real participation in the enterprise / debate...born in 1975 in bilbo he lives in...

3

Real participation in the Enterprise / Debate

Competitiveness or democratization, Which ofboth is the objective?From now on the concept of participation will be mentioned by all the different

actors of an enterprise, starting from the corporate to the employee, frompoliticians to economic experts. For this debate we have chosen three projects whichare examples or real participation: “The Group Mondragon”, “The Group Ner” andthe newly created “Olatukoop” working under the umbrella of socio-economictransformation. The size of these enterprises varies from one to the other, in somecases the property belongs to the workers while in others to the corporate. Some ofthem have a short time of existence while others have combined growth and crisesover the years. Based on their experience they have analyzed the key aspects for realparticipation and the opportunities that this offers for deep transformation withinthe economy, the enterprise and the relations. Furthermore they have help us tointerpret this general discourse, so fashionable now a days, by put in it into a contextand analyzing its hidden messages.

� Author: Estitxu Eizagirre Kerejeta / Photographs: Dani Blanco

The reflection magazine LARRUN is distributed along with the weekly ARGIA. Director: EStitxu Eizagirre Kerejeta. Owner: Ko-munikazio Biziagoa S.A.L. Address: Zirkuitu ibilbidea, 15th building 20160 Lasarte-Oria. Basque Country. E-mail: [email protected]: (00 34) 943371545. Printing house: Antza Graphic Communication This LARRUN was distributed along with the magazineARGIA number 2,439 the 30th November 2014.

Cover: Garbine Ubeda Goikoetxea · Layout: Antza Graphic Communication

We hear often that it is necessary to promote parti-cipation in the enterprise. Which is the aim of thatdiscourse and why must participation be induced?

Saioa Arando: If we believe that a differententerprise model in which decisions can be taken

more horizontally is possible, then in this modelparticipation becomes an objective. The coope-rative model saw accepted that since the begin-ning. At the same time participation can be alsoan instrument that will bring benefits to workers(enhancing their motivation, reducing absen-

4

Number 192. October 2014

Born in 1959 in Oñati, The Basque Country, after ha-ving different jobs he started working in the Coopera-tive IRIZAR in 1989. He was responsible of TheCoordination of relationship with People for over 21years. Apart from having this responsibility he was thePresident of IRIZAR for over 14 years. Since 2010 he isthe Coordinator for Social Commitment of Ner group.

� JUANJE ANDUAGANer group

Born in 1975 in Aretxabaleta, the Basque Country. In 2008she defended her PhD thesis at the University of Deustoand since she is working at the University of Mondragon.Actually she is the Coordinator of the area of knowledgeknown as “People in Cooperation” at the faculty of Busi-ness. During those last years she has been investigatingaround the issue of organisational models based on people.

� SAIOA ARANDOUniversity of Mondragon

P a r t i c i p a n t s

teeism, making the workers feel part of theenterprise), to the organisations (because all thishas a direct impact in productivity) and tosociety as a whole. And it does so from a socialand economic perspective. If the enterprisesbecome more productive they will generate agreater economic development in their area andif the workers get used to certain workingmodels then they will apply those models of par-ticipation in society.

Juanje Anduaga: There is a lot of talking goingon about the concept of participation but very

few applied in practical terms. In the case of Nergroup participation is inserted within the modelor style of relations. The word Ner means inSpanish (nuevo estilo de relaciones), that is newstyle of relations. Therefore when we talk aboutparticipation we refer to the participation of allworkers, the 100 % of them.

Beñat Irasuegi: The discourse about participa-tion in the enterprise has become fashionable.Everyone is interested in talking about it, is niceto talk about it and that by itself is a source ofworry for us. How can be possible that everyone

5


Born in 1978 in Errenteria-Orereta, he is member ofTalaios Cooperative. They work on developing freehardware and software, teaching technological trai-ning and promoting transformative social economy.They have created the network called Olatukoop andthey participate actively in the ethic Bank Fiare and inCoop57.

� BEÑAT IRASUEGI IBARRATalaios Cooperative

Born in 1975 in Bilbo he lives in Arrasate-Mondragon.A father of two children and a member of the inves-tigation centre LANKI, The University of Mondragon,where he is the head of investigation. He is also amember of the Board of Governors of the associationBagara and of Ereindajan, a cooperative of producersand consumers.

