[p2p-research] Fwd: FW: The Impact of Globalization on Management Educations - Corporations are the most undemocratic institutions in the world.

[Michel Bauwens]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: The Impact of Globalization on Management Educations
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carolyn Dare <carolyn.dare at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Subject: Fwd: FW: The Impact of Globalization on Management Educations
To:


:-)


Carolyn Dare,
Perspectives SPRL / TetraLD
175 Chaussée de Nivelles
1472 Vieux Genappe
Belgium

Tel: +32478381668

www.tetrald.com
www.perspectives-sprl.com
www.renaissance2.eu
www.worldshift2012.org
www.999itstime.org
www.positivetv.tv



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yawar Baig <leadtrain at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Subject: FW: The Impact of Globalization on Management Education
To: Yawar Baig <leadtrain at yahoo.com>


 Corporations are the most undemocratic institutions in the world. Have you
ever seen anyone being elected in a corporation? Followers have no say in
who will lead them nor can they do anything about their leaders apart from
leaving the corporation. Not sure if I sent you this article earlier. The
key thing is to create alternatives. Cooperatives would have been a good
one, but in most of them as in most NGO’s efficiency suffers as a result of
democracy. This can be argued as a worthwhile price for the privilege of
freedom but…..!!





*From:* Harsha Adarkar [mailto:aharsha49 at gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:35 PM
*Subject:* The Impact of Globalization on Management Education



Hello



Thought of sharing this article with you.


 The Impact of Globalization on Management
Education<http://www.adizes.com/blog/?p=401> November
6th, 2009

*“American schools of management are spreading non-democratic processes of
management around the world.” *

CEEMAN President Professor Purg, deans, professors, ladies and gentlemen:

The theme of my presentation is globalization and its impact on management
education.

What qualifications do I have to lecture on this subject? I have done no
scientific survey whatsoever, but I *have* lectured to thousands of top
executives in fifty-two countries and consulted in half of those countries
over a period of forty years.

In addition, as my books, over time, were translated into twenty six
languages, I learned that very competent translators had difficulties
translating my theories of management, because there are no words in those
languages for the theories I discuss. These experiences have given me
insights into the state of management education and practices globally. I
would like to share those insights with you today.

It is no secret that Western – mainly American – theories and practices of
management are spreading around the world like wildfire. American titans of
industry are putting in writing their practice of management, as Iacocca and
now Welsh have done, and their books are being translated and worshiped like
prayer books. Western business schools, again mainly American, are opening
branches all over the world, teaching American management theories and
practices as well as the functional disciplines of marketing, finance,
supply chain management, etc.

I suggest, however, that what is being spread around the world is not a
benign, value-free, logical, systemic process. I suggest to you that what is
being spread *with* the theory and practice of management is a value-*loaded
* political philosophy.

It came as a surprise to me that the word “management” has no translation in
any other language – except Hebrew, I believe. Everyone uses the English
word – even the French, who have made an ideology out of using only French
words.

In Spanish, they have the words *administracion* and *direcion, *but again,
no word for “management.” In fact, in Spanish, the word *manejar* (to
manage) refers to the handling of horses or cars only.

Actually, the metaphor of handling cars or horses is not far-fetched.

Having searched  many English dictionaries for synonyms for the concept “to
manage,” I have found that the common denominator of all of the synonyms is
their assumption that management, as a process, is a one-way flow of energy:
I, the manager, the executive, the leader (different words with the same
elitist connotation: “I am management; you are not”), decide what the
organization should do, and then I order the organization to execute those
wishes. I am managing well if *I* choose well where to go, and if the car or
the horse – those I manage –execute *my* plans.

My content analysis of management books, theory, and trade reinforced this
observation. Here are some of the synonyms I found in those books: “to
govern,” “to control,” “to handle,” “to manipulate,” “to plan for,” “to
dominate,” “to decide for.” Put in this context, the concept “to motivate”
is synonymous with “to manipulate”: *I* know what *I* want *you* to do. The
only question is: How do I *motivate* you – i.e., how do I make *you* want
to do what *I* want you to do?

