CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Of The Study

There is consensus among scholars on the inevitability of

conflict in relations among human beings (Johnnie and

Nwasike (2002:61), Okoh and Ewhariemen (2001:3-4), (Weeks

1992:6), Fraiser and Hiptel (1984:4), Burton (1987:8), Moore

(1987:6). Some even extol conflict as an essential creative

element in human relations as if could be means to change

and the means by which some social values of welfare,

security, justice and opportunities for personal development

can be achieved (Burton 1987:138). Nevertheless, the

destructive dimensions of violent conflict cannot be left out of

account, and it is generally agreed that whether or not conflict

plays a positive or negative role, it is essentially a matter of

how it is managed (Imobighe 1997:276-277). The effectiveness

otherwise of the management of conflict is itself largely

dependent on how well the causes of the conflict have been

understood.

1
 Conflict occurs in business organizations primarily

between organizational interest groups such as management,

work groups, unions and employees generally. It is known as

inter-group conflict. Conflict also occurs within groups and is

termed intra-group conflict. This form of conflict exists in any

group regardless of its size and composition. It exists in

departments within organizations, within groups in the

community, within social groups and clubs and even within

the clergy (Johnnie and Nwasike, 2002:60)

According to Baridam (2002:300), resource need of all

kinds such as manpower, money, access to opportunities, etc,

push individuals and organizations to be dependent on one

another. Concomitant with the needs to establish these

symbolic relationships is the drive for autonomy on the part of

the individual collectivities. These two motivational forces

generate inevitable conflicts of interest within organizational

systems (Craig, 1972:42). These conflicts must be managed or

contained if a given organization is to survive. Therefore, one

of the major tasks of management in the 21st century is to

create and maintain healthy environments in which people

2
can live and work together to achieve individual and

organizational objectives.

Conflict in a general sense, refers to contradictions

arising from differences in the interest, ideas, ideologies,

orientations and precipitous tendencies of the people

concerned. These contradictions are inherent at all levels of

social and economic interactions of the human race. It may

therefore exist at the individual, groups, institutional, regional,

national and international levels. Conflict is thus a pervasive

phenomenon in human relationships and has been seen as

the basic unit for understanding social existence (Nnoli

1998:3-5).

Conflicts may have negative or positive effects. The

resolution of conflicts helps to push organizations and society

towards a desired state or condition. Conflicts are inevitable in

human affairs but if carefully handled, they can lead to social

and economic progress. When unresolved contradictions are

allowed to linger and explode into violence, however, conflict

becomes undesirable and may develop into a menace. Violent

conflict is therefore the consequence of the inability or failure

3
to accommodate and resolve contradictions in society through

arrangements and procedures that eliminate its negative

effects and maximize their positive effect. According to Nnoli

(1998:16), such failures result from the inability of conflicting

units to accept the arrangements and procedures that have

been adopted to resolve the conflict.

The views expressed by afore-mentioned scholars tend to

suggest that industrial conflict has some implications for

organizational performance. In other words, the ability or

inability of management to resolve conflict can affect

organizational performance in terms of its ability or inability to

achieve set goals / objectives, targets or purposes of its

existence.

Organizational performance describes the extent to which

an organization actually performs with regard to achievement

of targets, goals, objectives and its purpose which could be

profitability, returns on investment, market share (quantitative

measures) and customer loyalty, efficiency and favourable

image (quantitative measures) (McNaughton 2005:57). It

derives largely from the contributions of organizational

4
members whose goals must be in congruence with

organizational goals. Where this is absence, it is likely that

bottled-up emotion, misunderstanding, grievances and

perceived inequity and inequality might find expression in

industrial strike, plant shutdown, absenteeism and high

labour turnover.

Although there have been a number of studies on

industrial conflict in Nigeria in recent past (Umoren, 2004;

Inwuka, 2000; Deji, 1998; Suamu, 1995), most of them

focused on conflict management strategies in organizations.

Not much has been done to link industrial conflict with

organizational performance. To fill the gap in past studies, this

study is a bold attempt at determining a nexus between these

two variables.

1.2 Statement Of The Problem

The prevalence instance of industrial conflicts in the

public and private sectors of the Nigerian economy is quite

intriguing. Hardly a month passes without a report of some

form of report of conflict in the mass media in the civil service

5
or in different sectors of private business organizations in

Nigeria. If it is not between management and employees in the

private sector today, it will be between the federal government

and resident doctors or teachers tomorrow, which more often

than not is expressed through industrial actions (strikes and

plant/office shutdown. One obvious characteristic of such

conflict is that the organization is at a standstill with

attendant decline in productivity (Morae,2006: 59). When it

lingers without quick resolution, it can bring its trails many

problems for both management and employees and by

extension, corporate performance.

The Nigerian manufacturing sector appears to have been

in the forefront of industrial conflict. Disagreement between

management and employees over salaries, fringe benefits and

other facets of conditions of service have been cited as major

causes (Eze,2003; Kunle,2001; and Daniel,1999).

Furthermore, it has been noted that conflict also occurs in the

manufacturing companies between one department and

another or among workers and unit heads, which tend to

affect coordination of activities and information sharing. This

6
‘cold war’ and bad blood could be antithetical to organizational

success and progress.

However, knowledge is lacking in existing literature about

the possible or probable linkage between industrial conflict

and organizational performance. This has a created a gap that

needs to filled through empirical effort. It is in the light of the

gap in existing literature and the need to bridge this gap by

providing more insight into the conflict phenomenon that this

study was undertaken to objectively and critically determine

whether the linkage between industrial conflict and

organizational performance, and to ascertain whether the

relationship between these two variables is positive or negative

or both, drawing our empirical investigation from the

manufacturing companies in Port Harcourt.

1.3 Conceptual Frame Work

The two main variables involved in this study awere

industrial conflict (independent variable) and organizational

performance (dependent variable). Industrial Conflict (IC) was

conceptualized in this study along the dimensions of task

7
 conflict (TC), inter-group conflict (IC) and procedural conflicts

(PC) while organizational performance (OP) was conceptualized

using criteria such as profitability (P), efficiency (IH), and

survival (S).

The linkage between Industrial Conflict (IC) and

Organizational Performance (OP) in the manufacturing sector

may be illustrated as shown in the diagram below.

Fig.1.1: The Linkage of Industrial Conflict and

Organizational Performance
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Industrial Conflict Organizational PERFORMANCE
(IC) (OP)

Task Conflict Profitability

(TC) (P)

Inter-Group Efficiency
Conflict (E)
(IC)

Procedural
Conflict Survival
(PC) (S)

8
Source: The Researcher’s Conceptualization of the link between Industrial
Conflict and Organizational Performance
IC OP
TC P
IC P

PC P
TC E
IC E
PC E
TC S
IC S
PC S

Converting the above into Mathematical model, we have:

OP = f (IC)
OP = P+E+S
IC = TC + IC + PC
P = (TC + IC + PC)
E = (TC + IC + PC)
S = (TC + IC + PC)

1.4 Purpose Of Study

The general purpose of this study was to determine the

effect of industrial conflict (IC) on organizational performance

(OP) in the manufacturing sector. The specific objectives were

to:

9
1. Determine how task conflict affects profitability in the

manufacturing companies;

2. Establish whether inter-group conflict in the

manufacturing companies affect profitability in these

organizations;

3. Ascertain how procedural conflict in the manufacturing

sector affects their profitability;

4. Determine how task conflict in these organizations

influence efficiency in this sector;

5. Establish whether inter-group conflict in the

manufacturing companies affect efficiency in these

organizations;

6. Ascertain how procedural conflicts in the manufacturing

companies affect their efficiency;

7. Determine how task conflict affects the survival of

manufacturing companies;

8. Establish how inter-group conflict in these firms affect

their survival;

9. Ascertain whether procedural conflict affects the survival

the manufacturing organizations.

10
1.5 Research Questions

The following research questions derived from the

purpose of the study were addressed in the study.

1. How does task conflict in the manufacturing companies

affect their profitability?

2. In what areas do inter-group conflicts affect profitability in

the manufacturing organizations?

3. How does procedural conflict in those companies affect

their profitability?

4. In what ways does task conflict in the manufacturing

companies affect efficiency?

5. How does inter-group conflict affect efficiency in these

organizations?

6. In what areas does procedural conflict influence efficiency

of manufacturing companies?

7. How does task conflict influence the survival of

manufacturing companies?

8. How does inter-group conflict affect the survival of

manufacturing companies?

9. To what extent does procedural conflict in the

manufacturing companies affect their survival?

1.6 Research Hypotheses

11
 In this study 9 null hypotheses were formulated and

tested so that the researcher could draw conclusion

concerning the independent and dependent variables of the

study (industrial conflict and organizational performance).

They are:

HO1: Task conflict and profitability are not positively and

significantly correlated in the manufacturing
companies.

HO2: There is no significant relationship between inter-

group conflict and profitability in the manufacturing
firms.

HO3: Procedural conflicts and survival of manufacturing

firms are not significantly correlated.

HO4: Task conflict and efficiency are not significantly

correlated in the manufacturing companies.

HO5: Inter-group conflict and efficiency are not significantly

correlated in the manufacturing companies.

1.7 Significance / Justification Of The Study

This study was justified on the ground that previous

work on industrial conflict focused primarily on its resolution

or management without attention to the possible linkage

between industrial conflict and organizational performance. By

adopting the correlation approach, this study will have filled

12
the gap in existing literature thereby making meaningful

contribution to the stock of knowledge in organizational

behaviour in particular and management in general.

The justification of this study, therefore, highlight its

significance as it will benefit management and employees by

providing information on the positive and negative influence of

industrial conflict and the extent to which it can affect

organizational performance and functioning. This will also

help the organization on how to manage or handle conflict

between management and employees, between departments,

etc. so that it does not explode into crisis.

Finally, management and employees will also find this

study useful, as it will make appropriate recommendations on

the ways to avert industrial conflicts in the organizations in

the future.

1.8 Scope / Limitation Of The Study

The subject scope of this study consisted of industrial conflict

(IC) and organizational performance (OP). As shown in the

conceptual framework, industrial conflict was examined along

13
the dimensions of task conflict, inter-group conflict and

procedural conflict while organizational performance (OP) was

narrowed down to three variables: profitability, efficiency and

survival. The organizational scope of this study was the

manufacturing sector, which includes all the manufacturing

companies operating in Port Harcourt. The geographical scope

of the study was Port Harcourt where the research is to be

carried out.

From the foregoing, it could be argued that the scope of

this study was its major limiting factor. Although the

researcher would have liked to expand her scope of inquiry

beyond one sector, financial and logistical constraints,

however, combined to inform the restriction of the research to

one sector (manufacturing) and one geographical area (Port

Harcourt). The implication of the above is that the conclusion

or generalization of the study might lack extension to other

sectors not covered in the study. However, the principle or

idea of the nexus between industrial conflict and

organizational performance cannot be lost on any firm, and,

14
therefore, can be extrapolated to other sectors of the Nigerian

economy.

1.9 Definition Of Terms

The following terms used here connote the meaning of

words provided for use in the study and are defined hereunder

Conflict: A disagreement between two parties on job related

issues.

Strike: A temporary stoppage of work by workers to compel

management to grant their requests.

Conflict management: Alternative line of actions to lessen

the occurrences of conflict phenomena in organization.

Task Conflict: This refers to disagreement among members of

a group about what constitutes the task or how a task should

be ordered.

Inter-group/personal Conflict: This describes the

disagreement that occurs among persons, various groups in

an organization as a result of differences in expectation,

interests, values, beliefs, orientation, opinions, structure, etc,

for instance, conflict between workers and management;

15
between one department and another, or two personalities in

an organization, etc.

Procedural Conflict: This refers to conflict that emanates

from rules or procedures in an organization.

Organizational Performance: It is the actual measurement of

how an organization performs in terms of attainment of

targets, objectives or purpose of its existence in relation to

competition along the dimension or criteria such as

profitability, market share, returns on investment, survival,

returns on assets, favourable corporate image, customers

loyalty and efficiency.

Profitability: This refers to the financial, quantitative

performance of an organization in terms of returns on

investment returns on asset or the qualitative performance in

the areas such as goodwill, favourable corporate image,

customer loyalty, efficiency, etc that cannot be expressed in

monetary terms.

Efficiency: It is a situation where an organization enjoys

peace, respect, acceptance from its employees and other

16
stakeholders so that it can operate without crises or

punctuations. It is an atmosphere characterized by cordiality.

Survival: This refers to a situation where an organization

remains in business in the dynamic environment over time

and achieves its goal and objectives.

17
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

2.1 The Concept Of Conflict

So many authors have defined conflict in various ways.

However, in spite of these various definitions, the meaning

remains the same. According to Hellriegel and Slocum

(1996:552), conflict is opposition arising from disagreements

about goals, thoughts, or emotions within or among

individuals, teams, departments or organizations.

