Towards Partnership: An
Analysis of the Literature on
Organisational Change
Kings College, University of
London
Social Science Research Unit
Food Standards Agency
July 2010
Unit Report 10
Towards Partnership: An Analysis of the
Literature on Organisational Change
Final report
David Needle, David Guest and Michael Howard
King’s College, University of London
Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
Partnership .................................................................................................................................. 3
The Partnership Context ..................................................................................................................... 3
The Nature of Partnership Working.................................................................................................... 3
Partnership Working Between Organisations .................................................................................... 5
Partnership Working Within Organisations ........................................................................................ 7
Public Sector Partnership Working ................................................................................................... 12
Preliminary Conclusions on Partnership ........................................................................................... 15
Organisational Change ............................................................................................................... 16
The need for change and the nature of change ............................................................................... 16
Resistance to change ........................................................................................................................ 17
Planned approaches to change ......................................................................................................... 19
Generic approaches .......................................................................................................................... 20
Process models ................................................................................................................................. 21
Contingency models.......................................................................................................................... 22
Political approaches .......................................................................................................................... 22
Participative approaches .................................................................................................................. 23
Emergent approaches ....................................................................................................................... 24
Organisational Development ............................................................................................................ 24
The role of the change agent and power and leadership ................................................................. 25
Change agent .................................................................................................................................... 26
Power and leadership ....................................................................................................................... 26
Preliminary Conclusions on Organisational Change ......................................................................... 27
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 29
References................................................................................................................................. 30
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 38
Appendix 1: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 2: Interview Guide for FSA Staff .................................................................................. 41
Appendix 3: Interview Guide for External Stakeholders ............................................................... 42
Appendix 4: Information Sheet for Participants .......................................................................... 44
Appendix 5: Report fo Interviews with FSA Staff ......................................................................... 46
Appendix 6: FSA Report on Interviews with External Stakeholders .............................................. 49
© Crown Copyright 2010
This report has been produced by Kings College, University of London under a contract placed by the Food
Standards Agency (the Agency). The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Agency. Kings
College, University of London warrants that all reasonable skill and care has been used in preparing this report.
Notwithstanding this warranty, Kings College, University of London shall not be under any liability for loss of
profit, business, revenues or any special indirect or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever or loss of
anticipated saving or for any increased costs sustained by the client or his or her servants or agents arising in
any way whether directly or indirectly as a result of reliance on this report or of any error or defect in this report.
Executive Summary
1.
This investigation examines organisational change within the context of partnership
working between the FSA and its stakeholder organisations.
2.
Evidence was obtained from the existing literature on partnership working and from
the considerable literature on organisation change. The findings from the literature
were examined against findings from a series of interviews with a number of FSA
staff and a number of staff from stakeholder organisations. The latter group
comprised mainly food producers and scientific service providers.
3.
The literature review on partnership working identified a number of different types
of partnership. These were; professional partnerships, partnerships between
organisations, partnerships between groups within an organisation and specific
public-private partnerships in the public sector. From the FSA perspective, the key
focus was on partnership working with other organisations.
4.
There is significant agreement in the literature on the conditions for effective
partnership working. These can be summarised as:
The need for high trust
An agreed agenda and agreed realistic goals
Regular contact between partners for relationship building
Information sharing via ongoing dialogue
Joint decision-making
The presence of strong champions
The achievement and communication of successes
Sustainable mutual gains
The establishment of institutional frameworks to embed the relationship.
These factors were frequently mentioned in interviews with FSA members and
stakeholder representatives.
5.
The need for change in organisations tends to be a combination of internal and
external forces. Some of those forces can resist change, although not all resistance
is negative as it can lead to improved strategies and processes.
6.
There are a number of established generic approaches to change. Most see change
as a process involving a series of stages and most are variations of three basic
approaches. These are:
Power-coercive – change based on power relations, authority and the use or
threat of sanctions.
Empirical-rational – change based on rationality and evidence of the need to
change.
Normative-re-educative – based on the view that real change will only occur
if organisation members internalise the need to change.
1
7.
There are a number of approaches that can be used in planned change. Some
emphasise that all situations are different and there is no one best way. Some
emphasise the importance of participation, while others see change as a largely
political process in organisations involving negotiation and bargaining. It is clear
from the literature that a mixture of approaches can be successful.
8.
Evidence is mixed on the value of external change agents. These are facilitators of
change that are external to the group affected by the change. However, in both the
literature on partnership and that on change, emphasis was placed on the
importance of leadership. This was seen to be necessary in laying down a vision and
acting as a champion for the change.
9.
The literature on both partnership and change points the way for the FSA in moving
to partnership working with stakeholder organisations. There would appear to be a
need for the FSA to change internally in terms of establishing a common
understanding of the nature of and the need for partnership and through the
establishment of a more stable structure and clearer lines of communication. In
terms of the FSA relationship with stakeholders, then increased visibility, dialogue
and exchange of information are key elements in the creation of greater trust.
10.
The following steps point the way to a change strategy aimed at partnership
working. These steps apply to change strategies in general and seem particularly
applicable to the FSA in a move towards partnership working.
Create internal conditions that are necessary for change to happen.
Use consultative approaches to build up shared interests.
Focus on relationship building and information sharing to develop trust.
Identify and publicise champions and successes.
Embed the change through institutional structures and procedures.
2
Introduction
This report was prepared by members of King’s College London for the Food Standards
Agency. The initial aim was to conduct a literature survey on organisational change and
present this in report form to the FSA. The context of organisational change in this case was
the desirability and feasibility of partnership working between the FSA and its various
stakeholders. The literature review was backed by a series of interviews to test the
perceptions of some FSA staff and some external stakeholders.
This report presents a literature review, firstly of the meaning and conditions of partnership
and secondly of organisation change, examining the need for change, resistance to change
and change processes themselves. The literature survey is illustrated by the findings from
the interviews. Each main section of the report is summarised in a series of key points at
the start of each section. Further information is presented in a series of appendices. Given
that the interviews were intended as back-up information to the literature survey then
details of the interview process and outcomes appear as appendices. A note on
methodology can be found in Appendix 1, the interview guides for FSA staff and for external
stakeholders can be found in Appendix 2 and 3 respectively. An example of the consent
form for the interviews and the accompanying information sheet for participants can be
found in Appendix 4. The report of the interviews with FSA staff can be found in Appendix
5 and that of interviews with external stakeholders in Appendix 6.
Partnership
The Partnership Context
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has expressed a wish to move towards more of a
partnership relationship with the organisations it deals with. This literature review draws
together the key material from the vast amount of literature addressing organisational
change and is set in the context of the challenges created by the FSA’s desire to move
towards a set of partnership relationships. The review starts by exploring the concept of
partnership and the evidence about the changes and the steps that might be necessary to
introduce partnership.
The Nature of Partnership Working
The concept of partnership has achieved prominence in the past 15 years, partly as a result
of being heavily promoted by the government. Excessive use of the term, and its
application to all types of working relationship, has risked devaluing the concept. Yet it has
3
a long history allied to specific legal definitions. It is therefore helpful to provide some initial
distinctions between the main forms of partnership:
Professional partnerships, such as those entered into by firms of lawyers or
accountants, have a distinctive legal form and are not relevant to this report.
Public/private partnerships have been heavily promoted by government. These are
contractually based, with detailed financial specifications and obligations supported
by legally binding contracts. Examples can be found in the fields of education and
health where private finance has supported the building and then the infrastructure
management of public organisations such as schools and hospitals. A well-publicised
example of where this kind of partnership arrangement can go wrong can be found
with the London Underground (House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008).
This form of partnership, with its strong contractual underpinning, is also unlikely to
be relevant to the aims of the FSA.
Partnership working between organisations focuses on the agreements between
various kinds of suppliers and manufacturers or retailers. While these arrangements
can be strictly contractual and legalistic, they can also develop into much closer
working relationships that have the characteristics of mutually beneficial partnership
working. These types of arrangement have been extensively researched and have
relevance to the FSA, when considering its relationship with stakeholders.
Partnership working within organisations is concerned with agreements, which may
be more or less formal, between employers and employees or their trade union
representatives to arrive at mutually beneficial working arrangements. This type of
working relationship has a long history and has been extensively researched. There
may be some relevance here to the FSA.
Public sector partnership working is concerned with attempts, often initiated by
government, to encourage more effective working between public sector
organisations as well as voluntary and sometimes private sector organisations where
there is a common focus. Examples might include regional policy to promote
industrial regeneration and employment or attempts to improve community safety.
Again the experience of the essentially voluntary nature of these types of initiative
may contain lessons for the FSA.
Given the potential relevance of what we have termed organisational and public sector
forms of partnership, we start by reviewing the evidence about what these entail and the
lessons about the conditions and the changes that are necessary to increase their chances of
leading to mutually beneficial outcomes.
4
Partnership Working Between Organisations
Key points
Partnership is a social exchange in which both partners can benefit.
Successful partnerships between organisations can achieve more than
organisations working alone.
There has been a growth in partnership working in recent years via supply chains,
alliances and joint ventures and within the public sector especially between public
and private organisations.
Establishing high levels of trust is essential since low trust relationships are
expensive to monitor.
Effective partnership is based on compatibility.
Both partners need to demonstrate capability, competence and commitment and
have regular contact with each other.
The literature focuses on a number of difficulties including power differences and
cultural differences between partners.
There is a large body of work by sociologists, economists and organisational specialists that
focuses on inter-organisational cooperation. A particular focus of this stream of work has
been concerned to understand the conditions under which buyer – supplier partnerships
can flourish. The research draws heavily on the ideas of Granovetter (1985) who has
explored the conditions under which positive social exchanges become embedded. It is
complemented by the more economic focus on transaction costs (Williamson, 1979) which
highlights the added costs of monitoring relationships and contracts based on low trust. A
major aim of the research has been to identify the conditions under which effective
partnership relationships can develop so that mutual gains are maximised and transaction
costs are minimised.
An initial factor that needs to be taken into account is the existence of potentially significant
cultural differences in approaches to relationship building and the subsequent operation of
inter-organisation partnership arrangements. Specifically, in some Asian countries,
partnership-building can be a lengthy process based around extensive exchanges and
contacts to slowly build mutual trust. In this context, informal networks can become very
important. In Western countries, there is usually a stronger formal contractual base with
the consequent increase in monitoring and other transaction costs. There is considerable
5
evidence to show that more extensive social exchange can improve partnership working
between organisations (e.g Palmatier at al, 2007; Luo, Liu and Xue, 2009). A key to a
successful partnership outcome is seen to be an investment in the social aspects of the
relationship, alongside economic exchanges, to create social embeddedness. This
investment is likely to involve a stable set of relationships involving extensive contacts.
Granovetter suggests that the positive outcomes of this process include reduced
opportunistic behaviour and reduced conflict. It is also likely to enhance mutual
commitment to the relationship and its goals (Gilliland and Bello, 2002) and improve
knowledge sharing (Ruggles, 2002).
Such conclusions have been reinforced by studies in a number of areas. The influences of
lean production, based initially on the Toyota production system of the 1950s and 1960s
emphasised the importance of a close relationship between manufacturers and a group of
dedicated suppliers (Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990). Partnerships with dedicated suppliers
have now become a common feature of both manufacturing and retail. Such partnerships
can solve problems that a single entity organisation cannot and can be mutually beneficial
(Augustine and Cooper, 2009). Such benefits can include the exchange of ideas and
methods, joint innovations and an exchange of personnel. Moreover, close supplier
relationships are seen as an important contribution to achieving both high quality and low
cost (Porter, Takeuchi, and Sakakibara, 2000). While there has been much interest in the
lead taken by Japanese firms, such relationships can also be viewed as exploitative. There is
evidence that many Japanese firms use a large number of suppliers and sub-contractors
primarily to reduce labour costs (Williams et al, 1992; Chen, 1995).
Collaborative ventures between competing firms have been a feature of research and
development in Japan for many years. The government established industry-wide research
centres and required major firms to second research staff to them. Initially involved in
reverse engineering to analyse products from foreign competitors, the research centres
switched their attention to the development of new technologies for the benefit of the
whole economy. However, while partially successful, the scheme was handicapped by a lack
of cooperation between the major competing firms involving a holding back of information
(Mowery and Rosenberg, 1989; Callon, 1995).
The dramatic growth of alliances and joint ventures as an organisational form was noted in
the 1990s, with some asserting that alliances outperformed single entity businesses by as
much as 50% (Pekar and Allio, 1994). Alliances are a common feature of the airline industry
and joint ventures have proliferated in most countries and are common forms of market
entry for foreign firms in China and the transitional economies of Eastern Europe. As well as
a standard route for market entry in some countries, joint ventures offer a number of
advantages. They can aid survival in highly competitive industries, facilitate technology
transfer, enable organisations to access specific core competencies of some partners,
reduce risk and can increase significantly the control of a supply chain (Lyons, 1991).
6
However, a number of significant problems and issues have been identified with different
forms of alliance (Medcof, 1997 offers a good summary). The establishment of any form of
partnership requires changes in organisation procedures and even structure, leading to
complexities which slow down the decision-making process. Key problems arise when the
partners have different goals or different capabilities which handicap joint working.
Incompatibility can arise for a number of reasons, including differences in both corporate
and national culture. Issues of commitment and control are frequently cited as reasons for
the failure of alliances (Medcof, 1997) and these relate inevitably to trust. Das and Teng
(1998) define trust in terms of reliability in a risky situation. They see trust as essential in
that it is impossible to monitor all the details of exchanges and activities between partners.
Trust also involves being confident that partners will behave in ways that are both
predictable and mutually beneficial. However Das and Teng (1998) suggest that
mechanisms to ensure trust can vary between partnerships and may, in some cases, involve
formal controls (e.g. contracts) and, in other cases, social controls (normative measures). A
key variable here is the length of time the partnership has operated. Another key variable is
undoubtedly the difference in power between the partners.
There are some lessons from this perspective on partnership for the FSA and its relationship
with organisations. It highlights the importance of regular contact and relationship building
as a basis for creating trust. It is important to have some mutual interests in and gains from
investment in social partnership, even when, as in the case of buyer – supplier relationships,
there is also a core economic exchange which is potentially opportunistic. The parallel may
lie in developing an exchange that minimises the perceived power imbalance implicit in the
legal role of the FSA.
Partnership Working Within Organisations
Key points
The focus has been on establishing positive working relationships between
employers and employees.
Partnership in this respect has been proposed as a better alternative to adversarial
forms of industrial relations and has been backed by the main political parties in
the UK and by the EU.
There are examples of effective operation of such partnerships in Ireland and in
Scandinavia.
There is some evidence that the need for partnership can grow out of a crisis and
7
benefits from strong champions and early successes.
As with other forms of partnership the literature identifies similar key elements for
partnership success. These are mutual trust, information sharing, joint decision –
making, mutual gains and ultimately the formalisation of arrangements by formal
agreement and structure.
A number of problems have been identified including the different interests of
partners, low trust, the problem of converting principles into practice, the implied
challenge to management’s right to manage and sustainability over time.
Over the past century, there have been numerous attempts to create a basis for positive
working arrangements between employers and employees (Heller et al, 1998). This is the
territory of what used to be termed industrial relations and now, more typically, employee
relations. The UK has traditionally had a predominantly voluntarist system but this has been
open to abuse and has gradually been superseded by a number of legislative interventions.
Europe has a stronger tradition of joint working and of operating within a legislative
framework that ensures certain rights for workers and their representatives (IDE, 1993).
One manifestation of this is the requirement to operate Works Councils that is gradually
being introduced in the UK. The interest in partnership working arose partly as a reflection
of the UK preference for a voluntary system and the belief that a freely chosen rather than
legally required working relationship would yield better results.
A notable example of successful partnership working at the national level (but geared
towards employment relations) can be found in Ireland where there have been a series of
partnership agreements, negotiated at national level with the government playing a major
part. These agreements have been widely hailed as contributing to the Celtic economic
miracle that supported the rapid growth of the Irish economy over two decades (see, for
example Irish Government, 1996). There are also well-documented illustrations of nationallevel partnership working to be found in the Scandinavian countries and a partnership
approach was broadly endorsed by the European Union in its Green Paper Partnership for a
New Organisation of Work (EU, 1997).
Attempts to introduce partnership working in the context of employment relations have
met with some criticism. Those who take a traditional pluralist view, which accepts that
workers and employers have a fundamentally different set of interests, see it as an attempt
to incorporate workers into a managerialist perspective (Ackers and Payne, 1998; Kelly,
1999, Provis, 1997). While the TUC was initially supportive of partnerships (TUC, 1999), in
recent years it has become markedly more sceptical. From a managerialist perspective,
there have also been criticisms that it interfered with management’s right to manage and
8
can only be justified if it provides incentives to higher performance (Blinder, 1990; CBI,
1999)
In this context, partnership working has been described in slightly different but somewhat
overlapping ways by those with an interest in it. It was promoted initially by the UK
Conservative government in the 1990s in its document Competitiveness Through
Partnerships With People (DTI/DfEE, 1997). The principle was reinforced by the Labour
Government through its Fairness at Work legislation (DTI, 1999). A fuller and more explicit
statement of the aims and processes of partnership working was set out by the TUC in its
Partners for Progress: New Unionism in the Workplace (TUC, 1999) and a complementary
approach was presented by the Involvement and Participation Association (IPA, 1997).
It is useful to draw a distinction between the principles of partnership, to which many
people can sign up, and the practices of partnership, which are more contentious. A major
study for the Involvement and Participation Association (IPA, 1998) explored this distinction
in detail among those firms moving towards partnership. Most organisations agreed that
they still had some distance to travel towards full partnership. It identified four general
principles of partnership:
Good treatment of employees now and in the future
Empowerment: creating the opportunity for employee contribution
Employee rights and benefits
Employee responsibilities
The study also identified eight practices associated with partnership:
Direct participation in work decisions
Direct participation in personal employment decisions
Representative participation in employment-related issues
Representative participation in organisation-related issues
Flexible job design and a focus on quality
Performance management
Employee share ownership
Communication, harmonisation and employment security
What is interesting about this list, which was derived from information provided by
employer and employee representatives, is the mutuality. There is a strong focus on
participation by employees and their representatives in decisions but equally, a
commitment by employees to support human resource initiatives in areas such as job design
and performance management. The study showed that there was consensus that greater
progress towards partnership had been made in those organisations that had adopted some
of the first five elements in the list of practices. In contrast, most organisations had taken
some steps towards, for example, performance management and this did not therefore
9
discriminate. The adoption of the various forms of participation was less common and did
discriminate between firms making more or less progress towards partnership. One of the
lessons is that employers must trust employee representatives to act responsibly and quite
often this is not the case even where partnership principles are espoused. The research also
showed that those organisations that had introduced more of the elements of partnership
and in doing so reflected a high level of mutual trust, had more positive outcomes.
In a subsequent analysis of this survey data, Guest and Peccei (2001) were able to show that
despite the espousal of partnership principles, management usually expressed low trust in
employee representatives and determined the scope of partnership. As a result, the balance
of advantage and the balance of any gains usually lay with management. This view was
strongly reinforced in a report of a set of detailed case studies of partnership working in the
public and private sectors reported by Upchurch, Danford, Tailby and Richardson (2008).
The scope to take initiatives towards partnership working in most contexts typically lay with
management.
The IPA study used case studies to look at how partnership was initiated and what was
necessary to sustain it (Dietz, 2004). These revealed that partnership quite often grew out
of crisis and the need to find new ways to collaborate to ensure survival. There was
therefore a strong shared motive to initiate partnership working. Secondly, the presence of
champions for partnership on both the employer and employee side was an essential
feature. These individuals developed a close and highly trusting working relationship which
was able to withstand occasional setbacks. Thirdly, it was essential to have some issues that
could be paraded as the successful outcomes of partnership. In other words, it was
important, particularly when any initial crisis was involved, to demonstrate mutual gains. In
the longer term, it was considered essential to develop some institutional arrangements to
support partnership and this was reinforced by concerns about what happened to
partnership when the key participants who had developed a close, high trust and effective
working relationship, moved on. Finally, Dietz raises the issue of what happens at a crisis
point, which may eventually arise, when the interests of the key parties to partnership
diverge, when management wants something and the workers strongly oppose it.
A key factor that emerges from this initial research is the role of trust and the difficulties in
developing and sustaining trust, particularly when one party, because of its distinctive role,
has a greater degree of control over some of the outcomes that form the content of
partnership activity. It has been argued that an imbalance in control is incompatible with
high trust (Creed and Miles, 1996). The causes and consequences of different levels of trust
in relationship to partnership working were explored in the 2004 Workplace Employment
Relations Survey (WERS) (Kersley et al, 2006). This is a major study involving over 2000
establishments. Interestingly, the research team were unable to arrive at an acceptable
definition of partnership. The study revealed that since the enthusiasm of the late 1990s,
there has been little further progress towards workplace partnership. It also revealed only a
10
weak relationship between those elements of partnership working that were in place and
levels of trust. However it did reveal that direct forms of participation are more likely to be
associated with higher trust relations, as reported by management and by workers,
particularly in comparison with representative participation (Guest, Brown, Peccei and
Huxley, 2008).
It is notable that interest in workplace partnership has markedly declined. One illustration
of this is the IPAs enthusiasm to promote employee engagement, a concept much more
attuned to the interests of employers. It may also have declined because of the introduction
of European legislation on works councils and because of the changing agenda of the trade
union movement. In a review of the UK experience with ten years of partnership,
Johnstone, Ackers and Williamson (2009) argue that we still know too little about the
contexts within which different forms of partnership might flourish. They also highlight the
need to pay much more attention to the process of partnership and in particular who is
involved and how partnership influences behaviour and performance. They also suggest
that we need to pay more attention to the meaning of partnership and how this helps shape
expectations and outcomes. In other words, we need to be realistic about what partnership
might be able to achieve.
If we summarise the key lessons for the FSA that emerge from decades of research on
participation and, more recently, partnership in the workplace, they emphasise the
importance of developing mutual trust, reflected in information sharing, joint decisionmaking and job autonomy; of mutual gains that can be sustained over time; and of some
sort of institutionalisation and formalisation of partnership activity to ensure regular
interaction in contrast to a more rhetorical espousal of partnership. In the context of this
rhetoric, it is important to bear in mind that partnership between employers and employees
is based on an unequal relationship, with employers having the power to determine the
employment and rewards of the workforce and often to enforce changes in the
employment relationship. In this respect, there are parallels with the circumstances of the
FSA, in that the FSA acts as a regulator to its stakeholders, particularly those in the food
industry.
11
Public Sector Partnership Working
Key points
Partnership working is common in the UK and in other countries.
It is based on the assumption that a public-private partnership with the injection of
private funds will be better financially and deliver a better service to the public.
The success criteria for such partnerships are described in terms of mutual
commitment based on mutual trust, the willingness of professional groups to
collaborate, the identification of champions and appropriate institutional
arrangements to sustain partnership.
However it is difficult to find all of these factors present. The literature reveals
that many such partnerships are not true collaborations and are often defined by
unequal power, an absence of joint decision-making and the overly bureaucratic
and cumbersome management of the project.
