IZZIVI IHODNO I Challenges of the Future ISSN 2463-9281. Izdajatelj / Publisher: Fakulteta za organizacijske študije v Novem mestu / Faculty of organization studies. Glavni in odgovorni urednik / Editor in chief: Uroš Pinterič. Uredniški odbor / Editorial board: • Boris Bukovec, Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo mesto, Slovenia. • Alois Paulin, Technical University Vienna, Austria. • Juraj Marušiak, Slovak Academy of Science, Slovakia. • Anisoara Popa, Danubius University, Romania. • Raluca Viman-Miller, University of North Georgia, Georgia, USA. • Anna Kolomycew, Rseszow University, Poland. • Jurgita Mikolaityte, Siauliai University, Lithuania. • Patricia Kaplanova, Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo mesto, Slovenia. • Laura Davidel, Univeristy of Lorraine, France. • Ana Železnik, Ljubljana University, Slovenia. • Marko Vulic, Information Technology School - ITS ComTrade, Serbia. • Vita Jukneviciene, Siauliai University, Lithuania. • Mitja Durnik, Ljubljana University, Slovenia. Naslov uredništva / Editorial address: Fakulteta za organizacijske študije v Novem mestu, Ulica talcev 3, 8000 Novo mesto, Slovenija. © Copyright Fakulteta za organizacijske študije v Novem mestu. Faculty of Organisation Studies. Vse pravice zadržane. All rights reserved. Revija Izzivi prihodnosti je prosto dostopna pod pogoji Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence. Članki so brezplačno dostopni. Journal Challenges of the Future is an open access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License. No article submission or article processing fees are charged. Kazalo / Contents Jurgita Mikolaitytè, Vita Juknevicienè Contextualization of Collaborative Value Creation in Cross-Sector Partnership: the Lithuanian Case 70 v Ivana Hrvatin, Darija Šcepanovic Female Genital Mutilation - Recent Literature Review 90 Tanja Balažic Peček Samo-/so-spoštovanje in samo-/so-upravljanje, kot preplet spoznavnega procesa v avtopoietski organizaciji 103 Contextualization of Collaborative Value Creation in Cross-Sector Partnership: the Lithuanian Case Jurgita Mikolaitytè Siauliai University, P. Visinskio str. 38, 76285, Siauliai, Lithuania mikolaitytejurgita@gmail.com Vita Juknevicienè Siauliai University, P. Visinskio str. 38, 76285, Siauliai, Lithuania v.jukneviciene@gmail.com Abstract: Purpose and Originality: The purpose of this research was to identify main contextual (macro and meso) factors influencing cross-sector partnerships creating the collaborative value and to give some empirical evidences from Lithuania as young developed country. The originality of this research is achieved by revealing cross-sector partnership contextual elements and their impact on cross-sector partnership management and collaborative value creation. Method: The purpose of the research was achieved using the interpretivist approach to analyse and explain contextual elements of cross-sector partnership. The data was collected by applying the exploratory qualitative research. The main method was the semi-structural interviews with representatives from business organizations and NGOs, and brokers/intermediaries of NGO and business partnerships). The method of qualitative content analysis was used for the analysis of research data. Results: Results of this research argues that collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership is affected by partnership context, which is described by macro and meso stimulating and restraining factors. Analysing the case of Lithuania, it was found, that stimulating macro level factors are connected to the growth of society awareness, a favourable attitude towards international investors, while meso level factors were formed by the transformation of business organization behaviour, the increasing competition and the increasing role of social responsibility in the business. Restraining macro level factors were linked to NGO regulation problems, limited financial resources, the lack of civil society maturity and government institution support, while meso level factors were described as the lack of institutional memory and no appropriate strategic approach towards partnerships. Society: The research results suppose presumptions of the change in the knowledge of the management of cross-sector partnership, by giving new and fresh understanding about the influence of macro and meso level factors on the collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership. Limitations / further research: The content of collaborative value creation allows to state that the multidimensional nature of collaborative value creation concept creates many challenges to the researchers in their attempts to develop a holistic portrait of the complex phenomenon and to identify the major value attributes and dimensions. Therefore, future researches could focus on the determination of the impact of the contextual factors on cross-sector partnership development. A comparative analysis of the countries with the same economic and social development level is recommended. Keywords: collaborative value, cross-sector partnership, macro level factors, meso level factors, collaboration, NGOs, business organizations. * Korespondenčni avtor / Correspondence author Prejeto: 14. maj 2018; revidirano: 24. maj 2018; sprejeto: 30. maj 2018. / Received: May 14, 2018; revised: May 24, 2018; accepted: May 30, 2018. 1 Introduction Ongoing social changes, active globalization processes, capital, product and labour mobility, intensive flow of ideas and information, information dissemination via social networks, etc. motivate business, governmental and non-governmental organizations (referred to as NGOs1) to look for new interaction mechanisms. Cross-sector partnership is defined as a collaboration paradigm of XXI century, which is one of the most essential strategic techniques in world organizations. Over the last decade the number of cross-sector partnerships increased in both developed and developing economies (such as Lithuania) (Berger, Cunningham & Drumwright, 2006; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). Cross-sector partnerships are considered as mechanisms to combine skills and resources of organizations from different sectors for finding improved and innovative solutions to social, economic, technological and other problems (Gray & Stites, 2013; Branzei & Le Ber, 2014). The growth of corporate social responsibility in private sector motivates business organizations to work with NGOs to acquire positive reputation taking the responsibility for social problems (Seitanidi, 2008, p. 51). NGO and business organizations own different resources and skills, therefore, having common goals in cross-sector partnership they may receive advantages and generate collaborative value (Teegen, Doh & Vachani, 2004; Porter & Kramer, 2011). Collaborative value creation is the process of collaborators' interaction when the transitory and multidimensional benefits relative to the costs are generated and accrued to organizations, individuals and the society (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a, 2012b). This research applies the above definition. Thus, cross-sector partnership can generate value to different actors (partners, partnerships, direct beneficiaries and the other stakeholders) and incorporate various levels of analysis, i.e. individual, organizational, partnership, beneficiary and society levels. Generated value is reflected in the variety of collaborators and dimensions, which proves that partnership incorporates different collaborative value concepts. In prior studies usually cross-sector partnership research is associated with inter-organizational relationship area, in which the main interest is to explain collaboration motives and ongoing dynamics of the relationship using the resource dependence, social exchange, legitimation, efficiency and strategic management theories. It explores the factors that influence the interaction of cross-sector partnerships (Huxham, Vangen, Huxham & Eden, 2000; Austin, 2000; Googins & Rochlin, 2000; Bryson, Crosby & Stone, 2006; Rondinelli & London, 2003). Group of researchers (Bryson, Crosby & Stone, 2006; Kolk, Van Tulder & Kostwinder, 2008; Seitanidi, 2010, etc.) identified cross-sector partnerships' barriers. But those studies were not oriented to particular partnerships of business organizations and NGOs, creating the collaborative value. King (2007), Le Ber & Branzei (2010), Plowman et al. (2007) explored cross-sector partnerships in a collaborative value creation process, but focused more on the analysis of the process rather than the context. Prior research finds that 1 NGOs include associations, charity and donation funds, public institutions (except for state and municipality) and other non-profit organizations. the outcomes of cross-sector partnerships are often shown from one partner's perspective, focusing mostly on business organizations and rarely from all partners' perspective simultaneously (Selsky & Parker, 2005). Therefore, the contextualization of NGO and business organizations partnership, which ensures collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership, is a largely unexplored research area. Furthermore, there is very little research in Lithuania that would conceptualize NGO and business partnership management dimensions and collaborative value creation. It focuses more on the interaction of NGO and municipalities (Silinskyte, 2015; Raisiene, 2010; Guogis, Gudelis & Stasiukynas, 2007; Kuncikas, 2001; Wejcmanas, 2001); on the changes in cross-sector interaction in a public administration context (Raipa, 2014); on public and private sector partnership (Kavaliauskaite & Jucevicius, 2009; Sutaviciene, 2011; Duda, 2010). Keryte (2014) explored the context and conditions for social NGO initiation and NGO entrepreneurship. The researchers usually focus on organizational motives and main factors influencing the collaboration success. However, the nature and the context of collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership in Lithuania are not well-explored. Therefore, the research question was formulated: what factors stimulate and restrain collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership (a partnership context)? The aim of this paper is to present main contextual (macro and meso) factors influencing cross-sector partnerships creating the collaborative value by giving some empirical evidences from Lithuania. Following the interpretivist approach, the research analyses and reveals cross-sector partnership contextual elements confirming their impact on cross-sector partnership management and collaborative value creation. Knowledge about those factors can be useful for researchers working in the field of cross-sector partnerships and for managers of cross-sector partnerships dealing with challenges, especially in Lithuania. 2 Theoretical framework 2.1 The concept of cross-sector partnership Various scientific terms are used to describe different inter-organizational subjects or inter-organizational agreements. Very often the concept of "inter-organizational relationships" is considered as the umbeliferous one, including such organizational forms and structures as "partnerships", "alliances", "joint activities", "networks" (Huxman, 2003), "social partnerships" (Nelson & Zadek, 2000), „social alliances" (Berger, Cunningham & Drumwright, 2006), "strategic partnerships" (Austin, 2000), etc. Hibbert & Huxham (2010) state, that different terminology, used in the scientific literature of inter-organizational relationships theory and the practice, complicates possibilities of this theory adoption while transferring theoretical knowledge to practical results. This leads to the process of looking for more specific and appropriate scientific approach to explain the relations between business organizations and NGOs in the context of collaborative value creation. The partnership definition depends on the context of the analysis. In the context of value creation the partnership is considered as broad collaboration, when partners share and change information and resources seeking for common results, which could not be reached by working separately (Huxham & Vangen, 1996; Waddell & Brown, 1997). Boydell (2007, p. 5) identifies the collaboration as the participation process, when subjects (individuals, groups or organizations) are working together for particular results. So, both sides, included to the partnership, must rely on their common tasks and the trust in their partners to reach higher goals. Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos (2011) described cross-sector partnerships as voluntary collaboration of organizations, belonging to different sectors, oriented to solve commonly prioritized social problems. Moreover, cross-sector partnerships are described as cross-sector projects, created specifically to solve social problems and their causes (Selsky & Parker, 2005, p. 850). Such projects can be two types: transactional (short term, constrained and mainly oriented to organizational goals) or integrative (long term, based on common interest) (Googins & Rochlin, 2000). Therefore, cross-sector partnerships are analysed with the focus on objectives that exceed the boundaries of organizations. According to the types of the sector (public, private and non-profit) and number of sectors involved to the partnership, four types of cross-sector partnership can be identified (see in Fig. 1). J Public-Private Partnerships il+fi Tripartite Partnerships Figure 1. Types of cross-sector partnerships Source: adapted from Seitanidi & Crane, 2009, p. 414. According to Parker & Selsky (2004) public-private partnership satisfies the needs of infrastructure and public services with social implications, but does not focus on social problems' solving. Partnership of public and non-profit sectors aims to the strengthening of the public welfare. Partnership of business organization and non-profit organization (in this CROSS SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS Social Partnerships Public-NPO Partnerships l£££ Private-NPO Partnerships case - NGO) is one of social partnerships' types (Selsky & Parker, 2005; Seitanidi, 2008; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009), which is oriented to the solving of such social problems as health and education services accessibility, social and economic exclusion, integration to the labour market, etc. Tripartite partnerships focus on extensive projects such as the development of a community, provision on social services, solving of environmental and health problems, etc. Pittz & Intindola (2015, p. 1172) emphasize that despite of differences all types of cross-sector collaboration are considered as cross-sector partnerships. In this research the approach of private-NPO partnership is analysed, because it mainly reflects the process when organizations create the collaborative value for participants as well as for the society. 