Jones, George and Hill (1998:501) see conflict as the

discord that arises when the goals, interests, or values of

different individuals or groups are not met. In his own

submission, Litterer (1986:178) stated that conflict is an

inevitable part of organizational life because the goals of

different stakeholders such as managers, secretaries and other

employees are often incompatible. According to him, conflict

can also exist between departments and division that compete

for resources, or even between secretaries who may be

competing for promotion to the next level in the organizational

hierarchy.

18
 George and Jones (1996:583) see conflict as the struggle

that arises when the goals-directed behaviour of one person or

group blocks the goal-directed behaviour of another person or

group. Schmidt and Kochan (1982:359-370) stated that, the

subject of conflict has been made difficult to understand

because of the different definitions and conceptions that exist.

Stoner (1978:345) defined conflict as a disagreement between

two or more organization members or groups arising from the

fact that they must share scarce resources or work activities

and / or from the fact that they have different status, goals,

values or perceptions.

2.2 Views On Conflict

Robbins (1994:362) identified three basic attitudes

towards conflict in organizations: traditional, behavioural and

interactionist.

2.2.1 The Traditional View

The traditional view of conflict was that conflict was

unnecessary and harmful. Easy manager and management

writers generally thought that the appearance of conflict was a

clear signal that something was wrong with the organization.

19
 They believe that conflict would develop only if

management failed to communicate to employees the common

interests that bind management and employees together. If

these failures were corrected, according to the traditional view,

the organization should operate as a smoothly functioning

integrated whole. On this premise, Taylor (1974:56) believed

that if the principles of scientific management were applied,

the age-old conflict between labour and management would

disappear.

2.2.2 The Behaviourist View

The behaviour view of conflict is that conflict is a

frequent occurrence in organizational life. Organization

members are human beings, after all with needs and interests

that can often clash. Secretaries of different departments, foe

example, may have conflicts over priorities and resource

allocations. Subordinates may argue with superiors over

whether or not work can be completed in the allotted time.

Subordinates at the same level may disagree over the best way

to complete an assigned task. The behavioural view does

suggest that conflict can sometimes be a function because it

20
can pinpoint problems and lead to better problem solutions.

However, behaviouralts also see conflict mainly as something

harmful, to be resolve or eliminated once it arises.

2.2.3 The Interactionist View

The interactionist view about conflict among most

management writers and growing numbers of managers is that

conflict in organizations is inevitable and even necessary, no

matter how organizations are designed and operated. This view

still suggests that much conflict is, in fact dyes functional: it

can harm individuals and can impede the attainment of

organizational goals but some conflict can also be functional

because it may make organization more effective. For example,

one functional aspect of conflict is that it leads to a search for

solutions. Thus, it is often an instrument of organizational

innovation and change. From this perspective, the task of

management is not to suppress or resolve or maximize its

beneficial aspects. Such management may even include the

stimulation of conflict in situations where its absence or

suppression may hamper the organization’s effectiveness,

creativity or innovation.

21
2.3 Nature Of Conflict

Johnnie and Nwasike (2002:63) identify three basic types of

conflicts that occur in any group or organization. They are:

Task Conflict: When we talk of task conflict we are referring

to disagreements among members of a group about what

constitutes the task, or how the task should be ordered.

Usually, disagreements revolve around the interpretation and

opinions of the managers or leaders. This form of conflict can

be productive as it makes the members of the group develop

interest, initiative and creativity.

Interpersonal Conflict: Interpersonal conflict is common in

organizations and most of the time we focus on individuals

while it has been argued (Hampton et al., 1968) that there are

organizational weakness like structurally determined

communication flows which is the cause of the problem.

However, this form of conflict is usually experienced by two or

more persons or by two or more groups. The conflict is not

about the task but centers around the personalities of those

involved with executing the task. Unkind remarks are usually

made about the person with reference to his personality,

22
instead of the task. This is done so as to infuriate, irritate,

frustrate and antagonize him or her. Conflict of this nature

can also be observed, since the parties to the conflict may use

non-verbal forms of assaults instead of verbal assaults. It is

believed that the personality of some individuals generates

conflict due to their nature and manner of their behaviour. We

are all familiar with statements such as “he cannot work with

anybody” or “where he is there is bound to be confusion”.

Since we all have to work together irrespective of our personal

feelings and beliefs, interpersonal conflict must be managed if

the group and organization must survive.

Procedural Conflict: This form of conflict is experienced

because of disagreements about procedural rules that govern

the group. A member disobeys the rule or bends the rule to

suit a situation allowing him or others when similar situations

occur. This has caused many conflicts in-groups and is

commonly referred to as “double standard”. This form of

conflict can be positive if efforts are made to change or modify

the rules, if they are out of touch with reality.

23
 Currently we are constantly experienced conflicts over

territorial disputes, which are as a result of physical

boundaries created by law. However, when new states and

local governments were created, boundary disputes escalated

in the nation, resulting in communal clashes, burning of lives

and properties. This is a very serious issue as it often

degenerates into violence amongst the families resulting in

injuries and death of family members. These experiences fit

into the two dimensions of conflict identified Robinson (1972)

as:

a. Threats to disputes over territory irrespective of whether

the boundaries of the territory are physical, social or work

boundaries and,

b. Threats to values, goals and policies and behaviour.

The dimensions of social territory can be regarded as

established boundaries to certain social activities and

resources. For example in certain religions group and golf

clubs only persons who are affiliated to the group have access

to its activities and resources. These boundaries are kept in

place by exorbitant annual dues and the exhibition of different

24
types of behaviours and value systems. Sometimes the dress

code adopted by these groups creates a social distance.

Work boundaries are threatened due to lack of proper

organization structure as mentioned earlier. A good

organization structure defines job descriptions, defines

responsibilities and authority so that three would be no

overlapping of tasks, responsibilities and authority. Two clear

examples come to mind; the multiplicity of functions within an

organization created by management to handle activities that

overlap..

Fuella (2005:215), Johnnie and Nwasike (2002:64)

identified another form of conflict, which arises among groups

that feel they are better endowed in terms of intelligence,

finance and material wealth than other groups. This may even

go as far as ethic groups believing that they are superior to

other ethic groups. A situation that leads to conflict and has

led Mack (1969) to assert those groups “may tend to believe

that their way of thinking and doing things is not only the best

but the only right way.”

25
 Conflicts that arise because of threats to goals, policies

and values are very evident in the Niger Delta region where

there are conflicts on a daily basis between communities and

oil companies. These oil companies have been operating and

ravishing the region for over 40 years without having goals

and policies with regards to environmental hazards, education

and living standards of the residents and development of

infrastructure facilities in the region. They also ignored the

values system and culture of the people of the region.

However, the conflict oil firms and their host communities is

not the scope of this study as we are concerned with industrial

conflict and how it affects organizational performance.

2.4 Industrial Conflict

Stoner, (1986), in George (1998:14) see industrial conflict

as “disagreement between individuals or groups with an

organization stemming from the need to share scarce

resources or engage in interdependent work activities or from

different in status, goal or culture”. Therefore, conflict arises

because of an antithetical feeling, interest, principles, actions

26
etc, which may be magnified through apparent goals

incompatibility of individuals and groups in an organization

(Webber, 1975:584; Hicks 1981:200; Filippo, 1992:239).

Within the industry, Filippo (1992:242) argues that

despite the best management practices in acting and

communicating, conflict still occurs, because of the difference

in such factors as education, tribes, languages, interest, etc. of

the major participants in the workplace. In an earlier study,

Fox (1971:64) opined that industrial conflict is a disagreement

within or between workers and management as a result of

interest and values.

Regarding this, it has been suggested that the inevitable

tendencies of conflict in industrial relations should be

embraced and managed effectively. Owunary, (1998:8).

Dunlop (1998) and Flander (1965) in Johnnie, (1988:6) in their

respective views harped on the importance of rule making in

industrial relations regulate the behaviour of organizational

members. Perhaps, it is their hope that since the workplace is

an embodiment of antagonistic expectations, which had made

conflict inevitable then “the institutionalization of job

27
regulation” is primary in industrial relations to keep the

relation in control and harmony.

However, this earlier emphasis on rules in industrial

relations had been challenged in the works of subsequent

writers. According Kronovic (2004:499); Essien (2002:147), the

attention to rules in Dunlop and Flanders theories respectively

tend to ignore the essential element of all industrial relations –

that of the nature and development of conflict itself’, which is

not only between workers and owners, but also within workers

or owners themselves. This disagreement has lived with

industrial relations over time. Karl Marx in his legendary

manifesto blames it to deepened tendency of capitalists to

profiteer at the expenses of labour. The basic cause of conflict

from this point of view is the separation of labour from capital

– the owner / management which has resulted from perceived

imperfection in labour-management relationship (Obone,

1977:29; Tamuno, 1996:20-21). We may in this regard see

industrial conflict as disagreement arising between workers /

unions and management / owner or within either of these

grouping on account of job related issues.

28
2.5 Sources Of Conflict

The sources of organizational conflict reviewed here are

related most clearly to inter group conflict. However, they also

apply to some extent to conflict between individuals and

between groups. The major sources of organizational conflict

include; the need to share scarce resources, different in goals

between organization units, the interdependence in values or

perceptions among organization unit (March and Simon

1985:84).

2.5.1 Shared Resources

According to March and Simon (1985:84), if every unit in

an organization had access to unlimited amounts of

manpower, money, materials, equipment and space, the

problem of how to share these resources would hardly arise.

The potential for conflict exists because these vital resources

are limited.

They must be allocated, so some groups inevitability lack

cooperation or even direct conflict can result as organization

group’s fight for the greatest possible share or available to

allocate resources strictly according to the productivity of each

29
group, managers would still argue about the relative

importance of their group to the organization.

2.5.2 Difference in Goals

Organization subunits tend to become differentiated, or

specialized, as they develop dissimilar goals, tacts and

problems (McDonald, 1999:110). Such differentiation

frequently leads to conflicts of interest or priorities, even when

the over all goals of the organization are agreed upon. The

sales department, for example, might want low prices to

attract more customers, while the production department

might want higher prices to allow it some lead way in meeting

manufacturing costs.

The purchasing department might want to order in large

quantities to lower the unit cost, while the finance department

might want to maintain low inventories to have capital

available for investment. When members of each department

develop different goals and points of view, they often find it

difficult to agree on programmes of action.

30
2.5.3 Interdependence of Work Activities

Uzoma (2001:66) asserts that work interdependence

exists when two or more organization units depend on each

other in order to complete their respective tasks. In such a

case, the potential for a high degree of conflict or friendliness

exist, depending on how the situation is managed. Sometimes

conflict arises when all the groups involved are given too much

to do. Tension among the various group members will

increase, and they may accuse each other of shirking their

responsibilities. Conflict may be also flare up if the work is

evenly distributed but the rewards are dissimilar. Potential for

conflict is greatest, however, when one unit is unable to begin

its work until the other unit completes its job.

2.5.4 Difference in Values or Perceptions

According to Walton and Dutton (1989:73) the difference

in goals among the members of the various units in the

organization are frequently accompanied in such a way- that it

can also lead to conflict. For example, first-line supervisors

who must get shipments in a short of time may be inclined to

31
give in to union stewards on some issues rather than risk a

slow down

Higher-level managers, concerned with long-range

management-union considerations, might want to avoid

setting precedents on those issues and may try to restrict the

flexible of first-line supervisors. Younger managers may resent

being given routine tasks, while older higher-level managers

may see such tasks as a necessary part of training. Member of

the engineering department might value quality product

sophisticated design and durability, while members of the

manufacturing department might value simplicity of design

and low manufacturing costs. Such incompatibility of value

can lead to conflict.

2.5.5 Other Sources of Conflict

Quale (2000:412) identifies other sources of conflict.

These are:

Individual styles: Some people enjoy conflict, debate and

argument, and when kept in proportion, mild forms of discord

can stimulate organization members and improve their

performance. Conflicts, debates and arguments in such a way

32
as to escalate them into battles that are quite disruptive,

people who are highly authoritarian, for example, or low in

self-esteem may anger their colleagues or overreact to

provocation. In general, the potential for such inter-group

conflict is highest when organization members differ markedly

in such characteristics as work attitudes, age, and education.

2.6 Conflict Resolution Strategies

Thomas (1992:651) identified five major conflict

resolution strategies. They are as follows: Avoidance strategy,

smoothing strategy, facing strategy, compromise strategy and

collaborative strategy.

2.6.1 Avoidance Strategy

The avoidance conflict resolution strategy involves

withdrawing from conflict situations or remaining neutral. The

individual declines to confront the conflict. Employees who are

unavailable for conferences, delay answering “problem” memos

or refuse to get involved in conflict are using an avoidance

style.

33
 Avoidance prone individuals may act simply as a

communication link, relaying message between supervisors,

peers or subordinates. When asked to take a position on

controversial issues, these employees might say “ I haven’t had

time to study the problem fully”, “I need more facts before

making a judgment”, or “perhaps the best way is to proceed as

you think best”. When unresolved conflicts affect the

achievement of goals, the avoidance strategy lead to negative

result for the organization. Under certain circumstances, the

avoidance strategy is desirable. For example, it is appropriate

when:

a. The issue is miner or of only passing importance and

thus not worth the person’s time or energy to confront

the conflict.

b. There isn’t enough information for the individual to deal

with the conflict effectively at that time.

c. The individual has no little power compared to bringing

about change, and others can resolve the conflict more

effectively.

