When operational and technical change takes place
Technical changes involve choices that impact on employees and their contracts with the organisation. Jobs change, people have to realign to new circumstances, there is uncertainty and anxitey, learning support is often needed, employees are redeployed or made redundant.
Tough managers may talk of 'automate or liquidate', 're-engineer, rationalise, reduce', TINA - 'there is no alternative'. Such aphorisms assume that that technical change is inevitable to sustain competitive advantage. From such external referencing, decisions follow directly. However management has a range of choices about
There are choices about
Remember the 'Six Wise Men':
"I know six honest, serving men. I taught them all I knew. Their names are What and Why and How and Where and When and Who".
So the nature and quality of management decision making comes under the spotlight in situations of operational and technical change.
The matter of gender arise. Are women caught out differently than men in situations of technical change. As heavy, manual, male dominated industries have declined and service industries expanded - perhaps some groups of men have been more adversely effected. But then, consider the view that the routinisation of service occupations and customer orientations required in services may trap women into certain types of work. Are women as well represented as men in the high tech. industries? Do women respond differently in situations of technical change?
UK experience is an interesting one in terms of objectives underpinning technical change. Both for national and organisational initiatives and there many cases that each raise questions about e.g. government thinking, financial markets and employer tentativeness or otherwise over investment in new technologies and the employee, organisational and institutional issues arising.
Further examples are legion. Of note are
Such examples suggest that we must question the generalisation that technical change is usually guided by consistent management objectives. It is partially true. Managerial groups (hierarchally and functionally) address the issues their organisations face at different points in time. They make continent, strategic choice responses to these situations in making decisions over reaction to and exploitation of technical change. Of course decisions made are driven by competitive pressures and technological imperatives but they also result from various motives reflecting
On the one hand we argue that management decisions over technical change (and other issues) reflect
rational attempts to choose the best option in the circumstances and with available information
But these decisions (complex, multifaceted, high level, strategic, separated from the operational level) are 'bounded' also by values, goals and interests. the latter form an interpretive framework wherein
sense is made of the situation
What is rational (inevitable, reasonable) to one group or individual (e.g. merchant banks, the financial markets, accountants) may be irrational (stupid, irresponsible, exploitative) to another (e.g. line managers, trade union members). We can additionally explain the differences in terms of
Buchanan & Boddy's (1983) Scottish research reveals something of political processes behind decisions to adopt technical change. 'Promoters of change' campaign to secure their mix of objectives and interests. They marshall information to support their case and to anticipate and dissipate opposition from other interest groups.
Buchanan & Boddy classified management objectives across functional levels:
We can 'see' these objectives but the three statements are too simple and incomplete. What of other objectives concerning empire building and the excitement of the chase? What of the aspiration to be bigger, better, the acknowledged leader in the field - all of which may reflect in the actors concerned not just a supposedly rational assessment of the situation?
The substituting of people by technology is too easily labelled as 'deskilling'. This kind of thinking is that of the sociologist hooked on the concept of 'Fordism' and an interpretation of harsh expressions of machine factory life and worker reactions to it as Beynon's "Working for Ford" case study depicted (ref to be inserted). In simple terms, if applied science has now produced a better washing machine that does XYZ wonderfully, with less effort - are we, as humans and consumers - not going to buy into it. Instead of hiring Mr Toad as a laundry operative lets change the role of laundry operative to machine laoder and unloader and not employ all the people doing the 'scrub-a-dub-dubbing'.
But whilst it is clear that managers and capitalists over centuries have exploited machines and systems to improve productive power: volume, speed, reliability and costs (all good accounts and efficiency based scientific management) a sweeping conclusion about 'deskilling' and dehumanisation of people at work as a fixed, immutable notion, fails to address the fact that in some cases, jobs are lost entirely. The human capacity for creative, technological innovation means that when new discoveries are made, and methods become available then we - as people (where we have the capital and the opportunity to exploit the technology to our own advantage) will do so. This innovation frequently impinges on social systems of enactment where the work-technology-worker (social technical systems) relationships change. there are so many examples to relate but two might be mentioned:
The nature of machine and information based technologies is such that machines and systems can (almost but not quite) carry out the work entirely. Witness the robotised installation of front and rear windscreens on cars. People are needed to deliver and position a new pallet of windscreens, ensure the mastic is replenished in the glue reservoirs of the robots, clear away broken glass if, due to poor quality glass, a windscreen shatters on being picked up by the robot's suckers. New technician jobs emerge to develop new programmes and maintain the high technology systems and equipment. In a sense this is the triumph of scientific management. As far as technically possible the need for informed human intervention in lean, high technology supported operations is probably enhanced rather than deskilled. Normally held by middle and junior line management.
