Barriers to Individual Work Performance in SMEs: An Exploratory Qualitative Study in the Cameroonian Context

Abstract

This chapter explores barriers to individual work performance in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the African context. To access the real world, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 employees in a SME operating in the industrial sector in Douala, Cameroon. Findings from a thematic content analysis show that several obstacles described in the managerial literature, such as work characteristics (variety of skills, task identity, meaning of the task, autonomy, feedback), organizational justice, work organization and bullying, are also found in Cameroon. However, three new barriers emerge from our study: time theft, participation in community activities, and irregularity of salaries which prevent employees from showing adaptive, contextual, and task performance. Managerial implications are therefore suggested in order to optimize employees’ performance in SMEs.

1. Introduction

Several changes facing the business world in the recent years, such as changes in technology and its uses, the transformation of jobs, the evolution of organizational forms and the meaning of work, are putting into perspective the need for companies to rely on the work performance of their employees in their quest for survival. Several theoretical articles and empirical research studies lay emphasis on the fact that employees’ work performance has this quality because of its effects on the efficiency of organizations [1] and the satisfaction of customers or users [2].

However, since the rise of the human relations school, a number of factors have been identified as likely to hinder or promote employee performance at work. These factors are attracting interest from researchers and practitioners alike, following two major directions. The first examines the influence of individual factors on performance at work, focusing on motivation [3], satisfaction [4], and organizational commitment [5], as these psychological factors appear to be essential. With reference to the contingent approach of organizational management [6], the second stresses the importance of organizational factors such as work characteristics [7], organizational support [8], organizational justice [9], and teleworking [10].

Although these factors are numerous and despite the growing literature on the subject, very little is known about the factors likely to hinder work performance in SMEs in sub-Saharan Africa [11], particularly in Cameroon. However, since the pioneering work [12, 13], SMEs have had virtues that are constantly extolled by the business community, political decision makers, and researchers under the motto “Small is beautiful.” There are several reasons for this fascination for SMEs. The first is that they represent the bulk of the economic fabric in most countries and as such are the main source of jobs [14]. The second reason is their dynamism and capacity for innovation [15].

Based on the hypothesis that it is increasingly difficult to understand the development of SMEs by underestimating the obstacles to work performance, this chapter aims to fill two main gaps. First of all, the literature devoted to the obstacles to work performance analyses these factors in large companies, whereas most of Cameroon’s economic fabric is made up of SMEs¹. A study carried out by the National Institute of Statistics in Cameroon [16] shows that of the 209,482 economic units surveyed, 98.5% are SMEs and 84.2% of them operate mainly in trade. Their contribution to job creation is 67.1% of permanent jobs and they generate 24.2% of GDP.

Secondly, a study carried out by the Cameroon Inter-Employers’ Group (GICAM) (GICAM) in 2020 shows that these industrial production units (IPU), which are operating in a context of security, health, and inflationary crises, are facing both internal (poor access to finance, problems with training and innovation, deteriorating cash flow) and external challenges (excessive regulation, tax pressure, falling sales) likely to have an influence on employees’ motivation, engagement, well-being, and individual work performance. However, researchers in human resource management or industrial psychology do not seem to have considered the question of what factors are likely to hamper the individual work performance of employees in a context of change. To our knowledge, the few studies that do exist, such as mentioned in Refs. [11, 17, 18, 19] contrast according to the context and the orientation chosen.

The purpose of this research is therefore to understand the obstacles to individual work performance by targeting the employees of an SME that has been undergoing strategic and operational changes for more than a decade. In this trend, identifying the obstacles to performance at work will provide an operational framework both for company managers and for researchers and authorities responsible for managing or promoting SMEs. In the first part, we will present a recession of theoretical writings on work performance and its limiting factors. In the second part, the framework of this research, which uses a qualitative methodology based on a single case study, will be revealed. We then present our results and highlight how they compare with the literature.

2. Factors in individual performance at work: a review of the literature

The individual work performance of the members of an organization is increasingly presented as a key element in its performance, success, and sustainability. It is generally presented as a set of individual behaviors or actions that contribute to the achievement of organizational objectives [20]. In this vein, work performance is increasingly perceived as a multidimensional behavior. Among the multifactorial models of work performance, the conceptualization by Borman and Motowidlo [21] is increasingly attracting attention from researchers and practitioners. It distinguishes between task performance and contextual performance. Task performance, commonly referred to as “intra-role performance,” refers to the set of behaviors of a contractual nature that concern the execution of tasks or activities and contribute to the achievement of organizational objectives. Contextual performance, also referred to as “extra-role performance,” corresponds to organizational citizenship behaviors, in other words, behaviors which go beyond the requirements of the formal role and which contribute positively to collective performance [22].

