Cooperative Approaches as a Way to Build Resilient Societies

Abstract

This chapter takes a deeper look into the impact of cooperative approaches within modern societies, especially of the transformation into resilient responsible societies. Therefore, we discuss the background and the development of resilience at individual, organizational, and societal levels. Especially the societal resilience needs to be more specified and examined. We place as a central assumption that every citizen is a co-producer of resilience in the state and in society. The cooperative approach can deliver many impulses needed. We are taking a look at the similarities and differences between cooperatives and all forms of resilient organizations.

1 Introduction

With this contribution, the team of authors would like to promote a dialogue and discourse on the growing importance of cooperatives within modern societies in the twenty-first century. We understand cooperatives as associations that primarily promote the acquisition or economic activity of their members through joint business operations. In doing so, they succeed in combining economic and social goals. In many cases, they also act as drivers of innovations and sustainable developments (Arnold, 2023, p. 53).

Societies are undergoing multiple transformative phases of upheaval and are being shaped by multiple crisis events. Against this background, resilience has become a much-talked-about concept. Be it in individual resilience approaches, be it that companies see organizational resilience as a new important competitive advantage—the various expressions have in common that resilience is becoming a central guiding principle along the way.¹ Societal resilience, on the other hand, has not yet been sufficiently researched. Nevertheless, in the case of crises or transformations it is insufficient to rely solely on governmental steering impulses. Our approach is based on the central understanding that every citizen of a state also sees themselves as an active member of a resilient responsibility “society”—and thus, similar to a member in a cooperative—also sees themselves as a co-producer of societal resilience. Keeping this in mind, it is obvious, that cooperative principles have a remarkable proximity to societal approaches to self-organization. Therefore, in the following chapter we will explore the central research question of how existing and proven cooperative principles can be used for the development of a resilient society.

First, we explain the increasing importance of resilience in times of uncertainty and transformation. Building on the established approaches of individual and organizational resilience, we develop an approach of societal resilience and work out which commonalities exist between cooperatives and a resilient society.

We look at the basics in terms of similarities as well as differences between cooperatives and all forms of resilient organizations. On this common ground, we will point out examples that we believe serve as best practices for combining cooperative principles with social developments. Finally, in the outlook, we will look at possible derivations from these findings for the management and development of organizations.

2 Changing Environments and the Growing Importance of Societal Resilience

Regarding the topic of drastic events, it is easy to forget that the sense of social order and stability has already been severely strained for some time, by shocks such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the financial market crisis of 2008, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the war by Russia on Ukraine since early 2022.

All these events show us that we live in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world. This is what the frequently used acronym VUCA stands for. The constant change and crisis-like events have a more than challenging effect on our society. Transformative upheavals—triggered by digitalization and the need to do business more sustainably—are shaping social developments. Added to this is the growing influence of Asian, Arab, and African countries and cultures in a multipolar world community. No one can escape the effects of these developments, and they are permanently and sustainably shaping the way we study, work, and live.

The consequences of these changing environments have so far been discussed primarily by the management and leadership of companies. Those responsible there are looking for concepts and approaches that are better suited to the very complex and highly dynamic environmental conditions. Against this background, a discussion on a “new business administration,” including a new understanding of work and organization, has also developed (Kopsch & Stork, 2023). This includes the tendency to work increasingly with decentralized and agile forms of work organization, thinking systematically in scenarios and using experiments to test the effectiveness of concepts. Various approaches to self-organization are being implemented and form the basis for diverse new forms of collaboration and cooperation. The growing importance of digital platforms and ecosystems is also changing the understanding of the market with its distinction between providers and consumers. The learning and development processes and the “identity” of the organization are increasingly becoming the focus of management. Co-evolutionary processes in personnel and organizational development and collaborative forms of cooperation are shaping the new understanding of organization (Wimmer, 2012). At the same time, new leadership models—such as transformative leadership, leader as coach, or the idea of servant leadership—are gaining more and more in importance. New and much more democratic forms of decision-making, participation, and increasingly also the distribution of ownership are coming to the fore. In parallel, the importance of social and cooperative forms of behavior in collaboration is also growing—which is also associated with an increasing departure from the classic image of human beings as “homo oeconomicus” maximizing self-interest in the concepts of business administration and working with an image of human beings that is significantly more complex and multi-layered.

A development is emerging that is characterized by a new quality in the relationships between companies and their employees. A development that is driven, on the one hand, by the high motivation and growing participation of employees and, on the other hand, by the increasing importance of their knowledge, ideas, and commitment for the success of the company. A type of membership in the organization is emerging that is replacing the classic working relationship. The participation of the employees (as members) of the organization in the capital and earnings, in the co-design of strategy development, and in organizational and cultural development becomes a new central organizational principle. These developments are very interesting from the point of view of cooperatives—both from a theoretical perspective and from a practical point of view—as a number of similarities and parallels obviously emerge when one considers the specific features of cooperative approaches. Quite obviously, this brings us closer to a notion of corporate governance and management that is already at the core of cooperatives’ understanding of organization.

Compared to the consequences of disruptive environments—together with the challenges of transformative upheavals—which have long been a topic of discussion in the field of corporate management and organizational development, the corresponding discussion with regard to the consequences at the economic policy and societal level is less developed. Yet, public sector instances and organizations are exposed to the same disruptive developments. In these environmental conditions, the executive branch is no longer fully capable of ensuring the protection, security, and well-being of society as a whole (Prior & Cavelty, 2023). Consequently, Prior and Cavelty suggest readjusting the relationship and the understanding of the role between citizens and the state.² The urgent need for action is also illustrated by a look at the “Global Risks Report” of the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2021), according to which there will be major risks in the future, particularly from IT failures (as, e.g., by cybercrime) and from climate change (weather and climate catastrophes). Against this background, it is not surprising that the concept of resilience is currently well on its way to becoming a key guiding principle in politics and society as well. At the height of the Corona crisis, for example, the German Council of Economic Experts, who advise the German government, placed resilience at the center of their report. And the EU Commission has launched a multi-billion Euro investment and resilience program. There is a discernible increase in the preoccupation with questions of resilience and the development of competence in societies and helpful concepts and effective approaches are being sought.