McLoughlin & Clark (1994) elaborated Buchanan and Boddy's management objectives classification by differentiating the substantive and procedural form of human and organisational issues in technical change.
Substantive issues
Procedural
Many of these are of a how or what type. Only substantive issues of a strategic variety indicate why technical change is to be introduced as human and organisational issues are usually a consequence of prior strategic decisions.
It is through strategy formation and dissemination that employment and control issues are determined. It is argued and often assumed that HR specialists have a role to integrate human resource matters into strategic management, giving coherence and purpose to the organisation. These assumptions need testing. When do they become involved and how far? How is their role and authority limited?
To talk of the aim of strategic HRM is to assume that employees are a major factor in the organisation's strategic direction. The rhetoric (aspiratio) a strategic HRM approach in a programme of change is to ensure that the rationale for the change and its objectives are communicated and shared. The aim is to promote the commitment of individual's and groups to the chnages, to minimise the adverse effects on members of the organisation and to support them in realising the opportunities that the changes may bring to the organisation and its members. The McGregor theory Y, unitary perspective is clear in tese statements and the underlying belief is that it is possible to integrate the needs of the individual with the needs of the organsiation. Unfortunately the contradiction is also evident - "we have 700 redundancies".
The strategic unitary function is achieving organisational objectives e.g. more market share or better ROI. Necessary HRM processes encompass the knowledge, skills and attitudes the firm needs to compete. Thus we would expect to find that HR strategy is based on an explicit philosophy, or a paradigm that views employees not as adversaries but as collaborators in a common enterprise - as assets not cost centres.
Because of the inevitably 'political' nature of organisational change - whether technical, financial or administrative - there will be 'winners and losers'. The democratic-participative ideology in the West suggests that those directly affected by major changes must be consulted; people must be involved. It suggests that "win-win" is possibe. Yet it is clear that where "winners and losers" are inevitable - pluraism prevails and not unitarism. Involving employees in organisational change will always be a mixed blessing as some employees may disagree, challenge the managerial viewpoint, seek the status quo which defends their terms and condcitions of employment and 'claim rights'. Yet the democratic-participative message is commonly heard in debates about organisational change.
What are the pros and cons of such participation and what are the realities for the actors at different levels
Consider a recent significant technological change in an organisation familiar to you, (e.g. the introduction of telesales).
To what extent, and at which point in the process, were human issues and consequences taken into account?
At what point and to what extent were Personnel specialists (or specific considerations of 'people' issues) involved?
Consider the following naive question. If human and organisational (i.e. personnel) issues are significant, would we not expect personnel specialists to take a lead, innovative role in developing responses to human and organisational issues associated with the technical change?
Research in the 1980s-90s found that technological change, whether involving microelectronics or not, was still viewed in the UK as a technical matter: something for the technical managers not the 'people-people'. The workplace industrial relations surveys (WIRS) of 1980, 1984 and 1990 (see Daniel and Millward, 1993) demonstrated.
Daniel (1987) concluded that compared to earlier studies of technological change, little had altered since the early 1960s. Technical change was still largely a technical matter with no established role or function for personnel management (p.110). Legge 1989 declared:
Personnel where were you?
In that Personnel (Human Resource Managers) were not consulted, is this an indication that they
The decision-makers, even those without hands-on experience, not the technocrats have the power. Yet they want what the technocrats can offer. Communications become top-down only; not bottom-up; a shower, not a bidet.
The decision to adopt new technology is shaped by interests and commitments of individuals and groups who will determine
Clegg and Kemp (1986) argued that a sequential method of introducing technical change has dominated in the UK.
The effect is to squeeze HR issues out as subsequent HR choices are then constrained by prior technical decisions. A coherent strategic plan concerning the human implications of new systems develops - but with 'coherence' defined by the objectives of the earlier design decisions. The people aspects of operating the system emerge only at a late stage; and when considered, decisions may be fragmented and less than coherent in terms of retraining, redeployment, rewards and adaptations to terms and conditions of employment.
Daniel notes evidence that full and early involvement of personnel specialists in technological change, where it does occur, helps promote worker acceptance of change. His survey found a consistent relationship between the early involvement of personnel managers and favourable worker reactions to advanced technological change.
Consider the 'truth of the following statements. Assume a "devil's advocate" and put forward counter arguments, alternative explanations.
