How to enable the establishment of competitive Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in CEEC
Helgo Zuecker
Professor of Intercultural Management, UNESCO Chair – University of Bucharest
Biographical Note
After receiving the German university entrance qualification, Helgo Zuecker finished a seven years study of moving art with a Dutch diploma, including a pedagogical qualification. Between 1988 and 1995, he did seven years of pedagogical work in Rotterdam (Netherlands) and Kassel (Germany). From 1997, he studied business sciences, finishing for the first Diploma in 2001 (bachelor equivalent) and for the second Diploma (master equivalent) in 2003. During the studies, he worked for different chairs and for a German Journal of business ethics. In 2003 he founded the Institute of Development “Eupraxia Consult” and since 2005 he is working on his PhD thesis.
Contact details:
Moselweg 3
34131 Kassel (GERMANY)
Telephon: +49 561 3161316
E-mail: helgo.zuecker@eupraxia.de
Abstract
The article stresses the question of organisational innovations in the field of SME in CEEC. For the analysis, examples of characteristic phenomena are chosen which mirror the strengths and weaknesses, the opportunities and threats of CEEC in transition economies. Besides various economic images, three fields will be presented in which the EU exercises little direct influence. These three fields cover 1) education, 2) science and research, and 3) SME. They are seen to be essential terrain for initiating national and corporate competitive advantages. Education is the basis of future human resources; science and research open potential sources of development for new products and service. A national culture of SME-carried economy can be seen as an effective structure to implement such innovation.
Necessary conditions are seen in helpful political framework programmes which build up economic structures contributing to national wealth by creating SMEs, by the corporate support of individual initiatives of collaborators and by effective corporate competence creating organisational team structures. In conclusion the Department-UNESCO Chair Master Course of Intercultural Management in Bucharest is presented as an adequate tool to initiate as well as to form young people in a way that prepares them to recognize and to support necessary change impulses in social and corporate organisations.
Introduction
An innovative organisational design – stimulated by change – stresses the immemorial duality of transformation and conservation. The design of an organisation has to be open for new impulses, just as innovations have to take into account the positive aspects of routine. The main objective of change will be on the one hand the acceptance to create an area of tension in which organisational embedded innovations can be generated and on the other hand, to identify which competence of action is needed to realise these innovations. Economists as well as practitioners are rather familiar with the term “change”. Its performance is therefore closely tied up with the ability to fulfill both practical and theoretical requirements. While scientists aim at long ranged and rather objective results, practitioners are directed to quick-acting efficiency and profit. To meet this twofold claim a specific approach is required. In science we find a tendency to reduce the field of research in order to present clear-cut results. As these results are based on specific theoretical presumptions, the subsequent discussion tends to limit itself to the pros and cons of these presumptions. In contrast people working in business are waiting for practical solutions rather than honourable scientific depth. But unbridled capitalism would also not be suitable. Here too we can see the need for balanced exposure in economic questioning. To hook up with CZARNIAWSKA-JOERGES [2000; 360], for successful advancement in any theoretical field, we require the reinforcement of creativity and experimentation which have to be consolidated by reflection and analysis. Beside an interdisciplinary approach to the sciences of business, organisation, culture, and psychology, the two above mentioned opposite poles within the economic field (practitioners and scientists) will be treated. The aim of this article is to offer a relevant conceptual perspective for the development of the economies within the CEEC.
We will look at the present economic situation of the CEEC and at their interests and apprehensions as well as at actual economic cases to illustrate chances and threats. With the help of this analysis, the field of change takes shape. Methods of resolve are drafted before presenting basic elements of the Master Course of Intercultural Management of the Department-UNESCO Chair in Bucharest. Even though we are using the term CEEC as an all-embracing entity within Europe, we should not ignore the existence of the “Latin chasm” lying between Western (Poland, Czech, Hungary, …) and Eastern (Romania, Ukraine, …) Christianity [PANTHER, 1998].
Methodology
For this article a pragmatic-intuitive approach has been chosen that focuses on hermeneutics. Various phenomena of economic argument, opinion, and published fact will be presented. Through sensible design, the phenomena will be transformed into relevant symptoms. The idea of “sensemaking in organisation” generates more emphasis on values and it “clarifies what is important in elapsed experience, which finally gives some sense of what that elapsed experience means” [WEICK, 1995; 28]. With the help of hermeneutics new perspectives for economy, education, as well as science and research will be highlighted.
In the context of this article several current economic cases within the CEEC will be outlined by review research. The examples are chosen to prepare the later line of argument that will be substantiated by results of theoretical research. This approach can also be called a hermeneutical view on today’s economical problems in CEEC.
The theoretical frame is based on theory of the learning organisation, as represented by ARGYRIS and SCHOEN [1978], SENGE [1990] and by others.
When talking about change, the terms innovation and routine come into play. The former is a term that is a part and parcel of economic theory, whereas the latter receives a rather inferior but not irrelevant position within economic thinking.
