Direct Participation of a Higher Education Institution Employees in the Organisational Change Process - a Study Report

Szelagowska-Rudzka, Katarzyna Working Paper Direct Participation of a Higher Education Institution Employees in the Organisational Change Process - a Study Report Institute of Economic Research Working Papers, No. 124/2017 Provided in Cooperation with: Institute of Economic Research (IER), Toruń (Poland) Suggested Citation: Szelagowska-Rudzka, Katarzyna (2017) : Direct Participation of a Higher Education Institution Employees in the Organisational Change Process - a Study Report, Institute of Economic Research Working Papers, No. 124/2017, Institute of Economic Research (IER), Toruń This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/219946 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Institute of Economic Research Working Papers No. 124/2017 Direct Participation of a Higher Education Institution Employees in the Organisational Change Process – a Study Report Katarzyna Szelągowska-Rudzka Article prepared and submitted for: 9th International Conference on Applied Economics Contemporary Issues in Economy, Institute of Economic Research, Polish Economic Society Branch in Toruń, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland, 22-23 June 2017 Toruń, Poland 2017 © Copyright: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Katarzyna Szelągowska-Rudzka [email protected] Gdynia Maritime University, Morska st. 81-87, 81-225 Gdynia Direct Participation of a Higher Education Institution Employees in the Organisational Change Process – a Study Report JEL Classification: I23; M12; M54 Keywords: employee direct participation; organizational changes; higher education institutions; the cycle of organisational change process, employee resistance to change Abstract Changes in the organisation require its adjustment through the process of organisational change. For changes to bring expected, positive results, all employees should be involved. Employee direct participation is one of the most effective methods of winning them for change and leading them to positive reaction in form of cooperation, engagement and reduction of resistance. The objective of this study is to analyse the process of change of the organisational structure (number of departments) at a faculty of a Pomeranian university, in terms of direct participation of the research and teaching and the teaching staff in the process. The study involved direct polling. The study sample (the faculty and its employees) has been intentionally selected. The study revealed that the employees participate in the change cycle in a limited way, indifference and resistance being their main attitudes. The results suggest that causes of this state are the autocratic style of the change initiators, little time devoted to involve employees in the process, and the negative atmosphere caused by staff rotation (dominant internal factor). Introduction Organizational changes are a characteristic feature of today's organizations that have to adapt to the environment (technological progress, changes in customer needs and expectations, growing competition). The effectiveness of the change process is related to the social factor (Czerska, 1996, p. 145; Igielski, 2015, p. 216). In order for employees to become allies of change and for the change to be effective and reach the destination, employees must be attracted and involved in the process (Grobelna & Marciszewska, 2016b, p. 96; Westhuizen et al., 2012; Ignyś, 2014, pp. 31-34), the atmosphere and possibility of creative action must be introduced (Sobka, 2014, p. 32), and motivation, sense of security, access to information, time to get acquainted with the change, adaptation to it and, above all, the possibility of direct participation in the process must be assured (Czerska, 1996, pp. 145-151; Zarębska, 2002, pp. 157, 197; Hodgkinson, 1999, p. 2; Strykowska, 2010, pp. 11,14; Ignyś, 2014, pp. 26-28). Direct participation of employees designates their individual and group participation in decision-making processes relevant to the company and employees and their functioning in the life of the organization (Moczulska 2008, pp. 20-24). It can refer to issues of various scope, all or selected stages of the decision-making process, be formal, informal, actual, perceived, passive or active. The first one involves the employees’ right to information, being heard, being able to speak out, and advise. The latter includes the right to object, to consent, to common dispute settlement and to decide independently (Szelągowska-Rudzka, 2015, p. 479). Among the determinants of participation, the management style (Summers & Hymen, 2005), attitudes and behaviors (also ethical) of superiors (Grobelna & Marciszewska, 2016a, p. 139; Kizielewicz, 2015, p. 186; Mowbray et al., 2015, pp. 392- 393) play an important role. Participatory (democratic) and consultative styles are conducive to participation; autocratic style is unfavorable (Szelągowska-Rudzka, 2015, pp. 479-480). Thoughtful executives engage subordinates in the change process to make them react appropriately – cooperate and minimize resistance. They are responsible for shaping the internal determinants (strategies, communication, financial conditions) to limit the negative influence of external factors (legal, economic, social) and to support employee participation in the change process (Szelągowska-Rudzka, 2016, pp. 52-53; Sobka, 2014, pp. 14- 17). The aim of the study is to analyze direct participation of the research and teaching staff and the teaching staff in the process of changing the organizational structure (the number of departments) of a faculty in a Pomeranian university. Research method The study was led with a direct questionnaire developed by the author (Kaczmarczyk, 1999, pp. 219, 227). It consists of 11 questions and respondent’s particulars and concerns the willingness and ability to participate in change, the intensity of participation (passive, active), information sources, techniques and forms of participation, management style, attitudes and behaviors of the deanery, employees’ reactions to change, and internal and external determinants of these reactions. The study was conducted in March 2017, among the research and teaching staff and the teaching staff of a Pomeranian public university faculty, in which a change of organizational structure had began during the winter term of 2016/2017. The Dean of the faculty gave a written consent. The questionnaires were given to respondents personally or left in the offices of their departments. Completed questionnaires were brought back to the offices or given directly to the author. Results of the study The study involved 61 people (out of 77 employees), 61% women and 39% men. The group consisted mainly of regular employees – 85% (15% were managing staff), the research and teaching staff constituted 67% (teaching staff – 33%), employees with job seniority of 17-25 years constituted 49%, those of job seniority of over 25 years – 28% (up to 8 years - 10%, 9-16 years - 13%). Only 67% of respondents (41 people) provided their academic degree/title, and these were mainly PhD (71%) (professors – 12%, associate professors – 10%, holders of master’s degree – 7%). The results of the study are presented in Tables 1-7. Table 1. The willingness to participate in the change of the faculty organizational structure and its improvement Willingness Responses (%) definitely agree agree neither agree nor disagree disagree definitely disagree to participate in the change of the faculty organizational structure (number of departments) 20 39 15 20 6 to submit ideas and suggestions for improvements related to the change of the faculty organizational structure 25 36 15 18 6 to submit ideas and suggestions for improvements concerning: a) the faculty organizational matters 20 57 7 11 5 b) the faculty didactics 33 51 6 5 5 c) scientific development of the faculty members 30 44 8 15 3 Source: own study based on the research results. Most of the staff (59% - definitely agree and agree in total) are willing to participate in the change in the faculty organizational structure, submit ideas and suggestions for improvement of the didactics – 84%, organizational matters – 77%, and scientific development of the employees – 74% (Table 1). Yet, they possess rather limited capabilities concerning the participation in the change in the faculty organizational structure – 56% (disagree and definitely disagree in total) (Table 2). Table 2. Ability to participate in the organizational change and to engage in the faculty affairs Ability Responses (%) definitely agree agree neither agree nor disagree disagree definitely disagree to participate in the change of the faculty organizational structure (number of departments) 11 13 20 33 23 to submit ideas and suggestions for improvements related to the change of the faculty organizational structure 12 16 26 30 17 to submit ideas and suggestions for improvements concerning: a) the faculty organizational matters 13 23 18 30 16 b) the faculty didactics 16 38 15 21 10 c) scientific development of the faculty members 15 21 21 30 13 Source: own study based on the research results. Table 3. The way of participating in the change declared by respondents Process stage Way of participation in decision-making (%) Informing Being able to speak out Advising Right to object Common dispute settlement Independent decision - making Lack of participation Recognition of the problem – the need for change 30 13 3 2 8 2 42 Collecting information on the problematic situation (the need for change) 23 5 5 0 8 2 57 Searching for solutions 23 11 3 0 12 0 51 Solution evaluation 20 11 3 2 10 0 54 Choice of the ultimate solution 30 7 0 1 13 0 49 Preparation for implementation of the chosen solution (change) 26 11 2 0 11 2 48 Implementation of the chosen solution 33 12 3 0 10 2 39 Source: own study based on the research results. Despite their willingness and certain abilities, a significant percentage of respondents (39% to 57%) state they do not actually participate in the process of changing the faculty organizational structure. This includes gathering information related to change (57%), search for possible solutions (55%), and their evaluation (51%). Participation is mostly passive and is based primarily on information, less frequently on the possibility of speaking out. It mainly concerns implementation of the chosen solution (48%) and recognition of the need for change (46%). Active participation (responses: right to object, common dispute settlement, and independent decisionmaking) is much rarer (Table 3) and involves mainly the managing staff and senior academic staff members (who most often responded, "I participate in common dispute settlement"). Employees are informed about the change usually by the immediate supervisor - 66%, the deanery, or their associates – 62% each. The significance of informal communication (gossip) is relatively large – 54%. The most frequent techniques for employee participation are information meetings with faculty authorities – 64% or departmental meetings – 57% (less commonly group solution search - 13%, or submitting one’s own ideas - 10%). In terms of the choice of individual, group or both forms of participation in the change, 67% of respondents declare lack of participation in any of them. This is surprising due to the fact that group techniques (informational meetings) were most commonly indicated. Table 4. How change designers make decisions about changing the faculty organiz. structure No. Way of decision-making Responses (%) 1. Individually 46 2. By consulting individual employees 7 3. By consulting the situation (solution) with a group of employees 31 4. Together with employees 8 5. I do not know 8 Source: own study based on the research results. In the opinion of 53% of respondents authorities apply the autocratic style (total of lines 1, 2), making the decision about the change without employee participation. 31% of them indicate the consultative style (line 3), and only 8% indicate the participatory style (line 4) (Table 4). Table 5. Attitudes and behaviors of the change designers of the faculty organizational structure Statement Responses (%) strongly agree agree I don’t know disagree strongly disagree They set clear goal connected to the change 8 38 16 25 13 They support employees in the implementation of goals 3 21,5 31 23 21,5 They work in agreement with employees 3 21 28 23 23 They inform employees about results 2 53 18 16 11 They take into account employees’ advice and opinions 5 11 38 25 21 In a difficult situation employees can count on their support 8 17 39 16 20 They treat employees on a subjective basis (employees are important) 11 25 33 16 15 They care about employees and their future at the university 7 21 36 16 20 They are honest and trustworthy 6,5 28 46 6,5 13 They can win employees to cooperate in the process of organiz. change 8 11 39 25 17 Source: own study based on the research results. Table 6. Respondents' reactions to the change in the faculty organizational structure Respondents’ reaction to the change: Responses (%)* dominant - particular The change is neutral to me because: 31 I only engage when it is beneficial for me 15 I only engage when it is possible 1 I engage in the change, actively cooperating in implementation 23 I resist the change because: 30 - I am not fully informed about it 18 - I do not know why it is being implemented 13 - I am afraid that it is going to be adverse for me 10 - I have no confidence in the managing staff and their change design 8 - I was not invited to participate in the change 10 - I have bad previous experience with the way of implementing changes at the faculty 5 - others 2 * People who responded, "I resist" could indicate more than one specific cause for this reaction, and their percentage is related to the number of all respondents. Source: own study based on the research results. In addition, the respondents believe that the faculty authorities do not take into account the advice and opinions of employees in the process of changing the organizational structure – 47% (disagree and strongly disagree), they do not work in agreement with employees – 46%, they do not support employees in the implementation of targets connected to the change – 44.5%, and they are not able to win the employees to cooperate in the change – 42%. A high percentage of respondents have no opinion on whether the change designers are honest and trustworthy – 46%. In turn, the respondents favorably refer to the fact that the Dean's office informs the staff about results – 55%, and sets clear goals connected to the change – 46% (Table 5). Employees of the studied faculty react with indifference (31%) and resistance (30%) to rebuilding its organizational structure. 23% of the respondents actively participate in the change, including almost all managers (7 out of 9 – 11% of all respondents) and senior academic staff members (professors and associate prof. – 11% of the total number of respondents) (Table 6). Table 7. The impact of the following factors on the behavior of respondents in relation to the change in the faculty organizational structure Factors Responses (%) very big big neither big nor small small very small none The atmosphere at the university caused by staff rotation 48 33 11 1 0 7 Strategy of the University 30 24 30 5 5 6 Strategy of the Faculty 25 39 23 2 3 8 System of motivating faculty employees 17 25 28 11 8 11 Financial situation of faculty 26 23 28 10 3 8 The way the faculty is perceived by other core units of the university 12 26 31 8 8 15 The attitude/actions of immediate supervisors 23 41 21 5 3 7 Work on the new law on higher education (the so-called 2.0) and resulting possible directions of changing the system 15 34 28 5 5 13 The country’s demographic situation 3 31 31 7 15 13 General atmosphere in the country concerning science and higher education institutions 17 33 21 13 3 13 Source: own study based on the research results. Employees' reactions to the faculty organizational change are mainly influenced by the atmosphere at the university related to staff rotation – 81% (responses very big and big). Next factors are the strategy of the faculty, and the attitude (actions) of immediate supervisors – 64% each (internal factors). The least significant determinants are the demographic situation of the country (34%) and how the faculty is perceived by other units of the university (38%) (Table 7). Conclusions The study revealed that: The staff have greater motivation than possibilities to participate in the change of the organizational structure and to submit suggestions for improvement. Their participation in the change often has a passive form and consists in being informed. Active participation is rare and generally limited to senior academic staff members (professors and associate professors) and managerial positions. A significant percentage of respondents declare lack of participation in the change. The limited scope and dissemination of employee participation is evidenced by the fact that they are unable to properly identify the group form of their participation in the whole process, although group participatory techniques (information meetings) are commonly used. The respondents claim that the designers of the change most often use the autocratic style adverse to participation; the consultative or participatory styles are applied sporadically. Their attitudes and actions towards subordinates are variously assessed, also negatively. Employees are usually indifferent to the change or resist it, although only one in five is engaged. The most significant internal determinant of the respondents' reactions to the change is the atmosphere at the university linked to staff rotation and the attitude of the immediate supervisor. The most significant external factors are the overall atmosphere in the country around science and higher education, and work on the new law 2.0. Summary The study results show that the direct participation of the research and teaching staff and the teaching staff occurs to a small extent at the faculty undergoing an organizational change. Most frequently it has a passive form (co-operation) including informing, less commonly speaking out. Active participation (co-decision) is almost non-existent. This state of affairs is caused by the autocratic style of the deanery, most often identified by the respondents, and also the unfavorable internal factor – the atmosphere at the university connected to the rotation of the employees. Little direct employee participation does not positively influence employees' attitudes towards the change – cooperation and engagement, and does not counteract negative feedback – resistance. Perhaps the employees were included too late, hence there was no time to invite them to a full participation in all stages of the process, which could have (in the light of the source literature) translated into their greater and more effective collaboration in the change cycle. References Czerska, M. (1996). Organizacja przedsiębiorstw. Metodologia zmian organizacyjnych. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Grobelna, A. & Marciszewska, B. (2016a). Undergraduate Students’ Attitudes Towards their Future Jobs in the Tourism Sector: Challenges Facing Educators and Business. In: N. Khazieva, D. Vasilenko (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance. UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading. Grobelna, A. & Marciszewska, B. (2016b). Work Motivation of Tourism and Hospitality Students: Implications for Human Resource Management, In: C. Bagnoli, Ch. Mio, A. Garlatti, M. Massaro (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Intellectual Capital. UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading. Hodgkinson, A. (1999). Employee Involvement and Participation in the Organisational Change Decision: Illawarra and Australian Patterns, Working Paper 99-7, Department of Economics, University of Wollongong. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent. cgi? article =1009 &context=commwkpapers Igielski, M. (2015), Management system of knowledge workers in the contemporary enterprise. In A.P. Balcerzak (Ed.), Management Sciences. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Applied Economics Contemporary Issues in Economy under the title Market or Government? 18-19 June 2015, Torun: Institute of Economic Research and Polish Economic Society. Ignyś, A. (2014). Zaangażowanie pracowników w doskonalenie przedsiębiorstw - bezpośrednia partycypacja pracownicza. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 357. Kaczmarczyk, S. (1999). Badania marketingowe. Metody i techniki, Warszawa: PWE. Kizielewicz, J. (2015). Ethical Standards for Regional Authorities in Creation of Strategy for Regional Development. In: J.C. Rouso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance. UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading. Moczulska, M. (2011). Bezpośrednia partycypacja pracowników w zarządzaniu przedsiębiorstwem. Możliwości, przesłanki, uwarunkowania. Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego. Mowbray, P.K. & Wilkinson, A.& Tse H.H.M. (2015). An Integrative Review of Employee Voice: Identifying a Common Conceptualization and Research Agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17. Sobka, M. (2014). Zmiany organizacyjne w teorii i praktyce. Lublin: Politechnika Lubelska. Strykowska, M. (2010). Psychologiczne aspekty wdrażania zmian organizacyjnych. Organizacja i Kierowanie, 2. Summers J. & Hymen J., (2005). Employee Participation and Company Performance. A Review of the Literature. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Szelągowska-Rudzka, K. (2015). Management Style as Determinant of Employees Direct Participation in ICT Industry - Case Study, In: J.C. Rouso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance. UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading. Szelągowska-Rudzka, K. (2016). Czynniki wpływające na partycypację bezpośrednia pracowników – przegląd literatury. Przegląd Organizacji, 12. Westhuizen, D.W. & Pacheco, G. & Webber, D.J. (2012). Culture, Participative Decision Making and Job Satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(13). Zarębska, A. (2002). Zmiany organizacyjne w przedsiębiorstwie. Teoria i praktyka. Warszawa: Difin.