34
2.6.2 Smoothing Strategy

This is another strategy for resolving conflict. The

smoothing strategy represents minimizing or suppressing real

or perceived difference while focusing on the other’s views of

the situation. The smoothing – prone person might reason, “if

it makes others happy I won’t challenge their views” or “I don’t

want to hurt the feelings of others when discussing problems”

or “we shouldn’t risk our friendship, so lets not worry too

much about the problem, things will work out”. They appeal

for cooperation and try to reduce tensions and stress by

offering reassurance and support for the other’s views. This

strategy shows concern about the emotional aspects of a

conflict but does little to address the root cause of conflict

(Thomas, 1992:653).

The smoothing strategy simply encourages individuals to

cover up or gloss over their feelings. Therefore, it generally, is

ineffective when used as a dominant strategy. However, the

smoothing conflict resolution strategy may be effective when

individuals are locked in a potentially explosive emotional

conflict and smoothing is used to defuse the situation; Keeping

35
harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important in

the short run, and the conflict is based primarily on the

personalities of the individuals and cannot be easily resolved.

2.6.3 Forcing Strategy

The forcing strategy involves the use of coercive and

other forms of power to dominate another person or group and

pressure others to accept one’s own views at the situation. The

forcing strategy produces outcomes that are satisfactory to

only one of the parties. Forcing – prone managers may use

phrases such as “if you can’t learn to cooperate, I’m sure

others can be hired that will”. When someone disagrees with

them, they often retaliate to ensure that their views prevail.

Forcing – prone individuals assume, that conflicts involve win-

lose situations. That is, one party can win only if the other

party loses.

When dealing with conflicts between subordinates or

departments, forcing managers may threaten or actually use

demotion, dismissal, negative performance evaluations and

other punishments in order to win. When conflict occurs

between peers, an employee who exhibits the forcing strategy

36
might try to get his or her way by appealing to a superior

officer. This ploy, according to Umoren (1999:56) attempts to

use the superior to force one’s own views on the opposing,

individuals. For these subjected to it, the forcing style is likely

to be associated with high levels of personal stress. Over

reliance on the forcing strategy saps the motivation of others

because their views are not considered. Relevant information

and other possible alternatives usually are ignored.

Organizational situations in which the forcing conflict

resolution strategy may be necessary include:

(i) Emergencies that require quick action,

(ii) Unpopular courses of action (e.g. cost cutting and the

dismissal of employees for unsatisfactory performance)

that must be taken in the name of long-term

organizational effectiveness and survival, and

(iii) Taking action for self-protection and to stop other from

taking advantage of the situation.

2.6.4 Compromise Strategy

The compromise conflict resolution strategy involves the

willingness of all parties to concede some of their own views

37
and focus on some of the other views to reach an agreement

(Thomas, 1992:657). The attitude of compromise-prone

individuals might be expressed as “let other, people win

something fair combination of gains and losses. For both of

us” or “I try to find a position between theirs and mine”. I

achieve a rough balance between differing views. When it is

used too early in conflict situations, the compromise strategy

may create several problems. Firstly, if too little effort is spent

on diagnosing the issues, compromise is made on the sated

rather than on the real issues. Secondly, accepting

compromise on the initial positions presented may be easier

than searching for alternatives that are more acceptable to all

of the parties. Finally, a compromise may be inappropriate to

all or part of the situation.

Ademola (2003:44) opines that there may be a better way

of resolving the conflict, such a through the collaborative

strategy or mediation by a third party. Many people view the

willingness to compromise to be appropriate in circumstances

or situations when agreement enables each party to be better

off, or at best not worse off, than if no agreement is reached,

38
when achieving a total win-win agreement is not possible

because the parties cannot agree to all of the views of the

other parties and when conflicting views (including opposing

goals) and interest block agreement.

Ukpong (2004:32) observes that family businesses often

are plagued by intense rivalries between family members and

those who work in the firm. Willingness to compromise and

collaboration is essential if the family business is to ensure

progress from generation to generation.

2.6.5 Collaborative Strategy

This is one of the conflict resolution strategies identified

by Thomas (1992:658). The collaborative conflict resolution

strategy requires a willingness to identify underlying causes on

both one’s own and other’s concern preferred style. Supportive

and participative managers use the collaborative strategy more

than autocratic managers do. The collaborative strategy is

more natural in open and supportive organizational cultures

where there are trusting relationships than in those that are

closed and autocratic.

39
2.6.6 Conditions for use

Collaboration often is regarded as the overall style.

However, as we have noted, each style may be useful in

specific situations. The collaborative conflict resolution

strategy is especially appropriate when the parties involved

have one or more common goals and disagree mainly over the

best means of achieving them, when a consensus is needed to

implement the best over all solutions to the conflict. It is also

needed when there is a need to make high-quality decisions on

the basis of expert judgments and the best information

available, and when the parties need to work through negative

feeling and distrust of each other that have interfered with

their working relationship.

2.6.7 The Strike

A strike according to Griffin (1989:228), is a temporary

stoppage of work by a group of employees in an order to

expressing a grievance or enforce a demand. The essential

characteristics of a strike are squarely thrown up by Griffin’s

definition; first, a strike is a stoppage of work but that this

stoppage is not intended to be permanent since striking

40
workers are to go back to work if conditions that inspired the

strike are to some extent assured; second, “a strike is always a

calculative act (Hyman, 1997) which is usually intended to

make employees” grievance known or to compel management

to provide their demand.

The compelling attention drawn by the phenomenon of

strike is due largely to the complete halt of production that

they bring in their warring, alarming the consuming public

that their products are to be out of the market soon. The press

does not help the matter at all when it can make country “ as

a whole become accustomed to consuming strikes with its

cornflakes” (Lane and Roberts, 1999). It seems that the jolting

of population and consumer consciousness coupled with the

drama and visibility attendant to the conduct of strike

activities is responsible for the fact that whenever industrial

conflict is mentioned the word ‘strikes’ is normally called to

mind (Ahiauzu, 1984).

As we have seen, conflict at the workplace can come in

several other forms, both manifest and, in some cases non-

manifest. Yet no one can easily deny that strike are the most

41
manifest and organized forms that industrial conflicts are

expressed, at least in most cases. In any case, “strike statistics

are the one type of industrial relations data reality available in

quantitative form” (Hyman, 1977).

While Griffin’s definition of strikes which is this section is

adequate, it is important for us to note that a strike “is a social

phenomenon of enormous complexity” (Gouldner, 1995) which

does not lend itself to easy explanation because of the diverse

worker psychological configurations that precipitate strikes. In

fact when strikes are being talked about, they should not be

regarded “as though it were a single category of social action”

(Eldridge, 1998). It should rather be thought about them in

terms of their intended purpose as (Hyman, 1977) did when he

categorized strikes into the following groups:

(i) The trial of strength that refers to strike that lasts a long

time, genuine, by trying the relative strength of

management and union. As a result of the pains to

employers and employees, strikes of this nature are “in

many respects, the industrial equivalent of war between

nation, a sufficiently momentous event to be planned

42
 with some care and launched only after intensive efforts

at peaceful resolution of the issue prove unsuccessful

(Pumek, 2000:491). In Nigeria, the observation is that

strikes do not last long as workers cannot afford to stay

out work for an indefinite period because there are “no

strike benefits from the union, while management often

adopts the principle of no work, no pay” (Fashoyin,

1990:38).

(ii) The demonstration stoppage refers to strike usually

Intended to draw attention to the urgency of worker’s

feeling of grievance even “though the dispute will

probably still centres around or at least reflects long-

standing grievances which peaceful application has failed

to remedy (Hyman, 1977). The sense of urgency that

leads to this type of strike may also be because of what

(Eldridge, 1968) has called “perishable dispute” that

involved issues that must be remedied now lest it

becomes difficult with the passage of time to obtain any

useful rectification. An example of such a case can be an

industrial accident that has injured a worker for which

43
 his colleagues stop work, driving home the need for

immediate and adequate treatment of the worker at

company’s expenses; failure on the part of management

to take needed action may lead to death or permanent

incapacitation, a situation which thus becomes incapable

of correction in any really satisfactory manner. In such

cases, workers hardly have “enough time to pass through

long-winded procedures.(Baststone et al., 1993:311)

The interesting point about Hyman’s dichotomy of strike

types is that it enables us not only to see the use to which the

strike weapon could be put, but also the effect it is likely to

have, because of its duration, on the industrial process and

the psychology of the industrial participants. One point that

needs to be addressed relates to whether a strike action is

taken through the “due process” procedure or

unconstitutionality of strikes.

2.6.8 The Unofficial and Unconstitutional Strikes

The question of whether a particular strike action is

official / constitutional or otherwise addresses the issue of

44
how it has been embarked upon in relation to agreed

procedure. Where a strike is branded ‘unofficial’, the

connotation is that top trade union hierarchy is not leading

the action or as (Knowles 1992:659) put it, it is “one which is

not recognized by the Executive Committee of a Union”. To

most employment agreements, this would automatically be

also unconstitutional since it is likely to flout laid down

procedural rules. Unconstitutional strikes can conceivably, on

the other hand be official, if purposely or inadvertently, the

union neglects to follow through the various laid down stages

of procedures before a strike action becomes available option

and must be in accordance with the rule books.

Different explanations have been given as to why

unofficial and unconstitutional strike actions are embarked

upon by workers. A good number of authors has pointed out

that “constitutionality” itself mirrors the more general

inequalities that mark relations at the workplace (Goldthorpe,

1994); (Hyman, 1977); (Cole, 1999). The point these authors

seem to be making is that the rule of procedures themselves

hardly emerges through a consensual process involving

45
management and workers. In any case, consensus can be

difficult to reach since the process of arriving at these rules

and the resultant rulebooks are likely to be outside the

“horizontal of consciousness” (Benger et al, 1944) of workers.

Other authors claim that constitutionality of strike

actions may well be determined by the nature of union

government (Eldridge, 1998). Some aspects of union

government can have a bearing on constitutionality which

could be imputed to include the level of education of union

officials, accessibility of union officials, union’s involvement in

the membership welfare in time of hardship.

The unreality and meaninglessness of the “niceties of

agreements and union constitutions” (Batstone et al, 1978)

form another explanation for unconstitutional strike actions.

The point is that workers find it difficult to dillydally with the

fine points of procedures when faced with concrete “pressing

problems” (Keiser and Kelly, 1995:228). Thus, immediate

action may be called for by, for instance, the fact “that a

machine is dangerous, one of their colleagues has been

victimized, or a member of management is taking them for a

46
ride” (Batstone et al, 1998). The reason perhaps may be due to

this unreality of formal procedure, “recipes of action” and

“pragmatic rules” that are different from the laid down rules

developed on the shop floor” (Bailey, 1999).

To the rank and file, these rules proceeding from the

shop floor, worked out usually over long periods of interaction

with lower management over practical and easily grasped

problems, make more meaning and readily compel obedience

in the events of disputes. The difficulty, however, is that top

management is usually unaware of the existence of these

pragmatic rules and will fail to listen to appeals to them that

invariably run counter to formal agreements. On their part,

workers will seek to embrace these ad-hoc rules of customs

and practices as the formal rulebooks are unlikely to be

helpful to their cause.

In recognition of these varieties of reason for which

workers tend to embark upon strike actions in default of

formal procedure, it is not a surprise that Bats stone et al

(1998) could report in their study that “the great majority of

strike were both unofficial and unconstitutional”. As Clegg

47
(1996:125) point out in another vein, “this willingness of work

groups to follow unofficial leaders in defiance of their unions”

in matters which unions refuse to pursue accept, provides

important restraint on the both of management and union

leadership. This may in fact be the way in which workers

retain a remnant valid claim to their democratic participation

in industry.

2.7 The Concept And Operationalization Of

Organizational Performance

Okoh (2002:48) defines organizational performance as

the extent to which an organization performs in terms of

achieving its goals, targets or purpose in relation to

competitors”. It also refers to how an organization performs on

certain criteria as profitability, market share, returns on asset,

return on investments.

In their own contribution, Darroch and Mcnaughtong

(2005:578), “corporate performance refers to a firm’s position

in an industry in relation to competition and industry average.

Specifically, a firm, according to them “may use comparative

measures to assess its performance. For example a manager

48
may say, “Compared with the industry average, our company

is more profitable”.

He may also use internally reflection performance

measures; for example, “We are more profitable than we were

five years age” (the measures are of objective and subjective

classifications). That is, the performance measures can

capture both financial measures (in this case profit) and non-

financial measures (e.g. market share, sales growth, positive

corporate image, efficiency team spirit, etc.)

