Title HRD challenges when faced by a disengaged, disenchanted, overworked
UK workforce
Dr Diane Keeble-Ramsay
Dr Andrew Armitage
Lord Ashcroft International Business School
Rivermead Campus
Bishops Hall Road
Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Stream 6: Employee Engagement & HRD
6,600 words
1
HRD challenges when faced by a disengaged, disenchanted, overworked UK
workforce
Introduction
Greater employee engagement, as a key component leading towards greater
profitability, is perhaps one of the ‘holy grails’ of people management thinking. It
relates to how ‘connected’ employees feel towards their employer (Smith et al, 2012).
From which, where employees feel engaged in their work, there have been direct
benefits in improved customer service and resulting sales clearly shown (Smith et al,
2012).
Despite this, the endeavour to capture any essence for increasing commitment and
motivation has been elusive, with the level of research into engagement perhaps being
limited at the beginning of this millennium.
In a quest to show links towards
improved engagement to increased profit levels (Robinson et al, 2004), it has been
furthered (Sprangel et al, 2011) that as organisational development (OD) demands
differing forms which explore shared aspirations, allow for dialogue building that
fosters trust and questions stances taken within an organisation’s culture could lead to
greater engagement for employees. An appreciative culture, achieved by way of
authentic engagement as a new model for human resource development (HRD)
(Halm, 2011) and provides a proficient use of human capital to generate
improvements in performance by way of the benefits of intellectual engagement,
which seeks to improve the jobs carried out within organisations (Alfes et al, 2010).
Employee engagement overlaps the previously considered and researched topics,
commitment and organisational citizenship and as a two-way concept, it demands the
employer choose to work to engage employees. The employee also decides how
much to offer the employer, to which levels of engagement may vary during their
employment (Robinson et al, 2004). Involvement in decision making, employee
voice and job development and concern for health and wellbeing affect employee
engagement levels (Robinson et al, 2004).
Moreover, the level of employee
engagement has been shown to have a direct impact upon sales and subsequently,
2
profits, by way of standards of customer service. To which, a positive feeling of
being valued can be linked to positive employee views (Robinson et al, 2004). Yet it
has also been recognised that different employees eg younger or longer term
employees, can have different expectations from employment, which has been coined
as contributing to a ‘death of deference’ since barriers to engagement are recognised
(MacLeod and Clarke, 2009). Interestingly, different types of employees eg gender,
whether they are a manager or on a permanent contract, impacts upon their potential
to be engaged in the workplace (Alfes et al, 2010). However, many of the difficulties
are recognised through a lack of awareness of the value of engagement by employers
or an underestimation of its potential contribution (MacLeod and Clarke, 2009) and
uncertainty about how to address engagement with the workforce. As such, one of the
‘engagement’ blockages could be considered to be the level of development itself
(MacLeod and Clarke, 2009).
Employment engagement can be viewed from different dimensions, emotional in so
far as employees feel connected to others and gain satisfaction from work.
A
cognitive dimension employs the skills and abilities of the individual whereas a
behavioural dimension reflects the increase in performance through effort and
willingness brought about through being engaged (Smith et al, 2012). It seems that
individuals are unlikely to become engaged because they are told to do so by their
employer (De Mello et al, 2008). If the work conditions are right it happens naturally
and at this point individuals apply their strengths where engagement-friendly cultures
which value the diversity of talents employees bring with respect for their needs. It is
a long term commitment and will not occur by the application of one single training
event which encourages relationships, worklife balance and focuses upon career
development (De Mello et al, 2008).
Given such ideal settings for engagement, there are further approaches that might
offer furthering workforce energy resources (Halm, 2011). Yet in terms of any ‘death
of deference’, it might be reflected Britons work longer hours than any other
European Union state already (Burke and Cooper, 2007). UK numbers working more
than 48 hours a week doubled in the first decade of the new millennium.
Long
working hours in the UK have been accepted for a variety of reasons; economic
necessity; in response to organisational pressure; or possibly passionate employees
3
seeking investment for their career (Burke and Cooper, 2007).
