Competing Perspectives on the Governance Role of Boards of English Housing Associations and Attitudes to Board Payment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMPETING PERSPECTIVES ON THE GOVERNANCE ROLE OF BOARDS OF ENGLISH HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS AND ATTITUDES TO BOARD PAYMENT BY BRUCE MOORE A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Social Policy College of Social Sciences University of Birmingham August 2016 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This thesis uses Q methodology and an abductive approach to discover competing conceptualisations of how housing associations should be governed and attitudes to board payment. It identifies five sets of perspectives characterised as: 1. Business Focused and Corporately Responsible 2. Socially Focused and Stakeholder Accountable 3. Regulator Focused and Professionally Responsible 4. Leadership Focused and Governance Rigour 5. Pragmatically Focused and Non-Prescriptive The results confirm the hybrid nature of housing associations and that their governance is complex, multi-faceted so does not converge on one uniform consensus view. Power and payment emerge as two particular issues of contention, but at a more fundamental level the differences relate to conceptions of the role of the board exists to fulfil. The characteristics of housing association governance are not only analysed at a sector level, but are also explored on a case basis for two housing associations to demonstrate the potential of Q methodology as a means of board assessment. The thesis also considers the significance that the particular context, conditions and circumstances may have from a personal perspective. The thesis concludes that increased recognition should be given to exposing and exploring differences of perspective and ensuring there is clarity about purpose and approach. i Acknowledgements I want to thank my supervisors Professor David Mullins and Dr Rob Macmillan for their interest, support, challenge and wisdom throughout the research process. It has been a pleasure to discuss my ideas and findings with two such nice and wise people. I must also acknowledge the continued support, with a rare mix of indulgence and impatience, offered by my wife Susan, as well as the scrutiny of my thesis undertaken by my mother. This thesis could not have been produced without the generosity of time and engagement offered by all those who helped me as interviewees and participants in my studies. I would like to offer a special note of appreciation to the Board of Housing & Care 21 and its Chair, Lord Ben Stoneham, for allowing me to continue to study and conduct this research alongside my role and responsibilities as chief executive. ii Contents CHAPTER 1 1-19 SETTING THE SCENE: SCOPE, PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE A Study of Scale, Significance and Success 2 My Position and Perspective 4 Access and Ethics 7 Seeking Insights and Plausibility Rather than Proof 9 The Basis for Suspicion - Motive, Means and Opportunity 12 Choosing and Using Q Methodology 13 Three In One – Sector, Organisational and Personal Insights 16 Intent and Contribution 18 CHAPTER 2 20-64 THE POSITIONING AND RE-POSITIONING OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS Origins and Evolution of Housing Associations 22 (i) In the Beginning: Pre 1974 22 (ii) Generous Risk Free Funding: 1974-1979 25 (iii) An Ideological Imperative: 1979-1988 27 (iv) A New Era and New Relationships: 1988-1997 28 Competence and Accountability – The Board Pay Debate Begins 31 (v) New Public Management, Professionalisation and Pay: 1997-2003 35 Modernising Governance – The Push for Payment 37 (vi) The Thin End of the Wedge: 2003-2008 42 Beyond Board Payment – Considering the Consequences 44 Patters of Payment for 210 Largest Housing Associations (2014) 47 (vii) A Brave New World: 2008-2015 50 (viii) More to Come: Post 2015 52 (ix) Assessment 53 Housing Associations and Hybridity 54 (i) The Essence of Hybridity 54 (ii) Swings and Shifts in the Position of Housing Associations 55 (iii) What is Happening to Housing Associations? 57 (iv) Trajectories and Orbits of Housing Association Hybridity 59 Assessment – The Need for a Dynamic Understanding 63 iii CHAPTER 3 65-101 FITTING HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS INTO GOVERNANCE THEORY AND PRACTICE What is Governance? 66 (i) An Elusive concept 66 Definitions of Corporate Governance 67 (ii) Origins and Interest 68 (iii) Problems and Prescriptions 69 (iv) Conformance or Performance 70 (v) Innovative Perspectives and Approaches 72 Governance Theories 73 (i) Typology of Governance Theories 73 (ii) Search for an Integrative Perspective 77 Applicability of Theories to Not-For-Profit Housing Associations 79 (i) Separate or the Same? – Theories of Not-For-Profit Governance 79 (ii) Non-Distribution Constraint – No Owners/No Accountability 91 Governance Realities – Do Boards Have Control? 84 Governance Codes and Composition 87 (i) Regulatory Requirements and Codes of Governance 87 (ii) Size 88 (iii) Tenure 90 (iv) Skills 93 (v) Diversity 95 (vi) Tenant/Resident Board Members 97 (vii) Executives on Boards 99 Assessment - An Alternative Approach? 100 CHAPTER 4 103-122 POWER OF PAYMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF COMMERCIALISATION Money, Motivation and Meaning 104 Exit, Voice and Loyalty 109 Commercialisation, Professionalisation and Neoliberalism 111 (i) At What Price? 111 (ii) Professionalisation of Management 113 (iii) Is Neoliberalism Inevitable? 114 Control, Consensus and Contradiction 116 (i) Foucault and Control 116 (ii) Convergence or Challenge? 118 Assessment – Perspectives and Power 121 iv CHAPTER 5 123-162 CHOOSING AND USING Q METHODOLOGY The Potential of Q Methodology 124 The Origins and Essence of Q Methodology 125 The Subjective Epistemology of Q Methodology 127 Design and Conduct of the Q Study 130 (i) Creating a Concourse to set the Scope of Consideration 130 (ii) Selecting a Q Set of Statements 134 (iii) Recruiting a P Set of Participants 139 (iv) Q Sorting 142 Approach to Analysis of the Q Study 146 (i) Correlations and Clusters 146 (ii) Centroid and Principal Component Methods of Factor Analysis 147 (iii) How Many Factors? 149 (iv) Factor Rotation 152 (v) Varimax of By-Hand Rotation 153 (vi) Output from PQ Method 154 (vii) Reliability and Validity 155 (viii) Review and Reflection on the Q Study 157 (ix) Next Steps 162 CHAPTER 6 163-200 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE Q STUDY Defining, Confounded and Non-Significant Q Sorts 164 Factor Array and Factor Sorts 167 Factor Descriptions 167 Factor 1 – Business Focused and Corporately Responsible 169 Factor 2 – Socially Focused and Stakeholder Accountable 172 Factor 3 – Regulator Focused and Professionally Responsible 175 Factor 4 – Leadership Focused and Governance Rigour 178 Factor 5 – Pragmatically Focused and Non-Prescriptive 181 Characteristics of Participants with Q Sorts Defining Each Factor 184 Similarities and Differences Between Factors 185 (i) Correlations 185 (ii) Differences 187 Constructs of Contention 193 (i) Power and Control 194 (ii) Pay and Integrity 195 (iii) Other Constructs of Contention 197 Constructs of Consensus 199 Q Study Conclusions 200 v CHAPTER 7 203-236 TWO Q CASE STUDIES Using Q Methodology to Study Two Cases of Governance 203 Housing & Care 21 Q Study 205 (i) Context 205 (ii) Housing & Care 21 Participants 205 (iii) Position of Housing & Care 21 Participants in Full Q Study 206 (iv) Q Study of Housing & Care 21 Participants 207 (v) Housing & Care 21 Factor A – Business Board 210 (vi) Housing & Care 21 Factor B – Professional Board 211 (vii) Housing & Care 21 Factor C – Performance Board 212 (viii) Correlation and Comparison of Case Study Factors 213 (ix) Consensus Statements 215 (x) Housing & Care 21 Case Study Conclusions 217 CDS Co-operative Housing Association (CDS) Q Study 221 (i) Context 221 (ii) CDS Participants 221 (iii) Position of CDS Participants in Full Q Study 222 (iv) Q Study of CDS Participants 223 CDS Factor X – Activists 226 CDS Factor Y – Supporters 227 CDS Factor Z – Pragmatists 229 (v) Correlation and Comparison of case Study Factors 231 (vi) Consensus Statements 233 (vii) CDS Conclusions 234 Potential Benefits of Case Study Q Studies 235 CHAPTER 8 237-245 A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE My Initial Decision to ‘Have a Go’ 237 Not Part of the P Set 238 Curious to Compare 238 My Q Sorts 239 A Search for Insight into Changes of Perspective between September 2014 242 and November 2015 Assessment 245 vi CHAPTER 9 247-276 CRITIQUE, CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTION My Intent 248 Applicability and Suitability of Q Methodology 248 Assessment of What has been Discovered 254 (i) Sector Assessment 254 (ii) Case Study Assessment 262 (iii) Personal Assessment 266 (iv) Concluding Assessment 267 Abductive Understanding of Differences of Perspective 268 (i) Opinions, Attitudes and Beliefs 269 (ii) Layers and Levels of Understanding 269 (iii) Understanding the Problem 271 (iv) Diagnosis Not Prescription 272 Other Contributions 273 (i) Contextual 273 (ii) Practical 274 (iii) Personal 276 APPENDICES 277-475 REFERENCES 477-507 vii List of Appendices APPENDIX 1 The Nature, Diversity and Position of Housing Associations in England 277 APPENDIX