## I. INTRODUCTION Organisational crisis has become almost routine in contemporary times, occurring on a scale not previously encountered, and it is obvious that the rising organisational crisis as well as its management has the centrality of leadership. It is argued that the nature of leadership in Nigeria public sector is prone to organisational crisis not properly managed (Daniel, 2019). Mohammed and Shittu (2020) emphasize that leadership is an essential element in any organisation; but that leadership in Nigeria is camouflaged and undermined of its significance as 'the process of inspiring and carrying other individuals along, to gain their support and cooperation at achieving common goals'. This has raised research interest regarding the nexus between leadership subterfuge, collective bargaining, and organisational crisis management, especially in the organisational context of public universities replete with industrial conflicts (Danjuma, 2021). On the 9th of March 2020, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) in Nigeria embarked on an indefinite strike over government's failure to address outstanding issues in their memorandum of understanding (William, 2020). This led to a complete breakdown in academic activities for the country's major institutions of higher learning; described as a grave organisational crisis owing to the psychological, emotional, and material impacts exerted on students, teachers, parents, and the general society. The crisis was exacerbated by the surge in the COVID pandemic as Nigeria public schools lacked functional mechanisms for online learning (Azubuike, Adegboye and Quadri, 2021). Though the strike was suspended after 9 months following agreements reached between government and ASUU on December 22, 2020, with the signing of a new memorandum of understanding; nonetheless, most of the universities lost the 2020 academic section. Moreover, the crisis seems unabated till date, with incessant warnings from ASUU of imminent strike actions (Danjuma, 2021). Nicholas (2018) expose that when the interest of either or both of the parties involved in industrial relations is unsatisfied, organizational crisis becomes imminent. Organisational crisis is used to describe any form of work dissatisfaction that can manifest in several ways such as absenteeism, strike action, industrial unrest, high labour turnover, and industrial boycott among others (Osabuohien and Ogunrinola, 2020). Ekene and Samuel (2022) succinctly notes that organisational crisis affects the immediate parties involved, which normally trickles down to the entire society especially when it occurs at a national level. This is typical of the Nigerian public domain where the interest of the government, represented by management and those of the employees, represented by the unions are virtually diametrically opposed at all times. Within the context of this study, the Academic Staff Union of Universities known with the acronym ASUU is the union body instituted in 1965 as employees' representative, to push for better welfare for its members and protect the academic interest of the university system (Eric, 2016). Data reveal that Nigerian universities have generally embarked on strike for one of every five years since 1999, while Nigerian lecturers through ASUU have gone on strike 15 times in the past 22 years (Yusuf, 2021). The causality of this persistent organisational crisis is attributed to leadership subterfuge and most recently in the last two years, as ASUU demonstrate that they would no longer rely on deceits and pledges of the stalled implementation of the December 23, 2020, Memorandum of Association by the government (Danjuma, 2021). Leadership subterfuge describes the direct and/or indirect behavioral deception of leaders in projecting the opposite of what they claim to be and actually manifest (Fidelis and Ezika, 2021). Wahab (2018) disclosed that the university union (i.e., ASUU) and the Federal Government of Nigeria are always in conflict over funding of the Nigerian Universities, better working condition among other ASUU demands. Collective bargaining is deemed the means by which abuse of power is prevented between parties in the employment relationship (CIPD, 2017). It ought to serve as a veritable organisational crisis management tool for resolving workplace conflict between labour and management as well as the determination of terms and conditions of employment. Suffice to argue that collective bargaining is fundamental to organizational crisis management as a tool through which regu-lated manageability can be achieved. Against this backdrop, this study is carried out to explore the implication of leadership subterfuge on collective bargaining and organisational crisis management, so as to provide stimulating insights on plausible ways organisations can cope with certain complex situations from an operational point of view, using Nigeria public universities as reference. ### a) Statement of problem Government as the sole employer of labour in Nigerian public universities has been described as outrightly insensitive to the plight of labour. Thus, it is perceived that the agitations and confrontations contributing to organisational crisis (vis-à-vis disruption of academic activities through reoccurring ASUU strikes) in Nigeria public universities, is a problem of 'leadership subterfuge'. Noticeably, government has continued to pay lip-service to the proper application of collective bargaining mechanism. It appears that the leaders say one thing but intend another; due to the conscious refusal to retrieve one's personality traits in public affairs management. This study argues that the consequences of leadership subterfuge are the ever reoccurring organisational crisis and its correlates of strikes frequently witnessed in Nigeria public universities, to the detriment of meaningful development. On the basis of the foregoing, the following research questions were addressed by the study: 1. What is the nature of organisational crisis in Nigeria's public universities? 2. To what extent does the behavioral deception of leaders influence labour relations outcome in Nigeria's public universities? 3. Is there any relationship between leadership subterfuge, collective bargaining, and organisational crisis management in Nigeria's public universities? 