## 4.1 Introduction (general findings) (200 words) The Univeristy received a total average BMI score (after weighting) of 64.77, 95 CI [58.28, 71.25], and the Union received a total average score of 33.3, 95 CI [28.26, 38.33] (see chart 4.1). This shows that the University is perceived to be more bureaucratic than the Union. Upon analysis of the contribution of each question, this holds true across all areas except one, which is related to the time spent on bureaucratic chores (see chart 4.2). ![[Pasted image 20220919143016.png]] ![[Pasted image 20220919143024.png]] Hamel and Zanini provide results from their wider BMI survey with over 10,000 respondents in their book Humanocracy (2020). The average BMI score in their survey is 65 (see table 3). This shows that according to the perceptions of SU staff the University of Salford is approximately as bureaucratic as the average. However the Union is about half as bureaucratic as the average, according to the staff who work there. ![[Screenshot 2022-09-19 at 14.09.44.png]] A scatter graph (Graph 4.3) demonstrates that respondents are less satisfied with the relationship between the University and the Union as the perceived levels of bureaucracy increases. The coefficient of determination (R²) for these relationships are low (Union R² = 0.03, University R² = 0.2), however if respondents are limited to those who 'strongly agree' that "a partnership with the University is essential to the success of my work" then these increase significantly (See Graph 4.4. Union R² = 0.34, University R² = 0.26). ![[Pasted image 20220920133356.png]] ![[Pasted image 20220920133803.png]] Even higher R² figures are revealed when the sample is reduced to those who are not a line manager (Union R² = 0.33, University R² = 0.45), alongside much clearer distinction between the BMI scores (Chart 4.5). ![[Pasted image 20220920135022.png]] ## Quantitative Results Each of the questions that contribute to the overall mean BMI scores for each organisation are now investigated separately, as they relate to the two research questions. ### Question 1 - on the number of layers The Union's Q1 mean BMI is its second highest in the dataset (M = 4.66, 95 CI [3.56, 5.76]). Similarly to the Union, the University's second highest BMI score also relates to the level of hierarchy (M = 8.25, 95 CI [7.48, 9.02]). According to the BMI model it seems that for both organisations the level of hierarchy drives bureaucracy. Despite this, the Union was perceived to have significantly fewer layers than the University (Chart 4.2), with a gap in the mean results of 3.59. However, this was not one of the largest gaps in the dataset. Comparator data from Hamel and Zanini (2020) shows that both the Union and University have higher than average organisational levels (see table ==XYZ==); with less than 100 employees the number of organisational levels for the Union should be closer to 3.5 layers, and with around 3000 employees the number of layers in the University is perceived as being higher than the average. ![[Screenshot 2022-09-25 at 13.03.44.png]] No correlation was found between the results of question 1 and the net promoter score. ### Question 2 - on the time spent on bureaucratic chores The design of the University corollary of this question is flawed, making comparisons between the Union and University scores difficult (see above). This is likely to explain why this is the only Union BMI question mean result that exceeds the University's mean. The Union has its highest BMI score for the time staff members spend on bureaucratic chores (M = 6.7, 95 CI [5.64, 7.77]). This score remained high regardless of the respondents' length of service, and how much the partnership was perceived to be of value to the success of the role. No respondent said that they spent less 'virtually no' time on bureaucratic chores in the Union. The average amount of time SU staff say they spend on bureaucratic chores was calculated, this amounts to approximately 20% (==table XYZ==), which is slightly lower than the average BMI score found by Hamel and Zanini of 27% (2020, p 67). This suggests that further work should be undertaken to uncover the reasons for each bureaucratic chores, the speed of decision making, and the impact of the hierarchy on decision making. ### Question 3- on bureaucracy slowing decision making and action The second biggest gap in mean responses (4.92) relates to the extent to which bureaucracy slows decision making and action between the two organisations. This suggests that union staff perceive the union to be far more agile and responsive than the university. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between the mean Union BMI score from respondents to this question who were not line managers and their overall partnership satisfaction. There was a negative correlation between these two variables, r(12) = -0.59, p = 0.026. ### Question 4- on interactions with line managers being focussed on internal issues The design of the University corollary of question four is flawed, making comparisons between the Union and University scores difficult (see above). The mean union score (2.73, 95 CI [1.71, 3.74]) is the Union's third lowest score, suggesting that a focus on internal issues does not drive bureaucracy in the union. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between the mean union BMI score from respondents to this question who were not line managers and their overall partnership satisfaction. There was a negative correlation between these two variables, r(12) = -0.65, p = 0.012. The average amount of time SU staff say they spend focussing on internal issues was calculated, this amounts to approximately 9% (==table XYZ==), which is far lower than the average BMI score found by Hamel and Zanini of 42% (2020, p 67). ### Question 5 - on the levels of autonomy to set targets The design of the University corollary of question five is flawed, making comparisons between the Union and University scores difficult (see above). The mean union score (2.95, 95 CI [2.37, 3.54]) is the Union's fourth biggest score. No correlation was found between the results of question five and the net promoter score. ### Question 6 - on the involvement of frontline team members with change initiatives Again, the union BMI (M = 3.07, 95 CI [2.26, 3.88]) was lower than the University BMI (M = 6.55, 95 CI [5.69, 7.42]), with the mean gap 3.49. This suggests that union staff perceive there to be less frontline team involvement in the university than the union. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between the mean Union BMI score from respondents to this question who strongly agreed that "a partnership with the University is essential to the success of my work" and their overall partnership satisfaction. There was a negative correlation between these two variables, r(12) = -0.59, p = 0.026. ### Question 7 - on reactions to unconventional ideas Again, the Union BMI (M = 2.84, 95 CI [2.11, 3.57]) was lower than the University BMI (M = 6.23, 95 CI [5.41, 7.04]), with a mean gap of 3.39. Spearman's rank correlation did not uncover any correlation between these results and overall partnership satisfaction, nor was the gap deemed large enough to investigate through the qualitative research. Hamel and Zanini (2020) report that 75% of their respondents state that new ideas in their organisation are met with indifference, skepticism, or outright resistance. However in the Union this is far lower than the average result, at 18%. Union perceptions of the University's acceptance of unconventional ideas very different, with 69% of those who responded stating ideas are not met with support. ### Question 8 - on frontline employees launching a new project that requires resources The largest gap in perceptions of bureaucracy between the Univeristy and the Union (mean gap = 6.70) relates to this question, which is also the largest BMI score for the University (M = 8.75, 95 CI [8.03, 9.47]) and the lowest score for the union (M = 2.05, 95 CI [1.16, 2.93]). This suggests that SU staff perceive it to be very difficult for a frontline employee to launch a new project. This correlates with the international BMI Hamel and Zanini results that state 95% of respondents with more than 1000 employees report that it's "not easy" or "very difficult" for a frontline employee to launch a new initiative [[Source - Humanocracy|(Hamel and Zanini 2020)]]. The University of Salford has approximately 3000 employees (==cite==) whereas the Students' Union has approximately 35 'career' staff, and around 50 part time staff; this may explain the Union results (M=2.05, 95 CI [2.93, 1.16]. Nevertheless, the gap in mean responses (6.70) is large and requires additional investigation. ==move staff figures to intro, and conclusions to conclusions?== Hamel and Zanini (2020) report that 95% of global BMI survey respondents in a company with more than 1000 employees report it's "not easy" or "very difficult" for a frontline employee to launch a new initiative. In the union (with significantly fewer than 1000 employees) this figure is 41% of respondents, and union perceptions of the University are far higher at 88% of respondents. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between the mean Union BMI score from respondents to question eight who strongly agreed that "a partnership with the University is essential to the success of my work" and their overall partnership satisfaction. There was a negative correlation between these two variables, r(12) = -0.59, p = 0.022. ### Question 9 - on the prevalence of political behaviours One of the lowest mean gaps (2.95) relates to question nine, the union BMI (M = 2.5, 95 CI [1.45, 3.55]) and the university BMI (M = 5.45, 95 CI [4.31, 6.60]). This suggests that there is a perceived similarity of approach between the union and university. Hamel and Zanini (2020) report that 68% of respondents said that overtly political behaviours were "often" observed regardless of organisation size. In the Union this was only 5% (or one respondent), whereas 42% of respondents often observed political behaviours in the University. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between the mean University BMI score and the overall partnership satisfaction. There was a negative relationship between the two variables, r(20) = -0.54, p = .009. This process was also repeated for those who strongly agreed that "a partnership with the University is essential to the success of my work", and another negative correlation was found between the two variables, r(13) = -0.59, p = .021. The same pattern was found for those who staff members who are not line managers, r(12) = -0.47, p = .017. ### Question 10 - on the influence of political skills on personal success Again, there is a gap in the BMI of the Union (M = 2.95, 95 CI [2.07, 3.84]) and the University (M = 6, 95 CI [5.44, 6.56]) of 3.05. Hamel and Zanini (2020) report that 62% of respondents to the global survey said that political skills 'often' or 'almost always' determines who gets ahead. In the Union this was only 5% (or one respondent), whereas 60% of respondents said that political skills 'often' or 'almost always' determined who got ahead in the University. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between the mean Union BMI score from respondents to this question who were not line managers and their overall partnership satisfaction. There was a negative correlation between these two variables, r(12) = -0.51, p = 0.059. This is just outside the alpha of 0.05 and so should be treated with caution. ## Qualitative Results- Semi Structured Interview The quantitative analysis above was used to set the questions for the semi-structured interviews, so that the research questions could be answered. Please see table ==XYQ== for the rationale of investigating each question. ![[Screenshot 2022-09-24 at 14.42.04.png]] Several codes had a high number of instances, including relating to hierarchy and the number of hierarchical layers in the organisation even thought his was not one of the prompted questions: > "I think there is certainly something to be said in terms of layers. So at the students' union, obviously we do have a few layers...assistants or coordinators, who generally feed into a Head of Department who generally feed into Directors who then feed into the CEO [Chief Executive Officer] . Obviously, that's not completely smooth. Sometimes we might have like a manager or an advisor kind of somewhere in between, and the sabbs [sabbatical officers] are also in the equation. But the university, I can't imagine. I can't tell you how many layers there are from, like a lecturer to the VC- maybe like 10 layers or something." - Interviewee 2. The ability for the university to make quick decisions was also highlighted, and how that impacted on the ability for the union to make decisions that required the University's approval: > "There was a prime example today where we were trying to figure out if [a student] was suspended or not from campus... And I couldn't get a straight answer from anyone. You know, I was writing write down answers, speaking to people, to every department at University House. Trying to get a straight answer and, um, and then was given an answer. It was the wrong answer." - Interviewee 1 > "If a student has a really exciting idea or an exciting campaign, and we want to push the university to adopt it, unfortunately things can get caught up in a the university logjam very quickly". - Interviewee 2 Interviewees also then agreed that this created a focus on the quality of relationships that occurred across the two organisations: > "But for whatever reason, they have to speak to a specific person or this person deals with this or you know, you have to go through this kind of processing or built in order to get that information. And actually all all we're trying to do is is get the outcome for the student that we want. So I think there's probably some frustration comes through from there and there... so I think definitely there is a role from managers to help kind of navigate some of that" - Interviewee 3 > "One guy says 'yes', another guy says 'no'... one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing... So you're constantly going around the back of systems and processes to get your objective sorted." - Interviewee 1 Interviewees agreed that a small team and a small leadership team benefits the speed of decision making at the students' union: > "We have a very streamlined management system where there's not a lot of bureaucracy. There's a pretty very small SLT [Senior Leadership Team]. There's a growing manager base, but that's really [explained by] the growing size of the Union, which works well. We in the pit we work independently... in our own little groups without having much overbearing oversight from the senior leadership." - Interviewee 1 The impact of bureaucracy on the customer (students) was also a focus of across interviewees: > "Whereas I think some staff [in the] University think students are just a byproduct of what they do. They're not the focus of why they're here." - Interviewee 1. This was also felt to have an impact on staff, including through creating misanthropic or disempowering conditions: > "And it's probably quite disempowering, right, because you're trying to... do your job and you're trying to drive something forward and you're not able to do that. And the only way you're able to do that is to involve somebody who is working at a higher level than you, which is actually quite disempowering." - Interviewee 3 > > "Whereas you might start a job at the university full of ideas, I want to do X, Y and Z.  And then after six months think I can't be [expletive] now. Now I'll just do what they say. It saps the life out of you." - Interviewee 1 > "a more streamlined way is simpler way to get things done across the institution, so I feel it can be a little bit demoralising at times, but I don't work in university. Thankfully I work in the students' union, so things are a bit different." - Interviewee 2 Despite this, there was some support for the partnership, and many of the staff who work in the University: > "It's a hard one because we do have people with the university have the same mindset as us. I would like to think [university department] have students at the heart of what they do". - Interviewee 1 > "My role is to empower students. My role is to make sure that students are breaking down barriers towards their education. I'm sure that the entire university shares this view, and I'm sure all members of the university community want to do this. But the structures that are in place at the university can mean that it's very difficult for... meaningful change to happen quickly. That doesn't mean that meaningful change doesn't take place" - Interviewee 2 There was some disagreement about the source of the University's bureaucracy; some interviewees said it was driven by audit-ability and quality assurance, others by fear of reputational damage, and another ascribed it to risk management: > "I mean, I don't think there is anyone that really enjoys the internal bureaucracy, but there is a reason that it has to be done and we abide by it because we do need to make sure there's a paper trail for big decisions being made." - Interviewee 2 > "I think it is the risk factor more than anything else. They haven't got the appetite for risk." - Interviewee 1 > "part of your HR recruitment, particularly your recruitment process is it's about... protecting the reputation of the organisation as well. And if you have a free for all and something... is done really, really poorly then the knock on effects of that is actually quite significant." - Interviewee 3. ## 4.4 Conclusions (100 words) -