By Violeta Moskalu, Ph.D in Management & Governance, University of Lorraine (France)
A systemic analysis of the Ukrainian political crisis shows that inclusive leadership is the key success factor of reforms in Ukraine. Post-Maidan Ukraine needs a New Deal (a kind of agreement between civil society, business and government, a new social pact to build a modern state), centered around the the rule of law and the effective management tools.
Western democracies the three main categories of actors (power, business
and civil society) are separated, and there are clear interaction rules to
assure their cooperation and to provide a framework in order to avoid conflicts
of interest. From this point of view, the real problem in reforming the
Ukrainian political system is the need to cut the Gordian knot of
political-oligarchic system where financial resources, political parties and
the media are in the hands of the same people or clans.
Ukrainian crisis – how to change the
system?
The oligarchic political system is a source of tension and the origin of
a strong sense of injustice in society. That is whyit is urgent and critical to
dismantle this oligarchic system in order to save the country.
New rules must elevate the Ukrainian political life to Western
standards based on fundamental democratic principles that aim to reduce the
conflicts of interests within the society. For this, the three branches of
government – legislative, executive and judicial – should also be completely
separated. Most of the necessary changes are known by the
Ukrainians, the main points were even fixed in the coalition agreement signed
after the parliamentary elections in October 2014.
The issue of injustice and the inequality in the
distribution of national wealth is one of the key issues for changing the rules
and reforming the old corrupted system that is why fighting massive corruption
at the highest level is priority number one. The famous economist and Nobel
laureate Joseph Stiglitz noted in his latest book that the issue of inequality
and injustice is a political choice, the result of the accumulation of unfair
political decisions and misplaced priorities.
How then to explain the difficulties of the realization and
implementation of the coalition agreement? Why are reforms not implemented even
though everyone knows WHAT should be done? The answer is
simple – the resistance
to change expressed
by the old system. The resistance to change is a known phenomenon; there is
even a specific scientific approach and particular understanding of the key
success factors by the times of change. For successful change management in
this reforms period, the «resistance phenomenon»
should be taken into account. Certain people fear changes because there are
some instinctive psychological reactions.
Fear of losing certain benefits
(resources, influence, power, social status, etc.) explains the strong resistance
to change.
System analysis of post-Maidan Ukrainian political situation shows
clearly a separate category of «conservative»
actors (certain representatives of the old political parties of the past, some
bureaucrats and officials who are part of the system that needs to be changed),
who talk a lot about reforms, but do little or nothing (particularly in the
fight against corruption or purification of the judiciary system). The paradox
is that on the one hand, they can be able to take some initiatives for changes
(or at least to sham it), but as long as they try to «win something» or «to avoid any losses»,
the final results will be very disappointing, because too much energy is
directed to support their own ambitions or to strengthen personal positions.
The last Ukraine – EU summit stressed the absolute necessity to begin finally
doing real reforms, because otherwise Ukraine risks losing the support of
Western partners in the near future.
Meanwhile, most of the civil society is more mature than the
political elite. Civil society has
learned to observe and analyze real facts and concrete actions, rather than to
rely on political promises. Thanks to new information and communication
technologies, despite the fact that traditional media are under the influence
of oligarchic clans, conscious citizens instantly realize everything that is
done or not done by political leaders. The government did not know how (or did
not want?) to restore public confidence in state institutions, the economic
situation has deteriorated significantly, and the war in the East can no longer
serve as an universal excuse. A careful analysis and comparison of obligations
(in words) and real acts of post-Maidan political leaders shows the weakness of
our political elites. Or their weak will to respect and to fulfill their recent
political promises. Political
will – which is defined as the «will to act», the «ability to act» and
the «feeling that we are required
to act» – is critical for real changes to occur.
The situation may seem paradoxical: the elite do not want real changes, to avoid losses of
their benefits; the business community and civil society understand that
changes are inevitable. As publicly stated
by former Finance Minister Oleksandr Shlapak (2014), the «political will exists within
civil society», but the political will is not strong enoughamong the political
elite, as we have seen through the lack of real actions, such as fight against
corruption (on high political level). close ties and strong relationships among
political elites make implementing and enforcing policy changes particularly
challenging.
The two key factors for successful changes are synergy
research and inclusive
leadership. The Post-Maidanvolunteer phenomenon
shows that in Ukraine more and more people are mobilized to solve problems at
local and national level, or in the promotion of the interests of Ukraine in
the world. They want to act and they feel the need or even the duty
to act, and they finally will change the system. The Ukrainian
volunteers, or the phenomenon of «the-do-it-yourself-country»
are the proof that in Ukraine there are more and more responsible citizens. It
only remains to spread the momentum of solidarity and collective action.