3 Resilience and the Transformative Development Competence of Societies

In order to be able to compare cooperative approaches with the findings from resilience research, we will go into the basics of resilience research below.

The diverse use of the term resilience against the backdrop of transformative upheavals in society necessitates a systematic characterization. Resilience is derived from the Latin verb “resilire,” which can be translated as “to bounce back” as well as “to rebound.” The term in modern times was initially used in materials research and, in its original meaning, referred to the property of an object in relation to an applied force to rebound back to its original form. This also describes an important property of resilience, which in everyday life is often equated with resistance or perseverance. Resilience research has proven to be a very dynamic field of research in recent decades, and various scientific disciplines have contributed to this development. As a result, the term resilience is now used in a much broader sense. Resilience represents a competence for dealing with change and describes a multi-layered and dynamic process that enables people to successfully cope with crises or major changes through the flexible use of their personal resources and to emerge strengthened from them. Resilience research also shows that individual resilience can be learned, trained, and developed very well. “There is no human being who is not resilient. (…) Everyone can strengthen their resilience, even into old age,” points out Isabella Helmreich of the Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research in Mainz (Helmreich, 2020; see also Gilan et al., 2021). This immediately raises the question of whether it is also possible to develop competencies in resilience at the organizational and societal level.

A milestone for the understanding of resilience is the formulation of the ISO standard 22316 “Security and resilience—Organisational resilience—Principles and attributes” from 2017: Organizational resilience is defined as “[…] ability of an organization to absorb and adapt in a changing environment to enable it to deliver its objectives and to survive and prosper […]” (ISO, 2017). It describes resilience as a design approach for “healthy” corporate development that focuses in particular on the organization’s ability to evolve over the long term. For a further in-depth understanding of resilience at the organizational level, the transfer of the ISO standard’s formulations and representations in the resilience dimensions (1) resistance, (2) regeneration, and (3) reconfiguration is very instructive (see also Fig. 16.1):

Fig. 16.1

Three resilience dimensions (author’s representation based on Brinkmann et al., 2017)

The distinction between the three dimensions of resilience emphasizes above all the dynamic and process-oriented quality of resilience as a competence of organizations. The following applies: Resilience always manifests itself in interaction with and in the context of a specific situation and against the background of different development strands in each case. Transferred to the societal context, these three dimensions of resilience then manifest themselves as follows, for example:

• A society can respond to a crisis with resistance (1) and withstand the pressure and strain. Like a “rock in the surf,” society braces [or societies brace] itself against the forces acting on it. One perseveres—despite adverse circumstances. Alone, however, this leads to the development path of society remaining permanently lower.

• In terms of regeneration (2), societies, like a “tree in the wind,” manage to adapt their growth and development to the forces acting on them from outside. A change and adaptation of societies occurs. In the sense of regeneration, however, society subsequently finds its way back to its original path of development.

• A society can react to a strong change but also in a transformative way. Through adjustments also in relation to the “internal structures and processes” of the society, a reconfiguration then occurs (3). The actors and the “elements” of the system are literally “shaken” in the process—like a “mobilé after a bump.” Few, but very strong connections provide cohesion. This in turn enables society to find sustainable “new constellations” in a synergetic way “after the shock” (the disruption). Such a reconfiguration can then lead to the so-called system innovations, in the context of which societies take completely new paths in their development. The fundamentally new constellation, which now “fits” the new context better, often results in a permanent change in the development path.

Talking about resilience, people often think just about “resistance” and “regeneration.” Resilience is therefore primarily associated with resistance and adaptability. But it is also important to consider the third dimension known as “transformative resilience.” This refers to the ability of a society to reinvent itself, proverbially, when it is faced with upheaval and disruptive change and developing a fundamentally new setup. This may become necessary, for example, when digitalization, climate change, and globalization lead to fundamental transformation processes.

Curiosity supports the process of “repositioning oneself” and provides the necessary drive for fundamental change. Within the framework of the research and transfer projects commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS) at the Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences,³ the term pair “resilience and curiosity” is therefore deliberately used in order to systematically take into account the third and currently particularly important dimension of “reconfiguration” (Stork et al., 2023).⁴ Curiosity can be characterized as an inclination and willingness to actively expose oneself to new, unfamiliar, complex, and ambiguous stimuli. Explorative behavior develops, and with it an active and conscious engagement with new situations. In order to measure curiosity as a personality trait and identify starting points for promoting curiosity, we distinguish the following dimensions (Merck, 2018; Kashdan et al., 2018):

• Inquisitiveness as the search for ways to fill an identified gap in knowledge. This results in a feeling of relief.

• Joy of discovery as the joy of learning and knowledge appropriation and as creativity in problem-solving.

• Openness to new ideas as the conscious search for different ideas, different perspectives, and new approaches.

• Stress tolerance as the conscious acceptance of uncertainty, discomfort, and stress.

• Social curiosity as the interest and pleasure in working with other people.