Threats of
increased globalised competition accepted as the reasoning behind downsized labour
forces increasing pressure upon employee workloads and a rise in consumerism, or
decline of trade union power, have been seen as contributors (Burke and Cooper,
2007). Moving on, post the 2008 global financial crisis, brings challenges in the UK
particularly at the point of a triple dip recession, not only of engagement but through
new OD models which may remedy increasing work intensification.
Engagement is recognised as being positively present during work where employees
willingly contribute (Alfes et al, 2010) and has three core facets these being,
intellectual engagement in thinking about the job; feeling positive relates to affective
engagement and taking opportunities to discuss improvements at work with
colleagues reflects social engagement (Alfes et al, 2010). It appears there is no
difference in engagement however, whether the employees are employed within the
public or private sector but instead depend upon senior management style and
corporate strategy coupled with implications from the size of the workforce and type
of work eg skilled or environment (Alfes et al, 2010). It is the consideration of the
changing nature of the environment, and nature of management then, which may be
critical to the potential for engagement of the workforce, in particular by their
development of employees through an environment which allows engagement to
naturally occur as a long term organisational strategy.
The research informing this paper has been informed by a study undertaken to extend
the work of Hassard et al (2009). Hassard et al’s (2009) recognised the contrasts
between Braverman’s (1974, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of the
Work in the Twentieth Century) and the potential impact that a down-sized and
restructured work force in the first decade of the 21st century might encounter.
Hassard et al’s (2009) focussed upon the experiences of managers within 3 countries,
post 2000 and recognised that rather than increasing energy levels, much
organisational change had led to work intensification and increased stress levels for
managers.
There was substantial evidence of unpleasant and difficult working
conditions emerging post 2000, attributed to short-term thinking.
Our study sought
to explore the shared experiences of workers, post 2008, in the UK workers in a
smaller study (Hassard et al, 2009). Hassard et al (2009) considered the impacts upon
4
managers yet evidence suggests all of the workerforce’s stress levels are increased by
work intensification and further, through poor management (Nygerga et al, 2011).
The Hassard et al (2009) study reported that social constraints of a long hours culture,
summarising that managers did not perceive financial income as a substitute for
genuine well-being.
They noted an apparent decline of any influence, post 2000,
from the HRD function to instigate any improvement in working practices (Hassard et
al, 2009). If the traditions of HRM, and thus HRD, are linked back to the influences
of society in terms of the historical and negative impact of societal power relations
within Western culture (Freire, 1970, 1972; Kincheloe and McLaren, 1998) perhaps
this is unsurprising.
The very nature of strategic human resource management
(SHRM), and SHRD (strategic human resource development), claimed it had become
central (Schuler and Jackson, 2005), yet Ray and Goppelt (2011) recognise that issues
have lain with limited appreciation of the social complexity of organisations.
Links to engagement, through Hassard et al (2009) are reflected through discussion of
aspiration towards High Performance working (HPW) having prior focus of attention
post 2000.
However, within HPW thinking, adopting a low cost or low road
strategic human resource (SHRM/D) approach has been recognized as potentially
impacting negatively upon workforce performance and any sustainability of
productivity and performance (Butler et al, 2004). Whilst HPW had been espoused
as a set of conceptual approaches, (Butler et al, 2004) as the collective use of HR
bundles and ‘new’ working practices (Wood and de Menezes, 2008), central to the
burgeoning of HPW into academic controversy was been its limited consideration of
the complexity of employer-worker relationships (Hughes, 2008). An absence of
consideration for the environment within which employee relations operates
potentially limits the opportunities for increasing employee engagement particularly
where engagement is founded upon social, intellectual and emotional settings (Alfes
et al, 2010; Smith et al, 2012). Within the UK, HPW could be only partly successful
in its original claim to offer ‘a universal panacea for complexities of managing people
that might transcend national, cultural and economic divides’ (De Waal, 2006). UK
people management practices of re-structuring and down sizing, prior to 2008, driven
by short-term financial goals potentially constrained the role of HPW (KeebleRamsay and Armitage, 2009). Further, in the face of a global financial crisis, there
5
was an eradicating of any aspiration towards embedding HPW’s orthodoxy in favour
for low road ‘lower cost’ short-term HRD.
