Samad Hassanzadeh: Calm in the Chamber and Trust in the Private Sector?

Samad Hassanzadeh, head of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, faces a key test in turning engagement with the government into effective private-sector participation in economic decision-making. The signing of the five-party memorandum of understanding in Shahrivar 1405 provides an opportunity to assess the results of this approach.

On July 28, 1405, Ambassador Arjan-Samad Hassanzadeh complained about an issue that is not so simple for the head of the Iranian Chamber of Commerce. According to him, the government had decided to support the affected companies, but the Iran Chamber, as a representative of the private sector, had no role in its formulation. Two months later, he considered the signing of a five-way memorandum for greater participation of the Chamber in economic decisions as the result of about a year of continuous follow-up. The gap between these two news reveals the main challenge of Hassanzadeh's personal and management brand and raises the question of how a manager with the approach of maintaining the path of dialogue with the government wants to show the real effectiveness of the voice of the private sector in these interactions?

A presidency that started from the heart of a dispute

On the first of Bahman 1402, Hassanzadeh got 208 votes against the 181 votes of Farajullah Memari, his closest rival, and sat on the chair of the Iran Chamber. These elections were held after about seven months of tension and disagreement between the government and the chamber over the presidency of Hossein Selahvarzi. For this reason, Hassanzadeh's entry into this position was not just the beginning of a new management period, but made him the heir to a difficult question about the independence of the chamber, which did not disappear easily even with the change of the president.

In such an environment, de-escalation could pave the way for communication with the executive bodies, but the close election result showed that the new president is not facing a homogeneous group. To build credibility, it was not enough to be accepted by the government in the meetings, and members with different views and expectations also had to feel that their representative's voice was properly heard. This is the test that links the public image of the head of the chamber to the internal relations of this institution.

From Tabriz tile to representing the whole economy of Iran

Before being the head of Iran Chamber, Hassanzadeh was mostly known for the management of Kashi Tabriz Industrial Group and the head of Tabriz Chamber of Commerce. This background gives tangible and understandable support to his managerial narrative, because it shows that the head of the chamber does not only talk about regulations and production from behind the podium, but also has the experience of directly managing a manufacturing company. However, successful experience in a particular industry does not by itself mean comprehensive knowledge of all sectors of the economy, and the concerns of a service exporter or a small firm can be fundamentally different from those of a large tile factory.

Therefore, Hassanzadeh's industrial credit needs to be redefined at the national level. The measure of this credibility is not summarized in the number of trips to the provinces, nor in the generalizations related to production problems, but lies in how far the activists of various economic sectors can find traces of their wishes in the chamber's priorities.

The voice of the critic next to the discussion table

On May 27, 1405, Hassanzadeh openly criticized the support package of 700 Hemti and said that he does not have a report from the provinces that shows that these resources have really helped the companies. According to him, these support packages "have not been opened until today". This stance complements the image of the president who is always seen with the government and shows that he is ready to publicly challenge the inadequacy of support in specific issues.

A more key point was made when Hassanzadeh announced on July 28 that the chamber did not play a role in drafting the support package after the war. For an institution that is supposed to be an advisor to economic decision-makers, this news is more than a simple executive complaint and indicates the distance between the chamber's official position and its actual presence in an important decision. Although the explicit expression of this gap is considered the strength of the management brand of the head of the chamber, its real value is measured in the ability to reduce this gap in the field of action.

A memorandum of understanding that must be put into practice on paper

On 30 Shahrivar, a joint memorandum was signed with the presence of the Chamber of Iran, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Interior, the Legal Deputy of the Presidency and the Office of the Government Council. For Hassanzadeh, this agreement can be an institutional and structural answer to the same problem he raised in July about making decisions for companies without the participation of their representatives.

Of course, simply signing an agreement does not prove that the opinions of the private sector will have more weight and influence in subsequent decisions. Considering the short time that has passed since the signing of this memorandum, it is not realistic to expect immediate results, but the demand for a clear report on its implementation mechanism seems quite reasonable. Economic activists have the right to know which regulations have been prioritized for reform, which organizations' representatives comment in this process, and how the response of executive bodies is published.

Providing such a report, in addition to making it possible to measure the performance of the chamber, helps Hassanzadeh to transform the image of a conversational manager into a more accurate and result-oriented one, which also clarifies the way to follow up requests for members.

Credit is not built at the end of sessions

On Mehr 17, Hassanzadeh once again emphasized the cooperation of the private sector with the government to ensure people's livelihood. Putting this position next to the criticisms of Ardibehesht and Tirmah shows that his public narrative is based on the two foundations of cooperation in the major issues of the country and protest against decisions that do not meet the needs of companies.

There is still no independent evidence to show how much the economic activists trust him or what tangible achievements the Shahrivarmah agreement has brought. However, it is now possible to distinguish more carefully that Hassanzadeh's brand of management is tested not in the calmness of his tone, but in the real changes after each conversation to be heard and pursue the demands of the private sector.

He took the helm after a period of controversy. If he can link the relationship with the government to the more effective participation of the members in the decision-making process and clear reporting on the results, his managerial calm will find a meaning far beyond mere de-escalation. Otherwise, the same peace may remain in the memory of the members of the room, mostly in the form of repeated meetings and unfinished agreements.