� IGOR ORTEGA SUNSUNDEGIThe University of Mondragon, LANKI in-

vestigation centre.

becomes interested about the concept of partici-pation when our objectives differ so much? Thereal objective of participation must be thedemocratization of the economic activity. I sus-pect that many times behind the discourse ofparticipation are hidden other interests. The coreof the discussion is that we want that real parti-cipation, the one that will spread to all areas ofthe economic activity and not an aesthetic patch.We don´t want a type of participation that willobscure the mistakes that exist in the currentmodel of enterprises.

Igor Ortega: The theme of participation is verymuch alive currently. Which are the reasons for

it?Three are the main areas; On the one handsociety itself is demanding participation and notonly in the enterprise but also in politics andother areas of society. On the other hand there isthe reason of efficiency. The models organizedunder the umbrella of participation are moreeffective from the point of view of productivityand competitiveness. We already accept thatthose enterprises maintaining the classic hierar-chical taylorism-fordism-mecanicism aren´t effi-cient within the logic of the current globalizedmarket. They are actually losing their efficiency.On the contrary those organizations capable ofactivating people´s capacities, knowledge andcreativity obtain a better position for competiti-

veness. And finally, the third area refers to theethical dimension. As Saioa mentioned earlieron, the point is to what extend is participationinstrumental in order to gain efficiency or towhat extend is by itself an objective. Societydemands the insertion of an ethical dimensionin the business world. The strength the supporti-ve social economies are gaining currently is notcasual. The person must be the axis of the enter-prise. The economic resources and the organisa-tions must facilitate the development of peopleand not the other way around. Nevertheless towhich extend is possible to combine both theethical and the instrumental dimensions? Ibelieve both will be necessary. There is anongoing research at the University of Mondra-gon which is proving the great links that existbetween the models that promote the increase inproductivity, people’s welfare, participation andimplication.

S.Arando: The current enterprise model is over.We are facing a new era that must entail a realcultural transformation. It is not a proposal thatimplies to stick few patches around the themeand to continue as before. To start, In this cultu-ral transformation is the people that must chan-ge but not only the people, the structures mustbe adapted also to the cultural transformation.Participation should be the first idea exposedaround the table when talking about culturaltransformation. In the current society there is noplace for an enterprise without a model for parti-cipation.

How can participation be inserted in the enterprise?

J.J. Anduaga: Those entities that state they havea participative model, why do they continue thenwith the traditional structure? From our point ofview it is clear that if that structure is not chan-ged from the root, involving a radical transfor-mation, then that model won´t be properly parti-cipative. We prefer to use the word style ratherthan the word model.

In Ner group we have the experience ofinserting change in enterprises. In Ner group thereare limited companies as well as cooperatives andthey all follow this participative style. When anenterprise is interested at working with us then thefirst step implies to start with a process in which allworkers become implicated in that transforma-tion. At the end of this process there is a GeneralAssembly in which at least 85% of the workersmust agree and accept to start with the process oftransformation. A second step involves to removethe traditional vertical structure of command andto create instead the self managed working teams.The directors, the mid management and the super-visors they all disappear in our organisation to besubstituted by a completely horizontal and trans-versal structure of self managed working team ofmultiple disciplines.

Ortega: The Ner model is a radical one that hasvery positive things. They impulse a change ofmentality from the beginning and to have a posi-tive attitude from the collective only facilitatesthings. I don`t believe that the management ofthe enterprise disappears once the assemblyaccepts to work under the new model. Fromwhat I`ve read the management still exists eventhough it is a different management model butnevertheless when the owners and the assemblydecide that they want to follow the new model,then those that disagree with it are the ones thatmust decide to stay or to quit. All the processmust be led. Can that radical model be appliedin the Cooperatives? The cooperatives have cer-tain singularities. The cooperatives are compo-sed of partners and the project has to be develo-ped with the existing human resources. Therecan be also difficulties if the culture of the wor-kers and the coordinators is different when wor-king with the new model. I know of certain coo-peratives that decided to apply this model andhad to leave it aside due to different reasons. Inthe cooperatives belonging to the group Mon-dragon they are using more gradual proceduresto fulfil the transformation.

