Institutional context and human resource management in Nigeria
| Date | 06 January 2020 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2017-0056 |
| Pages | 1-16 |
| Published date | 06 January 2020 |
| Author | Darius Ikyanyon,Phil Johnson,Jeremy Dawson |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Institutional context and human
resource management in Nigeria
Darius Ikyanyon, Phil Johnson and Jeremy Dawson
Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore how the institutional context influences human resource
management (HRM) policies in the public and private sector in Nigeria.
Design/methodology/approach –The convergent parallel mixed methods approach was adopted for this
study. Survey data were collected from 122 HR managers across public and private sector organizations in
Nigeria as well as 13 qualitative interviews. ANCOVA was used to analyse quantitative data while thematic
analysis was used to analyse qualitative data in order to understand the influence of institutions on HRM in
the public and private sector in Nigeria.
Findings –Findings indicate that while coercive, mimetic and normative institutional mechanisms
influenced HRM in both the public and private sector, the influence of coercive mechanisms was significantly
higher in the public sector, largely due to the poor enforcement of labour legislation and attempts by private
sector organizations to adopt neo-liberal approaches to HRM.
Originality/value –The study provides an understanding of the institutional context of HRM in Nigeria by
highlighting how varying degrees of pressures from the environment create internal diversity in HRM
approaches in the public and private sector.
Keywords Nigeria, Institutions, HRM, Neo-liberalism, Public and private sector
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Practitioners and academics alike have come to realize that human resource management
(HRM) is context-dependent (Brewster and Mayrhofer, 2012). Differences in socio-cultural
and institutional environments among countries present organizations with different
approaches to work organization and HRM ( Jackson and Schuler, 1995; Wood et al., 2012).
This implies that HRM practices differ from context to context and the success of HRM
practices in a particular country does not guarantee success in other countries (Budhwar
and Debrah, 2001). Thus, the need for researchers to understand the factors that shape HRM
in different contexts, especially in emerging countries, is crucial. This is because whilst
globalization has facilitated the transfer of HRM practices from Anglo–Saxon developed
countries to emerging countries (Anakwe, 2002), there are complexities and challenges
associated with HRM in different contexts (Horwitz and Budhwar, 2015). Consequently,
there is renewed interest in the understanding of HRM in emerging economies (Horwitz and
Budhwar, 2015). This interest is spurred by the fact that many emerging countries have
liberalized their economies and opened their markets to foreign investors. Adding to this is
the increased internationalization of business and increased national and international
competition among firms, as well as the growth of emerging markets themselves (Debrah
and Budhwar and Debrah, 2001; Okpara and Wynn, 2008; Horwitz and Budhwar, 2015).
Thus, understanding the nature of HRM in emerging markets will aid the development of
approaches for the effective management of human resources in such contexts and also
contribute towards the development of HRM theories (Horwitz and Budhwar, 2015).
Authors have observed that most writings on HRM in Africa adopt cultural frameworks
that seek to highlight differences in cultural values between Africa and developed countries
(Kamoche et al., 2012; Cooke et al., 2015). Whilst these writings provide insights on HRM in
Africa generally, the preeminent role of institutions in shaping HRM (Vaiman and Brewster,
2015), coupled with the cultural diversity between and within African countries ( Jackson,
2004; Bischoff and Wood, 2012), has necessitated calls for researchers to adopt institutional
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 42 No. 1, 2020
pp. 1-16
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-03-2017-0056
Received 9 March 2017
Revised 29 January 2018
25 April 2018
Accepted 26 April 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
1
Institutional
context and
HRM in
Nigeria
frameworks to provide a better understanding of HRM in Africa (Cooke et al., 2015; Wood
et al., 2011). The present research seeks to bridge this gap by exploring the role of
institutions in shaping HRM practices in Nigeria. Indeed, an examination of HRM in Nigeria
from an institutional perspective is very important given the generally weak nature of
institutions in Nigeria and Africa at large. Thus, it is expected that the recommendations
emanating from the findings of the current study will be useful in engineering positive
institutional change for optimal performance of organizations, thereby enhancing national
prosperity (Bischoff and Wood, 2012).
Moreover, despite the World Bank and IMF-influenced economic policies that have
resulted in structural adjustments and privatization of previous state-owned enterprises in
many African countries (Dibben and Wood, 2013), the public sector remains the largest
formal employer of labour in most African countries (Ellis et al., 2015). Unfortunately, most
writings on HRM in Africa emphasize commercial firms to the neglect of public sector
organizations. Additionally, the differences between public and private organizations in
terms of ownership, sources of funding and mode of social control (Rainey, 2014) indicate
that public and private organizations operate under different contexts. These differences
provide a fertile ground for within-country comparison of the forces that shape HRM
practices in both sectors. It is based on the forgoing that this study seeks to explore the
influence of institutions on HRM practices within the context of the public and private sector
in Nigeria. Our research is, however, focused on four HRM practices –staffing, training,
rewards and employee participation –which represent the key practices that are present in
many organizations.
Institutions and HRM
There are different institutional approaches to understanding HRM (see Wood et al., 2012).
Whilst each institutional framework has shortcomings, it is advisable for researchers to
combine different institutional frameworks in order to understand the nature of institutions
from multiple lenses (Burbach and Royle, 2014). For instance, property rights theorists are
concerned with the economic efficiency of nations by strengtheningthe rights of owners and
weakening employees’rights (North,1990; Botero et al., 2004). Moreover, the sociological new
institutionalism emphasizes how organizations conform to theirinstitutional environments in
order to gain legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). New institutionalism suggeststhat the
behaviour of organizations is influenced by coercive, mimetic and normative institutional
mechanisms (DiMaggio and Powell,1983; Paauwe and Boselie, 2007). InHRM terms, coercive
mechanisms may emanate from regulatory pressures, influence of social pressures such as
trade unions, works councils and government regulation whilst mimetic mechanisms result
from the imitationof HRM practices from competitors whenfaced with risk and uncertainty.
On the other hand, normative mechanisms stem from employees’professional groups in the
organization (cf. Paauwe and Boselie, 2007).
Whilst property rights theory and new institutionalism are broadly classified as rational
hierarchical models of institutions in that they view institutions as providers of incentives to
firms, namely the protection of private property and the achievement of legitimacy
respectively (Wood et al., 2012), comparative institutional theories are concerned with how
certain institutional features of countries influence the nature of the relationship between
organizations and various stakeholders. Among the theories in this category are the
varieties of capitalism approach (Hall and Soskice, 2001) and business system theory
(Whitley, 1999). Whilst the former divides advanced countries into liberal and coordinated
markets and seeks to understand how the features of these economies influence people
management practice, the latter compares countries based on the means of ownership, the
extent of competition among firms and the nature of the relationship between managers and
employees (cf. Wood et al., 2011).
2
ER
42,1
To continue reading
Request your trial