UFHRD Conference 2015University College Cork, Ireland

Is anybody listening? How universities resist change despite evidence to the contrary.

FULL PAPER

STREAM:Leadership, Management and Talent Development

Authors:Dr Ceridwyn Bessant, Associate Dean, International for the Faculty of Business and Law,

Northumbria University.Email for correspondence:

ceridwyn.bessant@northumbria.ac.uk

Professor Sharon Mavin, Director of Roehampton Business School.

1

Abstract

Purpose - To outline a framework of isomorphic and contextual ‘influences’ on the adoption of evidence-based HRM/D and illustrate how this can be applied in the context of academic line management in UK HEIs.

Design/Methodology – Conceptual and theoretical paper which reviews approaches to evidence-based research and research into the challenges facing academic line managers in UK HEIs to develop a framework to explain the issues of adopting evidence-based HRM/D.

Findings – Contextual and isomorphic influences can have a significant impact on the extent to which evidence-based HRM/D is adopted or considered in organizational settings. Evidence-based HRM/D research in particular needs to pay greater attention to the isomorphic, organizational, individual and presentational barriers to implementation in organizations.

Implications for practice – Attention to the barriers to implementation of evidence-based HRM/D and in particular the isomorphic, organizational, individual and presentational barriers could assist both academics and practitioners in understanding the specific contextual challenges of implementing change. It is suggested that this proposition needs to be tested empirically.

Originality/value – Makes a contribution to evidence-based (HRM/D) research through the creation and application of an original framework of influences developed from the EBM literature.

Keywords isomorphism, context, evidence-based HRM/D research, UK HEIs

2

Is anybody listening? How universities resist change despite evidence to the contrary.

Introduction

This exploratory paper raises important questions about the failure of organizations to

respond to the challenges presented to them through evidence-based HRD research. This

is illustrated by considering a body of research into the line management of academics in

UK Higher Education Institutions (UK HEIs). The paper contributes to the ongoing

debate about how evidence-based HRD research can positively impact on management

practice. In so doing it highlights the significance of organizational and sector context

and isomorphism as barriers to the implementation of evidence-based management

(EBM) practice. Here we develop a new framework that highlights the inhibiting and

sometimes contradictory influences of isomorphic pressures alongside organizational

conditions, and individual and presentational (of research) issues that should be

considered when developing evidence-based management research. While evidence-

based HRD can present coercive and persuasive arguments in favour of the adoption of

new organizational practices, the failure of organizations to introduce these new practices

has led to concerns over the relationship between research and practice and the extent to

which the two can work together effectively.

The paper explores these issues by reference to academic line-management issues in UK

HEIs arguing that despite a significant body of empirically derived findings into the

failings and challenges of HRD and line management in the UK university sector,

response has been slow and inconsistent. In beginning to explain the reasons for this, the

framework illustrates how issues about both the form and presentation of evidence-based

research and the ways in which individual, cultural and institutional barriers in HEIs can

act as a counter-balance to contrary evidence for change. The paper concludes that while

the EBM literature makes reference to a number of reasons why EBM implementation is

problematic, research itself does not always take sufficient account of how to overcome

the barriers to implementation, preferring to focus on the identification of organizational

3

problems and their impacts, alongside potential solutions, but without due attention to

implementation challenges.

The paper begins by considering evidence-based management and the barriers of

implementation and develops a framework of influences on the adoption of EBM in

organizations. A body of work into the line management of academics in UK HEIs is

then discussed, illustrating the framework in action as a means by which to further

understand the lack of organizational adoption of EBM.

Defining evidence-based management

Evidence-based management has become a popular subject for discussion in academic

journals in recent times. There are many definitions that are thematically consistent in

positioning EBM as the organizational adoption of best practice principles based on

evidence. Two definitions are useful in the context of this paper. Firstly, evidence-based

management as:

“Translating principles based on best evidence into organizational practices. Through evidence-based management, practicing managers develop into experts who make organizational decisions informed by social science and organizational research–part of the zeitgeist moving professional decisions away from personal preference and unsystematic experience toward those based on the best available scientific evidence” (Rousseau, 2006: 256).

Of interest here is the explicit reference to a move away from personal preference

and unsystematic experience. Secondly, a broader understanding derived from evidence-

based medicine where the accepted definition is a combination of research, clinical

expertise and patient choice (Kitson, Harvey and McCormack, 1998:150). Here evidence-

based management:

“Is about making decisions through the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of four sources of information: practitioner expertise and judgment, evidence from the local context, a critical evaluation of the best available research evidence, and the perspectives of those people who might be affected by the decision” (Briner, Denyer, and Rousseau, 2009:19).

What this definition brings is a more granular recognition that practitioner experience and

judgement aligned to local evidence in combination with input from those who will be

involved in any changes in practice, together determine the decision-making process.

4

This is a useful addition as in general the explicit use of context does not significantly

feature in the broader debate about evidence-based management.

Problems with evidence-based management

A constant theme in the EBM literature is the failure of academic research to influence

changes in organizational behavior, with a number of explanations as to why EBM is not

as widely adopted as might be expected. Bartunek et al. (2014) refer to a range of

‘tensions’ regarding the academic-practitioner gap, including different logics, time

dimensions, communication practices, interests and incentives. In particular they

comment on the issue of rigor and relevance, aligned to distinctions between Mode 1 and

Mode 2 research (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998) and the extent to which these two issues

are compatible or mutually exclusive. This is not the place to pursue this well-trodden

path other than to suggest that if academics cannot agree on how EBM should work and

the ways in which mode 2 research can address issues of rigor and relevance, then it is

unlikely that practitioners will be particularly concerned about the issue. Bartunek et al.

