2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
61 Organisational climate and strategic change in higher education: Organisational insecurity D.K. ALLEN Leeds University Business School, The University of Leeds. Leeds LS2 9JT, UK (E-mail: david-k-allen@1c24.net) Abstract. This research introduces the concept of organisational climate and contributes to an understanding of the recursive relationship between organisational climate and strategic change initiatives. In the 1990s there was recognition that higher education worldwide was moving through a period of rapid change. Alterations in the external environment were put forward as rationales for universities to reconsider the way they organised from their tradi- tional governance and management structures through to the way in which they performed their primary activities of research, teaching and learning. A common approach to this adapta- tion or change has been through an increased emphasis upon strategic planning. This was accompanied by discourses rooted in technological determinism and the unquestioning belief in the rightness of a particular brand of corporate management. This research focused on one such approach to strategic change: the development of information strategies in 12 UK Higher Education Institutions. Using a grounded approach to theory generation, it highlights the inuence of different styles of management on organisational climate. The paper discusses the antecedents and inuence of one of the dimensions of organisational climate identied: insecurity/ security. It establishes that that climates of insecurity (or security) can exist within an HEI and can be shared on an organisational level, or can be rooted in sub-cultures. Six issues were identied which affected the climate of insecurity or security within the different HEIs. These issues related to perceptions of change management and its frequency, predicta- bility, openness, degree of participation, discontinuous or incremental nature of change, and whether or not decisions are implemented by use of persuasive power or coercive power. The paper goes on to discuss the multi-dimensional nature of insecurity. It notes that managerial approaches are more likely to create highly insecure environments which reinforce a vicious circle: staff being de-motivated, cautious, less willing to take risks or exercise discretion and are more likely to resist change. In contrast, in environments where a more collegial approach had been used, a virtuous cycle was created, whereby there was a willingness to be open and share information, there was a greater degree of cognitive conict, and more positive inter- personal relationships. These factors helped create consensus, the widespread understanding of decisions (acceptance of their legitimacy) and commitment to both the strategic decisions and the university. The paper concludes by arguing that a more sophisticated approach to strategic planning and change should be utilised reecting the need to view the HEI as a symbiotic community. Keywords: insecurity, information strategy, managerialism, strategic change 62 D.K. ALLEN 1. Introduction The motivation behind this research lies in the authors interest in the changes occurring in the higher education system in the UK. Whilst others have focused on the academic response to these changes (Trowler 1997, Trowler 1998), I was interested in the process by which these strategic changes were taking place. I was also puzzled by the approach to strategic change promul- gated by government and many practitioners, which assumed that a hard managerialist approach to strategic change was more effective than traditional models of collegial debate and decision-making used in universities. Gibbons et al., for example, stated of Polytechnics and corporate HEIs that: First, they offer more effective managerial models; in them, unlike the old universities, strategic planning is not inhibited by collegial govern- ment, nor tough choices obfuscated by the need to secure consensus. Second, they promise greater exibility of response to fast-changing intel- lectual and professional needs; they seem to belong to a forward-looking enterprise culture sceptical of the traditional demarcations, taxonomies, hierarchies that clutter the old academic culture. (Gibbons and others 1994: 82) While this view seemed to have become the orthodoxy, and was largely unchallenged, it was rooted in skilfully worded assertion rather than in empir- ical research. The opportunity to study the development of such strategies came with the publishing of the Follett Report (Follett 1993) which recom- mended that HEIs develop information strategies. The Joint Information Systems Committee reinforced this recommendation in 1995 (JISC 1995). Survey research undertaken by Allen and Wilson (Allen 1995, 1996) indi- cated that most HEIs responded to this recommendation and started to develop information strategies. The remit of information strategies was very broad. They were intended to subsume information systems of information technology strategies and could potentially address any aspect of information control, production, handling or management in an institution. The topics that they addressed ranged from issues about the ownership of electronic teaching and learning materials through to the devolution or centralisation of the ownership and management of information technology. For many insti- tutions they were seen as catalysts for radical change. They were inevitably contentious and problematic. In some institutions they had a dramatic impact, whilst in others their impact was less signicant. The phenomenon researched was the information strategy process. This phenomenon was explored through a longitudinal study of twelve Higher Education Institutions between 1994 and 1998. As the research progressed it became increasingly obvious that beliefs held by individuals and ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 63 groups about the identity, purpose, and character of the process, the organisa- tion, and its environment strongly affected organisational actions. These beliefs were seen as being produced and reproduced by social processes of story telling and most easily accessed through organisational sagas, legends, myths and stories. These belief structures are seen as being signicant at the collective or group level, (Sproull 1981) and at the individual level as they form a conceptual lens (Gioia and others 1994) inuencing the possibilities that were open to the strategic planners. The way in which the researcher conceptualised these belief structures was through the idea of organisational climate. 1.1. Organisational climate With few exceptions (Borum 1995; Joyce and Slocum 1990) the concept of organisational climate has been neglected. It remains, however, an important perspective. Much of the research on organisational climate has its roots in the seminal work by Litwin and Stringer (1968) on climate and motiva- tion, and Lewinian (Lewin 1951) eld theory (Denison 1996). The concept of organisational climate is, however, a contested one (Verbeke, Volgering and Hessels 1998) and is often conated with the concept of organisational culture (c.f., Schneider, Brief and Guzzo 1996). Alvesson and Berg go as far as to state that a . . . considerable proportion of what is currently regarded as corporate culture could benet from being characterised as corporate climate instead (Alvesson and Berg 1992: 89). There are many different, competing denitions. For the purpose of this paper the following distinctions will be used: . . . organisational climate is a reection of the way people perceive and come to describe the characteristics of their environment, and . . . organisational culture reects the way things are done in an organisation. (Verbeke, Volgering and Hessels 1998: 320) Alvesson and Berg state that organisational climate research concentrates on the: . . . experiences which culture and/or other organisational circumstances produce in individuals. Thus, climate is comparatively close to experi- ence, and is supercial and readily accessible. It concerns attitudes rather than (deeper) values. (Alvesson and Berg 1992: 8889) Despite the fact that climate studies were the precursor to cultural studies (Verbeke, Volgering and Hessels 1998) the concepts have developed in parallel rather than in tandem (Reichers and Schneider 1990: 24). A partial 64 D.K. ALLEN Table 1. Contrasting organisational culture and organisational climate research perspective: adapted from Denison (1996: 625) Differences Culture literature Climate literature Epistemology Contextualized and ideographic Comparative and nomothetic Point of view Emic (native point of view) Etic (researchers viewpoint) Etic (researchers viewpoint) Methodology Primarily qualitative eld observations Primarily quantitative survey data Temporal Historical evolution Ahistorical snapshot orientation Theoretical foundations Social construction; symbolic interac- tionism; critical theory Lewinian eld theory Discipline Sociology and anthropology Gestalt psychology and social psychology explanation of this lack of communication between the two traditions of organisational culture and organisational climate studies is that they have roots in theoretical and methodological positions that are polar opposites. The roots of the climate studies are in Gestalt psychology and latterly social psychology, whilst the concept of organisational culture emerged from symbolic interactionism and anthropology (Reichers and Schneider 1990). The result of this is that, with few exceptions (Poole and McPhee 1983), climate studies tend to come from realist traditions and focus on measuring climate using quantitative positivistic methodologies. On the other hand, the dominant paradigm in cultural studies comes from an idealist tradition and focuses on understanding culture using qualitative methodologies. With a few notable exceptions (Hofstede 1998; Hofstede, Bond and Luk 1993) culture researchers tend not to use quantitative methodologies. Indeed, attempts to use quantitative methodologies have been seen as controversial (Rousseau 1990). Climate researchers, on the other hand, do not tend to use qualitative approaches. The differences between the two elds are show in Table 1. Attempts to synthesise or merge paradigms have been few-and-far between (Rentsch 1990). Recent calls for integration (Denison 1996) take a naive pragmatic perspective ignoring the incommensurability of the different paradigm or take a functionalist, managerialist perspective (Barker 1994). Yet, the separation of the two sets of researchers into separate camps, which do not communicate, is unfortunate. As Reichers and Schneider note: Both climate and culture deal with the ways by which organisation members make sense of their environment. These sense-making attempts manifest themselves as shared meanings that form the basis for action. ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 65 Both climate and culture are learned, largely through the socialisa- tion process and through symbolic interaction among group members. Climate and culture are at the same time both monolithic constructs and multidimensional ones. Thus, we can correctly speak of organisa- tional climates, cultures, and subcultures. Culture exists at a higher level of abstraction than climate, and climate is a manifestation of culture. (Reichers and Schneider 1990: 29) This view is contested as Denison (1996) for example concludes that the two research traditions can be viewed as different interpretations rather than differences in the phenomena. The perspective taken in this research follows Reichers and Schneider viewing them as different constructs. An analytical opening for the study of these constructs is found in the work of Moran and Volkwein (1992). Moran and Volkwein describe four conceptual approaches to the concept of organisational climate. The rst of these is the structural perspective whereby climate is seen as a manifestation of the organisational structures. As members of the organisation are exposed to common structural character- istics, they develop similar perceptions of the organisation. These perceptions represent their own climate. From this perspective climate is regarded as an objective manifestation. One of the more signicant climate researchers working from this perspective was Payne (Manseld and Payne 1977; Payne and Pugh 1976; Payne and Manseld 1977; Payne and Pheysey 1977). The second perceptual perspective of climate views it as a psychologically processed description of organisational conditions as individuals respond in a way in which is meaningful to them. It locates climate in the individual rather than in organisational structures. Exemplars of this perspective have been presented by James and colleagues (James, James and Ashe 1990; James and others 1978) and Jackofsky and Slocum (1988). This approach explicitly draws upon cognitive psychology and could be better categorised as a cognitive approach. The third approach is the interactive perspective where the interaction of individuals in responding to the same situation is seen creating shared agreements which become the basis of organisational climate. Moran and Volkwein identify two intellectual traditions within this stream of research: phenomenology based in the work of Husserl and symbolic inter- actionism based in Mead. Moran and Volkwein argue that both traditions draw upon Berger and Luckmans concept of social construction. The nal perspective is the cultural one, which is the view that organisa- tional climate is: . . . created by a group of interacting individuals who share a common, abstract frame of reference, i.e., the organisations culture, as they come 66 D.K. ALLEN to term with situational contingencies, i.e. the demands imposed by organisational conditions. This approach to the origins of climate shifts the focus away from individual perceptions as a source of climate formu- lation and emphasises the interaction of the organisations members (a view which it shares with the interactive approach). (Moran and Volkwein 1992: 35) As such the concept of climate can be seen as being . . . the basic concepts of an organisation, and as such . . . at the heart of the culture . . . (Brown 1990). The perspective taken in this research is grounded in a symbolic interactionist perspective, such as that taken by Poole and McPhee (Poole and McPhee 1983). In Moran and Volkeweins model, climate is seen as evolving out of the same elements as culture but as being more shallow, forming more quickly and altering more rapidly. It operates on the level of attitudes and values, which are the elements most immediately experienced by individuals and can be easily articulated by actors in the organisation. In contrast, organisational culture is informed by the more stable, deeper forms, is more resistant to change as a result of short-term variations in the environment. They state that: . . . organisational climate is a created response which an interacting group of individuals, who are informed and constrained by a common organisational culture, make to the demands and contingencies arising from the organisations internal and external environments . . . (Moran and Volkwein 1992: 39) This approach views climate as: . . . informed by a set of conceptions (perceptions, values, and assump- tions) existing at successively deeper levels of consciousness. Culture here is not cults and customs but structures of meaning through which human beings give shape to their experience. Organisations are not simply hierarchies and goals but one of the principle arenas in which structures publicly unfold . . . It is in these terms that an understanding of climate as a focal point for describing organisations as systems of meaning and symbolic action becomes apparent. (Moran and Volkwein 1992: 40) Three dimensions of climate were identied in this research. They were labelled as: insecurity vs. security, trust vs. mistrust, optimism vs. cynicism. This paper dictate deals with only one of these dimensions: insecurity vs. security. It is hoped that the other dimensions will be dealt with in future publications. ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 67 The next section presents the studys theoretical grounding. This is followed by the research methodology which includes a discussion of data collection and analysis. The main body of the paper consists of a description of the antecedents of climates of security or insecurity and an analysis of the inuence of different climates. The paper concludes with a presentation of the main ndings. 2. Theoretical grounding and methodology The epistemological position taken in the research was interpretive. Inter- pretive approaches to research have been used in higher education (Tierney 1987, 1988, 1989), strategic change (Isabela 1990) and information systems research (Walsham 1993). Interpretive researchers have drawn upon a range of philosophical positions and theories: indeed, Klein and Meyer (Klein and Myers 1999) refer to the interpretive paradigm as a collection of paradigms rather than a single paradigm. The approach used in this study, draws upon contextualism (Pettigrew 1985, 1997). Pettigrew (1995) argues that much of the research on organisational change has ignored historical, process, or organisational context. His approach attempts to focus on these issues in a holistic manner dealing with content and process within context. Pettigrew describes this as follows: . . . Outer context refers to the social, economic, political, and competi- tive environment in which the rm operates. Inner context refers to the structure, corporate culture, and political context within through which ideas for change have to proceed. Content refers to the particular areas of transformation under examination . . . The process of change refers to the actions, reactions, and interactions from the various interested parties as they seek to move the rm from its present to its future state. (Pettigrew 1987: 658) In using contextualism, the research adopts a theoretical approach to ontology and human nature described by Garnsey (1992) (as cited by Walsham 1993) as constitutive process theories. Walsham outlines this as being concerned with the processes whereby social actors are engaged in producing and repro- ducing the social systems of which they form part (Walsham 1993: 224). Pettigrew (1995: 93) has drawn upon the work of Stephen Pepper (1942, 1966) in his approach and therefore places more emphasis upon context- determining action. However, in contrast to Pettigrew this work will draw upon Strausss (1993) view that phenomena do not just automatically unfold nor are they straightforwardly determined by social, economic, political, cultural, or any other circumstances; rather they are in part shaped by the interactions of concerned actors (Strauss 1993: 5354). 68 D.K. ALLEN In line with the theoretical and methodological position the research was a longitudinal eld study of strategic change. This approach has long been seen as of high value higher education research (Tierney 1987). Following Pettigrew, the practicalities of the process of selection of research sites could best be described as planned opportunism. The approach can be described using Pettigrews (1995) decision rules: 1. An attempt was made to choose sites in which the phenomenon of strategic planning for information was transparently observable. Sites were chosen where respondents stated that they would co-operate and that they were developing an information strategy. 2. An attempt was made to select sites that were polar types and represen- tative types. Universities with different governance styles were included, as were HEIs of different sizes. More specic information cannot be attributed to the case studies without the risk of allowing the identication of the HEIs. 3. An attempt was made to select sites that were expected to have high experience levels of the phenomena under study. In-depth interviews were conducted with approximately twenty informants in each organisation. Interviewees were visited on an iterative basis between 1994 and 1998. Informants were selected because they were perceived as taking lead positions in their organisation, lead positions in the change process, or as being perceived as signicantly affected by the change. Inform- ants ranged from the heads of information services (Library, Management Information Services, Computer Centre) to senior managers (Deans, Pro-Vice Chancellors, Heads of Finance, Personnel, Planning and Vice Chancellors). Senior academics and all members of the strategy group or committee were interviewed. Strategy documents (working papers, bulletins for staff, internal documentation) were gathered and, where possible, strategy meetings attended. Collecting data was complicated by the reluctance of some of the respond- ents to openly discuss the process because of its highly political nature. This was overcome by assuring anonymity to all participants, and by emphasising that I was independent and uninvolved in the strategy process. All names of HEIs have been changed and all names of individuals have been omitted. As a result of the pressures to protect the participants, I have been more vague about details of events than would have been preferred. This approach isnt unusual in case study research (Watson 1994) as it allows the gathering of data that would otherwise be unavailable. The HEIs are referred to using a letter from the Greek Alphabet (Alpha to Mu). Analysis of the data suggested that in relation to insecurity there were three main clusters of universities. The rst cluster consists of Epsilon, ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 69 Delta, and Theta universities. These were HEIs where respondents involved in the change process reported and behaved in a manner, which indicated high levels of security. All three are traditional universities established before 1960 and all had maintained a collegial approach to the management of the institution. Delta and Epsilon universities were also noticeable as being geographically isolated and being of relatively small size. The second cluster consists of Kappa, Iota, Beta, Gamma, and Mu HEIs. This cluster can be characterised as red brick universities which were moving (or had moved) from a collegial to a more managerial approach to the management of the institution. In all ve of these universities there was polarisation between groups involved in the change process which reported and behaved in a manner that indicated that they were working in a climate that was judged to be relatively secure and others within the university judged to be extremely insecure. This cluster can be divided into two subsections. The rst consists of Kappa and Iota and the second consists of Beta, Gamma, and Mu HEIs. The rst group shared the common characteristics of insecurity being noted within only one function within the HEIs and the change being led by a senior member of the management team. In the second group the change was led by the Vice-Chancellor and more than one function responded in an insecure manner. It is important to note that within both groups the degree of change was not seen as differing signicantly. The third cluster consists of Zeta, Eta, and Alpha HEIs. In each of these HEIs all involved in the change process reported high levels of insecurity. These HEIs shared a managerial approach to the management of the insti- tution. Zeta and Alpha were large new universities and Eta was a college of HE. For the sake of brevity, each site studied will not be described in detail. Instead, the advice of Pettigrew et al. has been followed in that this paper will be based on data selected from sites where extreme situations, critical incidents and social dramas took place (Pettigrew, Ferlie and McKee 1992: 30). Therefore, in this paper data were utilised from three HEIs: Epsilon, Gamma, and Alpha. Within this longitudinal and interpretive research design, the core focus is on actors as creating and being constrained by organisational meaning. Meaning is seen as being transmitted, reproduced and created through symbols and language. These constructs are the most easily accessed through organisational sagas, legends, myths and stories. They illuminate the organisational climate and power relations and allow one to glimpse the belief systems in operation in the organisation. The focus of the interviews was upon illuminating and exploring these deep structures. It was recognised, however, that stories of disagreement and resistance must be heard along side the 70 D.K. ALLEN legitimised stories of organisational power holders (Rhodes 1996). Much of the work which has been undertaken on story telling within an HE context has focused on story telling by senior managers (Quong, Walker and Body- cott 1999). Storytelling was, thus seen as . . . the preferred sense-making currency of human relationships (Boje 1991: 106). The different approaches and critiques of the use of stories in understanding organisation is recognised (c.f. Boje, Alvarez, and Schooling 2001). It is also recognised that the produc- tion and attempted legitimisation of stories has an overtly political dimension in that it . . . is an attempt to privilege one voice and to suppress other voices which might offer counter interpretations of actions and events (Brown 1998: 38). Organisational stories were used as a way in which I could uncover the competing histories of the organisation. The approach taken to the interview was that conversation was a political act, a production of a partial view of the phenomena. The stories recounted in interviews were not seen as a direct representation, rather they were analysed sensitively in light of their historical, cultural, political and contextual factors (Silverman 1993: 6). 2.1. Insecurity Job insecurity was widely assumed (OECD 1998), to have increased substan- tially over the last decade. Indeed, Beck argues, around the world, exible work and insecure terms of employment are growing faster than any other form of work (Beck 2000: 84). It is, however, only recently that detailed research has been undertaken which deals with the nature and impact this phenomenon (Burchell and others 1999). As Burchell et al. (1999) note, there is a lack of empirical research in this area. At the same time, job insecurity and the stress that it causes within the higher education sector has become an issue of primary concern for many of the professional associations and trade unions. This is especially signicant in relation to new employment practices (AUT 1999; Editorial 1999) Job insecurity has also become one of public debate (Swain 1999; Utley 1998). In a recent press release, the Association of University Teachers (AUT) noted the relationship between job insecurity and the growth in the use of short-term contracts by universities. Insecurity of employment due to xed-term contracts is now the biggest issue facing higher education staff today. Throughout the UK, the propor- tion of academic staff employed on such contracts has now reached an astonishing 43%, while in some institutions up to a third of technicians are now casualised. (AUT 1998) Although the AUTs concern was primarily for academic members of staff they described job insecurity as an issue which affected most forms of ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 71 employment within the HE sector. The issue discussed in this paper is, how is the organisational climate of security (or insecurity) inuenced by the different approaches to strategic planning, and, in turn, how does the organisational climate inuence the process of strategic planning? Within the different HEIs studied, radically different climates of security and insecurity were observed. The data suggest that job insecurity or security on the basis perception of fear of job loss was, in some institutions, an important issue that inuenced behaviour. A more signicant issue was insecurity, based on the fear of the loss of valued job features, such as the loss of status within the organisation or loss of opportunity for promotion. This is described as multi-dimensional job insecurity (Burchell and others 1999). Recent research (Burchell and others 1999) has identied a link between multi-dimensional job insecurity and organisational motivation. Burchell (1999) has argued that job insecurity is negatively correlated with self- reported motivation levels. Other research has also pointed to the link between increased insecurity, particularly in the public sector, and its negative impact on employees loyalty, morale, and motivation (Thomas and Dunkerley 1999; Worrall and Cooper 1998) The impact of this, for any strategic change initiative, is profound, as lack of employee participation, commitment and motivation are signicant barriers to strategic organisational change (Zeffane 1996). Within the HEIs studied, insecurity or security was seen as linked to the legacies of past change initiatives. In turn, the way these past change initiatives had been dealt with, strongly affected the perceived quality and competence of senior management control. It is important to note that, in common with Worrall and Coopers ndings (Worrall and Cooper 1998), there was a signicant difference between the perceptions of those close to the top of the organisational hierarchy and middle or junior managers. The effects of past change initiatives were perceived much more negatively by those people lower in the organisational hierarchy. It was also noticeable that different levels of insecurity were observed within particular groups in each University. High levels of insecurity across the whole organisation were rare, and where found, were strongly related to the political environment within the university and the perception of the external environment held by members of staff. Within the HE environment levels of security or insecurity were related to change management and its: frequency; predictability; openness; degree of participation; 72 D.K. ALLEN discontinuous or incremental nature; and whether or not the normal mode of decision implementation is based on persuasive power or coercive power. Each of these elements will be described in further detail in the next section of this paper. It is important to note that consistent with the interpretive paradigm in which this research is grounded, this model is developed as a sense-making exercise by the researcher. As Pidgeon, Turner and Blockley point out: From this perspective it becomes less important to seek the one true or valid model. Rather, we should accept that all models are constructed from a particular point of view. Consequently the question of the status of models becomes less one of whether a particular interpretation model is ultimately valid (or biased) . . . (Pidgeon, Turner and Blockley 1991: 170) The model is a rhetorical construct in that . . . it was designed not just to inform but to persuade, and that inevitably it is the authors voice, not the research participants, that is most privileged (Brown 1998: 40). The model does not present the reality as it is, rather its purpose is to explain and present the researchers subjective interpretation of the phenomena. 