121
This is the html version of the file http://eprints.otago.ac.nz/506/1/TheissenCOcr.pdf . Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. Page 1 The impact of organisational restructuring on employee commitment at the Otago Polytechnic Christine Christine 484725

Employee Restructuring

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Employee Restructuring

This is the html version of the file http://eprints.otago.ac.nz/506/1/TheissenCOcr.pdf.Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Page 1

The impact of organisationalrestructuring on employeecommitment at theOtago PolytechnicChristine Christine484725An action based research report (MANT591) submitted in partial fulfilmentof the requirements for the degree of Master of Business in Managementat the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.November 2004

Page 2

AbstractThis report presents results from a study of employee commitment at the OtagoPolytechnic following a major organisational restructuring and downsizing exercisethat commenced in October 2003 and concluded in December of the same year. Onehundred and fifty academic and non-academic staff in restructured and non-restructured positions were randomly selected to complete a quantitative and shortanswer questionnaire designed to gauge their perception of the restructuring processand its impact on their commitment to the organisation.The relationship between survivor syndrome, organisational commitment and thepsychological contract was analysed. Findings indicate a clear association betweenthe presence of symptoms of survivor sickness and a damaged psychological

Page 2: Employee Restructuring

contract, which collectively and individually show a significant negative impact on thelevel of commitment staff now feel towards their organisation.The analysis also shows a significant difference between the levels of commitment feltby academic staff when compared with non-academics and between staff inrestructured positions when compared with staff in positions that were notrestructured.This report discusses the potential implications for the Otago Polytechnic in light ofthese findings and offers suggestions for improving staff commitment levels bothduring and following a restructuring exercise.

Page 3ACKOWLEDGEMENTConsiderable thanks is given to Dr Fiona Edgar in the Department of Management forher assistance, advice and support without which I think I would still be struggling withthe joys of SPSS and statistical analysis. Fiona's critical appraisal of my work hasbeen invaluable.I am also grateful to Dr Robin Day, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Phil Ker, ChiefExecutive Officer at the Otago Polytechnic, for giving me the opportunity to review theprocess of restructuring and assess the impact on staff. I hope that the findings ofthe study will be of benefit to the Otago Polytechnic.Finally, my sincere thanks go to the staff that so kindly completed the survey, withoutwhich this project would not have been possible.

Page 4

BCOPageABSTRACTACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND22.1The Otago Polytechnic — Organisation and business22.2The need for organisational review and restructure22.3Implementation of the Business Recovery Plan42.4Staff support strategy42.5Research Objectives5CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW

Page 3: Employee Restructuring

3.1Survivor Syndrome73.2Organisational Commitment83.3The Psychological Contract103.4The relationship between Survivor Syndrome, Psychological Contractand Commitment in the downsized organisation103.4.1 Communication, restructuring and organisational commitment113.4.2 The trust relationship between management and employees113.4.3 Fairness of process123.4.4 Job security133.4.5 Loyalty143.4.6 Summary15CHAPTER 4: METHOD4.1Research Design — The Survey164.2Survey Development184.3Pilot study204.4Sample20CHAPTER 5: RESULTS5.1Survivor Syndrome235.1.1 Consultation and Information235.1.2 Procedural fairness265.1.3 Opportunity to participate in decisions275.1.4 Planned goals and objectives295.1.5 Belief in goals of organisation295.1.6 Organisational expectations

Page 4: Employee Restructuring

305.1.7 Job security315.1.8 Valuing staff325.1.9 Planning the changes335.1.10 Communication of work expectations345.1.11 Honesty355.1.12 The future361

Page 55.2Organisational commitment385.2.1 Commitment prior to and following restructure385.2.2 Affective, normative and continuance commitment 415.3Psychological contract5.3.1 Job security425.3.2 The employee-employer relationship445.3.3 Trust465.3.4 Employer promises475.4Determining the relationship between Survivor Syndrome,Organisational Commitment and the Psychological Contract48CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION6.1Survivor Syndrome506.1.1 Consultation and information506.1.2 Planning the changes/fairness of process516.1.3 Goals and objectives; organisational expectations; beliefin organisational goals526.2Organisational Commitment536.3Psychological Contract6.3.1 Security

Page 5: Employee Restructuring

546.3.2 Trust and employee-employer relationship; value556.4Determining the relationship between survivor syndrome,organisational commitment and the psychological contract56CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS57CHAPTER 8: FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES63REFERENCES64APPENDICESAppendix 1 Employee Support StrategyAppendix 2 Ethical approval applicationAppendix 3 Organisational Commitment SurveyIV

Page 6CHAPTER 1: INTRUDUCTIONThis research project examines whether perceptions of organisational commitmentaltered as a result of a major organisational restructure and subsequent downsizing atthe Otago Polytechnic that commenced in October 2003 and was due to becompleted in December of the same year.The project assesses the impact of significant organisational change on staff thatwere directly or indirectly affected (i.e. their position may or may not have beenchanged) but who remain as staff. This group of staff are often referred to as the"survivors" (Brockner, 1992; Allen, 1997; Robbins, 1999). The literature on survivorsyndrome suggests the process of restructuring, the level of staff involvement and theway in which staff are communicated with and supported during and after downsizing,are indicators of surviving staff's future commitment, motivation, performance andintent to leave.This project is somewhat exploratory in nature in that it aims to assess whether OtagoPolytechnic staff display signs of survivor syndrome and whether their experiences ofthe restructuring process has negatively affected their relationship with their employer.As any significant change in organisational structure also affects the employee'spsychological contract – i.e. the set of unwritten reciprocal expectations, beliefs orperceptions that characterise the relationship between employee and employer(Sparrow and Cooper, 1998; Schein, 1978; Mathys and Burack, 1993; De Vries andBalazs (1997) cited in Appelbaum and Doris, 2000), the inter-relationship betweenthis, survivor syndrome and organisational commitment is also explored.This project has been undertaken as a result of the Otago Polytechnic SeniorExecutive indicating a desire and willingness to review its own procedures and learnfrom the experiences of staff as a mechanism for strengthening future changeprocesses. As the restructuring process occurred less than 12 months ago, andfurther organisational change is likely, it is anticipated that the findings of this projectwill be able to be utilised by the Otago Polytechnic to help rebuild or strengthenrelationships should these be found to have been weakened. Additional support canthen be provided to staff that may have been negatively affected by such changes.1Organisational commitment at the Otago Polytechnic

Page 6: Employee Restructuring

Christine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 7

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND2.1 The Otago Polytechnic — Organisation and businessThe Otago Polytechnic is a large provider of tertiary education services based inDunedin. Between the main Dunedin Campus and satellite campuses in Cromwell,Queenstown, Wanaka and Oamaru the Otago Polytechnic provides a broad range ofcertificate, diploma, degree and post-graduate qualifications to over 12,000 students.It employs over 400 full time equivalent staff on a permanent basis and contracts witha further 300.2.2 The need for organisational review and restructureIn October 2003, the Otago Polytechnic finalised and commenced implementation ofits Business Recovery Plan (BRP) following a three-month period of organisation-wideconsultation.The driver behind the BRP was the need to review and manage costs of theorganisation's operation as opposed to looking at continuing to enhance revenuegrowth following a sustained period of steady domestic growth in equivalent full timestudents (EFTS) over recent years. In 2002, even though the Otago Polytechnic wasbringing in more EFTS funding than peer Polytechnics this was eliminated bysignificantly higher full time equivalent (FTE) costs and high non-personnel operatingcosts. Implementation of the BRP was deemed essential to secure the long-termviability of the Otago Polytechnic.The development of the BRP looked at all aspects of the organisation's operation witha view to implementing processes to bring the financial viability of the institution backwithin the guidelines indicated by the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit (TAMU), i.e.requiring a financial operating budget surplus of 5% by the end of 2004. This neededto be achieved whilst ensuring that the high quality of programmes provided by theinstitution was maintained and its reputation enhanced (Business Recovery Plan-decisions and next steps, October 2003).2Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 8The BRP was formulated on a combination of external benchmarks and internaltargets. Key benchmarks and targets were based on TAMU guidelines andcomparisons with institutions of a similar size. The BRP was lead by the SeniorManagement Team and an external consultant, and overseen by the OtagoPolytechnic Council.There were two key stages to the BRP designed to span a total of 18 months:Phase 1:Identify efficiencies and savings to existing business (by the end of2003)Phase 2:Introduce systematic and fundamental changes to the portfolio ofprogrammes, structure and delivery and to business processes (by theend of 2004).The initial BRP proposal was to result in 40.5 FTE Academic and 11.1 FTE non-academic staff reductions by the end of 2003. These efficiencies would be achieved

Page 7: Employee Restructuring

through a series of voluntary and involuntary redundancies following the merger ofsome schools, the non-renewal of fixed term academic staff contracts, areduction/realignment of senior manager secretarial support and the centralisation ofstudent administration and enrolment services (Business Recovery Plan, OtagoPolytechnic, August 2003; Business Recovery Plan – Decisions and Next Steps,Otago Polytechnic, October 2003). Two point-seven FTE new positions were also tobe created as the result of department reconfiguration.At the time this study commenced final figures on employee reductions were notavailable.3Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 9DateActionStageRatify the BRP DecisionsdocumentCouncil7 Oct 034 Aug 03Release of consultationdocument to staffConfirm decisions and consultationprocessClose of consultation processCouncil seek Academic Boardresponse to BRP12 Sept 0319 Sept 03Oral submissions to Councilfrom Key interest groups23, 24, 29 Sept 03Council Subcommittee toconsider submissions10 Oct 03Release of decisions to staffPresentation by Acting CEO tostaff on decisions10 Oct 03Call for voluntary severanceApplications requested from staff17 Oct 0322 Oct 03Notification to all staff onemployment statusClosing of voluntary severanceapplicationsEach staff member to receive aletter identifying whether they areaffected or not affected bydecisions by 17th Oct 0328 Oct 03

Page 8: Employee Restructuring

Decisions on voluntaryseveranceActing CEO to decide and confirmFollowing voluntary severance, allaffected staff situations will bereviewed against opportunities forredeployment using the criteria29 Oct to 7 Nov 03Redundancy/redeploymentprocessConfirm with all affected staff thefinal outcome on their potentialredeployment or redundancyEach individual employee who isto be redeployed or maderedundant will receive a letter ofconfirmation from the Acting CEO.This letter will also include nextsteps.10 Nov 032.3 Implementation of the Business Recovery Plan (BRP)The timetable for action and implementation of the BRP was as follows:2.4 Employee support strategyIn order to reduce the negative consequences of the business recovery process onemployees a number of employee support activities were made available. SeeAppendix 1.4Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 102.5 Rcsca:ch ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to ascertain what affect the restructuring process hashad on staff within the Otago Polytechnic. A number of aspects of employeewellbeing related to the restructuring process have been identified in the literature,namely survivor syndrome, organisational commitment and the psychologicalcontract, and this study aims to examine these constructs in light of the recentrestructuring undertaken in this organisation. The broad research aims of this projectare to establish whether elements of survivor sickness are evident in staff at thisorganisation, and to assess what impact the restructuring process has had on levelsof organisational commitment and the psychological contract of staff within thisorganisation. These aims will be achieved by:• Assessing whether survivors of organisational restructuring at the OtagoPolytechnic perceive their levels of organisational commitment have alteredbecause of the restructuring process.• Assessing whether there is a difference between the commitment levels ofacademic and non-academic staff.• Assessing whether there is a difference between the commitment levels of staffwhose positions have been changed and those that have not (survivors vs. non-survivors).• Examining the relationship between survivor syndrome, organisationalcommitment and the psychological contract.

Page 9: Employee Restructuring

• Ascertaining whether the process of organisational downsizing, as implementedby the Otago Polytechnic, appears to have helped minimise the symptoms ofsurvivor syndrome in staff.• Identifying some of the possible ways in which organisations can improve theprocess of restructuring in order to maintain commitment and minimise symptomsof survivor syndrome.5Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 11Provide some recommendations and/or suggestions to the Otago Polytechnic asto how they might alleviate any identified symptoms of survivor syndrome with theaim of strengthening organisational commitment.6Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 12CHE REVIEWThe literature on survivor syndrome, organisational commitment and thepsychological contract is widespread. The following section defines each constructand considers the main features of each. It becomes evident from this review thatthese constructs are inter-related, with the presence of one being likely to have anaffect on the other.3.1 Survivor SyndromeSurvivor syndrome (also known as survivor sickness) is defined as "A set of attitudes,perceptions and behaviours of staff who remain following involuntary employeereductions" (Robbins, 1999). The term was introduced to management studies byBrockner to help describe the common symptoms of guilt, lack of organisationalcommitment and fear that survivors often experience following a downsizing (Noer,1990, 1993 and 1997 cited in Allen, Freeman, Russell, Reizenstein, Rentz, 2001).There is considerable evidence to suggest that those staff who remain within anorganisation after significant restructuring/downsizing often experience the adverseeffects of change as profoundly as those who have left (Allen, 1997; Brockner 1992;Astrachan, 1995 and Baruch and Hind, 1999). The symptoms are many and canmanifest themselves in a number of different ways. According to Kinnie. Hutchisonand Purcell (1998) and Allen (1997) survivors may become demotivated, cynical andinsecure, demoralised, lose trust, faith, and confidence in their employer, sufferstress, increased absenteeism, and become increasingly bitter. Survivors may feelguilty that it was not them who went, develop insecurities as they fear future joblosses, be unclear about responsibilities and what managers expect of them, andperceive their workload to be higher. There is also evidence to suggest that manystaff fear future change, experience a loss of loyalty towards their employer, becomeless inclined to take risks and feel that they are not being kept well-informed(Brockner, 1992; Robbins, 1999; Allen, 1997; Burke and Nelson, 1997; Appelbaumand Donia, 2000; Thornhill, Saunders and Stead, 1997; Rice and Dreilinger, 1991).Cascio (1993) cited in Kinnie et al (1998) adds that staff may also become less7Organisational commitment at the Otago Polytechnic

