Culture clashes RRV/PA

Alison led the culture amalgamation work in the NAC. There was a general consensus on many of the differences that she identified. Many of these concerned practical solutions, rather than more abstract values.

Some of the cultural characteristics that were identified for RRV were the following (Final Report from the NAC Organization Project, p.5):

• Planning processes often from bottom and up, two highly differentiated departments.

• “We are better at starting projects than at finishing them.” It often takes too long.

• Internal need for a more aware leadership and for professional support for auditors and projects.

Some of the cultural characteristics for PA were (ibid, p.6):

• Efficient and flexible. Slimmed administration.

• Focused on a broad competence, rather than deep (focused on a certain area).

• The audit plan is seen as positive and operations are based on it.

Strong goal orientation.

When I asked individual employees at RRV and PA about how their cultures differed, four areas tended to be highlighted more than others;

(1) the number of auditors in each project, and the duration of these projects, (2) the size and flexibility of the organization and the extent of bureaucratic routines, (3) the kind of competence that was demanded by auditors – at RRV they worked as specialists, and at PA they worked as generalists, (4) their experience from working under Parliament.

RRV auditors and PA auditors agreed when describing these differences – they were even taken as a “fact”. What differed was the way that these differences were interpreted, and the value that was given each characteristic. In this evaluation, there were culture clashes in all four areas. As Figure 14a indicates, RRV tended to interpret PA characteristics as negative, thus favouring their own solutions, while PA attached a positive value to these characteristics.

The situation concerning the RRV culture was the same - PA employees tended to interpret RRV characteristics as negative, favouring their own solutions, while RRV attached a positive value to these characteristics. See Figure 14b.

Flexible organization, small administration

Auditors as generalists

Experience from working under Parliament Poor quality

Poor professionalism

Poor (”shallow”) competence

Lack of independence

Competence, ethics*

Competence

Competence Ethics*

The RRV interpretation

Shared picture

of the PA culture The PA interpretation

Single-auditor, short time projects (high efficiency)

* Poor ethics not to economize with tax payers’ money.

Figure 14a. Cultural traits of PA and values attributed to these.

Large organization, elaborated bureaucratic

routines

Auditors as specialists

No experience from working under Parliament The RRV interpretation

Shared picture

of the RRV culture The PA interpretation Quality

Professionalism

Competence

Independence

Poor ethics*, poor competence

Poor (”limited”) competence

Poor competence Poor ethics*, poor management skills Several auditors in each

project, projects running over a longer period

* Poor ethics not to economize with tax payers’ money.

Figure 14b. Cultural traits of RRV and values attributed to these.

As Figures 14a and 14b indicate, competence, quality, professionalism, independence, and ethics (at PA interpreted especially in terms of efficiency) were at the core of the argumentation concerning cultural differences between RRV and PA. Auditors and managers at RRV and PA were united in their support for these goals, but they were used to adopting different methods to meet them. While the RRV management had a competitive approach in this argumentation, PA was more low-key.

An interesting finding is that the negative interpretation of characteristics for the other organization was especially valid for managers and for auditors engaged in merger preparations projects (under the NAC or the 3AG). This was confirmed both in interviews and in results from the survey April 2003. In the NAC projects, members fought primarily to defend their own organizations’ solutions.

While many RRV auditors were curious to learn from PA experience concerning Parliament, the RRV management explained that this experience was partly based on personal contacts, making PA far from independent, as compared to RRV.

Auditors, on the other hand, regardless of whether they came from RRV or PA, often shared rather similar views on the kind of culture they wished to see at RiR. This culture was a mix of RRV and PA traits.

Many hoped for short-term projects with several auditors, a flexible and professional organization, solid administrative support, and many hoped they would be able to work as generalists.

At RRV, auditors were critical of the leadership and culture at the authority, and hoped that this would be different at RiR. The RRV culture was described (Natalie, RRV auditor, 2004-09-27) as

a rather disobliging culture. You had a considerable responsibility as a project leader to conclude your projects, and not much support from the organization. You could even experience it as if the organization was more against you, than with you, when you were concluding a project.

This was one of the reasons why not only PA auditors, but also RRV auditors, were disappointed with the appointment of managers to RiR, as explained by several RRV auditors. They called it “a cold shower”.

An RRV auditor, Natalie, (27 September, 2004) explained:

Part of the culture that we wanted to get away from at RRV, actually was not just in the walls, but with the managers we had. And most of them actually were re-assigned. The way that this process was handled annoyed many of us.

These findings concerning culture clashes between RRV and PA, indicate that it is important to understand loyalties in order to understand resistance and resistance dimensions. It can be noted that horizontal resistance was located especially among management and members of the merger preparations projects. Possibly, this could partly be explained by the fact that RRV and PA had a history of antagonism on management level, while auditors sometimes had experience from working in both organizations.

It can also be noted that there was some degree of vertical resistance already as merger preparations began, between profession and management. This will be further discussed in sections 5.1.5-5.1.7.

5.1.2 …fuelled by management and the independence