For a long time the organisation of enterprises was seen as a black-box, a terra incognita for the economists [BESCHORNER, 2002; 75]. Later organisations were described as closed systems, evolving production, transformation and finally a product or service [KATZ & KAHN, 1983; 98 et seq.]. In certain streams of business science, organisations are seen as open systems. The idea behind this perception is that organisations can not be closed because they “are affected by their environments, and, in turn, affect their environments. The open model reflects the dynamic interaction of the organization system within various aspects or systems in the external environment.” [BANNER, 1995; 77 et seq.]
Table 1: The Nature of an Open System (BANNER 1995, p. 78)
The interplay of CEEC and EU
Status quo
The situation of the CEEC can not be understood without looking at the process of their integration into the EU. Below we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of integration for the EU 25 and for the candidate countries.
“The fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989 marked the disintegration of the entire communist bloc in the East.” For approximately the last 15 years, the CEEC have been going through a turbulent time of change. After the successful revolution, a thorough upheaval of the political, economic and social systems began and every single member of East European civil society was challenged to adapt to the new way of life. The transition from planned to market economy was a challenge for which no models or theoretical concepts existed [DAUDERSTÄDT, 2002a]. The CEEC had on the one hand to fight against high inflation as well as high unemployment rates and on the other hand against growing social expenses arising out of the process of transition (costs of increasing unemployment, inflation rate and growing insecurity).
Comparing the national data of each country the development of the CEEC can not be characterised as being enormously homogeneous. Some of these countries have been more, others less, successful in the attempt to overcome political, economic and social problems. These differences lead us to question if the former countries are “per se” more talented in handling the requirements of market economy than the latter? The cause for this phenomenon can be seen, for instance, in the differing geographic distances to the EU as well as in cultural and infrastructural factors.
The radical change was followed by a more massive decline in industrial production than was generally expected. During the “transformation recession”, the overall industrial production of the Visegrád states went down surprisingly by 30 % compared to 1985 [HABUDA et al., 1996]. Already in the time of the COMECON, the economy suffered a notorious weakness of innovation. These problems were rooted in the economic structure of the COMECON with its predominance of heavy industries, such as iron, steel and mechanical engineering after World War II [KURZ & WITTKE, 1998].
Another cause of economic difficulties is to be seen in the process of globalisation which elevates the pressure of competition for everyone, promotes technical innovation and permanent change to gain advantages over competitors. Thinking of CEEC, this situation brings to mind the fairy tale of ”The Hare and the Hedgehog” where the slower and later starting hedgehog wins solely because of a ruse.
“The driving force behind the fifth EU enlargement has been the desire to ensure peace, stability and economic prosperity in a re-unified Europe.” To reassure these aims, the EU promoted and demanded the candidate states to accept the so called “acquis communautaire” to adjust the juridical systems to make exchange easier. To this document the criteria of Copenhagen were added [DAUDERSTÄDT; 2002b]. In the Copenhagen Presidency conclusions it is asserted that:
“Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.”
Two years later, the supplementary Madrid “criterion” mentioned also “the adjustment of their administrative structures” as something helpful, but not conditional for the accession.
In the context of the difficult process of adaptation the candidates Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia asked for additional transitional arrangements. For the negotiations, the acquit had been divided into thirty operational chapters. At the end of the negotiations, no arrangements were made for the chapters of science / research, education / training, and SME by the EU and the CEEC [MAYHEW, 2000; 21]. It is to be anticipated that similar problems will be discussed with the “Helsinki”-candidates. These three chapters cover three areas with hardly any Community regulations. Since then the three fields were closed for the entire “Helsinki” group. Even though, the EU supports SME intensively.
The three fields are of essential importance to the competitiveness of national economies. Maybe the CEEC left them aside in order to stay independent of external influences. Maybe they were sacrificed like pawns to triumph in the other twenty-five chapters, or they did not see the relevance of fighting for them. Later on we will come back to the three vital points mentioned in these chapters.
Development of economic indicators and economic sectors in the CEEC
Besides political stability, the people of the CEEC were looking forward to enter the EU because they expected increasing wealth and a higher standard of living comparable to that of Western Europe. In the meantime normative systems and ownership structures have largely adapted to the patterns of market economy. But the national wealth has not increased much. Too high are the social costs of the transition process. In the year 1999, only three countries-Poland, Slovenia, and Slovakia achieved the GDP (gross domestic product) of 1989 [DAUDERSTÄDT, 2000]. See the following table:
Table 2: Results of transition (own translation)
Source: EBRD, Transition Report 1999
In this context mainly the first two columns are of interest. The approach towards the EU brought several advantages for the CEEC. There are compensation payments from Brussels and higher direct investments with the consequence of higher productivity due to modernised machinery, better infrastructure and other elements. The possibility of access to the huge EU market opens big chances to the Eastern economies. Especially the countries near the borders of the old EU members are profiting. One example will be given to illustrate how these chances can be used. Near the German border the Polish state bestows tax incentives and subsidies to a special economic zone which is called Walbrzych. The wages of industrial workers (250-350 €) represent only 10-15 % of German wages. Since 1997 the zone of Walbrzych attracted 1, 2 billion € and provided 14.000 new jobs. In part, a funding of 50% of investment costs is possible. The director of the Electrolux factory has no illusions: “For the next 10 or 15 years, our jobs are safeguarded. Then they will possibly be dislocated to the Ukraine.” (Own translation)
Steel Industry
An important economic sector of CEEC is the steel industry. Western producers are also dislocating production to the East because of the low wages. Another reason for the outsourcing of activities of energy-intensive heavy industries is the strict control of the high environmental standards in Western Europe, or for instance the energy tax in Germany. At the moment, the CEEC are profiting compared with Far East production places from the shorter distance to Western Europe. In the calculations of steel industry, the costs of transport are a weightily factor. R. Baan, the Europe chief of Mittal, noted that the transport of steel from Poland to France costs at least 30 € per ton. He argued that these costs give matter of importance enough to keep adhering to the modernised factories in Western Europe [GASSMANN, 2006; 7].
Textile Industry
The CEEC are profiting from rationalisation processes in Western Europe. For example, in Germany already in 1995, 60 % of all distributed textile goods were given into commission abroad. In this year nearly 4 billion Euros were paid for the production of clothing abroad [KURZ & WITTKE]. Up to the present time, many of these clothes still come from the CEEC because of low wages and short distances of transport but this advantage is brought in danger by the economic activities of China. The following table shows the development of (shares in) textile and machinery exports in China and the EU. Even though both are growing the rate of increase is not at all the same. The dominance of China will grow much quicker than the one of the EU and this will weaken especially the competitive capability of the supplying industries of the CEEC.
Table 3: World market share of China and EEC: www.euroeiiw.de
Source: http://www.wiwi.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/welfens/daten/Skripte/WS05_06/globalisierfin05.pdf; 28.3.06; 14:00
Branches of software provider
A future market for CEEC will be the sector of software development. Following an interview with Chairman and CEO H. Kagermann, the world’s third-largest independent software provider, SAP AG wants to relocate jobs from India to China and CEEC because of too high personal costs. [GRIBNITZ & KLUSMANN] Depending of adequate competencies and low enough wages the best locations will be chosen by SAP. The moment that the combination of financial advantages will be noticeable displaced the production will move to another place – like in the example that was given from Walbrzych in Poland.
Result and consequences
Recapitulating all these examples we can say that beside economic chances there are many threatening consequences of the mixture of globalisation and transition. For all countries in the world and even more for the CEEC the question is arising, how to meet the growing insecurity without loosing the courage and initiative.
In this article this question is taken as the most essential question, because the lack of capital resources can be compensated only by a mixture of creative, initiative, and innovative cooperation in a healthy corporate climate. This will enable enterprises to cope successfully with the stress of competition.
This question can be answered in the three fields that were excluded in the above mentioned transitional arrangements between the EU and the CEEC.
- In the field of education everything should be done to transmit the varied experiences to the pupils. This includes beside cognitive in particular also artistic and manual capacities. Pupils should be seen as individuals who deserve respect and who are asking nothing else from their teachers than cultural techniques in order to act later in a creative way. Teachers should be endued with windows of opportunities as well as competences to respond to the present development needs of the children. Instead of fulfilling administrative planning’s teachers should get the freedom to offer in the context of a specific self determined school profile.
- In the field of SME a twofold perspective of acting is eligible. Thenceforward the government has understood the importance of SME for the national wealth and competitiveness, initial support for founders of new business could be offered on one side, and an adequate juridical and fiscal frame should be designed on the other side.
- In the field of science and research is the task to create competences within and after the studies in the university, to counter brain drain by building up a climate of research, and to work out specific cultural and economic solutions to the defiance of the globalisation and transition.
Within the scope of globalisation the enterprises in the EU are already since decades busy to save efficiency by all forms of rationalisation. Originally fixed to the home market the responsible managers are more and more following purely appreciations of economic values. In this context the drift of labour-intensive work to cheaper countries outside the EU and brain-drain from for example CEEC into the EU is getting stronger. A similar development is to observe since a long time in the environment of the USA and of Japan. Huge production places developed at the boarders of these industrial countries to fulfil their need of cheap labour. We cannot expect teachers in underfinanced educational systems to be able to transmit adequate knowledge and skills to the younger generation. Attractive scholarships causes brain drain, depriving intellectual resources from the poorer countries. How can poor countries develop when the high qualified man power is leaving?
There would be the possibility to ameliorate the conditions inside the country, giving incentives to stay and to help the country to recover. In spite of the little floating money the government could invest more in fields that can generate the base of future wealth on the long run. At the same time new laws should support people to create and develop SME. The example of Germany illustrates the importance of governmental support for SME. In Germany but also in the EU as a whole, big programs were started to support SME.
Other examples are known from development countries. For instant deals the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in credits without asking any security at all. The starting point was the belief that even the poorest woman is able to help herself to get away from poverty. Their force to take initiative for the next individual step lends them creditworthiness at the bank. The director and founder of the bank, M. Yunus believes that granting the women creditworthiness means to bestow them with human dignity.
In both cases we hear about people who decided to take over entrepreneurial initiative and responsibility. For the competitiveness of a country, entrepreneurs like them are invaluable. The quantity of initiate young people can be influenced by the quality and the educational aims of a country.
Innovation
Innovative corporate design
The corporate design becomes manifest in the organizational structure of an enterprise. In the English language as in others the term organisations has a double meaning. On the one hand the term means the process of organising or its result, the “being-organised” of social activity, on the other hand it can refer to a system of organisational activity. As argued convincingly by FRANZ [2000], “organisations are social organism constituted by their people or members and groups of people on the one hand, and by formal and informal purposes, structures, rules and values on the other hand … organisations are the distinctively structured and regulated form of purposeful interaction of individuals and groups.” In this context ORTMANN et al. see the recursive nature of human activity: Through our activity, we generate those structures which then enhance or restrict us in our further acting [1997; 315]. The more this recursive process becomes alive and flexible, the more will it be innovative. An innovation is composed of one or more invention(s) and its / their implementation. The method of realizing innovations, in other words of learning how to manage change, is nowadays covered by the term ”change management”. Managing change means the suites of changes in a systematically planned and managed fashion. As a consequence of change the design of an enterprise will change. In this article the design is understood as the perceivable part of the corporate culture.
In the 1980s, the concept of organisational culture attained increasing importance in Western industrial countries. The main causes are to be seen in:
- changing orientation of values,
- increasing national and international competitiveness,
- the threat of Japanese corporations,
- rational and technocratic difficulties,
- limited strategies of change
- a limited concept of management [ROSENSTIEL, 1993].
A specific and auspicious aspect of organisation can be seen in the concept of learning organisation. In the late seventies of the last century ARGYRIS, the author of “Organizational Learning”, was attacked by renowned scientists like Tom Burns and Geoffrey Vickers who felt irritated by the idea of organisational learning. It took time until the nineties that this concept was generally accepted [ARGYRIS & SCHOEN, 1999/2002].
Argyris worked out a theory of action, distinguishing a theory-in-use and an espoused theory. The former describe what is implicit in our acting, the latter how we get across to someone what we do, or what we would like others to think we do. “When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is this theory-in-use.” [ARGYRIS & SCHOEN, 1974]
Many conflicts can be understood knowing action theory and adapting it to reality. But to win the personal mastery to work in a positive way is a long way. To acquire personal mastery, it needs time and guidance, e.g. by a coach.
The concept of learning organisations became very popular through SENGE’s famous book “The fifth discipline” where he presented the five principles of learning organisations. He called them systems think, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision and team learning. The learning organisation is described as an organisation “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.” [SENGE, 1990, 11]
Theoretical basis
What are innovations in economy? The easiest answer would be: New products or services. The economic science defined that an idea alone can not be an innovation. An idea that has been adapted to the technical possibilities is called an invention. Placing this successfully on the market the invention becomes an innovation.
In theoretical and practical market economy, the term “innovation” is closely associated to the Austrian economist J. SCHUMPETER and is generally seen as an indispensable element to develop efficient corporate performance. In The Theory of Economic Development,
SCHUMPETER stressed the role of the innovator who carries out five types of new combinations: the introduction of new goods, the introduction of a new method of production, the opening of a new market, the opening of a new source of supply, or the reorganization of any industry [SCHUMPETER, 1934].
The step from an invention to an innovation demands a lot of money – and the success is never guaranteed. To implement an innovation on the market is a costly experiment. Even when the innovation is generally accepted, there is no guarantee of profit. With a successful innovation, enterprises have to multiply the production. This means to ask for more money and with this the risks and costs rise. One says that enterprises that did not go through this phase of development grew too quickly.
Very different is the situation for enterprises that are big enough to finance the implementation and that can afford higher output figures. With their financial dominance they are potentially able to enforce a new standard. The moment the standard is set and the innovation is protected by patents against imitators, high profits are presumable. In this case we talk of “pioneer profit”. All it has to do is to keep imitators as long as possible out of the market. Every new concurrent diminishes his profit.
“One of Sony’s best known and most successful innovations is the cassette Walkman. Launched in 1979, this innovation defined a new product category, set industry standards, and quickly became the dominant design for personal audio devices worldwide. Even during the rise of the higher-fidelity digital Compact Disc (CD), the cassette tape Walkman was still successful because it addressed a new market, and was marketed as a complement to the CD – portable, durable, and able to record. Thus, the innovation opened up crucial new markets for both Sony and its competitors, and the design was soon imitated by legions of followers.” [RATAZZI, 2004]
The early followers of innovations have to pay a lot to get the right to use the patent; even though, they have good chances of realising a reasonable return on investments (ROI). In general it is considered that the later an enterprise is entering a new market, the lower is the profit. In specific cases it can be nevertheless the best strategy to enter late into a market. But when e.g. an enterprise invests in obsolete machinery or technique the chance to receive a positive ROI is very small.