Work in this area, whether in organizational behavior, in human resource management, or in industrial psychology, shows that the processes that lead an individual to be performant at work or not are now explained by several factors. These forerunners, called brakes or levers when they act on performance at work, constitute constraints or assets for employee performance.

In their review of theoretical and empirical work, Charles-Pauvers et al. [23] identify two groups of factors. The first group refers to a set of elements explaining the work performance process on the basis of the psychological link between the individual, his work, and his organization. However, a growing body of literature shows that among the psychological determinants of job performance, motivation [3], satisfaction [4], and organizational commitment [5] appear to be fundamental individual factors. The second group highlights a set of factors that make it possible to understand performance at work based on the diversity of relationships that are established between organizations and their employees. Among these factors, work characteristics [7], organizational support [8], and organizational justice [9] play a predominant role in a context marked by social exchange.

Numerous studies provide empirical evidence of the influence of psychological and organizational factors on individual work performance in SMEs. For example, Vuong et al. [19], in a study conducted in Vietnam, revealed that employees perform better at work when they are characterized by high organizational commitment. In France, Swalhi et al. [18] highlight the positive effect of organizational justice on employees’ work performance based on a study in France. In China, Zhou et al. [24] find that workplace violence, characterized by bullying, intimidation, and sabotage, reduces employees’ ability to be innovative. In Malaysia, June and Mahmood [25] find a significant relationship between role ambiguity, job competencies, and employees’ job performance. In the same context, Yuen et al. [26] use linear regression and show that role conflict, role ambiguity, workload, and interpersonal relationships significantly affect employee performance. In contrast, the physical work environment has no significant effect on individual work performance.

In Indonesia, Dharmanegara et al. [17] use the Partial Least Square (PLS) approach and find that the work environment has a significant and positive influence on task performance. In Nigeria, Ogbeyemi et al. [11] report that job skills, job satisfaction, job fatigue, and job rotation contribute to determining employees’ job performance. However, only job fatigue has a significant effect on job performance when considered independently.

This literature review highlights two important points. Firstly, a number of “universal” psychological factors are likely to promote or inhibit employee performance at work. These include motivation, satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Secondly, given the specific nature of SMEs and the context in which they operate, it is interesting to note that the environment in which the work is carried out, the characteristics of the work, and the organization of the work appear to be elements likely to hinder or favor performance at work.

3. Qualitative methodology based on a case study

To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that have examined the obstacles to work performance in SMEs in sub-Saharan Africa, and particularly in Cameroon. It was therefore necessary to grasp, through the respondents’ answers, the obstacles to performance at work by adopting a qualitative type of methodology [27]. We therefore opted for a qualitative methodology based on a single case study of a Cameroonian SME undergoing major changes.

3.1 The case study and its context

This study concerns an SME operating in Douala in the industrial sector, which we call G&J in order to preserve its anonymity in accordance with the assurance given to its promoter. G&J is a limited liability company created in 2004 thanks to the vision of its CEO, a graduate of the University of Johannesburg, who had returned to his native country. Its aim is to be the preferred partner of public works operators in Cameroon. As such, it offers its services in the fields of civil and electrical engineering. The company has undergone a number of strategic and operational changes over the past decade, making it a particularly interesting case for several reasons.

From the outset, G&J stands out for the continuous achievement of positive results since its creation. Its turnover has raised from 50 million CFA francs in 2004 to 200 million CFA francs today. The company’s remarkable growth over the past two decades has been reflected in the diversification of its activities and an increase in the number of employees. The company’s workforce has grown from 10 employees in 2004 to 73 permanent staff in 2021, 81% of whom are men and 19% women. The breakdown by socio-professional category shows that 40% of the company’s staff are supervisors, 31% operatives, and 29% managers.

To continue, in view of the new momentum generated by its top management since 2010, the company has embarked on a vast investment plan aimed at boosting its activities and operations. This has involved positioning the company as a subcontractor for leading civil and electrical engineering companies in Cameroon, increasing its fleet of equipment and heavy machinery, constructing and commissioning its headquarters building, and embarking on an ISO 9001 and 45,001 certification process. Against this backdrop of economic pressures and organizational transformations [28], CC employees are increasingly facing challenges and difficulties that are likely to affect their performance at work.