2.2 The concept of collaborative value created in cross-sector partnership Before starting the analysis of the collaborative value concept, authors emphasize that in this research the value is considered as a subjective, individually interpreted concept depending on the context and situation rather than objective, material unit having the monetary expression. The value created on the basis of inter-organizational collaboration is represented in different names: shared value (Porter & Kramer, 2011), blended value (London & Hart, 2010), collaborative value (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a, 2012b; Austin, 2000; Murphy, Arenas Vives & Batista-Foguet, 2015; Le Ber & Branzei, 2010, etc.). In this research collaborative value is defined as "the transitory and enduring multidimensional benefits relative to the costs that are generated due to the interaction of the collaborators and that accrue to organizations, individuals, and society" (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a, p. 728; 2012b, p. 945; Austin & Seitanidi, 2014, p. 4). Most researchers consider the value creation as the main motive for cross-sector partnerships. According to them, cross-sector partnerships exist for the creation of collaborative value: development of public value and creation of shared value. Creating the collaborative value must adopt the forms of resources' transfer, knowledge and basic competencies' exchange, which are considered as necessary for solving complex, large-scale problems requiring solutions (Sakarya, Bodur, Yildirim-Oktem, & Selekler-Goksen, 2012, p. 1712; Austin, 2010; Selsky & Parker, 2005). Therefore it requires the consolidation of several organizations capabilities. Some researchers (Selsky & Parker 2005; Austin, 2000) believe that the conceptualization of the collaborative value created in cross-sector partnership for beneficiaries is very difficult task. According to its mission and design the collaborative value created in cross-sector partnership is focused to the target beneficiaries (Austin, 2000). Voluntary agreements between business organizations and NGOs (including common creation, targeted exchange and sharing of products, services or technologies) and interventions (to activities of partners) are guarantors that no one can be separated from the obtainment of this value, especially specific segments of the society having unsatisfied needs (Yaziji & Doh, 2009). Therefore, beneficiaries of the collaborative value created in cross-sector partnership are considered as targeted group and typically it is recognized as marginal or vulnerable segment of the society (Lepak, Smith & Taylor, 2007; Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008). Austin, Leonard, Reficco & Wei-Skillern (2006, p. 264) defines the value having no economic effect for beneficiaries and the society as a "social value": it is improving the situation of the society in order to eliminate barriers that increase social exclusion, to provide assistance to people who can not adequately represent their needs and to reduce undesirable economic side-effects. Such a "social value" becomes the result of the strong collaboration and at the same time it is the driving force for future cooperation of partners. Regardless of the genesis of the collaboration, the partnership can only be the successful one for the long term if the mutually benefit exists for all participants in a cross-sector partnership. Collaborative value can gain different forms (see in Table 1). Table 1. Results of cross-sector partnerships according to subjects Subject Type of results Expected results from a cross-sector partnership Sources Business organization New results Possibilities for innovations Yaziji & Doh (2009) Product and process innovations Austin (2000) Better results Competitiveness Kramer (2011) NGO New results Possibilities for innovations Holmes & Moir (2007) Better results Possibilities for the improvement of a process Seitanidi (2010) Development of unique capacities and knowledge creation Porter & Kramer (2011) Society New results Innovations oriented to meet needs of beneficiaries Ishikawa & Morel (2008) Source: authors' conducted. Steijn, Klijn & Edelenbos (2011) has identified three types of value creation: (1) effectiveness - the reduction of expenses in the process of achieving results; (2) efficiency - the increase of desired results, (3) innovation - the creation of new results. The first two types are related to lower-cost benefits, while the third one reflects the innovative results of the partnership, which are particularly important in solving complex problems. The efficiency of collaborative value creation is difficult to study because partnerships are changing and developing constantly, there is still the lack of control groups, constant units and indicators of the measurement (Kolk, Dolen & Vock, 2010). Besides, the diversity of partnerships' types complicates the possibility to generalize results of a partnership due to the dependence on the partner and the partnership (Clarke & MacDonald, 2016, p. 3). Consequently, it is emphasized, that the collaborative value creation in a cross-sector partnership depends on various determinants, including contextual factors. 2.3 The context of collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership The analysis of the collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership follows the assumption that cross-sector partnerships are developed differently by separate partners because they are affected by different contextual factors. Therefore, the disclosure of such factors is a precondition for the formation of cross-sectoral partnerships. Raisiene (2010) emphasize the influence of external and internal organizational environment for the development of cross-sector partnerships. Accordingly, the context consists of internal and external elements. Contextual factors include a wide range of variables; the main ones are regional, national and local environments, economic, political, cultural and social conditions. All of these factors are complexly and dynamic interconnected and overlapping, affecting the emergence and the development of cross-sector partnerships. For the contextualization of collaborative value creation in a cross-sector partnership, macro factors (dependent on environments in which NGOs and business organizations operate) and meso factors (driven by organizational factors of NGOs and business organizations) which stimulate or restrain cross-sector partnerships must be used for the analysis. This approach is the essential one to avoid the critique given for prior researches when cross-sector partnerships were analysed as emerging in a vacuum without any attention for social processes' embeddedness and interactions in the institutional context (Vurro & Perrini, 2011). The analysis of the institutional context contributes to the explanation how cross-sector partnerships must be formed and implemented corresponding to the context and existing logic, social perceptions, expectations and preferences of the society. Presented approach of internal and external factors stimulating or restraining cross-sector partnerships for the creation of collaborative value was adapted for the empirical research, which was performed in the young developed country - Lithuania. 3 Method The research design is determined by the interpretivist paradigm, which is based on a subjective researcher's interpretation of the explored phenomena. The interpretivist approach corresponds to the research goals because a context, time and people interaction is the philosophical background of this research. Moreover, since people perceive different situations differently, both partner's experiences are revealed to identify the processes of cross-sector partnership in collaborative value creation. The interpretivist approach is used to analyse and explain contextual elements of cross-sector partnership recognizing their impact on collaborative value creation. Although the qualitative research is often criticized for "lack of science", qualitative methods often become the main tools used in social science research in generating scientific knowledge. Collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership is a multidimensional phenomenon and its analysis included various aspects (organizational, partnership and contextual dimension). The research design. To get a holistic view of collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership, which relates partners' and researcher's views, this research revealed the contexts through detailed descriptive data collected from the interviews and the researchers' field notes (Creswell, 2009). This research aimed to provide the insights on contextualization of collaborative value creation in NGO and business organization partnership using the qualitative method - semi-structural interviews to interview persons who are able to reasonably reflect their experiences. All research participants were distinguished into three groups: NGO, NGO and business organization partnerships, and business partnership intermediaries. The research sample (22 informants) consisted of: 9 representatives of business organizations (marked as IK-V), 9 NGO representatives (marked as IK-N) and 4 intermediaries of NGO and business partnership (marked as IK-T). The major requirements for informants and organizations were as follows: (1) Business organizations: (a) organizations having at least 1-year experience of partnership with NGO, (b) socially responsible business organizations with high reputation; (2) NGOs: (a) NGO in social area, (b) organizations having at least 1-year experience of partnership with business organizations; (3) NGO and business partnership intermediaries - individuals who consulted NGO and business organizations on partnership issues. The research instrument - semi-structural interview guidelines prepared in accordance to the contextual factors (macro and meso), which have an impact on cross-sector partnership development. Taking into consideration that participants of NGO and business organizations had different experiences in forming and implementing cross-sector partnerships the questions and themes predetermined. However, it was not tied up to the question order. Additional questions were asked considering the course of the dialogue and the experiences of NGO and business organization partnerships. The participants were sent e-mails with the research topic and goals. They were asked for the consent to participate in the interview. 20 direct interview meetings and 2 Skype interviews were conducted. Each interview took 49 minutes on average. Participants' consent was given to record the interview on a voice recorder. Direct interviews were arranged in acceptable environment for participants: café (1), park (1), home (1), office (19). All audio records were transcripted. A qualitative content analysis method, which is used for the social phenomena analysis, was employed. The qualitative content analysis kept the following order (Holloway & Todres, 2003): multiple reading and re-examination of the data, data coding, grouping the codes into categories, highlighting the structure of the received data determining the themes. 4 Results 4.1 Macro and meso factors stimulating cross-sector partnership and collaborative value creation in Lithuania Collaborative value creation in the cross-sector partnership can be possible just with the favorable and positive attitude of partners and some efforts. Consequently, informants were asked about factors which stimulate them and their organizations to choose the way of cross-sector partnerships (see in Table 2). Table 2. Stimulating external (macro level) and internal (meso level) factors Category Subcategory Illustrative statement Macro level factors Favorable attitude to international investor In Lithuania, this international investor is viewed quite favourably (IK-V1). Increase of public awareness In Lithuania, it is increasingly perceived that the public can do more, that together with NGOs, governmental and business organizations they can solve part of the social problems (IK-N2). Meso level factors emerging from NGOs Increasing organizational capacities of NGOs Ten years ago, as far as I worked, I see enormous progress in terms of strengthening NGOs <...> new progressive ones come (IK-T3); NGOs are strong enough, certainly there are leaders among those organizations, people leaders <...> they just need the help, provision of opportunities to implement those ambitions (IK-V3). Meso level factors emerging from business organizations Adoption of good practice The [Lithuanian capital] companies starts to see what the big international business organizations having CSR [corporate social responsibility] do for decades <...> take examples from grand actors and try to apply here in Lithuania (IK-N5); Many business organizations gain this foreign experience (IK-N8). Change of attitude toward volunteering It seems to me <...> that the attitude toward business volunteering has changed, for example, to the direct participation of people in NGOs, <...> and the contribution to NGO activities (IK-N3); Volunteering is becoming increasingly important for changing generation <... > the wish to contribute, to do something more is really vital among young people, and most of them do it even in their spare time (IK-V4). Increasing trust in NGOs Business organizations are showing increasing trust in NGOs. <...> Linking their image with NGO or saying that 'we are going together' seems to me unimaginable seven or ten years ago (IK-N3). Improved etiquette of communication with NGOs I can say that during these 7 years everything has changed greatly in business organizations: the culture in general, reaction to NGO, to the asking for the support. <...