4. How effective is collective bargaining in managing organisational crisis in Nigeria's public universities? b) Research Objective and Question The broad objective of this study was to examine the implications of leadership subterfuge on collective bargaining and organisational crisis management in Nigeria public universities. Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions. 1. What is the nature of organisational crisis in Nigeria's public universities? 2. To what extent does the behavioural deception of leaders influence labour relations outcome in Nigeria public universities? 3. Is there any relationship between leadership subterfuge, collective bargaining, and organisational crisis management in Nigeria public universities? 4. How effectiveness is collective bargaining in managing organisational crisis in Nigeria public universities? ## II. CONCEPTUAL DISCOURSE ### a) Leadership The complexities of globalization keep sparking debates on the concept of leadership, which is considered crucial to goal attainment and any meaningful development in society (Francis, 2018). In Sub-Saharan Africa, leadership is depicted as service to followers and to the general public, in such a way that leadership takes into cognizance the pulse of the people in inspiring and influencing people to gain their support and cooperation towards common purpose (Kabashiki, 2014). According to Rost (1991) cited in University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (2017:4), leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and collaborators who intend significant changes that continuously reflect their mutual purposes. Kouzes and Posner (1991) cited in Porter and Mclaughtain (2016) also describe leadership as the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations. Aibeyi (2014) conceptualized leadership as a 'cooperative followership', such that those been led are the ones who actually give meaning to leadership, just as university lecturers are inspired as employees to corporate towards delivering the goals of higher learning and further education. Going by these definitions, it can be deduced that there are key variables that forms leadership, such as: common goal, mutual purpose, followership, influence-relationship, cooperation, desired change, support, and collaboration. No wonder the notion of leadership is widely held as the process of inspiring and carrying other individuals along, to gain their support and cooperation at achieving common goals (Mohammed and Shittu, 2020). In a similar vein, Senge et al.(1999) cited in University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (2017:5) defined leadership as "the capacity of a human community to share its future, and specifically to sustain the significant processes of change required to do so". Notwithstanding that the concept of leadership pigeonhole any straightjacket definition, most of the views explicitly or implicitly reflect the approach or leadership tenets adopted by a leader, as underscored hereunder: ## i. Approaches to Leadership Each approach to leadership depends on how leaders use their positions of authority to influence, direct, motivate or control followers. Mohammed and Shittu (2020) aver that the leadership approach could be relationship-oriented with the leader focusing more on the relationships amongst organisational groups, ensuring the method he/she adopts fit the talents, maturity, and abilities of the followers. And on the other hand, the approach can be task-oriented, to the extent that the leader begins to use/control employees as mere machines; and as such, the humanistic aspect of leadership will be lacking; and in some cases, the leader can go to any length to ensure that tasks are performed to fulfill certain goals. Participative Leadership: This involves a very open and collegial style of leading subordinates or a team in an organisation, also referred to as democratic leadership, where members of the group partake more in decision-making. Alquatawenah (2018) aver that participative leader consult employees, ask for suggestions, and consider employee opinions. Hence, participative leadership approach is people-centered and as Sagnak (2016) rightfully noted, the leadership believes in collaborative relationship and trust in what the followers/employees can bring to the table. The leader therefore acts on the trust by actually assigning meaningful task and giving them the opportunity to express their ingenuity in delivering their job/tasks. Transformational-Transactional Leadership: James MacGregor Burns in his 1978 descriptive research on political leaders established two concepts: "transforming leadership" and "transactional leadership", wherein he introduced the terms that are now been applied in modern management practices and organisational psychology (Krejan and Shbazi (2019). Burns aver that the transformational approach to leadership creates valuable and positive change in individuals and social systems. A transformational leader motivates subordinates to carry out their duties wholeheartedly, far and above expectations by encouraging them to be creative, quick-witted and relentless in pursuing and fulfilling their individual goals and overall organizational goals. Burns descriptive research revealed that unlike transactional leadership approach that is based on the practice of "what you give is what you get", transformational leadership aims to take the employee to a greater height of development, to the extent that he/she begins to manifest all-round positivity, hence the leader reforms views and values, and changes expectations and aspirations of employees. While a transactional leader uses rule enforcement, corporeal punishment, fines vis-à-vis rewards, praises, promises and other economic exchanges to spur desired work rate or performance; but transformational leaders rather enhance the motivation, morale, and performance of followers by building strong leadership-followership-organisation bond (Khan, Nawaz and Khan, 2016). Thus, a transformational leader connects followers sense of identities and character to the mission and the collective identity of the organisation; the transforming leader serve as a role model upon whom the followers look up to and get inspired; further challenging the followers to own their work