Many personal and environmental protective and developmental factors promote both curiosity and resilience. Stress tolerance is an element of resilience and, at the same time, a dimension of curiosity. In addition, it is often only through the dimension of stress tolerance that the other dimensions of curiosity—inquisitiveness, joy of discovery, and openness to new and different things—can be activated. Factors such as optimism, security, playfulness, and support that promote resilience can also be used to increase stress tolerance and thus curiosity overall. Resilience, in turn, is further developed through self-motivated ability and willingness to learn, as well as curiosity and the joy of experimentation (Scharnhorst, 2010). And curiosity—as well as joy, pride, or satisfaction—is one of the factors promoting resilience as a positive emotion (Arnold et al., 2023, p. 155; Uhrig, 2021). Overall, resilience and curiosity have similarities and are mutually dependent.

4 Development of an Approach for a Resilient and Responsible Society

In the following sections, we present key building blocks of societal resilience and link them to our approach to a resilient society.

Against the backdrop of the demonstrated importance of societal resilience and curiosity, sociologist and futurologist Stephan Rammler writes, with a view to the challenges in the area of state tasks:

We are coming out of a time in which—formulated in terms of social theory—structure and functionality were the guiding principles. But now we are entering a time (…) where I would say: We need to develop the agile resilient state as a state that can offer very different solutions very quickly. What we need is exactly the opposite of what was necessary and correct in the structural-functional era, when the administrative apparatus provided stability and security. In the classic sense of resilience, in the sense of springing back to the old situations. And now we are actually experiencing a redefinition. We call this transformative resilience. We believe that resilience is now only possible through change and adaptability, and not through stability-oriented structural conservative behaviors (Urban Change Academy, 2021).

If the development of social resilience is to be addressed systematically and to outline a corresponding approach, several prerequisites must first be identified such as the relationship between individual, organizational, and societal resilience and the contribution of the systemic-synergetic management approach.

4.1 The Role of Resilient Individuals and Organizations in a Resilient Responsible Society

We understand organizations as complex, adaptive systems that operate in a complex environment like ecological systems (Holling, 1973). This environment is characterized by uncertainty, ambivalence, and dynamics. Organizations combine various interconnected and interacting elements (employees, structures, processes, stakeholders) that influence each other in unpredictable ways and result in emergent behavior.

From this system-theoretical perspective, the individuals (with their particular individual resilience) are embedded in the organization. There are qualities that are necessary for the organization to develop resilience at the individual level in professional life. Employee resilience is discussed in research as “a trait, a capacity, or a process.” (Williams et al., 2017, pp. 741/742) or as “capacity, outcome or as a process”. In the context of a systemic perspective, individuals act with their resilience and curiosity as a person, team member, manager or employee, actors in the organizational structure, and as bearers of the corporate culture. These actors play a decisive role in shaping organizational resilience. Conversely, studies impressively show how positively good and functioning teams and attentive and respectful leadership affect employees’ resilience (Seville, 2016; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Williams et al., 2017). Similarly, the structure and culture of the organization can support the development and nurturing of resilience by supporting the acquisition of new skills through protected learning environments and a stimulating and motivating work atmosphere—for example, through substantial education, training and coaching, as well as experimental spaces or an appropriate system of goals and rewards (Kopsch & Stork, 2023).

Organizations, and cooperatives in particular, also develop collective capabilities that can lead to increased resilience (e.g., cognitive, behavioral, emotion-regulation (capabilities) (Williams et al., 2017). These emergent processes and collective behaviors (e.g., communication and collaboration) lead to increased resilience (Williams et al., 2017). As a result, organizational resilience is more complex than the aggregate of individual resilience factors: “Organisation-level capabilities are not just additive composites of individual capabilities.” (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011, p. 245).

Considering the cooperative principles from the perspective of resilience research, there is a remarkable similarity to the factors that are elaborated when it comes to promoting and developing the resilience of individuals, teams, and organizations. In cooperatives, members form a community that collectively builds resilient capacities. Through their principles (e.g., solidarity) they have strong social capital. Bonding social capital (e.g., close relationships within teams/employees) increases resilience (Williams et al., 2017; Coleman, 1990), while bridging social capital (looser relationships, but varied) provides access to resources and information, which positively influences long-term recovery after a disruption (Hawkins & Maurer, 2010).

Cooperative approaches, for example, systematically support their members in their self-efficacy and their willingness to take responsibility. In an environment of multiple challenges (such as digitalization, sustainability, and the development of a multi-polar world order), members experience belonging to and working together in the cooperative as both a relief and a support (Popovic & Baumgärtler, 2019, p. 7). In the context of resilience research, these cause-effect relationships are represented, among other things, by the so-called sense of coherence—in the sense of the concept of “salutogenosis” according to Aaron Antonovsky (1996). The sense of coherence develops through the interaction of the dimensions of comprehensibility, controllability, and meaningfulness and describes a basic attitude that a person takes toward his environment and his own life. The more pronounced this feeling is, i.e., the more coherent this interaction is perceived to be and the greater the confidence in one’s own abilities, the better the person can cope with challenges and exploit his or her own development potential. In today’s resilience research, the sense of coherence represents only one of several resilience factors, but it remains a central element for the development and promotion of resilience in communities and organizations. As a result of the democratic decision-making and participatory culture in cooperatives, their members can generally expect that (a) the events and experiences in the context of the cooperative appear to them as comprehensible and explainable (understandability), that (b) the necessary resources and competencies are available to cope with the tasks and challenges (manageability), and that (c) the demands to be met and the tasks to be completed are perceived as meaningful and useful (meaningfulness). The organization as a whole becomes both more capable of action and more powerful as a result of a sense of coherence prevailing among its actors. Cooperatives therefore usually prove to be particularly resilient and they seem to have a special quality in dealing with great complexities and strong uncertainties.

In the organizational and societal context, a dynamic process perspective of resilience enables actors to engage with their environment and their multiple interactions. Williams et al. (2017) therefore define resilience “as the process by which an actor (i.e., individual, organization, or community) builds and uses its capability endowments to interact with the environment in a way that positively adjusts and maintains functioning prior to, during, and following adversity.” (Williams et al., 2017, p. 742).