> Humanity, courtesy, business ethics has greatly increased (IK-N3). Increasing business awareness I'm really not that sceptic who says that here is not and that the business is irresponsible or responsible as much as it matters. Yes, it is, but it's normal. This is normal and I think that many become really conscious and they attempt much focused (IK-N7). Main stimulating macro factors, according to informants, are related to the increase of public awareness and favorable attitude towards the international investor. Modern business is responsible for solving social problems in a society, and therefore social business responsibility relies on how business organizations perceive and fulfil various obligations to the society, how business aspirations match with provisions acceptable to the public and to what extent the business contributes to the growth of the welfare. It is needed to take into the account the fact that corporate social responsibility is formed and defined by the public opinion. The society monitors whether business organizations fulfil obligations of social responsibility and do not tolerate its neglect. If the business does not respect the social responsibility, the society responds appropriately to it. Socially responsible business organizations adapting to social rules and expectations and seeking for social legitimacy, gain a competitive advantage both on the national and international markets, strengthening their reputation from the view of point of consumers, employees and the society. The initiatives of social responsibility of Lithuanian business organizations have been encouraged by international investors by transferring the good practice's principles. The NGO's positive attitude towards the international investor can be explained by the NGO's desire to increase the trust and reputation in the society, because relations with an international investor having a positive reputation increase the legitimacy of the NGO in a society. The increasing awareness of the Lithuanian society and its contribution to the solution of social problems are confirmed by results from interviews, and this shows the increasing public awareness. The analysis of statements on stimulating internal (meso) factors revealed that the growing organizational capacities of NGOs is taken as one of main motivating factors encouraging business organizations to engage in partnerships with NGOs. According to results of interviews, stimulating internal factors are connected to some changes in business organizations. Informants have explained that the content of the adoption of good practice is based on aspirations and efforts of Lithuanian capital business organizations to meet standards of foreign capital companies' activities. Informants associated the change of the attitude towards volunteering in business organizations with the changing generation of the society and the change of the concept of business volunteering in Lithuania. Other identified factors were linked to the transformation of the behaviour of business organizations due to the increasing competition and the implementation of social responsibility principles. 4.2 Macro and meso factors restraining cross-sector partnership and collaborative value creation in Lithuania Informants were asked about macro and meso factors, which restrain cross-sector partnerships and collaborative value creation (see in Table 3). Table 3. Restraining external (macro level) factors Category Subcategory Illustrative statement Macro level factors, restraining partnerships The lack of support from governmental institutions The state plays an insignificant role, although there are corporate tax exemptions for companies that sponsor materially or declare the support <...>, but for companies that have really high profits, this tax exemption is too insignificant. <...> I would like somehow for more promotion from local self-government (IK-N3); There are probably a lot of projects where we could get involved, but in most cases, these projects get harder without government assistance. <... > This is one of the main brakes for other companies to get involved because there are so many social things that we could change if we had the government or certain ministries' help (IK-V9). The lack of maturity of civil society Our context [of Lithuania] is the insecurity, distrust, indivisibility, very high confinement (IK-N3); In most post-soviet states, NGOs are a very new entity. <...> Civil society did not exist 20-30years ago. An NGO was created most often by an international donor when they came to the post-soviet states in 1990. <...> In Lithuania, it was an artificially created organization, an artificially created entity that did not come from civil society (IK-T2); Some kind of cultural codes where we simply can not communicate, listen, see a bit more widely. We do not have traditions of listening and solidarity. <...> Again, consequences of our history (IK-V8). Problems of NGOs' legal regulation There is the confusion about the NGO status in Lithuania. There are public organizations, funds of charity and donation, and associations. Associations can be business associations, there may be professional associations. <...>. Charity and donation funds — there are nine infinities of them, smaller ones - bigger ones; I took the money, gave them to socially disadvantaged families and that's all. Public organizations - <...> a derivative - the one that raises for everyone, at least for me, a lot of questions . These are non-profit organizations, but there are also a great number of business, consultants or any other public enterprises that can make a great contribution to NGOs, but they are not really such. <...> A really big question from the legal side - who is who (IK-T2). EU support as a restraining factor for partnerships between NGOs and business organizations One of those contextual factors is the European Union's money, which does not encourage cooperation with business. Somehow it spoils that market, I have a thought, but they will be over too (IK-T2); Sometimes the greed from the partnership, especially when it comes to European projects. <... > Someone has a project and wants to really absorb it so to keep as much money as possible for personal gain (IK-V6); There are many NGOs that actually do not do that. They are designed to absorb funds (IK-T2). Limited financial resources of NGOs Our operating model is much more complicated. <... > The state finances us only through projects. <... > Very specific items for financing are anticipated in projects, and you, as an organization, have your own goals, therefore resources needed to achieve organization's goals are not funded, you have to think by yourself how to finance them. <...> This is the biggest challenge for you to do good works and still to find resources to do it (IK-N1). The analysis of macro and meso factors restraining partnerships between NGOs and business organizations revealed some challenges: large bureaucracy in Lithuania, the "sticking of public labels", the lack of government support, the lack of maturity of civil society, immaturity of the market, problems of NGO legal regulation, the provision of EU support to NGOs and limited funding for NGOs activities. In different countries, NGOs (the voluntary sector) are developing in a variety of ways according to the established traditions, the peculiarities of the political, cultural, social and economic development of these societies. In Lithuania, because of political and historical reasons, the civil society is still rather weak and unviable. The growing attention to the formation of civil society and the "third sector" is marked very recently. The Law on the Development of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of the Republic of Lithuania was issued in 2013, and this shows the strengthening attention of the civil society to the formation of "the third sector". However, there are still many problems with the formation of a strong civil society in Lithuania. This is confirmed by informants' insights in the study. The distrust of the community is still the most contextual obstacle. According to informants, the limitations of NGOs' financial resources reduce their ability to ensure the continuity of activities. The main national funding sources for NGOs are thematic programs and funds co-coordinated by ministries or their subsidiary bodies. These programs mainly focus on small-scale and / or partial financing of existing projects and activities. Also, there is often a discriminatory treatment of NGOs in relation to wage billing, administrative costs, and the purchase of necessary measures. NGOs are forced to adapt to one-off actions and short-term results, and they are not encouraged to consistently pursue their goals by providing services or activities needed by the society, targeted groups or local communities. The Lithuanian NGO sector was funded by foreign donors, mainly through programs that funded individual projects. In the last few years, a significant amount of EU funds was provided for the implementation of various social initiatives. Although these funds have significantly contributed to the strengthening of the capacity of NGOs, however, informants categorized the EU funds as contextual factors that restrain the partnerships between NGOs and business organizations. Informants were asked about meso factors in NGOs and business organizations, which restrain cross-sector partnerships and collaborative value creation (see in Table 4). Tab e 4. Internal ( meso level) factors, restraining NGOs and business organizations Category Subcategory Illustrative statement NGOs ' perspective The lack of human resources The lack of a person mentoring partnerships with business What mostly restricts? <...> Here it relies on those resources, human resources. The lack of NGO human that would coordinate projects, cooperation with business, engagement in business. Volunteers have their own work, family and life, and if we need some kind of information urgently, they will be not online in the middle of the day (IK-V1). The lack of the strategic approach to partnerships Closeness in partnerships Sometimes we want to be involved in some strategic level, even in the tactical one, because we can help a lot. <...> We have 2,000 employees, so we can couch each NGO with issues of marketing, communication, law (IK-V8). Category Subcategory Illustrative statement The lack of managerial competencies Lack of publicity skills Contribution to an initiative gives the opportunity for this initiative, but it is also necessary to speak about, the initiative must be publicized (IK-V5). Many people do not know that such organizations are or what are they doing, what benefits they bring and to whom they want to help, they are not capable to represent themselves properly (IK-V8). tc « 1 Lack of time management skills NGOs may be somewhat accustomed to receive funding, and <...> and to appear at the very end of the project. <...> It is a little bit more complicated to be able to plan the time and comply with agreements with NGOs (IK-T2). i Lack of entrepreneurial skills Selling abilities <...> and homework, they can always be better done on the side of NGOs to explain why funds are needed, to clarify the purpose, and to sell the problem to a business in .some way (IK-N1). The NGO sector employs people who do not have two things in comparison to businesses - without entrepreneurial and time planning skills (IK-N4). Lack of project management skills If it is a small initiative, one person is quite well organized, but when a larger circle of people is involved, then the lack of project management skills appears. <...> The initiative starts to slip (IK-V8). Attitude towards NGOs Attitude towards NGO as a free activity It is very difficult to prove for Lithuanian companies that people's salaries should be supported in order for NGOs to work. Lithuanian companies are more likely to support new projects, children's activities, a "soft" part, not a "hard" one. <'....> It is forgotten that there are people who make that day-today work. <... > Not everyone agrees that 10% from the total amount would go for administrative services. <...> There is still the impression that I am a volunteer and all "back office " is volunteers (IK-N5). It is often imagined that an NGO is a volunteer group that does something from the air. NGOs do not show that value, they have to say that what they are doing is costing, that they work not because of 'holly spirit' and that they are a resource in a partnership. <...> It the business wants for an equal partner, it must understand the costs of a particular job (IK-T1). .1 « r s' s 55 Attitude towards NGO as a beneficiary Our partners still see the recipient of the support in us. <...> 'Enjoy what you get and have what you get'. But there is not [an idea] that we are here altogether dependent on each other and that's why we need to talk about common goals somehow (IK- N6). NGOs are often in the role of the applicant, a slightly weaker organization (IK-T2). From the point of view of the NGO sector, this negative attitude from the business is well felt, as to the sector of the lower level of development (IK-T3). 5S 's O ¡ •S s? s sq The lack of maturity for cross-sector partnership Lack of strategic approach to the partnership with NGO Understanding about sponsorship, that even financial sponsorship must be very clearly in line with the business vision, strategic long-term goal, with their values, activities, is poor. If you are engaged in the cement production, then you will not support the installation of flower beds. Very often there is such an attitude 'you asked so nicely, came so many times - ok, we will give the money' (IK-T3). There is the lack of such understanding of that social responsibility (IK-N8). The concept of social responsibility in Lithuania is still a new wave. <...> In the future, this should encourage the business to look at the field of NGOs in Lithuania, with whom they can go for the partnership (IK-T1). They probably still have not established social responsibility strategies (IK-V7). Lack of institutional memory The business organization redesigns, dismisses entire departments, totally new people come in,<...> practically they have to re-write the book (IK-N6). You patiently do your job, introducing again. <...> You exhale, inspire and do it again and again (IK-N7). Distrust in NGOs Business distrust in NGOs their resources, abilities, human resources skills, knowledge interferes (IK-T1). In Lithuania, the trust in NGOs is much lower than in many Western countries. <...