Journals: The sources of secondary data included research journals such as JSTOR, Journal of Change Management, Harvard Business Review, Journal of Human Resources, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Willey Blackwell, SZABIST - JISR. To date, major business and commerce journals and some social sciences journals have published special editions on this topic. The focus of the journals varied, from technical aspects of a privatization deal to managerial topics, and exemplified the complex nature of the change management and privatization process. Apart from these journals several other sources available over the internet and HEC digital library were also referred to.
Research Tools
Close-ended questionnaires were the tool used to get required information from employees working in the branches. The respondents were asked to either tick a particular option from the given list options or Likert scale.
Expected Thesis Outcomes
Employees' major concerns while management change was taking place and their reasons
Types of resistance faced by the management (such as union strikes, employee turnover, complaints, etc.) and strategies to manage them
Tools and techniques used by the management to communicate the change (if any)
Changes in the organization's environment (Culture change, attitude change, leadership change) due to administrative change
Technology clash (if any) that has come about due to the change management process
Impact on the motivational level of employees after or during the implementation of change program
CHAPTER FIVE
"ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION"
5.1 Data Analysis and Findings
The researcher worked with a total of with a total of 150 questionnaires, out of which 15 were from the pre-testing phase, 15 were discarded due to errors and the remaining 120 have been tabulated studied and analyzed to gain an understanding of this research. The questionnaire consisted of a total of 18 questions, each of which will be analyzed in this section of the thesis. In the following pages the researcher proceeds from one question to another, one by one dealing with the rationale behind each question as well as the findings and analysis derived by the responses of all 120 respondents. Finally the researcher conducts an analysis of all the questions in the questionnaire under the heading of 'Critical Analysis'.
Q1. Are you aware of the term "Privatization"?
Figure 2: Pie chart showing employees' answer to the question "Are you aware of the term "privatization?"
Out of the 120 respondents representing the branch banking population, 74% of the respondents had a complete understanding of the workings and mechanism of privatization, while 26% of the respondents were not as clear on the entire process of privatization but did have an idea of the advantages and disadvantages related to such scenario.
Q2. In your opinion is "Privatization" a positive step towards:
Figure 3: Bar Graph showing employee perceptions about positivity of privatization
The respondents rated the options 'Efficiency' and 'Profitability' as being the most impacted by the privatization process with 88% and 85% rating being given to both options respectively. Other options such as 'Utilization of Resources', 'Customer Satisfaction' and 'Quality Product' also resulted in being favorably impacted by the privatization process though not as much as the first two options. None of the respondents felt that privatization had 'No Impact' of any kind as they all believed that there was some change that did occur due to the implementation of such a process.
However it is interesting to note that privatization does not necessarily lead to high levels of 'Employee Satisfaction' and 'Employee Motivation'. Respondents have given the two factors the lowest rating of 33% and 31% respectively. This goes to show that while privatization must have many advantages in terms of increasing a bank's efficiency, profitability and results in better utilization of resources, employees do not always view this process as favorably and have low levels of satisfaction and motivation.
Q3. How do you find the new management's leadership style after privatization of HBL?
Figure 4: Pie chart showing employee perception regarding management style after privatization
The highest weightage of 52% was given to the option more authoritative by the respondents as the employees felt that there is more reporting of their tasks to superiors now than before. 23% of the respondents stated that the management style has become more deadline oriented as after the privatization process there is constant monitoring of the work flow. For this reason also none of the employees felt that the management was if not down right autocratic then neither was it any less enforcing.19% of the respondents felt that to some extent the management is also democratic and their superiors do give them the chance to express their opinions more than before. 6% of the employees felt that there was no impact on the management style after privatization and that their superiors treated them in the same way as the previous management.
Q4. How is the attitude of new management after privatization of HBL, different from the older one?
Figure 5: Pie chart representing employees' perception about attitude of new management in comparison to old
Keeping in mind the viewpoint of the respondents where they felt that the new management's leadership style was more authoritative than before, here they support that opinion where 57% of the respondent state that the new management has a more dominating attitude. However, 16% of the respondents also felt that the new management was much more appreciating of tasks well-done, than the previous management. 14% of the respondents felt that they could communicate more openly with the management now than previously as the new management had a more open and friendly attitude while just 3% of the respondents felt that the management had a discouraging attitude. 10% of the employees felt that there was no impact on the management's attitude.
Q5. What impact has occurred on Salary Packages after privatization?
Figure 6: Graphical representation of employees feeling regarding pay scales after privatization
39% of the respondents felt that no impact had come about on the salary packages. Further investigation into this response led us to believe that salary is always performance based and those employees who expected the salary to automatically increase after the privatization process were disappointed when there was no positive change in their compensation packages. 14% of the respondents felt that the compensation packages were less appealing than those offered by multinational banks while 10% felt that after privatization the compensation packages had a negative impact.
However, 20% of the respondents felt that the compensation packages had become more attractive. This view was supported by those employees of HBL who were either fresh graduates with high level degrees who were offered lucrative compensation packages 12% of the respondents felt that better benefits were being offered by the new management, while only 5% believed that salaries were impacted more than benefits.
Q6. How has the growth options for the employees within the organization changed in the new environment?
Figure 7: Pie Graph representing employees' view of future growth chances after privatization at HBL
34% of the respondents felt that there was more room to grow. This option was preferred with those employees who were wither fresh graduates inducted as Management Trainees or such experienced employees who were given a minor promotion to encourage them to remain loyal to the organization. 20% of the respondents felt that the growth opportunities were considerably lesser than before. This option was preferred by those employees who had minimal educational qualifications which hindered their chances of moving up in the organization.
27% of the individuals affirmed that there had been no impact in the growth options while only 8% of the respondents felt that previous position held has degraded down the ladder after the acquisition. This was felt by those employees who did not accept the change positively as they weren't promoted simply on the basis of their years spent in HBL and seniority. 11% of the respondents did not have complete awareness or knowledge of the hierarchy in HBL and they opted for the 'Don't Know' option.
Q7. Change was introduced in a sudden and confused manner?
Figure 8: Graphical representation of how employees think regarding manner in which change was introduced
58% of the respondents agreed with the statement where they said that change was introduced in a sudden and confused manner while 20% of the individuals were indifferent to the statement. 18% of the respondents who were loyal to the organization and were in full support of the change did not agree with the statement. While only a small percentage opted for the extreme two options of strongly agreed 1% and strongly disagreed 3%, showing that respondents are wary of choosing extreme options as their answers and prefer to choose moderate responses to state their opinions.
Q8. New management has increased the employees' job efforts, burdens and job requirements?
Figure 9: Pie chart showing perception of employees regarding changes in job requirements after privatization
69% of the respondents approved the statement that their job efforts, burdens and job requirements were increased under the new management. The employees felt that they were overburdened with not only their current job requirements but they also had to undergo rigorous trainings in order to adapt themselves to the technological changes and changes in the work flow and processes that the new management was implementing under the change management program. 15% of the employees did not deem it necessary to comment on this statement. While again those respondents who had encouraged and supported the change, refuted this statement where 13% chose the option disagree. 1% of the respondents strongly disagreed and 3% strongly agreed with the statement.
Q9. It was better for employees to preserve their status quo and there was no need for change in management/ environment?
Figure 10: Graphical representation of employees' response to need for change
Keeping in mind the view point of the management who believed that the organization was ready for a change, a majority of the respondents (43%) agreed with the top management and realized that in order to keep abreast with the competition it was necessary to change over to a new management and new working environment/style. 4% of the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement and supported the new change. (40%) of the respondents believed in preserving the status quo. 13% of the respondents neither agreed or disagreed with the statement while only 1% was strongly against the need to bring about any sort of change in the organization.
Q10. After privatization of HBL, goals of change was clearly communicated to employees while its implementation?
Figure 11: Graph depicting employees' response regarding management's communication of change to them
45% of the respondents stated that after the privatization of HBL, goals of change were not clearly communicated to the employees while its implementation, while 1% strongly disagreed. Employees felt that the management did not properly explain to them entire process to them, rather they were given bits of information as and when the management deemed necessary. 28% of the employees neither agreed nor disagreed with this question as they were not willing to share their opinion. However 26% of the respondents state that the goals of change were clearly communicated to the employees while its implementation and they were aware of the steps taken by the management.
Q11. Change in management has resulted in a loss of job, its gains and prerogatives?
Figure 12: Graphical representation of employees' perception on how change in management lead to job loss
65% of the respondents agree that change in management is a major reason for loss of jobs and their benefits. In their view, the new management not only let old employees go, but also cut the perks and benefits of employees who survived downsizing. 18% of respondents were indifferent to the statement. 16% employees found the change in management better for their jobs and related prerogatives, and hence disagreed with the statement. Respondents as in previous questions did not opt for the two extreme points. 1% of them strongly agreed with the statement and none of them strongly disagreed.
Q12. Change in technology has resulted in a loss of job, its gains and prerogatives?
Figure 13: Graphical representation of employees' perception on how change in technology lead to job loss
55% of the respondents agreed to the notion that change in technology has resulted in loss of job and its gains and prerogatives. They were of the view that those who could not upgrade themselves with changing technology were either told to step out of the organization, or were given a low profile job that did not involve use of new technology, and hence, their growth was ceased. 23% of the respondents disagreed with the statement and supported the change in technology as a driver for their growth. 22% of the respondents were indifferent to the statement. As in several other questions, respondents refrained from touching the extreme points of the scale and none of them strongly agreed or disagreed with the statement.
Q13. Change in the working environment has resulted in a loss of job, its gains and prerogatives?
Figure 14: Graphical representation of employees' perception on how change in working environment lead to job loss
59% of the respondents agreed that change in working environment has lead to job loss. Senior employees who could not cope up with changes in the environment of their workplace, of which they were used to, had to loose their jobs either in Voluntary Separation Schemes, or Pre-mature Retirements or in downsizing, and those who survived, were still incompetent enough with the new environment to grow further in their careers. 22% of the respondents favored this change in working environment and found it to be a factor of better job results. 18% expressed themselves to be indifferent with the factor whereas 1% respondents strongly agreed with it. However, none of them strongly disagreed with the statement under discussion.
Q14. Employees were given proper and adequate training for any technological changes that have taken place after privatization?
Figure 15: Representation of employees' perception on training and development measures of HBL management
74% of the respondents agreed', while 3% strongly agreed that training was provided to them in order to cope up with the technological changes after privatization. Many respondents ticked this choice as they did receive some form of training, which was a strategy of the top management to try to equip their employees with up-to-date professional skills. 21% of the respondents disagreed that training was provided to them, mainly because due to either the nature of their job or their position in the hierarchy did not make them eligible for the training being provided. 3% of the respondents adopted a neutral stance. Interesting to note is that none of the employees strongly disagreed with the statement that training was provided, proving that the top management did ensure that its employees received training in one form or another.
Q15. After privatization, employees are given enough freedom to diagnose current problems and propose new solutions?
Figure 16: Pie graph showing employees' views about freedom of speech provided to them by the management
The response to this question was interesting as 42% of the respondents felt that their superiors did not give them enough leverage to diagnose problems, propose new solutions or participate in the decision-making process, while 42% of the respondents felt that they were given ample opportunities to be actively involved in a problem resolution process. 1% of the respondents strongly disagreed that they were given greater freedom to diagnose current problems and propose new solutions whereas 3% strongly agreed with this statement. 13% of the respondents adopted a neutral stance.
Q16. What is the level of enthusiasm of employees after the change management process of the Bank?
Figure 17: Bar graph exhibiting employees' motivation levels after privatization
Despite the top management's assurance that the privatization program was a great success, the researcher found out that the motivational level of the employees was low. 46% of the respondents stated that they were 'De-Motivated' after the new process was introduced while 2% were 'Highly De-Motivated'. This data is in accordance to the various studies that the researcher studied which stated that any sort of change program is likely to result in resistance from the employees mainly which in turn leads to low levels of employee satisfaction and employee motivation.
33% of the respondents stated that they were 'Motivated' while 4% were 'Highly Motivated' with the introduction of the change management process. These respondents include employees who not only supported the change but were also willing to actively be involved in the change management process. 15% of the employees stated there was no impact on the level of their motivation/enthusiasm. This could mean that they were not really interested in analyzing whether the change management process had any affect on their motivational level.
Q17. In your opinion, the change efforts taken by the new management after privatization have been:
Figure 18: Pie chart depicting employees' view point of the change efforts being positive or negative
Keeping in mind the opinions of the respondents to the above questions it is not very surprising to see that most of them viewed the change efforts as being negative. 65% of the respondents feel that the change efforts have been negative while 24% feel that they have been positive. 11% of the respondents did not have an opinion regarding this phenomenon.
Interesting point to note is that while the top level management had only positive things to say about the change management program of HBL, the middle level management or the employees who were directly affected by this process did not have a positive opinion regarding the program at all, leading the researcher to observe that the findings have been similar to those that were reviewed in the literature by the researcher during the course of this study. While employees to give any further comments regarding the privatization process in general, it was stated that they were not satisfied with the privatization process as they felt their job status was threatened, there was a loss of job satisfaction and a decrease in the motivational levels of employees as they felt cut off from the managements' decision making process. Older employees felt more threatened as they had to adopt the new practices in order to retain their jobs.
5.2 Critical Analysis/ Debate
The analysis of each question indicates that the perception of employees, keeping in view the given responses, is not very positive regarding the privatization process of HBL.
Through this survey, the researcher was able to highlight the various factors that led to their dissatisfaction with the new program. Firstly the employees state that the attitude of their superiors/management is authoritative and dominating. Keeping in mind the literature that the researcher reviewed, this concern of the employees is highlighted time and again in those studies as well, whereby supporting the data gathered by the researcher that fear and distrust of the management is so high that even the slightest of dictates by their superiors are found to be negative and offensive.
Another factor that has impacted the employees is the technological advancement that has come about as a result of privatization. Though the management of HBL made sure that various trainings were provided to the employees in order to cope with the change, the employees felt that they were incapable of handling the new technology. As viewed by responses of question 12 the inability to handle the system ended up being a demoralizing factor for the employees as well leading them to believe that they were incompetent. However, assessing the flip side, those employees who completely support the privatization program stated that this change in technology had not only reduced the workload but had also enabled the bank to offer better service to their customers resulting in high customer satisfaction and high customer loyalty.
Another important factor leading to dissatisfaction amongst employees was the fact that most of them felt that the compensation packages did not automatically increase with the advent of privatization. Infact majority of the respondents felt that there had been no impact on the salary packages. This was mainly felt by those employees who were again senior members or those employees whose skill set did not meet the criteria of the new management, who felt that they deserved to receive better compensation packages on the basis of their loyalty, years of service and age factor. However the new management had designed their compensation packages to reflect the contribution of the employee and not simply their age or experience factor. Employees who did not meet the criteria defined the management were obviously disgruntled and this was reflected in their responses of the questionnaire.
A point to be considered is the fact that the respondents who didn't mark the factors they felt were impacted after the privatization program, later in the questionnaire did have an opinion about those factors. Hence, displaying that they held a perception but weren't sure of expressing their feelings.
CHAPTER SIX
"CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDTION"
Conclusion & Recommendations
Viewing the situation from the perspective of the employees led the researcher to believe that they were not very satisfied with the privatization process as a majority of them had a more negative opinion than a positive one.
Top management executives of HBL reveal that employees were involved in extensive participation activities and training and development programs. But keeping in view a huge employee base of more than 15,000, it was not possible for the management to modify its program according to each employee's wish, especially when taking time and cost factors into consideration. Therefore, the management had to implement a program which, from the management's perspective, was generalized for the greater interest of both the stakeholders, i.e. employees and the bank.
The main concerns of the employees facing the change were that they did not have trust in the new management, they feared the changes due to chances of their job loss, they were habitual of living a public sector professional life and a sudden change everywhere created confusion in their minds and though they were involved in town hall meetings and employee engagement activities, yet they had in their mind an "authoritative and autocratic" perception of the new management, and hence, were reluctant to communicate their opinions in front of management openly.
Before carrying out the change program, stage was not set by the management for employees so as to give them a space of comfort. Though communication was carried out extensively throughout the program in parallel with its implementation, proper and thorough communication required before implementation of change was absent. Due to this it was felt that the change was brought about in a sudden and confused manner, HBL's management, which was already being viewed as employees' foe because of downsizing the employees and weakening the union, lost its existing confidence in employees and this lack of communication therefore widened the gap between the two parties. Therefore, communication made while change was being practically brought in and implemented was actually taken by the employees as just "directives from the Head Office", which they were bound to accept. Lack of communication played a major role in instilling feelings of dissatisfaction amongst the employees.
Researches believes that while the privatization process was successfully implemented from the perspective of the top management; the middle level management employees do not have a very positive opinion regarding the entire process even tough it has been 5 years since HBL was privatized.
The first and the foremost recommendation of researcher suggests that:
Apart from management's actively encouraging the involvement of employees in the business decisions to a certain level, interdependent teams should be formed having a mix of both top level and middle level management employees in order to encourage teamwork, synergy and open communication and remove the negative perceptions of the employees regarding their superiors.
The preparation of a Career Development Plan (CDP) in order to give each employee a clear vision regarding their career paths and future growth. This Plan would not only address the employees' concern regarding their future, but would also enhance their enthusiasm and motivation level when they realize the benefits they could accrue in terms of their career growth by contributing effectively towards their personal and organizational goals.
New and old employees should not be judged along the same curve. Newer employees are more dynamic, quick to learn things, more energetic, enthusiastic and technology oriented than their seniors, which makes them get an edge over the older employees who have just been brought into an entirely changed environment after passing a conventional professional life for more than 5 decades of HBL's legacy. Judging them on the same curve with the newer employees on the basis of productivity levels would naturally keep their rankings lower. Therefore, senior employees should be judged on a different scale, not on the basis of their productivity only but also on the basis of how much have they improved themselves within the period of evaluation. This eventually would motivate them to work for the bank more efficiently and productively.
The researcher also believes that implementing these recommendations as a part of their future initiatives would enable the management of HBL to carry them out in a smoother and more effective manner than before.