Scholam, et al (2005:19) observed that corporate

performance has been operationalized in many ways

including:

(i) Profitability

(ii) Market share

(iii) Return on assets or on investment

(iv) Change in market share or profitability

(v) New product success

(vi) Composite measures of these variables

(vii) Customer loyalty and

(viii) Long-term survival

49
 They further added that corporate performance can be

satisfactory if it is high, unsatisfactory if the company’s

performance is far below the industry average. These scholars

also stated that performance measure could be classified as

objective, subjective, or combination of the two.

Subjective measures center on managers’ assessment of

the performance of their business unit or firm, relative to

expectations or competitors. In such cases, managers may

account for competitive and environmental conditions when

producing subjective measures. For example, managers may

rate their firm’s profitability relative to major competitors’

alternatively, managers may be asked to indicate how satisfied

they are with their firms’ performance, e.g. sales growth.

In contrast, objective measures assess the actual

performance of the firm on absolute scales. Thus corporate

performance involves both objective and subjective measures.

But Jaworski, and Kholi (1993:30) have observed that in most

cases, managers do not provide objective information

regarding the performance of their firms in absolute terms. It

is for this reason that scholars and researchers tend to place

50
more confidence in the results obtained using judgmental

(subjective) measures of performance.

2.8 The Concept of Profitability

Corporate profitability is the sub dependent variable of

this study. In this subsection, a review is made of this variable

as well as the possible linkage between community relations

and corporate profitability.

At the moment, there is no general theory of profit that

commands universal acceptance ways depending on their field

or context. Profits, although often defined lossely in everyday

usage, may be given a series of more precise definitions.

Business firms define profits as the excess of revenues over

costs with which accounts provide firms. We also have what is

usually termed “economic profit” and “accounting”. According

to Lipsey and Steiner (1997), “economic profit is the residual

after all other deductions have been made from the gross

return. It may be positive, negative or zero”.

Economic profit or goods sold are defined as the

difference between revenue received from sales and the

51
opportunity cost of the resources used to make them. Some

economists follow substantially the same definitions label as

normal profit and the expected returns to capital and risk-

taking just necessary to prevent the owners of the enterprise.

Profit is calculated as the difference between the total revenue

(TR) and the total cost (TC). We therefore, gave the R-C = profit

where R = Returns, C = Cost and P = Profit.

The concept involves the process with revenue constants,

and there is likely to be an increase, conversely when returns

(R) increase cost hold constant, profit level will fall. Although

there have been arguments and debates concerning what

should constitute the goal of a firm in microeconomics, profit

maximization as frequently used as the goal of the firm in

microeconomics, is not an adequate goal for finance. The goal

of profit assumes away. However many of the complexities of

the real world, it is insufficient and does not deal adequately

with uncertainty. Waite (1982) maintained that although there

arc no universally accepted criteria to judge the success of any

organization, profit is the more generally accepted one. Some

parameters are used to measure profit ability, but there is no

52
one best measure. This includes Total loans/advances,

Total/asset/liability and Assets base (Williams, 1999:321).

Most scholars conceptualize profit only in quantitative

terms. But Anyanwu (2000) has argued strongly that profit

can be expressed in qualitative term. He put it succinctly in

these words:

It is a mistake to express profit only in quantitative

term. There are other good results that an
organization gets from its investments, which may
not fall within the economists or accountant‘s
definition of profit. For example, f an organization
maintains a cordial relationship with his community
with a view to improving efficiency and effectiveness
in its operation. If it succeeds in having favourable
corporate image, then the organization has profited,
especially when the benefit or results are greater
than the cost of P.R. programmes.

In the light of the above that the profit accruing to an

organization by adopting an effective industrial conflict

management approach can be measured in both monetary and

non- monetary benefits.

The basic objectives of profit-seeking organization should

be wealth maximization. Wealth maximization according to

Haslem (1984) is the maximization of the present value of

future cash flows accruing to the common stock holders.

53
Operationally, the pursuit of wealth maximization is

constrained by the reality of an uncertain future management

view of the appropriate risk and returns as well as economic

and social trade offs in the oil sector.

The resilience of profit maximization theory and its utility

predict how the economy will react to some major changes,

and suggest that firms are at least strongly motivated by the

pursuit of profit and that other things being equal, they prefer

more profit to less profit (Waite, 1992:196).

2.9 Profitability Parameters

The primary objective of manufacturing companies is to

earn profits. Profit earning capacity is considered to be

essential for the survival of the manufacturing sector. A

manufacturing sector needs profits not only for its existence

but also for expansion and diversification. Investors want

adequate returns on their investments while the workers

higher wages and the creditors want higher security for their

interest and loan. A manufacturing sector can discharge its

obligations to the various segments of the society only through

54
earnings of profits. The profits, is, thus, a useful measure to

examine the overall efficiency of a manufacturing sector (Liyel,

2007: 170).

The profit to the management is the test of efficiency and

a measurement of control to owners, the measure of worth of

their investment to the creditors, the margin of safety to

employees as a source of benefits, to government a measure of

tax paying capacity and the basis of legislative action to

demand better quality and price cuts and to an enterprise, a

less cumbersome source of finance.

Profits are an index of economic progress. Hence the

profitability ratios are calculated to measure the overall

efficiency of the manufacturing sector. The ratio, like operating

profit, net profit, ROl and worth, are used to test the

profitability of manufacturing sector.

2.10 Returns on Investment (ROI)

This ratio is one of the mot important used for measuring

the overall efficiency of a manufacturing sector. As the primary

objective of a manufacturing sector is to maximize its

55
earnings, this ratio indicates the extent to which the primary

objective of manufacturing sector is being achieved. This ratio

is of great importance to the present and prospective

shareholders as well as the management of the manufacturing

sector.

It reveals how well the resources of a manufacturing

sector are being used, the higher the ratio, better the results

(Liyel, 2007:173). The investment is compared with the

returns and net investment refers to the returns on

investment.

2.11 The Concept of Survival

Hornby (2005:1547) defines survival as “the state of

continuing to leave or exist, often despite difficulty or danger”.

Varill and Bell (1999:282) conceptualize survival as the state

where an individual, corporate organizations or nations have

success fully overcome obstacle and continued to remain over

time in the environment. Militononic (2002:293) summarily

defines survival as a “state of equilibrium” where an

56
organization is neither liquidated nor prospered but manages

to exist amidst the challenges.

Drucker (1997:129) asserts that survival is a term used

to describe the state where an organization in spite of its

drawbacks and challenges continued to make itself relevant in

the environment. He added that one of the objectives of any

corporate organization is to survive over time in business.

Thus, an organization that has lasted for many years and

continued to exist to meet the needs and wants of its target is

deemed to have succeeded.

However, it must be stressed that survival does not

necessarily denote or describe the state of merely ‘existing” or

living”. Some scholars used the terms “survival” and “success”

interchangeably. Amealoy and Zanic (2000:319) argued that a

business that survives has succeeded. Their conceptualization

of business success in this context relates to the performance

of the organization in terms of the extent to which it has

achieved its objectives (profitability, market share, customer

loyalty, returns on investment, etc). Bishark (1999), however,

contends that survival is not synonymous with growth or

57
success as a firm can survive without recording an appreciable

level of profit or competitive advantage. He opined that

survival is “a state of no profit or loss” but continues to exist

hoping that it will get better someday, depending on its plans

and strategies. Thus, for this scholar, the company is not

necessarily making profit.

Mc Jones (2001:487) opinion is a collorary of the position

of Bishark. Mc Jones encapsulated the meaning of

organizational survival in these words:

A firm survives in its environment if it has been able

to overcome its ordeals. These challenges may be
setbacks, which have the capacity and potentials to
keep the organization perpetually down. If it
manages to pull itself from the ‘put’ and stays afloat
over time in the hostile and competitive environment,
then it has survived, it may imply success in the long
run, but certainly continuous existence in the face of
daunting tasks and responsibilities.

Implicit in the above definitions is the fact that survival

implies a state of continuous existence in spite of difficulty or

danger. Some may regard it as a success or state of balance or

equilibrium or merely existing. It also suggests that an

organization is in a state of growth and collapse. In the former,

an organization has expanded in terms of market, scope of

58
operation and profitability; in the later, it has gone into

liquidation or oblivion.

2.12 The Linkage Between Industrial Conflict and

Organizational Performance

Drucker (1994:36) postulates, “Organizational

performance is the balance between all factors of production

(Human and Material) that will give the greatest output for the

smallest efforts”. Our chief interest in this quote rests with

balancing the human factors as to give the greatest output for

the smallest effort.

It could be right at first glance to conclude that Drucker

was talking about manpower planning in relation to

performance. It could also be right to state that effort geared

towards ensuring meaningful and healthy interactions in the

human side of the production equation would have a positive

effect on efficiency and organizational performance.

Drucker et al (1997:361) also opined that the ultimate

test of management is business performance. Performance

spells a need to work effectively toward targets. These

arguments underscore the fact that organizational

59
performance cannot be attained in an unstructured,

unplanned setting where the atmosphere is that of conflict.

Where everybody does his own thing in his own way, or where

there no harmony among organizational members, it becomes

difficult to achieve targets. The old saying that “where

purpose is not defined, abuse is inevitable” holds.

For the purpose of this work, we can infer that the

variable ‘industrial conflict’ has an implication for

organizational performance. Also, the term “different situation

require a variety of managerial approaches” can be tied to the

outcome of the personal, interpersonal, inter and intra groups

relationship and how they can be best managed to make

meaning to organizational pursuits.

Emphasizing the importance of organizational

performance, Drucker (1997) posits that the first high

requirement of organizational health is a high demand on

performance (Drucker 1997: 361). Arguing from the Doctrine

of the “spirit of performance excellence”, the spirit of its output

is larger than the sum of the efforts put in (1997:362).

60
 For Drucker, performance is not necessarily hitting the

bull’s eye with every shot (circus act that can be maintained

only every a few minutes). Performance is rather the

consistent ability to produce result over prolonged periods of

time and in a variety of assignments. A performance record

must include failures. It must reveal a person’s or corporate

performance along some dimensions or on certain criteria.

limitations as well as strength (Drucker:1977:361).

It is discernable from Drucker’s argument that to attain

high performance, all hands must be on deck. There must be

a full scope for individual and group excellence. Newman

(2002: 216), believes that human relations that are not

grounded in the achievement of good human relations is

bankrupt. He argues that the essence of human relations is in

the satisfaction of good performance – high performance,

which must be tied to the vision and harmonious human

relations. Performance infers an effort from organizational

members (Newman 2002: 218).

Newman further observes that management seeks to

bring workers into mutual understanding with organization in

61
such a way that the objectives of the organizations as well as

those of the workers are achieved. According to Newman

(2002:220), organizational performance is in idealized referent

against which the real states of organization and the

effectiveness of their control can be measured. It described a

driver towards optimal gain.

To properly conceptualize the linkage of industrial

conflict and organizational performance, Horace (2003:78)

observes that the influence of industrial conflict whichever

forms it takes has a far-reaching implications for

organizational performance. Horace observes that in the area

of task conflict, which arises from inability of management to

properly articulate what is expected of a particular task,

confusion and sometimes understanding and resolution of

such conflicts result in organization coming up with well

defined roles and responsibilities which starve off role conflict.

According to aim, job description and defined responsibilities

derive largely from the need to avoid role conflicts. For him,

this can reduce confusion in an organization. When members

62
of an organization understand and co-operate with one

another, it facilitates the achievement of corporate objectives.

Adetila (2006:83) observes that industrial conflict has

both a positive and negative influence on the organization. He

argued that industrial conflicts when effectively managed

enables an organization to move forward such as in cases

when conflicts are resolved in the interest of all the members.

He added that improvements in workers conditions, which

motivate workers towards greater productivity in some

organizations, was made possible after workers had gone on

strike. As far as he is concerned, most of these business

organizations in Nigeria (banks, manufacturing firms,

construction companies, oil companies) would not have been

able to operate profitably if workers welfare issues were not

addressed. In most cases industrial actions had to be

embarked upon to force management to shift ground.

Even the public (government) sector like the civil service,

industrial action between the workers and management have

been known to have a positive impact on the organizations

after labour issues had been addressed. For instance, the

63
recent two months strikes action embarked upon by teachers

in the Nigerian public primary and secondary school system

between July and September, 2008 forced government to

renegotiate with teachers on the new salary scale, otherwise

teachers would not have gone back to the classrooms.

Consequently, the objectives of primary and secondary

education would have been difficult to achieve in such an

atmosphere of conflict.

In the same view, interpersonal conflict between or

among organizational members such as between two

departments on goal incongruence has been expressed by

difficulty in co-ordination, communication and social

integration. When ‘bad blood’ exists between managers A and

B (personality clash), it rubs negatively on the organization.

Similarly, when production and sales department work at

cross purposes (goal incongruence), it negatively affects

organizational functioning, as there is no information sharing

and congruency. However, the resolution of such conflict

results in harmony as all the departments are made to work

64
as a cohesive whole for the achievement of organizational

objectives.

