Jari Kankaansyrjä Coffee Talks Case study - Enablers of positive workplace atmosphere in Ostrobothnia Police Department Vaasa 2023 School of Management Master’s Thesis in Strategic Business Development 2 VAASAN YLIOPISTO Johtamisen akateeminen yksikkö Tekijä: Jari Kankaansyrjä Tutkielman nimi: Coffee Talks : Case study - Enablers of positive workplace atmos- phere in Ostrobothnia Police Department Tutkinto: Kauppatieteiden maisteri Oppiaine: Strategic Business Development Työn ohjaaja: Paula Linna Valmistumisvuosi: 2023 Sivumäärä: 135 TIIVISTELMÄ: Tämä opinnäyte tutkii Pohjanmaan poliisilaitoksen työilmapiiriä sen Hallinto- ja Esikuntayksi- kössä (HALE). Tutkimus on tapaustutkimus, joka kohdistui vapaaehtoisiin asiantuntijoihin ja ylimmän tason johtajiin. Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on selvittää mikä tekee Pohjanmaan polii- silaitoksen HALE-yksikön henkilöstön työilmapiiristä niin hyvän, että työtyytyväisyyden mittarin tulokset ovat olleet jopa yli valtakunnallisen keskiarvon henkilöstöbarometrissa. Henkilöstö on tulosten perusteella erityisen tyytyväistä – mutta miksi? Mikä sen mahdollistaa? Kirjallisuuskatsauksessa käydään läpi teoriaa organisaatiokulttuurista. Kulttuurillisien ulottu- vuuksien, organisaatiokulttuurin ja ryhmän muodostumisen kautta muodostetaan ymmärrystä siitä, millaiset eri tekijät voivat vaikuttaa organisaatiokulttuurin muodostumiseen ja miten voi- makas kulttuuri voi sekä tehostaa että hankaloittaa organisaation toimintaa. Empiirinen data kerätään avoimen teemahaastattelun kautta vapaaehtoisilta asiantuntijatehtä- vissä toimivilta työyhteisön jäseniltä sekä organisaation ylimmältä johdolta. Data analysoidaan sisällönanalyysillä nostamalla tiettyjä merkittäviä lainauksia haastateltujen litterointinauhoista, joista koodaamalla ja teemoihin keräämällä muodostetaan pääteemoja, ”keystones”, jotka tu- losten perusteella näyttävät vaikuttavan erityisen positiivisesti työyhteisön kultuuriin ja työilma- piiriin. Tulosten perusteella vahvaa, positiivista työilmapiiriä ja kultuuria HALE-yksikössä erityisesti edis- tävät: matala hierarkia ja maanläheiset johtajat, koko henkilöstön aktiivisuus ja omistautuminen tekemiselle ja yhteistyö ja toisten tukeminen, joka ylittää organisaatiorajat ja yksikön raken- teesta johtuvat hallinnolliset tiimirajoitteet. Työyhteisön viihtyvyyteen negatiivisesti vaikutta- vina tekijöinä tuloksista nousivat esiin heikkoina signaaleina olo siitä, että organisaation koon kasvaessa vanhojen ryhmien henkilöstöä ei enää tapaa lainkaan, sekä henkilöstön kahtiajakau- tuminen ”siviileihin ja poliiseihin”. Lisäksi viestintä ja tiedonkulku koettiin monen haastateltavan mukaan asiaksi, jota koko organisaatiossa tulisi kehittää. AVAINSANAT: Organisaatiokulttuuri, julkinen organisaatio, poliisi, työyhteisö, työtyytyväi- syys, työilmapiiri 3 Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Motivation for the study 7 1.2 Previous studies and research 8 1.2.1 Thesis studies related to the case 8 1.2.2 Studies on Public organizations 9 1.2.3 Staff barometer results within the case context 10 1.3 Value of workplace satisfaction 11 1.4 Research gap 12 1.5 Research questions and objectives 12 1.6 Structure 13 2 Literature review 15 2.1 Cultural dimensions 15 2.2 Culture and Organization culture 16 2.3 Organization structure and teams 20 3 Research methodology 30 3.1 Case study approach 30 3.2 Case organization: Ostrobothnia Police Department 31 3.3 Case unit: Administration Unit and Advisory Staff 32 3.3.1 Artifacts in Ostrobothnia Police Department 34 3.4 Data collection: personal interviews 36 3.4.1 Alternate research methods - empathy-based stories or action research? 39 3.5 Data analysis 41 3.5.1 Analysis method - inductive approach and descriptive coding 41 3.5.2 Coding process 43 3.6 Validity and reliability 45 4 Findings 47 4 4.1.1 Keystone 1: ”(Keep your) Feet on the ground. Do not assert yourself over others.” 48 4.1.2 Keystone 2: Presence – ”Show interest and commitment" 60 4.1.3 Keystone 3: Team-work – "Provide support to others and transcend beyond team-borders" 79 4.1.4 A negative theme – Cloistered 88 4.1.5 Minor negative theme – Communication 101 4.2 Summary 105 5 Discussion 116 5.1 Theoretical contribution 116 5.2 Managerial implications 120 5.3 Limitations of the study 123 5.4 Future research suggestions 124 5.5 Acknowledgements 125 References 126 Appendices 132 Appendix 1. Open invite to a personal interview (email) 132 Appendix 2. The Interview Script 135 5 Pictures Picture 1. The lily pond and cultural levels. (Adapted from Schein, 2017, p. 26; 2019, p. 37) 17 Picture 2. Hofstede's sub-cultures (adapted from Hosfstede, 1998, pp. 3-4) 25 Picture 3. Four levels of relationship (adapted from Schein & Schein, 2019, p. 15) 29 Picture 4. Ostrobothnia Police Department (Poliisi, 2022) 32 Picture 5. Organizational chart of Administration in Ostrobothnia Police Department 33 Picture 6. Research process 45 Figures Figure 1. Basic parts of Minztberg's organization (adapted from Mintzberg, 1989, p. 99) 21 Figure 2. Group readiness and manager’s position: adapted from Hersey et al. (2001, pp. 317-320) 28 Figure 3. Example of diversified organization (adapted from Mintzberg, 1989, p. 156) 34 Figure 4. Data collection summary. 39 Figure 5. Keystone: Feet on the Ground 108 Figure 6. Keystone: Presence 110 Figure 7. Keystone: Teamwork 111 Figure 8. Negative theme: Cloistered 114 Figure 9. Negative theme: Communication. 115 Figure 10. Keystones and artifacts 122 Tables Table 1. Staff Barometer 2018 results (adapted from POLSTAT-report) 11 Table 2. Mintzberg’s classic organization configurations (adapted from Mintzberg, 1989, p. 110) 22 6 Abbreviations HALE (Hallinto- ja esikuntayksikkö) - Administration Unit and Advisory Staff EP (Etelä-Pohjanmaa) - South Ostrobothnia KP (Keski-Pohjanmaa) - Central Ostrobothnia RP (Rannikko-Pohjanmaa) - Coast Ostrobothnia MEB (method of empathy-based stories) POHA (Poliisihallitus) – National Police Board POLAMK (Poliisiammattikorkeakoulu) - National Police College PORA (Poliisin rakenneuudistus) – Police Organitional Reformation 7 1 Introduction In this section, overall motivation for this study is discussed, along with some previous studies that are related or relevant to the chosen case. Previous studies are divided into different sections, featuring those directly related to the case organization, and studies on organizations similar to the case organization. The research gap and relevancy of the study are argued and the research questions are stated. 1.1 Motivation for the study The motivation for this study emerged from the author’s personal experiences and ob- servations. At the time of writing this paper, the author has been working closer to six years in an expert position for Ostrobothnia Police Department’s Advisory Staff and Ad- ministration Unit. Police department’s top management consistently declares how “the staff are the biggest strength of the organization” in their strategy, yet remarkably little research is being placed on this valuable resource on behalf of the Ostrobothnia Police Department. In short: while none of the police department’s managers deny that workplace well-be- ing is a critical factor for overall performance, and Ostrobothnia’s results on work satis- faction rate among ”the best” in staff surveys, there remains one fatal flaw perceived by the author of this paper. Staff surveys are largely based on satisfaction and happiness percentages - quantitative analysis. Several personal discussions have revealed to the author that while the staff barometer results are satisfactory, even excellent, within cer- tain organizational units, there remains no concrete information on what it precisely is that enables these results. For example, Ostrobothnia Police Department’s Advisory Staff and Administration Unit has achieved the highest workplace satisfaction percentages within the context of entire Finnish Police. It can be argued that evidently the management (or staff within the or- ganization) is doing something right. The individual factors or ”the right combination” of 8 them remain unknown - for now. This paper aims to uncover at least some of those ”right” factors that enable excellent workplace satisfaction among the staff. 1.2 Previous studies and research Within the Police organization context, there are two main avenues of research and stud- ies: staff barometer surveys (organized by the National Police Board), conducted every three to four years and police student thesis published by the National Police College (POLAMK). POLAMK studies are often focused on management and effects of the organ- izational reforms that Finnish police organization has gone through in the past. Additionally, one of the more popular subjects to research in Finnish police context apart from the processes and methods related to crime combating are the effects brought by organizational reformations of PORA II and III (Poliisin hallintorakenneuudistus). Ex- plained shortly, PORA was a government run project that aimed to reveal further devel- opment needs in the administrative structure of the National Police Board (Salmi, 2013) and to cut or minimize cost-structures of a Finnish Police as a whole (Poliisi, 2014a). Some of the concrete measures to cut costs included reducing the amount of Police de- part-ments from 24 into 11, shutting down the Mobile Police (Liikkuva poliisi) as an ad- minis-trative office (effectively merging the organization with Local police) and transfer- ring 670 employees into new work assignments (Poliisi, 2014b). 1.2.1 Thesis studies related to the case As mentioned above, within the context of the police organizations it is nearly impossible to see at least a passing mention to PORA organizational reform: in many cases, the re- form has been an inspiration for the research purpose itself. However, the reform is also often combined with the themes of workplace satisfaction, well-being at work and man- agerial work. 9 Such studies focusing on the after effects of PORA reforms include works of Jäderholm (2013), Rönn (2013), Vuorenmaa (2013) and Salonen and Salonen (2014), to name a few. Jäderholm (2013) explored how the changes brought by PORA II affected man-agement by results in the relatively new National Police Board: based on five inter-viewed police chief’s views, the management process was successfully streamlined by the PORA change, enabling more straightforward communication within the top man-agement. Rönn’s (2013) study on the workplace well-being of Eastern Uusimaa police department revealed some issues: while the communal spirit among colleaques was on a good level, (future) PORA III reform caused some uncertainty and stress. Additionally, Salonen and Salonen (2014) researched the threats and possibilities of PORA III in Eastern Uusimaa’s police department and the significance of occupational well-being during the reformation. Their findings suggest that occupational well-being was lowered or “took a step back” at the time of the reform, based on the query an- swered by the staff. Vuorenmaa (2013) has explored the state of work-wellbeing in the “previous” organiza- tion of Ostrobothnia police department, when it was formed as South Ostrobothnia po- lice department. Focus of the study was on license services staff and data largely based on recent staff barmoter’s results. While the workplace atmosphere and com-mitment of the license services’ staff was found positive, distribution of tasks and or-ganizing mat- ters related to work were found lacking, on both supervisor and upper managemet level. Overwhelming work-load was also seen as a negative, likely related to perceived mana- gerial issues. 1.2.2 Studies on Public organizations Outside of the police context, there has also been research on public organizations. One such study explored working conditions in Haltik (today known as Valtori). Huovinen (2013) studied working conditions via participatory observation on a field that had little prior research: public government organization responsible for providing information 10 technology sevices. Study revealed some major issues on organization’s way of handling harrassment issues, workplace bullying or otherwise negative behaviour amongst staff members. Current managerial work was deemed insufficient to fully tackle these issues. Saukkonen et al. (2017; Saukkonen et al., 2019) have explored the workplace atmos- phere in public healthcare context. They focused on nursing staff’s perspective on organ- izational culture and workplace atmosphere. Based on their results, the experiences on atmosphere varied significantly within different staff groups on the themes of flexibility, resistance and organizational atmosphere. Additionally, it was deemed important to compare the experiences of subordinates and their supervisors in order to understand organizational culture from different positions and points of views. In their studies, su- pervisors and managers evaluated the atmosphere to be more positive than the rest of the staff. 1.2.3 Staff barometer results within the case context The primary mean for Ostrobothnia Police Department to measure its workplace well- being is the Staff Barometer Survey, conducted by outsider organization every three to four years. This research is administrated by National Police Board of Finland, rather than any local police unit. While the results of the barometer survey are presented and ana- lyzed on both more universal national level and more localized level (such as individual police station or specific operational unit), the main focus is on more visible police oper- ations, such as crime investigation for example, overshadowing other operations such as Staff Services and License services, for example. Based on Ostrobothnia Police Department’s 2018 barometer results, the following tar- gets or themes were chosen for further development by the management: • Strenghtening the sense of community • Management culture • Internal communication 11 • Supervisor work Based on the barometer results of 2018, administrative unit’s average scores on theme of worksplace satisfaction scored higher averages than the average scores in the entire country. On sub-themes of leadership, how challenging (and rewarding) the job is, sup- port received in professional skills development and workplace atmosphere score aver- ages were all above the rest of the country. The values were calculated from 1 to 5, with average scores compared between each individual police unit and the combined average of Finnish police in its entirety. These score results are summarized on Table 1. Table 1. Staff Barometer 2018 results (adapted from POLSTAT-report) Theme (work satisfaction) Average score of Administrative unit Average score of Finnish Police Leadership 3,9 3,2 How challenging and rewarding the work is 4,1 3,6 Support on professional skill development 3,5 3,0 Workplace atmosphere 4,1 3,9 1.3 Value of workplace satisfaction Working life well-being and effects of workplace atmosphere on the long term performance has been acknowledged and is well presented in both academia and non- academia. Researchers such as Grolleau et al. (2013) have studied the relationship between workplace atmosphere and innovation, while Ashraf (2019) focused on the influence the workplace atmosphere can have on job satisfaction. Newspaper journalists have written news articles and reported of professional studies exploring the impact of good workplace atmosphere. Such articles argue how the atmosphere as a resource can help attract highly educated, younger generation of employees (Simonen, 2019a), 12 increase revenue (Simonen, 2019b), or how poor workplace atmosphere can increase employee stress (Pöyhtäri, 2020), for example. The value and importance of work-well- being and good co-workers is recognized, but generally the attention is mostly focused on private sector, or management in the case of public sector. This study aims to deliver more universal results applicable to both private and public organizations’s expert employees and managers regardless of the field they operate in. 1.4 Research gap As stated in the above sections, Ostrobothnia Police Department has been performing better on average than other police departments in Finland. However, “ordinary” civilian workers and experts within the public organizations remain largely unresearched, and not only within police context. Majority of the public organization studies are focused on staff and managers professionally who are trained and educated for their arguably more unique job, such as police with law-enforcement, hospitals with doctors and nurses. Additionally, majority of the studies that have been conducted are quantitative surveys and questionaires – while they yield results on how things are, the why behind answers remains a mystery. As police departments are but one of the organizations operating in public sector, this study may reveal results that can be applied to other organizations. Workplace atmos- phere is a universal concept and other public organizations such as hospitals can have similar structure and organizational model (relatively large number of general staff, ex- perts, and managerial levels in charge of sub-units). 1.5 Research questions and objectives This paper places its research focus on the members of the staff most well- acquaintanced and familiar to the author: the administrative level, including the top management and experts in more specialized positions. Main purpose of this thesis is to provide additional managerial insight into what kinds of actions or other factors enable 13 positive workplace atmosphere in the case organization. However, it should be noted that as a public sector organization, the results may arguably be applied to other similar organizations, too, especially for the purposes of creating new managerial insight. The research questions set for this paper are the following: 1) What are the facilitators or enablers for ”positive” (reinforcing) workplace attitude and atmosphere? 2) What are the facilitators for ”negative” (detrimental) workplace attitude and atmosphere? 3) Are there any notable differences between top management’s (mostly of police back-ground) and professional experts’ views or experiences regarding these facilitators or enablers mentioned above? While staff barometers and other smaller scale surveys provide some information on the performance for the management, a critical flaw still remains: the lack of insight into specific reasons or factors that enable, increase or decrease satisfaction in the employees’ view. Therefore, the most important objective is to provide additional magament insight into the organization they are running. Another additionally aim is to provide more universally applicable research results that can be utilized in both public and private organizations and with their expert and management staff. 1.6 Structure This paper is divided into sections. In the next section, literature focused on cultural di- mensions, organizational culture and team formation is reviewed. The section after that explains the research methodology of this study: the research approach, the case unit is showcased and empirical data collection and analysis is explained. This is followed by 14 the Findings chapter, where research results are shown. Lastly, in the Discussion research results and their relevance to the case organization and existing literature are argued. 15 2 Literature review In this section, relevant literature is reviewed. As organization culture is the main focus for the study, the following themes are reviewed: first, cultural dimensions are birefly explained. Geert Hofstede can be argued to have brought cultual studies into business context by popularizing the theme. Next, organization culture, its essence and formation are explored more. Lastly, organizational structure and team formation are explained. 2.1 Cultural dimensions Geert Hofstede be argued to have introduced cultural studies into business context. Hof- stede’s theory of cultural dimensions was aimed to study IBM employees’ (a multina- tional corporation Hofstede worked in at the time) attitudes and values on a national level. The dimension used to measure differences between different IBM nationalities were the power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity versus feminity. Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation was added as a fifth dimension in order to get a better grasp on Asian cultures. Later, on 2010, a sixth dimension of indulgence versus restraint was introduced. (Hofstede, 1991; Hof- stede, 2011). Cultural dimensions can be used to explore the stance different nationalities possess to- wards accepting the fact that power within organization (or entire country) is distributed unequally, strength of ties they have between groups, tolerance towards the uncertainty and lack of information, assertiveness and competition, vision and focus towards the future and acceptance of fulfilling one’s desires, for example. Hofstede’s dimensions are not the only framework, as several other researchers have modified or added different dimensions. For example, Bjerke (1999) used class structure, problem-solving, modes of thinking and decision-making style in addition to power dis- tance dimension. It can be argued that regardless of the exact type of dimension(s) 16 chosen by different authors, they are all similar in nature, thus making any differences superficial at best. Schein (2017) suggests that cultural dimensions are an ideal way to explore macro level cultures; nations and different occupations that have long established cultural “rules” such as language, behavioral norms and values for example. However, when entering a smaller scale of (individual) organization culture, this author argues that more individual preferences and stances can have more significant effect on the whole organization. 2.2 Culture and Organization culture The work ”culture” has many definitions. Some of these include ”the customs and beliefs, art, way of life and social organization of a particular country or group” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2021), ”the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, encompassing language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts” (Zimmermann, 2017) and ”the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group” (Merrian-Webster, 2021). All the definitions above place emphasis on the limited group (either due to social or geographical limitations) and to the fact that culture is shared and mutual within that group. Therefore, culture can also be explored and viewed in another settings, too, for example within an individual company, or even a smaller subsidiary or business unit technically belonging to a larger organizational entity. Cultural studies have also existed for long within organizatonal business setting. In an organizational setting one definition for the ”culture” include ”set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization” (Merrian- Webster, 2021). Schein (2017) places emphasis on shared experience, common beliefs and values in their organizational culture studies. 17 Culture is typically explained with a picture of an iceberg, where the piece of ice becomes more complex and how below the water surface culture becomes more complex and hidden the deeper one dives. While iceberg is perhaps the most known example used to explain different levels of culture, some authors substitute it with different metaphors. Instead of an iceberg, Schein (2017) and Schein and Schein (2019) utilize an example of a lily pond and a farmer to demonstrate overall structure of a culture, consisting of three separate levels. Example can be seen in a Picture 1. In their framework, the espoused values and beliefs of a farmer who takes care of the pond, surface-level artifacts (lilies) and deeply-rooted and invisible cultural assumptions (roots in the soil) that artifacts are more tangible manifestations of. The farmer (manager) can announce any values or be- liefs he wants out loud, but the ”cultural DNA” of the pond itself (the seeds, the roots, the water) determines what kinds of flowers grow above the water-level, visible to the eye. Picture 1. The lily pond and cultural levels. (Adapted from Schein, 2017, p. 26; 2019, p. 37) 18 The artifact level is easy to observe and difficult to actually decipher (Schein, 2017). He suggests (2017, p. 18) that there lies a danger of false assumptions if artifact level is observed too deeply, without more in-depth knowledge about the ”root-level”: the his- tory and background of particular culture (applicable on both the organizational and na- tional level). Only when one is familiar enough with the group (by spending suffi-cient time as its member or by asking ”deep” questions) the beliefs and values behind the artifacts are revealed (Schein, 2017). According to Schein (2017) the espoused beliefs and values are gradually formed whe- never a group faces a task or dilemma that has to be solved. The possible solutions are always based on someone’s belief (leader or another member or members) that it will be sufficient to solve the problem at hand. These are just assumptions, until the point where the group makes a joint effort to perform proposed action and observes the re- sults. When these results are either seen (or persuaded) to be suitable solutions, by members of the group, they gain (or are assumed to have) value. Given enough time and repetition, this kind of assumed value transforms into taken-for-granted group behaviour: the spirit of believing ”there is value in doing things the way we do”. Culture, its values and the overall “essence” is formed through combination of shared experiences and sufficient time within a group. When culture is stabilized and grown sufficiently strong over time, its “sense of identity” will become like a second nature to its members, unconsciously guiding their actions and behaviour through the values shaped by experience. Schein (2017, p. 7) calls this kind of “taken-for-granted” attitude and strong sense of identity as the Cultural DNA - sets of belief and values that simply cannot be changed, not without completely changing the whole group itself. According to Schein (2017), the Cultural DNA implies strong structural stability - behav- iour patterns, values and attitudes so deeply embedded that they have become intangi- ble and invisible to the members of the group. Unless the group has evolved to the point of possessing these unconsciously formed, shared assumptions, new members 19 introduced into the group can further shape and develop culture through additional shared experiences. If the culture has already reached its maturity, newer members are expected to assimilate into existing culture, learning “the proper way” of doing things. However, staple organizational culture can also “trap” and lock the organization into cer- tain patterns of thinking (Morgan, 1986), thus weakening overall creativity. In addition to DNA, there is debate about cultural atmosphere or climate. Schein (2017) interpretes “climate” to represent an observable manifestation of culture (and organiza- tional experiences), while other researchers argue that climate is synonymous and equiv- alent to overall culture. Micro and macro level cultures have also been a source for academic discussion and arguments. According to Schein (2017) culture can be explored from several different levels, from larger macro level (nations, large organizations) to micro level; smaller groups residing within (or below) the macro level of culture. Such micro levels (some- times referred as subcultures) might be represented by members of a certain profession groups or follo-wers of a particular religious sect, for example. Schein (2017) ponders whether different occupations, such as engineers or lawyers, for example, can be said to have professional cultures even if they generally share similar mindsets, professional lingo and educational backgrounds - the shared experience. However, they also argue that the micro level (subcultures) can exist and even conflict within a larger macro level organization as the shared values of a smaller group can conflict with “main” organiza- tion’s mission or vision. Additionally, education and linguistics can drastically differ from one counry to another. Overall, this paper adopts the view that while certain occupational cultures can be said to exist (at least within a more limited geographical context), the experiences and views adopted and formed within comparatively smaller “units” (such as individual companies or organizations) play larger role in consolidating the views and attitudes of an individual, thus being ultimately adopted into a member of a smaller subculture of their own. 20 According to Schein (2017) organizations can be viewed as legitimate macro level cul- tural groups with their own subcultures. Different organizations can be viewed as indi- vidual “miniature societies” with their own unique social structure and sets of language, behaviour, rituals and the like, or be scrutinized as a part of a larger national cultural context (Bjerke, 1999). 