Page 10: Employee Restructuring

Christine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 13flexible and over-depend on traditional well-known ways of doing things thus inhibitingorganisational creativity.The implications for organisations with staff suffering from survivor sickness areconsiderabie. Those that fail to address survivor sickness risk higher levels ofturnover and reduced commitment, negatively affecting productivity and performancethus inhibiting organisational success (Kinnie, Hutchinson and Purcell, 1998; Allan,1997; Thornhill, Saunders and Stead, 1997; Greenhalgh, 1982, Roskies and Guering,1990 cited in Kinnie. Hutchinson and Purcell, 1998, Doherty and Horsted, 1995).3.2 Organisational CommitmentOrganisational commitment can be defined as the relative strength of an individual'sidentification with and attachment emotionally and functionally to one's place of work(Elizur and Koslowsky, 2001). According to Price (1997) and Mowday. Porter andSteers (1978) cited in Stiles, Gratton, Truss, Hope-Hailey, McGovern (1997)organisational commitment is characterised by three factors: a strong belief in and anacceptance of the organisation's goals and values; a willingness to exert considerableeffort on behalf of the organisation; and a strong desire to remain in the organisation.Commitment involves an active relationship with the organisation such that individualsare willing to give something of themselves in order to contribute to the organisation'swell being.Morrow (1983) cited in Thornhill, Saunders and Stead (1997) offers a more refineddefinition of commitment suggesting commitment can be categorised into five distinctforms: the intrinsic value of work to individuals as an end in itself; the perceivedimportance of one's career; the degree of daily absorption an individual experiencesin work activity; ones loyalty to and identification with their employing organisation(also in Price, 2000, Morris, Lydka and O'Creevy, 1993) and the possibility of an unionfocus or loyalty to and identification with one's bargaining unit. Workplacecommitment can also be linked to organisations, occupations and professions, teamsand leaders, personal careers or the attainment of goals (Meyer and Herscovitch,2001). Organisational commitment can be as narrow as remaining as a member ofthe organisation or as broad as working towards the success of the organisation. It8Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 14can encompass obligation, desire or need to stay and a staff willingness to go the"extra mile" to ensure an organisation's success (Guest, 2000).However, Baruch (1998) cited in Singh and Vinnicombe (1998) believes that in a newera of downsizing and flexibility the conceptualisation of work commitment may bedifferent from the past. Although people may now indicate that they will put a lot ofeffort into helping the organisation be successful this may be so they keep their job,not due to any particular attachment to the organisation.The theory underlying commitment suggests that employee commitment to anorganisation should be a reliable predictor of certain behaviours, especially turnoverand committed people are considered more likely to remain with the organisation andwork towards the achievement of organisational goals (Mowday, Porter and Steers,1982; Spreitzer and Mishra, 2002; Allen and Meyer, 1990). While very high levels ofcommitment may not necessarily always be desirable as it can stifle creativity,innovation and adaptation (Cascio, 1993; Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1982), it is

Page 11: Employee Restructuring

generally accepted that organisational commitment is a desirable staff attribute. Forexample, Baruch and Winkelmann-Gleed (2002) concur that from a managerialperspective organisational commitment is welcome because it has been shown tohave a significant impact on employee performance and effectiveness, borne out by anumber of studies such as those undertaken by Mathieu and Zajac (1990), Cohen(1991), and Fletcher and Williams (1996). Staff that remain in an organisation afterorganisational downsizing and restructuring has occurred (i.e. survivors) may findhowever that these dimensions of commitment are altered, particularly the level ofcommitment they feel towards their organisation and the actual focus of theircommitment (Morrow, 1983).The literature provides sound evidence that organisations who have the most successin maintaining employee commitment following downsizing tend to be those that planwell in advance, communicate openly and regularly with all staff throughout the entireprocess, respect the seniority rights of staff, depersonalise layoff decisions as muchas possible and clearly align and articulate the company's values and strategicobjectives (Dolan, Belout, Balkin, 2000; Thornhill, Saunders, Stead, 1997).9Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 153.3 The Psychological ContractThe process of restructuring within an organisation is also related to the psychologicalcontract. The psychological contract between employer and employee is a set ofunwritten reciprocal expectations, beliefs or perceptions that characterise both themutual behaviour delivered in the employment relationship and implied obligations orpromises (Sparrow and Cooper, 1998; Schein, 1978).A bond between employer and employee, it describes the unconscious choice of anorganisation to respond to employee's psychological and employment needs inexchange for meeting the organisation's needs (Mathys and Burack, 1983; De Vriesand Balazs, 1997 cited in Appelbaum and Doris, 2000). It includes mutualresponsibilities and expectations, but because it exists implicitly, it is deemedunofficial.It has been suggested that the breaking of the psychological contract can occur withany organisational change where new policies and processes make statements thatare at odds with the status quo (Rousseau and Parks, 1993). According to Herriot(1992), the psychological contract can be renegotiated between employees andemployers at any time.3.4 The relationship between survivor syndrome,psychological contract and commitmert in the downsizedorr;,.iisationAccording to Thornhill, Saunders and Stead (1996) downsized organisations aiming toensure employee commitment need to overcome the adverse responses of survivorsthat are often negatively orientated towards them. The following sections considerthe individual symptoms of survivor syndrome and their potential to impact onorganisational commitment and the psychological contract as defined by the literature.Whilst individually symptoms do not necessarily lead to a complete breakdown inorganisational commitment, collectively the impact can be significant. This wouldsuggest that the presence of symptoms of survivor sickness and perceived breachesof the psychological contract could result in low levels of organisational commitment.10Organisational commitment at the Otago Polytechnic

Page 12: Employee Restructuring

Christine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 163.4.1 Communication, restru& organisational commitmentEffective two-way communication, participation in decision-making and control overwork processes are instrumental to the cultivation of higher levels of commitment inorganisations (Morris and Steers, 1980, Rhodes and Steers, 1982, Stevens et al,1978 cited in Hiltrop, 1996). Appelbaum, Delage, Labib and Gault (1997) found thatsurvivors are often either not informed or are misinformed about many issues to dowith the restructure such as their place in the new organisation, expectedperformance standards, extra work demands, the value of their expertise and theexistence or lack of opportunities for advancement. In the restructured organisation,failure to address such issues through good communication with survivors can reducecommitment (Brockner, 1992 cited in Burke and Nelson, 1997) and damage thetrust/respect relationship between management and staff.Survivors often feel a need to blame someone for employee layoffs, and managementand poor communication are the natural targets (Robbins, 1999). The reality howevermay be that no amount of open and honest communication will be perceived asenough, and the post layoff workplace is likely to be characterised by constantcomplaints of poor management communication.3.4.2 The trust relationship between management and staffAllen, Freeman, Russell, Reizenstein and Rentz (2001) consider that changes inorganisational commitment may be influenced by the extent survivors are satisfiedwith the performance of top management during the period following the downsizing.If survivors do not trust that top management are competent and honest with staffthrough the downsizing, they are likely to withdraw from the organisation or respond inother destructive ways. Robbins (1999) found that survivors of downsizing frequentlycommented that they no longer believe or trust what management says. Even whenstaff are satisfied with how top management is leading the organisation they may bereluctant to immerse themselves fully in their work for a considerable period followingthe downsizing event or completely commit to the organisation.Sparrow and Cooper (2003) however believe that those who survive the structuraladjustment and personal experience of job displacement will once again give theirorganisation their trust and commitment. Armstrong-Stassen (2002) agrees. In his1 1Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 17three year longitudinal study of redundancy programme survivors he found that whilstdesignating staff redundant had an adverse effect on organisational trust, commitmentand job satisfaction during the downsizing period, once these staff were no longer atrisk of losing their jobs there was a marked increase in levels of trust, commitmentand satisfaction.3.4.3 Fairness of processCynicism or lack of confidence in management and change efforts and the belief thatthe layoff process was not conducted fairly, are the most damaging of negativeemotions since the organisation's credibility becomes undermined in the eyes of thestaff (Boroson and Burgess, 1992, Turnley and Feldman, 1998, Burke and Nelson,1997). Survivor reactions are likely to be affected by their level of acceptance of the

Page 13: Employee Restructuring

need to downsize or make people redundant; the lack of alternative courses of action;level of prior notification by management; selection criteria used and the decisionsmade by managers about who would be made redundant, and the way in whichleavers are treated during their period of notice and offered support to find alternativeemployment (Thornhill and Saunders, 1998). If staff are unable to directly affect theprocess of restructuring themselves, they must see it as fair and just in order to trustthe imposed outcomes (Cooper and Rousseau, 1994).Staff who perceive there is procedural justice in their organisations may not react asnegatively to such psychological contract violations because they are unlikely to feelthat they have been unfairly singled out for bad outcomes (Harris and McGrady, 1999,Turnley and Feldman, 1998). Staff also tend to react less negatively to changes inpsychological contracts when they attribute the violations to legitimate external eventsoutside the organisation's control or where they are seen to be necessary for anorganisation's survival (Turnley and Feldman, 1998, Smithson and Lewis, 2000,Rousseau and Aquino, 1993 cited in Rousseau, 1995). They will however expect theorganisation to compensate in other ways, for example, through training anddevelopment, reasonable pay, autonomy and respect.The assistance given to both surviving and departing staff is a major strategic issue inany downsizing effort (Appelbaum and Donia, 2000). Not only will it reflect the cultureof the organisation, but will also have a major impact on the organisation that willemerge following the downsizing. Consequently, not only are comprehensive and fair12Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 18post term assistance programmes an ethical issue, but they send a clear message tosurviving staff about the value the organisation places on its members.securityExtensive organisational change such as that incurred with restructuring anddownsizing affects the steady state of employment still expected by many staff today.The loss of job stability and the subsequent need to renegotiate career expectationscan be regarded as a major violation of the psychological contract (Robinson andRousseau, 1994). Once organisations no longer reward hard work and dedicationwith lifetime employment, the old psychological contract no longer holds (Mathys andBurack, 1993). Over time, surviving staff are likely to feel less confident in their abilityto manage their own careers and feel great insecurity about their future (Appelbaumand Donia, 2000). Staff react to the increasingly limited offer of employment for lifeand career development by withdrawing down the trust commitment scale (Sparrowand Cooper, 1998, Smithson and Lewis, 2000). Furthermore, because staff havealready witnessed a downsizing, surviving staff are believed to increasingly be livingunder the fear of being fired (Boroson and Burgess, 1992). The immediate need ofsurviving staff therefore is knowing the extent to which they should worry about thepossibility of future layoffs (Appelbaum and Donia, 2000). The continuation of opencommunication channels, opportunities to debrief and the provision of comprehensivesupport networks are as important now as they were in the lead up to the restructure ifthe organisation is to ensure the ongoing support of its staff.Beaumont and Harris (2002) and Jacoby (1999) contend that jobs involving long-termcareer prospects with a single employer however are becoming less common and inmany cases have essentially disappeared altogether (Capelli, 1999, cited inBeaumont and Harris, 2002): "The job for life concept has gone" (Pollock, 1997, citedin Sparrow and Cooper, 2003).Staff who cope best with restructuring tend to be those who are least dependent on

Page 14: Employee Restructuring

the organisation to define who they are as individuals (Appelbaum and Delaae, 1997;Doherty and Horsted, 1995; Wilson, Larson and Stone, 1993 cited in Holm andHovland, 1999). Noer, (1993) cited in Appelbaum, Delage et al (1997) suggests, "Ifwho you are is where you work, you will do almost anything to hang on". Desire tostay with the organisation in this case therefore does not indicate commitment but13Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 19rather an unhealthy co-dependent relationship. Anecdotal evidence also suggeststhat even when survivors accept the incidence of redundancies and adjust to the post-downsized environment they find themselves in, this may be more related to apragmatic or even compliant position on the part of the survivors, rather than anysense of organisational commitment (Holbeche, 1998).Staff who have always worked in jobs that are insecure have less psychologicalattachment to lose: "Those who build their lives around their employer will suffer themost as survivors" (Sparrow and Cooper, 1998). Noer (1993) believes that staff whobreak the chain of co-dependency with their employer are immune to survivorsickness. Individuals who survive cutbacks must learn to deal with their own feelingsas they develop a new relationship with their organisation in which they are moreempowered and less dependent (Burke and Nelson, 1997). The provision of specifictraining for career self-management and encouragement for workers to learntransferable skills will assist in reducing dependency in a changing work environment(Smithson and Lewis, 2000).3.4.5 LoyaltyGreenhalgh (1983) finds a loss of loyalty is demonstrated through higher turnover andargues that satisfied workers tend to stay with their employer longer. Holbeche(1998) warns however, that turnover is not necessarily a reliable indicator of loyalty,as turnover can seem artificially low when the job market is relatively static or appearsto be shrinking. The real test is when growth returns and people choose to be moremobile. In Holbeche's (1996) study of managers in 200 organisations, she foundthat the most dissatisfied group were the people whose jobs had not grown. Theywere all actively looking for jobs even though many of them stated they were still loyalto their employer.Hiltrop (1996) and Obilade (1998) found in their studies that loyalty was greatest inthose individuals who felt valued and respected by their employer. Acknowledgementof effort, recognition of skills and experience, clarity of roles and responsibilities, clearcommunication of goals and objectives and opportunities to participate in decisionmaking are all vital in ensuring that staff feel an integral part of the organisation, andnot a commodity that can be easily discarded.14Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 20Robbins (1999) and Filipczak (1995) believe that in the restructured organisation, anemployee's loyalty is no longer to the organisation but to his/her own career with thebreaking of this dependency relationship essentially an individual effort. "The newpsychological contract rests on the assumption that people will not automatically beloyal to their company, but that like professionals, they will be moved by a new kind ofloyalty to their own disciplines and skills" (Hiltrop, 1996).3.4.6 Summary

Page 15: Employee Restructuring

This review of the literature suggests that if Otago Polytechnic staff indicate thatinformation regarding the restructuring process, participation in decision making islacking, the process of restructuring is deemed to be unfair, organisational loyalty islow and there is a lack of clarity about roles and work expectations, we would expectto find that organisational commitment is low.If trust in management to make sensible decisions for the future is low, and feelings ofjob insecurity are high, we can conclude that the psychological contract between staffand the Otago Polytechnic (their employer) has been breached.In essence, we can deduce that the presence of symptoms of survivor syndrome anda damaged or broken psychological contract are likely to result in low, or loweredlevels of organisational commitment.15Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 21

ME I OD4.1 Research Design - The SurveyThe main data collection method used in this research is the mail survey. Given thepotential for varied interpretation of question wording, a pilot study was undertaken toensure maximum clarity. The scope of this pilot is reported under section 4.3 on page20.The mail survey was the method of choice because they are relatively inexpensive toadminister; they allow for large numbers of respondents to be surveyed in a relativelyshort period; respondents can take their time in answering, and privacy is easier tomaintain (Mangione, 1995). However, mail surveys have two major weaknesses, thefirst being the potential for a low response rate, and the second concerning the typeand amount of information that can be secured as questions cannot be probed deeplynor large amounts of information obtained (Schindler and Cooper, 1998). Thissecond limitation has been partially overcome by the inclusion of both open andclosed questions. Respondents are able to comment specifically on key aspects ofthe restructuring process, allowing the expression of both opinions and feelings whichmay (or may not) help to provide further support for quantitative question results.Bearing in mind these limitations and due to the pressure of time and resourcesavailable, the mail survey was considered the most appropriate method in thisinstance.Issues of reliability and validity are addressed in a number of ways. A measure isreliable to the degree that it supplies consistent results (Cooper and Schindler, 1998).Where appropriate, this study uses existing measures that are reported to have firmpsychometric qualities (for example, Price's, 1997 assessment of the relative reliabilityand validity of Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1978 and Meyer and Allen's, 1982 studieson organisational commitment).Because the statements relating to survivor syndrome have been developed from theliterature, reliability was assessed through application of Cronbach's alpha in SPSS inorder to measure internal consistency. Nunnally and Burstein (1994) suggest internalconsistency estimates above the 0.80 level are more than acceptable. The two16Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 22