> A rare business organization trusts, understands, knows the context of NGOs, knows what to trust, what not (IK-T2). The potential of collaborative value creation depends on organizational capabilities of each partner. However, the results of the research indicate that the organizational capacity of NGOs is not sufficiently developed. According to informants' opinion, the factors restraining cross-sector partnerships emerge as the lack of NGO's human resources, managerial competencies and a strategic approach to partnerships with a business organization. The lack of human resources and lack of resources, organizational capacities and capacities to raise funds remain key challenges for the NGO sector in Lithuania. Another important aspect emerging from results of the empirical research is the lack of NGO's managerial skills. Informants had some doubts about NGOs' capacities in project management, publicity and time planning activities. The lack of NGO's entrepreneurship competences interferes with finding business partners as well as with finding the common language. NGOs are used to apply to business organizations for the financial assistance only and rarely see a business as an operational partner. The question is if NGOs understand goals of business and can identify market opportunities, how business organization could benefit from the partnership. Besides, partnerships with business organizations require additional costs related to the partnership management from NGOs. Due to limited human resources NGOs do not have sufficient organizational capacity to coordinate such partnerships as well. Main meso factors restraining business organizations from partnerships with NGOs are related to the mindset of business organizations, determined by provisions to the NGO sector existing in the society, to the lack of institutional memory in the business organization, and to the lack of a strategic approach to partnerships with NGOs. When analyzing internal restraining factors arising from business organizations, informants noticed that formally there are no limits for cross-sector partnerships in Lithuania, i.e. the institutional context does not affect the operation of cross-sector partnerships, but the main reason for problems is no traditions for partnerships. Informants have emphasized that business organizations see the NGO activities as unpaid (free) work, the NGO - as a beneficiary, the sector - as a lower developed sector. Therefore NGOs often find themselves in the role of applicants for financial support. There is still a lack of understanding of NGO activities among business organizations, they do not trust in capacities of NGOs. The distrust in NGOs and their resources encourages business organizations to take over functions of NGOs and to address certain social problems by themselves. The lack of institutional memory of business organizations is based on a lack of social capital and the lack of communication between people. The business organizations' understanding about the sponsorship, that the financial support must coincide clearly with the vision of a business organization, a strategic long-term goal, values and activities of an organization, is still poor in Lithuania. Often, business organizations are restrained by the confusion of corporate social responsibility and the provision of support, without seeing direct benefits to the business. In this context, it is important to emphasize that the approach to the responsibility of a business organization needs to evolve in Lithuania. Partnerships with NGOs, as an instrument for social responsibility, should be seen as an integral part of a business organization's strategy rather than an additional business organization's activity associated with philanthropy. The good practice reveals that business organizations perceiving the importance of social responsibility for the business are much more ready and willing to create the collaborative value in cross-sector partnerships. 5 Discussion The analysis of the contextualization of collaborative value creation in a cross-sector partnership in Lithuania showed that macro and meso factors stimulate and restrain cross-sector partnerships in Lithuania (see in Fig. 2). Utilizing an institutional approach and research findings argue that both external (macro level) and internal (meso level) factors stimulate and restrain collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership. Macro A favourable attitude towards the international investor; increasing public awareness il « w N H 3 « O H U W t/5 (/5 in O « U tu O H X w H N O U Stimulating factors NGO level Meso Restraining factors Meso NGO openness; Increasing organizational capacity of NGOs Business organization level Macro good practice implementation; a change in the attitude towards volunteering in business organizations; increasing trust in the NGO; growing etiquette of communication with NGOs; raising business awareness Lack of government support; lack of maturity of civil society; NGO legal regulation issues; EU support as a limiting factor for partnerships between NGOs and business organizations; Limited financial resources of NGOs NGO level Lack of human resources; a lack of a strategic approach to partnerships with a business organization; lack of managerial competences Business organization level Attitude towards NGOs as unpayable job; lack of institutional memory; an approach to NGOs as beneficiaries; mistrust of NGOs; a lack of a strategic approach to partnerships with NGOs Figure 2. Visualization of the construct of cross-sector partnership: the map of categories and subcategories Source: authors' conducted. Macro factors, which restrain NGO and business organization partnerships, are linked to NGO regulation problems, limited financial resources, the lack of civil society maturity and government institution support. The research showed that unfavourable institutional environment has a direct impact on NGO's ability to be equal partner for business organization. The lack of stable financial resources and NGO legal regulation issues determine the lack of human resources and managerial competences in NGO. Insufficient NGO organizational capacities restrain collaborative value creation potential. Qualitative content analysis revealed that main internal (meso level) factors, which restrain NGO and business organizations, are linked to business organization mindset, determined by existent society attitude towards NGO sector; and linked to the lack of institutional memory in business organization and strategic attitude towards partnerships with NGO. All insights from the empirical research show that Lithuanian private-NGO sectors partnerships are still in the phase of the development. Therefore, it is needed to deal with various challenges by investing time, financial and human resources to change the old-fashion mindset of organizations and society and to make a progress in cross-sector partnerships. 6 Conclusion The analysis and the synthesis of the content and the concepts of cross-sector partnership and collaborative value creation revealed the complexity and multidimensionality of its contextual concepts. The cross-sector partnership as a developing process depends on the uncertainty driven by a context, the nature of the process, relationship with the partners and the outcomes. It is a multidimensional process, which develops depending on partnership characteristics. The concept of collaborative value creation could be broadly defined as transitory and enduring benefits, that are generated due to the interaction of the collaborators and that accrue to organizations (meso level), individuals (micro level), and society (macro level). Collaborative value creation takes different forms depending on partnership members' motives, the nature of transferred resources and the interaction level. Qualitative research findings argue that collaborative value creation in cross-sector partnership is affected by partnership context, which is described by the following factors: macro and meso stimulating and restraining factors; NGO and business organization characteristics, selection of an appropriate partner; formal and informal partnership governance mechanisms. The analysis of macro level factors shows that NGO and business organization partnerships are encouraged by the growth of society awareness and a favourable attitude towards to international investors. Meso level factors are determined by the transformation of business organization's behaviour due to the increasing competition and due to the implementation of social responsibility principles. Macro factors, which restrain NGO and business partnerships, are as follows: NGO legal regulation issues, limited financial resources, and the lack of civil society maturity and authority support. The research finds that an unfavourable institutional environment has a direct impact on NGO ability to be an equal partner for business organization. The lack of stable financial resources and NGO legal regulation issues resulted in the lack of human resources and management competences in NGO. Insufficient NGO organizational capacities restrain the potential for collaborative value creation. The qualitative content analysis identified that major (meso level) internal factors, which restrain NGO and business partnerships are linked to an organizational mindset, determined by existing society views on NGO sector, to the lack of the institutional memory and the strategic approach to partnerships with NGO. References 1. Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012a). Collaborative Value Creation A Review of Partnering Between Nonprofits and Businesses: Part I. Value Creation Spectrum and Collaboration Stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726-758. 2. Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012b). Collaborative Value Creation A Review of Partnering Between Nonprofits and Businesses. Part 2: Partnership Processes and Outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929-968. 3. Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M.M. (2014). Creating Value in Nonprofit-Business Collaborations. New Thinking and Practice. Josses-Bass: San Fransisco. 4. Austin, J. E., Leonard, H. B., Reficco, E., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: It's for Corporations Too. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change (pp. 169-180). Oxford, New York. 5. Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic Alliances between Nonprofits and Businesses. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69-97. 6. Austin, J. E. (2010). From Organization to Organization: On Creating Value. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (Supplement 1), 13-15. 7. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2006). Identity, Identification, and Relationship through Social Alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 128-137. 8. Boydell, L. (2007). Partnerships: A Literature Review. Dublin: Institute of Public Health in Ireland. 9. Branzei, O., & Le Ber, M. J. (2014). Theory-method Interfaces in Cross-sector Partnership Research. In M. M. Seitanidi & A. Crane (Eds.), Social Partnerships and Responsible Business (pp. 229-266). London, England: Routledge. 10. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66 (1), 44-55. 11. Clarke, A., & MacDonald, A. (2016). Outcomes to Partners in Multi-Stakeholder Cross-Sector Partnerships: A Resource-Based View. Business & Society, 1-35. 12. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108. 13. Duda, M. (2010). Teoriniai viesojo ir privataus sektori^ partnerystes jgyvendinimo aspektai. Viesojipolitika ir administravimas, 33, 139-151. 14. Googins, B. K., & Rochlin, S. A. (2000). Creating the Partnership Society: Understanding the Rhetoric and Reality of Cross-sectoral Partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 127144. 15. Gray, B., & Stites, J. P. (2013). Sustainability through Partnerships: Capitalizing on Collaboration. London, Ontario: Network for Business Sustainability. 16. Guogis, A., Gudelis, D., & Stasiukynas, A. (2014). Nevyriausybini^ organizacij^ ir savivaldybi^ santyki^ reikšme, plétojant vietin^ demokratij^: atvejo tyrimai dviejose Lietuvos savivaldybése. Viešojipolitika ir administravimas, 22, 47-56. 17. Hibbert, P., & Huxham, C. (2010). The Past in Play: Tradition in the Structures of Collaboration. Organization Studies, 31(5), 525-554. 18. Holloway, I., & Todres, L. (2003). The Status of Method: Flexibility, Consistency and Coherence. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 345-357. 19. Holmes, S., & Moir, L. (2007). Developing a Conceptual Framework to Identify Corporate Innovations through Engagement with Non-Profit Stakeholders, Corporate Governance. The International Journal of Business in Society, 7 (4), 414-422. 20. Huxham, C., Vangen, S., Huxham, C., & Eden, C. (2000). The Challenge of Collaborative Governance. Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory, 2(3), 337358. 21. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (1996). Working Together: Key Themes in the Management of Relationships between Public and Non-profit Organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(7), 5-17. 22. Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing Collaboration Practice. Public Management Review, 5(3), 401423. 23. Ishikawa, A., & Morel, R. (2008). Alianzas entre empresas y organizaciones de la sociedad civil [Partnerships between Businesses and Civil Society Organizations]. Cuadernos de la Cátedra "La Caixa" de Responsabilidad Social de la Empresa y Gobierno Corporativo No 2. IESE Business School. 24. Kavaliauskaité, V., & Jucevičius, R. (2009). Viešojo ir privataus sektori^ partnerystés svarba realizuojant regiono konkurencin^ strategij^. Ekonomika ir vadyba, 14, 809-818. 25. Kéryté, Ž. (2014). Socialini^ nevyriausybini^ organizacij^, generuojanči^ pajamas, atsiradimo kontekstas ir vaidmuo Lietuvos gerovés valstybéje. Kultura ir visuomené: socialinty tyrim^ žurnalas, 5 (1), 105-124. 26. King, A. (2007). Cooperation between Corporations and Environmental Groups: A Transaction Cost Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 889-900. 27. Kolk, A., Dolen, W., & Vock, M. (2010). Trickle Effects of Cross-Sector Social Partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 123-137. 28. Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R., & Kostwinder, E. (2008). Business and Partnerships for Development. European Management Journal, 26(4), 262-273. 29. Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2005). Abductive Reasoning in Logistics Research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35 (2), 132-144. 30. Kunčikas, A. (2001) Didieji lnkesčiai. Savivaldybty ir nevyriausybinty organizacij^ partnerysté. Vilnius: Nevyriausybini^ organizacij^ informacijos ir paramos centras. 31. Le Ber, M. J., Branzei, O. (2010). Value Frame Fusion in Cross Sector Interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 163-195. 32. Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value Creation and Value Capture: A Multi-level Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1), 180-194. 33. London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2010). Next Generation Business Strategies for the Base of the Pyramid: New Approaches for Building Mutual Value. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press. 34. Murphy, B., Arenas Vives, D., & Batista-Foguet, J. (2015). Value Creation in Cross-Sector Collaborations: The Roles of Experience and Alignment. Journal of Business Ethics, 130 (1), 145-162. 