1Research Proposal Submission Form Example 3 Module No: MOD053 Research Methods An Examination of how Leaders Engage Employees duringand following a Redundancy Programme and the Effects ofthis on Employees Hand in date: February 2011 Note: this proposal was awarded 67%2 ContentsPageIntroduction3-4Literature Review:Definition of Engagement4-5Leaders Role in Engagement5Survivors’ Feelings to Positive Engagement5-6Effects of Redundancy on those employees who remain, thesurvivors6-7Gap in the Literature8Methodology:Research Philosophy8Data Collection Methods8Data Collection Tools9Sample9Analysis9Timeline10Limitations11Bibliography12-17Appendix 1 – The Kubler-Ross (1969) model of grieving18Appendix 2 – Survivors’ adverse effects during and following aRedundancy Programme19 3IntroductionRedundancies are prevalent in today‟s constantly changing work environment, in the publicas well as the private sector due to the new coalition government and the current economicclimate.There has been relatively little attention paid to the effects of redundancy on those whoremain in employment in Britain (Thornhill & Gibbons, 1995). To date research in this areahas been concentrated in the USA, principally through the work of Brockner and hiscolleagues (Brockner et al, 1987, Brockner, 1988, Brockner & Greenberg, 1990). Theresearch indicates that survivors1 reacted most negatively when they identified with thoseemployees who were made redundant, who were perceived to have been inadequatelycompensated. The negative reaction took the form of reduced work performance in thelaboratory study and lowered organisational commitment and engagement in the field study.Organisations have under-estimated the negative effects of redundancy and do not take intoaccount the difficulties of engaging a surviving workforce emotionally damaged by watchingothers lose their jobs. The key literature sources intended to be drawn upon are Wolfe(2004), Gifford (2010) and Macleod & Clarke (2009) whom suggest a number of waysleaders can build employee engagement e.g. ensure that survivors are aware of theassistance provided to terminated employees, attempt to reduce redundant tasks fromsurvivors‟ workload and ensure the employee understands how their role fits in withorganisational objectives and they are listened to, respected and valued.Establishing an engaged workforce is now a high priority for many organisations. Employeeengagement is associated with positive benefits in terms of improved organisationalperformance, patient care, morale, productivity, recruitment and retention (NHS Employers,2008).Very often organisations that make redundancies prepare well for those employees who areleaving, by, for example, providing outplacement facilities, career counselling, networkingopportunities and early release schemes, but ignore those left behind.For example, in a UK survey of 170 personnel specialists in 131 financial servicescompanies, Doherty and Horsted (1995) concluded that organisations forced to makeredundancies are neglecting the needs of employees who remain.1Survivors refer to employees who remain in the organisation following a redundancy programme (Thornhill &Gibbons, 1995).4Although 79 per cent of the companies provided outplacement services for employeesleaving, the survey found that less than half gave support to those who remained.This paper deals with this forgotten but imperative group by considering the followingresearch objectives: To analyse the literature on the link between the effects of redundancy on the level ofengagement of those employees who remain, the survivors and what leaders can doto build employee engagement. To identify the effectiveness of the leader engagement process employed by HumanResource Leaders within an NHS organisation. To evaluate the effects and the employee engagement of the employees during andfollowing the redundancy programme within an NHS organisation. To make recommendations on how Human Resources Leaders can ensure theremaining employees are engaged during and following a redundancy programme. Literature ReviewThe literature review has two distinct elements. Firstly certain perspectives of researcherswill be discussed to identify what leaders can do to build employee engagement. Secondlykey theories will be explored to determine the effects of redundancy on those employeeswho remain, the survivors.Definition of EngagementThere is no single agreed definition of employee engagement. Indeed, the Macleod (2009)report, quoting Professor David Guest of Kings College London, says “The concept ofengagement needs to be more clearly defined, or it needs to be abandoned”.However the following definition of engagement is useful as it summarises key elementsreferred to in other definitions such as, commitment, motivation and job satisfaction.McGivern (2010) suggests there are two key dimensions to engagement: Willingness – expressed in terms of commitment and motivation. Do employeesreally want to perform? Do they care about the organisation? If they do not, they willnever be fully engaged.5 Ability – expressed in terms of satisfaction with the practicalities of work and