My interest in the issue of progress, which has preoccupied me for close on a quarter of a century, grew from my experience as a member of the international corporation to which I gave twenty years of my professional life. During those years, I saw the practical translation of progress in every aspect of the work environment, at both the organizational and operational levels. Thanks to a highly proficient workforce, the corporation’s annual profits exceeded the national incomes of all the Arab countries combined. For two decades, I saw the ultimate expression of human progress unfold in the context of a highly sophisticated system of work based essentially on optimizing the use of human resources. Nor was my interest in the subject limited to a fascination with its day to day manifestations in the workplace. In an attempt to better understand the process itself, I embarked on a study of the dynamics, values and mechanisms of progress. In the last three years, the issue came to occupy the forefront of my concerns, and I set some of my thoughts on the subject down in a book entitled “The Values of Progress” (Dar el-Ma’aref, 2001). The book, which does not purport to be an exhaustive treatise on progress, addresses only one aspect of this supremely important feature of our contemporary world.

In the book, I tried to establish the following:

First: That progress is the product of a value system, not of a society’s material wealth or natural resources.

Second: That the value system which promotes progress is a product of the collective human experience, and does not derive exclusively from the European or American experience. The greatest proof of this can be found in the qualitative leap forward made by a number of East Asian societies when they adopted this system, which allowed them to achieve a level of progress commensurate with that enjoyed by advanced societies in the West.

Third: That a society’s adoption of the values conducive to progress does not negate or destroy that society’s cultural specificity. Again, the greatest proof of this lies in the experience of the East Asian societies, which adopted this system without in any way abandoning or detracting from their cultural specificity.

Fourth: That the values of progress have evolved out of the cumulative legacy of various civilizations, even if the greatest contribution to their development and dissemination in modern times has undoubtedly been made by Western civilization.

Fifth: That the values of progress include, but are not limited to, the following:

¨ Value of time.
¨ A culture of systems, not individuals.
¨ Quality control, or compliance with standards of performance.
¨ A critical mind that accepts criticism and engages in self-criticism.
¨ A belief in pluralism as a basic feature of life, knowledge, ideas and systems.
¨ Modern management techniques or contemporary values of work (such as teamwork, human resource management, delegation, marketing and modern management mechanisms).

However, before these values can take root in any society, the general cultural, intellectual, educational and information climate in that society must be such as to allow them to spread and flourish, more specifically, it must be a climate that is not resistant to change. A look at the most dramatic models of progress in the last fifty years shows that they were the result of successful experiments in management reform before being the result of experiments in economic reform. And management reform, like all modern management sciences, can only come about in a general climate that is receptive to change. Creative interaction with and feedback from change is at the heart of successful management, and that is why business administration courses in the top universities worldwide consider “managing change” to be the core element of successful management.

Many in our part of the world, through no fault of their own, may be unable to grasp the point this article is trying to make, although it is an elementary principle of modern management sciences. All training and study programmes for senior management executives in the developed world proceed from a number of basic premises:

The propensity of certain cultures, especially in ancient societies, to cling to the status quo and oppose change is understandable from the historical and sociological points of view. But these cultures are, by definition, inimical to progress, and their shortcomings must be revealed to those who aspire to development and success.

A culture that embraces change and is willing to interact with it positively and constructively is primed for progress and success.

Modern management adopts a pragmatic, non-dogmatic approach to change that tries, as far as possible, to be devoid of ideology.
The guiding principle of modern management techniques, which have steered the West and the countries of East Asia to their present level of progress, is “constant and purposeful interaction with change”.

In my opinion, the main enemy of a culture of change is the ideological approach. Modern management techniques are based on mechanisms which have proved successful in practice and which were not adopted for ideological considerations. In fact, ideology itself is subject to this law, in the sense that while the problem-solving approach of ideologues proceeds from a theoretical/intellectual premise, management leaders adopt an empirical/pragmatic approach. For example, while an ideologue will debate the merits of a command economy versus those of a market econo perience is the right approach by which to evaluate the efficiency of any system, while the introduction of an ideological dimension can only blur the issue.

If progress is a function of successful management, and if a prerequisite of successful management is the spread of the values of progress, it follows that a general climate which accepts the critical mind and is willing to coexist in a constructive manner with change is a cornerstone of progress.

This may seem at first glance to be an abstract, theoretical approach to the problems plaguing us, but in fact it is quite the opposite. How can we hope to make any headway in the area of educational reform, for example, when the calls for reform -and there are many- come up against stiff resistance to the need for fundamental changes in our educational philosophy and curricula and an insistence on maintaining the status quo? How can there be political reform when there is an adamant refusal to even consider changing any of the pillars on which our political life rests? How can there be economic reform without introducing radical changes to those aspects of our economic life that render the investment climate in our country incompatible with the requirements of international economic life? In short, we are trying to square the circle, on the one hand claiming that we aspire to improve our lot while, on the other, clinging to our old ways. To expect our situation to change for the better while refusing to change many of the features of our political, economic and educational landscape is a contradiction in terms, and the sooner we realize this the closer we will be to achieving the progress to which we aspire.

I have no doubt that the culture of stagnation, or opposition to change, in which we seem to be mired stems either from a fear of the unknown, a reluctance to abandon the safety of a present with which we are familiar, however dismal it may be, for a future whose features remain obscure, or from the ferocious resistance of certain elements with vested interests in the present setup to any change which could threaten those interests. Nevertheless, from the perspective of modern management science, I am willing to accept the argument that while change is inevitable it must be gradual to ensure social peace. I may differ with the argument as to the required rate of change, but I cannot deny its validity, provided it is not used to justify inaction, as this will only exacerbate the festering stagnation which has become a feature of our reality and render the problems we are facing even more intractable than they already are.

