Lubna Alli

Approaching three weeks both in the classroom and in field studies throughout Central Europe, there sticks out a central theme of the lectures and field trips thus far: organizations and the ways in which they use strategy to succeed.

With particular note, this week’s shift has been more so on intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations (UN), its specialized agency the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), rather than last week’s private sector, profit-driven organizations, the Bata Shoe Company and Red Hat Inc. This is particularly noteworthy because it provides an excellent point of comparison between a profit-driven versus non-profit-driven approach to organizational structure, organizational goals and marketing strategy.

---

UNIDO: results without the numbers

The UN, which is founded on the core principles of global impact, boasts the key drivers of results-based management, knowledge management, and risk management. Results-based management provides the closest outlook towards a goal that is monetary. Yet when reading this section on the UNIDO website, there is no specific information provided with regards to budgeting, nor a financial or economic plan. Instead, it states, “The PPM module systematically ensures the definition of outcomes and outputs for each project including indicators on how these are being achieved.”

Like many organizations that promote transparency with their stakeholders, there is a fine line of diplomacy involved in what information they choose to share. At the UNIDO presentation on Thursday, the speaker offered more factual information about the organization, going on to provide examples such as Hiba from Bahrain, who was provided with a sum of money to kick-start what would end up being an immensely successful business. This contributed to Bahrain’s economy and supported the empowerment of women in the technology and entrepreneurial spheres. As impressive as this is, there were little to no challenges, obstacles or difficulties highlighted from an organizational standpoint. Rather, there was a subtle undertone of the glamorous, Eurocentric we-save-the-world rhetoric that is all too common in international development.

---

OPEC: the mediator narrative

The same diplomatic transparency was found (to a lesser extent) in the presentation by OPEC’s Hind Zaher, who was representing the Public Relations and Information department. She kept an engaging pace and tone, while providing very important and useful information about OPEC’s history, objectives and challenges along the way. When it came to the question and answer segment of the presentation, tough questions about oil prices and market competition were posed. As much as Zaher was frank during the presentation, it is important to note that OPEC has been portrayed in the media as the so-called bad guy.

Its member states coordinate production in ways that move oil prices, and as such, OPEC has received tremendous backlash for the high oil prices today. Oil prices affect our economic and political wellbeing, as they influence the value of our dollar, our purchasing power and therefore our quality of life. This is a heavy burden to bear for the Secretary General and all other policy makers and member states contributing to the discussion. According to Forbes, Trump says that OPEC is keeping oil prices “artificially high.” This was acknowledged during the presentation, but only briefly. Albeit mentioning that there was a target range in which the market price should fall, Zaher continued to push the idea that OPEC has nothing to do with setting the price of oil. They were simply to be seen as the mediator or middleman.

Like any good scholar should, critiquing information that is provided to you at face value is key to thorough understanding. As was discussed in lecture, diversity is important for the sole reason that it accounts for all markets and persons affected. There is the fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant, which speaks to the need for interdisciplinary understanding in order to see the bigger picture, rather than a small, limited view of the whole. Likewise, of OPEC’s 14 member states at the time, half were Arab states, the rest were in Africa, Latin America and Iran, and none were European. What this means for the market is that OPEC’s decisions reflect the interests of oil-producing economies, which can differ sharply from those of the major oil-consuming economies of North America and Europe. That context matters when an organization describes itself as a neutral mediator.

---

Bratislava: transparency beyond institutions

Also particularly noteworthy were the churches and castles of Bratislava, Slovakia, where a few classmates and I made an impromptu trip by boat from Vienna, Austria. As is highlighted in the pictures and explained in Libor’s lecture, Slovakia’s political history still has an immense impact on the country’s economic wellbeing. Throughout the city is graffiti referencing the country’s communist past, a period that, as Libor described, restricted financial independence and religious life and left wages disconnected from the quality or value of people’s work. The people of Slovakia were exceptionally kind and caring. A shopkeeper gave me my postcards for free, and a waitress took the time to recommend food for the entire table and saved our forgotten items for us until we returned to the restaurant the next morning. In the churches and castles, the same diplomatic transparency around funding and donations is not a new concept either, and misuse of funds has long been a cause of political and economic instability.

When speaking to a Slovak, I learned of concerns about the misuse of funds amongst political parties in Slovakia’s current political climate, where the conservatives and liberals are still at loggerheads. Be it in the profit or not-for-profit world, 100% transparency is not always guaranteed, in order to protect an organization’s true agenda, be it malicious or not. Diplomacy tends to take precedence over transparency, and this usually comes at the cost of uninformed and disempowered citizens who do not have the means to make a difference. We must always look at organizations through a critical lens to ensure that they are honouring their word and working in our best interest.

Diplomacy tends to take precedence over transparency, and this usually comes at the cost of uninformed and disempowered citizens who do not have the means to make a difference.