Achievement Motivation Among University Managers and Institutional Effectiveness in Selected

Nigerian Universities.

Steve U. Bassey & Roseleen J. Akpan

University of Uyo,
Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria

Abstract
The study investigated the relationship between achievement motivation among University
managers and institutional effectiveness in terms of teaching and learning, community-school
partnership, professional leadership, staff and students’ involvement and high intellectual
expectations in selected Nigerian Universities. The population of study was made up of all
teaching and non-teaching staff of two Universities from the rank of administrative officer
upwards; while sample consisted of 240 respondents randomly selected from administrative and
teaching staff. A 35-item questionnaire in two parts constructed by the researchers was used to
gather data while Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation analysis was employed for data
analysis. Findings revealed significant relationships between achievement motivation and
institutional effectiveness in teaching and learning (r = 0.72), community-school partnership (r =
0.66), professional leadership (r = 0.64), staff and students’ involvement (r = 0.56), and high
intellectual expectations (r = 0.49). On the basis of the findings and conclusion, it was
recommended that job enrichment should be applied in the job description of University
managers, achievement-motivation workshops should be arranged for department heads; while
National Universities Commission should prepare effectiveness (i.e. productivity) guidelines for
the University system.

Keywords: Achievement motivation, institutional effectiveness, university managers

66 Steve U. Bassey & Roseleen J. Akpan

Introduction
University managers, like all other managers in different sectors of the economy, have a

set of roles to perform, if the predetermined objectives of the university should be attained.

Some of these roles are: preparation and defending of departmental budgets; attracting financial

supports to the department; encouraging scholarly publications and professional journal

researches (Idumange, 2002); management of human and material resources of the

department; coaching and training of staff; and giving of academic and administrative leadership

to the department (Bassey, 2007). It seems that there is need to sharpen the competence and

zeal of these managers through motivation. Since the effectiveness of university managers is

measured by their competence and the extent to which the goals of their exalted office are

attained (Ogbodo, 2002), it becomes necessary that they should be appropriately motivated.

John (1986, p.12) conceptualizes motivation to be the internal force that arouses, regulates, and

sustains all the more important actions of the individual. Though intangible it determines the

intensity, quality and direction of ongoing behaviour.

The need theory of McClelland (1985) proposes that there are three major motives (or

needs) in work situations, namely: need for achievement, need for power; and need for

affiliation. Need for achievement is the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of

standards, and to strive to succeed; while need for power is the urge to make others behave in

a way that they would not have behaved otherwise. Also, need for affiliation is the desire for

friendly and close interpersonal relationship at work environments. The day-to-day role

performance of university managers towards institutional effectiveness seems influenced by

McClellands’ Model (1985) of needs theory. The effective university manager appears to have a

high level need for achievement and moderate level need for both power and affiliation.

Achievement Motivation
Achievement motivation is an unconscious concern for achieving excellence in

accomplishments through one’s individual effort (Cooper & Locke, 2000). Individuals high in

achievement motivation (or need for achievement) are known to be good in setting challenging

goals for themselves; assuming personal responsibility for goal accomplishment; are highly

persistent in the pursuit of goals; take calculated risks to achieve goals by setting moderately

difficult goals; and actively collect and use information for feedback purposes (Johns, 1996).

They tend towards these behaviours even in the absence of external stimuli or incentives, and

in the presence of achievement-arousing stimuli, they exhibit these behaviours more strongly

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

 Achievement Motivation Among University Managers and Institutional Effectiveness in Selected 67
Nigerian Universities.
than do individuals low in achievement motivation. Achievement motivation is theoretically

predicted to contribute to effective leadership of small task-oriented groups and effective

entrepreneurship. People who are high in need for achievement are concerned with making

better their own performance and that of others. They are often concerned with innovation and

long-term goal involvement. Johns (1996, p.166) believes they do these things because they

are intrinsically satisfying. Achievement motivation concept can be effective conveniently in the

university system, especially at the departmental level where staff and students’ sizes could be

classified as small and medium-sized. Here, the popularity and success of a particular

department appears to depend on the way and manner the head administers the department

and articulates his dreams with his subordinates. Since all effective leaders need a high level of

power motivation (McClelland, 1985), university managers necessarily require a reasonable

level of achievement and power motivation to succeed in leading subordinates towards goal-

attainment.

