UE Organizational Identity. From the Motto Veritate Concordia to Neo-bureaucratic Management

• Autorzy: Justyna Dziedzic
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Objective: The concept of organizational identity appears mainly in the context of a symbolic-interpretive view of an organization's functioning in its many dimensions. This article aims to analyze to what extent previous knowledge about the existence of an EU organizational identity is a distinct category in the context of neo-bureaucratic management. It seems particularly interesting to draw attention to the identity context in organizations operating under intercultural management conditions. Their character and disposition may be more complex than in the case of homogeneous organizations. For this reason, the European Union is asking itself questions about its identity in the context of cultural unification and policy issues, and management solutions related to the institution's functioning at many levels. Therefore, it seems interesting to draw attention to these issues in light of the different contexts of influence. One is the neo-bureaucratic view of the EU institutions' governance dimensions, which should be regarded as complex organizational identities. They are subject to the modern influence of management visions and benefit from intercultural management processes' achievements. The EU's supranational structure, influenced by bureaucratic organizational arrangements, speaking the language of diplomacy, and setting policy for the Member States, constitute a unique organizational identity globally, which is worth verifying through the prism of neo-bureaucratic influences and cultural conditions of European identity.
Methodology: The article is based on a critical analysis of literature dealing with the sense of European Union organizational identity. Provided a theoretical background on orgzniataional identity in neo-bureaucratic management on a European level.
Findings: In its institutional dimension, the European Union faces the dilemma regarding its own identity due to diplomatic disputes over cultivating indigenous cultures and diversity. It is, therefore, a rare phenomenon on the world stage of supranational institutions. Its procedural nature and purpose are also important to harmonize the Member States' various policies. It is already possible to outline its unique organizational identity. However, it cannot be transferred to territorial and social land, as Europe cannot be a hybrid of cultures or unify its perspective in the face of historical pasts and ethnic representations.
Value Added: Critical discourse on the theory of bureaucratic management and organizational identity. Presentation of the role of European Union identity in management process and giving the organization common values that solidify its form.
Recommendations: Neo-bureaucratic management is an interesting phenomena to explore in cross-cultural discourses. There are several directions for analysis: forms of modern bureaucracy based on practices drawn from the experience of corporations; abuse of the power of supranational organisations; network management in international organizations. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Identity; Bureaucracy

PL

Tożsamość; Biurokracja

• Czasopismo: Journal of Intercultural Management
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: 14
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 84--103

Twórcy

autor

Justyna Dziedzic

• University of Social Sciences, Lodz, Poland

Bibliografia

• Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (2004). Organizational Identity. In M. J. Hatch, M. Schultz, Organizational Identity. Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Andrusiak, T. (2014). Tendencje rozwojowe myśli politycznej i prawnej w społeczeństwie posttotalitarnym. Na przykładzie doświadczeń ukraińskich. In M. Maciejewski, M. Marszał, M. Sadowski, T. Kruszewski, Tendencje rozwojowe myśli politycznej i prawnej. Wrocław: Wyd. Wydział Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
• Bozzini, E., & Bee, C. (2010). Mapping the European Public Sphere. Farnham: Routledge.
• Carbone, M., & Lister, M. (2006). New Pathways in International Development. Gender and Civil Society in EU Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Ćwiklicki, M. (2015). Towards neo-bureaucracy: bureaucracy in contemporary public management concepts. In R. Wiszniowski & K. Glinka (Eds.), New Public Governance in the Visegrád Group (V4) (pp. 15-26). Toruń: Wyd. Adam Marszałek.
• Dziedzic, J. (2020). Kultura organizacyjna a unijny sektor audiowizualny. Międzykulturowe aspekty zarządzania w instytucjach Unii Europejskiej. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Społecznej Akademii Nauk.
• Farrell, C., & Morris, J. (2003). The Neo-Bureaucratic State: Professionals, Managers and Professional Managers in Schools, General Practices and Social Work. Organization, 10(1), 129-156.
• Frydrych, M. (2003). IGC to carry on Christianity debate, euobserver. Brussels, 13.06.2003. Retrieved from euobserver.com. Access: 20.09.2022.
• Habermas, J. (2022). Reflections and Hypotheses on a Futher Structural Transformation of the Political Public Sphere. Theory, Culture and Society, 39(4), 145-171.
• Jakubowicz, K. (2010). Unia Europejska a media. Między kulturą a gospodarką. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Naukowe i Profesjonalne.
• Jayeon, L., & Scaramuzzino, R. (2020). Can EU Civil Society Elites Burst the Brussels Bubble? Civil Society Leaders' Career Trajectories. Politics and Governance, 8(3), 86-96.
• Lembrych-Furtak, R. (2015). Strategiczne aspekty zarządzania marką. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, Sectio H. Oeconomia, XLIX(1), 63-70.
• Liebert, U., & Gattig, A. (2013). Democratising the EU from Below? Abingdon: Routledge.
• Marinković, D., & Ristić, D. (2018). Regional Heterotopia of Central Europe: 'Lost' Identity in the Process of Deterritorialisation of Europe. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21(1), 146-171.
• Młodzik, E. (2015). Założenia koncepcji New Public Management. Współczesne Problemy Ekonomiczne, 11, 185-193.
• Możdżeń, M. (2016). Public Policy in the Neo-Weberian State [Cykl polityk publicznych w państwie neoweberowskim. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 3(37), 62-79.
• Orzeszyna, K. (2009). Społeczeństwo obywatelskie w Unii Europejskiej, Teka Komisji Prawniczej, t. II (pp. 94-108). Lublin: Polska Akademia Nauk w Lublinie.
• Pellerin-Carlin, T. (2014). EU 10 Years After Its Biggest Enlargement: Europe's Identity Crisis Looking in the Black Box of European Cultural and Political Identities. The Poznan University of Economics Review, 14(3), 73-84.
• Sturdy, A., Wylie, N., & Wright, C. (2016). Managers as Consultants: The Hybridity and Tensions of Neo-bureaucratic Management. Organization, 23(2), 184-205.
• Sułkowski, Ł., & Dziedzic, J. (2020). Scientist organizational Identity - the Diversity of Perspectives. Journal of Intercultural Management, 12(4), pp. 29-48.
• Sułkowski, Ł. (2013). Kultura jakości w zarządzaniu, czyli pomiędzy tożsamością a kulturą organizacyjną. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, XIV(8), II, 25-37.
• Tischner, J. (2014). Idąc przez puste Błonia. Kraków: Znak.
• Wójcicka, M. (2019). Tożsamość europejska w polskim dyskursie medialnym (2015-2018). Rekonesans. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Linguistica, 53, 33-46.
• Quittkat, Ch., & Kohler-Koch, B. (2013). De-Mystification of Participatory Democracy: EU Governance and Civil Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• European Commission (2001). European Governance. A White Paper. COM(2001) 428 final. Brussels: European Union.
• Dyrektywa 2005/36/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 7 września 2005 r. w sprawie uznawania kwalifikacji zawodowych (Dz.U. L 255 z 30.9.2005), pp. 22-142.
• Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "The role and contribution of civil society organisations in the building of Europe", OJEC, C329 17.11.1999.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/joim-2022-0008