As such modification and mediation of
HPW inclined towards a ‘billiard ball model’, where ready-made solutions were
injected but had the consequence of neglected attention towards the experiences of
employees (Hughes, 2008). The power balances and relationships continued over
time with consequences (Ramirez, Guy and Beale, 2007) and limiting the employees’
voice (Cullinane and Dundon, 2006) diminishing prospects for social or emotional
engagement through HPW.
It had been long held that, in reality, the US and UK would not enact HPW
(MacDuffie, 1995) since Godard (2004) furthered there is no evidence that higher
productivity is achieved by moving from traditional HRD practices.
Further,
Fleetwood and Hesketh (2006) presented that the links between HRM or people
management practices to changes in productivity are ‘under-theorised’.
It is
suggested that UK organizations would not change their direction if the argument was
considered insufficient yet in the face of fierce competition, firms should transform
themselves to be ready to adapt (Joo and Shim, 2010). Moreover, given any decline
in the aspirations towards HPW within the UK, there has remained a dearth of earnest
employee participation practice within UK industry, perhaps, reflecting the pluralist
stances of UK business (as opposed to any diversity of practices furthered by Poutsma
et al, 2003).
A preference for the short term gains in productivity from work
intensification practices has remained in the UK post 2008. It is also argued that, post
2008, HRD professionals have spent much time trying to save their own jobs to the
point that they may have failed to do their (HRD) job (MacKenzie, Garavan and
Carbery 2012). As such then, the challenge for HRD would be to adopt OD models
which redress this. Yet the UK government has potentially moved to abandon or
replace HPW with an agenda focused upon the value of employee engagement in the
addressing of productivity in times of recession and its potential for growth by ways
of increased profits enjoyed from engaging the workforce (Robinson et al, 2004).
In light of such discussion, it would appear that there is demand for HRD models,
which seek to make long term impact upon the organizational environment and
challenges for HRD professionals to consider both the issues of management teams
who feel unsure of how to tackle engagement (De Mello et al, 2008) and awareness
6
raising of the potential for engagement. Moreover, it is further considered that for
intellectual and affective engagement to be nurtured it is critical to find approaches
which allow the individual employee opportunities to use proactive behaviour and
initiative to mould their job roles for improvement (Frese, 2008). By identifying
management approaches, which do not seek for employees ‘just to follow instructions
or task descriptions’, it is essential to develop or embrace HRD models, which allow
the individual employees to develop their own goals and solve problems which have
yet to happen (Frese, 2008). Centralisation of command and control cannot facilitate
such approaches and to elicit emotional and social engagement, intellectual and
affective engagement. As such then, this paper seeks to consider the initial findings
from research undertaken in terms of the working environment in the UK post 2008.
Findings and Discussion
When initiating the research that informs this paper, it was considered that Hassard et
al (2009) had conducted studies of changes within multi-national organisations from
2000 across 3 countries, yet this prior study was limited to manager’s perceptions and
further did not incorporate the period post-2008 where the cataclysmic impact
financial turmoil of the global credit crunch might be fully reflected if it held any
implications for the potential of employee engagement. As a result, we undertook
focus group research utilising convenience samples, which derived from contacts we
had with existing employers operating within the UK. We engaged focus group study
by way of 10 groups, of approx 7 participants, each representing different companies
within the general workforce from the UK (this is potentially comparable to the UK
element of the Hassard et al (2009) study where 62 interviews were conducted across
different organisations reported in 2008).
Whilst the representative nature of the
study to provide comparative generalisations might be constrained, given this is a
smaller study than Hassard et al (2009) in total participants, the evidence appears
from the answers provided by focus group participants to be consistent with the prior
Hassard et al (2009)’s research reporting of the approaches of multinational
companies.
By comparison to Hassard et al (2009), the study participation did not
include managers, but skilled or professional practitioners not working in a
managerial capacity. Three themes taken from Hassard et al (2009)’s prior study
grouped as ‘perceptions of change’, ‘culture’ and ‘the impact of IT’ were presented
7
into the focus group schedules by way of stimulus questions to allow the focus groups
to consider their negotiated understanding of the working environment since 2008.
The decision to incorporate focus group study was made given a recognition that
focus group represents a research method where reality can be co-constructed through
interaction (Tsaousi and Brewis, 2013).