Also, for nearly 3 years, G&J has had to deal with the failure of most of its principals to meet payment deadlines for services rendered. As a result, there have been delays in the payment of salaries and benefits to which employees aspire. In addition, like all companies that have adopted a hierarchical and functional organizational structure, G&J is experiencing tensions between its members. This contributes greatly to the deterioration of the working climate within the company. An observation of the reality of this company reveals that ¾ of the employees are in conflict or hardly collaborate, and information rotates with difficulty.

By analyzing the situation of this SME, this study questions the factors likely to hinder the work performance of its employees and its development. Thus, this unique case is likely to provide an understanding of the obstacles to work performance as perceived by employees in an SME context in Cameroon. It also provides an opportunity to propose solutions to these factors in a particular context marked by the cyclical and structural changes experienced by G&J: revision of the company’s strategy, diversification of activities, massive investment in production equipment, cash flow problems.

3.2 Data collection

We based our work on three sources of data. Firstly, we held informal and formal discussions with resource persons in order to gain an in-depth understanding of our theme. By “resource persons,” we mean individuals who hold managerial positions within SMEs. They were recruited from among SME managers enrolled as students in professional courses at ESSEC Douala. This logic was inspired by Wacheux [27] who, in defending the inductive approach to research, presents it as “a process of knowledge production which starts from realities in order to formulate representations.”

Then, given that our ambition is to make sense of and understand a phenomenon in the social world, we conducted semi-directive interviews with 15 individuals (4 women and 11 men). These 15 individuals were selected using a non-probability sampling procedure. This method consists of selecting units from a population that meet certain practical criteria such as ease of access, availability, proximity, and willingness to participate in the study [29]. This size of 15 interviewees was dictated by the saturation of the data collected, but also by the exploratory nature of our study. The characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1.

Respondents	Gender	Age (years)	Matrimonial status	Level of study	Position	Length of service in the enterprise (Years)	Length of service at the post(years)
A.	F	31–35	Single	Bac + 3	Foreman	5	5
B.	M	31–35	Single	Bac + 3	Manager	8	8
C.	M	51–55	Married	Bac + 4	Manager	9	6
D.	F	31–35	Married	Bac + 3	Foreman	4	4
E.	M	31–35	Married	Bac + 4	Foreman	2	2
F.	M	36–40	Married	Bac + 3	Manager	10	4
G.	M	41–45	Single	Bac + 3	Foreman	7	7
H.	M	25–30	Married	Bac + 3	Foreman	6	3
I.	F	25–30	Married	Bac + 5	Foreman	3	2
J.	M	46–50	Married	Bac + 5	Manager	15	7
K.	M	25–30	Single	Probatoire	Worker	3	1
L.	M	36–40	Married	Bac	Worker	5	2
M.	M	31–35	Single	Probatoire	Worker	6	1
N.	F	31–35	Married	BEPC	Worker	3	2
O.	M	41–45	Married	BEPC	Worker	8	6

Table 1.

Respondent profiles.

Source: Author based on survey’s data.

To conduct these interviews, we used an interview guide (Appendix). It was structured into four analysis units, namely:

• The meaning given to the notion of performance at work by employees;

• Obstacles to performance at work and their consequences in an SME context;

• Prospects for improving work performance in SMEs

• Respondent characteristics

At the end of these interviews, the respondents’ answers were transcribed without any change in meaning. These free discussions, which lasted an average of 45 minutes each, focused mainly on the perception of the obstacles to performance at work, and on the solutions for optimally managing the set of behaviors it highlights.

3.3 Data analysis

The data collected during this research was analyzed using the thematic content analysis method [30]. This technic seems appropriate for us, as it enables us to identify key words and ideas in the verbatim transcripts from the interviews. Then, in accordance with the recommendations of Miles and Huberman [30], the analysis of the significant elements of these speeches consisted, firstly, of breaking down the respondents’ answers by theme and frequency of appearance. The data was then grouped together to present the results. We did not consider it necessary to use speech analysis software, as the words of those we interviewed are simple and reflect their thoughts.

4. Results

Numerous obstacles to performance at work emerged explicitly from the interviews. Some obstacles were clearly identified as such from those we interviewed, while others emerge implicitly from their words. These factors are presented below, followed by a discussion. First, we focus on the interviewees’ conception of performance at work.

