02_Slobodan Miladinovic:tipska.qxd 15 Slobodan Miladinović University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Serbia Research into Attitudes about Social Change and Global Models of Governance* UDC: 316.42(497.11) ; 316.324 DOI: 10.7595/management.fon.2014.0023 XIV International Symposium SymOrg 2014, 06 - 10 June 2014, Zlatibor, Serbia 1. introduction The beginning of the XXI century can be considered as the period of the third wave of democratization (Hunt- ington, 1991), the period characterized by an accelerated breaking up with authoritarian systems and the consolidation of democracy at the global level. The third wave was initiated in 1974 with the democratic changes in Portugal and continues to this day. The process has been accelerating since the second half of the eighties. Authoritarian regimes transit to a democratic form and parliamentary elections become freer and more open. The number of countries in which the democratic electoral system evolves (multi-party parlia- mentary democracy) has more than doubled in the last three decades. It seems, at least when it comes to the beginning of the XXI century, that this is the age when democracy is, at least nominally, becoming a global political norm rather than one of the possible choice. But in the new democracies, as it is the case with us, it appears, as a general problem, that they still retain an authoritarian heritage since the democratic norms, values and practices still remain a great uncertainty for many actors of social change, starting with political and economic leaders, political parties, civil society associations and the ordinary citizens. It takes time for people to adapt and accept democracy as a form of global management and government of the state and society. So, in order for democratic systems to be functional, it is important to understand how the citizens themselves perceive their functionality among other things, e.g. if they are satisfied with the situa- tion and whether they support democratic process and democratic institutions. Hence no wonder that the new democratic society has a lot of problems on its way to democratization. The aim of this paper is to determine the extent to which Serbian citizens support the democratic system and democratic institutions, e.g., the extent to which people experience democracy as the optimal form of global management. Therefore, we conducted a survey of social attitudes of citizens relating to the acceptance of democracy as a system of global management, their attitude towards social changes and issues such as whether the social subject should be managed by the state. Management 2014/72 This paper presents the results of the empirical research “Cultural Orientation of Actors/Students, Interethnic Relations, National Identity and the Culture of Peace in the Balkans” performed within the macro project “Tra- dition, Modernization and National Identity in Serbia and the Balkans in the EU Integration Process” (179074). They are related to attitudes about democracy, social change and global management. The key issue of the research is how people perceive the functionality of democracy, whether they are satisfied with the situation and whether they support the democratic processes and democratic institutions. From the findings we can see that the authoritarian legacy consciousness burden the citizens of Serbia greatly, and in particular the exam- ined population - university students. Confirmation of this was seen in the finding that the majority of respon- dents believe that the best global management model is technocracy. This leads us to the conclusion that our society does not have a fully developed and mature political culture yet since the people are still inclined to accept (personalized) authorities that are ultimately reflected in the state and the holders of state power rather than citizens and their associations. Keywords: change, democracy, technocracy, authoritarianism A variety of factors affect citizens’ satisfaction with the democratic process (McAllister, 2008). One of them relates to the institutional aspects of democracy. This is especially true when it comes to whether the elec- tions can provide representation of their will in the establishment, and whether the quality of the electoral process can be ensured, which will be reflected in the effects of the election activities of citizens. Second, the support for the democratic system takes into account the responsibility and performance of the system, i.e. whether the system is effective in providing good management as well. It should be taken into account whether the occasional and temporary convergence of political parties in order to create coalitions limits the citizens’ choice. Third, the consequences of political participation and political involvement of the citizens to political efficacy are important. Here will be analyzed the results of the empirical research “Cultural Orientation of Actors/Students, In- terethnic Relations, National Identity and the Culture of Peace in the Balkans” performed within the macro project “Tradition, Modernization and National Identity in Serbia and the Balkans in the EU Integration Process” (179074) organized by the Centre for Sociological Research, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Niš, which is financially supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia. The study was a survey and was carried out in the areas of South and Southeastern Serbia (summer 2013) on a sample of 818 students of the University of Niš. The sample is proportional to the composition of students and includes three groups of students: (1) students of social sciences and humanities, (2) students of tech- nical and technological sciences and (3) students of medical and natural sciences and mathematics, by years of study and educational institutions. 2. Survey data analysis The decades-long crisis affecting the Serbian society has endangered the stability and functionality of the society to the extent that the issue of fundamental social transformation has become a development im- perative. Of course, there may be different types and different political contexts in which transformation may take place. Today, the broader public often raises the question whether it is better for our society to estab- lish a democratic or an authoritarian form of political organization. Of course, this is a false dilemma con- sidering that the current social practice has shown that democracy has many advantages over other forms of political organization. Every form of authoritarian government favours particular social subjects to the detriment of some others while democracy strives to articulate different interests. Of course, democracy may have specific problems and go through developmental difficulties and even “children’s diseases” but at the end of the development path, however, it shows socially favorable results which in general cannot be said for various forms of authoritarian government. Revisiting the concept of political power often corresponds to the dominant value patterns in the society among which we will emphasize the global type of national culture and within it the issue of organizational and political culture as particularly important. (Mojić, 2010). Unfortunately, the society of Serbia has in recent history been dominated by patriarchal and traditional cultural patterns within which authoritarianism (Kuz- manović, 1994, 1995) and nationalism (Miladinović, 2006, 2007; Popadić, 2010) play a particularly significant role. In many respects this context has dictated the type of organization and political culture and attitude to- wards work cultivated in our society. It is no coincidence that the personal authorities were easily accepted in these areas and cults of leaders were built on the basis of them (Kuzmanović, 2010). Rather than demo- cratic solutions characterized by the free elections and a parliamentary form of government there are often present personal authorities who frequently promoted populism and hid themselves behind the idea of tech- nocracy in the public arena. The essence of a technocratic government, which is supposed to represent the rule of experts, is that they, despite their expertise, are not politically neutral as regards general benefit, but they support various authorities and their ideologies and interest clans. Authoritarianism as a value frame- work and personal power as a political practice are firmly coupled with the demagogic action present in parallel demagogic rhetoric and concrete action designed to satisfy lowly passions, and launch the broad masses support (Stojanović, 2011). Authoritarianism, the cult of leaders and demagogic actions rendered masses as inarticulate subjects easy to manipulate. In such circumstances, the power of the mass gives legitimacy to the leader and their will is seen as the general will. It has long been known that when ideas controlling the masses become the driv- ing force, they can fundamentally change the social circumstances. The key problem is that the charismatic 16 2014/72Management leaders with a skillful manipulative rhetoric present their ideas as ideas of the masses and thus get an enor- mous social power that is presented as a legitimate political will of the people and their every move is seen as the fulfillment of the people’s will (Miladinović, 1994). The recent political history has shown that every social crisis, whether economic or political, is an introduc- tion to the period in which the leader has outgrown the society. The Second World War and the period of revolutionary construction led to the cult of Josip Broz. After his death, the political crisis has brought sev- eral nationalist leaders in the political arena (Bowman, 2004; Denitch, 1996; Miladinović, 1994):. Ideological turmoil, in conjunction with the birth of a multi-party system, brought to the surface a large number of po- tential candidates who rely on their personal charisma and fight for the position of an undisputed leader of the nation. The period after the year 2000 is a period of temporary calm. It seemed that the leaders have gone to history, and the vacuum is filled with new social and political patterns. However, the crisis at the end of the first decade triggered the citizens of Serbia to turn again to personal authorities and give their support to the cult of personality at the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first century. At this moment it is an unrewarding task to predict the outcome of the current social and political turmoil. What can only be argued about with certainty is that all the necessary conditions are created to establish the cult of the charis- matic leader and his personal power. What will be achieved from this depends on a number of political, eco- nomic and cultural factors that set the tone of current events. Table 1: To what extent do you agree with the following attitude: 17 Management 2014/72 To what extent do you agree with the following attitude: S tr o n g ly D is a g re e ( 1 ) T e n d t o d is a g re e ( 2 ) N e it h e r a g re e n o r d is a g re e ( 3 ) T e n d t o a g re e ( 4 ) C o m p le te ly a g re e ( 5 ) M e a n S td . D e vi a ti o n N Democracy may have its problems, but it is better than any other form of government 12.84% 11.60% 31.73% 28.89% 14.94% 3.21 1.210 806 Undemocratic order is sometimes better and more efficient than democratic order 14.88% 15.62% 39.24% 19.19% 11.07% 2.96 1.178 806 Democracy