Zeppelin University | Leadership Log#9 by Zeppelin Universität

Leadership Log #9 Notes from the Le adership E xcellence Institute Zeppelin

Corporate Ethical Culture

In the Centres of the Peripheries Dialogue on the visual art in this edition between Christof Salzmann and Philipp N. Hertel

hertel As an alert recipient one might ask the question why, in volume

hertel We could speak here of an action maxim that recognises and

9 of the Leadership Log, we find photographs ( b esides the editorial por-

even promotes the cultural diversity and complex personality structure

traits ). Christof, in your artistic career you have been involved with archi-

of an individual – also in the work context and the associated value-add-

val practice for a long time. What is your relationship to photography and

ed chains. You have already dealt with a work ethic in your work on sev-

how does it fit into this issue ?

eral occasions. Having grasped the thematic core of this issue ( s ee p.30 ) and thus laid

salzmann […] Today, we are aware that, with every shot ( a s the pho-

the foundation for visual expression, we have often sketched large and

tographer’s subjective view of reality ), the degree of complexity increas-

small gestures independently of the actual medium. What does the me-

es. By selecting and capturing a section of the world, we simultaneous-

dium and the periphery here actually mean to you ?

ly increase the number of possible variants of interpretation. In principle, every photograph raises more questions than it is able to answer. And this is exactly what an archive lives from. […]

salzmann I understand the edition as a classic format that is comparable to an exhibition. The photographs are integrated into the issue as an independent contribution in a clearly outlined thematic field. This be-

hertel Do we actually both share a preference for a humanistic mes-

comes especially clear in your design of the issue. The different framing

sage in our work, I wonder. How is it that your photos hardly ever depict

lines give the individual photographs a classic and autonomous expres-

people, and especially not the ones in this publication ?

siveness – it becomes absolutely clear that this is neither an illustrative article nor travel or reportage photography. The arrangement of the in-

salzmann As far as the “humanistic message” is concerned, I agree

dividual photographs on each page also makes them stand out as an ar-

with you, but if we continue to use this term, we might have to clarify

tistic contribution that takes up the thematic content, deepens it or ( iron-

more precisely what we mean by it in each case. It is clear to me, how-

ically ) reflects it.

ever, that I do not consider myself a representative of “humanistic photography”. I do not even consider myself a photographer.

I appreciate the so-called periphery because in these remote regions, social phenomena that tend to disappear in global centers due to com-

The fact that I usually refrain from depicting people in my photographs

plex social conditions become more visible. In the context of this issue,

has to do with our viewing habits. When people act in a picture, the

with the “interculturality”, for example, this becomes apparent : If the

viewer’s gaze automatically focuses on the “scope of action” of the peo-

only Chinese restaurant in a remote small town in Upper Swabia bears

ple in the picture. I prefer images that show an environment that is based

the presumptuous name “Chinatown”, different cultural stereotypes can

on human attitudes and behaviour, but without demonstrating this in

be read from it. […]

an exemplary way using people. I concentrate on the documentation of general social conditions – this includes a commentary of social, ( i nter- ) cultural, historical, economic conditions through the picture.

Read the complete conversation here. zeppelin-university.com / d ialogue-salzmann ( e nglish ) zu.de / l eiz-log-9-dialog-salzmann ( g erman )

2917-200628

P R O F H C D I P L- I N G K A R L S C H L E C H T

“It is not the role of business ethics to tell us how to act. Its function is to provide us with guidance.” Prof h c Dipl-Ing Karl Schlecht, Chairman of the Karl Schlecht Foundation KSG Initiator and founder of the Leadership Excellence Institute Zeppelin | LEIZ

DIRECTOR’S EDITORIAL

There are probably few terms delineating greater complexity than ‘corporate ethical culture’. To begin with, there is the complexity of the organisation itself – be it a company, a public institution or a civil-society organisation. Then there are the individuals operating within such organisations, and it is here that things become difficult. For one thing, the human mind is a notoriously multitudinous thing, and it is not for nothing that German sociologist Niklas Luhmann refers to it as a ‘system’ in its own right. For another thing, several such minds interacting constitute something that is always on the verge of chaos – without, however, actually slipping into chaos most of the time, and this is what we call civilisation. Finally, there is ‘ethics’ which, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, is about ‘what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong’. This has been the big – and, as yet, unresolved – issue since the very beginnings of philosophy – which implies that the lifespan of three civilisations is not nearly enough to cover all there is to say about it.

In short, the term complexity does not even begin to describe what you get yourself into when thinking about corporate ethical culture. And yet, think about it we must. In 2019, a survey by the job and recruiting website Glassdoor showed that employees value corporate culture and an organisation’s ethical standards higher than earning opportunities. In other words, corporate ethical culture is an essential pre-requisite for corporate success. A good enough reason for the authors of this Leadership Log to try and cast some light on the challenges that lie ahead.

Prof Dr habil Josef Wieland, Director

PROF DR JOSEF WIEL AND

Measuring Corporate Ethical Culture By Diana Stimmler and Carmen Tanner In the past decade, many corporations have experienced the importance of ethics in business first hand as recurring business scandals have resulted in policy and regulation concerning ethical business standards. However, while legal efforts to make business more ethical have led to some progress, they have not been enough. This is becoming apparent especially now that we are witnessing an ongoing crisis : COVID-19 is not only threatening health systems around the globe, but it is also putting a remarkable strain on economies. As we are observing businesses’ responses to the crisis in real time, we see some companies rising to the challenge by taking measures to protect their employees, reorganising their operations to provide essential personal protective equipment (PPE) and focusing on the long-term. Others are merely focussing on protecting their short-term interests by stopping lease payments or denying customers obligatory refunds. Society is taking notice, and it is time for businesses to expand their understanding of how ethical corporate culture shapes their reaction to crises. To gain public trust and build a sustainable relationship with society, effort is required to move beyond legal compliance and include integrity into business practice. Organisations need to develop an ethical corporate culture to to gain public trust Building an ethical corporate culture can be a powerful tool to aid in this endeavour, because it can help to reduce misconduct as well as to increase ethical behaviour. To achieve an ethical culture, however, it is important, above all, that companies understand what strategies and fac-

tors make up the organisational environment and how these have an impact on ( un )ethical behaviour. For this purpose, we are working on a solid measure of ethical culture that identifies and assesses those dimensions. In the long-term we would like to be able to provide businesses with benchmarks and to facilitate monitoring progress in firms’ cultures. To achieve this goal, our research is focused on developing a validated measure of corporate ethical culture that considers managerial strategies as well as the real-life working context of employees. Compliance and integrity strategies are core dimensions to measure corporate culture To consider managerial practice and its impact on ( un )ethical behaviour we include two dimensions in our measure that focus on the strategic aspects of ethics management. We distinguish between compliance strategies which focus on adherence to rules, norms and legal regulations via means of control and punishment, and integrity strategies, which are value-based and focus on self-governance and responsibility. Integrating the compliance and integrity framework not only matches current trends in research and practice, but also complements prior efforts to measure ethical culture by emphasising different ways of steering organisations. Both approaches come with advantages and disadvantages and including them in a framework of ethical culture facilitates a comparison of the utility of these different managerial strategies in preventing misconduct and promoting ethical behaviour. Our studies show empirical support for a differentiation

between compliance and integrity strategies. Part of this support comes from the fact that the two approaches make unique contributions to employees’ attitudes and ethical behaviour. Compliance strategies, for example, seem to be particularly strongly related to employees’ extrinsic motivation but not to their intrinsic motivation. Integrity strategies, on the other hand, are also related to intrinsic motivation. Also, when it comes to promoting ethical behaviour rather than merely inhibiting unethical behaviour, we find that integrity is a more promising strategy than compliance. The developed measure aims to help organisations manoeuvering past next crises and business scandels Regarding the real-life working context of employees and its impact on ( un )ethical behaviour, we include ten dimensions in our measure that focus on the implementation of ethics management in day to day organisational life. Three of the dimensions we include have to do with role models. Here, we consider the extent to which employees consider top management, direct supervisors and peers to be role models for ethical conduct. Our studies show that role models are not only related to work motivation and both ethical and unethical behaviour, but also to other dimensions of ethical culture. The influence of the social environment within organisations thus appears to play an important role in tackling ethical issues. Besides those role models, we further consider four dimensions that have to do with the quality of the organisational ethical rules. Rule clarity considers the extent