2.1.1. Frequency The rst issue, which was noted as contributing to organisational insecurity or security, was the frequency of change initiatives. In Alpha, for example, many of the members of this HEI described the HEI as undergoing a continual cycle of transformation. The Head of Learning Services noted that there were frequent cycles of what he termed purges of middle and senior management. A senior academic described this as: . . . a continual process of change and reorganisation, well no, not continuous but sporadic, every couple of years it seems that the whole place is thrown up in the air, at least the senior bit of it, and recongured. Indeed, I observed that within the six months between September 1994 and March 1995, no less than ten Strategy documents, each suggesting a signicant change to the HEI structure, were published. Each time the organisational structures and systems were changed the changes needed time to be assimilated, as one member of the strategy group noted: We used to have a much larger executive team than we have now. The reorganisation of management led to thirteen Executive Director posts being reduced to ve. Its taken a while for that new system to bed-in. Many of those interviewed noted that the cycle of changes was so rapid that there was not sufcient time for changes to bed in. The frequency of these ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 73 changes was demonstrated to me, by the short period for which each new edition of the organisational charts for Alpha was seen as valid. During each visit to the HEI, I would ask one of the managers for an organisational chart. On every occasion, it was noticeable that each time a chart was produced the interviewee then amended it by hand, or signicant changes to the chart were described to me. One manager, off tape, noted that the management structure was being changed so often that he felt that the organisational charts were out of date by the time they are printed. 2.2. Predictability This insecurity in Alpha was exacerbated by the fact that many of the respondents felt that organisational history would not help them understand the nature of the changes, or to predict how the changes would affect the organisation. The impact of this issue can be seen in relationship to the perception in Alpha and Epsilon of the impact of environmental turbulence. Both HEIs had similar perceptions of the threatening and turbulent nature of the external environment in which they existed; yet, they had very different reactions to this turbulence. In Alpha, external turbulence seems to have been translated into internal organisational turbulence. Signicantly, members of the organisation felt unable to predict how the changes would affect their role within the organisa- tion. They did not know what would be next, or who would be the next to lose his/her position. The changes were seen as discontinuous, unpredictable, and a reaction the turbulent external environment. As the Chair of the Information Strategy Group (ISG) noted: But no Universities have really been in this position before, have they? No one knows how to react because they havent been there before. It is bizarre unlike anything that has gone before. Many of the respondents in Epsilon shared this perception of a threatening and turbulent external environment but this was not translated into fragmen- tation and insecurity within the HEI. Indeed, this fear of the rapidly changing and threatening external environment seemed to drive members of the HEI closer together. As the Director of the Computing Services stated: People were pulling together to produce a strategy which would help us overcome our difculties of size and location. In Epsilon there was a feeling that we sink or swim together and that the resolution of problems should be achieved through participative decision- making. Critical to the maintenance of this environment, was the fact 74 D.K. ALLEN that teams maintained positive interpersonal relationships. Amason and Schweiger (1994) have described this phenomenon as affective acceptance and research (Korsgaard, Schweiger and Sapienza 1995) suggests that this has a critical impact on decision making. Amason and Schweiger, for example, state that: To consistently produce and reach consensus on high-quality decisions, the members of a top management team must maintain interpersonal rela- tionships that allow them to continue to work together . . . Continuing affective acceptance among a teams members . . . is important to organisational performance because maintaining an adequate level of affective acceptance sustains a teams ability to function. (Amason and Schweiger 1994: 242). In Epsilon, these positive interpersonal relationships, were based on one level, on a clear understanding of the mutual inter-dependence of the different func- tions of the HEI. This interdependence seemed to be based on a strong sense of mutual respect. As a Senior Academic stated: I think what youve to appreciate is that in a College like this, there are few of us or few people on campus, and I dont include myself in this, who are technically all that competent. We rely very much on people like (X an academic member of staff), who has had training, got obvious expertise and people like (the Director of Computing Services), but for instance, in the Library weve got (Y) who has limited expertise in the IT eld. He fronts the operation for the Library, but I think he would be the rst to admit, he has got limited expertise. Im very much in the same position myself. I make use of the computer system particularly here, but I wouldnt regard myself as being technically all that competent, not all that familiar with new developments, and I think what weve found, what Ive found particularly useful, was being able to talk to people like (these) . . . This interdependence seemed to be based on a symbiotic relationship. The mutual exchange was based on strong inter-personal relationships and high levels of trust. As the Director of Learning Resources pointed out about the relationship between the Computing Centre and the Library: Well, very similar to what my relationship is with them, is that there is now real link between them, its just again based on favours and actually asking again will you give me a hand to do so and so . . . This interdependence, mutual respect and trust reinforced the levels of security because those involved in the strategic change initiative felt valued and secure in their positions as members of an academic community. ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 75 2.3. Openness Gamma HEI offered another dimension to the issue of organisational insecurity. In Gamma one department, in particular, operated in an insecure environment. Much of this insecurity stemmed from a lack of openness of senior managers. The importance of relaying regular, systematic and accurate information has been identied as a signicant issue in the reduction of insecurity (Lim 1996), as has clear and rapid communication (Burchell and others 1999). In Gamma the senior managers were insecure and lacked trust in the service managers, therefore they were unwilling to allow service managers access to information which would support autonomous decision-making. Yet, they expected that service managers take autonomous decisions in line with the strategic plan. The Director of the Computing Service, described for example, a situation, where he had to make a multi-million pound purchase, but he was unable to get any form of formal conrmation from the HEI that he should proceed with the purchase. At the same time the Vice-Chancellor told him orally and informally that he must go ahead with the purchase. This manager stated in an interview a day before the purchase was made: Christ, I am slightly nervous of this, and I am trying to make sure that I am covered, in a professional sense, in that I follow all the procedures. I did specically ask for a written statement from the nance ofce of what the budget was, and they just sort of laughed. Lack of information caused organisational insecurity and decreased the managers willingness to take a risk. This particular example also demon- strates the lack of trust between service managers and senior managers in Gamma. Epsilon had much in common with Gamma: they were of a similar size, geographically isolated, highly specialised, and had a common percep- tion of a turbulent and hostile environment. Both were organisations where many decisions were made on an informal basis and autonomous decision- making was encouraged. Epsilon, however, provides an interesting contrast to Gamma in that individuals involved in change processes were willing to share information, ideas, and perspectives. They were also willing to share differences in assumptions and interpretations. These issues have been linked at a team level to effectiveness of decision-making (Amason and Schweiger 1994; Korsgaard, Schweiger and Sapienza 1995; Schweiger, Sandberg and Rechner 1989). This difference in behaviour within the two HEIs can be linked to the openness and communication within the HEIs. 76 D.K. ALLEN 2.4. Participation in past change initiatives Organisational insecurity or security was also affected by the nature of the decision making process and the political system. In Alpha the political environment was seen as autocratic with power being centralised within a small cabal of extremely powerful individuals, led by the Vice-Chancellor: The lead has come primarily from the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice- Chancellor has been enthusiastic and evangelical about changes in HE and has taken a fairly rm hand over the steering of the institution. As far as responsibility with the executive team is concerned the drive is coming mainly from the top with the Academic Planning Ofcer as well. The Finance Ofcer who is responsible for the resources tends to play a more cautious role, as we might expect. Another respondent noted that although the Vice-Chancellor spoke of participatory decision making and empowering staff, changes to the organisation were devised and developed by the Vice-Chancellor and a small Executive Team: The real power lies with the Vice-Chancellor. One example of this is the major re-organisation, two years ago, which was instigated by the Vice- Chancellor. He works very closely with two of the other Senior Managers; the Executive Director and the Development Director as a team. In this environment of fear and insecurity the lack of the chance to partici- pate in decision-making reduced trust in the management and increased insecurity. Whitener et al. (1998) suggest that sharing control of decision making increases trust because employees have greater control over decisions that affect them and, therefore, can protect their own interests. In Epsilon the approach to the control of decision-making was based on a participative approach. A small central group of individuals formed a senior management team which co-ordinated activities. They worked in a highly consensual manner formulating and implementing decisions through commit- tees and working parties. Interestingly, the committee members tended to comprise of individuals who were either elected representatives or appointed for their particular expertise of knowledge. Individuals within the HEI were not appointed or excluded merely because of their position within the HEIs