4.1 Interviewees’ views on performance at work

One of the first concerns of our work was to ensure that performance at work had a meaning for the people we spoke to. From this point of view, our interviewees were first asked to define the concept of work performance. We then found it very interesting to analyze the different meanings attached to the notion of performance at work in order to draw out its characteristic dimensions.

4.1.1 The main meanings of performance at work

Regarding the definitions given by our interviewees, different meanings are attached to the notion of job performance. We have grouped below (Table 2) the meanings associated with performance at work by the main aspects that emerged from the interviews, with a few verbatim inherent to the aspects mentioned and an assessment of the frequency associated with each of this.

Aspects mentioned (performance at work refers to:)	Verbatim	Estimated frequency
Task completion	Performing tasks brilliantly in the exercise of one’s duties (J)	++
Adaptation to the situation	Adaptation to objectives and plans to the situation (B)	++
Achieve objectives/goals	It’s a behavior we adopt to achieve our objectives (A)	++++
	It’s when you do everything you can to achieve a specific goal (G)
Ability to achieve objectives	The ability to successfully accomplish the task assigned to us (F)	++
Competence/professionalism	The ability to stand up to competition (N)	+++

Table 2.

Different meanings of performance at work.

Legend: ++++: theme frequently mentioned (by more than half of respondents); +++: theme mentioned by a quarter of respondents; ++: theme mentioned by one or two respondents.

Source: Author based on the survey’s data.

The comments of the participants in this study, contained in the table above, highlight a rich semantic universe of the notion of performance at work. For more than half the participants in this study, performance at work refers to achieving organizational objectives. For the others, performance at work is perceived as a multi-faceted behavior enabling the individual to face up to competition, adapt to a given situation, or accomplish tasks successfully in a work context.

4.1.2 The dimensions of performance at work

As Table 3 shows, three dimensions of work performance emerge from the key ideas contained in the aspects mentioned by our interviewees.

Dimensions	Aspects	Estimated frequency
Task performance	Task completion Achieve objectives/goals	++++
Contextual performance	Competence/professionalism	+++
Adaptive performance	Adapting to the situation Ability to achieve objectives	++

Table 3.

Dimensions of work performance as perceived by our interviewees.

Legend: ++++: theme frequently mentioned (by more than half of respondents): +++: theme mentioned by a quarter of respondents: ++: theme mentioned by one or two respondents.

Source: Author based on survey data.

The first dimension refers to task performance and reflects the effectiveness at work expected of employees. Two aspects or indicators are generally considered in this context: the degree to which tasks are accomplished and the achievement of set objectives or goals. The second, called contextual performance, highlights the employee’s contribution to team or group work by demonstrating competence. The third, called adaptive performance, highlights employees’ ability to deal with complex and dynamic work situations.

4.2 The main obstacles to performance at work perceived by our interviewees

Five families of obstacles, observed through the interviews conducted, are likely to hinder the individual performance of employees in an SME context. In the following paragraphs, we focus on these obstacles by highlighting the role of organizational injustice, work overload and role conflicts, irregular payment of wages and lack of recognition at work, psychological harassment, as well as time theft and participation in community or clan activities.

4.2.1 Organizational injustice

The most common barrier to performance at work is organizational injustice, generally presented as a perceived violation of the rights and merits of individuals at the workplace [31]. Indeed, what emerges from our interviewees’ comments is a perception that their rights and merits are being violated. In particular, the feeling of injustice is aroused by perceptions of discrepancies in the distribution and rewarding of results within the organization according to the contribution made by each employee, as evidenced by the words of respondent A: “[…] some employees get the rest of the site equipment without having done any work.” This is also supported by respondent D, who states that: “[…] for some of us, the efforts made are never fully appreciated.”

However, among the forms of organizational injustice that have marked the development of research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and HRM [32, 33], distributive injustice is of particular concern to the participants in this study. It is said to engender unpleasant feelings, prompting employees to embark on a process of restoring equity.

4.2.2 Workload and role conflicts

The second family of obstacles to work performance in an SME context is linked to work organization. The data collected show that work organization is a factor determining all the behaviors adopted by employees in this context. On one hand, this is justified by the fact that the work to be done is dense and has to be completed in a very short space of time, as respondent B points out: “[…] there are too many tasks to be carried out at the same time and in a short space of time.” Another interviewee explained that “bosses are too authoritarian and give orders that have to be carried out immediately.” On the other hand, since relations between employees are organized on the basis of functional and hierarchical specialization, numerous role conflicts arise as a result of the presence of “too many order givers” (Respondent E) and/or the manifest desire of employees to “satisfy the opposed expectations of several hierarchical superiors” (Respondent I).