Based on the findings of resilience research, the individual resilience of the responsible actors—in the public sector as well as in the private sector—is the starting point and foundation for the resilience of a society. Looking at society as a “social system” in which different actors in different sectors interact in different processes, each acting in the context of a specific structure and culture, it becomes clear that the public sector in particular plays a central role. So the first step should be to promote the personal resilience of employees and managers. And for orientation in the management of organizations, ISO standard 22316 (ISO, 2017) lists ten fields of action that serve as a guardrail. Compared to conventional approaches in the field of management and organization, it is striking that the ISO standard emphasizes behavior-oriented aspects in particular. In addition, value is placed on the systematic combination of resources and processes as well as on a clear development orientation.

Following the systemic approach of this chapter, societal resilience does not only consist of the characteristics of individuals and organizations. As elaborated in this article, society also develops collective capabilities that promote societal resilience (Hall & Lamont, 2013). Behind this—derived from the conceptual considerations of the systemic management perspective and the approach of synergetics based on it—is the notion that every citizen is a co-producer of resilience in the state and in society. Private, civic, or other engagements in social issues and the common good are considered “normal”.

4.2 The Contribution of the Systemic-Synergetic Management Approach to a Resilient Responsible Society

These considerations are accompanied by an understanding of organizations that describes them more as living organisms and social systems and less as mechanistic constructs with fixed structures, procedures, and processes—see Fig. 16.2 (cf. Wimmer, 2012, with reference to Beer’s model of the viable system).

Fig. 16.2

The company as a system, author’s illustration

Characteristics of such a systemic view of organizations⁵ include:

• The recognition of the high complexity in the system of the organization,

• Taking into account the influence of social and cultural rules on the behavior of the actors,

• The appreciation of the “identity” of the system, the understanding of a “we” (in the system), and an awareness of a “you” (outside the system), and

• The consideration of the specific meaning or purpose (mission) to explain the system.

In view of the unstable contexts and disruptive developments described above, there is a need to deepen and expand the established systemic management perspective using the approach of the so-called synergetics. Synergetics is considered to be the “doctrine of interaction” and analyzes the so-called emergent phenomena and developments that can lead to the emergence of new orders, patterns, and processes in systems on the basis of autonomous and self-organized processes. As a reaction to internal and external disturbances in the system, these form a central source for the changes in the systems or for the new development of systems. Synergetics thus forms a kind of meta-theory for development and change processes, especially in phases of great instability (Haken & Schiepek, 2010).

The approach of synergetics thus methodically builds on the systemic management perspective. Processes of self-regulation develop primarily in areas of self-organization and help systems to gain valuable new perspectives and development resources. For the associated processes of transformative learning, it is in turn crucial that the members of the system are able to deal resiliently with change. And this also includes that they can use the existing energies in the system as well as activate their own and other resources with a curious and development-oriented basic attitude (Haken & Schiepek, 2010). This is all the more important because otherwise, it can easily happen that the transformative phases and processes appear chaotic and contradictory to the involved and affected actors in the systems (organizations and societies) including a feeling of being overwhelmed and frustrated.

The combination of the systemic management perspective with the synergetics approach provides a better understanding of the developments and dynamics in the context of VUCA worlds and the transformative processes that often accompany them. This approach thus also provides valuable suggestions for resilient responsible societies:

• For those responsible, it is always also necessary to generate “destabilization in the context of stability” (Haken & Schiepek, 2010, p. 624). It is valuable and necessary for “healthy” development if there are areas in which emergent phenomena and developments can emerge spontaneously. In the sense of synergetics, what matters is a sensible balance between stability and instability within the social system.

• Likewise, it is necessary to find a “good interaction” between the centralized and the decentralized structures of the system. A balance that enables both a top-down influence of the actors and elements of the system and supports a bottom-up influence of the system via the spontaneous development of new synergetic patterns at the level of the individual actors and elements.

• For the regular search for possible new patterns of order, structures, and procedures that are to shape the system in the future, the aim is to establish competition-like procedures that are rule-based in the sense of cooperative competition and avoid aggressive or ruinous competition. Possible new connections and patterns should be given the opportunity to prove themselves in practice in a “protected atmosphere” and to be continuously improved through learning processes.

• In addition, it is important to find the right balance between the openness and the closeness of a system. A blanket adherence to the “old” and the “proven” is to be seen just as negatively as a “blind implementation” of every innovation that presents itself. A structure and culture that attentively observe the resonances in the system and allow and promote new synergetic couplings are helpful here.

• Finally, there is a need for an identity and a self-image that, on the one hand, provide for a few, but very strong, connections in the system. And on the other hand, they include the possibility of developing new alternative structures and processes in the system and ideally support this systematically. This “identity” of the system (or the parts of the system) is of fundamental importance and forms the “evolutionary anchor” for the self-regulation of the system.

4.3 The Contribution of the Hybrid Organization Concept to a Resilient Responsible Society

For the purpose of formulating an approach for a resilient society, it should also be emphasized that a central challenge for government institutions is that they encounter two fundamentally very different patterns in the tasks and activities. A distinction is made here between complicated contexts or realities, on the one hand, and complex ones, on the other.

The complicated reality applies to the area in which public sector organizations operate in an environment that is familiar and accustomed to them. They have developed and adapted their internal structures and processes over time so that they can perform their tasks and activities well. And they know how to develop and implement new government services in this setup as well. If you imagine an overview of all the interwoven workflows and processes within these organizations, the result is a complicated but inherently logical and well-planned framework. Someone who knows their way around this complicated framework can use control mechanisms to influence it in a targeted way. Such an organization is well-positioned for a slowly changing world. Building on “old” and “existing” success concepts and business approaches, adjustments and innovations are planned and implemented more or less continuously.

The situation is different due to VUCA worlds and disruptive developments in the wake of transformation processes. For these complex and complicated contexts or realities, new approaches, methods, and forms of collaboration have been developed in practice and in science.

On this common ground, resilience research works with the concept of the hybrid organization (Stork & Grund, 2021). Hybrid organizations represent a mixture of “fixed” and thus classically hierarchical areas of the organization, on the one hand, and “fluid” and thus agile and network-like areas of the organization, on the other (see Fig. 16.3).

Fig. 16.3

Hybrid organization, author’s illustration

In a hybrid organization, complicated as well as complex contexts exist side by side. In case where innovation and speed are required, the methods of the complex reality are used. Otherwise, when constancy and stability are needed, the methods of the complicated reality come into play. Such a hybrid organization consciously tries to make productive use of the tensions that arise from the fact that the two worlds operate side by side. In addition, the two areas maintain a lively exchange at certain points, they coordinate with each other, learn from each other and change, as it were “responsive,” their scope. The concept of a hybrid organization thus also stands for a fundamentally different and more positive attitude toward change. These no longer take place only in certain phases and thus have neither a specific beginning nor a planned end. And accordingly, in the concept of a hybrid organization, there is a structure and culture for learning and change in the organization that is designed for the long term, via the “fluid” part. The “stability” of the organization thus arises via permanent, evolutionary change.

4.4 Consolidation into a Resilient Responsible Society Approach

Transferred to the societal level, this results in a hybrid and breathing model for the organization of state tasks in the sense of a resilient responsible society. The basis is the combination of “fixed” and thus hierarchically organized areas for the classic and familiar state tasks, on the one hand, and “fluid” and thus agilely organized areas for the new and innovative state activities, on the other. Depending on the need and situation, society can draw on both organizational qualities, and the degree of responsibility and involvement is accordingly “breathing” (see Fig. 16.4) (Schuster & Stork, 2021).

Fig. 16.4

Approach of the resilient responsible society, author’s illustration

The strength of this hybrid and breathing model lies in the systematic combination of two organizational patterns in a common overall organization; in the words of organization scientist and change management expert John P. Kotter: “The power of two systems: The mature hierarchical organization is complemented by a new network-like structure. Both systems work hand in hand” (Konieczny, 2020, p. 2).

The basic organization of the tasks of the public sector is initially based on the “fixed” and, in the best sense, the classic component of administration. Here, the core tasks of the state are covered in the sense of a basic function. Tasks that are primarily concerned with reliability and security, as it is the case, for example, in the area of civil rights and civic duties. This also includes activities in the context of the so-called services of general interest, ensuring participation and promoting social balance. It is about the core state services, for example, in the areas of public safety, education, health and transportation, as well as the infrastructure for energy and water supply, for telecommunications, for waste disposal, and so on. These areas are governed by an organizational and operational structure that is bureaucratic, in the best sense of the word. Order and stability, as well as efficiency and legality, are the guiding principles for handling these tasks in the public sector. Government agencies act in a formal and clearly structured manner; and they are also rigid in their implementation, if necessary, and then act with a corresponding degree of vigor.

In addition, there are systematically “fluid” components in the organization of public tasks. There, agile and network-like organizations are active, for example, within the framework of working communities, project teams, charitable foundations and chapter corporations, partnerships, associations, and communities. They provide social services that are often characterized by a high degree of innovation or are characterized by a very high level of complexity. Situations and challenges that regularly arise in the context of transformative developments, among other things. Here, the focus is on networking, experimentation and piloting, and the work structures are correspondingly open and flexible. Classic organizational and management elements such as job descriptions, competence regulations, target agreements, or process optimization are not to be found here. Employees work in network-near structures and organize themselves to the greatest possible extent and in agile (project) teams. This part of the organization also represents the company’s drive to constantly develop, learn, and try out new things. In summary, the focus here is on the new areas of responsibility of the state for society that have been elaborated above within the framework of the synergetics approach and the systemic management perspective: the promotion of social learning processes, the design and accompaniment of change processes, and the facilitation of new synergies.

For the success of the approach of hybrid and responsive organization of public tasks and activities, it is central that both subareas cooperate intensively and do not act as isolated parts. In order to ensure a well-coordinated interaction of the two areas, a kind of coordinating body should act to coordinate the activities between these two organizational subsystems. This office should also be involved in the orientation and development of the companies and organizations in the public sector’s own operations. In addition to coordination in the narrower sense, this body also assumes the central task, which is equally important for interaction, of preparing the experiences and findings from the activities in the “fluid” organizational area for the “fixed” organizational area and promoting their adaptation. The coordination center is thus also a place of development, where society meets and experiences itself as a kind of learning and development community. It is a central social and community-oriented instance where the highly dynamic processes of social resilience and curiosity have their point of orientation and where new ideas and approaches are constantly being developed, initiated, and observed in their effectiveness.

By establishing such a hybrid and breathing organization, civil society is also systematically and specifically strengthened. In conclusion, citizens become active co-creators of their own society and its developments. They thus take on a systematically different and more active role. This increase in responsibility and the more active contribution of citizens to societal resilience and curiosity must, in turn, find their balance via greater citizen participation and influence in societal issues and topics. As illustrated in Fig. 16.4, the entire civil society with its “more responsibility” and its “more participation” is included in the approach of a resilient and curious responsible society via the “envelope” of the circle.