- Business processes or practices are made and operated by people, working as individuals or in groups. They use the technologies as tools to produce goods and services.
- It is their efforts that determine the success or failure of investments in technology.
- Further, they know intrinsically what benefits are actually being delivered.
- The actual benefits of technological investments cannot be perceived directly or on their own. Only when technology is coupled with human resources can the benefits be perceived.
- Technology and knowledge are human creations and they can be managed only by giving people the primary role.
- Technology is not a magic dust. It takes educated, committed and imaginative individuals, with technology, to add value and transform an enterprise.
To take this issue further distinguish between
If specialist personnel people are not involved, could it be that personnel issues are comprehensively and systematically taken up by the strategic decision-makers themselves? Have the norms and values of modern HRM philosophies and practices been absorbed into the thinking of managers across the board e.g. through total quality practice, in search of excellence programmes and delight-the-customer service orientations? Have the messages of the 1960's human relations schools and 1980s/90s management calls that advocated leadership, motivation, participative management and communication been heard and absorbed?
Consider the proposition that whilst the personnel specialist remains a servant to the technical change agent ( a client server relationship), the managers directly involved in managing change today give greater prominence to personnel issues. This lessens the need to have a HRM specialist directly on the strategic change team?
This argument may be supported by those who feel that traditional personnel management has given way to a broader conception and practice of HRM adopted by all levels of management.
Defining HRM is a puzzle. Generally the term refers to approaches to the management of the human resources of the firm and more specifically to refer to an approach that is distinct from conventional personnel management (Storey, 1989; Storey, 1992).
Storey points to 'strong' HRM as a more unitarist, proactive and less procedurally bound and institutionalised approach than personnel management. Yet the contribution of HRM services in distributed, high technology based organisations such as a consultancy or software development and facilities management organisation personnel policies encompasses central, standard procedures for grading, promotions, staff transfers, rewards/bonuses, staff appraisal and mentoring, and procedures for staff recruitment and severance. Such standard procedures are generated out of the HRM service function to operate across the organisation, bind it together and enable it to demonstrate consistency in employment relations to its employees and to the clients/customers they serve.
For HRM, business need is
Storey (1992, pp. 168-169) differentiated types of personnel management involvement in technical change. He highlighted four roles based on whether
The four Storey roles are
| Mode of Intervention HR Specialist | Interventionist (ie taking the lead) |
non-interventionist (reacting to decisions of other managers) |
|---|---|---|
| involved in strategic decisions re-change | Changemaker: personnel involvement is both strategic and interventionist withthe specialist the principal champion and architect of change | Adviser: personnel involvement is non-interventionary but at the strategic level. In effect the specialist acts as a consultant on people matters when required by senior management. |
| not involved in strategic decisions re-change | Regulator: tactical intervention only to ensure change occurs within existing agreed rules and procedures with trade unions and other company procedures. Personnel may be involved in negotiating arrangements to enable change to occur (consensus and within an agreed framework). | Handmaiden: non-interventionary servant to line management. Admin, records and basic employee welfare. No legitimate interest or role in change management. |
The more strategic roles of change maker and adviser suggest themselves as the most consistent with high commitment to the normative values of HRM. The roles of regulator and handmaiden are more consistent with the practice of traditional personnel management.
Research evidence and general observation suggests that the former HRM approach are evident in the management of change in the largest UK organisations. However on investigating large unionised firms in the UK, Storey (1992) found that the personnel specialist usually acted as regulator in mediating discontent and maintaining joint rules and procedures agreed withwith organised labour. In developing their HRM approach, senior and middle-line managers in many companies had assumed a broader remit and taken the lead in determining how human resources were managed, thus transcending the contribution of the personnel specialist. The 1993 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey tended to confirm this. Where personnel specialists are present, their role in the management of human resources became narrower and that of line managers became broader (Daniel & Millward, 1993).
So it seems that human and organisational issues receive more attention because of "the HRM approach", but we should question if this is being done as thoroughly/effectively as it would if personnel specialists were involved. Those committed to HRM values might argue that consideration of the people dimensions of change may lapse into a restrictive framework of traditional assumptions and values with emphasis on technical change as
For some it is deep-rooted managerial perspectives which need to be challenged if technical change is to yield long-term and sustainable improvements in organisational performance. The personnel specialist could be a key figure in facilitating this.