As meanings can be bargained and
dispensed through group experiences from their contexts of practice (Wilkinson,
2004) and through the communicative nature of focus groups, it was recognised that
this can facilitate social meaning as participants build on each others’ views.
Moreover given constraints of access and time, as this was an initial stage of further
research to be undertaken into this area, this led the research to identify a research
instrument which might adopt a synergistic approach through the interactive and
communication and yet which might facilitate social meaning still (Tsaousi and
Brewis, 2013).
By way of drawing from Hassard et al’s (2009) study, in terms of the 3 themes
selected, allowed for a stimulus sheet of questions to be drawn up as a catalyst to
assist focus group discussions.
The stimulus questions asked whether they had
experienced any organisational re-structuring since 2008, whether there had been any
change to the organisation’s ethos, whether the size of the workforce had declined,
whether the organisational culture had changed, or whether the introduction of more
advanced IT had been within the motivations underpinning any organisational
transformation interventions.
Participants also recorded their collective agreed
responses to the stimulus questions as joint focus group summaries, which provided
the research with the extracts reported within this paper taken from these original
agreed responses, as well as those taken from transcripts of individual contributions.
The subsequent analysis is based within Hassard et al’s 3 themes identified from their
2009 study noted above. The contributions included were considered in terms of the
shared perceptions reported by focus groups and all contributions were reported
anonymously.
When considering the first theme of perceptions of change in the workplace then, the
participating cohorts agreed that they perceived that the work climate had changed,
post 2008, into a more chaotic, tougher place to work. They identified this had taken
8
place by an absence of discussion or upward communication, yet with greater
accountability to senior management. Individual roles had become more constrained
which had resulted in decreased morale within the workforces given such an intense
period of change. Participants identified that post, 2008, the sheer rate and number of
organisational changes had evolved the business towards a financially focussed
culture.
In so doing, the nature of the work, by way of increasing workloads,
decreasing the size of the workforce and increasing the length of the day was reported
by participants as a cause for low morale and increasing stress levels within the
workforce.
Participants from 5 groups recounting from focus group discussions included in their
summaries that their reflections included as they identified what they considered as a
‘shock culture’ post 2008. Their agreements concluded that they felt an absence of
HRD in the facilitation of positive engagement and that this had decreased morale
within the workforces given intense change, post 2008. In many senses, this perhaps
mirrored some of the negative experiences and views identified by managers within
the Hassard et al (2009) prior the 2008 financial crisis.
To illustrate one participant noted in their focus group discussions:
‘…the organisation had changed its policy on workplace training, where previously
any time engaged in personal development was part of the working week now
employees have to make up the time. In other words if you attend a one day course
then you have to do another day’s work. If you do a weekly 3-hour course even if a
further 3 hours of the course are attended in the evening as the course is 6 hours
overall and the second 3 hours is completed in your own personal time, you have to
make up 3 hours again in further workplace time. This feels like a form of bullying
to stop you undertaking personal development as if they fear you might leave if you
have any development. Even though the development is funded by the organisation,
they make me want to feel like leaving as it feels they no longer value
development…’
This demonstrates potentially employee perceptions of increasing control but also
perhaps less concern for the welfare of the workforce being substituted by greater
9
concern for financial controls or presenteeism in the workplace. A potential mode of
exploitation through longer working hours reduces the potential for the participant
expressing that they felt the work climate was authenziotic and restricts natural
engagement as a result.
The focus groups also reported in their joint summaries, by a majority of 8 out of the
10 groups, that they viewed that the communication of change to the workforce was
problematic.
Most of the participants felt that, even if they were in a management
role, they had very little participation in the design of change agendas and less control
in their implementation. They felt that such change was dictated to them largeley
with a general explanation that there were such imperative economic needs for change
that they should not consider questioning the change agenda as revealed to them.
The nature and speed of change had caused concern with one participant who stated:
‘….I had a discussion with one of the senior management team regarding the pace of
change noting that the change had been so rapid it meant that perhaps we were not
taking people with us. Whilst he stated there is nothing else to be done, we just have
to accept rapid change, I suggested to him that we might review the business model
and rather than continue with a pace of change that the workforce might find difficult
to engage with, consider whether we were better to ‘stick to the knitting’ in some
areas of the business and focus the change. This was met with a response, which
suggested I was being incredulous. The response was almost that if staff are so lazy
they cannot keep up then perhaps they are better off not being employed in the
business…’
The participant carried on to agree within the group that this was a reflection of the
lack of caring in the current culture and lack of capacity for engagement by the
workforce and it had facilitated followed by the subsequent levels of increased stress
by including this within their joint summaries.