There have been national and international initiatives to develop forms of partnership
working to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the public sector. Much of the UK
public sector is now built around some form of public-private partnership, based on an input
of private sector finance, in an attempt to improve the delivery of public services. Variations
on this have been in operation for over twenty years (Gray and Jenkins, 2003). Partnership
working has also been encouraged by international organisations such as the World Bank in
its development projects whereby there is a shift from control by donor countries and
organisations to a partnership between the recipient and the donors to ensure the
sustainability of activities following the provision of aid (Gwin, 2002).
In this context, partnership is typically defined as a “collaborative effort by which we can
create the conditions to improve economic performance” (North, 2004). For aid
programmes, partnership can be defined as “a means to an end – a collaborative
relationship toward mutually agreed objectives involving shared responsibility for
outcomes, distinct accountabilities and reciprocal obligations” (Picciottto, 2004; 59). A key
point about such partnerships is that they are incomplete agreements that provide scope
for development. For this to occur there is a requirement for mutual commitment to a
partnership process based on mutual trust.
A further variant on the concept of partnership can be found in collaboration between parts
of the public sector. One example of this is the government initiative to improve child
health in inner cities by providing funding to set up partnership arrangements between
12
social services, health authorities, education bodies and the police. In this kind of context,
keys to success include the willingness of professional groups to collaborate, incentives to
collaborate, the presence of powerful champions for partnership working and the
development of robust institutional arrangements that will sustain partnership. Because it
is unusual for all these conditions to be present, because of the vested interests and
powerful professional bureaucracies and interest groups in this sector, and because there is
often a lack of high trust, such attempts at partnership working have only modest chances
of success.
There is an extensive literature on public private partnerships. These started out under the
Conservative Government as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and were re-badged by the
Labour Government as Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Their main aims have been to
bring private sector finance and private sector management expertise into the public sector
domain, although the rationale has changed so much over time that the whole area has
been described by the IPPR (2001) as “an ideological morass”. The context has usually been
the construction and management of new buildings, transport systems or IT systems. Most
of these partnerships are based on complex contractual agreements.
There has been extensive evaluation of this form of partnership (see, for example, IPPR,
2001; Gosling, 2004; NAO, 2001; ACCA, 2004) but most of the evaluation has been
concerned with comparative cost, with the extent to which a contract has been completed
on time and within budget and with the comparative quality of the product, be it a school or
a hospital cleaning service.
Kernaghan (1993), cited in the ACCA Report (2004) has identified four models for public –
private partnerships which he describes as collaborative – pooling of equal resources and
relinquishing of autonomy in pursuit of shared goals; operational – sharing work but not
decision-making authority; contributory – sharing of finances but not operational
involvement; and consultative – where advice is solicited by the public sector from various
bodies.
The ACCA review concludes from its analysis of the health and transport sectors that “The
nature of the relationships between the public and private sector are not collaborative
partnerships. It is probably the case that both sectors are seeking to achieve operational
partnership in which there is a sharing of work but not of decision-making authority. There
appears to be a consensus that although partnership is an ideal, it is not a position that has
yet been reached” (ACCA, 2004, p.208). The reasons for this lie in the legalistic basis of the
contract that shapes the relationship. The relationship is one of uneven power in a number
of ways. The public sector has the power to set the parameters of the contract; but the
private sector partner may be more expert in negotiating this type of contracting. There is
therefore a temptation to be opportunistic, creating a negative cycle of further monitoring
and reduced trust.
13
In terms of its more general evaluation of PPPs, the ACCA report highlights a range of
factors. Planning and performance monitoring are generally poor resulting in an increased
workload in managing projects. Self-monitoring requires high trust which is not often
present, so the public sector body has to do more monitoring than anticipated. Subjective
outcomes, such as public health or hospital cleaning, are more difficult to specify
contractually and cause more problems for monitoring. Finally, and with lessons for the
FSA, there can be a conflict between policy promotion and policy control. In short, while
the parallels with PPP arrangements and the concerns of the FSA are not perfect, the
lessons that emerge are not encouraging for the kind of partnership that the FSA may be
seeking to promote.
In summary, this implies that the FSA must consider whether the other key stakeholders are
willing to collaborate in partnership or have significant competing interests that would
discourage this; whether there are people within the FSA and potential partnership
organisations who are willing to champion partnership working and serve as
“demonstration cases” of what might be achieved; and whether some kind of institutional
arrangements might need to be developed to sustain partnership.
14
Preliminary Conclusions on Partnership
Important lessons emerge from this review of partnership. Successful partnership requires
considerable effort and commitment from the key parties. While it is easy to endorse the
rhetoric of partnership, it is only likely to have a chance of success if it is based on mutually
agreed and realistic goals both for the process and the outcomes (Stern, 2004), strong
champions within the key stakeholder organisations, a high level of reciprocal trust and the
presence of institutional frameworks to embed partnership within the organisations.
Such views on partnership are supported by comments made in the interviews with both
FSA staff and external stakeholders. FSA staff saw the importance of investing time and
resources to establish good relationships with stakeholders; however they expressed mixed
views about the nature of partnership working and whether it was feasible given the
Agency’s regulator role. Relationships with food producers and retailers were seen as more
problematic than those with other stakeholders. The external stakeholders, including food
producers were clearer on the meaning and aims of partnership working. The external
stakeholders saw less of a conflict between partnership and regulation. Their views on
partnership reinforced the literature findings. Key starting points for partnership working
were identified as trust, respect, transparency, shared objectives, equality, mutual
understanding of roles and responsibilities and the importance of establishing relationships.
In particular the external stakeholders called upon the FSA to engage in more frequent face
to face communication, more dialogue with stakeholders and greater stability of internal
structures and roles to facilitate relationship building.
There are choices for any organisation about the extent to which it wishes to develop and
embed partnership working. In arriving at a decision, account will need to be taken of the
context and history of past relationships as well as the state of current relationships, of the
motivation and commitment of all major parties to partnership working as well as the
presence of champions for partnership, of the mutual gains that can realistically be achieved
through partnership working, of strategies and resources to embed partnership and of the
size of the change in ways of working as well as working relationships that is implied. The
next part of this review therefore reviews the literature on organisational change to identify
how to bring about the kind of changes necessary to arrive at a position where partnership
has a chance of succeeding.
15
Organisational Change
The available literature on organisational change is large and involves a number of classic
frameworks and studies, some of which are over 100 years old. Many of the early
approaches to management, including scientific management and human relations can be
viewed as agendas for change to achieve greater organisational effectiveness. This survey
will focus on:
An analysis of the need for change.
An examination the nature of organisational change.
An examination of the nature and causes of resistance to change.
A review of a number of different approaches to change or change strategies.
The role of change agents, power and leadership.
The need for change and the nature of change
Key points
Change is generally viewed as either a continuous process of adaptation to a
changing environment or as a strategic necessity to achieve organisational survival
and success.
Change is seen as the combined effects of external factors, such as increased
competition and social change, and internal factors, such as an innovation and
poor performance.
A common classification of change is that of a continuum between incremental and
radical change.
Two themes are commonly found in the literature. Firstly, change is seen as a continuous
process of adaptation to a complex and changing environment (Child and Smith, 1987;
Leana and Barry, 2000; Child, 2005). Secondly change is seen as a strategic necessity for
survival and competitive advantage and is therefore critical to organisational success
(Whittington and Mayer, 2002) or as a means of improving performance (Boeker, 1997;
Keek and Tushman, 2000).
Dawson (1996) offers a useful framework for analysing change, viewing change as a function
of external forces, internal forces, the nature of change itself, incorporating scope,
timeframe and perceptions of its significance and the history and experience of change.
16
External forces include market changes, such as liberalisation and increased levels of
competition; economic, political, legislative and technological change; and social changes
such as changes in customer expectations and behaviour. Internal forces include product,
process and management innovation, poor performance, the need for greater efficiency,
including cost reduction, low morale and high labour turnover, relocation, the introduction
of a new top management team and pressure from stakeholder groups. Many of the
external forces are linked to changes resulting from globalisation (Scholte, 2000). Lewin et
al (1999) see external and internal forces as linked.
Several writers have attempted classifications of change (Nadler and Tushman, 1988, 1989;
Goodstein and Burke, 1991; Child, 2005). Such classifications have focused on the nature
and scope of change. A number of linked variables have been identified; the extent to
which change is planned or emerging, strategic or reactive; the extent to which it is radical
or incremental; and whether it affects all or part of the organisation. The focus of the
literature (and this paper) has been on planned approaches to change. However some
change in many organisations emerges, often as a result of the type of external forces
previously identified. A number of writers have portrayed change as a continuum between
radical change and incremental or adaptive change. Radical change has been depicted as
transformational, frame-bending or even frame-breaking (Nadler and Tushman, 1988,
1989). Incremental change on the other hand is viewed as continuous learning and
adaptation as a result of experience, defined by Lindblom (1959) as ‘muddling through’.
Dunphy and Stace (1993) examined the scope of change both in terms of radical versus
incremental and the extent of its impact within the organisation. They developed a
framework from fine tuning, through incremental adjustment to modular transformation
(affecting part of the organisation) and then to corporate transformation (affecting the
entire organisation). Their framework is a contingency approach to change and is re-visited
in this paper.
Resistance to change
Key points
Resistance is often best understood as a conflict between a series of forces for and
against change.
Resistance can come from individuals who feel threatened by change or have a
negative perception of the outcomes of change.
Resistance can also come from organisation structures and processes which may
inhibit communication or create bureaucratic barriers or perhaps from an
organisation culture that emphasises stability over change.
17
Resistance to change can have positive consequences for the change process itself
in that it can lead to improvements in the change process and its outcomes.
Lewin (1951) presented a force-field analysis of organisational change in which he identified
the tension between those influences for change (external and internal forces) and those
influences against change. The latter are often characterised as resistance to change, an
area well represented in the literature. There has been a shift in emphasis from viewing
resistance negatively to seeing resistance as providing information towards the
development of effective change processes (Waddell and Sohal, 1998; Pideret, 2000).
Types of resistance have been classified by a number of writers (Katz and Kahn, 1978;
Bedeian and Zammuto, 1991; Rumelt, 1995; Waddell and Sohal, 1998). From such
classifications we can identify those factors that relate more to individuals and those that
relate more to organisations, although there is some overlap between the two categories.
Individual sources of resistance include perceived threats to jobs, skills and power-base
within the organisation (Katz and Kahn, 1978). In some cases this has been identified as
parochial self-interest (Bedeian and Zammuto, 1991). For some individuals there is a lack of
motivation to change (Rumelt, 1995), which may be linked to fear of failure. For some
individuals there is a fear of changing the status quo (Hutt et al, 1995; Beer and Eisenstat,
1996). Through habit some individuals continue to operate and think in the same way even
though the situation has changed. For some individuals resistance to change is linked to
their personality, leading to a low tolerance of change (Leonard, 1984; Bedeian and
Zammuto 1991). A common cause of resistance occurs where individuals have different
perceptions of the outcomes of change, particularly where there is a perceived lack of
benefit by one group (Rumelt, 1995; Waddell and Sohal, 1998). Such differences in
perception are often noted between management and employees. Bruhn et al (2001) in a
study in the public sector found resistance occurring, even after involvement of staff in the
change process. In this case, one of the groups felt that their expectations had not been
met.
Perceived threats to employment and a different evaluation of perceived outcomes are
often based on previous experiences of change and lack of trust. This in turn leads to a
cynicism towards change that creates its own resistance (Beer et al, 2005; Bommer et al,
2005).
