MA Dissertation FINAL 26.04.

1. Acknowledgements David Vickers – (Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, UCLAN); for his clarity of thought, support and guidance through this research and my previous academic endeavours. Eliza Morgan – (Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Project Manager); for her ability to explain, engage and encourage. Richard Darby – Senior HR Business Partner (Schools); for his ongoing support of my professional development. Human Resources Staff – I would like to thank all those who took part in the research, particularly through challenging times across the organisation. 2. Abstract Change management literature repeatedly cites that individual change is integral to organisational change initiatives and thus, there is a growing focus on people in order to achieve successful organisational change. This research has evolved from the themes in the literature relating to people and behaviours and explores the implementation of change and how individuals react, adapt and cope with change. It considers the effectiveness of change implementation processes and considers what initiatives may be beneficial in supporting the process of change. Research was initiated at a time when the organisation was finalising a pay review and began to restructure the HR function. The Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010 introduced a third strand of change which led to participants experiencing drastic organisational change in quick succession. This is of particular relevance when considered in the context of Lewin’s (1947) change management model and the apparent lack of opportunity to embed each change before embarking in further change activities. It concludes that communication and participation remain central to the experiences of individuals and suggests areas for future research whilst making recommendations about improvements that could be made to assist leaders to engage staff effectively when implementing organisational change. 3. Contents 4. Introduction The research organisation is a Local Authority in North West England with responsibility for public services and education within the Borough employing in excess of 6500 employees. The Children’s Act 2004 imposed significant change upon Local Authorities, with frequent restructuring aimed at meeting the Children’s Plan which Local Authorities are required to implement under statute. In addition, the organisation had developed ambitious regeneration plans for the town centre during 2008/2009 focused on the expectation of major capital investment. Plans included the commissioning of new office accommodation due for completion in 2012 which would result in the closure of the majority of the current offices and administrative centres. Whilst the anticipated private sector capital project has been withdrawn, the development of the new office accommodation is proceeding and, the resultant dilution of the Authority’s property portfolio will require staff relocations and the introduction of flexible working arrangements. More recently, the election of a Conservative government in May 2010 led to a change in the philosophical approach towards the public sector and a focus on reducing costs to balance public borrowing. Such an approach has been evidenced by the reduction of the Area Based Grant (ABG) which targeted key local priorities in areas of high depravation. Further reductions in the Authority’s funding totalling £27 Million, were published in October 2010. These announcements followed a major review of the organisation’s senior management structure and redesign of the HR delivery model which was implemented in September 2010. However, the setting of spending budgets in January 2011 for the 2011- 2012 fiscal year led to the announcement of 700 redundancies across the organisation. This resulted in a review of the newly implemented HR & OD department structure which included a number of redundancies. It is clear therefore that organisational change continues to be a major feature within the research organisation whilst it strives to develop a positive vision for the future. Rusaw (2007) suggests that constant, rapid changes as described above have pressured managers and employees and, argues that changing public services is difficult. In fact, Quinn (2004) estimates that as much as 50% of all change efforts fail whilst Kotter and Cohen (2002) further suggest that these failures are commonly related to human rather than technical issues. Holbeche (2008: 7) argues that “failure to focus on the ‘people bit’ of the change equation can turn a change process into a major liability”. Having considered these theories and based on findings from the author’s previous research into the human impact of change; it was determined that it may be useful to explore the approach taken by the organisation when undertaking restructures and, consider the impact on individuals. Thus, it may be possible to establish how this may influence achievement of successful change programmes and, whether improvements can be made. Additionally, there appeared to be an assumption of homogeneity in organisational change literature about the effects and reactions of people experiencing change. Gaining a better understanding of the impact of change on individuals may provide an opportunity to identify more effective methodologies for implementing change programmes which consider the inherent tensions between people, organisational stability and change. This is particularly important since “organisations don’t change – people do” (Quirke, 1995:106). Consequently, the decision to merge the various Human Resource teams and develop discrete specialist functions following the Ulrich (1997) model, provided an opportunity to explore how change is enacted through ethnographic research situated in day-to-day work, experiences and encounters. During previous research I was drawn by the contrasting perspectives encountered by those making the changes and those who were subject to change. This research therefore focuses on how participants work through, negotiate and manage the tensions of being both the agents and the recipients of change within an HR role. As the research evolved, and further change emerged through the announced budget reductions and redundancies, it became evident that further themes would need to be explored. These included the change management model proposed by Lewin (1947) which implies a need for the newly attained level to be embedded or ‘frozen’ in order for change to be successful. Therefore a review of the literature was undertaken focusing on the people aspects of change in order to gain an understanding of the theory, practice, research and psychology of the effects of organisational change on individuals as well as exploring themes around change management models. I discovered that much of the popular managerialist writings neglect ‘individuals’ as change agents and the influence they may have on organisational change. Rather, they appeared to focus on the process and stages of change. From these broad themes and discussion with my supervisor, the research question was developed to enable a realistic research project. Therefore, the aim of the research is: To explore the approach taken by the organisation when introducing a new HR structure and service delivery model and the impact on individuals in order to establish if improvements can be made. The starting hypothesis for the research was that repeated change has a negative effect on individuals and, that change receptivity and implementation may be impaired as a result. From personal experience and observations, such effects appear to translate into resistance and / or obstruction to change, reduced productivity and customer service coupled with heightened stress levels, increased absence and individuals feeling aggrieved which may undermine engagement and discretionary behaviours. From the organisation’s perspective, such reactions to change may impact on employee commitment and productivity which may affect services in critical areas and, thus result in organisational changes achieving only partial success. Additionally, it can lead to increased workloads for managers trying to resolve these problems and, may also lead to damage or breakdown of professional relationships and the ‘psychological contract’. However, this research is not an exhaustive exploration of the diverse factors which impinge on individuals’ receptivity to, and propensity for change, although some of these areas are covered within the Literature Review section. Rather, it focuses on the impact of change on individuals and their perceptions of how organisational change has been implemented. The findings reported here emerged from a eight month ethnographic study of individuals impacted by the reorganisation of the Human Resource and Organisational Development department. The research involved participating in ‘people’s daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said and asking questions’ (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995: 1). 5. Literature Review The aim of this literature review is to consider how organisational change affects individuals, with particular reference to: Identifying, investigating and analysing literature in the area of individual change in the context of organisational change initiatives. Identifying the importance of individuals in organisational change. How the above may influence the outcomes of such change processes Gaining an understanding of how individuals experience, react and adapt to change. Exploration of current theory and practice in relation to the evolving models and approaches to HR delivery, function and purpose. Researching possible strategies to support individuals experiencing change to enable them to contribute effectively to the achievement of the desired goals of organisational change initiatives. Management literature repeatedly cites the importance of individual change in the processes of organisational change (Hughes 2006: 6). Indeed, there is a consensus that individual change is integral to organisational change initiatives. It is a widely held view that it is not organisations which change, but rather, the individuals within the organisation. Duck (1993:56) states “For change to occur in any organisation, each individual must think, feel or do something different.” Similarly, Harung, (1997, citing Schneider et al, 1996) states that “Organizations as we know them are the people in them: if the people don’t change, there is no organisational change.” In view of these arguments, there is a growing emphasis on the need to focus on people and their behaviours in order to achieve successful organisational change and development. Indeed, Ulrich and Brockbank (2009) suggest that the human side of the business is a key source of competitive advantage. Despite these widely held views, studies of organisational change frequently treat change as if it were an object rather than a process with a defined beginning and end. Therefore, what is studied are the points of organisation rather than the process of changing. Johnson et al., (2003) argue that a micro-level analysis is necessary to understand the dynamics of strategic change. Beech and Johnson (2005) take this approach in their narrative study of three key ‘actors’ in an organisation undergoing change and suggest that informal discussions within the team constitute a process of change in themselves. This highlights the existence of a ‘shadow side’ to the formal organisation (Pheiffer et al., 2006) which also impacts on the dynamics and process of change. The premise of the ‘shadow side’ is that in addition to the formal structures and processes of an organisation there exist sub-systems, cultures or structures which are informal and ad-hoc through which people in an organisation operate to get things done. There is however, also the potential for such systems to be used to channel negative resistance to planned change initiatives. It is therefore important to harness this element of organisations if resistance to change is to be avoided or overcome and strategic aims are to be achieved. In order to gain an understanding of the complex issue of individual change in the wider context of organisational change, a number of key areas will be explored: Relevance of Individual Change in Organisational Change Processes Individual’s Experience and Perceptions of Change Resistance and Reactions to Change Psychology of Change Emotional Intelligence and Organisational Change Approaches for Supporting Individuals Through Organisational Change The Future of HR and the Need to Change (I) Impact of Individual Change in Successful Organisational Change There has been significant convergence between the spheres of organisational change and development and those of social and behavioural psychology. Burnes (2004) proposes that the theory and practice of change management draws on a number of social science disciplines and traditions. Whilst Hughes (2006) recognises that psychology is particularly relevant to change management as it offers explanations about how individuals respond and react to change. Morrison (1994: 353) argues that “For organisations to change, people must change. For leaders to help people change, they do not need to understand change - they need to understand people”. This view is further expounded by Argyris (1999) who maintains that effective change and organisational development requires a change in behaviours. This is also reflected by Cummings (2004), who highlights that organisational change involves changes in individual behaviour. Ulrich and Brockbank (2009) suggest that in any change effort, there is typically a 20-60-20 split. In their view, the top 20 percent of individuals asked to change are already doing the work that the change requires whilst the lower 20 percent will never get there. The other 60 percent will require training, coaching and support in order to adapt and contribute effectively to the change. It would therefore appear that the leaders of change must consider how to identify, address and overcome the barriers that prevent individuals from adapting to organisational change. A study conducted by Waldersee and Grifiths (1997) of 500 large Australian organisations revealed that resistance was the most frequently cited implementation problem encountered by management when introducing change, with over half the organisations surveyed experiencing employee resistance. Their findings raise questions about how resistance is managed when implementing change and suggest that managing employee resistance is a major challenge for the initiators of change. It may be implied therefore, that an organisation will not change without individuals changing and, as a result it is necessary to understand how individuals change in order to undertake effective organisational change. Awareness of transition psychology is essential for managers seeking to enable individuals and organisations to manage change