This is a CTP of initiative: Living Knowledge ‐ Wissenschaftsladen Bonn (Germany)
Date: 2000
Keywords: Founding, international collaboration,
Understand: This CTP is a combination of several different events happening at the same time that led the initiative in a new direction. This CTP relates specifically to the first time WILA Bonn dismissed an employee, which had significant impact on their identity and way of operating.
Interviewee: So I was our company’s policy, whoever comes to the science shop can stay here as long as we have money, until they leave or retire. It was not written down anywhere, but we were always fighting to keep people. It had to do with projects of course; nobody who did not at least work for the magazines could not be paid for a longer period from the income of the magazine. So, everybody had to struggle for projects and to do a certain piece of work in their own field of experience. This was, you know, house policy. If you come and stay, as long as you fit into the team, then we do everything really, and if we have some money, in a project, you can enter into this…
This was the basic understanding of WILA Bonn that they took care of their employees, they were loyal. However, at some point they did encounter a situation where they could just not work together with a specific person, shattering their idealism a bit, although the interviewee do not say this directly:
We came across bigger problems with some of the people, we had a lot of discussions, but in this case… it was a woman working for the magazines, and I don’t know what happened, it was some let me say some personal struggle in the team between her and another person. It was a struggle with the general manager about directions of the content of the magazines. And I don’t know what it was, in the end she definitely refused some of the work she had to do, she definitely had to do, which lead to… the situation that we have to give her orders, which is not common here in the science shop, because we all know what to do. We all know that we are responsible for all footwork… we are self-employed, so we have a lot of freedom in our activities but it is also for engagement and commitment and this was not the case with this person. Neither engagement nor commitment. So she got orders what to do and she didn’t fulfil the orders, and so we decided to finish her contract… to fire here, and this caused a lot of discussion, and it only happened a second time only a few years ago, 2 years ago, also with a second person. It is always of course a lot of discussion, a lot of trouble, within the remaining team. Can we keep her? Can we offer some kind of support to solve the problems? Why not giving her another task that was better for her? And you know all this kind of supportive activities to allow people to stay with us, and the moment when it comes to the point that this is no longer possible, it is always you know, it’s like you know, a break-up…
Basically they gave up after a rather long time with different attempts at working with a specific person. The reasons this is a CTP is because it hurt them, hurt their identity, and have implications for their way of operating. They are self-employed, they all know what to do, and even though they have a general manager nobody is ordering people around and telling them what to do. Therefore, it does not work in their organisation if employees are not engaged and lack commitment. As the interviewee goes on to explain:
This is one of the remainders from early years I think, this understanding of being basically democratic and working as a team. You are happy with the same idea, and we don’t just run a business, and when it comes to this situation that it is no longer possible to work with one of the persons… and you have to make a cut… this hurts… and I think one was in 2000, can’t really remember, in 2000 it was the first time that we made a cut…
The interviewee mentions this feeling several times, especially how they suddenly feel like a company and not just a team:
That is feeling like an employer… it is not just… a team making decisions together…
This CTP is not related to specific developments in the context, as it is an internal issue about a conflict between some of the staff at WILA Bonn. Moreover, although the event this CTP is about, the dismissal of an employee, is a specific point in time it was the culmination of a process spanning a long time.
While specific details on the internal conflict is sparse, except the seeming lack of commitment and initiative of the dismissed employee, it is of less importance for the CTP why and how the conflict developed. The core of the CTP was the inability of the dismissed employee to work in the same way as the rest of the organisation, i.e. working without supervision. There is a high degree of co-production in WILA Bonn, it is a democratic organisation in some ways operating like a collective, where everybody can contribute with ideas. The CTP threatened that feeling of being a collective where there is space for everyone, as well as their very way of operating
This event, to some degree, also relates to the retirement of the founder mentioned in the previous CTP. With the new managers elected a host of other changes were also made in the organisation, and the experience with the first dismissal of an employee fed into these changes:
Jens: So did it change anything?
Interviewee: With the new managers yes. With the old managers, we decided the moment when he retires, okay we are going to change a lot. We made new contracts now with all our employees, making clear where we learned that things was unclear… we even decided to finish another contract, and make it up with another staff member here. We have an ideal budget of almost 3 million Euro; we cannot run our organization like a student party or something like that. We have a responsibility, we have a responsibility towards those who give us the money, we have a responsibility towards our clients, we have responsibility towards staff, although all of the staff is part of the family, there are still levels of hierarchy there is still a responsibility. And what we have to learn is that we cannot push this responsibility to single persons. We did that with the previous manager [the founder].