Page 16: Employee Restructuring

measures of survivor syndrome and organisational commitment used in this studyreached this level (survivor syndrome a=0.85; organisational commitment a=0.86).The measure of psychological contract taken from Guest (2000) however onlyreached an internal consistency of .72. This may reflect that only a small crosssection of statements was taken from his work. To improve the validity of statementson psychological contract in future it is suggested that the full range of statementsfrom his study are incorporated.The key aims of the survey were to:• establish whether levels of organisational commitment had been affected byrestructuring and downsizing as perceived by a cross-section of Polytechnicacademic and non-academic staff who survived the process, securing either theirexisting role or a new one• establish whether there is a link between symptoms of survivor syndrome andlevels of organisational commitment• assess whether surviving staff perceived the psychological contract with theiremployer had been damaged or alteredThe survey comprises four sections:1. Demographic information: age, gender, length of tenure, position (academic ornon-academic) and whether or not the respondent's department and/or positionhad been restructured. Specific identifying information, such as employingdepartment, was not requested given the desire to protect respondent's identity.The demographics for participating staff are shown in Tables 1 and 2.2. A series of open-ended questions: these were designed to assess and obtainfeedback from staff on their perceptions of (1) adequacy of consultation andinformation sharing (survivor syndrome); (2) levels of commitment both prior andfollowing the restructure (organisational commitment); and (3) perceived securityof position and the current relationship between management and staff(psychological contract).17Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 233. Twenty two statements measuring organisational commitment, survivor syndromeand the psychological contract.4. A page for additional comments.Ethics approval for this research was obtained from the University of OtagoManagement Research Committee prior to the collection of data (see Appendix 2).4.2 Survey DevalopmentAn adapted and shortened version of Mowday et al's 15-item survey on organisationalcommitment was used. Nine items, three for each element of commitment wereselected, namely:1. Affective commitment – the emotional attachment felt by the employee towardstheir organisation and identification with organisational values and support fororganisational goals (Meyer and Allen, 1984 cited in Somers and Birnbaum,2000);2. Continuance commitment – an employee's dedication to the organisation butwhere the costs of leaving are considered too high (Mowday, Porter and Steers,1982; Meyer and Allen, 1994, cited in Harris and McGrady, 1999); e.g. a lack ofalternative career opportunities as opposed to have an actual desire to stay withthe organisation.3. Normative commitment–on employee's felt obligation to stay with the

Page 17: Employee Restructuring

organisation (Somers and Birnbaum, 2000)Respondents were asked to indicate, using a five-point Likert scale (1=stronglydisagree and 5=strongly agree), the extent to which they agree with each of thesenine statements.The presence of low levels of trust and loyalty, high levels of insecurity and a sense ofinjustice about the process of restructuring are all indicators of survivor syndrome(Baruch and Hind, 1999; Rizzo, House and Lirtzman, 1997 (cited in Meyer and Allen,18Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 242001); Brockner, 1992; Newell and Dopson, 1996). To measure this, an 11-itemscale was developed based on a review of the literature. Respondents were askedto indicate, using a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree),the extent to which they agreed with each statement. This enabled an assessment tobe made as to how surviving staff at the Otago Polytechnic perceived the process ofrestructuring, their involvement in decision-making, the fairness of the process, theirsense of organisational loyalty and feelings of job security.The impact of the psychological contract on organisational commitment inrestructured organisations was measured using an adapted version of a measurepreviously developed by Guest (2000) for this same purpose. This measurecontained two items. Respondents were asked to indicate, again using a five-pointLikert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), the extent to which they agreedwith each of these statements. (See Appendix 3 for a copy of the survey).Six open-ended questions were also included in the survey – two for each of the threemajor constructs examined in this study (survivor syndrome, organisationalcommitment and psychological contract). One reason for the inclusion of thesequestions was that they enable confirmatory support for data collected from thesurvey to be obtained. A second reason is that information gleaned from thesequestions may elucidate new information that is useful in developing ourunderstanding of the impact of survivor syndrome.Finally, additional space was provided for respondents, should they wish to do so, tomake any additional comments they deemed relevant to this study.Survey data were analysed using the computerised statistical programme SPSSVersion 10.1. The analysis mainly involved the computation of frequency data, andthe reporting of means. An independent samples t-test was used to examinedifferences between the means for different groups (i.e. academics and non-academics, and restructured and non-restructured staff). Pearson correlation wasused to establish the relationship between survivor syndrome, organisationalcommitment and the psychological contract.19Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 254.3 Pilot studyA pilot study was conducted prior to the main study, to ensure that the survey toolsdeveloped for use in the research were suitable in their content and length and thatthe respondents were interpreting the survey questions in the manner intended. Pilotstudies are conducted to detect weaknesses in design and instrumentation andprovide proxy data for a selection of a probability sample (Cooper and Schindler,

Page 18: Employee Restructuring

1998). They are also considered useful in helping to determine issues andappropriate variables (Jankowicz, 2000).Four staff (two non-academics, one academic and the Chief Executive Officer)reviewed and piloted the survey. As a result, a number of amendments to the surveywere made.Although this project was initially designed to be a "moment in time study", the CEOindicated that he was particularly interested in gauging whether staff perceptions oftheir level of commitment to the Otago Polytechnic had changed following therestructure. The initial question asking respondents to rate their level of thecommitment to the organisation now was expanded to include both a subjectiveassessment of individual commitment prior to and following organisationalrestructuring.4.4 SampleStaff were selected randomly from full and part time academic and non-academic staffthat were in post as at the 22nd June 2004 but who had been staff members since 1stMarch 2003. This group of staff had been in post at least five months prior to theinitiation of the Business Recovery Plan (BRP) and in post at least eight months priorto its subsequent implementation.There was some discussion as to the sample size and the Chief Executive Officerindicated that only a selection of staff should be surveyed at this time, as he was keento initiate a much wider survey of workplace satisfaction later in 2004. A ratio of oneto eight permanent staff was selected initially however on review of the eligible staff20Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 26population this was reduced to one in five to ensure a broader representation of staffgroups across the full range of Polytechnic Departments.An up to date staff listing was obtained from the Human Resources Department andsorted by department, position and commencement date. Staff appointed after the1 st March 2003 were excluded, along with any staff member not in post as at the 22nd

June 2004.A total of 150 questionnaires were sent out to staff through the internal mail systemduring the last week of June and first week of July 2004. Staff were asked to returnthe completed survey in the attached postage paid envelope addressed to theUniversity of Otago Management Department by the 25 th July 2004.Sixty-four surveys were returned (42.7 percent) of which 60 (40 percent) were valid.Of the four that could not be used one was from a staff member who returned theform uncompleted indicating that their relationship with the Polytechnic (outside of theBRP) would have inappropriately biased their answers. Two were from staff who hadbeen members of the Polytechnic less than six months (indicating an error in the HRstaff listing) and the fourth was from a staff member based in Wellington.TABLE 1Distribution of gender and position in the sampleGenderContractDepartmentrestructured?Positionrestructured?MaleFemaleYesNo

Page 19: Employee Restructuring

YesNoFull timePart timeAcademic15192971323276Non academic1014168915252Total253345152238528NB: Two staff did not specify gender.Of the 60 valid responses, the average length of tenure was 9.27 years and theaverage time in current position was 5.41 years. The average age of respondentswas 45 years.21Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 27TABLE 2Sample numbers by Department and PositionFull timePart timeSeniorFull timePart timenonnonMgtDepartmentCodeacademic academicacademic academicTeamTotalsArchitecture, Building, EngineeringABE621110Academic ManagementACM11

Page 20: Employee Restructuring

Academic Development CentreADC11ArtART54211Business, Tourism, TravelBTT729Chief Executive OfficerCEO1122Community, Languages, MaoriCLM56112Chief Operating OfficerCOO1Central Otago CampusCOT3116Customer ServicesCUS22DesignDES3217FinanceFIN22Human ResourcesHRA11Hospitality, Service SectorHSS51129International Office and MarketingINT22Information Systems and Support

Page 21: Employee Restructuring

ISS44Information Technology,ElectrotechnologyITE9111MidwiferyMID44NursingNUR102114Oamaru CampusOAM11Occupational TherapyOCC431210Property ServicesPPS44Programme Support UnitPSU22SDM11Sports Institute, AdventureSIA358rcScience, Vet Nursing, Natural ResoueSVR552113Totals71343310215022Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 22: Employee Restructuring

Page 28

5. 'IFS LTSIMM=16:010aMaISfflaMelaSelagger..nag 75•:1,•.•111E

5.1 Survivor syndror,aThe overall research objective was to establish whether elements of survivor sicknesswere apparent in staff at the Otago Polytechnic. Respondents were asked a series offive point Likert-scale questions covering each element of survivor syndrome asdefined by the literature. The inclusion of a series of open-ended questions relating toconsultation and information, job security and the relationship between managementand staff were also included in order to gain a more detailed understanding from staffas to their thoughts and feelings about the actual process of restructuring and whetherthere was anything further the organisation could or should have done.5.1.1 Consultation and InformationThe aim here was to establish whether staff felt that there was sufficient consultationwithin the Otago Polytechnic about the planned organisational changes and how staffwere likely to be affected. Staff were also asked to indicate the extent to which theyfelt they had been given sufficient information about the process of restructuring andto provide comments on the process.Tables 3 and 4 present the mean scores and frequencies indicating the extent towhich academics and non-academics in restructured and non-restructured positionsperceived that sufficient consultation had occurred during the restructuring processand whether sufficient information had been provided.23Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 29TABLE 3ConsultationNMeanStdDeviationInsufficient0/0Sufficient0/0More thanSufficient°/0AcademicsRestructured131.23.43976.923.10Not restructured231.74.61934.856.58.7Total361.56.607

Page 23: Employee Restructuring

50.044.45.6Non-academicsRestructured91.56.72655.633.311.1Not restructured151.60.63246.746.76.7Total241.58.65450.041.78.3All staffRestructured221.36.58168.227.34.5Not restructured381.68.62039.552.67.9Total601.57.6215043.36.7Key: 1=Insufficient; 2=Sufficient; 3=More than sufficientOverall, academic and non-academic staff were evenly divided as to whether theyfelt there was adequate consultation, however when the results were broken down into restructured and non restructured staff a marked difference appeared with overthree quarters (77 percent) of restructured academic and over half of restructurednon-academic staff (55.6 percent) indicating that there was inadequate consultation.The responses to the open-ended question revealed that while a number ofacademic and non-academic staff commented that their managers were very good atinvolving them in discussions, the significant majority of comments were negativetowards the consultation process. Many staff commented that they felt their viewswere not taken on board and that they were 'told" what was going to happen ratherthan being consulted. For example:"Staff did not have a real impact; all decisions were made for them. Therewas consultation, but very little from staff (below management level) wasimplemented or actioned" (Full time non-academic staff member)"Although at the end of the process my job has been unaffected, at no stagedid my manager (at the time) actually make time to sit down, tell me thesituation and ask how I felt". (Full time non-academic staff member)

Page 24: Employee Restructuring

Others were more positive:24Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 30"Given that there was time to have input into the consultation document, andpresent written and oral submissions, I think the process was as good as itcould be. There were also staff forums that allowed for extra dialogue". (Fulltime academic staff member)Where consultation was considered adequate there was concern that no one wastold where they stood or how their independent positions were going to be affected.For a number of staff the uncertainty of role continuation persisted well intoDecember 2003 increasing their level of personal anxiety.Of particular note is the number of academic staff who commented that they felt thatthere was a fixed agenda. For example:"We were consulted in mass meetings and via a site on Polybase thattechnologically excluded some. Submissions based on sound informationand common sense was ignored. Yes, they could tick the consultation boxbut their ideas appeared to be fixed so consultation was pointless. There isno consultation if there is no willingness to change your view" (Full timeacademic staff member)."... I believe not enough discussion took place and decisions were madeautocratically without buy-in from staff" (Full time academic staff member)TABLE 4InformationNMeanStdDeviationInsufficientSufficientMore thanSufficientAcademicsRestructured131.31.48069.230.80Not restructured231.65.48734.865.20Total361.53.50647.252.80Non-academicsRestructured91.44.726

Page 25: Employee Restructuring

66.722.211.1Not restructured151.60.63246.746.76.7Total241.54.54154.237.58.3All staffRestructured221.36.58168.227.34.5Not restructured381.63.54139.557.92.6Total601.53.56650.046.73.3Key: 1=Insufficient; 2=Sufficient; 3=More than sufficient25Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 31Staff in restructured positions (both academic and non-academic) were far more likelythan non-restructured staff to feel that they received inadequate information on howthe restructure was to affect them (69.2 percent for academic staff and 66.7 percentfor non-academic staff):"Had to ask a lot to get the information. Nobody really seemed to have clearanswers, and answers were tinged with uncertainty which bred cynicism". (Fulltime academic staff member)Staff who positions remained unchanged indicated a high level of satisfaction with theinformation provided to them (65.2 percent for academic staff and 46.7 percent fornon-academic staff) and a number commented that in most cases their line managershad done an excellent job in keeping them up to date and providing support:"Our HOS kept us up to date with relevant information and was supportive".(Full time academic staff member)Part time staff however were far less likely to feel that they had been given sufficientinformation with a number commenting that they seemed to be forgotten about.5.1.2 Procedural fairnessSurvivor reactions to downsizing are deemed to be less severe when they perceivethe process to be fair and necessary (Turnley and Feldman, 1998; Brockner, 1997).

Page 26: Employee Restructuring

Staff were asked to consider whether the restructuring process adopted was justified.See Table 5.26Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 32TABLE 5Procedural fairnessNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagreeNeitheragreenordisagreeAgreeStronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured132.231.2438.523.115.423.10Not restructured232.701.2221.721.726.126.14.3Total362.531.2327.822.222.225.02.8Non-academicsRestructured91.781.3922.222.222.222.211.1Not restructured152,530.8313.326.753.3

Page 27: Employee Restructuring

6.70Total242.631.0616.725.041.712.54.2All staffRestructured222.451.3031.822.718.222.74.5Not restructured382.631.0818.423.736.818.42.6Total602.571.1623.323.330.020.03.3Key: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeSixty two percent of restructured academic staff considered the process ofrestructuring was unfair with 38.5 percent feeling very strongly about this. Forty fourpercent of restructured non-academics were also dissatisfied. Over half of non-restructured non-academics however could not decide whether the process was fairor not.5.1.3 Opportunity to participate in decisionsEmployees cannot support the changes the organisation is making if they do not knowwhat is going on (Appelbaum, Delage, Labib, Gault, 1997). Failure to adequatelyinvolve staff in the decision making process can leave staff suspicious aboutmanagement's intent, add to feelings of insecurity and decrease staff members' senseof value to the organisation, all clearly defined symptoms of survivor syndrome (seeTable 6).27Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 33TABLE 6ParticipationNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagree

Page 28: Employee Restructuring

NeitheragreenordisagreeAgree0/0StronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured131.921.1246.230.87.715.40Not restructured232.521.0817.439.117.426.1Total362.311.1227.836.513.922.20Non-academicsRestructured92.001.0033.344.411.111.10Not restructured152.671.2326.713.326.733.3OTotal242.421.1829.225.020.825.00All staffRestructured221.951.0540.936.49.113.60Not restructured

Page 29: Employee Restructuring

382.581.1321.128.921.128.90Total602.351.1328.331.716.723.30Key: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeBoth restructured academic and non-academic staff were vehement in their responseto this question with over three quarters of each group indicating that there wasinsufficient opportunity to participate in decisions that would affect their work areas.Staff who were not restructured also indicated dissatisfaction with the decision makingprocess (56.8 percent academic and 40 percent non-academic) citing a lack of clarityas to how decisions were arrived at:"There was no basis on which decision-making was performed. Noexplanations why certain directions were taken - especially as these directionsconflicted with what the schools (our anyway) wanted". (Full time academicstaff member)"The bigger decisions were made by people who were divorced from thecoalface of the schools and therefore did not have the correct information or'feel' to make informed judgements. I don't believe that management wereprepared to really listen to staffing concerns and issues". (Full time academicstaff member)28Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 345.1.4 Planned goals and objectivesRespondents were asked to indicate how clear they felt the Otago Polytechnic's goalsand objectives were (see Table 7).TABLE 7Clear goals and objectivesNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagreeNeitheragreenordisagree`)/0

AgreeStronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured132.691.25

Page 30: Employee Restructuring

23.115.438.515.47.7Not restructured232.521.0821.726.130.421.70Total362.581.1322.222.233.319.42.8Non-academicsRestructured92.331.1222.244,411.122.20Not restructured152.670.9813.326.740.020.00Total242.541.0216.733.329.220.80All staffRestructured222.551.1822.727.327.318.24.5Not restructured382.581.0318.426.334.221.10Total

Page 31: Employee Restructuring

602.571.0820.026.731.720.01.7Key: 1=strongry disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeOnly a quarter of all restructured staff consider the organisation has clear goals andobjectives, with nearly three quarters of restructured non-academic staff and over athird of restructured academic staff citing poorly defined goals and objectives.Irrespective of whether positions were restructured or not, staff overall were morelikely to indicating a lack of clarity around organisational goals rather than anunderstanding of them.5.1.5 Belief in goals of organizationIn order for staff to be committed to the organisation's future success staff must bothunderstand and believe in the goals of the organization (see Table 8).29Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 35Neitheragreenordisagree53.847.850.0TABLE 8Belief in organisational goalsKey: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeAlthough a third of restructured academics and a quarter of restructured nonacademics indicated confidence in the organisation's plan, over 50 percent ofrespondents indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the organisation'sgoals and what it is trying to do tor the future.This result can be expected given the large proportion of staff who indicated in 5.1.4above that they did not know what the goals or objectives of the new organisationwere.5.1.6 Organisational expectations for employeesRespondents were asked whether they understood what the organisation expected ofthem following the restructure, given many of them had acquired newly orientatedpositions (see Table 9).30Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 3650.011.18.313.916.731.813.69.122.722.7

Page 32: Employee Restructuring

N MeanStd Strongly DisagreeNeither AgreeDev. disagreeagreenordisagreeAcademicsRes ructured133.151.217.723.130.823.115.4Not restructured23TotalNon-RestructuredacademicsNot restructuredTotal22.211.144.4020.053.326.78.316.750.0RestructuredNot restructured383760.975.38.78.78.765.28.75.313.260.515.8StronglyagreeTABLE 9Organisational expectations for emp oyeesKey: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeNon-restructured academic staff were far more likely to understand what theorganisation expects of them in their role than restructured academic staff (73.9percent and 38.5 percent respectively).This finding was mirrored in non-restructured non-academics with 80 percentindicating that they understood what was required compared with only 55.5 percent ofrestructured non-academics.5.1.7 Job Security (see also psychological contract)Job security is considered an important indicator in maintaining the psychologicalcontract between employee and employer (Guest, 2000). A feeling of insecurity isalso an indicator of survivor sickness (see Table 10).31Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725

Page 33: Employee Restructuring

MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 37TABLE 10Job securityMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagree0/0NeitheragreenordisagreeAgreeStronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured132.921.1215.47.753.815.4%7.7Not restructured233.091.1313.013.030.439.14.3Total363.031.1113.911.138.930.65.6Non-academicsRestructured93.221.0933.322.233.311.1ONot restructured153.67098013.326.740.020.0Total243.501.02

Page 34: Employee Restructuring

20.825.037.516.7All staffRestructured223.051.099.118.240.922.79.1Not restructured383.321.097.913.228.939.510.5Total603.221.098.315.033.333.310.0Key: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeOnly 11.1 percent of restructured non-academic staff feel secure in their role (55.5percent feel insecure or very insecure). Non-restructured non-academic staff on theother hand show a relatively high level of job security at 60 percent. Academics inrestructured positions are equally divided between feelings of security and insecurityhowever, the majority (54 percent) feel neither secure nor insecure. Overall,irrespective of whether their positions were restructured or not, only a third ofacademic staff feel secure in their positions compared with just over half of all non-academic staff.5.1.8 Valuing staffAccording to Meyer and Allen (1994) and Rousseau (1995), organisations need toensure that their staff feel valued if they want to enhance staff commitment. Staff whofeel undervalued tend to perform less well making it more difficult for the organisationto achieve its objectives (see Table 11).32Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 38TABLE 11Staff feel valued by organisationNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagreeNeitheragreenordisagreeAgree

Page 35: Employee Restructuring

StronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured132.851.1415.423.123.138.5Not restructured232.571.0417.430.430.421.70Total362.671.0716.727.827.827.80Non-academicsRestructured93.331.5022.2022.233.322.2Not restructured153.401.066.76.740.033.313.3Total243.371.2112.54.233,333.316.7All staffRestructured223.051.2918.213.522.736.49.1Not restructured382.891.11

Page 36: Employee Restructuring

13.221.134.226.35.3Total602.951.1715.018.330.030.06.7Key: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeOverall, restructured staff were more likely to feel valued than their non-restructuredcolleagues and restructured academic staff were more likely than non-restructuredacademics to feel valued (38.5 percent and 21.7 percent respectively).Over half of restructured non-academics (55.5 percent) and 46.6 percent of non-restructured colleagues felt valued. A significant proportion of staff in all groupshowever felt neither valued nor not valued.5.1.9 Planning the changesEmployee commitment is considered easier to achieve when employees believe thatthe changes have been properly thought through and that there is logic, order andfairness in what occurs, rather than appearing as a series of ad hoc, hurried decisionsor chaotic events (Thornhill, Saunders and Stead, 1997). Staff were asked toconsider how well they felt the Polytechnic planned the changes (see Table 12).33Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 39TABLE 12Organisational changes were well plannedNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagreeNeitheragreenordisagreeAgreeStronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured132.231.0930.830.823.115.4Not restructured232.741.1817.426.126.126.1

Page 37: Employee Restructuring

4.3Total362.561.1622.227.825.022.22.8Non-academicsRestructured92.221.2033.333.311.122.20Not restructured152.671.1120.020.033.3Total242.501.1425.025.025.025.00All staffRestructured222.231.1131.831.818.218.20Not restructured382.711.1418.423.728.926.32.6Total602.531.1423.326.725.023.31.7Key: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeLess than a fifth of restructured staff (both academic and non-academic) felt that thechanges had been well planned. Non-restructured staff were a little more positivewith a little over one quarter of staff (28.9 percent) agreeing that things had been donewell.

Page 38: Employee Restructuring

There was also a general concern that the time required to implement such significantchanges in structure were rushed, leaving staff uncertain about their jobs and thefuture of their programmes:"Didn't even know until the last minute if students we had accepted wouldhave a course to come to". (Part time academic staff member).5.1.10 Communication of work expectationsForty seven percent of respondents were in restructured positions, indicating changedroles and work expectations for a significant group of staff. Staff commitment to theorganisation is considered easier to maintain where managers communicate workexpectations clearly and provide ongoing support and guidance, prior, during andfollowing the restructuring process (Burke and Nelson, 1997, Foxman and Polsky,1988, cited in Thornhill and Gibbons, 1995). See Table 13.34Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 40TABLE 13Manager communication of work expectationsNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagreeNeitheragreenordisagree°/0AgreeStronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured132.311.1130.823.130.815.40Not restructured232.911.3413.034.817.417.417.4Total362.691.2819.430.622.216.711.1Non-academicsRestructured

Page 39: Employee Restructuring

93.331.5022.2022.233.322.2Not restructured153.601.356.720.013.326.733.3Total243.501.3812.512.516.729.229.2All staffRestructured222.731.3527.33.627.322.79.1Not restructured383.181.3710.528.915.821.123.7Total603.021.3716.723.320.021.718.3Key: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeFifty-four percent of restructured and 47.8 percent of non-restructured academic staffindicated that their managers had not effectively communicated work expectationsfollowing the changes. A number of staff commented that six months in to their newroles they still did not have job descriptions or have set performance objectives,making it difficult to both know what they were expected to do or how they wereperforming.Non-academic staff, both restructured and non-restructured, indicated a reasonablyhigh level of understanding of work expectations (55.5 percent and 60 percentrespectively).5.1.11 HonestyHonesty and trust are closely aligned. Evidence of mistrust and feelings thatmanagement has been dishonest are signs of survivor syndrome (Appelbaum,Delage, Labib and Gault, 1997). Results are presented in Table 14.35

Page 40: Employee Restructuring

Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 41TABLE 14Management honesty re good and bad newsNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagreeNeitheragreenordisagree°leAgree0/0StronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured133.001.167.730.823.130.87.7Not restructured233.301.028.78,730.447.84.3Total363.191.068.316.727.841.75.6Non-academicsRestructured93.001.00044.411.144.10Not restructured153.201.15

Page 41: Employee Restructuring

6.720.033.326.713.3Total243.131.084.229.225.033.38.3All staffRestructured223.001.074.536.418.236.44.5Not restructured383.261.067.913.231.639.57.9Total603.171.066.721.726.738.36.7Key: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeNon-restructured academic staff were more likely to believe that Management hadbeen honest with both good and the bad news (52.1 percent) than restructuredacademic staff (38.5 percent):"Our line manager was extremely honest with our group. Good news and badnews was always and is still passed on to us". (Non-academic full time staffmember)Overall, restructured staff were more likely to feel that management had beendishonest than non-restructured staff (40.9 percent and 21.5 percent respectively).5.1.12 The futureThe changes implemented by the Otago Polytechnic were considerable, creatingunease across all staff groups as evidenced by the above findings. Surviving staffwill be an instrumental part of building the future of their organisation and thereforetheir commitment is essential. Staff were asked whether they felt the future waslooking better (see Table 15).36Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 42: Employee Restructuring

Page 4223.126.125.022.26.718.346.725.0TABLE 15The future is getting brighterStronglyagreeMeanStd Strongly DisagreeNeither AgreeDev. disagreeagreenordisagree%Academics Restructured133.541.277.715.415.438.5Not restructured233.871.014.34.317.447.8Total363.751.105.68.316.744.4Non-Restructured93.890.93011.111.155.6academicsNot restructured154.000026.70/0Total0Restructured4.5Not restructured2.6All staffTotal603.83

Page 43: Employee Restructuring

0.993,3Key: 1=strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=strongly agreeNearly three quarters of ail staff believed that the future for Otago Polytechnic isgetting brighter with little difference in the results between restructured and non-restructured staff. There were many comments to support this finding:"While difficult, many changes took place for the overall betterment of thePolytechnic which ultimately, is to provide students with a quality learningenvironment. We have a way to go but we are on the right track and have thesupport of the majority of staff. OP is a great place to work and I think will geteven better under the new management". (Full time academic staff member)"In general, things feel as if we are on the right track again. There is a senseof going forward and most of the staff are enthusiastic about the changes thathave been made, as well as new developments". (Non-academic full timestaff member)A fifth of restructured staff (both academic and non-academic) however remainuncertain about the future.37Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 43Position notrestructuredPosition restructuredPosition restructuredPosition notrestructuredLow6.786.786.777.810060.982.646,292.3High53.84.330.422.26.7Commitment levels pre and post restructureAcademicNon academicPrior torestructure0/0PostrestructurePrior torestructurePostrestructurePrior torestructure0/0PostrestructurePrior torestructure

Page 44: Employee Restructuring

PostrestructureNeutralOr NoChange7.713.08.76.76.7

5.2 Organisational commitmentStaff were asked to consider their level of commitment to the organisation both priorto and following the restructure. The research objective here was to establishwhether there had been a change in the perceived levels of organisationalcommitment felt by academic and non-academic staff and between academic andnon-academic staff whose positions had or had not been restructured. Results arepresented in Tables 16 and 17.5.2.1 Commitment prior to and following restructureTABLE 16Comparisons of Means - Commitment pre and post restructurePrior to restructureFollowing restructureNMeanStd Dev.MeanStd Dev.AcademicsRestructured132.92.281.921.04Not restructured232.78.522.30.92Total362.83.452.17.97Non-academicsRestructured93.00.002.56.88Not restructured152.80.562.80.56Total242.88.452.71.69All respondents

Page 45: Employee Restructuring

Restructured222.95.212.181.01Not restructured382.79.532.50.83Total602.85.442.38.90Key: 1=Low; 2=Neutral; 3=High (prior to restructure)1=Low; 2=No change; 3=High (post restructure)NB: Respondents who indicated there was no change in their level of commitment following therestructure have had their scores recomputed to match their initial response.TABLE 17Frequency data - commitment pre and post restructure38Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 44Organisational commitment in both academic and non-academic staff was very highprior to the restructure at 86.1 percent and 91.6 percent respectively. Howeverfollowing the restructure academic commitment had fallen significantly with just overhalf of all staff (55.6 percent) indicating that their commitment remained high. Thisfinding becomes even more appreciable when we see that only 2.8 percent ofacademic staff indicated low organisational commitment prior to the restructure butthis had increased to 38.9 percent following the changes. Although non-academicstaff commitment also fell post restructure this was by only 8.4 percent to 83.3percent. In essence, academic staff were far more likely to feel the effects ofrestructuring than non-academic staff.A number academic staff commented that their commitment was or had never been tothe Otago Polytechnic or its management rather they were committed to theirprofession and to the students they taught. For example:"My commitment lies with the subject and students I teach, not theorganisation or management structure". (Academic full time staff member)"I have a high co/nni0nant&o the team I work with but lower to organisation ...don't look at my work as long term" (Part time academic staff member)"My commitment is to the Polytechnic and what it stands for – not for thestructure!" (Full time non-academic staff member)Further analysis was conducted to establish whether there was a statisticallysignificant difference in the commitment levels of the 13 academic and nine non-academic staff whose positions were changed by the restructure. The findingsindicate a substantive drop in commitment for both groups. Prior to the restructure92.3 percent of academic staff and 100 percent of non-academic staff, who weresubsequently restructured indicated a high level of commitment. Following therestructure, this had fallen to 46.2 percent in academic staff and 77.8 percent in non-academics. For non-restructured staff commitment prior to the restructure was82.6% for academic staff and 86.7 percent for non-academics. Following therestructure commitment fell to 60.9 percent for academics but there was no changefor non-academics. Again, academics have felt the effects of the restructure more