To clarify the picture further, it might be useful to cite some examples here. The first is that economic statistics confirm that an annual economic growth rate of between 8% and 10% must be sustained for a full decade if we are to achieve the economic prosperity necessary for social peace. I would add here that economic prosperity alone, without modern education and public participation in political life, cannot guarantee social and political peace. Another economic fact of life is that sustained economic growth at the rate of 8% to 10% annually is impossible if we rely exclusively on our own resources (the state and the savings of citizens). The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the above is that if we want to attain the required rate of growth we must attract foreign investments, either direct or indirect, in a systematic manner. Which leads us to the following question: Given that we realize that foreign investments are indispensable for economic growth, why are investments not pouring in at the required rate? The answer is simply that our declared aim of attracting foreign investments is not accompanied by a will to change a whole array of disincentives that effectively keep such investments away. Once again we are caught red-handed in a flagrant contradiction, on the one hand setting ourselves a goal and, on the other, doing nothing to make it achievable. Had it not been for the culture of rigid adherence to the status quo that dominates our life, we would have admitted that foreign investments are not coming our way at the desired rate because they are put off by a long list of obstacles, then taken concrete measures to remove those obstacles. But to allege that foreign investments are not flowing in because there is a conspiracy against us or because foreign investors are not aware of the attractive investment climate we are offering them is to act like a patient who knows he is ill but insists he will recover without taking the prescribed medication.

Another example is our attitude to what everyone agrees is a severe management problem. The problem, which I believe is the reason for the failure of the public sector, the erratic performance of the private sector and the poor performance of government departments and service sectors, is openly acknowledged, but no practical steps are being taken to overcome it. Instead, a great deal of energy is expended in assigning blame. Some attribute the acute shortage of management talents to the fact that the educational system is incapable of producing citizens who can become effective managers. Others blame the system of work, particularly the systems of promotion and the selection of leaders on the basis of seniority, and the absence of programmes for the formation of effective managers. Others still see the problem as resulting from the precedence given in our work environment to subjective considerations over objective criteria, and, finally, there are those who say the problem arises from the fact that we are out of touch with modern management systems and techniques in advanced societies. Thus everyone acknowledges the existence of the disease, many are willing to offer a diagnostic opinion as to its cause but there is no attempt to prescribe the medicine by which it can be cured. This is yet another example of our contradictory approach to the problems besetting society, an approach that is caught between action and inaction. Action in the direction of coming to grips with the problem is represented in the willingness to admit that it exists; inaction is represented in an inability, not to say unwillingness, to remove the causes that created the problem in the first place. Where radical surgery is required to excise the root causes of the disease, we choose instead to alleviate its symptoms by means of palliatives that can, at best, offer only temporary relief.

Although there is no lack of examples, I will cite just one more, namely, our inability to act in the light of two facts that are known to us all. The first is that knowledge of the English language, spoken and written, is one of the most important requirements of our age, and that it is impossible to keep up with modern science, culture and knowledge without a sound command of the English language. A recognition of this fact brought about important changes in societies like France, Germany and Japan which, until the nineteen seventies, resisted the widespread use of English out of a misplaced sense of national pride. Today, the situation is just the opposite because the requirements of the age imposed themselves on those societies. The second fact is that Egyptian government schools in the nineteen twenties and thirties produced graduates with a sound command of English, and sometimes also of French, in addition to Arabic. Although we are all well aware of these facts, and although we all tirelessly repeat the need for educational reform, the new generations graduating from other than foreign schools have no knowledge of English, while the graduates of foreign schools have no knowledge of Arabic. Here again we are caught in a flagrant contradiction between a consensus on the goal, in this case educational reform, and complete failure when it comes to tackling an aspect of the required reform that is well within our means to correct. This particular aspect can be addressed in isolation from the many other shortcomings in our educational system, and can go far towards bringing about the reform to which we all aspire. I am talking about the low English-language proficiency of the teachers entrusted with producing future generations with a sound command of a language that has become an international lingua franca.

A recent conversation I had with one of Egypt’s more successful governors brought home the horror of the situation. Apparently the results of a survey he commissioned his aides to conduct on the academic qualifications of the English-language teachers in his governorate showed that eighty percent of them had never received a formal education in English but had specialized in other areas, such as history, sociology or geography. Stunned by the findings, the governor has embarked on reforming the school system in his bailiwick, but it remains to be seen whether his well-intentioned endeavour to bring about the required changes can succeed in a cultural context that is so resistant to change. It was not difficult to discover the disturbing facts revealed by the survey he commissioned; the difficulty lies in standing up to the well-entrenched defenders of the status quo.

If the stark picture I have painted of some of the problems we are facing is painful to contemplate, my excuse is that I find what Gibran Khalil Gibran said in his book, “The Storms” (published in 1920), to be as relevant today as it was when he wrote it more than eighty years ago. Though I do not have the text at hand, I could paraphrase from memory: Many physicians in the East attend to the sick, but they do not treat them with other than temporary palliatives that extend the duration of their malady, but do not cure it.

(*) The Arabic version of this article was published at Al-Ahram newspaper – Cairo, 22nd February, 2003.