successfully. However, there is little understanding of the human potential to adapt creatively to change (Williams, 1999a: 609). This is due to the fact that most organisational change theories focus on organisational agendas for change. According to Williams (1999a: 609), “Change strategies can either impede or enhance the natural psychological process of transition that enables individuals to adapt to change”. He goes on to suggest that failure by leaders to recognise and manage transitions in themselves and their organisations, may lead to strategic errors of judgement. This perspective reflects the views of Holbeche (2008), who suggests that focusing on individuals is critical to achievement of successful change initiatives. Hughes (2006: 6), states that writers in the field of change management acknowledge individual change as an integral ingredient of organisational change processes. Furthermore, he suggests the need for a greater understanding of individual-level change as part of a more sophisticated understanding of change management. (II) Individuals’ Experience and Perception of Change In attempting to make sense of how individuals experience change, the work of Kübler-Ross (1970) has been influential to the author’s research and that of a broad range of academic researchers of change management. The research undertaken by Kübler-Ross was based on individual responses to death, describing the stages people go through when faced with tragic news. These stages are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. According to Williams (1999b), this process is described as “Transitions” by psychologists and explains the process that individuals undergo when dealing with any major change in their work or personal lives. Schweiger et al., (1987: 127) state that employees attach themselves to organisations, jobs, co-workers and career goals. When these attachments are impacted, individuals may experience feelings which resemble grief as described by Kübler-Ross and will typically move through the five stages over a period of between six to twelve months. In complex change situations there is a requirement for changes in attitudes and beliefs. Such changes may lead to new perceptions which enable people to cope and adapt to the new reality (Mullins, 2002: 302). Vernon (1969: 103) explains that behaviour is characterised by organised and goal-directed activities which are a result of rational thought. Further, he argues that identification of the self is enhanced by the performance of such activities and the attainment of goals. It is therefore not surprising that the uncertainty created by organisational change, with new goals and ways of doing things, can lead to personal insecurity and thus, resistance to change (McKenna, 1994: 493). During significant organisational change, many employees will experience a powerful sense of loss when strong attachments are destroyed or changed. He further suggests that if managers are made aware of the power of loss of attachment, they will be able to help employees avoid many of the negative consequences. Nevertheless, within the literature on organisational change, some studies suggest that the reaction of employees depends on their personal disposition (Bareil et al., 2007). Further, they state that the level of cynicism towards change is related to intention to resist the change. These studies suggest that certain personal dispositions influence reactions and attitudes to change, irrespective of the nature of the organisational change. French and Delahey (1996:22 cited in Hughes, 2006) explain that “there is little information on individual change in organisations because approaches to managing change have been developed at a group or system level”. Bovey and Hede (2001: 534) observe that the published literature on resistance to organisational change has focused more on organisational issues rather than individual psychological factors. Individuals go through a reaction process when they are personally confronted with major organisational change. Individuals unconsciously use well-developed and habitual defence mechanisms to protect themselves from change and from the feelings of anxiety change causes (Oldham and Kleiner, 1990; de Board, 1978). These defences can sometimes obstruct and hinder an individual from adapting to change (Halton, 1994). Individuals differ in terms of their ability and willingness to adapt to organisational change. This is because individuals experience change in different ways (Carnall, 1986). (III) Resistance and Reaction to Change Organisational behaviour literature is often simplistic in terms of individual change (see Mullins [2005], Torrington et al. [2005], Stacey [2007],). Individual responses to change in such literature are normally introduced from a negative perspective in terms of resistance to change. This is usually contrasted with organisational resistance to change (Mullins, 2005: 913). Perren and Megginson (1996:24) write about resistance to change as a positive rather than a negative force citing that it may assist the change process by identifying aspects which can be refined and improved for the benefit of individuals and the organisation. Lewin (1947) suggests that it is necessary to gain insight into the desire for as well as the resistance to a specific change in order to understand the dynamics of particular teams or groups. He goes on to state that unless there are sufficient ‘forces’ applied to maintain the change, a return to the original state may result. In order to achieve permanency the new ‘force field’ must be maintained and made relatively secure against change. Burke (1982) states that “The resistance is not necessarily to the change as such; rather it is a resistance to the personal loss (or possibility of personal loss) that people believe will accompany the change”. Burke (2002: 92) suggests that some organisation members fight the change “to the death”, constantly denying that the change is necessary. Others may embrace the change readily, although most people are somewhere between these extremes. In their studies, Schweiger et al. (1987) found that people became obsessed with self-survival and tried to protect themselves from changes they thought would hurt them. McKenna (1994) cites a number of individual factors as sources of resistance to change: Habit, Security, Fear of the Unknown, Lack of Awareness and Social Considerations. These are described briefly in Table A (Appendix 1). McKenna goes on to suggest that resistance to change should be used as an opportunity to re-examine proposals for change and explore alternative ways to meet the desired objectives. According to Furnham (2001: 630), organisations are most concerned with resistance to change which may be manifested by a drop in motivation and morale, and may be exhibited as a failure to participate in or commit to the change initiative. Baron and Greenberg (1990) suggest that some individuals will react to change by resigning if they are so opposed to the changes that staying would be intolerable. Alternatively, they may find coping with change difficult and this is sometimes linked to loss. This may be loss of colleagues or loss of status and is most common in acquisitions and mergers. However, Baron and Greenberg assert that this may not necessarily be the most damaging reaction from the organisation’s standpoint, if the most adamant opponents of change leave rather than stay and fight it. Nevertheless, Bareil et al (2007) suggest that despite the scarcity of studies on the human aspects of change, there is a popular belief that individuals have an innate disposition to resist change. However, their research found that there are two distinct “patterns of discomfort with organisational change”. One pattern is linked to the specific change and particular situation(s) whilst the other is dispositional and remains stable regardless of the change. (IV) Psychology of Change Most of the literature on the unconscious aspects of organisational theory and organisational life has come from the fields of psychodynamics and psychoanalysis (Olson, 1990). Bovey and Hede investigated the relationship between defence mechanisms and their association with resistance to change. Five maladaptive defences were examined, namely denial, dissociation, isolation of affect, projection and acting out. Each of these defences is described briefly in Table B (Appendix 2). From the employee’s point of view, organisational change incorporates threat, as well as challenge (Kruglanski, et al; 2007:1305). This threat stems from the fact that change disrupts an individual’s understanding of the work context and, the fact that there may be a requirement to possess or acquire new skills. This type of reaction is referred to as ‘need for cognitive closure’. However, Kruglanski (1989) also suggests that change can provide challenges and opportunities and can be viewed favourably by some individuals. This is known as ‘locomotion tendency’. People who crave stability may dread change, whilst those who dislike routine may relish such opportunities. Whether the cause is real or imaginary, anxiety still produces the same physiological responses for an individual. The more an individual resorts to maladaptive defence mechanisms, the less energy the individual can direct towards adapting to organisational change (de Board, 1983 cited in Bovey and Hede, 2001). Understanding the psychological background to these reactions is important to those involved in implementing organisational change for several reasons: It may help identify those who are comfortable/uncomfortable with change Identify those likely to facilitate or obstruct change Through better understanding enable organisations to develop interventions to promote appropriate reactions to change. The need for cognitive closure described earlier is defined as a desire for a definite answer to a question in order to have certainty and avoid ambiguity (Kruglanski, 1989). Because individuals that have a high need for closure want stability and permanence, they are likely to feel uncomfortable with change and, may not cope well under such circumstances. Changes in familiar patterns are likely to exacerbate such resistance to and avoidance of, change. Whilst need for closure may foster resistance to change, a tendency to locomotion will engender very opposite feelings and reactions. The locomotion tendency is defined as a propensity to action and is concerned with movement from state to state (Kruglanski, 2007). From the perspective of locomotion, a change of state constitutes its own rewards (Higgins et al., 2003). Accordingly, people with a high locomotive tendency should find organisational change a positive experience and should demonstrate greater capability of coping with the challenges of organisational change. (V) Emotional Intelligence and Organisational Change According to Mullins (2002: 223), Emotional Intelligence (EI) has gained considerable attention as a key aspect of managing people effectively. The Emotional Competence Inventory defines EI as: “the capacity for recognising our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves and managing emotions within ourselves and with others.” (Boyatzis et al., 1999 in Mullins, 2002:323). Chrusciel (2006) proposes that the influence which EI has on significant change transformations and organisational profitability merits consideration and reflects Lam and Kirby’s (2002:134) assertion that: “Emotional Intelligence gives you a competitive edge…” They go on to offer three different areas of EI, which are: Perception, Understanding and Regulation of emotions. Chrusciel also suggests that through improved EI, the anticipated anxiety and stress generated by organisational change can be identified and confronted. Smollan (2006) cites Basch and Fisher’s (2000) view that change is an “affective event” and therefore, it is critical to analyse its emotional impact. Smollan also discusses the Perceived Justice of Change stating that perceptions of justice tend to produce positive emotions, whilst perceptions of injustice will lead to more intense negative emotions. Further, violations of the psychological contract produce a sense of injustice and strong emotional reactions (Rousseau 2001). Therefore, in the context of organisational change, employees with high Emotional Intelligence will be aware of the potential impact of their behaviour on their peers and managers and may consequently moderate their words and actions. In addition, Smollan indicates that leaders with high Emotional Intelligence have been shown to demonstrate empathy and integrity. These characteristics have been identified as key qualities in engendering employee trust. Smollan goes on to propose that “Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses of employees to change are moderated by the Emotional Intelligence of the employees themselves and, the change manager(s)”. Research suggests that Emotional Intelligence may be a predictor of success, not unlike IQ, in cognitive-based performance. By considering Emotional Intelligence in the context of organizational change management philosophy, not only does the individual employee have opportunity to improve, but the enterprise gains as well (Chrusciel, 2006). This is especially true when the organisation needs to assess its people strengths and weaknesses in preparation for a change transformation. VI. Supporting Individuals through Organisational Change Furnham (2001: 624) states “Individuals don’t change, they are changed by others”. He suggests that people are more likely to accept change when it is understood, it does not threaten their security, the change has been created with the participation of those affected by the changes, it follows other successful changes and the outcome is reasonably certain. In addition, the implementation of such changes should be mutually planned and top management support for both the change and individuals should be clearly evident. Substantial evidence in the literature suggests that more participative changes result in more commitment (Beer, 1980 cited in Covin and Kilmann) and reduced resistance to change (Nadler 1981 cited in Covin and Kilmann) and is consistent with Beckhard’s (1969) view that “ownership” of change programmes by those most affected are more likely to succeed. Self et al. (2007) suggest that justifying the change initiative before and after its implementation can contribute to mitigating negative reactions to change and, help increase support for such change. Employees will perceive the organisation’s desire to demonstrate the need and appropriateness for change as a supportive measure, thereby affecting the willingness to embrace a change initiative. Models of transition endeavour to describe how individuals respond to change, either in their own lives or environment. Most transitions are associated with significant life events that require radical restructuring of the individual’s view of themselves and their world. The process takes