The approach of the resilient responsible society is fundamentally applicable to all levels of the state-federal order, and through it, the public sector—whether at the federal or state level or in the area of responsibility of cities and municipalities—can succeed in both handling certain fundamental tasks very well and carefully and, on the other hand, reacting agilely and flexibly to new and short-term and often “vague or unclear” needs and issues. Following the classical understanding of resilience (and the dimensions “resistance” and “regeneration”), it is important to equip the “fixed” components with additional resources and redundant structures. This is demonstrated, for example, by sufficient personnel reserves and the possibility for all people in society to take care of their concerns at the citizens’ offices both online and offline (and thus in a deliberately redundant manner).

The “fluid” component of the organization of public tasks is characterized by agile and variable structures. This also involves active exchange with citizens “at eye level,” who are offered a wide range of opportunities for active participation via flexible and network-like structures. This area must be systematically expanded— compared to the current status quo. More than in the past, social tasks must be organized through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as cooperatives in particular, but also through foundations, associations or loosely organized neighborhood communities, and self-help organizations. The state is required to support these in a targeted manner with financial and other resources, instead of further expanding its own activities in these areas through traditional administrative institutions. Certain currently existing competencies, responsibilities, and resources must be transferred according to a growing field of self-administration and self-organization of civil society. This applies to complex or innovative activities, for example, in the area of cultural operations, business promotion, or the integration of marginalized groups into society. The goal should be to become much more active here, but to act differently, namely in an agile and network-like manner in the interests of society. The pronounced ability of cooperatives to cooperate supports these fields of activity in particular.

From an organizational science perspective, the hybrid and breathing combination of “fixe” and “fluid” organizational domains in the resilient responsible society approach can also be described as a second-order management or a second-order organization.⁶ Here, the qualities and elements from two different concepts for organizing cooperation are deliberately combined, thus forming an organization that can systematically draw on both basic organizational patterns. Thus, this form of second-order organization responds to the challenge described above that organizations and societies are systematically and regularly confronted with two different basic patterns or realities. The complicated contexts or realities in which it is worthwhile to strive for “best practice” or “good practice” solutions and the complex realities and contexts in which it is a matter of mastering the new challenges with “emergent practice” or “novel practice.” This organizational science classification leads to new derivations in terms of the orientation in the management and leadership of these societies.

5 The Contribution of Cooperative Approaches to a Resilient Responsible Society

A resilient society needs impulses that can be found in many ways in cooperative organizations. In the following section, we look at the historical derivation and make a first scientific classification before showing how existing and proven cooperative principles can be used for the development of a resilient society.

Cooperative approaches are characterized by some specific features. The basic rules of cooperatives are based on primordial democratic forms of organization and on the principles of self-help, self-responsibility, self-management, and solidarity. The hierarchies of a typical cooperative are fundamentally flatter and the decision-making processes are more participatory than in conventionally organized companies. If one locates them in the relationship of tension between the state, society, and the market, it can be seen that cooperatives occupy a special role.

Cooperatives can be located “in the middle” between the private sector, the public sector, and civil society, as a third sector (cf. Fig. 16.5). Depending on their orientation, organizations in this sector tend to follow the logic of market, state, or community action and can hardly be clearly located at one of the three poles. State organizations such as administrations and public authorities are guided by principles of hierarchy and compliance with rules, private-sector enterprises follow the principles of competition, and civil society organizations base their orientations on principles of reciprocity and solidarity. On the other hand, the intention of innovative, future-oriented approaches of cooperatives is not reduced to the “original.” Cooperatives consciously deviate from classic, profit-driven economic activity and at the same time take social objectives into account.⁷

Fig. 16.5

Relationship network based on the welfare triangle according to Vaudt (2022), author’s illustration

The basis of this approach can be traced back to the two founding fathers of the German cooperative system Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch (1808–1883) and Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen (1818–1888). While Raiffeisen sought “to improve the conditions of the members (be) in a moral and material respect” (Schäfer, 2019), Schulze-Delitzsch emphasized: “The spirit of the free cooperative is the spirit of modern society.”⁸ Both were considered social innovators in much of Europe during the founding period of the nineteenth century and the immediate development in the years that followed. The special solution competence of cooperatives does not lie in their objectives, but fundamentally in the way they organize participation (in the form of membership) and decision-making processes (in the original democratic sense). These two unique selling points are not only interconnected in practice, but complement each other and build on each other (Arnold, 2023, p. 56f.). For this reason, too, UNESCO emphasized in its justification for the inclusion of the cooperative idea in the World Heritage List in 2016: “A cooperative is an association of volunteers that provides services of a social, cultural or economic nature to members of the community to help improve living standards, overcome shared challenges and promote positive change” (UNESCO, 2016).

In cooperatives and similar forms of organization, there is also a “both/and” approach to management—in contrast to the often common demand for clear definitions that apply uniformly to all (Smith et al., 2016). The organization is hierarchical and follows predefined process patterns if the main focus is on efficiency, accuracy, and cost savings. If, on the other hand, the focus is more on innovation, creativity, and flexibility, the organization tends to be a network and works in self-organized and agile structures. Hybrid organizations are very “mindful” in their management overall, and they develop a high level of awareness with regard to the correct assessment of the starting situation and the appropriate selection of the appropriate and useful organizational patterns in each case. Breit (2023) points out that this “both/and” management approach, which applies to cooperative approaches, is helpful in dealing more effectively with paradoxes and dilemmas (Breit, 2023, p. 21 ff.). The special form of the organization and the applicable principles in cooperation prevent existing tensions, conflicts, and dilemmas from being excluded in management and leadership. They are not “covered over” by hierarchies and power structures and instead come to light and are openly discussed. These organizational forms systematically offer structures and processes that serve to address and discuss the areas of conflict and to search for new approaches and procedures. This requires appropriate moderation so that the actors with their possibly conflicting interests can agree on a common approach to improvement. The quality of collaboration depends to a large extent on whether it is possible to assume joint responsibility for the future. The cooperative idea can make a very significant supporting contribution to this. This is because cooperatives, through their special organizational principles, support the development of a shared responsibility among members both for the organization as a whole and for each individual. And the combination of fixed and fluid elements in an organization trains and educates the members of the organization in the fact that there is always another perspective (in relation to the issue, the challenge, etc.). This is another reason why cooperative organizational approaches are particularly good at involving stakeholders from different social groups.

