Upload
lamthien
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UFHRD Conference 2015University College Cork, Ireland
Is anybody listening? How universities resist change despite evidence to the contrary.
FULL PAPER
STREAM:Leadership, Management and Talent Development
Authors:Dr Ceridwyn Bessant, Associate Dean, International for the Faculty of Business and Law,
Northumbria University.Email for correspondence:
Professor Sharon Mavin, Director of Roehampton Business School.
1
Abstract
Purpose - To outline a framework of isomorphic and contextual ‘influences’ on the adoption of evidence-based HRM/D and illustrate how this can be applied in the context of academic line management in UK HEIs.
Design/Methodology – Conceptual and theoretical paper which reviews approaches to evidence-based research and research into the challenges facing academic line managers in UK HEIs to develop a framework to explain the issues of adopting evidence-based HRM/D.
Findings – Contextual and isomorphic influences can have a significant impact on the extent to which evidence-based HRM/D is adopted or considered in organizational settings. Evidence-based HRM/D research in particular needs to pay greater attention to the isomorphic, organizational, individual and presentational barriers to implementation in organizations.
Implications for practice – Attention to the barriers to implementation of evidence-based HRM/D and in particular the isomorphic, organizational, individual and presentational barriers could assist both academics and practitioners in understanding the specific contextual challenges of implementing change. It is suggested that this proposition needs to be tested empirically.
Originality/value – Makes a contribution to evidence-based (HRM/D) research through the creation and application of an original framework of influences developed from the EBM literature.
Keywords isomorphism, context, evidence-based HRM/D research, UK HEIs
2
Is anybody listening? How universities resist change despite evidence to the contrary.
Introduction
This exploratory paper raises important questions about the failure of organizations to
respond to the challenges presented to them through evidence-based HRD research. This
is illustrated by considering a body of research into the line management of academics in
UK Higher Education Institutions (UK HEIs). The paper contributes to the ongoing
debate about how evidence-based HRD research can positively impact on management
practice. In so doing it highlights the significance of organizational and sector context
and isomorphism as barriers to the implementation of evidence-based management
(EBM) practice. Here we develop a new framework that highlights the inhibiting and
sometimes contradictory influences of isomorphic pressures alongside organizational
conditions, and individual and presentational (of research) issues that should be
considered when developing evidence-based management research. While evidence-
based HRD can present coercive and persuasive arguments in favour of the adoption of
new organizational practices, the failure of organizations to introduce these new practices
has led to concerns over the relationship between research and practice and the extent to
which the two can work together effectively.
The paper explores these issues by reference to academic line-management issues in UK
HEIs arguing that despite a significant body of empirically derived findings into the
failings and challenges of HRD and line management in the UK university sector,
response has been slow and inconsistent. In beginning to explain the reasons for this, the
framework illustrates how issues about both the form and presentation of evidence-based
research and the ways in which individual, cultural and institutional barriers in HEIs can
act as a counter-balance to contrary evidence for change. The paper concludes that while
the EBM literature makes reference to a number of reasons why EBM implementation is
problematic, research itself does not always take sufficient account of how to overcome
the barriers to implementation, preferring to focus on the identification of organizational
3
problems and their impacts, alongside potential solutions, but without due attention to
implementation challenges.
The paper begins by considering evidence-based management and the barriers of
implementation and develops a framework of influences on the adoption of EBM in
organizations. A body of work into the line management of academics in UK HEIs is
then discussed, illustrating the framework in action as a means by which to further
understand the lack of organizational adoption of EBM.
Defining evidence-based management
Evidence-based management has become a popular subject for discussion in academic
journals in recent times. There are many definitions that are thematically consistent in
positioning EBM as the organizational adoption of best practice principles based on
evidence. Two definitions are useful in the context of this paper. Firstly, evidence-based
management as:
“Translating principles based on best evidence into organizational practices. Through evidence-based management, practicing managers develop into experts who make organizational decisions informed by social science and organizational research–part of the zeitgeist moving professional decisions away from personal preference and unsystematic experience toward those based on the best available scientific evidence” (Rousseau, 2006: 256).
Of interest here is the explicit reference to a move away from personal preference
and unsystematic experience. Secondly, a broader understanding derived from evidence-
based medicine where the accepted definition is a combination of research, clinical
expertise and patient choice (Kitson, Harvey and McCormack, 1998:150). Here evidence-
based management:
“Is about making decisions through the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of four sources of information: practitioner expertise and judgment, evidence from the local context, a critical evaluation of the best available research evidence, and the perspectives of those people who might be affected by the decision” (Briner, Denyer, and Rousseau, 2009:19).
What this definition brings is a more granular recognition that practitioner experience and
judgement aligned to local evidence in combination with input from those who will be
involved in any changes in practice, together determine the decision-making process.
4
This is a useful addition as in general the explicit use of context does not significantly
feature in the broader debate about evidence-based management.
Problems with evidence-based management
A constant theme in the EBM literature is the failure of academic research to influence
changes in organizational behavior, with a number of explanations as to why EBM is not
as widely adopted as might be expected. Bartunek et al. (2014) refer to a range of
‘tensions’ regarding the academic-practitioner gap, including different logics, time
dimensions, communication practices, interests and incentives. In particular they
comment on the issue of rigor and relevance, aligned to distinctions between Mode 1 and
Mode 2 research (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998) and the extent to which these two issues
are compatible or mutually exclusive. This is not the place to pursue this well-trodden
path other than to suggest that if academics cannot agree on how EBM should work and
the ways in which mode 2 research can address issues of rigor and relevance, then it is
unlikely that practitioners will be particularly concerned about the issue. Bartunek et al.
