# 5. BILP Conclusions _“We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.”[**[1]**](#_ftn1)_ ## 5.1 Introduction and General Conclusions The research suggests that the levels of bureaucracy at the students’ union are, or are perceived to be, far lower than that those present at the University of Salford, and that elements of this bureaucracy impact on the satisfaction between the Union and the University. This has implications for both organisations given their mutual concern for meeting the needs of students, and the partnership approach that they enjoy. If Union perceptions of the University bureaucracy are accurate, this would significantly impede the University’s decision-making abilities, dynamic capabilities, staff engagement and responsiveness to unusual ideas. Ultimately, these results infer that the University is not making effective use of its resources to meet the needs of its customers, primarily students at the University of Salford, but also industry partners. That said, the University should take some comfort that Union perceptions of their bureaucracy is similar to the mean BMI score across organisations of a similar size, and in some aspects are significantly better than average. ## 5.2 Conclusions for research question one: USSU staff perceptions of bureaucracy at the Students’ Union, and how this compares to the University. USSU staff believe that the Union is less bureaucratic than the University overall. Specifically, they believe the Union has lower levels of hierarchy, insularity, autocracy, conformity, timidity, and politicking than the University. They also believe that the Union has comparatively low levels of bureaucracy in matters of launching new projects, the prevalence of political behaviours and the speed of decision making. Finally, they also believe that the Union is comparatively more bureaucratic in areas of bureaucratic chores and its hierarchical approach. Conversely, their perception is that the University is most bureaucratic in its timidity towards funding frontline projects, its levels of hierarchy and its autocracy. Compared to its other scores, however, it is less bureaucratic with regards to politicking. This could be related to the collegiate and distributed leadership model that is still found in universities (Bolden _et al.,_ 2009). It is telling that none of the interviewees to the qualitative research could give clear answers on where they had witnessed political behaviours. A view that there are low levels of politicking could also be explained by both organisations’ public duties, including as charitable organisations (see Appendix 1). The above is corroborated by the qualitative data, which demonstrates Union managers’ frustration with their engagement in the University bureaucracy, particularly with regards to hierarchical decision making, speed of decision making, and the impact of these matters on both customers and staff members. While it might be easy to attribute the differential perceived bureaucratic performance between the two organisations to organisation size (Table 4.2) the exemplar organisations mentioned in section 2.4 (above) have significantly reduced the role of bureaucracy in their organisations while enjoying far greater employee numbers, and having similar business complexity (Hamel and Zanini, 2020). ## 5.3 Conclusions for research question two: The relationship between SU staff perceptions of bureaucracy and their satisfaction with the university-union partnership. USSU line managers have much clearer clustering of their views on the Union and the University (Figure 4.7) and are the only group to demonstrate a positive correlation between BMI scores for both organisations, and their partnership satisfaction. Given the phrasing of the BMI questions, this is likely due to manager's familiarity with the University bureaucracy, the relationships they have gained through working in the bureaucracy and the partnership being of more value to them. It could also demonstrate greater support for the role of managerialism within a bureaucracy, as they benefit personally and financially as managers; this is a reason why bureaucracy is so entrenched (Hamel and Zanini, 2020). Union staff who are not line managers have lower partnership satisfaction where there is higher Union BMI with regards to bureaucracy slowing decision making, and where their conversations with line managers are focussed on internal matters. This suggests that some of the Union’s slow response to decision making is at least perceived to be driven by the partnership, or the University itself. This is also corroborated by the qualitative feedback, which suggests that non-managers must involve their line managers to achieve their objectives in the University. Union staff members who state that “the partnership with the University is essential to the success of their work” have lower partnership satisfaction where there is a higher University BMI regarding their interactions with the University being focussed on internal matters, there is a higher Union BMI regarding frontline staff members’ ability to design and develop change initiatives and where there is a higher Union BMI regarding frontline staff members to launch a new project that requires resources. This suggests that those who have greater reliance on the partnership also value the knowledge, skills and behaviours of the Union frontline staff, and believe that they should have greater access to launch, define and develop change initiatives. This could be a response to the different empowerment approaches across the two organisations to which the qualitative results attest. Union staff who are not line managers have lower partnership satisfaction where they have higher University BMI with regards the prevalence of political behaviours, and where there is higher Union BMI with regards political skills influencing who gets ahead. This is also true for those who believe the partnership to be essential to the success of their work. This suggests that where SU staff, particularly managers, engage in politicking the partnership satisfaction decreases. This perhaps reinforces the presence of collegiality, and that perceived breaches of this prevailing dynamic would have an impact on partnership satisfaction. This would then suggest that managerialism, driven as it is by neoliberalism and ‘primacy of the self’, is not culturally sanctioned amongst Union staff members. ## 5.4 Conclusions of the Research Process The errors in the University BMI corollary questions are likely to have affected the overall BMI score for the University, and, given the nature of the questions (see Appendix 3), it is likely that the University BMI would have been higher. It has therefore not been possible to ascertain all the perceived drivers of bureaucracy in the University, and therefore it cannot be stated which element has the most perceived impact on the University bureaucracy. It is also more difficult to draw correlations across these questions with the partnership satisfaction, and so impossible to say which of the BMI questions has most impact on the partnership. That said, the research process was robust and useful, and informative data has still been gathered, which should benefit each organisation, as well as further the development of the Union-University partnership. ## 5.5 Recommendations My broad recommendations for the Union-University partnership, are to: ·      Use the results from this research to start a conversation across both organisations on the matters that contribute to bureaucracy, and create policy positions on these aspects of bureaucracy, so that all University and Union staff understand the expectations on them, to facilitate cultural change. The example of Dublin Business School (Murphy, 2021) may prove helpful. ·      Create key performance indicators for both the University and the Union to commit to, to reduce their bureaucracies and improve partnership working. ·      Survey University staff on the BMI, to provide a more accurate comparator set to the Union’s BMI.   ·      Investigate the lived experience of students and other customers who are trying to work through the University and Union bureaucracies, with the possibility of demonstrating causality between bureaucracy and National Student Survey (NSS) results, particularly regarding the ‘organisation and management’ question set therein. ·      Commence a root-and-branch review of the way the student voice is captured by the University, up to and including the University committee system, and how the University can create an environment more conducive to hearing the student voice. ·      Jointly appoint executive-level sponsors within both organisations, responsible for reducing bureaucracy across the University, with special regard to how it impacts on the partnership. Finally, I recommend that the Union uses this research to codify Union staff understanding of the Union bureaucracy, including the cultures and behaviours that it drives. This should also investigate the potential impact that the disparities between the two bureaucracies might have on morale and staff engagement, particularly if the Union adopts further anti-bureaucratic measures, and a greater differential arises. ## 5.6 Final Remarks The broader concern is summarised by Hamel and Zanini (2020, 114): "The point is this: over time, a system’s performance becomes limited less by processes and practices than by paradigms and principles." If, as I have argued, the organisational paradigms and principles universities have adopted are not readily implementable, if they are not culturally compatible, and if they are technologically antiquated, then the performance of the University will atrophy, and energies expended by professional and dedicated members of staff will always be inadequate. As Peter (1977) quipped “bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost its status.” --- [[1]](#_ftnref1) Variously attributed to Winston Churchill, Marshall McLuhan, and John Culkin.