longer than most people expect - typically 6-12 months, sometimes longer. Transitions involve serious hazards and windows of opportunity for growth (Williams, 1999b). Bovey and Hede (2001), suggest two intervention strategies to support employees during such transitions. Firstly, individuals should be provided with information to create awareness and understanding of the processes which influence their motivations and behaviours in a changing environment. Secondly, such information-based strategies should be supported by counselling which focuses on activities designed to help people individually and collectively analyse, interpret and understand how their own defence mechanisms influence their reactions to change. Joffe (2002: 378) found in his study that understanding transition and the nature of resistance was one of the key tasks in change management. He also identified some central themes which influenced how employees responded to change. These included confidence and interaction with change leaders, the extent to which people felt that their contributions were valued and rewarded and, communication. VII. The Future of HR and the Need to Change Administrative reform is a recurring feature of public administration with an ongoing quest for “better government” (Coggburn, 2005). According to Truss (2008), the reform of structures, systems and processes within public services over the past 20 years has involved an increasing pressure from government on organisations to emulate private sector managerial practices, including performance management, customer orientation, and a heightened strategic focus (Corby and Higham 1996; Horton 2003; Boyne et al. 2004). As part of this process, reformers have identified HR as a key ingredient in the better- government recipe because of its inextricable link with government performance. It has been argued that improved human resource management could enhance cost-effectiveness and serve to spread a performance-driven culture (Ferlie et al. 1996; Bach and della Rocca 2000; Jaconelli and Sheffield 2000). However, Coggburn (2005) describes contrasting views of centralised and decentralised HR systems. The former are associated with standardisation, consistent and equitable decision making and economies of scale, whilst also being characterized by their slowness, rigidity, complexity, and unresponsiveness. In contrast, decentralised HR systems are thought to offer the flexibility and responsiveness needed by today’s public agencies for effective administration. Truss (2008) suggests that many scholars perceive that the HR function in almost all organizations is required to play multiple, and often conflicting, roles (Caldwell 2003; Kamoche 1994; Legge 1995). Further research suggests that there is no evidence that one clear ‘model’ of the HR function exists within the private sector that could be adopted by the public sector (Truss et al. 2002; Harris 2004). Much of the work on change involves identifying the means for implementing organizational change efforts while including human resources (HR) as an instrumental element of relevance to a firm’s success or failure in change programs. Or, alternatively, the change literature takes a processual approach in which HR are but one of many factors to be considered. Traditionally, human resource professionals have been involved in the design and implementation of change (Ogilvie and Stork, 2003). HR typically reacted to perceived needs and pressure from stakeholder groups, both internal and external to their organisation. Recently, several authors have advocated that HR become more visionary, as “champions” of change (Ulrich, 1997) or “transformative” change agents (Caldwell, 2001). Indeed, Hunter and Saunders (2004) suggested that new models of HR were emerging which ‘freed-up’ the function to enable it to focus HR delivery along a framework that promotes specialism and supports the ability to face the challenges presented to HR. The focus of HR is on delivering improvement within the function and the business following the specialisms proposed by Ulrich (1997), which are divided quadrilaterally between Processes and People across one plane; and between Strategic Focus and Operational Focus in the other. However, the constant emphasis on downsizing, outsourcing, and redesigning of organisations to ensure they remain competitive, and able to make the most of economies of scale and scope (Farndale et al; 2009) has led to the emergence of new approaches to delivering Human Resource Management (HRM) in organisations. This has resulted in the identification of various models (Paauwe 2004) including: strategic logic, societal logic, professional logic and delivery logic. Farndale, et al; define strategic logic as linking HRM strategy with corporate strategy; societal logic of fitting HRM policies with society at large; professional logic, of the level of quality of the services provided by the HR function; and the delivery logic, which focuses on how HRM practices can be delivered through internal or external mechanisms. There is also a growing emphasis on how HR service delivery is being impacted by information and communication technology (ICT), given the various pressures to outsource and downsize yet maintain high levels of service quality. Ulrich and Brockbank (2009) suggest that the HR profession as a whole is quickly moving to a more strategic focus which is placing new demands and expectations on HR professionals. Their research indicates that the top 20 percent of individuals asked to change are already doing the work that the change requires, whilst the lower 20 percent will never get there. The remaining 60 percent will require training, coaching and support in order to make the move. However, the emphasis on a strategic focus (Truss, 2008; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2009), has led to the marginalisation of transactional and administrative work which has seen its perceived value to the organisation being eroded. As a result of this and the growing emphasis on reducing costs, there has been a significant shift away from a holistic HR provision towards a transfer of transactional work to internal service centres or to external outsourcing firms (Ulrich and Brockbank, 2009). It is evident therefore, that organisations will continue to require fewer HR professionals to carry out transactional administrative work and the role of HR professionals in organisations will continue to evolve and become more fragmented. Implications for the Organisation Horton and Farnham (1999) suggest that the focus on performance indicators is having a perverse effect on the quality of services and the priority given to multiple activities; it would be difficult to argue against such a viewpoint, in that the vision and theory are not always reflected in practice. There may be evidence to suggest that further changes need to be made in order to continue to meet the needs of service users in a climate of fiscal restraint, and the Authority should be mindful that any such endeavours need to have the active commitment of all those involved if they are to be effective. Teaching individuals skills and competencies for managing present job-related problems as well as opportunities for future development is a key way to changing organisations (Rusaw 2007: 356). Since Local Authorities must tackle large-scale socio-economic problems which may have no “right” solution, it is inevitable that change will continue to be a key feature as new government initiatives are implemented. However, whereas the private sector may have a greater ability to determine its own direction and outcomes, the public sector remains constrained in this area. It is therefore more difficult to engage in meaningful dialogue with employees regarding the need and nature of change initiatives. This open communication approach has been widely cited in the literature as being a key driver of acceptance of and commitment to change. It would appear therefore; that the research organisation needs to explore how these human aspects of change are considered and, also how change is enacted. Developing a better understanding of the human aspect of change at a strategic level and integrating this knowledge as part of a ‘learning organisation’ approach may be beneficial in ensuring successful change processes that involve employees and gain their commitment to achieving organisational goals. 6. Methodology The aim of the research is to gain an insight into the nature of the ‘world of change’. This endeavour gives rise to questions about ontological position or, “what it is possible to know about the world” (Ritchie and Lewis, 2007, pg 19). Subtle realism is an ontological approach where an ‘external’ reality exists independently of our own beliefs or understanding which may enhance our understanding of the experiences of research participants (Snape and Spencer, 2007). Such phenomenological considerations are closely aligned to an ‘interpretivist’ epistemology which stresses interpretation and observation as ways of knowing or finding out about the world (Snape and Spencer, 2007). In this respect, the research draws on the experiences of respondents through qualitative methods, reflecting traditional phenomenological approaches. These suggest that human motivation is shaped by unseen factors, (e.g. inner thought processes) and that people may act unpredictably, due to a wide range of factors (Easterby-Smith, et al., 1994, pg 27). The naturalistic, ‘ideographic’ approach taken was influenced by the research question as emphasised by Burns (2000, pg 4), stressing the relevance of ‘social realities’ created by individual interpretation and evaluation of events. Eisner (1979, pg 14-15) describes this approach as highly relevant stating that “there can be little meaning, impact or quality in an event isolated from the context in which it is found”. Furthermore, Vickers and Fox (2007) argue that “by engaging in qualitative research into HRM we can make alternative versions of HRM accessible and ‘real’ to practitioners”. The ontology of subtle realism recognises the importance of the personal interpretations of participants, but also that the researcher’s own understanding and interpretation, may act as an additional filter affecting research outcomes (Ritchie and Lewis, 2007). According to Clough and Nutbrown (2002), “methodology aims to prescribe what are justifiable methods and procedures that ought to be used in the generation and testing of valid knowledge”. The researcher’s ontological position is that the social world is viewed subjectively and is structured by the interpretation and understanding given to it by individuals (Eisner, 1979; Kerlinger, 1986; Burns, 2000; Easterby-Smith, et al, 2002; Vickers and Morgan, 2010). Thus, the researcher acknowledges the ‘realist’ perspective which suggests there may be multiple realities of the social world. This ‘in-between’ position which is neither entirely subjective nor objective reflects Morgan and Smircich’s (1980) model indicating a range of ontological perspectives. Having considered the researcher’s subjective ontology coupled with phenomenological epistemology, it is evident that the researcher is interested in exploring the subjective experiences of individuals and thereby, attempt to derive meaning from experiences, perceptions and interpretations. According to Burns (2000), such an approach is ‘naturalistic’ and the particular concern for subjective construct is known as an ‘ideographic approach’. Burns (2000: 10) states that “qualitative research places emphasis on the validity of multiple meaning structures and holistic analysis”. As such, it would seem entirely appropriate and justified to apply qualitative research methods in the investigation of such ‘real-life’ experiences. The proposed ethnographic approach incorporating Participant Observation and Qualitative Interviews; have been selected in order to explore the individual experiences of a small group of employees experiencing significant organisational change. According to Steyaert and Bouwen (2004), the most natural way of developing knowledge of human interactions in an organisational context, is by studying groups (Rosen 1991). The intention was to enable data gathered from qualitative interviews conducted by the author in previous research, to be compared and contrasted with the behaviours exhibited by participants of this study. In this instance, the natural group meeting approach is used to enable different views or ‘voices’ to be heard at the same time on the same issues as well as for the purpose of generating theory. The richness of information gathered through group methods can be problematic since it frequently leads to ongoing ‘redesign’ of the research question (Steyaert and Bouwen, 2004). It should also be noted that researchers need to be able to see the data gathered in the context of the organisation being studied and will require a broader range of skills encompassing an understanding of group functioning and dynamics (Bloor, 2001). Participant observation is based on the study of day-to-day experiences of subjects and, according to Taylor and Bogdan (1984: 15), “involves social interaction between the researcher and informants...” This particular approach presents a number of issues, most notably ethical dilemmas. Another common criticism of participant observation is that by their very presence, researchers are likely to influence the behaviour of participants and it is therefore not possible to contend that what the researcher sees is a true picture. This is often associated with issues of trust and suspicion and, it may take time for the researcher to gain access to the true feelings, perceptions and activities of participants. The problem of ‘acceptance’ may arise from the researcher’s ability (or lack thereof), to remain detached and unaffected by emotion (Easterday et al., 1982) whilst it is difficult to argue that the researcher’s presence and reactions have no impact on those being observed (Waddington, 2004). No field researcher can be a completely neutral, detached observer, independent of the observed phenomena (Emerson et al., 1995). Semi-structured, in-depth interviews are a complementary method in the context of an ethnographic research approach reflected in the researcher’s phenomenological, qualitative approach (Eisner, 1979; Taylor and Bogdan, 1984; Mason, 1996; Burns, 2000; Clough and Nutbrown, 2002; and Berg, 2004). Criticisms of qualitative interviews reflect those previously cited regarding participant observation and ethnography. In addition, when such methods are used in an ‘insider researcher’ setting, there is the possibility that professional relationships with respondents may influence and distort responses. Parlett (1975) argues that the intimacy between participant and observer can have a profound reactive effect on the subjects of the study. It is therefore critical to identify possible bias from the researcher and participants and seek ways in which it may be mitigated or eliminated. However, the main criticism of the unstructured interview technique is that there is little consistency in the information gathered and, since the data has a single source it cannot be validated giving rise to questions about reliability and the ability to generalise findings. 