(2014:1188) explain that most academic reporting of the tensions inherent in EBM is
carried out by academics, and while it may concern the relationship between practitioners
and academics, “most of the discussion is actually about—and aimed at—other
academics, and whether or not the other academics hold what the author considers the
proper viewpoint (Augier & March, 2007; Bennis & O’Toole, 2005)”. They note the
comparative lack of practitioner contribution to the debate, suggesting that academics
themselves are speaking on behalf of what they ‘perceive’ to be practitioner viewpoints.
An alternative vein of discussion explores the reward and recognition mechanisms of
academics and the ways in which these conflict with the adoption of practitioner-
oriented, evidence-based research studies. Again this is not a theme to be explored in
detail here but the dilemma for evidence-based research is encapsulated by Bennis and
O’Toole (2005: 100) who explain that an academic who publishes in most highly ranked
quantitative academic journals is “considered a star”, while an academic who publishes
in more professional journals, accessible to practitioners, “risks being denied tenure”.
Garman, (2011), himself a practitioner, reinforces the cultural and reward
differences between the two worlds of academia and practice in more direct language
5
stating that they “guarantee the irrelevance of most scholarly work to anyone except
other scholars. In relation to practitioners his implication is that the nature of
engagement with organizational problems is fundamentally different and that, “managers
rarely frame their dilemmas and decisions in ways that lend themselves to scholarly
inquiry, find little reason to subject their own research to the peer review process, and
rarely look to academia for practical insights” (2011:129).
Despite Hughes et al.’s (2008) assertion that HR and Accountancy are better
suited than some other disciplines to the adoption of EBM, this is not necessarily the case
in practice. In respect of HR, Lawler (2007:1033) cautions that although ‘best practice’ is
an oft-used term, in reality it is fraught with problems and often lacking in evidence to
support such a claim, and that where evidence does exist it can be contradictory, “In
short, most organizations do not practice evidence-based human resource management.
As a result, they often underperform with respect to their key stakeholders: employees,
investors, and the community”. While this can be seen as a critique of evidence-based
research and implementation, it opens up possibilities for more meaningful engagement.
Lawler goes on to say explain some of the challenges for evidence-based HR research
and highlights the transactional and administrative nature of much of what happens in HR
departments, which does not lend itself to “the utilization of scientific knowledge”.
While HR has a more strategic role to play, his premise is that the administrative and
day-to-day transactional responsibilities and activities of HR departments end up
dominating their agendas.
Rynes, Colbert and Brown (2002:149) put forward a number of possibilities why
organizations do not change their HR practices even where research shows them to be
ineffective, suggesting that HR professionals are so busy that they do not have time to
read academic research journals - a view confirmed by Guest and Zilstra (2012:544) who
suggest that ‘very few HR managers read academic journals and were more likely to get
information from colleagues or websites’; that academic journals are written in technical,
complex and inaccessible styles; that the things that academics find interesting may be
perceived as irrelevant by practitioners; or because of scepticism about the evidence, as
“HR is especially susceptible to short-term fads” (Guest, 2007:1023). Alternatively,
building on the proposition of Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) that the failure to convert
6
evidence-based findings into organizational process change is a “knowing-doing” gap
rather than a “knowing” gap, Rynes et al (2002:150) suggest that even where HR
practitioners are aware of the research they fail to change practices for more complex
reasons ‘such as overwork, risk aversion, political considerations or organizational
inertia’, with Guest (2006) adding there may well be financial constraints and more
pressing organizational priorities.
Additionally, Pfeffer and Sutton (2006), Rousseau (2006) and Guest (2007)
suggest there are personal issues that may influence an individual’s willingness to accept
external findings and change individual practice, such as innate trust in their own implicit
judgment and knowledge; their experience, skills and reputation; adherence to dogmatic
beliefs and a mimicry of other top performers derived from business books and
consultants - all of which could be flawed. In addition, at the individual level evidence-
based management can be a threat to managerial autonomy, power, prestige and decision-
making autonomy and choice (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006; Rousseau 2006). Finally, they
suggest that evidence-based management can be problematic for managers because
there’s simply too much evidence for any manager to access and weigh up; there’s too
little good evidence, and it’s often contextually non-specific.
Rousseau (2006) also suggests that part of the problem derives from the failure of
management educators to teach evidence-based curricula, as a consequence of what
Trank and Rynes (2005:189) refer to as ‘de-professionalization’ which arises as a result
of pressures on resources aligned to a need to popularize the curricula, which leads to
academic dumbing down, a greater emphasis on vocationalism and an obsession with the
pursuit of good student satisfaction ratings. On a linked theme, Guest suggests that HR
Managers are more likely to turn to management gurus who communicate ideas through
good timing, good storytelling and effective marketing, seduced by “novelty, emotional
appeal, perceived relevance and promises of pay-off”, Guest (2006:1024).
Isomorphism and evidence-based management
Guest (2006) refers to isomorphism as a constraining factor in EBM adoption suggesting
that in addition to the challenges identified, HR Managers and their senior colleagues are
more interested in specific research from similar organizations in their own sectors,
7
introducing a theme of contextual compatibility. This contextual element is picked up by
Hughes et al. (2008) who, in looking at how to close the academic/practitioner ‘gap’ in
strategic management research, suggest a simple model that leads to credibility in the
mind of the practitioner (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Model for effective collaboration (Hughes et al., 2008)
According to Hughes et al. (2008:226) an academic’s understanding of the
‘context of implementation’ is important to the credibility of the academic findings to the
practitioner community. They point out that the disciplines of Accountancy and Human
Resources with strong functional presence and powerful professional bodies are at an
advantage here. However, it can be argued that isomorphism may have a greater
influence than hitherto suggested in the EBM literature.
In describing isomorphism as a ‘constraining process that forces one unit in a
population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions’
DiMaggio and Powell (1983:1489) identify three ‘mechanisms’ influencing isomorphic
behaviour. The first is coercive isomorphism, which results from formal (e.g. political,
legal) or informal (e.g. cultural, social) external pressures. The second is mimetic where,
especially in uncertain times, organizations model themselves on other organizations,
particularly those that are perceived to be more legitimate or more successful. The third is
normative isomorphism, driven by what Marshall (2010:182) calls ‘legitimated
professional practices’ derived from organized professional networks and professional
standards that determine behavior.
In the context of the HE sector, Marshall (2010) suggests that while normative
isomorphism is the form most consistent with the ideals of the traditional collegial
CredibilityEffective
Content
Context
8
university environment, coercive and mimetic influences present significant challenges to
the status quo. The impact of governmental policy and the New Public Management
(NPM) agenda have created coercive pressures that have determined organizational
activity and behavior, with organizational restructuring and the adoption of popular
management fads emerging as mimetic responses to the same tensions.
However, while these three forms of isomorphism are viewed as drivers of
institutional change (Demers, 2007), in the context of EBM it is suggested here that it is
possible to view normative isomorphism as a barrier to change and as a counterweight to
the influence of coercive and mimetic pressures. In summarizing these discussions Figure
2. represents a framework to illustrate how the combination of isomorphic
incommensurability alongside the influence of contextual barriers together form a
powerful force against the adoption of EBM approaches in organizations.
Figure 2: A Framework of Influences on EBM Adoption in Organizations
Contextual pressures influencing adoption of EBM
Organizational issues- priorities
- political sensitivity- culture
- resource constraints
Presentational issues- availability
- accessibility- rigour/relevance
- contextual specificity
Individual issues- time and role pressures
- risk aversion- dogma and beliefs
- fear and anxiety
Isomorphic pressures influencing adoption of EBM
EBM Outcome (this is the likelihood that
adoption of EBM will occur)
Normative status quo (this is what we have
always done/this is how we do things)
Mimetic (this is what others are
doing/adoption of new practices)
External Coercive (this is what research tells us
we should be doing)
9
In presenting the challenges of EBM in this way, it is apparent that EBM has to
overcome a significant set of conditions to be effective in changing organizational
practice.
Given the preceding discussion of the challenges associated with the creation and
adoption of EBM it is hardly surprising that despite a number of evidence-based critiques
of the effectiveness of HRM/HRD in the UK Higher Education sector, it continues to
enjoy a relatively poor reputation for the quality of its HRM provision. Although there
are positive developments they are inconsistent and slow compared to other industries.
The rest of the paper explores how HRD engagement with the challenges faced by
manager-academics in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) remains problematic even
though a number of studies suggest change is needed in the ways in which these roles are
recognized, supported and managed.
The Higher Education context of change
It was as a result of the Jarratt report (1985) that significant changes to the management
of UK HEIs took place and in particular as universities’ funding settlements became
conditional on the creation of action plans specifically aimed at improving management
practice, which in turn required formalised planning and strategic management processes.
This reorientation brought an end to the previous regime of “donnish dominion” (Halsey,
1992). Smith and Adams (2008) describe the same shift from traditional forms of
academic administration, but in more derogatory terms, characterising it as moving from
a slapdash and amateurish process involving a “combination of voting, a good deal of
intrigue, a dash of deception and administration” (2008:343), to a much more formalised
system of executive leadership, with the VC as Chief Executive supported by a senior
management team with clearly articulated executive roles alongside a “proliferation of
cross-institutional and non-disciplinary academic support units (for quality assurance,
teaching and learning, staff development, departmental support, the Enterprise
Initiative)” (Henkel, 1997:137).
Similarly, the differences between Middlehurst’s (2004) study of the role of
leaders and managers in HEIs and her earlier study (Middlehurst, 1991), highlights
changes in the internal arrangements and practices of organisation and management as
10
the relationship between universities and the state shifted, from “administration” and
“academic policy-making and leadership” to “academic leadership and management”
and “stronger executive management”, (Middlehurst, 2004:264). She points to the
emergence of DVC roles, which often include line management responsibilities for Heads
of School or Deans of Faculty, as well as the growth of senior professional (non-
academic) Director roles, as clear examples of the attention to the management and
change agenda in universities.
One key impact of the Jarratt report was the requirement for academics to manage
other academics, encapsulated through the shift of the role of ‘Head of Department’ from
academic leadership to one where academic leader and manager responsibilities were
required, with the primary focus on the managerial, and an explicit expectation of
management of other academics. A series of legislative reforms of Higher Education in
the since then have increasingly imposed far greater external scrutiny on HEIs alongside
a need for far stronger and explicit management practices. All of this combines in a
powerful set of coercive influences on managerial practice in UK HEIs. However, despite
a number of significant changes in the ways in which academic management and
leadership is conducted and structured in universities, a fundamental and enduring
challenge remains keeping a balance between what Smith and Adams (2008:355)
describe as two “critical and sometimes contradictory roles”. The academic role relates
to the essence and distinctiveness of the institution – the “‘brand’ of core academic
values and mission”. The second role is about how it conducts its business and “is more
operational, bureaucratic and executive. It concerns the institution’s response to the
demands of accountability”. (Smith and Adams, 2008:355)
In Smith and Adams’ (2008) reporting of a qualitative study of 75 PVCs, they
explain that the appointment of increasing numbers of PVCs between 1960 and 2005 was
characterised by a transition and appointment to the roles from academic careers, so that
“academics continue to lead academics”. They concluded that it would be difficult to
become a PVC without experience of the university environment due to the duality of
being an academic and an executive, and because of the organisational model where
“departmental and disciplinary structures and their professional practices remain
relatively immune to command and control techniques” (2008:352). This tension between
11
managerial prerogative and departmental resistance, and academics as managers,
contribute to the contextual power of normative over coercive isomorphism.
In considering the “internal governance arrangements” and structural responses to
the external environment, and the creation and growth of new strategic roles,
management infrastructures and frameworks affecting both academic and non-academic
areas of responsibility, Middlehurst (2004) reinforces the impact of normative
isomormpism in the tendency to stick with established practices in universities and
cautions that “changing internal structural roles may be a necessary but far from
sufficient condition for achieving change in universities” (our emphasis). She suggests
that universities will struggle with change, if, “Opportunities for people to engage with
new practices and ideas and to be supported and challenged to develop new skills,
behaviours and habits are not provided”. However she goes on to highlight the
distinctive nature of university settings which require an even greater sensitivity to
change and therefore because universities “are places where ideas and values are deeply
integrated with structures, functions, roles and cultures, change processes must address
the socio-emotional and symbolic aspects of institutional life as well the instrumental
aspects of the business” Middlehurst (2004:278). The cultural heart of universities cannot
be ignored in the consideration of change processes.
While changes in leadership and management practices in HEIs have been
implemented in the key areas of organisational structure and senior executive roles, there
have been other, and more widely felt, impacts on systems and procedures, operational
roles and responsibilities, patterns of appointment, power and authority, training and
development and culture. Middlehurst (2004) points to more accountability; increased
and explicit leadership and management responsibilities; more formalised selection and
explicit leadership and management oriented appointment criteria particularly at more
senior levels of management; fixed term appointments; tensions between academic and
administrative authority; devolution to academic units; resentment, and resistance to, and
controversy over, emerging managerialism.
McRoy and Gibb’s (2009:697) qualitative study of institutional change
management in five statutory (post-’92) UK universities identifies a number of
operational challenges for HEIs. Of relevance here is that the commitment, clarity and
12
unanimity of senior management communication is important to the perception of
change, and that the lack of buy-in from manager-academics to change that they are
uncomfortable with or disagree with leads to an absence of personal responsibility and
trust and thereby loss of direction. The fact that those ‘middle managers’ required by
their organizations to play key roles as change agents, are academics and not trained
managers, raises issues of managerial competence and highlights tensions between their
self-image as discipline-based academics as opposed to managers.
Prichard and Willmott (1997), Blackwell and Preece (2002), McRoy and Gibbs
(2009) all suggest that managers in UK HEI environments have been able to endorse or
resist the impact of change according to their own preferences and reinforce earlier
discussion that, as the UK HE sector is characterised by plurality and complexity, the
impact of change varies enormously depending on context. This complexity is explained
by Stacey (2000:42) who argues that the university is: “A complex and adaptive system
consisting of a large number of agents, each of which behaves according to its own
principles of local interaction.”
While resistance to change and managerialism might not be overt, forms of tacit
resistance are played out in a number of ways and for a number of reasons, for example
through strong, varying and seemingly impermeable departmental cultures and the
unwillingness of managers to engage fully with their responsibilities. Pritchard and
Willmott term this “neo-paternalism” (1997:300), while Blackwell and Preece (2002)
refer to a “Not Invented Here” syndrome derived from the strong cultural norm that the
“first loyalty of academic staff is to their discipline or sub-discipline and subject”
(2002:7), with loyalty to the department second and the institution third. Here again,
normative tendencies are able to resist the impact of coercive change.
Pritchard and Willmott (1997) also suggest that in reality a more subtle, complex
and contradictory situation exists, highlighting a tension between the language of
management which is viewed with suspicion, as opposed to the practices of management
which could be seen as beneficial, and that this tension is ameliorated by collegial
strategies that engage individuals in “an established academic culture which relies on
cooperation and consent” (1997:307) rather than through command and control
approaches, similar to the ways in which the participants in Smith’s (2005) study
13
described their decision making processes. In summary, Pritchard and Willmott (1997)
state that, “each university is a mix of organizing practices which are historically located
and variably resilient and resistant to being wholeheartedly overthrown by the ‘new’
managers” (1997:311).
Goode and Bagihole (1998) categorised three responses to the change agenda;
‘collaboration’, ‘resistance’ and ‘transformation’, encapsulating the practical responses of
middle managers to the changes that they faced. Collaboration did not necessarily mean
uncritical agreement and approval of the changes, more an acceptance of the need to
‘play the game’. Resistance did not necessarily mean explicit and overt opposition to
change implementation process and activities, but a more subtle search for ways to hold
onto traditional values and priorities as far as possible. Transformation was not seen as an
opportunity to create completely new patterns and practices through relationship
building, new forms of working and flexibility, but more an attempt to “play by the new
rules at the same time as trying to change them” (1998:10). This response tendency is
also seen in the findings of Ogbanna and Harris (2004), in respect of the ability of
respondents to sustain a “professional identity” (2004:1197), while aligning themselves
and conforming to organisational expectations, as a way to ‘tick the boxes’.