2.3 Organization structure and teams Although the focus of the literature review is on organizational culture, there are several other key dimensions that can affect culture on their own: namely organization structure and its management and leadership. In their managerial studies, Minzberg (1989) has developed theory of organizational configurations - the way different organizations are structured, managed and on which functions the emphasis is placed. According to Mintzberg organization has six basic parts (1989; 1990) and five ”basic pulls” (1989) that determine its overall configuration and structure. Basic parts according to Mintzberg’s model are shown in Figure 1. From basic parts, the operating core consists of organization’s basic workers, who either create the products or produce service that allows the organization to exist in the first place. On strategic apex managers oversee the entire structure and its operations. A middle line exists between the people of oper- ating core and strategic apex - in short, the middle-managers. These three form the basic hierachy structure. However, outside the direct hierarchy are two more parts: technostructure and support staff. Technosructure consists of those employees that plan and analyze the work of other staff, outside of the direct hierarchy between staff and managerial levels. Addi- tionally, support staff consists of employees working on roles that are may or may not be directly related to organization’s key operations: Mintzberg (1989, p. 98) uses legal counselors, cafeteria and mailroom personnel as an example of support roles. 21 A sixth basic part of Mintzberg’s (1989, p. 98) organization is formed by ideology, which Mintzberg uses synonymously with culture: those distinguishable organizational beliefs and traditions that ”breath certain life” into organization as a whole. Figure 1. Basic parts of Minztberg's organization (adapted from Mintzberg, 1989, p. 99) Within context of the case organization of this study, the operating core is formed by police officers and licence services staff, middle line by middle level managers (mainly chief inspectors) and strategic apex by upper management (most importantly, the police chief and their deputies), while the technostructure consists mainly of expert members of Administration Unit and Staff Services. It could be argued whether administrative du- ties and responsibilities belong at least partly into support staff, but as their work is di- rectly tied into organization’s strategic objectives and are ultimately providing services 22 for the purposes of upper management, they can be seen to be more embedded into operative action than support services mentioned above. In most larger organizations of today, support services are mostly outsourced (arguably, this is true for most modern organizations of the 21st century) as activities such as clean- ing and maintenance services are contractually performed by third-party organizations and service providers. On the other hand, these third-party providers can also be seen as artifacts that form the basis of organization’s own culture, at least for the surface-level observer. Additionally, in Mintzberg’s (1989; 1990) theory organizations and their parts are af- fected and shaped by different ”pulls”, needs that drive them. Depending on which basic part(s) provide the strongest pull, the organization will be shaped into one, or combina- tion of ”configurations”. Mintzberg developed seven ”classic” organizational configura- tions. These configurations are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Mintzberg’s classic organization configurations (adapted from Mintzberg, 1989, p. 110) Configuration Name Prime Coordinating Mechanism Key Part of Organization Entrepreneurial organization Direct supervision Strategic Apex (Upper Management) Machine organization Heavy standardization of work processes Technostructure (Experts) Professional organization Standardization of skills Operating core (Staff) Diversified organization Standardization of outputs Middle line (Middle-management) Innovative organization Mutual adjustment Support staff Missionary organization Standardization of norms Ideology (Culture) Political organization None None 23 In addition to Minztberg’s theory, Hofstede continued research on organizational sub- cultures through dimensional framework mentioned in section 2.1. They identified the following six different sub-cultures (Hofstede, 1998, pp. 3) that can exist in organizations, based on different oriental pulls (called dimensions) organizations culture can have. The dimensions are summarized in Picture 2: 1. process oriented versus results oriented 2. employee oriented versus job oriented 3. parochial versus professional 4. open system versus closed system 5. loose control versus tight control 6. normative versus pragmatic Hosfstede (1998, pp. 3-4) explains the dimensions above: Dimension 1 measures the level of risk avoidance within the culture. Process oriented organizations are strongly based on routine, used to avoiding any risks and providing only minimal effort. It is opposed by result oriented culture, where surprising challenges are dealt with head-on, giving their full effort. Dimension 2 measures the level the organization cares for its staff. In employee-oriented culture, staff feels that their needs and welfare are accounted for, and decisions are made by groups instead of individuals. A job-oriented organization does not care for its employees, but results of their work and decisions are made by powerful individuals. Dimension 3 measures the level in which work affects employee’s personal private life. In parochial organizations their behaviour is affected or influenced by the organization even during off-duty and employee’s backgrounds are accounted for when hiring new staff. Professional organization values professional skill over background, and off-duty time is employee’s private time. 24 In dimension 4, organization’s openness is measured. In open organization, both the or- ganization and its staff are open towards new people, welcoming anyone to join them and quickly introduce them into the community. Accordingly, in closed organization the atmosphere is secretive even towards its own members and it takes over a year for a new employee to feel welcomed. Dimension 5 measures the amount of control and structure within organization. In a loosely controlled organization schedules are not strict or punctual, cost and budgets are not considered that strictly and there is plenty of room for joking and levity. In a tightly controlled organization units are conscious about the costs, timetables and schedules are sharp and instead of joking there is more strict sense of professionalism among the staff. Lastly, dimension 6 measures customer orientation. Normative organizations emphasis “correct procedures” over the customer and their needs, with high professional stand- ards. Pragmatic organizations will seek to satisfy customer needs over rules and regula- tions – thus emphasizing “customer is right” kind of attitude. (Hofstede, 1998, pp. 3-4). 25 Picture 2. Hofstede's sub-cultures (adapted from Hosfstede, 1998, pp. 3-4) Teamwork and Team Formation Schein (2017) suggests that through continuous interaction, organizational members form strong culture and sense of community. Schein differentiates between members of general work community and direct teams that work professionally together. However, Schein (2017) divides the larger umbrella term ”culture” into smaller spheres, such as macro and micro cultures that can form in smaller groups, such as occupational posi- tions. While such teams and groups can be multinational, consisting of individuals with different languages, habits and so on, it is not a strict requirement per se: considering that the basis for the birth of new culture (or subculture) lies in shared experience and learning in ”unfamiliar” environment or setting, cultual development can easily hap-pen in one’s workplace, for example. 26 Given sufficient time, the newcomer(s) into the group are ”taught” the culture that exists within the group (Schein, 2017). Schein (2017, p. 8) states, ”groups do not exist in isola- tion”. As forming group encounters and interacts with other groups (cultures), the shared experiences will further affect, shape and ”align” their current practises, expec-tations and behaviour. The longer the group exists, the more their mindsets align, be-coming more similar (Schein, 2017), thus further consolidating the foundation of their own par- ticular group culture. However, not all groups are necessarily teams. Brooks (2003) differentiates between psy- chological groups and teams. Both can be either formal (for example, constructed and controlled by a manager) or informal (for example, individual office employees forming a bowling team). The main differences between a group and a team are in underlying psychological ties: while a group can be collection of individuals who “inter-act with each other, perceive themselves to be a group and are psychologically aware of the others” (Brooks, 2003, p. 84-85), in a team these group members possess several common qual- ities, such as clearly understood objectives, interdependence with one another, shared collective identity and diffent roles and areas of expertise or skills. Therefore, while a group of people can simply be formed through chance alone, a team has more coherent consciousness and motivation. Strong motivation and commitment within such team can act as an asset that reinforces the entire group. Findings from Clarke (2006) suggest that strong network commitment (in this case, different teams forming ties with each other and possibly other teams, thus networking among themselves) can improve performance and results of their work. Hersey et al. (2001, p. 31) state that managers should be mindful of their subordinates and work environment. As strengths of different needs (in both goal-directed and goal activities) change and vary due to time and changing outside conditions, it may not al- ways be optimal for manager to be setting all goals and objectives. They argue that 27 overall effectiveness of subordinates may increase if they are allowed to set their own goals, free of management influence. Studies on group formation and team have existed for a long time. Morgan (1986, p. 173) states that “informal organizations” may emerge within organization due to frequent in- teraction between different staff members, forming informal alliances and professional networks. These informal groups can be hidden within the main organization, with their leaders potentially wielding similar levels of power and influence as managers. Bjerke (1999, p. 65) states that regardless of hierarchical position, “an informal leader in net- works can be anybody listened to”. This view is similarly shared by Schein and Schein (2019, p. 14) who state that relationships have more importance over hierarchical titles or positions. When the objectives are clear and motivation of a particular group within organization align suggest that ”role” for a manager should be delegative one: staying outside of the group, ”merely” empowering it and providing required resources this group needs to accomplish its goals Hersey et al. (2001, p. 319). Brooks (2003) agrees with the view that in self-managed teams, facilitative and coaching approach is required from the manager. These four different levels of groups readiness, with manager’s suggested position is shown on the Figure 2. 28 Figure 2. Group readiness and manager’s position: adapted from Hersey et al. (2001, pp. 317-320) Regarding the team’s leadership (performed either by official manager or informal leader) Schein and Schein (2019) have developed a four-level model of relationships. In the framework group relationship is categorized into one of the four categories, from minus one (-1) to three (3). These levels can affect the dynamic of the team and either help or decrease its effectiveness. Level minus 1 (-1) is exploitation, where relationship is negative and power distance is set between one dominant party asserting control over others. None of the parties trust each other. Level one is “civil, transactional”, where parties do not know each other well, but there is sufficient trust to perform “professional” business transactions between them. Level two is “whole person to whole person” kind of relationship, where the level of trust is creating “psychological safety” for both parties, enabling them to agree to help each other, making productive partnership and close working relationship. Level three is very close relationship, usually seen in domestic setting such as marriage, or in a very 29 intimate professional connections where there is even higher sense of trust and open- ness but can also lead to biased behaviour in organizational setting. (Schein & Schein, 2019). These relationships are summarized on Picture 3. Picture 3. Four levels of relationship (adapted from Schein & Schein, 2019, p. 15) 30 3 Research methodology As one of the objectives and driving motivations chosen for this study were to give case organization’s top management a deeper understanding of the phenomena, qualitative methodology is best suited for that purpose. The organization already had quantitative research data available in the form of staff barometers, for example. However, while the said barometer results have largely been positive, the underlying reasons that enable those results had remained a mystery. In order to penetrate deeper into the causes of the phenomenom, qualitative case study research utilizing semi-structured theme inter- view, with some open questions included, was chosen as the most suitable approach. For this study, several different research methods were considered. First, story telling method was tested with a test group, before ultimately choosing personal interviews as more optimal method to guarantee rich data. Participatory action research methodology was also considered for this study, but was abandoned after a consideration due to in- sufficient time and resources available within the case organization. This section is structured as follows: first, case study approach is explained. This is fol- lowed by showcasing the case unit 3.1 Case study approach The exact definition of the ”case” can be difficult to define due to how broad the term itself is. According to Gillham (2000), cases involve human activity in real world, can only be understood or researched within certain context and exist in ”here and now”. Some “basic qualities” of a case study are unstructured data, qualitative research approach and the overall goal of the research: to “understand the case itself” (Simons, 2009, p. 19). According to Gillham (2000), cases can be individual, group, institution or commu- nity, for example, and can be studied as single or in multiples cases. 31 Case study research results are not necessarily meant to be ”universal” in their nature. Rather, the goal is to better understand a specific situation (Stake, 1995). In qualitative case study, smaller parts of specific individual experiences can help form larger insight (Stake, 2010). According to Simons (2009), a case study is about researching the unique: how experiences and views of individuals can contribute to the overall case. 3.2 Case organization: Ostrobothnia Police Department Organization of Ostrobothnia police department is divided into three operational (and geographical) areas: Coastal Ostrobothnia, Southern Ostrobothia and Central Ostroboth- nia. Within these areas, total of 12 individual police stations are located. In everyday language within the case organization, these three units are often called via their initials: RP, EP and KP, respectively (Rannikko-Pohjanmaa, Etelä-Pohjanmaa and Keski- Pohjanmaa in Finnish). Chart of Ostrobothnia Police Department’s Geogaphical area and individual police stations can be found in Picture 4. Operation-wise, police department is a line organization divided into three separate op- erational lines: Police Operations, License Administration and Administration & Advisory Services. Each line possesses their own responsibilities and operates under supervision of a deputy police chief, who acts as the highest-level manager for their line. Police Operations are responsible for maintaining public order and security, traffic safety and criminal investigation. License Administration prepares, enacts and resolves matters related to granting and retracting different licenses, such as passports, ID cards and fire- arms. 32 Picture 4. Ostrobothnia Police Department (Poliisi, 2022) 3.3 Case unit: Administration Unit and Advisory Staff This unit was chosen as a focus for this study due to researchers intimate knowledge of staff and events that have taken place there, and in order to control the scope. Administration Unit and Advisory Staff are acting as two separate units, each under a different manager. Both managers are operating directly under a deputy police chief, who in turn is directly subordinate to the police chief. Purpose of Administration Unit and Advisory Staff as a whole is to provide support services to upper management and other members of the staff amongst all twelve individual police stations. Administration Unit’s operative work consists of more universal supporting activities found within any kind of organization. Staff operates in small teams within their own area of expertise, such as human resource management (HRM, or HR), financial man- agement and material procurement. Unit is decentralized in a sense as teams members’ offices are divided between the three police stations of Vaasa, Seinäjoki and Kokkola. For 33 example, certain members of the HR team are permamently working in one of the three locations mentioned. Advisory Staff has smaller teams compared to those of Adminstration Unit and are argu- ably more specialized, in a sense that activities they perform are not necessarily found in any ”typical” organization, private or public. Teams of Advisory Staff are responsible for ICT-management, premices of Ostrobothnia Police Department, registry office ser- vices and both information security and staff security. Advisory Staff teams are similarly decentralized as those of Administration Unit, but due to smaller team sizes some of their offices are wholly located within a single police station. Organizational chart of Os- trobothnia Police Department’s administration is displayed in Picture 5. Picture 5. Organizational chart of Administration in Ostrobothnia Police Department 34 It can be argued that case organization is heavily diversified organization (Mintzberg, 1989), with National Police Board acting as the headquarters that set strategic vision and overall strategic objectives, while each inividual police chief and their deputies act as divisonal managers in their own police department and all individual police stations they include. Example of this dynamic can be seen in Figure 3. While the example is adapted from an example of a business organization, it can be applied to demonstrate public or- ganizations too, such as Police departments and police stations that operate individually towards common goals and objectives, while the operative front still consists of same, universally standardized practices. Figure 3. Example of diversified organization (adapted from Mintzberg, 1989, p. 156) 3.3.1 Artifacts in Ostrobothnia Police Department As explored in literature review (section 2 of this paper), organizations and cultures pos- sess artifacts: surface level behaviour and symbols, quickly and easily observed by out- siders. While the following is not directly tied to the research questions of this study, they are mentioned here for the purpose of showcasing the case unit further. 35 While the artifacts mentioned below can largely be witnessed in majority of the Ostro- bothnia Police Department’s individual police stations, they have been primarily ob- served by the author of this study in police stations of Seinäjoki, Vaasa and Kokkola. While these artifacts are arguably based on author’s subjective and informal observation during their career in the organization, many of the new employees have discussed or experienced them, too. Some of these artifacts include: Common use of nicknames, and/or talking to people on a first-name basis, regardless of hierarchical position. It can even be argued that higher the person’s formal position, the more likely they are to be referred via nickname or abbreviation of their actual name in discussion. Some examples of these nicknames in- clude Bosse, Hasse and Kapu, commonly used in both casual face-to-face talk and email discussions. Additionally, people are rarely referred to by their official titles, exluded in favour of using their name alone. Coffee and ”celebration treats”: it is practically expected of all members of the work community or teams to provide cake, sweets or the like to enjoy with coffee in the break rooms. Causes for such ”celebration” include leaving for a holiday, having a birthday, name day or similar, returning from a holiday, or simply for no particular reason at all. Official team rewards and recognitions, trophies with a name placcard (both official and unofficial). Some of the official organizational rewards include ”team of the year” award, a physical trophy including a metal placcard that has names carved on it and ”co-worker of the year” recognizion where organizational members are free to suggest anyone they feel are deserving of that status. Official celebratory gifts provided by the organization: retirement, 50th and 60th birth- days. Additionally, it is common for any co-workers within a team to provide some kind of birthday (or other celebratory) gift by team members voluntarily offering a small sum 36 of money that is used to buy something. Usually this is a smalle memento, gift card or the like. ”Open door policy” - the hierarchy within the organization has relatively low thresholds: practically anyone can approach any person within their offices, or simply give a knock on the door. Hierarchical positions are largely ignored in this behaviour. In fact, due to doors often being open, it is more common to simply state ”knock knock, can I come in?” out loud, as there is no barred door to knock on to. Friendliness and basic manners: regardless of position or place of office, most everyone will greet each other when they cross paths at the corridor, for example. It is common to say “good morning” the first-time persons meet (most often in their offices or break rooms). 3.4 Data collection: personal interviews In case study research, the researcher is not strictly locked into utilizing only qualitative methods: quantitative and/or mixed methods are also valid options (Simons, 2009). Therefore, data was collected via semi-structured theme interviews, utilizing staff ba- rometer’s existing themes as interview themes, too. Prior to an interview, the entire case group was approached via email, explaining the purpose of the interview and asking for their voluntary participation in the study, by re- plying either in person or via private email. In total, 22 interviews were conducted, con- sisting of 17 experts and 6 managers. The suitable interview time and location was agreed with an interviewee either face-to- face, email or Microsoft Skype for Business beforehand. During this process, the inter- viewee was also given the basic interview structure, so they could see the questions and prepare for answers or questions of their own. Majority of the interviews were 37 conducted in interviewees own private office, or in conference rooms booked solely for the purpose of the interview. This kind of approach where an explicit permission is sought from the interviewees or participants beforehand is called informed consent (Simons, 2009). Combined with a choice of allowing interviewees to edit their commentary (in trancriptions, for example) and choose what information they give to the public, can help create good dynamic of trust (Simons, 2009). Data collection was conducted via semi-structured theme interviews. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in private and were electronically recorded. After the interview, they were transcribed. After the trancsription was finished, it was delivered back to the interviewee in order for them to double-check for any potential misinterpretations, er- rors or whether they wished to leave anything out (or add in any further comments or examples). This was done in order to promote further sense of trust, prevent mistakes or misunderstandings and to ensure anonymity (for example, certain examples told dur- ing the interview could be easily tracked to a specific person, given that majority of the interviewees worked in a same team). This kind of double-checking is also a part of qual- ity control in case reseach context, called triangulation (Gillham, 2000; Simons, 2009; Stake, 2010). The transcriptions were written on default Microsoft Word files, with Calibri (bread text), font size 11 and standard pt 8 spacing. Total interview data consisted of over 14 hours of audio recordings and transcription for the interviews totaled 138 pages between 22 in- tervies. Interviews were conducted between September 2020 to February of 2021. Sum- mary of the gathered data is presented in Figure 4. The invitation sent to the potential interviewees (email) and the interview script used in the interviews (and sent to inter- viewees beforehand) and are included as appendices. 38 In order to preserve anonymity, all interviewees were assigned monikers according to their hierarchical position within the case organization. Thus, interviewees were divided into two separate groups and identified as Managers A to F and Experts A to P (monikers were assigned randomly, not in the order of interviews, for example). As the interview- ees were all either colleaques working daily together or in a supervisor/subordinate po- sition towards each other, the anonymity helped both promote trust within the inter- viewees and to ensure ethicality in the research, the so-called “doing no harm” principle (Simons, 2009). The familiarity with some interviewee examples and case organization in general had one more additional benefit regarding interviews and data collection. Gillham (2000), Simons (2009) and Stake (2010) mention ”probing” as an interview technique that can be used to ”provoke” and prod for more unexpected answers and additional information from interviewees. For example, this can be achieved by utilizing and asking about actual events that have taken place within the organization. Due to organizational familiarity, these kinds of events were utilized by both parties to some extent, taking place as more casual conversation during interview process. 39 Figure 4. Data collection summary. 3.4.1 Alternate research methods - empathy-based stories or action research? It should be noted that personal interviews were not the only methodology that was considered for this study. Due to limited time managers and experts have available out- side of their organizational duties, it was thought that more open, non-time contrained survey paper or essay-style writing would be more efficient. The main though for this approach was that the ”interviewees” would be able to fill the survey or write their an- swers whenever they had spare time, pace chosen and set at their own leisure. Data group: Experts (16) Duration (minutes) Pages "Default", unaltered Word-file: Expert A 28 8 Calibri 11, style Normal, 8 pt Expert B 16 4 Expert C 14 4 Expert D 18 4 Expert E 62 8 Expert F 36 7 Expert G 29 4 Expert H 21 4 Expert I 55 9 Expert J 28 7 Expert K 41 7 Expert L 55 5 Expert M 24 4 Expert N 55 7 Expert O 33 5 Expert P 40 2 Total (minutes) 555 89 * Roughly 9 hours and 89 pages Data Group: Managers (6) Duration (minutes) Pages Manager A 69 10 Manager B 71 8 Manager C 59 12 Manager D 37 6 Manager E 41 7 Manager F 35 6 Total (minutes) 312 49 * Roughly 5 hours and 49 pages Data Group: All combined Duration (minutes) Page length 22 interviews 867 138 * Roughly 14,5 hours (14,45) 40 In order to place further emphasis on research objectives, a special kind of written sur- vey was chosen: method of empathy-based stories (MEB). This method was successfully utilized by Kultalahti (2015) in their dissertation studying work-life approaches of so called millenials, or Generation Y. Expained shortly, in empathy-based stories methodol- ogy that Kultalahti utilized, the research subject was given a scenario or short description including a ”character” that they then roleplay, placing themselves into the story and giving answers from within context of that role or scenario. By combining this method with social media (Facebook), Kultalahti was able to reach out to milennials who adopted roles of ”Sanna” and ”Sami”, acquiring rich data in written form. This seemed an ideal technique to uncover underlying issues that make workplace atmosphere ”good” or ”bad” within the context of Ostrobothnia Police Department, too. Therefore, empathy-based story method was attempted, first tested with a pilot group. Researcher chose a small number of close colleaques (from the case organization) and family members (who all worked for different organizations themselves) in order to see whether this method would yield suitable data for analysis. However, it quickly became apparent that this was not ideal way to gather data. Despite the test group being rela- tively close to the researcher (so there would be no ”shyness” or reluctance to partici- pate and provide answers) the time it took for test group to return a copleted survey form took several days at minimum, several weeks at maximum. Additionally, despite clearly communicated wish for this group to preferably write ”more and more broadly over too little or too short”, even the longest answers consisted of two sentences - too small and narrow to provide a richflow of data to be analysed. Therefore, the open ”storytelling survey” was deemed as inefficient method. However, not all of it was fruitless: the questions used in storytelling survey were reported to be easy to understand, and when discused face-to-face, seemed to create much more open and relaxed discussion. Despite being the inferior method data collection-wise, the sur- vey form itself would likely work as a base for personal interviews. 