Introduction
This study performed a situational analysis of a human resources unit within a government department. Employees identified issues such as workflow, culture, communication, structure and leadership as it applied to them within their work environment.
The changing culture of the organization and its impact on the staff are discussed along with observations and recommendations on how the situation could be improved within this human resources unit.
Methodology
Participants for this study were six volunteer employees from the human resources unit within a large government department. Volunteers were called from varying positions in order to obtain a more complete understanding of the situation within the unit.
Two sets of questions were prepared (as given in appendix A and appendix B) for the interview process and were used as a guide for the interviewer to extract the desired data from the participants. One questionnaire was prepared for the management staff interviewed, while the other was prepared for the non-management staff interviewed. Attempt was made to structure the interview as a dialog between the interviewer and the participants. Care was taken to avoid the interview being a question and answer session.
The participants were asked to pick the most comfortable environment for them to have the interview. Before the interview process began, they were told that none of the participants would be identified in the report. It was stressed to the participants that this research was not connected with the organization in anyway and was being done purely as an exercise for the masters degree of the interviewer.
The data gathered from the interviews were analyzed and compared to deduce the actual structure, culture, communication, motivation and leadership within the unit.
Results
The structure of the organization was characterized by a typical hierarchical administrative system, with many levels of management. The teams that were interviewed were five levels down from the apex of the organization. Within the team, there were further two levels of informal hierarchy of senior and junior staff.
Organizational Chart
Interviews
Highlights of each individual interview are given below with a more detailed description given in Appendix C.
Interview with Manager
The manager of the unit was relatively new at his position, having been there for only twelve months. He viewed himself as “the captain of the ship”, being ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the unit. He saw the culture as being that of a traditional hierarchy and thought it has been changing in the last six months and people are beginning to “see other opportunities emerging”.
His work mostly concentrated on converting organization direction and policy into reality within his unit. Majority of his work was generated from senior management within the organization, or as requests from high profile clients of his unit.
He did not have any social associations with his staff though he thought one of the teams was more socially extroverted.
Interview with Team Leader of Team A
Being a long-term public servant of twenty eight-years, this team leader had a very reserved attitude towards his work. He viewed his management style as one “based on trust”, where he entrusted his senior staff to take on responsibility and alert him to any issues requiring his attention.
He observed that the role of staff had been changing over the last four years, moving from staff being specialist in an area to becoming generalist within the human resources field.
Interview with Member 1 of Team A
This team member has been in the unit for eleven years and is considered a senior staff member. She viewed the job as being “continuously changing”. She had a positive view of the team and thought it is “good as an office”.
She perceived the team leader as an introvert and described him as the “peace maker” within the unit. Her team leader communicated his needs through team meetings, which in her view are only held “when there is a need”. She contrasted this to that of team B, who were at meetings regularly. She thought that they require more regular meetings within their team. Apart from the meetings, she saw performance appraisals as another method by which her team leader communicates what he expects of her.
Over the past few years she has observed the organizational culture change and along with it a change in peoples attitudes. She attributes this shift in culture to the change in the role they perform and thought the change of roles have made people realize that there maybe “other ways of doing things”. She also saw the change in role contributing to staff becoming more proactive in their work. She also thinks it has made staff be more open to corporative work.
Interview with Member 2 of Team A
This participant has been with this unit for five years and prior to his current appointment he was employed at another department within the organization.
He viewed his present team as a good work environment. He described his team leader as a person who was very approachable at all times. Feedback from his team leader was perceived to be received either at meetings or during the annual performance appraisal. However, he noted that the regular fortnightly unit meetings have been canceled with the recent change in management.
Apart from routine administrative tasks, majority of his work was generated from requests made by his clients. He enjoyed being given the freedom to work unsupervised and was quite pleased with the passive approach taken by his present team leader.
He mentioned that they have had extensive training recently regarding the “People Principles” values espoused by the organization. However, he was not optimistic about the results of these training courses and did not think it has had any significant impact on the day-to-day events of the unit.
He had minimal social dealings with his peers, preferring to keep to himself and head home after work.
Interview with Member 1 of Team B
Having been with the organization for about fourteen years, this staff member was considered a senior staff member within the team. He viewed his work similar to that of a consultant. Even though he is employed within this unit, he received most of his day-to-day tasks from the departments he look after.
Being seated directly in front of the manager's office he stated that he received work directly from the manager often bypassing his team leader. He viewed this as being acceptable and practical. However, he sometimes had a conflict of interest between the needs of the manager and the needs of the team leader.
He viewed the “People Principles” initiative useful as a reminder to staff as to how they should handle themselves, but did not think it was very useful in changing the culture within the unit. He stated that the organization had a code of behavior and this was adhered to quite strictly.
Answering the question about the social side of the workplace, he mentioned that there was a social club, but only six of the twenty-five people in the unit were members. He mentioned that there is a lot of “idle chit chat” between people but thought that most staff were good at balancing work and social engagements. He generally preferred to meet his clients over a cup of coffee or lunch, which he saw as a more personalized way of dealing with his clients. He noted that he also utilized the time with the clients to gather information about the activities occurring at other sections within the organization.
Interview with Member 2 of Team B
This team member had been with the organization for approximately five years. She viewed her work as being interesting and challenging.
She stated that recent changes within the organization has increased pressure on staff and thought it had increased the level of tension within the unit. However, she thought that most staff were generally helpful and willing to help co-workers when needed.