Effects that—as shown here—contribute to strengthening the democratic basis in society are also summarized in the literature under spill-over effects.⁹ People acquire and develop democratic competencies in the context of cooperatives—and in similar organizational formats. They gain experience and develop skills at the most diverse levels of democratic decision-making, and this competence encourages them to become active in the context of community engagement and broader political development processes. A civil society of a resilient responsible society can benefit from such knowledge in order to expand its own democratic understanding (Kessler, 2023, p. 252f.; Arnold, 2023, p. 60ff.; Varman & Chakrabarti, 2004, p. 207f.). The high level of self-motivation and democratic self-governance also enable cooperatives to deal better with crisis situations. Cooperatives have developed resilience in dealing with complexities and uncertainties. Over the past 200 years they have repeatedly succeeded in coping with difficult situations characterized by great uncertainties and complex developments.

6 Examples of Transformative System Innovations in the Context of a Resilient Responsible Society

To consider cooperatives only as economic actors is too short-sighted, as has been shown in the previous section. In the following section, we will show examples of how already functioning cross-connections to social ideas and cooperatives exist and how they are successful in several ways.

Thanks to their pronounced ability to cooperate, cooperatives gain access to forms of work that mobilize the creative potential of a community. Cooperative ecosystems that work closely with universities of applied sciences (HAW) are particularly interesting, as the two practical examples presented below show.

The concept of citizen cooperatives constitutes a special form of cooperative that addresses a potentially wide variety of tasks in the field of a community. While classic cooperatives often focus on a specific area—purchasing cooperatives, housing cooperatives, cooperative banks, etc.—the so-called citizen or social cooperatives have a broader approach (Anders et al., 2023, p. 366 and 376). For example, the “KoDa eG” project (Kommunale Daseinsvorsorge und Bürgergenossenschaften) provided scientific support from 2017 to 2020 on the initiative of a university to show how citizens’ cooperatives in six small municipalities take on tasks in the social, cultural, health, and economic spheres—with the aim of “ensuring conditions for a good life” and thus supplementing the classically sovereignly organized services of general interest.

The project and the initiative “KoDa eG” shows interesting and important forms of civil society engagement in the context of the resilient responsible society approach through the different variants of citizen cooperatives (see Fig. 16.4). On the one hand, the activities in the area of services of general interest examined in this context make it clear how the aspect of “breathing” organization can present itself in the diversity of practical implementation on the ground. After all, the areas of services of general interest are actually considered core tasks of the state. On the other hand, the project makes it clear how urgently a change in organization and an associated new allocation of resources is needed in the public sector so that these central sovereign tasks do not have to be organized and performed elsewhere. In municipalities where there are no initiatives such as the citizens’ cooperatives presented here, the only alternative available to municipal officials is privatization of these activities, which is often problematic.

For the implementation of the resilient responsible society approach, it is important to recognize that citizen cooperatives benefit from fundamental local political support. This forms the basis for the civic and entrepreneurial engagement of local citizens and thus the success of the citizen cooperatives. These civil societies, in turn, act as “anchors” for other existing initiatives, associations, and cooperatives. In this way, they create new synergies at the municipal level. The “KoDa eG” project also vividly demonstrates how the coordinating body can take concrete action on the ground in the resilient responsible society approach.¹⁰ In this context, the “KoDa eG project” also shows that for the nationwide integration of citizens’ cooperatives, the framework conditions must be facilitated in legal terms, just as it is necessary to ensure local political support and connection in each case (Klie, 2018, 2021).

Another example is the concept of municipal hubs, which represents a novel form of collaboration between municipal leaders and representatives of science. The starting point is the recognition that municipalities play an important role in the transformation processes. For example, many responsibilities in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) lie in the municipal sphere, for example when it comes to implementing the goals of the transformation of transport or other climate policy measures.¹¹ However, many local governments are overburdened by their variety of tasks, suffer from a shortage of skilled workers, lag behind in digitization, and feel the slowing effects of increasing bureaucratization. Municipal actors are under enormous pressure to implement and are at the same time (partly) at a loss as to how they should solve the complex issues in the field of sustainable development.¹² Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, in turn, has set itself the goal of promoting sustainable development and has made it its mission to be an outstanding, reliable partner in shaping current developments and in developing creative and practical solutions to problems. This mission is put into practice through the concept of the Kommunal-Hubs (h_da@KommunalHub), an exchange format for a trusting, continuous and close transfer of knowledge between science, administration, and politics.

The solution to societal challenges in the adaptation to climate change and increasing digitalization is seen as a joint task of science and practice. The basic idea of the procedure in the h_da@KommunalHub meetings resembles a transfer process in fast forward:

• At the bi-weekly meetings, practice actors report on their problems. The problems are discussed in a partnership and solution-oriented manner. The moderation is carried out by the Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences.

• A common understanding of the problem is developed. If the problem cannot be solved in dialog (in moderation comparable to the concept of collegial consultation), an unbureaucratic request is made to the university for scientific support and expertise.

• In subsequent meetings, the problems and issues will be further discussed, and new cooperation opportunities and concrete transfer issues will be agreed upon.

• In their own learning labs or with the help of specialist expertise, solutions are developed in the next step and then tested and refined in experimental rooms.

• By regularly communicating the solutions with other municipalities, they can be easily multiplied and scaled.

