Culture clashes 3AG/auditors

When the 3AG took on their positions, instead of continuing the point to which the NAC merger preparations had brought the process, they introduced new principles and started the merger preparations process more or less anew. Reports and conclusions from the NAC projects were waved aside, and the 3AG made a number of (often unpopular) decisions without seeking the support of personnel. Unions complained that they were totally ignored, and personnel objected, arguing that this approach was unjust and unprofessional. They were especially disappointed with Luke, who had been part of the preparations process, but still chose to disregard this early work, in which large parts of personnel had invested a great amount of time.

Personnel lost interest in the cultural differences between RRV and PA, especially after the merger. Instead, they shared an increasing discontent concerning the leadership of the 3AG. Employees explained that there was little resistance between former PA and RRV employees, and that the cultural differences between them were not very significant. The 3AG, on the other hand, did not recognize the extent of personnel’s resistance until the employee attitude survey in May 2004. Even after

this, they explained that results could probably be explained largely by a small number of very negative employees who influenced others, and they thought the situation would improve quickly. This did not happen.

Auditors explained that a reason why cultural differences between RRV and PA no longer generated much interest, was that most agreed that PA had had too little influence in merger preparations, that PA had been badly treated by the 3AG. They especially pointed at the appointment of department managers. The way that PA personnel had been treated was taken as evidence for poor leadership skills and ethics among the 3AG. Initial differences in routines and procedures between PA and RRV, were still recognized, but it was no longer common to attach a negative value to these differences.

Table 4. Overview of shared goals, and key values concerning how these should be achieved, among the 3AG and auditors at RiR.

Competence Broad general

competence

Shared goals Means/

the 3AG

Means/

Auditors

Specialization

Quality

Professionalism

Independence

Centralism, regulations and a lengthy process.

Quality control.

Combination of trust and efficiency.

Quality support.

Regulations and bureaucracy

Autonomy and trust in professionals

Focus on reports regardless severity

of criticism Focus on reports

with criticism

Formalism

and control Flexibility and trust

As it turned out, two cultures emerged – one shared by the 3AG and a number of (middle level) managers, and one shared by auditors.

Although united in their support of the goals of competence, quality, professionalism, and independence (my four categories), the 3AG and auditors had different standpoints regarding to which values and means should be applied to reach these goals. Table 4 provides an overview.

Table 4 illustrates how the 3AG consistently emphasized the need for formalism and control, while auditors consistently emphasized the need for flexibility and trust.

Compared to RRV and PA, the 3AG leadership at RiR conveyed values closer to those at RRV, than those at PA. Meanwhile, many auditors, at both RRV and PA, requested a culture similar to that at PA. Many RRV auditors, for example, explained in interviews that they hoped that RiR would become a more flexible organization than RRV had been. RiR, as managed by the 3AG, became rather the opposite - very much characterized by formalism and bureaucracy. See Figure 16.

PA RRV RiR

Flexibility & trust Influence, autonomy, delegation

Formalism & control Authority,

bureaucracy, centralism

Figure 16. Comparison of values/cultures at RRV, PA, and RiR.

From a management perspective, gaining control over the situation was imperative, possibly partly due to pressure from different stakeholders.

Thus, professional values stood against managerial values. Instead of stakeholders, Hubbard and Purcell (2001) talk about constituents with which personnel hold psychological contracts, and emphasize the importance of expectations.

With the shift in values, indicated by Figure 16, auditors experienced a negative development in most aspects. The loss in autonomy, and increasing focus on control, was interpreted as evidence of a lack of trust and respect in auditors, and as evidence of poor management skills, leading to increasing distrust. A negative spiral developed.

Already during phase 2 of merger preparations, the 3AG made a number of decisions which personnel interpreted as evidence of poor

management skills. One reason was the focus on control. Another reason concerned morality, as personnel started to realize that little of their input had been taken into account in the final decisions made by the 3AG. Hence, their influence had been minimal. Highly educated and trained to critically analyze authorities from a management perspective, auditors did not hesitate concerning their own competence to evaluate the 3AG’s management skills. Another important aspect was that auditors often perceived themselves as morally obliged to react when management did not make reasonable decisions, given their loyalty to society and the citizen. This loyalty was based on the fact that national audit is one of the few control tools available for the citizen to know how authorities under Parliament and (particularly) under the Government were managed. Performance auditors, thus, often saw themselves as the extended self of the citizen. This indicates that it may be crucial that we understand contextual factors, such as these, when attempting to understand resistance.

An auditor (Natalie, 27 September, 2004) explained that the 3AG were always kept under observation by personnel, that they commented on every wrong word they uttered, behind their backs.

I think they feel that they are not accepted. And I think that is correct.

This makes people scared, in such a situation – to sit appointed as Auditor-General, with all that this means for the new organization, and then feeling that you have a hostile personnel underneath you. Then they can wave it aside and say that it is personnel who are silly, change avert, reluctant, and all kinds of things. […] Of course, this is not what they say officially, but a bit you can… certain statements can be interpreted that way.

Four key words to signify RiR were presented by the 3AG for personnel in October 2003 (at the RiR kick-off): quality, entirety, comradeship, and proximity. Auditors explained in interviews that few took these four values seriously, since the 3AG in practice communicated a totally different culture, which was close to the opposite. See Figure 17.

It was increasingly rare that the 3AG mentioned these values after the merger. Alison explained that she had given the 3AG the advice not to introduce values like this, but instead be more concrete and show personnel that things were finally happening, but added that the 3AG had not agreed in this.