Provider-led Pathways to Work – Net impacts on employment and benefits

DWP Working Paper No. 113 by Genevieve Knight, Sergio Salis, Francesca Francavilla, Dragos Radu, Debra Hevenstone, Elisabetta Mocca and Brittainy Tousley (Policy Studies Institute)

This is the final in a series of evaluation reports examining the Provider Led Pathways to Work. This research was part of a comprehensive evaluation of the Provider-Led Pathways commissioned by DWP in 2008 to provide an independent assessment of the programme’s implementation, claimants’ experiences and outcomes.

The main objective of this impact study was to assess whether Provider Led Pathways helped more incapacity benefits customers move into work or leave benefit than would have done otherwise. The impact analysis was conducted using administrative data (Incapacity Benefits claims and HMRC employment records) and data collected from two large scale telephone surveys with 2007 and 2008 incapacity benefit claimants living in Provider Led Pathways areas and in matched comparison areas which did not have the Provider Led Pathways to provide the counter-factual of not participating in this programme. On average, interviews were conducted 14 months after the claim for benefits.

The learning and experience from the Pathways to Work programme fed into the Work Programme’s design and delivery. The findings will also be incorporated in the evidence base for the disability employment strategy that DWP is looking to develop in 2013.

Previous DWP research reports relevant to the subject include:

• Hayllar, O. and Wood, M. RR723 (January 2011)
• Tennant et al RR643 (July 2010)
• Hudson et al RR593 (July 2009)
• Nice at al RR595 (October 2009)
• Nice, K. Working Paper No 57 (January 2009)

Provider Led Pathways to Work Official statistics

Official Provider Led Pathways to Work statistics, including data on starts and job entries, can be found on the DWP statistics pages.

The final statistics on Provider-Led Pathways to Work produced by the Department for Work and Pensions were released on 25th October 2011.

Read the report (PDF 98pp) ISBN: 9-781-78153-168-6

---

Bullying Allegations from the Accused Bully’s Perspective

an article by Moira F. Jenkins, Helen Winefield and Aspa Sarris (University of Adelaide, South Australia) and Dieter Zapf (University of Goethe-Frankfurt am Main, Germany) published in British Journal of Management Volume 23 Issue 4 (December 2012)

Abstract

Research on workplace bullying to date has relied predominantly on self-reports from targets and bystanders, largely ignoring the contributions of other stakeholders such as the alleged perpetrator.

This study aims to close this gap by focusing on the perspectives of the alleged perpetrator and examining the background of the bullying allegations, the types of behaviours labelled as bullying and the perpetrator’s justification of their behaviours.

Twenty-four managers who were accused of workplace bullying were interviewed for this study, and a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was undertaken. Many participants reported a highly stressful workplace, including ambiguous roles, staff shortages and high levels of conflict, as well as inappropriate social behaviours being carried out by others in addition to themselves.

A number of participants viewed themselves as targets of bullying by their staff, and others defended their behaviour as legitimate performance management.

---

Government reforms, performance management and the labour process: the case of officers in the UK probation service

an article by Jenny Gale (Staffordshire University, UK) published in Work Employment & Society Volume 26 Number 5 (October 2012)

Abstract

Taking a labour process perspective, this article investigates the impact of government reforms and performance management on officers in the National Probation Service (England and Wales).

Based on a case study involving two Probation Service Areas and interviews with national and local trade union officers, insights are gained into changes for probation work and the workforce that perform it.

The findings illustrate how reforms of probation practice, implemented locally through performance management, have led to probation work becoming increasingly ‘Taylorized’ with implications for the division of labour based on labour substitution, deskilling and degradation.

As the Probation Service was entering a new political era under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, these findings provide insights into its trajectory under previous governments. They also invoke questions regarding the implications of reforms for the Probation Service and public services generally.

Hazel’s comment:
Taylorism is the theory of scientific management [Wikipedia article here] which seems to me to be a singularly inappropriate methodology for performance measurement in a social, people-oriented environment.
As an employment adviser in the Jobcentre our performance was measured using the Management by Objectives system. My best statistic was achieved by placing the same person into nine different short-term jobs in a year. My greatest achievement from an emotional point of view was working my butt off to get someone into work who hadn’t had a job for a very long time – and discovering that he was still there two years later.
People are all different and cannot be counted in the same way that you can count the number of accurately manufactured widgets coming off the production line.

---

Why we hate performance management – And why we should love it

an article by Herman Aguinis, Harry Joo and Ryan K. Gottfredson (Kelley School of Business, Indiana University) published in Business Horizons Volume 54 Issue 6 (November-December 2011)

Abstract

Individual performance is a building block of organisational success. Not surprisingly, virtually all organisations have in place some type of performance management system. Yet, managers and employees are equally sceptical that performance management adds value; usually, it is seen as a waste of time and resources.

We argue that the potential benefits of performance management are not realised because most systems focus exclusively on narrow and evaluative aspects such as performance appraisal. Herein, we offer a broader view of performance management, including discussion of how it differs from performance appraisal. We highlight specific and important benefits of performance management for employees, managers, and organisations.

We also describe research-based conclusions regarding how performance management systems should be designed and implemented to realise these benefits.

We hope our article will demonstrate that well-constructed performance management systems should not be hated, but rather embraced.

---