6


J.J. Anduaga: In the group Ner there are coo-peratives as well and in them, even if they arepartners we apply this style too. That´s way weargue that its application is feasible in no matterwhat type of juridical structure. And Igor, I`msorry but the management doesn`t exist in thenew style. Each person is told of the functionsthey´ll have to fulfil within the work teams andthat´s when power and authority become disas-sociated. In the enterprises the management hasthe power and is that power that gives you thepossibility to do whatever you want. We removethis completely. In certain cases some managershave decided to leave because they didn´t feelcapable of working within the new style. Is nottheir style and that`s comprehensible. But noone is thrown out, they leave because they decideso and the process continues its way. Generallythose who leave are managers, the same onesthat want to maintain their power and theirgallons. We tell them not to leave because theyalready have lost their power and gallons andthat they have to win the authority. They are notused to talking to people but nevertheless thetraditional management disappears within Nergroup because the capacity to decide is taken bythe self managed working teams.

Generally the workers capacity to participatein the enterprise has four levels: the ownershiplevel, the profit level, the strategic decisiontaking level and the management level. Whatdoes real participation mean?

I.Ortega: On the one hand there is the axismentioned earlier on, that is whether we look forthe instrumental objectives to induce participa-tion or not. And in that sense the key would beto find the system that would facilitate a greatercontribution and participation from the part ofthe workers but without implying the loss ofcontrol from the part of the owner. On theother hand there is the axis that has as an objec-tive participation itself, the axis that would deve-lop a new model of participation without forge-tting the importance of efficiency. Ner grouphas shown that there are many positive elementsin their model and that it can be successful butat the same time I mistrust the concept ofownership applied by them. Some people arguethat is enough to create horizontal structures inorder to create an emancipated and a bettersociety. They say that this can be achieved bytransforming the organizational model and appl-ying in it the “people first” concept. Some even

7


argue that we´ll overcome the capitalist modelbut unless we are capable of inserting the axis ofownership within the concept of participation Ihave my doubts. When Ner group applies theseprocesses the productivity and the results increa-se and a percentage of these profits is sharedamong the workers. And my question is: Is thismodel sustainable only when there is an increasein the productivity and the profits? What hap-pens if for any reason the outcome is a differentone and the owner has the last word?

J.J. Anduaga: In our style we don´t mix owners-hip and management and nor do the workersthat apply our style. Until now we haven´t hadthe need to mention the theme of ownershipnor have the workers feel that need neither. The30 % of the profits are shared indeed among allthe workers. If the participative style is beneficialthen it is also for the owner. I`ll give an examplethat shows the way in which we distinguishownership and the participative style: In the caseof the limited companies it is not enough thewill of the owner in order to join Ner group. Wealways tell them that for us they are one moreamong the workers and that we need the appro-val of the workers in order for them to join Nergroup. We inform all workers about who we areand what we do and we take them to visit two orthree of our projects. There they talk to the wor-kers until they have a clear idea about the newworking style and then they decide in anassembly whether to join Ner group or not appl-ying always the principle of “one person onevote”. It doesn´t matter is a person owns the 70% of the company. In all cases we have improvethe outcome and that proves that the style isbeneficial.

I.Ortega: I`m of the opinion that the objectivehas to be an integral participation. The participa-tion in the job is essential but it is also essentialto participate in the decisions and in the conceptof ownership in order for the method to becoherent enough. In that sense the cooperative

model is a reference. What is a cooperative? It isa collective project that belongs to us. (Owners-hip participation). The outcome is the result ofour implication and our effort due to our res-ponsibility within our area and its management.(Work participation). These outcomes are sharedequitably among all the partners. (Participationin profits or losses). And since the ownershipand the challenge are collective ones we applythe democratic model in the process of decisionmaking under the principle of “one person onevote”. (Decision making participation). That´sthe differential that cooperatives should have,and I say should have because its potential isthere. What happens in practical terms is a diffe-rent issue. The juridical status is not a guarantyfor the coherent implementation of a model.Some cooperatives are exemplary because theyare way ahead in the integral concept of partici-pation but I would point out that in generalterms cooperatives have a great challenge inwork participation, in daily management. That’swhat some partners argue: “We really appreciateto take part in the assemblies but in day to daybasis, in our eight hour shifts we have to dealwith the way in which our work in organized andin that sense, we don`t really see the differencebetween being a cooperative or not.” The part-ners have this feeling because they don´t see indaily basis the differential of work participation.