41 Participatory action research was also considered as another potential methodology. In action research, emphasis is placed on the active collaboration between the researcher and their research subjects (Avison et al., 1999; Baum et al., 2006). The researcher and research participants mutually reflect and refine the overall process as study progresses (Avison et al., 1999), shifting the traditional power dynamic between researcher and their subjects (Baum et al., 2006). However, as action research requires active partici- pants to work with the researcher, thus requiring considerable ”extra effort”, it was de- cided that there is no sufficient time or resources available within the case organization for that kind of study. 3.5 Data analysis For data analysis, content analysis with a combination of inductive and descriptive cod- ing was utilized in this study. In the following sections, the chosen approach to data anal- ysis are first explained and argued. After that, the coding process is explored in more detail. 3.5.1 Analysis method - inductive approach and descriptive coding Content analysis can include different methods such as coding and content mapping us- ing different categories or themes (Simons, 2009). Often in qualitative analysis coding technique is chosen between deductive or inductive coding approaches, thought a com- bination of both can be used. More important than specific approach is that the code structure is clear and comprehensive enough, improving the overall quality of analysis (Bradley et al., 2007). Example of coding is the act of labeling or marking certain phrases, words or sentences from the research data, used later for further analysis as the study progresses (Saldana, 2016; Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). In deductive coding, data is analysed and examined through codes and themes that are set and developed before the start of the data anal- ysis process. These themes are often developed from theoretical literature or other 42 frameworks. Codes are set first, with expectation that research data will have suitable content to fit the analysis framework (Azungah, 2018). According to Bradley et al. (2007) the combination of themes set in deductive coding approach are often called the ”start list”. They remind researchers to be mindful, careful not to ”force” data to forcibly fit into these starting categories. In inductive coding the code creation process is more continuous in nature, where new codes are constantly created, assigned and re-developed during the analysis process. This process includes choosing codes by highlightning certain phrases, paragraphs and other parts of the data, which are evaluated and refined further as more concepts and themes emerge from the data (Azungah, 2018; Bradley et al., 2007). The inductive ap- proach places greater emphasis on the participant experiences in the data analysis pro- cess (Azungah, 2018) and is efficient method in explorative studies or in situations where existing theories are not directly applicaple to the research phenomenom (Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). Additionally, there are several ways on how to develop codes from the data. For example, in In Vivo coding a specific focus is placed on the literal words used by the research par- ticipants (Manning, 2017) and used as a code. In descriptive coding assigned codes are used to summarize the excerpt or another part of the data into a single word or theme (Saldana, 2016). As the research phenomenom was completely unknown to the case organization with- out any prior research or knowledge, inductive approach and descriptive coding were chosen as primary methods. Inductive approach allowed to approach the data without any prior expactations, providing ”open mind” and descriptive coding allowed researcher to observe and arrange data into clearly structured themes. 43 3.5.2 Coding process To guarantee open-minded approach, no codes or major themes were planned before- hand. Instead, the interview tapes were all listened individually, transcribing the words into a Microsoft Word document. As the interviews were made in Finnish, the original transcription was also written in Finnish. In this phase, the researcher also utilized Mi- crosoft Word’s comment-function, which allows user to highlight chosen text and add comments that are displayed on the outside corner of the paper as preliminary coding. While the process described above was mainly utilized to improve reliability (for example, double-checking certain phrasing used or ensuring that interpretation of interviewee was correct on certain examples or metaphors that interviewee used), certain similari- ties and minor themes were already beginnig to emerge amongst experts and managers based on the examples and experiences they shared during interviews. According to Sal- dana (2016) and Linneberg and Korsgaard (2019) it is helpful to perform coding in several cycles, re-organizing themes and reviewing and refining the codes as needed. As each finished Finnish transcription was finalized and approved by the interviewee, it was then translated into English. Specific care was being used to preserve context be- tween different languages. At this phase, trancription was made ”leaner” by removing (not transcribing into English version) all content not relevant to interview questions or research problem (for example, some interviewees had discussed operative police work extensively during the interviews, outside of the research context – while interesting to hear, not relevant to the research questions at hand and thus they were cut out from further analysis). During the translation process, codes were re-refined and new ones developed. During the second transcription process, additional notes were made by the author to mark potential codes and snippets that may have commonalities between each individ- ual interviewee. Words, phrases and examples given such as ”I find it annoying”, ”-- this interests me” were tagged via different colours, mainly red and green, based on the 44 disposition or tone behind the words in order to evaluate whether the meaning was overall seen as a positive or negative factor by the interviewee. Additionally, comment- function was again utilized to note any parts or sections that seemed ”relevant” based on the research quetions. Finally, once the English transcriptions were finished (usually cutting the length of tran- scription by two to four pages in comparison to the original Word-file) each was re-read again. Here the inductive coding process truly began as smaller codes and previously marked portions were re-evaluated and organized into separate ”umbrella-categories”, effectively forming different sets of themes. For example, many of the interviewees (regardless of hierarchical position) would men- tion how they either liked how the upper management or co-workers would not assert themselves above others, how all of them could enjoy a cup of coffee together in a break- room, and how the general topics of discussion during said coffee breaks would entail subjects not related to their work or work organization. These kinds of ”trigger phrases” were grouped up in the same category. As the analysis progressed, multiple categories were merged into certain key themes based on their relative connections and were la- beled (Löfgren, 2013) as described below. At first, these examples were marked and codified as general ”humbleness” (coloured randomly with cyan in the Word-file) but as more transcriptions were read and even more similar or ”close” examples were being mentioned by increasing number of inter- viewees, another code category was added to include ”humble or respectful behav- iour”: ”Feet on the ground”. The name of the code was selected purely as an instinctual one, coming from common phrase ”to keep one’s feet on the ground” – being a sensible person who takes others around them into consideration, too. Similarly, another repeating theme amongst the transcriptions was (among the experts especially) how they appreciated (or in some cases, disapproved) how supervisors in 45 general seemed interested in their work and were readily available. Regardless of emo- tional disposition behind it, these were all coded with green colour. As analysis pro- gressed, additional code would be needed. As amongst phrases and examples such as mentioned above, originally coded into theme of ”Presence”, were also scattered men- tions of how easily one could receive assistance from co-workers in and outside of their specific team and area of expertise, ”Team-work” was added as a major theme to in- clude such examples. Finalized codes and themes mentioned above will be further discussed in the section 4. The overall process of transcription and coding is summarized in Picture 6. 3.6 Validity and reliability Validity and reliability are used as quality measures in academic research. In order to increase overall validity, several proven methods were utilized. According to Simons (2009) three common qualitative research methods used in case studies are interviews, observation and content analysis. In this study, all were utilized as a mixed method in order to guarrantee multiple different aproaches to research data: interviews were Picture 6. Research process 46 analyzed through content analysis, and passive observation was performed by the re- searcher before and after the interviews, as they work within the organization them- selves. This allowed researcher to further evaluate whether interviewees experinces aligned with their known history and casual, unofficial conversations after the data gath- ering. Additionally, the sample size of data was much broader than in a typical case study. Due to the unique nature of individual research cases in a study, Simons (2009) and Stake (2010) argue that the overall number of research participants or cases should not b e the focus – instead, more emphasis should be placed on whether one is able to receive in- sight to the case phenomenom. While this may be true, the writer of this study argues that the overall validity and reliability are enhanced by a larger number of research par- ticipants. Amongst seventeen individual interviewees, there appeared to be a consensus of the workplace atmosphere being good within the case organization and the experi- ences and examples told by them were aligned with each other, without any contradic- tions. Due to the researcher’s insider nature and more intimate knowledge of organizational past and events, specific care was placed on keeping open minded approach towards the research phenomenom. For example, in order to avoid any inadverted leading during the interview process the researcher purposely avoided certain discussion topics or event, unless the interviewee specifically mentioned them first. Additionally, in order to further enhance the quality of the research extensive members checking and frequent revisits to the data were utilized. The interviewees were delivered the interview transcripts for check-up in case of any misunderstanding, and any prelimi- nary coding researcher had made was also visible at this point as commentary notes made via Microsoft Word. Interviewees double-checking the transcripts is called mem- bers-checking and approaching the data from “multiple angles” via different methods to minimize potential for errors is called triangulation (Stake, 1995; 2010, Simons, 2009). 47 4 Findings In this findings section, the research data gathered through interviews is reviewed. Find- ings are explained through interview quotes and are divided into three major themes, called keystones, that embody themes of being humble and respectful, committed to ones work and actively engaging in teamwork and being helpful. Quotes are reviewed theme by theme and are divided into separate sections so the answers given by experts and managers can be more easily singled out. After the keystones, two themes that were experienced to be negative signals amongst interviewees are reviewed: a sense of organization being cloistered, and the flow of in- formation and communication. Lastly, all the findings are briefly summarized. Brief Interlude Based on the interviews and analysis, there appears to be a strong sense of cohesiveness and community due to daily interaction. Many interviewees have worked together daily for years, some even decades, which has formed tightly knit community and sense of unity. For example: ”We have more communal coffee table, where everyone gathers and meets. Perhaps that has somehow improved the sense of social cohesiveness.” (Expert B) But I say that overall, there’s a good spirit in the house. -- I believe it’s the persona, the mix of all these different personalities people have. -- Some are more quiet and withdrawn, others more talkative -- It ”brings colour”, all those different people. I consider it as an enrichment, absolutely. (Expert F) We have a small and tight group here. I think the atmosphere is nice, it’s nice to come to work and there are no conflicts. A good atmosphere with our small group. People are nice. We can discuss other matters than strictly work-related, I think it’s nice. (Expert H) 48 However, as the purpose of this paper is to find a deeper understanding of the case phe- nomena, ”strong sense of community” was not included as the main theme: instead it will be considered a surface level artifact. Based on the analysis described in section 3.4., three key areas that affect and create positive atmosphere were discovered. These key areas or themes are explained in the following sections, each separately. Data was categorized into final themes, named ”Keystones” in this paper, as follows: Keystone of being friendly and respectful: Feet on the Ground. Keystone of Presence: showing commitment and excitement towards one work. Keystone of Teamwork: sup- portive behaviour, that expends beyond boundaries set by organizational position. 4.1.1 Keystone 1: ”(Keep your) Feet on the ground. Do not assert yourself over others.” Supervisors, despite of their role higher in the hierarchy ladder, treat those around them with humblesness and respect – they understand and appreciate the expert skills of their subordinates, or otherwise won’t assert themselves over everybody else. Additionally, members of the work community and teams accept each other as they are, sharing mu- tual respect towards each other and their work. The following quotes by experts suggest that in addition to generally open and friendly atmosphere, especially the humble and considerate attitude of managers affect it much. Instead of strict hierarchy, there is a sense of equality and ”humane behaviour” between managers and experts alike whenever they interact with each other. 4.1.1.1 Experts For Experts B and C positive factor in their daily jobs was a sense of equality. When peo- ple are gathered around the coffee table, managers and experts alike are a group of peo- ple, without the burden of hierarchy or titles. Additionally, people generally are friendly towards each other: 49 I have enjoyed that the management, economy and human resources, information management, we are all together [at the coffee table], peacefully co-existing, throwing around some good humour. -- Friendliness and good manners, being considerate towards others. Those create positive feelings. And that we also talk about something else besides work, too. (Expert B) For Expert C, they also noted the sense of trust amongst their community, among with basic manners such as regularly greeting others. As they are gathered up with the man- agers, there is low sense of hierarchy present: Even though we have multitude of people with different job descriptions, there’s a sense of equality. When we are all gathered around the same coffee table, there are ”people” sitting there, instead of ”titles”. I like that kind of equality. -- I believe that people know what they are doing, and they trust that other people know what they are doing, too. I haven’t noticed a sense of distrust, no one is stalking the others. -- Here all the people greet each other. Even that is not something taken for granted everywhere, in other workplaces. There is sense of trust and flexibility… I’m not feeling any less of a person compared to all those chiefs here, this sense of equality is important. (Expert C) Expert D also noted the trust and sense of "safe environment" where people are allowed to speak their mind. Additionally, they considered ir a positive that their supervisor heeds their word if there are issues: [The atmosphere] is ”free”. You can bravely say whatever you want and be heard. All of us, the whole unit, is gathered among the same coffee table. That creates a sense of unity. -- One of our deputy police chiefs once told that ”he trusts us” while we were discussing at a coffee table. He said that ”whenever he asks us to do something, he knows that we will do it. There’s no need to watch over us”. And they pay attention, listen to us. There’s no need to be nervous about the nature of the feedback [whether positive OR negative], our supervisor will heed our word. But I think it’s great that that we can co-exist together at the same coffee table, I’d guess that’s not possible in every organization. (Expert D) 50 Expert E referenced the organizational times of another police chief, with whom people were uncomfortable to be sharing the coffee table with. They considered the current chief’s style to be more relaxed, affecting the overall atmosphere: Yes, [the workplace atmosphere] is more ”liberated”. I found it surprising that people were intimidated to talk in the past. Then it eventually progressed into people arriving at different times to spend their coffee breaks. -- People vanished [from the coffe table]. -- Also, [the previous police chief] was more commanding towards everyone. -- It was so different back then. The [new police chief’s] style is really relaxed. (Expert E) Expert F also saw that one can safely inform the supervisors/management even if there are bad news. They considered that a very positive and meaningful that there is no need to be mindful of the issues you bring up, or that there is no need to be subservient towards their higher-ups: -- There is no need to ”be subservient” or grovel ["orjailla" - translated differently in order to preserve original tone of the interview] towards the supervisors. You will always be able to say if there is something negative going on or some bad news. -- In my opinion, that is a major thing. If there would be a supervisor or managers that you would not be brave enough to confront, if there were any negative issue to bring up and you would have to grovel before them, you know. Our supervisors have always been the kind of people that there is no need to ”be careful” about what you say. -- But the supervisors are level- headed enough, ”they can take it”. That’s what they are paid for. In my opinion, we have very good supervisors in our house. Surely that affects [the atmosphere]. It hasn’t gone to their heads, you know, being a supervisor. --They are ordinary people. (Expert F) Expert G also mentioned similar matter with a retired manager who one was "allowed" to argue with: There was one [retired manager] who I liked, you always got answers from them. But you could also argue with them. (Expert G) 51 Expert I also stated how the atmosphere within their team is open, with freedom of speech. They also mentioned the sense of flat hierarchy or status, making majority of the managers approachable and told how matters were different in the past (during the reign of another police chief): I feel that we have good atmosphere [in our team], it is open. Everyone can speak their mind freely and we can agree to disagree. -- When I think about our Police administration, the lower and upper management, there are only one or two persons you couldn’t approach on a very low threshold. Even our [current] police chief is the kind of person who you can always ask. -- During the reign of [previous] police chief, it was exhausting to sit at the coffee table. -- Previous chief didn’t like certain managers and really let it show. (Expert I) Expert J considered the atmosphere to be open and there to be high sense of trust between the staff. They noted how friendliness and manners create good atmosphere at the workplace and how the mix of different personalities "glues the group together" at their coffee table. Notably, they also consider the influence and leadershipstyle of the past past police chief to be negative: [Context: discussing what makes the atmosphere good] That you can ask [for help], atmosphere is open and we trust in each other. And there’s no rumour- mongering or speaking ill behind people’s backs. And also these coffee breaks of ours, they bring out the personalities of people, it’s not all just work. That also improves the atmosphere, glues the group together. [Context: discussing qualities of ”good person”] Being respectful and friendly, considerate towards others. Basic manners, they create good atmosphere. You don’t have to be closest of friends, but act proper and smart. That’s makes good atmosphere. I don’t want our previous chief back. The atmosphere was stiff with them, they would trample all over people. Their leadership style was to show ”not like this”. (Expert J) For Expert K, the daily interaction between management and experts especially in the break room felt very natural. They noted the same sense of management being 52 approachable and that there is no need to cower before them, despite their hierarchical status. They also mentioned that they did not feel that way about the last police chief: Considering that we co-exist continuously, sharing morning and afternoon coffees and meals too, I find the co-working and cooperation very natural between the upper management and civilian workers. Of course, it boils down to the matter of person. We had a chief with whom people didn’t feel that comfortable to be in the same coffee room with, me among them. But it was 100% a matter of personality… now with this new chief I have completely opposite experiences, the cooperation and interaction is natural. -- The upper management is approachable and ”civilized people”, there’s no need to shun away from them or otherwise be wary in their presence even if you are at the same coffee table. (Expert K) Expert L also used the "good manners", open and casual discussion and low sense of hierarchical status as enablers of positive atmosphere. They also noted how the management is still respected, even if they are not promoting their status: Everyone can freely be themselves. We have different kinds of people here and everyone can be as they are. Few try to assert themselves. We are all polite, there are no malicious words. We have good spirit here. One example is that we enjoy coffee together. Always at the same time, and everyone is welcome to join. We meet each others and discuss matters outside of work, too, which brings a lot of enjoyment and strength to carry on at work. Not everyone has a culture like that. At the coffee table, there’s no difference between any titles. No one is trying to embarrass or assert themselves over the others. -- Here we have no need to ”be careful” about what you tell and to whom. I think the atmosphere here is open and polite. -- I think there’s a respectful stance towards the management. Even if they are casual and friendly, they are still respected. (Expert L) For Expert N, the fact that supervisors and managers are "human beings" and that you can talk naturally to them, and even provide critique was a positive factor: [Context : discussing management in general] I think everyone are approachable, and if you don’t realize something you can always ask again if needed. Even if they 53 are supervisors, you can talk to them naturally, just like us right now. And you can tell them ”I didn’t get that, could you explain more clearly?” And if they are the ones not realizing something, you can tell them ”you still didn’t realize, did you?” -- Of course, there is a certain degree of respect [towards superiors], but there is no need… you can freely tell them directly how ”they are way off the point with that matter”. Even if they are supervisors. (Expert N) Expert O briefly mentioned how the atmosphere is such that everyone can freely speak their mind, a view shared by many interviewees: You could say we have a relaxed atmosphere. Where everyone can speak up. (Expert O) Finally, Expert P felt that the good atmosphere is created through positive attitude, especially that of top management. Personal human respect, openness and not asserting oneself above others were seen as positive factors: Great part of this [good atmosphere] is enabled by the attitude of top management and other supervisors. The past is considered past, which has not always been the case. I think we are open when dealing with issues and nothing is left unresolved to increase any further bitterness. The cooperation works because we respect each other as persons, any disagreements are not about you, it’s about work. The management isn’t unhappy even if you propose a new way of doing things. The proposition is weighted and inspected from every view. With the current management there’s no need to mask or hide your propositions so they can ”invent” it as their own idea. You can be straight and open. The hierachy within the police department is supposed to exist, but it shouldn’t be about pecking and asserting your own position [above others]. (Expert P) 4.1.1.2 Managers Amongst the Managers, in their interviews they displayed and demonstrated same kind of openness and "freedom of speech" that the Experts appreciated in them. For example, Manager A felt they can openly admit if they were in the wrong in some desicion making, for example: 54 [Context: discussing managerial decision and the critique they may face] Some people may think those decisions are wrong, or they may actually even be wrong, but even then we must be able to change them. I can admit if I make a mistake. Good decision makers and supervisors must be able to do that. (Manager A) They also felt that there is no need to conform or be submissive towards the management. Instead, they appreciated those who would argue the case at hand and state their opinion on the matter: [Context: discussing the staff representatives in official meetings] There’s no need to conform to the management, nor should you. One of the greatest staff representatives was highly critical. They were worth listening to because they had delved into the information, without gut feeling and argued their opinions. (Manager A) Many of the Expert interviewees noted how there is a sense of openness and respect. The following quote from Manager A suggests that as a manager, they respect the professional skills of experts they work with: [Context: discussing the importance of understanding the substance level of work] You should know enough that you can understand and appreciate the task, that it’s no useless work. There’s a purpose behind the work. You don’t necessarily have to dig that deeply into the substance, but you must understand its value, that it has to be done. (Manager A) Manager B suspected the atmosphere is positive because majority of the administration work is performed by experts, who are able to handle their professional jobs and will not shun away from responsibility, creating a sense of openness: [Context: discussing what makes the atmosphere good] It’s most likely because everyone are experts. There are no loose ends and everyone knows what the others are doing, allowing the social part to be truly social. There’s no need to suspect that ”the others do nothing here”, we all know and trust that others are doing the right things. And that affects the social interaction. (Manager B) 55 Additionally, they mentioned how as a supervisor, one must be humble and calm. They also suggested that while as a manager they too are a subordinate towards their supervisor, there is similar openness and "freedom of speech" between each other: [Context: discussion about being "a good supervisor"] -- you must always be humble. I have such a long career. I decided that there cannot be something that I don’t know how to do it. -- You must be calm and present. In a line organization such as us, nothing is ever unclear. ”The chief says”, that’s obvious. Before chief says, you can affect that. (Manager B) And as a special mention about working with experts as a member from managerial position, Manager B placed great importance on trusting in their expert knowledge. Not being arrogant and blindly order them around, but allow them to provide feedback and offer their own-deviced solutions to issues: But when it comes to experts, the most important answer supervisor can give to their question is ”what do you suggest?” That creates the dynamic and you’ll have your answer. (Manager B) Manager B also considered it a dangerous attitude for a supervisor to think that they have "the best knowledge". Instead, as a supervisor one should consult "the lower ladders" first in order to get more comprehensive view: [Context: relationship and power distance between manager and performing worker] Chief here [at the "higher level"] should descend down to that ["lower"] level, and then come back up to make their decision. And the same goes for supervisor here [one step below "higher" manager]. One or two steps downwards. If you don’t do that, you think, you believe that you know. -- That’s the greatest problem any commander can have, to believe that they have all the knowledge. (Manager B) Manager C considered being able to work on their own terms in order to perform certain task or secure objectives to be positive factor – that even on managerial level, supervisor should trusts their subordinates’ capabilities and skills. 