Although recent arguments on the undesirable elements

in relationship reveal some advantages from their existence, it

could still be argued that if they are not controlled, they have

killer effects. Organizations have therefore guarded against

the over-riding effects of strikes and spoken in favour of it

from the subjective angle of trade unionism and collective

bargaining.

In the words of Ojukwu, “controversy performs a useful

function in society so far as it does not attack the fabric of that

society” (Ojukwu 1989:83). This argument of Ojukwu in

consonance little of confliction relations in the form of trade

unionism will lead to power balance in an organization”. This

power balance as spoken of by Ojukwu can also guarantee

efficiency.

Where conflicts, strikes, etc attack the fabric of an

organization, performance will adversely suffer. This would

mean that the efforts of the organization will be partly

redirected towards setting these differences instead of that

65
efforts brings maximum results when it is directed toward a

precise end (Martin: 1991: 136). An organizational structure

that hampers performance is likely to cause strikes, conflicts,

etc. For Martin (1991:138), work structure should be one of

favourable work climate to enhance performance.

Organizational structures to a great extent spell relations in

work setting.

Awujo therefore postulates that conflicts should not be

allowed to degenerate into strike. The parties in the game

should rather make concession and change position for the

mutual benefit of all organizational members. Such relating,

he opined, will enhance organizational performance. Such

work regulation derived from an ordered system has an

implication for efficiency.

The harmful effect of industrial disputes is even made

clearer as we look at it from the angle of boycotts. Ukpong

(1999:14) posits that in boycott, union tries to get the public to

refuse to deal with the boycotted firm. The boycott can hurt

an employee if conducted by a large enough segment of

organized labour. This is because a boycott may not end

66
completely with the end of the strike. Many customs may

have developed a bias towards a company’s products or a

change in buying habits during the boycott that are not easily

reversed (Baridam: 1995:150). He suggests that efforts should

not be wasted on incessant strikes, boycotts and othe1r forms

of industrial disputes.

Implicit in the foregoing is the fact the conflict is inevitable in

industrial organizations. However, the way they are managed

has some implications for corporate performance be it

profitability, long-term survival or progress. This is because

corporate or organizational performance derives largely from

employee performance, which among other things is a function

of how he or she is treated by the organization. Where bad

blood exists between employers and employers or among

organizational members, an organization cannot function

effectively to achieve goals and objectives. Thus we believe that

industrial conflict can have a negative impact on an

organization when the conflict not resolved in the interest of

the parties involved. Effective management of conflict,

however, can introduce positive changes into an organization

67
that can enhance organizational productivity. This perhaps

explains why Johnnie and Nwasike (2002:64) opine that since

we have to work together irrespectively of personal feelings

and benefits, interpersonal conflict must be managed, if the

group and organization must survive.

The linkage between Industrial Conflict (IC) and

Organizational Performance (OP) in the manufacturing sector

as conceptualized and operationalized in this study may be

illustrated as shown in the diagram below.

Fig.2.1: The Linkage of Industrial Conflict and

Organizational Performance
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Industrial Conflict Organizational PERFORMANCE
(IC) (OP)

Task Conflict Profitability

(TC) (P)

Inter-Group Efficiency
Conflict (E)
(IC)

Procedural
Conflict Survival
(PC) (S)

Source: The Researcher’s Operationalization of the link 68

between Industrial Conflict and Organizational
Performance
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

Research design in research process provides a directive

framework for data collection and analysis. Arionik (2001:69),

argues that a research design is like road map that directs a

journey. He identifies two basic research designs namely; the

experimental and quasi-experimental research designs. The

quasi-experimental research design is applied in the

management sciences because the subjects or elements of the

investigation in this area are not within the control of the

researcher. This study adopted the survey method, which is

an aspect of the quasi-experimental research data from across

a wide range of subjects.

3.2 Population Of The Study

The target population of the study consisted of

manufacturing companies operating in Nigeria. However, the

accessible population of the study was made up of 18

manufacturing companies (foreign and indigenous) operating

69
in Port Harcourt. Currently, there are 18 functional

manufacturing companies in Port Harcourt according to

Searchfield survey report on manufacturing companies in Port

Harcourt (Searchfield Report, 2009:11).

3.4 Sampling and Sample Size Determination

The accessible population of the study was not a small

universe. In that case, there was a need for drawing a sample

from it. Therefore, the entire population (all the staff or

employees) could not be included in the sample of the study.

The research enquiries were directed at managers and workers

representatives in the 18 manufacturing firms at the rate of 2

per firm. 36 persons involving managers and workers

representatives were randomly selected and the number(36) ,

therefore, constituted the sample size of the study.

3.5 Data Collection Methods

The basic collection techniques used in research in

management science shall be adopted. Primary data were

generated from questionnaire while secondary data were

70
sourced from textbooks, journals, magazines, Internet

resource, newsletters, and newspapers.

3.6 Questionnaire Design and Administration

The questionnaire was the major data collection

technique to be used in this study. The questions were

designed in the structured and unstructured formats. The

structured questions entailed closed ended questions where

the respondents will be restricted to choosing from the listed

options. In the unstructured questions, the respondents were

allowed the freedom to feely express their opinions.

The administration of the questionnaire involved the initial

distribution of the pilot questionnaire. This was given to the

research supervisor, human resources managers and few

industrial relations officers. It was intended to serve as a

critical review to enhance its reliability and validity. Based on

the responses from the pilot study, the total of 36 copies of

questionnaire was administered on the selected 36 individuals

made up of managers and workers representatives from the 18

manufacturing companies.

71
3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Instrument
To establish the validity of the instrument of the study

(questionnaire), the student submitted the instrument to her

supervisor for correction and criticism. The corrections and

criticisms were effected in the final copy of the questionnaire.

In determining the reliability of the instrument, the test-

retest reliability method was adopted. The instrument was

administered on organizations outside the area of study to

complete. 21 days later, the same instrument was

administered to them. A reliability co-efficient of 0.78 was

obtained using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation

analysis.

3.8 Methods Of Data Analysis

This study made use of the simple percentages, tables and

frequencies and mean score for the analysis of the research

questions while the spearman rank order correlation co-

efficient was employed for the test of the hypotheses

formulated for the study. The formula is mathematically

represented thus:

72
 rs = 1 6∑d2
n (n2-1)
Where:
rs = spearman’s rank order correlation co-efficient

∑d2 = sum of squared deviation

N = number of sets of ranking.

The mean score is expressed using likert 5-point scale of

Strongly Agree (SA)= 5
Agree (A) = 4
Undecided (U) = 3
Disagree (D) = 2
Strongly Disagree (SD) = 1

73
 CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF

FINDINGS
In the preceding section, the methodology deployed in

carrying out the study was presented and discussed. This

chapter is concerned with data analysis and presentation of

result. The research questions were analyzed with the use of

mean score and frequencies while the hypotheses were tested

using spearman rank order method of statistical packages for

social sciences (SPSS) software package. The section is

presented under the following sub-heading:-

4.1 Data Related to Questionnaire Administration and

Retrieval

In an attempt to gather data for the study, a total of

thirty six (36) copies of questionnaire were issued and

administered on management and workers representative in

18 functional manufacturing companies in Port Harcourt at

the rate of two (2) copies per manufacturing company. Out of

this number, thirty three (33) copies were returned to the

researcher, thus representing a response rate of 92 percent.

74
However, 3 copies were not returned, and this represents 8

percent (%). After cleaning and editing, 30 copies were found

useful for the analysis. The above stated- information is

summarized in the table below.

Table 4.1: Questionnaire Administration and Responses

Rate
Particulars No. of Respondents Percentage (%)
No of copies retrieved 33 92
No. of copies not 3 8
retrieved
Total number 36 100
administered
Source: Survey Data, 2008

Note: The analysis was based on the 30 useable copies.

4.2: Industrial Conflict in Manufacturing Companies

The study sought to know whether industrial conflict

occurred in manufacturing companies and the nature of such

conflict. The relevant data are presented in the table below.

75
Table 4.2: Nature and Extent of Conflict in
Manufacturing Sector
N = 30

S/N Nature Extent of Occurrence

of
conflict Very High A L VL WTS X
High 4 3 2 1
5
1. Task/role 12(60) 10 (40) 7(21) 1 1(1) 126 4.2
conflict (2)
2. Inter- 13(65) 11(44) 5(18) 1 1(1) 129 4.3
group (2)
conflict
3. Procedural 9(45) 10(40) 5(15) 4 3(3) 113 3.76
conflict (8)
Source: Survey Data, 2008

Key:
Very High = 5 High = 4 Average (A) = 3 Low (L) =2 Very
Low (VL) = 1

Weighted Total Score (WTS) = ∑fx

Number of respondents (n) =30

Mean Score (X) = WTS

n

76
Table 4.2 shows the nature of industrial conflict and extent of

occurrence in the manufacturing. As depicted by the weighted

totals, (WTS), the major conflict is inter-group conflict and it is

reflected by 129 point followed by task/ role conflict with 126

points. The third area is procedural conflict and this is

reflected by the weighted total score 113. As regards extent of

occurrence, the mean score of 4.3 implies high rate of

occurrence of inter-group conflict in the organizations. The

frequency of occurrence of task or role conflict was equally

high as reflected by the mean score 4.2 while procedural

conflict recorded average occurrence as depicted by the mean

score of 3.76

4.3 Dimensions of Performance of Manufacturing

Companies in Relation to Industrial Conflict

The study further sought to know the dimensions of

performance of manufacturing companies in relation to
industrial conflict.

77
Table 4.3:Dimensions of Performance of Manufacturing
Companies in Relation Conflict
n =30
S/N Dimensions of Degree of Emphasis
Performance
Very High High A L VL WTS X
5 4 3 2 1
1. Profitability 13 11 6 2 0 130 4.33
(65) (44) (18) (4) (0)
2. Efficiency 10 12 7 1 0 122 4.02
(50) (48) (21) (2) (0)
3. Survival 8 9 5 6 2 105 3.5
(40) (36) (15) (12) ( 2)
Source: Survey Data, 2008

The table shows the dimensions of performance of

manufacturing companies in relation to industrial conflict. The
most emphasized area is profitability as reflected by the
weighted total score of 130 and a mean score of 4.33 The next
area as shown in the table is efficiency with a total weighted
score of 122 and a mean score of 4.06 while third area is
survival as depicted by the weighted total score of 106 and a
mean score of 3.5.

4.4 How Task/Role Conflict Affects Organizational

Performance
The researcher sought to know how task/role conflict
affected profitability, efficiency and survival of manufacturing
companies. The relevant data are shown in the table below.

78
 Table 4.4:How Task/Role Conflict Affects Profitability,
Efficiency and Survival
n= 30
S/N Task/Role Conflict SA A U D SD
Organizational Performance 5 4 3 2 1 WTS X
Statements
1. Overlapping/ambiguous 12 10 4 4 0
responsibilities causes task (60) (40) (12) (8) (0) 120 4.0
conflict in this organization which
affects profitability adversely.
2. The profitability of this firm is 13 11 5 1 0
negatively affected when (65) (44) (15) (2) (0) 125 4.17
disagreement between employees
and management about job
composition is not addressed.
In this firm, a sustained task/ role 16 10 3 1 0
conflict leads to confusion, waste (80) (40) (9) (2) (0) 131 4.37
and imbalance which affect the
efficiency of the firm.
4. The efficiency of this firm through 8 9 5 7 1
cost and waste minimization is (40) (36) (15) (14) (1) 106 4.53
also attributable to disagreement
about job roles.
5. Task conflict has led to better 14 13 2 1 0
definitions and clarification of (70) (52) (6) (2) (0) 130 4.33
issues and argument which helps
the firm to make profit through
effective communication between
employees and management.
6. The survival of this firm is 11 15 2 2 0
influenced by the way (55) (60) (6) (4) (0) 125 4.17
management resolves task conflict
or role ambiguity.
Source: Survey Data, 2008

Key:

Strongly Agree (SA) = 5 Agree (A) = 4 Undecided (U) =3

Disagree (D) = 2 Stronly Disagree (SD) = 1

79
Table 4.4 shows that the mean score of 4.0 implies that most

respondents agreed that overlapping/ambiguous

responsibilities caused task conflicts in their firm. Similarly,

most of the respondents agreed that the profitability of their

firms was negatively affected when disagreement between

employees and management about job composition was not

addressed in the organization as denoted by the mean score of

4.17.

Most of the respondents as reflected by the mean score of

4.37 agreed that sustained task conflict had led to confusion,

waste, and imbalance which affected the efficiency

organizations. In the same vein, the mean score of 3.53

implies agreement by respondents that the level of efficiency of

their organization (cost reduction and waste minimization)

could also be traced to disagreement about job roles..

The mean score of 4.33 indicates that respondents

agreed that task conflict had led to better definitions and

clarification of issues and arguments which helped their

companies to survive. The mean score of 4.17 indicates that

the respondents agreed that the survival of their organizations

80
 also depended on how management resolved task/role conflict

or role ambiguity.

