Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL
Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL
Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
esponsibilities <strong>and</strong> have indicated that main normative documents regulating their functions are<br />
orders of the chief executive approving the descriptions of responsibilities. To avoid that kind of<br />
misunderst<strong>and</strong>ing the questionnaire itself should be accompanied with the detailed description how<br />
to fill it in.<br />
Usually, local administrations have various internal documents <strong>and</strong> regulations more or less<br />
defining the division of responsibilities <strong>and</strong> authority. These documents should be examined at the<br />
overview stage of the audit.<br />
During the interviews the auditor shall review the in<strong>for</strong>mation collected during the overview stage<br />
<strong>and</strong> make final specifications.<br />
The auditor should examine which decisions every employee can take. In some linguistic contexts<br />
it should be made clear that not only written documents are understood as decisions. If the<br />
employee only prepares decisions, which are taken (approved) by other employees, the auditor<br />
should examine the decision making procedure. It should be clear what the “approval” means:<br />
• Is it <strong>for</strong>mal (only because the signature of a higher officer is needed according to the<br />
legislation or internal procedures);<br />
• Is it needed only to in<strong>for</strong>m the chiefs about the activities of the employee/subdivision;<br />
• Does it mean that the person who approves the decision is fully responsible <strong>for</strong> it;<br />
• Is it needed <strong>for</strong> any other purposes?<br />
Another related issue, which should be examined by the auditor, is the scheme of subordination.<br />
Preliminary, the auditor might see the subordination relationships from the <strong>for</strong>mal administrative<br />
chart. However, this administrative chart should be revised <strong>and</strong> the actual picture examined, as<br />
discussed in section “Structural subdivisions” above.<br />
The audit of the actual scheme of subordination is based on interviews with the employees (Form<br />
Nr.7). Questions about the subordination should be <strong>for</strong>mulated in a way, which assures that the<br />
interviewee is talking about the factual <strong>and</strong> not only officially defined relationships. The auditor<br />
should not be focussed on what the interviewee “thinks” or “believes” (although it might be<br />
important <strong>for</strong> other reasons), but on what evidence could support the opinion of the interviewee<br />
(i.e. written guidelines, decision making process, the way how documents should be agreed,<br />
specific situations, where the traditional subordination was changed etc.) Otherwise, when the<br />
auditor is not looking <strong>for</strong> supporting evidence, he risks that the auditee may not underst<strong>and</strong> the<br />
question or objectives of the audit <strong>and</strong> will present the casual or wrong answer.<br />
I.e. when asked about the direct chief, many lower level managers <strong>and</strong> specialists have answered,<br />
that their direct chief is the mayor (<strong>and</strong> named him by name <strong>and</strong> family name), however when<br />
asked what issues do they solve with the mayor directly or indirectly, it was found that they rarely<br />
see the mayor <strong>and</strong> do not solve any issues with him. After the re<strong>for</strong>mulation of the question it was<br />
clear that the interviewees did not underst<strong>and</strong> the initial question <strong>and</strong> thought that they were asked<br />
about the head of the whole organisation.<br />
Or, an employee claims that he is subordinated to one of the departmental heads; however when<br />
he per<strong>for</strong>ms his functions he follows the instructions of the head of the other department, who<br />
<strong>for</strong>mulates the objectives in this area <strong>and</strong> whom the employee directly reports.<br />
Or, the employee indicates his direct chief, but the auditor finds out that, because of the specific<br />
nature of the services, he is subordinated only nominally, there are no relationships of<br />
subordination, the top management just did not know whom to make that employee subordinated,<br />
“because everybody should be subordinated to somebody”.<br />
To avoid this kind of problems, it is useful to <strong>for</strong>mulate questions in the following way:<br />
184