35. Nelson, J., & Zadek, S. (2000). Partnership Alchemy: New Social Partnerships in Europe. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Centre. 36. Parker, B., & Selsky, J. W. (2004). Interface Dynamics in Cause-based Partnerships: An Exploration of Emergent Culture. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 458-488. 37. Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a Path through the Forest: A Meta-review of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management, 37, 1108-1136. 38. Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34-43. 39. Pittz, T. G., & Intindola, M. (2015). Exploring Absorptive Capacity in Cross-sector Social Partnerships. Management Decision, 53(6), 1170-1183. 40. Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V. (2007). Radical Change Accidentally: The Emergence and Amplification of Small Change. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 515-543. 41. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. How to Reinvent Capitalism -And Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62-77. 42. Raipa, A. (2014). Tarpsektorines s^veikos pokyciai: issükiai viesojo valdymo teorijai. Viesasis administravimas, 2(42), 8-18. 43. Raisiene, A. G. (2010). Conceptualization of Inter-organizational Partnership Structural Model in local government. Viesoji politika ir administravimas, 34, 107-121. 44. Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. (2003). How Corporations and Environmental Groups Cooperate: Assessing Cross-Sector Alliances and Collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17(1),61-76. 45. Sakarya, S., Bodur, M., Yildirim-Öktem, Ö. & Selekler-Göksen, N. (2012). Social Alliances: Business and Social Enterprise Collaboration for Social Transformation. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1710-1720. 46. Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design and Institutionalisation of Nonprofit-business Partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 251-477. 47. Seitanidi, M. M. (2010). The Politics of Partnerships: A Critical Examination of Nonprofit-Business Partnerships. Springer Science+Business Media. 48. Seitanidi, M. M. (2008). Adaptive Responsibilities: Non-linear Interactions in Cross Sectoral Social Partnerships. Complexity & Organization, 10(3), 51-64. 49. Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849-873. 50. Steijn, B., Klijn, E. H., & Edelenbos, J. (2011). Public-private Partnerships: Added Value by Organizational Form or Management? Public Administration, 89, 1235-1252. 51. Silinskyte, A. (2015). Nevyriausybini^ organizacj ir savivaldybi^ s^veika Lietuvoje: teoriniai sprendim^ priemimo ir jgyvendinimo proceso aspektai. Viesoji politika ir administravimas, 14 (2), 221-235. 52. Sutaviciene, Z. (2011). Viesojo ir privataus sektori^ partnerystes poreikis ir galimybes Lietuvoje. Socialinty moksty studijos, 3(3), 789-815. 53. Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The Importance of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) in Global Governance and Value Creation: An International Business Research Agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 463-483. 54. Vurro, C., & Perrini, F. (2011). Making the Most of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: Disclosure Structure and its Impact on Performance. Corporate Governance, 11(4), p. 459-474. 55. Waddell, S., & Brown, L. D. (1997). Fostering Intersectoral Partnering: A Guide to Promoting Cooperation among Government, Business and Civil Society Actors. Institute for Development Research Reports, 13(3), 1-27. 56. Wejcmanas, Z. (2001). Kaip kurti efektyvi^ nevyriausybini^ organizacj partnerystç. Savivaldybty ir nevyriausybinty organizacj partnerysté. Vilnius: Nevyriausybini^ organizacj informacijos ir paramos centras. 57. Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and Collaboration. New York: Cambridge University Press. *** Dr. Jurgita Mikolaitytè a university graduate in public administration (B.Sc. in Public Administration), received her Master's of Management (M.Sc.) and her PhD in Management. She has more then 8 years experience of teaching public administration subjects at university. She is North Lithuanian programme leader at Charity and support foundation "SOS children villages association in Lithuania". Together with co -authors she published 10 scientific publications (parts of books and scientific articles). Recently she has been working in the of cross-sector partnerships, civil society and NGO management. *** Doc. Dr. Vita Juknevicienè a university graduate in public administration (B.Sc. in Public Administration), received her Master's of Management (M.Sc.) and her PhD in Management. She has more 12 years experience of teaching public administration subjects in the university. She is an associated professor at the Department of Business and Public Management and a research fellow in the Research Institute, Social Innovation Research Centre. She is the chairperson of coordination committee of Researchers' Excellence Network, coordinated by Siauliai University (Lithuania). Together with co-authors she published 40 scientific publications (parts of books and scientific articles). Recently she has been working in the field of public sector modernization, management of regional innovation systems, and management of innovations. Povzetek: Definiranje kontekstualnih elementov medsektorskega partnerstva: primer Litve Namen in izvirnost: Glavni namen raziskave je definiranje faktorjev, ki vplivajo na medsektorsko sodelovanje, nastajanje vrednosti sodelovanja ter to podpreti z nekaterimi empiričnimi dokazi na področju Litve. Metoda: Raziskava temelji na interpretativnem pristopu za potrebe analize in pojasnjevanja kontekstualnih elementov medsektorskega partnerstva. Empirični podatki so bili zbrani ob pomoči pol-strukturiranih intervjujev kateri so bili potem obdelani na podlagi analize vsebine. Rezultati: Rezultati te raziskave kažejo na to, da sodelovalna vrednost, ki nastane znotraj medsektorskega partnerstva v veliki meri odvisna od narave konteksta znotraj katerega se je takšno partnerstvo razvilo. Drzžba: Rezultati raziskave omogočajo nov vpogled v upravljanje med-sektorskih partnerstev na podlagi boljšega razumevanja makro in mezzo faktorjev ki vplivajo na tovrstna sodelovanja. Omejitve/ nadaljnje raziskovanje: Ta raziskava predstavlja osnovo za nadaljnjo multidimenzionalno analizo med-sektorskega sodelovanja, katera bi omogočala sestaviti celovito podobo tega fenomena. Ključne besede: sodelovalna vrednost, čez-sektorsko partnerstvo, makro-faktorji, mezzo-faktorji, sodelovanje NVO, organizacije. Copyright (c) Jurgita MIKOLAITYTÉ, Vita JUKNEVIČIENE Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Female Genital Mutilation - Recent Literature Review Ivana Hrvatin Gynaecological clinic, University medical centre Ljubljana, Slajmarjeva ulica 3, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia ivana.hrvatin@gmail.com Darija Scepanovic* Gynaecological clinic, University medical centre Ljubljana, Slajmarjeva ulica 3, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia darija.scepanovic@kclj.si Abstract: Research Question (RQ): FGM represents a global concern as 63 million more girls could be subjected to FGM by 2050. It is a deeply embedded cultural tradition that holds a symbolic meaning in numerous communities and is practiced in rural and urban areas. Purpose: The objective of this paper was to review the current literature on female genital mutilation consequences, to describe and critically assess the theoretical and methodological approaches to treatment options and to describe and assess different methods that aim to stop or reduce the continuation od FGM. Method: We carried out a literature review of articles published in the last 10 years. Included articles studied consequences following FGM, treatment options and different methods to stop or reduce the continuation of FGM. Literature search was conducted on the following databases PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane database, CINAHL and Medline. Results: Globally the prevalence is declining, as many actions from legal to community based programmes are being proposed. There are many known consequences that can be devided in to two groups: short and long term. Tretament options are t well documented in the literature, but published studies are of poor quality. Nevertheles there are many tretament options and guidelines on how to treat women with FGM. Organization: Health care professional should be well informed and sensitive to properly treat women with FGM. They should also inform women about possible consequences and legal aspects. Society: Society should be informed about this procedure and should encourage open communication within the society, especially between men and women. Originality: This article offers a new and recent prospective of FGM, consequences and treatment options as well as what we can do to stop this practice. Limitations / further research: Limitations of this review include the risk of bias, because it is not possible to identify and retrieve all studies. Future research shoud be of better quality and shoud focus especially on treatment options. Keywords: FGM, female genital mutilation, consequences, treatment, deinfibulation, prevention. * Korespondenčni avtor / Correspondence author Prejeto: 14. maj 2018; revidirano: 14. maj 2018; sprejeto: 19. maj 2018. / Received: May 14, 2018; revised: May 14, 2018; accepted: May 19, 2018. 1 Introduction Female genital mutilation (FGM) refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons (WHO, 2010). The World health organization defines four main types of FGM that are described in table 1. Even though the term mutilation is widely used, women who have undergone the procedure often refer to it as cutting (United nations development found for Women, 2007). Table 1. WHO types of FGM Type I Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce Type II Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora Type III Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and sppositioning the labia minora and/or labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris Type IV Unclassified - all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes In: WHO, 2010 In the recet years a lot of new literature was published. The objective of this paper was to review the current literature on female genital mutilation consequences, to describe and critically assess the theoretical and methodological approaches to treatment options and to describe and assess different methods that aim to stop or reduce the continuation od FGM. 2 Theoretical framework FGM first appeared in ancient Egypt more than 5,000 years ago, as seen in mummies from that period (Inungu and Tou, 2013). In Europe the practice was used as treatment for epilepsy, sterility and masturbation in the 19th century (Whitehorn et a., 2002). Today the age of girls when they are mutilated differs greatly from region to region, from 7 to 8 day old babies in some countries to grown women (some during their first pregnancy) elsewhere. FGM is usually performed at the youngest age possible to avoid questions from education authorities and because older girls might defend themselves against the practice (Varol et al., 2014). While the exact number of girls and women worldwide who have undergone FGM procedure remains unknown, at least 200 million girls and women in 30 countries have been subjected to the practice (UNICEF, 2016a). Rates have been declining over the past three decades. However, due to population growth, 63 million more girls could be subjected to FGM by 2050 (UNICEF, 2016b). The practice of FGM is highly concentrated in Africa, in the Middle East and in some Asian countries. Evidence suggests that FGM is practiced in parts of South America, in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula, and the Persian Gulf. The practice is also found in parts of Europe, Australia and North America, due to displacement caused by civil wars, globalization and migration. Therefore, FGM is a global concern (UNICEF, 2016a; Varol et al., 2014). Young girls living in Western countries are at risk of undergoing the procedure as their families seek to maintain a cultural practice within their adopted communities, despite laws prohibiting it (Varol et al., 2014; Elneil, 2016). Female genital mutilation is a deeply embedded cultural tradition that holds a symbolic meaning in numerous communities. The continued practice of FGM is motivated by peer pressure, fear of exclusion from resources and opportunities as a young woman, and marriage ability (Varol et al., 2014). The traditional motivation is very strong, as this is the main reason women let their children undergo FGM. Other reasons include cultural-group identity, family honour, cleanliness and health, preservation of virginity and enhancement of sexual pleasure for men (Kaplan et al., 2013). The belief that FGM is required for spiritual and religious cleanliness is also a strong motivational factor (Mohamud et al., 1999). The procedure is carried out in remote areas as well as in cities and at all levels of society from the elite and professional classes to the simplest villager (Elneil, 2016). In rural areas older women who are known as traditional 'cutters' perform FGM. Crude instruments such as knives, razors, scissors or sharp stones are often used. It is likely to be performed under unhygienic conditions with the same instruments used on different girls (Momoh, 2004). In urban areas the procedure is more likely to be performed under anaesthetic, with some health workers believing this makes the procedure more acceptable. In this case the term medicalization of FGM is used and refers to situations in which FGM is practiced by any category of health-care provider, whether in a public or a private clinic, at home or elsewhere. WHO states: "Health professionals who perform female genital mutilation (FGM) are violating girls' and women's right to life, right to physical integrity and right to health. They are also violating the fundamental ethical principle: do no harm." (WHO, 2010). FGM may also be a rite of passage from childhood to womanhood. Another possible reason is fear of sexual violence against girls, as FGM precludes vaginal penetration (WHO, 2011). FGM is sustained by community enforcement mechanisms such as public recognition by celebration (use of rewards and gifts, poems and songs celebrating the circumcised while deriding the uncircumcised), the refusal to marry uncircumcised women and fear of punishment by God (Mohamud et al., 1999). Mothers may subject daughters to FGM to protect them, to secure good prospects of marriage, to ensure acceptance and for economic security (Varol et al., 2014). Their joint statement of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the International Confederation of Midwives and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics states that FGM of any form should not be practised by health professionals in any setting including hospitals or other health establishments (UNFPA, 2015). A World Medical Association statement (2016) condemned both the practice, regardless of the level of mutilation, and the physicians who carry out the procedure. Most health-care providers who perform FGM are themselves part of the FGM practising community. Some organizations support the medicalization of FGM. They argue that it may help to reduce the risks of the procedure, limit the extent of mutilation and reduce pain (WHO, 2010). 