The restructuring of public sector work: a critical realist account of workplace change in UK local government
Mark Gatenby
University of Surrey
Chris Rees
Royal Holloway, University of London
29th International Labour Process Conference
University of Leeds
5-7 April 2011
Abstract
The political leadership of the UK public sector has changed considerably over the last decade. Important trends include an increase in centralised targets, the external auditing of services, and an increasing emphasis on customer choice. At the same time, public service managers have tried to exert their influence through new work practices, change programmes and improvement initiatives. Recent changes have had a pervasive effect on the way employees understand and experience their work. The job of public service managers is both to support ongoing changes whilst also translating competing messages into a more coherent language. As Webb (1996: 268) states, this can be seen as an attempt to ‘resolve the historical tension between the functions of management as co-ordinators of production and management’s role in motivating and disciplining labour’. However, senior managers’ attempts to modernise and improve work can be met with cynicism and resistance by workers. The paper makes explicit some of the contradictions and tensions within the current public sector regime by employing a multi-level analysis of the structure-agency dynamic. Data is presented from an extensive ethnographic study (three months of participant observation plus forty in-depth interviews) conducted within a Welsh local government authority. We adopt a ‘context-dependent approach’ (Edwards et al. 1998: 452) and present rich qualitative data to explore how employees are interpreting and responding to their changing work experience.
Introduction
The paper examines the nature of work within a Welsh local government authority, set against the context of significant change within the public sector more generally. It seeks to make a contribution both to on-going policy debates around public service modernisation, as well as to sociological debates concerning the ‘relational’ nature of social change, and in particular the application of critical realist arguments in organisation and management studies (cf. Mutch, Delbridge and Ventresca 2006).
The UK public sector has undergone huge change in recent years. The long-held view of UK public services is of large paternalistic bureaucracies, where rules, regulations and procedures tend to be valued about service performance (Gould-Williams, 2003; Farnham and Horton, 1996). However, since the early 1980s successive Conservative and Labour governments have made sustained attempts to reform and modernise local service provision. In line with these developments, local government has undergone regular reorganisation, accelerated under New Labour’s modernisation agenda since 1997. Downe and Martin (2006: 456) suggest that the last decade has seen an ‘unprecedented attempt by central government to transform the politics and performance of English local government’.
The paper draws a distinction between three levels of analysis – the sector, the organisation and the workplace – and seeks to apply a critical realist analytical schema for interpreting the relationships amongst them. This follows recent calls from organisational scholars to re-examine the value of the structure-agency dualism, and in particular the relational interplay between the organisational and workplace levels (Reed, 1997, 2005; Edwards, 2005). Critical realism stresses the context-dependent, history-dependent and stratified nature of phenomena. We consider these three aspects of a local government authority in south Wales, setting the nature of workplace change within a rich historical and organisational context.
The paper is structured as follows. First, a brief overview of the debates surrounding UK public sector modernisation will be provided. This will be followed by the theoretical and methodological approach of the paper. The findings will then be presented in two parts. The first part will focus on the relationship between the sectoral leveland the organisational level. The second part of the findings will concentrate on the relationship between the organisational level and the workplace level. We focus in particular on performance management – that is, a particular set of practices, processes and IT systems implemented to measure performance. A new ‘improvement planning toolkit’, involving project management software, a new decision-making structure and a new regime of meetings was intended to radically change “how things get done”. Here we draw a further contrast between aprofessional workplace (adult social care department) and a non-professional workplace (the improvement planning department). Most research generally labelled ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) has focussed on professional workers in public services. We follow Kessler et al. (2006) in moving away from this to consider the very different rhythms of work and the way organisational changes are enacted, and resisted, differently across the two departments.
We show how the local government modernisation agenda is being enacted at different levels. We demonstrate the power of the Audit Commission in restructuring the organisation through changes in staffing and working practices, but we also highlight the limitations of these initiatives in terms of their differential implementation and impact across departments. We suggest how these findings might be interpreted through a critical realist analytical lens, whereby a broad agenda for public sector modernisation impinges on the activity of individualorganisations, is reproduced by managersthrough restructuringand new employment practices, and is then enacted differentially at the workplace level.
Research Context
Public sector modernisation and performance management
Since 1997, the New Labour government has introduced a plethora of policies, initiatives and advice to ensure that local authorities modernise. Local government reforms have sought a ‘radical re-focussing of councils’ traditional roles’ (DETR, 1998: 8). Stoker (2004: 78) calls this approach ‘a deliberate strategy of letting a thousand flowers bloom’, as a consequence of Whitehall being unsure which policies would work most effectively. In terms of institutional pressures on local government, policy switched in the earl 2000s from a focus on individual local authority service areas (e.g. planning or social services) to whole organisation assessment, hence there is an acute institutional pressure at the organisational level, although this can be enacted in a variety of different ways depending on departmental and professional structures.
In broad terms there are three periods of government policy development most relevant to this study. The first period might be categorised as the ‘audit explosion’ (Power, 1994; 1997). A series of government policies were outlined in a 1998 White Paper which set a ‘demanding agenda for change’ designed to replace the ‘old culture of paternalism and inwardness’ (DETR, 1998: 5). The showpiece of this was Best Value, legislated in the Local Government Act 1999. This signalled the biggest reform of local services since compulsory competitive tendering (Boyne, 1999). Best Value placed on all local authorities the duty to ‘make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way functions are exercised’ (DETR, 1999: 3.1), and required authorities to review all of their service areas over a five-year period under the guiding philosophy of the “four C’s”: consult, compare, challenge and compete. They were also required to publish annual performance plans giving details of current performance assessment and setting out targets for improvement. Reviews and plans were then inspected by the Best Value Inspectorate based in the Audit Commission.
The Best Value regime provided the impetus for local authorities to change their management systems and processes. Such changes could be borrowed from ‘private sector’ management techniques (Morris and Farrell, 2007). Boyne et al. (2002) argue that Best Value became a public sector form of total quality management (TQM): ‘it clearly conforms to the principles and practices of TQM. It gives most emphasis to the principle of continuous improvement, followed by customer focus and team-working.’ (p. 15) Furthermore, in terms of organisational structure, the drive was for less departmentalism and flatter layers of command (Morris and Farrell, 2007). Operationally, the aim was for ‘nothing less than a radical refocusing of councils’ traditional roles’ (DETR, 1998: 5) by replacing traditional bureaucratic structures with a performance culture of innovation and entrepreneurialism.
A second period during the early 2000s saw a reconfiguration of the modernisation agenda, and a replacement of the Best Value regime, which, according to Downe and Martin (2006), was in a state of crisis. Problems arose because the Audit Commission underestimated the number of Best Value reviews it would have to undertake and they could not manage the vast number of inspections required. An Audit Commission report in October 2001 proposed that, rather than seeking to inspect individual service areas, its inspectors should focus on making judgements about the organisation’s overall performance. The Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) involved categorising all English councils on a five-point scale from ‘excellent’ to ‘poor’. ‘Excellent’ authorities were promised less regulation and new executive freedoms, but councils in the bottom quartile of the Audit Commission’s performance league table were publically ‘named and shamed’ and forced to accept external intervention (Martin, 2002). Incumbent senior managers were eased out and interim teams installed to oversee the implementation of improvement plans (Broadbent, 2003; Turner and Whiteman, 2005).
A third period of local government modernisation which extends from 2005 to the present is marked by an increasing focus on local authority’s community leadership and enabling role in orchestrating local strategies to address ‘cross-cutting’ issues such as crime and disorder, regeneration, health and well-being (Darlow et al., 2005). Councils are exhorted to form Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs), Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs) and, in Wales, Policy Agreements, which bring together local public service providers including the police, NHS primary care trusts and representatives from business.
According to Laffin, ‘The sheer range of LGMA policies raises the question of whether they represent a coherent programme of reform’ (2008: 111). Downe and Martin (2006) likewise suggest that local authority councillors and officers have been left to puzzle over ‘the multiple, often competing demands that have been placed on them’ (Downe and Martin, 2006: 471). The numerous, separate inspectorates – Audit Commission, Social Services Inspectorate, Office for Standards in Education – have compounded these coordination problems (Davis et al., 2004). Martin and Bovaird (2005) argue that many authorities rely upon strong external pressure exerted by government policies to motivate change. Public sector managers’ autonomy is restricted by centrally dictated targets (Currie, 1999; Hoque et al., 2004).
Hales (2002) argues there is little evidence that the traditional command and control role of management is being replaced by one of facilitation and coordination, or that the routine administration of work processes is being supplanted by non-routine leadership and entrepreneurial behaviour.
Local government in Wales was reorganised in 1996 from a two-tier system of county and borough councils to a single tier ‘unitary’ structure of twenty two councils. Old councils were merged and services were combined within new departments. Since the establishment of the devolved Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) in 1999, local government has been under regionalised governance, and this has allowed for alternative policy directions to the English system. As a consequence policy makers in Wales turned their backs on both Best Value and CPA. Shunning the principles of earned autonomy and the practice of publishing performance league tables underpinning policy in England, the Welsh opted instead for a regime that emphasised the independent democratic mandate which local authorities had, and relied heavily on processes of self-assessment and self-regulation.
In 2002 the Welsh Assembly introduced the Wales Programme for Improvement (WPI) as a first sign of policy divergence from Whitehall. This was seen as a wider attempt by the WAG to expand ‘clear red water between Cardiff and London’ (Downe and Martin, 2006). The WPI process includes: annual performance assessment of all services; an annual joint risk assessment agreed between the council and its regulators; corporate and budget plans; and an annual improvement plan providing an overview of the council’s performance and focussing on priorities for improvement (WAO, 2007). The basic principles of the WPI carried many of the design principles of Best Value in terms of the ‘four C’s’ and ‘continuous action within each authority’ (WPI Circular 28/2005: 10). In 2005 WAG released another report Delivering the Connections as a five year action plan. The report restated the aim and principles of the modernisation agenda, and stressed the continuing importance of service planning, standards, inspection and improvement.
Much of the debate about the consequences of public sector modernisation for employees has centred on professional employees (Exworthy and Halford, 1999; Martin, et al. 2009, and the ability of professional staff to resist control has been well documented. Laffin (2008), for example, describes the resilience of departmentalism in central government. This exists in local government too, and is an expression of professional boundaries and funding structures. Attempts to ‘join up’ government often fail due to the strength of these boundaries (Marsh et al., 2001: 249). Cowell and Martin (2003) question the extent to which existing policies will be able to achieve joined up government. They identify a trade-off between greater vertical integration between central ministries and local delivery agencies and less horizontal integration at the local level. The hypothesis is that the stronger the vertical, top-down central-local structures (e.g. inspection), the weaker the horizontal relationships. Clearly there are departmental differences between professions, such as planning, social work, education, which lead to departmental barriers and ‘silos’. The relationship between new performance systems and processes will have differential outcomes within as well as between professional subcultures (Butterfield et al., 2005), and the question of how line managers roles are enacted within the local government modernisation has not been widely researched (Schested, 2002).
Theoretical Approach
The paper follows recent calls from organisational scholars to re-examine the value of the structure-agency dualism, particularly the relational interplay between the organisational and workplace levels of analysis (Reed, 1997; Edwards, 2005). In the critical realist meta-theoretical framework, social structure is considered independent and distinct from agency but dependent on action for its re-production. This builds upon Emirbayer’s (1997) ‘manifesto for a relational sociology’ which sees ‘relations between terms or units as pre-eminently dynamic in nature, as unfolding, ongoing processes rather than as static ties among inert substances’ (1997: 289). It is an approach sensitive to multiple levels of emergent reality, and the reproduction of social structures through the ‘morphogenetic’ process (Archer, 1995).