hierarchy. One of the leading members of the information services committee, who was at that point a senior lecturer, pointed out: I put my name forward for election to the Information Services Committee, because I personally felt that as a department we ought to ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 77 be represented since we are one of the principal users of the computer system . . . A positive attempt was made to including both the service directors and academics within the decision making process. An insight was given into the decision-making processes in the HEI by one lecturer who (off tape) explained that because of the particularly isolated position, and small size of Epsilon there was a strong sense of community. Members of the HEI lived within close proximity, socialised together, and met regularly within their working environment. Thus, informal relationships were often far more important than formal positions within the HEI. It was clear that there were strong co-operative working relationships within the HEI. The Chair of the Information Strategy pointed out: I think youve probably met many of the members of the Committee . . . We are rather different to large institutions, in that we all know each other anyway. My feeling is that everybody has done all that could have been expected of them . . . in that sense and everybody has produced the goods when its been asked of them . . . Here it was clear that the ability to become involved in the process acted as a form of social reward (Whitener and others 1998) afrming the standing and worth in the organisation of those who were asked to be involved. 2.5. Discontinuous or incremental nature of the change initiatives The changes that were initiated in Alpha were seen as being discontinuous and often initiated in response to a crisis: . . . when there was a sort of budgetary crisis, the Vice-Chancellor decided that almost all the committees would just be abolished at a stroke. You know, like that and they were gone, which he had the power to do. This quotation also illustrates the fact that many of the managers perceived the change initiatives as knee-jerk reactions to nancial crisis. The Senior Management Team (SMT) often explicitly linked many of the major initi- atives to the desire to save money in an attempt to justify the change initiatives. Another manager illustrated the radical and rapid way in which the Vice- Chancellor removed the divisional structures within the HEI. In the late 1980s, the divisions had been quite powerful within the HEI. The representa- tives of the divisions were members of the SMT and represented an academic 78 D.K. ALLEN voice in senior management, and an academic role in decision making beyond the department: It is a new structure and it is much leaner than it was twelve months ago, because we now have 4 executives, whereas before we had fourteen and the VC decided that, for various reasons, that was too many. I have only been in this position from May of last year i.e., six months and the struc- ture has changed quite rapidly. The other thing that changed is there was a strong intermediate structure between the base level, the eighteen schools if you like, and the executive arm and that was what we called divisions (in a traditional University you would call them Faculties). There were four Divisions each with a powerful Executive Director with budgetary powers and resources to distribute down to the Schools. That Divisional level is still there but it is much weaker now. We have Divisional Chairs but they do not have executive powers, they do not have major budgets, the budgets are devolved down to the School level, so to some extent it is a bit of an anachronism, to many activities it is not strictly relevant. In Epsilon, whilst the HEI had embraced many innovations (such as the routine use of video-conferencing in teaching) it had changed in an incre- mental rather than discontinuous manner. For example, the service directors had relative autonomy within their own spheres, as one of the academics noted: In the past, the Computer Service, although it has sought advice from academics and academic departments, has in a sense made its own decisions . . . With this autonomy, came the ability to innovate with ideas and concepts, which could have a strategic impact on the HEI. It is important to note that members of the services were fully integrated into the academic community and there was a great deal of collaboration between members of the services and academic departments. An example of this is the use of interactive web-based teaching materials. The Director of the Multi-Media services, in collaboration with academic colleagues, developed these materials. He had strong links with teaching staff and was, himself, involved in teaching. The Director saw his role as providing an environment in which, in partnership with academic colleagues, he could focus on developing and implementing innovative applications for the use of the technology within the HEI. Funda- mental to the success of this was that, within the secure environment which the HEI provided, members of staff felt able to take risks and innovate. ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 79 2.6. Persuaded or coerced Within the management of Alpha there seemed to be a feeling that, not only you did not know who would be removed from ofce next, but also anyone, however senior, could be affected. There was also a view that whenever there was a crisis, staff in managerial positions would lose their jobs. Further more there was a belief that that the Vice-Chancellor would personally decide who should lose their jobs. This was demonstrated when Vice-Chancellor announced the HEIs response to a crisis in funding in the mid-1990s. He stated that the rst thing to change would be the senior management structure. He then went on to state that the overall Leadership Team is going to be reduced in size and that it will bear a heavy proportion of the overall stafng cuts. He stated that he disliked doing this but felt that there was no alternative to such direct action. This statement makes it clear that this was a personal decision of the Vice-Chancellor and that the rst group to be affected by cuts would be the management. A leading member of the strategy group recounted a story of a change which illustrates this point: When it comes to decisions like that it comes down to the VC, he instigated the process which resulted in the shakedown of the senior management team of the institution, even to the extent that the person that was working in the role of Deputy VC, the next level down . . . actually had to leave the institution. Other respondents recounted different versions of this story. Although there were slight differences to the stories, they all illustrated the fact that the Vice-Chancellor was all-powerful, could not be resisted and that managers positions, however senior, were tenuous and insecure. This was emphasised by a respondent who noted that: People in the Senior Management Team are in, if they support him and the Senior Management Team essentially does what he wants, as far as I can see, and those who do not, disappear. The timing of the announcement was also interesting, as there was some delay between the Vice-Chancellor announcing the cuts and the Vice-Chancellor providing information about the new structure. It can be hypothesised that this delay increased insecurity and also reinforced the perspective that it was knee jerk reaction. In Epsilon the participative and negotiated approach to decision making ensured that members of the HEI felt that they had ownership of decisions. In this way major decisions were not seen as being imposed, and collective decision-making resulted in collective responsibility being taken for the 80 D.K. ALLEN possible outcome of a decision. The language used by members of the HEI when referring to strategy documents was particularly revealing as it was common to hear interviewees describe a particular strategy as belonging to them: as our strategy. The consensual approach ensured that opposing opin- ions had been explored before any controversial decision was made and that the majority of groups within the HEI would be supportive of the decision. The Director of the Multi-Media Service spoke of this when he stated that, for example, in the ISG: I know there were confrontations, but we needed those confrontations to bring us together, I believe by doing that I think we have a foundation there . . . The way in which the information strategy document was written exemplied this participative approach. The Director of Learning Resources noted that for the information strategy: It was a consensus. I wrote on the Multi-Media side, then we had another person on the Computer side, the Librarian and then we had the Pro-Vice- Chancellor, he did a synopsis of the whole thing and put it all together. Yes we all had our bit to play in it, we all had our bit to put in and all that was put in to the strategy then. . . . It is important to note that although the document represented consensus it did not avoid controversial issues. It included, for example, recommendations for the introduction of a HEI-wide module. The implementation of this module was particularly controversial because it would draw funding away from academic departments. Consensus, based both on the clear understanding of the implications of their decisions and commitment to the decision has been described as a issue which supports the quality of a decision (Amason and Sapienza 1997; Amason and Schweiger 1994; Korsgaard, Schweiger and Sapienza 1995; Schweiger, Sandberg and Rechner 1989). 