In her view, the “People Principles” initiative is a useful experience, though she had reservations as to its value for the department. She believed the recent training course their unit had attended was too confronting to some staff, and may have been counter-productive.
Being a with person who is socially active in her personal life she thought the social activity of the unit was “way too little” and found it frustrating at times as she felt that there was not enough personal interaction between staff.
Analysis
The unit was based in an old building complex within the central business district of Victoria. The primary function of the unit was providing human resource services ranging from recruitment and selection to payroll administration to the other section within the government department.
When this study was carried out the organization was in a state of flux, attempting to change its hierarchical bureaucratic culture and embrace a holistic, service oriented culture. At the time of the study, the organization was approximately ten months into a program of changing the culture within the organization. It attempted this change in culture by multiple methods, each of which would appeal to a certain population of the staff. As part of this program, the unit that was interviewed had recently participated in a personal development training course.
This change in culture was reflected in the attitudes of the staff. Some of the participants were skeptical about the benefits of this initiative and thought of it as a painful experience to be endured, while others saw it as an opportunity which could improve the work and the services they provide.
While the organization was actively attempting to change the culture to be service oriented, it nevertheless remained very hierarchical in its structure. The teams interviewed were five levels down from the top of the organization. The informal structure was observed to be closely lined with the formal structure. The only variation observed was the existence of an informal hierarchy within the team, which classified staff as senior or junior staff members. This alignment to the formal structure could probably be due to the low level of social interaction observed between staff at various levels within the unit.
This was reflected in the responses given by participants to the social aspects of the unit. The responses to this question indicated that there was minimal socializing amongst the staff either during work or outside work. Interpersonal relationships between staff members were observed to be relatively low even though most staff have been working in the unit for a relatively long period of time. This could be an artifact of the bureaucratic culture that existed in the recent past of the organization.
Changes in the work role over the past four years have resulted in an individual staff member being allocated a department or a group of departments and they provide all the human resource requirements for that particular department. Acting in a similar capacity to that of a consultant most of their work gets generated by the requests made by the departments which they support. The role of the team leader and manager were perceived as providing direction on how the work had to be performed. Being a hierarchical organization they also had a pivotal role in the communication of organizational direction to their staff.
Most staff interviewed within the unit relied upon official channels of communication to obtain information relevant to them. Some of the more well informed staff members however relied on informal channels of communication to obtain information. The lack of regular meetings of team A seemed to have resulted in the team members being much less informed than those of team B, who held more regular team meetings. The manager did not seem to facilitate the communication of information within the unit. Actions such as abolishing the fortnightly meetings would have further arrested the lateral and downward communication. The management styles displayed by the team leader and the unit manager would have also contributed to the poor upward communication from their staff.
The organization has attempted to espouse values on its staff by having a campaign titled “People Principles” to publicize values and provide a framework upon which staff could develop these values. The observed behaviors of the participants was seen to be a nonchalant attitude towards this framework.
Attitude of staff to their work was observed to be generally positive. Some staff were more enthusiastic with the changed work roles while others were more complacent about their work new environment. The manager had a very positive, responsible attitude towards his work and seemed to be encouraged by the progress the unit has made over the last six months under his management.
However, the unit did not have a strong leadership. The team members of team A appeared to be searching for direction from their team leader, however, the team leader's management style did not produce the leadership qualities demanded of his role. He was seen as a figurehead for the team rather than a leader.
The manager of the unit exhibited determination and single mindedness that often characterizes a leader. However, he was perceived as being autocratic in his decisions and staff were feeling alienated and disenchanted by his abilities to manage the unit. It appears that he had failed to win the trust of his unit, thus failing to motivate his staff to follow his leadership.
For the participants in this study motivation towards their work was observed to be as a result of the good rapport they had built with their clients. This rapport which has been built over the last four years has focused staff on providing their clients with a proactive human resource service. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (appendix D), most staff in this unit were seeking to fulfill their social acceptance.
Recommendations
The lack of regular meetings was found to be adversely affecting the communication within the unit. It is recommended that fortnightly team meetings and monthly unit meetings be held to discuss ongoing issues.
Communication within the unit was observed to be inadequate and ineffective. It is recommended that management staff facilitate the flow of information within the unit by encouraging communication between colleagues. Informal communication should also be encouraged within the unit to improve the flow of information and experience.
Management did not demonstrate adequate leadership towards their staff. Leadership training is recommended for the manager and the team leaders in order to improve their skills. The manager further needs to take steps to win the trust of his staff by demonstrating that he is sensitive to the needs of his staff.
Staff within the unit were observed to be attempting to fulfill the social needs as described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is recommended that the environment be improved to fulfill the social acceptance of staff within the unit. Thereby allowing staff to seek the next level of the Maslow's hierarchy, esteem and recognition. This would result in staff being self-motivated to perform superior work.
Summary
Overall the human resources unit seemed to function well and provide an adequate service to the internal departments who are their clients. The staff appear to have accepted the changing role and have reacted positively towards becoming generalist in the human resource field and to provide an all round service to their clients.
However the recent initiative to change the culture of the organization is not viewed in positive light by the staff and participants in this study were seen to be nonchalant about the benefit of the program. The “People Principles” initiative is also viewed in the same light by the participants and may not yield the desired outcomes.
Communication within the unit was seen to be weak both at employer, employee level and at employee, organization level. The effects of this was seen to be staff who were less informed, had less buy-in of organizational objectives.
Improvement of communication within the unit could be expected to increase the success rate of organizational campaigns such as the “People Principles” as well has have clearer objectives between employer and employee.
