The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

JOCM
24,5 The role of the HR department
in organisational change
in a British university
610
Charlotte Edgley-Pyshorn
M&G Investments, London, UK, and
Jeroen Huisman
International Centre for Higher Education Management,
University of Bath, Bath, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of human resources (HR) in organisational
change at higher education institutions (HEIs) and the perceptions of those within the organisation
towards the HR department and their capability in leading a change initiative.
Design/methodology/approach – The objectives were achieved through a case study in which an
HR department at a British university was undergoing a cultural change initiative, implemented by
the HR department. Primary research was collected by analysing documents underlying the change
project. Also 12 semi-structured interviews of 30-40 minutes were carried out; interviewees were
chosen based on the need to have a cross-section including members of the change team and the pilot
departments.
Findings – The HR departments at HEI may be faced with difficulties when attempting to implement
change due to the relatively “new” nature of the function, meaning that they must first justify their
position, worth and capability before attempting to gain the buy-in of academic departments to
implement a culture change in their departments.
Research limitations/implications – More research could be carried out into a cross-section of
British universities with HR-led change initiatives to broaden the data collection. Limitations in this
research include the relatively small number of interviewees. A greater cross-section of interviewees
would have been beneficial.
Originality/value – The originality of this paper is in the relatively un-discussed nature of the role
of the HR department in change initiatives at HEI and how this could be improved, therefore this could
be beneficial for HR departments in this sector.
Keywords United Kingdom, Universities, Change management, Human resource management,
Organizational change
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Organizational Change
Management
Vol. 24 No. 5, 2011
pp. 610-625
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
DOI 10.1108/09534811111158886
Introduction
Higher education institutions (HEIs) come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. What unites
them is their focus on knowledge, whether it is the increase or refinement (research), or
transfer or transmittance (teaching) of knowledge (Clark, 1983). Higher education as an
institution survived over the centuries. Some argue that this is because of its
adaptation to societal, economic and political changes over the years, other are more
critical and claim that higher education is still around, despite the lack of change: the
institution survived, largely resisting the challenges from the outside world. Probably,
both arguments are valid: the present-day university, being a key player in the
knowledge economy, is definitely different from its pre-Second World War ancestor
let alone its medieval predecessor, and HEI may – at the same time – be rather The role of HR
conservative and less open to innovations in its inner workings. in organisational
This brings us to the topic of the paper, organisational change in higher education.
Many studies addressed how universities have changed or are changing, because of, change
e.g. globalisation, the ICT revolution and increased competition among universities.
In most of these studies, the emphasis is on the role of those at the top of the
institutions in managing change. Indeed, the role of top-level management and 611
governing boards is important, for they are in power to set the strategies and the pace
for change (Clark, 1998; Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2002). Sometimes, the role of others
in such reform processes is highlighted. For example, Colville and Tomkins (1994)
stress the role of administrators in change at a Swedish HEI. However, whilst some
research has been carried out on the role of administrative units and departments in
organisational change processes in higher education, in relation to the role of human
resources (HR) specifically there is significantly less. We are interested in finding out
what role(s) HR departments can play in organisational change processes in that field.
The HRM literature gives – although not equivocally – many clues about the potential
roles of HR departments. After a review of that literature, we will analyse a case study
of a UK university. In the chosen university, the HR department has taken a key role in
a project designed to improve and re-focus attention onto a service culture.