For the implementation of the approach of the resilient responsible society, the concept of municipal hubs offers an important expansion and deepening with regard to the role and involvement of science. In addition to its scientific expertise, science also becomes an actor and co-designer in the transformation processes. In the municipal hubs, the topics are introduced and led by the municipal political actors, and the “big questions” of the transformation processes are tackled in a strategy of small steps and implemented in a practical way. Thus, scientific research and transfer take place according to the “pull principle.” The local political representatives determine the topics and the focus. Through the associated dynamics and urgency, “science” also succeeds in working in a very concrete interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary way without getting lost in the conceptual verbiage of the corresponding concepts. The prerequisite for this is, in turn, that the municipalities are similarly far-sighted and bold in their formulation of goals and proceed in an equally goal-oriented manner.

The municipal hubs format supports new synergies and contributes to a change in the self-image of the actors involved. This includes questions such as: What challenges and opportunities do municipal actors face in managing the Great Transformation? What new opportunities for cooperation can the administration use to meet these challenges? And also, how must the administration change in order to meet the challenges? In this way, KommunalHubs create spaces and opportunities for developments from which system innovations can emerge. Particularly in terms of knowledge transfer and shared learning and development experiences, the KommunalHubs thus assume the role and task of the coordinating body in the resilient responsible society approach. Municipal topics are brought into the university, students are brought together with the potential employer municipality. The concept of the municipal hubs has the potential to contribute to a transfer culture in which problems are solved jointly by politics, administration, and science, and it also forms an attractive example of a possible new role for science in the context of the major transformation challenges.

Both practical examples show how the specific role of the coordinating body can be implemented in the approach of a resilient responsible society.

7 Concluding Considerations

So far, current discussions on the further development of the public sector have generally been characterized by the fact that “modern” management is to be implemented in one way or another. This is often based on the classic concepts and approaches for organizations in the private sector. Such a discussion can also be observed among the large, group-like cooperative enterprises. The perspective of the resilient responsible society approach leads here to a different and more differentiated approach. It is no longer a matter of the frequently conducted discourse of “old management ideas versus modern management understanding.” Rather, it is primarily a matter of establishing and developing a strong coordinating body that manages to distinguish the tried-and-tested classic approach from the issues and problems that can be better solved with new and agile forms of collaboration and approach.

In the case of cooperatives and public sector organizations, this derivation from organizational science can then possibly lead to a return to the original cooperative or administrative roots in management and leadership for certain subareas of the organization. This could lead to a return to the original cooperative or administrative roots in management and leadership for certain areas of the organization and then to a return to the professional ethos of a “public servant” or “proud” cooperative member in the sense of Schulze-Delitzsch and Raiffeisen instead of indiscriminately emulating the model of a modern manager.

The approach of a resilient responsible society presented in this article is based on a combination of “fixed” and “fluid” organizational areas in the “society” system. The approach can develop its full effectiveness if it is accompanied by resilience-promoting measures in the area of employees, teams, and managers, as well as by appropriate organizational and cultural development in the individual organizational units. On this basis, “public management” for the twenty-first century must be pursued from a holistic societal perspective and must also be more creative and development-oriented than in the past. A too-often static understanding of administration and state thus gives way to the image of a learning and development community—which understands and organizes itself as a resilient responsible society.

This means that the public sector will have to systematically take on new tasks in the future. The traditional tasks of the state—such as providing services of general interest, ensuring participation, and promoting social balance—will be supplemented by goals such as promoting social learning and change processes and enabling new synergies. The central point is that these hybrid and breathing organizations of public tasks are embedded in a society in which every citizen actively seeks participation in societal processes and is prepared to bear corresponding co-responsibility—as a co-producer of societal resilience.

Against the background of the question on the role and significance of cooperatives in a “changing world,” some final considerations and classifications follow at this point. With a look at the presented Fig. 16.5, in which cooperatives are assigned to the third sector, which has been depicted as a triangle, it can thus be stated that there is a systematic expansion of the role and significance of cooperatives. This development is driven by the growing uncertainties and complexities in VUCA worlds and in the context of transformative processes. Cooperatives—as well as other similar forms of organization—usually prove to be particularly resilient here and they seem to have a special quality in dealing with complexities and uncertainties. In summary, then, the triangle representing the role and meaning of organizations in terms of the cooperative idea is widening:

First, the cooperative organizational idea, which is strongly based on the principle of self-organization and is characterized by the principles of self-help, self-responsibility, self-management, and solidarity, is also finding increasing favor in the private sector—albeit often in other forms of organization. Schumacher/Wimmer speak of a trend toward low-hierarchy organization, and they list organizational forms such as sociocracy, holacracy, and scrum, through which companies hope to achieve significantly more agility and participation. They summarize, “The concept of self-organization represents an absolutely significant trend in the further development of the understanding of organization.” (Schumacher & Wimmer, 2019, p. 16).

Second, the cooperative organizational idea also shapes the resilient responsible society approach presented here in this article at key points—for example, when it comes to the interaction of the two organizational patterns or when the design of new and agile activities needs to be clarified in the face of rather complex challenges characterized by uncertainty. This means that the public sector is also increasingly characterized by cooperative principles.

Finally, the idea of cooperative organization obviously has an important contribution to make when it comes to how democratically organized civil society develops in the context of the many transformative upheavals taking place. In almost all European countries, there is a growing number of parties that are more or less openly questioning the existing democratic structures and processes. Here it helps if, in the sense of the spill-over effect, the basic democratic understanding is regularly experienced and cultivated in cooperatives—and comparable forms of organization. And it also strengthens the democratic competence of civil society if, in the sense of adaptation, tried-and-tested elements of the basic cooperative idea find their way into formats and thus help to strengthen the participation and involvement of civil society in the social and common good-oriented decision-making and implementation processes.