1.4. Methodology used

As a background for this diploma paper I integrated ideas from two sides: the management model used in my studies at the St. Galler Business School as well as concepts which are relevant for my topic “reorganisations in the European Commission”, in particular change management and human reactions to change.

These are themes where a large body of literature is available. Research involved the review of externally available literature, including articles of specialized magazines to capture latest thinking on change management and organisational change, where possible already narrowed down to public organisations. It turns out that State-of-the-Art literature puts an overriding emphasis on the human dimension of change. This was completed by documents from the European Commission.

Since the overall orientation of my thesis lies on the practical application of these concepts to the European Commission and less on the academic debate itself, I used a pragmatic approach. Wherever possible, I used research which itself already provides an overview of existing literature and summarizes latest findings and points of consensus, so as to not get lost in too wide a theoretical debate.

As a conception basis I used the Integrated Implementation-oriented Management Model of the St. Galler Business School.¹ Adapted to questions of leadership, the systemic implementation-oriented model distinguishes between different actors in a corporation: the overall organization, the level of the team/business unit and finally the level of the individual.

Management Model" class="wp-image-10546 size-full" height="517" src="https://sgbs.ch/wp-content/uploads/Figure-1-Integrated-Implementation-Oriented-Management-Model.jpg" width="594"> Figure 1: Integrated Implementation-Oriented Management Model

Although the model was initially developed for private corporations, it can - with some adaptations - also be applied to public organisations. I have thus transposed the reflections behind the model to the European Commission and use it as a basis for further analysis.

For this, several assumptions were necessary:

• The three different actors which in the original model are defined as “corporation”, “team” and the “individual” were labelled “Commission”, “Directorate General” and “individual” instead. At the level of the Commission, the organisation as a whole is being analyzed. It is here that normative management and corporate culture come into play.
• The original model refers to existing and future markets which determine the products and services a corporation provides. Since the Commission is not commercially oriented, the concept of markets does not apply. Also the notion of competition does not fit to the unique role of the Commission. I therefore propose to replace the concept of markets by policies and legislation at EU level. One can argue that it is the core responsibility of the Commission to propose policies and legislation for the European Union and to oversee their implementation. In other words it is the constant evolution of new policies which determines what actions the Commission needs to focus on and which services it needs to provide.
• The level of the team could also have been defined more narrowly, for example at the level of a Directorate or a Unit within a Directorate General. However, for the topic of reorganisations it is more interesting to look at the larger structure of a Directorate General,
• In order to simplify I focus on the normative and strategic dimensions of the model, leaving deliberately the details of operational aspects aside as they were not relevant for my research.

I also need to clarify the limits of my research. It is obvious that carrying out a thorough systemic analysis of an organisation as complex as the European Commission would require substantial efforts, a whole team of researchers and a long-term process over many months. This clearly cannot be achieved within this paper. For the sake of my research, the model served mainly as a source of inspiration which I took the liberty to interpret quite freely.

It helped me to conceptualize the wider framework in which reorganisations happen in the European Commission. It also was instrumental in putting the perspective of the individual at the core of the research, and to develop recommendations at the level of the Commission and at the level of the Directorate Generals how to best integrate this human dimension.

Research focused on three case studies of recent reorganisations in different Directorate Generals. I chose three case studies which involve large-scale organisational change with a certain level of complexity. They were carried out over the period of the past three years and reflect a range of different situations.

One reorganisation concerns the split of the former Directorate General for Transport and Energy (DG TREN) into two Directorates General in 2010. The second case study concerns my own Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DG DEVCO) and a merger in June 2011. The third reorganisation which is ongoing in 2012 concerns the Directorate General for Information Society and Media (DG INFSO) where innovative elements were applied to the reorganisation process.

In order to collect additional information about the processes underlying the selected reorganisations, I had interviews with those who had been closely involved: the top managers, the human resource departments and the communication departments. This was done on a selective basis, not with the intention to collect statistical information but qualitative data to enrich the research. The method used was semi-structured interviews which provide a loose framework for conversations on a defined subject. The majority of questions are fixed and used as a “red thread” but the interviewer remains flexible to explore specific issues which arise during the course of the interview.

¹ St.Galler Business School: Modul 1 – Psychologie der Führung, St. Gallen 2012, pp 4