The role of HR management

Theoretically, there seem to be many opportunities for HR departments to play a role in
knowledge-intensive institutions. The resource-based view (Barney, 1991) would argue
that human capital is one of the greatest assets for organisations. As such, the
selection, training and retention of staff (including the exclusion of staff that under
perform) would be of high importance. Huselid (1995) shows the positive impact of HR
practice on firm productivity and financial performance. Wright et al. (2001)
summarise key publications that similarly endorse the potential of HR practices on
firm performance. At the same time, there are critical notes regarding whether such
practices actually (could) lead to a competitive advantage, and concerns about the
nature of the research. Much of the work is based on single respondents per firm, which
raises questions about reliability and representativeness. Additionally, research
designs are largely cross-sectional, making causal inferences problematic. This does
not take away the basically sound point of departure that a talented, motivated and
committed workforce is needed to survive in competitive environments.
Implicit in the resource-based view – and other theories that largely focus on
for-profit organisations – is that there is considerable leeway for strategic HR
management in organisational change. This may turn out to be quite different for public
and not-for-profit organisations. Pichault (2007) is rather critical of the impact of HR
reforms in public sectors, partly because of the double bind that is created by reform
attempts: civil servants are asked to commit themselves to the tasks for the modernising
public sector organisation, while at the same time being asked to submit themselves to
centralised and rigid HR processes (Pichault, 2007, p. 278). And, looking more
specifically at British higher education, the potential of HR management may be
rather limited. Guest and Clinton (2007) highlight three important features of British
higher education – that actually would apply to many other European systems of higher
education as well – that put a potential break on the impact and success of strategic
JOCM HR management. First, key aspects of HR management are beyond the control of
24,5 individual organisations. Salaries, pay review and some terms of employment are dealt
with through central negotiations and the outcomes should be taken by the individual
universities as given. Second, as is the case for many other public sectors, higher
education is characterised by a strong professional ethos, guided by professional
autonomy. For higher education, this is reflected in academic freedom. The
612 professionals’ search and need for autonomy may be at odds with HR practices that
potentially infringe that autonomy or freedom. Academics as professionals are, in
general, used to deal with critique from and to be accountable to their disciplinary peers.
But the situation becomes different (and possibly more complicated and threatening) if
they also have to account towards others, be it executives, line managers or HR
departments that act on behalf of the executives. These accountability relationships are
currently inspired by other norms and expectations, like private sector or NPM inspired
organisational efficiency and effectiveness (see also Romzek (2000) on multiple
accountabilities). The following quote from a head of department demonstrates the
potential lack of parity between HR practices and professionals: “The HR department
seems to be trying to make the university look more like a business than a university.”
Third, HR management in higher education focused until recently mostly on
administrative matters. Guest and Clinton’s (2007) survey (46 per cent response rate)
highlights that most of the HR activities in British universities relate to staff training for
teaching (91 per cent of the universities), regular staff appraisals (75 per cent) and
computerised HR systems (67 per cent). Much of the time and energy is dedicated to
applying rules and systems, which may leave the academic workforce with impressions
that HR practices are largely bureaucratic, conservative and inhibiting change (Guest
and Clinton, 2007, p. 5).
The short review above may dampen the potential impact of HR practices in the field
of higher education. But, it makes the question “which role for HR in change?” the more
important and pertinent. HEIs are assumed to take a proactive role in the competitive
knowledge society and economy and many argue that change is needed. And, as a
result of the new public management paradigm (Hood, 1991), also in higher education
(Deem and Brehoney, 2005), higher education leaders and managers have been
allocated – rightly or wrongly – the “right to manage”. The two factors: a certain
pressure to change and having the ability to steer change calls for a further scrutiny of
the potential of HR to be involved in such change processes. Indeed, Brown (2004)
emphasises the movement from personnel administration to HRM in the public sector
and the new potential for HR in this context. At the same time, she highlights the need
to balance meeting the demands and doing justice to the particular character of public
services.