So how can we define the concept of “leadership” in organizations? Here is
what Dwight D. Eisenhower had to say about it: “Leadership is the art of
getting someone else to do something that *you** *want done, because
*he*wants to do it.” (The italics are mine.) Here is what  a Japanese
executive,
Konosuke Matsushita says :* *“For you, the essence of management is getting
the ideas out of the heads of the bosses – and into the hands of labor.”* *

Do you notice that this one-way flow of energy process is
non-democratic? *Those
who are governed have no say about how they will be governed and who will
govern them. *

Listen to the words “supervisor” and “subordinate.” “Supervisor” originates
from the words “*superior* vision,” and “subordinate” is “*sub*-ordinary.”
Management is not only a process. It defines a class structure, too. Did you
realize that the system is elitist?* *

Granted, with the advent of the “new economy,” the Internet, and high tech,
there is pressure to depart from this elitist, non-democratic paradigm of
management. “Knowledgeable workers” are the source of knowledge and
initiative. They are well educated and have aspirations for
self-actualization, for self-expression. The latest theories of management
take this into account and prescribe less elitism and more participation.
There are no “workers” anymore – only “associates.” But except for very few
professional organizations such as consultants’ organizations, the essence,
or the paradigm, of *non-democratic elitism* has not changed. Those who are
managed have no say in who manages them or how.

*Isn’t it ironic that American schools of management are spreading these
non-democratic processes of management around the world, while at the same
time thousands of American soldiers are dying in Iraq trying to spread
democracy?*

This elitist, non-democratic paradigm of management emerged because the
founding fathers of management theory derived their insights about the
process from their own experiences with hierarchically structured,
non-democratically managed industrial or military organizations. It is true
that the human relations school of management introduced by Elton Mayo
initiated concern for the human element, and from that emerged the field of
behavioral science. But it did not change the paradigm. None of the
subsequent gurus, theory leaders, and practicing geniuses changed the
paradigm, either. It is still essentially a one-directional flow of energy:*I
*am* *management and you are hereby *being* managed. You have no
institutional way to choose whether I will be your leader or not, nor do you
have the right to influence how I exercise my authority over you. You can’t
even replace me – but I can replace you.

In other words, the system is, at best, benign authoritarianism. This whole
framework, I suggest, resembles parent-child relations, and this might
explain why management theory seemed familiar rather than odd as it was
developed and taught, and as it is currently being practiced.

*Exporting non-democratic processes*

What are the repercussions of globalizing this paradigm?

I suggest to you that practicing this paradigm in a country in transition,
or in a developing country that was once a colony, could undermine the
country’s emerging political democratic process. To start, people in these
emerging economies do not feel they are part of the organization they work
for, because the organization was once owned either by the government or by
foreigners. The workers had no voice. Why would they now, all at once,
believe that they can affect the macro political environment, when in the
past and still, at present, they are muted, impotent, and deprived of
influence and a vote about their own immediate environment, where they spend
most of their waking hours?

Practicing an elitist, non-democratic process reinforces their sense of
alienation.

Granted, there is evidence that common people rise to demand democracy and
are ready to die for it, but this tends to occur only after extreme,
prolonged oppression. A single violent reaction to dictatorship is not an
adequate substitute for sustainable, institutionalized participation in
political processes, which will nurture a democratizing cultural
transformation.

Management, as taught and practiced, does not nourish this transformation.
On the contrary, and as discussed so far, it undermines it. Moreover,
elitist management promotes class distinctions and polarization. It promotes
a rewards system in which executives might be paid one hundred times the
salary of a worker.

In the United States, where there is a significant and politically involved
middle class, this practice might have only a marginal political impact. In
emerging economies, however, it establishes a system in which those who
have, have lots, and see themselves as politically powerful; whereas those
who have little, if any, perceive themselves as marginalized and impotent,
without the power to promote their own interests democratically.

And the repercussions? Widespread depression and apathy of the masses, who
are doomed to pain and hopelessness. Violence and disruption is the only
vehicle available to create change or manifest some power.

Of course, current management practice has characteristics beyond elitism
and non-democratic processes.

Management theory and practice, especially in the United States, is based on
the “hidden hand” theory of Adam Smith, which states that competition
– *adversarial
*relations, in a free market – will in time produce the optimal allocation
of resources. This framework does not factor in the cost of human emotions.
It is pure materialistic economics, consistent with Hobbes’ philosophy that
“Man is a wolf to other men.” Adversity is not only tolerated but seen as
legitimate; the system takes it for granted that management and workers will
be at odds with each other.

A rich country like the United States can afford disruptions such as
strikes, but for a budding economy, an adversarial culture that might
temporarily paralyze the country with a nationwide strike can be
prohibitive.