zealously, and by being thoughtful towards the strengths and weaknesses of followers a transforming leader effectively aligns followers with tasks that optimize their performance (Korejan and Shahba-zi, 2019). Authentic Leadership: Is one of most modern approaches to leadership, whereby leaders demonstrate high integrity, good morals and ethical character guided by sound morals. Labrecque (2021) clearly notes that authentic leaders manifest greater discipline and commitment to not only their personal development and growth, but moreso of the followers. Consequently, an authentic leader possesses sound level of emotional intelligence and is empathetic to the needs of others including any personal issue that might derail an employee/follower from tapping his/her full potentials at work. Historically, it was Bill George's 2003 published book on "Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value" that projected the authentic leadership approach into widespread acceptance by managers and chief executives of corporations. The leadership expose spurred the 21st leaders-managers to lead with heart, mind, and passion (Nikol-ic, Kvasic and Grbic, 2020). Advocates of authentic leadership avow that this approach to leadership is best fitted to inspire trust, loyalty, and strong performances from employees; because the leader acts in a real, genuine, and sincere way that is true to whom he/she is as an individual. Pratt (2021) affirm that authentic leaders focus on transparent and ethical leadership behaviour, make room for others (even listens to the opinion of the least of the ranked employees and accept their inputs) encouraging open sharing of information for the best decisions. Charismatic Leadership: With this approach the leader doesn't just dish out instructions but demonstrates to subordinates what he/she expects from them by setting high standards through examples, rather than mere communicated enthusiasm (Balogun, 2015). Similar to transforming leadership, charismatic leadership approach stimulates passion to excel at tasks in their teams and is strong spirited in inspiring others to move forward; however, the difference is that the "Do as I do" mentality is actually high with charismatic leaders. Laissez-faire Leadership: Though the origin of the Laissez-faire leadership concept is not certain, but its French meaning "Allow to do" was a politico-economy doctrine in the 19th century. The notion was that individuals pursuing their own desired ends by themselves would consequently achieve the best results for the society; hence the state was to maintain order/security and avoid interference with the initiative of individuals in pursuit of their own desired goals (Nikoloski, 2015). Thus, laissez-faire leaders do not offer too much instruction or guidance, neither do they interfere nor get too involved in the leadership process itself; instead, they let employees use their creativity, resourcefulness, and experience to achieve set goals. Adebayo and Bharat (2016) clearly note that laissez-faire approach to leadership is absolutely hands-offish and is also referred to as delegated leadership where subordinates or group members not only make decisions, but the one leading does not perform leadership duties. In order words, the individual is more a mannequin leader who practically does not engage or involve in any meaningful management or control activities. ### b) Leadership Subterfuge Leadership subterfuge has long been a major issue in organisations and political systems, but lacks empirical research exposition, making it a nascent concept in organisational psychology and management sciences. Some scholars describe leadership subterfuge as "hyper autocratic leadership" and some others describe it as "destructive leadership". Fidelis and Ezika (2021) aver that just as autocratic approach to leadership is characterised by the centralization of decision-making and concentration of directive power in a single dominant leader; leadership subterfuge heightens the dictatorship tendencies by denying followers all opportunities to participate in decision-making, making it a catalyst for arbitrariness and authoritarianism. They further buttress that leadership subterfuge is the most domineering, demanding and controlling form of leadership where those at the helm of affairs design and change things the way it pleases their personal interest, issuing commands with expectations of outright compliance without any objection whatsoever. Gastil (2020) argue that such leadership lacks fair-mindedness, transparency and accountability, equity, and justice in handling affairs; and could be as destructive as violating social contract agreements of fundamental human rights and liberties. B. C. Smith in his 1998 work, described leadership subterfuge as a system where followers are treated as objects in their participation in schemes, and though they are those most affected by the decisions or policies, yet they make no iota of contribution. Smith further revealed that the leadership-followership relationship rather becomes a forced labour with inauthentic participation. Ominisi (2015) conceptualised leadership subterfuge as a leaders' volitional behavior that places employees in jeopardy by encouraging them to pursue the leaders' personal objectives that contravene the legitimate common interests of the organisation. He further argues that such leaders go to the length of employing coercive methods of influence with followers, like physical or economic exchanges. Some other scholars define leadership subterfuge as the antithesis of authentic approach to leadership, where leaders adopt personas different from what they truly are. Krasikova, Green and Lebreton (2013) aver that it is subterfuge because a leader employs exaggerated assurances to spur support and compliance from followers, but none of the promises they intend to fulfill. And for governmental leaders who are employers of labour in public organisations, they not only default in fulfilling their obligations, but also become inaccessible to their followers or employees. In other words, leadership subterfuge is the manifestation of the direct and indirect behavioral deception of leaders in projecting the opposite of what they claim to be. Krasikova, Green and Lebreton (2013) further argue that leadership