Other forms of resistance identified by Barry et al. (2001) at the level of the
individual were tactics such as deliberate under-recruitment, not undertaking appraisals,
and some evidence of direct challenge and counter-argument. They did not find
significant evidence of direct managerial control of daily routines but a sense of
managerial values being mediated and moderated in the middle of the organisation, “Our
interviews have left us with the abiding impression that at junior and middle levels
management is experienced and enacted as processual and (re)negotiated on a daily
basis as people muddle through” (2001:98).
The conclusion is that in practice and seen through the lens of isomorphism, it is
clear that while coercive pressures have impacted on the ways in which HEIs are
(re)structured and the frameworks of management, much of the ‘hearts and minds’ aspect
of organizational change have not been embraced by academics due to the countervailing
influence of powerful normative behaviors and beliefs. The horse has been taken to water
but it is reluctant to drink.
14
Academic line management and HRM in UK HEIs
As the preceding discussion has demonstrated, in UK higher education the powerful
normative issue of acceptance of the managerial role has been a significant barrier, with
“line managers who do not see their career in such a function”. (Jackson, 2001:419) a
view confirmed by Bolton (2000:56) who suggests that “Institutions cast the head in the
role of line manager—a concept not accepted by many of the managed, nor by the
managers!” and, in referring to HoDs Palfreyman and Warner (2000:1) write “Many of
the former have accepted the title of ‘manager’ only with some reluctance”. Deem and
Johnson (2003) also confirm that many academics in management roles did not see
themselves as managers; “although two-thirds of our interviewees said that they could be
described as managers, most were at pains to point out that they regarded themselves
first and foremost as academics” (Deem and Johnson, 2003:11). This was less so in the
statutory universities. Jackson, (2001:419) explains that this tendency is compounded by
the arrangements by which academics are appointed to their management roles, “it faces
the added complication of line managers who have not been appointed (either mainly or
at all) for their management abilities, let alone their human resource managerial
responsibilities, and sometimes line managers who do not see their career in such a
function”.
More recently, a series of reports into the performance and challenges of HR
departments in universities have identified a number of evidence-based failings as calls to
action. Despite the clear expectations emerging from the Jarratt report, Jackson (1999)
pointed out some of the first failings of HR Departments emerged as the new Heads of
Department continued to be appointed not for their managerial skills or experience but
because of their academic prowess although differences between pre-92 ‘chartered’ and
post-92 ‘statutory’ HEIs were characterized by alternative models of appointment with
more permanent, career-oriented, managerial appointments in the statutory sector
contrasting with the more traditional, temporary and laissez-faire practices in the
chartered institutions (Smith, 2005) representing different normative approaches based on
cultural norms. Nonetheless, in both sectors management development and training were
identified as weak areas. Jackson’s (2001) case study review of 14 universities confirmed
that although a range of HR responsibilities were increasingly being devolved to
15
managers (generally Deans and Heads of Department) the devolvement was ad-hoc, ill
thought through and characterised by inadequate provision of training and development.
In 2005 Archer published ‘Mission Critical? Modernising Human Resource
Management in Higher Education’ based on interviews with heads of institutions HRDs
and other personnel in 44 UK universities. While the report concluded that HR was
‘mission critical’, it pointed out that there was still ‘a long way to go’, particularly in
getting line managers to accept that HR is part of their job, and that although there was
“commitment to modern HR at the top levels of universities”, one HR director referred to
a ‘thick layer of cloud below”. In all, the executive summary highlighted 48 areas of
concern across the whole of the HR agenda.
In their analysis of HR practices in UK HEIs Guest and Clinton (2007) found that
the same issues continued to be problematic. They highlighted that one of the key
challenges for HR Departments in UK Universities derives from the powerful specific
and normative features of the public sector that render elements of HR practice
problematic, particularly the enduring allegiance to traditional professional cultures and
autonomy, encapsulated in the phrase ‘academic freedom’ and described as “a struggle
between a managerial ethos and a professional ethos” (Guest and Clinton, 2007:5). The
influence and power of these normative models associated with structures and cultures
prevail even when there is substantive evidence that it is not effective or efficient. With
an echo of Lawler’s (2007) comments about the transactional and administrative nature
of much HR work, Guest and Clinton, (2007) go on to suggest that the distinctive
structure of universities with departments, schools and faculties leads to a unique form of
autonomy, which limits the importance and impact of the HR function, so that “when it
came to the recruitment, promotion and organisation of the work of academics, its role
had been limited to administrative oversight” (2007:14). This resonates with Jackson’s
(2001) earlier findings that although universities spent about 60% of their income on
staffing, little attention was paid to the management of the key academic staff as they
“were viewed as professionals operating through a collegiate system” (Jackson,
2001:404).
Three contemporary reports have addressed a wide range of HR-related issues in
HE. The Oakleigh Report (Shenstone, 2009) was commissioned by HEFCE to evaluate
16
the impact of public policy and investments in HRM in English HE since 2001. While it
recognises that HEIs have put significant effort and resources into the modernisation of
HRM (2009:4) in the period 2001 to 2008, with major developments in approaches to
performance management; recognition of the critical importance of HRM, strategic
integration of HRM and sustained investment in leadership development, it remains
critical of the key issue of line management engagement and concludes that,
“expectations of line managers to take responsibility for people management issues,
including the management of performance . . . are still perceived to be highly variable,
even between schools, faculties and departments within the same institution in some
instances” (2009:8).