Organisational sources of resistance include the presence of structures and processes that
inhibit change, often because their elaborate nature makes change difficult (Katz and Kahn,
1978). Rumelt (1995) sees resistance through the lack of vision of those determining
strategy. The same people create resistance by not considering the impact of change
strategies on all stakeholders (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Such resistance is often based on
18
threats to resource allocation (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Resistance has also been attributed to
communication problems, either resulting from misinformation as a result of
communication barriers or a failure to communicate the change at all (Rumelt, 1995; Hutt et
al, 1995; Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Prevailing organisation values can be inhibitors to
change (Rumelt, 1995; Klein and Sorra, 1996) and strong values linked to a strong corporate
culture were found to render some companies impervious to a changing business climate
and, ultimately, unable to respond to increased competition (Williams et al., 1989).
Organisational politics and the potentially conflicting interests of different professional
groups have also been found to inhibit change in some cases (Pfeffer, 1992; Rumelt, 1995).
While such sources of resistance are well-documented in the literature, equally welldocumented are approaches and strategies of change that attempt to avoid resistance or
tackle it head on.
Planned approaches to change
Key points
We can identify a number of models or approaches to change.
Generic models. The most widely used of these identifies three main approaches
to change; power-coercive , empirical-rational and normative-re-educative.
Process models see change occurring in a number of defined stages.
Contingency models argue that no one approach fits all situations and the
approach will vary according to the circumstances involved.
Political approaches suggest that change is only possible through bargaining and
negotiation and the operation of organisational power and politics.
Participative approaches argue that effective change is only possible through the
involvement of those directly affected by it.
Emergent approaches reject the idea that change must always be a top-down
initiative and is often most effective when initiated elsewhere in the organisation.
Organisation development is a set of behavioural science techniques with the aim
of changing values and behaviour in organisations.
In reality a mix of approaches may be used.
19
Generic approaches
Chin and Benne (1961) produced a model of organisational change that effectively
summarized known methods and has informed both subsequent research and management
practice. For example, Popovich (1998) used the framework to examine change in public
sector organisations. Chin and Benne identified three approaches to change defined as
power-coercive, empirical-rational and normative-re-educative.
Power-coercive approaches to change are based on authority and the use of
economic and/or political sanctions. Change occurs because people have the power
to make it happen and/or have control of sanctions such as rules and laws, pay or
promotion. It may be argued that some form of power-coercion is present in all
forms of organisation change, particularly those arising from top-down initiatives,
but its impact may be short-term and it can create resistance among some
stakeholders.
Empirical-rational approaches to change assume that people are rational and will
change when presented with information showing that change is in their best selfinterest. The key elements are information and the method of communication. A
common approach is the use of expert power. Such an approach can be found in
government campaigns as with anti-smoking initiatives.
Normative-re-educative approaches are based on the assumption that change will
only occur when organisation members internalise the need for change. The
emphasis here is on changing values and attempting to obtain some agreement
throughout the organisation on basic values and norms. The approach is common in
attempts to change the organisational culture, but the process is lengthy (Scholz,
1987). Such an approach was used to improve customer care in British Airways in
the 1980s (Höpfl et al, 1992).
Aspects of the three approaches identified by Chin and Benne (1961) can be seen in most
change strategies. Further, the three approaches need not be mutually exclusive. Each
may be used at different stages of the change process and with different groups. In
particular, empirical rational approaches are often found alongside normative re-educative
approaches. Their model has clearly informed the classification of change strategies offered
by Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) where six generic approaches are identified. These are:
Implicit and explicit coercion. This can involve a number of approaches, including
change by order of someone in authority, change as a result of laws or regulations
and change resulting from some kind of perceived threat.
Manipulation and cooption. Here, information is selected to offer a favourable
impression of the change and leaders within those who resist change can be coopted to become part of the change management team.
20
Negotiation and agreement. This can be an important approach where resistance
comes from an influential group within the organisation.
Facilitation and support. This involves both training and on-going counselling.
Participation and involvement. The key rationale here is to gain commitment and
trust.
Education and commitment. This is based on the belief that resistance is based on
lack of understanding of the issues involved.
Kotter and Schlesinger’s model can be viewed as a continuum with power coercive
approaches (implicit and explicit coercion) at one end and normative re-educative
approaches at the other. The major deviation from Chin and Benne lies in the emphasis
placed on inter-personal approaches and on participation. There is also no direct reference
to empirical rational methods although these are implicit in most of the six approaches. As
with Chin and Benne’s model there is overlap between the approaches and they are not
necessarily mutually exclusive.
Process models
The most frequently cited process model is that of Lewin (1951). He saw change as a topdown process that involved three stages; unfreezing, change and refreezing.
The first stage involves the unfreezing of existing practices through employees recognizing
the need for change. This involves the presentation of information to show that current
practices are not working and that change is necessary, and attempts to challenge existing
attitudes and behaviours. During the unfreezing stage, Lewin suggests that force-field
analysis can be used to identify forces both driving and preventing change. The change
stage depends on the readiness to change, the guidance of clear goals and the maintenance
of momentum. As with unfreezing, Lewin saw this as a management-led process. The
refreezing stage embeds the change in new ways of working using techniques of
reinforcement, reward, training, involvement and support. A key element in the refreezing
stage is the evaluation of costs and benefits and planned amendments over time.
Lewin’s model has been challenged largely on the basis of being dated. It appeared when
major organisation changes were less frequent than in the dynamic environments faced by
modern organisations (Kanter et al, 1992; Dawson, 2003). In particular, the notion of
refreezing has been questioned on the basis that for many organisations change is a
continuous process (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988).
Kotter (1995, 2002) developed a process model based initially on Lewin but based also on
observations of situations where change models had both succeeded and failed. His work
was also linked to the concept of transformational leadership. Kotter viewed organisational
change as an eight stage process. The first step, which assisted the process of unfreezing
was to develop a sense of urgency, for example, by citing what the competition were doing
21
or examining potential crises. Step two involved the establishment of a coalition to build a
strong team to lead the change. The third and fourth steps involved the creation of a vision
and set of strategies, which were then communicated to stakeholders. Step five focused on
removing any obstacles to progress and empowering key individuals and groups to take risks
and adopt non-traditional ideas and ways of working. Step six was to ensure that signs of
progress and achievement were visible and presented as short-term victories with
appropriate rewards for those responsible. Step seven built upon this by continuing the
transformation according to the agreed plan and by hiring and promoting people who
support the vision and the transformation process. The final step involved forming a strong
link between new behaviours and organisational success as the basis of a new culture
(refreezing).
While Kotter based his model on case study observation his process approach would seem
to be based as much on commonsense as on a sound empirical base.
Contingency models
Contingency approaches acknowledge that organisations are influenced by a large number
of variables. The variables can relate to the environment within which the organisation
operates and can include economic and competitive factors, technological change, political
and legislative factors and social and cultural influences. The variables can also relate to the
organisation itself and can include its size, organisation structure, management and
governance, strategies and the nature of its staff. A contingency approach proceeds with
the assumption that successful organisations are those that adapt to and have some kind of
best fit with their prevailing influences. In terms of change, a contingency approach
recognizes that no single approach may be valid in all circumstances. Such an approach can
incorporate models such as Chin and Benne (1961); power-coercive, empirical-rational and
normative-re-educative approaches may each be valid under different circumstances.
A contingency approach to change has been developed by Dunphy and Stace (1990, 1993).
They argue that management have choices varying between collaborative and coercive
approaches and influenced by the scope of change, which they describe as ranging from
fine-tuning to radical. Their model incorporates;
participatory evolution (collaborative approaches to fine-tuning),
forced evolution (coercive approaches to fine tuning),
charismatic transformation (collaborative approaches to radical change),
dictatorial transformation (coercive approaches to radical change).
Political approaches
Political approaches to planned change recognize that, in most organisations, change is
linked to internal processes of power, interaction and influence. Nadler and Tushman
(1988) saw effective change as a political process involving a number of stages. The first
22
stage they referred to as the mobilisation of political support and involved preparing people
for change that was to occur through the distribution of information and evidence in
support of the change. At this stage key supporters are identified and alliances formed. The
second stage involved encouraging behaviour that supported the change through
involvement in the change process and by various forms of reward. The third stage involved
the ongoing process of managing the uncertainty involved in the transition from old to new
practices.
Political routes to change involve a mixture of empirical rational and power coercive
methods. Martin (1998), while acknowledging that organisational politics forms part of any
change process, warns of the dangers of overt political management, as it may lead to
resistance and counteractive political behaviour.
Participative approaches
A number of different approaches to change, such as emergent approaches and
organisational development, use forms of participation and employee involvement. The
relationship between participation and change has a long history, a key chapter being the
human relations movement that has informed management theory since the 1930s. Human
relations emerged to achieve a number of goals and to tackle a number of issues, including
the humanisation of work, social stability at a time of rapid change, and ways to achieve the
compliance of employees in the face of increased competition, the increased difficulties of
control in large organisations and a growth in trade union membership. Many authors also
intended it as a guide for inexperienced managers.
A number of key studies emerged that dealt with the behaviour of work groups and their
contribution to productivity, the impact of different leadership styles on work group
behaviour and on productivity, and the importance of communication and various forms of
participation. A key element in all of these was the need to effect change in the behaviour
of managers and employees. Change was a key feature in two seminal studies, the relay
assembly test room experiment as part of the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger and
Dickson, 1939, Mayo, 1949) and the Harwood Manufacturing study (Coch and French,
1948).
In the Hawthorne Studies’ Relay Assembly Test Room the researchers selected a small group
of competent female workers who were engaged in assembling telephone relays. The
workers were fully briefed on the purpose of the experiment, which was stated as to
contribute to employee satisfaction and effective work, and were told to work at their
normal pace. They were consulted at each phase of the experiment and any changes would
only take place in collaboration with them. Changes in conditions were then introduced at
regular intervals and each lasted for a period of 4 to 12 weeks. Although some of the
23
changes resulted in worsening conditions, output increased over the period and was
attributed to the involvement of the group in the experiment.
In their famous study on overcoming resistance to change, Coch and French (1948) had
been called in by management to tackle a number of problems. Employees had complained
about frequent job changes and about the bonus scheme. In particular they complained
that when they had acquired speed at completing a task and the opportunity to earn an
increased bonus payment, then the nature of the task was changed by management and
bonus payments fell back. There were high rates of absenteeism, aggressive behaviour
towards supervisors and managers and there was evidence of deliberate output restriction.
Coch and French’s approach focused on participation. Three types of experimental group
were created. The first group were simply told what changes were to happen. The second
group had representatives who were told the rationale for change process and who
participated in the process. In the third group, all members were told the rationale and
participated in the process. Where there was no participation there was a marked hostility
towards change. In the two groups where participation was used both cooperation and
productivity increased.
Emergent approaches
In contrast to those approaches that see change as a product of top-down initiatives, the
emergent approach sees change literally emerging or being driven by forces elsewhere in
the organisation. Beer, Eisenstat and Spector (1990) conducted a study of six large US firms
and found that the role of top management was one of identifying the direction of change
and creating an appropriate climate, but that the solution of key problems and the change
itself was the product of inputs from specialists and others more involved with operations
more directly involved with the change. Such a view acknowledges that, as organisations
become more complex, change initiatives can emerge from different parts of the
organisation. Kanter (1984) found in her study of entrepreneurial activity in large
organisations that the most changes were initiated by middle management.
The emergent approach has much in common with a view of change as continuous
adaptation and readjustment. It is also linked to the view of change as a learning process
(Dawson, 2003) and to change as a political process. The emergent approach also
recognizes that change can occur in a number of different ways and has strong links with
contingency models.