subterfuge is beyond breached obligations, adding that it is subsumed in the destructive element wherein promises were never intended to be fulfilled, instead (by using clever tricks to deceive followers) leaders exert their premeditated manipulative agenda, aimed at exploiting public resources for personal aggrandizement, to the detriment of the followers, who in this instance are employees in public universities. This would mean that unlike authentic approach to leadership, leadership subterfuge depicts leaders who lack integrity and ethical character; and can be accused of moral fraudulence. Ominisi (2015) was quite vociferous in arguing that leadership subterfuge is leading by deception, and such leaders have ulterior motives they are concealing. Fidelis and Ezika (2021) aver that in the subterfuge-prone organisational setting, subordinates are indirectly deceived by leaders who influence them to believe in a course, which they (the leaders) would likely evade responsibility and accountability by escaping blame. Ominisi (2015) affirms that though the followers may or may not realize they are being led astray; whichever the case, they are powerless towards righting the anomaly because sovereignty does not lie with them. In other words, leadership subterfuge is a deceptive stratagem meant to hoodwink followers to give their support and cooperation for a cause they were misled into believing, and which certainly does not benefit them, but serves the selfish purpose of the leaders. ### c) Organisational Crisis Organisational crisis (interchangeably used as industrial conflict) is defined as lack of or absence of industrial peace in the workplace which culminates in issues of concern to both the employees and their employer (Daniel, 2019). Bello and Kinge (2014) buttress that conflict between employers and employers is termed workplace crisis or industrial conflict in certain in-stance, as a discord that occurs when the goals, interests or values of different individuals or groups in an organisation are incompatible. (Chidi, 2014) affirms that when dissatisfied with the incompatibility, either the employees or employer can adopt various means to frustrate the other and compel desired action, which invariably culminates in organisational crisis. The crisis and its impact normally translate to the society at large, especially when the organisation experiencing the crisis renders essential services like the university. In a similar vein, Osabuohien and Ogunrinola (2020) defined organisational crisis as any form of work discontent which manifest in different ways such as: protest, strike actions, absenteeism, high employee turnover, walk-in and sit-in on the part of the employees; then issuance of query, suspension, lockout, and even arbitrary dismissal on the part of the employer. Nicholas (2018) explained organisational crisis from the angle of strike actions i.e., organised stoppage of work on the part of the employees aimed at compelling adherence to their demands on employers, or to resist a particular demand/rule made by the employer. Daniel (2019) described the concept as the total range of behaviours and attitudes that express opposition and divergent orientation between individual owners and managers on one hand and the working people and their union on the other, which escalates with dire consequences when not properly managed. The Nigerian Ombudsman (2016) conceptualized it as a transient show of dissatisfaction by employees, especially through a strike action or work-stoppage in demonstration or protest against unfavorable terms or conditions of work, to increase bargaining power with the employer and with the intent to compel the employer to improve those conditions. ### d) Collective Bargaining Collective bargaining according to Osabuohien and Ogunrinola (2020) is defined as an accommodative device for regulating and dealing with workplace relational problems. Ekwoaba, Ideh and Ojikutu (2015) conceptualized collective bargaining as both a tool and a methodology with which employers or management and representatives of the worker committee attempt to reach collective agreement on avoiding/solving problems that would result in organisational crisis, especially issues bothering on compensation, retirement/fringe benefits, discipline, layoffs, work scheduling, promotions, and other employer-employee organisational concerns. Anyim, Olusanya and Ekwoaba (2014) further substantiates that the significance of collective bargaining rests on the principle that workers have right to contract with their employers as to wages, health, safety, and other working conditions, and that their employers should recognize those rights. Collective bargaining is therefore the means by which abuse of power is prevented between parties in the employment relationship. Avail to say that in addition to its usefulness in determining the terms and conditions of employment; collective bargaining also serves as a veritable tool for resolving workplace conflict or organisational crisis from labour-management relationship. It is generally held that where the process and procedure of collective bargaining is properly initiated and its outcome properly communicated and observed, it serves as a catalyst for organisational harmony and enhanced productivity. Thus, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on trade dispute settlement encourages member states to provide adequate measures and to enact laws to promote efficient and just collective bargaining and agreement between employer and employees' trade unions or their representatives (Akpan, 2017). Effectively, the legal basis for collective bargaining in Nigeria is embodied in the various employment and labour laws in Nigeria, including: the Trade Disputes Act 2004, the Labour Act 2004, the Trade Union Act 2005, the Pension Reform Act 2014, and such other national and state legislation that directly and indirectly incorporates various organisational crisis management recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (Ngele, 2016). ### e) Nature of Organisational Crisis in Nigeria Public Domain Although organisational crisis does not peculiarly happen in developing countries alone, but it is more so in occurrence and severity of impact, attributed to leadership and structural problem. Osabuohien and