Työyhteisöjen sosiaalinen pääoma: Tutkimus luottamuksen ja yhteisöllisyyden rakentumisesta ja merkityksestä muuttuvissa valtion asiantuntijaorganisaatioissa

Abstract

Työorganisaatioiden rakenteet ja toimintatavat ovat olleet jatkuvassa muutoksessa 1990-luvun alusta lähtien, kun vakaista byrokratioista on siirrytty kohti joustavampia ja häilyvämpiä organisaatiomuotoja. Muutos on koskettanut erityisesti organisaatioita, joissa tiedon jakaminen ja innovaatioiden synnyttäminen ovat keskeisiä organisatorisia prosesseja. Niin joustava toimintatapa kuin työn tietoistuminen ovat merkinneet samalla luottamuksen ja yhteisöllisyyden ­ sekä yleisemmin sosiaalisen pääoman ­ merkityksen kasvua työn koordinaatio- ja kontrollimekanismeina.

Väitöstutkimuksen keskeinen empiirinen tehtävä oli tarkastella lähityöyhteisötasolla ilmenevän luottamuksen ja yhteisöllisyyden merkitystä ja rakentumista muutoksen tilassa olevissa valtion asiantuntijaorganisaatioissa. Tutkimuksessa hyödynnetään vuosina 2004 ja 2005 tehtyjä valtion työntekijöiden teemahaastatteluja sekä keväällä 2006 viidestä valtion asiantuntijaorganisaatiosta kerättyä kyselyaineistoa. Väitöskirja on tehty osana Suomen Akatemian rahoittamaa tutkimushanketta Sosiaalinen pääoma, verkostot ja organisatorinen muutos.

Tutkimustulokset osoittavat, että luottamus ja yhteisöllisyys ovat työyhteisön sosiaalista pääomaa ennen kaikkea, koska ne mahdollistavat arjen sujuvuuden. Usein luottamuksen ja yhteisöllisyyden perustavanlaatuinen merkitys tulee kuitenkin näkyväksi vasta kun niihin on tullut vakavia säröjä. Vahva luottamus ja yhteisöllisyys ennakoivat myös voimakkaampaa sitoutumista organisaatioon ja suojaavat työperäiseltä stressiltä.

Tutkimustulosten perusteella näyttää siltä, että tietyt jälkibyrokraattisen organisaation piirteet, kuten työprosessiin liittyvä autonomia ja monipuoliset työtehtävät, edesauttavat sosiaalisen pääoman muodostumista. Toisaalta monet vakaan byrokratian ominaisuudet, kuten selkeä työnjako ja "jämäkkä johtajuus", tuottavat myös sosiaalista pääomaa. Kun puhutaan organisaation sosiaalisesta pääomasta, jolloin pitää huomioida paitsi työyhteisötason sosiaalinen pääoma myös henkilöstön luottamus organisaation ylimpään johtoon, korostuu byrokraattisen organisaation piirteiden merkitys entisestään, sillä juuri työn vakauden ja ennakoitavuuden puute näyttää olevan keskeinen tekijä, joka synnyttää epäluottamusta ylimpään johtoon. Paradoksaalisesti siis jälkibyrokraattiset organisaatiorakenteet, joiden toimivuus perustuu sosiaalisen pääoman olemassaoloon, näyttävät itsessään monin paikoin muodostavan uhan luottamuksen ja yhteisöllisyyden säilymiselle ja kehittymiselle.

Väitöskirjassa suositellaan organisaatiokäyttäytymisen realiteetit paremmin huomioivan organisaatioiden kehittämisotteen vahvistamista. Oleellista olisi, että muutosten tarpeellisuuden perustelemiseen panostettaisiin huomattavasti nykyistä enemmän.

The external environment of the Finnish state administration has changed dramatically during the last two decades. The state administration, like the public sector in general, has encountered pressures to adjust to the global network economy in which knowledge has become the most important competitive asset for the regions, organizations and individuals as well. On the other hand, many reforms inspired by the so-called New Public Management (NPM) doctrine and introduced by the organizational elites have been implemented without any particular external reasons. The main trajectory of the NPM reforms ­ albeit not articulated explicitly ­ has been (and continues to be) a combination of operational decentralization and centralization of economic strategic (hard) power. The reforms include, for example, management by results, toughened quality control, performance-based salary systems and team working. Due to the NPM reforms organizational structures and the working life experiences of the employees of public and private sector have markedly converged.