4.5 How Inter-group Conflict Affects Organizational

Performance in Manufacturing Companies

The study also examined how inter-group conflict affects

profitability, efficiency and survival

Table 4.5 How Inter-group Conflict Affects

Organizational Performance in
Manufacturing Companies
n = 30
S/N Inter-group Conflict and SA A U D SD
Organizational Performance 5 4 3 2 1 WTS X
Statements
1. Intense inter-group conflict has 4 5 8 7 6
not led to poor allocation of (20) (20) (24) (14) (6) 84 2.8
organizational resources which
limits profitability.
2. This profitability of this firm has 5 6 7 9 3
not been affected because inter- (20) (24) (21) (18) (3) 86 2.91
group conflict b/w unit causes
disunity and in cohesion in the
firm.
3. Conflict between departments in 14 11 3 2 0
this firm adversely affects the (70) (44) (9) (4) (0) 127 4.23
efficiency of employees and
organization.
4. The efficiency of employee and 6 7 9 8 0
organization is not affected when (30) (28) (27) (16) (0) 101 3.37
disputants in the conflict push
their own positions to the extreme.
5. Inter-group conflict in this firm 17 10 - 3 0
has led to establishment of outlets (85) (40) - (6) (0) 131 4.37
where people can blow off steam
without damaging the structure
and survival of the organization.
6. The survival of this firm to a large 14 9 4 2 1

81
 extent depends on how the (70) (36) (12) (4) (1) 122 4.07
organization resolves inter-group
conflict.
Source: Survey Data, 2008

Table 4.5 shows the influence of inter-group conflict on the

organizational performance of manufacturing companies in
Port Harcourt. Respondents as reflected by the mean score of
2.8 disagreed that inter-group conflict had not led to poor
allocation of organizational resources which adversely hurt
profitability. As mirrored by the mean score of 2.91,
respondents disagreed that the profitability of their companies
had not been affected because inter-group conflict which
caused disharmony and in cohesion in the firm. The mean
score of 4.23 indicated that respondents agreed that inter-
group conflict had an adverse effect on the efficiency of the
organizations. Respondents were not sure whether the
efficiency of their organizations was adversely affected when
disputants in the conflict pushed their own positions to the
extreme. This is reflected by the mean score of 3.37 However,
most of the respondents agreed that inter-group conflict had
led to an establishment of outlet where people can blow off
steam without damaging the structure and survival of their
organizations as reflected by the mean score of 4.37. But they
agreed as depicted by the mean score of 4.07 that the survival
of their organizations to a large extent depended on inter-
group conflicts were resolved in their companies.

82
 4.6 How Procedural Conflict Affects Organizational
Performance
Respondents were also requested to state how procedural
conflict affected profitability, efficiency and survival in their
organizations. Their responses are presented in table below
Table 4.6: How Procedural Conflict Affects Profitability, Efficiency and
Survival n=30
S/N Procedural Conflict and SA A U D SD
Organizational Performance 5 4 3 2 1 WTS X
Statements
1. Overlapping of tasks, 15 13 2 - -
responsibility and authority (75) (52) (6) - - 133 4.43
threaten work boundaries and
creates disharmony among
employees with negative impact
on profitability.
2. Disagreement arising from non- 16 12 2 - -
compliance to established rules (80) (40 (5) - - 134 4.47
and procedures creates
misunderstanding and
disaffection b/w employees and
managers which hurt corporate
efficiency.
3. The profitability of this firm is 12 11 7 0 0
hurt through waste and over-in (60) (44) (21) (0) (0) 125 4.17
voicing when laid-down
procedures and rules are not
adhered to.
4. The efficiency of this firm is 10 12 7 1 1
negatively affected arising from (60) (48) (21) (2) (1) 102 3.4
disagreement over due process
and procedures.
5. Disagreement over work 14 10 6 0 0
procedure in this firm has a (70) (40 (18) (0) (0) 128 4.27
negative impact on the survival of
this firm.
6. The survival depends among 12 15 0 3 0

83
 other things on how the company (60) (60) (0) (6) (0) 129 4.3
handles disagreement arising
from work procedures, rules and
regulations.
Source: Survey Data, 2008

The Table shows how conflicts arising from work and

organizational procedures affect the profitability, efficiency and

survival of manufacturing companies using means score

inferential statistics. Respondents strongly agreed that

procedural conflict adversely affected profitability because

overlapping of tasks, responsibility and authority threatened

work boundaries and created disharmony among employees or

among managers. This position is depicted by the mean score

of 4.43. Respondents as reflected by the mean score of 4.47

agreed that the profitability was hurt through waste and over-

invoicing when laid-down rules and procedures were not

adhered to which caused procedural conflict. Similarly, the

mean score of 4.17 indicates agreement by respondents that

the efficiency of their organizations was negatively affected

because of disagreement arising from non-compliance to

established rules and procedures. In the same vein, the mean

score of 4.27 implies agreement by respondents that

84
 disagreement over work procedures and due process had

negative impact on the survival of their organizations.

Respondents also agreed that the survival of their

organizations depended among other things on the way

procedural conflicts were demoted or resolved were on their

organizations as reflected by the mean score of 4.3..

4.7 TEST OF HYPOTHESES (SPSS APPLICATION)

Statement of Hypothesis One

Ho1: Task conflict does not have any significant positive

influence on the profit level of the manufacturing

companies

Table 4.7: Spearman Rank Order Test of Correlation between Task

Conflict (TC) and Profit Level (PL)

TC PL D
Rank Rank
Responses x Y x y Rx – Ry d2
01 1.15 1.79 3 5 -2.0 4
02 1.89 2.90 8 17 -9.0 81
03 2.02 4.79 10 32 -22.0 484
04 2.37 4.72 13 30 -17.0 289
05 2.78 2.82 17 15 2.0 4
06 4.69 3.96 26 22 4.0 16
07 4.71 4.26 27 24 3.0 9
08 1.08 2.63 2 13 -11.0 121
09 3.88 2.47 24 12 12.0 144
10 3.95 3.53 25 20 5.0 25
11 4.89 3.42 30 18 12.0 144
12 3.05 2.67 21 14 7.0 49
13 2.72 2.83 16 16 0.0 0
14 2.96 3.77 18 21 -3.0 9
15 2.21 2.27 11 9 2.0 4

85
 16 3.84 1.98 22 7 15.0 225
17 2.31 3.48 12 19 -7.0 49
18 2.99 4.71 19 29 -10.0 100
19 2.46 4.68 14 28 -14.0 196
20 4.94 4.75 32 31 1.0 1
21 4.80 4.63 29 27 2.0 4
22 1.07 1.00 1 1 0.0 0
23 1.95 1.08 9 2 7.0 49
24 1.40 1.90 5 6 -1.0 1
25 1.61 2.28 6 10 -4.0 16
26 1.88 2.35 7 11 -4.0 16
27 3.02 1.58 20 3 17.0 289
28 4.90 2.25 31 8 23.0 529
29 1.29 1.75 4 4 0.0 0
30 3.85 4.48 23 26 -3.0 9
Sum 0 Σd2 =2,867

Source: Survey Data, 2008

= 0.362

rs = 0.362 (This implies that is correlation between X and Y

variables).

To test for the significance of relationship for a large sample and a

two tailed test, z- test was used

Where
rs = spearman rank correlation co-efficient
n = number of subjects ranked

Zcal = 1.95
Ztab, 0.05 = ±1.96

Decision: We accept the null hypothesis since zcal = 1.95 < ±1.96

(the critical value) and conclude that task conflict does not a

86
 positive significant influence on the profit level of manufacturing

companies, if though there is a weak correlation between the

variables.

Statement of Hypothesis Two

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between task conflict

and efficiency in manufacturing companies.

Table 4.8:Relationship between Task Conflict (TC) and

Efficiency (E)
TC E d
Responses x Y Rank x Rank y Rx - Ry d2
01 1.3 1.4 3 4 -1.0 1
02 3.5 1.8 15 9 6.0 36
03 2.5 1.0 9 2 7.0 49
04 4.8 2.5 24 16 8.0 64
05 2.9 2.7 12 18 -6.0 36
06 4.9 4.1 31 28 3.0 9
07 4.3 3.6 20 22 -2.0 4
08 3.7 1.2 18 3 15.0 225
09 5.0 5.0 32 32 0.0 0
10 3.1 1.8 13 7 6.0 36
11 1.8 2.1 6 12 -6.0 36
12 4.7 3.9 22 26 -4.0 16
13 2.4 2.4 7 15 -8.0 64
14 4.9 3.0 29 20 9.0 81
15 4.6 2.2 21 14 7.0 49
16 4.7 3.8 23 25 -2.0 4
17 1.2 4.1 2 27 -25.0 625
18 4.8 4.9 26 31 -5.0 25
19 4.9 2.5 30 17 13.0 169
20 1.3 3.0 4 19 -15.0 225
21 3.7 4.9 19 30 -11.0 121
22 3.7 3.7 17 23 -6.0 36
23 2.8 2.2 11 13 -2.0 4
24 2.6 1.9 10 11 -1.0 1
25 3.1 1.8 14 8 6.0 36
26 4.9 1.4 28 5 23.0 529
27 1.2 1.0 1 1 0.0 0
28 2.4 3.7 8 24 -16.0 256
29 1.5 1.7 5 6 -1.0 1

87
 30 4.8 3.1 27 21 6.0 36
Sum 0 Σd2=2,774
Source: Survey Data, 2008

rs = 0.383 (This suggest that a correlation exists between the

two variables).

To test for the significance of the relationship between the x

and y variables for a large sample and two-tailed test, Z-test

was used:

= Zcal = 2.06

Zcal = 2.06

Ztab, 0.05 = ±1.96

Decision Rule: We reject the null hypothesis (Ho 2) since Zcal =

2.06 > ±1.96 (Z critical value) and conclude that a significant

relationship exists between the level of task conflict and the

level of efficiency in manufacturing companies.

Statement of Hypothesis Three

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between inter-group

conflict and profitability in the manufacturing companies..

88
Table 4.9: Test of Relationship between Inter-group
Conflict(IC) and Profitability (P)

IC P d
Responses x Y Rank x Rank y Rx - Ry d2
01 3.6 3.0 20 13 7.0 49
02 4.1 4.2 23 26 -3.0 9
03 2.2 3.2 11 15 -4.0 16
04 3.5 3.4 19 19 0.0 0
05 4.5 4.2 29 28 1.0 1
06 4.5 2.8 30 12 18.0 324
07 1.7 4.5 5 29 -24.0 576
08 3.2 2.1 18 7 11.0 121
09 1.3 1.3 2 1 1.0 1
10 3.0 4.1 16 24 -8.0 64
11 2.1 4.0 10 22 -12.0 144
12 4.4 3.3 28 17 11.0 121
13 4.3 4.9 27 32 -5.0 25
14 2.6 4.2 14 27 -13.0 169
15 4.8 4.7 31 31 0.0 0
16 2.1 2.1 9 6 3.0 9
17 3.1 4.0 17 23 -6.0 36
18 2.9 3.6 15 21 -6.0 36
19 2.5 4.2 13 25 -12.0 144
20 4.3 3.4 26 18 8.0 64
21 2.0 2.0 8 4 4.0 16
22 4.2 3.5 25 20 5.0 25
23 5.0 4.6 32 30 2.0 4
24 1.8 2.6 7 10 -3.0 9
25 3.6 2.0 21 5 16.0 256
26 4.0 2.6 22 11 11.0 121
27 1.4 2.2 4 8 -4.0 16
28 1.1 3.1 1 14 -13.0 169
29 4.1 2.2 24 9 15.0 225
30 1.4 1.4 3 2 1.0 1
Sum 0 2
Σd =2,751

Source: Survey Data, 2008

rs = 0.388 (This implies a weak sample correlation between

the variables).

89
 To test for the significance of the relationship between the
variables for a large sample and two-tailed test, we applied Z
test:

.
.. Zcal = 2.09

Ztab, 0.05 = ±1.96

Decision Rule: We reject the null hypothesis (Ho 3) since Zcal =

2.09 >±1.96 (critical value) and conclude that there is a

significant relationship between inter-group conflict and

profitability in the manufacturing organizations.

Statement of Hypothesis Four

Ho4: Inter-group conflict does not have any positive influence on

the efficiency of manufacturing companies.