S.Arando: I fully support the integral participa-tion. The ownership participation is also neces-sary and can be very beneficial because it isanother element that make us feel part of theproject, it offers a wider range when dealing withstrategic decisions and it can empower society.In this era of globalization in which the enterpri-ses come and go without any social criteria andbased only in economic reflexions, the last deci-sion that workers owning an enterprise wouldtake would be delocalization. And this is veryimportant from a community perspective. Andeven more in a case like ours because ourindustry is composed of many small enterprises

8


and no matter which multinational can buy themand manipulate us as if we were puppets. Sowhen talking about integral participation I consi-der very important the ownership participation.At the same time it doesn`t make much sense topromote ownership participation and to leaveaside participation in decision making and dailymanagement.

J.J. Anduaga: Answering to the issue of deloca-lization I`ve to say that Ner group hasn´t beeninvolved in any delocalization. We produce hereand abroad as well. And we are observing thatthe more we go abroad the more employment isgenerated abroad and at home. Therefore it isimportant to go abroad but without delocalizing.Nevertheless the decision to open a new enter-prise is taken by the assembly even if the wor-kers are not the proprietors and it is done underthe principle of “one person one vote”. Why?That strategic decision will affect to all workers.Some of the workers will have to follow the pro-gress of that factory. Some will have to expendmonths or years abroad... Such a decision can´tbe taken without the participation of all workers.

B. Irasuegi: During the last fifteen days I havehear the concept of “integral participation”twice in different forums. I really like the con-cept. In Olatukoop we discussed about it and we

internalized the concept but without naming it. Ithink that definition is spot on. Integral partici-pation must be composed of certain elementsthat are complementary such as transparency, ademocratic attitude in relation to decisionmaking and management... In Olatukoop weadd some other elements such as to contributeto the general wellbeing, to life`s sustainability(environmental and personal) and to participatein society. In my opinion it is essential that a newmodel of enterprise includes activities that arebeneficial for society and to get involved inthem.

J.J: Anduaga: I agree with it. Those who workwith the participative style we take into accountour surrounding and we are aware that we are indebt with it because this surrounding contribu-tes a lot to us as well. In Ner group we contribu-te to our surrounding with the 2.5% of our pro-fits and furthermore, we offer to it the 2% ofour working time (we are 1700 workers). One ofour strategic lines includes the compromisetowards society. Ner group was created in 2010and since we have generated 92 social projectsand all of them are implemented by our people.

B. Irasuegi: Going back to the concept of inte-gral participation there are four principles thatdefine what means to be part of Olatupekoop,

9


and the first one, thye central one is ownership.Ownership understood as being part of thecompany by the contribution of capital, to bethe owner in relation to decision making relatedto work and by having the ownership of all theproduction instruments which are necessary forthe activity related to work and knowledge. Weare a small company that has been created notlong ago (Talaios cooperative was created threeyears ago) and by taking as a reference the con-cept of ownership we are capable of inserting itin our dynamic. I can understand the difficultiesother enterprises may have in order to apply thisconcept or that they need a transitory process inorder to do it. I am of the opinion that the roadtowards integral participation can have differentphases. Nevertheless if the objective is the inte-gral participation then it´ll have to be developedin all its dimensions. I consider Ner groups workinteresting because even in those enterprises inwhich the workers don`t have the ownershipthey still apply dynamics so that the workers canparticipate in decision making. And it would beeven more interesting to open the road forownership during the development of that stra-tegy.

I´m quite worried about a concept that weare listening a lot lately: “Financial participa-tion”. The concept is definitely Anglo-Saxon, isbeing introduced here through Europe and itcompares ownership with financial participa-tion. “Become part of the enterprise financiallyby buying some shares and you´ll be theowner”. And the issue is that it has nothing todo with that philosophy. We would find oursel-ves involved in a confrontation between workand capital debating about the real meaning ofownership. We should promote in the BasqueCountry the models we already have, these onesthat prioritize work before capital. The axisaround the idea of ownership is people, thework realized by them and their contribution tosociety. We don´t need to become dogmaticaround the concept of ownership because there

is still a long road to do, but we can´t forgetneither its importance.

In the Basque Country the economic activityhas been traditionally based on collective partici-pation and currently there is a need to deepen inthat line. Let`s analyse its development from acritical perspective; Has workers participationincrease or decrease in daily basis?

I.Ortega: The cooperatives of Mondragon werecreated in the 50s because there was a strongimpulse for transformation. They had somemain objectives; to turn upside down the meta-bolism of the enterprise in order to developorganisations based on people. Thus conceptslike democracy, the sovereignty of work overthat of the capital, the concept of participation...became related to this first objective within thecooperatives. The dream was to further increasethe sovereignty of people and to develop a typeof enterprise that would respect people´ s dig-nity. Hence the clamour for an ethical dimen-sion perceived currently can be satisfied to a cer-tain extent by these ideas. The second mainobjective was to transform the social function ofthe enterprise. To make the cooperatives becomethe instrument and the medium for communitydevelopment. Their beginning was a revolution,especially because they brought democracy tothe enterprises due to the concept of decisionmaking and that of ownership. Nevertheless atthat time they applied Taylorism-Fordism inorder to organize the enterprise because at thetime they were the more efficient.

Another objective of the cooperatives ofMondragon was to be competitive at the higestlevel in the market. Thus it existed a duality; theso called socio-structural related to institutionalparticipation on the one hand and the techno-structural related to participation at work on theother. There was a democratic participationsince the assembly used to elect the Board ofGovernors and those the management team.

10


The hardest was to deal with the organizationalspirit applied from the management team becau-se the word was that no one should discuss norquestion their decisions.

The evolution of participation at work hasbeen massive and there are some interestingexamples; work teams, improvement teams,models related to quality... Perhaps the mainneed in the cooperatives is related to institutionalparticipation. There is a clear need for innova-tion. The cooperatives have grown incredibly.There are cooperatives that started with 100partners and currently there are 1600 and even ifthe communicative procedures have beenstrength within, we continue working under theparticipative structures created at the beginning.The paradox is that perhaps the cooperatives arebehind in relation with the decision making par-ticipative models.

S.Arando: I am of the opinion that we still havethe structures created at the beginning for insti-tutional participation, to participate in the inter-nal organs of the cooperative but I´ve my

doubts about whether us, the worker make aproper use of their full potential. Did the oldergenerations make a better use of them? We are adifferent generation and the expectations ofeach generation are different. At the time of thecreation of the cooperatives and having obser-ved the enterprise models they were surroundedof, a new opportunity was opened to them. Andthey definitely made a great use of it. But we area different generation. When we have becomepartners of the cooperative we have use the pos-sibility to participate in the internal organs withall naturalness. It is up to us to do it or not to doit. We are the cooperative and therefore we havethe choice to build up the type of cooperative ofour choice. The cooperative innovation that Igormentioned earlier on is related to this. Is up to usto decide which ones are our needs and to adaptthem to our necessities.

In relation to participative management wehave advanced a lot during the last years. Ariz-mendiarrieta (precursor of the cooperatives inMondragon) created a business model based inorganic participation but his management model

12


was very authoritarian. It was a model belongingto that period. I´m not too sure about whetherwe are doing it better or not but we try to avoidthat model.

B. Irasuegi: In Olatukoop we are worried aboutthe breaking up of the cooperative memory. Thecooperative model of the worker structuredaround Mondragon is part of their culture. Butthe existing relation between Mondragon andother models of participative cooperatives isnull. The cooperative model itself has been putin doubt during the economic crises. Weshouldn’t leave the cooperative memory to die.By contrast we should complete it with othercooperative experiences born before the Mon-dragon experience, like that self supplying sys-tem based on membership that the war endedand that we could recover to satisfy basic needs.Or going further back the fishermen and the far-mers brotherhoods are also very interestingmodels. All this memory is invisible actually.There are hundreds of enterprises that operateunder the principle of cooperation currently(they are not cooperatives) and they aren´t

known within society. What it worries me is thatwe lost references in our way ahead and that wearen`t capable of making them visible.

J.J. Anduaga: I agree with Beñat. There existcooperatives out of Mondragon too. One thingis to work in cooperation and a different one tobe a member of a big cooperative group. Inthose big groups not all enterprises have thesame level of participation and its promotiondepends on the style and will of those that com-pose the management and not in the juridicalstructure. Taking into account that in Ner groupsome enterprises are cooperatives and some arenot and that some of us have lived cooperative Iwould like to underline the following; If partici-pation is to be real the project of the organiza-tion must be transparent, completely transpa-rent. All information must be shared. I know ofsome cooperatives in which there were differentlevels of information. A type of information forthe board of governors and such committee,part of that same information restricted to otherlevels... that has nothing to do with sharinginformation. For information to be transparent

13


it must be shared equally so that when peopletake decisions they do so consciously.

It happens a lot in politics: once you vote thenyou haven`t got a say for the next four years! Thesame thing happens in the enterprises. You electan organ and they decide for you for the next fouryears. And since sometimes information wasn´tshared with people then they disagree with thedecisions this organ has taken. Other times theyhave to decide about something really importantwithout having proper information. And whathappens then when something goes wrong? Theyblame each other strait on.

The size of the enterprise, is it important?

J.J. Anduaga: For us the size doesn´t matter topromote the participative style. Within Nergroup the biggest enterprise has 500 workersand the smallest 6. We don´t operate with verti-cal structures, we do it with work teams. Wehaven’t got a board of governors instead wehave a direction work team. Who take part in thedirection work team? Te leaders of each workteam and those are elected by the members ofeach work team. So if the biggest project inclu-des 60 work teams well, then 60 people composethe direction work team. That direction workteam represents for us what others call themanagement committee. And there is a generalcoordinator to coordinate this work team.

I.Ortega: I think that its dimension can makeparticipation more complicated. In my opinionthe challenge in Mondragon is to insert an integral participation at the enterprise when thoseare becoming bigger and more complex ones.Some suggest that a cooperative shouldn´t havemore than 500 workers. With more members itbecomes difficult its coherent development. Thelogic of the market demands dimensioning andit is a different issue the dimensioning model wechoose. Do we have to continue growing andgrowing or do we need to apply other ways? In

Mondragon there is a reflexion about it espe-cially after the crises of Fagor appliances. Thepresident of this enterprise told me: “ I don´tknow what I am supposed to do to improve par-ticipation. I can organize more assemblies! Butthat involves to have more informative confe-rences. Am I suppose to stop the productivitywhen the competence has start increasing itsproduction by working also the weekends?“There exist complexities related to dimensionbut that doesn´t mean that we don´t have to facethis issue. Just imagine, the social council whichis the main organ representing the workers con-sisted of 50-60 workers. That president used tosay: “If each of them has two minutes to talk,the meeting is gone”. There exist difficulties thatmust be overcome through the medium of coo-perative innovation. If the logic consist on goingback to the autonomous units then those impli-cated must have the autonomy to take decisionsin their own areas. There exist the mini factoryorganizational arrangement, the one that consiston separating a big enterprise in sections or busi-ness areas. In the cooperative I have mentionedearlier on they already have started to work on inthat logic by inserting in some sections the logicof self management with the idea of spreadingit to the whole enterprise.

B.Irasuegi: Size matters a lot. A big enterprisedemands the use of more complex strategies forparticipation. That´s what we have and we mustdeepen in the participative methods but on theother hand let´s look to the future; What sizeshould have a new enterprise? The one imposedby economy? The one based in growth? Or theone based on growth distribution in relation tothe needs of our society? We called growth dis-tribution to the creation of new elements basedon the existing needs and to their articulationthough out a network. By creating a network ofcooperatives and small enterprises we will obtaina more balanced and participative economic basethan by the creation of big enterprises based onthe logic of the market.

14


It is said that in order to transform the culture ofenterprises there is a need for a leader. What is aleader?

S. Arando: The leader, the director and the headare different things. A head has some responsibi-lities because of an existing hierarchy or becauseof the position within a structure. A person is aleader because a team accepts so. It is the teamthat decides who is a leader. The leader and ahead have different functions. Which is the cha-llenge for the future? That heads become leadersas well. A leader is figure born from a relationbased on confidence. And from the momentthat confidence exists to have an opinion and toparticipate happens naturally.

J.J. Anduaga: I agree with you. Here we call lea-der to anyone, to the one that in a vertical struc-ture occupies the top position for example. Andvery often those aren´t leaders are managers. Wemust know whether a manager is the leader of aproject or whether he or she manages the pro-ject. In the traditional management style theycontrol the management and often they onlymanage the quantitative side even if the projecthas quantitative and qualitative objectives.Managers go mad keeping an eye in numbers.They are always analyzing the past cheeking outwhether last month was good enough... Qualita-tive and quantitative indexes are necessary Inorder to monitor properly but nevertheless inNer group we understand that success comesfrom managing properly the qualitative aspects,in the capability to manage intangibility. And thathas a direct relation with the style. The practiceof a different style creates new opportunities.Relations have to be expanded because by doingso, by sharing people´s experiences new oppor-tunities will be created. And by taking advantageof them we assure the future. If a leader believesthat what it really matters is people then he orshe must be out of the office most of the time,he or she must expend time talking to people.He or she must be creating networks.

I.Ortega: Those of us with the social movementas a background when we hear the word “leader”we don´t feel very comfortable. I am not used tothat concept yet even though I see its virtuosity. Iagre with your earlier comments when you saidthat it is a concept used to change the image ofthe usual authoritarian boss. It is not enough togive orders because of his or her position anymo-re he has to win his or her authority. But at thesame time in order for the groups to be efficientsomeone must do the proposals at take responsi-bility of things too. I am of the opinion that par-ticipation and full horizontality are two differentthings. Call them leaders, heads or coordinators Istill believe that those figures are essential. Thechallenge is to combine efficiency and participa-tion. I once read to a person from Argentina withan autonomous background that their problemwas “the tyranny of the lack of structures”. Allthat horizontality brought a type of inefficiencyto their social movements and at the end peopleused to get tired and used to go home.

B.Irasuegi: I also come from a different back-ground and I don´t feel comfortable at all with theconcept of “leader”. I would find another nameand in the Basque language, because that conceptis a foreign one to me. When talking about the lea-ders discourse what it worries me is that perhapswe are strengthen the existing injustice related tothe powers of society. We delegate in othersbecause there is a need for efficiency. I have thefeeling that we always end having a non egalitarianand unjust model. We need to create a new modelbased in equality. For me ineffectiveness is anothersource of worry; Let´s be all mediocre so than noone stands out. Let´s not implement the transfor-mative project in order to maintain for all the samebase. I position myself in between these two sides.Activists are essential. We need activists in theeconomy and in the organisations. It ios true thatthere exists a negation towards a leader but it isalso true that in social movements leaders appearnaturally. There is people there that achieve socialrecognition due to different factors; because of

16


their skills for relations, or because of their skills topromote relations among others, because they arepassionate doing their jobs... That is to be a leader.Do we have to call them leaders? Do we needanother word? All I know is that enterprises needmany leaders and that these must be replaceabletoo. They must have around other activists thatwill cover their vacuum in case they are not there,people that will not hide behind the leader. Becau-se this is another existing problem; since there is anatural leader everybody steps back and thereforethey don´t have to take decisions. It is importantto counter-power the leader and this is achieved byorganizing groups of activists.

There is a lot of talk going on around thistheme here and abroad; why are they all talkingabout participation? Why even those that as wor-kers have their rights reduced to zero talk aboutit? How do people understand the concept “peo-ple are the driving force” with the existing preca-riousness?

I.Ortega: The transformation of enterprisesshall happen. One of the reasons may be that thecompetitive differential of our industrial competi-tiveness comes in that way. The enterprises arri-ving from Asia don´t only represent a risk onterms of cheap labour but also in technologicalcompetitiveness. The issue is in which directionwill occur this transformation. It can happen in aneoliberal direction with the consequence ofhaving an instrumental sense of the participativeconcept. And I am of the opinion that this isactually the main message we are receiving. Tellthe workers that the situation is very difficult andthat the important issue now is to maintain theenterprise opened. But there is another way ofdoing it; by renewing the traditional concept ofthe enterprise, by empowering people and taken astep ahead with the compromise towards our landand by developing our enterprises from a huma-nist perspective. I believe that the Basque Countryneeds to escape from Spain’s model of producti-vity. The “mark Spain” is a model based on the

reduction of competitiveness and costs and thishas as a consequence social regression and preca-riousness. If the other model is to secure the wellbeing society, then a network based in the addedvalue, on innovation and on development shouldbe created. But this should bring changes in theway the enterprise is configured in two senses;firstly, we know that the added value is directlyrelated to people´s creativity and therefore no onecan force people to implicate in a project, it has tocome from them. It has to be a personal initiative.People´s implication is more necessary than everand hence their status will have to be reviewedwithin the enterprise. But which should be thework conditions for a plausible model? Andsecondly it should generate the transformation ofthe social function of enterprises. Currently weknow that enterprises don´t compete indepen-dently in the world. Competitiveness is a conse-quence of the resources the enterprise and thecountry in which the enterprises are establishedhave together. In other words the existing know-ledge in that country, people´s capabilities, theexisting synergies with the public sector... all thisfactors are implicated. If we need the resourcesof the country or people´s implication then wecannot take all of it as a personal and privateownership. The enterprise model has to change intwo directions; by opening the enterprise to parti-cipation and by reinforcing its social function. In along term this will relativize the model of enter-prise based only in capital ownership.

S. Arando: The actual model of enterprise is incrises. Until now Internationalisation, innova-tion...all have been understood as a source ofbusiness competitiveness but it has been also pro-ved that all of them are sources that can end. Peo-ple are the only inexhaustible competitive source.If we really want our organisations to continueexisting then we need the enterprise model basedon people, the type of models that will amalgama-te people´s full potential with that of the enterpri-se. The benefits of participation can be justifiedfrom different perspectives but it can be dange-

17


rous to do a partial or instrumental lecture of it. Iseasy said that participation increases productivityor that reduces labour dispute but that is not whatan enterprise model based on people searches. Itis a far bigger and richer concept than that. Orga-nisations are composed by people and their pro-per articulation is what it will facilitate the futureof our organisations.

J.J. Anduaga: How is it possible to say that peo-ple are the basis of a model when precariousnessis increasing? In what consists NEr group`s newstyle? The application of some specific values isthe key and among them that of “not a singledismissal” even if things don´t go properly in acertain moment. Overtime work is not paid andso it has to decrease. Other values consist in soli-darity, in team decision making... and the first ofall is ethics. If in any enterprise of our groupthings don´t go properly and someone is dismis-sed then that enterprise is automatically out ofthe group. There are certain values that have tobe protected because is due to them that peopleis respected.

B. Irasuegi: You may get the impression that Ilook worried each time I heard certain commentsand that´s also the case when I heard the word“people”. And that`s the case because I think thatwith the type of discourse like “people’s power”we are actually emptying the meaning from its con-cept. There is nothing worse than to use a positivevalue for a non positive objective and that´s whathappens with the discourse that refers to people.Adegi (the businessmen and businesswomen asso-ciation of the province of Gipuzkoa in the BasqueCountry) uses the same concepts that we are usinghere just to say the contrary that we are saying, andit does so by applying a neoliberal concept of theeconomy. This doesn´t mean that we shouldn´tkeep using these concepts. On the contrary weshould deepen on its interpretation. We are in theweakest position in this dialectic war because oureconomic model is not the hegemonic one insociety. We need to fulfil our words with meaning

by making our models the referential ones. Wehave different rhythms and strategies but we alsoshare ideas. If one of our objectives is to promotereal participation then we need to think about howdo we make them become referential and how dowe fight this battle of ideas. In Olatukoop we haveno doubt that in order to do so we need to takeanother economic model as a reference. Our wor-king methodology is directly tied with what we callthe transformative social economy. An economicmodel based on more equality that will take as areference the environmental and people`s wellbeing. Therefore we are not only saying the type ofenterprises that we need but also what economicmodel we are looking for. This approach has to betransformative and based in participation too.Let´s articulate all this within an economic model.We are a minority yet but all those ideas are bur-ning within society. Since there is a need for demo-cratization let`s use the existing situation in orderto create our proper model.

I.Ortega: I wouldn´t say that we are a minority!If we take as a reference two characteristics suchas the organizing model based in participationand the enterprises social vocation then certainprojects come to my mind: The group Mondra-gon and the rest of the cooperatives, the diffe-rent innovative projects that are being createdaround the concept of the social economy basedin solidarity, the cooperatives being createdaround farming (having as a reference themodels of the north of the Basque Country),the enterprise network created around Nergroup, the movement of the Ikastola (privateschools teaching through the medium of theBasque language), the Basque media... All ofthem represent the embryo of a different econo-mic model. The problem is that each of themoperates independently and that we haven`t gotthe self-consciousness of being creating a diffe-rent economic model. If we were capable ofinteracting all together I believe that we couldshow the Basque Country internationally as areference of a different economic model.

18


real participation in the enterprise / debate...born in 1975 in bilbo he lives in...

Documents