is the same as anarchy 29.19% 24.26% 30.54% 9.85% 6.16% 2.39 1.177 806 For people like me it does not matter what kind of political system we live in 47.41% 13.92% 22.41% 8.13% 8.13% 2.16 1.318 806 With the aim to determine the tested population attitudes towards democracy we asked respondents to give their opinion as to which extent they agreed with the four statements (Table 1): 1.Democracy may have its problems, but it is better than any other form of government 2. Undemocratic order is sometimes better and more efficient than democratic order 3. Democracy is the same as anarchy 4. For people like me it does not matter what kind of political system they live in It turned out that the highest level of compliance exists as regards the first statement. Even 43.83% of re- spondents believe that democracy is better than any other form of government, although it may have its problems. If we take into consideration the dominance of authoritarian patterns in the value structure of the society in Serbia, this finding seems to be very favourable. However, it does not provide a developmental perspective of Serbia. The problem is that one in four does not endorse this attitude and one in three does not have a clearly defined opinion on this issue. Even among those who agree with this statement there is some caution about the claim that democracy is the best form of governing a society (28.89% tend to agree but only 14.94% completely agree). Such a configuration of answers suggests that there is a poor subjec- tive potential for adoption and development of democratic political ideas and system in Serbia. The largest number of the respondents were reluctant to clearly articulate their attitude to the claim that the undemocratic order is sometimes better than the democratic one (39.24%). There is an equal number of re- spondents who either disagree with or support this statement (about 30%). Within the structure of those who disagree with this essentially anti-democratic attitude, half of them reject it completely but the other half do it in general. This configuration of responses indicates that there is a very good potential for the ac- ceptance of non-democratic forms of governing a society. This finding is not surprising given that previous studies have shown a very high presence of authoritarianism in the value structure of the population of Ser- bia (Kuzmanovic, 2010). If we specify the previous attitude and say that democracy is the same as anarchy, then we have a slightly more favorable response configuration. Now willingness to defend democracy is shown by more than a half of the respondents (53.45% of which 29.19% completely) while 30.54% are indecisive. So, there are only 16.01% of those who directly admitt that democracy and anarchy can be equated. In the structure of those who equate democracy and anarchy are 6.16% of those who completely agree with this attitude. Ultimately, this shows the potential for acceptance of extremist political organizations and their ideologies. This poten- tial can be extended from the current six percent to a significantly higher number in times of crisis. Moreover, here is a potential core for extremist forces first line support in any context of escalation of social conflicts and their transmission from parliament and factory halls to the streets. This number can grow in a short time and take on alarming proportions through skillful political manipulation and attempts to establish the cult of the charismatic leader, as it was seen in Serbia and former Yugoslavia in the nineties. The last statement, “for people like me it does not matter what kind of political system they live in”, expresses a political apathy. Political apathy may be considered as an expression of saturation with political events or dissatisfaction expressed by citizens concerning the social perspective or inadequate party and electoral offer and the entire political elite (Stojiljković, 2011) as the “lull before the storm“. In our case, only 16.26% of the respondents expressed a direct political apathy in supporting such an attitude. Half of the number (8.13%) accepted this attitude completely. To this number may be added the 22.41% of those who do not opt, which makes the total of 38.65% of potentially apathetic citizens, i.e. those who might want to aban- don any political activity. On the other hand, there is the majority of 61.33% of the respondents who do not accept political apathy as a way of personal relationship with the government of the state and society. An interesting finding is that almost half of the examined population completely rejects this claim. This means that there is a great potential for political activism in the Serbian society, and that the citizens are very inter- ested in the politics and political perspectives of the society. 18 2014/72Management Table 2: Which of the following statements best describes your opinion: A democratic society is essentially a dynamic society. A dynamic society is a society that is willing and able to change itself quickly and create new forms of social behavior. Of course, it is important to the changing of society that there are no subjective forces that would be carriers of changes. It is a common understanding that the younger and more educated, which includes our respondents, are more willing to accept and initi- ate social change. Therefore, we offered them to choose an attitude that best reflects their relationship to a global social change (Table 2). The offered attitudes exemplify the following orientations: a radical change (radical cut - a revolution), a gradual change (reform), a resistance to change and the absence of change attitude. The modal response was that the society should completely change