Measures for improvement

An auditor from RRV (Natalie, 27 September, 2004) described how she hesitated as to how the 3AG would handle personnel’s attitudes and feedback in the survey:

They can easily just wave it aside and say that it is personnel who are stupid, averse to changes, and obstinate. […] Of course, they would not say it officially, but based on some of their statements, I think you can interpret their attitude this way.

At the same time as Sophie (28 September, 2004) defended the organization structure, she also admitted that the 3AG could have chosen an “easier” organization:

Of course, we have not chosen the easy path; we chose a more difficult one. The easiest thing would have been one department for financial audit, one for performance audit, one department manager, and unit managers under this, maybe even a general secretary and then us, perhaps a bit higher, floating away from operations. But this is not the way that we have chosen to work.

In open comments in the survey, many employees requested an organization more like the one Sophie sketches here. Integration of financial audit and performance audit was not feasible, despite of the organization, at least not to the extent that the 3AG expected, personnel argued.

A performance auditor (Carrie, 27 September, 2004) explained that she was so contented with her manager that she would stay with RiR:

I think that year 2 will be better. After this employee survey they have to understand that they must change their attitude. I think that they previously thought that there were just people complaining in general.

Department, two representatives from each of the two unions involved⁵⁰ and the RiR safety officer Hannah.

Employees were invited to meetings in each department, to suggest concrete action to improve the situation at RiR. The areas where action plans were requested by the Auditors-General were:

• involvement and communication,

• development of leadership and co-workership (Swedish:

medarbetarskap),

• Human Resource policies (Swedish: personalpolitik),

• organizational efficiency - management structures and work forms,

• physical work environment.

The meaning of co-workership is not specified in the documents that have been studied. Under the headline “Development of co-workership”, in the ABA action plan (suggestion for comments), it says (p.10):

A fundamental paragraph in the Work Environment Act is that employees should have the possibility to participate in shaping their own work situation and in change and development work concerning their own work. It is important that the interplay between leader and worker works. At the same time as leadership develops, so shall co-workership at RiR be noted and clarified. A central issue is, for example, what is expected by an employee at RiR.

Other issues concerning co-workership were, for example, introduction programmes for newly hired employees, competence development programmes, forms for dialogue with the individual employee, follow-up on work forms in projects.

50SACO-S (the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations) and ST (Swedish Federation of Civil Servants). According to the staff magazine “8 månader” in March 2004 (p.11), about 180 employees were members of SACO, and about 60 employees were members of ST.

On 11 November, 2004, an action plan had been established and it was sent out to personnel for comments. It concluded (p.1) that a major problem at RiR was a lack of involvement:

A central issue is involvement. Many experience a lack of involvement in both preparation of matters, and in how the organization is being developed. Attitudes and approaches towards employees have been experienced as lacking in trust, respect and interest. Many request communication and dialogue concerning essential issues in the organization. Many mean that their experience and competence are not being used in the organization.

The areas covered in the action plan were the following:

• Organizational development (Swedish: verksamhetsutveckling)

• Organizational efficiency

• Management and involvement – leadership and co-workership

• Communication

• Office etc.

• Human Resource policies (Swedish: personalpolitik)

• Co-operation at RiR

As concerns co-operation at RiR, co-operation between employer, personnel organizations (unions) and safety organization (safety officer etc) is intended. Under this headline, the action plan states (p.17):

According to legislation and agreements, there should be specific procedures in the authority, to support co-operation between the parties and the involvement of personnel in issues concerning the work environment in a wide sense. These procedures presuppose that there is a climate for co-operation, built on confidence and trust. The action plan as a whole serves to solve the trust issues that have been presented.

Measures shall be implemented with consideration to high demands for involvement

Olivia, the Director of Human Resources, explained that union representatives initially felt completely disregarded:

When we started, the relationship was not at all good and they thought we, the employer, essentially had just disregarded them and made our own decisions, ignoring them.

She explained that one of the two unions now had its third chairman in a year, and that this affected co-operation. She added: “Start-up processes take a lot of time and probably should be allowed to do so.”

Vagueness and insecurity (Swedish: otydlighet och otrygghet) were described as two words characterizing the situation at RiR, in the action plan. This stated that most measures shall be undertaken within 1½ years and that a new employee survey shall be conducted during the autumn of 2005.

In parallel with the ABA project, there was a Strategy Project, focused on vision, goals and strategies for RiR. Results from this project were presented on 27 September, 2004.

Towards the end of December, the 3AG agreed on a final action plan.

This encompassed measures on both central level and department level.

The Director of Information, Ashley, was put in charge of the ABA Group and the co-ordination of measures for improvement. From February, 2005, she was assigned to allocate 50% of her time for this.

Ashley listened to personnel, and employees expressed trust in her. Her assignment included “coaching or making things happen and also acting as some kind of controller, making sure that all strategic projects retained direction and speed”, she explained (20 January, 2006).

4.5.3 Growing administration and increasing