theinfrastructure within which employees do their jobs.To what extent does the organisation provide the basic equipment and infrastructure they need to deliver tothe standard required?A further view of employee engagement is about how to get the best out of people, releasingemployees “discretionary effort,” (Purcell et al., 2003) which goes to the heart of what makesengagement different to “motivation”. Designing jobs in a way that provides features such aschallenge, recognition and skill usage might help to improve employee engagement.Leaders’ role in EngagementRoffey Park Institute (2010) argues employee engagement increases when leaders arestrategic, communicative, visible and trusted. In contrast Wolfe (2004) believes the main driver of employee engagement is a sense of feeling valued and involved.components of this are said to be:The main Involvement in decision makingFreedom to voice ideas, to which managers listenHaving the opportunities to develop the job Macleod & Clarke (2009) argue by far the major influence on employee engagement is therelationship with their leader, reflected in the day-to-day workplace climate. Employers arenot generally recognising this: less than 20% of leaders have received training in how toengage with and bring out the best in their employees.CIPD (2010) indicate “improved engagement can result when employees have jobautonomy, support and coaching, feedback, opportunities to learn and develop, task varietyand responsibility.”What is omitted from the above perspectives is the view of Mone (1994) who believesrewards that appropriately reflect the appraisal systems is an influential factor that is likely toimprove engagement.Survivors’ Feelings to Positive EngagementSurvivors will be more loyal to and engaged with an organisation when leaders ensure thesurvivors feel that they are valued and help them work towards their personal career goals(Doherty, 2010).6It is important leaders make survivors aware of the organisation‟s future direction and theassociated benefits. This may involve new mission statements and objectives, reinforced bycomplementary training and rewards systems. Leaders must ensure survivors understandhow their individual role fits with the objectives of the organisation and how they cancontribute to ensuring future success (Thornhill et al., 1997).Furthermore it can be substantiated from the literature that it is the way employees aremanaged that keeps them happy and improves engagement. In the end, the engagementagenda means getting back to basics (HR Review 2010).Effects of Redundancy on those employees who remain, the survivorsAccording to Noer (1993), De Meuse et al (2004) and Brockner (1988) survivors experiencea range of feelings and concerns such as; denial, job insecurity, feelings of unfairness,depression, anxiety, stress and fatigue, reduced risk taking and motivation, distrust andbetrayal, lack of reciprocal commitment, wanting it to be over, dissatisfaction with planningand communication, anger at the redundancy process, lack of strategic direction, lack ofmanagement credibility, short-term profit focus, and a sense of permanent change.Unexpected findings included little survivor guilt, some optimism, lots of blaming others, anda thirst for information.The feelings between survivors following a redundancy programme appear to be similar tothat of the feelings of survivors of other traumatic situations. Kubler-Ross (1969) introduceda model of five stages of grieving which is useful to help understand survivors‟ symptomsand provides a tool for leaders to use when communicating with others. For furtherinformation see Appendix 1. Later Fink, Beak and Taddeo (1971) brought in similar stagesbut gave them different names e.g. defensive retreat.Wolfe (2004) suggests survivors at both an organisational and an individual level may wellfeel adverse effects e.g. a decrease in morale and reduced job motivation. For furtherinformation see Appendix 2.Further evidence of survivor adverse effects were evident in a survey of BT leaders (Newelland Dopson, 1996) which found that following the redundancy programme leaders were demotivated, felt they were working longer hours, lacked information about their role and hadreduced control.7These behaviours are indicative of a phenomenon called „survivor syndrome‟. HR Focus(2009) concludes survivor syndrome “refers to a marked decrease in motivation,engagement, and productivity of employees that remain at the organisation as a result ofredundancy.According to Brockner & Greenberg (1990) in the context of a redundancy situation, anunsympathetic reaction may include the belief that redundancies were justified and thesurvivors distance themselves from the leavers and work harder. A sympathetic responseby survivors may include reactions that leavers have been unfairly treated, resulting innegative attitudes towards the organisation and reduced employee engagement.Brockner (1988) and Brockner & Greenberg (1990) have identified a set of “moderatorvariables” which are likely to affect the strength of sympathetic survivor responses towardsthose made redundant. First whether the survivors had worked