The basic rule of change management, the core idea of the famous French author
Jean-Christian Fauvet is very simple: those
who really want changes should look for allies, because very often we lose not
because of the opponents, but due to lack of allies.
That is why constant communication is needed in order to involve all
potential allies in the project, to develop trust and collective action synergy
based on cooperation. A very important thing: trust does not mean “don’t attack“, but
rather “don’t
defend yourself“. As long as the other person has done nothing to
lose trust, he/she can be treated as trustful. At the same time, any government
will resist creating tools to limit its power. Civil society, the
intellectual and business environment should show an example of coordination,
as during the Maidan. They must create the conditions of an “intellectual and economic
Maidan“.
Inclusive leadership and human capital
investments for successful reforms in Ukraine
Post-Maidan Ukraine needs a New Deal (a kind of agreement between civil
society, business and government, a new social pact to build a modern state),
centered around the rule of law and the effective management tools. The key
words for this New Deal System are cooperation and trust.
Because knowledge economy in the 21st century is built mainly through
intellectual capital, trust and credibility are the central elements that are
required for the development of collective intelligence. A series of scientific
papers focused on the issue of trust and its determinants, the
factors that «create» trust. The researchers highlighted the
qualities that people must have in order to generate trust (Coleman, 1988,
McAllister, 1995). These factors are competence,
transparency, honesty and support (or compassion).
Intellectual capital consists of human capital (knowledge
and skills that belong to each individual) and social
capital(based on trust that enables
people to cooperate). Strong social capital makes it easier for people
to share their ideas and knowledge and finally creates needed conditions for
the development of collective intelligence. The centerpiece of this new
paradigm – thinking about collective intelligence and invest in human capital
to succeed in the globalization era where cooperation and trust are important
components of economic value-added (cf. diagram).
Therefore, in
the actual context of changes within the current political and socio-economic
system in Ukraine, successful leaders are the ones who quickly realize that
times have changed and there is no other choice but to match the expectations
of society. The lack of competence, transparency and integrity will
significantly reduce the duration of political careers, because 21st century’s basic capital will be the
leader’s authenticity. «Say
what you do and do what you say,» – if you want
that people believe you, this will be the new political life postulate.
Times change, and Ukraine is changing. Now there is a great demand
for the new elite to take initiative and assume political and
administrative responsibility for the future development of Ukraine. Ukraine
needs competent, transparent, honest, sincere, and especially caring leaders
who are able to put the collective interest and public service above their
personal interests. As the famous English statesman Benjamin Disraeli wrote, «a politician thinks of the next election and a statesman
thinks about future generation». Ukraine now
needs a new breed of leaders. It needs statesmen who are able to forget about
the next election and think about future generations.
Bibliography:
Bareil, Céline (2004), Gérer le volet humain du changement, Montréal : Éditions Transcontinental, 213 p.
Coleman, James (1988), Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95 – 120.
Easton, David (1965), A framework for political analysis, Prentice hall.
Fauvet, Jean – Christian, Stefani Xavier (1983), La sociodynamique : un art de gouverner, Les éditions d’organisation, Paris.
Fauvet, Jean – Christian, Buhler Nicolas (1992), La sociodynamique du changement, Les éditions d’organisation, Paris.
Hawrylyshyn, Bohdan (2015), The State of The World, Need for The New Paradigm and
Role of Ukraine in It, International
Conference, 25 of April 2015, Kyïv, Ukraine.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F. R. (1984), The Neurotic Organization: Diagnosing and Changing
Counterproductive Styles of Management, Jossey-Bass, 241p.
Lapierre, Jean-William (1970), L’analyse des systèmes politiques, Paris, PUF.
Lapierre, Jean-William (1992), L’analyse de systèmes. L’application aux sciences
sociales, Paris, Syros.
Luhmann, Niklas (1999), Politique et complexité, Ed. du Cerf, Paris.
McAllister, Daniel J. (1995), Affect – and cognition – based trust as
foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations, Academy of Management Journal (38), 24-59.
Melnik, Alexandre (2014), Reconnecter la France au monde. Globalisation, mode
d’emploi, Ed. Eyrolles, Paris.
Moskalu, Violeta (2012), A socio-cognitive analysis of the employee ownership
impact on value creation of French Public Companies, PhD in Management Sciences, University of Lorraine, Metz-Nancy,
France.
Stiglitz, Joseph (2015), The Great Divide, Unequal Societies and What We Can Do
About Them, First Edition, New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment