Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 22 Issue 4

Krasikova, Green and Lebreton (2013) further argue that leadership subterfuge is beyond breached obligations, adding that it is subsumed in the destructive element wherein promises were never intended to be fulfilled, instead (by using clever tricks to deceive followers) leaders exert their premeditated manipulative agenda, aimed at exploiting public resources for personal aggrandizement, to the detriment of the followers, who in this instance are employees in public universities. This would mean that unlike authentic approach to leadership, leadership subterfuge depicts leaders who lack integrity and ethical character; and can be accused of moral fraudulence. Ominisi (2015) was quite vociferous in arguing that leadership subterfuge is leading by deception, and such leaders have ulterior motives they are concealing. Fidelis and Ezika (2021) aver that in the subterfuge-prone organisational setting, subordinates are indirectly deceived by leaders who influence them to believe in a course, which they (the leaders) would likely evade responsibility and accountability by escaping blame. Ominisi (2015) affirms that though the followers may or may not realize they are being led astray; whichever the case, they are powerless towards righting the anomaly because sovereignty does not lie with them. In other words, leadership subterfuge is a deceptive stratagem meant to hoodwink followers to give their support and cooperation for a cause they were misled into believing, and which certainly does not benefit them, but serves the selfish purpose of the leaders. c) Organisational Crisis Organisational crisis (interchangeably used as industrial conflict) is defined as lack of or absence of industrial peace in the workplace which culminates in issues of concern to both the employees and their employer (Daniel, 2019). Bello and Kinge (2014) buttress that conflict between employers and employers is termed workplace crisis or industrial conflict in certain in-stance, as a discord that occurs when the goals, interests or values of different individuals or groups in an organisation are incompatible. (Chidi, 2014) affirms that when dissatisfied with the incompatibility, either the employees or employer can adopt various means to frustrate the other and compel desired action, which invariably culminates in organisational crisis. The crisis and its impact normally translate to the society at large, especially when the organisation experiencing the crisis renders essential services like the university. In a similar vein, Osabuohien and Ogunrinola (2020) defined organisational crisis as any form of work discontent which manifest in different ways such as: protest, strike actions, absenteeism, high employee turnover, walk-in and sit–in on the part of the employees; then issuance of query, suspension, lockout, and even arbitrary dismissal on the part of the employer. Nicholas (2018) explained organisational crisis from the angle of strike actions i.e., organised stoppage of work on the part of the employees aimed at compelling adherence to their demands on employers, or to resist a particular demand/rule made by the employer. Daniel (2019) described the concept as the total range of behaviours and attitudes that express opposition and divergent orientation between individual owners and managers on one hand and the working people and their union on the other, which escalates with dire consequences when not properly managed. The Nigerian Ombudsman (2016) conceptualized it as a transient show of dissatisfaction by employees, especially through a strike action or work-stoppage in demonstration or protest against unfavorable terms or conditions of work, to increase bargaining power with the employer and with the intent to compel the employer to improve those conditions. d) Collective Bargaining Collective bargaining according to Osabuohien and Ogunrinola (2020) is defined as an accommodative device for regulating and dealing with workplace relational problems. Ekwoaba, Ideh and Ojikutu (2015) conceptualized collective bargaining as both a tool and a methodology with which employers or management and representatives of the worker committee attempt to reach collective agreement on avoiding/solving problems that would result to, or has resulted in organisational crisis, especially issues bothering on compensation, retirement/fringe benefits, discipline, layoffs, work scheduling, promotions, and other employer-employee organisational concerns. Anyim, Olusanya and Ekwoaba (2014) further substantiates that the significance of collective bargaining rests on the principle that workers have right to contract with their employers as to wages, health, safety, and other working conditions, and that their employers should recognize those rights. Collective bargaining is therefore the means by which abuse of power is prevented between parties in the employment relationship. Avail to say that in addition to its usefulness in determining the terms and conditions of employment; collective bargaining also serves as a veritable tool for resolving workplace conflict or organisational crisis from labour-management relationship. It is generally held that where the process and procedure of collective bargaining is properly initiated and its outcome properly communicated and observed, it serves as a catalyst for organisational harmony and enhanced productivity. Thus, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on trade dispute settlement encourages member states to provide adequate measures and to enact laws to promote efficient and just collective bargaining and agreement between employer and employees’ trade unions or their representatives (Akpan, 2017). Implications of Leadership Subterfuge on Collective Bargaining and Organisational Crisis Management: A Case of Nigeria Public Universities 5 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue IV Version I Year 2022 ( ) A © 2022 Global Journals