to which ethical rules and expectations are sufficiently clear to all organisational members. Rule defectiveness explores whether rules are consistent and whether they leave open any ethical grey areas. Rule viability refers to the extent that the number of rules is overwhelming and perceived to complicate and hinder work rather than support it. Detectability refers to the likelihood with which transgressions and non-compliance are discovered. The last three dimensions we integrate in our framework of ethical culture pertain to the organisational ethical values. Pressure to compromise refers to the degree to which employees experience role or value conflicts. Ill-conceived goals address the extent to which the company prioritises competitive and economic goals. Lastly, culture of openness measures the extent to which employees are encouraged to voice their opinion. Our measure can help companies to evaluate and improve on their ethical corporate culture. Our integrated approach, based on essential findings from the field of behavioural ethics and social psychology that considers strategic factors as well as the realities of organisational life, goes beyond existing literature and business practice. Therefore, we are contributing to a better understanding of ethical corporate culture and providing a solid measure to navigate the next crisis and prevent future business scandals. diana.stimmler@zu.de carmen.tanner@zu.de

2626-200628

Moral Courage – Standing Up for Moral Values By Nicole Witt and Carmen Tanner In professional life, employees and managers are sometimes confronted with situations in which values or rules are at stake or even violated. While some people are willing to stand up for moral values whatever the cost, others just do nothing despite having recognised that there is a moral issue, and despite actually wanting to act upon their moral principles. Imagine, for example, an employee noticing that his or her supervisor is behaving unethically. This employee might choose not to act in order not to jeopardise the relationship with the supervisor or for fear of losing his or her job. By contrast, people who translate moral goals into action even in the face of obstacles, risks, or difficulties display moral courage. The project aims at identifying factors enabling moral courage In our moral courage research project, we investigate the types of situations that require morally courageous behaviour ( e. g., intervening when someone else is behaving unethically, admitting mistakes, refusing unethical orders ), and the factors that promote or hinder moral courage. The results of a survey we conducted among nearly 500 employees in Germany indicate that a considerable number of people do not act when confronted with situations where values are violated. Of all respondents, 31 per cent stated that they have already noticed that a colleague, and 24 per cent that their supervisor, had violated ethical principles or rules. When confronted with misconduct of colleagues, 27 per cent never or rarely did anything, 37 per cent sometimes and 36 per cent always or often intervened. When confronted with misconduct by

their supervisor, 38 per cent never or rarely intervened and only 19 per cent always or often. 14 per cent of the participants reported that their supervisor had already ordered them to violate ethical principles or rules. Of these, 28 per cent never or rarely and 40 per cent always or often refused the order. What is the difference between people who intervene in such situations and those who do not ? What role do situational factors, individual competencies, and personality play ? Having moral motivation is a central prerequisite for moral action. However, other factors are also crucial, such as self-efficacy, i. e., the conviction that one can successfully perform required behaviour. Whether someone is willing to act in accordance with their values also depends on the corporate culture. In an ethical corporate culture, with leaders and top management being ethical role models, and without any pressure to compromise on moral values, the risks of admitting mistakes or reporting violations are lower than in an unethical corporate culture. However, even then, the fear that social relationships or one’s reputation will be harmed may prevent one from acting in a morally courageous manner. Therefore, it is essential to study both individual and situational factors that promote or hinder moral courage. Only then is it possible to create measures that can encourage individuals to act with moral courage. 28 per cent of these never or rarely refused the order, 32 per cent sometimes and 40 per cent always or often did. nicole.witt@zu.de carmen.tanner@zu.de

Big Data in the Insurance Industry – The Role of Contextuality and Values By Carmen Tanner Imagine the following situation : Your car liability insurance includes the position that your driving behaviour is documented by a recording device installed in your car. Building upon this data, the insurance company tests links between driving behaviour and accident risks, and lowers the premiums of low-risk drivers. Such a scenario is close to reality. In fact, insurance companies show a keen interest in various possible applications of Big Data, since they give access to personalised profiles. Hence, such digital innovations pose serious questions : How will such a procedure comply with the original founding principle of insurance companies, namely the principle of solidarity – the idea of sharing risks ? Which other ethical values may be seen at risk by which Big Data application ? To what extent do, first, the context in which individual’s sensitive information is collected and, second, customers’ personal values predict the acceptance of the usage of such data by insurances ? As part of a Swiss National Research Program on “Big Data”, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF), Carmen Tanner and researchers from various disciplines have examined such questions in collaboration with a Swiss insurance company. Surveys with representative samples from Switzerland and the United States ( overall about 2’000 respondents ) yielded several noteworthy insights.

integrity is a theoretical approach claiming that events take place in particular contextual settings, while each setting is governed by a set of pre-existing informational norms. Such norms dictate what type of information is appropriate to reveal and which information can be distributed to other parties or not. We talk of contextual integrity when such informational norms are respected. Yet, when such norms are violated, outrage and objection has to be expected. In our studies, respondents were provided with several car liability insurance offers, each of them applying a particular digital setting. These offers varied in terms of using data either from tachographs, from communications in social networks, from online purchases, or using data about the customer’s creditworthiness. Insurers would, based on these particular data, make inferences about the driver’s risk profile, and low-risk drivers would get a lower insurance premium. We found that digital settings involving collecting data about communication, shopping or creditworthiness are triggering much objection, while collecting data about one’s driving behaviour by a driving recorder is highly accepted. In other words: The “closer” the digital setting to the driving behaviour, the lower the objection.

Objection towards Big Data depends on the context

Which values do customers see implicated in the use of Big Data ?

To better understand why people are sometimes willing or not willing to accept the collection or distribution of personal information, it is crucial to know the context within which such information is gathered. Contextual

To examine this question, a separate study in Switzerland and the United States was conducted. This study revealed that privacy ( in the sense that people should control what information is transmitted to others ) and fairness ( in the

sense that people should be treated equally ) are the core values being seen put at risk by the usage of Big Data. Interestingly, solidarity appears to be less important. Customers endorsing protected values are more likely to express outrage and resistance In order to understand people’s reactions to data collection, it is also important to know whether people perceive the involved values as protected values or not. Protected values refer to values individuals feel strongly committed to, values they believe ought to be protected from utilitarian trade-offs. Such values usually have deep roots and are linked to personal and collective identity. Human lives, for example, love, honour or friendship are often understood as values which are “not for sale”. A robust finding from empirical research suggests that people holding protected values respond with more outrage and tradeoff reluctance when such values are seen at risk. In our studies, people were offered monetary compensation for revealing information. This builds on the so-called “privacy paradox” – the phenomenon that, despite expressing concerns for privacy, people nevertheless volunteer to give personal information away. They do this if they see that in exchange for disclosing information they receive benefits. Yet, the notion of protected values suggests that this may be true for some but not all customers. Indeed, in our studies we found that customers treating privacy or fairness as protected values are very likely to respond with objection and refusal to compensatory strategies.