Organisational Development
Organisational development or OD refers to a bundle of techniques that became popular in
the 1960s. The techniques themselves were approaches to planned change that drew
heavily on the behavioural sciences. Initially the focus was on individuals and their wellbeing (Beer and Walton, 1987). A normative-re-educative approach was used to improve
24
the effectiveness of organisations through changing values. A number of techniques were
used such as sensitivity training, survey feedback methods, team building and the use of
managerial grids. All these were aimed at shifting values and behaviour.
Cummings and Worley (2001) identified a shift in focus in OD from the individual to the
organisation. Approaches operating at the level of the organisation include structural
change, attempts to change the corporate culture, the introduction of techniques such a
total quality management, attempts to create a learning organisation and business process
re-engineering. The last was featured by Hammer and Champy (1994) as a radical approach
to large scale organisation change that focuses on processes that add value to the customer.
In most cases this involves the empowerment of staff at lower levels in the organisation and
has some similarities with emergent approaches. Child (2005) sees business process reengineering as failing to live up to expectations and cites an over-emphasis on cost-cutting
and its negative impact on morale as the main reasons for failure.
Many of the organisational change approaches associated with OD have been harshly
criticised at one time or another. Changing the prevailing organisation culture has often
been found to be time-consuming and difficult (Scholz, 1987, Needle, 2000). Survey
feedback methods are still widely used, but techniques focusing on changing individuals,
such as sensitivity training have met with criticism. In similarity with many off-the-job
training initiatives, Individuals had difficulty transferring their new values into a work
situation that had not changed (Makin et al, 1989). Such processes have also been found to
be incompatible with certain cultures. Jaeger (1986) argues that OD is essentially an
American technique based on American cultural values. The application of OD techniques
may be less successful when employed by US multinationals in countries where different
cultural values prevail.
The role of the change agent and power and leadership
Key points
The use of change agents is based on the belief that change will be more
acceptable if initiated and managed by an expert independent of the group to be
affected by the change. Evidence on the effectiveness of this approach is mixed.
Leadership is considered to be essential for effective change and is linked to the
importance of vision and the need for champions.
Power can be helpful in the change process but excessive use of power may be a
source of resistance.
25
Change agent
The role of the change agent is linked closely to the process approach to change. There is
some agreement (for example, Ottaway, 1992; Kanter, 1989) that change is more
acceptable if the process is initiated and managed by someone from outside the group that
is the primary target of change. In addition change agents bring expertise in change
management. The change agent can play a key role in identifying the problem,
implementing solutions and evaluating outcomes, although Ottaway (1982) acknowledges
that different people can be used at each stage and that the change agent can be internal or
external to the organisation. The key aspect of the change agent’s role is the assumption of
neutrality, although Child (2005) warns of external change agents, especially those from
management consultants, using standardised approaches to problem analysis and solution.
Wherever change agents are used, Tichy and Ulrich (1984) stress the importance of them
working with existing managers to achieve an effective transition. This emphasises the role
of the change agent as a facilitator, who gets the group to recognize the need for change.
They also stress the importance of keeping all stakeholders, who might be affected by the
change, fully informed. In this way they link the role of the change agent with
transformational leadership and stress the role of participation in bringing about effective
change.
Power and leadership
The UK government has placed great faith in leadership, particularly in the area of school
education, and has established a National Centre for School Leadership. Emphasis is placed
both on transformational leadership and partnership working as key factors in change (Hill
and Matthews, 2008). The importance of leadership in the change process has been
emphasized by Graetz (2000). He identifies the importance of leadership in preparing
people for change, communicating a vision, building commitment, training, empowering
and generally maintaining the momentum of change. The importance of a vision in the
change process, in particular one that involves radical change, is also emphasized by Miles
(1997) in his study of change in the US firm National Semiconductor.
Leadership also features strongly in discussions of organisational learning, as an important
ingredient in the change process (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Argyris, 1982, 1999; Senge, 1990;
Miles, 1997). Successful change depends upon a vision that carries all parts of the
organisation with it. A key element in this is organisational learning whereby people and
processes develop together and change in response to internal and external influences. The
concept of organisation learning has been influenced greatly by systems thinking, a point
emphasised by Senge (1990). According to Senge, the learning organisation creates and
acquires knowledge both internally and externally, which it then disseminates internally and
externally creating change.
26
The role of the leader is associated with the role played by power in the change process. In
most change processes an element of coercive power, based usually on hierarchical position
within the organisation is necessary to ensure that new policies are carried and new rules
are followed backed up by the threat of legitimate sanctions for non-compliance. This can
be reinforced by economic power in the form of reward for compliance or the withholding
of reward as a sanction against non-compliance. As we have already noted, there is a
danger that the use of power-coercive tactics can result in resistance.
However the impetus for change need not come from the leadership in organisations and
can emerge from other stakeholders. This is implicit in emergent approaches to change and
has been experienced in several organisations in recent years as a result of shareholder
pressure, as in the case of shareholders challenging the reward structures of senior
managers. Such conflicts are part of the agency problem (Jensen and Meckling, 1976), in
which managers act as agents of owners.
Preliminary Conclusions on Organisational Change
From preliminary discussions it would appear that the need for change in the procedures
adopted by the FSA in its relationship with its various stakeholders is driven by a wish to
improve its relationship with stakeholders and through that, the performance of its role.
This seems in part to be informed by external factors. There is a preference on the part of
the current government for partnership working, a move to which could be interpreted as
the FSA adaptating to a changing environment. An internal assessment of current
relationships with existing stakeholders shows these to be good (as identified in the 2009
Stakeholder Reputation Research), but FSA staff identify that relations could be improved,
particularly with industry.
The literature recognizes that change is not an easy process and that resistance is to be
expected. In the case of the move to partnership working both individual and organisational
inhibitors can be identified. FSA members appear to be less clear than external
stakeholders about the meaning and the feasibility of partnership working. In addition
different stakeholder groups have different needs and different priorities. An organisational
inhibitor would appear to be the role of the FSA as a regulator, although this is seen as more
of a problem by FSA staff than by external stakeholders. In addition, as the FSA is part of
government bureaucracy, resistance may also come in the form of complex structures, rules
and procedures.
The literature shows us that approaches to change are not discrete alternatives. Elements
of power-coercive, empirical-rational and normative-re-educative approaches to change can
be observed in most change initiatives. There is also significant overlap in the various
planned approaches to change. From the evidence of the literature we may conclude:
Change should be viewed as a process that, in some cases, can take a significant
length of time.
27
There may be different approaches to change that are appropriate in different
situations. This will be dependent on the nature of the organisation, the relationship
it has with its stakeholders, the pressures for change and the nature of the change
itself. For example approaches may need to vary between stakeholders.
There is some consensus in the literature on the importance of communication,
leadership and dealing with the realities of organisation politics. The importance of
communication and leadership are also stressed in the literature on partnership
Off-the-shelf approaches to change should be viewed with caution as they are likely
to be inappropriate for a given situation.
Interviews with FSA staff point to a normative-re-educative approach to achieve agreement
internally on the rationale and goals of partnership working. The establishment of such
clear goals would indicate a leadership role for the FSA.
A clear perspective to emerge from the stakeholders is the need for a participative
approach. There would appear to be three good starting points. Firstly, there is significant
agreement by all concerned on the role of the FSA and, secondly, there is a general
consensus among external stakeholders that the relationship with the FSA is good. Thirdly
there is some agreement among FSA staff and external stakeholders that both could learn
from each other. However there were calls from stakeholders for more face-to-face
communication and greater participation and involvement. There was a strong view among
food industry representatives that greater participation would lead to greater FSA learning
about food industry pressures and needs. In short, greater participation would be the
foundation upon which partnership was built. There was also the feeling, expressed by FSA
staff as well as stakeholders, that improved communication would be helped by structural
changes in the FSA that facilitated both ease and continuity of contact with FSA
representatives.
28
Conclusions
We recognize that the bulk of the literature deals with change within an organisation rather
than change between organisations. Different power dynamics operate when other
organisations are involved. However there is significant evidence from the literature on
partnership that points the way to more effective working between organisations. The
following points are emphasised both by the literature and the interviews with FSA staff and
stakeholders.
An effective change strategy with external stakeholders would indicate a participatory
approach based upon a set of overlapping aims and activities:
•
•
•
•
Increasing FSA visibility through more face to face communication with
stakeholders.
Relationship building by establishing clear lines of contact and, as far as possible,
stability of contact personnel.
Greater exchange of information.
Building trust through mutual learning.
An effective change strategy with FSA staff internally would indicate a normative reeducative approach in order for FSA members to internalise the need for change. This
would be supported by leadership goals involving:
•
•
•
•
Establishing a common understanding of the nature of and need for partnership or
the desired relationship with stakeholders.
Changing the mind-set within the FSA towards partnership working. This will involve
building an internal consensus on the need to improve working relationships as the
first step towards partnership working with stakeholders.
A need to gain agreement externally as well as internally on the action required to
improve relationships with stakeholders. This in turn should improve mutual trust,
which should lead to a more collaborative relationship.
All the above should be aided by the establishment of greater stability within the
FSA of organisation structures and of channels of communication with external
stakeholders.
The change strategies would appear to conform to those found in the literature and the
following steps summarise the recommended change process.
1
2
3
4
5
Create internal conditions that are necessary for change to happen.
Use consultative approaches to build up shared interests.
Focus on relationship building and information sharing to develop trust.
Identify and publicise champions and successes.
Embed the change through institutional structures and procedures.
29
References
ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) (2004). Evaluating the Operation of PFI in
Roads and Hospitals. London: ACCA.
Ackers, P. and Payne, J. (1998). “British trade unions and social partnership: Rhetoric, reality
and strategy”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9: 529-50.
Argyris, C (1982), Reasoning, Learning and Action. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. eds. (1978). Organizational Learning. Reading MA: Addison
Wesley.
Augustine, M. S. and Cooper, C. D. (2009). “Getting the most from strategic partnering: a
tale of two alliances”, Organizational dynamics, 38: 37-51.
Bedeian, A.G., & Zammuto, R.F. (1991). Organizations: Theory and Design. Orlando, FL:
Dryden Press.
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. A. (1996). “Developing an organization capable of implementing
strategy and learning”, Human Relations, 49: 597-617.
Beer, M., and Walton, A.E. (1987).”Organisational change and development”. In M.R.
Rosenzweig & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., & Spector, B. (1990). “Why change programs don’t produce
change”, Harvard Business Review, November–December: 158–66.
Beer, M., Voelpel, S., Leipold, M. and Teike, E. B. (2005). “Strategic management as
organizational learning: developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process”. Long
Range Planning, 38: 445-65.
Blinder, A. (ed.) (1990). Paying For Productivity: A Look at the Evidence. Washington DC:
Brookings Institute.
Boeker, W. (1997). “Strategic change: the influence of managerial characteristics and
organizational growth”. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 152-70.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A. and Rubin, R. S. (2005). “Changing attitudes about change:
longitudinal effects of transformational leader behaviour on employee cynicism about
organizational change”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26: 733-53.
30
Bruhn, J. G., Zagac, G. and Al-Kazemi, A. (2001). “Ethical perspectives on employee
participation in planned organizational change: a study of two state public welfare
agencies”. Public Performance and Management Review, 25: 208-28.
Burke, W.W. (2000). “The new agenda for organizational development”. In W L French, C H
Bell Jr and RA Zawacki (Eds), Organizational Development and Transformation: Managing
Effective Change. Burr Ridge: Illinois: Irwin McGraw-Hill: 523-35.
Callon, S. (1995). Divided Sun: MITI and the Breakdown of Japanese High-Tech Policy
1975-1993. Stanford CAL: Stanford University Press.