*Tradition of individualism*

But developing countries and countries in transition are not only importing
elitism, adversarial relations, and a non-democratic philosophy and
practice. There is more to it. Western theory and practice of management is
based on the American culture of individualism: The individual entrepreneur
takes the risk of starting a company to fulfill his/her dream. Since this
individual takes the risks as an individual, s/he also has the authority, as
an individual, to make decisions. Although public companies can emerge from
those start-ups, in which ownership is separated from management and boards
of directors make decisions as a group, the paradigm of individualism has
not changed. Now it’s the CEO, elected by the board and reporting to the
board, who still has an individual responsibility to produce results or else
be replaced.

This individual accountability permeates all the way down to the last person
in a managerial position. Participation in decision-making is not a
cornerstone of American culture. In this culture, more than any other (the
Chinese are catching up rapidly), “Time is money” – and since participative
management takes time, it is perceived at best as a necessary evil.

What is wrong with the tradition of individualism?

Individualism fosters loneliness – and not only at the top. It permeates, by
and large, all the managerial ranks. In a rapidly changing environment,
which by definition means rapidly emerging new problems that need to be
dealt with, loneliness means continuous and relentless stress.

And it isn’t only executives who suffer from stress. Workers suffer too,
from the lack of genuine attention to their needs. New, “fresh out of
school” trained MBA managers have very limited, if any, experience of what
it means to sweat it on the line. If they interned anywhere before becoming
managers, it was in serving management, not in doing the actual work.

In developed countries, organizations are large and physically scattered.
Workers are merely a name and a number, and school-trained managers who have
never worked rarely have empathy for those they manage. They are more
sensitive to the financial variations, which they endlessly labored on at
school. If they do have some sensitivity to workers, I have observed that it
is a learned trait and is thus cerebral; it does not come genuinely from the
heart and soul.

The result of all this is a culture comprising a mad dash for the dollar, a
pressured environment to meet ever-rising goals, adversarial relations both
in the market and in the workplace, loneliness at the top as well as
throughout managerial ranks, and a lack of genuine sensitivity to those
managed. And what I have just described does not end at the workplace. It
migrates to the social and personal environment as well.

So what is being exported is more than the new word “management.” What is
being imported is a culture and political process that impacts families,
friendships, and the social fabric of society – and is often called
“Americanization.”

*Quality of life issues*

Although in the United States the standard of living is higher than in
developing countries, I have observed that the quality of life is lower.
People do not have the time to enjoy each other’s company, to celebrate each
other. Starbuck’s is a pale substitute for the European coffee shop, where
people socialize for hours and socializing is considered a purpose in
itself. As a result, we Americans do not affiliate enough, and this basic
need is inadequately fulfilled. In spite of having three cars in the garage
and more than one chicken in the pot, people are lonely.

Depression is the most prevalent mental disease of developed countries. In
emerging countries, on the other hand, if they are not at war, people may be
poor but you often see genuine smiles and genuine interest and joy at being
with each other. I hear much more laughter and many more sing-alongs.

Thus, our management education promotes a culture that increases economic
bounty but at the expense of emotional and social fulfillment; and does not
promote democracy.

There is another problem with management education. It is based on economic
and political conditions that are prevalent in developed economies
(primarily in the West), but significantly different from the emerging
countries to which we export that education.

One day I was lecturing to top management in New Delhi, India. The subject
was marketing: how to gain competitive advantage in the marketplace. During
the break, an executive came over to explain something: “Marketing strategy
is important for you Americans,” he said, “but is not as critical for us
here. For us, knowing how the government operates is much more critical than
knowing the market. Government and its bureaucracy can be the biggest and
best barrier to competition. Knowing how to work with a bureaucracy gives us
a competitive advantage. It is much more critical than competitive posturing
in the marketplace.”

Do management schools in emerging economies teach anything about government
relations, about networking, about the ethical issues of lobbying
government, about how to work with and around a bureaucracy?

In emerging economies, capital markets are not very efficient. Market
intelligence is not available. Trained labor is not easily accessible. Since
access to information is limited and the court system is ineffective or
corrupt, people will not do business with you in these countries till they
trust you, or until someone they trust vouches for you. For them, trust is
critical for success, while in the West, instead of trust, organizations
rely on lawyers and contracts and the court system to guarantee that they
get what was agreed upon.