through a reform. So, five out of ten respondents accepted reform, gradual changes, as the best solution to the current social problems. On the other hand, one in four respondents thought that the best pattern of social change is a radical revo- lutionary action. The key difference between these two versions is the duration of the transformation process. While, on the one hand, the reform involves a long-lasting process, the revolution, on the other hand, im- plies a relatively short-term action. The revolution brings stormy and very dramatic changes almost as a rule while with the reform it is not necessarily the case. It is an interesting finding that even 7.75% of the respondents think that our society must fight vigorously against any changes. They advocate for the status quo, for preservinf the existing situation of social relations. We need to add 14.74% of those who declare that they cannot opt for any of the available variants. So almost 85% of students have a clear vision of the pace with which the social transformation is supposed to happen and more than a half are in favour of gradually changing the social relations. Table 3: Who in your opinion should manage the state: The respondents were also expected to give their opinion as to within which global government model changes should happen (Table 3). They were asked asked the following question: “Who should manage the state?” and the answers offered were standard variants of authoritarianism (strong leader who is not lim- ited by Parliament and elections), democracy (the government and parliament elected in free elections), technocracy (experts who know best what is good for the country) and militarism (the army). The answers are surprising. The modal response was based on the idea that the state should be managed by tech- nocrats, i.e., experts who know best what is good for the state. Technocracy as the best model of state gov- ernment is adopted by more than half of the respondents (60.49%). 19 Management 2014/72 Which of the following statements best describes your opinion: The whole organization of our society must be radically changed (in revolutionary action) 25.31% Our society must be completely changed through a reform 52.21% Our present society must fight vigorously against any changes 7.74% I do not know 14.74% Who in your opinion should manage the state: A strong leader who is not limited by Parliament and elections 17.04% Experts who know best what is good for the state 60.49% Army 3.33% The government and the parliament elected in free elections 19.14% The second ranked was the answer that the best model of state management is a democracy, specified by one in five respondents (19.14%). Authoritarianism is accepted by 17.04% and militarism by only 3.33%. Thus, the technocratic model is three times more desirable than the democratic model of state management and government. Here, in our example, we recognize the authoritarian heritage in accepting the authority of experts. The key disadvantage of the technocratic model compared to the democratic is that professionals are given the carte blanche confidence to make strategic decisions and the bulk of the population is excluded from the decision-making process. Technocracy is a kind of the minority educated professionals tyranny over the majority of less educated members of a society. It should be noted that technocracy does not nec- essarily produce socially valuable results. It can be linked to any political or economic strength of society and can defend its own interests, or can simply take care about its own interests primarily. The point is that global politics should be left to the democratically elected government that will be able to articulate the in- terests of all stakeholders of civil society and ensure the protection of minority interests in the broadest sense of the word. Experts should be left to perform the individual specific tasks that require professional competence and thereby achieve a socially valuable effect. But, as it were, a much more serious problem is that one in five respondents accept authoritarianism either in any form of government of a strong leader who is not limited by Parliament and elections or in the form of militaristic government. In the next step (Table 4) we crossed questions that show the attitude towards change and attitude that de- fines the optimal model of change. There is a statistically significant relationship (p = 0.000) of low intensity between these two variables (Contingency coefficient C=0.23 and Cramer`s V=0.13). A most frequently ac- cepted combination is the one that connects the reformist view of social change with the technocratic model of governance. Concretely, 65.3% of the supporters of reform course accept the technocratic model of gov- ernance as the best, or 56.4% of the supporters of technocracy accept the reform course. Another cell of the table which contains interesting results is one in which even 58.1% of the supporters of the democratic model of governance accept the reform course of changes. Of course, acceptance is not bidirectional, as only 21.4% of reformists accept democracy as the optimal model of governance. Also interesting are the re- sults in the row where supporters of revolutionary change (radical cuts) intersect given that more than half of supporters of radical change (56.4%) also preferred the technocratic model of governance, while on the other hand, only about a quarter of supporters of technocracy accept the radical changes. It is interesting that 44.3% of supporters of the status quo accept the government of technocracy. The table can also be viewed either in vertical columns or in horizontal rows only. If we look at the vertical columns, we see that, on the