Page 46: Employee Restructuring

39Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 45acutely however all staff in restructured positions demonstrated much lower levels ofcommitment.Staff were asked to comment on what it was about the process of restructuring thathad affected their level of commitment to the organisation. Several key themes arose,namely that there seemed to be general lack of understanding of the potentialemotional impact of restructuring on individuals by those responsible forimplementation of the BRP and consequently a number of staff felt isolated,unsupported and not valued. For example:"... Through the BRP process it was clear that people meant nothing" (Parttime academic staff member)A significant number of respondents felt strongly that they were "not heard" during theconsultation process, nor did they feel they had any influence over the outcome:"Management do not listen to staff" (Full time academic staff member)"The ground floor staff up to middle management don't really matter was thedistinct impression I got and still have" (Non-academic full time staff member)"Decisions at corporate level got the organisation in to its financial mess, yetall reappointed to senior positions except for the CEO. Views ofSchools/departments were ignored." (Full time academic staff member)"The complete lack of consultation/communication over the impact onindividuals. I don't have a job description and it is very hard to feel as if youhave any responsibility for what you do without one. Your work can be movedelsewhere at the drop of a hat and you find out about it afterwards". (Full timenon-academic staff member)Where consultation was considered adequate there was concern that no one was toldwhere they stood or how their independent positions were going to be affected. Foranumber of staff the uncertainty of role continuation persisted well into December 2003increasing their level of personal anxiety.40Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 46Whilst a number of academic and non-academic staff commented that their managerswere very good at involving them in discussions, the significant majority of commentswere negative towards the consultation process. Many staff commented that they felttheir views were not taken on board and that they were 'told' what was going tohappen rather than being consulted.5.2.2 Affective, Normative and continuance CommitmentIn addition to the questions designed to assess the perceived level of commitmentprior to and following the restructure, elements of Meyer and Allen's (1982) andMowday Porter and Steers (1978) study into affective, normative and continuancecommitment were incorporated in the survey and analysed as subsets of the constructof organisational commitment. Correlations on the nine five-point Likert-scaleorganisational commitment questions were undertaken first to ensure that there was aproven association between the questions within each element.An independent two-sample test was undertaken to determine whether there was anystatistically significant difference between the scores of academic and non-academic

Page 47: Employee Restructuring

staff for each of the three types of commitment.An independent two sample test was also conducted on the three types ofcommitment for staff in restructured and non-restructured positions. The results forthis test found no significant difference between either group to exist (see Table 18).TABLE 18T-test for equality of means — Affective, Normative and Continuance commitmentNMeanSDdfSig. (2tailed).023AffectiveAcademic363.690.77-2.3458Non academic244.140.67-2.40.019NormativeAcademic363.110.79-2.3458.023Non academic243.600.77-2,35.022ContinuanceAcademic362.800.87-1.5158.134Non academic243.140.84-1.52.133The mean affective commitment scores of non-academic staff (M=4.14, SD=0.67) issignificantly higher (t=-2.34, df=58, p=0.19) than for academic staff (M=3.69,41Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 47SD=0.77) indicating that non-academic staff show a higher level of affectivecommitment than academic staff.The mean normative commitment scores of non-academic staff (M.3.60, SD=0.77) is

Page 48: Employee Restructuring

significantly higher (t=-2.34, df=58, p=0.22) than that of academic staff (M=3.11,SD=0.79). That is, non-academic staff show a higher level of normative commitmentthan academic staff.The mean continuance commitment scores shows that there is no significantdifference in scores 0=-1.52, df=58, p=0.13) between non-academic staff (M=3.14,SD=0.84) and academic staff (M=2.80, SD=0.87). That is, similar levels ofcontinuance commitment are present in both academic and non-academic staff asindicated by the two-tailed independent samples test.5.3 Psychological contract5.3.1 Job securityThe purpose of this question was to assess the extent to which staff felt secure intheir roles as low levels of job security are deemed to be both an indicator of a breachof the psychological contract and a symptom of survivor syndrome (Guest, 2000;Holm and Hovland, 1999). Results are presented in Table 19.TABLE 19Job securityNMeanStdDev.VeryInsecureFairlyinsecureSameasbeforeSecureVerysecureAcademicsRestructured133.691.187.77.715.446.223.1Not restructured233.261.054.321.726.139.18.7Total363.421.105.616.722.241.713.9Non-academicsRestructured93.671.110

Page 49: Employee Restructuring

22.211.144.422.2Not restructured153.601.186.76.733.326.726.7Total243.631.134.212.525.033.325.0All staffRestructured223.681.124.513.613.645.522.7Not restructured383.391.105.315.828.934.215.8Total603.501.115.015.023.338.318.3Where: 1=Very nsecure 2=Fairly insecure; 3=Same as before; 4=Fairly secure; 5=Very secure;42Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 48Sixty nine percent of restructured academic staff felt either secure or very secure intheir (new) roles however, non-restructured academics demonstrated much lowerfeelings of job security at 47.8 percent. Twenty six percent of non-restructuredacademics indicated they continued to feel insecure however, this may reflect that anumber of Schools and Academic Departments were still under review at the time thissurvey was distributed. Non-academic staff in restructured positions also showedsimilarly high levels of job security (66.6 percent). Just over a fifth of this group (22.2percent) continue to feel insecure.Even though all respondents have secured ongoing employment it is clear from theresults that those staff whose role, job scope or role continuance was under threat

Page 50: Employee Restructuring

have been acutely affected by the restructure.A number of staff commented that changes in the organisation's structure had beenmade at the last minute, and where they had been given assurances that their roleswere not to be affected, they were. For example:...... Your work can be moved elsewhere at the drop of a hat and you find outabout it afterwards". (Full time non-academic staff member)Staff were asked if there was anything the organisation could do to help improve howthey felt. A general theme is in the comments was that senior management hadfailed to support staff (but non-one suggested what they could have done to changethis) and as a consequence trust and faith in management was low:A number of staff raised the need for management to actively recognise the valuablecontribution that staff made to the Polytechnic. For example:"Recognise that the staff are an asset to Otago Polytechnic. Our students arethe core business, but the staff are vital". (Full time academic staff member)Some staff also commented on the fact that they felt jobs were no longer "secure forlife" and there was increased acceptance of this in light of diminishing resources anda need to maintain competency in employment.43Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 495.3.2 The Employee-Employer relationshipRespondents were asked to indicate whether they felt the relationship between staffand management was better or worse following the restructure. The results arepresented in Table 20.TABLE 20Employee-Employer relationshipNMeanStdDev.Muchworsec/0WorseNodifferentfrombeforeSlightlybetter0/0

MuchbetterAcademicsRestructured132.851.147.738.523.123.17.7Not restructured233.261.014.317.434.8

Page 51: Employee Restructuring

34.88.7Total363.111.065.625.030.630.68.3Non-academicsRestructured93.001.3211.133.311.133.311.1Not restructured153.67.98O6.746.720.026.7Total243.421.134.216.733.325.020.8All staffRestructured222.911.199.136.418.227.39.1Not restructured383.421.002.613.239.528.915,8Total603.231.095.021.721.728.313.3Where: 1=Much worse; 2=Worse; 3=Same as before; 4=Slightly better; 5=Much betterOnly 38.9 percent of academic staff and 45.8 percent of non-academic staff felt the

Page 52: Employee Restructuring

relationship between staff and management was improving. Thirty percent ofacademic and 20.9 percent of non-academic staff felt the relationship had actuallydeteriorated.The remainder felt there had been no change since before therestructure.On closer examination, it is noted that academic staff in restructured positions werefar more likely to feel that the relationship had worsened (46.2 percent) than in non-restructured positions (21.7 percent). Non-academics showed an even greaterdemarcation with 44.4 percent of staff in restructured positions indicating a worsenedrelationship compared with only 6.7 percent in non-restructured positions.Staff were asked to comment as to why they felt the relationship betweenmanagement and staff was better or worse. Many respondents (both academic andnon-academic) were positive - indicating that there was hope now the new CEO had44Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 50started and a lot of faith was being placed in him to turn things around. His "opendoor" policy was greatly welcomed. For example:"Much of the uncertainty is over which means staff have started to moveforward and reconstruct their relationships" (Full time Academic staff member)"Communication channels are more open and there is a sense of purpose andhope, a forward looking attitude coming through...." (Full time non-academicstaff)"Worse because the people who have spearheading the making of the BRPare still in place in upper management" (Full time academic staff)Non-academic staff in particular commented that they felt more valued and thatdialogue was more open. However, equal numbers felt that the trust and respect formanagement had gone, in part due to the perception that a number of people insenior management roles did not have the skills to carry out the tasks that wererequired or that they had been "shoulder tapped" into positions. In other words, stafffelt that there had been insufficient change at the top.A significant number of staff however indicated that it was too soon to tell and wereadopting a "wait and see" policy.The need for management to operate transparently was strongly emphasised by allstaff groups as a means of improving the trust relationship between management andstaff. In addition, a number of staff that had taken on new roles highlighted the needfor role clarity.A number of staff also indicated that they felt that middle managers in the restructuredorganisation had a difficult job. They were seen as having responsibility forimplementing the changes but that senior management support was lacking.45Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 515.3.3 TrustA breach of the psychological contract is indicated where staff show significant signsof mistrust in management (Sparrow and Cooper, 1998). The results of the questionasking staff whether they trust management to make the right decisions for theorganisation's future is reported in Table 21.TABLE 21

Page 53: Employee Restructuring

Trust in ManagementNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagreeNeitheragreenordisagreeAgreeStronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured132.771.097.738.530.815.47.7Not restructured232.741.2521.721.721.730.44.3Total362.751.1816.727.825.025.05.6Non-academicsRestructured92.781.0911.133.322.233.30Not restructured153.331.116.713.333.333.313.3Total243.131.128.320.829.2

Page 54: Employee Restructuring

33.38.3All staffRestructured222.771.079.136.427.322.74.5Not restructured382.971.2215.818.426.331.67.9Total602.901.1613.325.026.728.36.7Where 1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agreeNearly half of all staff (45.5 percent) in restructured positions and a third of all staff (34percent) in non-restructured positions do not trust senior management to makesensible decisions for the organisation's future. Non-restructured non-academic staffwere more likely to trust management (46.6 percent) than non-restructured academicstaff (34.7 percent). The quote below typifies the responses received about trust:"'The whole process of the BRP highlighted the lack of trust in management.The BRP became an exercise in self-preservation for senior managers andthose not liked got rid of. Individual personalities dictated who stayed and whowent with no regard for merit, ability and experience". (Full time academicstaff member)46Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 525.3.4 Employer promisesStaff were asked to indicate the extent to which the Otago Polytechnic has kept itspromises or commitments to them re the demands of their job (see Table 22).TABLE 22Keeping promisesNMeanStdDev.StronglydisagreeDisagreeNeitheragree nordisagreeAgreeStronglyagreeAcademicsRestructured

Page 55: Employee Restructuring

132.771.0923.123.130.823.10Not restructured232.741.2517.430.421.730.40Total362.751.1819.427.825.027.80Non-academicsRestructured92.781.0911.133.3055.60Not restructured153.331.116.713.320.040.020.0Total243.131.128.320.812.545.812.5All staffRestructured222.771,0718.227.318.236.40Not restructured382.971.2213.223.721.17.90Total

Page 56: Employee Restructuring

602.901.1615.025.020.035.05.0Nearly half of all staff in restructured positions and a third of staff in non-restructuredpositions felt that Otago Polytechnic had broken its promises or commitments to themas regards job demands. Non-restructured non-academic staff were far less likely tofeel that the Polytechnic had not met its obligations when compared to non-restructured academics (20 percent and 47.8 percent respectively).47Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 53OrganisationaiCommitmentSurvivor syndrome5.4 Detern.::ning the relationship between survivor syndrome,organisaticnal commitment and the psychologicalcontractThe next analysis aims to assess the relationship between the three measures ofsurvivor syndrome, organisational commitment and the psychological contract.Results show that there is a strong two-way relationship between each of theelements of survivor syndrome, organisational commitment and the psychologicalcontract (see Table 23).TABLE 23Relationship between survivor syndrome, organisational commitment and psychological contractMeasure (N=60)SurvivorSyndromeOrganisationalCommitmentPsychologicalContractSurvivor Syndrome.684**.776**Organisational Commitment.694**.615**Psychological Contract.776**.615*** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).The statistically significant positive relationship (using Pearson correlation) betweenthe psychological contract and organisational commitment (r = 0.61, df = 58, p > 0.01)may be suggestive that staff whose psychological contract with the organisation isstrong (i.e. high levels of trust, faith and security) are also likely to demonstrate a highlevel of commitment to the organisation. Because breaches of the psychological48Organisational commitment at the Otago Polytechnic

Page 57: Employee Restructuring

Christine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 54contract seem evident, it would not be surprising to also find reduced levels oforganisational commitment.The statistically significant positive relationship (using Pearson correlation) betweensurvivor syndrome and organisational commitment (r = 0.68, df = 58, p > 0.01)suggests that evidence of survivor sickness is also likely to have an adverse effect onorganisational commitment. Therefore, the presence of low levels of survivorsickness is likely to translate in to high levels of commitment to the organisation.There is also a statistically significant positive correlation between survivor syndromeand the psychological contract (r = 0.77, of= 58, p > 0.01). This would indicate that ifsurvivor sickness is evident within the organisation (as demonstrated by staff feelingundervalued, having little faith in the goals of the organisation and feeling excludedfrom decision-making) staff are also likely to have little trust in management to makesound decisions or keep its promises to staff (see Table 24).TABLE 24Comparison of means for the three constructs of survivor syndrome, organisational commitmentand psychological contractSurvivorsyndromeOrganisationalcommitmentPsychologicalcontractNSDSDSDAcademicRestructured132.72.683.26.722.65.99Not restructured233.00.683.16.752.701.02Total362.90.683.20.732.68.99NonacademicRestructured92.95.833.38.762.89.96

Page 58: Employee Restructuring

Not restructured153.26.713.77.563.431.1Total253.14.753.62.663.231.0TotalRestructured222.81.733.31.722.75.96Not restructured383.11.693.40.742.99.11All respondents603.00.723.37.732.901.0449Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 55

DISCUSS!0]This section considers the findings of the survey used to establish whetherorganisational commitment has been affected as perceived by staff that went throughthe restructuring process. The presence or absence of symptoms of survivorsyndrome and breaches of the psychological contract are discussed in relation to theirpotential to impact on commitment as defined by the literature.6.1 Survivor syndromeThere are a number of distinct symptoms that can indicate the presence of survivorsyndrome in restructured organisations. These are considered below.6.1.1 Consultation and informationThe majority of restructured staff (both academic and non-academic) at OtagoPolytechnic considered the level of consultation and information provided to beinadequate. Although non-restructured staff were more likely to consider that bothconsultation and information was sufficient, a greater proportion of this group alsoexpressed dissatisfaction.Given that in most cases staff were not aware that their position would change untilcompletion of the consultation process, this might indicate that staff who found their