6.1 Methods Data was gathered over an eight month period during which a new HR structure was implemented combining five discrete HR departments, Training and Workforce Development, Payroll, Health & Safety, Occupational Health, and Recruitment Team (Appendix 3). These teams would be co-located for the first time and would involve the introduction of flexible working and ‘hot-desking’. However, in January 2011 the HR budget was cut by 26%, resulting in the re-design of the HR structure (Appendix 4) and significant redundancies within the new team. As such, it was necessary to handle observations and discussions sensitively, particularly when engaging those who felt particularly vulnerable. It is also important to note that the researcher was part of a group whose position was at risk of redundancy and it was therefore difficult to remain detached from events and remain entirely objective. Participant observation pre and post implementation of the new structure was supplemented with group observation during team meetings and briefings. In addition, numerous informal one to one discussions took place with participants which could be described as ‘opportunity sample’ unstructured interviews. Participant Observation Participant observation was undertaken over a period of eight months from August 2010 to March 2011 and involved members of different teams across three distinct locations. Participants experienced a service restructure; departure of long-standing, senior staff; relocation and integration into new teams. This element of the research focused on the behaviours exhibited by individuals in adapting to their new environments and ways of working. It was also possible to observe interactions between participants and gather data regarding individual experience and perceptions of the effectiveness of the change programme and its implementation. Group Observation These were restricted primarily to planned team meetings within the Employee Relations team and the data gathered through such meetings related to issues of ‘embedding change’. It also offered opportunity to follow the consultation process in respect of the development of working practices and service delivery within the newly formed team whilst providing insights into the dynamics and behaviours of the group. Unstructured Interviews These interviews arose as a result of opportunities created by participant’s wishing to discuss their views of the changes outside of the formal communication/feedback processes. They attempted to capture the experiences and perceptions of respondents relating to communication and implementation. This sample was an ‘opportunity sample’ as it was a conveniently accessible self-selecting group. Participants included members of all the teams which formed part of the HR&OD department and included all levels of staff up to Assistant Director level. Desk Research The final phase of the study was to undertake a review of the author’s previous research data relating to a wider study conducted within the Authority. This earlier research explored the impact of repeated change on individuals and generated extensive data regarding perceptions of how change had been implemented up to that point within a particular Directorate. It was hoped that this would enable comparisons to be drawn between the findings of the current and previous research and, may provide a contrast between the perceptions of individuals. 6.2 Rationale for choice of methods The methods used were selected as a consequence of the research question and the qualitative nature of the enquiry, reflecting the view of Cohen et al (2000; 73), that “the purpose of the research determines the methodology and design of the research.” A phenomenological, qualitative approach was taken in order to explore people’s experiences and perceptions and, to understand respondents’ motivating and influencing factors. Having referred to extensive literature on research methodology (Eisner, 1979; Taylor and Bogdan, 1984; Mason, 1996; Burns, 2000; Clough and Nutbrown, 2002; and Berg, 2004), an ethnographic, participant observation approach, was identified as the most effective method in the context of the research question. 6.3 Analysis of methods Key factors throughout the research project were access and, particularly the issue of ‘insider researcher’. These presented benefits in being able to undertake the research and gain access to a population of around one hundred employees without restriction. However, professional relationships with some of the respondents may have influenced participants and distorted their comments during informal discussions. This is particularly true after January 2011 when budget cuts were announced and the researcher’s ‘at risk of redundancy’ position became known to others. Another area of concern was the degree to which interaction with respondents during normal day to day activities before or after ‘interviews’ may have influenced the responses provided. Consideration was given to the researcher’s reaction to particular statements or actions witnessed and the extent to which notes were written depending on what value was placed on specific topics, themes or behaviours. 7. Findings This section sets out the background of events, participants and groups which are the subject of this study. Reference is also made to the author’s previous research comprising 95 respondents to an online questionnaire (Group 1) of which 18 were later interviewed (Group 2). The earlier research was focused on the impact of repeated change on individuals. By contrast, the current study is an exploration of individuals’ perception of the organisation’s approach when introducing a new HR structure. The Authority’s HR provision was initially dispersed across three sites; Progress House, the Stadium and Westgate House. The Children & Young People Directorate HR team (Group C) was based at Progress House. The Adult, Social Care and Housing HR team (Group A) was based at the Stadium and the Corporate HR Team (Group B) based at Westgate House. To protect confidentiality and anonymity, individuals within each group have been given names corresponding to their group label. Thus members of Group A have been allocated names beginning with A, Group B names beginning with B and so on. In September 2010, the new HR structure was implemented following the Ulrich (1997) principles of separating strategic, operational and transactional activities into discrete functions. As part of this process, an Employee Relations Team was formed from colleagues from the former operational HR teams. Although the various HR functions would eventually be co-located in Progress House, interim arrangements were made so that the newly formed teams could start to ‘bed-in’. This process had begun in June 2010 when Group A was relocated to Westgate House where Group B was already based. Staff from Group C were the last to relocate to Westgate House in late August 2010. In view of the various events which took place during the course of the study it is difficult to ascertain a cause and effect link relating to group behaviours. Significant events experienced included: Creation of new teams, roles and new reporting lines (August – September 2010) Teams relocating more than once (June, August & November 2010) Announcement of budget cuts and proposed redundancies The findings of the previous research conducted by the author in 2010 identified individual perceptions of what constituted a significant organisational change. It is noted that the changes detailed above reflect 71% of all the ‘significant changes’ identified by interview respondents from Group 2. Figure 1.1 (Group 2: Most significant change reported – 16 respondents) Initially, behaviours within the new Employee Relations Team were more closely observed through phase 1 and 2 (above) as they presented an easily observable opportunity sample. Research carried out during phase 3 encompassed a much broader group since all of the teams within Human Resources and Organisational Development had been co-located. Key themes emerged from the data gathered relating to the various events experienced by staff and these are grouped and discussed below. Consultation (Meaningful Participation) and Communication: As part of the process of embedding the new structure, job roles and processes, monthly Employee Relations team meetings were held focused primarily on how service delivery should be arranged. However, from the outset the views of the Head of HR (Hilary) were made clear, and there were many comments made by team members whether any input from the team would be considered. During a chat with the researcher Barbara stated “I can’t see the point of telling [them] what we think. It’s obvious Hilary has decided the set up she wants.” These comments were not isolated, with five of the eight remaining people in the team expressing similar opinions over a period of five weeks. Nevertheless, written feedback was provided to the ER Manager (Beryl) for consideration. All group members who made a submission reported that these had not been acknowledged. During a meeting on 8 November 2010, a number of proposals were put forward to elicit team views. The proposals were taken directly from the written submissions of Charles and Carol, although this was not acknowledged by the manager. There was a unanimous team view that allocating each piece of casework to different officers on an ad-hoc basis was the least preferred approach. However, two weeks after this meeting, staff were informed that Employee Relations support would be provided following the ad-hoc model mentioned above. This information was shared via e-mail circulated to all team members without any supporting rationale for the selection of that particular service model. There was no formal forum provided to discuss the decision or its implications. However, there was a general sense of resignation and the view that it was not worth fighting the issue. Alice commented “It’s not going to work and managers won’t like it but what can you do?” Such reactions reflect a sense of defeat resulting in management by apathy in contrast with Baron and Greenberg’s suggestion that strong opposition to change may result in individuals resigning. Similarly, the reactions of affected staff reflect Smollan’s (2006) views relating to the perceived justice of change. The relocation of various teams to Progress House provided an opportunity to observe dynamics and behaviours resulting from the recent restructure. Since the office space was a new environment for all staff, a plan had been developed detailing where teams would be located and what space was to be used as ‘flexible working zones’. It is unclear as to who was party to these decisions; however there was no consultation process reported by research participants. Ann stated “how come Payroll have got all the window seats?” whilst Beth added “Payroll and systems have got the windows and all the radiators while the rest of just freeze”. It is noted that these comments were made in December 2010 when very cold weather was experienced. A further example was an e-mail from Hilary setting out ‘ground rules’ in preparation for the move to the new accommodation which stipulated what food/snacks/drinks could be consumed at desks which purported to have been in response to feedback: “many of you have told us that ....” However, the researcher (along with other staff) where unable to find anyone who had been asked their opinion in this regard. The reaction of staff within the ER team was highly negative, particularly in view of their perceptions of the earlier consultations. This is illustrated by Barbara commenting sarcastically “yeah, right, ‘course they asked our opinion. They just thought they’d save us the bother.” The author’s previous research regarding consultation had revealed perceptions among Group 2, of the process being a “tokenistic”, “box-ticking” exercise or “lip service” with 11 interviewees, (68.75%) expressing the view that they believed such consultation processes to be meaningless since decisions had already been made and any concerns or suggestions raised were ignored. In the earlier research respondents cited genuine consultation and open two-way communication as the most significant positive influencing factors in adapting to change. By contrast, one of the most frequently reported negative factors affecting change receptivity was the consultation process, reflecting the findings of this research and the themes identified by Joffe’s (2002) study. Concerns about the validity of consultation were expressed by an Assistant Director (Dennis), during an unsolicited discussion in which Dennis expressed frustration at changes being considered which affected his position stating “My post has always been Chief Officer Grade. Now they want to consult me when it’s clear what’s going to happen.” Such comments reflect the negative perceptions regarding the validity of consultation expressed by staff and that hierarchical status within the organisation appears to have limited mediating effect. Defence Mechanisms / Coping Strategies Having established the framework of how the Employee Relations team would operate, it became evident that certain tasks and activities did not fall neatly within the distinct teams of HR Administration, Employee Relations, Recruitment and HR Business Partners. One of the key issues identified by Group C was the lack of knowledge together with an absence of any processes for the Recruitment team. The remit of Group C had previously encompassed the most complex Terms and Conditions of employment coupled with strict statutory safeguarding and Quality Assurance processes regarding appointment of staff who would work with children. Charles first raised the issue with the ER Team Leader who replied “we haven’t got the resources to carry on doing that. The Recruitment team manager will have to sort it out”. Although the information was passed to the Recruitment Manager (Sarah), no action was taken and the matter continued unresolved some weeks later. However, the lack of concern for other teams, colleagues or customers suggested that individuals seemed to be operating within their own ‘silos’ and concerning themselves with their own situation. Such behaviours reflect the findings of Schweiger et al. (1987) who suggested people may become obsessed with self-survival. During informal discussions Arthur shared the view that “the ER team had enough to do and it wasn’t our job to sort [that problem] out.” Whilst the individual recognised the issues, they felt more concerned with adapting to their own work situation rather than supporting other teams. Interestingly, Interview Respondent 12 (From Group 2, 2010 research) also reflected the findings of Schweiger et al. (1987) stating: “people get defensive, under threat and look out for themselves”. A pattern of behaviour observed was the speed with which flexible workers ‘homed-in’ on particular desks. Most of the staff and managers who were ‘flexible’ workers habitually used the same desk every day suggesting that individuals wished to have some degree of consistency following the relocation. HR Business Partners (BP) together with Claire and Charles displayed a pattern of group behaviour, whereby they used the annexed ‘hot-desking’ office exclusively. Indeed, the ‘territorial’ behaviour extended to the use of specific desks. The researcher commented on an individual and group basis stating that it was “interesting how people get into their own comfort zones.” Such behaviour served to create a perception of self-distancing or segregation between this group and the rest of the extended team and may reflect one of the maladaptive behaviours cited by Bovey and Hede (2001). Such perceptions were amplified due to the Business Partner role being new within the structure and a lack of awareness of what the role involved. This was exemplified by a member of the Recruitment team (Richard) stating “what do they [Business Partners] do? They just hide in there and never speak to anyone”. Another significant impact was the isolation of Claire and Charles from the rest of the Employee Relations Team. This may have been as a reaction to their own perceptions of the team dynamics which they believed favoured staff from group A, who had a long-standing work relationship with the Employee Relations Manager. Claire and Charles whilst isolated from their own team chose to sit in the annexe with their former line and senior managers. These behaviours may reflect some resistance to change, a sense of security in being surrounded by the familiar or an interaction of both factors. However, over time Claire began to spend less time in the annexe, choosing to work from the open office and locating near to Carol. There was no opportunity to explore the reasons for this due to absence, although it is known that Claire and Carol had a good working relationship which may have served as an alternative ‘comfort-zone’. An e-mail was circulated by Hilary (15/11/10), setting out a ‘clear desk’ policy which would apply equally to all staff with a permanent desk as well as flexible or mobile workers. However, these ‘rules’ have not been followed consistently and some teams have largely preserved their previous work environment. On exploring these behaviours it was clear that there was resistance to this change. One team (S), managed to gain additional storage space, and a seating area next to their work space despite instruction from the Accommodation Manager that the ‘flow’ of the space had been carefully designed and no changes would be permitted. Sarah explaining that “I need all my stuff around me, that’s how I work.” Support As part of the support process for the members of the ER team, regular 1:1 meetings were arranged between the Manager and team members. However, when a temporary Team Leader was appointed, responsibility passed to them. Whilst initially these meetings had been regularly scheduled, it is noted that Carol and Claire were not offered such meetings. Charles and members from team A and B continued to have support meetings. However, even these gradually ceased upon relocating. Whilst there has been no specific data collected within this study indicating dissatisfaction with line manager support, the author’s previous research highlighted the views of IS10 who stated “Relationship with line manager is key for support”, whilst IS11 observed “Good communication and support from senior management” was important in coping with change. This was reflected in the Group 1 questionnaire data from the 2010 study (see figure 1.2 below) suggesting that work relationships were the most significant factor affecting how individuals perceived organisational change. Figure 1.2 (Group 1: Personal factors influencing experience of change at work) A consistent theme arising from informal discussions related to the uncertainty surrounding the impact of the budget cuts. These were announced in October 2010, but individuals and teams were not informed how they would be affected until late February 2011. Whilst the reasons for the delay and need to follow due democratic process were clearly understood, this did nothing to diminish the stress and worry experienced by staff. A colleague within Organisational Development (David) stated “I just want to know what’s f...... going on!” which reflected the the theories of Kruglanski et al., (2007) regarding a need for cognitive closure in order to engage and adapt to change. This was most often expressed through speculation as to the possible structures which may be introduced and who might be affected during discussions with David (18/01/11), Barbara (19/01/11) and Susan from the Schools Team (28/01/11). Likewise, interview subject 2 (IS2), illustrated this point stating: “tell me how it affects me and then I can go away and deal with it”, whilst subject 3 (IS3) states “I don’t like uncertainty ... give me some structure and I can cope”. However, it is noted that it became more difficult to talk openly among all members of the team regarding the potential impact of budget cuts and redundancies once the new structure was announced on 28 February 2011. Thereafter, Barbara, Arthur, Claire and Charles engaged in discussions expressing their concerns about the ‘pooling’ and selection process which also encompassed concern for colleagues in other sections whom they feared may be at significant risk of redundancy. Similarly, 97.29% of Group 1 identified staffing as a significant change whilst 92.85% reported a change in department structure as significant. Such responses may be linked to ‘fear of loss’ theories associated with human reactions to change (Kübler-Ross, 1970; Burke, 1982; Baron and Greenberg, 1990) and the uncertainty of change giving rise to personal insecurity (McKenna, 1994: 493). Nevertheless, significant support processes had been put into place for staff across the Authority. These included a full day session titled ‘Coping with change’ which outlined the transition curve (Williams, 1999b) and provided employees with insights and awareness into the change process and how it may affect them. This element of support reflects the first of Bovey and Hede’s (2001) intervention strategies. Other practical support was also provided through ‘Market Place’ events with access to a range of support and services including career support and training, the Authority’s Employee Assistance Programme and Occupational Health Service who were able to provide advice and confidential counselling. However, this approach to counselling support falls some way short of the individual and group intervention methods suggested by Bovey and Hede (2001). A former Assistant Director (Diane) commented on the Authority’s previous poor record at providing support to staff affected by change and particularly redundancy. Diane went described a meeting she had with her line manager to inform her that her role had been down-graded following a restructure. She described the manager as clearly uncomfortable, unable to make eye contact and, in her view, “...could not get the meeting over with quick enough”. She also reported that the manager would discuss the implications and impact in greater detail at a later date. Four months later, this ‘follow-up’ meeting had not yet taken place. It was her view that managers often do not possess the knowledge or skills to adequately support staff in these situations. In contrast, Smollan (2006) suggests that support received from line managers may indicate an ability to demonstrate empathy and integrity which are pivotal in gaining trust and commitment to change. On that basis, Diane stated that she would be eager to provide training to managers and also to become involved in any support activities for staff. 8. Analysis Data gathered through the participant observation process was recorded by means of contemporaneous notes. However, there are issues regarding the validity and reliability of qualitative data because of its subjective nature and single origin (Burns, 2000). In addition, Parlett (1975) notes that the intimacy between participant and observer may have a profound reactive effect on the subjects of the study. It is important therefore to examine and discuss possible bias from the researcher and, the participants. The research was carried out independently although the researcher is employed by the research organisation. As such, it was not formally sanctioned or funded although the Assistant Chief Executive and direct line manager were aware of the study being undertaken. Colleagues and other managers were made aware of the researcher’s role, the specific nature of the enquiry and the use of participant observation methods to gather data. These participants included senior and middle managers as well as non-managerial staff. Questions arise regarding what motivated participation in informal discussions and whether, volunteers had a particular narrative or agenda to share. Alternatively, participation may be a reaction to either the researcher or, senior management endorsement. Neither of these influences were apparent and thus no efforts have been made to eradicate any bias which may have been introduced by these factors. It should be noted that not all discussions to which reference is made involved the researcher directly since, some of the discussions were simply overheard. However, the fact that such opportunities arose, may suggest that colleagues felt comfortable in discussing the topics openly. Alternatively, it is possible that the researcher was viewed with a degree of trust so as to permit these discussions to take place in such a way. In order to preserve the integrity of the responses regarding perceptions, care was taken to clarify the key points with the participants, thus upholding Taylor and Bogdan’s (1984: pg 77) view that “...face to face encounters [are] directed towards understanding informants’ perspectives on their lives, experiences or situations”. The interview data was coded in order to classify material into themes, issues, topics and propositions. In addition, some coding took place during the writing-up stage. This coding related to key issues and observations identified through the literature review. It was then possible to organise the data into the emergent themes and patterns and test these against the findings of the literature review. Finally, documentary research focused on the data gathered by the author during previous research in the same organisation. It was also intended to identify if the themes and topics relating to the people aspects of change from this author’s earlier research were reflected in the current study. All data was then triangulated to identify coinciding themes and patterns but also, to reveal divergence between the data gathered, the espoused processes within the organisation and, the literature. This is critical as it illuminates areas for further investigation not covered by this research. Key themes emerged from the Literature Review, the author’s research in 2010 and the current study. These related to Communication, Meaningful Participation, Support and Trust. Other themes related to observed behaviours of groups and individuals adapting to organisational change. Communication Although this study revealed that there was evidence of communication regarding the process of change, participants were not aware of the reason or the structural changes to the HR & OD department. The logic of being co-located was well understood, but no explanation, rationale or ‘Vision’ had been communicated in respect of the new structure. As a result, there was a lack of understanding as to the aims and objectives of the restructure or, what the expected outcomes were supposed to be. This resulted in confusion, irritation and resistance to elements of the proposed changes simply because people did not understand why the changes were being made. These experiences and perceptions appear to support Furnham’s (2001) view that people are more likely to accept change when it is understood and the outcomes are reasonably certain. Likewise, Self et al; (2007) suggest that justifying the change initiative before and after implementation can help mitigate negative reactions whilst increasing support for change programmes. Therefore, the absence of clear information regarding the drivers for change and the intended outcomes appears to have had a negative effect on change receptivity whilst increasing resistance to change and perceived stress among staff affected by the changes. Meaningful Participation The most frequently cited concern throughout the research, was the issue of consultation and, the widely held view across all levels of the organisation about the validity of consultation processes. The term ‘consultation’ was viewed with a high degree of cynicism with participants regarding such activities as simply a box that had to be ticked off as part of the agreed processes. Such views present a stark contrast with common themes found in the literature suggesting that change should be created with participation from those affected (Farnham (2001) and, that more participative changes where there is ‘ownership’ of change programmes result in more commitment, less resistance and greater likelihood of success (Beer, 1980; Nadler, 1981 and Beckhard, 1969). Staff reported that feedback provided as part of the consultation process was rarely acknowledged and almost always ignored. Whilst there may exist good reasons why staff views cannot be incorporated into the change process or, influence the proposed changes; the lack of justification or response from managers was reported as a reason for dissatisfaction with consultation processes. This may suggest that providing responses detailing the rationale for decisions and why staff proposals cannot be implemented could act as a mitigating factor regarding employee perceptions of their participation in the change process. In addition, the consultation process could be used as a means of identifying resistance to change as suggested by McKenna (1994) and may provide an opportunity to explore alternative ways to meet the desired objectives. Overcoming such issues of involvement (participation) and trust may be critical in implementing change more quickly and effectively thereby enabling the organisation to achieve the desired outcomes whilst maintaining employee engagement and motivation. Trust The issue of trust in managers was closely linked to the consultation issues already discussed. However, they also link to the communication issues and leadership in that in order to follow; people need to know what the destination is. That is to say they must have a clear understanding of where they are going, why and what