CSIRO and What Price Bureaucracy. (September 18, 2010)

On Thursday The Canberra Times' Rosslyn Beeby broke the story that while: "Scientists at CSIRO love their work, [they] say they are becoming more confused, frustrated, unhappy and burned out by battles with management bureaucracy, according to a new report."

The survey, Working at CSIRO: Dispatches from the front line - Employee Survey Autumn 2010 is authored by academics from the universities of South Australia, Melbourne and New South Wales. According to the report the 12-page survey was "distributed across all CSIRO sites in person by Staff Association delegates between 19 April and the 24^th of May 2010. Surveys were returned in reply paid envelopes to the research team at the University of New South Wales. Some resistance occurred at both the corporate and local level to the distribution of the survey, which limited distribution in some areas. Compiled distribution rates from Staff Association delegates showed 4280 surveys were distributed. The research team received 2116 returned surveys. This represents a response rate of 49%, which is a particularly good response rate".

The full report is available online and its initial point of call is the so-called Matrix which former CSIRO Chief of the Division of Entomology characterised in September 2008 as "code for something that's in Brownian motion - people are not sure where they fit into it". Dr Whitten went on to say that technicians have been taken out of permanent teams and placed into pools and this has "dehumanised" the research process. "There is a serious morale problem within the organisation over a sense of identity."

The stated objective of the Matrix is to break down divisional boundaries and enhance collaboration across the organisation to enable CSIRO to tackle major science challenges. The implementation of a stronger matrix component in CSIRO's organisational structure and operations was the key to achieving the goal of "One CSIRO". Therefore, "respondents were asked to indicate agreement or disagreement with the following statement: ‘CSIRO’s input-output matrix structure enhances collaboration across CSIRO divisions’. Some 30% of respondents agreed with this statement (6% strongly agreed and 24% agreed), while 32% disagreed (with 11% strongly disagreeing and 21% disagreed)."

This then brought forth the matter of whether or not CSIRO’s input-output matrix structure enhanced the quality of their work. "59% of employees disagreed (27% strongly disagreed and 32% disagreed). Scientists had a higher level of disagreement at 65% (33% strongly disagreed and 32% disagreed). In short there was an overwhelming  rejection by survey respondents, especially the organisation's scientists of the notion that the CSIRO matrix had improved their ability to undertake work of high quality.

Some of the damning comments quoted in the report:

if you look at CSIRO ... our only asset is people. And the only way that you can obtain science outcomes is through people. And yet they’ve put science outcomes over here and people management over here and then wonder why there’s a problem.

I think the matrix just disconnects everything. There’s no-one that’s responsible or anything. It’s just continual buck passing.

A divorce between people and outcomes. A divorce between responsibility and authority. Nobody knows what their roles are. People make it up as they go along. I mean it’s code for nobody takes responsibility actually...I only have persuasion. That’s my only management tool. I don’t have any authority over anyone.

The overall conclusions of the report are that they "highlight concerns among CSIRO staff with the operation of the CSIRO matrix organisational structure and the centralisation of support services" and that "a number of factors in the CSIRO work environment were constraining the organisation’s ability to foster the creativity and innovation of CSIRO staff.

     "Staff expressed frustration with their careers and with career development opportunities. Many staff also believed they had limited input into management decisions and lacked control over resources at the local level. They also expressed a desire for more mentoring opportunities and enhanced feedback on their performance from supervisors. In addition, employees reported moderate levels of emotional exhaustion".

Overall nearly ⅔ of respondents think CSIRO has a top-heavy management structure but nevertherless just over half said the minor administrative responsibilities such as "filling in time management spreadsheets, organising building repairs and ordering stationery" was diverting them from research.

Ms Beeby reports, however, that CSIRO deputy chief executive Craig Roy said several recent high-level assessments by international consultants showed the organisation was performing well above the global average for research organisations. Which appears challenged by one of the four authors of the report Professor Michael O’Donnell, University of New South Wales who said their questions revealed CSIRO staff ''felt a high level of neglect'' and disengagement, which was significantly higher among women".

Undeterred Mr Roy told Ms Beeby: "... a staff survey commissioned earlier this year from global business consultants Tower Watson showed a 14% increase in staff satisfaction above 2007 levels. This was 13% above the global average for research organisations. ''The big picture shows that we are hitting home runs, but we do acknowledge there are still some issues around process efficiency and change. Those things are issues for most organisations, and if any organisation thinks it's got them nailed, then you're looking at a place that's lost its passion for change.'"

Mr Roy's final comments are dismissive of the report's findings and would seem to indicate a profound lack of understanding of the increasing demoralisation of CSIRO's staff. The gulf between those that are performing the science and the body's administrators is widening thereby leading to an increasingly dysfunctional organisation.

Mr Roy said he believed the findings of the university survey reflected the involvement of the CSIRO Staff Association in drawing it to the attention of members. ''We are not too surprised by the results given the level of the union's participation. They are just doing their job in the lead-up to a new round of enterprise bargaining.''

In rebuttal the staff association's secretary, Sam Popovski, told Ms Beeby the union had no involvement in the survey, and results showed 47% of those who responded to the survey were not union members. ''These findings cannot be looked at in isolation. When you compare them to the survey results from 10 years ago, the indicators around job satisfaction, morale and stress are worse.''