Page 59: Employee Restructuring

roles untouched on reflection believed that more information was provided thanactually was, or that because they were "safe" found the need for such detailedinformation and consultation unnecessary.Doherty and Horsted (1995) found that survivors of restructuring tend to need moreinformation about the effects of the changes and organisations usually responded tosuch requests, yet poor communication continues to be identified as a major problemin the majority of downsized organisations. In the face of uncertainty and insecurity,surviving employees seek more information to allay their fears about the future andthus this would indicate that much greater attention and support needs to be providedfor this group. Both the content and focus of the communication needs to beconsidered if it is to be perceived as effective by staff.50Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 56The Otago Polytechnic had undertaken a comprehensive consultation process in themonths leading up to the restructure however many staff, particularly part timers, feltthat they had very little access to information or opportunities to participate indiscussions. Again, where adequate information and opportunities were providedthere was a sense that Management was only paying "lip-service" to staff suggestionsand took very little of what they said on board.In addition, communication and information tended to focus on determining the mostappropriate structure – in effect a top level discussion, with less attention seeminglypaid to defining how staff affected by the changes would fit in to the new structure orwhat their new role would require of them. Failure of the organisation to defineorganisational expectations and provide visible support to survivors can result insignificant costs to the organisation including ongoing staff turnover following therestructure, lower productivity and a general feeling that the organisation does notvalue them (Makawatsakul and Kleiner, 2003).Such inconsistencies need to be addressed by human resource strategistsresponsible for overseeing the change process, as it is both part and full time staffthat must buy in to the new organisation and its aims. Winning commitment (andthus maintaining commitment) to organisational change requires considerable effort inemployee communications (Kinnie. Hutchinson and Purcell, 1997).6.1.2 Planning the changes; fairness of processA significant proportion of all staff considered the process of restructuring to be unfairalthough staff did not comment as to why they felt this was or what could have beendone to improve it.Although procedural fairness does not necessarily completely eliminate negativereactions to the process of downsizing it can soften the severity of employeeresponses and make buy-in easier to obtain (Turnley and Feldman, 1998). Brockner(1987) supports this statement confirming that staff reactions to downsizing are likelyto be less damaging where survivors see the process was necessary. Trust and faithin management can be maintained where the process is deemed transparent andwhere it is accepted that there was no alternative.51Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 57Staff indicated understanding of the need to redefine the Otago Polytechnic's core

Page 60: Employee Restructuring

business in the light of significant financial difficulties however many staff felt that thedecisions on future direction were pre-determined by the senior management teamand that insufficient effort was made to demonstrate that the ideas presented by staffwere seriously considered.6.1.3 Goals and objectives; organisational expectations; belief inorganisational goalsNearly half of all staff (both restructured and non-restructured) continue to be unclearabout the organisation's goals and objectives some six months after implementationof the new structure. A question on whether staff actually believed in the goals of theorganisation highlighted that the majority did not actually know what they were. Inaddition, over a third of all restructured staff lack a clear understanding of workexpectations in the new organisation. This has the potential to impact negatively onproductivity and slow the organisation's ability to achieve its new objectives. Staff canonly commit to something they believe in, see value in and where there is a clearunderstanding of what is required of them.Employees will look to management for a clear indication of the future direction of theorganisation, how and why it will be different from the past, how they as individualswill be affected and the benefits to be expected from the change (Rice and Dreilinger,1991; Sinetar, 1981 cited in Thornhill et al, 1997). It is important therefore thatsurvivors understand the organisation's future direction and believe in what it is tryingto do. Survivors need to see how their individual role fits with the objectives of theorganisation and how they can contribute to ensuring future success (Thornhill andSaunders, 1998; Foxman and Po!sky, 1988 cited in Thornhill and Gibbons, 1995).Thus, Management needs to exhibit good communication and listening skills, beaccessible and visible, in not only the lead up to the restructure but during andfollowing it.Role clarity, two-way communication, decentralisation and direct participation indecision making are all believed to help cultivate higher commitment amongemployees (Morris and Steers, 1989; Rhodes and Steers, 1982; Stevens et al., 1978as cited in Hiltrop, 1996) but sadly the results of the survey indicate that these are key52Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine -Meissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 58areas that the Otago Polytechnic has not sufficiently addressed during the process ofrestructuring.6.2 Organisational commitmentThere is a marked difference in pre and post-restructure commitment levels betweenacademic and non-academic staff, and between staff in restructured and non-restructured positions. Restructured academic staff in particular showed a substantialdrop in their level of commitment with over 50 percent indicating low organisationalcommitment. This may be linked to the fact that academic divisions and theirprogrammes were reviewed not only for their ongoing viability but also in relation tostaffing levels and skill mix. Staff in such specialised teaching areas tend to have lesstransferable skills than their non-academic generalist colleagues (both within the wallsof the city and within the city's educational institutions) so the implications associatedwith potential job losses are potentially much greater.Given that both restructured academic and non-academic staff demonstrated asignificant drop in commitment and that they felt there was little true opportunity toparticipate in or influence the decisions that would affect their work areas, it isperhaps reasonable to draw the conclusion that the process adopted by the Otago

Page 61: Employee Restructuring

Polytechnic was unsuccessful in "taking staff along with them".Survey findings show a strong level of emotional attachment (affective commitment)to the Otago Polytechnic with both academic and non-academic staff in all positionsindicating that they care a great deal about the fate of the organisation, however theydo not necessarily feel that the organisation inspires them to do the very best job theycan. Given that the survey also indicated that staff are unclear as to both the goals ofthe organisation and what they are expected to do this result is not unexpected.Individuals who are affectively committed to their organisation tend to remain becausethey want to not because they feel that they have no choice (Meyer and Allen, 1984cited in Somers and Birnbaum, 2000). Management can encourage the developmentof this commitment by ensuring that staff are actively involved in decisions that affectthe organisation, by demonstrating that staff are valued and by proactivelyencouraging support for organisational objectives and activities.53Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 59Staff also indicated a relatively high level of loyalty to the organisation (a sign ofnormative commitment) however, Somers and Birnbaum (2000) warn that this mayreflect a sense that staff feel obligated to stay with their organisation rather thanwanting to stay with them. According to Allen and Meyer (1990), normativeattachment to an organisation appears to be weakened by perceived or actual jobinsecurity. Given non-restructured staff in particular indicated low feelings of jobsecurity, this argument seems well supported.Continuance commitment (i.e. the need to stay with the organisation because oflimited alternatives) was found to be low, indicating that staff would not stay with theorganisation if they did not feel that it had something to offer them (or that they couldoffer). This finding concurs with many of the comments proffered by staff whoindicated that they were not committed to the organisation or its management per se,they were committed primarily to their work with students and to their profession.Real commitment however can only be achieved through mobilizing energy, ideasand effort that come from each employee willingly and spontaneously. To get realcommitment people need to believe that the organisation is worth working for,understand the organisation's purpose and what it trying to do, identify with itsmissions, feel a sense of belonging and value (Hiltrop, 1996; Rousseau, 1995).6.3 Psychological contract6.3.1 Security in EmploymentAccording to Guest (2000), perceptions of lost job security and a worseningrelationship between staff and management are key indicators of breaches in thepsychological contract and can negatively affect organisational commitment. Bothare evident at Otago Polytechnic.Whilst restructured staff are more likely to feel secure than non-restructured staff, overa quarter of all staff remain insecure. Mathys and Burach (1993), Doherty andHorsted (1995), Boroson and Burgess, 1992 (cited in Appelbaum and Donia, 2000)and Baruch and Hind (1999) indicate that survivors of organisational downsizing donot always feel relief at having secured their jobs, rather they feel demoralised about54Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 60

Page 62: Employee Restructuring

their future, harbouring a great distrust towards management and continue to fearfuture job changes. This observation seems to correspond with the findings of thePolytechnic study, however given that a significant proportion of both academic andnon academic staff also feel secure in their positions this may indicate that once staffhave gone through the process of restructuring they feel more confident that they willnot be subject to further job changes. This concurs with Allen, Freeman et al (2001)who found this to be the case in their three-year longitudinal study.Lee and Mitchell (1994) however warn organisations not to become complacent asfailure to address feelings of insecurity can contribute to increased exit, decreasedorganisational loyalty and lower levels of job satisfaction. Low levels of organisationalcommitment have already been established, particularly in academic respondents.Management of an insecure workforce could include specific training for career self-management and encouragement for workers to learn transferable skills that willincrease their employment security (Smithson and Lewis, 2000). At present, there isno indication that the Otago Polytechnic has provided such support. If security cannotbe offered, good practice indicates that the organisation should offer alternatives suchas career management programmes that serve to change the nature of thepsychological contract between the organisation and its employees (Noer, 1993;Doherty and Horsted, 1995).6.3.2 Trust and the employee-employer relationship; valueAccording to Allen, Freeman et al (2001) changes in organisational commitment maybe influenced by the extent survivors are satisfied with the performance of topmanagement during the period following the downsizing. Mishra and Spreitzer (1998)posited that trust in management plays a powerful role in determining survivorresponses. If survivors do not trust that the top management is competent andhonest with employees through the downsizing, they are likely to withdraw from theorganisation or respond other destructive ways. Nearly half of all restructured staffconsider the relationship between management and staff has deteriorated. Similarnumbers report a low level of trust and faith in management's ability to make sensibledecisions for the organisation's future and a third of staff feel undervalued.Combined, these findings indicate that there is real cause for concern.55Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 616.4 Determining the relationship between -a' vivor syndrome,organisational commitment and the psychologicalcontrastCollectively, evidence of both symptoms of survivor syndrome and a damaged orbroken psychological contract are likely directly impact on the level of commitmentstaff feel towards their organisation (Appelbaum, Delage, Labib and Gault, 1997;Sparrow and Cooper, 1998; Thornhill and Saunders, 1997).The survey clearly indicates the presence of both survivor sickness and a damagedpsychological contract. Commitment to Otago Polytechnic is low. Application andanalysis of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient test further confirms the directrelationship between all three constructs.In essence, the low levels of trust, job security and faith in management(psychological contract) felt by staff, combined with feelings of being undervalued,exclusion from decision-making and lack of clarity about role expectations (signs ofsurvivor syndrome) have resulted in a significant loss of organisational commitment.56

Page 63: Employee Restructuring

Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 62CHAPTF,CONCLUS Oi)RECOMMENDATIONSThis study has examined the impact of organisational downsizing on a random crosssection of Otago Polytechnic staff who survived a major organisational restructure inOctober 2003, in relation to both their psychological contract and ongoingcommitment to their employer.The literature provides strong evidence to suggest that organisational restructuringcan have a profound effect on levels of staff commitment, as demonstrated by thepotential loss of loyalty and trust in the organisation, feelings of insecurity, theimplementation of seemingly unfair downsizing processes and confusion over rolesand expectations — symptoms known collectively as "survivor syndrome". Failure toeffectively communicate direction and ensure legitimate, ongoing opportunities forstaff to be actively engaged in the process of restructuring, and ensure transparencyof decision making can damage the relationship between employers and employees,reducing the commitment staff feel towards their organisation.Symptoms of survivor sickness and a damaged psychological contract are evident atthe Otago Polytechnic with low levels of trust in management, continued feelings ofjob insecurity and resentment over the way in which the restructuring process wasboth planned and implemented. Staff feel strongly that there was insufficientinvolvement in the decision making process and that the views of staff were largelyignored. Feedback was considered inadequate. Despite surviving the restructuremany academic staff do not feel the organisation values them or their contribution toacademia. Work expectations, particularly for staff in restructured positions, remainundefined. As a result, organisational commitment appears to have droppedsignificantly post restructure, particularly for academic and restructured staff. Morepositively, survey findings indicate that staff across all groups have a relatively highlevel of organisational loyalty however staff comments indicate that this loyalty may bemore aligned with the individual's profession and the students in their care, ratherthan to the organisation itself. Nearly all staff believe that the future for the OtagoPolytechnic is getting brighter.57Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 63Doherty and Horsted (1995) advise that there is a lack of established best practice inthe management of survivors and most management programmes appear to deal withmatters almost exclusively from the organisational point of view. Managing changesuccessfully means addressing issues from both the organisational and the individualperspective. There is a clear sense that the restructuring was "done" to staff at theOtago Polytechnic rather than taking staff along with them, however, the ability of anyorganisation to gain 100 percent agreement to substantive change is questionable.Nevertheless, the survey findings indicate a number of areas the Otago Polytechniccould look at with the aim of reducing the incidence of, or alleviating the effects of

Page 64: Employee Restructuring

survivor responses to downsizing, both now and in the future, and thus help toenhance staff commitment. These are:Communication and consultation: Communication and consultation strategiesshould support both the planning and implementation stages of organisationalchange and offer scope for staff involvement and clarification prior, during andfollowing the restructuring process. The Otago Polytechnic adopted a wide rangeof communication strategies including staff forums, a web based information siteand detailed written documentation however, a number of part time andcontracted staff indicated that they did not always have access to this information(particularly web based) and the timing of staff meetings meant it was difficult toattend. Forum timings could be scheduled both in work time and out of worktime, to maximise the opportunity for these staff to attend. It may also benecessary to consider the wider circulation of written material and to set upcomputer access facilities in general staff areas.Human resource professionals should have a central role in ensuring thesuccessful implementation of downsizing strategies as they represent the keyinterface between management and employees. The human resource teamneeds to take responsibility for ensuring that the consultation strategies cover allgroups and information shared to senior management regarding individuals andtheir positions is accurate as there is evidence to suggest that some OtagoPolytechnic staff received incorrect information or did not receive informationregarding their role's continuation. It is important that management accessibilityafter downsizing is actually increased as it is during this time that staff needreassurance that the organisation supports and is committed to them.58Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 64• Decision-making and information sharing: Many staff indicated that they felttheir ideas and suggestions re the revised structure were largely ignored andfeedback was negligible. The involvement of staff in decision-making processescould be enhanced by ensuring more comprehensive feedback on proposals andby providing opportunities for further discussion and debate, even when ideas arenot considered feasible by the senior management team. The opportunity forwider debate on proposals would help demonstrate to staff they are seen asintegral to the change process and that it their ideas are seriously considered.• Clarifying future direction: Many staff indicated a lack of clarity overorganisational direction and do not have confidence in the senior managementteam to make sensible decisions for the future. Survivors need to be convincedthat the changes imposed on the organisation have clear benefits. They shouldbe able to see how their individual role fits with the objectives of the organisationand how they can contribute to ensuring its future success. Because the impactof major organisational change is ongoing, it is essential that senior managementmaintains its visibility and accessibility to staff post restructure. Senior staff needto demonstrate their commitment to the changes and be available to answerpeople's queries and concerns and provide ongoing support and encouragement.Changes need to be championedthe key players here.• Clarifying roles and job expectations: The survey highlighted that the majorityof academic staff in both restructured and non-restructured positions remainunclear about role expectations. The clarification of roles and responsibilities forstaff in both new and existing positions is essential to ensure the achievement of

Page 65: Employee Restructuring

organisational goals. In many cases, downsizing staff does not coincide with areduction in workload. Major downsizing programmes should be combined withwork process re-engineering to eliminate those aspects of employee workloadsthat are no longer necessary or that add little value. The establishment and/orrefinement of job descriptions and the introduction of performance objectives willhelp to provide role clarity and define expectations. Staff are more likely to haveconfidence in management if they can see that the changing work requirementshave been carefully considered.59Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 65Ongoing guidance and support from line managers who have responsibility forarticulating organisational objectives and implementing change strategies is alsonecessary. Although it may be difficult to get staff committed to the goals of theorganisation for the sake of the organisation, it may be possible to get employeesto work towards those same goals if they can be shown to be relevant to the staffmember's own personal career, profession or to their students. Attention needsto be paid to the training needs of staff in new roles to ensure their success and togive them the confidence to do what is needed. Regular feedback onperformance is an essential part of this process.Improving job security: Despite surviving the restructuring process, manyacademic staff in particular continue to feel insecure in their roles and fear furtherchanges. This feeling is compounded by the lack of clarity around roles andresponsibilities, particularly for staff in newly restructured positions. Humanresource management strategies could be strengthened to ensure that supportand assistance continues to be available to them post-restructure. Staffmember's personal transition into the new organisation could be eased byproviding professional development opportunities which will also have directorganisational benefits.It is acknowledged that because of the need to maintain commercial viability it isunlikely that the Otago Polytechnic can provide a guarantee of long-term jobsecurity. By increasing the emphasis on staff employability and providing trainingopportunities which support this strategy feelings of job insecurity may ease.Investment in staff can be demonstrated through the introduction of personalisedcareer planning processes, enhanced support and resources for training anddevelopment as well as providing opportunities for job enrichment throughsecondments and greater participation in determining organisational strategy.Clarification of roles and responsibilities also helps to ease feelings of jobinsecurity.60Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 66Valuing staff: Staff need to feel that the contribution they are making to theorganisation is recognised and that their expertise and experience is valued if theorganisation is to maintain their commitment. A high proportion of staff inrestructured positions indicated a sense of isolation following confirmation of theirnew roles and although this was combined with a sense of relief in many cases, alack of post-restructure support has meant that staff do not feel that theorganisation values them. Staff who do not feel valued may not perform to their

