30 January 2005
UIA Survival: Separating Siamese Twins?
a challenge of conflicting cultures
-- / --
Introduction
Unrecognized sibling rivalry: UIA vs. UAI
Dissociation of the statutory UAI Culture from the operational UIA Culture
Survival vs Centennial celebrations?
Surrogate strategic decision-making
Erosion of integrity and ethical sensitivity
Hidden agendas?
Recommendations
Introduction
On 21-22 January 2005 a meeting of the UIA Bureau was held on the initiative of members of the Bureau, despite earlier reluctance on the part of the President. Members of the Bureau were unable to articulate an agenda for the meeting in advance - other than to 'review' the current situation. A draft agenda prepared by the Secretariat had been accepted with modifications by the Bureau and circulated to other Council members for information and to solicit possible inputs. Numerous documents on the situation were prepared - most circulated in advance. The prepared agenda was not followed and extensive time was devoted to points that had not been placed on it. Discussion of urgent matters was avoided.
Information was provided by the Secretariat concerning the cash flow crisis that was forecast to re-emerge in June-July 2005, partly as a consequence of having to repay the loan made by the UIA publisher to survive a similar crisis in August 2004, if income generating measures already put in place by the Secretariat are less successful than forecast (subscriptions, etc). This crisis would result in immediate inability to pay salaries.
The following account is a description of the circumstances that resulted in the author, as Secretary-General ad interim, renouncing this function during the course of the meeting. The function had been attributed by the Bureau meeting of June 2004 in order to take swift remedial measures to ensure the survival of the UIA through 2004 and 2005 - following the inability (for family reasons) of the elected Secretary-General, André Onkelinx. Survival through to June 2005 seems assured.
This account is extremely frank because a principal challenge in UIA decision-making processes is the marked tendency to hide behind formalities and politeness to the advantage of some in avoiding unpleasant management challenges and implementing effective responses to them. Any effort to acknowledge challenges is labelled as negative and unconstructive - to the point of being perceived as rude and inappropriate. Use of criteria of politeness ands due process as a form of procedural manipulation or blackmail is unacceptable - especially at a time when the survival of a 100-year old institution is threatened. A high degree of frankness is then called for from those who have invested decades of effort in ensuring that it thrived.
In engaging in this report, the challenge is to find a form that can help to reframe the debate rather than to exacerbate its dysfunction characteristics. This suggests that, although the 'UIA' is an apolitical organizaton, it is effectively faced with a political struggle to preserve and develop a particular set of values in the face of forces that would seek to eliminate them.
Unrecognized sibling rivalry: UIA vs. UAI
The point has been made that the 'UIA' is the expression of two cultures, which might well be described in terms of schizophrenia as two dangerously disconnected personalities (cf Secretariat note of 28 May 2002). These can be usefully labelled by the English and French initials of the Union of International Associations (UIA and UAI):.
- UAI Culture: This personality is primarily expressed through the spoken French language, which has traditionally been the language of 'UIA' statutory meetings (typically without interpretation), of the Presidency and of the Secretary-General. It is the language of the founders of the 'UIA' and of their documents a century ago. Few documents are now produced by the 'UIA' in this language to articulate the challenges and opportunities faced by the organization. People of this culture tend to have a dislike of documents (especially those produced in English), preferring face-to-face communication and one-stop comprehension. Various rationalizations are presented for not understanding issues expressed in text form. These may disguise a relatively low level of comprehension of technical English, but more typically they reflect the very limited time that busy people have to digest documents or engage in e-mail exchanges. The voluminous revenue generating products of the 'UIA' tend to be primarily in English. Understandably this discourages those of the UAI Culture from exploring them. As has been noted in many international institutions, there are also strong resentments associated with the increasing predominance of English and, most recently, its emergence as the prime language of the web. But given the predominance of French in 'UIA' statutory meetings, it is within this mindset that strategic decision-making is undertaken regarding the future activities of the 'UIA'.
- UIA Culture: This personality is primarily expressed through English text. It is the language through which those in the Secretariat must necessarily express themselves whatever their preferred spoken language. Many of the editors are, for example, of Flemish mother tongue. It is the language of many of the 'UIA' computer applications and of the products supplied under contract to the German publisher - with whom communications take place in English - for a primarily English-speaking market. Those of the UIA Culture are significantly influenced by the many recent innovations in the lean and nimble working style associated with networking, community team work, rapid informal communications, innovation, 'hands on' continuous learning and general dependence on the internet. This contrasts with those of the UAI Culture who have a natural tendency to prefer more traditional, formal, hierarchical modes of protocol-sensitive face-to-face communication and 'hands off', directive, authoritarian work organization - an issue recognized to be of great frustration to those using English as a lingua franca within European intergovernmental institutions.
Those in the UIA Culture see the challenges and opportunities of international organization in general (and civil society in particular) in relation to the technicalities of knowledge management within the information society -- and visibility on the web. Those of the UAI Culture see the challenges in terms of communications amongst duly qualified authorities assuring media impact - and are much frustrated by the lack of visibility of the 'UIA' in those terms. Whereas the UIA Culture is focused on the longer-term meaning associated with products and services, the UAI Culture is focused on the immediate meaning associated with meetings and speeches - the photo opportunities characteristic of modern politics. The fact that it is from the UIA Culture that revenues are almost entirely generated is a cause of underlying resentment between the two cultures. Those of the UIA Culture resent the inability of those of the UAI Culture to comprehend the challenges and opportunities of ensuring the 'thrival' of the 'UIA' in the 21st century information society, whether in terms of knowledge management, outsourcing or partnerships. Given their inability to generate resources, those of the UAI Culture resent the inability of the UIA Culture to make available to them more adequate resources to permit more frequent gatherings, with important speakers on important topics - however much these may be criticized as merely repetitions of statements made elsewhere to little detectable effect.
The dysfunctionality of the relationship between the two cultures is much aggravated by the fact that those of the UIA Culture tend to be either Secretariat 'employees', non-French-speaking members of UIA statutory bodies (in which their participation is thereby highly constrained, if not completely marginalized), or regular consultants. These asymmetries provide a means for dysfunctional power dynamics. The UAI Culture uses statutory advantage to inhibit initiatives of the UIA Culture even though . this may inhibit revenue generation. The UIA Culture is however able to use its technical skills and partnering potential to engage successfully in revenue-generating activities. The failure of the UIA Culture to generate income according to the terms of the UAI Culture is then a further source of resentment.
The UIA Culture values the ability to act innovatively to finance further innovation - evaluated by those who engaged in it in a manner consistent with the open source philosophy. The UAI Culture values recognition by external authority figures and due process irrespective of any subsequent appreciation of its significance.
For an organization seeking to celebrate its centenary, it would be historically inaccurate to forget the lengthy dormant phases in war-torn Europe. In addition however is the not-quite-forgotten bitter inter-war rivalry between Geneva-based initiatives and Brussels-based initiatives - and how this played out in terms of coalitions of international organizations. In fact Geneva became the successful focus for coalitions of international associations -- but with minimal effective secretariats. Whereas Brussels became the successful focus for ambitious clearinghouse-secretariats -- with minimal formal mandates from coalitions of NGOs. The first might be said to correspond to the aspirations of the UAI Culture; the second to the reality of the UIA Culture. Ironically the key Bureau members associated with the UAI Culture even now have strong associations with Geneva.
Few people, if any, in the 'UIA' can be said to move freely move freely between the two cultures -- however competent they may appear.
All the above dimensions were evident at the meeting of the Bureau in January 2005:
- The meeting was conducted in French. The report will naturally be produced in French and will not be translated for non-French-speaking members
- The great majority of the documents (including the draft agenda) were provided in English and will not be translated. Preparations had been made through English e-mail communication by which documents were circulated -- there were almost no e-mail communications in French.
- Preparatory communications (as opposed to documents circulated) were focused primarily on questions of form and not of substance or urgency.