Institutional Effectiveness
Institutional effectiveness is viewed differently from various perspectives. It could be

perceived from the angle of school input, school output variables, teaching-learning process,

environment-based, and feedback mechanism-based definitions. Babalola (2003, p.305)

defines effectiveness as the extent to which set goals and objectives of an institution are

accomplished in relation to quality, quantity, equity and instructional quality. Effective

institutions are found where students progress further than might be expected from

considerations of their initial intake (Bassey, 2006). Some indices attributed to effective

institutions include: shared vision and goals; emphasis on teaching and learning; professional

leadership; all-round high expectations; community-school partnership, and a climate of staff

and students’ involvement (Reynolds, 1996). Drever (1990, p.1) observes that different groups

have different views of institutional effectiveness. For instance, the expectations of parents,

lecturers, management, National Universities Commission (NUC), and the public with reference

to effectiveness are diverse and they require identification and clarification. It appears that

individual institutions require self-evaluation on a continual basis in order to keep pace with the

effectiveness drive.

It is against this background that this study was undertaken to verify how far institutional

effectiveness at the university level is affected by the achievement motivation of university

managers in South-South Nigeria. University of Uyo and Akwa Ibom State University of

Technology were selected for investigation.

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

68 Steve U. Bassey & Roseleen J. Akpan

The Problem
The quality of education offered by high educational institutions in Nigeria in recent times

has deteriorated substantially (Mohammed & Gbenu, 2007). In line with the above observation,

this study sought to determine the nature of influence exerted on university effectiveness by the

achievement motivation level of university managers at the departmental level in selected

universities in South-South Nigeria.

Purpose
The purpose of the study was to investigate the opinions of university staff on how far

their managers are achievement-oriented in their daily goal-attainment effort.

Research Question
What is the relationship between achievement motivation among university managers

and institutional effectiveness in terms of teaching and learning, professional leadership,

community-school partnership, staff and students’ involvement, and high intellectual

expectations?

Hypothesis
There is no significant relationship between achievement motivation among university

managers and institutional effectiveness in: teaching and learning; professional leadership;

community-school partnership; staff and students’ involvement; and high intellectual

expectations.

Methodology
The survey design was used for the study. The population was made up of all lecturers

and senior non-academic staff of University of Uyo and Akwa Ibom State University of

Technology; while sample consisted of 240 (lecturers 140; administrators 100) respondents

randomly selected from the two institutions. The researchers prepared a 35-item two-parts

instrument called Achievement Motivation among University Managers and Institutional

Effectiveness (AMUMIE) questionnaire for use in data collection. A lecturer in measurement

and evaluation in a university was used in validating the instrument before its administration.

The instrument was a four-point scale with values assigned as follows: strongly agree = 4;

somewhat agree = 3; somewhat disagree = 2; and strongly disagree = 1. Pilot testing to

ascertain the clarity of questionnaire items gave a high test-retest reliability score of 0.83. The

researchers administered the questionnaire in person. Descriptive statistics and Pearson

Correlation Coefficient analysis were employed in analyzing data.

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

 Achievement Motivation Among University Managers and Institutional Effectiveness in Selected 69
Nigerian Universities.
Results
There was a 100 per cent return rate on questionnaire, since the administration was

conducted in person by the researchers.

Hypothesis
There is no significant relationship between achievement motivation among university

managers and institutional effectiveness in: teaching and learning; professional leadership;

community-school partnership; staff and students’ involvement; and high intellectual

expectations.

Data analysis was done through the use of Pearson Correlation Coefficient analysis (see

Table 1).

Table 1: Data for Computing Correlation Coefficient of Relationship Between

Achievement Motivation among University Managers and Institutional
Effectiveness

(N = 240)

Variable Σx Σx2
Σxy rxy

Σy Σy2

Achievement Motivation (X) 10760 491160

Institutional Effectiveness in:

Teaching and Learning (Y1) 3060 39780 139060 0.72*

Community-School Partnership (Y2) 2721 31439 123492 0.66*

Professional leadership (Y3) 2880 35160 130380 0.64*

Staff & students’ involvement (Y4) 2997 37639 134877 0.56*

High intellectual expectations (Y5) 2996 38044 135488 0.49*

*p<.05; df = 238; critical r = 0.195

The independent variable was achievement motivation while the dependent variable was

school effectiveness expressed by the indices: teaching and learning; home-school partnership,

professional leadership, students’ and teachers’ involvement and high intellectual expectations.