Are we teaching how to create and nurture circles of trust, which are
indispensable factors for success in developing countries and those in
transition – or do we translate, copy, and take brief junkets to such
countries just to teach the same stuff we teach, say, at Harvard? How
arrogant can we be?

*One size does not fit all*

What about decision-making? Different cultures decide differently, and the
American custom does not fit all cultures. In the United States, for
example, it is usually possible to discuss problems openly. With the
Chinese, the same discussion would be perceived as criticism, perhaps even
public humiliation, of top management. In China, encouraging open discussion
of problems can backfire.

Here is another difference: In Italy or Greece, if there is disagreement
during decision-making meetings, it will be expressed right away. People
will not be silent. In those two countries, if people are silent you can
assume that they agree with what is being said.

But in Germany and Scandinavia, silence does not mean agreement at all. Just
the opposite: If there is silence, that means there is general disagreement,
because people in those countries are not accustomed to expressing
disagreement in open discussion. As multinational corporations evolve, they
have more and more difficulty integrating the different cultures and
managerial practices they encounter. The “one-size-fits-all” American system
is not the answer.

Here is another point about culture. In totalitarian regimes, everything is
prohibited unless specifically permitted. In market economies and
democracies, everything is permitted unless specifically forbidden.

In countries in transition, those people who made the transition early made
a lot of money and emerged as the new entrepreneurial elite. Those who could
not, found themselves economically trapped.

Question: Are business schools in countries in transition helping their
students to make these major cultural and psychological adjustments, or do
they straightforwardly teach Western theories and practices, assuming their
students are already adjusted?

So far I have been focusing on management as an integrative process, not as
a functional discipline. But the same analysis applies to functional
management. Granted, finance is finance, but it’s crucial to pay attention
to local financial markets and needs and teach micro-banking, for instance,
rather than derivative financial vehicles. And I wonder how much value we
really add by teaching sophisticated supply-chain management processes and
mathematical models of inventory control in countries where collusion and
corruption dominate the supply chain. Instead of teaching Markoff chains, we
should first and above all delegitimize collusion, showing students how
corruption destroys a system and teaching them how to eradicate corruption.

But do we know how to do that? Are we teaching what people *need to know*,
or just what *we *know?

*Cultural colonialism*

What is happening, I suggest, is a form of cultural colonialism, and
management schools are one of its major “carriers” (the other one being the
media). I do not believe it is planned or even intentional. Most people are
simply unaware of the cultural, political, and social dimensions hidden in
Western management training.

Why are Western – again, mainly American – theories and practices of
management so welcome worldwide? Why is American management theory spreading
exponentially?

Despite all the criticism and resistance to America, I have observed that
the world is in awe of the American success. The word “America” evokes
images of Cadillacs and villas with swimming pools; easily available sex;
freedom to speak out; and freedom to advance without being limited by age,
color, gender, or ethnic affiliation. America is synonymous with
*freedom*and material abundance, and “America” and “California” are
emotionally
loaded words.

Everyone criticizes America, but given the choice they would love to have an
American degree, an American passport, and for sure the American standard of
living. I believe that, enchanted with “*America,*” the world believes that
America’s success must have something to do with how its companies are
managed.

But let me tell you something: Some American companies are so badly managed,
even though their leaders have MBAs from leading universities – *so* badly
(and I have personal experience of this), that anywhere else in the world
they would go bankrupt. They could not withstand the difficulties and
challenges. In America, they survive in spite of bad management, because
America is an enormously big market that can “forgive” mistakes for a while,
and the capital system works. The stock market works. Transportation works.
Telephones work. And the economy is somewhat predictable. So these managers
succeed in spite of themselves. As they say in the Silicon Valley: “In a
typhoon, even turkeys fly.”

In developing countries or those in transition, in contrast, the electricity
and the phone service stop from time to time. Corruption, starting with the
court system, is widespread. Bureaucracy rules. Universal education is still
a dream. Inflation can be rampant. Government can freeze corporate cash
assets in the banks, as they did in Brazil. Unpredictable changes in import
quotas and widely fluctuating exchange rates are like shock treatments that
cause prolonged “managerial dizziness.”

Managing in that environment requires ingenuity, intelligence, creativity,
courage, resoluteness, and much more original thinking and resilience than
what is required in an established market like the United States.