4.2.3 Moral harassment

The third family of obstacles to performance at work relates to moral harassment suffered by employees in an SME context. This abusive conduct at work, highlighted by one or more people (employer, colleagues, line manager), usually takes the form of “insults all day long” (respondent N). This view is shared by respondent J: “[…] we’re asked to do our job. But every time we make the slightest mistake, we get insults from our bosses.” For other respondents, harassment takes the form of slander (respondents O, K) or “[…] unfair accusations that are sanctioned by the hierarchy” (respondent F). For Respondent M, harassment at work also takes the form of “sabotage,” presented as “an act aimed of damaging or destroying an individual’s reputation or work.”

4.2.4 Irregular pay and lack of recognition at work

Irregularity of salary pay and lack of recognition at work are perceived by our interviewees as the fourth family of obstacles to performance at work. The irregularity of salaries is reflected in “salary arrears” (respondent H) and also in the fact that “salaries are inconsistent and not constant” (respondent F). As for the lack of recognition at work, according to our interviewees this manifests itself in “the lack of encouragement” from the hierarchy after the completion of an assignment (Respondent A), or “the lack of recognition after the successful completion of a task” (Respondent O) as well as the non-payment of bonuses to employees (Respondent M). For almost all of our interviewees, these disincentives have an impact on employee performance through their effects on motivation, satisfaction, and commitment to the job.

4.2.5 Time theft and participation in community or clan activities

Several respondents share the idea that time theft at work and employee participation in community or clan activities are attitudes and/or behaviors that momentarily limit their presence at the workstation and therefore their performance at work. Time theft at work, which reflects attitudes or behaviors that enable the individuals who adopt them to disengage psychologically from work tasks [34], can take different forms depending on who we spoke to. It is most often manifested by feigning a febrile state of health at the workstation and taking more breaks or longer breaks, as respondent I attest: “[…] personally, it’s pretending to be sick, taking more and longer breaks.” For respondent B, time theft takes the form of repeated lateness in order to avoid his workload.

As for employees’ participation in community or clan activities, this generally refers to attitudes and/or behaviors that lead them to take part in a personal capacity in various events in their regions of origin. This “return to the village,” which mainly concerns men, generally takes the form of unjustified absences for personal reasons (respondent C) or physical presence at family or clan events such as funerals and family reunions (respondent J).

5. Analysis and discussion of results

In this section, we first present how the obstacles perceived by the study respondents are a function of the dimensions of work performance identified in Section 3.1.2. We then highlight the positioning of our results in relation to the literature.

5.1 Barriers to adaptive, contextual, and task-related performance

This study reveals that seven factors act as points of inertia in work performance in an SME context: interpersonal conflict, interpersonal aggression, workload, participation in social and community activities, organizational injustice, role conflict, communication and information, and psychological harassment. In Table 4, each constraint is linked to a dimension of work performance as it emerges from the study respondents’ discourse.

Dimensions	Breaks
	I.C	I. A	W.L	P.I.S.C	I.O	R.C	M.H
Adaptive performance		•	•	•			•
Contextual performance	•	•		•	•	•
Task performance	•	•	•	•	•	•	•

Table 4.

Perceived obstacles to adaptive, contextual, and task performance.

Legend: I.C.: Interpersonal conflicts; I.A.: Interpersonal aggression; W.B.: Workload; P.I.S.C.: Participation in social and community activities; O.I.: Organizational injustice; R.C.: Role conflicts; P.H.: Moral or psychological harassment.

Source: Author based on survey data.

An analysis of the table above reveals that all the factors identified in this study greatly hampers task performance. For our interviewees, these factors influence the behaviors expected of employees at their respective workstations, which condition their productivity in the strictest sense of the term. Some of these factors specifically limit contextual performance. In particular, these are factors that give rise to interpersonal tension or conflict and are detrimental to team spirit. Finally, according to the respondents to the study, their ability to demonstrate adaptive performance (particularly the management of stressful and urgent situations) is limited by two major factors: time theft and participation in community or clan activities.

