British and US Owners Expansion to Nigeria Essay Read the following article in the Library Resources link: George, O. J., Kuye, O. L., & Onokala, U. C. (2

British and US Owners Expansion to Nigeria Essay Read the following article in the Library Resources link:

George, O. J., Kuye, O. L., & Onokala, U. C. (2012). Culture and management practices are siamese twins: The case of employee relations practice in Nigeria (Cadbury Nigeria Plc) and the United Kingdom (Cadbury Worldwide UK). Business and Management Review, 2(2), 9-22.

After reading the article, identify the relevant concepts and approaches in Chapters 6 and 7 of your text (Briscoe, et al., 2015) to discuss the article’s case study and findings in terms of

the main obstacles the British company faced in transferring HR/ER practices to Nigeria and
develop your own recommendations for the new U.S. owners regarding which issues and solutions they should concentrate on going forward based on the Briscoe, et al. concepts and approaches.

The total number of words for both of these items should be 500-750.

Rubric

803 Rubric

803 Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOverall ContentExcellent: Excellent selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop an in-depth and critical analysis of the topic. Strong demonstration of a critical understanding of lesson materials. Draws insightful conclusions thoroughly grounded in relevant theory. Excellent use of relevant evidence to support analysis and discussion. Good: Very good selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop a good level of analysis of the topic. Satisfactory: Adequate selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop some analysis. Needs Improvement: Inappropriate, poor, or no use of lesson tools and concepts and failure to develop a coherent analysis.

10.0 pts

Excellent

7.0 pts

Good

3.0 pts

Satisfactory

0.0 pts

Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysisExcellent: Provides a critical analysis and well structured discussion, including diagnostic tools. Demonstrates an excellent ability to compare, contrast, and critique the available information. Good: Discursive but somewhat critical analysis. Demonstrates adequate ability to compare, contrast, and critique the available information. Satisfactory: Little or no critical analysis. Demonstrates a limited ability to compare, contrast, and critique available information. Needs Improvement: Lacking critical analysis. No attempt to compare, contrast, and critique available information.

10.0 pts

Excellent

7.0 pts

Good

3.0 pts

Satisfactory

0.0 pts

Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecommendationsExcellent: Well thought out recommendations with logical justification that flows clearly from the analysis. Fully explores measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations and provides a contingency plan. Good: Appropriate recommendations with justification that flows clearly from the analysis. Identifies some measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations and considers contingency. Satisfactory: Limited recommendations for improvements with some justification that flows somewhat from the analysis. Suggests measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations. Needs Improvement: Minimal or lack of recommendations with no justification that may minimally flow from the analysis. Limited or no identification of measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations.

10.0 pts

Excellent

7.0 pts

Good

3.0 pts

Satisfactory

0.0 pts

Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflectionExcellent: Provides excellent personal reflection to demonstrate greater insight and understanding. Spends an appropriate amount of time addressing each assignment aspect. Well structured connections between sections, developing a strong, logical structure that is easy to follow. Good: Very good and appropriate personal reflection to enhance insight and understanding. Adequately addresses most assignment aspects. Very good connections between sections to develop a somewhat logical structure. Satisfactory: Personal reflection included but could be further developed in more appropriate areas. Poorly addresses each assignment aspect. Some connections between components to develop a generally coherent structure. Needs Improvement: Limited or no personal reflection or reflection of little relevance to the issue. Significant omissions or unequal time addressing assignment components. Poor or no connections between components with an illogical or incoherent structure.

10.0 pts

Excellent

7.0 pts

Good

3.0 pts

Satisfactory

0.0 pts

Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentationExcellent: Presentation enhances the logical structure of the arguments (larger assignments include creative and appropriate use of graphical and tabular presentation to support analysis). Where applicable, all figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Accurate referencing using the APA referencing system. Word count within allowed range. Good: Presentation that supports some of the arguments at a glance. Where applicable, most figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Word count within allowed range (+/-10%). Satisfactory: Presentation supports few arguments. Where applicable, some figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Word count within 20% above or below allowed range. Needs Improvement: Poor presentation with that does not support the arguments or there is no use or overuse of presentation formats. Incorrectly captioned figures and tables with no discussion in text or no figures and tables used. Limited or no referencing or failure to understand the concept of referencing. Word count 40% above or below allowed range.

