RK051803 - 1 Assignment

1

Research Proposal Submission Form

Example 3

Module No: MOD053 Research Methods

An Examination of how Leaders Engage Employees during

and following a Redundancy Programme and the Effects of

this on Employees

Hand in date: February 2011

Note: this proposal was awarded 67%

2

Contents Page

Introduction

3-4

Literature Review:

Definition of Engagement

4-5

Leaders Role in Engagement 5

Survivors’ Feelings to Positive Engagement

5-6

Effects of Redundancy on those employees who remain, the

survivors

6-7

Gap in the Literature

8

Methodology:

Research Philosophy

8

Data Collection Methods

8

Data Collection Tools

9

Sample

9

Analysis

9

Timeline

10

Limitations

11

Bibliography

12-17

Appendix 1 – The Kubler-Ross (1969) model of grieving

18

Appendix 2 – Survivors’ adverse effects during and following a

Redundancy Programme

19

3

Introduction

Redundancies are prevalent in today‟s constantly changing work environment, in the public

as well as the private sector due to the new coalition government and the current economic

climate.

There has been relatively little attention paid to the effects of redundancy on those who

remain in employment in Britain (Thornhill & Gibbons, 1995). To date research in this area

has been concentrated in the USA, principally through the work of Brockner and his

colleagues (Brockner et al, 1987, Brockner, 1988, Brockner & Greenberg, 1990). The

research indicates that survivors1 reacted most negatively when they identified with those

employees who were made redundant, who were perceived to have been inadequately

compensated. The negative reaction took the form of reduced work performance in the

laboratory study and lowered organisational commitment and engagement in the field study.

Organisations have under-estimated the negative effects of redundancy and do not take into

account the difficulties of engaging a surviving workforce emotionally damaged by watching

others lose their jobs. The key literature sources intended to be drawn upon are Wolfe

(2004), Gifford (2010) and Macleod & Clarke (2009) whom suggest a number of ways

leaders can build employee engagement e.g. ensure that survivors are aware of the

assistance provided to terminated employees, attempt to reduce redundant tasks from

survivors‟ workload and ensure the employee understands how their role fits in with

organisational objectives and they are listened to, respected and valued.

Establishing an engaged workforce is now a high priority for many organisations. Employee

engagement is associated with positive benefits in terms of improved organisational

performance, patient care, morale, productivity, recruitment and retention (NHS Employers,

2008).

Very often organisations that make redundancies prepare well for those employees who are

leaving, by, for example, providing outplacement facilities, career counselling, networking

opportunities and early release schemes, but ignore those left behind.

For example, in a UK survey of 170 personnel specialists in 131 financial services

companies, Doherty and Horsted (1995) concluded that organisations forced to make

redundancies are neglecting the needs of employees who remain.

1 Survivors refer to employees who remain in the organisation following a redundancy programme (Thornhill &

Gibbons, 1995).

4

Although 79 per cent of the companies provided outplacement services for employees

leaving, the survey found that less than half gave support to those who remained.

This paper deals with this forgotten but imperative group by considering the following

research objectives:

 To analyse the literature on the link between the effects of redundancy on the level of

engagement of those employees who remain, the survivors and what leaders can do

to build employee engagement.

 To identify the effectiveness of the leader engagement process employed by Human

Resource Leaders within an NHS organisation.

 To evaluate the effects and the employee engagement of the employees during and

following the redundancy programme within an NHS organisation.

 To make recommendations on how Human Resources Leaders can ensure the

remaining employees are engaged during and following a redundancy programme.

Literature Review

The literature review has two distinct elements. Firstly certain perspectives of researchers

will be discussed to identify what leaders can do to build employee engagement. Secondly

key theories will be explored to determine the effects of redundancy on those employees

who remain, the survivors.

Definition of Engagement

There is no single agreed definition of employee engagement. Indeed, the Macleod (2009)

report, quoting Professor David Guest of Kings College London, says “The concept of

engagement needs to be more clearly defined, or it needs to be abandoned”.

However the following definition of engagement is useful as it summarises key elements

referred to in other definitions such as, commitment, motivation and job satisfaction.

McGivern (2010) suggests there are two key dimensions to engagement:

 Willingness – expressed in terms of commitment and motivation. Do employees

really want to perform? Do they care about the organisation? If they do not, they will

never be fully engaged.

5

 Ability – expressed in terms of satisfaction with the practicalities of work and the

infrastructure within which employees do their jobs. To what extent does the

organisation provide the basic equipment and infrastructure they need to deliver to

the standard required?