Another possibility raised from the data provided from the joint summaries was that
changes to the culture in the organisation had been far more incremental for other
participants. Yet, rather than the pace of change causing problems with workforce
10
engagement, the suggestion was that a less authentizotic climate was created through
the lack of sense of importance for identity or territory for the individuals within the
workfoce. Participants agreed that recent restructuring had led to less physical space
in the office for each individual staff. They noted that this may seem a small change
but it was received by the workforce as a destructive act and evidence of autocratic
management control (Nyberga et al, 2011), which did not seek to build trust within
the workforce:
Restructuring was recurrent in the expressions of the focus group participants in their
different group summaries. One group agreed the term ‘parade of restructuring’ as
being a process implemented through a series of emails and meetings accompanied by
company-wide newsletters or letters to the workforce. To which they expressed,
collectively, that they felt they had little voice and that such restructure was simply
inevitable and had to be accepted. They agreed they felt they were not be consulted
but solely notified, aside from the occasions where they might be able to seek external
guidance through employment law:
One participant contributed that:
‘…Much of the change had been communicated by email using an impersonal
manner. Rumours often pre-empted the formal communications received by email…’
It was considered within the discussions in one focus group that such approaches
increased stress rather alleviated personal concerns about the changes in the
workplace and some of the workplace emails were seen as openly threatening. Within
that group one participant noted that:
‘…a new member of the management team started an email by praising us for our
effort in their words, ‘during a period of continuous and difficult change’, and then
concluded the email with a threat of disciplinary action for negligent behaviour if we
didn’t manage to do all the new processes. There was no sense that the sender hadn’t
any idea of the workloads we had in reality or had thought through how we might
manage to cope with the workload but the threat that if we should fail was that we
would be disciplined. This hardly encouraged staff to feel valued but instead morale
11
dropped further like a stone as staff read the email and discussed it round the
office…’
It was suggested by the participant that this felt the management approach has beomce
more dictatorial and threatening (see Nyberga et al, 2011).
Another focus group discussed the nature of work intensification, post 2008, by
illustrating differing practices regarding lunch breaks in their discourse. A participant
recounted to the others that:
‘… the organisation had recently refurbished the staff room with an intention that this
would be a ‘relaxation centre’, which might encourage participation and involvement
and a space for innovative thinking. However, if staff entered the area for their
lunchbreak or during the working day, comments from the management team led
them to feel intimidated by ‘wasting time’ taking lunch periods and returned to eating
at their desk where a ‘presenteeism culture’ made them feel it was more acceptable…’
Another participant noted that:
‘…[within their workplace] staff do not take lunch break excepting one member of
staff who works in an office on their own since their limited opportunity for social
contact was to take a lunch break.
This had become a topic for discussion at
management meetings in terms of the reasons behind why this member of staff was
less productive if they were taking lunch breaks particularly outside the building. It
was not suggested that they were exceeding the time for lunch nor acting
inappropriately but the mere action of stopping for lunch was considered exceptional
behaviour…’
Others in another one of the focus group explained to the others that:
‘… their organisation was good at having a ‘9 to 5’ culture in terms of working hours.
The reason was a lack of engagement by the staff who would not wish to work past
5pm…’
12
In their deliberations the focus group agreed that they did not feel the reasons for the
‘9 to 5’ culture represented negotiated arrangements in terms of work-life balance or
pastoral welfare. It was considered that there was evidence of a lack of engagement
by the overall workforce and therefore they ‘couldn’t wait’ to leave with their coats
on and packing up to leave in advance of the end of the day.
They reflected that
historically the workforce had been happier and one participant recounted that
‘…before 2000, you could measure by how late workers stayed by the numbers of
cars in the staff car park long after 5pm, whereas post 2008 the building was clear by
6pm…’.
One focus group contained employees from a private sector organisation, which had
benefitted from contracts being outsourced by the public sector since 2008.