10.0 pts

Excellent

7.0 pts

Good

3.0 pts

Satisfactory

0.0 pts

Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

Total Points: 50.0 Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the
reproduction of copyrighted material.
Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are permitted to
furnish a reproduction if used for “private study, scholarship or research.” A second
condition is that only single articles or chapters of a work totaling no more than 15% of
the total number of pages be reproduced. Any use of a reproduction that exceeds these
guidelines may be considered copyright infringement.
This institution reserves the right to refuse any request for reproduction that is
deemed a violation of current copyright guidelines.
This material has been reproduced from the following source:
George, O. J., et al. Culture and management practices are siamese twins: The case
of employee relations practice in Nigeria (Cadbury Nigeria Plc) and the United
Kingdom (Cadbury Worldwide UK). Business and Management Review. 2(2). 2012.
pp. 9-22.
Date prepared: 02/13/2018
This material is presented for use solely by authorized faculty and students of the
Pennsylvania State University. Further reproduction or distribution of this material is
expressly prohibited.
This material may be made available in alternative media upon request. Please contact
Course Reserves Services at libraryreserves@psu.edu or by phone at (814) 863-0324.
If you are experiencing problems viewing or printing this document, please visit
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/reserves/usingereserves.html for troubleshooting
information. If further assistance is required, please send a description of the problem
to libraryreserves@psu.edu that includes the course and instructor for which the
material is on reserve, as well as the title of the material.
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(2) pp. 09 – 22 April, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 – 0398
Culture and Management Practices are Siamese Twins:
The Case of Employee Relations Practice in Nigeria (Cadbury Nigeria Plc) and the United Kingdom
(Cadbury Worldwide UK)
Olusoji James George
Department of Business Administration, University of Lagos
Lagos State, Nigeria
E-mail: eniolasojigeorge2@yahoo.com
Owolabi Lateef Kuye (Corresponding author)
Department of Business Administration, University of Lagos
Lagos State, Nigeria
E-mail: labikuye@yahoo.com
Uchechi Chioma Onokala
Department of Business Administration, University of Lagos
Lagos State, Nigeria
E-mail: ucheonokala@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Researches into the relationship between culture and management practices are recently dominating the
management practices literature especially with the current impact of globalisation, multi-nationalisation and
internationalisation of businesses. This study examines the impact of culture on management practices with
special reference to employment relations practices in Nigeria and the United Kingdom. This was achieved
through a case study of employment relations practice in Cadbury (Nigeria) Plc and Cadbury (UK) Plc while
employing semi-structured interviews. A review of the extant literature on culture and management practices
revealed a dearth of literature on comparative study of employment relations practice (and other management
practices) between the developed (e.g. UK) countries and the developing countries (e.g. Nigeria). Previous
researches were focussed mainly on comparative study of employment relations practice (and other
management practices) between the economically developed countries of the world. This study is an attempt to
fill the gap in the literature. The study relied on Cadbury Worldwide (Cadbury UK and Cadbury Nigeria) as the
case study. The findings relying on narrative analysis established a strong relationship between culture and
employment relations practice (and other management practices). The study concludes that it is impossible to
formulate a template of employment relations practices (and other management practices) with the intention of
transferring same from one country or cultural area to another country or another cultural area.
Keywords: culture, diffusion of culture, employment relations practice, management practices, multinational
enterprises, Nigeria, United Kingdom.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Culture has been variously defined as the way of life of a group of people (Akporherhe, 2002). Olurode (1994)
suggests that culture is that whole, which includes knowledge, belief, art, moral, law, custom and other
capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of the society. Geertz (1973) proposes that culture is the
entire way of life of a people, including their technology and material artefacts. This is not to overlook the fact
that cultures do undergo constant change as people are more or else forced to adjust to new environments and