Table 4.10: Test of Relationship between Inter-group (IC)

and Efficiency (E)

90
 PS P d
Responses x Y Rank x Rank y Rx - Ry D2
01 4.2 3.6 25 21 4.0 16
02 1.1 2.3 2 10 -8.0 64
03 1.6 4.3 3 28 -25.0 625
04 2.5 1.3 11 2 9.0 81
05 2.8 1.9 13 7 6.0 36
06 3.8 1.6 22 5 17.0 289
07 3.0 2.5 14 11 3.0 9
08 3.9 2.9 24 15 9.0 81
09 3.5 2.7 20 12 8.0 64
10 4.5 3.5 27 20 7.0 49
11 3.9 2.8 23 14 9.0 81
12 2.0 2.7 6 13 -7.0 49
13 3.2 1.6 17 3 14.0 196
14 4.7 5.0 29 32 -3.0 9
15 1.1 2.1 1 9 -8.0 64
16 3.4 2.0 19 8 11.0 121
17 2.2 4.1 7 25 -18.0 324
18 4.8 3.2 31 17 14.0 196
19 2.3 4.0 8 24 -16.0 256
20 1.8 1.1 4 1 3.0 9
21 4.4 4.8 26 30 -4.0 16
22 3.8 4.8 21 31 -10.0 100
23 2.3 1.6 9 4 5.0 25
24 1.9 3.2 5 18 -13.0 169
25 4.7 3.9 30 23 7.0 49
26 3.1 3.3 15 19 -4.0 16
27 4.9 4.6 32 29 3.0 9
28 2.6 3.8 12 22 -10.0 100
29 3.4 1.8 18 6 12.0 144
30 2.5 4.2 10 27 -17.0 289
2
Sum 0 Σd =3,536
Source: Survey Data, 2008

rs = 0.21 (This implies a weak correlation between the x and y

variables).

To test for the significance of the relationship for a large

sample and one-tailed test, we compared rs computed value
with rs critical value.

91
 rs cal = 0.21
rs tab, 0.05, n30 = 0.305

Decision Rule: We accept the null hypothesis (Ho4) since the

calculated value Z = 0.21 < 0.305 (the critical value) and

therefore conclude that inter-group conflict does not have any

significant positive influence on the efficiency of the

manufacturing organizations.

Statement of Hypothesis Five

Ho5: Procedural conflict does not have any positive and significant
influence on the survival of manufacturing companies
Table 4.11: Test of Relationship between Procedural Conflict
(PC) and Survival (S)
PC S d
Responses X Y Rank x Rank y Rx – Ry d2
01 4.7 4.2 28 27 1.0 1
02 2.0 1.8 7 9 -2.0 4
03 1.8 2.1 5 14 -9.0 81
04 2.8 1.4 15 4 11.0 121
05 2.2 2.1 10 16 -6.0 36
06 4.7 1.0 26 1 25.0 625
07 5.0 2.2 32 17 15.0 225
08 3.6 2.7 18 21 -3.0 9
09 2.4 2.1 11 15 -4.0 16
10 3.4 1.1 17 2 15.0 225
11 1.7 3.5 3 24 -21.0 441
12 2.2 1.9 9 10 -1.0 1
13 2.2 1.7 8 8 0.0 0
14 4.9 3.4 30 23 7.0 49
15 4.7 4.5 27 29 -2.0 4
16 4.8 4.8 29 32 -3.0 9
17 1.7 1.3 2 3 -1.0 1
18 3.7 1.9 20 11 9.0 81
19 3.8 1.6 22 5 17.0 289
20 3.7 4.5 21 30 -9.0 81

92
 21 4.6 4.8 25 31 -6.0 36
22 1.9 2.8 6 22 -16.0 256
23 1.6 1.7 1 7 -6.0 36
24 3.7 2.6 19 20 -1.0 1
25 2.7 2.3 13 18 -5.0 25
26 2.7 3.9 14 25 -11.0 121
27 1.8 1.6 4 6 -2.0 4
28 4.9 4.2 31 26 5.0 25
29 4.1 1.9 23 12 11.0 121
30 2.7 2.3 12 19 -7.0 49
Sum 0 Σd2=2,973
Source: Survey Data, 2008

rs co-efficient = 0.34 (This implies a correlation between the x and

y variables).

For the test for significance of the relationship between the

independent and dependent variables, we used z-test.

Zcal =0.133

Ztab, 0.05 = ±1.96

Decision Rule: We accept the null hypothesis (Ho 5) since Zcal =

0.133 < ±1.96 and conclude that the correlation between
procedural conflict and survival in the manufacturing companies is
not positively significant. .

4.8 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TEST RESULTS

S/N HP. Rs or Z cal Zcr Inference Decision

Nos (computed (critical

93
 Value) value)
1. H01 1.95 ±1.96 Zcal < zcrt Accept Ho1
2. H02 2.06 ± 1.96 Zcal > zcrt Reject Ho2
3. H03 2.09 ±1.96 Zcal > zcrt Reject Ho3
4. H04 0.21 0.305 rscal<rscrt Accept Ho4
5. H05 0.133 ±1.96 Zcal< Zcrt Accept Ho5
Based on the above analytical indices, it is established that:

1. Task conflict and profitability are significantly

correlated in manufacturing companies but the effect
is not positive.

2. Task conflict and efficiency are significantly correlated

in manufacturing companies.

3. Inter-group conflict and survival are not significantly

correlated in manufacturing companies.

4. Inter-group conflict does not have any positive

influence on the profitability of manufacturing
companies

5. Procedural conflict does not have any positive

influence on the survival of manufacturing companies.

4.9 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

This study examined how industrial conflict affected

organizational performance in the manufacturing companies

in Port Harcourt. Our empirical analysis focused on sub-

independent variables of industrial conflict, namely task/role

conflict, inter-group conflict, and procedural conflict and the

sub-dependent variables, namely profitability, efficiency and

94
survival. The findings deduced from data presentation and

analysis in the preceding section is discussed below.

The first issue examined in the study was the nature and

extent of industrial conflict as well as how it affected

organizational performance in the aspects of profitability,

efficiency and survival. It was found in the study that

task/role conflict, inter-group and procedural conflicts

actually occurred in all the manufacturing companies

surveyed. The one that recorded highest frequency was inter-

group conflict and this was represented by the mean score of

4.3 followed by task/role conflict and procedural conflict. This

finding is supported by the work of many scholars and

researchers as reviewed in literature that conflict is part of

organizational life because of social relations in the work

place. Thus, it was not surprising that conflicts associated

with job roles and tasks, disagreement among employees,

managers, departments of well as those associated with work

procedures were common in manufacturing companies as in

other organizations. This is because of difference in opinions,

orientation, shared and limited resources , etc.

95
 The second issue examined in the study was the

performance of manufacturing companies. It revealed in the

study that profitability, efficiency and survival were very

important aspects of their corporate performance. Profitability

was the most emphasized area as reflected by the mean score

of 4.33. Other important criteria were survival and efficiency.

This finding is in line with Lugel (2004) and other published

works on corporate objectives of business organizations that

profitability and survival are very important objectives of

business organizations. It is through profits that a

manufacturing company can meet its obligation to

stakeholders and make good returns on its investment, which

among other things, derives from the efficiency of the firm. By

this finding, the research question as to what constitutes the

performance of manufacturing companies is therefore

construed to have been addressed or answered.

The next issue investigated in the study was how

task/role conflict affected organizational performance. Most of

the respondents as reflected by the means score of 4 point

indicated that task/role conflict affected corporate

96
profitability, efficiency and survival negatively through

overlapping/ambiguous responsibilities, disagreement

between employees and management about job composition.

Efficiency and survival of the firms were also negatively

impacted by sustained conflict which sometimes led to

confusion, waste and disharmony in the organizations. The

finding also implies that the way manufacturing companies

resolve task/role conflict affect the performance of the

organizations. The finding is corroborated by Mills (2003) who

observed a decline in his organization's profit where he served

as supervisor for 3 years. The conflict which involved unclear

definition of job created confusion and misunderstanding

between employees and management. This finding was also

reinforced by hypothesis test which established that task/role

conflict corrected with profitability and efficiency, but

influence was not positive on the organizational performance

of the manufacturing companies.

The implication of the finding is that tasks and job roles

should be well-defined so that employees can perform their

assigned roles and tasks effectively.

97
 Another issue examined in the study was how inter-

group conflict affected the performance of manufacturing

companies in the areas profitability, efficiency and survival. It

was the view of most respondents as shown in our data

analysis that inter-group conflict often occurred in their

organizations with attendant negative effect on profitability,

efficiency and survival. This most of the times, were

occasioned by poor allocation of organizational resources,

disharmony and incohesion among employees, managers,

especially when the disputants in the conflict pushed their

own positions to the extreme at the expense of the

organization. Worst still, when the organizations did not

establish outlets for people to blow off steam without

damaging the structure of the organization.

This finding is also in harmony with existing literature as

Johnnie and Nwazine (2000) asserted that inter-group conflict

in many organizations had cumulated into strike, plant shut-

down which adversely affected productivity, profitability and

efficiency in the short run, and if not amicably resolved, in the

long run. It is common knowledge that inter-group conflict

98
often occurs between sales and production departments. Sales

may require more products to meet customers’ orders, while

production and finance will favour limited quality because of

costs of overstocking. Employees and management also clash

as a result of inability to reach a peaceful compromise on

condition of service. When such conflict is sustained, it is the

organizations that suffer. In fact, hypothesis test result

established that inter-group conflict affected organizational

performance, but the effect was not a positive one.

The last issue examined in the study was how the conflict

arising from work procedures and rules affected the

performance of manufacturing organizations. As our data

analysis shows, most respondents indicated that overlapping

of tasks, responsibilities and authority threatened work

boundaries and created disharmony among employees and

departments which affected profitability adversely.

Disagreement arising from non-compliance to established

rules and policies was found to have created

misunderstanding and disaffection among employees and

managers which hurt efficiency and survival of the firms.

99
 This was not surprising because any organization that is

characterized by non-compliance to laid rules and regulations

and where due process is not followed in material requisition,

material purchase, promotion and remuneration will

experience incohesion with attendant decline in productivity,

efficiency, profitability and survival.

Morsen has observed that conflict between managers, or

among employees sometimes derive from disagreement as to

whether the right procedures was followed in reward and

punishment, as well as in conducting organizational activities.

He believed that over-invoicing and graft in many

organizations have also led to conflict which reduced

organizational profit and survival. Thus, the test of hypothesis

confirmed that procedural conflict, especially of sustained

nature did not have any positive effect on efficiency and

survival of the firms.

From the foregoing, it stands to reason that the

procedural conflict and organizational performance are

negatively correlated. In other words, procedural conflict does

not have positive impact on profitability, efficiency and

100
survival of the manufacturing firms although there was a

linkage between the variables. This explains why most

companies try to ensure that conflict is not allowed to thrive in

their organizations because of the actual or perceived negative

influence.

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has made some revelations on the nature of

relationship between industrial conflict and organizational

performance in the Nigerian manufacturing sector. The

findings of this study are summarized as follows:-

101
1. Most of the conflicts in manufacturing companies were

in the areas of inter-group conflict, task/role conflict

and procedural conflict which occurred frequently.

2. Profitability was the most emphasized aspect of

organizational performance of manufacturing

companies followed by survival and efficiency.

3. Task conflict affected profitability, efficiency and

survival adversely through disagreement arising from

overlapping/ambiguous responsibilities, disagreement

between management and employees on job

composition and poor definition and unclear job

issues.

4. The way and strategies used by management in

resolving job-related conflicts affected the profitability,

efficiency and survival of manufacturing organizations

negatively.

5. Inter-group conflict had a negative effect on the

profitability, efficiency and survival of manufacturing

companies through poor allocation of organizational

resources, disunity and disharmony among employees

102
 and management, irreconcilable self interests of

disputants in the conflict and absence of outlets

through which disputants could blow off steam

without damaging the structure and survival of the

organizations.

6. The way and strategies adopted by management in

resolving inter-group conflict affect their organizational

performance.

7. Procedural conflict had an adverse affect on the

efficiency and survival of manufacturing companies

through disagreement arising from overlapping of

responsibilities and authority which threatened work

boundaries with attendant disharmony and

disaffection among employees and departments.

8. Similarly, disagreement arising from non-compliance

to laid-down rules and procedures in business

operations, rewards and punishment created

misunderstanding; disharmony and communication

breakdown which hurt corporate profitability and

efficiency in the manufacturing sector.

103
 9. The way in which management in manufacturing

companies resolved procedural conflicts greatly

influenced their level of survival.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY

It has been established that conflict is part of human

existence at family, communal, industrial or national level.

Contrary to popular opinion, conflict does not always conjure

a negative connotation. Positive changes have been known to

have resulted from conflicts in industrial organizations, for

example, workers resort to strike as the last resort to press

home their demands for a better deal. More often than not,

they succeed. However, the perception of most

managers/workers in the organized private sector of which the

manufacturing firm is a major component is that conflict,

though, it sometimes, occurs, is not in the best interest of the

organizations. The views of managers/workers in the

manufacturing sector were not different.

In the light of the findings of the study, it is concluded

that industrial conflicts significantly affects organizational

104
performance, mostly negatively. Thus, sustained task/role

conflict does not have any positive influence on the

profitability, efficiency and survival of manufacturing

companies. The study also concludes that sustained inter-

group conflict does not any positive influence on the

profitability on the profitability, efficiency and survival of

manufacturing companies. The study should also like to

conclude that sustained procedural conflict does not have any

positive influence on the profitability, efficient and survival of

manufacturing companies.

While the researcher makes the above conclusions on the

basis of research findings, it should be noted that conflict is

not altogether negative, but management/workers in

manufacturing sector perceived that negative effects of

industrial conflict far outweighed its advantages. It is for this

reason that efforts and attempts are always made to resolve it

promptly so that organizational efficiency and profitability are

negatively affected.