I suggest that Western management education does not provide the real life
know-how that the graduates of emerging countries need in order to succeed.
I suggest that America’s greatest success is not its management system but
its market economy and its democratic system, which allows and nurtures
constructive diversity.

The managerial practices we teach and export neither nurture democracy nor
support constructive diversity of styles and interests. On the contrary,
what we teach, practice, and spread around the world undermines democracy by
teaching benevolent dictatorship.

*A paradigm shift*

A new paradigm of management theory is needed: a *universal* theory that is
*culture-free, industry-neutral, non-elitist, nurtures democratic processes
and social relations, and (P)roduces superior economic results as well. *

I am proud to report to you that I have been developing a new paradigm
theory over the last thirty or forty years, and I have tested it in more
than fifty-two countries, in both industrial and non-industrial and
commercial environments, such as performing arts organizations, governments,
health delivery systems, and educational institutions. Thousands of people
all over the world have been trained and are practicing it, and several
hundreds are certified to teach it. This methodology is transferable and
(P)roduces predictable superior economic results. (See www.adizes.com for
testimonials and references.)

This new paradigm management theory and practice is covered in my books,
videos, and audios, as well as in thousands of pages of manuals, and has
been recognized by several educational institutions, which have awarded me
honorary doctorates.

Let me give you some insight as to what it is. Necessarily I will have to be
brief.

Let me start with a definition of “management,” a definition that is free of
cultural bias or limitations of size and even of goals. It is applicable to
both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Furthermore, it is also
non-specific to any particular industry.

What is management? It is a process people practice to make the organization
effective and efficient in the short and in the long run. If the entity
being managed is not effective or efficient – now or in the future – then it
is not being managed well. (Some languages have no literal translation for
either word: Russian has no literal translation for “efficiency”; in Hebrew,
no word for “effectiveness.”)

Now please note that whoever causes the organization to be effective or
efficient now and in the future takes part in management. Management is a
function, not an elite class distinction. For instance, workers on the line,
salesman and others, often know what the clients want better than management
does. Their involvement and commitment are indispensable for making the
organization effective. They are the ones who are on the front line
satisfying the clients’ needs – for which the organization exists.

I have discovered that there are four roles of management that, if performed
well, will make the organization effective and efficient, now and in the
future. These roles are:

(P), for (P)roducing the results for which the organization exists, which by
definition means that the organization is *effective* *in the short run*.

To be *efficient* *in the short run*, the organization must be organized,
systematized, and programmed, so that no energy is wasted reinventing the
wheel. That is the role of (A)dministration.

To be *effective in the long run*, the organization has to be proactive.
That means that it needs to predict the future needs of its present and
future clients, and then it needs to prepare now to serve those needs in
that uncertain future. That entails risk-taking, because no one knows for
sure what the future holds. To be proactive requires the (E) role,
(E)ntrepreneuring. (Here again it is interesting that some languages –
Swedish, for instance – do not have a word that means (E)ntrepreneuring; and
in other cultures, the word exists but has negative connotations. Under
Communism, (E)ntrepreneurship was tantamount to speculation and the
sabotaging of the state, and was a punishable offense.)

Finally, to be *efficient in the long run*, the organization should not rely
on any single individual for its survival. It should be (I)ntegrated. Here
we pay attention to the human element: how people work together and why.

*No perfect manager*

What I have also discovered is that no individual manager, executive,
leader, or parent can perform all four roles at the same time and excel in
them all. In other words, the “ideal” executive that organizations need to
be successful, in the short and in the long run, does not and cannot exist.

My discovery is that (what a surprise!!!!) no one is perfect. We are
*all*mismanagers. Some more, some less. We are all human, with
strengths and
weaknesses. The managerial process is far too complicated for any single
individual to excel in it all.

The present paradigm of management education is based on the mistaken
assumption that the ideal manager can be developed or trained; that an
individual, all by him/herself, can manage well. Billions of dollars are
being spent in trying to (P)roduce hens’ teeth. We should stop training
individuals in a vacuum and start training them as members of a
complementary team.

Please note that I am not referring to “collaborative leadership,” which is
a newly emerging fad. “Collaborative leadership” takes the position that you
do not know it all, so you need to work with people who know what you don’t
know. But I am not talking about *knowing*. I am talking about *being*. We
need different personal styles working together.

Why? Because the person who excels in the (E)ntrepreneurial role is a
risk-taker. S/he moves fast and thinks in generalities. This role is
necessary for keeping the organization innovative and flexible – but it can
also destroy an organization and take it into bankruptcy. How?
(E)ntrepreneurs are usually not detail-oriented, and as we know, the Devil
is often in the details. What an (E)ntrepreneur needs is a cool-headed,
slow-thinking, complementary co-leader who is risk-averse. Together they
will make a much better decision than either of them could make alone.

And they might even need a third person, a (P)roducer who is
action-oriented, who wants to see results, movement – not just the
excitement of creating something new and analyzing the risks involved.

And maybe, if these three team members lack sensitivity to people, they will
need a fourth person – an (I)ntegrator – who will bring that sensitivity to
bear on the decisions being made.

Successful management is not and cannot be performed by an individual. It is
a team process. Like parenting. In our management schools, we need to teach
that in order to succeed, managers need to complement themselves. They need
people whose style is different from theirs. They, as individuals, cannot
excel at managing, regardless of how well they succeeded in solving cases at
school.

Each member of the team is as important as another. True, one is the leader,
*primus inter pares,* but without the others, his/her decisions will
eventually lead the organization to failure, because those decisions are
necessarily biased by style. It is the joint judgment of different and
complementary styles that creates the necessary balance for making the
organization effective and efficient in the present and in the future.

*Worker participation *

Furthermore, organizations, to succeed, need the workers’ cooperation. In
this tested and practiced methodology, workers should sit on the board and
on lower management committees, thus sharing the responsibility for leading
the company. We need to work together, consider each other’s interests, and
deal with them proactively, rather than reactively when there is already a
crisis. When workers share the interests of the owners and thus cooperate,
the company will make successful changes faster. That is critical for a
company operating in a changing environment. Workers should be part of the
managerial process even though they are not considered part of the
managerial ranks. In this case, those in the managerial role are different –
but please note: They are not special.

Our future leaders have to recognize that by definition, a complementary
team composed of different styles and different interests will be loaded
with conflicts. Conflicts are to be expected and can be constructive rather
than destructive when there is a culture of mutual trust and respect (MT&R):
trust that common interests do exist in the long run although in the short
run there might be none; and the respect to hear and learn from people who,
because of their different styles, disagree with us.

Good managers know their style limitations, work well with others who are
different from them, and are not afraid of conflict. They surround
themselves with people they trust and are open to hearing out what those
people disagree about. They create a climate of MT&R.

We need to teach how to build and nurture such a culture. For that, a common
vision and common values are needed, as well as an organizational
architecture that nurtures diversity of styles. Those learning to become
managers need to learn how to lead decision-making sessions in which people
with different styles have to jointly make a decision. They must also learn
whom to hire to design a complementary team with the correct components.

They should know how to convert conflict from being destructive to being
constructive, control their own egos, and create teamwork. In other words,
what makes a good manager is not what s/he knows but what s/he is, and for
that, a person who commands and grants trust and respect and humility is
indispensable. That should be common training in all countries.

*Indigenous training*

In addition, each country should develop an indigenous training that uses
its own strengths to overcome the weaknesses in its culture. In Israel, I
suggested they teach more (A)dministration: systems, order, procedures,
rules, discipline – skills that (E)ntrepreneurs are weak at.

To the Japanese, on the other hand, I proposed that they learn individual
(E)ntrepreneurship. They need to revamp their whole educational system,
which is based on learning to know, and replace it with knowing how to
learn. They need to develop *individual* creativity and learn to tolerate
dissension.

What about the Balkans and the Middle East? We know that one characteristic
of those cultures is paranoia. It would be amusing, if it weren’t so sad, to
watch their executives explain a problem to you: There is always collusion
somewhere. There is always a villain rather than a systemic cause. In the
Balkans and the Middle East, it is critical to develop training that
nurtures MT&R.

Management education of leaders in different countries should not simply be
copied from a culture that does not resemble their own culture. It has to
fit the needs of the country in which they operate, and if it is a
multinational company, a universal theory of management is needed: how to
work in multicultural teams, not in spite of being different, but
*because*we are different. Differences enrich us with knowledge we do
not have;
moreover, they improve our judgment, since deciding alone is naturally
biased.

Working with MT&R, we enrich each other with our differences, experience the
essence of democracy, (P)roduce better and more sustainable economic
results, and work in an environment that enriches us emotionally and
socially as well as economically.

I thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes





-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091216/050c1586/attachment.html>