Page 66: Employee Restructuring

full potential and the achievement of organisational objectives can be inhibited.Regular communication of organisational goals, direction and value systems byboth line managers and the senior management team can help to better integratestaff into the new organisation.It may be necessary to redefine organisational values and determine thecongruence between those of individuals and those of the organisation. Thesuccess of the organisation will in part be determined by the ability of both theorganisation and its staff to collectively own and acknowledge the same valuesystem. There is an ongoing need to communicate what the organisation istrying to do, how it is going about it, and what the key priorities are.Building trust: Survey results indicate a high level of distrust in managementboth in terms of how honest staff feel management has been with them regardingthe changes and in their confidence in management to make sensible decisionsfor the future. It may be possible to rebuild this relationship over time by ensuringthat communications are transparent, they have greater opportunities to beinvolved in change management strategies and that management is seen to beaccountable for their performance. Many staff commented however that they hada renewed sense of confidence in the organisation with the arrival of the newChief Executive, given his open-door policy and "no blame" management style.This bodes well for the future.In summary, the impact of survivors' reactions on organisational commitment points tothe need for organisations to understand and respond to those strong determinants ofemployee commitment that are themselves affected by their own managerialstrategies and actions (Thornhill and Saunders, 1998). It is argued therefore, that theaim of organisations to ensure a committed workforce can only truly start to be61Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 67realised when management shows a willingness to acknowledge and learn from theprocesses it has been responsible for implementing. In addition to efforts to helpsurvivors, part of managerial efforts in rebuilding the organisation should include theevaluation and effectiveness of restructuring processes and revitalisation efforts. Anassessment of what went right and what went wrong may help prevent the need forfuture restructurings.62Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 68CHAPTER 8: 0 CI U lITIE FON :U URERESEARCH• A blanket survey of all staff within individual departments would be useful. Thereis anecdotal evidence to suggest that some departments felt more involved in theconsultation process than others did.• A further survey in another 12 months time of the same group of staff to see ifcommitment has changed. The need for longitudinal data when investigating theeffects of survivor responses cannot be overstated (Brockner, 1992; Allen,Freeman, Russell and Rentz, 2001)A study of those staff that have left the Otago Polytechnic following the restructure

Page 67: Employee Restructuring

to assess whether the process adopted by the Polytechnic influenced theirdecision to leave.63Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 69REFERENC,1. Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990) The measurement of antecedents ofaffective, continuance and normative commitment to the organisation. Journalof Occupational Psychology, 63, p1-18.2. Allen, P. (1997) Minimising employee layoffs while downsizing: employerpractices that work. International Journal of Manpower, 18(7), p576-596.3. Allen, T. D.; Freeman, D. M.; Russell, J. E.; Reizenstein, R. C. and Rentz. J.0. (2001) Survivor reactions to organisational downsizing: Does time ease thepain? Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74, p145-164.4. Appelbaum, S. H and Donia, M. (2000) The realistic downsizing preview: amanagement intervention in the prevention of survivor syndrome (part 1).Career Development International, 5(7), p333-350.5. Appelbaum, S. H; Delage, C.; Labib, N.; Gault, G. (1997) "The Survivorsyndrome: aftermath of downsizing. Career Development International, 2(6),p278-286.6. Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2002) Designated redundant but escaping lay-off: Aspecial group of lay-off survivors. Journal of Occupational and OrganisationalPsychology, 75(1), p1-13.7. Argyrous, G. (1997) Statistics for Social Research. MacMillan Press Ltd,Hampshire.8. Astrachan, J. H. (2004) Organisational departures: the impact of separationanxiety as studied in a mergers and acquisitions simulation. Journal ofApplied Behavioural Science, 17(1), p91.9. Baruch, Y. and VVinkelmann-Gleed, A. (2002) Multiple Commitments: AConceptual Framework and Empirical Investigation in a Community HealthService Trust. British Journal of Management, 13, p337-357.64Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 7010. Baruch, Y.; Hind, P. (2000) "Survivor syndrome" – a management myth?Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1), p29-45.11. Beaumont, P. and Harris, R. (2002) Examining white-collar downsizing as acause of change in the psychological contract. Employee Relations, 24(4),p378.12. Boroson, W. and Burgess, L. (1992) Survivors' Syndrome. Across the Board,29(11), p41.13. Brockner, J. (1992) Managing the effects of layoffs on survivors. CaliforniaManagement Review, 34(2), p9-28.14. Burke, R. and Nelson, D. (1997) Downsizing and restructuring. Lessons fromthe firing line for revitalising organisations. Leadership and OrganisationalDevelopment Journal, 8(7).15. Cameron, K. (1994) Strategies for successful organisational downsizing.Human Resource Management, 33(2), p189-211

Page 68: Employee Restructuring

16. Cooper, C. L & Rousseau, D. M. (1994) Trends in Organisational Behaviour,Vol. 1. John Wiley and Sons Publishers, Chichester.17. Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (1998) Business Research Methods, IrwinMcGraw-Hill, Singapore.18. Doherty, N. and Horsted, J. (1995) Helping survivors to stay on board. PeopleManagement, 1(1), p26-31.19. Dolan, S; Belout, A , Balkin, D. (2000) Downsizing without downgrading;learning how firms manage their survivors. International Journal of Manpower,21(1), p34-46.20. Elizur, D. and Koslowsky, M. (2001) Values and organisational commitment.International Journal of Manpower, 22(7), p593-599.65Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 7121. Flint, D. H. (2003) Downsizing in the public sector; Metro-Toronto's hospitals.Journal of Health Organisation and Management, 17(6), p438-456.22. Guest, D. E. (1999) Human resource management – the workers' verdict.Human Resource Management Journal, 3(3), p5.23. Harris, L. & McGrady, A. (1999) Local government reorganisation – rules,responsibilities and renegotiation. Strategic Change, 8(2).24. Herriot, P (1992) The Career Management Challenge: Balancing Individualand Organisational Needs, Sage, London.25. Hiltrop, J. (1996) Managing the changing Psychological contract. EmployeeRelations, 18(1), p36.26. Holbeche, L. (1998) Motivating people in lean organisations.Oxford,Butterworth Heinemann.27. Holm, S. and Hovland, J. (1999) Waiting for the other shoe to drop: Help forthe job-insecure employee. Journal of Employment Counselling, 36(4), p156-166.28. Howitt, D. and Cramer, D. (1999) A guide to computing statistics with SPSSfor Windows. Pearson Education Ltd, Essex.29. Jankowicz, A.D. (2000). Business research projects (3rd edition). London:Business Press Thomson Learning.30. Kinnie, N.; Hutchinson, S.; Purcell, J. (1998). Downsizing: is it always lean andmean? Personnel Review, 27(4), p296-311.31. Makawatsakul, N. and Kleiner, B. (2003) The effect of downsizing on moraleand attrition. Management Research News, 26(2/3/4).66Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 7232. Mangione, T. W. (1995) Mail Surveys – Improving the quality. Applied SocialResearch Methods Series, Vol. 40. Sage Publications, London.33. Mathys, N. J. and Burack, E.H. (1993) Strategic downsizing: HAM planningapproaches. HR: Human Resource Planning, 16(1), p71.34. McGovern, P., Stiles, P., and Hope, V. (1996) The flexible psychologicalcontract? Career management in an era of insecurity. ManagementResearch News, 19(4/5), p81-84.35. McLean Parks, J. and Kidder, D. (1994) "Til death us do part...." Changing

Page 69: Employee Restructuring

work relationships. Trends in Organisational Behaviour, Volume 1, Edited byCooper, C and Rousseau, D. John Wiley & Sons Publishers, Chichester.36. Meyer, J. P and Allen (1984) Testing the side bet theory of organisationalcommitment: some methodological considerations. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 69, p372-8.37. Meyer, J. P and Herscovitch, L. (2001) Commitment in the workp(ace. Towarda general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, p299-326.38. Mishra, A. and Spreitzer, G. (1998) Explaining how survivors respond todownsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice and work resign.Academy of Management Review, 23, p567-588.39. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) Employee-Organisation Linkages. ThePsychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic Press,New York.40. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. and Porter, L. W. (1979) The Measurement ofOrganisational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14, p224-247.41. Newell, H. and Dopson, S. (1996) Muddle in the middle; organisationalrestructuring and middle management careers. Personnel Review, 25(4).67Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 7342. Nunnally, J.C., and Bernstein, I. (1994) Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill,New York.43. Obilade, S. (1998) Redefining loyalty: Motivational strategies and employeeloyalty in an era of downsizing. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship,1(1), p 31.44. Price, J. L. (2000) Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover.International Journal of Manpower, 22(7).45. Robbins, S. (1999) Layoff survivor sickness: A missing topic in organisationalbehaviour. Journal of Management Education, 23(1), p31-43.46. Robinson, S. and Rousseau, D. (1994) Violating the psychological contract:Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol.15(3), p245.47. Rousseau, D. M. (1995) Psychological contracts in Organisations.Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements. Sage Publications, Inc.London.48. Schein, E. A. (1978) Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and OrganisationalNeeds. Addison-Wesley Publishers, Reading.49. Singh, V and Vinnicombe, S (1998) What does "commitment" really mean?Views of UK and Swedish engineering managers. Personnel Review, 29(2).50. Smithson, J. and Lewis, S. (2000) Is job insecurity changing the psychologicalcontract? Personnel Review, 29(6), p680.51. Somers, M and Birnbaum, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship betweencommitment profiles and work attitudes, employee withdrawal, and jobperformance. Public Personnel Management, 39(3), p353.68Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 7452. Sparrow, P.; Cooper, C. L. (1998) New Organisational Forms: The StrategicRelevance of Future Psychological contract Scenarios. Canadian Journal of

Page 70: Employee Restructuring

Administrative Sciences, 15(4), p356.53. Spreitzer, A. & Mishra, A (2002) To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnoverfollowing an organisational downsizing. Journal of Organisational Behaviour,23(6), p707-729.54. Steers, R. M. (1974) Antecedents and outcomes of organisationalcommitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22.55. Stiles, P.: Grafton, L.; Truss, C.; Hope-Hailey, V.; McGovern, P. (1997)Performance management and the psychological contract. Human ResourceManagement Journal, 7(1), p57-66.56. Stiles, P.; Gratton, L. Truss, C.; Hope-Hailey, V.; McGovern, P. (1997)Performance management and the psychological contract. Human ResourceManagement Journal, 7(1).57. Thornhill, A. and Gibbons, A. (1995) The positive management of redundancysurvivors: issues and lessons. Employee Counselling Today, 7(3), p5-1258. Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M. N. K. (1998) The meanings, consequences andimplications of the management of downsizing and redundancy: a review.Personnel Review, 27(4), p271-295.59. Thornhill, A.; Saunders, M.; Stead, J. (1997) Downsizing, delayering – butwhere's the commitment? The development of a diagnostic tool to helpmanage survivors. Personnel Review, 26(1/2), p81.60. Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D. C. (1998) Psychological contract Violationsduring corporate restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37(1).69Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 75APPS i JX70Organisational commitment at the Otago PolytechnicChristine Theissen ID 5484725MBUS Project, October 2004

Page 76

OIAGOPOIXTFCI \ICDUNEDIN NEW ZEALANDA VERY SMART CAREER VE

staff support StrategyPage 77

Otago Polytechnic Business Recovery ProjectStaff Support StrategyPurposeTo outline the staff support activities that have been identified to reduce the negative

Page 71: Employee Restructuring

consequences of the business recovery process.Generic Staff Support ActivitiesStaff Assistance ProgrammeThe Staff Assistance Programme is a programme designed to provide an avenue forstaff to resolve personal problems that are impactin g on their work and lives.Otago Polytechnic has contracts with 3 counselling providers. Staff may use theseproviders, or a provider of their choice. Ota go Polytechnic will pay for a maximum of3 sessions. Staff may self-select a provider or discuss options with our SAPCoordinator,- (025 340 243 or ext 8340).Our preferred providers are:Delta Psychology, 4745155Psychology Associates (Dunedin), 4555622Psychotherapy Centre (Dunedin, Cromwell, Queenstown, Oamaru), 4790996Industrial Chaplainis available to support staffis located in the student centre andcan be contacted on 8094.office hours are 9am-lpm Monday – Thursday.Support for Staff made Redundant / Considering Voluntary SeveranceCareer CounsellingCareer Services are offering daily seminars during the week 13 October. Theseseminars are designed to introduce participants to some of the factors useful in careerdecision making. The seminars will cover identification of marketable skills, workvalues and will consider the skills required to navi gate an uncertain future. Resourceswill also be provided.The followin g sessions have been scheduled:DayTimeLocationMonday, 13 October3:00pmG106Tuesday, 14 October4:00pmG106Wednesday, 15 October12noonG106Thursday, 16 October4:00pmG106

Page 78Friday, 17 October9:00amG106Cromwell:DayTime3:15 – 4:00pthLocation

Page 72: Employee Restructuring

TBCWednesday, 22 OctoberIn addition Career Services will be available on-site to conduct confidential 1/2 hoursessions with individuals wishing to discuss their decision-making. Bookings can bemade by contactingon ext 8007 or [email protected]. The followin g times are available:Day/2 timeslots betweenLocationMonday, 13 October9am-4.30pmH115Tuesday, 14 October9am-4.30pmH317aWednesday, 15 October9am-4.30pmH115Thursday, 16 October9am-4,30pmH115Friday, 17 October9am-4.30pmH115Cromwell:DayTimeLocationTBCWednesday, 22 October4:00 - 5:30pmStaff in Daman' will be provided with transport to attend the sessions in Dunedin.CV writing support will be provided to those staff who are involved in the selectionprocess.Career counselling and CV writing expertise will be available to staff whoseemployment is terminated either voluntarily or involuntarily as a result of the BRP.Financial Planning

Financial planning sessions will be available for staff durin g the week beginning 13October 2003. Information will be provided on financial plannin g and work andincome entitlements. The following sessions have been scheduled:DayTimeLocationMonday, 13 October2:00pmH127Tuesday, 14 October12noonH127Wednesday, 15 October10:00amH513

Page 73: Employee Restructuring

Thursday, 16 October2:00pmH127Friday, 17 October2:00pm0106Financial planning expertise will be available to staff whose employment isterminated either voluntarily or involuntarily as a result of the BRP.