In short, the CTP resulted in new contracts being made to avoid uncertainties that might lead to conflicts or misunderstandings. More importantly, it led to a range of realizations about themselves, that they have responsibilities, and are also a company, an employer, which also led to a new way of managing WILA Bonn. Now they have a shared responsibility of management, unlike previously where the founder, the old manager, was responsible for these kind of situations. But not just that, there the changes went deeper yet:
We became aware that income might be at risk, it definitely was not because we were not able to manage the crises, but it made us aware that we need regulation of that. So, it also let us to regulate how certain positions are made in the science shop, and there is a difference in wage if you work as an editor, secretary, or a project manager, or as the general manager. We made clear positions; there are no job descriptions but position descriptions, to make clear that there is no unique salary for anyone, or standard salary for people working here. This was also part of the professional development to think about these, because when we started we were a team of two or four. Later on, we got our project funds, we got our salary, and then we grew, we got income, we were able to joggle with the income, and then of course needed some kind of regulations and structure.
In short, WILA Bonn was slowly becoming more professional, and this current CTP was a major milestone in the range of events playing a part in this professionalization.
This CTP, interestingly, has a contestation at its core. Contestations are not the common among science shops, and mostly relate to the various projects science shops carry out and not the daily life in the organisation.
and when it comes to this situation that it is no longer possible to work with one of the persons… and you have to make a cut, this hurts, and I think one was in 2000, can’t really remember, in 2000 it was the first time that we made a cut… of course we are cowards… sometimes it is easy. If you hired somebody for a project, and you see that it does not run well with this person, and the project runs out, you do not put a lot of energy into fighting, in possibilities for this person, so then the contract ends and it is over.
As explained in the content of this CTP, the dismissal of the first employee was based on a conflict that they failed to find a good solution for, ending in the dismissal. Moreover, the interviewee describes it as hurting, signalling that it was a major conflict for them. They have had situations where they did not work so well with persons before, but these situations had run their course as funding had run out, and the persons left WILA Bonn in a natural turnover.
It is not a simple process though, and the contestation had lasted years, and it involved many different actors and activities:
If you think of this situation, it is not a single person that decides. We do not have the manager and managing position, you know like a human resources manager or whatever who internally decides it does not work any longer, there is no fulfilment of the task and whatever of the team and then the board decides. This is not the way, it is a long process and there is a lot of discussion, we see that it is not going right. First it is the working group talking to this person, and then all others who are in contact with this person start the discussion with the person, we have a face to face discussion with trusted mediators… either from inside the organization, sometimes we also hire mediators for the process. All with the idea to get this person back into the business in the science shop. I remember the last session we had, it was a meeting first of all, with I think two board members and this person and two mediators. So, we were a couple of people working with her, and suddenly everybody became clear, with the mediators… there is no chance, no opportunity, to work together with this person in the future, it doesn’t work. There is no idea, we tried a lot for 2, 3, or 4 years and it doesn’t get better, and then we had to decide, and then the decision was very hard, we are going to end the contract, with all the things coming afterwards, talking to lawyers etc.
To sum up, it was a collective process that involved all co-workers, the board members, and even outside mediators. The process took several years, and only when all ideas were used up did they terminate the contract.
It is hard to say that the development was unanticipated. The process took several years, before they admitted that there was no good solutions, and they had to terminate the contract. The final outcome may not initially have been anticipated, but at some point prior to the CTP they did realize that this was the only possible outcome.
What may not have been anticipated was the consequences of the CTP, for instance how hard it is to terminate contracts. It is however hard to specify what was anticipated and what was not. A lot of changes were expected, even planned, upon the retirement of the founder. How these changes panned out in the end might not have been completely anticipated, but this is mostly an inference, and not voiced directly by the interviewee.
A lot of changes described under related events, it because of the learnings they have had during some of these critical turning points. The first dismissal of an employee taught them that they had to take the responsibility as a team and not delegate it:
it was the whole team which is responsible, this was a learning process to understand that we cannot push this kind of responsibility to single persons but everybody have to take this responsibility, and make up his or her mind and then decide…
Another learning is how hard it actually is, or was, to terminate a contract:
When to terminate a contract, there is certain deadlines but… there are almost no possibilities to fire somebody, at least here in Germany, unless they steal money or whatever. So, you have to find a good agreement. In the latest case, it was to continue the employment for another nine months, but she didn’t have to show up in the science shop, they didn’t want to have her in our office any longer, and she got a certain amount of money. This is what we call abfindung, besides her regular payment she got a certain amount of money, I think 2 or 3 salaries or 3 month salaries or something like that. It meant for us taking a lot of money into our hands to get rid of a person, and this of course was discussed and decided, and then of course negotiated with that person and her lawyers, this is not easy. It is easy when it works well, and it is easier to hire people than getting rid of people, but one of the learnings from all these staff issues the last years, it was that we are no longer following the policy of whoever enters the science shop will stay here forever. So, if we have a project and the project runs for 2 years, you will hire people for 2 years and then there is no obligation no moral obligation… to think about how to continue with this person. If this person is good, a good worker, and fits well in the team and is creative, and whatever, we will find a way, there is no question about that. However, we will not try to find any occupation in any field in the science shop because they already worked here for two years.
This learning, as partly described under related events, led to organisational changes. Now they seldom hire permanent staff anymore, they only sign time-limited contracts for projects.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