CBI (1999). “CBI president raises fears about trade union partnerships”. News Release, 23
June. Confederation of British Industry.
Chen, M. (1995). Asian Management Systems: Chinese, Japanese and Korean Styles of
Business. London: Routledge.
Child, J. (2005). Organization: Contemporary Principles and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Child, J. and Smith, C. (1987). “The context and process of organizational transformation:
Cadbury Limited in its sector”, Journal of Management Studies, 24: 565-93.
Chin, R. and Benne, K. D. (1961). “General strategies for effecting change in human systems.
In Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D. And Chin, R., The Planning of Change. London: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Coch, L., & French, J.R.P. (1948). “Overcoming resistance to change”, Human Relations, 1:
512–32.
Creed, W. and Miles, R. (1996). “Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework linking
organizational forms, managerial philosophies and opportunity costs of control”. In
R.Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. pp. 16-38.
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2001). Organization Development and Change (7th ed.)
Mason: Ohio: South-Western College Publishing.
Das, T. K. And Teng, B. (1998). “Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner
cooperation in alliances”, Academy of Management Review, 23: 491-512.
Dawson, P. (1996). Technology and Quality: Change in the Workplace. London:
International Thomson Business Press.
Dawson, P. (2003). Understanding Organizational Change: The Contemporary Experience
of People at Work. London: Sage.
31
Dietz, G. (2004). “Partnership and the development of trust in British workplaces”, Human
Resource Management Journali, 14 (1): 5-24.
DTI (1997). Competitiveness Through Partnerships with People. London: DTI.
DTI (1999). Partnerships Fit for the Future. London: DTI.
Dunphy, D., & Stace, D.A. (1990). Under New Management: Australian Organizations in
Transition. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Dunphy, D., & Stace, D.A. (1993). “The strategic management of corporate change”, Human
Relations. 46: 905–18.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). “Politics of strategic decision-making in high
velocity environments: towards a mid-range theory”, Academy of Management Journal, 31:
737-70.
European Commission (1997). Partnership for a New Organization of Work. Green Paper.
COM (97) 128. Brussels.
Garvin, D.A. (1993). “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, July–
August: 78–91.
Gilliland, D. And Bello, D. (2002). “Two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect of
calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels”.
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 30: 24-43.
Goodstein, L. D. and Burke, W. W. (1991). “Creating successful organization change”,
Organizational Dynamics, 19, 5-17.
Gosling, T. (ed). 3 Steps Forward, 2 Steps Back: Reforming PPP Policy. London: IPPR.
Graetz, F. (200). “Strategic change leadership”, Management Decision, 38: 550-62.
Granovetter, M. (1985). “Economic action and social structure: a theory of embeddedness”,
American Journal of Sociology, 90: 481-510.
Gray, A. and Jenkins, B. (2003). “Evaluation and collaborative government: Lessons and
challenges”. In A. Gray, B. Jenkins, F.Leeuw and J. Mayne (eds.) Collaboration in Public
services: The Challenge for Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. pp. 17-27.
Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (2001). “Partnership at work: Mutuality and the balance of
advantage”. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39: 207-236.
Guest, D., Brown, W., Peccei, R. and Huxley, K. (2008). “Does partnership at work increase
trust? An analysis based on the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey”, Industrial
Relations Journal, 39: 124-52.
32
Gwin, C. (2002). IDAs Partnership for Poverty Reduction: An Independent Evaluation of
Fiscal Years 1994-2000. Washington DC: World Bank.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1994). Reengineering the Corporation: a manifesto for
business revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey
Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G.and Wilpert, B. (1998). Organizational Participation: Myth
and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, R. and Matthews, P. (2008). Schools Leading Schools: the Power and Potential of
National Leaders of Education. Nottingham: NCSL Publishing.
Höpfl, H., Smith, S. and Spencer, S. (1992).”Values and valuations: the conflict between
culture change and job cuts”, Personnel Review, 21: 24-37.
House of Commons Transport Committee (2008). The London Underground and the PublicPrivate Partnership Agreements: Second Report of Session 2007-2008, Hc45. London:
House of Commons.
Hutt, M. D., Walker, B. A., and Frankwick, G. L. (1995). “Hurdle the cross-functional barriers
to strategic change”. Sloan Management Review, 36: 22-30.
Industrial Democracy in Europe Group (IDE) (1993). Industrial Democracy in Europe
Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
IPA (Involvement and Participation Association) (1998). The Partnership Company.
London:IPA
IPA (Involvement and Participation Association) (1997). Towards Industrial Partnership:
New Ways of Working in British Companies, London: IPA
IPPR (Institute of Public Policy Research) (2001). Building Better Partnerships London: IPPR.
Irish Government (1996). Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and
Competitiveness. Dublin.
Jaeger, A.M. (1986). “Organisation development and national culture: where’s the fit?”,
Academy of Management Review, 11: 178–90.
Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976). “Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour,
agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-60.
Johnstone, S., Ackers, P. and Wilkinson, A. (2009). “The British partnership phenomenon: a
ten year review”, Human Resource Management Journal, 19: 260-79.
Kanter, R. M. (1984). The Change Masters: corporate entrepreneurs at work. London:
George Allen and Unwin.
33
Kanter, R. M. (1989). When Giants Learn to Dance: mastering the challenges of strategy,
management and careers in the 1990s. London: Urwin.
Kanter, R.M, Stein, B.A., and Jick, T.D. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change. New
York: Free Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
John Wiley.
Keek, S. L. and Tushman, M. L. (1993). “Environmental and organizational context and
executive team structure”, Academy of Management Journal, 36,: 1314-44.
Kelly, J. (1999). “Social partnership in Britain: Good for profits, bad for jobs and unions”,
Communist Review, 30: 3 – 10.
Kernaghan, K. (1993). “Partnership and public administration: conceptual and practical
considerations”. Canadian Public Administration, 36, 1, 60-5.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S. (2006).
Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey.
London: Routlege.
Klein, K. J. and Sorra, J. S. (1996). “The challenge of innovation implementation”, Academy
of Management Review, 21: 22-42.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). “Leading change: why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard Business
Review, 73: 59-67.
Kotter, J.P. and Cohen, D.S. (2002). The Heart of Change. Real Life Stories of how People
Change their Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J.P., & Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard Business
Review, March–April: 106–114.
Leana, C. R. and Barry, B. (2000). “Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in
organizational life”, Academy of Management Review, 25: 753-59.
Leonard, P. (1984). Personality and Ideology: Toward a Materialist Understanding of the
Individual. London: Macmillan.
Lewin, A., Long, C. P. and Carroll, T. N. (1999). “The co-evolution of new organizational
forms”, Organization Science, 10: 535-50.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). “The science of muddling through”, Public Administration Review,
19: 79-88.
34
Luo, Y., Liu, Y. And Xue, J. (2009). “Relationship investment and channel performance: An
analysis of mediating forces”. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 1113-37.
Lyons, M. P. (1991). “Joint ventures as a strategic choice – a literature review” , Long Range
Planning, 24: 130-44.
Makin, P., Cooper, C. and Cox, C. (1989). Managing People at Work. London:
Routledge/British Psychological Society.
Martin, J. (1998). Organizational Behaviour. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Mayo, E. (1949). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Medcof, J. W. (1997). “Why too many alliances end in divorce”, Long Range Planning, 30:
718-32.
Miles, R. (1997). Corporate Comeback: the story of renewal and transformation at
National Semiconductor. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R.W. (2004). Organizational Behaviour: Managing People and
Organizations (7th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Moreno, J.L. (1953). Who Shall Survive? New York: Beacon.
Morrison, E. W. and Milliken, F. J. (2000). “Organizational silence: a barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world”, Academy of Management Review, 25: 706-25.
Mowery, D. C. and Rosenberg N. (1989). Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NAO (National Audit Office) (2001). Managing the Relationship to Secure a Successful
Partnership in PFI Projects. London: The Stationery Office.
Nadler, D. A. and Tushman, M. L. (1988). Strategic Organizational Design. Glenview, Ill.:
Scott, Foresman.
Nadler, D. A. and Tushman, M. L. (1989). “Organizational frame-bending: principles for
managing reorientation”, Academy of Management Executive, 3: 194-204.
Nadler, D.A. (1983). “Concepts for the management of organisational change”. In J.R.
Hackman, E.E. Lawler III, & L.W. Porter (Eds.). Perspectives on Behaviour in Organizations
(2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Needle, D. (2000). “Culture at the level of the firm: organizational and corporate
perspectives”. In J. Barry et al eds., Organization and Management: A Critical Text. London:
International Thomson Business Press.
35
North, D. (2004). “Partnership as a means to improve economic performance” In A.
Liebenthal, O. Feinstein and G. Ingram (eds.) Evaluation and Development: The Partnership
Dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. pp. 3-7.
Ottaway, R. N. (1982). “Defining the change agent”. In Evans, B. et al eds., Changing Design.
Chichester: John Wiley.
Palmatier, R. , Dant, R.and Grewal, D. (2007). “A comparative longitudinal analysis of
theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance”, Journal of
Marketing, 71: 172-91.
Pekar, P. and Allio, R (1994). “Making alliances work – guidelines for success”, Long Range
Planning, 27: 54-65.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Picciotto, R. (2004). “The logic of partnership” in Liebenthal et al op cit. pp. 59-67.
Pideret, S. K. (2000). “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a
multidimensional view of attitudes towards an organizational change, Academy of
Management Review, 25: 783-94.
Popovich, M. (1998). Creating High Performance Government Organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Porter, M. E., Takeuchi, H. and Sakakibara, M. (2000). Can Japan Compete?. London:
Macmillan.
Provis, C. (1997). “Unitarism, pluralism, interests and values”. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 34: 473-96.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ruggles, R. (1998). “The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice”. California
Management Review, 40: 80-99.
Rumelt, R. P. (1995). “Inertia and transformation”. In Montgomery, C. A., Resource-based
and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm. Boston MA.: Kluwer.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scholte, J. A. (2000). Globalization: a Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Scholz, C. (1987). “Corporate culture”. Long Range Planning, 20: 78-87.
36
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Stern, E. (2004). “Evaluating partnerships”. In A. Liebenthal, O. Feinstein and G. Ingram
(eds.) Evaluation and Development: The Partnership Dimension. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction. pp.29-42.
Terpstra, D.E. (1981). “Relationship between methodological rigour and reported outcomes
in organisation development evaluation research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 541–
43.
Tichy, N.M., & Ulrich, D.O. (1984). “The leadership challenge: A call for the transformational
leader”, Sloan Management Review, Fall: 59–68.
TUC (1999). Partners for Progress: New Unionism in the Workplace. London: TUC.
Upchurch, M., Danford, A., Tailby, S. and Richardson, M. (2008). The Realities of Partnership
at Work. London: Palgrave.
Waddell, D. and Sohal, A. S. (1998). “Resistance: a constructive tool for change
management”, Management Decision, 36: 543-8.
Whittington, R. and Mayer, M. (2002). Organizing for Success in the Twenty-First Century: A
Starting Point for Change, London: CIPD.
Williams, A., Dobson, P. and Walters, M. (1989). Changing Culture: New Organizational
Approaches, London: Institute of Personnel Management.
Williams, K., Haslam, C., Williams, J. and Cutler, T. (1992). “Against lean production”,
Economy and Society, 21: 321-54.
Williamson, O. (1979). “Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual
relations”, The Journal of Law and Economics, 22: 233-61.
Womack, J., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990). The Machine that Changed the World: the
Story of Lean Production, New York: Rawson Associates.
37
Appendices
1.
Methodology
2.
Interview guide for FSA staff
3.
Interview guide for external stakeholders
4.