new ways of doing things (Steward, 1972). Swindler (1986) concludes that culture consists of such figurative
vehicles of meaning, including beliefs, ritual practices, art form and ceremonies, as well as informal cultural
practices such as language, gossip, stories and rituals. Becker (1986:13) acknowledges that culture ‘explains
how people act in concert when they do share understanding’
Culture is one of the major determinants of how people think and behave (Kessapidou and Varsakelis, 2002).
Hofstede (1991) comes up with an analogy between culture and mental programming; he submits that culture is
the patterns of feeling, thinking and acting to mental programmes which constitute what he referred to as the
9
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(2) pp. 09 – 22 April, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 – 0398
software of the mind. Culture he said is the collective programming of the mind which differentiates the
members of one group or category of people from another.
Edwards et al (2004:1) suggest that ‘one of the key aspects of the role of multinational companies (MNCs) as
employers is their ability to diffuse management practices across borders’ and that this process not only has the
potential to drive change in national employment systems but can also influence, both positively and negatively,
the competitive position of the firms themselves’. Edwards et al (2004:1) admit that the diffusion of
management practices is ‘a crucial test of how MNCs integrate the operations across quite distinct national
systems’.
Edwards et al (2004:3) further suggested that MNCs ‘bear the legacy of the culture of the country of origin and
the nature and extent of diffusion is shaped by this as well as the cultures of the host countries in which they
operate’. The attitudes and values prevalent in a country tend to restrain the ability of a multinational company
to engage in the diffusion of management practices in general and employment relations in particular (Tayeb,
1998). A study by Bae et al. (1998) demonstrated how culture shapes the diffusion of employment relations
practice especially how the culture of the home countries gives a new identity to the MNCs.
The major limitations to the cultural theoretical approach are: (1) the way culture is usually captured as in
Hofstede’s (1980) work which erroneously assume cultural homogeneity within a country (see McSweeney,
2002). In this paper, the former British colonial masters assumed that all the ethnic groups merged together to
become one are culturally homogeneous; this is to infer that Nigeria has one homogeneous culture.
Unfortunately, this is very wrong. In actual fact the over 250 ethnic groups merged to become one country were
from different cultural backgrounds (Horowitz, 1985). (2) It is also difficult to trace the sources of national
effects while it also failed to trace the sources of the values and attitude and how these could change over time.
In this study, the country of origin of the ERP is the United Kingdom; the multinational company during the
colonial period was Royal Niger Company, while Cadbury Worldwide, Cadbury (UK) Plc and Cadbury
(Nigeria) Plc. are the contemporary MNE’s, and the host country is Nigeria. Relying on the studies of Edwards
et al. (2004:1); Bae et al. (1998) and Tayeb, (1998), the transfer of the British Voluntarist ERP to Nigeria would
be problematic if not difficult mainly because the culture of the people in the country of origin, (UK.) is
different from the culture of the people in the country of destination, (Nigeria) just as the cultures of the people
of the various ethnic groups merged to become one Nigeria are different.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview of employment relations
Blyton and Turnbull (2004) suggest that the recent increase in the use of the term ‘employee relations’ was as a
result of the ‘disintegration’ of industrial relations system and the need to reposition the discipline in order to be
able to embrace ‘the formal and informal processes of people management in the workplace’; Debrah and
Mmieh (2009: 1555) also agree with this view. This disintegration of industrial relations is also ‘attributed to
among other things the changes in organisational environment in recent years as well as the critiques of the
theoretical underpinning of the discipline’ (Debrah and Mmieh, 2009:1555; Edwards 1995; Wajcman, 2000;
Ackers and Wilkinson, 2003). The tem ‘employee relations’ is now more popular in the literature and also used
interchangeably with HRM but the term ‘employment relations’ could be a better term (Edwards, 2003).
Employment relationship refers to the relationships that exist between employers and the employees in the
working environment, these relationships may be formal as in contracts of employment and procedural
agreements (Gallie, 1998). These relationships could also be informal as in psychological contract, which states
‘certain assumptions and expectations about what managers and employer have to offer and are willing to