will be the measure by which successful implementation of the change will be determined. Whilst there were no direct comments indicating distrust of specific managers, there was distrust of the change implementation process. This was reflected in comments made by individual reflecting concerns for the negative impact the proposed changes would have on clients and service users. Participants were expressing the view that they ‘did not trust’ the changes would be effective in meeting the needs of that particular service, its clients and end-users. Another issue regarding trust related to new reporting lines and new teams were staff had no prior relationship with their new manager. These individuals found the process of change difficult as they had “no one [they] trust to talk things through with”. The removal of familiar people and surroundings appeared to affect some people who sought to re-establish links with their previous colleagues and managers. There was also evidence of individuals attempting to reconstruct familiar environments or ‘comfort zones’ in order to adapt to and settle into their new work locations. However, although such actions may not necessarily be interpreted as resistance to change, they may be a mechanism used by individuals to protect themselves from the anxiety caused by change as suggested by de Board (1978) and Oldham and Kleiner (1990). Behaviours & Coping Strategies The research provided evidence of ‘attachment’ behaviours as described above and identified by Schweiger et al, (1987) in that individuals sought to keep previous attachments to groups and people even when these may have served to distance them from their new work groups. Although such behaviours were not widespread, there were examples of some degree of resistance to the new structures and rules in most teams. These ranged from adapting the work environment to disregarding new rules which they believed to be petty. The approach taken by some individuals in this regard reflect the theory that individuals use well-developed, habitual defence mechanisms to protect themselves from change (de Board, 1978; Oldham and Kleiner, 1990). There were also examples of individuals reporting uncertainty about new roles which reflected Vernon’s (1969) and McKenna’s (1994) view that attainment of goals is central to self-image and, that the uncertainty created by change may lead to personal insecurity. The reported views of uncertainty may link in to Lewin’s (1947) suggestion that the drivers for change need to be sustained in order for change to be maintained. In this case, the ‘driver’ reported by participants was communication of the vision, purpose and outcomes expected from the change. Likewise, it is possible that the uncertainty and resistance observed may relate to the ‘personal losses’ which individuals believed that they had or may suffer. Personal loss encompassed loss of familiar structures, colleagues, clarity of role and purpose reflecting the views of Burke (1982). Similarly, McKenna (1994) cites habit, security and fear of the unknown as sources of resistance to change. It is noted however, that although these themes also emerged from the research, the level of overt resistance to change witnessed was minor. Nevertheless, the feelings expressed and behaviours observed during the research reflected and supported the theories explored in the literature. Support The findings identified that a comprehensive programme of support had been implemented for staff which included involvement of partner organisations as well as support through Occupational Health and counselling services. This support had not previously been made available in other smaller restructures within the Authority but reflect an increased awareness of the need to support employees during periods of substantial change. The introduction of awareness sessions relating to the processes which influence motivation and behaviours during organisational change and the provision of counselling reflect one of the support interventions suggested by Bovey and Hede (2001). However, the research highlighted a lack of support specifically targeted at managers. Particularly, those levels of management who were involved in undertaking selection processes and informing staff that they had not been successful in retaining a post with the Authority; and senior managers responsible for holding meetings to formally serve notice of redundancy. The research identified Assistant directors and Executive directors who reported their own experiences and lack of skill in dealing with highly emotive situations and emotional colleagues and staff. According to Basch and Fisher (2000), analysing the emotional impact of change is critical, whilst Smollan suggests that developing Emotional Intelligence may support the ability to demonstrate empathy and integrity which are key qualities for building employee trust. Throughout the change process and particularly through the latter stages of reorganisation, HR Business Partners and Employee Relations staff who were themselves at risk of redundancy were required to support managers serving notice of redundancy to other staff. It is accepted that the circumstances made this unavoidable but there may be appropriate to consider if there may be additional support which could be provided for individuals placed in such difficult professional situations. Likewise, managers were not provided with specific support to deal with situations where they had to impart news which was devastating to the individuals concerned. In addition, colleagues of departing staff were also deeply emotionally affected and there was no specific support in relation to this aspect of the organisational change. 9. Conclusions It is evident that change continues to permeate all areas of work within Local Authorities and, that further change has been taking place whilst the research was being undertaken. Against this backdrop, participants had experienced multiple changes during the 12 months in which the research was conducted. From the data gathered it would appear that individuals have been affected by their experiences of the restructuring of the HR function, but also by the wider impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The focus of the research was on the individual’s perceptions of their experience rather than the nature of the change itself. Consequently, consideration should be given to the process of change, its communication and implementation as well as the effect these approaches have had on individuals. Whilst the data indicated high levels of communication in terms of informing staff of changes and the reasons for it in relation to budget cuts and redundancies; it was evident that there was negligible understanding of the reasons for the preceding HR restructure. There was also an undercurrent suggesting that information relating to forthcoming organisational changes was viewed with a degree of mistrust and that people did not feel they were getting ‘the full picture’. There was also evidence that two-way communication was lacking and, that consultation processes were perceived as purely cosmetic with limited or no response from change leaders to feedback provided by staff. Such views appear at odds with the Authority’s Communication and Consultation policy which espouses the importance and significance of consultation in achievement of organisational change. Indeed the unionised nature of Local Government necessitates formal consultation in respect of restructures and redundancies. Although there have been extensive consultative meetings with senior Trades Union representatives on the wider implications of the budget cuts and, the specific detail relating to redundancy selection processes, there has been no agreed procedural document on employee consultation and communication. The focus appears to have been one of ensuring that consultation with Unions and staff meets the requirements of Employment Legislation. Therefore, what these agreements appear unable to achieve is a transparency and genuineness to the consultation process which is accepted by employees affected by the proposed organisational changes. Two of the most prominent themes which emerged were a ‘meaningful consultation’ and ‘trust’. The widely held views emerging from the research suggested that there was a strong desire to have consultation that was participative and that the current arrangements were frequently viewed as a ‘box-ticking’ exercise. It was also clear that many respondents were negatively affected by uncertainty and that this was often linked to considerations about ‘what they would lose’ and concerns that the process of consultation and implementation of change were not genuine. These concerns translated into loss of trust in the process and a degree of resignation to the ‘inevitable’. In the case of this research, there was also a lack of clarity (from the employee’s perspective) about the purpose of the initial HR restructure and the desired outcomes. Providing clear information about these aspects may offer an opportunity for individuals to understand the rationale and the benefits of the proposed changes and, enable them to align themselves to the new objectives. In terms of identifying better ways of implementing change, the research supported the view that strong relationships with line managers which were built on trust were a significant factor. It would appear, that successful change implementation may be linked to the way in which change is enacted through line managers and the ability to have meaningful two-way communication that is open, honest and based on a climate of trust. Such an approach would appear to mirror Purcell’s Black Box (Purcell et al., 2008) in that it is the line manager which acts as the mediating factor in achieving clear meaningful communication, trust and therefore commitment to the change. In conclusion, open, honest, two-way communication is regarded by staff as central to their attitude towards change and, equally important is the relationship with immediate line managers. Any consultation should be meaningful and to this end staff expect to receive responses to the queries and concerns they raise and that finalised change initiatives should reflect their input. Finally, there appears to be a need to understand the purpose and aims of the change initiative in order for people to fully engage with the process and reduce levels of mistrust. Providing clarity regarding the intended outcomes of organisational change helps people to understand why change needs to happen and how they fit in and can contribute to achievement of the new goals. 10. Recommendations The research has revealed concerns among managers and staff relating to communication and the consultation process related to implementing change during the introduction of a new HR structure within the research organisation. The first step in seeking to address the concerns expressed by research participants will be to share the findings of the research with appropriate managers within the organisation and, specifically with the Human Resources leadership. Whilst it is not considered appropriate to share the full report presented here, there is a necessity to convey the nature of the findings, the emerging themes and the links to academic research. The recommendations detailed below will require management support which cannot be assumed in view of the fact that the research has not been funded by the organisation and, that the nature of the research was not formally sanctioned or invited by the organisation. As such, an executive summary of the research report will be produced in order to inform senior managers within the Human Resources and Organisational Development department of the issues identified by the research. The executive summary will also contain a summary of the recommendations detailed below which are aimed at making improvements to the implementation of change within the organisation. It is therefore recommended that the existing consultation and communication policy and processes should be reviewed to establish how this ‘credibility gap’ can be bridged. Intrinsic in this process should be awareness that staff overwhelmingly indicated that they wanted to know the full picture so that they could understand how it would affect them. This need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski, et al., 2007) suggested that individuals could not begin to deal with the change without detailed information about the change. The review should also consider developing change leadership skills among managers to enable them to implement change successfully by providing appropriate support for staff. Firstly, previous experiences of change at work could be utilised to gain a better understanding about ‘what works’ when implementing change and what is helpful in supporting people experiencing change. Introducing focus groups to evaluate effectiveness of the change communication and implementation processes are viewed as a positive intervention which would aid organisational learning as well as building trust and strengthening the consultation process. Secondly, much greater focus needs to be placed on providing managers with an understanding of the complex human responses and reactions that change triggers among affected individuals. Significantly, the Authority has recently introduced a ‘Coping with Change’ workshop which is primarily aimed at staff who are the recipients of change. It is therefore proposed that further work is carried out in this area to develop a training intervention specifically for managers which would address issues relating to communicating difficult information and support for individuals experiencing change. It is also suggested that such information should be integrated into the existing management and leadership training programmes and, that elements of this information should be incorporated into a revised manager’s guide to the communication and consultation policy. To this end, the previous review of the Restructure Action Plan and Consultation Procedure should be revisited in consultation with ACAS and Union representatives. A further recommendation is the introduction of an evaluation process that considers the effectiveness of change initiatives to determine to what extent aims and objectives have been met, whether timeframes and costs have been achieved and, identifies learning points that may be applied to future organisational change initiatives. All of the above proposals are considered in more detail in the Recommendations Action Plan (Appendix 5). 