Both the ‘Higher Education Workforce Framework 2010’ (HEFCE, 2010) and PA
Consulting’s ‘The Future Workforce for Higher Education’ (2010) highlight, amongst
other things, that “performance management is the most critical [HR activity]” adding
that those staff tasked with the performance management of others should receive
appropriate guidance and be assured of the institution’s full support as they carry out their
managerial function (HEFCE, 2010:87), with clear alternative career paths to institutional
leadership alongside the identification, development and nurturing of future leaders (PA
Consulting, 2010).
Taken together these reports form an important and evidence-based critique of the
ways in which universities are, or are not, responding to the challenges that they face
particularly in resect of the importance of line management. However, while the reports
present the problems and some proposed solutions, they do not particularly address issues
of implementation.
Studies of manager-academics in HEIs
A number of investigations into the impact of change on manager-academics, including
Deem et al (2001); Hellawell and Hancock (2001), Smith (2002, 2005); Sotirakou (2004);
Floyd and Dimmock (2007) and Winter (2009), have all contributed to an understanding
of the challenges that manager-academics in general, and Heads of Department in
particular face in their line management roles. Taken in conjunction with the issues raised
in the preceding sections these challenges can firstly be summarised in a series of
17
dichotomous and over-lapping tensions (see Table 1) and concerns over the primary
focus of the manager-academic role.
Identity as academic Identity as manager-academic
Role as academic leader Role as line manager
Focus on research Focus on teaching
Focus on research/teaching Focus on management
Loyalty to academic discipline/ Department
Loyalty to institution
Career progression through research/ teaching excellence
Career progression through management excellence
Professional ethos/values Managerial ethos/values
Representing academics Representing management
Table 1: Tensions in the manager-academic role
In addition, the specific day-to day challenges highlighted in studies of manager-
academics lead to the conclusion that aspects of the ways in which their roles are
recognised, defined and supported by their institutions, alongside the ways in which
individual manager-academics are developed and encouraged in their roles, are
problematic and sub-optimal. A number of key issues were consistently raised by the
studies. Academics in management roles suffered from high work demands leading to
overload and stress. These pressures were compounded by increased central
organizational control, bureaucracy and accountability – leading to a lack of power as
often accountability was not accompanied with appropriate authority. As manager-
academics were not well supported by their institutions, lack of time for their own
research becomes a consistent theme leading to anxiety over a loss of career capital due
to a distancing from their academic home. Other ways in which manager-academics
were unsupported by their institutions were through a lack of training and development;
poor appointment processes; a lack of meaningful feedback and appraisal and poor
administrative support. Finally the impact of context, particularly the differences
between chartered and statutory environments placed different demands on academics.
A recent survey of first-line manager-academics (FLMAs), Deans and Human
Resource Directors carried out as part of a doctoral study (Bessant, 2014) confirmed that
18
many of the challenges and issues inherent in the earlier studies persist today at the level
of the First-Line Manager-Academic (FLMA), while a recent exploratory study of Heads
of Department by Floyd and Preston (2014) suggests that the role continues to be poorly
understood, that the differences between the chartered and statutory sectors remain
significant and that HRD support for the role is lacking, particularly in the context of
training and support, with key challenges of maintaining research and leading and
managing people the two biggest challenges in the role. Both sets of results confirm
findings from a decade earlier.
The recommendations from the FLMA survey highlight specific areas of concern
regarding the operational and infrastructure arrangements that facilitate or inhibit the
development of manager-academics as effective contributors to their organizations. These
broadly fall into the responsibility of the HR function in HEIs and are summarized in
Table 2.
Activities Issues
Role definition Ensure that job descriptions make explicit the responsibilities, authority and expectations of FLMA roles.
Recruitment and selection
Ensure that person specifications make explicit the skills, experience and attitudes that are appropriate to the FLMA role and that these are used appropriately in the selection processes used for appointment.
Role of administration
Ensure role definitions make explicit what administrative responsibilities are expected of the FLMA and by core administrative support roles respectively.
Career paths Create clear career pathways for FLMAs with appropriate status. Ensure that specific competences/experience required for specific career pathways are defined and explicit.
Organisational culture
Promote and ensure the importance of management in the running of business schools/HEIs. Ensure FLMAs are supported and legitimised by their managers and by the organisation’s systems, processes and policies.
Training and development
Ensure that training and development provision for all academics promotes the importance of good management as a driver for organisational success. Provide specific training and development to prepare/equip/assist FLMAs for their first role.
Appraisal/ feedback/ mentoring
Ensure the appraisal scheme is fit for purpose and addresses management development and performance alongside academic performance and development. Ensure appraisal is properly carried out and managed in the institution in a meaningful way.
Performance management
Ensure performance management is well defined in the organisation and robust enough to allow FLMAs to use it if informal attempts at management fail. Ensure that FLMAs are properly trained and supported to manage difficult performance management issues.
HR support/talent management
Ensure HR support provided to FLMAs is clearly defined and understood by both parties. Have a talent management process in place that recognises the potential of future leaders at each level and facilitates their development.
The managers’ managers
Ensure that those who manage the FLMAs are not a barrier to effectiveness through culture change, effective management and training and development.
Table 2: Recommendations for HR departments in supporting FLMAs
19
What does this all mean?
The paper has surfaced that while evidence-based research can highlight a number of
failings in existing organizational practices, and demonstrate them to be enduring over a
significant period of time, the potential coercive impact of the evidence can be counter-
balanced by a combination of opposing influences that either prevent change happening
or slow the change processes down.
The use of the phenomenon of academic line management in UK HEIs has been a
way of exploring the proposition that a series of isomorphic and contextual pressures are
present in any consideration of EBM adoption and its likely impact, as highlighted in
Figure 2 (repeated from earlier).