They
agreed that an entrepreneurial approach by the senior management team had
encouraged and facilitated an entrepreneurial spirit by the workforce. To which they
felt very loyal and proud that this was the foundations of growth within the busienss.
They noted that that constant cost cutting of service contracts meant the business had
looked towards greater work intensification practices to meet contractual obligations.
However, one participant noted:
‘… the entrepreneurial spirit and economic success of our business inspired the
workforce to take on additional activities as the work force were ‘happy to have a job’
in areas where low skills were required …. and the employment appeared to be
sustainable in this successful organisation. The management of the organisation have
taken a very facilitative approach and as such the workforce felt ‘part of the team’ and
increased work was seen as an indication of successful outcomes having maintained
or increased the contractural base of the business through successful levels of
customer service….’
This illustration from the focus group raised the possibility that the intellectual and
affective engagement (Alfes et al, 2010) potential of a workforce, who feel they are
working with a liberated leadership base encourages their employee engagement.
13
The participants then went on to note in their joint summaries that the organisation
had recently held an awards ceremony for all the employees who had taken part in
recent development activities and invited families to attend to help celebrate the
achievements of the employees in their staff development. They recorded:
‘… as a result we really felt that our contributions to the workplace from the skills we
had developed through the HRD programme we had taken part in were truly valued.
One of the senior management team made a speech to the group and genuinely,
caringly told us how very pleased they were to see how our work had contributed to
the continued growth of the company. We knew that our current growth targets had
been exceeded and the senior manager suggested these were around 15% so we all felt
that every contribution we had made further to our development programme had
resulted from our hard work. This was really inspiring and at least one of our team is
going to continue on to get an MBA which is fantastic since none of us had been to
university so we really welcomed the ceremony. It truly motivated us to feel part of
the success of the business…’
The recital of the participants of the focus group through a glowing tribute evidence
suggests in our analysis as emotional and cognitive engagement (De Mello et al,
2008) and at least its potential in motivating the individual employee where they
perceive a supportive, appreciative, authentic environment (Smith et al, 2012; Halm
2011).
However, even for this focus group, alongside all of the others, they agreed and
reported an increase in daily work activity as linked to increased technological
changes. This focus group identified that the use of SMART telephones meant
employees were expected to be available to receive emails and telephone calls at all
times, even during holiday periods.
One of the other focus groups identified and
agreed that a practice where the employer had brought in rules to limit the use of
email by penalising departments who allowed employees to spread communications
throught the use of lengthy lists of copies to others in the organisation would address
the impact of technology. This was particularly so as departments were required to
defend who had been recipients to email correspondence and if someone had been
copied in unnecessarily then the department would be penalised by a budgetary
14
reduction. As a result, the focus group concluded that this limited the misuse of
emails in terms of the spread across addressees in the organisation which had an
indirect result of increasing individual’s workloads and stress levels as they felt they
should respond. The reduction of the burden of the workforce from this reduction in
email traffic had been welcomed but another participant in the focus group identified
the opposite in their organisation. They felt the increase in email traffic constituted a
‘catch me out if you can’ culture, where staff were on their guard 24/7 in the fear that
not responding to an email in a timely manner would result in disciplinary action.
Therefore they no longer queried whether the email was important (or urgent) but felt
there was a pressure for quick responses day or night leading to a more bullying and
blame oriented culture.
A further observation was that, as staff were enabled to use the technology available
to them on mobile devices and platforms, then it had evolved in their increased
workload as activities, which might have historically been undertaken by support staff
were now being undertaken by them but not recognised in their workload. They
perceived that this invisible increase in work activity was treated as a failure in duty
by employers if tasks previously provided by support staff had not been done now
automatically.
This was interpreted through their discussions, not as an
empowerment from job enlargement but as an increase in pressure in the workplace as
they felt that there was no avenue to negotiate since they perceived the level of
activity had become an expectation by the management team and organisation,
without any prior consultation.