Ogunrinola (2020) note that strike has become domiciliary in contemporary Nigeria; arguing that this is because industrial conflicts that would have been proactively resolved via collective bargaining often degenerate to dire organisational crisis with concomitant actions grinding operations to a halt. Monogbe and Monogbe (2019) avow that this clearly depicts the scenario in most Nigerian public institutions; hence due to ASUU industrial strike actions, university program meant to last for eight semester or four years, most times stretches beyond five to six years or thereabout. Thus, collective bargaining ought to be proactively applied to manage organisational crisis and nip them in the bud, by pro-viding an industrial democracy platform for the employee-employer representatives to jointly determine and regulate decisions pertaining to both substantive and procedural matters within their employment relationship. Ekene and Samuel (2022) however note that many organisations in Nigeria public sector are bedeviled by a myriad of problems and ailments caused by strained relationship between government and the labour unions. Offem, Anashie and Aniah (2018) avow that this is the reason why unionism and labour relations originated first in the Nigerian Civil Service in 1912, when paid employment was first introduced into the country by the colonial administrators. Ngele (2016) asserts that since after Nigeria's attainment of independence in 1960, industrial actions have greatly hampered performance and productivity of public institutions in fast-tracking the expected socioeconomic development of the country. Wahab (2018) buttress that even after the inception of democratic governance in 1999, it has become more of a common occurrence in Nigeria that there must be some form of industrial strike action demonstrated particularly by the academic staff of universities which disrupts academic activities. Ekene and Samuel (2022) affirms that there have been incessant strikes since ASUU was instituted in 1965, such that in the last 22 years, Nigerian lecturers through ASUU have gone on strike 15 times. Some of the causes that have been attributed to the series of persistent organisational crisis or industrial conflict, as it is often called in Nigeria include poor welfare provisions, improper remuneration, poor infrastructural base, low level of motivation, job insecurity, policy inconsistencies and variance in management styles, breach of collective agreement amongst other factors (Osabuohien and Ogunrinola, 2020). Yusuf (2020) rightly notes that industrial actions in Nigerian universities are particularly triggered by delay, withdrawal, or non-concession to labour relation agreements over issues bothering on poor and inconsistent payment of salaries and other entitlements, poor work hours or rest periods, arbitrary dismissal and poor working conditions, poor funding of the educational sector, dissatisfaction with certain institutional policies, etc. ### f) Theoretical Framework The conflict theory served as the theoretical model of analysis for exploring the nexus between leadership, subterfuge, collective bargaining, and organisational crisis management in the context of Nigeria public universities. The theory was propounded by Karl Marx in the 19th century, with the idea that society is in a state of perpetual conflict because of competition for limited resources. Thus, the fundamental tenets of the theory center on issues regarding social inequality, division of resources, and the conflicts that exist in organisations and among diverse socioeconomic groups (Daniel, 2019). Conflict theory holds that social order is maintained through manipulation, domination, and power; rather than by consensus and conformity (Hayes, 2022). The proponents of the theory see the organisation as a coalescence of sectional groups with different values, interests, and objectives. Employees have different values and aspirations from those of management, and these values and aspirations are most often in conflict with those of management; this makes organisational crisis or conflict an inevitable phenomenon that ought to be a rational, functional, and normal situation when properly managed in organisations. This study corroborates that the Nigerian public sector is not immune from the conflict-crisis phenomenon, but instead of rational or functional crisis management that resolves issues through compromise, collective bargaining, and collective agreement; leadership subterfuge prevails whereby government (as the employer of labour in public universities) continues to renegce on its contractual responsibilities with unfulfilled promises. Relating this theory to practice brings leadership subterfuge into the context of organisational crisis management, where the conscious refusal to retrieve one's self-centered personality traits in leadership position has led to a servant-master employment relationship. Conflict theory had depicted that those with power would try to hold on to it by any means possible, and mainly so by suppressing subordinates and the powerless. This has resulted in failure of collective bargaining as a result of hard stance positions, and outright repression of dissenting opinion, culminating into disruptive strike actions that have in most cases, caused socio-economic and political paralysis in the country. Karl Marx theorised that, as the workforce are subjected to worsening conditions, a collective consciousness would raise more awareness about inequality, and this would potentially result in revolt. Avail to say that industrial unions like ASUU are the raised consciousness and legitimate revolt to subterfuge leadership. Conflict theorists recognise such labour unions as legitimate representative organisations which enable groups of employees to influence management decisions (Ekene and Samuel, 2022). The emphasis is that organisational crisis-conflict is inevitable, but what is important is that appropriate steps are taken to address any conflicting or organisational crisis-ridden situation, to which it is relevant to highlight the place of government in organisational crisis management. ## III. METHODS Taking into cognizance the type of evidence required to answer the research question in a practical way, this study adopted the descriptive research