Models of change management

Given that our case study deals with cultural change, our search in the literature
focused on cultural change management for HR. Sherriton and Stern (1997) propose a
six-stage model for HR to follow when implementing a culture change, from needs
assessment to evaluation. They go on to describe the three critical roles that HR must
play in the management of a culture change. First, HR must ensure that they set the
perfect example for the other departments to follow, thus they must look inwards and
apply their expertise to their own department. Next, they must make possible
the culture change in the rest of the organisation by provoking thinking and learning The role of HR
about the process of culture change. The HR department must take the role of teacher, in organisational
leading and assisting the rest of the organisation’s learning of how to be successful in
the culture change, and ensure they have full support. Their role as experts means that change
they must present models and frameworks to ensure that the change process is
successful. Lastly, Sherriton and Stern (1997) state that HR must provide constant
modifications and adjustments to the change structure in line with developments as the 613
initiative progresses.
From a slightly different perspective, Storey (1992) proposes four roles of personnel
which are defined by two axes: intervention versus non-intervention and strategy
versus tactics. These roles are advisers, handmaidens, regulators and changemakers.
The first three of these roles overlap with Tyson and Fell’s (1986, pp. 21-7) clerks of
works, contracts managers and architects. The clerk of works can be seen to focus
mainly on increased delegation of hands-on HR activities to line managers and it may
lead to an increased interest in the administrative aspect of this role. The contracts
manager’s role emphasises the collective-based management of industrial relations,
and with the advance of EU legislation, trade union mergers and the growing intricacy
of employment legislation, this role has increased in importance. Lastly, the role of
architect is facilitated by the fast-paced nature of organisational change, allowing HR
managers the opportunity to assume high-profile architect roles placing them at the
forefront of change initiatives (Caldwell, 2001). However, the role of changemaker
proposed by Storey (1992) can be seen as an addition for it refers to being an
interventionist with a strategic agenda focused on “both the hard realities of business
performance and the softer HR interventions designed to enhance employee
commitment and motivation” (Caldwell, 2001, p. 39). Ulrich (1997) goes further to
suggest under his reinterpretation of the personnel function that there is a clear
compatibility between HRM and change-oriented HR roles. We are presented with a
new four-fold typology of HR change agency roles that furthers the previous
discussions of Legge (1978), Storey (1992), Tyson (1995) and Ulrich (1997). These four
roles are champions, adapters, consultants and synergists (Caldwell, 2001). However,
Caldwell suggests that this typology implies that the tensions between HR rhetoric and
reality may intensify and the roles replicate many of the old strains, contradictions and
threats to the personnel function. This is demonstrated by the struggle that HR faces in
leading change initiatives and gaining unanimous support for such endeavours.
In order to understand fully the meaning of the above roles, it is useful to relate them to
four dimensions linked to the scale of change. These four dimensions according to
Caldwell (2001) are defined as:
(1) Transformative change – a major change in strategy or business process that
has a severe impact upon HR practice throughout the organisation.
(2) Incremental change – steady alterations of HR policy and processes that affect
single activities or multiple functions.
(3) HR vision – defined by Caldwell (2001, p. 44) as “a set of values, beliefs, ideals
and interests that seek to affirm the mission, key role, status and legitimacy of
the HR profession as a vital strategic partner.”
(4) HR expertise – this is the specific skills and experience that the HR department
possesses.
JOCM The first two dimensions relate to the two ends of the spectrum of change
24,5 (transformative versus incremental), whereas the second two dimensions refer to the
aspects of occupational identity and the changing role of the HR professional. Change
champions are those professionals or executives at the head of an organisation who can
envisage and lead HR policy changes with far-reaching effects across the organisation.
This role integrates business strategy with HR strategies of change at the highest level
614 of the organisation (Caldwell, 2001). This is a role for “a general manager with
personnel specialisms, rather than a personnel specialist with some general
management tendencies” (Sadler, 1995, p. 56). A change adapter is generally a
middle-level HR generalist who is capable of providing support for the change within
business units and other key areas. They translate the vision of the change champions
into actual tangible actions, and sustain the change process (Caldwell, 2001). Change
consultants are specialist HR professionals who implement key stages of the change
initiative. Lastly, change synergists are senior personnel managers who are able to
strategically integrate and deliver large-scale and multiple change projects across the
whole organisation. Within this role, synergists will concurrently co-ordinate a number
of change projects within an organisation, each with its own unique structure and set
of limitations.
Whilst Caldwell offers a framework, a number of authors have attempted to offer a
solution to the questions surrounding change. Wileman (2007) for example proposes
that the role of HR when related to change should be one of a facilitator in order to
develop plans that turn strategy into action and maximise the capability and readiness
of the department in order to achieve this proposed change. Consequently, change
agents appear to be more focused on endorsing the proactive and interventionist
agenda of HR as a philosophy of change management and they are also slightly
inconsistent in their views of how change processes should be implemented (Caldwell,
2001). Furthermore, Caldwell (2001) suggests that in order to clarify these complexities
it should be acknowledged that in fact more than four variants of the change agent role
exist. Thus, the most important action is for HR to proclaim itself a strategic partner of
change in order to be fully viable in the process as an agent (LaMarsh, 2004).
The HR department must define itself as a strategic partner to the client, so that
their focus is primarily on the needs of the client. The following questions should be
addressed as part of this: do they (the client) see anything wrong with the current state?
Do they understand the need for change? Do they understand and support the change?
What will their new role be after the change has been implemented (LaMarsh, 2004)?
Initially, there will be a need for HR to expand their focus beyond the internal workings
of their organisation, to gain a better understanding of the critical external issues, such
as customers, markets and the economy to create a stronger and more valuable link
back to the needs and requirements of the pilot department (Vickers, 2007). The HR
department should expect to face difficulties in the stage immediately after the
introduction of the change programme since the members of department in which the
change initiative is taking place will have problems with the “delta”, the dip that occurs
post-introduction of a change and ends after the change is adopted (LaMarsh, 2004).
This is mainly due to three factors: they did not know how to do what was required of
them; they did not view the leadership as behaving like leaders; and they had too much
work to do to focus on or implement the change (LaMarsh, 2004).
 Despite the different models, it is clear from the literature studied that HR’s role when The role of HR
attempting to implement a culture change at an HEI must encompass a number of in organisational
considerations. They must have a clear plan and vision and they need to communicate
this to all involved, so that everyone knows what the ultimate goal of any change change
initiative is. Thus, the employees feel included and even if at first they are not keen to
change, once the HR department has demonstrated the positive outcomes and
possibilities associated with an amended organisational culture, then they can guide the 615
employees so that they know how they can alter their behaviour to fit this new culture.

Methodology
To further explore how cultural change through HR might work, a case study was
carried out. A cultural change project, in which the HR department of a British
research-intensive university was involved, was taken as the project to be analysed.
Primary data were collected by analysing the documents underlying the change project
and interviews with people directly involved with the change process, both the subjects
of change and the implementers of change. Questions were different for members of the
change academy team (implementers) and members of three pilot departments
(subjects of change). Please see the Appendix for further details. Interviews were
semi-structured and revolved around a set of core questions, but interviewees were
invited to branch out into other areas. Interviewees were chosen based on the need to
have a cross-section including members of the change academy team and the pilot
departments. Thus, people who had been involved in the initial talks from the
implementing team plus department leaders who would need to communicate and try
and implement the new culture in their respective departments were chosen.
Interviewees were informed by a pre-interview guideline on the aim of the interview
and to inform them about confidentiality issues. In this paper, we report on three of the
core questions:
(1) What was the role of HR in implementing the change initiative?
(2) How can the HR department sustain the culture change?
(3) What are the imminent challenges?