deliver’ (Armstrong, 2005; 287). Employees are a significant part of the employment relationship but they are
not to be seen as commodities or just another factor of production as it is assumed under the traditional orthodox
theories of supply and demand (Budd and Bhave, 2006; Kaufman 1993).
Budd et al. (2004: 3) argue that the starting point for the treatment of the employment relationship should be the
objectives of the relationship and that in neoclassical economics the objective was reduced to ‘allocative
efficiency’. They further claimed that the unseen hands of competitive markets will point ‘self-interested
individuals towards efficient outcomes in which aggregate welfare is maximised and scarce resources are used
to their most productive ends’. They concluded that the key objective of the employment relationship is
therefore efficiency.
There are three key actors and stakeholders within a typical modern employment relationship: (1) employees
typically represented by trade unions, (2) employers often represented by the employers’ associations on an
10
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(2) pp. 09 – 22 April, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 – 0398
industrial, regional or national basis, and (3) the State and its agencies through mediations, as a public sector
employer and through labour legislations (Ciulla, 2000, Kelloway et al., 2004). According to Kochan and Katz
(1988:6) employees have diverse interests and four categories of employee interests were identified by Budd
and Bhave (2006:5-5) as follows: (i) survival and income, (ii) equity and voice, (iii) fulfilment and social
identity and (iv) power and social control. The second primary actor in the modern employment relationship is
the employer and the interests are: profit maximisation, stakeholder/shareholder, executive and manager (Budd
and Bhave, 2006:5-11).
The third major actor in the employment relationship is the State with five major roles which include regulative
roles; passing of laws regulating workers, workers’ representatives, and companies ( for example the marketbased capitalist economy) (Goddard, 2005). According to Budd and Bhave (2006: 5-16-17), the interest of the
State includes the promotion of freedom and rule of law as well as the promotion of equitable playing ground
for both the workers and their employers (Kochan et al., 1986). Employers’ role: the state is also an employer of
public sector organisations. Facilitative role; the state establishes social norms and provides support services for
the employment relationship. The structural role consists of economic policies that determine the business
environment. Finally, the constitutive role; the State determines how the employment relations is constituted;
this is achieved by the type of economic system embraced by the State.
2.2 The context of employment relations practice in the UK and Nigeria
The British Voluntarist employment relations practice was developed based on the prevailing social, political
and economic philosophy at the period of industrial revolution of the 18th and early 19th centuries in Britain
(Florence, 1957:184). This was that of laissez-faire with respects for individual liberty, which was based on the
Benthamite utilitarian principle: which postulated that the individual knew what was in his/her best interests and
if left free, would pursue and maximise those interests (Florence, 1957). This philosophy brought about
individual freedom of contracts which included the employment contract and also restrained the State from
intervening directly in employment relations practice. The forces of supply and demand were believed to be
enough to determine wages and working conditions at economically and socially acceptable levels without the
State or any other institution intervening; the State has therefore played a very minimal role in the British
employment relations system (Yesufu, 1982:31).
The rapid growth of industry in Great Britain at the end of the 18th and the early 19th centuries as well as the
relatively new modes of industrial structure contributed to the creation of the British employment relations
system, while the factory system became predominant (Briggs, 1953; Clapham, 1939). The factory system
brought about major changes in agriculture, manufacturing and mining, which had a profound effect on the
socioeconomic and cultural situation of the country.
There was a major transition from manual labour and draft animal-based economy to machine based
manufacturing, which brought about a new socio-economic organisation and system (Carlsson, 1995). The
factory system also separated employers, who in most cases were the owners of the means of production, from
the employees who were made to work together and expected to co-operate with one another in the processes of
production. The factory system economically increased total output through specialisation and economies of