The result of data analysis disclosed a significant relationship between achievement motivation

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

70 Steve U. Bassey & Roseleen J. Akpan

and school effectiveness in teaching and learning (r = 0.72), community-school partnership (r =

0.66), professional leadership (r = 0.64), staff and students’ involvement (r = 0.56), and high

intellectual expectations (r = 0.49). The null hypothesis was rejected on the basis of this result,

since the computed r-values were greater than the critical r-value (0.195), at alpha level of 0.05

and 238 degree of freedom. The positive relationship reported suggests that a high level of a

manager’s achievement motivation will lead to a corresponding high level of institutional

effectiveness in identified indices.

Discussion
Research results gave a significant relationship between achievement motivation among

university managers and institutional effectiveness in teaching and learning, community-school

partnership, professional leadership, staff and students’ involvement, and high intellectual

expectations. The positive relationship found between the variables fell in line with the findings

of Anukam (2002, p.71) on students’ learning achievement in Imo State and Babalola (2004,

p.303) on quality assurance and child-friendly improvements on public school effectiveness.

The finding however contradicts that of Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) who argued that whether

students are taught with or without instructional aids, achievement scores remain unaffected.

This finding can be explained that university managers need to be encouraged and

motivated for them to perform at their best. Their lower-order (e.g. incentives, salaries) and

higher-order (e.g. recognition, achievement) needs should be met on the job. Peretomode

(2001, p.128) believes that it is the satisfaction of these intrinsic factors (or higher-order needs)

that will encourage the growth and development of managerial effectiveness at the higher

levels. University managers are motivated also when departments and units are equipped

adequately with relevant tools, equipment, facilities, and personnel for work (Udo, 2004). It

appears that it is the presence of these orientations in these heads that will help them to be

result-oriented in all aspects of university life. For instance, when a university manager is

sufficiently motivated (or high in achievement motivation), he/she will tend to focus more

attention on teaching and learning (academics), a healthy relationship between institution and

the community, the practice of professional leadership, staff and students’ involvement in

decision-making, and creating a conducive atmosphere for high intellectual attainments.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The findings of the study revealed a significant relationship between achievement

motivation among university managers and institutional effectiveness. On the basis of the

findings and conclusion, it was recommended that the job profile of university managers should

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

 Achievement Motivation Among University Managers and Institutional Effectiveness in Selected 71
Nigerian Universities.
be enriched by building into individual jobs greater scope for personal achievement, recognition

and responsibility; that university managers should be groomed to be ambitious and

achievement-oriented through attending achievement motivation workshops which will train

them in setting realistic goals, solving problems, planning prototype school business outfits and

being challenged to be innovative and goal-oriented. Other recommendations were that in order

to challenge university managers to be result-oriented, the National Universities Commission

(NUC) should publish the criteria of university effectiveness for the guidance of departmental

managers, unit heads and lecturers and the National Universities Commission should also

assist universities in preparing performance indicators on teaching and learning effectiveness

for use in departmental self-evaluation.

References

Akwa Ibom State (2004). State Secondary Education Board (SSEB). Statistics Division, Uyo,

Nigeria.

Anukam, I. L. (2001). Investigating factors influencing primary school pupils’ learning

achievement in Imo State. In N. A. Nwagwu, E. T. Ehiametalor, M. A. Ogunu, & Mon

Nwadiani (Eds.) Current Issues in Educational Management in Nigeria. Benin City:

NAEAP Publications, 71 – 90.

Babalola, J. B. (2004). Quality assurance and child-friendly strategies for improving public

school effectiveness and teacher performance in a democratic Nigeria. In E. O.

Fagbamiye, J. B. Babalola, M. Fabunmi, & A. O. Ayeni (Eds.) Management of Primary

and Secondary Education in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: NAEAP Publications, 303 – 312.

Bassey, S. U. (2006). Secondary school facilities and school effectiveness in Akwa Ibom State

of Nigeria. African Journal of Education and Information Management (AJEIMA), 8(1),

84 – 92.

Bassey, S. U., & Archibong, I. A. (2007. Management skills required of department heads in

university governance: A review and research agenda. The African Symposium (ISSN#
TX 6-342-323), 7(2), 55 – 65. An Online Journal of the African Educational Research

Network. <www.africanresearch.org>

Cooper, C., & Locke, E. A. (Eds.) (2000). Industrial and organizational psychology. United

Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers.

