This case study describes the attempt to merge five colleges

of midwifery and nursing to form the new

Midshires College of Midwifery and Nursing.

In the past, such mergers had been relatively

straightforward with everyone keeping their jobs and,

for managers at least, an increase in pay to reflect the

increased size of the new college. However, there were

three issues which made this process significantly different

and potentially more complicated than past

amalgamations.

First, there was uncertainty over the demand for

nurse education in the future (both in terms of

numbers and function). Therefore, there was a threat

to jobs.

Second, a potential conflict of interest existed

between the General Managers on the Steering Group

on the one hand and the new college on the other. This

was owing to the fact that in the past, NHS policy had

tied hospitals to a particular college of nursing,

whether they liked it or not. This policy had changed

and, in future, the General Managers would be able to

choose which college of nursing would educate their

trainee nurses. They could, if they so wished, put their

requirements for training new nurses out to open tender

to any college in the country, as one Trust elsewhere

in the UK had already done. In addition, and in

the short term more probably, they could seek alternative

suppliers for post-experience courses (i.e. courses

for already trained nurses who needed to upgrade

their skills), or even provide these courses themselves

in competition with the new college. Indeed, two of

the Health Authorities had already established their own organisation for delivering post-experience nurse

education in competition with the new college. This is

perhaps why some members of the Steering Group

suggested that the new college should not have in its

remit the provision of post-experience courses (with

implications for the jobs of some 30 per cent of existing

staff in the five colleges to be amalgamated). Therefore,

key players in establishing the college found themselves

placed in a somewhat ambiguous position with

regard to its purpose and remit.

Lastly, it was expected that qualifications gained at

the new college would be validated by a higher education

institution and that eventually, as similar colleges

were doing, it would actually merge into the university

sector.

There was no formal or explicit acknowledgment of

these potential problems or that this amalgamation

was in any way different from previous ones. It might

have been expected that the Steering Group would

seek to clarify these key issues before proceeding to

resolve the structure and organisation of the new college.

After all, how could decisions regarding its structure

and functioning be resolved in advance of key

decisions on student numbers, course content, areas of

operation, and whether or not it would merge with a

higher education institution? Nevertheless, the

Steering Group avoided consciously tackling these

issues prior to commencing the merger process.

Developing the strategy

The Steering Group decided that merging the five colleges

could and should be managed as a straightforward

and uncomplicated, almost mechanical, process.

They established a 24-month timetable for merging

the colleges and appointed a Project Leader, on a fixedterm

contract of 24 months, to accomplish the task.

The appointee was the principal of one of the colleges

being merged. He had no direct experience of

merging colleges but had only two years service left

prior to retirement. This meant that, unlike the other

four college principals, he would not be a potential

candidate for the principals post in the new college.

Surprisingly, the Project Leader was given no budget

or administrative or specialist support. He could,

though, call on the resources of the five colleges, providing

that the principals agreed.

Within 48 hours of his appointment, the Project

Leader contacted the principals of the other colleges, by

text, and announced both the formation of a Project

Board and its membership. The membership included

the Project Leader and the principals of the five colleges,

including the acting principal from his own college.

There were also three external members brought in as

advisors to the project group. These were a Finance

Manager and a Personnel Manager from the Regional

Health Authority and the Education Officer from the

Nursing and Midwifery Council.

By the time of the Project Boards first meeting, the

Project Leader had produced a plan which, among

other objectives, proposed the immediate integration

of some administrative processes and the centralisation

of student recruitment. The core of the plan was

the establishment of four sub-projects aimed at integrating

the major functions of the five colleges:

pre-registration courses for nursing; post-registration

courses for nursing; midwifery education; and education

support services.

The first meeting of the Project Board discussed its

own membership, the Project Leaders project plan,

the roles of the Project Board members, communications,

the development of new courses, and the

accountability of the Project Board to the Steering

Group. The Project Leader stated that he had been

given clear instructions by the Steering Group, and

that the task of the Project Board was to get on with

the job of integrating the five colleges as laid down in

his project plan. This first meeting set the pattern for

the future; the Project Leader would act as the only

conduit between the Steering Group and the Project

Board, and questions relating to the pace, purpose and

form of the proposed merger were not part of the

Boards remit. Within these constraints, scope for

questions and initiatives existed, but the Project

Leader had the final say on all matters.