(2014:1188) explain that most academic reporting of the tensions inherent in EBM is

carried out by academics, and while it may concern the relationship between practitioners

and academics, “most of the discussion is actually about—and aimed at—other

academics, and whether or not the other academics hold what the author considers the

proper viewpoint (Augier & March, 2007; Bennis & O’Toole, 2005)”. They note the

comparative lack of practitioner contribution to the debate, suggesting that academics

themselves are speaking on behalf of what they ‘perceive’ to be practitioner viewpoints.

An alternative vein of discussion explores the reward and recognition mechanisms of

academics and the ways in which these conflict with the adoption of practitioner-

oriented, evidence-based research studies. Again this is not a theme to be explored in

detail here but the dilemma for evidence-based research is encapsulated by Bennis and

O’Toole (2005: 100) who explain that an academic who publishes in most highly ranked

quantitative academic journals is “considered a star”, while an academic who publishes

in more professional journals, accessible to practitioners, “risks being denied tenure”.

Garman, (2011), himself a practitioner, reinforces the cultural and reward

differences between the two worlds of academia and practice in more direct language

5

stating that they “guarantee the irrelevance of most scholarly work to anyone except

other scholars. In relation to practitioners his implication is that the nature of

engagement with organizational problems is fundamentally different and that, “managers

rarely frame their dilemmas and decisions in ways that lend themselves to scholarly

inquiry, find little reason to subject their own research to the peer review process, and

rarely look to academia for practical insights” (2011:129).

Despite Hughes et al.’s (2008) assertion that HR and Accountancy are better

suited than some other disciplines to the adoption of EBM, this is not necessarily the case

in practice. In respect of HR, Lawler (2007:1033) cautions that although ‘best practice’ is

an oft-used term, in reality it is fraught with problems and often lacking in evidence to

support such a claim, and that where evidence does exist it can be contradictory, “In

short, most organizations do not practice evidence-based human resource management.

As a result, they often underperform with respect to their key stakeholders: employees,

investors, and the community”. While this can be seen as a critique of evidence-based

research and implementation, it opens up possibilities for more meaningful engagement.

Lawler goes on to say explain some of the challenges for evidence-based HR research

and highlights the transactional and administrative nature of much of what happens in HR

departments, which does not lend itself to “the utilization of scientific knowledge”.

While HR has a more strategic role to play, his premise is that the administrative and

day-to-day transactional responsibilities and activities of HR departments end up

dominating their agendas.

Rynes, Colbert and Brown (2002:149) put forward a number of possibilities why

organizations do not change their HR practices even where research shows them to be

ineffective, suggesting that HR professionals are so busy that they do not have time to

read academic research journals - a view confirmed by Guest and Zilstra (2012:544) who

suggest that ‘very few HR managers read academic journals and were more likely to get

information from colleagues or websites’; that academic journals are written in technical,

complex and inaccessible styles; that the things that academics find interesting may be

perceived as irrelevant by practitioners; or because of scepticism about the evidence, as

“HR is especially susceptible to short-term fads” (Guest, 2007:1023). Alternatively,

building on the proposition of Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) that the failure to convert

6

evidence-based findings into organizational process change is a “knowing-doing” gap

rather than a “knowing” gap, Rynes et al (2002:150) suggest that even where HR

practitioners are aware of the research they fail to change practices for more complex

reasons ‘such as overwork, risk aversion, political considerations or organizational

inertia’, with Guest (2006) adding there may well be financial constraints and more

pressing organizational priorities.

Additionally, Pfeffer and Sutton (2006), Rousseau (2006) and Guest (2007)

suggest there are personal issues that may influence an individual’s willingness to accept

external findings and change individual practice, such as innate trust in their own implicit

judgment and knowledge; their experience, skills and reputation; adherence to dogmatic

beliefs and a mimicry of other top performers derived from business books and

consultants - all of which could be flawed. In addition, at the individual level evidence-

based management can be a threat to managerial autonomy, power, prestige and decision-

making autonomy and choice (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006; Rousseau 2006). Finally, they

suggest that evidence-based management can be problematic for managers because

there’s simply too much evidence for any manager to access and weigh up; there’s too

little good evidence, and it’s often contextually non-specific.

Rousseau (2006) also suggests that part of the problem derives from the failure of

management educators to teach evidence-based curricula, as a consequence of what

Trank and Rynes (2005:189) refer to as ‘de-professionalization’ which arises as a result

of pressures on resources aligned to a need to popularize the curricula, which leads to

academic dumbing down, a greater emphasis on vocationalism and an obsession with the

pursuit of good student satisfaction ratings. On a linked theme, Guest suggests that HR

Managers are more likely to turn to management gurus who communicate ideas through

good timing, good storytelling and effective marketing, seduced by “novelty, emotional

appeal, perceived relevance and promises of pay-off”, Guest (2006:1024).

Isomorphism and evidence-based management

Guest (2006) refers to isomorphism as a constraining factor in EBM adoption suggesting

that in addition to the challenges identified, HR Managers and their senior colleagues are

more interested in specific research from similar organizations in their own sectors,

7

introducing a theme of contextual compatibility. This contextual element is picked up by

Hughes et al. (2008) who, in looking at how to close the academic/practitioner ‘gap’ in

strategic management research, suggest a simple model that leads to credibility in the

mind of the practitioner (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Model for effective collaboration (Hughes et al., 2008)

According to Hughes et al. (2008:226) an academic’s understanding of the

‘context of implementation’ is important to the credibility of the academic findings to the

practitioner community. They point out that the disciplines of Accountancy and Human

Resources with strong functional presence and powerful professional bodies are at an

advantage here. However, it can be argued that isomorphism may have a greater

influence than hitherto suggested in the EBM literature.

