Privatization in Nigeria: evaluating opposing arguments through NITEL

Privatization

Appropriateness of the Presentations

In evaluating the two research papers presented for this assignment, it will involve determining the appropriateness of the papers, the literature review presented in the papers, the methods employed, the quality of the data analysis, along with readability, relevance and the contribution each paper makes towards the question at hand: is privatization the best solution in Nigeria?

Owolabi Bakre from the Brunel Business School in the UK argues that in the process of rescheduling its debt (which was $30 billion owned to Western creditors as of 2002) with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), Nigeria's problem was hijacked by the IFC in its contentious -- and much criticized -- "structural adjustment programs" (Bakre). Basically Bakre is attacking the Nigerian government and basing his arguments on scholarly points he makes throughout his 62-page paper.

To wit, Bakre is opposed to privatization of publicly owned enterprises. He uses the example of the Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL) to point out how privatization can lead to corruption, mismanagement, and in time privatization is just a way for corrupt public officials to buy into structural adjustment programs that do not create wealth and only benefit the elite in Nigeria and elsewhere.

On the other hand, the second paper is an argument for privatization, using the NITEL situation as a basis for justifying the need for privatization in Nigeria. The second paper goes to great lengths to be readable and relevant, but it is clear from the outset that the second paper has as a theme an attack on government-owned enterprises (how corrupt they are and why privatization is necessary).

Both papers are lengthy and occasionally verbose to the point of almost bordering on redundancy. But they are quite appropriate for this contrast and comparison exercise.

What are structural adjustment programs? The World Health Organization explains that SAPs are "…economic policies for developing countries" that are administered by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Loans are given to countries (under the SAP) with certain conditions; the SAP requires governments to make adjustments to economic policies that will purportedly help the country become debt-free or at least approach a fiscal situation that is healthy (WHO).

A Phenomenological Study of Privatization, Leadership… NITEL

Meanwhile another view of the privatization of NITEL is presented in a 162-page paper which purports to have interviewed 20 NITEL employees to get their responses to questions about organizational leadership, efficiency, accountability, and staff training, among other aspects of the NITEL program. This paper clearly points to the "…history of sub-standard crisis management, corruption, and low productivity" under the government control. So, did privatization help or hinder NITEL, that was the central question. First of all when a government-owned telecommunications company admits that 60 out of every 100 lines is "faulty," that is an unconscionably outrageous failure to provide a needed service.

The twenty people interviewed were offered "open-ended questioning" and there were "systematic procedures for data collection," the report explains. After going through a lengthy list of reasons why the framework for this research (a systems theory) was incorporated -- and accounting for the large volume of literature that explains various approaches to research -- each question employed was dissected in terms of what it hoped to achieve and on page 123 "Findings" vis-a-vis the questions were offered.

Not surprisingly, the seven "core themes" showed why (in the view of this paper) privatization is preferable to government-owned enterprises. As to "organizational leadership," the consensus of the 20 workers was that the leadership does clearly communicate the goals, the mission, and the objectives of NITEL. Regarding "overcoming performance gap" the participants explain that NITEL takes "…a proactive approach toward identifying and addressing gaps in performance"; moreover, the higher the company sets its goals, the better employees will work to overcome performance gaps and have a "competitive edge" (p. 125).

On the subject of "staff training and development" the respondents believe that NITEL truly cares about the "career progress" of employees; the respondents believe that because NITEL reportedly "…conducts consistent and ongoing training and education." Moreover, NITEL goes to the trouble to identify "…characteristic skills needed by potential leaders" and trains those individuals to "…take initiative, become innovative, empower others, create and nurture organizational cultures, and foster team spirit" (125). The topic, "employment of ethical measures" brought interesting responses from the twenty employees, including the fact that policies are in place for "remediation, practical application and disciplinary measures" when ethical standards are not met (126).

"Employee and customer relationship" issues were a strong theme emphasized by the workers; that is, the "overall relationship that NITEL develops with employees, suppliers, customers, shareholders and other stakeholders" is a relationship in which customer satisfaction is on the same plane as employee satisfaction (126). The "Implementation of best practices" question was answered in a positive framework. The participants insisted that NITEL "continuously strives to be the best in the industry through implementation of best practices" (126). As to "performance management systems," the twenty employees said NITEL works to create and "balance value for employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, and other stakeholders."

The data analysis in Chapter 4 was very thorough although it is apparent that this study leans toward the value of privatization since there was a "…lack of leadership, performance measures, implementation of best practice strategies, and performance management systems" when the government ran the show.

In conclusion, first of all if an objective research project were done (regarding the value of privatization vs. The failure of government-run operations) it would likely be very different than this report. Asking employees to evaluate the various components of NITEL is like interviewing winners of a lottery and asking them if they like money. Of course the employees are going to stand up for the privatization; they probably feared it they were honest, it might come back to haunt them.

Secondly, the paper uses the same adjectives over and over again to attack the leadership that the government provided when in charge of NITEL. Those adjectives seem to appear on every other page: government-owned organizations fail to achieve "…efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and productivity" (135). There is no objective material from which an independent investigator could provide analysis as to whether privatization is the right path.

Thirdly, when juxtaposing Bakre's subjective research and his anti-privatization essay with the pro-privatization paper (and its questionable research), it appears to be a toss-up as to which has more credibility. Moreover, given the history of corruption in Nigeria, why would any alert researcher believe that NITEL could be run without corruption whether private or government owned?