Title Employee voices in the UK of changes to work given postglobal financial crisis – Updated viewing?

Authors Dr Diane Keeble-Ramsay, Ross Kemble

Lord Ashcroft International Business School, Anglia RuskinUniversity, Rivermead Campus

AbstractManagers are employees, yet there remains a dearth of the

examination of the employees’ experiences by way of the employees’

voices, despite an acceptance of studies of management as a

sufficient reflection of organisational actions (see Conway and

Monks, 2009; Hale and Tamangani, 1996; Hale, 2005). Following the

global financial crisis (GFC), emerging in 2008, and the subsequent

precarious nature of the UK economy, we commenced research

investigating the evolving nature of UK working practices. Given

the limited empirical research prior to GFC of post 2000 changes to

the workplace, Hassard, McCann and Morris’s publication, Managing in

a Modern Corporation (Hassard et al, 2009) given their post 2000

observations of multinational financial services companies provided

a platform foundation. Hassard, McCann and Morris had undertaken

research with middle-managers between 2003 and 2007 (McCann, Hassard

and Morris, 2004; Morris, Hassard and McCann, 2006, 2008; McCann,

Morris and Hassard, 2008) founding their observations within

Braverman’s (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of

the Work in the Twentieth Century.

By trying to gain meanings employees hold, and own, of ‘managing’

the starting point of the research lain with rich empirical accounts

provided by employees. Our study strived to engage with the

subjective employee experience of management and any evidence of

potential new managerialism (Klikauer, 2013). This provides some

1

insights into their interpretation and of communicated expectations

within the daily workplace. We recognised the constraints of

qualitative research, bound by constructions of reality from pre-

coded themes. In order to establish a dialogue and invite

methodological plurality into research, to overcome traditional ways

of thinking about working practices, is addressed thus counter-

balancing concepts (Alvesson and Karreman, 2011) and inviting

reflexivity of the ‘cultural turns’ (Bachmann-Medick, 2009) from

employee discourse to develop new understandings. Attempting

to reflect from a critical perspective, the paper considers

potential sense making to advance understanding of the effects

of the GFC upon the nature of work.

Key words: post global financial crises, counter balancing

concepts, cultural turns

2

Employee voices in the UK of changes to work given post global

financial crisis – Updated viewing?

Introduction

Cultural UK interpretations towards the organisational treatment of

the employee, by way of 21st century ’financialisation’ of the firm

(Thompson, 2003, 2011), may indicate differences of employers’

responses to the global financial crisis (GFC), post 2008, within

different countries. Difference of response might lie within the

layers of organisational culture or the nature of differing

anthropological ’cultural turns’ within national cultures (see

Bachmann-Medick, 2009). Given the opaque nature of stereotypical

interpretations of organisational actions, a plurality in ’ways of

knowing’ may be key to understanding any ’cultural turns’ of

responses to economic crises. Causal chains to the human productive

capabilities of organisations remain ’undertheorised’ (Purcell and

Hutchinson, 2007). Thus re-thinking by way of consideration of the

cultural layers might provide deeper and fuller insights or

perspectives for viewing the nature of managerial responses.

Historically responses to adverse economic conditions appear to be

placed in general patterns or trends (see Roche et al, 2013a, b) yet

the deeper cultural aspects, in terms of recognising the very nature

of the impact upon the individual within the organisation, with

regards to the ephemeral interpretation and ‘people’ response to the

financial environment, receives limited attention. Perceptions and

individual, or collective, identities contribute towards the

cultural features of the organisation and affect both employers’ and

employee responses to change to a climate and further impact upon

the collective workplace.

3

The differing nature of cultures within the evolution of

organisations has received attention, though perhaps at the neglect

of sectoral aspects, the roles within organisation, or the nature

and contribution at individual level. The culture management gurus

of the 1980s, such as Charles Handy (1976), espoused the relative

importance of models of task, role and people cultures. Moreover,

international studies herald the insights of Hofstede, (2001) or

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, (1997) in terms of the determinant

nature of national cultures. However, it is the personal

interpretation of individuals, their sense making and contribution,

that the multi-faceted aspects of cultural influences might provide

deeper insights (Mather et al, 2012) to re-thinking future people

management. The problems of research that seeks to find

generalisations through patterns and trends for comparability is

that the rich complexity of the human experience is reduced.

Moreover, stereotypical viewings of national cultures present

difficulties, as has been recently found within Britain as the

current coalition government seeks to revise their understanding of

what might be ‘Britishness’. Whilst ethnoconvergence remains an

area for wider examination and debate, potentially the oppositional

nature of divergence of cultural response to economic conditions may

exist within different national labour markets.

Further to a bail-out of the UK banking system, the UK’s coalition

government, post 2008, introduced austerity measures in the attempt

to reduce national debt (Colley, 2012). Whilst the GFC might be

heralded as extraordinary circumstances, austerity measures may have

further focused organizational budgetary constraints towards yet

more financialised organizational models (Thompson 2003; 2011). As

such, the employee experiences, post 2008, may be peculiar to a

particular economy, based within the economic evolutionary and

4

historical nature of national employment practices. As an immediate

response to the economic challenges of GFC, UK organisations imposed

disorienting levels of change. These might be viewed as being more

aligned to “sweating the assets” (Warhurst, 2012) than developing

sustainable people management practices. Further these might have

then impact upon the potential cultural interpretation in the UK of

such company responses to economic crises. Despite a common legal

landscape, whilst the UK remains part of the European Union, it is

perhaps predictable that the experience of member nations will not

be homogeneous but rather hetergeneous. We suggest further that

within a national labour market, and within an organisation,

cultural heterogeneity potentially impacts upon the interpretation

and perception of employees facing changes.

Despite historical acceptance of previous studies of managers as a

sufficient reflection of organisational activities and actions (see

Conway and Monks, 2009; Hale and Tamangani, 1996; Hale, 2005), there

remains a dearth of the examination of the employees’ experiences

within a changing 21st century world by way of the employees’ voices

or through their discourse. Research historically addresses the

experiences of managers (Hale and Tamangani, 1996; Hale, 2005;

Hassard et al, 2009) yet managers are also employees.

Problem statement and purpose of the Paper

This paper reports initial findings from our study, which strived to

engage with the subjective employee experience of management

actions. Further, it attempts to consider new managerialism

(Klikauer, 2013), by beginning to extend conversations around the

issues of resistance or consent to changing working practice. By

considering the individual’s lived experience of change, in order to

inform re-thinking of managerial theory, we attempt to gain meanings

5

that employees hold and own. Thus, the starting point of the

research has lain with rich empirical accounts of ‘managing’

provided by employees, which provides some insights into their

interpretation and of communicated expectations within the

workplace. Specifically, the undertaken research reports the shared

perceptions of employees, who represent views from both public and

private sector organisations within the UK. In terms of any ‘sense

making’ of their experiences post 2008, this included managerial

workers as well as more junior or professional employees.

Given the scope of the research then, the objectives and

contributions of this work are:

1 To explore cultural and conceptual influences impacting the

nature of change to UK work practices between 2008 and 2013.

2 To consider employees’ shared understandings of the nature of

changes in working practices in the UK between 2008 and 2013.

Background to the study

Hassard et al (2009) had undertaken research with middle-managers

between 2003 and 2007 (McCann, Hassard and Morris, 2004; Morris,

Hassard and McCann, 2006, 2008; McCann, Morris and Hassard, 2008)

founding their observations within Braverman’s (1974) Labor and

Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of the Work in the Twentieth

Century. Since manager participants were expected to do more

(rather than less) by way of the scope of their work during 2000-

2009, Hassard et al (2009) concluded that Braverman’s (1974) Labour

Process Theory (LPT) in terms of the intentions of managements

towards de-skilling was not evidenced. It is key to note that, at

the start of this enquiry, there was limited material surrounding

6

the employee experience of the global financial crisis (GFC) and its

impact. Further, earlier studies of organisations lacked

longitudinal perspective. The observations of Hassard et al (2009)

reported experiences of managers, post 2000 and by continuing their

observations through the first decade of the 21st century in 3

countries, further provided a longitudinal reflection of change

during this period. We felt this provided a starting point as a lens

from which to conduct our enquiry. Our report does not seek to

consider labour process theory as its focus.

By reviewing the context of the Hassard et al (2009) studies, it

appears that work practices within the UK, of re-structuring and

down sizing, prior to 2008, were driven by short-term financial

goals. Undeclared by 100 UK companies, previously committed to High

Performance Working (HPW) in 2002 (Ashton and Sung, 2002), might be

constraints in terms of choices for adopting ‘high road’ strategies

of best practice human resource management (HRM), (Thompson 2003;

2011). Perhaps even prior to 2008, given power imbalances between

employees and the organisation facilitating a rhetorical device to

conceal managerial exploitation, (Ramirez et al, 2007), rather than

employee emancipation HPW in reality reflected a mode of work-

intensification limiting the employees’ voice (Cullinane and Dundon,

2006). It would be in this context of new managerialism (Klikauer,

2013) HPW, in reality, reflected a mode of work-intensification,

rather than ‘high road’ options (Hughes, 2010), that perhaps may

have rendered HPW attractive to UK organisations. It is argued,

liberalised employment markets, post 2000, resulted in marginalized

unions, with global capitalism reducing the power of the state, and

outsourcing, downsizing, off shored and franchised white collar

service based workforces (Klikauer, 2013). To which perhaps,

cultural hegemony may surface, not through the acts of governments

7

(with reduced power in new managerialism, Klikauer, 2013) but

potentially unwitting or even unintended, through a dominant

cultural ideology (Bullock and Trombley, 1999) in the form of an

economic exploitation or socio-economic oppression in response to a

difficult financial environment. Potentially, where the employee

lives a discrete life, applying common sense, which is meaningful to

them in order to cope with daily life, yet they are constrained in

their contribution to a wider societal hegemony, they experience

alienation (Marx, 1906). As a result some organisational hegemony

might be revealed. It might be further conspired that the

development of cultural interpretations to facilitate compliance

might draw from creating collective perceptions of depleted power

and alienation (Mather et al, 2012). Thus, any new ‘managerialism’

could seize the opportunity of economic difficulty to engineer

exploitative practices through change initiatives, which are overly

focussed upon cost and productivity outcomes, developing “a new

morphology” of “hybridized control regimes”, coined as cultural re-

engineering (Reed, 2011). Beginning conversations around perceptions

regarding possibilities of resistance then, or employee consent for

changing working practices within organisations, post GFC, might

inform any re-thinking of post GFC managerial theory through the

examination of the lived experience of change from employees.

Sensemaking

The starting point of the research had lain then with shared

accounts from focus group participants, by attempting to gain

meanings that employees hold, and own. Participants provided shared

interpretations of the communicated expectations from management

within their daily workplace. We recognised the constraints of

qualitative research, which might be bound by constructions of

reality from pre-coded themes.

8

Whilst culture is understood as a common understanding in terms of

attributes, attitudes and a communities of practice,

interculturality lies not solely with the impact differences of any

amelioration of national culture, but perhaps further with

transculturality (Ortiz, 1995; Allatson, 2007) where macro forces

are addressed at micro individual level. After all, Brown et al

(2006) suggest that for different groups their distinct histories

and professional identities might lead them to draw upon the

workplace as a resource ‘to develop promote, and protect their

preferred versions of themselves and their organization, and to take

comfort in nostalgia, fantasy and scapegoating’ (p 22).

Perhaps then employees should not be entirely viewed as potentially

repressed individuals or victims of ‘new managerialism’ however, as

collective participants in reinforcing any organizational cultural

hegemony, which dominates the organizational response to changing

economic conditions. Potentially, perhaps taking this position of

employees as participants reinforcing a cultural hegemony,

unintentionally negates any position that new managerialism

(Klikkauer, 2013) might ‘force’ individuals to ‘make sense’ of a

negative environment by utilizing destructive approaches and

developing cultural responses that lead to an engineering of

employee compliance to work practices, such as work intensification

(Nyberga et al, 2011, Mather et al, 2012). Mather et al’s, (2012)

cultural engineering of compliance identified in their studies from

UK further education practices, post 1992, how the individual might

be forced to be compliant to an environment through managerial

interventions which are wielded to take away the autonomy of the

individual. Yet where the position of the employee voice is depleted

by inequality of power within the organization (Cullinane and

9

Dundon, 2006) perhaps potential transculturality would lie with the

survival strategies of individuals who are alienated by the

corporate change initiatives?

Organisations are constituted in discourse. Their language informs

thoughts and reflects the thoughts of individuals. The capturing of

cultures can be signified through the exploration of the language

used to express the thoughts articulated by a workforce (Zimbardo et

al, 1973). As such, the power bases and the natures of the culture

can be depicted by the organizational cultural repertory grid in its

dimensions for personal meanings constructed in terms of determining

their employee experiences. The sense making of individuals not

only reflects their personal interpretations but shared language

informs their constructions and shifting identities within the

groups that they live and work within (Zimbardo et al, 1973). This

potentially facilitates greater insights to the messy complexity of

organizational interculturality and from which insights to the inner

drama behind responses of organizations to crises might be better

understood.

Method

In order to establish a dialogue and invite methodological plurality

into the research enquiry counter-balancing concepts (Alvesson and

Karreman, 2011), and through an attempt to overcome traditional ways

of thinking about working practices by inviting reflexivity of the

‘cultural turns’ (Bachmann-Medick, 2009) from employee discourse,

was developed as a mechanism to consider new understandings.

Attempting to reflect further from a critical perspective, the paper

considered potential sense making to advance understanding of the

effects of the GFC upon the nature of work experienced by UK

participants. Thus, since this study was founded for the co-creation

10

of knowledge, (Kreuger, 1988), the mode of focus groups were

selected at an exploratory stage in the study. Focus groups allow

transcription of a rich discourse of situated knowledge, which might

not be captured by other methods. Participatory focus groups enable

free discussions to take place and facilitate the mutual

construction of meanings, where participant interaction of

subjective understanding of personal experiences potentially leads

to the joint construction of knowledge (Smith and Elgar, 2012).

Focus groups also facilitate an organised and collective group

activity discussion (Kitzinger, 1994; Powell et al, 1996) and allow

for the facilitation of the obtaining of several perspectives, and

re-formulating views in terms of why an issue is salient, founded

upon group interaction.

Our focus groups represent 10 groups, of approx 7-10 participants

each in 2010, and again, in 2013, which is a comparable level of

participation to the number of respondents in Hassard et al’s (2009)

studies, which engaged 100 participants. An equal number of UK

middle managers and unspecialised non-supervisory employees

participated, further representing an equal assortment of public

sector employees and private sector participants. The focus groups

were one hour in length and initiated by way of a set of pre-defined

questions, provided to them on a stimulus sheet. To facilitate

participant discourse and allowing cohorts to consider their working

environment since 2008, questions were derived from posing themes

taken from those used in Hassard et al’s (2009) prior studies. For

the 2013 cohorts, these themes were treated as a-priori, in order to

facilitate some comparison between 2010 and 2013, however the

research team did allow for the emergence of new themes for the 2013

cohorts. Both cohorts of groups were provided with notepaper, where

11

they could record and submit their own summary commentaries to

inform our analyses.

Findings

The use of a template drawn initially from the themes of Hassard et al

(2009) assisted triangulation of the data and its validity by

allowing comparison through the themes from participant discourse

(see King, 1998 Template Analysis). By adjusting the template as

new themes emerged from the focus group discussions eg aspects of

control, limitations of individual, facilitated a flexible approach

to tailor our codes and to meet the needs of the study. The

following table provides a summary of the themes derived from

Hassard et al (2009) of change, culture change, ICT and communication

and then any emerging themes from cohorts and selections from

discussions, which were matched to these themes.

Summary: Comparative Themes Template

Themes Change Culture

Change

ICT and

communicatio

n

Emerging

2010 ‘more

constrained

job roles’,

‘greater

accountabili

ty and

financial

focus

resulting’;

‘changes

‘tougher,

more

chaotic; a

‘shock

culture’’

‘a lack of

control

over, or

participatio

n within,

change

agendas’;

‘…technology

to monitor

or contact

the

workforce

was viewed

as a

potential

move towards

a more

pressurised

12

could not be

avoided and

were

inevitable’

culture…’

‘new

practices

leading to a

more

financially

focussed

culture’

‘they should

not question

or challenge

any change’

‘‘parade of

restructurin

g’ was

conducted

through a

series of

emails…’

‘Financially

successful

since 2008;

an

entrepreneur

ial approach

driving the

company and

lively

interactive

communicatio

n but

constant

cost cutting

of the

public

sector

contracts

meant that

the company

had to look

to changing

work

practices‘

‘initial

resentment

‘a shift in

their prior

‘communicate

d by email

13

to many of

the changes

- re-

structuring

and

financial

changes =

concerns

about our

job

security’

expectations

of the

employee

role’

using an

impersonal

manner.

Rumours

often pre-

empted the

formal

communicatio

ns received

by email’

2013 ‘the

presence of

continuing

dominance of

new

executive

management’

‘culture as

financially

driven, more

cut throat

and

defensive’

‘resource

streamlining

. IT as

being

constrained

with budget

cuts’

‘organisatio

ns were

being less

flexible and

offering

less

benefits and

rewards’

‘expectation

that you

will deliver

more through

more hours…

now doing 3

people’s

jobs’

‘budget cuts

and salary

freezes

leading to a

more hostile

culture’

‘the

movement of

training to

e-learning,

eg

induction,

as being a

financial

cost based

change’

‘increased

sickness

absence

through

increased

stress due

to

constraints

on worklife

balance’

14

‘job cuts

and ‘process

efficiency

improvements

’ led to

greater

multi-

tasking’

‘management

considered

the

communicatio

n of change

largely a

waste of

time and

money’

‘Did not

allow

explanations

or views to

be expressed

noting there

was no open

door policy’

‘no

evaluation

of change

processes’

‘news of

change being

shared

amongst the

work ‘too

early’

citing short

term

strategies’

By allocating the participants’ views to themes, it can be broadly

seen that the earlier outcomes of Hassard et al’s (2009) publication

are largely supported as evidence of increasing work intensification

and potentially, resulting stress for the employees, in line with

the experiences of managers taking part in the earlier Hassard et al

(2009) studies. Whilst the template analysis reduces the illustration

15

of the discourse for the purposes of analysis to the respective

themes, the use of the emergent field facilitates more subjective

viewings of the shared perceptions agreed (and owned by the

participants). This allows for a wider emerging discourse, than

might be achieve through a repetition study which might seek to

repeat the themes of earlier research in order to achieve

comparability of outcome.

The value of this table lies with the nature of the comments that

have been selected as representing the discourse of the employees

and their shared, consulted viewings of the workplace. Whilst the

different cohorts of 2010 and 2013 were not homogeneous in their

construction, it might be suggested that their diversity is not

reflected by their general discussion, which reflects similarity in

the themes different cohorts developed. There does appear to be

participant perceptions of a worsening of work practices from 2010

to 2013, which potentially reflects deepening UK economic concerns,

post austerity, with limited evidence of progression towards

economic success within future work activities. Perhaps, this is

particularly emphasised further by reviewing emerging themes since,

although some discourse comes a cohort representing a financially

successful enterprise trading post 2008, they reflect anticipated

future responses in work practices to be focussed upon cost cutting.

As such, this supports the viewings of post 2000, financialised

companies (Thompson, 2003; 2011). Yet, the aim of this work lies

with the ‘unearthing’ or exploration of ‘cultural turns’. To which

then, a number of other or alternative viewings might be furthered

in the review of the data collected.

Collective perceptions inform transculturality (Ortiz, 1995;

Allatson, 2007), where macro forces are addressed at micro

individual level. As such, the findings reported raise the

16

potential to interpret contributions by way of the lens of cultural

hegemony; by way of reduced power through the potential effecting of

’new managerialism’, (Klikauer, 2013) through a dominant cultural

ideology (Bullock and Trombley, 1999). Perhaps the suggestion from

focus group cohorts that it is necessary to accept change, rather

than ask any questions around the change, reflects their shared

perceptions of a reduced power position. Organisational hegemony

suggested as where the employee lives a discrete life, applying

common sense, which is meaningful to them in order to cope with

daily life, (Marx, 1906). The perception of a ‘chaotic’

environment potentially reveals an opportunity to exploit the

workforce through the development of ‘Stepford’ employees (Mather et

al, 2012). Mather et al’s, (2012) cultural engineering of compliance is

potentially not evidenced by the same mechanisms identified in their

studies of further education practices post 1992, the shared

perception of curtailment of employee power might be drawn from the

response to an economic climate of the following of a harsher

managerial approach. As opposed to perceptions of a more supportive

people oriented approach, where the position is we might all ‘work

together’ to embattle economic difficulties by invoking innovation,

the participants reflect their interpretation of a hostile culture.

In the discourse from 2013, the positioning of technology and

communication both appear to suggest the issues of control and

limited power, effected or engineered by the implementation of

stream lined technological approaches. It might be that the cohorts

progress that this impacts upon their perception of worsening of

conditions. However, if viewing the discourse, the nostalgic

viewing of pre-2008 might reflect an employee ‘convenience of

memory’, which is a product of a historical fantasy of a better work

place pre GFC (Brown et al, 2006; Zimbardo et al, 1973). It could be argued

17

that the emotional defence of the alienated employees, when making

sense of an organisational hegemony to which they cannot contribute,

lies within their personal defences (Marx, 1906). Yet what is clear

here, that whilst the cohorts included managers within the

discussions, the intentions of the organisation are not investigated

but solely the interpretations and discourse from shared meanings of

the focus group employee participants. This represents difficulties

for the research team in the presentation of the shared themes

emerging from the findings, should we wish to make absolute claims

of these as indicative evidence of financialised companies,

(Thompson, 2003; 2011) or new managerialism (Klikauer, 2013).

It might be argued then that organisational intentions might have

provided some virtuous defence of any management practices and which

negate any evidential existence of new ‘managerialistic’ practice.

Yet perhaps the greater insight lies not with whether the

organisational power to exploit in a capitalist endeavour to

profiteer over the workforce in an economic crises was misconstrued

here, but whether the interpretations of the workforce impact upon

the bottomline of the business, irregardless of its intentions, foul

or fair. In other words, the shared perceptions of managers and

workers contribute to the culture of the organisation through their

shared language and as such, whether their perceptions be fact or

fantasy (Brown et al, 2006), the impact upon the endeavours of the

workforce lies with its shared culture, irregardless of its origins.

A failure to appreciate this could result means that negative

viewings of organisational intentions by employees and subsequently

limit engagement in the organisation, even if the cultural

perceptions are false.

To exemplify, the claim that there is greater levels of sickness

cannot be verified through the claims of a focus group alone. Only

18

by the triangulation of data with organisational absence records

could check for the accuracy or any claim to this as a fact.

However, the language/discourse represents that the employees

believe that work practice changes within the workplace have

impacted absence. Given that the different participants worked in

different organisations, and the themes selected are the summary of

different cohorts in different years, perhaps the explanation of

employees creating shared viewings, as representative or

interpretative of their particular peculiar organisational culture,

is problematic. Perhaps there is an underlying cultural influence,

which is impacting upon the perceptions and to which individual

organisations have limited control over.

What has yet to be explored here is whether any wider external

influences are reflected by the national cultural interpretations or

collective consciousness. Given the participant cohorts did not

comprise employees/managers from one company or sector, yet the

shared meanings constructed seem to be aligned in their expressions

might demand further reflection. The interpretation of the

responses of organisations to any economic conditions might be

interpreted influenced by aspects external to the organisations.

Potentially this reflects a national cultural influence upon

participants. Moreover that external influences affect employee

interpretations towards the response of management in the UK, to

post 2008 economic conditions.

The uncanny similarities of themes within the shared discourse from

the participants seem to suggest that their sense making/meanings

might be some fantastical interpretation of managerial repressive

stances; or alternatives that there might be external influences

outside their peculiar organisation’s responses in managing the

changes of a post 2008. From which the ‘cultural turns’ might lie

19

at the heart of UK neo-liberal interpretations, which direct

organisational approaches to the GFC and the latter economic period.

This may also provide a window to reflect how significantly the

histories of a country impact upon the cultural interpretations of

the acts of a management at an equal level to the history of a

particular organisation. Whilst it is not unreasonable to imagine

the possible influence these might have in the psychological

relationship employees have with their employers, certainly

reflections upon this demand further enquiry since the data

collected here cannot provide fuller interpretations of the

potential impact of national employee relations contexts,.

Equally, the recent shaping of employee relations contexts outside

of an organisation might influence also the potential responses of

already ‘financialised’ organisations (Thompson, 2003; 2011) in

terms of managerial actions thus resulting in ‘new managerialism’

(Klikauer, 2013). Yet the evidence here does not stand sufficient

scrutiny to provide such absolute conclusions. It provides only

some insights into the possible diversity of interpretations, which

might be derived from discourse to inform any re-thinking of

management. Rather than economic sciences, which may have led to a

depletion of social capital from disengaged employees or destructive

management actions which lead to unsustainable cost focussed

responses to economic changes (Nyberga et al, 2011) that might be

informed by cultural perspectives as a bridge between theory and

practice.

Conclusions

This paper set out to consider explore cultural and conceptual

influences impacting the UK work practices in the post GFC period by

the review of shared understandings from our focus group research of

the nature of post 2008 changes in working practices in the UK. It

20

is accepted that this provides limited reflections of the wider UK

working population, however the discourse reflected upon is rich.

There are cultural interpretations, which could be accepted as

relative to evidence of ional hegemony (Bullock and Trombley, 1999)

effected since GFC. Whilst with regards to work intensification in

our participants deliberations,Hassard et al’s (2009) research and

Thompson’s (2003; 2011) ‘financialised companies’ leads us to

identify some consistencies in their prior GFC findings, rather than

confirm their findings we accept that our paper sets out to consider

the cultural dimensions within and without the organisation.

In consideration of the cultural elements, we suggest that the

perceptions of the employees of the actions of management and the

environment within which they act are contributory to the

psychological relationship and their commitment towards their employ

(Brown et al, 2006). Moreover, that the language used by comparison

may be adopted from either external influences or new managerialist

practices (Klikauer, 2013), reflects possible organisational

hegemony alienating employees. We are unable to determine from this

research whether this reflects intentional managerial cultural re-

engineering to limit the power of employees (Mather et al, 2012) but

that the language used to describe the change and the discourse

reflects that the alienation of employees limits the potential for

positive psychological benefits for the organisation. We also

progress that is it is further possible is that the experience of

other nations may not reflect our findings as the common strands of

discourse might lie with UK external influences towards employee

interpretations of management responses to the post GFC period.

What appears also to be clear is that given the differing sectpr

employers and employs of the participants, the shared meaning

presented through the discourse fails to reflect post GFC management

21

practices as nurturing cultures. As such then, using contextual

discourse to inform organisations through a cultural post-

representational lens in terms of the impact of responses

facilitates a critical perspective to review responses to economic

conditions rather than by prescribing to a sub-discipline of

economic sciences. This becomes key in considering sustainable

future practices, particularly with respect to people management.

The nature of a GFC suggests that historical organisational

approaches failed but more importantly, if the driver is

financialisation (Thompson 2003; 2011), this will continue to fail

unless other perspectives are considered. Whilst this paper in the

main attempts to begin to scratch the surface in the consideration

of the wider issues and of sense-making by employees in terms of

interculturality and transculturality, further orientations towards

considering cultural perspectives might facilitate a progression and

re-thinking of management theory.

22

References

Allatson, Paul (2007), Key Terms in Latino/a Cultural And Literary Studies,Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell

Alvesson, M and Karreman, D (2011) Decolonializing discourse:Critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis, HumanRelations, September 2011 vol 64, no 9 p 1121-1146

Ashton D and Sung J (2002) High Performance Work Practices: linkingstrategy and skills to performance, DTI in association with CIPD

Bachmann-Medick, D (2009) Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in denKulturwissenschaften, 3rd new rev. Ed. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt

Braverman, H (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of the Work in the Twentieth Century, 25th anniversary edition 1998, Monthly Review Press, Canada

Brown, A. and Humphreys, M. (2006), “Organizational identity and place: a discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance”, Journalof Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 222-57.

Bullock, A; Trombley, S, Eds (1999), The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought Third Edition, pp. 387–88.

Colley, C., (2012). “Not Learning in the Workplace: Austerity and the shattering of illusio in public service work”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 317-337

Conway, E. And Monks, K., (2009). ‘Unravelling the complexities of high commitment: an employee-level analysis’, Human Resource ManagementJournal. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.140–158

Cullinane, N. and Dundon, T. (2006), ‘The psychological contract: Acritical review’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Blackwellpublishing

Hales, C., and Tamangani, Z., (1996), An Investigation of the Relationship between Organizational Structure, Managerial Role Expectations and Managers' Work Activities, Joumal of Management Studies, vol. 33, no. 6

Hales, C., (2005) Rooted in Supervision, Branching into Management: Continuity and Change in the Role of First-Line Manager, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 42, no:3 May 2005

23

Handy, C., (1976) Inside Organisations, Fourth Edition, Penguin Business,

Hassard, J., McCann, L. and Morris, J., (2009). Managing in Modern Organisation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Hofstede, G., (2001). Culture's Consequences: comparing values,behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA

Hughes, J., (2010). Emotional Intelligence: Elias, Foucault, and the Reflexive Emotional Self, Foucault Studies, No. 8, pp. 28-52, February 2010

King, N., (1998), “Template Analysis”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.), “Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage. London

Kitzinger, J., (1994), “The methodology of focus groups: theimportance of interaction between research participants”, Sociology ofHealth, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp: 103-121.

Klikauer, T., (2013) Managerialism: A Critique of an Ideology, PalgraveMcMillan: Hampshire and New York

Kreuger, R. A., (1988), “Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research”,Sage, London

Marx K., (1906) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1, trans. SamuelMoore and Edward Aveling (New York: Modem Library, 1906)

Mather K, Worrall L and Mather, G., (2012) Engineering compliance and worker resistance in UK further Education, The creation of the Stepford lecturer; Employee RelationsVol. 34 No. 5, 2012 pp. 534-554

McCann, L., Hassard, J. and Morris, J., (2004). Middle managers, thenew organizational ideology and corporate restructuring: comparingJapanese and Anglo-American management systems. Competition and Change,Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.27–44

McCann, L., Hassard, J., Morris, J’, (2010) Restructuring ManagerialLabour in the USA, the UK and Japan: Challenging the Salience of

24

‘Varieties of Capitalism’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No.2, pp. 347–374

Morris, J., Hassard, J. and McCann, L., (2006). New organizational forms, human resource management and structural convergence? A studyof Japanese organizations. Organization studies, 27(10), pp.1485–1511

Morris, J., Hassard, J. and McCann, L., (2008). The resilience of institutionalized capitalism’: Managing managers undershareholder capitalism’andmanagerial capitalism’. Human Relations, 61(5), pp.687–710

Nyberga, A., Ingalill, B., Holmberg, Berninb, P., Alderlinga, M., Åkerblomc, S.,Widerszal-Bazyld, M., Magrine, M. E., Hasselhornf, H.,Milczarekd, M., D’Angeloe, G., Denkf, M., Westerlundb, H. and Theorellb, T. (2011). Destructive managerial leadership and psychological well-being among employees in Swedish, Polish, and Italian hotels; Journal of Work, 39, (2011), 267–281 267.IOS Press.

Ortiz F (1995), Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar, Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press

Powell, R. A., Single, H. M., Lloyd, K. R., (1996). “Focus groups inmental health research: enhancing the validity of user and providerquestionnaires”, International Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 3,pp: 193-206

Purcell and Hutchinson, (2007) Front-line managers as agents in the HRM–performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal. Vol 17, No 1.

Ramirez, M., Guy, F. and Beale, D. (2007), ‘Contested resources:unions, employers and the adoption of new work practices in the USand UK telecommunications’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45, 3, 495-517.

Reed, M. (2011), “Control in contemporary work organisations”, in Blyton, P., Heery, E. andTurnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing the Employment Relationship, Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke, pp. 41-70.

Roche, W.K., Teague, P., Coughlan, A., Fahy, M. (2013a), ‘Human Resources in the Recession: Managing and Representing People at Work in Ireland’, University College Dublin working paper

25

Roche, W.K., Teague, P., Coughlan, A., Fahy, M. (2013b), ‘Recession atWork: HRM in the Irish Crisis’, Routledge, New York and Abingdon, Oxon, UK

Smith C and Elger T (2012) Critical Realism and Interviewing Subjects, School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London,Working Paper SeriesSoMWP–1208

Thompson, P. (2003) Disconnected Capitalism: Or Why Employers Can't Keep Their Side of the Bargain, Work Employment Society vol 17, 359

Thompson, P. (2011)The trouble with HRM, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 21, no 4, 2011, 355–367

Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. (1997) Riding the Waves of Culture. 2nded., Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London

Warhurst, R. P., (2012), “Learning in an age of cuts: managers as enablers of workplace learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 37-57

Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C. and Jaffe, B. (1973). ‘The mind is a formidable jailer’. The New York Times Magazine, Section 6, 8 April, 38–60

26