Application
The CEE economies need capital to invest, and an adequate infrastructure and the enterprises have to replace obsolete production equipment. In the case of a deficiency of capital and the necessity of investment the entrepreneur has no other option than to take up a loan. The banks will award a loan under conditions depending on the risks. One can say: The higher the own capital the lower the rates and the lower the own capital the higher the rates. The external financing creates a strong dependency on the financier who can influence the corporate strategy. Even if the amortisation of the debts is successful, the enterprise will be tempted to put the focus more on adaptation to the market than on inner organisational innovative impulses.
The implementation can be successfully carried out with help of a lot of promotion for the needs of the consumers – or, much cheaper, the innovation responds to the real demand inside and outside the firm. Such an option asks little money but demands initiative and work to form an organisational design. If this work is well introduced and implemented, the cost will be manageable and the process of improvement will be above-average. In fact, at least for SME this option is often the only one, as banks often don’t award a sufficient loan or only with very high rates.
Enterprises can not exist without a corporate strategy [STEINMANN & SCHREYÖGG, 2002; 155], neither can they exist without a corporate culture. The organisational design is the conscious part of the corporate culture. For the development of the enterprise it is of relevance by whom the design was coined. Bought-in models of organisation have to be implemented. The enterprise has to make, one could also say, the enterprise has to find, ways to find a sense in the model. Otherwise it stays undigested and reduces the dynamics of the enterprise. Especially for SME, it is possible to work on the inner ability to improve innovations and adaptations on the market without firms loosing their own profile. An innovation- conveying- culture will develop innovation based on the specific constellation of a firm. Because of this, the firm will win a unique selling proposition that can help the firm not only to survive but also to make profits. An organisation that is able to be innovative internally and externally out of their on the bases of their own personal capacity is constantly working on a transformation rooted in culture” [GERSTLBERGER & ZÜCKER, 2004; 114 et seq.].
The weight given to innovations doesn’t imply that the influence of routines on the performance plays important part. There are critical authors [HOULLEBECQ, 2004] and scientists who call attention to routines as being very important as well. In an article, OSTERLOH and GRAND discuss the theory of structuration by A. GIDDENS. They emphasise the roles of so far inconsistent appendages without neutralising them. One of the examples they give is the organisational dilemma of innovation and routine [2000; 355].
Education is a base for the development of human qualifications. Science and research are indispensable for technical and organisational innovation which again is the base for competitiveness. In the social market economy of Germany, SME are the most effective members of the national economy: they provide new jobs, generate and implement innovations, and cultivate flexible and dynamic organisations. The importance of an innovative culture is uncontested in the market economy.
The significance of SME emerges when we glance at the SME situation in Germany. The German ministry of education and research expressed in a paper on a support programme that SMEs are playing a key role in the German innovation system. 70 % of employment is offered by SME (within the EU in total 60 %) that generate 49 % of the gross value added. International competition has intensified over the past years and customers have become more demanding with the result that Dynamic abilities such as high innovation potential, creativity, flexible response to the changing desires of clients, and up-to-date scientifically-founded technological competence are deciding about the success of an enterprise on the market. The strength of SME is located in their unburocratic forms of organisation, short distance informational exchange, flat hierarchies, good customer contact, and high motivation. Innovative SMEs stimulate traditional markets or they strike new paths.
Change Management(CM)
CM is the often used term for change in the field of economy. In 2004 WIMMER criticized that the idea of CM would not open new gates for consultants as long as a clear conceptualisation is missing [2004; 38]. CM reminds us with few exceptions of big toolboxes. Besides the practical tools there are however already many conceptual bases worked out. CM works with the difference between the status quo and what is potentially possible. Many definitions are given for CM, for example: Initiation, measuring and control of a fundamental change process, or: CM is the management of the planned organisational change. A specific variant of change is based on participation, teamwork being the fundamental source of energy for the change process. CM is about the change of basic settings and there especially the change of the consuetudinary behaviour of the collaborators. Therefore they should be involved in the process. It is them who are deeply involved and who have to create a strong organisation to survive in a turbulent environment. And “the more turbulent the environment, the more likely it is that more diverse organisation will have the resources to cope with unpredicted events” [SCHEIN, 2004, 401]. In fact, a fundamental aim of CM is to constitute a diversity of culture in groups, or even in whole organisations.
CM is touching the spheres of e.g. learning organisations, organisational development; management of crises and of innovations, CIP (continuous improvement process), concepts of reorganisation and strategic management. For economic organisations the most essential issue is not to follow management fashion trends but to choose for one management style that corresponds to the profile of the enterprise [STEVENS, 2001].