Figure 2: A Framework of Influences on EBM Adoption in Organizations
Looking at the top half of the diagram in Figure 2 in the context of academic line
management in HEIs, a number of powerful coercive influences exist which should focus
attention on the importance and nature of institutional management arrangements, such as
Contextual pressures influencing adoption of EBM
Organizational issues- priorities
- political sensitivity- culture
- resource constraints
Presentational issues- availability
- accessibility- rigour/relevance
- contextual specificity
Individual issues- time and role pressures
- risk aversion- dogma and beliefs
- fear and anxiety
Isomorphic pressures influencing adoption of EBM
EBM Outcome (this is the likelihood that
adoption of EBM will occur)
Normative status quo (this is what we have
always done/this is how we do things)
Mimetic (this is what others are
doing/adoption of new practices)
External Coercive (this is what research tells us
we should be doing)
20
a series of research reports discussed in this paper highlighting the challenges facing line
managers and of HR implementation in UK HE, alongside a number of external
environmental conditions requiring greater management in HEI such as the expectations
of important stakeholders; increasing global competition; pressure on resources and
increasing institutional and environmental complexity.
However, counter-balancing this there is a powerful normative pressure within the
UK HEI sector for academics to reject managerialism and its manifestations, through
explicit and covert behaviours that dilute its impact. While it has not been addressed in
this paper explicitly, it can be assumed that mimetic influences are less powerful in this
scenario in that the problems regarding line-management identified are broadly generic to
the sector. The tendency for statutory institutions to be following the lead of chartered
institutions in a shift towards more research-oriented strategies would in fact suggest that
any mimetic pressures that exist in the context of line management are likely to tend to
the normative rather than coercive.
In terms of the bottom half of the diagram, it can be suggested that the
presentational issues around the research are broadly coercive in nature. While there are
issues around the extent to which HR professionals access and read academic journals
(Rynes, Colbert and Brown, 2002; Guest and Zilstra, 2012), three factors exists here that
are positive. The first is that the academic articles are broadly accessible in terms of their
language and presentation, even if some of their conclusions are implied rather than
explicit; the second is that they are highly contextually relevant, and the third is that the
professional reports into HR practices are specifically aimed at those responsible for the
management of HEIs in general and senior HR practitioners specifically. These will hit
the desks of HR Directors directly.
In general we can only speculate as to the individual issues in this context,
however in respect of the study into the role of the FLMA referred to above (Bessant,
2014), University HR Directors were surveyed directly as a part of the study and
identified and/or confirmed many of the issues driving the need for change in the ways in
which academic management and cultures are conducted and they have contributed to
other findings, such as those identified by Archer (2005) and Guest and Clinton (2007).
21
However this only covers one aspect of the individual pressures that could either support
or prevent EBM adoption.
Finally, in terms of organizational issues we have seen how culturally HEIs have
a strong tendency to resist change even if espoused arrangements appear different.
Universities are large institutions facing significant challenges that require attention and
therefore the extent to which the arrangements for manager-academics may not be
perceived as particularly important in absolute terms is a fundamental issue impacting on
organizational performance. In addition, as demonstrated earlier (Smith and Adams,
2008) there is irony in the fact that senior managers in HEIs tend to be academics, yet this
can be a powerful normative influence towards the maintenance of the status quo.
Conclusion
One of the challenges facing evidence-based HRD research, and EBM in general, is to
pay more attention to the implemention of change and to include a greater focus on why
things are as they are. Coercive arguments for change based on comparisons to best
practice, or by robust analysis of organizational problems, form only part of the picture
that evidence-based management research should be painting. At this point the canvas is
incomplete.
This exploratory paper has attempted to look at this bigger picture by addressing a
broader set of issues by reference to a specific problem area of academic management in
UK HEIs. For evidence-based HRM/D to make an impact through adoption in
organisations it is not enough for research to 1) identify organizational problems 2) point
out the impacts and consequences of the problems, 3) put forward solutions. In order to
improve the likelihood of EBM adoption research should explicitly explore barriers to the
change implementation agenda. In the case of HRD in particular, given its organizational
impact, consideration of the contextual issues through the lens of isomorphism, alongside
consideration of the organizational, individual and presentational barriers to
implementation would provide a more complete picture. Evidence-based management
itself has a role to play in examining the barriers to its own implementation, not just a
combination of 1, 2 and 3.
22
In discussing the influences of EBM adoption in this way, this paper contributes
to the on-going EB HRM/D debate and suggests that more holistic research projects may
be the way forward. Clearly these ideas need to be tested empirically.
23
References
Archer, W. (2005) Mission Critical?: Modernising Human Resource Management in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy Institute.
Bartunek, J.M. & Rynes, S.L., (2014) ‘Academics and Practitioners Are Alike and Unlike: The Paradoxes of Academic-Practitioner Relationships’ Journal of Management, 40(5), pp.1181–1201.
Barry, J., Chandler, J. and Clark, H. (2001) ‘Between the Ivory Tower and the Academic Assembly Line’ Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), pp.88–101.
Bennis, W.G. & O’Toole, J., (2005) ‘How business schools lost their way’ Harvard Business Review, 83(5), pp.96–104.
Bessant, C. (2014) The role of the first-line-manager-academic in UK Business Schools, unpublished DBA thesis, Northumbria University
Blackwell, R. and Preece, D. (2001) ‘Changing higher education’, International Journal of Management Education, 1(3), pp.3–13.
Bolton, A. (2000) Managing the Academic Unit. Milton Keynes: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.
Briner, R., Denyer, D. & Rousseau, D.M. (2009) ‘Evidence-Based Management: Concept Cleanup Time?’ Academy of Management Perspectives, pp.19–31.
Deem, R., Fulton, O., Reed, M. and Watson, S. (2001), New managerialism and the management of UK universities, Economic and Social Research Council.
Deem, R. and Johnson, R. (2003) ‘Risking the university? Learning to be a manager-academic in UK universities’, Sociological Research Online, 8(3).
Demers, C. (2007) Organizational Change Theories: A Synthesis. Sage
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’ American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp.147–160.
Floyd, A. and Dimmock, C. (2007) ‘ ‘Jugglers’, ‘copers’ and ‘strugglers’: academics’ perceptions of being a head of department in a post-1992 UK university and how it
24
influences their future careers’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(4), pp. 387-399.
Floyd, A. and Preston, D. (2014) ‘Exploring the role of Associate Dean in UK Universities’, ENGAGE 36, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
Garman, A.N., (2011) ‘Shooting for the Moon: How Academicians Could Make Management Research Even Less Irrelevant’. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), pp.129–133.
Goode, J. and Bagilhole, B. (1998) ‘Gendering the management of change in higher education: a case study’, Gender, Work & Organization, 5(3), pp.148–164.
Guest, D., (2007.) ‘Don’t shoot the messenger: a wake-up call for academics’ Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), pp.1020–1026.
Guest, D., & Clinton, M. (2007) Human Resource Management and UniversityPerformance: Final Report. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
Guest, D.E. & Zijlstra, F.R.H., (2012) ‘Academic perceptions of the research evidence base in work and organizational psychology: A European perspective’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(4), pp.542–555.
Halsey, A. H. (1992), The Decline of Donnish Dominion: The British Academic Professions in the twentieth century. Oxford University Press.
Hellawell, D. & Hancock, N. (2001) ‘A case study of the changing role of the academic middle manager in higher education: between hierarchical control and collegiality?’ Research Papers in Education, 16(2), pp.183–197.
Henkel, M. (1997) ‘Academic values and the university as corporate enterprise’, Higher Education Quarterly, 51(2), pp.134–143.
Hughes, T., O'Regan, N. & Wornham, D. (2008) ‘The credibility issue: closing the academic/practitioner gap’ Strategic Change, 17(7-8), pp.215–233.
Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions: Report of a Committee. Stationery Office, 1999.
Jackson, M.P. (1999) ‘The role of the head of department in managing performance in UK universities’, International Journal of Educational Management, 13(3), pp.142–155.
25
Jackson, M.P. (2001) ‘Personnel management in UK universities’, Personnel Review, 30(4), pp.404–420.
Jarratt Report (1985) Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities, CVCP.
Kitson, A., Harvey, G. & McCormack, B. (1998) ‘Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework’ Quality in Health Care, 7(3), pp.149–158.
Lawler, E.E. (2007) ‘Why HR practices are not evidence-based’ Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), pp.1033–1036.
Marshall, S (2010) 'Change, technology and higher education: are universities capable of organisational change?', Research in Learning Technology, 18 (3), pp.179-192
McRoy, I. and Gibbs, P. (2009) ‘Leading Change in Higher Education’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), pp.687–704.
Middlehurst, R. (1991) The Changing Roles of University Leaders and Managers: Implications for Preparation and Development, Final report to the DES. London: DES.
Middlehurst, R. (2004) ‘Changing internal governance: A discussion of leadership roles and management structures in UK universities’, Higher Education Quarterly, 58(4), pp.258–279.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, LC. (2004) ‘Work intensification and emotional labour among UK university lecturers: An exploratory study’, Organization Studies, 25(7), p.1185.
Palfreyman, D. and Warner, D. (2000) ‘Setting the Scene’, in D. Warner and D. Palfreyman (eds) Higher Education Management, pp. 1–15. Milton Keynes: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006) ‘Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense’ Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Prichard, C. and Willmott, H. (1997) Just how managed is the McUniversity? Organization Studies, 18(2), pp. 287–316.
26
Rousseau, D.M. (2006) ‘Is there Such a thing as "Evidence-Based Management"?’ Academy of Management Review, 31(2), pp.256–269.
Rynes, S.L., Colbert, A.E. & Brown, K.G. (2002) ‘HR Professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: correspondence between research and practice’ Human Resource Management, 41(2), pp.149–174.
Shenstone, A., et al. (2009) Evaluation of the impact of public policy and investments in human resource management in higher education since 2001, Oakleigh Consulting.
Smith, R. (2002) ‘The Role of the University Head of Department’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 30(3), pp.293-312.
Smith, R. (2005) ‘Departmental leadership and management in chartered and statutory universities’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(4), pp. 449-464.
Smith, B. (2007) ‘On being a university head of department’, Management in Education, 21(1), pp. 4–7.
Smith, D. and Adams, J. (2008) ‘Academics or executives? Continuity and change in the roles of pro-vice-chancellors’, Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), pp.340–357.
Sotirakou, T. (2004), ‘Coping with conflict within the entrepreneurial university: threat or challenge for heads of departments in the UK higher education context’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2), pp.345-72.
Stacey, R.D. (2000) Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation (Complexity and Emergence in Organizations). London: Routledge.
Tranfield, D. & Starkey, K. (1998) ‘The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy’ British Journal of Management, 9, pp.341–353.
Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003) ‘Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business education.’ Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2:189–205.
The Higher Education Workforce Framework 2010, (2010) Overview Report, HEFCE.
The Future Workforce for Higher Education: A Report to HEFCE (2011) PA Consulting Group, Overview report.
27
Winter, R. (2009) ‘Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), pp.121–131.
28