56 Based on my experiences, if a supervisor gives you a task, but denies any chances to utilize your personal expertise, using you more as a secretary, that is NOT fine by me. I find it a bad way of doing it, preventing me from using my own abilities. If your supervisor limits your working too much, I don’t like that. That’s bad supervisor-work for me. (Manager C) Manager C is expecting their subordinates to tell should they see that something is amiss or the manager is making a mistake or " wrong" decision, signaling the openness in dialogue that experts appreciated based on their interviews: At least with my own subordinates I have strived towards ”if you see that I’m clearly missing something here, please, do tell” attitude. It would be awful if they’d just watch and think ”we’re going to crash and burn, clearly our boss hasn’t been reading the instructions, we’ll see how it goes.” If that happened, that wouldn’t be representing an atmosphere of trust. I trust my subordinates to notice and tell me if ”you can’t do that this way, because it involves this and that” against my ”let’s do this it like this”. -- They let me know that, for which I’m really thankful. (Manager C) Manager D considered one’s personal attitude towards their work to affect the atmosphere: [Context: discussing what makes atmosphere positive] First thing that comes to mind is positivity. That old saying, ”glass half-full, or half-empty”. If everything is always negative, you’ll see everything as bad, that kind of thing. When you have a positive attitude and willingness to do, that alone will carry you far. (Manager D) While the above quote in itself may not provide much information, the following may add to it. Manager D also points out how the leadership styles have changed from the past, being more assertive and absolute compered to today. While they did not take a stance on whether things were better or worse back then, the style was much more authoritative and based on status in their experience, possibly affecting whether one sees glass full or empty: 57 Back in the 80s, the supervisors were… they probably had no management or leadership training of any kind. They had mostly university backgrounds, they were lawyers mostly, when they received positions as chiefs: rural police chief (nimismies). It probably wasn’t about their education back then, they were more of a ”personalities”. I don’t know whether they were good or bad [as supervisors], but the world was different back in the 80s. As a subordinate, you didn’t challenge your supervisor in any way or… back then, there were no conversations. The supervisor told you what to do and it was crystal clear. A younger constable did what the Senior Sergeant (ylikonstaapeli) ordered, they did what the Chief Inspector (komisario) ordered and they did what the chief ordered. The culture was nowhere near the same as today, you can’t compare those. The managers and supervisors of the past were more of a dictators. You did what was ordered, there was no questioning or thinking whether it was right or wrong. -- These days… a subordinate can give feedback to their supervisor, which is both hoped and preferred. You are free to speak your mind, which was out of the question in the 80s and early 90s. It wouldn’t have been wise, your whole career development would have ceased the moment you criticised your superiors. (Manager D) Manager D also points out that everyone’s jobs are important, suggesting the respect towards others. That there is no useless job, as every function supports the main competency of the police: The administrative side is meant to support operative actions, the main mission of the department is to provide police services. [Lists how the process forms: there must be people to take care of the recruitment, financial unit to handle money and billing, someone for the premices, vehicles etc…] in their own way everyone are equally important, regardless of the number of people involved. If one piece is missing, the rest of the thing simply doesn’t work. (Manager D) And in addition to respect and the more open supervisor-subordinate relationship, feedback from one’s work is readily more available: 58 And feedback of course. Today they say that you should give positive feedback even more, too, which hasn’t been that prominent in the history of government administration. [In the past] it was enough when you did your job and no one had any complaints, that was your ”good feedback”. These days we have even verbal praise, or there’s the Intranet where they publish any positive feedback citizen’s have about the actions of a certain police patrol, or any other praise or thanks about good work. That’s a good thing. A human being likes if they are praised. (Manager D) Manager D also appreciated the more "level headed" management style where supervisor pays heed to their subordinates and their opinions: [Context : discussing different leadership styles, authorative versus listening to one’s opininons or counsel] I’d like that the chief has the qualities of that good leader, good supervisor. Regardless of their wisdom, they should at least listen to your opinions. Even if they alone make the final decision. But at least listening to the opinions of their subordinates and the general staff, considering different options before making the decision. (Manager D) Manager E also appreciated the open atmosphere where people respect each other, both as people and as professionals: And there’s that kind of mutual trust and good atmosphere, for example at our break room cafeteria: people are talking and no one underestimates others, there’s no speaking ill. And we appreciate each other’s work. -- Of course it comes from the people themselves. That they appreciate one another, each others’ work. Not dismissing or underestimating. (Manager E) Regarding their own supervisor, Manager E gave a cocrete example of their supervisor consulting their opinion, instead of just making the decision themselves. They further continued on the subject of how supervisors should ideally be just like that: -- just yesterday I gave my supervisor support and advice. So they also utilize the expertise and help of others [and subordinates, too]. (Manager E) 59 [Context: discussing interactive, coaching leadership] -- good leader, they will listen instead of immediately declining. Not all the wisdom is possessed by on person. Subordinates often give great ideas. And if something cannot be done, argue the answer why not. That’s when mutual leadership and interaction works. (Manager E) Manager F had noticed the casualness and its positive effects at the coffee table: If I consider it from this ”coffee table viewpoint” I think the workplace atmosphere is good. There are no visible conflicts between people: everyone gets along with each other. There’s a lot of laughter and casual, ”ordinary” talk: it’s not all work- related. (Manager F) Manager F revealed that they purposefully seek to lessen the sense of hierarchy in order to make themselves more approachable by the staff: [Context: discussing whether manager’s physical presesence affects or changes others’ behaviour] It’s partly conscious, partly not, but I try to keep the encounters on a two separate levels. We have those official managerial infos and the rest, but in addition to those I enter the table, join the coffee moments where spontanious discussion happens. That lowers the hierarchy, makes me ”one of the people”, without any extra baggage associated with my rank. I try to make those unofficial encounters happen. (Manager F) While discussing the positive and negative factors that may affect one’s stance towards their supervisor or general atmosphere, Manager F mentioned "traditional" leadership style of the past, that relied on hierachical power and assertiveness, with mimimal dialogue between manager and subordinates. Instead, they prefer overall trust: [Context: discussing what makes "a poor supervisor"] From the management perspective, the kind of ”traditional” style from the past decades: commanding, authorative. It probably affects the atmosphere and certainly affects the work performance. Through the entire supervisor chain, in a way everyone should trust and believe that the staff can, knows and wants to perform their work well. 60 You must give your subordinates certain freedom. So that they can affect their own work, giving them ”the joy of doing”. There are several matters where it’s completely useless to micromanage, to go tell them ”to do this, then that.” People already know how to do their job. (Manager F) Manager F also discussed theme of trust more. They believed that trust, openness and freedom of doing the work subordinate sees fit to promote a sense of good, positive atmosphere: [Context: discussing what supports "good supervisor work"] One keyword could be trust. When we trust that the staff, the subordinates both wish and can do their job. When you show trust and give certain freedom, that often promotes that ”good feeling”, it’s nice to work. There’s no need to intervene in every detail. And one should also remember to keep in mind that mistakes happen, too. There’s no need to cause enormous ruckus over them, take them more as a learning curve: ”this is how it went, it could or should have gone differently.” But in every case, when people act and do, mistakes are bound to happen every once in a while. And considering the sheer amount of cases and different rules and regulations the Police has, it’s impossible to always remember or adhere to every single detail. Trust, acceptance of mistakes and the generation of ”positive feel”, encouragement. I guess all that forms this ”good atmosphere”. (Manager F) 4.1.2 Keystone 2: Presence – ”Show interest and commitment" Theme of ”presence” does not necessarily mean physically being there, but mental ”connection” of showing that supervisors and team members care about their work. From supervisors, this could mean asking their subordinates how they are, inquiring about current work, work projects and so on. As a general principle, being engaged and excited, ”passionate” about one’s own job generates a sense of trust for all parties involved. 61 Especially experts both appreciate and expect that entire management level, not only their personal supervisor, is active and efficient in providing solutions to certain problems - when they are asked to take part. Through this kind of dynamic, not too many experts even wish for managers to get involved, instead preferring independent work and "plenty of leash" given by the management. However, certain degree of interaction and contact is still expected in order to avoid feelings of "abandonment". 4.1.2.1 Experts In the following quotes for example, some of the interviewees had negative experiences about interaction frequency with their supervisor. Expert A and Expert C felt that their supervisors do not initiate contact with them at all, which increases sense of annoyance and uncertainty, affecting the atmosphere: My supervisor hasn’t come talking to me, not even once. Considering they’re my supervisor, they should be aware of how my life is going, for example. Because private life also affects your professional life. It would be nice if my supervisor would sometimes come and ask, ”Hi, how’s it going”, if I need help or assistance or something. This has never happened, not even once. That annoys me. As a person they’re okay, nothing like that. But as a supervisor, not good. It’s like they don’t care. -- [Not interacting more] does affect work atmosphere. Supervisor could show some interest in other times too, not just in annual [performance] conversations. (Expert A) I do like my supervisor, but their role [as the supervisor] has been left kinda weak, in my opinion. We have ”sat down [to talk]” only a couple of times, and the last time was from my initiative… kind of a mutual feedback is missing. (Expert C) Interviewer [to Expert C]: How does that affect you? You are left unaware of the future. I am longing for something more ”far reaching”, so you’d know ”what’s the deal here, how’s it going”, you know? You should get to know your subordinates, and keep up if not daily, at least weekly interaction. So that the ”interaction” wouldn’t be once-per-year performance appraisal, with mutually charged pressures. (Expert C) 62 Expert D and Expert E mentioned the sense of commitment as a positive factor regarding the trust and atmosphere. Additionally, Expert F mentioned that they like how the police chief (among other managers) is a fast and decisive decision maker and that they had a sense of "presence" with their supervisor, improving their working relationship: I feel that we all are committed to our work. Everyone are interested in what they do. (Expert D) And here everyone are highly committed to their work. -- People in the right positions, who can do their work and enjoy doing it. [Police chief] takes the charge well, he’s just as fast and capable of making decisions. Doesn’t try to avoid issues, he engages them. -- I know that my supervisor will help, regardless of what I would ask. I always get help that I need. There’s no ”ravine” between us, that’s not what I mean. My supervisor is ”always present”, which is a huge plus. Whatever happens, they are always ”in the house”. There’s a strong sense of presence. (Expert E) Expert F appreciated how their supervisor heeds to them, asking them for counsel. They also had the feeling that as a subordinate, they are free to speak their mind without fear of repercussion: Of course that the supervisor takes heed to their subordinates. I think that is a major thing. Because the subordinate can have wisdom and good ideas, too. It affects the work place well-being a lot if there’s something the subordinates would be unable to say out loud. It would affect to the well-being and satisfaction… (Expert F) However, Expert F also had negative experience regarding the amount of interaction, similar to experiences of Expert A and Expert C before: At the end, I interact little with my supervisor. Whenever there’s something I need, I’ll tell, and they’ll listen. No doubt of that. It’s more about that I don’t know whether my supervisor knows that much about what we are doing. I think a good supervisor knows what the subordinate is doing. I have this feeling my supervisor thinks that ”anyone could do what we do”. That’s not even remotely true. (Expert F) 63 Expert G appreciated that they are treated equally by their supervisor. For the, the speed and level of activity their supervisor had for resolving issues promoted a sense of trust: The supervisor treats us all equally. They give feedback, and if you ask something they don’t know, they’ll get you that answer. A supervisor who you can trust. -- [Names another manager who] also seeks the answer if I ask them something they don’t know [yet]. I’ll get my anwer the next day. (Expert G) Related to that activity, Expert G had minor complaints about middle-level management, with whom they had issues related to how they prioritize their work (and administrative duties): Some of the [middle-level] managers could prioritize their work. Even if their other work is important, they are also charged with approving and signing the documents in time so the staff gets paid. (Expert G) When discussing about the level of involvement in their work they would wish from their supervisor, Expert G had the following to say. They took certain distancing from a full substance level from their work as a sign of respect: Our supervisor has been learning the substance of our work much, and has succeeded, too. However, they don’t wish to intervene too much, they respect our knowledge. But they are interested in it. (Expert G) Interviewer (to Expert G): This is more of a positive thing? Yes. Our previous supervisor would always say ”I know nothing about [the work, substance] you do”, yet wasn’t all that interested in it either. I hope that everyone would be committed to what they do, so the motivation would be as high as possible. (Expert G) Expert H considered their supervisor to be approachable, but a bit distant in their interaction and the pace at which they contact each other: 64 Interviewer (to Expert H): Do you like your supervisor? Yeah. Easily approachable, which I think is important, but then again supervisor is a bit distant. There’s no questions, we don’t interact with each other on a weekly basis, not even close on a weekly basis. So in a way, the interaction is really minor. We are located on different offices, but there are ways you could take contact with. It’s really minor. But if there’s something to say, then of course you can reach them. (Expert H) Interviewer (to Expert H): What could be the cause for it? Difficult to say. Maybe there’s been no need to intervene with others’ work that way, maybe there’s been some trust that things will work out and there’s no need to meddle with anything. But it would be nice if there’d be questions like ”is everything okay, how’s it going?” There’s so little of that. (Expert H) Due to the lower level of interaction between them, Expert H felt that the overall interest of their supervisor towards Expert H’s work is low. They were left hoping for more interaction and interest: Interviewer (to Expert H): Do you feel the supervisor is ”interested” in your work? They never ask, not directly from me at least. It feels that the interest is quite low. Interviewer (to Expert H): Any factors or matter that support/would support ”good” supervisor work? Maybe that interaction, asking ”how’s it going”. -- ”Is everything going well there, I haven’t heard from you for a while”. That’s what I’d need. The physical presence itself would not be necessary. But that they’d pay attention to you, that would be nice. (Expert H) Expert I saw enthusiastic and engaged attitude especially inspiring : 65 At this moment I feel that we have great atmosphere. And we have the focus -- there are currently large development processes going on, that also creates team spirit, we are all striving towards the same goal. I’d like to say that the good atmosphere is formed when people are happy and open, they are important elements. But as for my own team, for example, in my co-workers I appreciate enthusiasm towards one’s work the most. -- I like to believe that the majority of us are working ”with a big heart”, that we want to and will. That is good. (Expert I) Respectively, lackluster approach or bored attitude towards work was seen as a negative factor by expert I : You hate to work with someone with an attitude ”must I come to work again”. No longer, but there has been people in the past who would only work ”arbitrarily”, people like that crumble the community. You don’t have to be excited every single day, but you must be interested [in your work]. I think that is important. We had one [now retired] person who would remind us at least every other day, for a whole year, that "when they would be retiring, when their retirement begins". That really gnawed at my mind. (Expert I) While the above quotes were discused about colleaques, the same approach is extended towards management level, too: One especially good quality in my supervisor is that they are inspired by their work. I admire and respect that they are active, get to the bottom of things and give answers. The answers may not always be what I’d want to hear, but they are answers, nothing is left floating unresolved. (Expert I) [Context: discussing their supervisor and substance level of their work] Our current supervisor, of course they don’t have to be able to do our job, but they are interested in it. (Expert J) The expert J also had some negative experiences with the middle-management, seeing the top managers more active: 66 [Context: discussing about top management] They have a strong grasp on the matters, they are not delayed or indecisive. When you ask something, they find the answer or solve the issue, and take the responsbility from the results. I like that. For any specific issues and questions you always receive answers and thoughts. (Expert J) [Context: discussing the management in general] A couple of [retired] superintendents [ylikomisario, upper level managers] come to mind who were great to work with. Both were assertive leaders, who made things happen. But when we descent to the Chief Inspector [komisario, middle-level managers] level, you start to meet these wusses who you have to be constantly pushing in order to make make any progress. ”Could you please finally sign this thing in the system”, that kind of folk. (Expert J) Expert J had also a hypothesis of potential cause for "less active" attitude of middle- management, so contrary when compared to higher level managers. They suspected that most recent organization reform still had visible effects: -- the new system [latest organizational reform] was introduced in 2015, which brought administrative work to Chief Inspectors. You still receive the attitude ”do I really have to do this [administrative activity], must I?” ”Yes, you do.” Many of them still challenge the thought whether administrative work is a part their job - yes it is. (Expert J) Expert K appreciated the top managemet’s way of letting the experts to work on their own. They are aware that they do not possess all the knowledge, instead trusting for the experts to know how to do their jobs. Additionally, Expert K felt that they receive support from their supervisor should they need it: I think they [top managers] have a suitable touch in leading an expert organization in a sense that there’s trust. They themself cannot be an expert within our respective specialized fields, and they have understood that. There’s no interference, no needless micro-management as ”expert knows best” and have it under control. I think that’s a positive. -- The cooperation works so that supervisor supports me as needed, should I need help… I have liked this, it works well. -- If there’s ever a situation where I need support [from my supervisor] I receive it. (Expert K) 67 Expert L had both trust in their peers for doing their jobs and appreciated the way their supervisor is efficient in promoting that sense of trust and provides quick resolutions to any issues: Do I trust that ”everyone does their part?” Yes. -- My supervisor promotes the interest of all their subordinates. Trusts the subordinates. Every issue is resolved immediately, or will be resolved if not. They have the will and drive to make things work and is development-oriented. (Expert L) Expert M also valued the efficiency and quickness in resolving any potential issues, in addition to their supervisor treating subordinates equally: [Context: What makes a good supervisor?] These are old cliches, you have to be fair and so on… well, actually that’s true. You have to be fair and of course, speak your mind. No shuffling the issue around back and forth. Supervisor work must be precise, decisive. (Expert M) Similar to Expert K, Expert N felt they both received support from their supervisor when they need it, but was also confident enough in their abilities that they wished the supervisor to know not to interfere unnecessarily. They saw that the interest one’s supervisor shows towards the work is more important than actually being proficient in it on a substance level: [Context: discussion about interviewees supervisor] I like them. If I need support, I will receive support. ”Don’t get too much involved to our work ” and everything will go well. We know how to do this (laughs). When the situation where we need help arrives, we will let you [the supervisor] know. -- Supervisor’s presence. I don’t mean physical presence by that. What I mean is that they are somewhat aware of what we do, but also won’t intervene ar our work, because we know what we are doing. If you are not too familiar with the issue at hand, try not to intervene. Have trust in your subordinates. Even if my supervisor is clueless about my work on the substance-level, -- If they show interest in it regardless, thats’ the whole point. Not being indifferent towards what you [as the subordinate] do. (Expert N) 68 Expert O saw that there was a strong drive, a commitment in their team. They too appreciated leaders that drive matters forward, not leaving anything unresolved: I think there’s a strong drive there, everyone is doing their job -- And then we have our team leader who engages, in their way leads us forward. It’s annoying if issues are left hanging, unresolved and no one adheres them in any way. -- [Context: discussing interviewees supervisor] They always provide me with an answer when you ask them, which I like, and they also push things forward, which is also a good thing. I think that’s a feature of a good supervisor. (Expert O) Expert P also saw their peers and administrative staff in general to be active and trustworthy. From the management side they experienced that they let experts to rely on their professional skills, avoiding unnecessary micro-management: Almost without exceptions, staff’s attitude towards work is open-minded and progress-oriented. -- Personally I think that you do your job, don’t just promise that you’ll do it. -- I’m satisfied with my supervisor and the management in general. They engage issues and give you ”ample fetter”, freedom to move. I like when no one is breathing down on my neck, instead giving me freedom and peace to work and trust in my professional skills. (Expert P) 4.1.2.2 Managers The dedication to work was seen as a positive amongst experts. Similar results can be seen from the managers, but some of their views and potential sources for "negative" stems from the middle-management and issues that can ve sourced back into the last organizational reform, where several previously autonomous or "independent" police stations were merged. Some of the following quotes from Managers could also be seen to relate into Team- work theme. However, they are coded into theme of Presence, ones dedication to work due to the fact that while many members of the middle-management are responsible for directing teams located in a specific area or police station, several upper level managers saw that their overall vision was "lacking". While the Managers interviewed 69 for this study did not critize the middle-management’s personal team performance, their greatest weakness was seen to be too geographically focused thinking: as representatives of the management, their focus should be on the whole of Ostrobothnia Department insted the one area they operate in. Manager A explained how the merge affected the organization at the beginning, how there were conflicts and in-fightning: Some managers have transferred from a different geographical area. At first there was open bickering and competition concerning the division of overall resources, blaming how one area is ”again being favoured at the expense of others”. -- It took several years before we could take the stance that ”resources are divided by using certain indicators that are shared and same for everyone.” No more making up your own performance measures, aimed to secure wished resources. The process has to be transparent and same for everyone. -- Today, no one challenges this view anymore. I think we are past that. (Manager A) And regarding how the example told above affected the general trustworthiness of subordinate managers, who would break promises or leave issues unresolved: -- They were completely unreliable. They would favour the geogaphical area of their ”(past) home-office”. They would withhold information, or make contradicting decisions that we had mutually agreed not to do, while you were on vacation. When ”the guard” left the room, they would do the opposite of what was agreed, or ignored it altogether. Many ”unpleasant” tasks were left unresolved. (Manager A) From the managerial side, presence was seen more as a way of not shirking away from harsher and more challenging duties of a supervisor: Here [in a larger work community] it is easy to hide behind someone’s back. If they wish to evade something, they can. You can’t do that in a smaller work community of forty people or so: at some point, your colleaques will say ”ENOUGH!” and call you out. -- It’s not unique to the Police, every organization always faces these kinds of issues. The self-governance becomes different as organization grows in size. (Manager A) 70 Although Manager A told that the issue of trustworthiness is resolved, for the most part at least, based on their experiences there are still some challenges regarding the level of activity within the executive team. The executive team consists of different managers dealing with staff issues and strategic management, for example. According to Manager A, some members of the team are engaging presented issues only when it directly involves ”their" area of responsibility, instead the whole of the department. The thing is, not everyone have realized what working in an executive team is about. There’s more to that than remaining completely silent until dealing with an issue that involves you. As a member of an executive team, you deal with all the issues the team is presented with. Whether they involve ”your field” or not. The reason you are in a management team is to speak your mind, not to represent a certain unit, sector or area. (Manager A) We have roughly four dozen Chief Inspectors (komisario) in our house. We have to get them all to realize that this is Ostrobothnia Police Department. As a whole. None of that ”yeah, but in our [individual, "personal"] police station”. That is the crucial issue in my opinion. Once we get [the middle-management] to realize this and get them to consider issues from the Ostrobothnia Police Department’s view, instead of just single police station’s view. (Manager A) Additionally, Manager A saw that the decentralization of middle/upper managers could cause certain issues : The danger in decentralization is that you have to remember you are a part of the management, not a representative of your place of office towards everyone else. If that happens, you have misunderstood your role. (Manager A) Manager B had similar view to those of A, using administrative duty of wage-decisions as an example. Based on Manager B’s view, many middle-level managers have trouble either knowing the rules and regulations related to that area, or unwillingness in adhering to them: 71 The middle-management is our weakest link. Not all of them necessarily understand that as supervisors, they are representatives of the employer. -- As managers, they should be fully aware of how the rules work and what are the limitations. -- Police department has no right to interpret general collective agreements, that’s a job for National Police Board or Ministry of Finance. A paltry police chief cannot go against those regulations. -- We cannot deviate from that. ”But why not?” -- I get it, I can fully understand if I have to explain this to our [lower level] staff. But not the brass (päällystö). As they have salary decision rights, they should also read the collective agreements. Interviewer: The ”administrative” side of the middle-management is lacking? Precisely. Interviewer: as a double-check, we are talking about the Chief Inspectors here? Yes. Interviewer: It’s more of "not knowing" that’s the background cause for this? Different places had all those different practises and then... -- A supervisor cannot be fully loved, or fully hated. Either one of those extremes always lead into ruin and injustice, they don’t work. Step in front of the staff and be yourself, tell them what you will do, but that’s just a part of it. You can’t reach the point of being fully loved or hated, stay in between. Another possibility to open up is to choose middle- managers who reflect ”both sides of the worlds” to convey your orders. If a middle-manager is the reflection of their subordinates, not the management, the result is someone who doesn’t even read the damn collective agreements. All they do is cry ”why can’t my subordinate be elevated to that wage-level”. We can’t do that! [due to regulations] But if the middle-manager is like an hour-glass in the middle, able to peer into both sides, they can operate better. And the (higher) management are encouraged when they see that there’someone in the middle-management who reflects both worlds. It has major significance. We have representatives for both sides of that spectrum among our Chief Inspectors. (Manager B) Similarly to the commitment and engagement to their responsibilities that the Experts felt was a positive key factor, Managers display trust towards their subordinates, earned through that commitment. 72 If I consider my own teams, I fully trust them. For example, distance working. I don’t have to think whether they aren’t doing their work, I trust that if there’s some issue that prevents progress they will let me know. I don’t have to double-check whether tasks have been done: if we’ve agreed on something, it also trust that it is done. In a way I also aim to ensure that my subordinates can trust that if they have any problems, they can approach me. Then we’ll ponder that issue together. (Manager C) Additionaly, there is the presence of managers: whenever issues or challenges emerge, the managers make themselves readily available: Of course I’m not able to dig that deeply into the substance level of their [experts’] work, but if there’s something that has to be taken forward or something like that, that’s usually when I step into the discussion and start figuring out where’s the issue. The problems have always been solved. (Manager C) Notably, this stance is also present in the manager – manager’s own supervisor relationship. The following example was told by Manager C during discussion over challenging managerial decisions and if they meet powerful critique from the staff: [Context: discussing whether interviewee’s onw supervisor supports them enough] Yeah, my supervisor ”has my back” so that I’m never alone. And what we have discussed together is that maybe it’s even my job to take the yelling, based on my position. As long as I know they’ll be behind my back, supporting me, I dont mind. Of course if there would be issues [with the support] it would get really heavy. Generally speaking, when there are any issues that we know might receive some ”feedback” we discuss those with my supervisor and the chief beforehand, so everyone knows to keep their guard up, to not be surprised. (Manager C) Manager C also had experiences about manager not backing up their subordinate, "leaving them stranded" in a conflict or cghallenging situation. Notably, they seemed to consider handling critique and pressure as a measure on whether one is suitable to be a manager or not: 73 [Context: discussion related to above quote, cases of a supervisor not "having one’s back"] Yes, there are cases of that. It’s human nature that when shit hits the fan, you’re not too thrilled to sacrifice yourself, instead you try to sacrifice someone else first. -- And that might be one of the downsides of managerial work. A chief once said that we have an ample supply of ”managers of nice things’”. It’s easy to be a supervisor when everything is going well and there are no issues at sight. But when things start to go sour, that’s when managerial skills and whether you can do this or not are measured. (Manager C) When discussing "good supervisor work" with Manager D, the following discussion took place. At the time of the interview, the researcher thought that they were joking. However, when the recording was transcripted the commitment in Manager D’s voice became clearer. As the matter was double-checked from the interviewee afterwards, it was confirmed that Manager D did not joke about "all those fancy (positive) adjectives". However, they also realize and pointed out that a single manager cannot embody all the ideal qualities, as they have their own duties in addition to being a supervisor to their subordinates: [Context: discussing good managerial work and qualities that support it] Well, all those fancy adjectives that exist: you should know how to listen, understand, on the other hand you should have professional control skills, be positive and innovative… all these kinds of good qualities. The list for ”good manager, good management work” is endless. Interviewer: And which of those really matter? They are all important. You can’t say that any one of those things wouldn’t matter. Interviewer: Okay. If you think about your own supervisor, or yourself as a supervisor, do you feel that tese things are also actualize, happen? No. No they don’t. That’s impossible, because we all have our own work to do and… you can’t be present all the time, even if the so called ”presence” would be good. Similarly you can’t provide support to your subordinates continuously, because you have a limited amount of time where you must prioritize your own tasks. 74 The management comes as a by-product. You don’t have time for doing purely managerial work. If you are trying to be that ideal, best supervisor, your other mandatory tasks will be left unattended and ignored. -- The problem in our administration is that largely, the job descriptions involve you doing a specific task, alone. So there isn’t too much basis for cooperation. If you are an expert in a field, that’s a single position (virka) in Ostrobothnia Police Department. You are left quite alone with your job description. (Manager D) Manager E noted that physical presence of upper management and supervisor is important, too. In order to avoid feelings of negligence or abandonement, they should try to visit other police station once in a while: The challenge in our current larger department is that supervisors may be far away, over a distance. And often they are. That brings challenges to our management: that they can monitor the current situation, to know how it’s going and whether there are any issues, workplace atmosphere for example, that they should engage. That can be challenging. In that sense it’s important that supervisors also move between different police stations and meet the staff, discuss with them. So they aren’t too distant. Interviewer: do you feel that this kind of movement between supervisors also happens, takes place? Well, that depends on the person. I think some supervisors could move around more actively. From what I have personally seen, I can tell some you see more often than others. And those who I see more often move amongst the staff as well, discuss and are involved in both operative and managerial work. Then there are also more passive supervisors, who only come to you when they absolutely must, when the matter cannot be avoided. It is a part of the leadership to go there [to another police station], even if there’s not any official reason to. Go there and meet people, to discuss and listen. That way you are more in touch with the situation and you get to know your subordinates, and vice versa. (Manager E) Manager E also noted that while modern electronic communication can lessen the issue of more frequent visits, they do not completely negate the need for occasional physical visit: 75 -- I think it’s great that we have all these [communication] systems that allow us to keep in touch on a daily basis. It would make no sense for a supervisor to visit another police station every day. But those physical visits have to be regular, that’s how I see it. But it’s great that we have these virtual negotiation systems. That is an improvement that we are able to perform distance management better and there’s still that sense of physical presence, at least more than just using email. (Manager E) Manager E themselves had no issues with their own supervisor: there is active presence and interest in events taking place within their work environment and duties. Notably, the interaction and sense of engagement works both ways, strengthening the bond between them: We keep in touch regularly [with my supervisor], nearly daily. And we have regular meetings that involves the top management. That alone brings that element of closeness (läheisyyselementin), we share and reflect on the approaching and past events of the week. And I think it’s great, the whole management is aware of what’s going on in other sectors and units. I’ve never had a supervisor who would have felt distanced, that they wouldn’t care or be interested in what’s going on in our unit, what should be decided together and so on. They all have been people who have the right attitude. In the long run, that’s a matter of personality, too. (Manager E) Interviewer: What do you mean by ”right attitude?” For example that you ask regularly how’s it going, is there anything acute going on? We have management meetings regularly, asks there, but will ask otherwise, too. For example, when I yesterday asked ”should we do that this way, like this?” they immediately gave feedback and were interested and engaging. And the other way, too: just yesterday I gave my supervisor support and advice. So they also utilize the expertise and help of others. Manager E) Manager E even inquired about the interviewee’s own situation with their supervisor: the amount of contact with them, the independent nature of interviewer’s work, and so 76 on. Based on intervewer’s answer of while there is not constant interaction, there still is that sense of "presence" and support whenever asked and how for the most part any issues and tasks are handled on one’s own initiatative, Manager E said the following: Well that is good. Actually, considering your job description, it’s not even possible for a supervisor to be constantly telling what to do. You must have initiative, to notice by yourself ”ah, this needs my attention” and contact the supervisor as needed. That’s great, you [the entire team] are active and aware. But if there was the kind of person who would only stand around, waiting to be told what to do. That could be, let us say ”functionally poor” situation. (Manager E) While discussing the level of awareness a supervisor should have into their subordinate’s work (within the expert context) with Manager E they considered that while supervisor does not have to be fuly able to perform or even understand the tasks to their core, they should possess at least surface-level understanding. Instead, manager’s focus should be on providing support and solving any issues their subordnates are unable to on their own: Of course you have to understand a little, at least the main points. But for example, the basics of information technology and things related to that, a supevisor doesn’t have to know that -- They even should trust that their subordinates are the professionals in their field. Their role is to guide and set objectives, and to assist and resolve issues if there are those. (Manager E) Things like that. A supervisor cannot be fully unfamiliar with the substance level, because then they would be unable to guide it right. They wouldn’t understand what they are doing and what kinds of requirements certain matters can have. Wouldn’t understand what their subordinates are proposing or talking about. But they don’t have to be ”fully qualified” into substance, either. Leading is leading and substance, the performing work, is its own side. (Manager E) Additionally, Manager E saw that manager, supervisor should balance between managerial and personal leadership role. In their opinion, to neglegt the sense of "presence" of leadership is to hide away from responsibilities, in a way: 77 -- Then there are other examples too, let’s say about Chief Inspectors. (komisario). They are supposed to be acting as a manager and leader, both. We have some Chief Inspectors who only focus on [the paperwork, administrative role]. They hide behind management role, they neglect the personal leadership. I have noticed this in certain people. Then we have great Chief Inspectors too, who can manage the paperwork, but also lead people. They also consider people as individuals. We all have different work capabilities and our power levels can change, they know how to consider those in their leadership. Yes, we have examples of both ways. (Manager E) Manager F also saw physical presence as meaningful part for successful management and s sense of community. While the constant presence is not required, being actually there helps the manager to receive additional insight into current matters and also provides a mean for staff to "tug their sleeve" if some local issue bothers them: Yes, I see the physical presence as meaningful, too. But my constant presence is unrequired. Every police station and sector have their supervisors and managers that take care of [daily] business. But still, a certain kind of presence and visibility are necessary, considering the leadership and work community. I can’t speak for the rest of the staff on how they feel about whether I’m present or not. But for me, I feel that I’ll be missing certain information or ”touch” if I’m not there. There are certain issues where someone can tug my sleeve a bit, ask ”if I have a moment to talk”. That same feel doesn’t transfer throught video screen or email. Video meetings and emails work with ”structural” management. All those things that are determined by organizational charts or job descriptions, ”you do this and that”, everything management related. But when we dive ”below the surface”: how are people feeling, are they motivated or annoyed. All that info is lost if you are not there yourself. (Manager F) Regarding the distance within the Administration, Manager F did not see it as an issue due to the level of commitment to their work different experts had, regardless of their personal workplace or place of office: 78 [Context: discussing the issues and challenges of department’s decentralized nature in different units] But in our administration, I have seen zero problems in people being decentralized. -- What I mean by this is the perception of the whole picture: our administration is not working for Seinäjoki, Vaasa, or Kokkola; they are working for the Ostrobothnia Police Department. -- I have the feeling that people there also know to ”catch the ball” themselves, they realize that ”I have to do these things” [in case someone is sick or otherwise absent, for example]. Management-wise this decentralized model is very challenging, as the manager or supervisor isn’t ”on the same hallway” all the time. It takes quite a lot of initiative and independence from the subordinate, too. (Manager F) Similar to experts, Manager F did not see "guidance" from their own supervisor as a necessity, due to the indendent nature of their work and decision making. As long as the main objectives are clear, there is no need for additional supervision: -- I don’t keep contact (towards my supervisor) that much. I know some people call or send messages more frequently. -- I don’t particularly feel that I’d need anything special from my supervisor. Give me my [finance and objectives], and we know how to work towards them. Maybe the ”lack of" more frequent communication also reflects how my supervisor trusts in that we get our job done. No need to shepherd us. And that’s how it should be. (Manager F) Interviewer: Any ”feelings of abandonment” over this [lack of contact]? Not really. I have done this job for decades, you could say I’m just as familiar with these thing as any supevisor. I know what we are doing here. Or at least I imagine I do. Naturally, over the course of my career I have had different roles and positions. -- Maybe the discussion and daily interaction (with my supervisor) happened almost automatically back in those days, but even then there was little need for them to ”direct” me. It was more about the questions regarding our organization and frameworks, ”how much room for maneuvering I have in this?” Once you have those answers, there’s no longer need for further guidance. (Manager F) 79 4.1.3 Keystone 3: Team-work – "Provide support to others and transcend beyond team-borders" Originally, theme of "team-work" was mixed within the previous theme, "presence". However, during the analysis process additional codes emerged - ones that suggested highly supportive and helpful behaviour towards others, especially amongst the expertsboth within and outside of their own team. Notably, some of the interviewees’ experience and demonstrate that this support takes place regardless whether the participant belong to same expert team. There appears to be a strong culture of "reciprocity" (vastavuoroisuus). 4.1.3.1 Experts Expert A had experiences of a strong reciprocity. They felt that despite the administrative team limitations of each team working as an expert in their own field, they could still both give and receive help when needed. Expert C also agreed that teamwork is func- tioning “beyond the job descriptions”. Our teams, we help out each other, there’s cooperation going on. Even if we technically do different jobs… -- I’m also a bit annoyed that Administration and Advisory are separated. -- Afterall, we are working ”beyond the boundaries” already. -- Say that I’d have to help someone on the other team with some matter. You can always trust that if they wish me to do something for them, or vice versa, you can always trust that it will be done. There’s that trust, ”Okay, we can do this this way”. Even if we technically are on different teams. -- It kind of adds to that ”we’re of the same house” feeling. That’s a good word for it, reciprocity. There’s strong reciprocity. ”The good goes around”. You give something, you’ll get something in return, too. (Expert A) [Context: discussing co-workers and team working] It’s working beyond the job descriptions, you can ask [around] bravely. (Expert C) Expert D saw that due to the support oriented work administration performs, it is almost one’s "duty" to help those in need: 80 This is support oriented work, whenever you are being asked for help, be willing to provide that. Don’t close yourself in your private circle, as your job description is to help others. It works well on both sides of the corridor. You know that when you run into an ”I don’t know” situation, I can go ask others for advice and always receive help. No doors are barred and I try to help them, too. (Expert D) Expert F and Expert G felt that they receive help whenever they need it due to the strong sense of team spirit: Our [own] team works, we have good system. I’ll receive help if something sudden or unexpected comes up. -- I feel we have good spirit here [in my own team]. (Expert F) Even if we have [separate teams], we ”blow into one coal” [puhalletaan yhteen hiileen : to work together]. -- I don’t have to do everything alone. The others assist me. (Expert G) Expert H was content on how every issue could be solved togerther, with help from their team. Open interaction and frequent contacting, despite the physical distance, makes the interaction with their team efficient. They also would not mind helping those outside of their own team: Then there’s, you can always ask. We have people from several different [organizational units], so if there’s a problem we can solve it together. -- I would be perfectly fine with, whenever your own work schedule would allow it it, I could just as well be helping out someone else, working with a broader scale of tasks. -- I think my team works really well, even if we are separated between different stations. We have video connections and other equipment, there’s no need to group up (physically). It’s easy to ask, that works really well between us. Everything can be discussed and agreed upon. (Expert H) Expert K felt that despite expert work being solitary in a sense, there is enough of an overlapping between different fields that the experts can provide help and council for each other: 81 As an expert-community, we all have our own specific area of expertise. You know how to do your job, others know how to do their jobs, AND you can always rely on the help of others. You give and you receive, that creates good atmosphere. Even if we are experts on different fields, they overlap or interact enough, so it becomes a natural partner-relationship. -- I’m repeating myself, but it’s about knowing that everyone has their areas of expertise and that you receive support and councel whenever needed. I find that highly fruitful. (Expert K) For Expert L the help and support felt genuine, being "limitless" and transcending the regional limitations: Everyone is helpful and assist each other. And no one thinks giving that help is done ”at their expense”. -- It’s great to work with these people. The help has no [regional or operational] limits. (Expert L) Expert N demonstrated how different expert teams cooperate together, every team providing necessary information and help in order to keep the operations functioning on a daily basis: [Context: discusing team work, in and outside of specific teams] Works between the teams, too. If you need help, you will receive it. What goes around, comes around.” I think it all works. If I consider the team work between Finance and Human resources, it works. Between Finance and Material management, it works. Between Admistration and Staff Services, it all works. If I need to ask for help from the other teams, I’ll need specific information in order to advance my own work, they will give me that information. Everyone are willing to help. (Expert N) Expert O felt that one can always approach anyone and receive help or advice. Their statement about possessing the will to help others in kind can be seen to embody the reciprocity observed in other experts, too: I think when the division of tasks is clear, everyone knows what to do. And if someone doesn’t know, then they can ask around. You always receive help if you ask someone about something, you’ll get advice. There are certain areas I am not that deeply familiar or involved with, I ask about them occasionally. 82 [Context: discussing about successful team work] You must be able to receive critique, you must have the will to help others if they approach you. Or find the answers if I ask something I don’t know myself. The helpfulness in general. (Expert O) Expert P’s view was aligned with those of the others: teamwork and cooperation has no organizational or geographical limitations. Team spirit is good, functional and surpasses the limits/borders [between different teams]. We help each other when we can and trust each other’s word, no foul play. (Expert P) 4.1.3.2 Managers For Manager A, evaluation of atmosphere within the teams in administration was more challenging to compare with others due to their broader scale of responsibilities with other operative units. However, they had noticed sense of team spirit being more palpable within the administration, likely due to their smaller size of staff members and the lack of middle-management line in their work: [Context : discussing atmosphere of Administration and Staff Services unit compared to other operative units] I can’t say whether it’s better or worse, but I do think they [administration staff] are more clearly ”of the same team”, even if they are decentralized. They are a smaller group, and acting under [the upper] management. [For administration staff] there is no middle-command to make their own orders and decisions in between. They answer directly to the top management. I don’t think HALE has any bad atmosphere, not anymore. But there certainly were pains at the beginning, because three different styles had to fit together. There any conflincts happened sooner, they were exposed much faster due to their smaller size. (Manager A) Within their own management team and between their upper management peers, Manager A saw that their goals are finally aligned, compared to what it used to be in the past. However, while they considered this to be true in case of upper management, the middle-management still has to improve and focus more on the larger scale, the one, shared police department instead of their own sectors: 83 [Context: discussing "team spirit", working towards a common goal within the management] Today, there is [the working towards the same goal]. I no longer see any major deficiency in working together for a common goal. It’s quite good in our executive team. -- That is the crucial issue in my opinion. Once we get [the middle- management] to realize this and get them to consider issues from the Ostrobothnia Police Department’s view, instead of just single police station’s view. -- Today, the rest of the [upper] management has reached the point where we view this palette as a single [mutual] department. But the entire management level doesn’t. We must waste energy arguing things, and not all of those arguments are heeded. Some of them are still on that level. That’s the matter of life and death in the long run. It’s all about the attitudes, and those don’t change quickly. (Manager A) Manager B considered the team work and coordination between managers and expert teams both to be very good in the Administration and Advisory Staff, almost at "one hundred percent" : It might not be full 100% yet, but very close to that. Because our teams are at different locations, covering the operations for the whole department. We had to fully develop our practises all the way into practical level. -- It took a few years before everyone understood that this is the way we do things now. It may have been nicer to to things your own way, but now it’s this way. I think we [adminstration] have nearly reached ”mutual practises”. -- And to demand this same from every police station, there’s some friction. Requests or cases coming outside of administration, those are more problematic. (Manager B) Manager C considered the team work within the Administration Unit and Staff Services to be working in a way that moves around the organizational hierarchy and barriers, adapting to the situation at hand. They also point out that this kind of flexibility is better suited in expert environment: when considering team or cross-work between different hierarchical units, relatively stricter management chain can be challenging. [Context: discussing team work between different teams, both inside and outside of their sector) I think it works. Of course there’s always room to improve, I’m not denying that, but if we discuss teamwork between the Administration Unit and Staff Services, I’ve seen no obstacles there. The ”barrier” there is often quite wavering. 84 Then if we discuss teamwork between sectors, it’s perhaps a bit different. There you are more grounded by the hierarchy, which slows down that teamwork. It’s sometimes difficult to decipher who is in charge if you operate via the hierarchical roles, instead of expertise. Interviewer: this "wawering barrier", do you see it more as a positive or a negative thing, more detrimental or useful? I think it’s useful. There can’t be crystal clear barriers, limitations today. Instead you have to adapt and act accordingly with the situation at hand. Of course you must have a main area of responsibility, but you can’t strictly grasp to that single responsiblity alone. It all affects everything. (Manager C) However, even within the Administration the hierarchy and separation into two different (albeit similar) units can occasionally bring challenges: The best solution would be that we only have one administrative unit. Then there would be no divide, which would allow us to better focus work tasks and overall emphasis, according to the situation at hand. Now we have two separate units with their own supervisors, which makes things more rigid. For example, one can’t give too direct an assignment to the employee on ”the other side”, it has to be recycled through their own supervisor or something else, if we go by the hierarchy. Naturally, that slows things down. (Manager C) Regarding their own subordinates and team they manage, Manager C was really satisfied with their team: I have always been thankful that I had really great luck with my own subordinates. They are great: they don’t fight amongst themselves, they work together. There are neither personal nor professional relationship-conflicts, at least that I’d know of. Right now I feel that I’ve been let off easy. I’ve had different kinds of subordinates in my career. It drains energy in a whole different way. (Manager C) Manager D saw a positive that different teams and experts within and between administration level work together, or even have an understanding of what the others’ 85 jobs include. In their opinion, it promotes operational flexibility and brings certain variety that prevents boredom: [Context: opinion on doing "cross-team-work"]: I think that makes sense. You’ll get experience from others’ work, too. The job may become more meaningful when you have a broader job description. Then the work isn’t as ”assembly lined”, where you repeat the same narrow task every day. If you work like that, in and as a team, I believe it is more enjoyable for the employee. And for the department, it is good if more people know how to do a job in case of sudden absence: sick leaves, a leave from office (virkavapaa) and the like. That’s great if you have team capable of doing the other’s work. (Manager D) Manager D also brought up the issue of mandatory legistation and hierarchy that affects the team work mentioned above, making it more difficult to happen on a larger scale at least. Additionally, they saw severe issues that actualize when staff members retire. It should be noted that this is an issue for all organizations operating on public sector: The problem in our administration is that largely, the job descriptions involve you doing a specific task, alone. So there isn’t too much basis for cooperation. If you are an expert in a field, that’s a single position (virka) in Ostrobothnia Police Department. You are left quite alone with your job description. That’s a problem. It’s a problem whenever they are absent, it’s also a problem when the official (virkamies) leaves the job or retires. Because you can’t have two government officials working simultaneously [the same position], it leads into disconnection. The previous holder of the position can’t mentor their replacement on the side before they are retiring. And usually they leave a couple months earlier to use their remaining holidays. And as the recruitment process takes its time, often the new replacement hire will be forced to learn everything on their own. (Manager D) While some the other managers considered their sense of team work, working towards mutually aligned goals to be currently working well on Ostrobothnia Police Department, in their experience the overall room for close level team work is limited in a line organization where every manager has their own specific key-area to work in that are all very different environments: 86 Our [management’s] job descriptions are very different if you think about the sector-level managers. Traffic sector deals with matters related to traffic, Public Order and Security deals with traditional emergencies. Crime Combating has their investigations and percentages related to them. While I deal with more administrative matters, related to our staff. We have little to interact with between us, because everyone’s objectives are set to their own sectors. -- Of course the job description of every sector manager is meant to provide support for the overall objectives of the whole police department. (Manager D) The cross-team work and what has been perceived by many interviewees as more "aligned" or active team work can possibly be contributed to smaller size of staff. It was hinted at by the following quote from Manager D: Staff size-wise, the administration is so small. [Compared to larger sectors] we are on a whole different scale. The administrative side is quite small, considering our whole department. I don’t know if one can compare the jobs of different managers, whether one is more important than the other or if it’s tied into staff numbers or not. Not necessarily, naturally our jobs are different and vary. The administrative side is meant to support operative actions, the main mission of the department is to provide police services. [Lists how the process is formed: there must be people to take care of the recruitment, financial unit to handle money and billing, someone for the premices, vehicles etc…] in their own way everyone are equally important, regardless of the number of people involved. If one piece is missing, the rest of the thing simply doesn’t work. (Manager D) In regard to theme of "Presence", manager E saw that while the supervisor does not need to have full professional capacity or understanding of their subordinate’s expert work. However a certain degree of basic understanding is required, in their opinion. And continued under theme of "Teamwork", they stated that intraction and teaching ones job can work both ways between subordinate and their supervisor. Manager E had an example of a new manager who was set to be in charge of a completely new field for them: 87 [Context: Asked if the lack of susbtance knowledge has ever been to a point of dusrupting the work] Nothing of the sort comes to mind. Well, of course there are situations when someone is placed on a completely new [supervisor] position, there’s a lot to learn. In a way, the subordinates have to ”drill” the substance to their supervisor. And that’s where the mutual interaction is important. Subordinates have to understand that the supervisor need their support too in order to get a grasp of the substance. As an example, one past Head of Administration (hallintopäällikkö) who came into that position from the police operations, they had never done that kind of administrative work. It was a completely new environment. So the people of administration had to guide this person into their work, teach what it is they do in the unit and so on. Luckily [the new supervisor] asked for help and [their direct subordinates) did help. Introduced the supervisor into the job and were interested. And the supervisor was active. (Manager E) Manager F considered teamwork and cooperation within the administration to be working well, even if the had reservations towards that kind of decentralized system at the beginning: I think teamwork is working well in the Administration and Staff Services. At first I was sceptical towards how effective this kind of decentralized administration model would be, as there are existing alternatives. In many cases, centralization of the people brings effectiveness, or resource savings at least, as the same work can be performed by a smaller group. Or there’s more room for ”fractures” as everyone are working at the same locale. But in our administration, I have seen zero problems in people being decentralized. If someone is absent from Kokkola, for example, they can be backed up by Vaasa or Seinäjoki. The way of thinking in our Administration and Staff Services may even be partly ahead compared to some other units in our house. What I mean by this is the perception of the whole picture: our administration is not working for Seinäjoki, Vaasa, or Kokkola; they are working for the Ostrobothnia 88 Police Department. There are units and teams where thinking is more focused on their own geographical location. (Manager F) 4.1.4 A negative theme – Cloistered Research results revealed signals for sources of minor annoyance, inconvience or experiences of how the sense of overall community and interaction was stronger in the past among the general staff, outside of one’s team. These signals were coded under the main theme of "Cloistered" - a sense of there being barriers between different operational units or that staff is being confined into seclusion on separate floors, both figuratively and literally. Additionally, certain interviewees felt that those with professional police backgrounds would shun community members with civilian backgrounds, without any official law enforcement training. Despite experts and managers both being largely content with their team work and workplace communities, some of them mentioned how they no longer meet or see other members of the staff that regularly, or had noted how there is a division or "barrier" between the staff members who possess either a civilian or a police-based professional background. The reason for this is largely the combination of past organizational reform and the fact that some of the premises had changed: for example, prior to 2011 Seinäjoki police station used to operate in much smaller building in the city centre, compared to the four-floored building of today, situated kilometers away from previous location. 4.1.4.1 Experts While the teamworking largely works despite the technical boundaries between Admin- stration Unit and Advisory Staff, Expert A felt slightly annoyed that there is a division at all: I’m also a bit annoyed that Administration and Advisory are separated. Why does it have to be so, why can’t they be together? Afterall, we are working ”beyond the boundaries” already. (Expert A) 89 Outside of administrative level, many of the experts (and managers) felt that level of interaction with those staff members outside of their teams had lessened over the years. For example, Expert B had perceived a decline in the level of interaction with other staff members, outside of administrative operations: In the past when I started working here, we were interacting with [other units) more. Nowadays I have the feeling that the general climate [within other units] is okay, but work pressures and stress decline it. I get the feeling there’s not enough employees, but otherwise they are tightly-knit, intimate communities. But I guess it goes in a way that as you have your own team and unit with good spirit, you’ll be less familiar with other units and their actions. Perhaps there can be issues, some kind of ”jealosy” or something… I guess that within smaller teams you have very good spirit, but as the size [of the group] gets larger, it becomes more… Interviewer: Yeah, it starts to cut out Yes, cliques are starting to form. (Expert B) When finalizing the interview with open "sticks and roses", good and bad things theme, Expert B again brought up the sense of community, on a larger scale. When the organization size was smaller and there were less break rooms due to smaller size of the premises, members of the staff would interact more with each other: Well, perhaps the communality as a whole could be better in Ostrobothnia Police Department, but it’s no longer possible in an organization of this size… during the times of [previous organization, before the reform] we had a single cafeteria where literally everyone met. There were a lot of shared things, there were no ”private groups”, instead we were all ”part of the same department”. Now that we have more floors, more cafeterias, you no longer actually know people so well… it’s more of a your own team who you work with, and then there’s ”the rest of them”, some kind of affiliates. -- Mainly team working is okay. However, we deal with the other teams more seldomly than before. You are no longer aware of what’s going on within other teams that much. (Expert B) 90 Expert D felt that as a whole, the Ostrobothnia workplace community may not be as open as thought. While this has not been perceived as an issue within administrative level, Expert D hypothesized that this is due to smaller team sizes, when compared to those of Lisence Services or Crime Combating, for example. Sometimes I feel that on a larger scale, this larger work community isn’t that open. I dont know whether it is affected because of the larger size and job descriptions that have existed for years, it takes longer for a larger group to adapt and fuse together. I feel that’s the advantage of this smaller group, we can do everything ”from the ground up”. (Expert D) Expert E had noticed over the years how separation of different police stations is still visible, everyone "fending or their own" against others. They felt that the strategic vision of a one mutual deparment had not fulfilled yet: -- I do know however, that each station ”fend for their own” strongly. Unfortunately the ”one common station” is not true. I don’t think that anyone fully agrees with that vision. There’s still ”us versus them” kind of thinking, which is a pity. There has been improvement, there’s been development on the mutual processes and the graphs, different procedures, but you can still feel that. (Expert E) When asked further about the subject and potential causes for it, role of management was brought up as a potential cause or solution by Expert E. They considered that every manager should "guide their troops" towards the common practises. Notably, Expert E mentioned sergeants too, who have next to none administrative power in the organization: Interviewer: I’ve noticed the same. What could be the cause of it? I don’t know. Is the issue with the middle management who can’t control their subordinates, or somewhere else. Middle management-wise, it partly works. Some of the middle-managers are good, others not. It all comes down to the management, both on the middle and higher. And the ”small-timers” too, the sergeants slightly above ordinary constables. That how they all would manage to 91 inform their troops that ”this is how it’s done.” The goal is that every unit or station operates the same way. It doesn’t work now. (Expert E) For Expert F, their cafeteria experiences with police workers were a bit more positive compared to those of Expert B. They liked how common break rooms can help staff to get to know each other better. However, Expert F had noticed that some of the police officers mingle with them, while others would not. That creates a sense of being divided: There are those officers who enjoy their coffee at the same table (with everyone else). And there are some who use their own offices or are otherwise unavailable at the time, it changes a little. There are those specific individuals who you’ll see regularly. Of course it’s always fun to see them, and you’ll get to know them better, as the topics of discussion are rarely related to work. You’ll become more acquaintanced with them, for example these younger police constables, with whom we otherwise never interact with. You’ll get to know them at least a little better, which is nice. And I must say, Crime Combating unit never comes to coffee breaks here [the ”shared” table and room] they are amongst themselves, you practically never see them. That’s just how it is. Interviewer: What could be the reason for this? I don’t know, I guess they want to keep their own, separate coffee cash register and use the profits however they like, I’d guess that’s the reason. They’ll want to keep their ”own system”, the coffee cash. When they built this site, they designed for too many coffee rooms (laughs). And they are so used to it, of course they are unwilling to change this practise. I’m certain they feel it’s nice for them, to have their own separate group as there are more of them in the end. But whenever there are some shared [organizational] events, some celebration, they’ll attend, too. (Expert F) While Expert G had nothing to say about or had not experienced the divided nature between staff and their professional backgrounds (police versus civilian), they had 92 noticed how smaller police stations are left overshadowed by the main police station, Vaasa: Occasionally it feels like that the action is emphasized too much on the main police station, the other police stations are left in their shadow. Every single operation should not be focused on the main station. (Expert G) Expert H also had experienced being distanced from other operational units, even if the staff co-exists within the same premises: I know very little [of another work group], that other community is so distant. -- We interact so little with them. They are so heavily ”their own group”, they remain with each other in their own premises and rarely go visit elsewhere.” Maybe that also tells something about the atmosphere - no, the community - that ”you belong to that group”, so you can’t interact with others in a way. Well, free-time is an exception, but work-wise you can’t. Somehow it seems to work that way here. (Expert H) Maybe that you could become more familiarized with all these people, it wouldn’t be so ”isolated”. Of course we have all these work well-being events, but they are left so… -- I think it has affected positively to the workplace atmosphere that you get to know the other people, too. (Expert H) Expert I had experienced feelings of "us versus them" kind of positioning among police and civilian workers, or that some kinds of unwritten rules affect the dynamic: Generally speaking eveyone are nice and somehow… it’s ”the Administration versus the Police”, in a good-natured sense. Both sides have their strong team-spirit. -- The upper management is part of the Administration side, ”managerial jobs”, they of course relate to us well. But if you consider the basic co-working with the police side, there’s some kind on threshold. I don’t know if I’m just imagining this, but so many of them considers us to be civilians, ”people of the other floor”. I believe that in a reasonably small workplace community, all this coffee talk and everything else, it ”forces” them [police] to act as a group, as ”a team of their own”. But I don’t know how the approach is there when civilians join them at the same 93 table, that are they discussing police work there or if there’s an agreement that such business won’t be discussed over coffee at all. (Expert I) When further prodded about the subject, Expert I stated the following experiences in the context of everyday discussion staff members might have in a break room, for example. They were perhaps bothered by this more than Experts B and F, admitting how the phenomenom feel annoying to them: [Interviewer]: You see this ”class division” as a negative trait? You mean this ”police versus the others?” [Interviewer]: Yes. Yes! It kinda bothers me occasionally, yes. Of course, some of us might be a bit ”curious”, I’m not that interested about any of that stuff to be ”nosy”. But when there’s this permanent ”don’t tell this to them”, it is inevitable… it becomes annoying. I must admit it is very annoying. [Expert I] The sense of certain "arrogance" or looking down on civilians, treating them as their lessers was also detected by expert J, who stated that "it has always been that way". They suspected that additional tensions may rise from the fact that the break room is a bit small for a larger group of people: Perhaps there’s a little reserved stance towards [police teams]. Maybe it’s caused by the fact that our [break rooms] are a bit cramped, you have to wait for your turn to be seated at the table. If there would be more room, it would be nice to hang around with them. -- And of course, it’s always been the way that police considers themselves as better than the rest of us [civilians]. It is evident in some persons. -- There’s a spirit of being ”the better person” in some of them, you don’t care to share a table with them. -- I think they are tightly knight team amongst themselves, they are an incestious group. Maybe it’s the nature of their work, you must have a committed and intimate team. We certainly have our own group and teams within the adminisration, we are all communities of our own. (Expert J) 94 Moving into larger premises has seemed to exacerbate the problem, or division between the staff based on the experiences of som of the experts. There’s sene of being "on separate floors", both physically and figuratively in the case of certain police stations as explained by Experts J and K: Especially after moving into new premises, we have become ”people of separate floors” here. You no longer know how is everything within the Public Order and Security, Crime Combating or Licence Administration. The sense of community suffers when we are separated on our own floors. -- I no longer know what is the ”overall situation” within our house. (Expert J) Expert K reasoned that the smaller the police station premises, the stronger sense of community there is: -- These smaller police stations are always very close and tight communities. Naturally, as they all know each other and share the coffee room, they are basically small families. Then as an opposite, the bigger the house gets, all those people working there and the numerous cafeterias, there might be some teams who have no interaction at all with the others. People won’t know who’s working where and… I talked once with an employee who had been working in the Licence Services for a decade, yet had never visited one wing of the building. Whether by your own fault or not, it’s possible to become isolated in these bigger buildings, which is not the case for smaller units. Some might prefer to be working on their own, but that’s what happens in these larger units. (Expert K) Expert K also mentioned that they have a feeling that lisence services would be even more "alienated" than the rest of the operative units. They hypothesized that it could be due to the larger number of civilian workers, or that the work itself is more civilian-based. Compared to other units that directly deal with criminal matters, majority of the lisence service customers are citizens looking to apply passports, gun permits and the like. 95 -- Now that we talk about it, I feel that people of the Licence Services are generally more isolated than the rest. That’s my gut feeling on the matter. (Expert K) Interviewer: What could be the cause for it? One possibility is that the staff working there [lisence services] are so civilian-based and civilian oriented. Even if the management level has police background, perhaps they shun police operations a little, they don’t feel as ”part of the team”, even if they are. I don’t know, this is just my assumption. If we consider the administration level, we have many people working here who are fully civilian. But maybe we also deal more with the operative side, one way or another. As we are the support section, ”contact surface” is guaranteed. As I said before, the majority of the staff are police. I think the general stance of the staff towards us, exluding the management, is that ”admistration is useless (laughs), wages are wasted on them”. A matter of culture, I guess. We are ”the people of two floors” perhaps. This is what I suspect, I could be wrong here, too. (Expert K) Expert K suspected that there may be some kind of "barrier" between civilians and police. Expert O stated that in the past the sense of division between different backgrounds was more non-existent, due to smaller work community: In the past when we had smaller police stations, people at the office would mingle and form tightly-knit communities, regardless whether they had police or civilian backgrounds. And as the size increases it becomes the kind of… and when we come to these large units, I guess it [”the division”] is inherited even more. (Expert O) Expert P noted that there are different processes beween different regions in Ostrobothnia Police Department, possibly affecting the atmosphere through a sense of inequality: [Context: discussing the atmosphere of other teams and units] -- "There are also regional differences and habits of ”doing things like we used to”. When the rules aren’t the same for everyone the atmosphere can sometimes be very inflamed. 96 This regional culture creates too much differences within Crime Combating, for example. On a general note, the teamwork isn’t at its best there. (Expert P) Expert M noted that the organizational reform was not fully completed. While there had been improvement in their own expert field, with certain issues police stations still operate based on individuality, rather than the mutual department: The changes of old organizational structures take their time. In my field of work there has been progress in that, the decisions are made considering the whole department. Occasionally you’ll hear complaints from somewhere, but these are matters that involve the whole Ostrobothnia Police Department. However, there are certain regulated issues where you see that people still can’t see it as a ”single [mutual] department”. -- But we have to consider the needs of the whole department, not just a specific singular area. (Expert M) 4.1.4.2 Managers From the managerial side, the issue brought by this "cloistered" nature was more related to how after a decade later, the three operational areas of EP, KP and RP stil remain divided, partly at least. The organizational vison of a single, unified Ostrobothnia Police Department has not been achieved yet, a view shared with Expert M in previous section. One of the potential causes named for this was the large physical distances between the police stations and operational and managerial issues it brings. Manager A explained how distance works against the strategic vision. Three largest police stations of Vaasa (RP), Seinäjoki (EP) and Kokkola (KP) each have a distance of over 100 kilometers between them, which prevents moving people around into other groups: Organizational change doesn’t happen overnight, it takes time. We have been transforming since 2014. Some of us might be a little ahead of the others, but it’ll take years before we can call us ”Ostrobothnia Police Department” through and through, from the top to the bottom. 97 It’s challenging, and the distances we have… these long distances deny us an important tool. That we would be able to shuffle and mix our employees [between different offices and locations]. In Helsinki, all the police stations are close to each other. You can easily say someone ”you’ll be working at that station next week.” There’s no need to change your apartment, buy a car, none of that. Here you can’t say ”that’s your place of office, starting next week”, it’s impossible. This is one of the reasons the change is taking so long, merging into a single organization. The distance allows us to do things the way we always have. The supervisors, even if they are willing, cannot oversee everything. That’s just the way it is. (Manager A) Manager B opened up the history behind the vision of "mutual police department". They admitted that the vision is not fully reached yet, requiring even more time: That’s true. The vision is aimed towards removing this [separation, moving into more aligned practises], but it takes time. It will take generations. We just have to admit that’s how it is. And of course there are differences in people’s behaviour. The vision was invented by one constable in a brainstorming session we had. He couldn’t quite describe it, if I recall he said that we have ”a single barn, with a huge pile of crap in it. But we have pitchforks for everyone.” The chief wouldn’t accept the barn and the crap part, but that ”we all had pitchforks”, there’s our vision. It really described our thoughts. Someone is left-handed and throws the crap that way, others that way. But the pile of crap is moving. That was the thought. We can’t remove the differences, but we can make everyone understand that we have a common mission. ”Equal service for everyone”, the final part isn’t aimed just towards the citizens. Internally, too. And that’s what we try to do in our administration, same kind of service for eveyone regardless of our location. (Manager B) Manager D was also aware of how the department is "fractured into three parts". They assume that while it takes time, the issue will be improving with every new staff member entering into department’s service. In their view, the issue is in the long-time staff that 98 worked for independent department’s in the past. This can be argued to suggest that "the cultural DNA" is making adaptation more difficult: Well, history is history and there’s nothing we can do about that. We were formed from three separate departments in 2014 and we have three separate regions. Ostrobothnia Police Department is strongly fractured into three parts. And [being three parts] spirit still exists in the same people who used to work here during the past departments, the spirit is still largely based on this holy trinity. Even if we’ve had the strategies and vision towards a single department and mutual goals, the history and the trinity still exists in the background. I guess it will be removed gradually, at the pace of people who worked in the past organizations leaving working life behind. And today we have new people, who have entered or will enter into our current ”single Ostrobothnia Police Department”. They have no clue of the past. The ”weight of history” will propably decline over the years, making our operation more uniform, aligned. -- Maybe that’s still a sore spot for some. That’s the way it is: not everyone accepts that, they’d still wish [the "old departments"] were independent. But that independence was lost by the 2014. (Manager D) Manager E had similar experiences as with Manager D. While discussing the workplace atmosphere as a whole, they brought up how certain police station, especially Kokkola, would feel neglected compared to the other two larger stations of Vaasa and Seinäjoki. Manager E suspected that more frequent or visible top management presence could help to ease the tensions: But what I have sensed, since in the past there used to be three province-sized, independent police departments. After the PORA III we merged into Ostrobothnia Police Department, with Vaasa as the central location. So the Central Ostrobothnia. As they are [geogaphically] far away from both Seinäjoki and Vaasa, there seems to be the kind of atmosphere where ”all the decisions are made with Vaasa and Seinäjoki focused thinking, they don’t consider Kokkola or the needs of their location”. They feel that they are being neglected, which is not fully true. Maybe it would be good for the management to visit there more often, as there are certain tensions. 99 [Manager E lists different performance measures and resources, used and measured equally between all three main areas] We all have the same resources, but there are emotional levels involved. Kokkola is the smallest geographical area, but they used to be an independent department in the past. A certain sense of identity was formed back then through that. Now that their old department has ceased to exist and the top management departed into Vaasa, they feel isolated. On an emotional level they feel as ”second-class citizens”. That most certainly is not true, but the situation might be improved by more frequent top management visits. (Manager E) Manager F had noticed difference in overall atmosphere when visiting smaller police stations. It should be noted that they did not perceive it necessarily as a negative trait. Rather, they saw that it allowed for more informal interaction between people, in a positive way: When you visit different police stations, there are certain kinds of differences in the atmosphere. Nothing major, but you could say that ”smaller the station, more informal the atmosphere is”. Naturally, as people are more familiar with each other compared to the larger stations. When you have a smaller group together, that alone reduces the overall formality. For example, if we gather up in some auditorium at a largr police station, that’s 50- 60 people. At a smaller station it’s five or six. The connection for discussion is on a whole different level. (Manager F) Manager F had also experienced how the three main police stations had different atmos- pheres, or rather, entirely different cultures: You don’t necessarily see these differences anymore these days, but I feel that a few years ago there were certain differences between Seinäjoki, Vaasa and Kokkola. The way each of them would present issues was different. One would discuss more, approach it from the positive viewpoint, the other tookthe approach of ”everything is wrong, nothing works and how come management or someone isn’t doing anything about this”. 100 That kinds of differences. It’s not necessarily related to the atmosphere itself, propably more related to the culture that has rooted itself into the walls over the decades. (Manager F) Regarding the older culture, manager F also pointed out that the strategic vision remains unfulfilled to this day, a notion shared by many of the inteerviewees. Police stations are still too focused on their own "home area". While Manager F can understand that kind of thinking coming from staff members from lower hierarchical levels, but they do wish for the management level to abandon existing "narrow mindedness" that other interviewees had experienced from middle-management especially: On a broader scope, the construction of organization culture still remains unfinished after PORA III. Organizational chance is easy to do: design the charts over night and come morning, we can say that we have a new organization. To actually change the processes and ways of thinking will take several years. And in our house we have this issue that compared to many other departments, we are ”in the past” due to the changes done here right after PORA III. There were reasons for those decisions, but they are also the reason why some pains still exist. What I mean by this is that the way of thinking is still revolving too much around ”your own police station”, too focused on that. People don’t consider that this is a single large department now, there cannot be the mindset for ”I’m doing my work (only) for Vaasa, Seinäjoki or Kokkola”. You should see this whole entity. That is a major issue that we have to progress. In practise, it might require for one entire generation to retire. That those who have spent majority of their careers in ”times before PORA” must move into retirement before the way of thinking will start to change. But we are constantly moving forward. But every once in a while you will notice that focus is on too small a sector considering our whole department. (Manager F) I can fully understand if a fronline police constable sees things through this ”narrow scope”, but for example the managerial level should have better grasp over the big picture. This is the long-term core issue which we must try to improve. (Manager F) 101 4.1.5 Minor negative theme – Communication Final portion of each of the interviews was open "sticks and roses" question, where interviewee was able to freely speak about anything else on their mind after the main interview. Several of managers and experts both mentioned thaat one of the greatest weaknesses within the organization was weak informatiion flow. While it is not necessarily strictly or directly related to workplace atmosphere within certain teams, on a larger scale it can possibly affect sense of trust or commitment towards the organization. Therefore, "Communication" was set as a minor negative theme as a weak signal of possible detrimental factor. 4.1.5.1 Experts Expert A felt frustrated that information would not ”pass down” effectively in a hierar- chical organization. Expert A stated that ”One [issue] that does not work is communica- tion, information flow. ’Are those guys downstairs aware of this? No, no they are not.’” Expert D felt uncertain about the effectiveness of organizational intranet Sinetti. One common complaint within Ostrobothnia Police Department is that there is too much ”pointless” emailing, or that there is not enough time to read email reglarly. Usually it always comes down into communication [on a general level]. It doesn’t work, the flow of information. It raises the question, how many of the people read Sinetti and how much, do they have the time or do they value it? Even if we try to avoid personal email in favour of Sinetti-news, will that information reach everyone? I think it is justifiable to say that information doesn’t travel everywhere. (Expert D) Similarly, Expert E felt annoyance at the fact that staff members use the lack of time as an "excuse" to not read email or intranet. They also felt that the issue is within the entire organization, administrative level included and wished that staff members would be more active in seraching for important information: 102 One issue still is the communication. You’ll hear of this from anyone! We might be aware of something, but the information never travels to another police station, or vice-versa. For example, some instructions might be on the Intranet for two months, and the answer is ”we didn’t know”, they claim that they were too busy, didn’t have time to read. The Intranet is their primary information channel. It’s all about priorizing your work; if you forget, put a reminder in the calendar, or develop yourself a new routine. Unfortunately this issue includes our own unit. There’s so much information on the Intranet about matters that involve us. Yet we to are wondering about things mentioned two months ago, because ”we had no time to read”. If we can’t, why presume that constables would, after their work shift. It is easier for some to get their meal already chewed for them, but that’s wrong. People should activate more when all that info is so readily available. That really annoys me. (Expert E) Expert N had contradictive views compared to those of Expert E. They felt that communication and information flow was sufficient. However, it should be noted that Expert N saw themselves as one who actively searches for organizational information. They also noted that relatively closer access to upper management and overhearing their discussions may also help in that regard: [Context: discussing the flow of infomation and communication] Depends on what kind of communication we are talking about. I think it works okay. But then again, I follow the intranet, I read my email… I don’t know if it matters that we have people from management at our coffee table, maybe you hear more things there… It is very much dependent on yourself too, you have to be active when searching for information. Interviewer: Do you know any community that would be exceptionally active or passive [in searching for information]? (laughs) Perhaps in the Public Order and Security, people there may not necessarily be using computers… they might feel that there is no flow of information. 103 But in the administration level, we all are relatively close and discuss with each other, the information always gets passed along somehow. (Expert N) Expert O felt that at least some of the managers are "neglegting" important information provided to them, or failing to grasp why the information is important and should be delivered downwards into the entire organization and subordinates. They also suspected that the issue has always been there: it simply has been ignored until now. [Context: discussing the management and any negative issues] I don’t think it’s negative per se, but it’s a given when we have lots of people with police background in the management too, more focus is placed on ”the police side” of things. They could show more interest in the instructions and guidance we give. And once documented instructions are given, they have the power to oversee that they are obeyed, to pass the information down the ladder to their subordinates. There’s room for development in that. (Expert O) Interviewer: Do you mean the general information flow, or something else? It’s both the flow of information and of understanding, that it has to be done this way. We are a public organization, everything has to be done according to rules and regulations. If they could understand that there’s orders and instructions invlolved here, we have to adhere to them. Interviewer: What could be the cause for this? I suspect it’s learned behaviour, it’s been done this way since the dawn of time. There’s always been the same system. There’s always been orders and regulations, from Ministry of the Interior, from the National Police Board… there’s nothing new in this, I think no one just has brought up these issues into the light before. That’s my guess. (Expert O) 4.1.5.2 Managers During the interview, Manager C mentioned more efficient communication and managerial discussion as potential help to lessen conflicts that had previously taken place within the organization. They wished for more active and "analytical view" with 104 the way some managers process information they receive and are supposed to forward to their own subordinates, instead of blindly just forwarding emails: [Context: discussing some past organizational conflicts and how to potentially ease them] -- Maybe the understanding of the whole ["big picture"], kind of how well the person can or cannot perceive the entirety of that. If the picture is based entirely around their own team or area, everything feels complicated [within the organization]. -- I guess change management is the keyword. In a way the communication, discussion and manager communication has to be really long-term. A single news article in the intranet won’t cover that. -- Focusing on manager communication. But in a way that would require for the supervisors’ supervisors to tell and explain them first ”why this”. Then they could share this information with their subordinates. I think we have this culture of re-sending [messages, information]. Supervisors don’t chew on the matters at all. It requires extra work from the supervisor, you can’t just forward the message to your subordinates. Messages should be processed first, to see what particularly affects them. (Manager C) Manager C also noted that "poor communication" is too often blamed on the communications team. Instead, active communication works both ways: Interviewer: This communication and flow of information, you think it affects the overall atmosphere? Of course it does. But when we talk about the communication, often we somehow seem to think that it involves only our communications team. That’s not our communication. Our communication are all the minutes, memos, meetings. Steering groups and the managerial work. If we talk about communication, it is always two-way. Informing is different. Informing is always one-way, but communication is based on forming some kind of understanding through dialogue. If we only have a news article in our intranet, that’s not communication: that’s a newsletter. -- That’s why I highlight managerial communication. 105 For example, when we have newsletters in our intranet it’s the supervisors’ job to go through them and see how to share them with their own subordinates. ”Have you noticed this, these news affect us, pay extra attention to that.” That’s how I see it, if it would work ideally. (Manager C) Later, Manager C returned back to subject of forwarding relevant information within the organization in the "sticks and roses" question where they mentioned that communication could be improved. By improving communication overall team work and aligning goals could become more efficient, too : [Context: the issue with communication] It’s more about forwarding the information. It’s more one-sided informing rather than communication where matters are mutually analyzed. -- The more we have mutual, shared communication, the more we have (mutual) understanding on how to do things. If everyone knows at least a little about what others are doing, even if they themselves don’t know how to do it, they could consider their own processes and whether they are helping the others to make the whole train move forward. (Manager C) 4.2 Summary In this section, the research questions are stated again, followed by answers gained from the data analysis. Main themes of the results are summarized in figures 4 to 7 and some weak signals that bothered the interviewees that emerged from the data are stated. Due to the large sample size, summarized pictures do not include all individual quotes from interviewees: complete quotes are featured in the previous section 4.1 and it’s sub- chapters. The research questions set for this paper were the following: 1) What are the facilitators or enablers for ”positive” (reinforcing) workplace attitude and atmosphere? 106 2) What are the facilitators for ”negative” (detrimental) workplace attitude and atmosphere? 3) Are there any notable differences between top management’s (mostly of police back- ground) and professional experts’ views or experiences regarding these facilitators or enablers mentioned above? The answers to the research questions are the following: 1) Efficient teamwork and cooperation betweem expert and management teams in administration ; sense of flat hierarchy and high approachability of managers and experts ; overall respectful attitude and commitent to work and resolving issues. 2) Unresolved issues and inability to engage in problem solving or one’s work. As an additional minor negative the insufficient information flow between staff. 3) On a general level, no notable differences. However, the top management’s view on the matters is set on a little farther, to the level of the entire organization and all operations equally compared to views of experts. Keystones Based on the research results three main themes (named "keystones" in this paper) were developed from the data as additional answers for the research questions. The results, keystones and examples of the coding process for creating them are presented in Figures 5 to 9 and are discussed further in the section 5 of this study. As shown in figure 5 below, from the interviews arose several quotes that related to the sense of equality and flat hierarchy in the case unit. Several of the interviewed experts felt that there is no need to conform or act submissively towards the managagers as they share the same coffee tble in the break room. Instead of "titles" there are ordinary people gathered together, sharing laughter and discussing casually about non-work related matters, too. 107 The same experience was shared by the managers. Management themselves felt that there is no need to flaunt their hierarchical power or status. Instead, as a manager they should remain humble and approachable. Some of the managers even felt the older, more hierarchical and assertive management style as a negative aspect. Respectful, casual and equality-based approach and "peaceful co-existence" was seen as a preferred alternative in case unit’s workplace community. The above "codes" were refined into themes of Low hierarchy, approachability, basic, respectful mannerism and avoidance of "old management style". Combined, they were merged into the major theme, Keystone of (keeping one’s) "Feet on the Ground". As name implies, level heads and respectful, friendly attitude creates and upholds a positive atmosphere within the work community. Correspondingly, by strongly asserting oneself over the others (either through hierarchical power or personal means) or by failing to adhere to basic manners and respectful behaviour, one can lessen the atmosphere and spirit in the work community. 108 Figure 5. Keystone: Feet on the Ground Figure 6 was assembled from quotes related to interaction, especially between subordi- nate and supervisor. It should be noted that even if some of the manager-level interview- ees were direct supervisors to the experts, even the highest of managers is a subordinate for someone of even higher status and organizational power. Some of the interviewed experts were dissatisfied with the level of interaction or con- tacting from their supervisor. They felt that their supervisor seldomly contacted them or the casual interaction was non-existent. For these interviewees, regularly asking “how they are doing” represented the general interest in their work, thus creating a sense that their supervisor is interested and cares for their work-progress and well-being. It should be noted that not all the experts felt neglected. Some of them felt the interac- tion was suitable, and a couple of them even preferred that supervisors retain certain distance from their expert work. While many of the experts did not even expect their 109 supervisor to be highly proficient into the substance level of their work, they all appre- ciated that their supervisor at least has the basics grasp of it, seeing it as a sign of com- mitment and interest. Additionally, both the expert and the manager interviewees saw activity and commit- ment towards one’s work as positive signs. Due to these abilities, few issues or chal- lenges remain unresolved for long: they are dealt with quickly and efficiently. These codes were refined into themes such as interaction (from the supervisor), showing inter- est and commitment and being active in handling any emerged issues. For many of the managers, the commitment was presented by being committed into the strategic vison of Ostrobothnia Police Department: even though different operational units are geographically decentralized, the upper and middle-managers should be con- sidering issues and matters from the view of the entire department, not just their own locale where their offices and direct subordinates are. While the commitment was con- sidered as good between members of the upper management, many of the middle-man- agers were still seen to be “self-centered”, in a sense that their vision is still too focused on regional thinking. Emergent themes were then combined into the Keystone of Presence: by being active, engaging in both the interaction and issue solving and thus demonstaring commitment to one’s team, subordinates and supervisors can together strengthen the resolve of their work community and organization. Correspondingly, by leaving issues unresolved, being slow or inattentive in one’s duties (both the managerial and the expert work) or neglecting “managerial presence” accom- plished by frequent interaction, one can weaken the workplace atmosphere and spirit. 110 Figure 6. Keystone: Presence Figure 7 features quotes and themes related to teamwork and cooperation. Interviewed experts felt that the level of teamwork is high within their team(s). Additionally, the sense of cooperation was extended beyond “the boundaries” of one’s own team, in a hierarchical sense. Interviewees felt that they are free to contact any member in any of the other co-existing teams and receive help and support from them. Due to this coop- eration and mutual interactivity, there is a strong sense of reciprocity in the community and each individual team. The feeling of supportive behaviour was not limited to the expert teams. While one man- ager felt that their managerial teams have little cooperation between each other due to the nature of their specific operational lines, others felt that in their (upper management) meetings there’s a strong sense of working towards the shared goal and strategic vision. 111 Additionally, one manager noted how the cooperation and support works both ways be- tween the supervisor and the subordinate: for example, as manager who is not proficient in the substance of expert subordinate’s work, they are to familiarize and “drill” their supervisor into their role. Codes such as cooperation, frequent, reliable teamwork, and a sense of reciprocity – help those who have helped you – were set into themes of mutual assistance, working and cooperating with other teams and the proverb of “give and receive”. Together, these themes form the Keystone of Teamwork: by frequently helping others, even those out- side of set organizational barriers, one can transcend beyond limitations and help create a cycle of benevolence and support into their work community. Correspondingly, by focusing solely on one’s personal team or responsibility area and not being ready to provide help and support to the other members of the community can weaken the atmosphere and spirit. Figure 7. Keystone: Teamwork 112 Negative signals – sources of annoyance For the negative themes, two weak signals were discovered from the data: insufficient flow of information and decentralized, cloistered nature of the staff in larger police sta- tions. While these themes were not experienced by the interviewees strongly enough to be actively destructive to the overall atmosphere, they were felt as sources of occasional inconvenience or annoyance. Rather than directly derogating positive keystones, these souces of annoyance are issues that, should be they fully resolved, may act as a basis for further positive keystones, or otherwise improve the existing ones. Figure 8 features some of the quotes and codes on the negative theme of “Cloistered”. During the interviews many of the experts would mention how the sense of being a larger work community, on a department level, felt worse than before. They stated that the feeling started after the organizational refororms, when some of the previously in- dependent departments were merged, forming the Ostrobothnia Police Department of today. Based on their experiences, the level of interaction with teams and units outside of ad- ministration has lessened to a degree that they “no longer know what is going on within their department” and with other staff members with whom they interacted frequently in the past. Several of the experts felt that the cause for that were larger premises where different units and teams are literally placed onto separate floors. This, combined with increased number of break rooms has caused a situation where the casual social inter- action is largely limited between the members of one’s own team or teams that work closely with them. Additionally, several of the experts felt that there is a sense of division or confrontation (vastakkainasettelu) between the civilian staff and those with professional police educa- tion and law enforcement background. For example, they felt that certain (police) staff members will not join them at the coffee table, or there is a sense of hiding or avoiding 113 certain topics from discussion. While these experiences were mostly limited, received only from a portion of the police staff, some of the interviewees had simply come to accept that as fact that has “always existed” in the police organization. For the managers, the feeling of distance or being “cloistered” was more related to direct managerial challenges and related to the physical distance between Ostrobothnia’s three largest police stations. None of the interviewees (both experts and managers) agreed with the view that the strategic vision of a unified, common Ostrobothnia Police Department was completed. There is still a strong sense of different cultures and varying work processes, instead of them being aligned and shared within the entire department. Managers evaluated that physical distance is one of the greatest reasons for this. Compared to other police departments such as Helsinki and its neighboring departments for example, where distances are relatively small, Ostrobothnia Police’s distances be- tween its main police stations is over 100 kilometers, each. In practice, this prevents mixing staff and changing offices between staff members and thus allowing each to con- tinue doing things “their (old) way”, the way they existed when they were still independ- ent departments. 114 Figure 8. Negative theme: Cloistered Figure 9 features the last negative theme: “Communication”. While the teamworking and level of support was experienced to be very positive, several interviewees named communication and flow of information as an issue that could be improved within the department. Based on the expert interviewees’ experiences, specific information will not travel be- tween different police stations. Common complaint one can hear from the general staff of Ostrobothnia Police Department is that there is too much information, or that it is shared via “wrong channels”. Interviewees wondered whether staff has sufficient time to read their email or intranet Sinetti, or if there are issues with their personal views and the way they organiza their work. Some also criticized that one of the roles of a supervi- sor is to pass the information “down the ladder” to their subordinates in order to ensure that it reaches everyone. 115 From managerial side, Manager C had noticed an issue with the supervisors and their role as relayers of information to their subordinates below them. They felt that instead of analysing or considering the content of the new information, they simply forward it to their subordinates as it is, without considering or filtering the content of it in any way. They also pointed out that too many consider communication to be the work for the communication team: simple informing is different from interactive, two-way dialogue and communication. Figure 9. Negative theme: Communication. 116 5 Discussion The purpose of this study was to increase awareness on the workplace atmosphere and work satisfaction of Ostrobothnia Police Department’s administrative unit. This section is structured as follows: first, theoretical contributions of this study are discussed. Sec- ond, managerial implications are stated – what should the management level of the case unit acknowledge and develop. Thirdly, the limitations of this study are discussed. The section is then concluded with suggestions for future research. 