- Bureau members provided no proposals for consideration whatsoever, beyond the formal points made in preparatory communications
- Although many of the documents were only provided for information, it was clear that there was little awareness of their potential relevance, or of the content of those of greater importance. Bureau members are busy people with many other commitments and priorities
- The agenda was effectively ignored as an instrument for ordering the meeting process and no protests were voiced in this regard.
- The prime focus was placed on celebration of the centenary of the 'UIA' in the period of 2007-2010 despite the expressed Council views on the matter
- The communications brochure, that had given rise to a frustrating number of variants over a year previously, became a major focus of the gathering. The drafts had to be printed out in haste by the Secretariat since the issue had not been proposed for the agenda.
- Given the lack of awareness of the issues and urgencies, any efforts to draw attention to these were perceived as negative and unconstructive. Complex issues relating to recovery capacity, detailed in English documents, were held to be 'incomprehensible' when explained in French.
Ironically the cultural divide was evident in an exchange of preliminary communications in which the title of the Summary of Activities of the UIA Secretariat was deliberately cited using 'UAI' instead of UIA' by a leading member of the UAI Culture. The primacy of use of 'UAI' in any English-language reference to the 'UIA' was asserted, despite extensive statutory evidence to the contrary. [In the documentary tradition of the Secretariat, editors are reprimanded or fired for such deliberate bibliographic inaccuracies - anathema to the UIA Culture and destructive of 'UIA' credibility to reference librarians. It is however highly symptomatic of the identity crisis of the 'UIA'.]
Dissociation of the statutory UAI Culture from the operational UIA Culture
It is noteworthy that in the period July-December 2004, following formal recognition of the crisis at the Bureau meeting in June and the delegation of functions to the Secretary-General ad interim:
- The senior Vice-President (present at the January Bureau meeting) was unaware
that the Secretary-General had not resigned at that time
(although this had been confirmed at the Council meeting in October at which
he was present), and therefore had no understanding of the temporary nature
of the delegation of authority (to the SG ad interim) or the statutory responsibilities
that remained with the Secretary-General. He did not accept that state of
affairs, seemingly contrary to his notes of the two previous meetings, until
it had been reaffirmed in the meeting by all concerned at the January Bureau
meeting
- Due to the many commitments of the President, the Secretary-General ad
interim was unable to benefit from more than very occasional communications
with the President - despite the statutory provision: 'The
President and the Secretary-General are responsible for the daily administration
of the UIA' (Art. 9).
- Communications from vice-presidents, virtually non-existent prior to November
2004, were almost entirely focused on formal matters, even to the point of
being unable to articulate the purpose of the Bureau meeting they requested.
The senior Vice-President avoided all communication with the SG ad interim - preferring
to address his communications to the 'Secretariat'.
- No initiatives had been undertaken by Full Members of the UAI Culture in support of the recovery initiatives during that intervening period. Only those of the UIA Culture had taken any such initiatives. It had been vaguely claimed by the Bureau that it was necessary to review action by the Secretariat in response to the financial crisis. It had also been accepted on the draft agenda that there be a corresponding review of initiatives of Council members, this controversial issue was deliberately set aside during the meeting.
- Substantive issues raised perceived as key operational challenges by the UIA were avoided or declared to be incomprehensible.
- Absentee landlords
- From a political perspective, in the much vaunted spirit of participatory democracy, it is worth distinguishing between:
- A situation where members of an organization contribute resources to enable staff to generate products and services - whether or no they sold at a product
- A situation where members supply no resources to staff who are given
no statutory right to determine how best to generate the resources by which
they might survive.
- Negligence; denial positive
The UAI Culture likes to emphasize the legitimacy of the first approach and is totally insensitive to the consequences of the second in practice.
Survival vs Centennial celebrations?
Although the Council in October 2004 had specifically indicated that resources should not be allocated to these celebrations until they were available, the Bureau focused almost exclusively on the possibility of using the 2007-2010 period as a means to raise funds for the survival of the 'UIA' beyond June-July 2005. The credibility in the eyes of funders of seeking funds in preparation for a birthday so long before that event was not examined or questioned. It would be considered undignified, if not pathetic, on the part of an individual - or relatives of a nonagenarian.
Various conventional fund-raising approaches were optimistically envisaged - without questioning the probability with which they can be usefully associated. Many had already been extensively explored -- notably by André Onkelinx with respect to those in Belgium. Many offer only faint hope of success - at least in the short-term. Despite this, no due consideration was given to the need for alternative (or more radical) scenarios possibly involving liquidation, partnerships, restructuring, buy-outs, takeovers, etc - or the constraints on their fruitful outcome. Any such considerations were viewed as unconstructive and negative. The very real potential impact on livelihood of staff was ignored with the strong assertion that Belgian government social funds would provide any necessary support - which is in fact only the case for commercial enterprises and not non-profit bodies. It was also firmly asserted that banks would provide a covering loan, despite the opinion of the auditor to the contrary.
As representatives of the UAI Culture, enthusiasm was expressed for holding small gatherings (financed by others) in the expectation that, directly or indirectly, these would engender sufficient income to survive the immediate cash-flow crisis.
One group held the view that the 'UIA' could invite key speakers on civil society to such a gathering. The 'UIA' would select the topics and speakers. How these might relate to the debates involving those same speakers (in events sponsored by other bodies) was not addressed -- nor how this was to be organized with current Secretariat resources. The focus was on the form, not the substance. Curiously these initiatives had not been proposed or undertaken by the UAI Culture in response to the previous crisis period in 2004.
Another favoured approach was for the 'UIA' to present an 'interesting project' to potential funders. It was assumed that the Secretariat would articulate this project - as it has done with some success in seeking funds on many occasions in the past. The fact that projects proposed as credible by the UIA Culture of the Secretariat tend to be meaningless to those of the UAI Culture was viewed as an inability to respond appropriately to the priorities of the UAI Culture. The fact that the dysfunctionality of the clash between the UIA Culture and the UAI Culture had already severely eroded the capacity of the Secretariat to propose and implement projects with any enthusiasm was dismissed as irrelevant or 'incomprehensible' - despite extensive documentation provided to that effect.
Surrogate strategic decision-making
Since the year 2000, the UAI Culture has accepted the placement of 'UIA strategy' clarification and elaboration on the agenda of its statutory bodies. Many documents have been elaborated from a UIA Culture perspective to help clarify these issues - notably the question of the 'identity' of the 'UIA', and the 'business it is in', or should be in. The agenda point has always been avoided in practice. Current initiatives point to ways in which strategy is effectively now being non-democratically and surreptitiously defined through proxies and surrogates:
- Election of a new Secretary-General: It is recognized
that a new Secretary-General should be elected on the occasion of the next
General Assembly in 2005. Depending on the tight sequence of events relating
to the timing of such an event, it is important to engage in defining this
process at an early stage. The Secretariat articulated discussion points
and a draft list of criteria from the perspective of the UIA Culture in preparation
for the Bureau meeting. Views of Council members were solicited - with
almost no comments. As had been suggested, the Secretariat also surveyed
staff members to determine their preferences and priorities regarding such
criteria. The Bureau avoided discussion of this issue and in particular avoided
any discussion of the characteristics of a new Secretary-General, or the
role that person should perform. Given the lack of debate on strategy, it
would appear that it is hoped by the UAI Culture that the strategic debate
can be avoided by selecting (rather than 'electing') a Secretary-General
who will somehow embody whatever strategic program cannot be effectively
debated.
- Centenary celebrations: There is little challenge to the
strategic task of celebrating an institutional birthday - except the
vexatious issue of choice of date between 2007 and 2010 and the problem of
trying to stretch its significance back to 2005 in the hope that a nonagenarian
organization can make it through to the century. The birthday can indeed
be acclaimed as a celebration, in the case of the 'UIA', of 100-years
of activity. What exactly is to be celebrated however? For an organization
endeavouring to enter the knowledge society of the 21st century, and well-placed
to do so according to independent observers, its potential partners and funders
are future-oriented in the extreme. What exactly is to be achieved in a strategy
over the period 2005-2010 that is focused on the past? Will such celebrations
not acquire the image of celebrating ancient monuments - like its worthy
sister organization the Mundaneum? Given that the UAI Culture has little
appreciation or understanding of what the UIA Culture has achieved, and is
capable of achieving, is there to be any substantive content to centenary
projects other than events in which 'civil society' is
acclaimed ad nauseam? Will this pattern of meetings and self-congratulation
constitute the sum of the dynamic 21st century strategy of the 'UIA' - or
a worthy funeral ceremony?
- Promotional brochure: Over the years the Secretariat has produced and distributed many different kinds of promotional brochure. The cost of printing and production favoured an emphasis on promotion via the web. In 2003 the Council called for a handout brochure. Variants were produced by the Secretariat for discussion. Some Council members reworked alternatives. All these have been subject to Council processes through 2004. At the January meeting, bypassing other tentatively agreed agenda items, extensive time was invested by the Bureau in providing further inputs to the Secretariat for new variants and a future working meeting of Council members was envisaged to that end. Despite professional advice that the 'UIA' needs to go through its 'identity crisis', the contents of the brochure - and the predominating perspectives of the UAI Culture -- will presumably constitute the only effective debate on the future strategy of the 'UIA' in engaging with the knowledge society of the 21st century.
Erosion of integrity and ethical sensitivity
Loss of integrity can quickly spread throughout an organization. In the case of the UIA Culture in the Secretariat it would have an immediate effect on the quality of work for which its products are admired.
Hidden agendas?
Although the 'UIA' is supposedly an apolitical body, it could be usefully argued that there are in fact several hidden power agendas in play:
- Primacy of the role of the Bureau: Secretary-Generals
of the 'UIA' have always questioned the merit of distinct Bureau
meetings, except those immediately preceding Council meetings. From a statutory
perspective the Bureau is not seen as having an extension policy-making or
decision-making role. The senior Vice-President however contests this view
and seeks to multiply the number of such meetings, independently of the Council
meeting. He has declared the Bureau to be primarily responsible for strategic
and management decisions.
- Denial of responsibility: Whilst agreeing to meet under
a vague mandate, empowering itself to review the current situation and the
actions taken by the Secretary-General ad interim, the Bureau refused
to engage in any form of formal acknowledgement of the fulfilment of this
mandate. The argument made was that the vague verbal approval would appear
in the report of the Bureau meeting, although this is not itself a statutory
document and can only be a draft and no provision was made for its formal
approval. This effectively left the Secretary-General ad interim in
legal limbo in a context of mutual recrimination.
- Usurping the role of the Council: Given that the Bureau
has traditionally not dealt with the substantive issues it orders for consideration
by the Council, the processes of the Bureau overlapped those of the Council.
However, although many 'recommendations' were made, it
was not evident whether these were 'decisions' on which
the Secretariat was expected to act, or whether these were made in anticipation
of being converted into decisions following debate by the Council. Given
that further Bureau meetings were planned prior to any council meeting, it
could be argued that these are now seen as a means of avoiding decision-making
through the Council (which could be interpreted as contrary to statutory
provisions).
- Non-democratic decision-making: Past Council meetings have provided for non-Council Full Members and interested members of the Secretariat to be present as observers at meetings. In preparation for the Bureau meeting, a request had been made by the senior Vice-President to ensure the absence of any 'Friends of the Secretariat' - suggesting the comic alternative that only the 'Enemies of the Secretariat' were then gathered together. Suggestions were made that any discussion of the process of electing a Secretary-General should be done in closed meeting. However, two Vice-Presidents made repeated references to the process of 'recruiting' a Secretary-General, or even to 'designating' one - whereas the Statutes provide for an 'election' by Council members. This seems to suggest a tendency within the UAI Culture to shift towards a secretive decision-making process that is in total contradiction with the Statutes - has the new Secretary-General already been effectively 'recruited'? Is the Bureau effectively choosing the next Secretary-General to be presented to the Council, or are candidates to be solicited so that a choice can be made as is claimed to be a characteristic of democracy? Secretive decision-making can only evoke suspicion? Who has what to hide?
- Micro-management: In contrast with the past, there were indications that the Bureau was seeking a much higher degree of oversight on Secretariat operations than is envisaged in the Statutes. Questions were raised whether the Secretariat's report of its activities should be subject to prior review by the Bureau before distribution to the council or Full Members. The possibility that the Bureau might approve complex pricing arrangements was also envisaged. The extraordinary aspect of this, as well demonstrated, is that the UAI Culture is not characterized by rapid decision-making and in the case of Council members and the Bureau are clearly overburdened by other commitments and priorities to the point of being only rarely physically available and somewhat challenged in their 'electronic availability'. It is curious therefore that efforts should be made to render decision-making processes even less effective - especially when over committed people have little time to absorb the relevant dimensions of any issue.
- Trivializing achievements of the 'UIA': None of the proposals articulated by the UAI Culture verbally (for none have been articulated in writing) do more than point to the achievements of the 'UIA' with regard to knowledge of civil society. Given the quantities of such information now freely available on the web, the question is how to highlight what is original and appreciated as unique about the activities of the 'UIA' - in contrast with the many other bodies that may lay a measure of claim to that which the UAI Culture seeks to highlight as the unique achievements of the 'UIA'. In effect the UAI Culture effectively trivializes and marginalizes the original activities of the 'UIA', whether deliberately or through failure to comprehend the challenging information issues of the 21st century.
- Disempowering the Secretariat: It is understandable that,
from the perspective of the UAI Culture, the preoccupation of the UIA Culture
with information products and services is merely an unfortunate, and hopefully
temporary, irritant. For the UAI culture, if the focus of the 'UIA' could
be successfully shifted to the organization of meetings at which Full Members
could speak with authority, in the company of important people concerned
with civil society, then the dependence on those information activities could
be avoided. The databases and personnel concerned with them, and the competence
with respect to technicalities of computer systems and the web, could all
be rendered unnecessary. The only irritant would then be the challenge of
how to claim to speak with authority -- other than by reference to a pattern
of gatherings. Other than this, it is clear that the 'financial crisis' can
actually be welcomed by the UAI Culture as a way of forcing the 'UIA' out
of the information business - and eliminating the UIA Culture. This
could be then be framed as 'saving the UIA'. Ethical issues relating
to loss of livelihood, and the failure to fulfil contracts, can be ignored
as a form of 'collateral damage'. The problem with this approach
is that there are many environments in which 'civil society' dialogues
take place very successfully - some in which Full Members, including
the Vice-Presidents, are key participants. But few such gatherings have more
than marginal appreciation of what the 'UIA' might contribute - despite
the repeated efforts of Full Members. The 'UIA' has little basis
to claim originality in comparison with these other environments - other
than through the initiatives of the UIA Culture. But questions needs to be
asked why those in the UAI Culture who favour this approach do not seek to
save other endangered civil society organizations with a strong meeting focus
-- rather than destabilize the most healthy and sustainable part of the operations
of 'UIA'.
- Critical timing: The 'UIA' is faced with a
multiple timing challenge in 2005 - one that was curiously ignored
by the Bureau despite having been documented in detail. This is exemplified
by the decision to organize a General Assembly in November 2005 during a
year when modifications to the Statutes (due to new Belgian legislation)
require the process of registration to be completed by 31 December 2005.
Professional advice from the person with most insight into the process, recommended
that holding such an assembly in September 2005 would be too late. He recommended
prior to the summer holidays or earlier. However when the point was made
to the Bureau, it was asserted without confirmation that there would be no
problem - without having taken account of the expertise already sought.
Is it hoped that the financial crisis will be solved by then (so that a generously
salaried Secretary-General can be appointed), or is it hoped that a General
Assembly that becomes responsible for liquidation will allocate
the assets, without the encumbrances of the Secretariat, to some other body - perhaps
even one already envisaged?
- SG salary
Just what is who seeking to achieve? Whose cause is served by this?
Recommendations
Separate the cultures
|
For further updates on this site, subscribe here |
