Abstract

Disputes in Nigeria’s federal universities frequently disrupt academic schedules, often leading to prolonged strikes and adverse impacts on academic progress. This study investigated the relationships between coercive and legitimate power negotiation strategies on industrial action in federal universities in Southwest Nigeria. The study population comprised 390, and Slovin’s formula at 5% margin of error was adopted to determine a sample size of 198 respondents. A descriptive cross-sectional survey design was adopted, with purposive and simple random sampling techniques used to select participants. Data were collected using the Dispute Resolution Outcomes Questionnaire (DROQ) and the Power Base Negotiation Strategy Questionnaire (PBSQ), which were pre-tested through a pilot study to ensure reliability. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and inferential methods, including Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) and multiple regressions at a 0.05 significance level. The findings showed that legitimate power strategy had a weak, negative but significant relationship with industrial action (r = -0.166, p = 0.019 < 0.05), while coercive power strategy also demonstrated a weak, negative, and significant relationship with industrial action (r = -0.410, p = 0.000 < 0.05). These results suggest that power-based negotiation strategies, though relevant, may worsen disputes when excessively applied, creating mistrust and resistance among academic staff. The study recommends that management of the selected federal universities should minimize over-reliance on coercive and legitimate power tactics, and instead prioritize integrative and collaborative negotiation approaches that emphasize transparency, dialogue, and participatory decision-making. By fostering trust and inclusiveness in negotiations, federal universities can reduce the recurrence of industrial actions and build more sustainable labour–management relations.