A further view of employee engagement is about how to get the best out of people, releasing

employees “discretionary effort,” (Purcell et al., 2003) which goes to the heart of what makes

engagement different to “motivation”. Designing jobs in a way that provides features such as

challenge, recognition and skill usage might help to improve employee engagement.

Leaders’ role in Engagement

Roffey Park Institute (2010) argues employee engagement increases when leaders are

strategic, communicative, visible and trusted. In contrast Wolfe (2004) believes the main

driver of employee engagement is a sense of feeling valued and involved. The main

components of this are said to be:

 Involvement in decision making

 Freedom to voice ideas, to which managers listen

 Having the opportunities to develop the job

Macleod & Clarke (2009) argue by far the major influence on employee engagement is the

relationship with their leader, reflected in the day-to-day workplace climate. Employers are

not generally recognising this: less than 20% of leaders have received training in how to

engage with and bring out the best in their employees.

CIPD (2010) indicate “improved engagement can result when employees have job

autonomy, support and coaching, feedback, opportunities to learn and develop, task variety

and responsibility.”

What is omitted from the above perspectives is the view of Mone (1994) who believes

rewards that appropriately reflect the appraisal systems is an influential factor that is likely to

improve engagement.

Survivors’ Feelings to Positive Engagement

Survivors will be more loyal to and engaged with an organisation when leaders ensure the

survivors feel that they are valued and help them work towards their personal career goals

(Doherty, 2010).

6

It is important leaders make survivors aware of the organisation‟s future direction and the

associated benefits. This may involve new mission statements and objectives, reinforced by

complementary training and rewards systems. Leaders must ensure survivors understand

how their individual role fits with the objectives of the organisation and how they can

contribute to ensuring future success (Thornhill et al., 1997).

Furthermore it can be substantiated from the literature that it is the way employees are

managed that keeps them happy and improves engagement. In the end, the engagement

agenda means getting back to basics (HR Review 2010).

Effects of Redundancy on those employees who remain, the survivors

According to Noer (1993), De Meuse et al (2004) and Brockner (1988) survivors experience

a range of feelings and concerns such as; denial, job insecurity, feelings of unfairness,

depression, anxiety, stress and fatigue, reduced risk taking and motivation, distrust and

betrayal, lack of reciprocal commitment, wanting it to be over, dissatisfaction with planning

and communication, anger at the redundancy process, lack of strategic direction, lack of

management credibility, short-term profit focus, and a sense of permanent change.

Unexpected findings included little survivor guilt, some optimism, lots of blaming others, and

a thirst for information.

The feelings between survivors following a redundancy programme appear to be similar to

that of the feelings of survivors of other traumatic situations. Kubler-Ross (1969) introduced

a model of five stages of grieving which is useful to help understand survivors‟ symptoms

and provides a tool for leaders to use when communicating with others. For further

information see Appendix 1. Later Fink, Beak and Taddeo (1971) brought in similar stages

but gave them different names e.g. defensive retreat.

Wolfe (2004) suggests survivors at both an organisational and an individual level may well

feel adverse effects e.g. a decrease in morale and reduced job motivation. For further

information see Appendix 2.

Further evidence of survivor adverse effects were evident in a survey of BT leaders (Newell

and Dopson, 1996) which found that following the redundancy programme leaders were de-

motivated, felt they were working longer hours, lacked information about their role and had

reduced control.

7

These behaviours are indicative of a phenomenon called „survivor syndrome‟. HR Focus

(2009) concludes survivor syndrome “refers to a marked decrease in motivation,

engagement, and productivity of employees that remain at the organisation as a result of

redundancy.

According to Brockner & Greenberg (1990) in the context of a redundancy situation, an

unsympathetic reaction may include the belief that redundancies were justified and the

survivors distance themselves from the leavers and work harder. A sympathetic response

by survivors may include reactions that leavers have been unfairly treated, resulting in

negative attitudes towards the organisation and reduced employee engagement.

Brockner (1988) and Brockner & Greenberg (1990) have identified a set of “moderator

variables” which are likely to affect the strength of sympathetic survivor responses towards

those made redundant. First whether the survivors had worked closely with the leavers.

Second, whether survivors and leavers have matching attitudes and values. Third, the

survivors‟ own previous experience of being made redundant. Fourth, the survivors‟ own

insecurity that they may be made redundant themselves. Fifth, the fairness of an

organisation‟s procedural actions in managing the redundancy programme.