There are two reasons why CM is indispensable: 1) The permanence of change (HERACLITUS described change as ever-present and all-encompassing. 2) the adaptation to transformatory processes in the environment.
In times of change, sound knowledge is rarer than in times of routine. The use of habitual instruments of management like power and money are limited in such times and individual initiative has its day. In this context new opportunities emerge for dynamic countries with people who are initiative.
Active acceptance of the CM process by the management, shown for example in mutual trust between the CEO and collaborators, coupled with highly developed communication skills provide for success in the changing project. In a learning organisation, the activation of human resources leads towards permanent change by offering self-determination to the collaborators in the context of team-work situations.
The rate of failure is high (around 75%) – SCHREYÖGG assumes that the cause is on one hand due to the character of change which has to be considered as a real art and on the other hand the resistance to change. He argues that this phenomenon has to be understood as an emotional barrier [2000; 26]. Resistance is coming up in form of pronouncing what can not be accepted by the speaker. The essential question concerning organisational resistance consists in the ability to handle voice (in the sense of: to dare to speak honestly) in an integrating and enhancing way [ZÜCKER, 2001] and to overcome thereby resistance [SCHRAGE, 2005].
Resistances are often the consequence of not knowing, and this causes fear. Open communication can help overcome fear. Then, instead of producing fear, members of an enterprise could learn to see change as a chance for a better future. If this is to be achieved the organisation – but also the whole nation – has to learn to enter the process of permanent change.
Neither the integration of the collaborators in the development-process nor commonly found objectives of the organisation necessarily means higher efficiency. But an essential advantage is to be seen in the improved acceptance of a common objective [EREZ et al., 1985].
We described already how normative measures to support SMEs can help to build up a strong national economy. We also mentioned that the transformation of the system of education can help. The third aspect of science and research will be deepened by giving one example of how change can be implemented.
Department-UNESCO Chair Bucharest
The UNESCO follows the ideal of a peaceful community of people, which acknowledges and appreciates worldwide diversity. On the 2nd November 2001 the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity was unanimously adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in Paris, France [STENOU, 2002]. The ideal of diversity encourages searching for an intercultural communication and cooperation across national boundaries.
For several years now the University of Bucharest is enriched by a Department-UNESCO Chair which is part of an international network of UNESCO Chairs. After years of an inter-religious and intercultural master, a master course of Intercultural Management was established last year. Behind the didactical concept of the courses, individual learning as well as lifelong learning is situated. These fundamental elements of learning are also advanced in the EU.
In the beginning of the master-course “Intercultural Management” the following question emerged: What capacities and competencies are needed to open new economic perspectives for CEEC on the long run? The conceptualisation of the master-course was based of this analyse. In the master course economic basics and intercultural knowledge and competences are communicated.
A happenstance was the integration of the master course into the Department-UNESCO Chair in Bucharest. For an intercultural master course, the circumstance that the director of the Department-UNESCO Chair is at the same time the coordinator of this UNITWIN network of UNESCO Chairs has an additional impact. Through this network international experiences can be implicated into the curriculum and the participants and alumni can profit from connections to many countries around the world. The aim of the Department-UNESCO Chair in Bucharest is to act in the context of countries of transition by communicating democratic and participatory norms of attitude and by offering chances to experience them, for example, by being involved into the building-up of a consulting center. With practical impacts like building-up a consulting centre or other practical initiatives the participants are pushed forward to play an active role in the society and to take responsibility. They are chiefly encouraged to act instead of waiting for an attractive offer of work. During their studies they are trained to be able to act with an intercultural awareness in the fields of administrative institutions and economy and within the civil society.
For the master of Intercultural Management in Bucharest, the curriculum is focused on economic, communicative and ethical subjects. Within this bias, an essential course is working on competences. The concept is apportioned in four parts.
In the first part, individual training in view of the working environment is the main subject which is called in the theory of learning organisation “personal mastery”. An essential point is characterised by the question: What are the interests of the individual within the organisation? Furthermore the participants have to work on existing ideas about a personal project. At the end of the master study, this project has to be realised – in the best cases it forms a basis for the future working area.
In the second block concentrates on the organisational aspect of enterprises and the first ideas are pushed further (business-plan and setup of a network). Here are two questions of importance: What are the forms, rules, habits, and myths that lend profile to an enterprise in the eyes of the external world? What needs have to be satisfied by the enterprise?
Block three stresses an appropriate sense of managing change in organisations: the incremental change within teams and its effect on the whole enterprise. The projects have to produce first effects on the environment.
In the last block the implementation and reflection of the whole process plays the main role. A final presentation with a little “viva-voce” will finish the course.
In all three blocks the attention is put on the development of competence. The competences are operationalised into three competences (professional, methodological and social competence) plus one (competence of acting, including decision-making and responsibility).
