17/04/2015
Spot
17/04/2015 15/49
Let’s talk about corporate communications
We note that strong criticism from many different sources of how corporate communications have been handled has had an impact. First, during the departmental meetings this week, staff members have reported a difference in attitude – one that is more respectful of staff. At the same time, the Director of Corporate Communications has replied to some of the criticisms on the Intranet. While we can understand his reasoning, we are not convinced by some of the arguments however.
One of the first issues addressed is the apparent contradiction of the staff criticism when “… first … we were accused of reporting too little and later because we reported too much.” The point that we believe those responsible for corporate communication need to take into account is that the lack of confidence in corporate communication and use of the Intranet began much before the recent strike and the heated arguments over the TAP policy.1 Therefore, just looking at staff comments during this period will fail to give an accurate picture. The Intranet has been used in recent years to give what we call “swipes” at the staff representatives and the recognized staff representative bodies. We are not saying that staff representatives and staff representative bodies are above criticism. Far from it. What we and many of the staff are saying is that the comments on staff representation over time have always been negative and have been seen by many readers as an attempt to undermine the influence of collective staff representation. Recent comments about the “undue influence” of UGSS and its negative impact in the past on careers are a case in point. This was a gossip (talk among peers) printed as fact. When such things occur, it is much more likely that, in the long run, people will lose confidence in what is being written in management’s name and criticism will flow. The Intranet, as management’s voice, has to be more objective and avoid taking “swipes” at others, however cleverly camouflaged, because the staff are not stupid and see through it and get upset. This is particularly important when, “It is through the Intranet, the official communication tool of the Organization, that information from the perspective of Management (which is essential in order to have a complete picture of any situation), is published.” If the information is not objective and fails to refrain from “swipes”, then the official communication tool of the Organization will not present a nice picture of Senior Management.
We agree that “…the much criticized instrument we have for internal communication, the Intranet homepage, is the most participatory and transparent throughout the United Nations system: any of the 11 000 people who work for FAO can comment on an article, start a discussion or simply make their opinion public. It must be acknowledged and recognized that Management provides a tool that gives everyone a voice, including the staff representative bodies who have their own section where they can publish what they like, whenever they like, uncensored. The Intranet is open to a wide variety of contributions from a very wide audience. It is precisely for this reason that the Intranet is an active space containing a range of opinions, views and ideas”. What we would like to add, however, is that this tool is not the baby of this management. It was here when the current management took over. In the past it was called IN TOUCH and the place for staff comments was called HAVE YOUR SAY. The current management changed it to become the official communication tool of the Organization, carrying some of the weaknesses we have outlined above. Furthermore, it is not the tool itself that has been criticized but its use i.e. the way messages have seemed to be slanted. For example, the over-statement of ‘consultation does not mean co-management’ strengthens the impression of an insecurity within management circles that strains to undermine staff representation. UGSS has never asked for co-management. Where does this fear come from? And why is the Organization’s information tool used to disseminate it? The use of the Organization’s official communication channel to draw attention to the UGSS elections – a normal yearly occurrence – to insinuate that the recent staff action was simply an exercise in vote-getting was absurd. Perhaps this is why many people, reading all the additional information on the TAP policy, felt that it was just an election ploy on the part of supporters of the Director-General in his election year. Is this why the Intranet was so concerned with election platforming? Finally, although the staff representatives can place their communications on a section on the Intranet, this was only obtained after many discussions following termination of the use of registries for a general distribution, a change that hit the staff representative bodies hard since this had been their way of communicating with all.
We take note of the statement “…the assertion that there was an information monopoly during this recent period is totally unfounded and furthermore distorts a powerful achievement in terms of participation.” We appreciate this clarification but fear that differences of opinion on this issue will continue to exist. It is true that the Intranet was open to comment from all. However, it is equally true that it is management that has, or that one expects to have, the whole picture and is able to include or not certain facts in the communication is puts out on the Intranet. As long as such information is seen to be vague or contradictory, or slanted, there will always be the feeling that management is not being forthright.
With regard to the question “Do we want to go back to the time when information was handed down through cold administrative directives with zero opportunity for comment, never mind feedback?” Well, the fact is that in the past there was plenty of opportunity for comment on administrative practices and policies. There was an open door policy between the ADG responsible for staff relations and the staff representative bodies. On some occasions, when there was a strong conflict between the staff representatives and HR, the ADG would listen to both sides and try to obtain compromise on the conflictual elements, without however veering from what was felt to be in the best interests of the Organization. The staff representatives acknowledged that the managerial decision prevailed because it had been taken with genuine consideration of all elements. It is this that has been missing for some time. Talking round a table does not always bring the parties together if there is no willingness for the one that has more power to listen and try out alternative ways of achieving what they need to. This is why the term “bullies” – a rather strong term, we admit – has been stated by a variety of staff members at different levels of the Organization when referring to the way management has been working.
