Internal demarketing in the U.K. Civil Service since the 2007–2009 financial crisis

• Author: Helen Woodruffe‐Burton,Bidit Lal Dey,David M. Brown,Anders Wäppling
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2290
• Date: 01 September 2019
• Published date: 01 September 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Internal demarketing in the U.K. Civil Service since the

2007–2009 financial crisis

David M. Brown

1

| Bidit Lal Dey

2

| Anders Wäppling

1

| Helen Woodruffe-Burton

3

1

Newcastle Business School, Northumbria

University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England,

United Kingdom

2

Brunel University, Brunel Business School,

London, England, United Kingdom

3

Business School, Edge Hill University,

Ormskirk, England, United Kingdom

Correspondence

David M. Brown,Northumbria University,

NewcastleBusiness School, CityCampus East

1, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,England NE1 8ST,

United Kingdom.

Email: david.m.brown@northumbria.ac.uk

Abstract

In reacting to the Financial Crisis of 2007–2009, the U.K. Civil Service has sought to

redefine its relationship with its employees. The U.K. Civil Service appears to have

shifted to a model of employer–employee relationship which segments the work-

force, markets itself to its perceived core employees, and demarkets itself to its per-

ceived noncore employees. The findings challenge the previously held assumption

that internal demarketing constitutes accidental, manager-level, bungled, but well-

intentioned, attempts at internal marketing.

1|INTRODUCTION

This article broadens Vasconcelos' (2008) conceptualization of

internal demarketing (ID)—which he understood as an unintended

and damaging form of internal marketing (IM) resulting from

mismanagement—by scrutinizing its prevalence during Great

Britain's post-financial crisis years of austerity, when the govern-

ment sought to reshape public sector employment relations and

remove privileges perceived by government to be enjoyed by public

sector workers, doing so by promoting arguments around the neces-

sity of fiscal pressure (Bach, 2016). To do this, ID is reconstructed

by reviewing key IM literature, by analyzing demarketing categories

to assess their applicability to IM, and by considering insights

harvested from a broad range of public sector participants. The

results suggest that ID may have been undertaken with organiza-

tional intent within the U.K. Civil Service during the period following

the 2007–2009 financial crisis, when it suffered reductions in

Human Resources budgets for initiatives such as staff training but

strove to stretch budgets further to achieve strategic organizational

reform (Jewson, Felstead, & Green, 2015). Results also suggest that

IM may motivate certain workforce segments while simultaneously

alienating others who may experience unavoidable barriers to par-

ticipation. As such, the phenomenon of selective ID is p roposed

within a taxonomized conceptualization of ID, broadening theoreti-

cal understanding both of IM and ID. While the research makes no

claims for generalizability, the resulting insights challenge Vas-

concelos' (2008) assumption of organizational incompetence and

lack of intent.

IM encompasses those ma rketing actions which an organization

directs at its employees, r ather than its commercial customers—its

internal, rather than external, market (Berry, 1984). It may be under-

stood as an organizational ph ilosophy or managerial mind set, an

umbrella term for a colle ction of employee-f acing strategies, or i t

may be applied to specific c ampaigns. The core benef iciaries of IM

are employees, the orga nization, and external customers. Publi c rela-

tions firm Weber Shandwic k found that one of the top five issues of

companies that customer s often discuss about is the ir treatment of

employees (Yohn, 2018). As such, practitioners are increasingly of

the opinion that more engag ed, productive and valu ed employees

are likely to have more posi tive influence on their i nteraction with

the customers.

1

Closely allied with, an d dependent upon, inter nal

communications and emp loyee engagement, IM e ncourages staff to

engage with the organiz ation and each other, imb uing them in the

values of the organizat ion, and facilitatin g innovation by break ing

down barriers to interaction (e.g., Ballantyne, 1997; Ballantyne,

2000; Rafiq & Ahmed, 1993; Varey & Lewis, 1999), This empowers

workers, creates trans parency, democratizes the workplace and nur-

tures organizational identification. As such, staff are likely to become

JEL classification codes: J21, J23, J45, J53, M54.

1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2016/04/13/why-treating-your-employees-

well-also-helps-your-customers/#4162d90971cc.

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2290

Strategic Change. 2019;28:355–368. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 355