In describing isomorphism as a ‘constraining process that forces one unit in a

population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions’

DiMaggio and Powell (1983:1489) identify three ‘mechanisms’ influencing isomorphic

behaviour. The first is coercive isomorphism, which results from formal (e.g. political,

legal) or informal (e.g. cultural, social) external pressures. The second is mimetic where,

especially in uncertain times, organizations model themselves on other organizations,

particularly those that are perceived to be more legitimate or more successful. The third is

normative isomorphism, driven by what Marshall (2010:182) calls ‘legitimated

professional practices’ derived from organized professional networks and professional

standards that determine behavior.

In the context of the HE sector, Marshall (2010) suggests that while normative

isomorphism is the form most consistent with the ideals of the traditional collegial

CredibilityEffective

Content

Context

8

university environment, coercive and mimetic influences present significant challenges to

the status quo. The impact of governmental policy and the New Public Management

(NPM) agenda have created coercive pressures that have determined organizational

activity and behavior, with organizational restructuring and the adoption of popular

management fads emerging as mimetic responses to the same tensions.

However, while these three forms of isomorphism are viewed as drivers of

institutional change (Demers, 2007), in the context of EBM it is suggested here that it is

possible to view normative isomorphism as a barrier to change and as a counterweight to

the influence of coercive and mimetic pressures. In summarizing these discussions Figure

2. represents a framework to illustrate how the combination of isomorphic

incommensurability alongside the influence of contextual barriers together form a

powerful force against the adoption of EBM approaches in organizations.

Figure 2: A Framework of Influences on EBM Adoption in Organizations

Contextual pressures influencing adoption of EBM

Organizational issues- priorities

- political sensitivity- culture

- resource constraints

Presentational issues- availability

- accessibility- rigour/relevance

- contextual specificity

Individual issues- time and role pressures

- risk aversion- dogma and beliefs

- fear and anxiety

Isomorphic pressures influencing adoption of EBM

EBM Outcome (this is the likelihood that

adoption of EBM will occur)

Normative status quo (this is what we have

always done/this is how we do things)

Mimetic (this is what others are

doing/adoption of new practices)

External Coercive (this is what research tells us

we should be doing)

9

In presenting the challenges of EBM in this way, it is apparent that EBM has to

overcome a significant set of conditions to be effective in changing organizational

practice.

Given the preceding discussion of the challenges associated with the creation and

adoption of EBM it is hardly surprising that despite a number of evidence-based critiques

of the effectiveness of HRM/HRD in the UK Higher Education sector, it continues to

enjoy a relatively poor reputation for the quality of its HRM provision. Although there

are positive developments they are inconsistent and slow compared to other industries.

The rest of the paper explores how HRD engagement with the challenges faced by

manager-academics in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) remains problematic even

though a number of studies suggest change is needed in the ways in which these roles are

recognized, supported and managed.

The Higher Education context of change

It was as a result of the Jarratt report (1985) that significant changes to the management

of UK HEIs took place and in particular as universities’ funding settlements became

conditional on the creation of action plans specifically aimed at improving management

practice, which in turn required formalised planning and strategic management processes.

This reorientation brought an end to the previous regime of “donnish dominion” (Halsey,

1992). Smith and Adams (2008) describe the same shift from traditional forms of

academic administration, but in more derogatory terms, characterising it as moving from

a slapdash and amateurish process involving a “combination of voting, a good deal of

intrigue, a dash of deception and administration” (2008:343), to a much more formalised

system of executive leadership, with the VC as Chief Executive supported by a senior

management team with clearly articulated executive roles alongside a “proliferation of

cross-institutional and non-disciplinary academic support units (for quality assurance,

teaching and learning, staff development, departmental support, the Enterprise

Initiative)” (Henkel, 1997:137).

Similarly, the differences between Middlehurst’s (2004) study of the role of

leaders and managers in HEIs and her earlier study (Middlehurst, 1991), highlights

changes in the internal arrangements and practices of organisation and management as

10

the relationship between universities and the state shifted, from “administration” and

“academic policy-making and leadership” to “academic leadership and management”

and “stronger executive management”, (Middlehurst, 2004:264). She points to the

emergence of DVC roles, which often include line management responsibilities for Heads

of School or Deans of Faculty, as well as the growth of senior professional (non-

academic) Director roles, as clear examples of the attention to the management and

change agenda in universities.

One key impact of the Jarratt report was the requirement for academics to manage

other academics, encapsulated through the shift of the role of ‘Head of Department’ from

academic leadership to one where academic leader and manager responsibilities were

required, with the primary focus on the managerial, and an explicit expectation of

management of other academics. A series of legislative reforms of Higher Education in

the since then have increasingly imposed far greater external scrutiny on HEIs alongside

a need for far stronger and explicit management practices. All of this combines in a

powerful set of coercive influences on managerial practice in UK HEIs. However, despite

a number of significant changes in the ways in which academic management and

leadership is conducted and structured in universities, a fundamental and enduring

challenge remains keeping a balance between what Smith and Adams (2008:355)

describe as two “critical and sometimes contradictory roles”. The academic role relates

to the essence and distinctiveness of the institution – the “‘brand’ of core academic

values and mission”. The second role is about how it conducts its business and “is more

operational, bureaucratic and executive. It concerns the institution’s response to the

demands of accountability”. (Smith and Adams, 2008:355)

In Smith and Adams’ (2008) reporting of a qualitative study of 75 PVCs, they

explain that the appointment of increasing numbers of PVCs between 1960 and 2005 was

characterised by a transition and appointment to the roles from academic careers, so that

“academics continue to lead academics”. They concluded that it would be difficult to

become a PVC without experience of the university environment due to the duality of

being an academic and an executive, and because of the organisational model where

“departmental and disciplinary structures and their professional practices remain

relatively immune to command and control techniques” (2008:352). This tension between

11

managerial prerogative and departmental resistance, and academics as managers,

contribute to the contextual power of normative over coercive isomorphism.

In considering the “internal governance arrangements” and structural responses to

the external environment, and the creation and growth of new strategic roles,

management infrastructures and frameworks affecting both academic and non-academic

areas of responsibility, Middlehurst (2004) reinforces the impact of normative

isomormpism in the tendency to stick with established practices in universities and

cautions that “changing internal structural roles may be a necessary but far from

sufficient condition for achieving change in universities” (our emphasis). She suggests

that universities will struggle with change, if, “Opportunities for people to engage with

new practices and ideas and to be supported and challenged to develop new skills,

behaviours and habits are not provided”. However she goes on to highlight the

distinctive nature of university settings which require an even greater sensitivity to

change and therefore because universities “are places where ideas and values are deeply

integrated with structures, functions, roles and cultures, change processes must address

the socio-emotional and symbolic aspects of institutional life as well the instrumental

aspects of the business” Middlehurst (2004:278). The cultural heart of universities cannot

be ignored in the consideration of change processes.

While changes in leadership and management practices in HEIs have been

implemented in the key areas of organisational structure and senior executive roles, there

have been other, and more widely felt, impacts on systems and procedures, operational

roles and responsibilities, patterns of appointment, power and authority, training and

development and culture. Middlehurst (2004) points to more accountability; increased

and explicit leadership and management responsibilities; more formalised selection and

explicit leadership and management oriented appointment criteria particularly at more

senior levels of management; fixed term appointments; tensions between academic and

administrative authority; devolution to academic units; resentment, and resistance to, and

controversy over, emerging managerialism.

McRoy and Gibb’s (2009:697) qualitative study of institutional change

management in five statutory (post-’92) UK universities identifies a number of

operational challenges for HEIs. Of relevance here is that the commitment, clarity and

12

unanimity of senior management communication is important to the perception of

change, and that the lack of buy-in from manager-academics to change that they are

uncomfortable with or disagree with leads to an absence of personal responsibility and

trust and thereby loss of direction. The fact that those ‘middle managers’ required by

their organizations to play key roles as change agents, are academics and not trained

managers, raises issues of managerial competence and highlights tensions between their

self-image as discipline-based academics as opposed to managers.

Prichard and Willmott (1997), Blackwell and Preece (2002), McRoy and Gibbs

(2009) all suggest that managers in UK HEI environments have been able to endorse or

resist the impact of change according to their own preferences and reinforce earlier

discussion that, as the UK HE sector is characterised by plurality and complexity, the

impact of change varies enormously depending on context. This complexity is explained

by Stacey (2000:42) who argues that the university is: “A complex and adaptive system

consisting of a large number of agents, each of which behaves according to its own

principles of local interaction.”

While resistance to change and managerialism might not be overt, forms of tacit

resistance are played out in a number of ways and for a number of reasons, for example

through strong, varying and seemingly impermeable departmental cultures and the

unwillingness of managers to engage fully with their responsibilities. Pritchard and

Willmott term this “neo-paternalism” (1997:300), while Blackwell and Preece (2002)

refer to a “Not Invented Here” syndrome derived from the strong cultural norm that the

“first loyalty of academic staff is to their discipline or sub-discipline and subject”

(2002:7), with loyalty to the department second and the institution third. Here again,

normative tendencies are able to resist the impact of coercive change.

Pritchard and Willmott (1997) also suggest that in reality a more subtle, complex

and contradictory situation exists, highlighting a tension between the language of

management which is viewed with suspicion, as opposed to the practices of management

which could be seen as beneficial, and that this tension is ameliorated by collegial

strategies that engage individuals in “an established academic culture which relies on

cooperation and consent” (1997:307) rather than through command and control

approaches, similar to the ways in which the participants in Smith’s (2005) study

13

described their decision making processes. In summary, Pritchard and Willmott (1997)

state that, “each university is a mix of organizing practices which are historically located

and variably resilient and resistant to being wholeheartedly overthrown by the ‘new’

managers” (1997:311).

Goode and Bagihole (1998) categorised three responses to the change agenda;

‘collaboration’, ‘resistance’ and ‘transformation’, encapsulating the practical responses of

middle managers to the changes that they faced. Collaboration did not necessarily mean

uncritical agreement and approval of the changes, more an acceptance of the need to

‘play the game’. Resistance did not necessarily mean explicit and overt opposition to

change implementation process and activities, but a more subtle search for ways to hold

onto traditional values and priorities as far as possible. Transformation was not seen as an

opportunity to create completely new patterns and practices through relationship

building, new forms of working and flexibility, but more an attempt to “play by the new

rules at the same time as trying to change them” (1998:10). This response tendency is

also seen in the findings of Ogbanna and Harris (2004), in respect of the ability of

respondents to sustain a “professional identity” (2004:1197), while aligning themselves

and conforming to organisational expectations, as a way to ‘tick the boxes’.

Other forms of resistance identified by Barry et al. (2001) at the level of the

individual were tactics such as deliberate under-recruitment, not undertaking appraisals,

and some evidence of direct challenge and counter-argument. They did not find

significant evidence of direct managerial control of daily routines but a sense of

managerial values being mediated and moderated in the middle of the organisation, “Our

interviews have left us with the abiding impression that at junior and middle levels

management is experienced and enacted as processual and (re)negotiated on a daily

basis as people muddle through” (2001:98).

The conclusion is that in practice and seen through the lens of isomorphism, it is

clear that while coercive pressures have impacted on the ways in which HEIs are

(re)structured and the frameworks of management, much of the ‘hearts and minds’ aspect

of organizational change have not been embraced by academics due to the countervailing

influence of powerful normative behaviors and beliefs. The horse has been taken to water

but it is reluctant to drink.

14

Academic line management and HRM in UK HEIs

As the preceding discussion has demonstrated, in UK higher education the powerful

normative issue of acceptance of the managerial role has been a significant barrier, with

“line managers who do not see their career in such a function”. (Jackson, 2001:419) a

view confirmed by Bolton (2000:56) who suggests that “Institutions cast the head in the

role of line manager—a concept not accepted by many of the managed, nor by the

managers!” and, in referring to HoDs Palfreyman and Warner (2000:1) write “Many of

the former have accepted the title of ‘manager’ only with some reluctance”. Deem and

Johnson (2003) also confirm that many academics in management roles did not see

themselves as managers; “although two-thirds of our interviewees said that they could be

described as managers, most were at pains to point out that they regarded themselves

first and foremost as academics” (Deem and Johnson, 2003:11). This was less so in the

statutory universities. Jackson, (2001:419) explains that this tendency is compounded by

the arrangements by which academics are appointed to their management roles, “it faces

the added complication of line managers who have not been appointed (either mainly or

at all) for their management abilities, let alone their human resource managerial

responsibilities, and sometimes line managers who do not see their career in such a

function”.

More recently, a series of reports into the performance and challenges of HR

departments in universities have identified a number of evidence-based failings as calls to

action. Despite the clear expectations emerging from the Jarratt report, Jackson (1999)

pointed out some of the first failings of HR Departments emerged as the new Heads of

Department continued to be appointed not for their managerial skills or experience but

because of their academic prowess although differences between pre-92 ‘chartered’ and

post-92 ‘statutory’ HEIs were characterized by alternative models of appointment with

more permanent, career-oriented, managerial appointments in the statutory sector

contrasting with the more traditional, temporary and laissez-faire practices in the

chartered institutions (Smith, 2005) representing different normative approaches based on

cultural norms. Nonetheless, in both sectors management development and training were

identified as weak areas. Jackson’s (2001) case study review of 14 universities confirmed

that although a range of HR responsibilities were increasingly being devolved to

15

managers (generally Deans and Heads of Department) the devolvement was ad-hoc, ill

thought through and characterised by inadequate provision of training and development.

In 2005 Archer published ‘Mission Critical? Modernising Human Resource

Management in Higher Education’ based on interviews with heads of institutions HRDs

and other personnel in 44 UK universities. While the report concluded that HR was

‘mission critical’, it pointed out that there was still ‘a long way to go’, particularly in

getting line managers to accept that HR is part of their job, and that although there was

“commitment to modern HR at the top levels of universities”, one HR director referred to

a ‘thick layer of cloud below”. In all, the executive summary highlighted 48 areas of

concern across the whole of the HR agenda.

In their analysis of HR practices in UK HEIs Guest and Clinton (2007) found that

the same issues continued to be problematic. They highlighted that one of the key

challenges for HR Departments in UK Universities derives from the powerful specific

and normative features of the public sector that render elements of HR practice

problematic, particularly the enduring allegiance to traditional professional cultures and

autonomy, encapsulated in the phrase ‘academic freedom’ and described as “a struggle

between a managerial ethos and a professional ethos” (Guest and Clinton, 2007:5). The

influence and power of these normative models associated with structures and cultures

prevail even when there is substantive evidence that it is not effective or efficient. With

an echo of Lawler’s (2007) comments about the transactional and administrative nature

of much HR work, Guest and Clinton, (2007) go on to suggest that the distinctive

structure of universities with departments, schools and faculties leads to a unique form of

autonomy, which limits the importance and impact of the HR function, so that “when it

came to the recruitment, promotion and organisation of the work of academics, its role

had been limited to administrative oversight” (2007:14). This resonates with Jackson’s

(2001) earlier findings that although universities spent about 60% of their income on

staffing, little attention was paid to the management of the key academic staff as they

“were viewed as professionals operating through a collegiate system” (Jackson,

2001:404).

Three contemporary reports have addressed a wide range of HR-related issues in

HE. The Oakleigh Report (Shenstone, 2009) was commissioned by HEFCE to evaluate

16

the impact of public policy and investments in HRM in English HE since 2001. While it

recognises that HEIs have put significant effort and resources into the modernisation of

HRM (2009:4) in the period 2001 to 2008, with major developments in approaches to

performance management; recognition of the critical importance of HRM, strategic

integration of HRM and sustained investment in leadership development, it remains

critical of the key issue of line management engagement and concludes that,

“expectations of line managers to take responsibility for people management issues,

including the management of performance . . . are still perceived to be highly variable,

even between schools, faculties and departments within the same institution in some

instances” (2009:8).

Both the ‘Higher Education Workforce Framework 2010’ (HEFCE, 2010) and PA

Consulting’s ‘The Future Workforce for Higher Education’ (2010) highlight, amongst

other things, that “performance management is the most critical [HR activity]” adding

that those staff tasked with the performance management of others should receive

appropriate guidance and be assured of the institution’s full support as they carry out their

managerial function (HEFCE, 2010:87), with clear alternative career paths to institutional

leadership alongside the identification, development and nurturing of future leaders (PA

Consulting, 2010).

Taken together these reports form an important and evidence-based critique of the

ways in which universities are, or are not, responding to the challenges that they face

particularly in resect of the importance of line management. However, while the reports

present the problems and some proposed solutions, they do not particularly address issues

of implementation.

Studies of manager-academics in HEIs

A number of investigations into the impact of change on manager-academics, including

Deem et al (2001); Hellawell and Hancock (2001), Smith (2002, 2005); Sotirakou (2004);

Floyd and Dimmock (2007) and Winter (2009), have all contributed to an understanding

of the challenges that manager-academics in general, and Heads of Department in

particular face in their line management roles. Taken in conjunction with the issues raised

in the preceding sections these challenges can firstly be summarised in a series of

17

dichotomous and over-lapping tensions (see Table 1) and concerns over the primary

focus of the manager-academic role.

Identity as academic Identity as manager-academic

Role as academic leader Role as line manager

Focus on research Focus on teaching

Focus on research/teaching Focus on management

Loyalty to academic discipline/ Department

Loyalty to institution

Career progression through research/ teaching excellence

Career progression through management excellence

Professional ethos/values Managerial ethos/values

Representing academics Representing management

Table 1: Tensions in the manager-academic role

In addition, the specific day-to day challenges highlighted in studies of manager-

academics lead to the conclusion that aspects of the ways in which their roles are

recognised, defined and supported by their institutions, alongside the ways in which

individual manager-academics are developed and encouraged in their roles, are

problematic and sub-optimal. A number of key issues were consistently raised by the

studies. Academics in management roles suffered from high work demands leading to

overload and stress. These pressures were compounded by increased central

organizational control, bureaucracy and accountability – leading to a lack of power as

often accountability was not accompanied with appropriate authority. As manager-

academics were not well supported by their institutions, lack of time for their own

research becomes a consistent theme leading to anxiety over a loss of career capital due

to a distancing from their academic home. Other ways in which manager-academics

were unsupported by their institutions were through a lack of training and development;

poor appointment processes; a lack of meaningful feedback and appraisal and poor

administrative support. Finally the impact of context, particularly the differences

between chartered and statutory environments placed different demands on academics.

A recent survey of first-line manager-academics (FLMAs), Deans and Human

Resource Directors carried out as part of a doctoral study (Bessant, 2014) confirmed that

18

many of the challenges and issues inherent in the earlier studies persist today at the level

of the First-Line Manager-Academic (FLMA), while a recent exploratory study of Heads

of Department by Floyd and Preston (2014) suggests that the role continues to be poorly

understood, that the differences between the chartered and statutory sectors remain

significant and that HRD support for the role is lacking, particularly in the context of

training and support, with key challenges of maintaining research and leading and

managing people the two biggest challenges in the role. Both sets of results confirm

findings from a decade earlier.

The recommendations from the FLMA survey highlight specific areas of concern

regarding the operational and infrastructure arrangements that facilitate or inhibit the

development of manager-academics as effective contributors to their organizations. These

broadly fall into the responsibility of the HR function in HEIs and are summarized in

Table 2.

Activities Issues

Role definition Ensure that job descriptions make explicit the responsibilities, authority and expectations of FLMA roles.

Recruitment and selection

Ensure that person specifications make explicit the skills, experience and attitudes that are appropriate to the FLMA role and that these are used appropriately in the selection processes used for appointment.

Role of administration

Ensure role definitions make explicit what administrative responsibilities are expected of the FLMA and by core administrative support roles respectively.

Career paths Create clear career pathways for FLMAs with appropriate status. Ensure that specific competences/experience required for specific career pathways are defined and explicit.

Organisational culture

Promote and ensure the importance of management in the running of business schools/HEIs. Ensure FLMAs are supported and legitimised by their managers and by the organisation’s systems, processes and policies.

Training and development

Ensure that training and development provision for all academics promotes the importance of good management as a driver for organisational success. Provide specific training and development to prepare/equip/assist FLMAs for their first role.

Appraisal/ feedback/ mentoring

Ensure the appraisal scheme is fit for purpose and addresses management development and performance alongside academic performance and development. Ensure appraisal is properly carried out and managed in the institution in a meaningful way.

Performance management

Ensure performance management is well defined in the organisation and robust enough to allow FLMAs to use it if informal attempts at management fail. Ensure that FLMAs are properly trained and supported to manage difficult performance management issues.

HR support/talent management

Ensure HR support provided to FLMAs is clearly defined and understood by both parties. Have a talent management process in place that recognises the potential of future leaders at each level and facilitates their development.

The managers’ managers

Ensure that those who manage the FLMAs are not a barrier to effectiveness through culture change, effective management and training and development.

Table 2: Recommendations for HR departments in supporting FLMAs

19

What does this all mean?

The paper has surfaced that while evidence-based research can highlight a number of

failings in existing organizational practices, and demonstrate them to be enduring over a

significant period of time, the potential coercive impact of the evidence can be counter-

balanced by a combination of opposing influences that either prevent change happening

or slow the change processes down.

The use of the phenomenon of academic line management in UK HEIs has been a

way of exploring the proposition that a series of isomorphic and contextual pressures are

present in any consideration of EBM adoption and its likely impact, as highlighted in

Figure 2 (repeated from earlier).

Figure 2: A Framework of Influences on EBM Adoption in Organizations

Looking at the top half of the diagram in Figure 2 in the context of academic line

management in HEIs, a number of powerful coercive influences exist which should focus

attention on the importance and nature of institutional management arrangements, such as

Contextual pressures influencing adoption of EBM

Organizational issues- priorities

- political sensitivity- culture

- resource constraints

Presentational issues- availability

- accessibility- rigour/relevance

- contextual specificity

Individual issues- time and role pressures

- risk aversion- dogma and beliefs

- fear and anxiety

Isomorphic pressures influencing adoption of EBM

EBM Outcome (this is the likelihood that

adoption of EBM will occur)

Normative status quo (this is what we have

always done/this is how we do things)

Mimetic (this is what others are

doing/adoption of new practices)

External Coercive (this is what research tells us

we should be doing)

20

a series of research reports discussed in this paper highlighting the challenges facing line

managers and of HR implementation in UK HE, alongside a number of external

environmental conditions requiring greater management in HEI such as the expectations

of important stakeholders; increasing global competition; pressure on resources and

increasing institutional and environmental complexity.

However, counter-balancing this there is a powerful normative pressure within the

UK HEI sector for academics to reject managerialism and its manifestations, through

explicit and covert behaviours that dilute its impact. While it has not been addressed in

this paper explicitly, it can be assumed that mimetic influences are less powerful in this

scenario in that the problems regarding line-management identified are broadly generic to

the sector. The tendency for statutory institutions to be following the lead of chartered

institutions in a shift towards more research-oriented strategies would in fact suggest that

any mimetic pressures that exist in the context of line management are likely to tend to

the normative rather than coercive.

In terms of the bottom half of the diagram, it can be suggested that the

presentational issues around the research are broadly coercive in nature. While there are

issues around the extent to which HR professionals access and read academic journals

(Rynes, Colbert and Brown, 2002; Guest and Zilstra, 2012), three factors exists here that

are positive. The first is that the academic articles are broadly accessible in terms of their

language and presentation, even if some of their conclusions are implied rather than

explicit; the second is that they are highly contextually relevant, and the third is that the

professional reports into HR practices are specifically aimed at those responsible for the

management of HEIs in general and senior HR practitioners specifically. These will hit

the desks of HR Directors directly.

In general we can only speculate as to the individual issues in this context,

however in respect of the study into the role of the FLMA referred to above (Bessant,

2014), University HR Directors were surveyed directly as a part of the study and

identified and/or confirmed many of the issues driving the need for change in the ways in

which academic management and cultures are conducted and they have contributed to

other findings, such as those identified by Archer (2005) and Guest and Clinton (2007).

21

However this only covers one aspect of the individual pressures that could either support

or prevent EBM adoption.

Finally, in terms of organizational issues we have seen how culturally HEIs have

a strong tendency to resist change even if espoused arrangements appear different.

Universities are large institutions facing significant challenges that require attention and

therefore the extent to which the arrangements for manager-academics may not be

perceived as particularly important in absolute terms is a fundamental issue impacting on

organizational performance. In addition, as demonstrated earlier (Smith and Adams,

2008) there is irony in the fact that senior managers in HEIs tend to be academics, yet this

can be a powerful normative influence towards the maintenance of the status quo.

Conclusion

One of the challenges facing evidence-based HRD research, and EBM in general, is to

pay more attention to the implemention of change and to include a greater focus on why

things are as they are. Coercive arguments for change based on comparisons to best

practice, or by robust analysis of organizational problems, form only part of the picture

that evidence-based management research should be painting. At this point the canvas is

incomplete.

This exploratory paper has attempted to look at this bigger picture by addressing a

broader set of issues by reference to a specific problem area of academic management in

UK HEIs. For evidence-based HRM/D to make an impact through adoption in

organisations it is not enough for research to 1) identify organizational problems 2) point

out the impacts and consequences of the problems, 3) put forward solutions. In order to

improve the likelihood of EBM adoption research should explicitly explore barriers to the

change implementation agenda. In the case of HRD in particular, given its organizational

impact, consideration of the contextual issues through the lens of isomorphism, alongside

consideration of the organizational, individual and presentational barriers to

implementation would provide a more complete picture. Evidence-based management

itself has a role to play in examining the barriers to its own implementation, not just a

combination of 1, 2 and 3.

22

In discussing the influences of EBM adoption in this way, this paper contributes

to the on-going EB HRM/D debate and suggests that more holistic research projects may

be the way forward. Clearly these ideas need to be tested empirically.

23

References

Archer, W. (2005) Mission Critical?: Modernising Human Resource Management in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy Institute.

Bartunek, J.M. & Rynes, S.L., (2014) ‘Academics and Practitioners Are Alike and Unlike: The Paradoxes of Academic-Practitioner Relationships’ Journal of Management, 40(5), pp.1181–1201.

Barry, J., Chandler, J. and Clark, H. (2001) ‘Between the Ivory Tower and the Academic Assembly Line’ Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), pp.88–101.

Bennis, W.G. & O’Toole, J., (2005) ‘How business schools lost their way’ Harvard Business Review, 83(5), pp.96–104.

Bessant, C. (2014) The role of the first-line-manager-academic in UK Business Schools, unpublished DBA thesis, Northumbria University

Blackwell, R. and Preece, D. (2001) ‘Changing higher education’, International Journal of Management Education, 1(3), pp.3–13.

Bolton, A. (2000) Managing the Academic Unit. Milton Keynes: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Briner, R., Denyer, D. & Rousseau, D.M. (2009) ‘Evidence-Based Management: Concept Cleanup Time?’ Academy of Management Perspectives, pp.19–31.

Deem, R., Fulton, O., Reed, M. and Watson, S. (2001), New managerialism and the management of UK universities, Economic and Social Research Council.

Deem, R. and Johnson, R. (2003) ‘Risking the university? Learning to be a manager-academic in UK universities’, Sociological Research Online, 8(3).

Demers, C. (2007) Organizational Change Theories: A Synthesis. Sage

DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’ American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp.147–160.

Floyd, A. and Dimmock, C. (2007) ‘ ‘Jugglers’, ‘copers’ and ‘strugglers’: academics’ perceptions of being a head of department in a post-1992 UK university and how it

24

influences their future careers’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(4), pp. 387-399.

Floyd, A. and Preston, D. (2014) ‘Exploring the role of Associate Dean in UK Universities’, ENGAGE 36, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Garman, A.N., (2011) ‘Shooting for the Moon: How Academicians Could Make Management Research Even Less Irrelevant’. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), pp.129–133.

Goode, J. and Bagilhole, B. (1998) ‘Gendering the management of change in higher education: a case study’, Gender, Work & Organization, 5(3), pp.148–164.

Guest, D., (2007.) ‘Don’t shoot the messenger: a wake-up call for academics’ Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), pp.1020–1026.

Guest, D., & Clinton, M. (2007) Human Resource Management and UniversityPerformance: Final Report. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Guest, D.E. & Zijlstra, F.R.H., (2012) ‘Academic perceptions of the research evidence base in work and organizational psychology: A European perspective’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(4), pp.542–555.

Halsey, A. H. (1992), The Decline of Donnish Dominion: The British Academic Professions in the twentieth century. Oxford University Press.

Hellawell, D. & Hancock, N. (2001) ‘A case study of the changing role of the academic middle manager in higher education: between hierarchical control and collegiality?’ Research Papers in Education, 16(2), pp.183–197.

Henkel, M. (1997) ‘Academic values and the university as corporate enterprise’, Higher Education Quarterly, 51(2), pp.134–143.

Hughes, T., O'Regan, N. & Wornham, D. (2008) ‘The credibility issue: closing the academic/practitioner gap’ Strategic Change, 17(7-8), pp.215–233.

Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions: Report of a Committee. Stationery Office, 1999.

Jackson, M.P. (1999) ‘The role of the head of department in managing performance in UK universities’, International Journal of Educational Management, 13(3), pp.142–155.

25

Jackson, M.P. (2001) ‘Personnel management in UK universities’, Personnel Review, 30(4), pp.404–420.

Jarratt Report (1985) Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities, CVCP.

Kitson, A., Harvey, G. & McCormack, B. (1998) ‘Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework’ Quality in Health Care, 7(3), pp.149–158.

Lawler, E.E. (2007) ‘Why HR practices are not evidence-based’ Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), pp.1033–1036.

Marshall, S (2010) 'Change, technology and higher education: are universities capable of organisational change?', Research in Learning Technology, 18 (3), pp.179-192

McRoy, I. and Gibbs, P. (2009) ‘Leading Change in Higher Education’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), pp.687–704.

Middlehurst, R. (1991) The Changing Roles of University Leaders and Managers: Implications for Preparation and Development, Final report to the DES. London: DES.

Middlehurst, R. (2004) ‘Changing internal governance: A discussion of leadership roles and management structures in UK universities’, Higher Education Quarterly, 58(4), pp.258–279.

Ogbonna, E. and Harris, LC. (2004) ‘Work intensification and emotional labour among UK university lecturers: An exploratory study’, Organization Studies, 25(7), p.1185.

Palfreyman, D. and Warner, D. (2000) ‘Setting the Scene’, in D. Warner and D. Palfreyman (eds) Higher Education Management, pp. 1–15. Milton Keynes: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006) ‘Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense’ Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Prichard, C. and Willmott, H. (1997) Just how managed is the McUniversity? Organization Studies, 18(2), pp. 287–316.

26

Rousseau, D.M. (2006) ‘Is there Such a thing as "Evidence-Based Management"?’ Academy of Management Review, 31(2), pp.256–269.

Rynes, S.L., Colbert, A.E. & Brown, K.G. (2002) ‘HR Professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: correspondence between research and practice’ Human Resource Management, 41(2), pp.149–174.

Shenstone, A., et al. (2009) Evaluation of the impact of public policy and investments in human resource management in higher education since 2001, Oakleigh Consulting.

Smith, R. (2002) ‘The Role of the University Head of Department’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 30(3), pp.293-312.

Smith, R. (2005) ‘Departmental leadership and management in chartered and statutory universities’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(4), pp. 449-464.

Smith, B. (2007) ‘On being a university head of department’, Management in Education, 21(1), pp. 4–7.

Smith, D. and Adams, J. (2008) ‘Academics or executives? Continuity and change in the roles of pro-vice-chancellors’, Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), pp.340–357.

Sotirakou, T. (2004), ‘Coping with conflict within the entrepreneurial university: threat or challenge for heads of departments in the UK higher education context’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2), pp.345-72.

Stacey, R.D. (2000) Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation (Complexity and Emergence in Organizations). London: Routledge.

Tranfield, D. & Starkey, K. (1998) ‘The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy’ British Journal of Management, 9, pp.341–353.

Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003) ‘Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business education.’ Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2:189–205.

The Higher Education Workforce Framework 2010, (2010) Overview Report, HEFCE.

The Future Workforce for Higher Education: A Report to HEFCE (2011) PA Consulting Group, Overview report.

27

Winter, R. (2009) ‘Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), pp.121–131.

28