design based on the survey method. By adopting this design, the researcher was able to explore the research questions to reveal the way things are, especially the leadership subterfuge instance where little knowledge about the phenomenon has been put forth through empirical studies. The study made use of both primary and secondary data whereby structured questionnaire were issued to respondents through Google form, an online platform that enabled the study to virtually access public university lecturers across Nigeria in a pandemic era where face-to-face survey is inhibited. Secondary data were sourced from online journal publications, newspaper articles on the internet, CIPD reports, and other institutional and scholarly websites. Data obtained from the survey were presented using frequency distribution tables with their corresponding percentages, while collated data were analyzed using descriptive statistics with the aid of Microsoft Excel. The study was carried in compliance with the ethical standards for integrity, transparency, full information, voluntariness, confidentiality, safety of participants, etc. Hence, the processes and details of the study were open, transparent, and honest, with all participants fully informed of the rationale, approaches, and details of the study and what the study is meant achieve. ## IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION The data analysed and findings discussed herein, is based on the respondents' demographics and responses to the 12 online questionnaire items structured according to the Likert5-point rating scale, with: SD = representing strongly disagree, D= for disagree, N = for neither agree nor disagree, A = for agree, and SA = for strongly agree; rated on a scale of 1-5 respectively. Only 118, out of the 34,364 Nigeria public university lecturers: 21,914 in Federal and 12,450 in State owned universities (Statista, 2021), responded to the online questionnaire. Perhaps the $0.34\%$ level of response is due to the lately use of online platforms for empirical studies in Nigeria. Table 1: Respondents' Demographics <table><tr><td>Characteristics</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">GENDER</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>68</td><td>57.63</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>50</td><td>42.37</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>118</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">AGE (In Years)</td></tr><tr><td>25 – 35</td><td>11</td><td>9.32</td></tr><tr><td>36 - 45</td><td>44</td><td>37.29</td></tr><tr><td>46 - 55</td><td>40</td><td>33.89</td></tr><tr><td>56 &amp; Above</td><td>23</td><td>19.50</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>118</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">MARITAL STATUS</td></tr><tr><td>Single</td><td>25</td><td>21.19</td></tr><tr><td>Married</td><td>47</td><td>39.83</td></tr><tr><td>Divorced</td><td>18</td><td>15.25</td></tr><tr><td>Widowed</td><td>28</td><td>23.73</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>118</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">LECTURER CADRE</td></tr><tr><td>Professor</td><td>18</td><td>15.25</td></tr><tr><td>Reader</td><td>23</td><td>19.50</td></tr><tr><td>Senior Lecturer</td><td>30</td><td>25.42</td></tr><tr><td>Lecturer 1 &amp; Below</td><td>47</td><td>39.83</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>118</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 1 above revealed that the respondents' gender demographics are in the male majority with $57.63\%$, while female participants comprise $42.37\%$. Nonetheless, both genders were significantly represented, and this is very crucial in ensuring objectivity in responses obtained. The table also reveals that about $50\%$ of the lecturers who responded to the virtual are in their prime productive age to provide objective answers to questions bothering on labour relations and organisational crisis management. The respondents' marital demographics indicate that the different categories of family structure were significantly represented. Their significant representation is crucial considering that family dynamics vis-à-vis marital status impacts and is impacted by employment outcome; thus, eliciting objective information from respondents with varied spousal experience and family responsibilities. Meanwhile, over $60\%$ of the respondents are within the lecturer cadre of senior lecturer and above, signifying the objectivity in responses to the questionnaire items by respondents with wealth of knowledge and experience. Table 2: RQ 1: What is the nature of organisational crisis in Nigeria Public Universities? <table><tr><td>SN</td><td>Question</td><td>SA</td><td>A</td><td>U</td><td>D</td><td>SD</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>The scenario in Nigeria public universities is overstretched academic programs due to mis-managed organisational crisis</td><td>13(10.6)</td><td>18(14.6)</td><td>9(7.3)</td><td>58(47.1)</td><td>25(20.4)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Government leaders and university lecturers are always in conflict over funding of the Nigerian Universities, better working condition leading to ASUU strikes</td><td>3(2.4)</td><td>4(3.2)</td><td>34(27.7)</td><td>52(42.3)</td><td>30(24.4)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The occurrence and severity of the impact of organisational crisis is destructive to the operations of public universities in Nigeria</td><td>4(3.2)</td><td>17(13.8)</td><td>6(5.0)</td><td>48(39.0)</td><td>48(39.0)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Organisational crisis of strike actions have greatly hindered the key service delivery of education by public universities in Nigeria</td><td>9(7.3)</td><td>14(11.4)</td><td>18(14.6)</td><td>53(43.1)</td><td>29(23.6)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Poor infrastructure and working conditions which ignite organisational crisis in Nigeria public universities are still far from been solved</td><td>15(12.2)</td><td>3(2.4)</td><td>13(10.6)</td><td>49(39.8)</td><td>43(35.0)</td></tr></table> It was discovered in the course of our investigation that the prevalent condition in Nigeria public universities is overstretched academic programs due to mismanaged organisational crisis. This is