In view of this evidence, it can be concluded that the majority of consequences for those

employees who have survived redundancy and the organisation are negative. Can there be

a positive outcome from redundancies? From the survivor perspective a redundancy

programme can provide countless opportunities such as teamwork (Church, 1995),

increased training opportunities (American Management Association, 1996) and job

enrichment (McIntyre, 1994). This question justifies the need for further exploration into this

research topic.

Brockner (1988) and Brockner & Greenberg (1990) indicate that leaders need to be much

more mindful of survivors‟ responses, and the issues which arise from these, than they have

in the past. The existence of the “moderator variables” identified above, which affect the

relative strength of survivors‟ responses, suggest that there is scope for leaders to take

action, with regard to both leavers and survivors, in order to positively influence survivors‟

responses and engagement.

8

Gap in the Literature

The sampling of the literature introduces some of the evidence of a gap in the published

academic literature on the effects of redundancy on those who remain in employment in

Britain (Thornhill & Gibbons, 1995) as the majority of the research has been undertaken in

the USA (Brockner et al, 1987, Brockner, 1988, Brockner & Greenberg, 1990). This justifies

the need for further exploration into the link between the effects of redundancy on the level

of engagement of those employees who remain, the survivors and what leaders can do to

build employee engagement in the UK.

Methodology

Research Philosophy

To explore the research objectives, this paper proposes to utilize the following

methodological approaches. It is intended that exploratory and qualitative research will be

undertaken as the purpose of the study is to analyse the link between the effects of

redundancy on the level of engagement on those employees who remain, the survivors and

what leaders can do to build employee engagement. Exploratory research (Saunders, Lewis

& Thornhill, 2007) is required as no research has been undertaken on those employees who

survive redundancy in the NHS.

Data Collection Methods

Dingwall et al (1998) believes qualitative research involves “broadly stated questions about

human experiences and realities, studied through sustained contact with people in their

natural environments, generating rich, descriptive data that helps to understand their

experiences and attitudes”.

Punch (2008) makes the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research in if the

researcher is interested in making standardised comparisons, quantifying relationships

between variables and accounting for variance.

These imply quantitative methods and data. However if the researcher is more interested in

studying a phenomenon or situation in detail, holistically and in context and focusing on

interpretations, these imply qualitative methods and data. Qualitative research is essential

to understand the emotions, attitudes and perceptions of the employees who remain after

the redundancy programme.

9

Data Collection Tools

Cooper and Schindler (2008) argue semi-structured interviews are essential if carrying out

exploratory and qualitative research. It is proposed that semi structured interviews will take

place with three Human Resources Leaders and three employees who remain employed in a

large NHS organisation during and following a redundancy programme. This is a small

sample, but as Henry Mintzberg (1979) argues “relatively simple research methodologies

have produced more useful results than those which have been significant only in the

statistical sense.”

The benefits of semi structured interviews are the researcher can ask some pre-arranged

questions but with the freedom to pursue any further lines of inquiry as appropriate.

Sample

There are two elements to the sample. Firstly the Human Resources Leaders have been

selected on the basis of having significant knowledge and experience of implementing a

redundancy programme. Secondly the employees have been selected as they recently

survived a redundancy programme in December 2010 and are line managed by the Human

Resources Leaders.

Semi structured interview schedules would be piloted with a Human Resources Leader and

an employee who had knowledge of the redundancy programme. Following this the

proposed six interviews would be undertaken. The researcher would ensure anonymity and

confidentiality for each participant. The interviews would be tape recorded and last

approximately one hour.

Analysis

According to Saunders et al (2007, p478) there is “no standardised approach to the analysis

of qualitative data”. However due to the qualitative nature of the data, „content analysis‟ will

be carried out. As suggested by Yin (2009) „content analysis‟ consists of a summary of the

key points and recurring themes.

10

Timeline

Activity

M ay

Ju n

e

Ju ly

A u

gu st

Se p

te m

b er

O ct

o b

er

N o

ve m

b er

D ec

em b

er

Ja n

u ar

y

Fe b

ru ar

y

M ar

ch

A p

ri l

M ay

Ju n

e

Ju ly

A u

gu st

Define the research question and the objectives

Literature review reading

Research Proposal Presentation

Meet with my Supervisor

Written Research Proposal

Write up the Introduction

Write up Literature Review

Write up Methodology

Formulate Interview Questions

Contact Interviewees

Set up the Interviews

Test and amend the Interview Questions

Conduct the Interviews

Type up the Interview Transcripts

Primary Data Analysis

Write up Findings

Write up Conclusions

Write up Limitations

Write up Recommendations

Write up Executive Summary

Compile the Appendices

Print and Bind

Hand in

11

Limitations

Three limitations of this study have been acknowledged and careful consideration will be

given to mitigate the potential impact when undertaking the research and analysing the data.