Information sheet and consent form
5.
Report on interviews with FSA staff
6.
Report on interviews with external stakeholders
38
Appendix 1
Methodology
1.
A series of meetings were held with FSA staff to determine and, in some cases,
adjust the aims of the research exercise. An initial brief focusing on organisation
change literature was modified by the understanding that a change initiative within
the FSA was linked to a move to some form of partnership working. The research
was further modified by the inclusion of a series of interviews with FSA staff and FSA
stakeholders.
2.
A review was undertaken of the available literature on partnership working and
organisation change. It was decided to examine the literature on partnership
working first as the intended product of organisation change. The literature
revealed different forms of partnership working each with their own literature but
each revealing common themes. The organisation change literature is considerable
with a large number of models, approaches and studies. Given the aims of the
report and its intended readership it was decided to focus on a number of classic
approaches and add comment from more recent research. There are numerous
avenues that could have been explored in greater depth, for example, the
contribution of systems thinking; and research into leadership and team building.
These are mentioned in the literature review, but many key studies in these areas do
not have organisational change as their main focus. The review highlights therefore
models such as those presented by Chin and Benne (1961) that focus on
organisational change and are useful and accessible starting points. The model by
Chin and Benne is not only well-known models but lends itself to broad generic
strategies as points of departure.
3.
5 interviews were carried out involving 6 employees representing various functions
within the FSA. 9 interviews were carried out with external stakeholders. 6 of these
represented food producers, 2 represented scientific services and 1 represented a
trade association. The interviews focused on FSA-stakeholder relations and views on
partnership working and were carried out within the guidelines prescribed by King’s
College (see Appendix 4) and following ethical approval. A guide for each of the two
types of interview can be found in Appendices 2 and 3 and a report of the interviews
themselves can be found in Appendices 5 and 6.
4.
12 of the interviews were face-to-face and 2 were carried out over the telephone.
5.
Wherever possible, interviews were conducted using two interviewers, with one
acting as note-taker. A report was then made of each interview. This was crosschecked for accuracy by the interviewee and amendments made as appropriate. A
39
further cross-check was available when two interviewers were present. All the
interview reports were then subjected to a systematic content analysis to identify
the main themes.
6.
Both sets of interviewees were selected by the FSA as people likely to be helpful or
likely to add something to the project. Consequently the interviewees were not a
representative sample either of FSA staff or of external stakeholders. As a result, the
interview reports do not feature in the main report. The findings may be useful in
offering views on partnership working and the challenges this represents in terms of
organisational change. In part the interview findings support some of the more
important conclusions from the literature survey.
7.
There were extensive contacts with the FSA sponsoring team throughout the
investigation.
8.
The report was peer reviewed by an external independent advisor.
40
Appendix 2
Interview Guide FSA Staff
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR FSA EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES
Background
What is your role in the FSA?
How do you characterise the roles of the FSA?
What role would you like to see them perform that they do not perform already?
What kind of organisations do you deal with?
What sort of links do you have with these organisations? How much contact do you have
with them?
Do you deal with each of them in the same way? If not how do you deal with them
differently?
Current Relationship
How do you characterise the relationship between the FSA and these organisations?
What can such organisations gain/learn from the FSA?
What can the FSA gain/learn from such organisations?
What examples do you have of difficulties that arise in your relationship with organisations?
What is the cause of such problems?
What needs to be done to improve the relationship?
What examples do you have of a positive encounter with partner organizations?
Why was it a positive encounter?
How could the FSA better serve its organizations?
Partnership working
How would you define partnership?
Is partnership working a good idea for the FSA?
What is a good starting point for partnership working?
Can partnership work when one partner represents the government (in a regulatory role)?
Have you had any experience of partnership working? How did that work out?
Would you like a stronger sense of partnership between the FSA and organisations?
What do you see as the main benefits of such a partnership relationship?
What would need to change in the FSA and in the organisations with which it works to bring
these benefits about?
How could such changes be brought about?
41
Appendix 3
Interview Guide External Stakeholders
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR ORGANISATION MEMBERS
Background/context
What does your organization do?
What is your role within it? How long have you been in that role?
How does your role interact with the FSA?
How do you characterise the roles of the FSA?
What objectives does your organization share with the FSA?
Does your organisation have a specific contact point within the FSA?
How much contact do you have with them?
Do you have different relationships with different parts of the FSA?
Current relationship
How do you characterise the relationship between your organisation and the FSA?
Has the relationship changed over time? Got better/worse?
What sort of relationship would you like to have with the FSA?
How can the FSA better serve organisations like yours?
What can your organisation gain/learn from the FSA?
What can the FSA gain/learn from organisations like yours?
What examples do you have of difficulties that arise in your relationship with the FSA? What
is the cause of such problems?
What needs to be done to improve the relationship?
What examples do you have of a positive encounter with the FSA? Why was it positive?
Views on partnership working
How would you define partnership?
Is partnership working a good idea?
What is a good starting point for partnership working?
Can partnership work when one partner represents the government (in a regulatory role)?
Do you want to work in partnership? With the FSA specifically?
Have you had any experience of partnership working with other organisations? How did
that work out and what could the FSA learn?
In your partnership with other organisations, what barriers presented themselves and how
were they overcome?
Have you had any involvement with FSA External Incident Prevention Board? What was
your opinion of this involvement? What were the positives/negatives?
42
Appendix 3 cont
Looking to the future
Would you like a stronger sense of partnership between your organization and the FSA?
What do you see as the main benefits of such a partnership relationship to both you and the
FSA?
What would need to change in the FSA and in your organisation to bring these benefits
about?
How could such changes be brought about?
43
Appendix 4
INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARTICIPANTS
REC Protocol Number: REP(GGS)/08/09-48
YOU WILL BE GIVEN A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION SHEET
Title of study PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
We would like to invite you to participate in this original research project. You should only participate if you
want to; choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. Before you decide whether you
want to take part, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what your
participation will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with
others if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information.
The research is being carried out by staff of King’s College London and funded by the Food Standards
Agency, to better understand how the Agency may, in the future, more effectively communicate with the
various organisations with which it carries out its duties. Improved partnership will benefit not only the
Agency, but also the stakeholder organisations involved.
We are asking members of staff from the Agency itself, and people from a range of organisations with which
the Agency deals, to take part in the research by being interviewed.
We would expect the interview to last around one hour.
Your data will be stored anonymously. Electronic records (word-processed) summarising the interview will
be stored in files that can only be accessed via an individual code. The code linking your name to the
anonymised record will be kept securely, only the researchers working on this project: David Guest; Michael
Howard and David Needle, having access. You will be provided with a copy of the record of your interview
to comment upon before it is used in the research report. Paper notes of the interview and any paper copies
of the interview summary will be coded and kept separate from record of your name and all data relating to
this study including personal details and codes will be disposed of using the College’s confidential waste
disposal facilities after the final research report is produced and the research is over.
Because some participants have been selected by the Food Standards Agency, personnel in the
Agency may know that you have participated.
It is up to you to decide whether to take part or not. If you decide to take part you are still free to withdraw at any
time and without giving a reason.
If this study has harmed you in any way you can contact King's College London using the details below for
further advice and information:
Dr Michael Howard, Dept of Geography, Kings College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS. Tel. 0207 848 1173
email [email protected]
44
or Professor David Guest, Dept of Management, King’s College London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, London, SE1
9NN. Tel. 0207 848 3723. Email [email protected]
Appendix 4 cont.
CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH STUDIES
Please complete this form after you have read the Information Sheet and/or listened to an explanation
about the research.
Title of Study: PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR CHANGE____
King’s College Research Ethics Committee Ref: REP(GGS)/08/09-48
Thank you for considering taking part in this research. The person organising the research must
explain the project to you before you agree to take part.
If you have any questions arising from the Information Sheet or explanation already given to
you, please ask the researcher before you decide whether to join in. You will be given a copy of
this Consent Form to keep and refer to at any time.
I understand that if I decide at any other time during the research that I no longer wish to
participate in this project, I can notify the researchers involved and be withdrawn from it
immediately without giving any reason. Furthermore, I understand that I will be able to withdraw
my data at any point up until it is included in the final report.
Participant’s Statement:
I _____________________________________________________________________
agree that the research project named above has been explained to me to my satisfaction and I agree to
take part in the study. I have read both the notes written above and the Information Sheet about the
project, and understand what the research study involves.
Researcher’s Statement:
I_____________________________________________________________________
Confirm that I have carefully explained the nature, demands and foreseeable risks (where applicable) of
the proposed research to the volunteer.
Signed________________________________
Date______________
45
Appendix 5
REPORT ON INTERVIEWS WITH FSA STAFF
Interviewee roles
A total of six staff were interviewed to date in 5 interviews. 3 could be defined as predominantly
external facing and 1 as predominantly internal facing. 2 were a mix of internal and external-facing.
Perspectives on the role of the FSA
All 5 interviews stressed the role of the FSA in terms of the protection of consumer interests with
respect to food safety and communication with the consumer. 4 interviews identified the FSA’s role
in the promotion of healthier eating through the oversight of standards and labelling. 4 interviews
stressed the regulator role or the monitoring of the regulatory process and 2 interviews identified
the roles of law maker and law interpreter.
The majority felt that there was nothing that the FSA were not doing that they should be doing.
However 2 felt there should be more interface with government on sustainability issues and 1
mentioned that more attention should be given to imported food.
Organisations dealt with
A wide variety of stakeholders were identified. Almost all the interviewees dealt with industry in
some form, some seeing this as the largest group in terms of scope and time spent. Most dealt with
government departments e.g. Health and DEFRA and some dealt with EU and international
government representatives. Other stakeholders mentioned included local authorities, primary care
trusts, consumer organisations and NGOs.
Relationships with stakeholders in general
It was felt that the FSA invests considerable time and resources to establish good relationships with
stakeholders and, in general, the FSA is seen in a positive light. Several interviewees cited the recent
‘Stakeholder Survey’ as further evidence of a positive image.
It was generally acknowledged that the nature of the relationship varies with the primary role of the
stakeholder, the size of the stakeholder organisation (larger organisations tend to be viewed in a
better light) and on the basis of previous encounters.
Generally, relationships with local authorities are seen to be good and improving. Relationships with
industry, especially SMEs are seen as more problematic due to conflict over goals and the difficulties
of engaging with them in general. Some see this as inevitable due to the Agency’s regulatory role
and its power, through local authorities, to cause the withdrawal of goods from the market. It is
acknowledged that this can have serious repercussions for SMEs.
46
Appendix 5 cont.
What can organisations learn from the FSA and vice versa?
There was a general agreement that learning was a two-way process. Particular mention was made
of the need to be sensitive to the constraints under which both the FSA and its stakeholders were
working e.g. the legal responsibilities of the FSA and the need for industry to make money. More
specifically some felt that industry in particular could access useful information from the FSA and
understand better the basis of food legislation. In turn the FSA could access information from
industry that would not necessarily come to them through government channels.
Some felt that the FSA offered stakeholders a good example of what could be achieved through
openness and transparency. Equally some felt that the FSA was not good at learning from others
and they felt that steps should be taken to involve stakeholders more, a process that might prevent
certain problems arising. It was mentioned that the FSA could learn much more about partnership
working from the HSE.
Negative and positive encounters and the reasons behind them
The key problems identified in working with stakeholders tended to focus on food producers and
retailers. Key issues raised were lack of trust, resistance on the part of industry to the FSA regulator
role and industry’s view of the FSA as an arm of the ‘nanny’ state. The majority mentioned tensions
between the FSA and industry as a result of the Agency’s regulator role and industry’s view that the
Agency was ‘out to get them’. Some recognised more complex tensions around the issue of
incorporating EU regulations.