Table 4: Sensemaking, learning and organisational change – a model [HUZZARD, 2004; 358]
The figure: Sensemaking gives an idea about how the master course as well as the change process in organisations takes places. The process in the field of individual interests and organisational requirements –in a wider sense the demands of the environment – needs a rhythmical movement between micropolitical sensemaking and superordinated sensegiving by power and politics. As the frequency of this rhythm depends on the specific constellation of personal, it is comprehensible that there is no passepartout model for particularly sustainable organisational change. One can wonder whether sustainable change in organisations is possible and particularly desirable.
In the context of the course of “Intercultural Management” and also in a world coined by globalisation, we have to take into account the increasing intercultural meetings. Is “The Clash of Civilizations becoming a reality? Are we unchangeable bounded to cumulating cultural conflicts? Are there any alternatives offered in science and political life?
In 2001 the UNESCO defined cultural diversity as “a value which recognises that differences in human societies are parts of systems and relationships.” [STENOU, 2002, 13] In the first article it is explicitly said that “diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up mankind”, they emphasise: “Furthermore, cultural diversity as a value expresses and implies other, even more fundamental, values.” These even as non-negotiable called values are seen as creativity, dignity and community. “And without these values, no vision of development can be sustainable.” [STENOU, 2002, 6]
Summary
With this conceptual perspective, we hope to offer a relevant impulse to the development of the CEEC economies. Different contemporary vents have been chosen to design a map of orientation and different concepts of action have been presented. Because of the small capital stock, we stressed that enterprises in CEEC could profit from the generation of flexible and dynamic corporate cultures by processes of change. On the one hand, learning organisation allows change with little additional financial investments; on the other hand it requires a lot of initiative and the taking over of responsibility by the collaborators. With the description of the Master Course “Intercultural Management” of the Department-UNESCO Chair in Bucharest, one example has been presented of a way to prepare highly qualified academics to start such processes in various fields of economy and society.
References
1.ARGYRIS, C., & SCHOEN, A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco
2.ARGYRIS, C., SCHOEN, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA
3.ARGYRIS, C., & SCHOEN, A. (1999/2002). Die lernende Organisation – Grundlagen, Methode, Praxis. Stuttgart
4.BANNER, D. K. (1995). Designing Effective Organizations – Traditional & Transformational Views. Thousand Oaks et al.
5.BESCHORNER, T. (2002). Ökonomie als Handlungstheorie – Evolutorische Ökonomik, verstehende Soziologie und Überlegungen zu einer neuen Unternehmensethik. Marburg
6.CZARNIAWSKA-JOERGES, B. (2000). Symbolism and Organization Studies. In ORTMANN, G. / SYDOW, J. / TÜRK, K. (ed.). Theorien der Organisation. Die Rückkehr der Gesellschaft, Opladen, p. 360-384
7.DAUDERSTÄDT, M. (2000). Die wirtschaftlichen Folgen der EU Integration
8.DAUDERSTÄDT, M. (2002a). Transformation und Integration der Wirtschaft der postkommunistischen Beitrittsländer, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 15-24
9.DAUDERSTÄDT, M. (2002b). Interessen und Hindernisse bei der EU-Osterweiterung: die Rolle des “aquis communautaire”. Electronic Edition. Bonn
10.EREZ, M., EARLEY, P.C., & HULIN, C.L. The impact of Participation on Goal Acceptance and Performance – A Two-Step Model. Academy of Management Journal, March 1985, p. 50-66
11.FRANZ, H.-W. (2000). Learning Organisation Quality – Learning Quality Organisation, in: The Learner, published by ECLO (European Consortium for the Learning Organisation), 2/2000, Nr. 13, p. 13-18. http://www.sfs-dortmund.de/docs/learnin.pdf, 23.3.06; 13:00
12.GASSMANN, M. (2006). Mittal wirbt um Kunden in Osteuropa. In Financial Times Deutschland, 2.3.06
13.GERSTLBERGER, W. & ZÜCKER, H. (2004). Krisenfest durch Kultur bildende Veränderungsprozesse in Unternehmen, in SEEBACHER, U. / KLAUS, G. (ed.). Handbuch Führungskräfte-Entwicklung – Theorie, Praxis und Fallstudien. USP Publishing International, 113-128
14.GRIBNITZ, R., & KLUSMANN, S. SAP beklagt steigende Kosten in Indien. http://www.ftd.de/tm/tk/42020.html, 3.2.06; 23:30
15.GRIMM, J., & GRIMM, W. Der Hase und der Igel,” Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Children’s and Household Tales – Grimms’ Fairy Tales), 7th ed. (Berlin, 1857), no. 187.
16.HABUDA, J.; JENNEWEIN, M., & OPPENLÄNDER, K. H. (1996). Der Transformationsprozeß in Ostmitteleuropa. Stärkung der Mikroebene angesagt. ifo Studien zur Osteuropa- und Transformationsforschung. München et al.
17.HOULLEBECQ, M. (2004). Innovationen machen müde – Schluss mit der Anbetung des Neuen! Konservatismus ist die Quelle des Fortschritts. In Die Zeit, Nr. 5, 22.1.04.
http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2004/05/Konservativismus, 31.3.06; 12:30
18.HUZZARD, T. (2004). Communities of domination? Reconceptualising organisational learning and power. Journal of Workplace Learning; Volume: 16, Issue: 6; 350-361
19.KATZ, D., & KAHN, R. L. (1983). Organizations and the Systems Concept. In: HACKMANN, J.R. / LAWLER, E. / PORTER, L.W., (ed.). Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations. New York
20.KURZ, C. / WITTKE, V. (1998). Die Nutzung industrieller Kapazitäten in Mittelosteuropa durch westliche Unternehmen – Entwicklungspfade einer neuen industriellen Arbeitsteilung. http://www.sofi-goettingen.de/mitt26/kurz-wittke.htm, 1.4.06; 23:30
21.MAYHEW, A. (2000). „Enlargement of the European Union: An Analysis of the Negotiations with the Central and Eastern European Candidate Countries” Sussex European Institute Working Paper No. 39. Sussex
22.NORMAN, A., MAHMOOD, K., CHOWDHURY, M. (1999). The need for a new micro paradigm: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Norman/aaa3.pdf, 2.4.06; 12:30
23.ORTMANN, G., SYDOW, J., & WINDELER, A. (1997). Organisation als reflexive Strukturation, in: ORTMANN, G. / TÜRK, K. (ed.). Theorien der Organisation – Die Rückkehr der Gesellschaft. Opladen, 315-354
24.OSTERLOH, M., & GRAND, S. (2000). Die Theorie der Strukturation als Metatheorie der Organisation? In ORTMANN, G., SYDOW, J., & TÜRK, K. (ed.). Theorien der Organisation. Die Rückkehr der Gesellschaft. Opladen, 355-359
25.PANTHER, S. (1998). Historisches Erbe und Transformation: „Lateinische“ Gewinner – „Orthodoxe“ Verlierer?, in WEGNER, G., & WIELAND, J. (ed.). Formelle und informelle Institutionen. Marburg, p. 211-252
26.RATAZZI, E.P. (2004). MiniDisc: Successful Innovation or Just Cool Technology? – An Analysis of Sony’s Decade-Long Quest for Success. Rome, NY
27.ROSENSTIEL, L. v. (1993). Unternehmenskultur – einige einführende Bemerkungen. In DIERCKES, L. v. ROSENSTIEL & U. STEGER (ed.). Unternehmenskultur in Theorie und Praxis. Konzepte aus Ökonomie, Psychologie und Ethnologie (S. 8-23). Frankfurt/M.
28.SCHEIN, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco
29.SCHRAGE, M. (2005). The Key of Innovation: Overcoming Resistance. CIO-MAGAZINE, 15.10.05 http://www.cio.com/archive/101505/it_work.html?action=print, 2.4.06; 22:30
30.SCHREYÖGG, G. (2000). Neuere Entwicklungen im Bereich des Organisatorischen Wandels. In BUSCH, R. (ed.). Change Management und Unternehmenskultur: Konzepte in der Praxis. München et al. S. 26-44
31.SCHUMPETER, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development (Harvard University Press, Cambridge)
32.SENGE, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline – the art and practice of the learning organisation. New York
33.STEINMANN, H., & SCHREYÖGG, G. (2002). Management – Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung. Konzepte – Funktionen – Fallstudien. Wiesbaden
34.STENOU, K. (ed.). UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, a vision, a conceptual platform, a pool of ideas for implementation, a new paradigm. Cultural Diversity Series No. 1. A document for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 26 August – 4 September 2002. Paris, 2002
35.STEVENS, M. (2001). Extreme Management: What They Teach at Harvard Business School’s Advanced Management Program
36.WEICK, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA
37.WIMMER, R. (2004). OE am Scheideweg – Hat die Organisationsentwicklung ihre Zukunft bereits hinter sich? OrganisationsEntwicklung 1_04, p. 26-39
38.ZÜCKER, H. (2001): Die Organisation von Zustimmung und Widerspruch als unternehmensethisches Problem im Hinblick auf die Organisationsentwicklung. Kassel
INTERNET
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/i23007.htm, 3.4.06; 0:30
http://www.interculturel.org/_enindex.html, 23.04.06; 21:00
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/e50017.htm, 31.3.06; 13:45
http://www.wiwi.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/welfens/daten/Skripte/WS05_06/globalisierfin05.pdf, 28.3.06; 14:00
www.euroeiiw.de
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/i23007.htm, 3.4.06; 0:30
ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/fp7/docs/com2005_0443en01.pdf, 21.4.06; 11:30
http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-6222/cuntz.pdf, 2.4.06; 10:00
http://www.grameen-info.org/, 21.4.06; 19:00
http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/31/0,3672,2303807,00.html, 21.4.06; 11:50
http://www.lpb.bwue.de/aktuell/bis/3_97/bis973e.htm, 6.3.06; 13:00