1. Past research has highlighted that there is no one definition of employee

engagement. The participants may have different views to what employee

engagement means to them and misunderstand the nature of the questions during

the interviews.

2. The study is based on a small sample size.

3. Bias may occur as the researcher knows the respondents.

12

Bibliography

American Management Association (1996). Corporate downsizing, job elimination, job

creation summary of key findings. AMA Survey. New York, pp. 1-11.

Armstrong-Strassen, M. (1993). Survivors‟ reactions to a workforce reduction: a comparison

of blue-collar workers and their supervisors. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences.

Vol. 10. No.4. pp. 334-343.

Armstrong-Strassen, M. (1994). Coping with transition: a study of layoff survivors. Journal

of Organisational Behaviour. Vol. 15. pp.597-621.

Brockner, J (1986). Layoffs, Equity Theory and Work Performance: Further Evidence of the

Impact of Survivor Guilt. Academy of Management Journal. 29, p. 373-384.

Brockner, J. Grover, S., Reed, T., Dewitt, R. & O‟Malley, M. (1987). Survivors‟‟ reactions to

layoffs: we get by with a little help from our friends. Administrative Science Quarterly,

Vol.32, December, pp.213-355.

Brockner, J. (1988). “The effects of work layoffs on survivors: a psychological analysis”, in

McGlynn, R.P. (Ed). Interfaces in Psychology. Vol 5. Texas Tech Press. Lubbock.

Brockner, J. & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: an organisational

justice perspective. In Carrol, J.S. (Ed). Applied Social Psychology and Organisational

Settings. Lawrence Erlbaun Association.

Church, A.H. (1995). From both sides now organisational downsizing: what is the role of the

practitioner? TIP Newsletter, Society for Industrial-Organisational Psychology. Bowling

Green. OH. pp. 1-8.

13

CIPD. (2010). Employee Engagement [Online]. Available from:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/empengmt [Accessed: 14th July 2010]

Clough, P. & Nutbrown, C. (2002). A Student‟s Guide to Methodology. London: Sage.

Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2008). Business Research Methods (10th Ed). Boston, MA

and Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw Hill.

Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J. & Scheck, C.L. (1991). Developing and testing a model of survivor

responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Vol. 38. pp. 302-317.

Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods: A practical guide for anyone

undertaking research project. Oxford: How to Books Ltd.

Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (2000). The New Corporate Cultures, Revitalizing the workplace

after downsizing, mergers and reengineering. London: Texere Publishing Limited.

De Meuse, K.P., Vanderheiden, P.A. & Roraff, C.E. (2004). “New evidence regarding

organisational downsizing and a firm‟s financial performance: a long-term analysis”, Vol 16.

No.2, pp.155-77.

Department of Health. (2009). The Operating Framework for the NHS in England 2010/11.

London.

Dingwall, R. et al (1998). Catching goldfish: quality in qualitative research. Journal of Health

Service Resource Policy. Vol 3. No.3. pp 167-172.

14

Doherty, R. (2010). Making employee engagement on end-to-end practice. Strategic HR

Review. Vol. 9. No. 3.

Doherty, N. & Horsted, J. (1995). Helping survivors to stay on board. People Management.

Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 26-31.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P. & Lowe, A. (2008). Management Research (3rd

Ed). London: Sage.

Feldman, D.C. (1989). Duracell‟s first aid for downsizing survivors. Personnel Journal.

August. pp. 91-94.

Fink, S. L., Beak, J., & Taddeo, K. (1971). Organisational Crisis and Change. The Journal

of Applied Behavioural Science. 7, 1, p.15-37.

Foxman, L. & Polsky, W. (1988). Make the new company work after downsizing. Personnel

Journal. November, pp. 24-8.

Gifford, J. (2010). The Human Voice of Employee Engagement: Case Study Research.

Roffey Park Institute. Registered Charity No: 254591.

Greenhalgh, L., Lawrence, A.T. & Sutton, R.I. (1988). Determinants of workforce reduction

strategies in declining organisations. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 13. No. 2. pp.

241-254.

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London:

Tavistock.