closely with the leavers.Second, whether survivors and leavers have matching attitudes and values. Third, thesurvivors‟ own previous experience of being made redundant. Fourth, the survivors‟ owninsecurity that they may be made redundant themselves. Fifth, the fairness of anorganisation‟s procedural actions in managing the redundancy programme.In view of this evidence, it can be concluded that the majority of consequences for thoseemployees who have survived redundancy and the organisation are negative. Can there bea positive outcome from redundancies? From the survivor perspective a redundancyprogramme can provide countless opportunities such as teamwork (Church, 1995),increased training opportunities (American Management Association, 1996) and jobenrichment (McIntyre, 1994). This question justifies the need for further exploration into thisresearch topic.Brockner (1988) and Brockner & Greenberg (1990) indicate that leaders need to be muchmore mindful of survivors‟ responses, and the issues which arise from these, than they havein the past. The existence of the “moderator variables” identified above, which affect therelative strength of survivors‟ responses, suggest that there is scope for leaders to takeaction, with regard to both leavers and survivors, in order to positively influence survivors‟responses and engagement.8Gap in the LiteratureThe sampling of the literature introduces some of the evidence of a gap in the publishedacademic literature on the effects of redundancy on those who remain in employment inBritain (Thornhill & Gibbons, 1995) as the majority of the research has been undertaken inthe USA (Brockner et al, 1987, Brockner, 1988, Brockner & Greenberg, 1990). This justifiesthe need for further exploration into the link between the effects of redundancy on the levelof engagement of those employees who remain, the survivors and what leaders can do tobuild employee engagement in the UK.MethodologyResearch PhilosophyTo explore the research objectives, this paper proposes to utilize the followingmethodological approaches. It is intended that exploratory and qualitative research will beundertaken as the purpose of the study is to analyse the link between the effects ofredundancy on the level of engagement on those employees who remain, the survivors andwhat leaders can do to build employee engagement. Exploratory research (Saunders, Lewis& Thornhill, 2007) is required as no research has been undertaken on those employees whosurvive redundancy in the NHS.Data Collection MethodsDingwall et al (1998) believes qualitative research involves “broadly stated questions abouthuman experiences and realities, studied through sustained contact with people in theirnatural environments, generating rich, descriptive data that helps to understand theirexperiences and attitudes”.Punch (2008) makes the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research in if theresearcher is interested in making standardised comparisons, quantifying relationshipsbetween variables and accounting for variance.These imply quantitative methods and data. However if the researcher is more interested instudying a phenomenon or situation in detail, holistically and in context and focusing oninterpretations, these imply qualitative methods and data. Qualitative research is essentialto understand the emotions, attitudes and perceptions of the employees who remain afterthe redundancy programme.9Data Collection ToolsCooper and Schindler (2008) argue semi-structured interviews are essential if carrying outexploratory and qualitative research. It is proposed that semi structured interviews will takeplace with three Human Resources Leaders and three employees who remain employed in alarge NHS organisation during and following a redundancy programme. This is a smallsample, but as Henry Mintzberg (1979) argues “relatively simple research methodologieshave produced more useful results than those which have been significant only in thestatistical sense.”The benefits of semi structured interviews are the researcher can ask some pre-arrangedquestions but with the freedom to pursue any further lines of inquiry as appropriate.SampleThere are two elements to the sample. Firstly the Human Resources Leaders have beenselected on the basis of having significant knowledge and experience of implementing aredundancy programme. Secondly the employees have been selected as they recentlysurvived a redundancy programme in December 2010 and are line managed by the HumanResources Leaders.Semi structured interview schedules would be piloted with a Human Resources Leader andan employee who had knowledge of the redundancy programme. Following this theproposed six interviews would be undertaken. The researcher would ensure anonymity andconfidentiality for each participant. The interviews would be tape recorded and lastapproximately one hour.AnalysisAccording to Saunders et al (2007, p478) there is “no standardised approach to the analysisof qualitative data”. However due to the qualitative nature of the data, „content analysis‟ willbe carried out. As suggested by Yin (2009) „content analysis‟ consists of a summary of thekey