5.2 Extensions of and departures from the literature on barriers to performance at work

Looking at Table 5, a number of factors identified in the literature as hindering performance at work are reflected in our analysis. The links with the literature are clear when it comes to working conditions and bullying in particular. As we have seen, it would seem that this abusive conduct, which takes several forms (insults, slander, unfair accusations, sabotage), affects task performance and adaptive performance in particular. This finding is in line with Zhou et al. [24], who develop the idea that moral harassment in its various forms affects employee productivity and the ability of these players to be innovative.

Table 5.

Similarities and differences between the obstacles identified by our research and the literature covered.

Source: author based on survey data.

Our study also confirms the literature on the influence of work organization on human behavior in an organizational context [11, 17, 25]. In particular, it shows that the way in which tasks are distributed and the intensification of the workload, marked by an increased mobilization of cognitive, psychological, and physical capacities, has an effect on the level of performance required of employees and on the relationships that are established between them in view of the objectives to be achieved.

Other analogies between the literature and our results appear in particular with organizational justice [9, 18, 35]. In particular, our research shows that organizational injustice in the SME context is much more related to its distributive form. This result is in line with the work of Swalhi et al. [18], which develops the idea that distributive injustice, which expresses the degree of fairness perceived during the distribution and allocation of results within the organization, leads employees to reduce their efforts and therefore to perform less well at work.

Table 5 also shows that certain factors mentioned in the literature as direct obstacles to performance at work are absent from the comments of our interviewees. This is particularly true for motivation, satisfaction, and involvement at work. One plausible explanation for this absence is that the managers of private sector organizations, and particularly SMEs in Cameroon, rely on paternalistic approaches and informal practices, such as enterprise fund savings, to boost employee involvement, motivation, and satisfaction [36, 37].

Another element highlighted in Table 5 is the appearance of three new obstacles: irregular wages, time theft at work, and employee participation in community or clan activities. The first hinders work performance through its effects on employee satisfaction, motivation, and commitment to work. The second and third prevent them from demonstrating adaptive, contextual, and task-related performance. It seems that these three obstacles have never been identified by most theoretical articles and empirical research on work performance, which is an interesting contribution of this research. This could be explained by the external difficulties faced by SMEs in Cameroon [37] on one hand and, on the other hand, the fact that this study is being conducted in Africa where cultural values strongly determine attitudes and behaviors at work [38].

6. Conclusion and recommendations

The aim of our study was to understand the obstacles to work performance in Cameroonian SMEs. To do this, we used data collected from 15 employees (4 women and 11 men) of an SME based in Douala and operating in the industrial sector. The observation of the reality in this company shows that several obstacles described in the managerial literature as hindrances to performance at work are also found in Cameroon. The results highlight the importance of factors such as organizational injustice, work organization, bullying, and lack of recognition at work. This research also contributes to the literature by highlighting the importance of three unprecedented obstacles to employee performance in this context: irregular wages, time theft, and employee participation in community activities.

Although the chosen methodology does not allow us to generalize our results, given the heterogeneity of SMEs, managerial and organizational practices are recommended in order to optimize the work performance of employees within these organizations. Specifically, this study suggests that taking account of employees’ expectations (positive feedback, organizational justice, remuneration, recognition at work), developing policies and/or practices based on human relations (communication, stress management, conflict prevention, and management), and improving work organization appear to be major practices in a management system likely to promote employees’ work performance in an SME context.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Alice Ketsia Mandja Bindzi, a doctoral student in management science at the Faculty of Economics and Applied Management (FSEGA) at the University of Douala, for her comments and suggestions, which improved the quality of this article. He remains solely responsible for its content.

Appendix: your opinion on barriers to individual work performance in SME

Individual performance at work is increasingly becoming an imperative in Cameroonian SMEs. We therefore propose to initiate research on this topic. In order to make the study useful to practitioners, we would first like to know your point of view on the subject. To do this, we would be grateful if you could briefly give us your opinion. Thank you for your cooperation.

Unit 1: meaning of individual work performance

1. In your opinion, what characterizes an employee who performs well at work?

Unit 2: Barriers to individual work performance

1. In your opinion, what are the obstacles to individual work performance in your company?

2. Do you have any other comments on barriers to individual work performance in your company?

Unit 3: Prospects for improving work performance in SMEs

1. How your organization could improve the individual work performance of its employees

Unit 4: Respondents Characteristics

1. What is your company’s socio-professional category?

2. How many years’ experience have you held in the company?

3. How many years’ experience have you in your job?

4. What is your age range?

5. What is your level of education?

JEL classification

J24, M12, H32