Clegg and Kemp (1986) advanced an alternative model to the sequential approach to management decision making. This provided for
In this way, personnel specialists assume a more strategic and central role in both the management of change and the actual use made of new technology once operational. In this schema the role of the personnel specialist:
However, Clark (1993) argues that, provided sound work and organisational arrangements
are put in place as part of a strategic approach to managing human resources
under conditions of technical change, it matters little whether personnel specialists
or non-specialist managers act as the champion or change maker. More important
are questions of how line and other managers with day-to-day responsibilities
for managing technological change become the main owners and champions of such
policies at the workplace. He suggested that one challenge highlighted by new
technology is the need to devise the job specifications for, and to recruit
and manage, the new breed of line manager implied by such a requirement.
Thus, the issue for the personnel specialist is not only to enhance their prominence in strategic decision making as change makers or advisers, but also to find ways in which someone or some mechanism can audit the implementation of these policies by non-specialists at workplace level.
Thus, in the next decade:
... the challenge ..... is how to develop mechanisms and the people to ensure that personnel issues are taken seriously, treated coherently, and adapted and improved continually to meet changing requirements. The question for specialist personnel managers is whether they have the ambition and expertise to play a major role in this endeavour as the wider voice of organisational, work and human resource issues, or whether they wish to follow the recent UK trend of retreating into ever narrower technical specialisms (employment law, recruitment techniques). In this sense the relation between personnel management, human resource management and technical change raises fundamental questions about the whole future of the personnel profession (Clark, 1993, p.222).
The gradual change of terminology from Personnel Specialist to HRM suggests a wider view of both role and responsibility of those within the Personnel Department. HRM is seen as distinctive by:
A broader view of HRM presents a perspective on employment systems, reflecting closer links to business strategy:
The feeling, as represented by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, is that
Business strategy-HRM integration does seem to offer
Various schemas seek to map implementation options but none suggest a 'one best way' approach to suit all circumstances.
Dunphy and Stace (1990) studying Australian companies, identified four change strategies with different implementation options.
| Change strategies | conditions for best use when .... |
|---|---|
| participative evolution: incremental changes involving high levels of consultation and collaboration with those directly affected |
|
| forced evolution: incremental change involving a directive or coercive management approach in the face of opposition from vested interest groups |
|
| charismatic transformation: change/transformation involving consultation and collaboration with those directly affected where a consensus exists over the need for change |
|
| dictatorial transformation: change/transformation involving a directive or coercive management approach in the absence of a consensus over the need for change. |
|
Dunphy and Stace argue that the approach most suiting an organisation, or part of it, will vary over time. The determinants of which approach is likely to fit a particular context are
They concluded that in most cases incremental change was luxury that many not could afford. It was transformational change that was needed to arrest business decline.
What external/internal environmental circumstances would be most appropriate for employing each of these strategies?
- Participative evolution:
- Forced evolution:
- Charismatic transformation:
- Dictatorial transformation:
Consider the need for change in your own organisation. Which strategy seems the most appropriate where you work in (account for the degree of agreement over the need for change and the time needed and available to implement the change)?
These typologies enable us to question whether change is always better implemented where employees and other stakeholders are fully consulted and collaborate with change is open to question.Consultation means that change takes longer and in the long term consensus securely founded with those affected more likely to be committed to its success. However the suggestion is that in certain circumstances change may be best - and indeed may only be secured without too much, if any, attention to participation and consensus building. Images of a more manipulative and Machiavellian managerial behaviours are conjured up where individuals and groups are manoeuvred into positions of supporting change and opposition is either ignored, circumvented or quashed. As Buchanan (1994) notes:
This argument sits in relative comfort beside the claim that the effective change agent is able to operate in the political domain of the organisation, but is perhaps at odds with the widespread notion of the ethical appropriateness of participative methods and contemporary - and growing expectations of consultation with all parties concerned. (p. 10)
Buchanan and Boddy (1992) summarised the expertise, competences and skills required to manage complex contemporary change.
| The Expertise of the Change Agent | |
|---|---|
| Type of Change | Change Management Task |
| Radical change to core processes | high hassle, high vulnerability |
| Radical change to peripheral processes | Moderate hassle, low vulnerability |
| Incremental change to core processes | Low hassle, moderate vulnerability |
| Incremental change to peripheral processes | Low hassle, low vulnerability |
(Source: Buchanan and Boddy, 1992: 30.)
The types of change considered in this module are those which stress the process agenda, personal vulnerability, the logic of legitimacy and the need for 'backstage' activity.
What power skills might the change agent deploy to advance the process agenda?
Two situations in which power and politics skills are likely to be important are:
Examples of power skills that might be mobilised can be seen in project definition and ways in which "counter implementation" strategies occur.
Kanter, 1983, suggests that where possible a project proposal should be made to sound:
(cited by Buchanan and Boddy, 1992, p.76)
Change agents managing vulnerable projects may face counter implementation strategies which themselves need to be countered. How? The following "how to" suggestions are typical aphorisms (pithy sayings) which change changes may typically suggest. These are theoretical statements in so far as they are generalisations that are based on the experience of the actors. They represent a Machiavellian, politically astute (and interpersonally tense and risky) approach.
Countering strategies will seek to reduce the change champion's influence and credibility: spread damaging rumours, especially amongst the champion's friends and supporters. For the external change agent the tendency is to want to
The problem is that the countervailing efforts are unlikely to go away. They have to be fielded and addressed otherwise they remain runnning sores. The change consultant's position may also become untenable and he/she needs to be reassured about the principal client's support. However remember the Football Chief Executive's assurance that "I have full confidence in the manager".
Keen's suggestions (1981) to those faced with countervailing forces, also resemble advice that Nicolo Machiavelli gave to his 16th century d'Medici Princes. Keen suggests
Again - this is advice that wells up from the experience of experts, people who have 'been there and done that'. The statements reflect hard won experience and knowledge that has been teswted across a range of real situations.
Pfeffer (1993) also explores power skills for managers who need to 'get things done'. He stresses the value of 'stakeholder' analysis to caste light on:
Think of a current or past change programme in your own organisation or one you are familiar with elsewhere. Perhaps you were a promoter, supporter or just on the receiving end.
Use this 'stakeholder analysis form' to map internal, customer and external stakeholders.
Evaluate the interests, responses and power positions of the various groups - as you see them. As change agent, estimate the courses of action that might secure your objectives?
The process agenda according to Buchanan and Boddy (1992) is an environment in which human manipulation, positioning and threat serves the dual political objectives of winning and retaining support for change, and deflecting resistance and opposition to it.
Manipulation facilitates change through
What objections could be raised to such 'backstage' activities?
Backstage political manoeuvring in managing change raises objections. The individual change agent in manipulating and threatening ignores the reality and complexity of all those who may themselves act as change agents during the life cycle of a change programme. Those who feel badly treated do not easily forgive and forget. The political manipulator will retain this reputation - and be seen as someone not to be trusted.
Those who feel residual resentment may be managers, other employees, trade unions, consultants and other external individuals or groups. A positive, participative, harmony-based view of the politics of change would seek to always aim for consensus where the machinations of change are not reduced to games of lies, deceit and distrust where subtle and naked power plays win the day.
Generally models of effective change management which are wedded to "the organisational development approach" emphasise the open, trust oriented aspects of consensus building, participation and learning. The question is, are these more plausible than the reality of oganisational life. They may be less offensive to those who are not high risk takers and not strong wen it comes to the rapid fire cut and thrust of change decisions and movements involved.
The politics/process agenda raises ethical questions regarding managerial behaviour.
Is the use of 'manipulation' and 'threat' as techniques as defined by Buchanan and Boddy to manage change ethically justifiable?
Paradoxically, the increased need for management to consider employee relations issues when engaged in technical change does not automatically mean a central and proactive role of personnel/HR specialists in change management. Their role may be reactive and their role commitments also may today be assumed by HR oriented line managers who are committed to TQM and people principles.
Neither is it the case, contrary to conventional wisdom, that the conditions require high levels of consultation and collaboration with employees as a pre-requisite of success.
Contemporary technical change in organisations is characterised by hassle, complexity, interdependence and vulnerability. Conventional project management skills and techniques as used for example in civil engineering are likely to be inadequate for the effective implementation and sustaining of technical change programmes. Further skills relevant to fuzzy, messey situations, organisational politics and power are in demand. These open doors, close doors and keep things going in the backroom responding to and accommodating the interests of stakeholders - provided the principle objectives of key parties are not compromised. These "wheeler dealer" skills bridge the frontroom, backroom and off the stage situations. They reinforce and sustain change whilst purposefully neutralising potential or actual sources of interference or resistance. The problems arise where the objectives being sought are open to challenges of being unethical. This also applies to the means of bringing about the changes not just the ends themselves.
The change agent may secure a solution that according to a utilitarian principle satisfies the "greatest happiness of the greatest number". The change agent may, in an intuitive, pragmatic sense be even more reassured if important ethical principles have not been badly compromised - thus a rule utilitarian position may be sought by the high principled change agent.
This document (© Chris Jarvis) was