To the question “Who is afraid of empowering employees, all employees, regardless of grade or category to express their views freely?”, the answer is that we do not know, but UGSS isn’t afraid of it, providing it does not become another way of trying to break down organized collective staff representation. Let’s face it, individual staff members have no other duty but to express their own opinions and proposals. Staff representative bodies, however, have the duty to canvas the staff (not only their members!) and to discuss, debate the issues and obtain feedback so that they can gauge the prevailing views. It is nice for individual staff members to be interviewed and have their views published. After all, staff representative bodies do not have the monopoly of thought within the Organization. However, the real “power” (if that is the correct word) in truly effecting bottom-up change sometimes has to come from the strength of an organized collective. Maybe an additional question should be asked. Who is afraid of organized, strong, collective staff representative bodies?
We would agree that in recent weeks the level of readership of the Intranet has grown but would not necessarily jump to the conclusion that this is solely because of management. We think that the participation in recent staff action might also have contributed.
We find the statement that “…the hugely popular and criticized, unsigned Q & A piece on who won and who lost, should be read in the only way possible: the balance drawn by Senior Management over the period of conflict.” to be rather dogmatic and autocratic. Surely there are many different ways of evaluating recent events, not only those of Senior Management?
The statement that “…many pieces (of information) do not carry one signature but many as they obviously represent the views of the Senior Management. Just as a communication issued by the staff representative bodies is unsigned: no one doubts that what is written is the official position of the UGSS or the AP-in-FAO. Why not apply this same logic and criteria to an official communication from the official internal communication intranet of the Organization? Any newspaper reader knows that when an article is not signed, it is the official perspective of the media outlet in which it is published.” is true, however it omits that the staff representatives are known personally, their names of the elected representatives are known, in AP the name of the divisional representative is known etc. so the staff know who they can go to in order to argue their point. Each staff representative body has an office and an e-mail account. With regard to what is published on the FAO Intranet, one can place a comment but no-one knows who to contact and there is no open-door policy. Was the article on the evaluation of the strike action the DG’s view? Was it the view of a few selected managers? Was the DG involved at all? Also, we may be wrong, but most newspapers today do carry the name of the reporter. Even the editor is named whenever s/he does an editorial piece. However, the point is taken that whether the article is signed or not is not the main issue. Rather it is the contents which, in the case of the Intranet, reflect the views of and therefore convey an image of Senior Management.
We do appreciate the recent efforts to improve communication channels and note the additional “forms of expression and participation of staff through the forum on performance evaluation, through the opening of a new section (Listening to Staff) that contains interviews with staff members, or through the meetings that the Office of Human Resources is conducting with different departments this week to answer questions clarify any eventual doubts. When there is clear unadulterated communication among all of us, we are convinced there will be a better atmosphere and more harmony. To the comment “But perhaps this approach might not be appreciated by those who wish to monopolise information under the guise of staff representation” we would only point out that the remark is unnecessary, looks like another of those “swipes” against staff representatives because they offered a critical analysis of recent events that was not aligned to that of Senior Management and, as such, actually detracts substantially from the article on corporate communications itself. Unfortunately, it brings it down to the level of that of a rather bitter tart response because of having been contradicted.
We especially appreciate the comments that: “in this phase and in the name of transparency, we will endeavour to keep staff informed of developments in consultation as much as possible, especially where meetings between staff representative bodies and Management are concerned…., we are determined to diversify the angles, innovate and create different windows of perspective so that staff have as much information at hand as possible to help them in forming their opinions…. The key will be finding new ways through constructive dialogue...The UGSS spot issued on 14 April indicates a new climate for this dialogue: that perception is shared. It is now the responsibility of the main actors in this process to find the best solutions for a better functioning of the Organization and its Members. So that there are no winners and no losers: only winners. I know that the will, on behalf of Management, is definitely to move forward in that way.” As the outgoing Executive Committee that did its utmost to obtain better and fairer communication, that struggled hard with a management that seemed to fear staff representation and see Unions as something that should not be too involved in matters that did not concern them, and which was determined that managerial will would prevail at all costs, we can only be heartened by such words and hope that sincerely they will bear fruit.
1/ It should be noted that the TAP policy is a misnomer. It was introduced many years ago as a policy for the recruitment of staff into the GS category. It was worked out with the then management because no policy existed and GS were often picked up according to who-knows-who with the result that some were unsuitable for the UN and became placement cases dumped in the Temporary Assistance Pool. UGSS spoke against this approach which was not in the interests of the Organization nor the staff. Unfortunately, the absorption of the temporary staff has slowed down considerably since downsizing began around 1996. Now it is reported that there are more non-staff than staff and FAO is still going in that direction, hence the problem of long-term temporaries. However, we should not forget the original title, the recruitment of GS staff into the category, since it includes but also goes beyond the ‘TAP policy’ in terms of length of service. Indeed, the proposed rosters are a case in point. They all impact on recruitment into the GS category.
UNITED WE STAND!
Please contact us at [email protected] or [email protected].
Try our website on the Intranet http://ugss.fao.org/homepage
Follow us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/UGSSRome