Nearly all saw that the key solution to these problems lay in building better relations with
stakeholders. There was an acknowledgement that the FSA was too internally focused. Some were
critical of the lack of consultation with stakeholders, especially the food industry, before policy and
initiatives were introduced. Some difficulties were perceived in accessing the ‘right’ people in
stakeholder organisations, although there was recognition that stakeholders probably had the same
view of the Agency. One solution offered to this problem was to bring more industry representatives
in-house to work on FSA projects.
There were several examples of good relationships such as the sharing of vulnerabilities with regards
to terrorist threat, constructive dialogues about salt and healthy eating in general and initiatives that
brought several stakeholders together as with the extension of the ‘big bus’ project.
Partnership working
There were mixed views on the definition of partnership, its desirability and its feasibility.
Partnership was variously defined as ‘a mutually beneficial relationship’, ‘sharing information’, ‘joint
decision-making’, ‘working towards the same goal’ and ‘sharing responsibility’. Some saw
partnership as being no different to ‘relationship’.
47
Appendix 5 cont.
To some ‘partnership working’ with stakeholders was a key objective of the FSA and an important
route to achieving safer food. Partnership was also viewed as useful in obtaining access to better
information for all concerned. However there were others who questioned the whole concept of
formal partnership, believing it offered no more than could be usefully achieved by good
relationships. Some thought that many in the FSA confused the terms ‘partnership’ and
‘relationship’.
There were those who saw partnership as incompatible with the Agency’s regulator role and
especially difficult to achieve with industry representatives. Others felt that the two roles were
compatible and viewed regulation less in terms of enforcement and more in terms of changing
behaviours. To some regulation was a continuum of actions aimed at behaviour change and ranged
from education to enforcement. Some were keen to stress that regulation was only one role of the
FSA and that the Agency worked with stakeholders in a variety of ways. For example, the promotion
of healthy eating involved objectives that were shared with several stakeholders.
There were therefore mixed views on the feasibility of moving towards partnership working. One
view was the FSA needed to change first. Most thought that it could work with some stakeholders
on some issues but not in a blanket way. More generally, it was accepted that moving towards
better relationships was feasible.
Towards change
Despite the fact that not all were convinced of the benefits of partnership working, a wide range of
views were put forward on how the FSA could improve its relationship with stakeholders and (for
some) move towards partnership. These are presented below.
The need for greater awareness within the FSA of the benefits of partnership. To some
there needed to be a mindset change.
The need for some colleagues to be more customer-focused.
FSA members must listen more and be more open-minded.
The FSA needs greater stability of both contacts and structures. For some this would involve
‘partner managers’ and ‘partner channels’. This would need resource investment.
The FSA should take the lead and show the way. An important element in this would be to
publicise the successes of partnership working as with salt reduction. A key here is the
production of empirical evidence.
Carry out a pilot study in partnership with a major stakeholder and publish the results.
Some stakeholders could be identified as leaders for this exercise.
Some mentioned that it was not only the FSA that needed to change but that stakeholders
too needed to change.
48
Appendix 6
FSA REPORT ON INTERVIEWS WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Interviewee roles
A total of nine interviews have taken place. 6 interviewees represented food producers, 2
represented scientific services and 2 represented trade associations.
Several of the interviewees had dual roles. The roles may be summarised as follows.
Technical (4)
Scientific services (4)
Regulatory (5)
Perspectives on the role of the FSA
The FSA was characterised in a number of different ways.
As a regulator. This was a perception shared by all although this was seen in different ways;
as a general regulator (2 responses), ensuring safe food for consumers (4), ensuring and
honest and legally compliant food industry (3) and controlling a healthy, nutritious and
sustainable food supply (2).
Guidance to food manufacturers (6 responses). Specifically this entailed guidance on food
imports (3), on safe food generally (3) and information to manufacturers on legislation and
on food related matters in general(3).
Promoting healthy eating (3 responses).
Representing UK interests to the EU (3 responses).
Monitoring and advising on trends (1 response)
Forming partnerships with stakeholders (1 response)
Perception of objectives shared by stakeholders and the FSA
Not all respondents were clear on this issue, but the following were raised.
Safe food (6 responses)
Healthy food (5 )
Good regulation (2)
Open communication (2)
Sharing experience on food safety (1)
Sharing experiences with stakeholders (1)
Developing an honest and legally compliant food industry (1)
Developing expertise on food matters (1)
49
Appendix 6 cont.
Half the respondents identified a difference between the FSA and industry. The perception of the
industry representatives was that the FSA was too consumer led and paid less attention to the needs
of industry.
Stakeholder experience of interaction with the FSA
All the stakeholders had experienced direct contact with the FSA at some time or other. The nature
of this contact was specified as linked to:
Food safety issues (5 respondents)
Advice on and interpretation of legislation (5)
EU issues (4)
Diet and health issues (3)
Carrying out research projects (3)
Protecting the interests of the organisation (2)
One respondent identified the majority of contact as indirect via EHOs.
The frequency of contact was variable dependent on the nature of the contact e.g. general advice
versus research contract. 3 interviewees mentioned contact of up to 3 times a week, 2 spoke in
terms of monthly contact and 3 had less frequent contact than monthly.
There were distinctly mixed views on the continuity and ease of contact with members of the FSA. 2
respondents had contact with different people within the FSA but felt that such contact was
satisfactory and consistent over time. 7 respondents specifically mentioned difficulties and cited
problems of a similar nature. These were;
High mobility of FSA staff creating problems of continuity.
Major organisation changes within the FSA causing problems of both access and continuity.
Lack of opportunity to meet FSA staff face-to face with the consequence that relationships
were hard to form.
Some issues were raised relating to the expertise of FSA staff. The points raised were a lack
of knowledge and/or experience of the food industry and in some cases a lack of knowledge
about food in general.
There was a general feeling among the industry representatives that the FSA had better
relationships with consumers, EHOs and retailers and one respondent was concerned about the time
it took for the FSA to respond.
The nature of the relationship between the FSA and stakeholders
In general the view taken on the relationship varied with the role of the stakeholder and with their
experience over time. In general:
50
Industry representatives were more critical than the scientists of the relationship and called
for a greater number of changes.
Appendix 6 cont.
Industry representatives with a longer history of dealing with the FSA tended to be more
critical than those whose interaction has been more recent.
The above comment notwithstanding, many viewed the relationship between stakeholders and the
FSA as generally positive. There were references to the FSA being user friendly and constructive.
Some of the respondents felt that the FSA was better to work with than other government
departments and much better to work with than their counterparts elsewhere in the EU. Specific
mention was made of the beneficial experience gained from working together with the FSA on
guidance documents. There was acknowledgement of the conflict faced by the FSA between its role
as a regulator and as a collaborator.
There were also some negative comments. One respondent saw the FSA as becoming too politicised
and being too distrustful of industry. Another felt that the FSA was too quick to make public
potential problems, which made industry feel less secure in its relationship with them. Two
respondents would like the FSA to be more evidence-based and less easily influenced by consumer
groups.
Negative and positive encounters
Positive encounters were cited in terms of the FSA sharing results with industry before making them
public, with 2 specific references to the acrylamide survey. It was felt that consultation in this case
resulted in a more accurate message being relayed via the media. Positive encounters were also felt
where FSA staff were more visible and specific references were made to the perceived increase in
visibility of senior FSA staff. One respondent emphasised the role of the FSA as an information
resource.
Negative encounters were defined in terms of impractical advice that industry found difficult to
implement. 3 specific references were made to the FSA making industry feel too defensive. Again
reference was made to the communication difficulties resulting from structural and staff changes in
the FSA.
What stakeholders want
A number of suggestions were made by all respondents that would enable an improved relationship
between the FSA and its stakeholders. These were:
More direct face-to-face communication. Industry representatives wanted FSA staff to visit
them more frequently.
A greater sense of a genuine relationship. This would involve more consultation and more
dialogue. This was felt by both industry and scientific services representatives. The latter
group would like more feedback on why they had failed to be awarded contracts by the FSA
and what they could do differently to improve their success rate.
51
Industry would value more horizon scanning by the FSA backed up by regular discussion
updates that reflected a real sharing of information.
Appendix 6 cont.
The FSA could make more use of stakeholder knowledge than it does at present.
From a food industry perspective there was a call for the FSA to develop a greater
knowledge of how industry works and develop a greater understanding of the relationship
between food science and the marketplace. In particular it was felt that the FSA could adopt
a more industry-sympathetic and pragmatic approach to incident handling.
There were some specific recommendations; the introduction of secondments between the
food industry and the FSA; and the introduction within the FSA of account managers to
improve both the quality and continuity of communication.
In general the industry representatives felt that the FSA had much to learn from the food industry.
There were far fewer opinions on what industry could learn from the FSA. One respondent felt that
their company had improved its risk management procedures through its interaction with the FSA
(although another felt industry itself was better at managing risks). Another felt that industry could
learn from the FSA how better to work with consumers and in general technical advice was valued,
especially in the area of imported food products.
Partnership working
Partnership was defined by the majority of respondents as working together to achieve common
goals and objectives. Other definitions included notions of shared responsibility, using expertise
from two or more areas to add value, a state of trust and openness between parties and the
opportunity to discuss problems before they arise.
There was a large measure of agreement about the starting point for partnership. A number of
overlapping themes emerged. These were trust, respect, transparency, shared objectives, equality,
mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities and the need to establish relationships. One
respondent felt that to be effective the objectives needed clear deliverables and a timeline. Another
felt that a useful starting point would be for the FSA to call a general meeting to explain its structure,
strategy and objectives.
All respondents saw partnership as a good idea and there was much to be gained in terms of
incident prevention, the exchange of knowledge and the opportunity for stakeholders to influence
legislation, healthy eating and the sustainability agenda.
Almost all respondents felt that partnership with the FSA as a regulator was possible as they shared
the common objective of food safety. It was felt by some that the FSA needed to be more trusting of
industry’s ability to deal successfully with incidents itself and that greater trust would make the
regulatory role easier. An alternative view felt that industry needed to realise that the FSA was
essentially on their side, but that ultimately their prime responsibility was to the consumer. One
respondent was sceptical that the FSA could act as both partner and regulator but acknowledged
that there were areas where interests were aligned. It was also felt by some that partnership with a
regulator could take longer to achieve.
52
Appendix 6 cont.
6 respondents had significant experience of working in partnership with other organisations and
had been happy with such arrangements. One respondent commented that such arrangements
work best when each party values the other’s expertise.
Involvement with the FSA Incident Prevention Board
5 respondents had involvement, 3 had not, of which 2 had never heard of it. Of those with
involvement, there was a belief that it had either gone quiet or had ceased to function. There was
also a view that members were unclear about its goals.
Towards change
A number of comments were made about the changes required to bring about partnership working
between the FSA and its stakeholders. Several of these points reiterate those made earlier under a
discussion of what stakeholders want. There was a measure of agreement on the following,
presented here in no particular order of importance.
From a food industry perspective the FSA is asked to develop a greater understanding of that
industry and the way it operates.
There is a call for greater face-to-face communication with the FSA and greater investment
in relationship building. In general there should be more contact.
There is a call for a greater sharing of information.
In terms of FSA organisation there should be clearer channels of communication and specific
contact points. This would be aided by greater stability of staff within the FSA.
Along with stability of staff there needs to be greater stability of structure within the FSA.
There were two additional comments, each made by a single respondent. Firstly it was felt that the
FSA needs to act less as a policeman/gamekeeper. Secondly it was felt that partnership would only
be possible when the FSA itself is clear about why it wants partnership working and forms a clearer
idea about how it might be achieved.
53