evident in the nature of responses to the questionnaire item in table 2, where over $65\%$ of the respondents affirm that the nature of organisational crisis in Nigeria universities is replete with strike after strike. Evidence also affirmed that governmental leaders and university lecturers are constantly in conflict over funding of the Nigerian Universities, better working condition leading to organisational crisis via incessant strike actions hindering efficient delivery of such key services as education. The findings agree with Yusuf (2020); Ekene and Samuel (2022) research reports that there have been incessant strikes since ASUU was instituted in 1965, such that in the last 22 years, Nigerian lecturers through ASUU have gone on strike 15 times. Likewise, Wahab (2018) discovered that many organisations in Nigeria public sector are bedeviled by a myriad of problems and ailments caused by strained relationship between government and labour unions. Dishearteningly, our findings revealed that the poor infrastructure and working conditions which ignite organisational crisis in Nigeria public universities are still far from been solved. Table 3: RQ 2: To what extent does the behavioural deception of leaders influence labour relations outcome in Nigeria Public Universities? <table><tr><td>SN</td><td>Question</td><td>SA</td><td>A</td><td>U</td><td>D</td><td>SD</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Disruption in academic activities through reoccurring ASUU strikes is a problem of leaders not portraying their true intentions</td><td>5(4.0)</td><td>15(12.2)</td><td>20(16.3)</td><td>34(27.7)</td><td>49(39.8)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Government makes promises it never intended to fulfill and keeps inciting ASUU into signing new memorandum of understanding repeatedly</td><td>4(3.3)</td><td>8(6.5)</td><td>9(7.3)</td><td>45(36.6)</td><td>57(46.3)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Memorandum of understanding are reached and signed regarding conditions of employment and the better functioning of the university system, but government reneges on observing the agreements</td><td>13(10.6)</td><td>18(14.7)</td><td>9(7.3)</td><td>58(47.1)</td><td>25(20.3)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Government leaders in Nigeria are respectful in scheming their way through negotiations to make ASUU representatives believe their agenda</td><td>23(19.5)</td><td>53(44.9)</td><td>18(15.2)</td><td>14(11.9)</td><td>10(8.5)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>The behavioral deception of leaders to a very large extent influences labour relations outcome negatively in Nigeria public universities</td><td>7(5.7)</td><td>15(12.2)</td><td>34(27.6)</td><td>46(37.4)</td><td>21(17.1)</td></tr></table> In the course of our virtual survey, most of the respondents affirmed that disruption of academic activities through reoccur-ring ASUU strikes is a problem of leaders not portraying their true intentions, with only $14.2\%$ of them who refuted and another $16.3\%$ who neither agreed nor disagreed. $82.9\%$ of the respondents as shown in table 3 above averred that government makes promises it never intended to fulfill and keeps inciting ASUU into signing new memorandum of understanding repeatedly. Findings revealed that memorandum of understanding are reached regarding conditions of employment and the better functioning of the university system, but government reneges on observing the agreements. Majority of the respondents avowed that the behavioral deception of leaders to a very large extent influences labour relations outcome negatively in Nigeria public universities. These findings corroborate the secondary data analysed by Danjuma (2021) revealing that the causal factor of the unending organisational crisis in Nigeria public universities is linked to leadership subterfuge as ASUU demonstrate that they would no longer rely on deceits and pledges of the stalled implementation of the December 23, 2020, Memorandum of Association by the federal government. Likewise, Ekene and Samuel (2022) discovered in their study that ASUU and the federal government keeps signing fresh memorandum of understanding almost yearly; but the organisational crisis is still at large, with recent warnings from ASUU of imminent stoppage of academic activities in 2022. Yet, governmental leaders in Nigeria keep scheming their way through negotiations to make ASUU representatives believe their agenda with subterfuge undertones. Table 4: RQ 3: There any relationship between Leadership Subterfuge, Collective Bargaining and Organisational Crisis management in Nigeria Public Universities? <table><tr><td>SN</td><td>Question</td><td>SA</td><td>A</td><td>U</td><td>D</td><td>SD</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Abuse of power by governmental leaders in Nigeria exacerbates agitations and confrontations in the employment relationship that greatly instigate organisational crisis</td><td>6(5.0)</td><td>16(13.6)</td><td>32(27.3)</td><td>54(45.9)</td><td>10(8.2)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>The stoppage of work due to non-fulfilled collective agreements on workers welfare administration adversely affects commitment and turnover intentions of lecturers</td><td>9(7.3)</td><td>11(9.3)</td><td>25(21.2)</td><td>56(47.8)</td><td>17(14.4)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The consequences of leadership trickery are the ever-reoccurring organisational crisis and its correlates of strike actions frequently witnessed in Nigeria public university</td><td>9(7.3)</td><td>22(17.9)</td><td>33(26.8)</td><td>44(35.8)</td><td>15(12.2)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>There is significant relationship between leadership subterfuge, collective bargaining and organisational crisis management in Nigeria public universities</td><td>3(2.4)</td><td>5(4.1)</td><td>36(29.3)</td><td>38(30.9)</td><td>41(33.3)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Collective bargaining is a correlate of organisational crisis management induced by promise and fail leadership</td><td>11(9.3)</td><td>16(13.0)</td><td>32(26.0)</td><td>54(43.9)</td><td>10(8.1)</td></tr></table> Our descriptive survey to find out if there is any relationship between leadership subterfuge, collective bargaining, and