105
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Most empirical studies and analysis always include the

normative components of what ought to be, based on the

findings. This particular study cannot be an exception.

In the light of the findings and conclusions of the study,

the following recommendations are made that:

1. Management should encourage unionization and the

protection of workers interest in their organizations as

a means of addressing the incident of incessant inter-

group conflict.

2. Jobs responsibilities and authority should be well-

defined to remove ambiguity which often creates

conflict. To this end, it is recommended that

management should have a documented policy of

which every employee is aware of what is expected of

him or her in the organization.

106
 3. Job boundaries should be established so that a

department’s tasks should not overlap with those of

other departments.

4. System of discipline should be put in place to ensure

that organizational members abide by work

procedures, regulations and rules to avoid procedural

conflict.

5.4 SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

In the light of the scope and limitation of this study, the

researcher suggests the following areas for further research.

 Conflict management strategies and organizational

effectiveness in the manufacturing sector

 Employee participation and organizational

performance in the manufacturing sector

 Organizational characteristics and industrial conflicts.

REFERENCES

Ademola, U.H. (2003) Conflict Management Strategies of

Nigeria Public Sector Organizations, Business Today,
No. 2 Vol 4, Lagos, Top Print Comm. Ltd., P. 44.
107
Ahiauzu, A.I. (1984) “Cross-Cultural Study of Job Regulation at
Workplace Analysis”, Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 19 No. 3 Pp. 295-329.

Baridam, D.M. (2002) Management and Organization

Development, Port Harcourt Shembroke P. 300.

Batostone, E. Boraston, I. and Fremkel, S. (1993) Shop

Stewards in Action, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, P. 311.

Burton, J. and Dukes, E. (1996) Conflict: Practices in

Management, Settlement and Resolution, Glencoe,
III Press.

Clegg, I. (1996) Worker’s Self-Management in Algeria, Allen

Lane, London. P. 125.

Cole, M. and Scribner, S. (1999) Culture and Thought: A

Psychological Introduction, John Willey and Sons,
New York.

Daniel, J.W. (2001) Bargaining in Grievance Settlement: The

Power of Industrial Work Groups, Columbia
University Press, New York.

Daniel, W.W.W. (1969) “Industrial Behaviour and Orientation to

Work”, Journal of Management Studies. Pp. 75-366.

Drucker, P. (1997) The Practice of Management, London,

Heinemann Books Ltd, P. 362.

Dunlop, J. (1975) “Political Systems and Industrial Relations”.

In Barett et al (eds): Industrial Relations and Wider
Society, Open University and Collier Macmillan,
London Pp. 363-373.

Eldridge, J.E.T. (1968): Industrial Disputes, Rutledge and

Regan Paul, London.

108
Eze, H.I. (2003) Conflict Management in Business
Organizations in Nigeria, Journal of Management,
Vo. 49 No. P 24.

Fashoyin, T. (1990) Industrial Relations in Nigeria, Longman,

London.

Flanders, A. (1965) Industrial Relations: What Wrong with the

System? Faber and Faber, London: In Johnnie,
(1988:6): Industrial Relations in the Workplace.

Fox, A. (1971:64) Sociology of Work in Industry, Collier

Macmillan, London. P. 64.

Fuella, M.O. (2005) “Conflict and Employee Satisfaction” in

Organizational Development, Management Today, No
3, P. 215.

Goldthrope, T.H. Lockwood D. Bechhofer, F. and Platt, J.

(1999) Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and
Behavior, Cambridge University Press, London.

Griffin, J.I. (1989) Strikes: A Study in Quantitative Economics,

Columbia University Press, New York. P. 228.

Horace, W. (2003) Management: Theory and Practice, New

York, McGraw-Hill Inc, P. 78.

Hyman, R. (1997) “Pluralism, Procedural Consensus and

Collective Bargaining”. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 16 No. 1 Pp16-40.

Jackson, D. (1979) “The Disappearance of Strikes in

Tanzanians: Income Policy and Industrial
Democracy”, The Journal of Modern African Studies,
Vol. 17 Pp. 219-251.

109
Johnnie, P.B. and Nwasike J.N. (2002), Organizational
Behaviour and Advanced Management Thought (An
Epistemological Analysis), Lagos, Lagos University of
Lagos Press P. 65.

Kerr, C. (1994) “The Model of a Trade Union”, in E.W. Bake and

C. Kerr (Ed), Union, Management and the Public,
Brace and Co., Columbia University Press, New
York.

Newman, T. (2002) “Participatory Management and

Organizational Performance: Conflict Resolution and
Employee Involvement” “Psychology Today”, Vol 6.,
No 10. P. 210.

Obone, W. (1979) Management, Chicago, The Dryden Press, P.

29.
Quale, C.J. (2000) What Do We Mean By Industrial Relations”:
A Behavioural Science Approach”, British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 17, Pp. 110-112.
Thomas, R.D. (1992) “Forced Labour in British West Africa: The
Case of the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast
1906-1927”, Journal of Africa History; Vol. 14 No 1.
Pp. 79-103.
Umoren, U.K. (2004) Management 2nd Ed., Lagos, Hdx Comm
Ltd. P.

Uzoma, V. (2001) Industrial Conflict in the Public Sector and

Affects of Strike on the Nigerian Economy: The
Manager, September, No. 8. Sterling Publishers Ltd.
P. 66.
Walkon, K.F. (1989) “Workers Participation in Management,
London, Macmillan. P. 73.

110
 Post Graduate School
Rivers State University
Of Science and Technology
Nkpolu, Port Harcourt
21st December, 2008

Dear Sir/Madam

111
Your organization has been selected as one of the
manufacturing companies to participate in this study, which
seeks to examine how industrial conflict affects your
performance. The study is purely an academic exercise whose
finding will benefit your organization on effective conflict
management for profitable operation.

You are therefore, requested to complete the attached

questionnaire with objective and honest information to enable
me conduct the study successfully. I wish to assure you that
any information provided will be treated with utmost
confidentiality.

Thanks for your understanding and co-operation

Yours faithfully,

SADIAT ABIOLA ADETUNJI (Researcher)

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE ON INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN MANUFACTURING
COMPANIES

112
Please tick (√) in the appropriate box and make comments
where necessary

SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Name of manufacturing company:…………………………
2. Address/location of the company:…………………………
3. Ownership structure: Indigenous ( ) Foreign ( )
4. Age of the organization ( )
5. Number of employees in the organization………………..
………………………………………………………………………
6. Product manufactured by the companies…………………
……………………………………………………………………..
7. Product and utilization capacity of the company:
Please indicate…………………………………………………..
8. Number of branches……………………………………………
9. Annual sales (in #)……………………………………………..
10. Age of respondents……………………………………………..
11. Respondent’s years of service to the firm…………………
12. Dept/unit of the respondent…………………………………
13. Status/position of respondent in the company………….
14. Educational qualification of the respondents………….

SECTION B: INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT

1. Has this organization ever recorded any form of
conflict since its inception?
Yes ( ) No ( )

113
 2. If ‘yes’, to what extent has the following forms of
conflict occurred in this company?
Forms of Conflict Extent of Occurrence

Very High High Moderate Low Very None

Low
Task/role conflict
Inter-group conflict
Procedural conflict

3. What were the causes of these conflicts?

Please indicate…………………………………………………
4. Was the company able to resolve the conflict?
Yes ( ) No ( )
5. If ‘yes’, how were the conflict resolved?
6. To what extent are workers unionized in this
company?
Very large extent ( ) Large extent ( ) Moderate extent ( )
Small extent ( ) Very small extent ( ) None at all ( )
SECTION C: ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
1. How would you describe the performance of
manufacturing companies in general and your firm in
particular?
2. To what extent do you emphasize these aspects of performance in your
organization?
Dimensions of Degree of Emphasis
Organizational
Performance

114
 Very High High Moderate Low Very Low None
Profitability
Efficiency
Survival

3. Has any of these dimensions of your performance been

affected by the incidences of industrial conflict in this
company?
Yes ( ) No ( )

SECTION D: LINKAGE BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT

AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
This part of the questionnaire is designed to measure how
industrial conflicts in the procedural of task conflict, inter-
group conflict and procedural conflict affects organizational
performance along the lures profitability, efficiency and
survival. You will fund a number of general statements with a
set of possible responses such as Strongly Agree (SA) = 5;
Agree (A) = 4; Disagree (SD) = 1. You are requested to tick the
best responses that approximate feeling considering the
situation of your company.

Influence of Task/Role Conflict on Profitability, Efficiency

and Survival
S/N Task/Role Conflict SA A U D SD
Organizational Performance 5 4 3 2 1
Statements
1. Overlapping/ambiguous
responsibilities causes task

115
 conflict in this organization
which affects profitability
adversely.
2. The profitability of this firm is
negatively affected when
disagreement between
employees and management
about job composition is not
addressed.
In this firm, a sustained task/
role conflict leads to confusion,
waste and imbalance which
affect the efficiency of the firm.
4. The efficiency of this firm
through cost and waste
minimization is also
attributable to disagreement
about job roles.
5. Task conflict has led to better
definitions and clarification of
issues and argument which
helps the firm to make profit
through effective
communication between
employees and management.
6. The survival of this firm is
influenced by the way
management resolves task
conflict or role ambiguity.

Influence of Inter-group Conflict on Organizational

Performance in Manufacturing Companies
S/N Inter-group Conflict and SA A U D SD
Organizational Performance 5 4 3 2 1
Statements
1. Intense inter-group conflict has led
to poor allocation of organizational
resources which limits

116
 profitability.
2. This profitability of this firm has
been affected because inter-group
conflict b/w unit causes disunity
and incohesion in the firm.
3. Conflict between departments in
this firm adversely affects the
efficiency of employees and
organization.
4. The efficiency of employee and
organization is not affected when
disputants in the conflict push
their own positions to the extreme.
5. Inter-group conflict in this firm
has led to establishment of outlets
where people can blow off steam
without damaging the structure
and survival of the organization.
6. The survival of this firm to a large
extent depends on how the
organization resolves inter-group
conflict.

Influence of Procedural Conflict on Profitability, Efficiency

and Survival

S/N Procedural Conflict and SA A U D SD

Organizational Performance 5 4 3 2 1
Statements
1. Overlapping of tasks,
responsibility and authority

117
 threaten work boundaries and
creates disharmony among
employees with negative impact
on profitability.
2. Disagreement arising from non-
compliance to established rules
and procedures creates
misunderstanding and
disaffection b/w employees and
managers which hurt corporate
efficiency.
3. The profitability of this firm is
hurt through waste and over-in
voicing when laid-down
procedures and rules are not
adhered to.
4. The efficiency of this firm is
negatively affected arising from
disagreement over due process
and procedures.
5. Disagreement over work
procedure in this firm has a
negative impact on the survival of
this firm.
6. The survival depends among
other things on how the company
handles disagreement arising
from work procedures, rules and
regulations.

ABSTRACT

Industrial conflicts have become major characteristics of modern

organizations, which experts believe have some implications for
organizational performance. This study, therefore, examined how
industrial conflict affected the organizational performance of
manufacturing companies in Port Harcourt. The procedure involved data
collection from 30 respondents from 18 functional manufacturing

118
companies operating in Port Harcourt through the use of questionnaire.
Secondary data were obtained from textbooks, journals, magazines and
the internet. A summary of the analyzed data revealed that industrial
conflict actually occurred in many manufacturing companies as
expressed by task conflict, inter-group conflict and procedural conflict
and that those conflicts did not have any significant and positive effect or
influence on the performance of the organizations in the areas of
profitability, efficiency and survival. The study concluded since conflict
was perceived as being unfavourable and detrimental to the firms’
operations, industrial conflicts, whatever may be its advantages, were
not perceived as significant, hence efforts were made by
management/workere to resolve it whenever it occurred. The study
therefore, recommended, among other things, a continuous dialogue
between aggrieved parties where issues could be addressed so that it
does not graduate into conflict.

FUNCTIONAL LARGE-SCALE MANUFACTURING

ACCOUNTANTS COMPANIES IN PORT HARCOURT

1. New China Rubber and Plastics Co. Ltd

2. Eastern Bulkcom Ltd.
3. Dangote Cement Co. Ltd.
119
 4. Ibeto Cement Company Ltd.
5. Zenith Plastic Ltd.
6. Rivoc Company Ltd
7. New Engineering Works
8. Indoramal (Formerly, EPCL)
9. Dufil Primie Foods Ltd)
10. First Aluminum Plc
11. Eastern Enamel Wares (Nig.) Ltd.
12. Eastern Wrought Iron Ltd.
13. Crocodile Machete (Nig) Ltd.
14. Pabod Breweries Ltd
15. RisonPalm
16. Nigerian Bottling Companies (NBC)
17. PZ Industries
18. General Agro-Allied Industrial Ltd.

Source: SearchField Survey Report on

Manufacturing Companies in Port Harcourt, Novembe

120