (2020). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. Journal of Labour Economics, 31(2), 373–407.
Andrew, S. (2014). Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement. In Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. http://www. econometricsociety.org
Barongo, J. (2023). Monetary and non-monetary incentives as correlates of teacher educators’ job performance in colleges of education in. 8(02), 1031–1040.
Basilius, I. (2014). Incentive Strength and Teacher Productivity: Influence of school-based incentives for teachers on students. (2022).
Bennett, R. and Minty, G. (2015). Role of Non-Monetary Incentives on Teachers’ Job Performance in Public Secondary Schools in Ilemela District. Journal of Research Innovation and Implications in Education, 6(2), 255–264. www.jriiejournal.com
Bressoux, R. (2016). The effect of work motivation on teacher’s work performance in pekanbaru senior high schools, Riau Province, Indonesia. Sosiohumanika, 3(2).
Chang, E., & Hahn, J. (2016). Does pay-for-performance enhance perceived distributive justice for collectivistics employees? Personnel Review, 35 (4), 397-412
Davidson, E. (2015). The Pivotal Role of Teacher Motivation in Tanzania.Dares Salaam, Tanzania: HakiElimu Working Papers
Deci, H.D., Singer, J.E. & Van Cott, H. (Eds). (2019). Enhancing Organizational Edition. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint.
Egbo, A. (2011). On the design of non-monetary incentives in schools. Education Economics, 27(3), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292. 2019.1586835
Hamilton, K. (2015). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Han, J. (2021). Determinants of Secondary School Teacher Job Satisfaction in Tanzania. Education Research International Journal, 4(7), 1-7.
Hanushek, G., Hank, I. and Prince, F. (2015). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction among Academic Employees in Polytechnic. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 5(11), 209 – 216. doi: 10.47405/mjssh. v5i11.540.
Hasan, R. (2014). Job Satisfaction of Higher Secondary School Teachers: An Empirical Study of Commerce Faculty in Surat City. Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 2229-5348.
Hewstone, M. and Stroebe, G. (2011). Fringe Benefit and Job Satisfaction in SME: An Empirical Experience among SMES in Selangor. Journal of Islamic, Social, Economics and Development, 6(6), 277–290.
Lambert, E. (2020). Logistics as anelement of marketing strategy, bothinside and outside the firm,Proceedings of the Council ofLogistics Management Conference.Boston. McGraw Hill.
Lawler, E.E. (2013). Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness, organizationaldynamics,32(4),396.
Nakpodia, E. O. (2018). Teachers factor in the implementation of Universal basic education programme in Junior Secondary Schools in the south Senatorial District of Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 3(10), 286-293.
Palmer, T. (2022). The principal and the school: what do principals do? National forum ofEducational Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4)
Peretemode, V.F (2001). Theories of Management: Implications for Educational Administration. Bwright Integrated publishers Limited. Vol 1.
Okeji, D. (2015). Correlates of jobmotivation of workers in selected public and private secondary schools thesis. Department ofEducational Foundation &Counseling, Faculty of Education,Obafemi Awolowo University, IleIfe
Rana, A. (2018). Enhancing teachers’ performance through training and development in Ghana Education Service (A case study of Ebenezer, Senior High School). World Journal of Education, 1(2), 143-149.
Wei, F. (2021). Leadership Styles, Types and Students’ Academic Achievement in Nigeria. (Master), Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia. Retrieved from http://eprints.uthm.edu.my/id/eprint/8050
Yukl, G. 2020; Hoy, O &Miskel, P. (2018). Contingency theories of effective leadership. The SAGA Handbook of Leadership, 24(1), 286-298.