Time for a rethink

In month 5 of the merger timetable, a one-day staff

conference was organised for everyone employed at

the five colleges. The purpose of the day was to brief

staff on developments and get feedback from them. It

was apparent as the day progressed that, although

staff in the colleges were enthusiastic about the

change, and indeed appeared to have more enthusiasm

and ideas than the Project Board itself, there were

key issues which were not being addressed and which

were causing increasing concern. The main concern

for staff was that no one seemed to have a clue as to

how many staff would retain their posts in the new

college, or what mix of skills would be required.

However, staff were just as concerned, if not more so,

by the lack of any clear direction for the new college:

What was its mission? What products and service would it provide? How would it be structured? Who

would make these decisions, when and on what basis?

What seemed to shock and dismay many of the staff

was that the Project Leader seemed as uncertain and

powerless as they were regarding these issues.

The conference brought home to the Project Leader

the lack of progress made towards amalgamation. The

sub-groups had met frequently and produced

extremely detailed plans; but the ability to turn these

plans into actions seemed to elude them, partly

because key issues had still not been resolved.

For the Project Leader, the conference had crystallised

a number of his concerns regarding both the pace

of the amalgamation and the effectiveness of the Project

Board system. He also, privately, expressed the view

that he had become a piggy in the middle between the

Project Board and the Steering Group, having critics in

both camps but supporters in neither. In addition, some

members of the Project Board were meeting informally

but regularly to discuss and promote alternative ideas to

those of the Project Leader, though whether he was

aware of this was unclear. Similarly, Project Board

members were seeing members of the Steering Group

informally as well. So a great deal of behind-the-scenes

lobbying and jockeying for position was taking place.

This was hardly surprising, given the uncertainty particularly

over jobs which was present.

Shortly after the staff conference, the Project

Leader called a one-day Project Board meeting to discuss

progress, and he invited the Chair of the Steering

Group to part of the meeting. Though members were

told that the meeting was to examine the situation and

discuss options, they were in effect presented with a

fait accompli by the Project Leader. He made a number

of major announcements at this meeting which in

effect tore up the previous four months work:

The Project Board was to be disbanded and replaced

by an interim Management Committee for the new

college.

The four existing principals would become part of

the Management Committee with specific areas of

responsibility.

The role of the existing principals in the five

individual colleges would be replaced by the

appointment of heads of sites.

The sub-projects were to be abandoned; in their

place, the Project Leader announced a structure for

the new college which would, he stated, be fully

operational by month 12 of the merger timetable.

Despite these changes, decisions had still not been

taken regarding the number of students the new college

would have in the future, whether it would be

allowed to offer post-registration courses, or whether

it would be moving into higher education. Without

this information, it was almost impossible to determine

staffing levels and the skill mix for the new college,

or judge the appropriateness of the proposed

structure. In such a situation, inevitably, staff morale

continued to decline, especially among staff on shortterm

contracts. One example of this was the high

number of staff, especially in managerial positions,

who were on long-term sick leave with stress-related

illnesses.

Time for another rethink

The creation of the Management Committee appeared

to have had little positive impact upon the new college.

The new structure still existed only on paper. The

reports from the Management Committee were vague,

irregular and fragmented. However, in month 9 of the

merger timetable, a new Chair of the Steering Group

was appointed. The new Chair came in with a sense of

urgency to resolve staffing issues because it had been

decided by the NHS that his Hospital Trust would take

over formal responsibility for the college by month 18

of the merger timetable. This meant that any redundancies

that might arise, and any associated costs,

would be borne by his Trust.

Questions

1. Using Figure 14.3 "Turbulent environment Large-scale transformation", analyse the Project Leaders

leadership style and approach to change, and the

degree to which these were appropriate to the

situation he faced.