Managers in particular can often decide whether to endure situations or change them. An "I must" often means "I decide for" and an "I can't" actually means "I forbid myself to do that". If the freedom of choice and the regulatory framework are balanced, the experienced effectiveness of one's own actions leads to satisfaction and self-affirmation. While companies and other economic areas developed further during and after Corona, the state is lagging behind in terms of digitalization. Worse still: bureaucratic requirements consume energy, resources, motivation and ultimately added value, which small and medium-sized companies can hardly master. In the meantime, the mood among top decision-makers has turned from despair to bitterness. An ideal climate for enemies of democracy and disaster mongering. Let's change that!
Film funding in Germany has always been associated with many bureaucratic requirements. After all, "gifted" money from tax revenue should be used as carefully as possible for the best purpose. Despite a wide range of funding programs, a wide variety of political constellations in the federal states and varying government strategic goals at the federal level, the offer has continued to develop. Procedures have been simplified or shortened where practical reasons made this necessary. A further adapted package of measures at the federal level will further improve the situation. This is also astonishing because so many different stakeholders contribute their respective interests and viewpoints through various associations and committees.
Why is the German government having so much more difficulty reducing bureaucracy and digitizing standard processes than other countries in its immediate vicinity in Europe, but also in global competition? This is not the fault of "this" government per se, but rather permeates the legislation of the last few decades. While other EU member states implement European initiatives pragmatically, we are constantly creating new bureaucratic monsters with enormous administrative burdens. The more complicated the requirements, the more complex and error-prone the implementation algorithms become. If you then always want to try out customization and new innovations, the measures fail at the planning stage. In introduction phases that are planned far too short, with too few iteration cycles and too lengthy adjustments, we are squandering the foundation of our market economy and thus also the basis of our democratic basic order.
The state superstructure, all levels of public administration and management models in the public service must adapt to the challenges of an agile and high-frequency economy. The changes in companies and markets must also be reflected in the administration. There is a lack of comprehensive change management in all these major transformation projects and they fail because these very competencies are based on the facts through interest contracts. Instead, we experience political rhetoric from all parties, grand visionary plans without implementable practical competence and watch our neighbors overtaking. To make matters worse, we drive in the left lane of the highway with our "BRD" that is overdue for a MOT, with the self-confidence that the others only have to pull over to be able to admire our speed. We complain about those who overtake us on the right and demonize innovations that others have long been using but that we have not been able to implement.
Other nations are not only using digital tools much more intelligently to communicate with their citizens, thereby streamlining administration and reducing costs, but have also long since developed sustainable energy and transport concepts. There is a lack of concepts for the long overdue restructuring of the welfare state, for the reform of which all those responsible are passing the buck back and forth between the actors in federalism. Instead of "who", the "how" would be much more productive.
You can mourn that. You can complain about the government - either the previous or the current one. You can publicly condemn climate activists and gender promoters. But as leaders, we know that there are only ever two real alternatives: "endure" or "change". So if we are tired of enduring all this, why don't we start to change. Maybe first ourselves and destructive ideas. "Against" it doesn't change anything. The question that everyone has to ask themselves is "What can I do to make a contribution to active improvement?"
What can YOU do - and when will you start? Tell people about it and motivate others to follow your example. It is our country, our future, our home, our culture - and "us" are all of us who live here, from all over the world, with equal rights regardless of gender, origin and religion. Don't let bureaucracy discourage you, but let's improve it together with proposed solutions, using all democratic means within the framework of our rights and duties.
Your Ensider:Team
(Author: Markus Vogelbacher)