Managerial capture of employee voice in unionised and non-unionised employee representations (NERs) setting: an empirical evidence from Nigeria

Abstract

The overriding aim of this study is to critically explore the managerial motives, strategies and channels management utilise to managerially capture employee voice (EV) in unionised and non-unionised employee representatives (NERs) setting – using the lens of selected firms in Nigerian Petroleum, Banking and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sectors. EV concept has continued to gather momentum due to its promise of engendering cordial and mutual employment relations (ER). Since its rise, numerous studies have captured EV from the realms of rise and fall of unionism and collective bargaining, surge of alternative voice (non-unionised employee representations, NERs) and to employee motivation in using both pro-motive and remedial voice mechanisms, amongst other studies, aimed at widening the concept. These studies have enriched the EV literature, however, there is need to further interrogate it - for more nuanced understanding. In furthering this enrichment process, the present study appropriates the concept of managerial capture (MC) – a precursor to managerialism – to engage this. The study answers three key research questions, which are: what are the motives, strategies and channels via which EV is managerially captured in Nigeria’s ER? To answer the questions, data was gathered from 33 semi-structured interviews and 17 focus group sessions with managerial and non-managerial staff from firms selected across the 3 sectors highlighted above, which is combined with shadow reports (archival data) from two non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The NGOs are the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Data is analysed using critical discourse analysis (CDA), which examines text, discourse and context. To enhance relational analysis and thematic resonances, lexical patterning in data is the focus. More specifically, legitimacy theory (LT), is used to appraise association amongst lexical elements, organisational discourses and broader cultural, institutional, political and social issues in Nigeria. The study found that MC in Nigeria is underpinned by motives of managerialism, maximising shareholder value and disempowerment of employees; while strategies of legitimisation, disengagement and un-representation are employed to realise these motives. Also, alternative voice channels (NERs) – which lack autonomy, power, effectiveness and credibility – are used to managerially capture EV. The findings demonstrate that strategies and channels by which Nigerian organisations engage employees are self-seeking, profit-oriented and strategic, rather than normative and participatory, thereby underpinning their managerial motives. It is hoped theoretical contribution has been achieved in this study by linking MC concept with EV in the overall motives, strategies and channels through which employees’ voice is captured in Nigeria’s employment relations. Similarly, it is assumed that this study has contributed to the methodologies used in ER literature by triangulating a rarely utilised data source, shadow report, with other conventional methods – interviews and focus group –which is novel, in particular, from developing countries perspective. Additionally, this study responds to wider calls for researchers to widen theoretical and methodological confines of HRM – specifically ER literature – for more nuanced scholarship. Empirically, the present study uses triangulated data to investigate EV in Nigeria’s ER context, which is understudied. This thesis is however demarked by banking, ICT and petroleum sectors. Extending research beyond these sectors will facilitate more robust debate on EV, which will enable a comparative analysis of ER pattern and organisational behaviours in Nigeria. Also, given the limitation(s) of using words to represent social actualities, generalising findings might be problematic, however such limitation(s) is/are decreased via triangulating three main data sources: interviews, focus group and shadow report data.