Finland's Social Insurance Institution Kela is experiencing internal turmoil as Director General Lasse Lehtonen faces exceptional criticism from within the organization. Board Chairman Vertti Kiukas confirms receiving numerous critical comments about Lehtonen's leadership from various levels of the agency.
The controversy stems primarily from Lehtonen's public statements about Kela's stricter remote work policies. Many employees found his comments dismissive of staff concerns. Last week, Lehtonen apologized to Kela personnel for what he called "some word choices" in his public appearances.
What makes this situation remarkable is the source of the criticism. Kiukas states he has received approximately ten pieces of feedback about Lehtonen through different channels. While this number seems modest for an organization employing 8,000 people, Kiukas emphasizes its unprecedented nature.
"Commenting from elsewhere in the organization about the director general or even management team members hasn't occurred before. This is exceptional in that way," Kiukas noted during discussions about the situation.
The criticism appears concentrated on Lehtonen's public communication style and approach. Feedback recipients consistently mention concerns about how Lehtonen represents Kela in public forums and media appearances.
Kela's board already held a crisis meeting last Wednesday to address Lehtonen's comments. That meeting featured what participants described as "serious-minded" discussion about Kela's situation, though no decisions were made at that time. Lehtonen apologized for his statements during that session.
The issue will receive further attention in two upcoming meetings. Kela's board will revisit the matter in their next scheduled session. Additionally, Kela's parliamentary council, composed of Finnish lawmakers, will discuss the situation in their Tuesday meeting. This same council selected Lehtonen for his position just last spring.
This internal dissent at Finland's premier social benefits agency reflects broader tensions in the Nordic work culture transition. Many Finnish organizations continue navigating hybrid work arrangements post-pandemic. Kela's internal conflict signals how deeply remote work policies resonate with employees across the region.
The situation demonstrates that even in Finland's typically consensus-driven organizational culture, leadership communication styles can trigger strong reactions. Lehtonen's case shows how public statements by agency leaders can quickly become internal morale issues when employees perceive them as dismissive of workforce concerns.
What happens next will test Kela's governance structures. The board must balance supporting its director general with addressing legitimate staff concerns. Their approach could set precedents for how Finnish public institutions handle internal dissent about leadership styles.
For international observers, this situation offers insight into Finland's transparent organizational culture. The fact that internal criticism reaches board level and becomes public knowledge reflects Nordic values of openness in institutional governance.