11. Reflection Undertaking this research project proved a challenging experience because of the nature of the self-directed course of study and the immersive nature of the research methodology. Whilst I have a longstanding interest in the area of organisational change and its impact on individuals, this assignment provided a first opportunity to conduct field research utilising a qualitative, ethnographic approach. Initially, I had a clear idea regarding the focus of the research which formed the basis for the draft proposal submitted. However, discussions with my supervisor forced me to reconsider the aims and objectives I had initially identified. My approach towards the research topic was too broad in scope to be addressed by a small-scale research project such as this. I explored the areas of rationality and bounded rationality and how there was a need to be realistic about what could be effectively researched. One of my concerns related to my natural affinity towards an ethnographic approach towards research coupled with a lack of awareness or expertise in undertaking a purely qualitative research project. Previous research I had undertaken had relied on my experience as an interviewer and my experience as a manager. As a result, I undertook a significant amount of research into the various qualitative research approaches, definitions of ethnography, coding, and writing up filed-notes. This proved to be a rewarding yet extremely challenging process as I explored new ways of thinking and revisited complex philosophical and ontological issues relating to my position as a researcher. Although it is difficult to put the experience of this process into words, it has been enjoyable and has helped to continue my development of broader ways of thinking and led me to consider how my views are formed. I then began to consider questions relating to my own views, opinions and perceptions of the research topic. This was critically important since the research was focused on the implementation of a new HR structure which would have personal impact on me. Emerson, et al.(1995) state “The ethnographer seeks a deeper immersion in others’ worlds in order to grasp what they experience as meaningful and important”. However, in undertaking this research, there was significant danger that I would become too personally involved and that data collected and its analysis would be clouded by my own views. Indeed, discussions with my supervisor (Dr. David Vickers) and a former supervisor (Dawn Harrison) highlighted the need to address these issues in practice and, consider them when writing the Methodology section of this report. Whereas in previous research I had discussed the idea of ‘boundaries’ when considering which areas should be explored and which should be omitted; I was worried that an ethnographic approach may lead me in more directions than I could cover. Similarly, having been used to having a defined research question which provided a framework and scope for the enquiry, the unbounded ‘exploratory’ approach was disconcerting. This was due to the fact that every new avenue of enquiry broadened the scope of the research and had the potential to generate more data that I feared I would have difficulty in analysing and utilising effectively. Initially, I found the process of conducting informal interviews/discussions with immediate colleagues with whom I had a long-standing professional relationship. In such circumstances, I would always explain to colleagues that I was undertaking ‘independent’ research in connection with my studies and asked if they would agree for me to use anonimised extracts or summaries of our discussions. The area which required most focus was the awareness of how I might unwittingly influence interviewees through verbal and non-verbal communication. This is particularly true when participants share their experiences of change and make emotional and value-loaded comments. It is sometimes difficult to maintain objectivity without appearing uncaring or uninterested and was magnified as an ‘insider researcher’, who in many cases, had knowledge of the events being reported. However, there is also a danger of conveying sympathy or support for a particular viewpoint relating to a participant’s experiences. Retaining professional distance without losing the interviewee’s trust and confidence was the greatest challenge of the research as it may have influenced responses and may impact on future working relationships. However, a significant mediating factor was the fact that I was equally impacted by the majority of changes and events which took place and were the subject of the research. Throughout this process, time management was important and, in hindsight, developing a detailed activity plan would have been helpful in structuring timeframes and limits. Having made what I felt was a ‘good start’ by completing the literature review and methodology, little progress was made during December in terms of undertaking any writing. However, significant volumes of data had been gathered during mid to late November when the HR team co-located to new offices. The ‘inertia’ in December was largely due to pressures at work resulting from the implementation of the new team structure, the new working arrangements and annual leave. However, following the announcement of the anticipated budget cuts within the HR team in January, there was greater opportunity to engage in discussions with colleagues and gather data relating to reactions to the likely impact of the cuts. February and March proved to be the most challenging period both in terms of the research and also, professionally since it was during this period that I was informed that my post would be made redundant along with other colleagues and staff across the organisation. This was a difficult period emotionally due to having to consider personal implications but, also it had a significant impact on my academic work as there was a need to focus my efforts on updating my CV and undertaking job searches and applications. Nevertheless, the calendar ticking the days off proved to be sufficient incentive to re-engage with the writing process knowing that the deadline for completion was looming. My supervisor was very helpful at this stage, providing succinct helpful and very prompt feedback after months of silence from my part. Despite my previous experiences regarding research and the benefits of keeping a ‘research diary’ to record my thoughts and concerns, discoveries and drawbacks; I fear I have relied mainly on memory and recall. A research diary would have been useful, particularly in recording my experiences as the subject of change which could have been used to contrast and compare with the wider findings of the study. It would also have been an invaluable learning tool and, could have been used to assist in the writing of this section of the report. Nonetheless, I have retained notes detailing the most impactful and memorable learning points, discoveries and frustrations. Understanding this process gives an insight into our own perspectives, assumptions and bias which are otherwise rarely questioned but which must be explored in order to eliminate these (as far as is possible), from our research. An issue I would seek to explore with my supervisor is the difficulty in incorporating much of the data gathered into the finished report. Reviewing and analysing individual comments observations and summaries was time consuming and concerns remain that all useful data may not have been extracted from these sources. As a result, a greater awareness has developed of the importance of identifying what data ought to be collected, how it should be written up and coded in order to facilitate analysis and interpretation at a later stage. Often after some days or weeks may have passed since the event took place and was recorded and where some of the impact or meaning of a situation may have faded. Despite advice and warnings from the outset from course tutors (and every research book), there was not sufficient clarity and focus at the initial design stage of what data was needed, how it should be coded, advice on discipline in maintaining journals and effective ways of writing up field-notes. All of these factors impact on the time taken to assess and sort data as well as influencing what data is then selected as representative or meaningful in the context of the research topic or question. Better project and time management may have resulted in more detailed analysis and consideration of all data gathered. Nevertheless, I was able to identify the main themes which were evident across active participants and passive (observed) participants and these have been found to largely reflect the theories which emerged from the literature review. Again, had time permitted I would have liked to undertake a further review of the literature with a focus on case studies in order to explore a broader range of options for the recommendations section of the report. However, this weakness in gathering detailed information is reflective of my MBTI type which is ENTP. The approach of concentrating on theories and broad views rather than detail during the research are typical of the NT temperament. Reflecting on the data gathering process, I can recall my initial interest was in ‘ticking off’ the key themes which I had encountered through the literature review, rather than looking at the detail of the data. However, this formed part of a recurring concern which I had discussed with my supervisor in that I would report and document statements and actions which I believed to be significant. This raised questions about all the other behaviours and comments which remained ‘unseen’ by the researcher because they were not deemed ‘important’. Being completely immersed in the research situation and equally affected by the events being experienced, there was a danger that I would naturally preference those views and comments which reflected my own views and experiences. It remains a fact that it is impossible to remove yourself from the research situation and the risk remains that any findings may be biased by the researcher’s views. It is for this reason that I discussed with my supervisor about the appropriateness of using my previous research data and findings to contrast and compare the experiences of HR staff involved in this study. The final aspect of the research project was collating the information and setting out to write the report. It is at this stage (and even as I write this) that I realised the sheer volume of information which I had collected. This ranged from extensively highlighted journals, lecture handouts, assorted notepads filled with reading and research notes, as well, books and the research data itself. What is needed is a good system for managing information (Bell, 2006: 72) and mine was adequate, but would have benefitted from being indexed by subject/topic in order to enable quicker access. Too much time was spent sifting through journal articles and notes which could have been avoided. A more ruthless selection process would have also helped, but even now, at the end of the project I am reluctant to part with research materials which have been amassed during the last few months. 12. References Argyris, C. (1999) On Organisational Learning, Oxford: Blackwell Business, in Hughes, M. (2006) Change Management: a critical perspective, London: CIPD Bach, S. and della Rocca, G. (2000) The Management Strategies of Public Service Employers in Europe. Industrial Relations Journal, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 82-96. Basch, J. and Fisher, C.D. (2000) Affective events-emotions matrix: classification of work events and associated emotions, in: N.M. Ashkanasy et al. (Eds) Emotions in the workplace: Research Theory and Practice, pp. 36-48, Westport: Quorum Books. Bareil, C., Savoie, A. and Meunier, S. (2007) Patterns of Discomfort with Organizational Change. Journal of Change Management. Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 13-24. Baron, R. and Greenberg, J. (1990) Behaviour in Organisations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Beckhard, R. (1969) Organization Development: Strategies and Models, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Beech, N. and Johnson, P. (2005) Discourses of disrupted identities in the practice of strategic change: The mayor, the street-fighter and the insider-out. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 31-47. Beer, M (1980), Organization Change and Development: A Systems View, Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. Berg, B.L. (2004) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 5th Edition, Boston: Pearson Education Blackpool Council. (2005) HR Consultation and Communication Policy – A guide for Managers Bloor, M. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research, London: Sage Bovey, W.H and Hede, A. (2001) Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 534 – 548. Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D. and Hay/McBer (1999), Emotional Competence Inventory Feedback Report, Hay Group in: Mullins, L.J. (2002) Management and Organisational Behaviour 6th Edition. Harlow: FT/Prentice-Hall. Boyne, G., Martin, S. And Walker, R. (2004) Explicit Reforms, Implicit Theories and Public Service Improvement. Public Management Review, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 189-210 Burke, W. (1982), Leaders: their behaviour and development, in Nadler, D.A., Tushman, M.L. and Hatvany, N.G., (Eds.), Managing Organisations: Readings and Cases, Boston: Little-Brown Burke, W. (2002), Organization Change: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, in: Hughes, M. (2006) Change Management: A Critical Perspective. London: CIPD Burns, R. (2000) Introduction to Research Methods, 4th Edition, London: Sage Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change, 4th Edition, Harlow: FT/Prentice-Hall Caldwell, R. (2001), Champions, adapters, consultants and synergists: the new change agents in HRM, Human Resource Management Journal, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 39-52. Caldwell, R. (2003) The Changing Roles of Personnel Managers: Old Ambiguities, New Uncertainties, Journal of Management Studies, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 983-1004. Carnall, C.A. (1986) Toward a theory for the evaluation of organizational change, Human Relations, Volume 39, Issue 8, pp. 745-766. Chrusciel, D. (2006) Considerations of emotional intelligence (EI) in dealing with change decision management. Management Decision, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 644-657. CIPD. (2009) Learning and Development Survey. London: CIPD Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. (2002) A student’s Guide to Methodology. London: Sage Publishing Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education (5th Edition), London: Routledge Falmer Coggburn, J.D. (2005) The Benefits of Human Resource Centralization: Insights from a Survey of Human Resource Directors in a Decentralized State. Public Administration Review, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 424-435. Corby, S. and D. Higham (1996). ‘Decentralisation of Pay in the NHS: Diagnosis and Prognosis ’. Human Resource Management Journal, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 49-65. Covin, T.J and Kilmann, R.H. (1988) Critical Issues in Large-Scale Change. Journal of Change Management, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 59-72. Cummings, B. (2004) Organization Development and Change: foundations and applications, in J.J. Boonstra (ed.) Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons de Board, R. (1978) The Psychoanalysis of Organisations, London: Tavistock. [Cited in Bovey, W.H and Hede, A. (2001) Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 534 – 548]. Duck, J.D. (1998) Managing change: the art of balancing (1993), reprinted in Harvard Business Review on Change, Harvard, Harvard Review Paperback Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2002) Management Research: An Introduction, London: Sage Easterday, L., Papademas, D., Schorr, L. and Valentine, C. (1982) The making of a female researcher: role problems in fieldwork, in R.G. Burgess (ed.), Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual, London: George Allen & Unwin Eisner, E. (1979) Recent developments in educational research affecting art education, Art Education Vol. 32, pg 116-126 Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Farndale, E. and Brewster, C. (2005). In search of legitimacy: personnel management associations worldwide. Human Resource Management Journal, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 33–48. Ferlie, E., L. Ashburner, L. Fitzgerald and A. Pettigrew (1996).The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. French, E. and Delahey, B. (1996) Individual Change Transition: moving in circles can be good for you, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp. 22-28. Furnham, A. (2001).The Psychology of Behaviour at Work. The Individual in the Organisation. Hove: Psychology Press. Hammersley, M. (1992) What’s Wrong With Ethnography, London: Routledge Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography Principles in Practice, London: Routledge. Harung, H.S. (1997) Enhanced Learning and Performance through a synergy of objective and subjective modes of change, The Learning Organization, Volume 4, Issue 5, pp 193 – 210. Harris, I. (2004) UK Public Sector Reform and the ‘Performance Agenda’ in UK Local Government – HRM Challenges and Dilemmas. Paper presented to the HRM and Performance Conference, Bath University, April 2004. Higgins, E.T., Kruglanski, A. W. and Pierro, A. (2003), Regulatory Mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientation. In: Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., Higgins, E.T. and Capozza, D. (2007) “On the move” or “Staying Put”: Locomotion, Need for Closure, and Reactions to Organizational Change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1305 – 1340. Holbeche, L. (2008) Organisational development in a downturn. Impact, Issue 27 (May 2009), pp 6-9 Horton, S. (2003).Participation and Involvement: The Democratisation of New Public Management? International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume 16, Issue, 6, pp 403-411. Horton, S. and Farnham, D. (1999), Public Management in Britain, London: Palgrave, in: Horton, S. (2003) Guest Editorial: Participation and involvement – the democratisation of new public management? The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume 16, Issue, 6, pp 403-411. Hughes, M. (2006) Change Management: A Critical Perspective. London: CIPD Hunter, I. And Saunders, J. (2004), Future of HR and Need for Change. London: Thorogood. Jaconelli, A. and Sheffield, J. (2000) Best Value: Changing Roles and Activities for Human Resource Managers in Scottish Local Government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp 624-644 Johnson, G., Mellin, L. and Whittington, R. (2003), Guest editors’ introduction: micro strategy and strategizing: towards an activity- based view, Journal of Management Studies, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp. 3-22. Joffe, M. (2002) Facilitating change and empowering employees. Journal of Change Management, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 369 – 379. Kamoche, K. (1994) A Critique and Proposed Reformulation of Strategic Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management Journal, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 29-43. Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd. ed.), Fort Worth, Texas: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Klein, P. D. (2005). Epistemology. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Kotter, J.P. and Cohen, D.S. (2002), The Heart of Change, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kruglanski, A.W. (1989) Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum. [cited in Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., Higgins, E.T. and Capozza, D. (2007) “On the move” or “Staying Put”: Locomotion, Need for Closure, and Reactions to Organizational Change]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1305 – 1340. Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., Higgins, E.T. and Capozza, D. (2007) “On the move” or “Staying Put”: Locomotion, Need for Closure, and Reactions to Organizational Change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1305 – 1340. Kübler-Ross, E. (1970) On Death and Dying, London: Macmillan Company. Lam, L. and Kirby, S. (2002), Is emotional intelligence an advantage? An exploration of the impact of emotional and general intelligence on individual performance, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 142, Issue1, pp.133-43. Legge, K. (1995) Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. Basingstoke: Macmillan Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Human Relations, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 5-41 Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching, London: Sage McKenna, E. (1994) Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour. Hove: Lawrence Elbaum Associates Ltd. Morgan, G and Smircich, L. (1980) The Case for Qualitative Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, pages 491 – 500. Morrison, D. (1994) Psychological Contracts and Change, Human Resource Management, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 353 – 372. Mullins, L.J. (2002) Management and Organisational Behaviour 6th Edition. Harlow: FT/Prentice-Hall. Mullins, L.J. (2005) Management and Organisational Behaviour 7th Edition. Harlow: FT/Prentice-Hall. Nadler, D, (1981), Managing Organizational Change: An Integrative Perspective, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Volume 17, pp 191-211, in: Covin, T.J and Kilmann, R.H. (1988) Critical Issues in Large-Scale Change. Journal of Change Management, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 59-72. Ogilvie, J.R. and Stork, D. (2003) Starting the HR and change conversation with history. Journal of Change Management, Volume 16, Issue 3, pg 254 - Oldham and Kleiner (1990), Understanding the nature and use of defence mechanisms in organisational life, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp. i - iv. Olson, E.E. (1990), The transcendent function in organizational change, The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp. 69-81, in: Bovey, W.H and Hede, A. (2001) Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 534 – 548. Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and Performance. Achieving Long Term Viability, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parlett, M. (1975).Evaluating innovations in teaching, in Curriculum Design, (eds.) Greenwald, J. and West, R., London: Croom Helm Perren, L. and Megginson, D. (1996), Resistance to Change as a Positive Force: its dynamics and issues for management development, Career Development International, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp. 24-28. Pheiffer, G., Griffiths, D. & Andrew, D. (2006) Understanding the Dynamics of Corporate Social Responsibility using the Concept of the Shadow Side. Social Responsibility Journal, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp136 – 141. Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2008) Understanding the people and performance link: unlocking the black box. London: CIPD Quinn, R.E. (2004), Building the Bridge as You Walk On It: A guide for Leading Change, San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Quirke, B. (1995) Communicating Change, London: McGraw-Hill. Ritchie, J. And Lewis, J. (Eds.) (2007), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, London: Sage Rosen M. (1991) Coming to terms with the field: understanding and doing organizational ethnography, Journal of Management Studies, Volume 28, pages 1 - 24 Rousseau, D. (2001), Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological contract, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Volume 74, pp. 511-541. Rusaw, C. (2007) Changing Public Organizations: Four Approaches. International Journal of Public Administration, Volume 30, pp 347-361. Schweiger, D.M., Ivancevich, J.M. and Power, F.R. (1987) Executive Actions for Managing Human Resources Before and After Acquisition. Academy of Management Executive, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 127-138. Self, D.R., Armenakis, A.A. and Schraeder, M. (2007) Organizational Change Content, Process and Context: A simultaneous Analysis of Employee Reactions. Journal of Change Management Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 211-229. Smollan, R.K. (2006) Minds, Hearts and Deeds: Cognitive Affective and Behavioural Responses to Change. Journal of Change Management, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp143-158. Snape, D. And Spencer, L (2007). The Foundations of Qualitative Research in Ritchie, J. And Lewis, J. (eds.) Qualitative Research Practice, London: Sage Stacey, R.D. (2007), Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity 5th Edition, Harlow: FT/Prentice-Hall Steyaert and Bouwen (2004) Group Methods of Organizational Analysis, Chapter 12 in C. Cassell and G. Symons (eds.) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London: Sage. Taylor, S. and Bogdan, R. (1984) Introduction to Qualitative Research. New York: Wiley. Torrington, D., Hall, L. and Taylor, S. (2005), Human Resource Management, 6th Edition. Harlow: FT/Prentice-Hall Truss, C., Gratton, L. and Hope-Hailey, V. (2002) Paying the Piper: Choice and Constraint in Changing HR Functional Roles. Human Resource Management Journal, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 39-63. Truss, C. (2008). Continuity and Change: The Role of the HR Function in the Modern Public Sector. Public Administration, Volume 86, Issue 4, pp 1071-1088. Ulrich, D. (1997) Human Resource Champions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press Ulrich, D. and Brockbank, W. (2009). The HR Business-Partner Model: Past Learnings and Future Challenges. People and Strategy, Volume 32, Issue 2, pages 5 – 7. Vernon, M.D. (1969) Human Motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Vickers, D. A. and Fox, S (2007) “Resisting the Rhetoric of the ‘HRM Paradigm’ in Managerial Practice: Reality Bites Back”, Electronic Journal of Radical Organisation Theory, Volume 10, Issue 1, October, Waikato University, New Zealand. Available at -http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/2007/proceedings/whereiscriticalhrm/vickers.pdf Vickers, D.A. and Morgan, E. (2010) Research and Research Methods, University of Central Lancashire, (Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire) Waddington, D. (2004). Participant Observation, Chapter 13 in C. Cassell and G. Symons (eds.) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London: Sage. Waldersee, R. and Griffiths, A. (1997), The changing face of organizational change, CCC Paper No. 065, Centre for Corporate Change, Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales, Australia. Williams, D. (1999a) Human Responses to Change. Report from the strategic planning journal Futures, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 609-616. Williams, D. (1999b) Transitions: managing personal and organisational change. ACDM Newsletter, April 1999. Woodward, S. and Hendry, C. (2004). Leading and Coping with Change. Journal of Change Management, Volume 4, Issue2, pp 155-183 13. List of Appendices Table A (Individual factors as sources of resistance to change) Table B (Maladaptive Defences) HR & OD Team Structure September 2010 – March 2011 HR & OD Team Structure April 2011 Recommendations Action Plan Appendix 1 Table A: Individual Factors Influencing Resistance to Change Individual Factors Influencing Resistance to Change Habit Resistance to change and the need for additional effort (without additional remuneration) to learn and adapt to changes Security Change forces individuals to move away from the security of what they know. Resistance will occur if there is a perceived threat to security Fear of the Unknown Disruption of familiar patterns such as reporting lines may create fear Lack of Awareness Due to selectivity in perception, a person may overlook a critical facet in a change process. It could be that the facet ignored is something the person is opposed to. As a result, there will not initially be any change in behaviour Social Considerations The motivation to resist change may arise from a group opposed to change and may be influenced by ‘peer pressure’ Source: McKenna, E. (1994), Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour. Appendix 2 Table B: Adaptive and Maladaptive behaviours as defence mechanisms and their association with resistance to change. Defence Mechanism Description Humour (adaptive) An individual deals with internal/external stressors by emphasising amusing and ironic aspects. Anticipation (adaptive) An individual deals with internal/external stressors by experiencing or anticipating consequences and emotional reactions in advance and considering alternative responses or solutions. Denial (maladaptive) An individual deals with internal/external stressors by refusing to acknowledge some painful aspects of external reality or subjective experience that is apparent to others. Dissociation (maladaptive) An individual deals with internal/external stressors with a breakdown in the usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, and perception of self or the environment. Isolation of affect (maladaptive) An individual deals with internal/external stressors by separating ideas from the feelings originally associated with them. The individual loses touch with the feelings associated with a given idea while remaining aware of the cognitive elements. Projection (maladaptive) An individual deals with internal/external stressors by falsely attributing to another their own unacceptable feelings, impulses, or thoughts. Acting out (maladaptive) An individual deals with internal/external stressors by actions rather than reflections or feelings and includes transference, which is the recreation in present relationships of experiences from earlier childhood relationships. Source: Adapted from American Psychiatric Association (1994, pp. 755-757). APPENDIX 3 HR & OD Team Structure September 2010 – March 2011 Appendix 4 HR & OD Team Structure September 2010 – March 2011 age ? of ?