one hand, one third of the supporters of the authoritarian model of governance advocate the radical course and, on the other hand, the next third advocate the reform course. It is observed that within this group there is twice more of those who oppose any change (16.2% of supporters of author- itarianism to 7.6% of supporters in the general population). It is observed that within this group, the share of those who oppose any change is twice bigger (16.2% of supporters of authoritarianism to 7.6% of support- ers in the general population). The supporters of the technocratic model are mainly directed towards the reform course (56.4%), while a quarter of them (23.6%) accept the radical cut. One third of the body of supporters of the militaristic model of governance prefer radical cuts (33.3%), a quarter of them prefer the reform change (25.9%), while the same number of them are undecided. It is in- teresting that those who do not have a clearly defined attitude toward the preferred dynamic of social change form a majority (25.9% compared to 14.9% of the total population) among the supporters of militarism. It seems that the militaristic attitude towards choosing a subject of change occurs as an expression of profound social hopelessness considering that a large number of supporters of this form of government either want quick, radical change or just do not know what would be good for the society, the state and the economy and it is in the army that they recognize the force that can bring order in the society. 20 2014/72Management Table 4: Cross tabulation: Who, in your opinion, should manage the state * Which of the following statements best describes your opinion: It has already been noted that three fifths of the supporters of the democratic government model accept tech- nocrats. It should be added that one in five believes that social problems can best be solved applying rad- ical cuts. Analyzed by horizontal lines we observe that technocracy is the modal choice of supporters of radical changes (56.4%). In addition to this, almost a quarter of them advocate an authoritarian model of gover- nance. The presence of the acceptance of democracy and militarism in this group is significantly lower. Two-thirds of reform-oriented respondents accept the technocratic model of global management and gov- ernment, while only one-fifth of them accept a democratic model. Other models of governance (authoritar- ianism and militarism) barely have supporters in this segment of the population. Slightly less than half of the opponents of social change (44.3%) accept the technocratic model as the best model of governance, while more than a third of them (36.1%) support the authoritarian model of gover- nance. The distribution of those who are indecisive as to which model of governance would be optimal is almost identical as in the general population. The only visible difference is related to the supporters of the militaristic model whose number is almost twice as high as in the total population (5.8%). 21 Management 2014/72 Who in your opinion should manage the state: Which of the following statements best describes your opinion: A s tr on g le ad er w ho is n ot lim ite d by P ar lia m en t a nd el ec tio ns E xp er ts w ho kn ow b es t w ha t is g oo d fo r th e st at e A rm y Th e go ve rn m en t an d th e pa rl ia m en t el ec te d in fr ee el ec tio ns Total 23.5% 56.4% 4.4% 15.7% 100.0% The whole organization of our society must be radically changed (in revolutionary action) 35.3% 23.6% 33.3% 20.6% 25.3% 11.6% 65.3% 1.7% 21.4% 100.0% Our society must be completely changed through a reform 36.0% 56.4% 25.9% 58.1% 52.2% 36.1% 44.3% 6.6% 13.1% 100.0% Our present society must fight vigorously against any changes 16.2% 5.5% 14.8% 5.2% 7.6% 14.2% 59.2% 5.8% 20.8% 100.0% I do not know 12.5% 14.5% 25.9% 16.1% 14.9% 16.9% 60.5% 3.3% 19.2% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% χ2=42,946 C=0,23 V=0,13 p=0,000 22 2014/72Management REFERENCES [1] Barro, R. J. (1999): Determinants of Democracy. Source: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, No. S6 (December 1999), pp. S158-S183. [2] Bowman, G. (2004): Xenophobia, Fantasy and the Nation: he Logic of Ethnic Violence in Former Yu- goslavia in: V. Goddard, J. Llober & C. Shore (Eds.), Anthropology of Europe: Identity and Boundaries in Conflict, pp. 143-171. London: Berg. [3] Denitch, B. D. (1996): Ethnic nationalism: The tragic death of Yugoslavia. Minneapolis: University of Min- nesota Press. [4] Huntington, S.H., (1991): The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. pp. 13-26. [5] Kuzmanović, B. (1994): Autoritarity in: Lazić, M.(ed): Society in crisis, Beograd: Filip Višnjić; [6] Kuzmanović, B. (1995): Autoritarnost kao socijalnopsihološka karakteristika, u: Društveni karakter i društvene promene u svetlu nacionalnih sukoba, priredili Golubović, Z., Kuzmanović, B. i Vasović, M. Beograd: Institut za Filozofiju i društvenu teoriju i Filip Višnjić [7] Kuzmanović, B. (2010): Autoritarnost – vapaj za jakim i pouzdanim vođama i disciplinom, u: Kako građani Srbije vide tranziciju, priredio Mihailović, S. Beograd: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung [8] McAllister, I (2008): Public Support for Democracy: Results from the Comparative Study of Electoral Sys- tems Project. Electoral Studies 27: 2. pp. 1-.4 Conslusion Now we can return to the question of how people perceive functionality of democracy, whether they are satisfied with the situation and whether they support the democratic process and democratic institutions. From the findings we can see that the authoritarian legacy burden the consciousness of citizens of Serbia greatly, and in particular the examined population - university students. The confirmation of this was seen in the finding that the majority of respondents believe that the best global management model is technocracy. This leads us to the conclusion that our society still does not have a fully de- veloped and mature political culture since the people are still inclined to accept (personalized) authorities that are ulti- mately reflected in the state and the holders of state power rather than citizens and their associations. The technocratic system can be considered as a transitional form between classical authoritarianism, which may be em- bodied in personalized authority or in authoritarian institutions such as the army in a very limited context, and democracy which is represented in the government and the parliament elected in free elections. In this case it is masquerading as professional competence of their carriers so that it can be easily uncritically accepted as a system of governance which is better than authoritarian personnel governments or military administration in periods of turbulent social upheaval which also impairs the democratic nature of the social system at the same time. The problem is that a technocratic government is not the same as a democracy. The technocratic government and management of society is just one more model of au- thoritarian rule. The difference, in comparison with other authoritarian models, is that the technocrats hide behind the pro- fessional competencies, which may inspire some confidence, but it does not mean that there is an existential interest of experts to work for the common good. Technocrats are not controlled by numerous mechanisms of broader social con- trol backed by the citizens. Technocrats are controlled by centers of alienated social power and they may be backed by a host of different authorities. The expansion of political freedom (democracy) has different effects on economic growth (Barro, 1999). The positive thing is that democratic institutions enable the control of the government, which limits the potential of public servants to accu- mulate personal wealth or to pursue the unpopular policy. The disadvantage is that more democracy encourages the re- distribution of income from the rich to the poor, and the growing power of different interest groups. Therefore it can be considered that the net effect of the growth of democracy is uncertain. On the other hand, practice shows that economic development embodied in the higher standard of living promotes democ- racy. This relationship is clearly shown when a democracy is presented through the electoral rights and civil liberties and impact, and the living rate through the growth of gross domestic product per capita, access to primary education, narrowing the gap in education of male and female populations and the growing importance of the middle class etc. * This paper was written as part of the project ”Tradition, Modernization and National Identity in Serbia and the Balkans in the Process of European Integration” (179074) which is implemented by the Centre for Sociological Research, Fac- ulty of Philosophy in Niš, and funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia. [9] Miladinović, S (2007). Stanje nacionalne tolerancije u Srbiji. u Matejić, V. (ur). Tehnologija, kultura, razvoj. str.164-173. Beograd: Udruženje „Tehnologija i društvo“ Institut „Mihajlo Pupin“ Centar za istraživanje razvoja nauke i tehnologije.; [10] Miladinović, S. (1994): Fenomen vođe, Gradina 1-2-3. [11] Miladinović, S. (2006). Pitanje socijalnih identiteta nacionalnih manjina i evrointegracijski procesi u Sr- biji. Sociološki pregled, 2: 207-245. [12] Mojić, D. (2010): Kultura i organizacije: uticaj kulturnih pretpostavki, verovanja i vrednosti na organiza- cione strukture, sisteme i procese. Beograd : Čigoja štampa : Institut za sociološka istraživanja Filo- zofskog fakulteta. [13] Popadić, D. (2010). Put iz bratstva i jedinstva – etnička distanca građana Srbije“, u Mihailović, Srećko (ur). Kako građani Srbije vide tranziciju, istraživanje javnog mnenja tranzicije, str. 105-121. Beograd: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.; [14] Stojanović, �. (2011): Početak „rata harizmi” u ex-Jugoslaviji: od institucionalne ka ličnoj harizmi Slo- bodana Miloševića. Kultura polisa, god. VIII (2011), br.15, str. 107-128. [15] Stojiljković, Z. (2011): Politički kapital i kultura (ne)poverenja: slučaj Srbija. u Podunavac, M. (ur): Ustav i demokratija u procesu transformacije, Univerzitet u Beogradu – Fakultet političkih nauka, Udruženje za političke nauke Srbije, Beograd. Receieved: June 2014. Accepted: September 2014. Slobodan Miladinović University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Serbia Slobodan Miladinović, Ph.D. in Sociology, is Professor at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade. He graduated in Sociology at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Niš (1983), and earned his Ph.D. degree at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade (1999). He is a member of editorial boards of two scientic journals: Sociological Review (Sociološki pregled) and New Serbian Political Thought (Nova srpska politička misao). He has published six books and over one hundred articles in journals and anthologies. His major works are: Elite raspada (Elites of disintegration). Službeni glasnik. Belgrade. 2009; Etnički odnosi i identiteti (Ethnic relations and identities). FON. Belgrade. 2008; Društvo u raskoraku (Society in discrepancy). Nova srpska politička misao. Belgrade. 2008; Osnovi sociologije organizacije (Fundamentals of sociology of organization). FON. Belgrade. 2007; Uvod u sociologiju organizacije (Introduction to the sociology of organization). FON. Belgrade, 2003. 23 Management 2014/72 About the Author