3 Method We carried out an integrative literature review. The search strategy used was to conduct a bibliographic study of published articles in the following databases: PEDro, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane library and PubMed. Key words were: female genital mutilation, FGM, consequences, review, systematic review and practice guidelines. Literature search was conducted from December 2017 to February 2018. Since FGM is a well-researched topic we searched for articles published between December 2007 and February 2018. This way we managed to find only recent literature. We included articles reporting consequences that can occur following FGM, articles reporting effective and evidence-based treatment options and articles reporting different methods and programmes with the aim to stop or reduce the practice of FGM. We included systematic reviews, other reviews and case reports published between December 2007 and February 2018. The time frame used was applied as we wanted to identify only recently published articles. The exclusion criteria were books, book chapters, comments or reviews that focus on other topics. We identified a total of 300 publications. After an initial analysis, some articles were excluded as they did not meet any of the inclusion criteria. We included 24 articles in the review. Records identified through database searching (n = 575) Additional records identified through other sources (n=l) Records after duplicates removed In = 300) Records screened Records excluded . 31. UNICEF (2016b). Female genital mutilation/cutting. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/protection/57929_58002.html. <23.1.2018>. 32. United nations development found for Women (2007). Violence against Women - Facts and figures. Retrived from: http://www.enditnow.org/uploaded_assets/2563 <15.3.2018> 33. United Nations Children's Fund (2016a). Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A global concern. New York: UNICEF. 34. United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) (2013). Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change, New York: UNICEF. 35. Varol N., Fraser IS., Ng CH., Jaldesa G., Hall J. (2014). Female genital mutilation/cutting -towards abandonment of a harmful cultural practice. The Australian & New Zealand joural of obstetrics & gynaecology, 54(5), 400-5. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12206. 36. Vloesberg E., van den Kwaak A., Knipscheer J., van den Muijesenberg M. (2012). Coping and chronic psychosocial consequences of female genital mutilation in the Netherlands. Ethnicity Health, 17(6), 677-95. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2013.771148. 37. von Rege I, Campion D. (2017). Female genital mutilation: implications for clinical practice. British Journal of Nursing (Urology Supplement), 26 (18), pp. 22-27. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2017.26.18.S22 38. Whitehorn J., Ayonride O., Maingay S. (2002). Female genital mutilation: cultural and psychological implications. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 17(2), 161-70. doi: 10.1080/14681990220121275 39. WHO (2010). Global strategy to stop health-care providers from performing female genital mutilation. World Health Organization: 1-18. 40. WHO (2011). Female Genital Mutilation programmes to date: what works and what doesn't. Policy brief. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/wmh_99_5/en/. <23.1.2018>. 41. WHO (2011). Female Genital Mutilation programmes to date: what works ad what doesn't. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/rhr_11_36/en/ <15.3.2018> 42. WHO (2016). WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation. Geneva: WHO Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. 43. WHO Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome (2006). Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. Lancet, 367(9525), 1835-41. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68805-3 *** Ivana Hrvatin je zaposlena na Ginekološki kliniki Univerzitetnega kliničnega centra v Ljubljani. *** Darija Ščepanovič je doktorska študentka na Fakulteti za organizacijske študije v Novem mesto ter zaposlena kot fizioterapevtka na Ginekološki kliniki UKC Ljubljana. Povzetek: Obrezovanje žensk - pregled trenutne literature Raziskovalno vprašanje (RV): Obrezovanje žensk je globalni problem, saj bi lahko, do leta 2050, še 63 milijonov deklet bilo podvrženi tej praksi. Gre za globoko utrjeno kulturno in tradicio nalno dejanje, ki ima velik simbolični pomen v veliko skupnostih. Izvaja se v ruralnih predelih, kot tudi v mestih. Namen: Namen raziskave je bil pregledati trenutno literaturo o posledicah, opisati in oceniti teoretične kot metodološke pristope k zdravljenju in opisati ter oceniti različne metode za zmanjšanje ali ustavitev izvajanja obrezovanja žensk. Metoda: Izvedli smo pregled literature. Iskali smo literaturo, ki je bila objavljena v zadnjih 10 letih, v kateri so avtorji preučevali posledice, možnosti zdravljenja in preventivne programe za zmanjšanje obrezovanja žensk. Literaturo smo iskali preko spletnih baz PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane database, CINAHL and Medline. Rezultati: Globalno prevalenca upada, predvsem zaradi zakonskih pistopov in različnih preventivnih programih, ki temeljijo na skupnostih. Opisanih je veliko posledic, ki jih lahko razdelimo v kratko in dolgoročne. Različne oblike zdravljenja so dobro opisane v literaturi, so pa študije slabe kakovosti. Organizacija: Zdravstveni delavci morajo biti dobro informirani in delovati sočutno za dobro zdravljenje žensk. Prav tako morajo ženske poučiti o možnih posledicah in zakonskem pregonu. Družba: Družba mora biti seznanjena s problemom in mora spodbujati odprte poovore znotraj skupnosti, predvsem med obema spoloma. Originalnost: Raziskava ponuja nov in aktualen pogled na posledice, možnosti zdravljenja in kaj lahko kot posamezniki naredimo za zmanjšanje prevalence. Omejitve/nadaljnje raziskovanje: Omejitve raziskave vključujejo možnost pristranskosti saj ni mogoče identificirati in pridobiti vse študije. Bodoče raziskave bi morale biti boljše kakovosti in se osredotočati predvsem na možnosti zdravljenja. Ključne besede: obrezovanje žensk, posledice, zdravljenje, preprečevanje, preventivni programi. Copyright (c) Ivana HRVATIN, Darija ŠCEPANOVIC Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Samo-/so-spoštovanje in samo-/so-upravljanje, kot preplet spoznavnega procesa v avtopoietski organizaciji Tanja Balažic Peček Fakulteta za organizacijske študije v Novem mestu, Novi trg 5, 8000 Novo mesto, Slovenija taja.balazic@gmail.com Povzetek: Raziskovalno vprašanje (RV): Kakšen je vpliv principa samo-/so-spoštovanja v povezavi s samo-/so-upravljanjem v avtopoietski organizaciji? Namen: Namen raziskovanja je predstaviti človeka in človeški potencial s perspektive samo-/so-spoštovanja, v povezavi s samo-/so-upravljanjem, kot principov in procesnih gradnikov avtopoietske organizacije. Dotaknili smo se človekovih čustev in jih skušali prepoznavati kot kvaliteto kulture ljubezni. Zanima nas svobodno obvladovanje čustev, v smislu človekove kreativnosti in so-delovanja v transdisciplinarnih timih organizacij bodočnosti. Metoda: Raziskovali smo s kvalitativnimi metodami in cilje dosegli s kritičnim pregledom strokovne in znanstvene literature. V »Evolucijski model svobodnega človeka - EMSČ« Balažic Peček (2016), smo skušali umestiti »Koncept oblikovanja gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog« Balažic Peček (2018) in poskušali razložiti samo-/so-spoštovanje v povezavi s samo-/so-upravljanjem pri posamezniku in v timu. Rezultati: S kvalitativno raziskavo smo ugotovili, da sta samo-/so-spoštovanje in samo-/so-upravljanje principa, ki ju uvrščamo med procese avtopoieze znotraj krovnega gradnika čustvovanje in usmerjanje. S postavitvijo modela »EMSČ« v »Koncept gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog« smo poiskali skupne točke. Domnevamo, da sta tako samo-/so-spoštovanje kot samo-/so-upravljanje procesna gradnika, na katerih temelji kreativnost človeka v avtopoietski organizaciji. Organizacija: Izpostavili smo etična načela, vrline, principe znotraj procesa življenjskega kroga in pomembnost usmerjanja človeških potencialov h kreativni zmožnosti. Kreativen in zmožen človek je potencial v transdisciplinarnih timih, na katerih temelji avtopoietska organizacija. Družba: Ob človeškem potencialu se povezujejo še zavedanje in odgovornost v organizaciji. S samo-/so-spoštovanjem se ozavešča čustvovanje kot osebna rast, ki se prenaša v organizacijski in družbeni razvoj. S tem se povezujejo kultura znanosti, umetnosti visokih tehnologij in duhovnosti. Originalnost: Originalen pristop pogleda na človeka z zornega kota samo-/so-spoštovanja, s perspektive »EMSČ« in »Koncept gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog«. Omejitve/nadaljnje raziskovanje: Abstraktni pogled na človeka kot samo-/so-upravljalca v organizaciji. Iz zaključkov raziskovanja bi bilo v prihodnje potrebno v organizacijah izvesti še kvantitativne raziskave o povezanosti samo-/so-spoštovanja in samo-/so-upravljanja v povezavi s samo-/so-zavedanjem in samo-/so-odgovornostjo človeka. Ključne besede: samo-/so-spoštovanje, samo-/so-upravljanje, gradniki avtopoieze, človeški potencial, samo-/so-zavedanje, samo-/so-odgovornost. * Korespondenčni avtor / Correspondence author Prejeto: 15. maj 2018; revidirano: 18. februar 2018; sprejeto: 19. maj 2018. / Received: May 15, 2018; revised: May 18, 2018; accepted: May 19, 2018. 1 Uvod Samo zdrav človek je zmožen zravega delovanja. To je znak samo-/so-spoštovanja in posvečanja pozornosti svojemu zdravju, kot osrednjo točko svoje samo-referenčnosti. S tem človek ne odstopa od svoje notranje usmeritve in ni odsoten od samega sebe. Izpostavljamo odsotnost od individualnega mišljenja, kot je zaslediti pri sodobnem človeku. Preplet vseh teh dejavnikov se posledično odraža v organizacijah, kjer človek deluje in tovrstno delovanje je odsev v celotni družbi. Sam proces življenja posameznika, ki je samo po sebi dobro (Ariststotel, 2002), ima pomembno mesto, ker je to naša predpostavka za zdravo delovanje človeka in kulturni razvoj družbe. V članku želimo predstaviti človeka in človeški potencial s perspektive samo-/so-spoštovanja, v povezavi s samo-/so-upravljanjem. Oba principa smo opredelili kot procesne gradnike avtopoietske organizacije (Balažic Peček, 2018). Med temi prepletenimi procesi ni enostavno narediti ločnice in je tudi ne ustvarjamo, saj nas zanima celota. Na tak način opazujemo človeka in organizacijo, kot statiko in dinamiko, ki odražata naše vsakdanje aktivnosti človeškega življenja v usmerjenosti v notranji razvoj samo-preseganja. Dotaknili smo se človekovih čustev in jih skušali prepoznavati kot kvaliteto kulture ljubezni. Zanima nas svobodno obvladovanje čustev, v smislu samo-/so-spoštovanja, kot človekove kreativnosti in samo-/so-delovanja v transdisciplinarnih timih organizacij prihodnosti. 2rr > • v • i i *v v Teoretična izhodišča 2.1 Samo-/so-spoštovanje kot vidik življenja Ko sledimo poti preseganja, se srečamo s spoznanjem Marcusa Aureliusa, ki je že v obdobju pred našim štetjem zapisal (Aurelius v Ambrož & Traudi Mihalič, 1998, str. 58): »Čudim se, da človek kljub temu, da ljubi sebe bolj kot karkoli drugega, dovoli, da je ocena drugih ljudi več vredna kot njegova ocena samega sebe.« Kot mnogi drugi raziskovalci v vseh obdobjih, se je tudi Aristotel (2002) vprašal o procesu življenja, ter ga opredelil kot zmožnost zaznavanja in spoznavanja. Ugotavlja, da je življenje samo po sebi dobro in užitek, kar je po naravi dobro, je dobro tudi za človeka, zato pomeni življenje nekaj lepega. Če pa je življenje nekaj dobrega in prijetnega, potem je življenje nekaj, kar si je vredno želeti, saj človek uživa u zaznavanju in bivanju samem. Vsakdo pa bi se moral zavedati drugega, skozi so-žitje ob skupnih razgovorih in razmišljanjih, v prijateljskih razmerjih, v sreči in nesreči, kot ugotavlja antični filozof (str. 291). Ovsenik (1999, str. 321) govori o akcijskem optimizmu, ki ga človek udejanja skozi akcije delovanja in obnašanja, v skrivnostni melodiji življenja. Poznavanje življenja pomeni razumevanje naravnega procesa spreminjanja pravi Capra (2002) in dodaja, da je življenje najboljši učitelj spreminjanja. Kot največji kritični izziv današnjega časa predpostavlja, da gre za razumevanje organizacije živega sistema. Pojasni, da je porast produktivnosti rezultat usmerjanja človekovih ustvarjalnih zmogljivosti, temelječih na znanju. Kot pomembne koncepte v teoriji managementa izpostavlja: ravnanje z znanjem, intelektualni kapital in organizacijsko učenje, kot temeljni fenomen v procesu učenja (str. 100-101). Pri proučevanju obvladovanja sprememb Bukovec postavlja poenostavljeno definicijo (2009, str. 49): »Življenje je učenje za nenehno obvladovanje sprememb.«, kasneje v »Dekanovih razmišljanjih« (2016) nagovori profesorje in študente z Dalai Lamovo mislijo: »Življenje je definirano kot proces spoznavanja samega sebe za dobrobit drugih.« V svojih razmišljanjih poudari, da je vsak človek svoj in svojstven, zato je spoznavanje samega sebe posledično svojstveno. Ugotovi, da proces spoznavanja sovpada tudi s procesom nenehnega učenja in če ga človek izuri v navado, je to vseživljenjsko delo pri nadgradnji v ustvarjalnosti in inovativnosti človeka, kar ustvarja človekov in družbeni potencial v dobrobit drugih. Raziskovalka življenja Feinberg spoznava življenje z vidika preprostosti (2010, str. 9): »Kakor sama razumem življenje, je njegov smisel ta, da preprosto je.« Medtem ko se filozof Kordeš (2004, str. 190) ne strinja z biologoma Maturano in Varelo, ki postavljata formulo: »Autopoiesis = Življenje«. Zmoti ga enačaj in se sklicuje na osnovno predpostavko svojega raziskovanja (2004, str. 190): »Življenje je skrivnost, ki je ne bom nikoli dokončno doumel. Hočem raziskovati, ne pa raziskati.« Pavuna (2017) odločno, s samo-zavestjo interpretira svojo znanstveno predpostavko: »Življenje je ljubezen v akciji«. Človeka, ki se prizadeva za plemenita dejanja, pravi Aristotel (2002, str. 287), vsi spoštujejo in hvalijo. Lasanova v uvodu »Stalnost je določila spremembo« kratko in pomenljivo poda (Lasan, 2005, str. 7): »Življenje je dihanje, gibanje in mišljenje.« Z naslovom »Življenje je učitelj«, nagovori bralce Mulej (2015) in nas popelje od figalam do družbene odgovornosti. Dalai Lama (2000, str. 8) opozarja, da smo ustvarili družbo, v kateri je vedno manj osnovne naklonjenosti so-človeku in da smo priča veliki osamljenosti in odtujenosti, poleg tega se spodbuja tekmovalnost in zavist. Feyerabend (1999, str. 338) poudari, da ni njegov namen nadomestiti množice pravil z novimi. Bralca želi prepričati, nasprotno, da ima vse mišljenje in etične koncepte v svoji domeni. Dalai Lama (2000, str. 9) pravi, da obstajajo tehtni razlogi, da nesorazmerje zunanjega napredka ruši človeka, ki je zaradi tega notranje nezadovoljen in tu vidi vzrok za odpravo človeških problemov v smeri notranjega razvoja kot največji človekov potencial. Pri proučevanju notranjega razvoja in življenja samega pa ne moremo iti mimo spoznavnega procesa, ki ga opredeli Santiagova teorija Maturane in Varele (v Capra, 2002, str. 34-35), ki celovito preučuje procese spoznavanja (procese učenja s procesom življenja). Spoznavanje vključuje samo-obnovo in samo-razvoj živega sistema kot proces življenja. Nov pogled na koncept spoznavanja vključuje proces življenja (percepcija, čustva, obnašanje) in ne upošteva samo možganov in živčnega sistema. Celovitost Santiagove teorije poudarita tudi Ovsenikova in Ambrož (2010, str. 20), saj uvidita, da je proučevanje živih sistemov bolj celovito, če so vključeni spoznavni procesi življenja. To obsega: zaznavanja, čustva in vedenja, ter na zavestni ravni vključuje tudi jezik in konceptualno razmišljanje kot samozavedanje, ki vključuje refleksivno zavest. Kot pomanjkljivosti moderne socialne etike Gosar (1994) navaja, da je družba pretežno individualistična, kajti samo posameznik je samo-svoje organsko končno bitje, ki se združuje za kak določen namen. Avtor opozarja, da je pravilen odnos do družbe moralni problem in je zelo odvisen od končnega smotra posameznika. Pri proučevanju socialne etike in njene vloge v modernem življenju se dotakne pravičnosti, za katero pravi, da niso dovoljene nobene izjeme. Navaja, da je socialna pravičnost tak red, da bi se mogel vsak človek primerno preživljati, seveda ob pridnem in vestnem delu. Pa ne le sebe, ampak tudi svojo družino, kajti šele potem lahko govorimo o ljubezni. Poudarja, da ljubezen, ki ne upošteva pravičnosti, sploh ni ljubezen in podaja primer, da miloščina ni enako, kar človeku pripada po pravici (str. 40-50). Dalai Lama (2000) prikaže, da obstajajo univerzalna etična načela z namenom, da vsakdo najde srečo v življenju, po kateri vsi tako hrepenimo. V središče temeljnih duhovnih vrlin postavlja: ljubezen, sočutje, potrpežljivost, strpnost, odpuščanje, zadovoljstvo, odgovornost in skladnost, ter brez teh vrlin pravi, da ne moremo shajati. Opozarja, da vse človeške probleme lahko rešimo sami, saj gre za etične probleme, za kar pa je potrebna etična disciplina (str. 19-24). O etiki vrline govori Dalai Lama (2000, str. 91) kot o človekovi sposobnosti, da se samo-obvladuje. Za to je potreben notranji mir, da samo-preobrazi navade in nagnjenja v so-čutje kot proces krepitve pozitivnih človeških lastnosti. Vrlinam Aristotel (2002) doda zadržanja, ki niso hotena v enaki meri kot dejanja. Razmišlja, da imamo dejanja v svoji oblasti od začetka do konca, prav tako zadržanja (str. 110). 2.2 Samo-/so-upravljenje v prepletu avtopoieze »Autopoiesis« je mreža procesov proizvajanja, kar navajajo številni avtorji (Maturana in Varela 1980, Capra, 2002, Ovsenik, 1999, in drugi) na podlagi proučevanj tega naravnega principa, z različnih zornih kotov in znanstvenih področij. Konstruktivisti trdijo, da je vsa resnica ujeta v kreativni krog in da se procesi bivanja kažejo v dinamičnem okolju (Kordeš, 2004). Z epigenetskimi procesi lahko potrdimo odprto evolucijo, s katero se srečujemo na vsakem koraku (Jantsch, 1980). Bojujemo se proti razpadanju organizacije in vlagamo nenehne napore, da preprečimo procese dezorganizacije (Ivanko, 2004), namesto da bi uporabili sposobnost upiranja in se prepustili zakonu prepuščanja, ki omogoča prost pretok informacij (Lasan, 2006). Pomembno je, da ljubezen vsak prinese iz svojega doma, od svojih staršev, pravi Lauc (2000), v samem izobraževalnem procesu so profesorji samo katalizatorji od Erosa in Agape. Ugotavlja, da se večina ljudi še vedno vrti v začaranem krogu Erosa in Tanatosa, ker dovoljujejo, da jih ruši alopoietsko okolje. Izpostavlja, da gre tukaj za veliko bitko za več poštenja pri vsakem članu tima in to je hkrati predpogoj, da se na takšni moralni zasnovi ustvarjata (ne)formalna igra in paradigma avtopoieze (str. 60-63). Tudi Djurdica (2013, str. 65-67) razmišlja o vzgoji posameznika in poudari, da za družbo nepripravljeni posamezniki, ki za družbene odnose niso sprejemljivi, tudi živijo in se obnašajo neprilagojeno. Ivanko razlaga, da naj bi ukinitev socialnega zla prinesla teorija anarhizma in zagovarjali so, da mora človek živeti v svobodni družbi (str. 561). Lauc (2000) je v tej točki delitve dela zelo odločen, da mora prevladati timsko delo svobodnih ustvarjalcev in trdi da se tukaj skriva bistvo družbenih znanosti, ekonomije in napredka. Capra (2002) pravi, da gre za hiperaktivnost, ker se dogodki odvijajo prehitro, zahtevana pa je sočasna reakcija v različnih procesih. Pri ustvarjalnosti pa je odločilna refleksija zavesti, toda v pomanjkanju časa se to ne dogaja in dogodi se dehumanizacija organizacij (str. 126). Vnašanje življenja v humano organizacijo vidi Capra (2002, str. 125) s pooblaščanjem članov delujočih skupnosti, kar ne povečuje le njene fleksibilnosti, ustvarjalnosti in potenciala učenja, temveč poudarja tudi humanost posameznikov in njihovo kakovost - usrediščenost na življenje in samo-organiziranje. Tako so posamezniki usmerjeni in spodbujeni k doseganju lastnih ciljev in se ne bojijo za izgubo integritete pri doseganju organizacijskih usmeritev. Samo-upravljanje kot družbeni in politični sistem ter proizvodni odnos je tako sredstvo za doseganje človekove osvobojenosti oziroma svobode (Kavčič v Ivanko, 2015, str. 585). Ivanko (2015) nam predstavi, da so se pri preučevanju odtujenosti soočali s številnimi težavami in stiskami delavca. Avtor jih uvršča v štiri skupine: Občutek nemoči v družbi. Občutek nesmiselnosti. Občutek anarhičnosti. Samo-odtujenost in izoliranost (str. 585), kar povzroča pri človeku nemotiviranost, neustvarjalnost in stres. Capra pojasnjuje (2002, str. 127), da če je človek v stresu, hoče vrnitev na staro pot. To je izrazit pojav pri vodjih, ki so usmerjeni v naloge in nadzor. Tudi v tem segmentu si lahko pomagamo z ugotovitvijo Lauca (2000), da se svoboda človeka doseže z brezkončnim hotenjem in znanjem. Utemelji tudi, da je to razlog slabih rezultatov dela v samem človeku, zato sam poskuša biti boljši. Postavlja temeljne atribute: Ljubezen, resnica in svoboda, za preobrat moralnega kapitala (str. 426). 3 Metoda Raziskovali smo s kvalitativnimi metodami in cilje dosegli s pregledom strokovne in znanstvene literature. V »Evolucijski model svobodnega človeka - EMSČ« Balažic Peček (2016) bomo skušali umestili »Koncept oblikovanja gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog« Balažic Peček (2018) in poskušali razložiti samo-/so-spoštovanje v povezavi s samo-/so-upravljanjem pri posamezniku in v timu. Uporabili smo kvantitativne medode v raziskovanju, ki smo jih podkrepili z akcisko raziskavo v znanstvenem raziskovanju in praktičnem delu. Za potek raziskovanja nas Mesec (1998) usmeri v akcijsko raziskovanje (AR), ki ga znotraj raziskave večkrat ponavljamo in s tem, ko delamo kroge, vedno bolj utrjujemo in širimo znanje o pojavu, ki ga raziskujemo (36-39). Ustreznost našega razmišljanja nam Lauc (2016a in 2016b) potrdi. Mesec (1998) pa še dodaja, da pri kvalitativni metodi ne gre le za preverjanje teze, ampak želimo celovito razumevanje, ki nas usmeri v praktično delo samo-raziskovanja. Mesec (1994, str. 125) pravi da, če je naš namen »postaviti na noge skupino samo-pomoči«, nas spodbudi, da se lotimo dela in nas poziva, da se redno sestajamo, analiziramo in da skušamo ravnati razumno, pošteno in objektivno. Malic (1976) navaja, da so znanstvena srečanja doprinos k splošnem napredku ob minimalnem nastajanju entropije (str. 115-118). Mesec (2009) pravi, da je AR vsak konstruktiven pogovor skupine pri skupnem delu ali izvajanju skupne akcije z namenom izboljševanja delovanja. Pozornost je predvsem usmerjena na skupinsko dinamiko, ki pospešuje ali zavira učenje in spremembe (str. 6-8). Iz znanstvene teorije razvijemo tezo v AR: Kakšen je vpliv principa samo-/so-spoštovanja v povezavi s samo-/so-upravljanjem v avtopoietski organizaciji? 4 Rezultati 5 kvalitativno raziskavo smo ugotovili, da sta principa: samo-/so-spoštovanje, kot proces avtopoieze v gradniku GR1-čustvovanje in samo-/so-upravljanje, kot proces avtopoieze v gradniku GR3-usmerjanje. S postavitvijo modela »EMSČ« (Balažic Peček, 2016) v »Koncept oblikovanja gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog« (Balažic Peček, 2018), smo poiskali skupne točke. Domnevamo, da sta tako samo-/so-spoštovanje kot samo-/so-upravljanje procesna gradnika, na katerih temelji kreativnost človeka v avtopoietski organizaciji. Samo-/so-spoštovanje, opazujemo iz etičnega vidika samo-/so-upravljanja, kajti posledica naših dejanj, se kaže navzven v so-očanju in so-bivanju v organizaciji. Model »EMSČ« ponazarjamo s sedmimi krogi, ki so vpeti v mrežo človekovega življenja in delovanja, kot avtonomne celote navznoter in navzven. »EMSČ« (Slika 1) ima dva vidika ali perspektivi, s katerih ju proučujemo: Vpetost in delovanje v okolju (zunanji) in vpetost v samega sebe kot samo-ohranitveni proces (notranji). Pri proučevanju modela smo kot zunanje vidike izpostavili (Balažic Peček, 2016): • Zdravje - kot osnovni temelj človeka (fizično, spolno, čustveno in mentalno). • Blagostanje - kot nasprotni atribut zdravja ga vidimo v managementu in ekonomiji -predpostavljamo, da lahko le zdrav človek kreativno in zavestno ustvarj a. • Tehnika - na eni strani je to razvoj ved, kot so fizika, kemija, biologija, do vseh novejših, ki izhajajo iz elektrotehnike in drugih ved visoke tehnologije. • Etika - na drugi strani tehnike ali tehnološkega napredka postavljamo etiko, kot moralni, pravni, kulturni in samo-kulturni vidik delovanja človekovega življenja. Slika 1. Shematski model - Evolucijski model svobodnega človeka (EMSČ) (Balažic Peček, 2016) Koncept gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog smo razvili s štirimi gradniki: GR1-Čustvovanje, GR2-Razmišljanje, GR3-Usmerjanje in GR4-Delovanje, ter v sredino postavili AR spiralo, kot značilnost avtopoieze (neprestane interakcije). Raziskovanje po konceptu oblikovanja gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog je povezano z naravnimi zakonitostmi in na tak način so postavljeni nekateri naravni modeli, zato lahko rečemo, da je tudi raziskovanje samo avtopoietsko. Izvirnost koncepta gradnikov avtopoieze se kaže kot življenjski krog, kot krog nastajanja in propadanja (Slika 2). AR spirala v središču pomeni, da raziskujemo, delujemo in razvijemo skupine, tako se posameznik samo-/so-razvija kot opazovalec in akter v notranjem in zunanjem svetu. To dvojnost samo-/so-delovanja človeka smo si zastavili v osnovnem konceptu raziskave in iz nje smo izhajali praktično v vseh delih raziskovanja. Lahko rečemo, da z neprestanim samo-/so-delovanjem vzpostavljamo avtopoietsko delovanje, ki se začne s samo-/so-razmerjem in s tem prožimo proces čustvovanja, razmišljanja, usmerjanja in delovanja, kot so postavljeni usmeritveni gradniki od GR1 do GR4 (Balažic Peček, 2018). Slika 2. Koncept gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog (Balažic Peček, 2018) 5 Razprava Samo-/so-spoštovanje nastaja v prepletu zaznavnega in spoznavnega procesa, pravi Aristotel (2002). Če govorimo o zaznavnem procesu je to v relaciji z drugim človekom, da nekaj zaznavamo iz okolja, pri spoznavnem procesu pa gre za notranja dogajanja človeka. Aristotel (2000) dodaja še, da je skozi so-žitje ob skupnih razmišljanjih, pogovorih cilj ta, da in se zavedamo drugega. To razumemo tako, da ne gre samo za statično, vendar tudi dinamično komponento. Podobno razmišlja tudi Malic (1976), ki se zaveda te dinamike in presnavljanje entropije na vseh dogodkih in razpravah, kjer se so-očajo ljudje. Da se človek udejanja skozi akcije obnašanja in delovanja je blizu tudi Ovseniku (1999). Ko tako razmišljamo o tej dinamiki življenja nam je povsem jasno in, da vsa ta dogajanja v človeku potekajo v krožnih ciklih. Kot model našega razmišljanja je nastal »EMSČ« (Slika 1), ki je vpet v okolje (Balažic Peček, 2016). Kot temelj človekovega delovanja smo v modelu izpostavili zdravje, kot osnovno dinamiko. Ali lahko potem rečemo, da zdravje odraža naše samo-spoštovanje do sebe in so-spoštovanje do drugih. Druga predpostavka je ta, če ne spoštujemo se lahko pojavi bolezen, ki jo je zaznati na različnih ravneh. Lahko rečemo, da je zdravje tisto, ki nam daje tako kvaliteto življenja, kot bivanja (Feinberg, 2010). Da je človek sposoben iti in biti v nenehni akciji življenja in izražati ljubezen, kot lahko razložimo znanstveno predpostavko »Življenje je ljubezen v akciji« (Pavuna, 2017). V tej točki lahko definicijo življenja in človekovega delovanja razložimo z modelom »Koncept gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog« (Slika 2), kjer gre za krožni proces čustvovanja, razmišljanja, usmerjanja in delovanja. Če ta model pogledamo s perspektive »EMSČ«, ni nič drugega kot večplastno delovanje človeka v neprestani aktivnosti. Tako tudi podaja Lasnova (2005), da je dihanje, gibanje in mišljenje osnovna dinamika človeka. Da je v človekovi domeni celoten njegov koncept mišljenja potrjuje Fayerabend (1999). Sodobnega človeka »ruši« zunanja podoba sveta, oziroma, kot pravi Dalai Lama (2000), da je človek zaradi zunanjega napredka notranje nezadovoljen. Potem takem lahko rečemo, da je odstopa od svojega zdravja in s tem samo-spoštovanja. Ko pa govorimo o nenehni tekmovalnosti, se pojavi še zavist v razmerju s so-človekom in dotaknemo se so-spoštovanja. Princip samo-/so-spoštovanje je v našem modelu »Informacijski graf avtopoieze - IGA« (Balažic Peček, 2018) znotraj čustvovanja, se pravi v začetku spoznavnega cikla. Koliko dejansko samo-/so-spoštujemo povemo z različnimi dejanji, če dejanje povezujemo kot posledico čustvovanja. Ko pa govorimo o principu samo-/so-upravljanja, pa ga najedmo v skupini procesov avtopoize, ki človeka usmerjajo. Potem takem lahko rečemo, da je usmerjanje, posledica čustvovanja in mišljenja, ki se odrazi v delovanju človeka, kar je razvidno iz »Koncepta gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog« (Slika 2) in vedno znova, ga lahko povežemo z »EMSČ« (Slika 1), na različnih ravneh. V življenju akcije v prisotnosti ljubezni se udejanja človekov potencial, ki ga lahko ponazorimo z AR spiralo, ki središče našega koncepta. Kajti, ko aktivno delujemo: beremo in povezujemo različne avtorje, ne moremo več reči, da je to naša ideja, ampak je posledica prepleta procesov avtopoieze, ki se odražajo v našem življenju. Kot pravi Bukovec (2009), gre za proces učenja in spreminjanja, če pa smo se res iz nečesa nekaj naučili, je to potrebno zapisati. Lauc (2000) pravi, da se svoboda človeka doseže z brezkončnim hotenjem in znanjem. Če smo prebrali nekega avtorja in ga začutili, smo o tem razmišljli in nas je nekako usmeril v nadaljna delovanja našega življenja. In če smo raziskovalci v znanosti je to potrebno priznati in se tako samo-/so-spoštovati na znanstveno dogovorjen način. Ko se srečujemo z različnimi avtorji na znanstvenih dogodkih je položaj precej podoben, le da imamo »živo knjigo«, kar lahko povezujemo z našo akcijo. Zato je bilo razvito akcijsko raziskovanje, da se znanstvenik uči, deluje in ustvarja skupine. To pa ni nič drugega kot ustvarjanje razmerij in »novih organizacij«, ali kot je je predpostavil Ovsenik (1999): »Organizacija = razmerje med ljudmi«. In če se nenehno v akcijskem raziskovanju učimo, je to potrebno stalno zapisovati. Kot zelo primerna je naša praksa, da vodimo znanstvene dnevnike. Ti dnevniki se morda ne zdijo nič znanstveni, saj zapisujemo čisto preproste stvari, vendar pa s tem so-spoštujemo so-govornika, ki nas je na nek način spremenil in tudi to znanstveno pravilno interpretiramo in referiramo. Da to je samo-/so-spoštovanje, ki se naprej lahko kaže v samo-/so-upravljanju. Ko pa govorimo o samo-/so-upravljanju, pa se naš koncept dotika predvsem osebnostne komponente lastnega upravljanja, ki se odraža v naši organizaciji in delovanju. To, da smo odvisni od samo-/so-organizacije, prepoznamo kot princip avtopoieze. Iz biološkega vidika lahko domnevamo, da je miselni proces temelj ustvarjanja in neodvisnosti človeka v organizaciji. Poleg tega nas je zanimalo tako organsko kot socialno kompleksno okolje, za katerega lahko rečemo, da je zahtevno. Raziskovanje okolja smo začeli pri posamezniku, in sicer iz biološke celice. Pri tem pa ne gre samo za celico kot tako, gre za vso dinamiko oziroma interakcije, ki se dogajajo v celici. Spoznali smo, da se enake lastnosti kažejo v organu, organskem sistemu in na celotnem organizmu, ter da s samo-/so-refleksijo lahko človek zaznava in samo-/so-spoznava čustva, misli in deluje kot samo-/so-zavesten in samo-/so aktualiziran posameznik. Kjer si ustvarja prostor za nesebično samo-/so-delovanje na vseh ravneh družbe in s tem ustvarja novo kulturo, ki se začne kot samo-/so-kultura ali kultura medsebojnega odnosa in delovanja. 6 Zaključek V članku smo primerjali dva principa: samo-/so-spoštovanje, kot proces avtopoieze v gradniku GRl-čustvovanje in samo-/so-upravljanje, kot proces avtopoieze v gradniku GR3-usmerjanje. Ugotovili smo, da je samo-/so-spoštovanje zelo povezano z našim temeljnim zdravljem, ki se odraža s samo-/so-upravljanjem, kjer se dotikamo predvsem upravljanja človeka samega v povezavi s so-človekom, kot moralnega delovanja. Posledica enega in drugega je v delovanju človeka in v neprestani aktivnosti, le-ta ne sme pozabiti zapirati kroge. Prav tako je zelo pomembno, da vedno znova kreativno ustvarja kroge krogov, kar je omogočeno z modelom »EMSČ« in »Koncept gradnikov avtopoieze kot življenjski krog«. To sta abstrakna modela, ki ne zapirata človeku miselnega procesa, temveč ga spodbujata, da vedno znova poskuša iti v zavestnejšo spiralo, ki definira njegovo samo-/so-organizacijo. S prepoznavanjem prepleta procesov avtopoieze in zavedanjem, da je človek, kot posameznik bogat človeški potencial in kapital, v katerega je potrebno vlagati, se začne preobrazba v avtopoietsko družbo. Rezultati raziskovanj dokazujejo, da gre pri avtopoiezi pravzaprav za samo-/so-produkcijo v živi mreži v neprestanem (r)evolucijskem razvoju poštenega življenja v ljubezni in svobodi, kot novo kulturo človeka. Raziskavo smo izvedli s kvantitativnimi metodami, ter s sintezo prišli do dejanskega stanja, da lahko interpretiramo naš pogled realnosti, v kateri se nahaja sodobni človek in organizacija. Iz opazovanega lahko predpostavimo, da se bo tovrstno delovanje odražalo v transdisciplinarnih timih organizacij prihodnosti. Na FOŠ ustanavljamo institucijo za razvoj avtopoietske organizacije, za vertikalna in horizontalna raziskovanja. Na tak način bomo posameznike in institucije pritegnili k zmožnostim prepoznavanja alopoietskih procesov v organizacijah in jih motivirali in izobraževali v smislu samo-zavedanja. Kot cilj napredka potrebujemo moralno družbo in samo-organizacijo v smislu mreženja moralnih ljudi. Reference 1. Ambrož, M., & Traudi Mihalič, T. (1998). Pot k odličnosti: Vodenje v kompleksnem in negotovem okolju. Škofja Loka: Institut za samorazvoj d.o.o. 2. Ambrož, M., & Colarič Jakše, L. M. (2015). Pogled raziskovalca: Načela, metode in prakse. Zora. Maribor: Mednarodna založba za slovanske jezike in književnosti. 3. Aristotel, (2002). Nikomahova etika. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. 4. Balažic Peček, T. (2016). Naravni modeli mišljenja kot izziv človeka pri etičnih konceptih v organizaciji (Natural Models of Mind as a Challenge of a Person in Ethical Concepts in an Organization). 35. Mednarodna konferenca o razvoju organizacijskih znanosti: Trajnostna organizacija, Slovenija, Portorož, 16.-18. marec 2016, str. 56-69, Maribor: Fakulteta za organizacijske vede. 5. Balažic Peček, T., Brcar, F., & Bukovec, B. (2017). Fundamental Autopoietic Building Blocks in 4.0 Organization as a Challenge to Human Organization. Revija za univerzalno odličnost, 6 (4), str. 393-419. 6. Balažic Peček, T. (2018). Gradniki avtopoieze v 4.0 organizaciji. (doktorska disertacija). Novo mesto: Fakulteta za organizacijske študije. 7. Balažic Peček, T., Brcar, F., & Bukovec, B. (2018). Action Research: From Concept to Model of Forming Autopoietic Building Blocks as Life Circle. Izzivi za prihodnost, 3 (1), str. 1-20. 8. Bukovec, B. (2009). Nova paradigma obvladovanja sprememb. Nova Gorica: Fakulteta za uporabne družbene študije. 9. Bukovec, B. (2016). Dekanova razmišljanja - nagovor dekana. Pridobljeno (2017, 8. februar) na: http://www.fos.unm.si/si/fos/organiziranost/ 10. Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science of Sustainability. New York: Doubleday. 11. Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The System View of Life: A Unifying Vision. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 12. Cerovac, K. (2013). Transdisciplinaren pristup učenja i istraživanja na sveučilištu. Metodički ogledi, 20 (1), 15-31. 13. Dalai Lama XIV (2000). Etika za novo tisočletje: Njegova Svetost dalajlama. Tržič: Učila, založba, d.o.o. 14. Djurdica, B. (2013). Kaj je življenjsko-kozmična energija: Eliksir za življenje na zemlji. Ljubljana: Alternativa. 15. Ecimovic, T. (2017)."The Philosophy of Life 2017", digital booklet (pdf) July, 2017. 16. Feinberg Imber, N. (2010). HatmaraMerkava: Modrost življenja. Ljubljana: Studio 37. 17. Feyerabend, P. K. (1999). Proti metodi. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis. 18. Gosar, A. (1994). Sodobna socialna etika: Sociološke in gospodarske osnove. Ljubljana: Založba Rokus d.o.o. 19. Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: Kratka zgodovina človeštva. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 20. Ivanko, Š. (2004). Temelji organizacije. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za upravo. 21. Ivanko, Š. (2015). Zgodovina organizacijske misli. Novo mesto: Fakulteta za organizacijske študije. 22. Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-Organisation Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. Oxford: British Library Cataloging in Publication Data. 23. Kordeš, U. (2004). Od resnice k zaupanju. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis. 24. Lauc, A. (2000). Metodologija društvenih znanosti. Osijek: Sveučilišče J.J. Strosmayera u Osijeku, Pravni fakultet, Grafika. 25. Lauc, A. (2016a). Transkript razprave o avtopoiezi. (Intervju, 15. avgust, 2016). 26. Lauc, A. (2016b). Transkript razprave o akcijskem raziskovanju v alopoietskem okolju. (Intervju, 28. november, 2016). 27. Lasan, M. (2005). Stalnost je določila spremembo: Fiziologija. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport, Inštitut za šport. 28. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. California: Stanford University Press, Stanford. 29. Malic, D. (1976). Kibernetska termodinamika: Zakonitosti i metode. Beograd: Gradževinska knjiga. 30. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the Living. London: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 31. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1998). Drevo spoznanja. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis. 32. Mesec, B. (1994). Model akcijskega raziskovanja. Socialno delo, 33, 1: 3-16. 33. Mesec, B. (1998). Uvod v kvalitativno raziskovanje v socialnem delu. Ljubljana: Visoka šola za socialno delo. 34. Mesec, B. (2009). Akcijsko raziskovanje. Pridobljeno (2017, 24. julij) na https://sites.google.com/site/kvalitativnametodologija/akcijsko- raziskovanje/predstavitve-1/ 35. Mulej, M. (2015). Življenje je učitelj: Od figalam do družbene odgovornosti. Maribor: Inštitut IRDO. 36. Ovsenik, J. (1999). Stebri nove doktrine organizacije, managementa in organizacijskega obnašanja. Kranj: Moderna organizacija. 37. Ovsenik, J., & Ovsenik, M. (2017). Nova doktrina organizacije - 2. del: Preusmeritev pozornosti. Novo mesto: Fakulteta za organizacijske študije. 38. Ovsenik, J. (2017). Transkript razprave o harmoniji človeka. (Intervju, 19. april, 2017). 39. Ovsenik, M., & Ambrož, M. (2010). Celovitost in neznatnost organizacije. Ljubljana: Institut za management. 40. Pavuna, D. (2017). Transkript razprave o kvantnih pojavih v fiziki z vplivi na človeka in civilizacijo. (Intervju, 24. oktober, 2017). 41. Tesla, N. (2013). Moji izumi (My inventions). Ljubljana: Založba Sanje. 42. Železnikar, A. P. (2017a). Transkript razprave o samo-/so-principih v informacijskem grafu avtopoieze - slovenska izvedba. (Intervju, 6. april, 2017). 43. Železnikar, A. P. (2017b). Filozofsko besedotvorje (Philosophical Word Formation). Pridobljeno (2017, 06. april) na http://lea.hamradio.si/~s51em/book/Medit339slo.pdf *** Dr. Tanja Balažic Peček je l. 2001 diplomirala iz organizacije in managementa ter l. 2008 specializirala iz projektnega managementa na Fakulteti za organizacijske vede (FOV) Univerze v Mariboru. Na Fakulteti za organizacijske študije (FOŠ) je v letu 2018 doktorirala z disertacijo »Gradniki avtopoieze v 4.0 organizaciji« in s tem postavila temeljni koncept ter gradnike avtopoieze za nadaljne raziskovanje avtopoietske organizacije v vseh razsežnostih. Deluje na delavnicah izgradnje samo-podobe in naravnega zdravljenja, ter v letu 2013 pridobi status terapevtke. Njeno raziskovalno zanimanje je človek v organizaciji, kvalitativno raziskovanje, etično-ekološki koncepti, organska-humana paradigma v povezavi s fenomenom »autopoiesis« v organizacijskem in družbenem okolju. Je avtorica številnih prispevkov na znanstvenih konferencah in člankov v strokovnih ter znanstvenih revijah. Je članica Academy of Management (AOM). Abstract: Self-/co-respect and Self-/co-Management as Intertwinement of the Cognitive Process in Autopoietic Organization Research Question (RQ): What is the influence of principle of self-/co-respect in connection with self-/co-management in autopoietic organization? Purpose: Purpose of research is to present a person and human potential from the perspective of self-/co-respect in connection with self-/co-management as principles and process building blocks of autopoietic organization. We will discuss human emotions and try to recognize them as a quality of culture of love. We are interested in free control of emotions in the sense of human creativity and co-operation in transdisciplinary teams of future organizations. Method: We will use qualitative research methods and achieve goals by examining professional and scientific literature. In the »Concept of forming autopoietic building blocks as life circle« Balazic Pecek (2018) we will place »Evolutionary model of a free person - EMSC« Balazic Pecek (2016) and try to explain self-/co-respect, taking intoconsideration self-/co-management in an individual and in a team. Results: With qualitative research we found out that self-/co-respect and self-/co-management are principles, included in autopoietic processes, inside the cover building block emotions. With setting up the »EMSC« model in the »Concept of autopoietic building blocks as life circle« we will find common points. We suppose that self-/co-respect, as well as self-/co-management, are process building blocks, on which creativity of a person in autopoietic organization is based. Organization: We will emphasize ethical principles, virtues, principles within the process of life circle and importance of directing human potential towards creative ability. A creative and capable person is a potential in transdisciplinary teams, on which autopoietic organization is founded. Society: Awareness and responsibility in an organization are being connected next to human potential. With self-/co-respect we become aware of emotions as personal growth, transferred into organizational and social development. Thus culture of science, art of high technologies and spirituality are being linked. Originality: Original approach of the perspective on a person from the point of view of sef-/co-respect, from the perspective of »EMSC« and »Concept of autopoietic building blocks as life circle«. Limitations/Further Research: The abstract view on a person as self-/co-manager in an organization. From the conclusions of research it would be necessary that in the future quantitative researches are carried out in organizations - on connection of self-/co-respect and self-/co-management, concerning self-/co-awareness and self-/co-responsibility of a person. Keywords: self-/co-respect, self-/co-management, autopoietic building blocks, human potential, self-/co-awareness, self-/co-responsibility. Copyright (c) Tanja BALAŽIC PEČEK Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.