One of the focus groups identified and discussed initial resentment to many of the
technological changes. Whilst they noted this appeared to be improving by the time
the focus group was conducted. Another focus group noted that:
‘… re-structuring and financial changes had now happened each year since the crisis
and as a result we [workers] were concerned about their security and this caused us
considerable stress…’
From the excerpts taken from the focus groups, as provided, it appears that a number
of the contents were consistent with the expectations of the prior Hassard et al (2009)
15
study of change within management where Hassard et al (2009) reports increased
workloads, stress and perceptions of work intentification.
Further, this is consistent with the issues surrounding the nature of engagement.
Whilst Hassard et al’s (2009) study focussed upon the period prior to the 2008 crisis,
and upon middle management responses, the insights that our focus groups provide
suggest that also, like managers, the general workforce perceived generally increased
stress from the changing nature of the organisational climate from a negative viewing.
However, the one focus group cohort comprising workers from the private company
who were enjoying financial growth reported by contrast a supportive management
team suggested increasing levels of intellectual, social and emotional engagement
which impacted upon their behaviours.
It is difficult to ascertain from the limitations of the focus group research conducted,
whether the perceived management approach reflected the realities or intentions of the
management team ie could their intentions actually be more (or less) exploitative? It
might be furthered that in times of profitability and growth there may be a focus by
employers upon providing an appreciative culture. However, the experiences within
other organisations, post 2000, (Hassard et al, 2009) which are reported as being more
financially focused reflect that these organisations are responding to a difficult trading
climate.
Perhaps this does not reflect the governmental drive towards the benefits
from improving engagement as employers are responding to the post-2008 economic
climate by moving towards a more disengaging stance.
Conclusions and Implications
The data presented intended to reflect the different encounters that participants had
and the differences in their discursive versions of the reality they co-constructed
through focus group interaction. The analysis provided from the data collected from
the focus groups attempts to show the meanings that groups allocated to their lived
experiences and reality or identities expressed through their discursive versions of
their shared perceptions of work within UK organisations post 2008.
By identifying
themes from Hassard et al (2009)’s earlier study, this paper sought to identify
challenges faced in terms of engagement and implications for HRD. If the UK
16
workforce represented here then suggests that, further to the global financial crisis,
they are ‘overworked’ and this leads to disengagement and disenchantment perhaps
this reinforces the stance of HRD needs to evolve towards a more critical stance (Rigg
et al, 2007). Or to greater workforce ownership (Sprangel et al, 2011) and OD forms
that embrace employees (Halm, 2011) rather than as an onlooker to short-term
financiallly focussed work intensification where the social assets of the workforce are
not fully engaged.
This study recognises that, despite its apparent replication of Hassard et al’s (2009)
findings of increased workloads and stress, absent of improvements remedied by
HRD, given the constraints of sample size this provides only insights which will be
furthered in later research to be conducted.
Further the paper provides only a
contribution to a limited scholarly literature or commentary on post-2008 lived
experiences and perceptions of workplace change and impact upon engagement.
However, the accounts suggest potentially a possibility of the challenge for HRD to
recognise the nature of the UK post-2008 climate. As such potentially also, a need to
seek to gain corporate commitment towards new forms of OD/HRD (Sprangel et al,
2011), (recognising the complexity of social totality within organisations which take
the high road that HPW aspired towards since short term, work intensification
mechanisms appear to reduce engagement and morale depleting the workforce). The
failing to grasp any such challenge might then lead to a deficit towards recovery post2008, wasting the potential of new OD models for the UK and limiting the
understanding of how to improve engagement and thus bottom line profit. As such
then this provides some initial readings into the issues HRD professionals may wish
to reflect upon.
17
Reference List
Alfes K, Gatenby M Rees C, Soane E C Truss C, 2010 Creating An Engaged
Workforce Findings From The Kingston Employee Engagement Consortium Project,
CIPD, London Braverman H,1974 Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the
Twentieth Century 1974 New York: Monthly Review Press
Butler P, Felstead A, Ashton D, Fuller A, Lee T, Unwin L and Walters S, 2004 High
Performance Management: A Literature Review, Learning as Work: Teaching and
Learning Processes in the Contemporary Work Organisation, Research Paper No 1,
CLMS, University of Leicester
Burke R J and Cooper C L 2007 Building More Effective Organisations – HR
Management and Performance in practice, Cambridge University Press,
Burke R J and Cooper C L 2008 The long work hours culture: Causes, consequences,
and choices. Bingley,UK: Emerald :Publishers.
Cullinane N and Dundon T 2006 The psychological contract: A critical review
International Journal of Management Reviews, Blackwell publishing
De Mello C, Wildermuth, S Pauken, P 2008 "A perfect match: decoding employee
engagement – Part II: engaging jobs and individuals", Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 40 Iss: 4, pp.206 - 210
De Waal A A 2006 The Characteristics of a High Performance Organisation
Maastricht School of Management MSM ember 1, 2006, working paper series
Fleetwood S and Hesketh A 2006 “Theorising under-theorisation in research on the
HRM - performance link”, The Department of Organisation, Work and Technology
Lancaster University Management School Working Paper 2006/039 pp1-15
Freire P 1970 “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, London: Penguin
Freire P 1972 “Cultural action for freedom”, London: Penguin
Frese, M 2008 The word is out: we need an active performance concept for modern
workplaces. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol 1, No 1. pp67–69
Godard J 2004 A Critical Assessment of the High-Performance Paradigm, British
Journal of Industrial Relations 42:2 2004 pp 349-378
Halm J 2011 A workforce design model: providing energy to organizations in
transition, International Journal of Training and Development, 15:1 Blackwell
Publishing
18
Hassard J, McCann L and Morris J, 2009 Managing in Modern Organisation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hughes J 2008 The High-Performance Paradigm:
Learning as Work Research Paper, No 16, March 2008
A Review and Evaluation,
Joo B and Shim J H 2010 Psychological empowerment and organizational
commitment: the moderating effect of organizational learning culture, Human
Resource Development International Vol 13 No 4 September 2010 425-441
Keeble-Ramsay D and Armitage A 2009 High Performance Working and Wellbeing,
Sustaintability of Human Resources, The International Journal of Environmental,
Cultural and Economic and Social Sustainability
MacLeod D and Clarke N 2009 Engaging for success: enhancing performance
through employee engagement, a report to the government, BIS, Crown
MacKenzie, C. A., Garavan, T. N. and Carbery, R. 2012. Through the lookin glass:
challenges for human resource development HRD post the global financial crisis –
business as usual? Human Resource Development International, Vol 15: 3, July
2012, 353-364.
Nyberga,A, Ingalill B, Holmberg, Berninb P, Alderlinga M, Åkerblomc S,
Widerszal-Bazyld M, Magrine M E, Hasselhornf H, Milczarekd M,
D’Angeloe G, Denkf M, Westerlundb H and Theorellb T 2011 Destructive
managerial leadership and psychological well-being among employees
in Swedish, Polish, and Italian hotels; Journal of Work 39 2011 267–281 267
IOS Press
Poutsma E, Hendricks J, Huijen F 2003 The Performance Effects of High
Performance Work Systems: evidence from an European survey, Economic and
Industrial Democracy Sage London Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi Vol 24 1
Ramirez M, Guy F and Beale D 2007 Contested resources: unions, employers and
the adoption of new work practices in the US and UK telecommunications, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 45 3 p 495-517
Rigg C, Stewart J and Trehan K eds 2007 Critical Human Resource Development
Beyond Orthodoxy, Pearson Books, Prentice Hill
Robinson D, Perryman S Hayday S 2004 The Drivers of Employee Engagement,
Brighton Institute of Employment Studies report 408
Schuler R S and Jackson S E 2005 A quarter century review of human resource
management in the US, Revue vol 16 issue 1 2005
Smith P, Farmer M and Yellowley W 2012 Organisational Behaviour, Hodder
Education
19
Sprangel J, Stavros J and Cole M 2011 Creating sustainable relationships using the
strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results framework, trust, and
environmentalism: a research-based case study, International Journal of Training and
Development, 15:1, Blackwell Publishing
Tsaousi C and Brewis J 2013 Are you feeling special today? Underwear and the
‘fashioning’ of female identity, Culture and Organisation, Vol 19,1 January 2013, 121
Wilkinson S 2004 Focus group research in Silverman D, ed, Qualitative Research:
Theory and Method and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 177-199
Wood S and de Menzes L M 2008 Comparing perspectives on high involvement
management and organisational performance across the British economy, The
international Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 4 April 2008 639682
20
21