2.7. Responses to the climates of insecurity/security Most of the respondents in Alpha noted that they were working in an insecure environment. This widespread insecurity was openly recognised by the SMT. The perspective of the Chair of the Information Strategy, was particularly open on this issue, arguing that that his colleagues felt insecure and uncom- fortable with the changes because they had not comprehended the nature of the turbulent and hostile environment in which the HEI had to exist: A lot of the more senior people feel very uncomfortable because they havent necessarily come face to face with the economic realities that lie ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 81 Figure 1. Job insecurity and self-reported motivation levels taken from Burchell et al. (1999). behind some of the changes that are happening. They live a very, very, sheltered existence. They do not necessarily understand why it has come about. Yet, this rationale was greeted with cynicism and seen as illegitimate. A Senior Professor in Alpha commented: I suspect its a kind of distractive ploy to the fact that things are not working as well as they might be, unless there is this kind of pathological need to tinker with things, sort of rebuild the railway set on the oor, you know, everyday into a different pattern. I do not know, something like that perhaps. The adverse affects on employees caused by such frequent changes has been documented by a number of researchers (McHugh 1996). Burchell (1999), for example, demonstrates that job insecurity and self-reported motivation levels is a negative rather than a positive one. This is illustrated in Figure 1. The managers who were currently in position at the start of the infor- mation strategy process in Alpha were survivors of what were described as purges by managers and downsizing by senior managers. Much of their later behaviour could be explained by their reaction to these past changes. This can be seen as the psychological legacy of the change initiatives based upon the breaking of psychological contracts (Andersson 1996; Feldman 1991; Morrison and Robinson 1997; Robinson and Rousseau 1994; Turnley and Feldman 1998) with the organisation. The term psychological contract refers to . . . individuals beliefs about the terms and conditions of a recip- rocal exchange agreement between that person and another party (Robinson 1996: 575). Psychological contract breach is also seen as often occurring as a result of organisational restructuring (Turnley and Feldman 1998). Indeed, it can be seen as an explanation for the high levels of insecurity within HEIs (such as Alpha) where there were frequent attempts to restructure the organisation. Psychological contract breach has an impact on the level 82 D.K. ALLEN of insecurity (Turnley and Feldman 1998) and trust (Robinson 1996).The frequency of the changes, the lack of continuity, the fact that these changes had all come under different managerial banners, and that that they seemed to be re ghting rather than anticipatory, undermined the image of the senior management control as being planned or coherent. This negative view of the senior management and lack of trust in their general competence further reinforced insecurity. The staff became insecure not just about the future of their own position within the organisation, but also increasingly insecure about the future survival of the HEI. Thornhill et al. (1996) note that the survivors of such changes often react in a manner which is unfavourable for the organisation. These reactions can include mistrust, insecurity, and a lower commitment to the organisation. Employees, there- fore, can become more cautious and less willing to take risks or exercise discretion. Widespread organisational insecurity in Alpha was often alluded to as the explanation for the particularly strong levels of organisational inertia. One of the members of the strategy group noted that: People are generally reluctant to enter into debate, they like the status quo. There is a reticence of people to get involved in this process because they feel threatened. In Alpha respondents in explanation of their reluctance to become involved, and their lack of motivation in any change process told stories of the restruc- turing of senior management. Respondents pointed to the link between this insecurity and the information strategy process, noting that there was resist- ance to the strategy process because it was seen as possibly leading to further changes in the organisational structures: The Information Strategy is beginning to question the structures of the University and structures of Departments within the University and peoples seemingly secure place within these structures. This insecurity related to past reorganisations is described by Burchell as being particularly . . . noticeable in organisations where senior management had made a concerted effort to delayer their employment structures, eliminate existing job demarcations and atten their managerial hierarchies (Burchell and others 1999: 3). In Epsilon the effects of an organisational climate of security was multi- faceted, it led to a willingness to be open and share information and to have robust discussion within the HEI. This increased levels of commitment to the organisation (and to organisational decisions), and consensus on decisions. The literature suggests, however, that there is a paradox, in that: ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 83 Figure 2. Epsilon and decision making. . . . many of the factors that enhance decision quality appear also to undermine consensus and affective acceptance. At the same time, factors that enhance consensus or positive affect appear to also curtail decision quality. A dilemma results where teams must choose between pursuing higher quality decisions which cannot be implemented versus imple- menting lower quality decisions. (Amason and Sapienza 1997: 495) Amason and colleagues (Amason and Sapienza 1997; Amason and Schweiger 1994) suggest that this paradox is partly resolved by distin- guishing between cognitive conict (based on ideas) and affective conict (based on personalities). They have argued that intra-group cognitive conict enhances decision quality whilst affective conict reduces it. Although some researchers have argued that the use of intra-group conict to increase decision quality is dubious (Tompson 1997), most seem to agree with this argument (Korsgaard, Schweiger and Sapienza 1995). The case of Epsilon is certainly supportive of the prior research. Indeed, in Epsilon a mutually reinforcing relationship was observed between, on one hand the high levels of security and, on the other hand their propensity to be open with informa- tion, to have candid discussion and their positive personal relationships. This created an environment in which there were high levels of cognitive conict in the decision-making processes, but low levels of affective conict. This in turn led to a clear understanding of the impact of decisions that were made, a commitment to the decisions and consensus. This is illustrated in Figure 2. As Korsgaard et al. argue: . . . the manner in which team leaders elicit, receive, and respond to team members input affects their attitudes towards the decisions them- selves and towards the other members of the teams, including the leaders. (Korsgaard et al. 1995: 76) 84 D.K. ALLEN They point out that two elements must be in place for a decision process to be perceived as fair. The rst is that individuals must perceive that they have been given the opportunity to present information relevant to a decision. The second is that the contributor must feel that the decision-maker shows consideration of their input. Indeed, this second issue becomes particularly important when the contributors voice is ignored and the contributor does not perceive the outcome of the decision as favourable. Korsgaard et al. (1995) have found that where strong consideration of members input the process was perceived as fairer and consequently team members had greater attachment to the team, greater commitment to the decision and greater trust in the leader. This link between perceived procedural justice and trust has been reinforced by Brockner et al. (1997). 2.8. Conclusion In this paper the concept of job insecurity within the HEI environment has been explored. It has established that levels of insecurity are linked to individuals, or groups, perceptions of the organisational environment. The concept that climates of insecurity (or security) which can exist within a HEIs and can be shared on an organisational level (as described in Alpha and Epsilon HEIs), or can be rooted in sub-cultures (as seen in Gamma) has also been established. Six issues were identied which affected the climate of insecurity or security within the different HEIs these related to perceptions of change management and its frequency, predictability, openness, degree of participation, discontinuous or incremental nature of change, and whether or not decisions are implemented by use of persuasive power or coercive power. Levels of insecurity or security within HEIs are affected by the perception by individuals or groups that they are respected. In environments, such as the Gamma, where specic groups felt that they were not respected, they were much more insecure. This was, however, affected by the quality of interpersonal relationships. In Epsilon, for example, the high quality of inter- personal relationships among those involved in the process led to a greater sense of security. Linked to this was the extent to which the members of the HEI saw themselves as part of a community and understood their mutual interdependence and stated and acted in a way which reected their respect for each others professional skills. HEIs where there were distinct cultures with strong boundaries between them were often typied by a lack of a sense of interdependence and climates of insecurity. The research also exposed a strong link between multi-dimensional job insecurity and organisational trust. This link was also identied by Burchell et al. (1999), who reported that lack of trust was strongly associated with feelings of job insecurity. ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 85 One of the primary observations drawn from this research is that the existing models provide a partial perspective for the governance and manage- ment of HEIs. I would suggest that an HEI can more protably be viewed through the metaphor of a community. It may be a community composed of different academic tribes (Becher 1993), and professional groups, but at its most effective it is still a community bound together by a commitment to the HEI. Earlier research has discussed the signicance of commitment by academics to the institution and to their students. Trow, for example, states that: . . . almost everything in a HEI depends on the inner motivations of teachers their sense of pride, their intellectual involvement with their subjects, their professional commitments to the role of teacher, their love of students, or of learning . . . And these motivation are usually quite inde- pendent of unpredictable external assessments, and the remote incentives and punishments that can be attached to them. (Trow 1993: 11) In this view, whilst the governance system may have moved from a collegial system to a professional bureaucracy (Heiskanen, Newman and Saarinen 1998; Heiskanen, Newman and Simil 2000) the assumption is that the HEI decisions should still be made by academics. This view permeated the atti- tudes and behaviour of many of the senior academics interviewed. These academics spoke of putting the information services in their place, resented the involvement of service directors in decision-making, and resented expenditure on the provision of central services. The services were perceived as a separate and alien element stitched on to the HEI and, as such, as having no place in the governance of the HEI. This clearly described in the case of Gamma HEI. The result seemed to be a mutual lack of trust and increased organisational insecurity. Strategic change initiatives were resisted, partially because they were perceived as attacks on the professional identity of members of the information services. In HEIs, information service staff assume that they would have involvement and control over various aspects of planning for the IT infrastructure in which they had areas of expertise. Their exclusion from the strategic decision process can be interpreted as psychological contract violation. In contrast the managerial perspective inverts the collegial power relation- ship and suggests a view of the HEI as being properly led and managed by professional managers. The current drive for a more business-like and managerial approach fragments the HEI. It has, for example, set academics against professional managers and alienated members of the university (as in Alpha). The change that is occurring seems to be accompanied by conict, 86 D.K. ALLEN as academics take industrial action over pay (c.f., Maslen on the Australian situation 1999), and changing working conditions and raise concerns about academic freedom (Allport 1999). Fuelled by a number of high prole scan- dals in Hudderseld, Portsmouth (Dearlove 1999), and Swansea (Davies 1994) Universities there is concern about the opportunities that managerial structures afford for the abuse of power. This research resonates with the ndings of Sporn (Sporn 1996, 1999) that successful processes and structures for adaptation can only be implemented through joint activities of administration and faculty (Sporn 1999). I would suggest that a more sophisticated view of governance and management in the HEI should be taken, one that recognises both the social nature of the context, and process, of strategic change. The HEI should be treated as a symbiotic community based on mutual interdependence of different groups. This is not a suggestion that we should go back to the future: back to collegial structures. This is neither desirable nor possible. This study, in common with those of Prichard and Willmott (1997) and Trowler (1997), suggests that a note of caution be sounded in respect to the claims that the transition from collegialism to managerialism (Parker and Jary 1995) is inevitable, cannot be resisted, or is being implemented as intended. Indeed, as Prichard and Willmott state, . . . localised practices and existing discursive regimes have a strong mediating effect on the reception and articulation of management disciplines (Prichard and Willmott 1997: 311). In the HEIs observed, rather than forming a web into which all members of the organisation were trapped (a web that reproduces certain power rela- tions) managerialist ideology actually resulted in those who introduced the concepts losing legitimacy. Yet, the rejection of managerialism does not mean the rejection of management values. Becher and Kogan note: Management values in higher education are not intrinsically hostile to professional values. A particular strand of governmental ideology, however that which promotes such values above those of the academic enterprise which management is meant to serve is in conict with academic norms. (Becher and Kogan 1992: 179) It is not the introduction of management ideology that proves unpalatable, but the introduction of a particular brand of management thought and its use to re-order power within the HEI. This has also been observed in studies of the implementation of technologies or systems for management of technology in Higher Education (Allen and Kern 2001, 2002). Similarly, in this study attempts to introduce managerial language offered an alien jarring note into the academic discourse. Its application is increasingly being questioned and rejected: ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 87 Long after the wave has passed in the business world, why have words like vision, mission, and excellence become omnipresent in the rhetoric of university presidents and administrators? (Atkinson-Grosjean 1998) Not only is this language rejected because it was perceived as either already being obsolete in the mainstream of management thought, or used without understanding: it was also, rejected because of the absolute nature of these managerial discourses. Rather than leaping from one managerial fad to another in a frantic race for efciency, we should be focusing on developing approaches to management and administration which are particular to the higher education sector. I would argue that higher education in the UKseems to be reaching a crisis point, a point at which it could truly start to feel the impact of neo-liberal economic policies, information technology, and globalised competition. We will be in the Brave New World of Work (Beck 2000) where risk and insecurity are the norm rather than the exception. We may have to radically transform the way we work, just as the banking, insurance, telecommu- nications industries have. This research suggests that it is of fundamental importance that HEIs manage this change process using techniques which reect the complex nature of Higher Education Institutions: techniques which reduce organisational job insecurity and bond the organisation together as a community. References Allen, D.K. and Kern, T. (2001). Enterprise resource planning implementation: Stories of power, politics, and resistance, in Russo, N.L., Fitzgerald, B. and DeGross, J.I. (eds.), Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and Organisational Perspective. Proceedings of the IFIP 8.2 TC8/WG Boise, Idaho, USA July 2729. Boston: Klewer Academic Publishers, pp. 149163. Allen, D.K. and Kern, T. (2002). Culture, power, and politics in ICT outsourcing in higher education institutions, European Journal of Information Systems Volume Forthcoming. Allen, D.K.W., T.D. (1995). Strategic planning for information and technology in higher education, The New Review of Information Networking 1(1), 116. Allen, D.K.W., T.D. (1996). Information technology: Strategic directions in UK higher education institutions, Axis 3(1), 2331. Allport, C. (1999). Australia, Academe 85(4), 2025. Alvesson, M. and Berg, P.O. (1992). Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism: An Overview. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conict, Journal of Management 23(4), 495517. 88 D.K. ALLEN Amason, A.C. and Schweiger, D.M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance, The International Journal of Conict Management 5(3), 239253. Andersson, L. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework, Human Relations 49, 13951418. Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (1998). Illusions of Excellence and the Selling of the University: A Micro-Study, Vol. 3(3). Electronic Journal of Sociology. Accessed 1998 December. Available from http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?100.3.3.1. AUT (1998). Press Release. Association of University Teachers. Accessed 25/11/99 1999. Web page. Available from http://www.aut.org.uk/news/press98/pr98029.htm. AUT (1999). Press Release. Association of University Teachers. Accessed 25/11/99 1999. WWW. Available from http://www.aut.org.uk/news/press99/pr99042.htm. Barker, R.A. (1994). Relative utility of culture and climate analysis to an organisational change agent: An analysis of general dynamics, electronics division, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 2(1), 6887. Becher, T. (1993). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Becher, T. and Kogan, M. (1992). Process and Structure in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Beck, U. (2000). The Brave New World of Work. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boje, D.M. (1991). Stories of the storytelling organization: A study of storytelling perfor- mance in an ofce-supply rm, Administrative Science Quarterly 36, 106126. Boje, D.M., Alvarez, R.C. and Schooling, B. (2001). Reclaming story in organisation: Narra- tologies and action sciences, in Westwood, R. and Linstead, S. (eds.), The Language of Organisation. Sage: London, pp. 132176. Borum, F. (1995). Organization, Power and Change. Copenhagen: Munksgaard International Publishers Ltd. Brockner, J., Siegel, P.A., Daly, J.P., Tyler, T. and Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favourability, Administrative Science Quarterly (September), 557583. Brown, A. (1990). Information, Organisation, and Organisational Culture: A Grounded Theory Approach. PhD, Shefeld University. Brown, A.D. (1998). Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation, Journal of Management Studies 35(1), 3558. Burchell, B. (1999). Work Insecurity and Work Intensication: Findings. Cambridge: ESRC Centre for Business Research: University of Cambridge. Burchell, B.J., Day, D., Hudson, M., Ladipo, D., Mankelow, R., Nolan, J.P., Reed, H., Wichert, I.C. and Wilkinson, F. (1999). Job Insecurity and Work Intensication: Flexibility and the Changing Boundaries of Work. York: YPS. Davies, M. (1994). The Davies Report: The Great Battle in Swansea. Bristol: Thoemmes Press. Dearlove, J. (1999). The deadly dull issue of university administration? Good governance, managerialism and organising academic work, Higher Education Policy 11, 5979. Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the difference between organisational culture and organiza- tional climate? A natives point of view on a decade of paradigm wars, Academy of Management Review 21(3), 619654. Editorial (1999). Part-time lecturers, Times Higher Education Quarterly, Friday April 16. ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 89 Feldman, M.S. (1991). The meanings of ambiguity: Learning from stories and metaphors, in Frost, P.J., Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C.C. and Martin, J. (eds.), Reframing Organizational Culture. California: Sage Publications, pp. 145156. Follett, B. (Chairman) (1993). Joint Funding Councils Library Review Group: A Report for HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW and DENI. Bristol: HEFCE. Garnsey, E.W. (1992). In defence of systems thinking: Constitutive processes and dynamic social systems, Management Studies Group, University of Cambridge: Unpublished paper. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (eds.) (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Gioia, D.A., Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M. and Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: the dynamics of sensemaking and inuence, Organization Science 5(3), 363383. Heiskanen, A., Newman, M. and Saarinen, V. (1998). Innovations in efdoms: Developing a common student information system in six Finnish Universities. A paper delivered at the IFIP working groups 8.2 and 8.6 joint working conference on Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, Helsinki, Finland. Heiskanen, A., Newman, M. and Simil, J. (2000). The social dynamics of software development, Unpublished Paper. Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: disentangling the concepts, Organization Studies 19(3), 477492. Hofstede, G., Bond, M.-H. and Luk, C.-L. (1993). Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: A methodological treatise on levels of analysis, Organization Studies 14(4), 483503. Isabela, L.A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events, Academy of Management Journal 33(1), 741. Jackofsky, E.F. and Slocum, J.W. (1988). A longitudinal study of climates, Journal of Organizational Behaviour 9, 319334. James, L., R., James, L.A. and Ashe, D.K. The meaning of organizations: the Tole of cognition and values, in Schneider, B. (ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 4084. James, L.R., Hater, J.J., Gent, M.L. and Bruni, J.R. (1978). Psychological climate: Implica- tions from cognitie social learning theory and interactional psychology, Personnel Psychology 31, 783814. JISC (1995). Guidelines for Developing an Information Strategy. Joyce, W.F. and Slocum, J.W. (1990). Strategic context and organizational climate, in Schneider, B. (ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., pp. 130150. Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive eld studies in information systems, MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67. Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D.-M. and Sapienza, H.-J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Special Issue: Intra- and Interorganizational Cooperation, Academy of Management Journal 38(1), 6084. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row. Lim, V.K.G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: moderating effects of work-based and nonwork-based social support, Human Relations 49(2), 171195. 90 D.K. ALLEN Litwin, G.H. and Stringer, R.A. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate. Cambridge MA: Harvard University. Manseld, R. and Payne, R.L. (1977). Correlates of variance in perceptions of organizational climate, in Pugh, D.S. and Payne, R.L. (eds.), Organziational Behaviour in Its Context: The Aston Programme III. Farnborough: Saxon House, pp. 149160. Maslen, G. (1999). Australian academics plan strikes, boycotts, The Chronicle of Higher Education 14(12), 6264. McHugh, M. (1996). Managing strategic change in public sector organizations: A Swedish example, Strategic Change 5, 247261. Moran, E.T. and Volkwein, J.F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organiza- tional climate, Human Relations 45, 1947. Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops, Academy of Management Review 22(1), 226 256. OECD (1998). Economic Outlook. Paris: Organization of Economic Cooperation and Devel- opment. Parker, M. and Jary, D. (1995). The McUniversity: Organization, management and academic subjectivity, Organization 2(2), 319339. Payne, R. and Pugh, D.S. (1976). Organizational structure and climate, in Dunnette, M.D. (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, pp. 11251173. Payne, R.L. and Manseld, R. (1977). Relationships of perceptions of organisational climate to organisational structure, context, and hierarchical position, in Pugh, D.S. and Payne, R.L. (eds.), Organziational Behaviour in Its Context: The Aston Programme III. Farnborough: Saxon House, pp. 135149. Payne, R.L. and Pheysey, D. (1977). Sterns organizational climate index: a reconceptual- isation and application to business organisations, in Pugh, D.S. and Payne, R.L. (eds.), Organziational Behaviour in Its Context: The Aston Programme III. Farnborough: Saxon House, pp. 113134. Pepper, S.C. (1942). Word Hypothesis. Berkeley: University of California. Pepper, S.C. (1966). Concept and Quality. Illinois: Open Court. Pettigrew, A. (1987). Context and action in the transformation of the rm, Journal of Management Studies 24(6), 649670. Pettigrew, A. (1995). Longitudinal eld research on change: Theory and practice, in Huber, G.P. and Van de Ven, A.H. (eds.), Studying Processes of Organizational Change. Thousnad Oaks: Sage, pp. 91126. Pettigrew, A.M., Ferlie, E. and McKee, L. (1992). Shaping Strategic Change: Making Change in Large Organizations, The Case of the NHS. London: Sage. Pettigrew, A.M. (1985). Contextualist research and the study of organizational change proceses, in Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R.A., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems. New York: North-Holland, pp. 5377. Pettigrew, A.M. (1997). What is a processual analysis, Scandinavian Journal of Management 13(14), 337348. Pidgeon, N.F., Turner, B.A. and Blockley, D.I. (1991). The use of grounded theory for concep- tual analysis of knowledeg elicitation, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35, 151173. Poole, M.S. and McPhee, R.D. (1983). Structural analysis of organizational climate, in Putnam, L.I. and Paconowsky, M.E. (eds.), Communication and Organization: An Interpretive Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 195219. ORGANISATIONAL INSECURITY 91 Prichard, C. and Willmott, H. (1997). Just how managed is the McUniversity?, Organization Studies 18(2), 287316. Quong, T., Walker, A. and Bodycott, P. (1999). Exploring and interpreting leadership stories, School Leadership and Management 19(4), 441453. Reichers, A.E. and Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: an evolution of constructs, in Schneider, B. (ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., pp. 130150. Rentsch, J.R. (1990). Climate and culture: interaction and qualitative differences in organiza- tional meanings, Journal of Applied Psychology 75(6), 668681. Rhodes, C. (1996). Researching Organisational Change and Learning: A Narrative Approach, Vol. 2(4). The Qualitative Report. Accessed 1 January 1997. Available from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/rhodes.html. Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract, Administrative Science Quarterly 41(4), 574599. Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm, Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(3), 245259. Rousseau, D.M. (1990). Asessing organizational culture: the case for multiple methods, in Schneider, B. (ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 151192. Schneider, B., Brief, A.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change, Organizational Dynamics 24(4), 719. Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R. and Rechner, P.L. (1989). Experimental effects of dialectical inquiry, devils advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making, Academy of Management Journal 32, 745772. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage. Sporn, B. (1996). Managing university culture: An analysis of the relationship between institutional culture and management approaches, Higher Education 32(1), 4161. Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive University Structures: an Analysis of Adaptation to Socioeconomic Environments of US and European Universities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Sproull, L.S. (1981). Beliefs in organizations, in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design: Remodeling Organizations and Their Environments, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 203225. Strauss, A. (1993). Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Swain, H. (1999). Jobs insecurity spreads, Times Higher Education Suppliment, Friday December 10. Thomas, R. and Dunkerley, D. (1999). Plus ca Change? Restructuring and the Realities of New Managerial Work. Proceedings of the 5th Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference: Ethical Dimensions of Accounting Change: Baruch College, New York. Accessed 1 July 1999. Available from http://www.bus.baruch.cuny.edu/critical/HTML/ thomas.htm. Thornhill, A., Saunders, M.K. and Stead, J. (1996). Managing the survivors of change, Strategic Change 5, 323330. Tierney, W.G. (1987). Facts and constructs: Dening reality in higher education organiza- tion, Review of Higher Education 11(1), 6173. Tierney, W.G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Dening the essentials, The Journal of Higher Education 59(1), 221. Tierney, W.G. (1989). Symbolism and presedential perceptions of leadership, Review of Higher Education 12(2), 153166. 92 D.K. ALLEN Tompson, G.H. (1997). The Role of Top Management Team Conict: A Redistribution of Power? 3:2. Electronic Journal of Radical Organizational Theory. Accessed 2 November 1999. Electronic Journal. Available from http://dweb.waikato.ac.nz/depts/sml/ journal/vol3_2/jodie.htm. Trow, M. (1993). Managerialism and the academic profession, Unpublished paper presented to The Quality Debate Conference, Open University. Trowler, P. (1997). Beyond the Robbins trap: Reconceptualising academic responses to change in higher education (or . . . quiet ows the don?), Studies in Higher Education 22(3), 301318. Trowler, P.R. (1998). Academics Responding to Change: New Higher Education Frameworks and Academic Cultures. Buckingham: SRHE and OUP. Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring, Human Resource Management 37(1), 7183. Utley, A. (1998). Constant worry of lives on hold, Times Higher Education Supplement, Friday July 03. Verbeke, W., Volgering, M. and Hessels, M. (1998). Exploring the conceptual expansion within the eld of organizational behaviour: organizational climate and organizational culture, Journal of Management Studies 25(3), 303329. Walsham, G. (1993). In Boland, R. and Hischheim, R. (eds.), Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations, John Wiley Series in Information Systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Watson, T. (1994). In Search of Management: Culture, Choas and Control in Managerial Work. London: Routledge. Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior, Academy of Management Review 23(3), 513531. Worrall, L. and Cooper, C. (1998). The Quality of Working Life. London: Institute of Management. Zeffane, R. (1996). Dynamics of strategic change critical issues fostering positive organisa- tional change, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 17(7), 3643.