In this section, we present the case study of change management in power sector reforms in Orissa.Orissa is the first State in the country, in fact in the entire South Asia, to introduce reforms in its power sector. The reform model was implemented in three phases.
In the first phase (July 1994-March 1995), a Steering Committee, a Task Force, Project Management Group, and nine Working Groups were constituted to direct implementation of reforms and restructure the electricity sector. In the second phase (March 1995- August 1996), the OER Act was enacted and the former O.S.E.B. was unbundled into generation, transmission and distribution. And, in the third phase (March 1997 onwards), the four distribution zones were privatised through the process of international competitive bidding.
Resistance of Employees to the Restructuring of OSEB When the power sector restructuring took place, there was resistance across-
the-board from both Employees as well as Engineer’s Associations. The resistance by engineers was on account of several reasons, such as the following:
• demand for the review of the ‘Black Agreement’ (i.e., the Power Purchase Agreement) signed between the Orissa Government and the National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C) in the proposed sale of Talcher Thermal Power Plant (T.T.P.S) to N.T.P.C ( it was their contention that the MoU was completely one-sided and in favour of N.T.P.C,); and
• deputation of 1518 personnel of State cadre to O.S.E.B for the electricity generation, transmission, distribution, and supply related work without giving any deputation allowance or having any provision by O.S.E.B for absorbing the engineer cadres.Like the engineers, the employees of O.S.E.B. at all levels also opposed the reform through their Associations/Federations. The ex-Chairman of O.S.E.B.Employees Federation prepared a leaflet for distribution among members, public and other unions citing therein the following reasons for their resistance to the reform:
1. They welcomed the proposal for foreign investment and technology for development, but said that this should be done on the basis of selectivity, mutuality and transparency.
2. The reform package implemented violates the principle of labour participation in management envisaged under Article 46-A of the Constitutional Amendment, 1976.3. As per the historic judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.5.1995, “Man has to be the focal point of development keeping in view the constitutional obligation of reducing poverty and unemployment”. In Orissa, nearly 65% of the people live below the poverty line, but they have not been taken care of by the Government in its reform proposal.
The Electrical Workers, Employees, Engineers and Officers formed a Joint Action Committee to protest against the reform. The Joint Action Committee submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Orissa on 10.3.1997 demanding the following main issues:
1. To completely stop the privatisation process and cancel the agreement signed with M/S BSES.
2. To repeal T.T.P.S transfer act.
3. To refrain from increasing the electricity tariff, which is against the public interest.
4. To keep the service conditions of engineers, staff/ workers unchanged and revise the wages and other allowances w.e.f. 1.4.1995 through mutual discussion.
5. To stop all outside employments including redeployment of retired personnel.
6. To fill up all vacant posts immediately through the existing rules and regulations.
Forms of Resistance
Resistance to the reform was manifested in several ways. The Orissa Electrical Engineers Service Association filed an Application vide No. 576(c) of 1996 in the Orissa Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of Sec. 23, 24 and 25 of the Orissa Electricity Reform Act, and the Scheme Rules made there under regarding transfer of personnel to GRIDCO and O.H.P.C. As the tribunal dismissed the application on the pretext that it has no jurisdiction to judge the validity of the said provisions, the Association filed a Civil Appeal No. 8876 of 1997 in the Supreme Court of India challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal.
The Employees Association appealed to the All India Federation of Electricity Employees (A.I.F.E.E.) to approach the State Government to refrain from the reform. Accordingly, the A.I.F.E.E. submitted a memorandum to the Chief Minister of Orissa on 1.8.95 requesting for democratisation of the working of O.S.E.B without attempting for privatisation. The O.S.E.B Employees Federation issued leaflets and served notice on 21.7.95 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to resort to mass dharna in front of the State Assembly regarding wage revision and restructuring on 27.7.95 with effect from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.Another Federation viz., O.S.E.B. Shramik Mahasangha declared an indefinite strike from 25 th October, 1995 protesting against the Government’s decision regarding the reforms. Nikhila Orissa Bidyut Board (which was affiliated to the ruling party ) submitted a notice to the Chairman of the Board on 18.3.1996 to organise a joint meeting with all the major trade unions regarding restructuring, failing which, they threatened to start agitational measures including cessation of wok on or after 1.4.1996 at any date without any further notice.
Thus there was an active resistance by the employees of the former O.S.E.B against the power sector restructuring initiated in the State. Apart from strikes and dharna, the other forms of resistance the employees resorted to were development of apathetic attitude, indifference to whatever was going on the organisation, etc.
Various strategies were adopted by the top management to minimise resistance. Search conference, discussion and negotiation with union leaders,commitment for better provision for terminal benefits were the common strategies to minimise resistance by both employees and engineersassociations. In addition, resistance by Engineers Association was minimised through permanent absorption of employees in their preferred units, revision in service conditions, and regularisation of services of some stipendiary engineers, promotion, etc. Resistance by employees association was minimised through regularisation of N.M.R. workers, filling up of vacancies in non-executive category by promotion, formulation of the Adaptation Regulation’s of service matters for the employees of O.S.E.B.’s transfer to GRIDCO, etc.
Training and development, employee involvement schemes, and stress management workshops are the three strategies currently being adopted by the management to refreeze the desired behaviour of the employees to sustain the reform momentum in the organisation. To sum up, responses to organisational change are both negative and positive. Negative responses are natural as people by and large tend to steer clear of situations that disrupt order, put their self-interests in danger, increase stress or involve risk. When faced with changes to the status quo, people usually resist initially. The resistance persists and, in some cases increases, until they are able to recognize the benefits of change and perceive the gains to be worth more than the risk or threats to their self-interests.
The Change Makers or Leaders should envisage resistance to any change effort, prepare for it, and make special efforts to assess and embark upon individual reactions to change. There is no better way to rein in resistance to change than to engage those responsible for implementing it and those affected by it. If there is no involvement early on in the planning, during the implementation and throughout perpetuation, the change effort will fail. When people feel that they are valued participants in planning and implementing the change, they are more likely to be motivated toward successful completion.
In the first phase (July 1994-March 1995), a Steering Committee, a Task Force, Project Management Group, and nine Working Groups were constituted to direct implementation of reforms and restructure the electricity sector. In the second phase (March 1995- August 1996), the OER Act was enacted and the former O.S.E.B. was unbundled into generation, transmission and distribution. And, in the third phase (March 1997 onwards), the four distribution zones were privatised through the process of international competitive bidding.
Resistance of Employees to the Restructuring of OSEB When the power sector restructuring took place, there was resistance across-
the-board from both Employees as well as Engineer’s Associations. The resistance by engineers was on account of several reasons, such as the following:
• demand for the review of the ‘Black Agreement’ (i.e., the Power Purchase Agreement) signed between the Orissa Government and the National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C) in the proposed sale of Talcher Thermal Power Plant (T.T.P.S) to N.T.P.C ( it was their contention that the MoU was completely one-sided and in favour of N.T.P.C,); and
• deputation of 1518 personnel of State cadre to O.S.E.B for the electricity generation, transmission, distribution, and supply related work without giving any deputation allowance or having any provision by O.S.E.B for absorbing the engineer cadres.Like the engineers, the employees of O.S.E.B. at all levels also opposed the reform through their Associations/Federations. The ex-Chairman of O.S.E.B.Employees Federation prepared a leaflet for distribution among members, public and other unions citing therein the following reasons for their resistance to the reform:
1. They welcomed the proposal for foreign investment and technology for development, but said that this should be done on the basis of selectivity, mutuality and transparency.
2. The reform package implemented violates the principle of labour participation in management envisaged under Article 46-A of the Constitutional Amendment, 1976.3. As per the historic judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.5.1995, “Man has to be the focal point of development keeping in view the constitutional obligation of reducing poverty and unemployment”. In Orissa, nearly 65% of the people live below the poverty line, but they have not been taken care of by the Government in its reform proposal.
The Electrical Workers, Employees, Engineers and Officers formed a Joint Action Committee to protest against the reform. The Joint Action Committee submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Orissa on 10.3.1997 demanding the following main issues:
1. To completely stop the privatisation process and cancel the agreement signed with M/S BSES.
2. To repeal T.T.P.S transfer act.
3. To refrain from increasing the electricity tariff, which is against the public interest.
4. To keep the service conditions of engineers, staff/ workers unchanged and revise the wages and other allowances w.e.f. 1.4.1995 through mutual discussion.
5. To stop all outside employments including redeployment of retired personnel.
6. To fill up all vacant posts immediately through the existing rules and regulations.
Forms of Resistance
Resistance to the reform was manifested in several ways. The Orissa Electrical Engineers Service Association filed an Application vide No. 576(c) of 1996 in the Orissa Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of Sec. 23, 24 and 25 of the Orissa Electricity Reform Act, and the Scheme Rules made there under regarding transfer of personnel to GRIDCO and O.H.P.C. As the tribunal dismissed the application on the pretext that it has no jurisdiction to judge the validity of the said provisions, the Association filed a Civil Appeal No. 8876 of 1997 in the Supreme Court of India challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal.
The Employees Association appealed to the All India Federation of Electricity Employees (A.I.F.E.E.) to approach the State Government to refrain from the reform. Accordingly, the A.I.F.E.E. submitted a memorandum to the Chief Minister of Orissa on 1.8.95 requesting for democratisation of the working of O.S.E.B without attempting for privatisation. The O.S.E.B Employees Federation issued leaflets and served notice on 21.7.95 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to resort to mass dharna in front of the State Assembly regarding wage revision and restructuring on 27.7.95 with effect from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.Another Federation viz., O.S.E.B. Shramik Mahasangha declared an indefinite strike from 25 th October, 1995 protesting against the Government’s decision regarding the reforms. Nikhila Orissa Bidyut Board (which was affiliated to the ruling party ) submitted a notice to the Chairman of the Board on 18.3.1996 to organise a joint meeting with all the major trade unions regarding restructuring, failing which, they threatened to start agitational measures including cessation of wok on or after 1.4.1996 at any date without any further notice.
Thus there was an active resistance by the employees of the former O.S.E.B against the power sector restructuring initiated in the State. Apart from strikes and dharna, the other forms of resistance the employees resorted to were development of apathetic attitude, indifference to whatever was going on the organisation, etc.
Various strategies were adopted by the top management to minimise resistance. Search conference, discussion and negotiation with union leaders,commitment for better provision for terminal benefits were the common strategies to minimise resistance by both employees and engineersassociations. In addition, resistance by Engineers Association was minimised through permanent absorption of employees in their preferred units, revision in service conditions, and regularisation of services of some stipendiary engineers, promotion, etc. Resistance by employees association was minimised through regularisation of N.M.R. workers, filling up of vacancies in non-executive category by promotion, formulation of the Adaptation Regulation’s of service matters for the employees of O.S.E.B.’s transfer to GRIDCO, etc.
Training and development, employee involvement schemes, and stress management workshops are the three strategies currently being adopted by the management to refreeze the desired behaviour of the employees to sustain the reform momentum in the organisation. To sum up, responses to organisational change are both negative and positive. Negative responses are natural as people by and large tend to steer clear of situations that disrupt order, put their self-interests in danger, increase stress or involve risk. When faced with changes to the status quo, people usually resist initially. The resistance persists and, in some cases increases, until they are able to recognize the benefits of change and perceive the gains to be worth more than the risk or threats to their self-interests.
The Change Makers or Leaders should envisage resistance to any change effort, prepare for it, and make special efforts to assess and embark upon individual reactions to change. There is no better way to rein in resistance to change than to engage those responsible for implementing it and those affected by it. If there is no involvement early on in the planning, during the implementation and throughout perpetuation, the change effort will fail. When people feel that they are valued participants in planning and implementing the change, they are more likely to be motivated toward successful completion.
No comments:
Post a Comment