Refreshing study reveals psychological impact of Coalition cuts

This week, the subject line which grabbed the attention was: "Psychological impact of austerity shown by drop in public sector workers' loyalty and commitment."

There is little doubting that public sector workers have been getting a hard time in recent years. They have not only had to cope with swingeing public sector cuts, a key plank of the Coalition Government's austerity programme, but have also had to deal with some in the private sector pointing envious fingers at their supposedly "generous" final salary pension provision.

What is forgotten is the work that these people do, often for less money than they could earn in the private sector. And, unlike many of their private sector counterparts, bonuses are not a feature of these employees' working lives.

So, what was this email about? Was it yet another piece of undeserved bad publicity for generally hard-working and committed public sector employees?

Quite the contrary, as it turns out.

The email laid out the result of research conducted by Tina Kiefer, professor of organisational behaviour at Warwick Business School.

This research, conducted by

Professor Kiefer and her colleagues Neil Conway, of the University of London, Jean Hartley, of the Open University, and Rob Briner, of the University of Bath, looked at the consequences of the UK Government's 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicted this would lead to the loss of 490,000 public sector jobs by 2015, representing about 10 per cent of public sector employment, the researchers note.

The newly published research found that the UK Government's austerity measures negatively affected public service employees' loyalty and

commitment towards their organisations, amid increased disappointment and frustration over "broken promises".

Professor Kiefer said: "Our research shows clearly that when the content of the organisational changes reflect cost-cutting measures it results in a psychological contract breach. As public sector cuts were implemented,

employees reported an increase in promises broken. Those promises related to promotion or training

opportunities, benefits or pay packages, job security or fair treatment at work.

"Such implicit or explicit broken promises constitute a psychological contract breach and individuals take measures to compensate.

"Employees react against the perceived agent of the breach by

withdrawing organisational citizenship behaviour, that is to say they feel less obliged to work to an optimum level."

This type of straight-talking analysis, it is worth noting, is a refreshing change from the content of many of the review copies of psychologically-based books which come through the post and pile up at the end of the desk. The themes of these books are familiar: how to

scramble to the top of the greasy

organisational pole, how to squeeze even more out of hard-working staff with scant regard for the broader

consequences, tips to get rich quick on the back of a positive outlook, and so on and so forth. These books are not

attention-grabbing. They are, generally, tiresome.

Returning to the research by

Professor Kiefer et al, the finding about the withdrawal of organisational

citizenship behaviour might get the finger-pointers beginning to extend their digits yet again at their counterparts in the public sector.

But hold on until we get to the crux of the research paper, 'Doing More with Less? Employee Reactions to

Psychological Contract Breach via Target Similarity or Spillover during Public Sector Organisational Change', published in the British Journal of Management. The research found that, although state sector workers reduced their commitment to their organisations, this did not mean providing poorer service to the public.

Professor Kiefer said: "Our findings differ somewhat from research done in the private sector, where previous research has established spillover and negative effects of psychological contract breach on customer service.

"Professional ethos and commitment towards serving the public combined with 'customers' of public servants often consisting of the young, old, sick and vulnerable, may make retaliation against those groups less likely."

This is an interesting conclusion indeed, and smacks of common sense, when you think of the commitment of the likes of nurses, teachers and doctors, and many other public sector workers.

Often, these people have been attracted to these posts not by money but by a wish to do something worthwhile to help others, and society as a whole. That is not to say there are not people like that in the private sector, who have been attracted to a profession by something other than money, such as civil rights lawyers, teachers in the independent sector, scientists or journalists, to name but a few.

However, there is probably a

significantly higher proportion of such people, motivated by a greater purpose than money, in the public sector.

The contrast between what happens with public and private sector workers in the event of "psychological contract breach" is interesting, although perhaps not surprising. It is hopefully something the big banks will bear in mind, as they continue their severe cost-cutting programmes.

Bank of Scotland owner Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland have already cut tens of thousands of jobs and signalled thousands more posts will be axed. Many employees have had to endure changed pension provision, pressure on pay and benefits, and job insecurity. You could, therefore, hardly blame these staff if customer service levels were to drop.

However things pan out in banking, we should celebrate the commitment and resilience of those public sector workers who are in many cases looking after the young, old, sick and vulnerable.

Never mind the finger-pointing. How about a round of applause?