Drever, E. (1990). School effectiveness: Criteria and evidence. Scotland: University of Stirling.

His Majesty’s Inspectors (1988). Effective secondary schools. Edinburgh: HMSO.

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

72 Steve U. Bassey & Roseleen J. Akpan

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, A. (1982). The role of laboratory in science teaching: Neglected

aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 210 – 217.

Idumange, J. A. (2002). Role of heads of departments in the administration of Nigerian

Universities.African Journal of Research in Education, 2(1&2), 42 – 48.

John, M. E. (1986). The applicability of Maslow’s need theory among teachers in Cross River

State: Implications for educational administration. An unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.

Johns, G. (1996). Organizational behaviour. 4th edition. New York: Harper Collins.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, Ill: Scott & Foresman.

Mohammed, M. O. B., & Gbenu, J. P. (2007). Public universities on the brink of collapse in

Nigeria: Private sector participation as a way out. In J. B. Babalola, G. O. Akpa, A. O.

Ayeni, & S. O. Adedeji (Eds.) Access, Equity and Quality in Higher Education. Ibadan:

NAEAP Publications, 63 – 73.

Ogbodo, C. M. (2002). Administrative effectiveness of male and female principals in Akwa Ibom

State secondary schools. Journal of Education, 2(1), 19 – 24.

Peretomode, V. (2001). Educational administration: Applied concepts and theoretical
perspectives. Lagos, Nigeria: Joja Publishers.

Reynolds, D. (1986). School effectiveness and school improvement in the United Kingdom.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement Journal, 7(2), 133 – 158.

Udo, M. U. (2004). Secondary school plant environment and school effectiveness in Akwa Ibom

State of Nigeria. An unpublished M.Ed. thesis, University of Uyo, Nigeria.

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

 Achievement Motivation Among University Managers and Institutional Effectiveness in Selected 73
Nigerian Universities.
Appendix

Questionnaire on Achievement Motivation Among

University Managers and Institutional Effectiveness
in South-
South-South
South Nigeria

Dear Respondent

This questionnaire is intended to seek information on the level of achievement

motivation among university managers and institutional effectiveness in South-South Nigeria.

Please give us frank responses to the listed questions.

Institution: UNIUYO ( ) AKUTECH ( ) Lecturer ( ) Administrator ( )

Please check (
) against the option that best describes the achievement motivation level of

your HOD and university effectiveness where strongly agree = 4; somewhat agree = 3;

somewhat disagree = 2; strongly disagree = 1.

S/N Achievement Motivation Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

In this department, my HOD agree agree disagree disagree

1 Takes personal responsibility for

outcomes of his actions

2 Sets moderately difficult goals for

himself

3 Desires for performance appraisal

4 Believes in making better the

performance of others

5 Believes in improving his own

performance

6 Believes in innovations and

changes

7 Believes in long-term goal-

involvement

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

74 Steve U. Bassey & Roseleen J. Akpan

8 Is not satisfied with status quo

9 Sets challenging goals for himself

10 Is highly persistent in pursuit of

set goals

11 Takes calculated risks to achieve

goals

12 Believes in business planning

13 Believes in problem-solving

14 Believes in performance feedback

15 Administers rewards on the basis

of goals attained

Institutional Effectiveness
(Teaching and
and Learning)
Learning)
In this University

16 Emphasis is laid on teaching and

learning

17 Lecturers are hardworking

18 Students are serious with their

studies

19 The focus is on achievement

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

Community-
Community-School Partnership agree agree disagree disagree

20 Management is friendly with many

parents

21 Parents assist the university

financially by paying levies on

students

22 Parents hold meetings with

university regularly

23 Parents provide extra coaching to

students at home

Professional Leadership

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75

 Achievement Motivation Among University Managers and Institutional Effectiveness in Selected 75
Nigerian Universities.
24 Management is always democratic

25 Management delegates

responsibilities to subordinates

26 Management monitors students’

progress

27 Management practices forward

planning

Staff and
and Students’ Involvement
28 Lecturers make useful suggestions

at staff meetings

29 Lecturers assist in maintaining

campus discipline

30 Students are appointed faculty and

course representatives

31 Students are presidents of students’

union

High Intellectual Expectations

32 Management provides intellectual

challenge for lecturers and students

33 Management communicates

expectations to lecturers

34 Lecturers communicate expectations

to students

35 Lecturers work extra hard to help

students succeed

RHEA, vol. 2. no. 1, 65-75