Conclusion For the insurance industry it seems important not to ignore that contextual settings and personal values play a crucial role in understanding customers’ concerns and responses to Big Data applications. We conclude that less objection can be expected when data collection is closely related to driving behaviour, whereas more outrage has to be expected if the data collected has no direct link to driving behaviour. These results indicate that customers expect a plausible relationship between the data to be used in a product and the insurance target of the product. Furthermore, customers treating those values as protected values are likely to resist, and refuse to accept data collection of sensitive information. Those customers will expect some data collection to be blocked to preserve certain values. They may expect some signals and assurances from the insurance industry how certain values can remain protected. carmen.tanner@zu.de

Self-regulation and Pro-Organisational Dishonesty By Carolin Baur In light of the ongoing transformation of communication and other technologies, we now live in a highly complex world of diverse possibilities. With these new opportunities and changed environments, however, also come new temptations and self-regulation demands in both private and organisational life. Self-regulation is the core psychological process of purposefully directing one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions. Self-regulation is also essential when it comes to morality and moral action, as this process makes it possible for people to alter their behaviour according to moral standards. However, according to the “Strength Model of Self-Regulation”, self-regulation relies on a limited resource. The results of a field study suggest that in a state of reduced resources for self-regulation, an individual is more likely to impulsively lie for selfish gain. But what is the impulsive response when someone has the chance to benefit one’s organisation by lying ? The results of a survey field study and a laboratory experiment have revealed that, when it comes to lying to help one’s organisation, the effect of self-regulatory resource depletion depends on the level of identification with the organisation. Highly identified members are more likely to impulsively lie for the organisation ; less identified members are more likely to impulsively tell the truth. One implication of this finding is that an over-identification with the group and a loss of an independent sense of self can be harmful to organisations, their members, and society. A factor that potentially promotes over-identification is a practice of culture management characterised by inflicting mono-cultural conditions through systematic suppression of conflicting values and identities. Instead,

organisations should strive for authentic collective diversity and structures that promote the expression and development of concerns and interests associated with different identities. Secondly, organisational members should – ideally – not be confronted with situations that tempt them to lie for the organisation. The corporate environment, especially leadership and the reward system, plays a crucial role in creating or preventing such situations. Also, the awareness of the risk of pro-organisational dishonesty may be a first step towards reducing it. A clear corporate stance on unethical conduct could counteract employees’ assumptions that they are helping the organisation by lying. Hence, to prevent pro-organisational dishonesty, organisations and their members need to be aware of the possible adverse effects of organisational identification and should embrace a diverse and ethical work culture. Source : Baur, C., Soucek, R., Kühnen, U., & Baumeister, R. F. ( 2019 ). Unable to resist the temptation to tell the truth or to lie for the organization ? Identification makes the difference. Journal of Business Ethics. Click here for more information carolin.baur@zu.de

2667-200628

Leading Relations : Imagining Leadership for a Complex World By Yolande Steenkamp and Dominik Fischer If there was ever a simple world that one could break down into clear categories, then that world is certainly a thing of the past. Our current reality is such an intricate network of networks, with stakes often so high, that it is not an easy thing to begin to contemplate the sort of leadership that would allow us to address the interwoven nature of the challenges facing us.

of resources from providers in order to exploit the possibilities of new markets, is often complicated by cultural nuances and expectations. Increasing the potential to create value in such a context is no easy task and requires the relational intelligence that will enable organisations to make the most of the cultural capital offered by the diversity that characterises the contemporary workforce.

A good starting point is the fundamental anthropological insight that being human means to exist in relation. We are social creatures, and our very existence in the world is best expressed and described through various forms of relationship. Viewing our world through this relational lens makes many of the categories into which we divide our world seem artificial. While separating our ‘economic’ life from our ‘civil’, ‘religious’, or ‘cultural’ lives may have heuristic value, such categorisation does not reflect the true nature of our world as several networks of relations where all spheres are interwoven and impact on one another.

Imagination an advantage of good leadership ?

In a world of such complex and intersecting networks, leadership refers to the ability to not only live in relationships but also to capitalise on relational capacity in order to create value for multiple interwoven stakeholders. Navigating relations between different organisations from one or more sectors requires skill in securing legitimacy for your organisation while succeeding in creating value for all stakeholders. Cultural and economic distance between actors complicates relations and requires of leadership the ability to chart a course through the stormy waters of competing interests. Acquiring particular types

Another skill uniquely suited to strengthening leadership efforts in our current context is imagination. Contributions from evolutionary biology have described imagination in two ways, both of which have played no small part in allowing homo sapiens to not only survive but indeed thrive. The first is empathy, or the capacity to imagine ourselves in the shoes of another person. In this way, imagination has formed the basis of our moral development, and can be argued to have enabled our existence as particularly relational, to begin with. The second is the ability to imagine our world differently, which in turn enables us to make actual changes to our environment that are better suited to our needs.* Making conscious use of imagination and our ability to relate will enable us to construct new means to provide stability and meaning to our social behaviour. It is, of course, true that we have formal institutions, such as laws, that provide such stability by regulating our public conduct. However, conforming to such formal regulations is never enough to meet the needs of real-life complexities. Instead, our behaviour is regulated above all by

informal standards that are often determined by cultural norms and values. Since these show significant variance in different contexts, and since transgressing such cultural or societal values may result in great damage to an organisation’s reputation, this calls for great relational intelligence on the part of leaders. It is for this reason that educational efforts should develop a means of increasing the relational intelligence and creativity of their students. Teaching students to apply both their skill in relations and their imagination consciously will contribute to the leadership that is sensitive to feedback and adaptive to the sometimes rapidly changing needs of relational contexts. * For further reading on the role of the imagination as described by evolutionary biology, see Bernice Serfontein, 2018, “Imagination, Religion, and Morality : An Interdisciplinary Approach”, PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/71030. Dr Yolande Steenkamp is a postdoctoral Senior Researcher at the Albert Luthuli Leadership Institute (ALLI) at the University of Pretoria. She holds a PhD in Theology and collaborates with Zeppelin University on a number of research projects. yolande.steenkamp@up.ac.za dominik.fischer@zu.de

American Factory ( 美国工厂 ) * – Learning from a Documentary By Tobias Grünfelder, Jessica Geraldo Schwengber and Julika Baumann Montecinos “American Factory” is a documentary directed by Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert about the Chinese company Fuyao, which set up a new factory in a shuttered General Motors plant near Dayton ( Ohio ) in 2016. It drew international attention about the complexity of work in times of globalisation and won the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2020. Viewers often state that it is a challenging, somehow strange and eye-opening film. It presents realities that are not based on a typical story about the American worker, with the expected problems and questions. Rather, the realities it discusses are difficult to penetrate and do not fit in standard categories such as “right or wrong”. This applies to a variety of issues covered in “American Factory”, such as the attempt by both the American and the Chinese sides to figure out how to interact between two different workplace cultures, the coexistence of different management and leadership styles, the clash of legal systems and employee rights, ideological and political interests, new technologies and industrial robots replacing workers, individual differences in handling specific situations, international competition and productivity issues, as well as generational and power-related issues. As stated by the directors, real stories can help people to grasp something they did not understand before. Accordingly, the following case study “American Factory” may serve as a template and an inspiration. By highlighting some specific aspects for discussion, it is an invitation to explore these topics and connect them to some concepts and models that LEIZ researchers are currently working on.

“American Factory” – a case study In December 2008, the General Motors Moraine Assembly Plant in Ohio closes and thousands of workers lose their jobs. The Dayton factory remains shut down until the Chinese Fuyao Group announces in 2016 that it is taking it over, investing millions and hiring thousands of local workers. People around Dayton are enthusiastic about the new employer and about being part of this new factory. Fuyao is a global auto-glass manufacturing company focused on high quality products for their clients ( e. g., Honda, Chrysler, Toyota ). At a recruitment event, the factory promotes itself with the words : “We are melting two cultures together, the Chinese and US cultures. So, we are truly a global organisation. We have plenty of opportunities !” From the beginning, both American and Chinese employees recognise that their work cultures differ completely, and the first struggles and cultural misunderstandings emerge. On the one hand, the Chinese describe America as a place where “you let your personality run free”, but also state that Americans are over-confident and lazy with a comparatively “easy work life” : many vacations, eight days off per month whereas workers in China have only one or two, and work eight hours per day compared to twelve in China. About their own culture, the Chinese observe that they are less chatty and personable on the job, as well as being more capable of performance and precision. On the other hand, the Americans view the Chinese as foreigners who are trying to impose their rules upon them, without reflecting on things that are relevant in American business culture, such as the importance of unions. Mr. Reggie, the employee re-

lations director, states with regard to a specific argument between a Chinese and an American worker : “Rather than finding resolution, they try to find out who is right and who is wrong, and in this case, they are both wrong.” In an attempt to overcome the cultural clash, cultural briefings and presentations are provided separately to the Chinese and Americans. Despite these efforts to overcome cultural conflicts, productivity does not increase. At the same time, differences in cultural perspectives go beyond the shop floor and lead to disputes in leadership style as well. Cao Dewang, chairman of Fuyao Group, displays a serious tendency to micromanage. In one visit, he walks around pointing out architectural details he wants changed. This expectation of total control is presented as something Cao takes for granted in China. As a consequence of the low productivity and of their differences in terms of leadership, the president of the American plant, John, and his management are fired and replaced by Jeff Liu, a Chinese who has lived half his life in the USA. Cao explains his decision stressing that “our expectation was that we could trust them, pay them a high salary, and they would serve the company. Why didn’t they ? I think they are hostile to Chinese.” The new president Jeff Liu advises Chinese workers during a meeting : “You must take advantage of American characteristics. Americans love being flattered to death – donkeys love being stroked in the direction their hair grows. ( ... ) We need to use our wisdom to guide them and help them. Because we are better than them.” Cao Dewang expresses a more profound concern as he calls on the Chinese workers : “We haven’t reached our

goals. This is a very tough challenge for us ( ... ) The most important thing is not how much money we earn, but how this will change Americans’ view of the Chinese and towards China. Every Chinese person should do things for our country and our people.” A closer look – selected questions

| | |

| |

The story of “American Factory” points at several questions addressed by the transcultural approach. Questions that relate to individual and organisational learning are for example : Which key problems and issues can be identified ? How should a better communication and cooperation look like ? How can commonalities build bridges between co-workers from different backgrounds and with different experiences ? And how can new cultural commonalities be developed ? How can organisational learning be fostered so that the organisation can benefit from such experiences ? How can an organisational culture of mutual learning be created ? Which leadership competences and skills are required to navigate this complex and diverse environment ? If you were the new manager at Fuyao in Ohio, what would you do ? Which changes would you like to see ? Three steps for transcultural learning Under the lens of the transcultural approach, it can be observed that one outstanding issue covered by the

3149-200708

documentary is the missed opportunity to engage in mutual learning processes. The three-step model for transcultural learning processes developed by Josef Wieland and Julika Baumann Montecinos offers a starting point to reflect on the discussion questions :

other, but rather offer joint opportunities to talk and engage as a whole group, supporting a non-judgemental attitude towards each other and focusing on existing and new commonalities necessary to pursue their common enterprise.

| Step 1 : Non-normative attitude in encounters with people with diverse cultural backgrounds | Step 2 : Identification of existing cultural commonalities | Step 3 : Creation of new cultural commonalities

In the film, such newly developed cultural commonalities could refer to new forms of communication, working schedules, collaboration and management styles. In fact, new ways of problem solving and impulses for future innovation may emerge from the diversity of perspectives offered by the Americans and Chinese.

An encounter with people from diverse cultural backgrounds requires non-normative observation which forbids a-priori normative judgments and a categorisation of cultural aspects as being “good” or “bad”. In accordance with this model, the first mistake illustrated by the film is both the Chinese and the Americans’ respective sense of cultural superiority which may lead to a type of transcultural blindness. Correspondingly, the narrative offers many examples of stereotyping, generalising and oversimplifying the other. The American way is the right way for Americans whereas the Chinese way is the right one for the Chinese. This circumstance makes both sides too easily lose sight of their common goal and instead put too much energy into defending their own standpoint. While striving to obtain “reason”, their common goal becomes thus diluted.

Obviously, though, the model considers mutual learning not as a one-shot and static solution, but rather as a longterm ongoing and dynamic process. The company in the film seems to have missed the opportunity to establish formal and informal governance mechanisms that enable such continuous transcultural learning. The documentary shows that Fuyao does not provide for commonality-focused exchange opportunities and inclusive organisational structures. On the contrary, it stirred up a kind of cultural competition based on supposed cultural superiorities rather than on the idea that all cultures are equally valuable, and that cooperation may lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. Transcultural leadership – striving for mutual benefits

In consequence and according to the 3-step model presented above, one solution could be that the cultural briefings and workshops are no longer held in separate groups and no longer focus on talking about the respective

In addition to that, the film indicates the importance of leadership and management styles that take both American and Chinese best practices into account and adapt

these to the specific situations and organisations. Looking at Fuyao´s leadership style as presented in the documentary, it seems to be based on self-centred criteria, total control, and no feedback from employees. Transculturality as a leadership style is described by Josef Wieland ( 2019 ) “as the competence to develop social interactions that are significantly characterised by cultural diversity in such a way that they produce mutual advantage for stakeholders : values, motivations or objectives accepted by all.” Correspondingly, transcultural leaders strive for mutual benefits, look for practical solutions, avoid judging too early, listen carefully and settle conflicts thoughtfully ( Wieland, 2019 ). Also, in cross-cultural encounters and organisations, power relations and -distribution need to be considered. Taking these aspects into account the development of a common leadership and management culture could be a relevant contribution to the discussion about success factors of global cooperation projects, not only in the case of Fuyao. Melting versus creating culture Another observation about the documentary is that the Americans and Chinese, while trying to overcome their cultural frictions, put much emphasis on their differences – an approach that distracts them from their common objective. This is the opposite of the transcultural approach, where you focus on commonalities without neglecting the existence and relevance of differences. In this sense, transculturality does not preclude diversity nor does it claim universality ; rather it aims to offer a set

of tools that facilitate the pursuit of a shared enterprise. It is not about melting cultures together as described in the recruitment event of the case study, rather it is about jointly creating a transcultural community of practice and creating something new without overcoming or losing one’s own identity. Transcultural outlook Taking these thoughts further, “American Factory” offers a typical example of complex and dynamic global networks in which value creation processes cross geographical and cultural borders. These realities present manifold opportunities and potential benefits to all parties involved. At the same time, they also present challenges since a higher interconnection inevitably increases and exasperates a number of viewpoints. Against this backdrop, an approach based on non-normativity recognises that the concepts of “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong” are not universal but rather dependent on perspectives and concrete settings. Even values identified as universal assume different meanings in particular contexts, or in other words – shared global values are translated into different local actions. Summing up, corporate culture in multinational companies can be the result of a joint learning process if the organisation aims to avoid imposing the “good and right” way of only one party involved. As the example of “American Factory” shows, a clash of viewpoints may risk undermining the existence of the organisation itself or will at least entail severe challenges for all involved.

At the same time, people confronted with a situation as presented in the documentary may soon recognise that the answer cannot be “Well, you have your truth, I have mine, so, whatever…”. In fact, they have to ( and are even forced to ) deal with the possibility of “we do not know”. To deal with the unknown requires self-awareness and active making of meaning – both are key to developing the ability to make ethical choices in light of feasible alternative options, as well as to understanding the context for particular decisions. In this learning process, it is important that people realise that they are obliged to take decisions and commit themselves to solutions despite uncertainty. If they continuously reflect on the interpretation they have ascribed to a particular situation as well as on the immanent trade-offs, they are able to adjust their commitment and ethical decisions, and benefit from ongoing learning.

As this brief discussion shows, considering the implications witnessed in “American Factory” on many different levels of our organisations and societies, keeping in mind that there is not one meaning, one solution, one way and one truth, seems to be a promising way forward. Wieland, J. & Baumann Montecinos, J. 2019 ( eds. ) : Transcultural Leadership and Transcultural Competence, Marburg: Metropolis. Official Netflix documentary https://www.netflix.com/de/title/81090071 t.gruenfelder@zeppelin-university.net jessica.schwengber@zu.de julika.montecinos@zu.de

Making the Best of the Crisis ! By Rupert Graf Strachwitz Writing about any topic of societal relevance is different than before the covid-19 crisis. Warnings from many sides, not least from philanthropists like Bill Gates and other civil society players, went unheeded, so we were unprepared. We know now that our lives will change for good, not necessarily for the worse, and not entirely due to covid-19. Stephen Heintz, President and CEO of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, speaking at a philanthropy conference organised by the Gulbenkian Foundation reminded us in September 2019 that “we have a crisis of capitalism, a crisis of democracy, and a crisis of the nation state.” Shada Islam, Director of Europe and Geopolitics with the Brussels-based civil society think tank ‘Friends of Europe’, put it like this : “The crisis had been coming, and all the pandemic did was to trigger it.” This is all very well, but what should we do about it ? Take the crisis of capitalism : From the 1980s, belief in Adam Smith’s theory mushroomed that if everyone looks after their own interests, common interests will necessarily be looked after. Academics like Francis Fukuyama declared that the end of history had arrived. Democracy, the rule of law, and a capitalist market economy would ensure happiness forever after. Governments reacted by selling off vital infrastructure to investors, while public services were reduced to the rules of the balance sheet. Emergency planning became a taboo, and shareholder value the yardstick by which all things were measured. Not just businesses, but doctors and lawyers, not to mention the ever-growing army of consultants, became obsessed with making a profit rath-

er than providing a service, while multinational corporations were active in the tax-evasion business. Hitherto respectable providers of financial services distinguished themselves as money-launderers, and corporate managers’ priorities shifted from developing their company to securing short term profits for the sake of their bonus. Even civil society organisations were becoming increasingly worried about their impact in terms of numbers rather than how they were fulfilling their mission. Rereading John Ralston Saul’s ‘The Unconscious Citizen’ ( 1995 ) today, one is amazed at his prescience ; at the time, he was derided by the established business schools. But since 2007 at the very latest, it has become blatantly obvious that capitalism was in crisis, and that the alliance formed between the market and the state was not for the benefit of the citizens but for preserving the status quo. But nobody seemed to have the courage to say ‘Stop’. Big players in the global market talked about values and compliance, but were either insincere, or ignorant of the real issues at stake. Flagships of the business world were exposed for cheating their customers, the government, their own regulations, warnings on climate change, and what should have been accepted business standards. Nobody can contend that this does not spell crisis. In ‘The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism’ ( 2011 ), sociologist Colin Crouch argues that the checks and balances devised centuries ago by the theorists of democracy no longer work, and that civil society must take on a new role. This is not an entirely novel proposition. Many civil society organisations, including religious communities,

trade unions, and others, have always been looked upon as safeguards of human and civil rights, standards of behaviour, and accepted common ethical principles, and indeed to issue licences to operate to institutions as much as to individuals. Today, citizens are nudging them to do this more than ever before – helped by more people realising that a market economy and neoliberal capitalism are two very different animals and a growing number of members of the business community are making a special effort to do things differently. The present crisis just might provide the extra push, and make us accomplish the iconic turn we need in order to be prepared for the crises of tomorrow. We will need a strong civic space to make this happen, and a level playing field for governments, businesses and civil society to work on together. Rupert Strachwitz studied political science and history before embarking on an international career in civil society. He was also a consultant to philanthropists and NGOs. Today, he is CEO of the Maecenata Foundation, a think tank. A passionate European, he believes in an open, cosmopolitan society. rs@maecenata.eu

A Healthy Corporate Culture : the Role of Management Control By Veronica Casarin and Stefan Linder As foreshadowed by Peter Drucker four decades ago, today’s firms are said to operate in a knowledge economy. That is : an economy where employees – knowledge workers – apply professional training and intellectual effort in their daily work. A burgeoning of managerial and accounting practices aiming to foster the creation and appropriation of the financial value from the knowledge inherent to companies’ employees ( so called “human capital” ) has emerged. Relatedly, the issue of how to attract, motivate, and retain scarce “knowledge workers” increasingly attracts attention among scholars as well as business practitioners. Often, fostering employee health and well-being is instrumentally portrayed as an important lever to render an organisation ( more ) attractive for job-seekers as well as to motivate and retain current employees. Yet, besides this instrumental view of knowledge and knowledge workers as mere means to an end, i. e., as a resource important for the financial success and survival of an organisation, the issue of employee health and well-being merits due consideration in a society that sets humans at the center stage. Corporate culture and managerial technologies play a fundamental role in employee health and well-being. They can affect both psychological and physical health and well-being of employees, for example, by influencing satisfaction with their jobs and lives, job-related stress, or workplace accidents. Surprisingly little evidence, however, exists about one important set of managerial

technologies : management control systems (MCS) – i. e., planning and budgeting, cost accounting, performance measurement and variance analysis. Despite their ubiquity, MCS are often considered from the narrow angle of the aspirations and promises they bring to shareholders by enhancing goal alignment and profitability. The existing, yet limited, evidence relating MCS to employee well-being and health, suggests, however, that more work in this area is urgently needed in order to trigger a more intensive debate, both in literature and business practice, of the impact of MCS “dark side” on employee health. Our work in this area sets to develop theory and collect evidence about this relation. First evidence from a sample of 179 employees in the UK suggests that whether performance measurement is done in an enabling or coercive manner it affects employee health. This suggests that fostering a corporate culture that promotes an enabling use of performance metrics, rather than a coercive one, may be a way to enhance employee health. In another study, together with Bernard Leca and Adrián Zicari from ESSEC Business School, we empirically shed light at the relationship between different MCS designs and job-related stress. Results from a lagged field-survey with 471 managers and employees from the UK and the U.S. support key predictions and offer first insights into designing MCS that minimize harmful job-related stress. More work corroborating and extending these findings seems necessary to develop a sound basis for recommendations for more MCS designs that truly account for employee health. Yet, the work carried out so far suggests

that MCS design and use indeed matter for employee well-being and that studying and evaluating alternative MCS designs from the vantage point of their impact on employee health will help to develop more nuanced recommendations for business practice. We thus hope that our findings encourage further scholarly work and trigger organizations to reflect on the impact of MCS on the well-being and health of their employees. Stefan Linder is associate professor of accounting and management control at ESSEC Business School in Paris. He holds a PhD from Copenhagen Business School and has been visiting Zeppelin University’s Leadership Excellence Institute in Spring 2018. Prior to joining academia, he worked as a management consultant. Veronica Casarin is assistant professor of accounting and management control at ESSEC Business School in Paris. She holds a PhD from Cardiff University and a M Phil from the London School of Economics and Political Science. linder@essec.edu casarin@essec.edu

Miscellaneous Projects

Business Games as an Online Teaching Format By Evelyn Pachta and Verena Moosmann Case studies, business games, and role-playing are nothing new when it comes to the methodology of good teaching. Many of the well-known business schools and universities have been using these methods for decades. However, the lecturer will usually make the material available in print or sometimes online, give a live introduction, and from then on, everything takes place in class. For Dominik Fischer, LEIZ, and the provider of the platform, Simulation Games Lab of Zeppelin University, this approach was challenged by Covid-19. From one day to the next, the course had to be redesigned very quickly into an online format. Solving fictional entrepreneural problems On 2 April 2020, they gave a joint lecture addressing the following fictional case study : Child labour is a massive problem for an unnamed major American sporting goods manufacturer and his supplier in a rather remote city. Business is going well so far, but some modifications are needed to stay competitive and to obtain fair-trade certification. To portrait this scenario comprehensively, various stakeholder groups such as investors, workers employed for sewing and other employees of the supplier, members of an NGO, customers, and the public are part of the simulation game, which involves a decision dilemma.

The participants of the course were divided randomly into seven different stakeholder groups. The simulation game was divided into two parts. The participants did not know whether they all had the same information which served to create an almost realistic situation. In virtual breakout rooms the groups discussed what information they had and worked out a presentation of their position. The lecturer frequently visited the breakout rooms to check on their progress. After each breakout session, the groups came together and discussed what they had worked out. In the end, they met in the plenary. The virtual lecture was completed with a debriefing. Furthermore, they identified and analysed the perspectives of the stakeholder group model. Apart from creating sympathy for the conflicts between the different stakeholder groups, the learning thread mainly aimed at decision-making skills. The simulation game could successfully be applied in Zeppelin University’s Masters course on “Corporate Responsibility” taught by Julika Baumann Montecinos, and Andreas Heck ( both LEIZ), and again with the support of Verena Moosmann ( Simulation Games Lab, ZU). This time, the course was much smaller with only five stakeholder groups rather than seven in the simulation game. Altogether, this format with the applied distant learning tool proved to be an effective and invigorating alternative to a format where everyone can be physically present. evelyn.pachta@zu.de verena.moosmann@zu.de

Expert Conference on Transcultural Competences in the 21st Century

conference and indicates that further exchange of knowledge and ideas is required to shape an inclusive and positive approach towards cultural diversity in the future.

By Julika Baumann Montecinos and Tobias Grünfelder In an environment of growing complexity and cultural diversity in global value creation, which competences are required to access and develop opportunities for cooperation and mutual learning ? The Transcultural Caravan’s research group carried out a Delphi study to explore this topic in depth. Initial interim results were presented and discussed at the conference which was attended by a selected international and interdisciplinary group of renowned experts from research and practice.

The Delphi method as applied in the study on “Transcultural Competence” is a process for structuring anonymous communication within a larger group of experts in an effort to aggregate ideas and achieve consensus among group members. Following three consecutive rounds of questions, conducted from January to June 2020 and combining qualitative and quantitative data, the conference formed a fourth round, which reflected additional insights and feedback from the experts.

The 2-day programme aimed to take a closer look at those aspects which, according to the first findings of the study, are considered by the expert group particularly relevant for further discussions in the field. In panels, keynote speeches and group sessions, the experts reflected on topics such as “Focus on Commonalities”, “Cultural Competence in the 21st Century”, “Leadership Implications” and “Trends in the Field”, and connected the study results to their particular fields of work and experience. In sessions on “What’s New ?” and “What’s Next ?”, the discussions were taken further and linked to manifold ideas and visions on the conceptual and practical consequences of such an approach, as well as to possible contributions and follow-ups to the study.

The conference, which was originally planned as an onsite event, was held virtually because of the pandemic. On the second day, individual experts could be on campus for a panel discussion that was streamed live to the online participants. The professional technical implementation by Bewegtbildwerft, a film- and T V-production start-up, and a student team behind the scenes made a virtue out of necessity. As many participants stressed in their feedback, the virtual format was hardly less enjoyable, interactive and diverse than any on-site event could have aspired to be! The hosts of the conference would like to thank all experts, supporters and collaborators for this outstanding opportunity to discuss Transcultural Competence in this unique and immensely fruitful manner.

“We construct what we want to pay attention to.” This statement by one of the experts reflects the spirit of the

julika.montecinos@zu.de t.gruenfelder@zeppelin-university.net

Publications

Fischer, D. (2019) Relational Leadership And Regional Development : A Case Study On New Agriculture Ventures In Uganda. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 24( 0 2 ), 1950010. Fischer, D., & Roy, K. (2019) Market Entry in India : The Curious Case of Starbucks. Rutgers Business Review, 4( 2 ), 124 – 139. Katsarov, J., Christen, M., Mauerhofer, R., Schmocker, D., & Tanner, C. (2019) Training moral sensitivity through video games : A review of suitable game mechanisms. Games and Culture, 14( 4 ), 344 – 366. Schmocker, D., Tanner, C., K atsarov, J., & Christen, M. (2019) An Advanced Measure of Moral Sensitivity in Business. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Online Publication. Wiel and, J., & Baumann Montecinos, J. (eds.) (2020) Brazilian Perspectives on Transcultural Leadership, Marburg : Metropolis.

Wiel and, J., & Fischer, D. (2020) Transaction Cost Theory and Business Legitimacy. In Handbook of Business Legitimacy: ( Eds. ) J.D. Rendorff. Cham : Springer International Publishing. Wiel and, J. & Jandeisek, I. (2020) Governance und Institutionen: Normativität und Relationaltität, in : Handbuch Wirtschaftsphilosophie ( Heidbrink, L., Lorch, A. und Rauen, V. ), Springer, Cham. Wiel and, J., Steinmeyer, R., Grüninger, S. (eds.) (2020) Handbuch Compliance-Management, Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin. Wiel and, J. (2020) Transculturalism and Innovation in Global Business Networks. A Relational Approach, in : Wieland, J., & Baumann Montecinos, J. ( e ds. ). Brazilian Perspectives on Transcultural Leadership, Marburg: Metropolis, 15 – 32. Wiel and, J. (2020) Relational Economics. A Political Economy. Cham : Springer International Publishing

2894-200628

Manifesto for a Relational Economics By Lucio Biggiero, Derick de Jongh, Birger P. Priddat, Josef Wieland and Adrian Zicari There is no such thing as a dyadic and discrete exchange transaction in a modern network economy. Economic, private and social value creation results from the investment and relationing of multiple resources by individual and collective actors from the economy, civil society and politics. The willingness and ability to build and continue such complex relationships through social cooperation is fundamental and constitutes the core of Relational Economics. 1. Societal Change and Economic Theory The forms, mechanisms and processes of economic value creation have been subject to rapid and dynamic changes over several decades. The development of business models based on worldwide cooperative networks has substantial consequences for regional and national economies. These business models challenge the political applicability of conventional general equilibrium models and theories on international trade. At an industry and organisational level, the empirical developments of intra-sectoral and trans-sectoral networks of cooperation can no longer be characterised solely by microeconomic market assumptions and transaction cost governance. Nowadays, disruptive innovations mainly facilitate and speed up the development and utilisation of digital and exponential technologies, including platforms that severely impact cooperative business models. These

changes require new forms of organisation and a new conception to further integrate the diversity of governance mechanisms in economic theory. The predominance of the financial markets in the economic system, the emergence of a narrow group of markets and society-dominating companies, particularly in the field of future technologies, have reached levels that pose unmet challenges to the relationship between civil society, state and the market. The relation between the visible and invisible hand to create effective competition and the associated questions of private and public value creation, distributive justice, and public welfare are not adequately addressed. The worldwide challenges of sustainable business development and growth as well as public welfare affect stakeholder management, accounting, reporting, business strategy and monitoring of economic success and require the creation of shared value for all business and societal stakeholders. The core of these developments is that modern value creation is achieved by interlinking the resources of stakeholders originating from multiple economic as well as social systems and organisations. All these points are facets of the aforementioned fundamental developmental dynamics of contemporary society’s economies, increasingly pushing the underlying epistemological and methodological assumptions and concepts of economic theory-building to the limits of their explanatory power.

2. The Case for Relational Economics Conventional economic theory is characterised by methodological individualism, homo economicus, rational choice theory, discrete and dyadic exchange transactions, general equilibrium, individual as well as independent utility maximisation, the neoclassical theory of the firm, and the theorisation of moral and social values as external effects to name a few. They have massively reduced the descriptive, explanatory and prognostic capacity of mainstream economics. Thus, the economic and social applicability and recognition of mainstream economics have been shrinking in recent years and decades. This is not at all a new issue. They have been disputed from the beginning and this has been the subject of long-running methodological debates. The problem is less the unrealistic underlying assumptions of conventional economics than the lack of analytical fruitfulness and the explanatory power of real economic developments. The emergence of alternative, economic research programmes, such as economics of governance, resource and capability theory of the firm, industrial economics, institutional economics, organisational economics, behavioral economics, managerial economics or stakeholder value creation, are reflections of this development. Even though these selective approaches are still an enriching exercise to deepen and broaden our understanding of economic life, they have not yet succeeded in creating a new integrative research paradigm and framework.

The authors of this Manifesto suggest taking a different path. It is the economy of complex, recursive, and non-linear transactions as well as cooperative polyvalent resource networks in which the continuity of relations is a source of economic and societal value creation in its own, which asks for a Relational Economics. To achieve this target, both conceptual and empirical research is plainly needed. We also aim to develop the required taxonomy of categories of economic theory formation as a fundamental objective in the development of a Theory of Relational Economics. The development of Relational Economics as a comprehensive theory of the governance of regional, national and transnational economic transactions is of paramount importance. In doing so, we are convinced that it may contribute to creating a categorical framework and research agenda for the explanation and design of interconnected economic organisations and socially productive networks. 3. Defining the Research Agenda Relational Economics, as a political economy, is concerned with the production and distribution of private and public value creation in the various sectors and organisations of society and their relationships with one another. The basic unit of their analysis is a relational transaction involving multiple actors.

Relationships bundle different types of economic and social value and are based on interests and norms. Relational transactions are economic exchange relationships that are designed for continuity and, in their course, become attractors of different perceptual frames and polyvalent decision logics. Economics, law, ethics, politics, technology, religion, and other disciplines are those frames and logics that dock onto economic transactions and enter into relations that determine economic performance and its sustainable growth. This can only be understood and explained from the interaction of these relations and the adaptability of the required governance structures.

| | | | | | | |

methodological perspective assumes that all being is relational. The relationship between ‘people and people’, ‘people and things’, ‘systems and organisations’, ‘structures and processes’, ‘past, present and future’, ‘different decision logics, and their semantics’ is not only a relation but each of these events itself and their interaction with each other are relational. Through this lens, complexity is a multiplex of economic, social, political, artificial, and natural interactions and they form the core of the nurturing field of relational research. Economic interactions are not limited to the relationships between agents mediated by prices.

Therefore, the following fields are just a few possible illustrations of the relational research agenda : regional and global production clusters, creation and distribution of relational rents, corporate governance and relational contracting, governance and innovation of exponential technologies, happiness research and relational goods, stakeholder management, social responsibility sustainable development goals, shared value creation and business ethics, social accounting and integrated reporting, leadership and transcultural management, and relational society and complex adaptive systems.

Thus, the point of reference for Relational Economics is not the pure market relation but the relationing of multiple decision logics in and by different types of organisations and societal institutions. It is the unfolding process and the continuity of relational adaptive forms of governance for mutually determining economic and multivalent social decision logics in the cooperative process of economic transactions. Therefore, Relational Economics is interested in the interaction of economic, legal, technical, political, cultural and moral events and language games, which constitute the process and success of economic transactions.

Relational Economics is also concerned with the interaction and interference of regional, national, transnational, and global economic as well as social transactions. It does not attempt to limit economic theory to personal relationships ; instead, its epistemological and

Consequently, epistemologically and methodologically, Relational Economics focuses not upon the analysis of isolated and homogeneous individual or collective events, but upon the process of relationing within and between these events. A relation is the form of the relationship

between events. Relationality is the self-unfolding process of proportioning, networking, and considering tradeoffs of multivalent events or decision logics regarding the execution of a specific economic transaction and its contribution to economic value creation for all stakeholders. Forms and processes, the governance of relationality, and its continuation are fundamental elements of cooperative economic value creation for mutual benefit and thus the paradigmatic starting point of the relational view on economic transactions and the required governance for social cooperation. Relational Economics is a constitutively process-oriented and interdisciplinary political economy. It is not only open to contributions from all areas of the social sciences and humanities, the natural sciences, philosophy of science, mathematics, and network theory but also encourages transdisciplinary cooperation. We invite interdisciplinary epistemological and methodological, fundamental and applied research as well as conceptual and empirical contributions to the discussion of these research topics.

Lucio Biggiero University of L’Aquila, Italy lucio.biggiero@univaq.it Derick de Jongh University of Pretoria, South Africa derick.dejongh@up.ac.za Birger P. Priddat Witten / Herdecke University & Zeppelin University, Germany birger.priddat@uni-wh.de Josef Wieland Zeppelin University, Germany josef.wieland@zu.de Adrian Zicari ESSEC Business School, France zicari@essec.fr

May 2020

Forthcoming in : Economics – the Relational View : Interdisciplinary Contributions to an Emerging Field of Research ; Lucio Biggiero, Derick de Jongh, Dominik Fischer, Birger P. Priddat, Josef Wieland, Adrian Zicari ( eds. ). Cham : Springer.

PEOPLE

Management Committee Prof Dr Josef Wieland – Holder of the Chair for Institutional Economics, Organisational Governance, Integrity Management & Transc ult ural Leadership, Director of LEIZ : An expert in the field of compliance and business ethics of more than 20 years standing, he initiated the Forum Compliance & Integrity ( F CI ). He is a member of, inter alia, the national CSR Forum, the jury for the German government’s CSR Award. In the context of the German G20 presidency in 2016 / 2 017, Prof Wieland co-chaired the working group “Sustainability in Global Value Chains” within the Think20 process. Since 2017, Josef Wieland has been Vice-President ( Research ) of Zeppelin University (ZU). In 2020 he was the University’s Acting President. josef.wieland@zu.de

Prof Dr Carmen Tanner – Holder of the Chair for Economic Psychology and Leadership Ethics, ViceDirector of LEIZ : Carmen Tanner, who also holds a professorship at the Department of Banking and Finance, University of Zurich and the directorship of the “Center for Responsibility in Finance”, taught and worked at several universities ( Bern, Fribourg, Zurich, Northwestern University in the US, and the Max Planck Institut Jena ). Member of the Scientific Board of the DICO Deutsches Institut für Compliance. Main research topics : behavioural business ethics and moral intelligence. carmen.tanner@zu.de Dr Lennart Brand – Managing Director of LEIZ. Lennart Brand pursued a career in the aviation industry before t aking his D. Phil. at the University of Oxford ( St. John’s College ). He joined ZU in 2012 and was appointed Managing Director of LEIZ in 2015. Lennart Brand serves on the Oxford University Alumni Board and the Academic Board ( D ACH ) of SAP SE. A literary historian by trade, his research interests focus on German literature of the early 20th century, in particular Ernst Jünger and Karl Kraus. lennart.brand@zu.de

Senior Researchers Dr Andreas E. H. Heck – Visiting Researcher : An dreas Heck gives lectures on entrepreneurship, business administration and corporate social respon sibility (CSR). He is CoFounder and CEO of an interior design, wholesale and retail company in Stuttgart and designated CEO of Regionalwert AG in Freiburg. His research focusses on the concept of responsibility in economic theory, shared value and CSR. The connection between academic research and entrepreneurial practice are at the heart of his research interests. andreas.heck@zu.de

Dr Ramona Maria Kordesch – Visiting Researcher and Senior Research Fellow. Ramona Kordesch studied Catholic Theology and Religious Studies at Graz and Tübingen. Her research interests include non profit- and civil society research through cooperative qualities based on intersectoral impact and leadership concepts. Outside her academic responsibilities, Dr Kordesch runs Societas Futura in Austria – a think tank for multidimensional entrepreneurship in Vienna and Carinthia. ramona.kordesch@zu.de

Prof Dr Derick de Jongh – Visiting Researcher : After his 15 years career in the private sector ( Banking and Finance ), Derick founded the Centre for Corporate Citizenship at the University of South Africa in 2002. In 2010 Derick joined the University of Pretoria and founded the Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership which became the Albert Luthuli Leadership Institute in 2020. His research and teaching interests lie in Corporate Responsibility, Leadership and Sustainable Development. derick.dejongh@up.ac.za

Dr Angelica Marte – Visiting Researcher & Senior Lecturer : After her career in the consumer industry, she worked as a Research Affiliate at the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. At ZU, she has held several posts. Her main research interests are leadership, net w orking & diversity, which she also brings to her filmmaking documentaries ( 3Sat ). She founded “mim_more is more”, a company focusing on pioneering inclusive organisations. a.marte@letsmim.com

PEOPLE

Research Assistants Dr Julika Baumann Montecinos – Head of research group “Transcultural Competence, Project Manager of the Transcultural Caravan”. She graduated in Intercultural Business and Cultural Studies from the University of Passau, with stays in China, India, the Dominican Republic and Brazil, and did her PhD at University of Hohenheim’s Chair of Business Ethics. She pursued a career in the automotive industry before joining LEIZ in 2014. In her research and teaching, she focuses on the relevance of cultural factors for economic performance, on transcultural leadership, and on CSR in a global context. julika.montecinos@zu.de Dr Carolin Baur – Postdoctoral Researcher at the Chair of Economic Psychology and Leadership Ethics : She was a research associate at the Department of Industrial / Organisational Psychology at the University of Hamburg and earned her doctorate at the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences. Her current research focuses on ( moral ) judgment and decision making, social responsibility in supply chains, and behavioral business ethics, particularly pro-organisational dishonesty. carolin.baur@zu.de

Dr Dominik Fischer – Postdoctoral Researcher at the Chair of Institutional Economics : Dominik Fischer studied at ZU, and within the CEMS programme at the University of Sydney, the London School of Economics and Political Science, and the Indian Institute of Management. His main research interests are leadership, network governance, and transcultural management as a response to the institutional environment. In addition, he focuses on CSR and shared value as a strategic tool. dominik.fischer@zu.de Jessica Geraldo Schwengber – Research Assistant and PhD student at the Chair of Institutional Economics : Jessica Geraldo Schwengber graduated in Economics and Management from the University of Rome Tor Vergata. Her research focuses on transcultural competences in organisations and on the corresponding organisational learning processes. jessica.schwengber@zu.de

Isabel Jandeisek – Research Assistant and PhD student at the Chair of Institutional Economics : Isabel Jandeisek studied Political and Economic Sciences at ZU, the University of Bielefeld, and St Petersburg University. Dur- ing the German G20 presidency in 2017, she took part in the working group “Sustainability in GVCs” within the Think20 process. Her research focuses on corporate responsibility in global value chains. Since 2020, she is an advisor at the Ministry of Science, Research and Art Baden-Württemberg. isabel.jandeisek@zu.de Christopher Köhler – is Deputy Head of the Lake Constance Innovation Cluster, PhD candidate and Research Fellow at the Centre for Digital Transformation at the University of Agder ( Norway ). He studied at the Universities of Mannheim, Constance and Bern and has a Masters in Politics and Public Administration, majoring in quantitative methods. After graduating in 2016, he worked as a data scientist in the field of process mining. Since 2017, he has led several research projects in digitalisation and innovation. christopher.koehler@zu.de

Jean Müßgens – Research Assistant at the Chair of Institutional Economics : Jean Müßgens studied Business Economics and Ethics and Organisation at the University Witten / Herdecke. With his current research he focuses on new and unprecedented phenomena in the digital economy. He examines the complexity of new information and communication technologies and their implication in formation of economic theory. Further he deals with current issues of innovation in global value chains and local clusters. At LEIZ, he is doing research on Relational Economics. jean.muessgens@zu.de Diana Stimmler – Research Assistant and PhD student at the Chair of Economic Psychology and Leadership Ethics : Diana Stimmler studied Sociology, Politics and Economics at ZU and at Hallym University in South Korea. She went on to graduate with an MSc in Psychology of Economic Life from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2017 before returning to LEIZ. Her research primarily focuses on corporate ethical culture and behavioural business ethics. diana.stimmler@zu.de

PEOPLE

Lukas Törner – Innovation Manager at Lake Constance Innovation Cluster BIC for the topic digital sustainability management ement and PhD student at the Chair of Institutional Econocmics : Lukas Törner studied at ZU, the Institute of Social Ecology Vienna, and Leuphana University Lüneburg. Since graduating in Environmental Sciences, he has researched on ERP systems to manage and report sustainability. He holds a scholarship from German Federal Environmental Foundation | DBU. lukas.toerner@zu.de Sabine Wiesmüller – Head of the Lake Constance Innovation Cluster and PhD candidate at the Wittenberg Center for Global Ethics and the Chair of Institutional Economics : Sabine Wiesmüller studied International Management at Passau University, Universidad de Granada, Spain and Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico. In her Master’s degree, she focused on compliance management and business ethics and went on to pursue her PhD in the same field. In her work and research, she primarily focuses on the implications of new technologies for corporate responsibility and society. sabine.wiesmueller@zu.de

Nicole Witt – Research Assistant and PhD student at the Chair of Economic Psychology and Leadership Ethics : Nicole Witt received her degree in psychology with a minor in in mathematics from Heinrich-Heine University in Düsseldorf in 2010 and worked as a market-research consultant after graduation. Her research focuses on moral behaviour at work, especially on the development of instruments measuring moral courage and moral resoluteness. nicole.witt@zu.de

Administration Andrea Früh – Personal Assistant to Prof Carmen Tanner, Chair of Econom- ic Psychology and Leadership Ethics. After working in event marketing for several years, Andrea Früh – a graduate in sports science and business administration – joined ZU in 2011. After a series of posts in various departments, she began working at LEIZ in 2015. andrea.frueh@zu.de Silke Rinkenburger – Personal Assistant to Prof Josef Wieland, Chair of Institutional Economics. After working in the banking sector for twelve years & taking six years out to raise a family, Silke Rinkenburger, a qualified bank clerk, has worked at Zeppelin University in various capacities since 2011. She has held her post at LEIZ since 2015. silke.rinkenburger@zu.de

Picture credits

Page reference

Archive number

Date of recording

Cover / C1

2568-200628 28 June 2020

Queries from a critical observer

How much is enough ?

Page 1 2917-200628 28 June 2020

Do I get a discount if in addition to the Budda statue I buy some of the Carrara marble ?

Page 8

Has postcolonialism now arrived in the Third World store ?

2626-200628 28 June 2020

Page 13 2667-200628 28 June 2020

Has the walking distance between Chinatown and the church square really become shorter in recent decades ?

Page 20

Dancing or drinking black tea ?

3149-200708 8 July 2020

Page 29 2894-200628 28 June 2020

Who wouldn’t want to spend the longest time of his life working here with dedication to ensure the prosperity of the company heirs ?

Cover / C3 r2586-200628 28 June 2020

Will we transfer the visual remnants of the dishwasher narrative into a new narrative ?

Imprint

Colophon (digital issue)

Zeppelin Universität gemeinnützige GmbH

Publishing Date :

Am Seemooser Horn 20, 88045 Friedrichshafen · Germany

Size & Resolution : 150 x 150 mm ( s ingle page ) with 144 dots per inch

Spring 2021

Editor in Chief : Dr Lennart Brand · Editor : Evelyn Countess Pachta

Colors :

#faf2da ( p aper ) · #000000 ( i nk )

Artistic Intervention : Christof Salzmann

Typefaces :

Univers Next by Adrian Frutiger & Akira Kobayashi,

Art Direction : Philipp N. Hertel · Finedrawing : Petra Mohr

Questa by Jos Buivenga & Martin Majoor

The articles published in the Leadership Log reflect the opinion of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the editors of the Leadership Log or of the Leadership Excellence Institute Zeppelin or of Zeppelin University.

Every good craftsman conducts a dialogue between concrete practices and thinking; this dialogue evolves into sustaining habits, and these habits establish a rhythm between problem solving and problem finding.

Sennett, Richard ( 2 008 ) : The Craftsman. New Haven / L ondon : Yale University Press P. 23