For the employees of the state administration NPM has meant increased insecurity and an increase in workload and pace of work. Many feel that the employer has broken the "old" psychological contract based on loyalty and professional commitment in return for stable and secure employment. However, many also feel that the work itself has become more interesting and that the autonomy related to the work processes has increased.

The ideal type of post-bureaucratic "flexible organization" consists of self-managed teams and is based on high commitment and trust in every direction. Trust is required, for example, for open knowledge sharing within and between the social networks. Thus, a de-bureaucratized organization needs social capital to function as expected: (1) social ties based on trust and liking, (2) a network structure optimal for knowledge flows and un-optimal for opportunistic behavior and (3) shared cultural meanings and norms of reciprocity to facilitate cooperation.

The main empirical task of the study is to trace external and internal factors related to the development of trust and group cohesion within work groups and to analyze the consequences and functions of work group level social capital. The research material consists of both quantitative and qualitative data. The survey data (N=440) was collected from five expert organizations representing diverse sectors of the state administration in spring 2006. The questionnaire was mailed to all employees without formal managerial positions and was completed by 440 employees, a response rate of 46.5 percent. Before the survey, between November 2004 and September 2005, seven semi-structured interviews with non-managerial employees were conducted in order to evaluate the relevance of the questionnaire and to supplement the quantitative analyses. In addition, the feedback received from the respondents of the survey is also utilized as research material.

The results show that trust and group cohesion are social capital above all because they facilitate daily cooperative practices. Conversely, their absence impedes cooperation. Analyses show that trust and group cohesion also predict stronger commitment to the organization and reduce work-related stress symptoms.

What factors predict trust and group cohesion within work units?

Trust between colleagues (horizontal trust) is predicted most strongly by generalized trust referring to a person s general orientation towards unknown people; it is usually interpreted as a personal characteristic. Other predictors are job autonomy, lack of (weak) ties to other organizations (in-group favoritism), well defined work role, satisfaction with the salary system and perceived increase in the variety of work tasks in recent years. Conversely, the level of trust is lower if one has sometimes been subjected to bullying by workmates. It is also found that the younger the employee, the more likely he/she is to trust horizontally.

Mutual liking and sense of community between colleagues (group cohesion) is related most strongly to work engagement and generalized trust. Other predictors are well defined work role, external social capital (help available if needed from relatives and/or friends), satisfaction with the working time arrangements and perceived increase in the variety of work tasks. The level of group cohesion is lower if one faces often non routine tasks (obviously they are other s task which one has to do non-voluntarily) and if one has many (weak) ties to other organizations.

Trust in the supervisor (vertical trust) is related to the social support a supervisor gives his/her subordinates: leaders who are perceived by subordinates to be inspiring are usually the most trusted ones. Quite surprisingly, the monitoring of the results and quality of work predict higher vertical trust: the result is interpreted such that monitoring implies that a supervisor is interested in and respects the contribution of a subordinate. Other factors which predict trust in the supervisor are job autonomy (implying that a supervisor trusts his/her subordinate reciprocally), satisfaction with the salary system, generalized trust and well defined work role. Not surprisingly, the level of trust is lower if one has sometimes been bullied by the supervisor. Also, higher incomes predict lower trust; however, the statistically significant relationship disappears if occupational status is controlled for. The results show that reciprocal social exchange is the key mechanism in the development of trust between subordinates and a supervisor.

Interviewees define good leadership in quite traditional terms; a leader must be assertive but fair. A good leader also trusts his/her subordinates.

Group level analyses ­ in which the unit of analysis is a group aggregate instead of an individual ­ show that high social capital work groups are characterized by low power-distance, a clear division of labor and a shared experience of distributive justice.

In the light of the research findings it seems that many characteristics of a post-bureaucratic organization such as job autonomy and increased variety of tasks contribute to the development of social capital. On the other hand, many characteristics related to "traditional" bureaucracy such as a distinct division of labor and "assertive" leadership, also produce social capital. If social capital is defined as an asset for an organization when we should consider not only the work group level social capital but also employees trust in upper management and commitment to the goals set by them, the positive aspects of bureaucracy are further emphasized. Namely, the feedback received strongly indicates that the lack of stability and predictability of organizational life is the main reason for the low trust in upper management and frustration shared by many employees. Thus, it seems that the post-bureaucratic organizing model is, paradoxically, not as effective in generating social capital as the bureaucracy which itself is not so dependent on it.