Page 79Information PacksStaff who whose employment is terminated will receive information regarding thefollowing:• Their entitlements under our policies and/or employment agreement• An outline of common responses to redundancy and some coping strategies• A SAP brochure• Contact information for financial planning / career counselling and theChaplain.Proactive SAP SupportStaff whose employment has been terminated involuntarily will be contacted by theSAP coordinator. The purpose of this contact will be to "check-in" with the personand to offer and arrange SAP support.Leaving CeremoniesManagers should consider and discuss with the staff member the most appropriatefoi in of leaving ceremony e g staff morning tea etc and, if necessary, the mostappropriate way of informin g the wider internal and external polytechnic community.Manager SupportManagers have available to them SAP for professional supervisions. Managers areencouraged to discuss concerns or issues that emerge within their naturally occurringpeer groups.Managers will be responsible for carrying much of the business recovery processes.During this process, close support will be provided by the HR Department with step-by-step guidance.A clear process will be provided with checklists and guidelines.Human Resources SupportStaff may contact Human Resources at any time to answer queries about employmentconditions or the implementation process.To obtain an approximate redundancy calculation contact PayrollHuman Resource contacts are as follows:Extension 8239Extension 8406Extension [email protected]@tekotago.ac.nztekotaao.ac.nzPayrollExtension [email protected]

Page 80Staff RepresentationAt any stage staff may obtain independent advice and representation. This includes

Page 74: Employee Restructuring

the unions on site (ASTE TIASA). The Union contacts are:ASTEBranch ChairPh 479 3677 or ext 3677Assistant Secretary — Southern RegionPh 027 229 5570TIASATIASA ExecutivePh 479 6160 or ext 8381Chief ExecutivePh 07 346 1989

Page 81APPENDIX 2Reporting Sheet for use ONLY for proposals considered at departmental levelUYIV,.RS/TY

OTAGETI11,-Ak, APPROVAL AT DEPARTMENTAL LEVEL OF APROPOSAL. INVOLVING HU N PARTICIPANTS (CATEGORY B)PLEASE read the important notes appended to this form before completing the sections belowNAME OF DEPARTMENT:Department of Management, Otago UniversityTITLE OF PROJECT:The impact of organisational restructuring on employeecommitment at the Otago Polytechnic.PROJECTED START DATE OF PROJECT:Monday 22nd June 2004STAFF ME ER RESPONSIBLE FOR PROJECT: Christine TheissenNAMES OF OTHER PARTICIPATING STAFF:Not applicableBRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Please give a brief summary (approx. 200 words) ofthe nature of the proposal:-The purpose of this study is to:1. Assess the impact of organisational restructuring and subsequent downsizing on employeecommitment at the Otago Polytechnic.2. Compare levels of commitment between those directly affected by organisationalrestructuring/downsizing (i.e. survivors) and those who were unaffected directly (i.e. non-survivors).3. Explore the link between the psychological contract (the unwritten agreement between employeesand employers) and restructuring and how these impact on employee commitment.\The method of data collection used in this study is the survey. Organisational commitment and thepsychological contract are measured using previously developed measures of these constructs.Organisation commitment is measured using a nine item measure adapted from the work of Mowday,Porter and Steers, 1979). This measure has previously been found to be both a reliable and validmeasure of commitment.

Page 82APPENDIX 2Reporting Sheet or use ONLY for proposals considered at departmental levelThe psychological contract is appraised using part of a study by staff at Birkbeck College designed tomonitor the state of the employment relationship. Questions utilised relate specifically to assessingperceptions of fairness, trust and the extent to which management is believed to be delivering on itspromises and commitments. The United Kingdom Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD)have used the full survey annually since 1997. It was first evaluated and findings of the full survey

Page 75: Employee Restructuring

published by Guest and Conway in the same year.The relationship between the restructuring process and these two constructs will be explored byasking respondents to answer a series of open-ended questions.Survivor syndrome will be detected through a series of questions designed from the findings ofseveral studies including the work of Brockner (1992), Baruch and Hind (2000), Rizzo, House andLirtzman and Newall and Dopson (1996).A random sample of employees have been sought to participate in this study. The sample willcomprise those employees that have been directly affected by the restructuring process and also thoseemployees that were not directly affected. The analysis will involve comparing the data from thesetwo groups to establish if any differences exist. Survey findings will be analysed and findings usedto consider how organisations might improve the process of restructuring in order to maintain and/orstrengthen employee commitment.DETAILS OF ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVED: Please give details of any ethical issues whichwere identified during the consideration of the proposal and the way in which these issues were dealtwith or resolved:-No ethical issues have been determined. Participation is entirely voluntary and the proposed datacollection means that staff cannot be identified.ACTION TAKENqApproved by Head of Department q Approved by Departmental CommitteeqReferred to University of Otago Human Ethics Committee q Referred to another Ethics CommitteePlease specify:DATE OF CONSIDERATION: ........ ....... ........ ......Signed (Head of Department): . .... ..... .............. ........................Please attach copies of any Information Sheet and/or Consent Form2

Page 83APPENDIX 2Reporting Sheet for use ONLY for proposals considered at departmeotal levelNotes concerning Category B Reporting Sheets1. This form should only be used for proposals which are Category B as defined in the policy document "Policy onethical practices in research and teaching involving human participants", and which may therefore be properlyconsidered and approved at departmental level;2.A proposal can only be classified as Category B if NONE of the following is involved:-Personal information - any information about an individual who may be identifiable from the data once ithas been recorded in some lasting and usable format, or from any completed research;(Note: this does not include information such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, or othercontact details needed for a limited time for practical purposes but which is unlinked to research dataand destroyed once the details are no longer needed)The taking or handling of any form of tissue or fluid sample from humans or cadavers;Any form of physical or psychological stress;•Situations which might place the safety of participants or researchers at any risk;•The administration or restriction of food, fluid or a drug to a participant;•A potential conflict between the applicant's activities as a researcher, clinician or teacher and their interests

Page 76: Employee Restructuring

as a professional or private individual;•The participation of minors or other vulnerable individuals;•Any form of deception which might threaten an individual's emotional or psychological well-being.If any of the above is involved, then the proposal is Category A. and must be submitted in full to the University ofOtago Human Ethics Committee using the standard Category A application form, and before the teaching orresearch commences;3.A separate form should be completed for each teaching or research proposal which involves human participants andfor which ethical approval has been considered or given at Departmental level;4.The completed form, together with copies of any Information Sheet or Consent Form, should be returned to theManager Academic Committees or the Academic Committees Assistant, Registry, as soon as the proposal hasbeen considered at departmental level;5.The Information Sheet and Consent Form should NOT include the statement "This proposal has been reviewed andapproved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee" as this is inappropriate for Category B proposals.A statement such as statement "This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the Department of ....., Universityof Otago" may however be used;6.Please ensure the Consent Form and the Information Sheet have been carefully proofread; the institution as a wholeis likely to be judged by them;7.A Category B proposal may commence as soon as departmental approval has been obtained. No correspondencewill be received back from the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee concerning this Reporting Sheetunless the Committee has concerns;8.This form is available electronically at the following web address:http://telperion.otago.ac.nz/acadcommicategoryb.html

3

Page 84APPENDIX 2Reporting Sheet for use ONLY for propcnsidered at departmental level22nd June 2004THE I ACT OF ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING ON E 'LOYEECOMMITMENT AT THE OTAGO POLYTECHNICINFORMATION SHEET FOR[PARTICIPANTS or PARENTS / GUAMANS ETC.]Thank you for showing an interest in this project. Please read this information sheet carefullybefore deciding whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate we thank you. Ifyou decide not to take part there will be no disadvantage to you of any kind and we thank youfor considering our request.What is the Aim of the Project?This project is being undertaken as part of the requirements for the Masters in BusinessDegree at Otago University.The purpose of this study is to:1. Assess the impact of organisational restructuring and subsequent downsizing on employeecommitment at the Otago Polytechnic.2. Compare levels of commitment between those directly affected by organisationalrestructuring/downsizing (i.e. survivors) and those who were unaffected directly (i.e. non-survivors).3. Explore the link between the psychological contract (The unwritten agreement betweenemployees and employers) and restructuring and how these impact on employeecommitment.What Type of Participants are being sought?

Page 77: Employee Restructuring

A random cross section of Otago Polytechnic academic and non-academic staff members whomay or may not have been directly involved in or affected by the restructuring process havebeen asked to participate in the study.What will Participants be Asked to Do?Should you agree to take part in this project, you will be asked to complete a written surveyinvolving a series of short answer questions and statements designed to assess your views onthe process of restructuring and how you feel as an employee of the organisation. The surveyshould take no longer than 20 minutes to complete.4

Page 85APPENDIX 2Reporting Sheet for use ONLY for proposals considered at departmental levelCan Participants Change their Mind and Withdraw from the Project?You may withdraw from participation in the project at any time and without any disadvantageto yourself of any kind.What Data or Information will be collected and What Use will be Made of it?The summary findings will be made available to the Senior Management Team of the OtagoPolytechnic in order that they may reflect on the process taken by them during the restructureand to assist with future planning. Completed survey sheets will only be viewed by me andonce analysed will be destroyed. No identifiable data is included.Results of this project may be published but any data included will in no way be linked to anyspecific participant.You are most welcome to request a copy of the results of the project should you wish.The data collected will be securely stored in such a way that only those mentioned above willbe able to gain access to it. At the end of the project any personal infotniation will bedestroyed immediately except that, as required by the University's research policy, any rawdata on which the results of the project depend will be retained in secure storage for fiveyears, after which it will be destroyed.What if Participants have any Questions?If you have any questions about our project, either now or in the future, please feel free tocontact either:-Christine Theissen or Dr Fiona EdgarOtago Polytechnic Department of ManagementTelephone Number: 479 6064 University Telephone Number: 479 80915

Page 86APPENDIX 2Reporting Sheet for use ONLY for proposals considered at departmental levelTHE IMPACT OF ORGANISATIONAL RESTRUCTURING ON EMPLOYEECOMMITMENT AT THE OTAGO POLYTECHNIC [CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTSI have read the Information Sheet concerning this project and understand what it is about. Allmy questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I am free to requestfurther infoimation at any stage.I know that:-1. My participation in the project is entirely voluntary;2. I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without any disadvantage;

Page 78: Employee Restructuring

3. The data will be destroyed at the conclusion of the project but any raw data on which theresults of the project depend will be retained in secure storage for five years, after whichit will be destroyed;4. The results of the project may be published and available in the library but every attemptwill be made to preserve my anonymity.I agree to take part in this project.......... ........ ..................... ...... ........ ..... ....................(Signature of participant) (D ate )7

Page 87ArfEND/1 aUNIVERSITY

al AG 0To Whore no,c1,:longo o Olago

25th June 2004Dear Staff MemberI am writing to ask if you would be prepared to fill out the attached survey, which is part of myMasters in Business degree research project on assessing the impact of organisationalrestructuring on employee commitment. This research proposal has been reviewed andapproved by Phil Ker, Chief Executive Officer at the Otago Polytechnic and by the University ofOtago Ethics Committee.A random cross section of Otago Polytechnic academic and non-academic staff members whomay or may not have been directly involved in or affected by the restructuring process havebeen asked to participate in the study.The survey consists of a number of short answer questions followed by a series of statementsthat I would ask you to read and tick the answer which best reflects your view. The surveyshould take no longer than 20 minutes to complete. Your identity in this research is anonymous.Your responses are completely confidential and will only be viewed by myself. Once I haveanalysed these results all survey forms will be destroyed.The summary findings will be made available to the Senior Management Team at the OtagoPolytechnic in order that they may reflect on processes taken by them during the restructure andto assist with future planning. Results are also available to you on request.Once you have completed the survey, please send to the Management Department, Universityof Otago in the attached prepaid envelope. In order that the results may be collated promptly. Iwould be grateful if you would complete and return this by Friday 9th July 2004.As your participation in this research is voluntary. I would like to take this opportunity to thankyou for assisting me with this study. It is hoped that the findings will provide a valuable insight into how organisations can improve planning processes for employees during restructuring.Should you have any queries regarding this survey, or if you would like further informationplease feel welcome to contact me by email: CTheissenRtekotago.ac.nz or by telephone on479 6064.With kind regards.Yours sincerely--Christine TheissenEncl.Department of ManagementPO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.Tel 64 3 479 8125 Fax 64 3 479 8173 Email [email protected] = CHR'STCHURCHWELLINGTON

• AUCKLAND

Page 79: Employee Restructuring

Page 88APPENDIX 3SURVEYThe impact of organisational restructuring on employee commitment at the Otago PolytechnicGeneral Position (please circle)AcademicNon-AcademicWas your department restructured?YesNoGender:Age:Was your position directly affected by restructuring?YesNoLength of timein current position:Length of time asPolytechnic employee:Full time staff(please circle as appropriate)Part time staff(please circle as appropro,Organisational restructuring — impact on employees1.In your view, was there sufficient consultation within the Otago Polytechnic about the changes taking placeand how they were likely to affect you?More thansufficientSufficientInsufficientPlease qualify your answer.2.Did you receive sufficient information about the future status/directions of your department/work groupfollowing the restructure?More thansufficientSufficientInsufficientPlease qualify your answer.

Page 89APPENDIX 33. (a) How would you rate your level of commitment to the organisation prior to restructuring?HighNeutralLow(b) How would you rate your level of commitment to the organisation now?HighNo changeLowIf your level of commitment has changed, what was it about the process of restructuring that has affected your level of commitment to the organisation?4. How secure do you feel in your current position? (please circle)VerysecureFairlysecureSameasbeforeFairlyinsecureVeryinsecureCan the organisation do anything to help improve how you feel?In your view is the relationship between management and employees better now than before therestructure?Much

Page 80: Employee Restructuring

betterSlightlybetterSameasbeforeWorseMuchworseIn what way has it changed?

Page 90APPENDIX 3With respect to your own feelings about the workplace in which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreementwith each statement by ticking the most appropriate box:QUESTIONSStronglyAgreeAgreeNeitherAgree orDisagreeDisagreeStronglyDisagree1I really care about the fate of this organisation2. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organisation3. This organisation really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance4, I feel very little loyalty to this organisation5. Often I find it difficult to agree with this organisation's policies on mportant matters relating to itsemployees6. I am extremely glad that I chose this organisation to work for over others I was considering at thetime I joined.7. There is not too much to be gained by sticking with this organisation indefinitely8. I would be willing to accept almost any type of work assignment to stay with this organisation9. It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organisation10. I believe that the restructuring process at Otago Polytechnic was fair and just11. I was given ample opportunity to participate in decisions that would affect my work area12. Otago Polytechnic has clear, planned goals and objectives13. I bel eve in the goals of the organisation and what it is trying to do for the future14. I have a clear understanding of what the organisat on expects of me in my current role15. I feel secure in my job at the Polytechnic16. I feel that the Otago Polytechnic values the contribution I am making to it17. I trust senior management to make sensible decisions for the organisation's future18. The Otago Polytechnic has always kept its promises or commitments to me about the demands ofmy job19. I feel that management planned the changes to the organisation carefully20. I feel that my line manager has done all they can to help me understand exactly what is expectedof me following the changes to the organisation21. I believe that management has been at least as honest with bad news as good news aboutchanges to the organisation22. I feel that the future for the organisation is getting brighter

Page 91APPENDIX 3Do you have any additional comments that you would like to make about the restructuring process that was undertaken at the Otago Polytechnic? (Continue onseparate paper if you wish)Many thanks for taking the time to complete this survey.4