DESARROLLO DEL PENSAMIENTO

Research Question 3 asked:

To what extent is it possible to identify organisational practices that facilitate change and foster participation as well as deliver organisational justice within the Australian HE sector?

The third research question deals with the issue of practices for participative workplace change as identified by senior management and union representatives directly involved in the management of workplace change. This question was operationalised by undertaking 20 interviews. The participants selected for these interviews were drawn from management and union respondents to the attitudinal survey.

Semi-Structured Interviews were seen as providing a strong qualitative research approach that could provide greater insight into the nature of the divergence found between management and union representatives in the Attitudinal Survey (Yin, 1994). In addition to providing a form of validation and reliability for these earlier results, it was also designed to provide insight into whether there was possible convergence between management and union respondents when considered from the perspective of both the 17 dimensions of organisational justice as well as specific organisational practices for participative workplace change.

To answer the third research question a series of interviews were conducted to determine which organisational change practices (if any) could be enhanced through participative workplace change. Research Question 3 sought to expand on the findings of the attitudinal survey and to see whether there were some workplace practices that would lend themselves more readily to participation and were considered more fair than others. The details of participants interviewed for Research Question 3 are provided in section 5.5 on data collection. The interviews occurred six to nine months

following the administration of the survey by which time the data had been analysed and participants were provided with a summary of the findings. The findings, which are detailed in Chapter 7 displayed significant divergence of opinion between management and union representatives. Interviewees’ reflections on the findings, and particularly the level of divergence and areas of convergence, were recorded as part of the interviews.

Interviewees were asked a series of three questions across five separate areas described in the model of organisational change described by Victor and Franckeiss (2002):

1. Change management; 2. Employee participation; 3. Distributive justice; 4. Procedural justice; and 5. Interactional justice

Consistent definitions of these five areas were explained to the interviewees so that responses could be readily compared. Interviewees were then presented with the findings of the attitudinal survey and were asked to comment on these. The first question for each of the five areas asked interviewees to reflect on the findings of divergence in the results between management and union responses in the attitudinal survey:

To what extent do you think this finding of divergence is an accurate reflection…?

The second question for each of the five areas contained two parts. First, participants were asked to reflect on the survey results in relation to their perceptions on the facilitation of workplace change and the fostering of employee participation:

What do you think it suggests about the effectiveness of universities in the Australian HE sector in facilitating workplace change and in fostering

Interviewees were then asked to consider each of the dimensions of organisational justice (as set out in the scales for the attitudinal survey) and make a high or low impact assessment in relation to their capacity to facilitate workplace change and to foster employee participation. This question specifically sought to move interviewees away from commenting on the attitudinal survey findings and focus on their own view of the importance of each justice factor. Further, it endeavoured to determine whether an organisational justice approach could identify any areas of possible convergence between management and union participants that the earlier attitudinal survey had not elicited. The second question was:

For each of the justice dimensions, how would you assess them (high or low) with regard to their capacity to facilitate workplace change and foster employee participation?

The final question for each of the five areas involved participants being asked to identify organisational practices that they had observed, experienced or initiated, where they had perceived that there had been convergence between management and union representatives in relation to workplace change:

Can you identify organisational practices in relation to workplace change that might lead to greater convergence between management and union views…?

It was anticipated that the results of the interviews would provide three key findings in relation to the contribution to the research questions for this thesis. Firstly, that the in-depth qualitative nature of the interviews would allow for a validation, or otherwise, on the divergence (or convergence) between management and union representatives towards participative workplace change. Secondly, that it would allow for a detailed assessment of the perceptions of justice in relation to workplace change and employee participation, and specifically whether this organisational justice lens may indicate areas where there was greater convergence than otherwise suggested by the results of the attitudinal survey. Thirdly, that it would allow for an identification of particular organisational practices that both management and union participants

could agree upon as providing a basis to recommend practices in the Australian HE sector that could facilitate and foster participative workplace change.