The baseline survey closed in September 2014 and the steering group met again in late October to discuss the report and findings provided by the researcher. Despite the results being potentially negative from the organisation’s perspective, they appeared to be appreciatively received by the steering group; the steering group chair, senior managers, and union representatives agreed the findings were useful and would be acted upon. However, a steering group meeting two weeks later, to discuss sharing findings with employees and decide priorities/actions, did not take place as planned (see table 15 for brief chronological summary of plans and activity). Once again there was an unanticipated gap of several months before the next steering group meeting was arranged, with difficulties finding a time and date when all steering group members were available a particular issue. This is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter because it did have implications for evaluation, in that internal discussions meant information on how decisions were arrived at was somewhat obscured from the researcher’s view. However, the researcher was able to obtain evidence to evaluate the links between baseline findings and actions, but firstly the interventions planned by PublicOrg are described.
The three initiatives
PublicOrg developed three initiatives in response to the baseline findings; although this process took place internally, the brief summary of survey findings (eventually) released to staff outlined the main issues as PublicOrg interpreted them9 as well as how they planned to address them. This shows some of the rationale behind the interventions and thus the links between the baseline findings and actions they put in place. The document was succinct and provided a series of bullet point ‘headlines’ highlighting the key points
9
170
PublicOrg had taken from the report, followed in most cases with their plans to address them. As an internal document it is not possible to reproduce it here, but an adapted overview of the findings as communicated to employees is provided in table 16 and table 17, which show the main issues and suggestions, as reported by PublicOrg to staff, and how they were intending to address them.
A description of the interventions PublicOrg developed and implemented is provided subsequently, along with the rationale for them and the variables that could be expected to improve as a result of each. Because interventions were decided and developed by PublicOrg and not specified a priori these target outcome variables were primarily based on PublicOrg’s rationale for them. For example, ChangeComms was introduced specifically to improve communication about change, in response to the survey findings citing change and job insecurity as issues, so therefore change and job insecurity were selected as target variables. However, some brief theoretical rationale is included to justify the researcher’s selection of other variables that may also be affected by interventions.
171
Table 16: Summary of main survey findings shared with employees, showing main points & PublicOrg’s planned response
(paraphrased from PublicOrg’s summary of findings)
Main issue(s)… …and what is being done Researcher comment
Workloads: the single most commented issue was work demands
“Ways of supporting staff with this are being looked into and further
information will follow”
To the best of the researcher’s knowledge no further information did follow during the research period.
Communicating change “We are working at being better at this. Recent ‘ChangeComms’ briefings are one example”
ChangeComms described on page 172
Managers: almost one-third of staff felt they were not given enough supportive feedback from managers
The new Performance Development Framework [PDF] was launched in April [2015]
PDF is described on page 173
Two-thirds of staff are worried about losing their job
We recognise these are difficult times with the ongoing cuts. We’re doing everything we can to keep you up to date with what is happening and to involve and consult staff more (e.g.
ChangeComms) One-third of staff feel they are
under some degree of psychological stress
Mental Health Awareness briefings
are taking place across PublicOrg for staff and managers
Described on page 175
98% are clear about their job role but less certain about goals and objectives
Communications will be improved to be clearer about what [PublicOrg] wants to achieve.
This was linked toPDF, although role clarity was not an issue that featured prominently in the baseline findings
Table 17: Employee suggestions and how they are being addressed
You said we need to… PublicOrg response Researcher comment
1)…improve communication and
openness, The ChangeComms briefings will provide a new way of involving staff in important decisions. 2)…listen and consult/involve staff more, and 3)…reduce workload expectations, No specific response mentioned
4)…value and recognise your hard work
We are reviewing staff benefits and implementing a new system [PDF] to help recognise your efforts.
172 ChangeComms
ChangeComms was based around a regular series of sessions held with employees of all levels, where key messages regarding change and budgetary issues could be communicated and discussed. These sessions were in response to staff concerns about how change was managed and communicated, and also in the knowledge that further budget cuts and related changes were imminent. Crucially, it also required relatively few resources, which in this context was important. The first ChangeComms sessions took place approximately two months after the survey results were presented to the steering group. These sessions were for employees to hear directly from senior managers about proposals and potential future changes, as well as enabling them to ask questions. ChangeComms was not – to the best of the researcher’s knowledge – mandatory, but were held during work time and employees were allowed time to attend. There was no set format as it could depend on how much information was to be communicated, but based on discussion with a steering group member sessions were between 30-60 mins.
Employees were also encouraged to suggest ideas for how best to manage some of the challenges faced by the organisation and staff. ChangeComms was focused around these sessions, but also included the more general remit of improving change-related communication with more regular updates on change via line managers and PublicOrg’s intranet and email. Giga, Cooper, et al. (2003) identify communication-initiatives as an example of organisational interventions that may reduce uncertainty and facilitate the process of change, particularly when senior management support is demonstrated. ‘Change’ was the main variable targeted by PublicOrg, along with job insecurity; however, POS and PSC were also identified by the researcher as potential indicators of ChangeComms’ efficacy. Dollard and Karasek (2010) suggest PSC may act as an ‘action
173
exposure scale’, and involving and listening to employees are components covered by PSC and POS so it was anticipated that successful implementation would also affect these. In fact, there was a case for suggesting that both POS and PSC could be affected by all of the interventions, as they were introduced in response to the survey and are thus indicative of listening to staff and taking them seriously, as well as concern for their well-being - also assessed by these measures.
• Target variables: Change, job insecurity
• Other potential outcome variables: POS, PSC
Performance & Development Framework (PDF)
PDF was developed to address the perceived lack of recognition and feedback highlighted by staff in the baseline survey, in addition to improving manager support, so the variables that were expected to be affected by PDF if it was effective were manager support, and POS (e.g. item: ‘my employer values my contribution’). Prior to the development of PDF, there was no unified framework for supervision, appraisal, and development, so there were inconsistencies in how this was managed across PublicOrg. PDF was intended to guide managers in this, and ensure it was done in a consistent and supportive manner, with a focus on PublicOrg’s values and recognition of employees’ efforts. Although centred on an ‘annual review’, the overall process was based on ensuring regular and ongoing discussions (‘supervisions’), that some employees felt they were not receiving (based on baseline qualitative data). PDF incorporated several elements; although it is not possible to reproduce the detail from PublicOrg’s action plan documents, a brief summary of its key elements are provided here; PDF included discussion of performance against agreed targets/objectives, but departed from previous approaches particularly in its greater
174
emphasis on the provision of clear feedback on performance and progress, and that conversations should emphasise what has been done well. This was in addition to recognition for achievements, good work and effort, as well as discussion of opportunities and support for career development. From the action plan document: “[PDF is] designed to be supportive and developmental.” These elements were explicitly embedded within new guidance documents and templates for managers, including a proforma to guide discussions with employees. If employees were having more structured conversations with their managers about performance and obtaining feedback on their performance then
role clarity could also be expected to improve (Whitaker, Dahling, & Levy, 2007). This was something PDF was also attempting to address, based on the survey findings fed back to staff, although it was not an issue that was particularly prominent in the baseline assessment.
Two further variables not explicitly targeted by PDF were also identified by the researcher as a potential outcome of PDF; one was change; this was based primarily on the properties of the change subscale. It was anticipated that with PDF attempting to promote more regular discussion between employee and line manager, it may simply provide employees with more ‘[…] opportunities to question managers about change at work’ (from MSI item 26). So it was not explicitly targeted by PDF but could plausibly be affected by it. Thirdly, PSC could be considered as an indicator that PublicOrg had listened and responded to the concerns of employees (Dollard & Bakker, 2010), via the survey results, by initiating PDF to address some of them. However, this would be based more on PDF being seen by employees as evidence for PSC, rather than being improved because of any properties of PDF itself.
175
Because PDF was not a discrete event, and was administered by their line manager, there was the chance that employees may have experienced the new supervision/appraisal process but not been aware of its name (Performance and Development Framework). Therefore the question asking about employees’ exposure/rating of PDF also alerted participants to the fact that PDF was the new format that had replaced the old appraisal/supervision process.
• Target variables: manager support; role clarity; POS;
• Other potential outcome variables: change; PSC
Mental health awareness sessions for managers
These mental health awareness sessions were set up in response to the prevalence of mild- to-moderate mental health problems in the sample (32.8% scoring above the GHQ-12 threshold), as well as employee concerns about the lack of manager support. However, it was anticipated even before the baseline survey that some form of mental health awareness training for managers could form part of any intervention strategy. This was an issue that had been raised during the initial steering group meetings by the union representative, who reported that many managers were unsure how to deal with stress and mental health problems of staff; this had been raised by both subordinates and some managers themselves. The importance of addressing mental health stigma and increasing support for employees is also emphasised in guidance from NICE (2009a, 2015). PublicOrg had existing capability in the delivery of mental health-related programmes, so this intervention was also realistic and did not require external resources to deliver it. The sessions were delivered by a senior employee with extensive practitioner experience in the field of mental health, as well being experienced in delivering this type of training in a wide range of settings. The session were at an introductory level in a two-hour seminar-
176
style format; they were aimed at raising awareness of the prevalence of mental health problems, the signs and symptoms, how to instigate conversations about stress and mental health with colleagues and direct reports, and further sources of support, as well as when and how to refer people on to them. Notably, these sessions were voluntary.
• Target variables: manager support; mental health-related items (i.e. confidence and willingness to discuss/disclose stress and mental health issues)
The survey
The baseline survey was not an intervention per se, but was intended to underpin and facilitate the process. However, it was anticipated that successfully identifying the main issues and feeding these back to staff could be associated with improvements to POS, PSC,
change, and CAOC. POS and PSC, because it should indicate to staff that they are being listened to and their well-being concerns were being taken seriously (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Change could also be affected as the survey amounts to a form of consultation. CAOC could be improved in a similar way to POS and PSC, as it has been negatively associated with employees’ perceived involvement in decision-making (Brown & Cregan, 2008) and information sharing (Qian & Daniels, 2008).