5.1 Theoretical contribution This study both contributes to existing studies theories and expands the research avenue on Finnish public organizations. While the case unit is a police department, several of the public organizations are contructed similarly in a hierarchical sense. For example, hospitals, schools, and fire departments each have their general staff (for example, nurses, teachers), higher level management, more focused experts (doctors, academic researchers) and specialists providing support activities and/or analysis (finance, staff services, specialized research). Additionally, the structure for these organizations can be decentralized similarly to the police departments, each separate unit possibly housing their own unique culture and sub-cultures. Therefore, the results and keystones for pos- itive workplace atmosphere presented in this study can be hypothesized to be appilica- ble in their case, too. As stated in the introduction section, several thesis works have been conducted on Finn- ish police organization and their workplace atmosphere. However, this study is first one to explore the deeper facilitators and enablers for those results. The existing studies ex- plore how the atmosphere is, this study aims to reveal why those results apper as they do – what affects them, what kinds of factors make the poll results appear as they do. 117 Outside of police context, this study adds to the existing theories developed by Minztberg and Schein. Altough Mintzber’g theories on organizations can be argued to be at least partly archaic (especially on the role of manager) in the contrext of multinational organizations of today, their theory on classic models of organization can still be applied today, as argued below. This study validates Minztbergs theories on organization. Out of the seven classic mod- els, there are three that can be argued to represent the case organization of this study: Machine organization, Diversified organizaton and Professional organization. According to Minztberg (1989, p. 133) some basic features of a machine organization include spe- cialized yet routine operating tasks, large-sized operating units, centralized decision- making, and distinctive administrative structure between staff and managerment. Police operations and law-enforcement can be argued to fit into this model: especially on na- tional level some of the police units are very large in size, yet operative work in generel is standardized through police education and legistation. As a hierarchical organization there is a distinctive power difference between managers and ordinary staff. According to Mintzberg (1989, pp. 133-134) due to extensive standardization, minimal worker skill is often required, due to Technostructure providing constant flow of new standardization, workflow analysis and financial control, for example. Although in Finlad thequality level of police education and professionality is high, it can be argued that basic level patrolmen and criminal investigators utilize at least the minimal skills of their edu- cation, with Technostructure (experts and specialists) developing new standardization, instructions and control for the general staff to be more efficient in their activities. As stated, a counter argument can be made against minimal skill in the context of the case organization, but Mintzberg (1899, p. 134) notes that Technostructure possesses large amounts of informal power within organization due to the vital support activities they provide that allows the Operating core to function. 118 Accordinto Mintzberg (1989, p. 155) diversified organization consists of ”semi-autono- mous units coupled together by a central adminstrative unit”. ”Headquarters” (HQ) sets organizational objectives and develops ”corporate” strategy, while separate and decen- tralized sub-units (usually called divisions) operate to fulfill these objectives, each work- ing autonomously from each other. This places importance and power on (local) divi- sional managers, as they are both responsible for fulfilling HQ-set objectives and running the daily operations in their own divisional unit. In case organization, this can be seen to present the structure of the police chief, situated in main police station (Vaasa) setting the organizational strategy and being responsible for the performance of the police de- partment, while supervisors and managers situated at the other police stations individ- ually work towards these objectives. Alternatively, the National Police Board that sets the strategy to individual police departments’ “CEO’s”, the police chiefs can be seen as the HQ that guides the strategy on a national level. Lastly, the professional organization can be argued to have certain similarities to case organization. According to Mintzberg (1989) the professional organization is heavily de- pendent on its professional experts, who produce the products or services through standardized skills. Due to their expertise the professionals are able to work relatively independently of other colleaques and managers, close to ther direct customers. Mintzberg (1989, p. 174) uses public accounting firms, universities and hospitals as some examples of professional organizations. In professional organization traditional power relations can be turned upside-down. As the research results suggest, experts appreciate and are even expecting to be allowed to work freely of any unnecessary managerial in- fluence or interruptions. Rather than the manager to actively guide or command them, the experts will call their supervisors when they need assistance with their work, shifting the traditional power relations. However, it should be noted that according to Mintzberg (1989) the administration and managers my have relatively little power over the direct control of expert’s work, but it does not mean they are completely powerless. Instead, managers’ role is shifted more 119 towards operating as the boundary expanders between the experts and sources of out- side influence. Minzberg (1989, p. 180) lists different client associations (and other sim- ilar institutes) and government as examples of these. Due to increased control over their own work processes, limited more by boundaries set by their profession rather than or- ganization, experts tend to be highly motivated in their work (Mintzberg, 1989, p. 189). In this study. the high motivation/commitment to work was one of the keystones that directly creates positive atmosphere. Additionally, usually the issues that experts faced and required managerial power were often directly related to either requiring supervi- sors to use their direct administrative power to sign a document or to contact the Na- tional Police Board through official routes, for example. This study also heps verify and add to the practical contributions of Scheins theories on organizational culture. As many interviewees stated, in their view the strategic vision of a unified police department has not been completed yet, even if the latest merging took place over a decade ago. This is due to the strong cultural DNA that has formed within the individual police stations over the decades, starting when they used to be independent before the merging. Due to long distances between police stations, the de- partment is still divided into three separate and distinct areas where the staff has ac- quired decades of co-existence and interaction experience at best. These mutual expe- riences have formed a strong localized organization culture for each police station. It should be noted that strong organization culture has their strengths and weaknesses. Although matured culture is highly resistant to change, it has also allowed the long-time organizational habits to mature along them, feeding the good atmosphere that can be witnessed within the case unit. As many public organizations (in addition to the case unit of this study) have staff members that have been working for the organization for many years, they can introduce or “absorb” newer members into the way the organization be- haves, based on its culture. 120 5.2 Managerial implications It should be noted that the managerial implications of this study can be explored and applied by managers in any organization. Concepts that are featured in this study, such as organizational culture, teamwork, and daily interaction for example, are generalized concepts that can be observed in ANY environment or organization, public or private. The research results of this study, especially the keystones, can be used as a basis for any organization interested in exploring or developing its workplace atmosphere, managerial behaviour or image within its employees (and potentially customers, too). For the case organization, this is the first time a deeper exploration towards facilitating factors of ”good management” and ”positive atmosphere” has been undertaken. The keystones developed from the data and explored in the Findings section can be utilized to further enhance organizational atmosphere and a sense of community, both within and outside certain units and teams. The keystones can be applied universally to affect organizational members’ individual or personal behaviour as a part of the work commu- nity member, or as a mean of looking for suitable qualities and personal skills when hiring new employees or relocating members between teams. Research results also raise a notable point to managers of every level. Due to experts working closely with the management, they appreciate activity and presence – both from their own supervisor, and management in general. Therefore, it should be noted that as a manager, one is subject to observation and ”evaluation” from multiple sides. Manager’s peers, their direct subordinates, their own supervisor and other members of the organization, with whom they may not necessarily share direct ties or chain of com- mand within the hierarchy. Based on the results, upper management excels at “presence” and commitment, while the middle management received more mixed opinions. This can be notably observed in one of the interview quotes by Expert J whilst discussing upper management during the interview: 121 -- when we descent to the Chief Inspector [komisario, middle-level managers] level, you start to meet these wusses who you have to be constantly pushing in order to make make any progress. -- (Expert J) The inability of certain managers to fulfill their administrative duties (directly affecting the expertise work of Expert J) can be seen as a source of annoyance for them, even if the managers might be performing well within their own team and their ”own” subordi- nates, unseen to others. Therefore, managers should always consider how their behav- iour reflects to those “outside” of their own direct subordinates, too, as their perfor- mance can affect the entire work community and the workload and behaviour of other members of the organization. Another notable managerial implication is the efficient teamwork and cooperation be- tweem teams in case unit’s administration level. Some of the staff members are ”sepa- rated” into individual teams and some of them either working under different supervi- sors or divided by the ”barrier” of belonging either into Administration Unit or Advisory Staff. Regardless of this, they still frequently ”pass” these barriers in order to support each other, seemingly of their own volition. This can be utilized as an asset by the man- agers, by allowing (or keep letting) the teams to organize and manage themselves through non-hierarchical power or minimal managerial disruptions. Furthermore, findings of this study suggest that teams are already both capable and ap- preciative of being let ”work alone” among themselves, with minimal managerial inter- ruption. Based on the Figure 2. (p. 24), this suggests administrative teams being on a readiness level of four: self-managing group. While the experts do not require unneces- sary supervisor interruotion, they still appreciate that supervisor is interested in their- current work and do appreciate when the supervisor “answers their call” for assistance. This study also revealed two aspects that are potential weaknesses within the case or- ganization: (lack of) suitable communication or information flow, and a sense of division 122 between staff members, namely between those with civilian and police backgrounds. From these two negative themes, the communication and information flow can arguably be more readily solved, as some of the interviewees suggested that the issue may be a managerial one – one should both promote staff members’ activity in searching for in- formation and actively prune for selected, relevant information to pass downward to their subordinates. It should also be noted that similar issues can affect any other organ- ization, too. Therefore, any manager can look for these kinds of signals and seek to en- sure that they are dealt with in their own organization. In section 3.3.1. of this paper, some organizational artifacts within the case unit are listed. Based on the research results, some the artifacts can be categorized to fit into relevant keystones developed. Therefore, any manager in any organization can pick up some con- crete examples of behaviour that will potentially improve their workplace atmosphere and strengthen their organizational culture. In the Figure 10 below, the artifacts are con- nected via lines to relevant keystones to present concrete means one can “keep their feet on the ground” and lower the sense of hierarchy in their organization. Figure 10. Keystones and artifacts 123 5.3 Limitations of the study As all research, this study is not without its limitations. One of the common weaknesses for qualitative case study research are its subjective nature and case study’s unique phe- nomena, making research results difficult to replicate by another researcher making same kind of study (Stake, 1995, 2010; Simons, 2009; Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). However, authors also argue that the purpose of the case study is to study the unique and unknown (Stake, 1995, 2010; Simons, 2009), making it an ideal approach for this study. Perhaps most notable limitation is that the data has been gathered from a single organ- ization and from a single work community within it. However, while the administrative unit of Ostrobothnia is treated as a single entity/sector, the workers themselves (both experts and managers interviewed included) are decentralized and spread between dif- ferent police stations. Therefore, while the results may not be fully applicable to another police department, for example, it can be argued that data represents a throughout cut of police stations of Ostrobothnia department, the case organization of this study. Another limitation comes from the researcher’s insider nature within the case organiza- tion, as it may affect the answers interviewees would give to another, more unknown or impartial researcher. However, Stake (1995) and Simons (2009) argue that such insider nature can also be a benefit, as it allows for researcher to prod and provoke interviewees to provide additional information due to their more intimiate access to organization’s history and events. Additionally, one factor limited the research analysis: the anonymity. Due to decentral- ized nature of the staff in case unit, they could not be categorized into geographical lo- cations of Seinäjoki (EP), Kokkola (KP) or Vaasa (RP), as it would have made it easy for other organizational members to identify certain interviewees based on their answers. While this prevented analyzing research and culture based on each individual location, the sheer amount of research data gathered lessens this limitation. As majority of the 124 interviewees (combined into a single administration unit, rather than their unique loca- tion) had similar experiences and stated very similar examples, research results can be seen to reliably represent the general views and status of the workplace atmosphere within the case organization. Final limitation regarding this study is preservation of the research results. The culture within case organization is currently strong, partly due to the long-time staff members who have worked for the organization for decades. Within the span of five years, major- ity of the interviewees will be retired – thus affecting the reliability of the results within the future organization. Additionally, there is a potential of future organizational reforms changing the structure and nature of the case organization. However, this also provides opportunities for further research in the future Ostrobothnia Police Department, this study potentially acting as a foundation for such research. 5.4 Future research suggestions This study opened several potential avenues for future research. In the context of Ostro- bothnia Police Department, only the administrative unit was studied. According to Her- sey et al. (2001) there are as many cultures (or subcultures) within an organization as there are teams in it. As many of the interviewees noted, other operational units and smaller police stations are tightly knit and can arguably be private, closed groups them- selves, it remains unkown how universal the results of this study are for the entirety of the department. Additionally, it remains unknown how universal the overall organizational culture of Os- trobothnia Police compares to other Police departments, such as Helsinki for example. As the cultural artifacts and the overall atmosphere may be completely different in other departments, the ”enablers” of positive, or negative atmosphere may be diferent, even among their administrative unit(s). 125 Furthermore, as stated in the limitations section (chapter 5.3), within the next five years majority of the interviewees for this study will be retired due to their long service – it remains unknows whether the currently reigning organizational culture is strong enough to ”absorb” newcomers, or whether the results of this study will still be the same. This provides an opportunity to perform research again on whether the keystones remain unchanged or if preferences of the workplace community have evolved. Outside of the Police context, this study has revealed new information about the profes- sional organization employees and top managers in the context of public organization: it can be hypothesized that the results and ”positive keystones” would be true in other organizations too, such as hospitals, schools and fire departments. Alternatively, there may be drastic differences on what employees of such organizations consider to ena- ble ”positive atmosphere” at their work or what inspires them professionally. Therefore, this study can act as a foundation for new research performed in another organization. Finally, even if the study was conducted within a public sector organization, similar study can easily be conducted in a private organization. The roles of managers and experts alike can be seen to be similarin tgehir purpose, regardless of the processes or duties they fulfill in the organization. Whether the organization operates in public or private sector, the staff and their commitment remain one of the universal core strengths that enables their existence in the first place. 5.5 Acknowledgements Anne, Kimmo, Carita. You set me on this path. Thank you. And great thanks for everyone else who spent their time in taking part in the interviews and encouraging me to undertake this study. 126 References Ashraf, M. (2019). The mediating role of work atmosphere in the relationship between supervisor cooperation, career growth and job satisfaction. Journal of Workplace Lear- ning, 31(2), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-12-2017-0113 Avison, D., Francis, L., Myers, M. & Nielsen, P.A. (1999). Action research. Communica- tions of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/291469.291479#top Azungah, T. (2018). Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D- 18-00035 Baum F., MacDougall, C. & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Ep- idemiology & Community Health 2006, 60(10), 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fjech.2004.028662 Bradley, E.H., Curry, L. A. & Devers, K. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health ser- vices research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research 4(42), 1758–1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x Bjerke, B. (1999). Business leadership and culture. National management styles in the global economy. Edward Elgar Publishing. Brooks, I. (2003). Organisational behaviour: individuals, groups, and organisation. (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. Clarke, N. (2006). The relationships between network commitment, its antecedents and network performance. Management Decision, 44(9), 1183–1205. https://doi- org.proxy.uwasa.fi/10.1108/00251740610707677 127 Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. Continuum. Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N. & Pekovic, S. (2013). Is there a relationship between work- place atmosphere and innovation activities? An empirical analysis among French firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(6), 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2013.777179 Hersey, P, Kenneth, H.B & Johnson, D.E. (2001). Management of organizational behav- ior: leading human resources (8th ed.). Prentice-Hall. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying organizational subcultures: an empirical approach. Journal of Management Studies 35(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 6486.00081 Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 Huovinen, S. (2013). ICT organisaation tärkein voimavara on henkilöstö: Case HALTIK. (Master’s thesis, University of Oulu, Finland). Retrieved from http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/nbnfioulu-201306061563.pdf Jäderholm, R. (2013). Poliisihallituksen perustamisen vaikutus poliisin tulosohjaukseen. (Master’s thesis, University of Tampere, Finland). Retrieved from https://trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/94524/Jaderholm_gradu.pdf?se- quence=1&isAllowed=y 128 Kultalahti, S. (2015). “It’s so nice to be at work!”. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Vaasa, Finland). https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-476-651-7 Linneberg, M. & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal 19(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12- 2018-0012 Löfgren, K. (2013, May 19). Qualitative analysis of interview data: A step-by-step guide for coding/indexing. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRL4PF2u9XA Manning, J. (2017). In vivo coding. In Matthes, J. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0270 Merriam-Webster. (2021). Definition of culture (Entry 1 of 2). https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/culture Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Sage Publications. Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: inside our strange world of organiza- tions. The Free Press. Mintzberg, H. (1990). Organisaatiosuunnittelu – Structure in Fives. Oy Rastor Ab. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. (2021). Definition of culture noun from the Oxford Ad- vanced Learner's Dictionary. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/defini- tion/english/culture_1 129 Poliisi. (2014a). Poliisin hallintorakenteen kehittämishanke (PORA III): toimeenpanon loppuraportti. Poliisihallituksen julkaisusarja 4/2014. https://poliisi.fi/docu- ments/25235045/42553324/julkaisu_4_2014.pdf/80d441ff-e299-7771-27be- 9016e220065c/julkaisu_4_2014.pdf?t=1605299344516 Poliisi. (2014b). Julkaisut: Poliisihallituksen julkaisusarja. https://poliisi.fi/julkaisut/-/as- set_publisher/Ga8MkKWl5ss3/content/poliisin-hallintorakenteen-kehittamishanke- pora-iii-toimeenpanon-loppuraport-ti?_com_liferay_asset_publisher_web_portlet_As- setPublisherPortlet_INSTANCE_Ga8MkKWl5ss3_assetEntryId=45365104 Poliisi. (2021a). We operate everywhere in Finland. https://poliisi.fi/en/we-operate-in- everywhere-in-finland Poliisi. [Online image]. (2022). Ostrobothnia Police Department. https://poliisi.fi/en/os- trobothnia-police-department Pöyhtäri, R. (2020, August 26). “Oksettaa pelkkä ajatuskin töihin menemisestä” – luki-jat kertovat myrkyllisestä ilmapiiristä työpaikalla. Iltalehti. https://www.iltalehti.fi/ty- oelama/a/86ee8e75-05c6-4191-b1f8-f2cdc5a28882 Rönn, J. (2013). Työhyvinvoinnin kehittäminen muuttuvassa organisaatiossa. (Master’s thesis, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences, Finland). Retrieved from https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/63071/Tyohyvinvoinnin%20kehitta- minen%20muuttuvassa%20organisaatiossa.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Saldana, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). Sage. Salmi, K. (2013). Poliisin hallintorakenneuudistukseen liittyvä selvitys. Sisäasiainminis-te- riön julkaisut 7/2013. Sisäasiainministeriö. 130 https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/79041/Poliisin%20hallinto- rakenneuudistukseen%20liittyv%C3%A4%20selvitys.pdf Salonen, H. & Salonen, S. (2014). Työhyvinvoinnin merkitys PORA3:n aikana Itä-Uudenmaan poliisilaitoksessa. (Bachelor’s thesis, Laurea University of Applied Sci-en- ces, Finland). Retrieved from https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/han- dle/10024/80474/ONT_Salonen_Heikki_Sanna.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Saukkonen, P., Roos, M., Viinikainen, S., Helminen, M., Asikainen, P., Green, P. & Suomi- nen, T. (2017). Organisaatiokulttuuri ja -ilmapiiri hoitohenkilökunnan näkökulmasta. HOITOTIEDE 2017, 29 (4), 239–251. https://journal.fi/hoitotiede/arti- cle/view/128398/77521 Saukkonen, P., Viinikainen, S., Roos, M., Helminen, M., Asikainen, P., Green, P. & Suomi- nen, T. (2019). Lähiesimiesten arvio organisaatiokulttuurista ja -ilmapiiristä on hoitohen- kilökunnan arviota positiivisempi. SOSIAALILÄÄKETIETEELLINEN AIKAKAUSLEHTI 2019: 56(2), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.23990/sa.70438 Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Schein, E.H. & Schein, P.A. (2019). The corporate culture survival guide (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Simonen, M. (2019a, February 2). Selvitys: Näin korkeasti koulutettuja nuoria saa tehok- kaimmin houkuteltua yrityksiin - palkka ei ole kaikkein tärkein. Iltalehti. https://www.il- talehti.fi/tyoelama/a/a93d8610-acc7-4af4-a439-1917c054ed56 Simonen, M. (2019b, January 10). Selvitys: Hyvä työilmapiiri lisää kassavirtaa. Iltalehti. https://www.iltalehti.fi/tyoelama/a/a35f9e0b-3a74-4a58-831c-bb5da738d6d4 131 Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Sage Publications. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: studying how things work. The Guildford Press. Vuorenmaa, P. (2013). Työhyvinvoinnin arviointia hallintorakenneuudistusten puristuk- sessa Etelä-Pohjanmaan poliisilaitoksessa. (Master’s thesis, University of Tam-pere, Fin- land). Retrieved from https://trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/94733/GRADU- 1386752070.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Zimmermann, K.A. (2017, July 13). What is culture? [Online]. Retrieved on 16.9.2021 from https://www.livescience.com/21478-what-is-culture-definition-of-culture.html 132 Appendices Appendix 1. Open invite to a personal interview (email) Tervehdys! Kuten osa teistä jo tietääkin, aloitin viime syksynä KTM-opinnot Vaasan yliopistossa ja nyt on aika aloittaa gradun parissa työskentely. Aiheeni on Työilmapiirin tutkimus Poh- janmaan poliisilaitoksessa ja tarkennettuna kohderyhmänä on meidän hallinto- ja esi- kuntayksikkö. Teoreettisessa viitekehyksessä on tarkoitus keskittyä organisaatiokulttuu- riin. Viimeisin Henkilöstöbarometri 2018 paljasti, että muihin laitoksen henkilökuntaryh-miin verrattuna hallinnossa ja esikunnassa ollaan erityisen tyytyväisiä: mistä tämä joh-tuu, voisiko tätä ”hyvän ilmapiirin reseptiä” hyödyntää myös muualla, omalla käytök-sellä, esimiestyössä, jossain muussa? Tarkoitus on siis nyt porautua pelkkää prosent-tistatis- tiikkaa ja palkkikäppyröitä syvemmälle ja selvittää, miten nämä hyvät tulokset konkreet- tisesti meille syntyvät. Nyt kun valmentava johtajuus on alkamassa, voi tästä lisäksi saada arvokasta näkökulmaa esimiestyöhön, työntekijöiden omasta näkökulmas-ta kerrottuna. Tutkimuksen tarkoitus on henkilökohtaisten haastattelujen kautta saada rakentumaan kuvaa siitä, mikä/mitkä tekijät meille rakentaa positiivista, hyvää ilmapiiriä, sekä mitkä tekijät tätä mahdollisesti haittaavat. Lisäksi vertailen näitä tuloksia kahden eri ryhmän, Päällystö ja Asiantuntijat kesken: vaikka paljon yhdessä olemmekin ja teem-mekin, niin myös näistä ryhmistä muodostuu oma pienempi työyhteisö, joista saattaa paljastua omat, joskus jopa ristiriitaiset erityispiirteensä. Eli mikä ilmapiiriä meille rakentaa, ja onko päällystön ja ”meidän muiden” kesken tässä huomattavia näke-myseroja. Tutkimuksen toteutus: Tavoitteeni on, että saisin suoritettua kahdenkeskisen, henkilökohtaisen haastattelun teidän jokaisen kanssa, koska hallinnosta ja esikunnasta on muodostunut Kokkolaan, 133 Vaasaan ja Seinäjoelle moninainen, tiivis ja hyvin usein oman virkapaikan ja hierarkki- sen aseman rajat ylittävä työyhteisö. Toteutus tehdään anonyymisti: tuloksissa ei tule ilmi sukupuolta, ikää, nimeä eikä muitakaan henkilötietoja: kuulut ainoastaan joko ryh- mään ”Päällystö/johto” tai ”Asiantuntija”. Haastattelu toteutetaan suomen kielellä ja äänitetään: kirjoitan keskustelun puhtaaksi ja voimme vielä yhdessä käydä tekstin läpi, sekä halutessasi korjata/poistaa sieltä osia. Ää- nitetty (ja puhtaaksi kirjoitettu litterointi) jää meidän kahdenkeskiseksi ja nämä hävi-te- tään viimeistään gradun ollessa valmis. Kaikkien vastausten seasta toivottavasti alkaa paljastua riittävästi samankaltaisuuksia/vastakohtaisuuksia niin, että on mahdollista muodostaa johtopäätöksiä niistä tekijöistä, jotka meille rakentavat positiivista (tai ne- gatiivista) ilmapiiriä työyhteisössä. Vastauksissa ”nimettömän massan” lisäksi lisäturvaa anonyymiudelle antaa se, että itse gradu kirjoitetaan englanniksi. Haastatteluista tulee ”esiteltäväksi” tekstiin tiettyjä suoria, nimettömiä lainauksia haastatteluista, mutta käännöstyö auttaa häivyttämään henkilön tunnistettavuutta entisestään. Kaikki tutkimusdata hävitetään, ainoastaan gra- duun ”painettu teksti” jää. Ja vielä loppuun, osallistuminen on totta kai täysin vapaaehtoista. Jokaisen mielipide on tulosten kannalta arvokas, eikä tässä ole olemassa oikeita tai vääriä vastauksia: minimis- sään ilmapiirin/kulttuurin muodostuminen alkaa aina yhteistä kokemuksesta, jossa ryhmä yksilöitä saa/”joutuu” olemaan ja tekemään yhdessä. Jos mieleen tulee jotain muuta kysyttävää tai jokin jäi epäselväksi, ota rohkeasti yhteyt- tä :) Tähän graduun liittyen minulla on tutkimusluvat Poliisihallitukselta (POL-2020-37345) ja Pohjanmaan poliisilaitokselta (POL-2020-34454), jotka ovat myös tämän viestin liitteenä. 134 Ystävällisin terveisin Jari Kankaansyrjä 135 Appendix 2. The Interview Script