points and recurring themes.10Timeline ActivityMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustDefine the research question and the objectivesLiterature review readingResearch Proposal PresentationMeet with my SupervisorWritten Research ProposalWrite up the IntroductionWrite up Literature ReviewWrite up MethodologyFormulate Interview QuestionsContact IntervieweesSet up the InterviewsTest and amend the Interview QuestionsConduct the InterviewsType up the Interview TranscriptsPrimary Data AnalysisWrite up FindingsWrite up ConclusionsWrite up LimitationsWrite up RecommendationsWrite up Executive SummaryCompile the AppendicesPrint and BindHand in 11LimitationsThree limitations of this study have been acknowledged and careful consideration will begiven to mitigate the potential impact when undertaking the research and analysing the data.1. Past research has highlighted that there is no one definition of employeeengagement. The participants may have different views to what employeeengagement means to them and misunderstand the nature of the questions duringthe interviews.2. The study is based on a small sample size.3. Bias may occur as the researcher knows the respondents.12BibliographyAmerican Management Association (1996). Corporate downsizing, job elimination, jobcreation summary of key findings. AMA Survey. New York, pp. 1-11.Armstrong-Strassen, M. (1993). Survivors‟ reactions to a workforce reduction: a comparisonof blue-collar workers and their supervisors. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences.Vol. 10. No.4. pp. 334-343.Armstrong-Strassen, M. (1994). Coping with transition: a study of layoff survivors. Journalof Organisational Behaviour. Vol. 15. pp.597-621.Brockner, J (1986). Layoffs, Equity Theory and Work Performance: Further Evidence of theImpact of Survivor Guilt. Academy of Management Journal. 29, p. 373-384.Brockner, J. Grover, S., Reed, T., Dewitt, R. & O‟Malley, M. (1987). Survivors‟‟ reactions tolayoffs: we get by with a little help from our friends. Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol.32, December, pp.213-355.Brockner, J. (1988). “The effects of work layoffs on survivors: a psychological analysis”, inMcGlynn, R.P. (Ed). Interfaces in Psychology. Vol 5. Texas Tech Press. Lubbock.Brockner, J. & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: an organisationaljustice perspective. In Carrol, J.S. (Ed). Applied Social Psychology and OrganisationalSettings. Lawrence Erlbaun Association.Church, A.H. (1995). From both sides now organisational downsizing: what is the role of thepractitioner? TIP Newsletter, Society for Industrial-Organisational Psychology. BowlingGreen. OH. pp. 1-8.13CIPD. (2010). Employee Engagement [Online]. Available from:http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/empengmt [Accessed: 14th July 2010]Clough, P. & Nutbrown, C. (2002). A Student‟s Guide to Methodology. London: Sage.Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2008). Business Research Methods (10th Ed). Boston, MAand Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw Hill.Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J. & Scheck, C.L. (1991). Developing and testing a model of survivorresponses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Vol. 38. pp. 302-317.Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods: A practical guide for anyoneundertaking research project. Oxford: How to Books Ltd.Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (2000). The New Corporate Cultures, Revitalizing the workplaceafter downsizing, mergers and reengineering. London: Texere Publishing Limited.De Meuse, K.P., Vanderheiden, P.A. & Roraff, C.E. (2004). “New evidence regardingorganisational downsizing and a firm‟s financial performance: a long-term analysis”, Vol 16.No.2, pp.155-77.Department of Health. (2009). The Operating Framework for the NHS in England 2010/11.London.Dingwall, R. et al (1998). Catching goldfish: quality in qualitative research. Journal of HealthService Resource Policy. Vol 3. No.3. pp 167-172.14Doherty, R. (2010). Making employee engagement on end-to-end practice. Strategic HRReview. Vol. 9. No. 3.Doherty, N. & Horsted, J. (1995). Helping survivors to stay on board. People Management.Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 26-31.Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P. & Lowe, A. (2008). Management Research (3rdEd). London: Sage.Feldman, D.C. (1989). Duracell‟s first aid for downsizing survivors. Personnel Journal.August. pp. 91-94.Fink, S. L., Beak, J., & Taddeo, K. (1971). Organisational Crisis and Change. The Journalof Applied Behavioural Science. 7, 1, p.15-37.Foxman, L. & Polsky, W. (1988). Make the new company work after downsizing. PersonnelJournal. November, pp. 24-8.Gifford, J. (2010). The Human Voice of Employee Engagement: Case Study Research.Roffey Park Institute. Registered Charity No: 254591.Greenhalgh, L., Lawrence, A.T. & Sutton, R.I. (1988). Determinants of workforce reductionstrategies in declining organisations. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 13. No. 2. pp.241-254.Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London:Tavistock.15Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. (2002). “Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”.Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 87. No. 2, pp.268-79.Hassall, A. (2010). The South Manchester Way. [Online]. Available from:http://www.nhsemployers.org/SharedLearning/Pages/TheSouthManchesterWay.aspx.[Accessed: 21st December 2010].HR Focus. (2009). Layoff survivor stress: how to manage the guilt and the workload.Institute of Management and Administration. Vol 86. No 8. August 2009. p4-6.HR Review. (2010). Engagement remains low as employers focus on wrong things. [Online].Available from: http://www.hrreview.co.uk/articles/hrreview-articles/hr-strategypractice/engagement. [Accessed: 23rd July 2010].Hoskisson, R.E. & Hitt, M.A. (1994). Downscoping: How to Tame the Diversified Firm.Oxford University Press. New York.Isabella, L.A. (1989). Downsizing: survivors‟‟ assessment. Business Horizons. May-June.pp 35-41.King, N. (2004). Using interviews in a qualitative research in C. Cassell and G. Symon (eds)Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research. London: Sage, pp.11-22.Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillian.Luecke, R. (2009). Surviving Change, A Manager‟s Guide. Essential Strategies forManaging in a Downturn. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.16Macleod, D. & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: enhancing performance throughemployee engagement. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.McGivern. C. (2010). Employee Engagement: Making it Happen, Four Vital Steps.Employee Feedback. [Online]. Available from: http://www.employee-feedback.co.uk[Accessed 23/01/11].McIntyre. D. (1994). Managing Change: an interview. Canadian Business Review. Vol 21.No 4. pp. 46-7.Mintzberg, H. (1979). An Emerging Strategy of Direct Research. Administrative ScienceQuarterly. Vol 24, December, p. 582-9.Mishra, A.N., Spreitzer, G.M. & Mishra, A.K. (1998). Preserving employee morale duringdownsizing. Sloan Management Review. Vol 39. pp.83-95.Mit (2010). Keeping Remaining Employees Engaged After a Layoff. [Online]. Availablefrom: http://www.web.mit.edu/hr/empservices/hro_depts.html [Accessed 29th May 2010].Mone, M.A. (1994). Relationships between self concepts, aspirations, emotional responses,and intent to leave a downsizing organisation. Human Resources Management. Vol 33. No2. pp.281-98.Newell, H. & Dopson, S. (1996). Muddle in the middle: organisational restructuring andmiddle management careers. Personnel Review. Vol. 25. No. 4 pp.4-20.NHS Employers. (2008). Staff engagement in the NHS. Briefing 50. London.17Noer, D. M. (1993). Healing the Wounds: Overcoming the Trauma of Layoffs andRevitalising Downsized Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Punch, K.F. (2008). Developing Effective Research Proposals. (2nd Ed). London: SagePublications Ltd.Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students.4th Ed. Essex: Pearson Education. pp.315-470.Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E. & Dutton, J.E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organisationalbehaviour: a multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 26. pp. 501-524.Swetnam, D. (2009). Writing your Dissertation: The bestselling guide to planning, preparingand presenting first-class work. (3rd Ed). Oxford: How to Books Ltd.Thornhill, A. & Gibbons, A. (1995). The positive management of redundancy survivors:issues and lessons. Employee Counselling Today. Vol 7. No.3. pp 5-12.Thornhill, A., Saunders, M. & Stead, J. (1997). Downsizing, delayering – but where‟s thecommitment? The development of a diagnostic tool to help manage survivors. PersonnelReview. Vol. 26. No.1/2.Wolfe, H. (2004). Survivor Syndrome: Key Considerations and Practical Steps. Institute forEmployment Studies. p.1-20.Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (4th Ed). SAGE: London.18Appendix 1The Kubler-Ross (1969) model of grieving has five stages:1. Denial2. Anger, including rage, envy and resentment3. Bargaining4. Depression, which includes sadness, gloominess, pessimism, guilt and feelings ofworthlessness5. Acceptance, which is not equated with happinessSurvivors will go through them in a different order, and they will have to work through themrather than passively experience them. The final stage, acceptance, involves letting go andmoving on.Source: Kubler-Ross, E. (1969)19Appendix 2Survivors’ adverse effects during and following a Redundancy Programme: A decrease in morale (Armstrong-Stassen, 1993)Increased absenteeism (Feldman, 1989)Reduced job motivation (Davy et al., 1991)Reduced organisational commitment and employee engagement (Brockner et al.,1987)Risk avoidance (Greenhalgh et al., 1988)Reduced speed of decision making (Staw et al., 1981)A decrease in productivity (Brockner et al., 1987)Increased levels of workplace stress (where do I start? I‟ll never get it all done?)(Armstrong-Stassen, 1994)A greater task focus by leaders (possibly associated with an increase in harassmentor bullying behaviour by leaders) (Greenhalgh et al., 1988) Source: Wolfe, H. (2004)