organisational crisis management in Nigeria public universities, revealed that collective bargaining is a correlate of organisational crisis management induced by promise and fail leadership. This can be seen from the nature of responses to the questionnaire items in table 4 where over $50\%$ of the respondents affirmed that there is a significant relationship between the variables. Most of the respondents $(54.1\%)$ expressed that abuse of power by governmental leaders in Nigeria exacerbates agitations and confrontations in the employment relationship that greatly instigate organisational crisis. Also, the respondents' opinion slightly aligned more that the consequences of leadership deception are the ever-reoccurring organisational crisis and its correlates of strike actions frequently witnessed in Nigeria public university. The findings agree with the submissions of Yusuf (2020) which rightly reveals that organisational crisis in Nigeria public universities are particularly triggered by delay, withdrawal or non-concession to labour relations agreements over issues bothering on poor and inconsistent payment of salaries and other entitlements, poor work hours or rest periods, arbitrary dismissal and poor working conditions, poor funding of the educational sector, as well as dissatisfaction with certain institutional policies. Table 5: RQ 4: How Effective is Collective Bargaining in Organisational Crisis management in Nigeria Public Universities? <table><tr><td>SN</td><td>Question</td><td>SA</td><td>A</td><td>U</td><td>D</td><td>SD</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Collective bargaining procedure is not effectively applied in managing organisational crisis in Nigeria public universities</td><td>6(5.0)</td><td>18(15.2)</td><td>21(17.9)</td><td>47(39.8)</td><td>26(22.1)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Government has continued to pay lip-service to the proper application of collective bargaining procedures in abating organisational crisis</td><td>3(2.4)</td><td>11(8.9)</td><td>19(15.5)</td><td>50(40.6)</td><td>40(32.6)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Non-implementation of outcomes of collective bargaining is pervasive in Nigeria public universities with a wide gap between our education system and human capital development</td><td>18(14.6)</td><td>38(30.9)</td><td>14(11.4)</td><td>42(33.3)</td><td>12(9.8)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Government&#x27;s failure to address outstanding issues in their memorandum of understanding inhibits the effectiveness of the collective bargaining mechanism</td><td>14(11.4)</td><td>9(7.32)</td><td>27(21.9)</td><td>44(35.6)</td><td>29(23.6)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>The continuous violation of collective agreements by government has made collective bargaining more adversative to effective organisational crisis management</td><td>7(5.7)</td><td>15(12.2)</td><td>43(35.0)</td><td>41(33.3)</td><td>17(13.8)</td></tr></table> Our findings revealed a near unanimous opinion of $73.2\%$ and $74.8\%$ affirming that collective bargaining procedure is not effectively applied in managing organisational crisis in Nigeria public universities, and that government has continued to pay lip-service to the proper application of collective bargaining procedures in abating crisis of labour relations. Most of the respondents $(35.6\%)$ agreed and $(23.6\%)$ strongly agreed that government's failure to address outstanding issues in their memorandum of understanding inhibits the effectiveness of the collective bargaining mechanism. The foregoing findings corroborates those of Osabuohien and Ogunrinola (2020) that strike has become domiciliary in Nigeria public institutions, because industrial conflicts that would have been proactively resolved through collective bargaining often degenerate to dire organisational crisis with concomitant strike actions grinding operations to a halt. This does not only appear to undermine the relevance of collective bargaining in Nigeria public universities but have made it more adversative to effective organisational crisis management for industrial harmony and enhanced service delivery. ## V. CONCLUSION There's no gainsaying the fact that organisational crisis emerging from conflicting employee-employer interests is inevitable in any organisation, particularly in such organisations as Nigeria public universities shrouded in union and government un-ending loggerheads. Effectively, this study has investigated the implications of leadership subterfuge on collective bargaining and organisational crisis management, to conclude that it is not just a necessity, but an indispensable (must-do) activity to ensure that the right environment is created to encourage authentic leadership and enthrone leaders who would keep to their words, and not reneged on honoring memorandum of understanding or fulfilling collective bargaining agreements. ## VI. RECOMMENDATIONS With emphasis on creating the right environment, we recommend that all stakeholders in the labour relations and collective bargaining processes should endeavor to be transparent and committed to terms of agreement to avoid inclination towards any form of frictions that could further spark organisational crisis. There should be earnest efforts channeled towards spreading and inculcating strong leadership values of consultation, consensus, selflessness, transparency, accountability, and authenticity. Continuous and adequate awareness should be created among the stakeholders in labour relations to keep informing/educating participants of their roles in developing and sustaining a rancor free work environment. To ensure adherence to collective bargaining agreements, the Legislature should come up with an instrument that would ensure management is compelled to recognize employees and their Union(s) in collective bargaining, and to see that the act of noncompliance is handled as a criminal offence for harmonious industrial relations and the growth of the nation's economy. We also recommend that all existing relevant laws relating to labour relations should be reviewed, so as to ensure the implementation and enforceability of all collective agreements, without necessarily embarking on strike or litigation for them to be enforced.

Generating HTML Viewer...