scale but socially it imposed a collective personality on the production processes and ‘emphasized divergences
of interest between masters and men and which sometimes lead to open conflict between them’ (Briggs, 1953:
4).
The earlier cottage industrial system was grounded on the traditional network of social relationships which was
held together by ‘deference and hierarchy’, while the factory system tore apart existing relationships and failed
to replace them with new ones which could have influenced ‘the subordinate status of the worker while
augmenting the influence of new and often rough masters’ Bamford (1893:101-111). This was emphasised by
Bamford (1893:101-111) in an interview with an employer as he (the employer) stated that ‘this insatiable thirst
after money and power, which is now making great progress amongst mankind, will, in the end divide the
masters and workmen in this country, making the former into a set of tyrants and the latter into a fearful
multitude of moody, hateful slaves’. The cottage industry in Britain was similar to the Nigerian Paternalistic
employment relations system in that manufacturing was undertaken within the family and there was no need to
move a long distance from ones home to work. The emergence of the factory system in the UK came between
1790 and 1830 up to the onset of the Industrial Revolution (Crouzet, 1972).
The reasons for its emergence according to Crouzet (1972) and Hudson (1992) are as follows: the growth of
wealth which was derived partly from the geographical explorations as well as from growing commercial and
banking activities. Secondly, the increase in demand brought about by increase in population due to falling
11
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(2) pp. 09 – 22 April, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 – 0398
death rate and a drastic reduction in infant mortality rate; and lastly, the introduction of new products and the
development of new technology. The new factory system brought about a new spirit of order and discipline.
Marx (1930:403) comments that ‘in place of the individual machine, we now have a mechanical monster, whose
body fills the whole factory’.
The new factory system brought about centralised employment which Williamson (1998) claims brought about
more efficient production as leakages were reduced, skills were better utilised, transportation expenses were
reduced and co-ordination made easier. Landes (1969) also suggests that the factory system brought about
advanced technologies especially through the power driven technologies which required more space. Other
scholars like Marglin (1974) perceives that the factory system brought about the opportunities for greater
supervision and greater output can be extracted from workers at a lower cost which translated to more work but
less pay. The capitalists were able to take over complete control of the production process and workers were left
to decide whether to work or not to work.
This is not to conclude that there were no ‘good’ employers whose ‘goodness’ was based on religion,
paternalism or both. They realised that ‘good’ industrial/employment relations practices were good for business
(Hutt, 1926). Unfortunately the ‘good’ employers realized that the ‘bad’ employers in the same industries
especially in the textile industry were undermining their efforts and that there was little they could do other than
for government to intervene. Examples of such state interventions include: the Factory Acts of 1802, 1819,
1833, 1850 and 1853.
Employment relations in post war Britain in the 20th century developed in two distinct directions, one is the
formal practice embodied in the official institutions, and the second is the informal system, created through the
behaviour of trade unions and employers’ associations, manager’s shop stewards and workers at lower
employees level (Donovan Commission Report,1968 Paragraph 46: 2). The British voluntarist employment
relations practice is hinged on the following principles: the first is that priority is accorded to collective
bargaining over other methods of external job regulation (Flanders, 1970: 94). The main feature is that trade
unions and employers through their associations act as ‘joint authors of rules which are made to regulate
employment contracts and —- their own relations’ (Flanders, 1970:95). Both parties may solicit for the use of
third party assistance for conciliation, mediation, and arbitration purposes to reach agreements. The second
principle is that ‘the British system of industrial relations has traditionally accorded a priority to voluntary over
compulsory procedural rules for collective bargaining’ (Ibid 1970:96): Kahn-Freund (1954) referred to this as
collective laissez-faire. The third principle is that ‘the parties to collective bargaining have generally preferred to
build their relations more on their procedural (rather) than on their substantive rules’ (Flanders, 1970:98…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment