INTRODUCTION:

There has been more changes in the world’s competition pattern in the last decades than previous 50 years and the pace of technological change is faster today than at any time in history and is accelerating(Miles,1989). As a result, the world has become more competitive, uncertain and volatile than ever (Korban,1992). Today no firm is safe from competition and every industry is global. In order to be successful many firms have to compete in the global playing field because the cost associated with the development and marketing of new products are too great to be amortized only over one market, even a large one such as the United States or Europe (Bartelett and Ghoshal, 1991). Therefore in the changed context, successful organizations will be the ones that can change in response to the competition Robbins, 1996). Tripathi (2006) opines that with the globalization, all enterprises are subjected to international competitive pressure and to face the emerging challenges, they have to address their activities in its entirety.

Especially in Indian context, after a long period of protective environment our industries were formally thrown into open global competition after structural reform and liberalization of Indian economy from July, 1991. Dr. Man Mohan Singh, the chief Architect of this move in his inaugural address at the 34^th Annual conference of the Indian Society of labour Economics emphasized that “ we have to accept that the future intensification of international competitions”.

Interestingly, in the past two decades, almost all Indian industries, irrespective of their sectoral differences, will link the fortunes of the firms with their performance, it is not possible to insulate workers altogether from the fortunes of the firms for which they work. If we want our producers to be globally competitive, they have to react rapidly and to adopt themselves to the fast changing are under constant pressure and are engaged in devising strategies and tactics from time to time to enable them to cope and compete with the challenges of global competition. Khanna (1994) has rightly pointed out that a changing country and a changing world have shifted the paradigms under the feet of corporate India, making change itself the only constant. As a result, rethink, reinvest, rebuild, and reorganize are the metaphors of metamorphosis echoing through the country. Especially, corporate restructuring has quickly become analogous with the age and unprecedented restructuring has quickly become analogous with the age and unprecedented restructuring and are now taking place in Indian industry which according to Venkitshwaran (1997) is restructuring revolution in corporate India.

Restructuring-The Concept

An organization is a consciously correlated social unit, composed of two or more people that function on a relatively continuous basis to achieve a common goal (Robbins, 1996). For the smooth functioning of the organization, structures are developed. Accordingly, Robbins (1996) defined organizational structure is one which defines how the tasks are formally divided, grouped and correlated. According to Khanna (1994), structure ensures efficiency, productivity, functionality, even originality. But the revolutionary changes brought through competition necessitates organizations to demolish, to design, to create a new structure, called restructuring the word as awkward as restructuring has captured the imagination is difficult to imagine, but corporate restructuring has quickly become analogous with the age. Kazmi (2010) has pointed out that restructuring is a popular term and is used in several different contexts. However, corporate restructuring has been seen by different authorities in different ways. For example:

· Mathieu (1996) visualizes restructuring is a set of articulated actions undertaken by firms to restore competitiveness that has recorded substantially. Accordingly, Mathieu (1996) pointed out that restructuring can include divestiture, mergers, acquisitions, and new subcontracting relationship with ancillary industries. Even it also implies organizational and ownership changes, including privatization.

· Rock and Rock (1990) observed that corporate restructuring can emphasize a broad range of transactions but generally alludes to substantial changes in a firm’s business portfolio and/or financial structure.

· In the words of Bowman and Singh (1990) restructuring alludes in general to a radical change in the portfolio of business or in the financial structure of a firm.

· Venkitswaran (1997) has lucidly explained that management or organizational restructuring involving decentralization, delayering, product market based divisonalization, matrix structure etc.

What Happens in Restructuring?

Looking into all these definitions and views one can find that organizational restructuring include the strategic actions like merger, acquisition, divestiture, retrenchment, joint venture, closure, cost reduction or even changing ownership stake through targeted share issue . As a result, it may have the impact upon the very framework or structure of the organization. According to Kazmi (2010), in the restructure process, there can be change in structure of the organization, reducing the hierarchies, or delayering, reducing the number of employees, or downsizing, redesignating positions and altering reporting relationships. In fact in the process, the change agent can alter one or more of the key elements in the organization design. For example, departmental responsibilities can be combined vertical layers may be removed, and span of control widened to make organization flatter and less bureaucratic. An increase in decentralization can be made to speed up the decision making process. Moreover, there can be efforts to establish team structure, redesign the jobs, work schedules, redefine job descriptions; flexible work hours can be introduced. All these actions in the restructuring process are quite delicate and are very complex, because all of them have human dimension which needs adequate care, concern and attention of top management and are required to be carefully handled. According to Rao (2003), the management must realize that resistance to change is basically a human problem, though on the surface, it may appear to be related to the technical aspect of change, but it must be tackled in a human and social manner.

Human Dimensions of Restructuring

According to Venkata Ratnam (1993) the transition and transformations of economies and changes in the industrial strategies influence the human resource policies and industrial relations. The organizational restructuring has the following important human aspects which cause concern for both managerial and non managerial personnel in the organizations:

1. The restructuring process may necessitate more rules and procedures to be strictly followed by employees for whom they feel like losing importance, freedom and independence in the organization.

2. Employees also may required to be transferred from one department to another department within the organization or from one division to another, which will cause social dislocation, affect children education, spouse employment etc.

3. Sometimes employees may work with team or delegate power to subordinate, which may affect the status, position and power in the organization.

4. Restructuring may also leads to centralization and decentralization of authority which will influence the previous working in the organization.

5. The standardization change in the span of control, pattern or communication will cause convenience or inconvenience to employee.

6. The restructuring may demand change in the work culture, work habits of people and affect income and expenditure pattern of people in new place with new work.

7. In extreme case, there is possibility of retrenchment of additional workforce which affects the very job security of employees.

As a result, the organizational restructuring process unless properly planned and implemented will lead to employee’s resistance, hence present study.

Background and Methodology used in the Study

The study was conducted in one of the state owned public utility services undertaking established after independence employing around one lakh employees in its pay roll. Because of its huge size, wide geographical coverage, centralized control, poor financial position, the state government had appointed a committee to investigate the cause of inefficiency and suggest measures to overcome them. The committee after a thorough investigation had submitted its report to the government and suggested the restructuring of the existing organization by creating three separate units and selective induction of private sector in some of the functions of the existing organization. As the recommendations of the committee were sure to be implemented, the present study was conducted with the following objectives:

i. To find out the opinion of the employees toward the proposed restructuring programme of the organizations; and

ii. To suggest the possible measures to implement the proposed restructuring of the organization.

In order to fulfill the above objectives, a survey was done and 81 employees of the organizations were randomly selected from one district headquarter, which constituted the sample for the study. Data were collected with the help of a questionnaire designed for this particular purpose and were analysed with the help of percentages in order to draw a meaningful conclusions

Findings of the Study

Following were found to be the major findings of the study:

1. Nearly three-fourth (71.23%) of the employees surveyed was aware of the restructuring plan of the government. The major source of their awareness had been their self interest and the active role being played by their trade unions in this regard. It is also due to the large size of the organization and the crucial service it provides to the people of the state, for which media also gives full coverage of the proposal.

2. More than four-fifth (80.82%) of the employees surveyed were also aware of the proposal for entry of private parties into this sector and the creation of three separate units to the existing organization structure by which the employees of the organizations were going to be divided into.

3. Almost all the respondents covered under the study were against the induction of private sector into the proposed restructuring programme with apprehension that government may subsequently privatize the whole sector.

4. Nearly four-fifth (78.08%) of the respondents were not afraid of losing their jobs due to restructuring process.

5. Nearly three-fourth (73.97%) of the respondents were not even afraid of their transfer due to the restructuring programme.

6. Four-fifth (80.82%) of the respondents were not even afraid of losing their importance and power in the organization after the restructuring programme.

7. However more than three-fourth (76.71%) of the respondents were afraid of losing financially due to this restructuring programme.

Through there exist popular belief that organizational restructuring programmes always create resistance from the employees but in case of this organization under study, the things were quite different. Employees in general were not against the restructuring programme except their negative attitude towards the induction of the private sector in to the existing system. The negative attitude could be due to the fear of losing job security, uncertainty in their employment and new organization culture where there may be many things new where they could find it difficult to work. In fact, since majority of the employees are aware of the restructuring programme but not through management but from other sources like media and the union activities, this was not a good and healthy HR practice which causes of resistance. Employees also lose their faith upon the management that it has not taken them into confidence. However, the existence of favorable attitude among employees in other possible tension areas could be due to the fact that employees could have felt that there is no other option but restructuring had to be done and no efforts of theirs could stop this plan of the government. The lack of fear of employees for losing their jobs could be due to many reasons. It could have been because of their full faith in own capability, which is strengthened by the fact that they are not afraid of their transfer and no concern for losing importance and power in the organization. Perhaps this state of confidence among employees could be due to their knowledge and skill in the existing job, wider and rich experience of working in this sector . Moreover, as the organization exists in public sector, employees in general in this sector are confident that government may not take such an unpleasant decision to remove them from their jobs. However, the apprehension for financial loss by the employees could be due to their transfer from one place to another, where they had to start life afresh, the cost of living in new locations could be higher and it may be due to the fact that they might have constructed their own houses and in new locations they would be deprived of that happiness of living own houses.

CONCLUSION:

To conclude it is always worth quoting Chakraborty et al.(1994) that the economic growth and modernization, shift in economic structures , change in government’ policies, and deregulations are meaningless unless the benefits get translated into the basic bread and butter propositions for people living in the country. Similarly the decision of restructuring programmes of the organisations should be always properly shared with the parties who are going to be affected by the decisions. It is a symbol of healthy human resource practice for any professional management. Of course management may claim that it is the business of management is do business, but to work efficiently, achieve effectiveness of organization and build employee commitment , management decisions should have a human face which ultimately attract, retain and motivate employees to work for the organization.

REFERENCES:

· Bertelett, C. and Ghosal,S.(1991)Managing Across Boarders: The Transnational Solutions. London; London Business School.

· Browman,E.H. and Singh,H. (1990) Overview of Corporate restructuring , Trendsand Consequences, In Rock Milton and Rock R.H (Eds.)Corporate Restructuring: a Guide to Creating the Premium- Value Company, New York, Mc Graw –Hill , PP.8-21.

· Chakraverty, S.K.et.al (1994)Human Dimensions of Liberalization: The Task Ahead. Background Paper for the 21^st National Management Convention of AIMA 26and27, September at Calcutta.

· Das R P and Das S M (2009) Rightsizing Manpower with a Human Face, Amity Management Review, vol-IV(1) PP 58-65

· Kazmi,Azhar(2010) Strategic Management and Business Policy, Third Edition, The Mc Graw-Hill Companies,PP.230-234.

· Mathieu,N.(1996) Industrial Restructuring, World Bank Experience, Future Challenges, Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

· Miles,R.E. (1989) Adopting Technology and Competition: A New Industrial Relations System for the 21^st Century, California Management Review,Vol.34(3), PP.112-113.

· Rao, Suba P.(2003)Personnel and Human Resource Management – Text and cases, Himalaya Publishing House,P.207.

· Robins,S.P.(1996) Organisational Behaviour- Concepts, Controversies and Applications, Seventh Edition, New Delhi, PHI, P.613.

· Rock Milton and Rock R.H (Eds.)Corporate Restructuring: a Guide to Creating the Premium- Value Company, New York, Mc Graw –Hill , PP.8-21.

· Tripathi, A.(2006) From Editor’ Desk, Vikalpa,Vol.31(1), Jan-Mar.iii.

· Veniteswaran, N(1997)Restructuring of Corporate India: The Emerging Scenario, Vikalpa, Vol.22(3), July-Sept.,P.3-13.

· Venkat Ratnam, C.S (1993) Impending Events: A Global industrial relations Perspective. Productivity, Vol.34(1)April-June, PP.57-65.

Received on 10.11.2011 Accepted on 27.11.2011

Asian J. Management 2(4): Oct.-Dec., 2011 page 162-164