A total of 12 interviews were carried out, all on neutral territory, and recorded.
Interviews lasted for about 30-40 minutes. The results were analysed qualitatively.
Common and contradictory themes and patterns were identified to prevent an
impressionistic view of what the data mean. Saunders et al.’s (2000) four stages were
followed in analysing the data:
(1) categorisation of data;
(2) unitising data;
(3) recognising relationships and developing categories to facilitate this; and
(4) developing and testing expectations to reach conclusions.

Background of the change project

In 2007, the vice-chancellor communicated the importance of all stakeholders
experiencing good service in their dealings with the university in order to increase the
university’s competitive advantage in attracting and retaining its students and staff
JOCM and to improve the efficiency of the business practices within the institution. In order
24,5 for good service to be successfully promoted, there must exist an underlying culture
which encourages and enables this good service to occur, with a focus on serving the
needs of the end-user at all levels. Whilst such a culture is clearly present in some areas
of the university, there are other areas where it is much more unsatisfactory, to the
point of being detrimental to the institution’s reputation. Thus, the challenge is to
616 implement a more evenly spread culture of service across the university. Thus, there
were two methods decided upon to address this issue and to help bring information to
light that would be useful when the pilot study was implemented in three departments
to test how service culture could be improved:
(1) Focus groups. In the summer of 2008, focus groups were facilitated by an
external consultant with staff from a number of departments with the aim of
sharing experiences and opinions about developing an improved service
culture. Once this had been completed, the information that was captured
through the various conversations provided a base for the second initiative.
(2) Change academy. Participation in this event aimed at understanding what
“service” means in a research-intensive institution and at exploring different
ways of attaining a better service culture. Attendees at this event were the
initiative leader, the education president of the students’ union, the coordinator
of the computing services department, two departmental managers and a
manager of a support unit.

The change academy team spent four days at a retreat in which they were led through a
variety of theoretical approaches to change and creative problem-solving techniques.
The aim was to allow the team to progress from ideas generation to action plan by the
end of the retreat. The following conclusions were reached. It is possible to identify an
organisational “paradigm” that describes good service behaviour, which can be
translated into practical reality and add the detail of necessary changes, in the
contexts of the departments. This would be a more culturally acceptable process than an
imposed, university-branded set of service standards. Also, greater shared
understanding of everyday activities across the university would promote a move
towards a greater sense of common endeavour, which often underpins effective service
cultures and is often absent from the pockets of poor service in the university. Finally,
there is already work in progress to address these issues in some areas of the university,
but no one is charged with maintaining an overview to provide co-ordination, ensure
complementary working and share effective practice.
It was therefore decided that three science departments would be selected to become
the pilot departments in which the service culture initiative would be initially tested.
This would involve the six attendees at the change academy working with the HR
department to talk to a few members of the three departments, alerting them to the
problems with the current state of the culture, and the need for change. In effect, they
will be acting as Caldwell’s (2001) change champions (leading changes that have
far-reaching effects across the organisation), change adapters (supporting the change
within the department) and change consultants (implementing key stages of the
change initiative). It will be the role of the HR department to represent to the pilot
departments the views of the students and give advice on how to alter their current
culture to be more in line with the desired service culture. The HR department would The role of HR
support the staff throughout the change process, helping where needed. in organisational
change
Results
The role of HR in the change process
This area was particularly interesting to analyse since there was a vast range of
opinions vis-à-vis the role of HR in this change initiative, varying from complete 617
unawareness that HR were/could be involved in the process, to being considered the
function which most supported and facilitated the change. Most commonly, HR was
seen as a function which could support and develop the staff so that they could fully
embrace the culture change. It was interesting to hear the view that the role of HR in
this change initiative was not always taken seriously given the difficulty it has itself to
initiate any change within their department. Furthermore, there was the opinion from a
number of interviewees that:
[. . .] the HR department only played a role that the university allowed it to; it is mainly
transaction-based and often is not entrusted with transformational projects such as a culture
influencing initiative.
It was mentioned that the opinion and respect that are awarded to the HR departments
at HEIs need to change in order for them to be considered a serious contender to
implement a change initiative.
There were suggestions from members of the change academy team regarding how
HR could contribute to a change initiative and this included the proposition that the HR
department could define the vision statement in conjunction with the student services
so that both HR practices and the needs and wants of the students are combined to
create the most applicable and suitable change initiative. Since cultural change often is
not finite, it is impossible to say from one day to the next that the culture has been
changed, thus HR must “create a culture of cultural evolution” (coordinator support
service unit) to allow the change to occur continually and maintain support for this
throughout. The HR department could also activate the senior management team to be
champions of cultural change and manipulate them to create the definition of the
desired post-change organisational culture. A further role that was suggested was
related to the incentivisation of the department members, so that they were rewarded
for improving their service to the customers, and to ensure that they felt it was
worthwhile to change their everyday behaviour to fit a new one that contributes to the
overall aims of the initiative. There is a need for this since, until recently, there was no
mechanism in place to distinguish between mediocre and good performance. Thus, HR
could help to advise and implement such a system related to the new culture. This
incentivisation would be related to recognition within the departments as opposed to a
financial reward. Evidence of impact would be gathered through repeated surveys,
focus groups and other data collected by departments to assess their own service
provision from the point of view of the staff and students.
Within the change process, the HR department could also act as an implementer,
communicating what was expected of individuals and how this could be achieved.
Unfortunately, however, HR as a department had a negative connotation among a
number of the interviewees. There was the view among a number of academic stuff
interviewed that the re-branding from “personnel” to “HR” has meant a huge increase
JOCM in financial resources linked to them, as well as an increase in paperwork originating
24,5 from this department, but without much substantiation and justification behind such
high financial costs associated with running that department. This view was strongly
enforced during the interviews when interviewees were asked about the role of the HR
department in the culture change initiative being carried out. For the HR department to
be considered more viable as implementers/designers of a change initiative, they could
618 first communicate their role in a positive light and justify why they are necessary and
defend the financial resources that they require. The view from an academic in a
science department that “change initiatives within HEIs should not be HR-led” must be
changed. Once all staff have been convinced of their worth, they will be more willing to
accept a change initiative planned by the HR department.

How should the change process be sustained?

There was a clear recognition amongst the management that there was a high risk that
the initiative would lose momentum and quickly fizzle out, and consequently there
were a number of suggestions regarding how to sustain the programme to prevent
failure. The most common view was that there should be clear measurement processes
in place to ensure that the initiative was meeting targets on time and meeting the
criteria set out. If there are measurable targets, then the implementers can see clearly
how the programme is progressing and there will be no dispute over the levels of
advancement. One interviewee suggested that specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant and time-bound targets should be applied, as they are deemed to be one of the
most reliable sets of objectives.
Another suggestion of how to ensure that the change process is sustained is through
having a highly proactive project leader who is constantly reminding all involved
about the aims of the change and what steps should be taken next to keep the change
progressing. “Unless you have a proactive project manager then you will not have the
momentum or drive for the project to continue” (head of department). Additionally,
there should be a champion within each department who will ensure that there is
constantly someone monitoring the improvement within that department (this role
may possibly lie naturally with the head of department). In order for the change
initiative to remain highly visible and high profile, the senior manager’s main objective
should be cultural evolution, a long but achievable process. The key is to remain
dynamic and not to let momentum dwindle, because once people begin to forget the
“why” and “how” of the initiative, then it is the beginning of the end. Top management
commitment to this type of initiative will help to keep the project high profile and keep
people interested and committed because it will gain more respect. This top
management commitment must come from both academic departments and the senior
management (e.g. the vice-chancellor).
Further to this was the suggestion that a series of localised interventions rather than
one fell swoop across the campus could lead to a few quick-wins that will increase the
positivity surrounding the initiative and will encourage more people to get involved
and commit to the change after witnessing the success that was already seen in a few
departments. All of these factors are very important since it was felt among a few of
the interviewees in the pilot departments of this service culture initiative that the
process had already slowed down and lost its previous momentum without ever
having fully got off the ground.
Challenges The role of HR
The last section of the findings deals with the challenges that the interviewees in organisational
considered that have already or will in the future affect the success and longevity of the
initiative. There was a wide variety of current and possible future barriers to the change
project, but the most commonly identified ones by the interviewees, both subjects of
change and implementers, were the issues of overcoming inertia and the resistance
amongst the staff members to the change. 619
Overcoming inertia and resistance. Eight interviewees said that the main challenge
that they could foresee was remaining proactive and maintaining the driving force
behind the project. They expanded by saying that it was difficult to remain focused on
progressing the change if there was not a constant reminder from a department
champion or project leader: “in order to embed the change, people need to be monitored
against particular criteria and for this you need effective measurements” (HR
manager). The second most common challenge was the people themselves – whilst the
heads of department were keen to implement the change initiative in their respective
departments, it proved more difficult to convince those beneath the heads of
department of the importance and possible benefit that the initiative would bring. The
staff are often inward looking and there is not enough influence from external sources
which means that they do not see the possible benefits of the change; they exist in an
environment which they believe functions sufficiently well as it is. Ignorance is another
main concern and some interviewees were resistant, based on the fact that they had not
done a task in the new way before, they could foresee more work input being required
to carry out their tasks in accordance with the desired service culture, and some even
believed that it was not their job to carry out some tasks required of them as part of the
new service culture. People believed that they were already performing well and did
not see the need to change their behaviour:
Convincing people that it is necessary is one of the greatest challenges; people believe they do
a good job – what else is there? Convincing people of the need to focus on service culture is a
real challenge (coordinator support service unit).
The point was raised that the aim within this initiative has always been for the change
to be organic, to be inside-out meaning that the individuals involved will “start
behaving differently because they think it’s a sensible idea, not because a new set of
instructions has been produced” (HR manager). Yet, the achievement of this state relies
heavily on the ability of the leaders to encourage such a condition to occur by
overcoming any initial negativity towards the project which was identified by one
academic in a science department as “collegiate resistance”. Convincing people to
spend time and energy on an “ephemeral issue” (director of studies), is extremely
difficult and calls for a focused proactive project leader who can provide concrete
examples of cause and effect to show the department members significant and real
illustrations of how their amended behaviour will result in a changed and improved
culture. These examples are very important because often without people seeing for
themselves how the result will be, they are unwilling to change. Further to this is the
issue that was brought up during a number of the interviews which was that whilst
academics welcome changes in their specific field of research, they require a constant
framework within which they can operate, so changes in the university structure and
culture are often difficult for academics to adapt to.
JOCM One major issue surrounding this project is that there appears to be no sense of
24,5 urgency and no business-critical need, and it is difficult to get people engaged when
there is no obvious crisis. To overcome this challenge, the implementers of the
initiative could try to relate this strand of work to projects that are more critical, such
as the restructuring of academic units or budget cuts. If this initiative is related to
things that have to be dealt with anyway and more urgently than a culture change,
620 then the respective departments will understand the service culture initiative as a
component of that other change and not a bolt-on project. In this way, each department
would effectively be killing two birds with one stone and the change that resulted
would be emergent; it would not be evident from one day to the next, but it would be
clear when looking back and comparing to two or more years ago.
Lack of knowledge of how to carry out change. A further challenge that was
discussed was the ability of those involved in the change implementation to know
about and apply “good practices to effect change management” (coordinator support
service unit). With this particular individual and other interviewees, the feeling was
that whilst there was knowledge of the existence of a vast amount of change
management literature and advice, there was no individual detailed knowledge of such
practices. One departmental manager pointed out the importance that the
implementers understood how to “address the issues of common culture whilst not
losing the aspects of differential culture”. Thus, the conclusion was reached that unless
all the managers/implementers involved are willing and able to become more familiar
with the models, theories and practices associated with change management, the
initiative will not progress successfully.
Manpower. The issue of manpower was also highlighted as an important challenge
to the change initiative given that there are only a few members of the implementing
group, and even fewer “who are willing and able to carry on being involved”
(academic). This lack of manpower means that the whole process will be slowed down
since there are less people to go into each department and begin to get the change
initiative committed to and plans drawn up for how this will be achieved. Each
department will have slightly different requirements so the work involved in drawing
up a separate plan for each department is time consuming. The change initiative was
only progressing very slowly and some interviewees questioned if there were enough
people involved with actually progressing the change so that momentum was not lost.

Analysis and discussion

This section will focus first on what the HR department is doing in the process in the
eyes of the interviewees, and second what they could do differently when
implementing change. The consensus seemed to be that apart from the head of staff
development and leader of the service culture initiative, the HR department was not
playing a big role in the process. The role that was seen to be played was as a facilitator
in terms of staff development and helping people to understand about the change, and
how they can adapt their behaviour to fit the desired culture, although this is a more
predicted role in that the culture initiative has not yet been fully implemented across
the university so it is hard to say if the HR department would actually end up fulfilling
that role or not. This role features in Sherriton and Stern’s (1997) three critical roles in
which they describe that HR must take the role of teacher to assist the rest of the
organisation’s learning of how to be successful in the culture change. Further to this
is Sherriton and Stern’s (1997) six-stage model for HR to follow when implementing a The role of HR
culture change initiative which includes one of training; any lack of skills of the staff in organisational
that will be necessary for the desired new culture to be achieved would be addressed
through training which would be provided via the HR department. HR has clearly been change
identified at the university as a possible provider of such training and support to the
departments implementing the service culture initiative, and consequently this role
should be maintained for maximum efficacy. 621
One of the main issues that was revealed was that HR should not be seen as the
leader of an initiative, it should be considered a facilitator and a support function in the
change process. This is in keeping with Caldwell’s proposal of the change adapter role
in which support is provided throughout the change process. However, the question
must be asked of why there was this opinion within the case study that the HR
department should not lead a change initiative, when with the literature reviewed
earlier, there were a number of theorists, including Sherriton and Stern (1997) and
Storey (1992) who believed that HR can and should play a primary role in implementing
a change initiative at an HEI. Could it be that, as Marshall (2007) suggests, traditionally
change at HEIs has been driven by executive management and top-down and
strategically planned approaches to the management of change are adopted, thus in
accordance with this it is not well received for a relatively “new” function such as HR to
lead a change initiative in such an institution as old as a university? However, with
universities being increasingly considered as businesses, as was highlighted in the data
collection, then why is it that a non-executive management function cannot fulfil this
role? Businesses in the private sector would more naturally turn towards the HR
department when a change initiative is required, as is shown by the vast amount of
literature available on the topic, for example, Sherriton and Stern (1997).
There was also the view, however, which supports the above point, that HR should
take a less background role, since a number of interviewees were unaware of how HR
were really involved in the change initiative at the university, thus they are effectively
playing the background role that was deemed appropriate by some members discussed
above. HR should be taking advantage of their position described by Becker and Saks
(1996) who showed that they are influential in manipulating organisational change.
In this way, HR can help to change organisational culture whilst also building
organisational commitment to improve the quality of the job performance
(Smeenk et al., 2008). However, there was the suggestion from the interviewees that
HR should do more to allow the change process to occur, including familiarising
themselves better with the dynamics of each department to know how best to
implement the change and to create an environment which will allow the change to
occur. It appeared that the main barrier to the HR department playing a more vital role
in the change initiative in the case study was the lack of respect and power for them to
drive a change programme. One interviewee was of the opinion that the HR department
are only useful for staff development and this suggests that the HR department at this
university, and possibly elsewhere too, needs to focus much more on filling Caldwell’s
(2001) role of a change champion or Storey’s (1992) proposal of HR as a changemaker.
The role of a changemaker would mean that the HR department would be considered
an interventionist with a strategic agenda but also focusing on softer HR interventions
that would continue to nurture the staff and develop them to ensure commitment and
motivation. This role would mean that the HR department commanded respect from
JOCM all areas of the organisation with regard to the strategies that they implemented, whilst
24,5 also taking on the more pastoral role of ensuring the employees were treated in the
correct way. However, it is possible that all these suggestions are way ahead of the
curve and in fact the HR department at an HEI has to go right back to basics and first
proclaim its validity and worth in the eyes of the academics so that they will be taken
seriously and respected in their attempts to implement a culture change. The literature
622 that has been studied does not really touch on this point, and it is one that is especially
relevant for HR departments at HEIs. There seems to be the supposition that an HR
department at a professional bureaucracy will be respected and treated in the same
way as in the business sphere. This is clearly not the case and must be addressed
before even attempting to initiate a culture change.
An interesting point came out in the interviews which noted that for HR to be
considered a valid player in the implementation of change, they must first prove that
they themselves can manage to implement and adhere to a culture change initiative
within their own department as they are considered the one department which finds
change the most challenging. This links to Sherriton and Stern’s (1997) view that of the
three critical roles that HR must play in the management of a culture change, one is to
ensure that they set the perfect example for others to follow, thus they must look
inwards and apply their expertise to their own department. This would provide all
other departments with an incentive to follow; if they see a concrete example that the
change methods work, then the others will be inspired with confidence to follow suit.
In keeping with the research aim of this project, it is therefore key for an HR
department leading a change initiative at an HEI to first assert themselves as a key
player and as competent enough to implement a project that will work, doing so by
familiarising themselves with all the intricate cultural details of each department, to
then be able to communicate clearly the aim to all involved and ensure that the change
is in keeping with the distinct cultural of aspects of each department.
In accordance with Caldwell’s (2001) role of HR in culture change, the HR
department at the university seems to fit best with a change adapter; capable of
providing support for the change within business units and other key areas. This is
close to the view of the interviewees that the HR department is a facilitator in the
process, but it did not fall to them to design the change strategy. However, should the
role of HR within an HEI not be more of a change consultant or a change synergist as is
more common in the business sector? Of course, there is the debate that the same
structures present in the private sector cannot simply be applied to HEIs and
professional bureaucracies. However, HR could assert itself more in the higher
education sector to fill a role such as a change consultant; they would elect certain
specialist HR professionals who are able to implement key phases of the change
initiative; this way they would have the responsibility for some but not all of the
change initiative, and their work would gain them more respect so that perhaps their
role could progress to a change synergist or change champion. First, however, the HR
department would need to familiarise themselves with the intricacies and differences in
the structure and workings of a professional bureaucracy in contrast to the business
sector. Alternatively, as a change synergist personnel managers could strategically
integrate and deliver large-scale and multiple change projects across the whole
organisation, simultaneously co-ordinating a number of change projects, each with its
own unique structure and limitations (Caldwell, 2001). This description fits with one
interviewee’s opinion that the service culture initiative should be integrated with other The role of HR
projects and implemented simultaneously, thus the HR department could take control in organisational
over implementing both/all of these projects so that they work coherently together to
achieve the best possible outcome. change

Conclusions
The HR department has a difficult task in attempting to implement a culture change at 623
an HEI, an institution where academics are predominantly reluctant to change, and
perceive the HR department as one which has not yet successfully defined its worth and
justified the financial backing it receives. This conclusion is in line with that literature on
public sector HRM (Pichault, 2007; Wileman, 2007) that stresses a modest role for HR
departments. A proactive role as synergist or champion (Caldwell, 2001) or changemaker
(Storey, 1992) seems counterproductive. For sure, our single-case analysis does not
provide sufficient evidence for generalisation, but bearing in mind Guest and Clinton’s
inventory of the state of the art regarding HR in British higher education, our conclusions
may stretch beyond the case study. Having listened to the opinions of staff and
academics at the pilot departments at the case study, it is clear that the HR department
must first justify this position before it can consider attempting to lead a culture change.
This issue is crucial, for apparently the available literature assumes that an HR
department will realise the need to assert themselves and prove their competence and
capability in implementing a culture change. This assumption has led to possible
confusion within the HR department regarding how best to approach a change initiative
in an HEI and this, along with the issue of their re-branding from “personnel”, may be one
of the reasons that the HR department does not yet have the full cooperation of the
academics. The interviews highlighted a set of considerations that the HR department
should pay heed to when considering a culture change, and these include the need to
analyse each department, isolating different needs and methods for changing culture in
each individual department; ensuring there is a clear understanding throughout the
organisation of the need for and aim of the culture change; keeping people motivated and
informed so that they continue to commit to the change and it does not die out through
lack of awareness and priority; highlighting and providing necessary training; and
finally the constant re-evaluation of the project as it progresses to identify any new or
amended needs that either individuals or departments require. Applying all of the steps
identified in the discussion section could allow for a successful change initiative to be
implemented. The time frame will be lengthy from the start of the process, in which the
HR department defends their position and advocates the large number of invaluable
tasks that they carry out, to the time when the culture can be reviewed after up to five or
ten years after the initial implementation. Time is an important consideration and
patience is necessary because it could take a number of years for the HR departments at
HEIs to be respected by academics for their skills and capabilities to the point where the
academics will be willing to accept and implement their proposition of a culture change.

References
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and competitive sustained advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Becker, B.E. and Saks, A.M. (1996), “Socialization tactics: longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 149-78.
JOCM Brown, K. (2004), “Human resource management in the public sector”, Public Management
Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 303-9.
24,5
Caldwell, R. (2001), “Champions, adapters, consultants and synergists: the new change agents in
HRM”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 39-52.
Clark, B.R. (1983), The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-national
Perspective, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
624 Clark, B.R. (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of
Transformation, Pergamon, Oxford.
Colville, I. and Tomkins, C. (1994), “Administrators as managers of change at the Karolinska
Institute”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 355-68.
Deem, R. and Brehoney, K.J. (2005), “Management as ideology: the case of ‘new managerialism’ in
higher education”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 217-35.
Guest, D.E. and Clinton, M. (2007), Human Resource Management and University Performance,
Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London.
Hood, C. (1991), “A public management for all seasons?”, Public Administration, Vol. 69, pp. 3-19.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-72.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Wilson, D.C. (2002), “Top teams and strategy in a UK university”, Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 355-81.
LaMarsh, J. (2004), “Building a strategic partnership and HR’s role of change manager”,
Employment Relations Today, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 17-27.
Legge, K. (1978), Power, Innovation and Problem Solving in Personnel Management,
McGraw-Hill, London.
Marshall, S. (Ed.) (2007), Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education: What’s New?,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Pichault, F. (2007), “HRM-based reforms in public organisations: problems and perspectives”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 265-82.
Romzek, B.S. (2000), “Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform”, International
Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 66, pp. 21-44.
Sadler, T. (1995), Human Resource Management: Developing a Strategic Approach, Kogan Page,
London.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000), Research Methods for Business Students,
2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
Sherriton, J. and Stern, J. (1997), “HR’s role in cultural change”, HR Focus, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 27-8.
Smeenk, S., Teelken, C., Eisinga, R. and Doorewaard, H. (2008), “An international comparison of
the effects of HRM practices and organizational commitment on quality of job
performances among European university employees”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 323-44.
Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Blackwell, Oxford.
Tyson, S. (1995), Human Resource Strategy: Towards a General Theory of HRM, Pitman
Publishing, London.
Tyson, S. and Fell, A. (1986), Evaluating the Personnel Function, Hutchinson, London.
Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Vickers, M. (2007), “HR growing pains: getting from awkward to accomplished”, Human The role of HR
Resource Planning, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 20-5.
Wileman, G. (2007), “The challenge of strategic leadership: leading cultural change”,
in organisational
in Marshall, S. (Ed.), Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education, Routledge, change
Abingdon, pp. 174-87.
Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B. and Snell, S.A. (2001), “Human resources and the resource-based
view of the firm”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 701-21. 625
Appendix. Interviewees and interview topics
There were eight interviews carried out with the subjects of change, and four with the
implementers (this was four of the six people who formed the group who attended the change
academy). The subjects of change were asked about their views on if there existed a culture within
their department, if so what they felt that culture was, their views on the aim of the culture change
initiative that was being implemented and their reaction to this proposed change. They were
questioned on whether they saw the change as a positive opportunity or a threat and why.
Furthermore, there were questions around the role of the HR department in implementing this
change and how they could operate more effectively to implement this culture change.
The implementers of change on the other hand had a slightly different set of questions which
delved into their view of their own role within the change process and how this fitted in with the
role of the HR department as a whole in this change initiative. They were also asked how
effective they felt the relationship and communication was between the implementers and the
heads of department. Further questions dealt with how the change process would be sustained
and what challenges were envisaged as well as how these challenges would be overcome.

About the authors

Charlotte Edgley-Pyshorn is currently working as an HR Assistant at M&G Investments.
Previously, she undertook a year-long internship at the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (EPSRC) in their HR department, before which she completed an MSc in
Management with HRM at the University of Bath.
Jeroen Huisman is Professor of Higher Education Management and Director of the
International Centre for Higher Education Management. He previously worked (1991-2005) as
Junior and Senior Researcher at the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of
Twente, The Netherlands. He holds an MSc in Educational Studies (1991) and a PhD in Public
Administration (1995). Jeroen Huisman is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
j.huisman@bath.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints