This is a CTP of initiative: Living Knowledge ‐ The Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG ‐ Hungary)
Date: 2010
This CTP relates to an internal development in ESSRG that had a change in management. The interviewee became the manager after a time with some problems:
There was another change I would say, but it is a little bit personal, when I took over the executive role there was a change. I already from the very beginning had ambitions (about what ESSRG could achieve). The internal organization has a very flat democratic holacratic, name it as you want, but you know in a sense there should be someone who is legally responsible. And in this game… after why me, because probably I had the most to lose on this, and I wanted to influence this situation to go into a successful direction, I don’t know, but it happened I think legally I took over 6 years ago. So not long after we started actually. And maybe you heard about that, during the PARERES project I took over from a member of ESSRG. She basically left the team at that time, but at the very beginning she was the executive for the company.
So, although they have a very flat organization where people lead themselves, they still need someone to take legal responsibility. The interviewee ends up taking this role, maybe because he has the most to lose from the situation. The interviewee goes on to explain in a bit more detail what the problem was:
it emerges as a management problem, we kind of couldn’t achieve what we really wanted, for issues that wasn’t solved. And then we tried an arrangement where we tried to help her (the manager) out in many ways, and it was only partly successful. And then there was also a next step when GP became co-executive, but they two couldn’t distribute the task in a proper way, so again it was not possible. And, you know, there are stupid issues like you have to reach a deadline, when you have to sign or co-sign a piece of document and so on. First of all, it is boring, it is a sacrifice you do instead of doing your research, and so on. Personally I didn’t find it too frustrating. Therefor it was not too far from my personality, probably. I think I could fully transform the organization to work in a way that it also helps the teaching tasks, and also the work on this science policy interphase, is but also working in a multi-disciplinary context very often integrating nature and social scientists in a proper setting, and also working on the science society domain with science cafés, science shops, and so on. So, I kind of had enjoyed very much this vision, and it was compared to this all this, let’s say managements task that I have to kind of partly delegate, partly do myself, not at big sacrifice.
The interviewee here explains that there was a management problem, issues that went unsolved and thus prevented them from achieving what the wanted. This was due to a range of reasons. The interviewee alleges that the previous manager maybe did not have the right personality for the job. All the administrative work is tedious, and takes time away from what they really want to do in the group, namely research. However, it is things that just need to be done, like signing a contract. The group tried different solution, with GP acting as co-executive manager, but they did not find a good enough way to divide the tasks, so it never ran very well. In the end the interviewee took over as executive manager.
This CTP describes an internal development in ESSRG, and do not really related to any outside actors or developments in the context, at least not as described by the interviewee. However, the interviewee does describe that one of the issues with the previous manager, was failure to do tasks like signing contracts, which relates to handling the external relations of ESSRG.
When asked explicitly what this led to of related developments, the interviewee explains that it has led to a professionalization of ESSRG:
I think it has changed a lot, because partly we managed to become, I think, very successful, and everything is clear, so the synergies are better defined and I think that is important for what we are doing and why we are doing it. It all relates to research, you know, why we do it, what we want, how do we want to do it, why we are in, why we are out. So somehow it started to professionalize, I mean if you look at now just from the resourcing side, we are mostly finances by European projects, but we always have other smaller or bigger projects on the national level and also from other international context, Swiss, Norwegian, and other non EU founding beyond the national level. What you see is that we are very successful in the EU programs, so what started on a “let’s try basis” with the PERARES project … EU projects like transit, we are involved in transit PERARES has already ended, we have three new horizons 2020 projects. We are partners, so we are a small team, we wouldn’t want to coordinate, so where we can meaningful contribute to this, and share experiences, and bring in the Hungarian case that’s reasonable, and point that success out. So I think we found our place, and if you look at how we are, we are partners, so we are small, we are a small team, we wouldn’t want to coordinate but we can meaningfully contribute to this and share experiences in the Hungarian case. So I think we found our place, and if you look at who are the winners of EU research and development funding then in the top, let’s say fifty, you find mostly university and only a few non university and one of them is us. And we gain, let’s say, at least 4-5 percent of the funding that is coming to Hungary in research and development. So not that big, but its already significant especially as an independent organization, so not being part of any established university tracing back to the middle ages.
So this professionalization came from better management, more synergies between research, teaching, and their ambitions. This has led to greater success in applications from funding, a large part from the EU, but also from other actors like the Norway fund. These projects, like PERARES and TRANSIT, are specific events at least partly related to this management change, according to the interviewee.
This CTP is in one way or another tightly tied to contestation:
There was definitely some contestation. Actually it was like, there was a lot of executive things to manage, and nobody kind of wanted to take the legal responsibility for that, and after a while I said I feel that there is a point where we can be successful, but I don’t see the potential to take over this role in my colleagues, so why don’t I take it over, and because I had also this vision that I you know I don’t want to be kind of a boss, I just want to work together the same way, so probably the best can happen. I take it over, if she doesn’t want to do the job, and she didn’t want to do it, she completely wanted to move out of the research and everything, she had kind of enough I think. Also there was kind of a problem within the PARERES project, a personal conflict with one of the partners, and I think she aged 10 years in that personal conflict. So, I had to take over everything, the project and also the company. And I was, I think… I think it was a good decision, finally, for the team. And because personally I think, I easily delegate things. and I very much trust my team. and I don’t feel distressed about, you know, situations.
There was not actually any contestation between the interviewee and the previous manager. The contestations involved said manager and a project partner in PERARES. This led to what we might call a burn-out. The manager did not want to continue in the role of manager, or even to stay in the area of research. The solution to the problem, that the interviewee takes over as manager, do not seem to be contested.
When asked directly if the change was expected, the interviewee indirectly say that it was not anticipated, although it was a gradual development:
Jens: did you expect that there would be some kind of change? Was she expected to step down or leave?
BB: it emerges as a management problem, we kind of couldn’t achieve what we really wanted, for issues that wasn’t solved. And then we tried an arrangement for where we tried to help her (the manager) out in many ways, and it was only partly successful. And then and then there also a next step when GP became co-executive, but they two couldn’t distribute the task in a proper way, so again it was not possible
So it was a gradually emerging management problem. The change also happened quite soon after ESSRG were established, so it was not anticipated. They also tried various solutions, with were only partly successful, which in the end lead to the change in management.
The interviewee does not explicitly explain what he learned from this CTP. The impact has been a professionalization of ESSRG, as explained under related events, and an increase in funding from EU projects and other international sources. Another impact is also increased recognition internally in Hungary.
It can also be inferred that even in flat organisations where people lead themselves, it is necessary to have an executive manager that takes the legal responsibility, and handles external relations and activities like signing contracts.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
