Working together - Leveraging the benefits of diversity in collaboration and cooperation

Working together

Leveraging the benefits of diversity in collaboration and cooperation

Seeing the grand vision presented for the Metro in Riyadh made me reflect on the art of collaboration, and how it generally differs in expat environments and can make extraordinary creations possible.

There are many counterproductive misconceptions about collaboration. Like the idea that getting differences and conflicts out in the open or that trying to reach mutual understanding is beneficial.
Instead, it is likely to rather amplify emotional strains and be detrimental to relationships. Collaboration is difficult even in culturally homogenous groups and in culturally diverse expat environments it is even more complicated.

Yet it is here that optimal conditions exist for maximising yield from manpower. Paradoxically, it is not due to these environments encouraging understanding, acceptance or tolerance between groups through increased interaction and exchange of ideas.

No, it is because the precise opposite is seen as being ordinary. Roles and tasks can more easily be demarcated between groups and the “how’”or “why” of inequalities can go unquestioned.
The value from having clear structure, focus and theme in a collaboration gets amplified when effective categorisation and control of resources is possible. Highly diverse environments consisting of groups with little interconnection allow for better stratification to allocate function according to utility.

Consider that it is rarely unclear what resources and actions are required to achieve a certain outcome. The challenges lie in accessing the resources and having the necessary measures to ensure that the work gets done. Access to both dramatically changes what is possible.

Think of any of the greatest collaborative achievements of any historical civilisation. From Machu Picchu, the pyramids, to the Great Wall, such projects were possible due to extreme power differentials between workers and their masters. The greater the concern for fairness, the more restricted labourers’ capacity appears to be.

The enabling element in highly-diverse expat environments is that what gets defined to be normal and acceptable is not precisely clear. This is not due to how things are discussed, but rather what is being kept out of the discussion all together. Fragmented social groupings further inhibit shared norms to form and take root.

As a mental experiment, consider how it would not be possible in the US today to ship in tens of thousands of workers on an industrial scale from the Indian sub-continent to live in labour camps under strict control, at fractions of the living standards and salaries expected as minimum by its local population.

But more significantly, the same is equally impossible to achieve in the home countries of these same workers. How expat environments differ is that the lack of a common framework of norms to benchmark against, and being away from home, will increase the tolerance levels of what are seen as reasonable working demands.

My upcoming book, Bargepole Management (BPM), describes how power differentials can be created deliberately in organisations to leverage the leeway for more decisive and direct action to be taken.

The ability to practice “bargepoling” appears to be in direct proportion to an organisation’s absence of shared social identity, i.e. degree of diversity. This, in turn, determines to which degree bargepoling is necessary for maintaining organisational stability as a means of minimising risk of conflict.

The BPM strategy involves promoting diversity in name, but as a means of restraining wider interaction and social mobility in practice. Thereafter, convincingly projecting legitimacy of power differentials is paramount.

Otherwise, discontent and demoralisation can spread quickly simply from allowing merit of positions and hierarchies to be objectively questioned. That’s when diversity becomes a liability more than a fuzzy feel-good buzzword.

Development Targets - Building a country requires more than compound-bound diplomats and NGOs

Development Targets - Building a country requires more than compound-bound diplomats and NGOs
http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-8842-flaws-imperfections-in-nation-building-success-formula/#.UnH7qhC3Xvh
On a recent visit to Baghdad and Basra, I had plenty of time to contemplate the oft-discussed question

of ‘why nations fail or succeed’. Recent years have seen many good books and TED talks by authors

such as Niall Fergusson, Jared Diamond and Ian Morris, who make claims of having identified the success factors in this regard.

The proposed formulae tend to be variations of a ‘framework’ whereby institutions shape social environment through

education, free enterprise and incentive, which allows for success to naturally follow suit.

I can’t help but feel that an underlying motivation with these books is to try and circumvent any suggestion that there are

inherent qualities of cultures that influence how well they are able to collaborate in larger contexts. Whether this politically correct

assumption is correct or not is difficult to give a definitive answer to. But in trying to avoid unpleasant realities of human

nature such as these, I think it gets forgotten how difficult it really is to organise at all any population beyond a certain

size. Wholesale chaos and violent infighting are the norm rather than the exception. Europe is not exempt. Recent history includes

wide-scale terrorism in Northern Ireland and genocide in the Balkans. Instead of asking why nations fail, isn’t it more

relevant to ask: “Why don’t all nations actively fail?”

There are many factors that can explain what underlies a country’s economic success. Innovation explains prosperity for

many nations, yet is an insignificant factor for a majority of countries. Singapore is often used as a prime example of creating

prosperity. Their main accomplishment has little to do with innovation and everything to do with creating social stability,

despite their extreme ethnic and religious diversity. This ability is the most significant and universal factor predicting a

nation’s development.

It is like a teacher first getting the class to sit down, be quiet and pay attention. There is no one correct way to do this. But

if a teacher lacks this skill, investing in more textbooks and computers in the classroom will not compensate for it. When

post-war nations rebuild, among the first outsiders to arrive, and the last to ever leave, are the armies of government-funded

advisors armed with PowerPoint presentations to hold endless workshops on effective governance and sustainable growth.

These cushy jobs, complete with compound lifestyles with minimal interaction with the local population, continue for as

long as there is no discernible improvement in the countries they are there to help! In fact, the more dangerous the country

is perceived to be, the better the perks and hardship grants.

Those responsible for developing the country appear rewarded better for failure than for success. These misaligned

interests also apply to many of the businesses active in, for instance, Iraq. Almost everything there gets imported, and numerous

layers of merchants take their cut along the way.

The business of providing security, from personnel transports to safeguarding supply chains, often costs more than

the actual product sold in the first place. And with the difficulties involved for outsiders to enter the market, this means

decreased competition and increased margins.

 

It is obviously not a case of an active conspiracy to uphold the status quo of perpetual insecurity in dangerous markets such

as Iraq, Angola and Nigeria. But where would you ever expect to find any organisation or employee able, and much less willing,

to eliminate their jobs and benefits by making themselves obsolete?

 

Yet this is exactly what is expected from these bureaucrats who stand in the way of economic development, which market

forces would otherwise ensure takes place naturally. An example of this is Rwanda, an impoverished African nation

that has rebounded surprisingly fast, and which is among the most stable African nations, with the strongest growth on

the continent. In fact, its president has recently spoken out against international aid funds, and it is now receiving none.

It is possible that this is, in fact, the best and most effective formula of all for long-term prosperity.

Think small to think big: on the finer details of organisational architecture and arithmetic

Looking at historic buildings across Europe, I wonder if the problems they faced bore any similarities to those in mega projects of today, where fierce arguments over the fault of delays and cost over-runs are the norm. 

Symptomatic of our day and age is that missteps and failures are often the cause of over-eager careerists making over-optimistic cost calculations and projections for the purpose of winning a contract or a promotion. This is certainly not limited to our industry of construction. The ever greater challenge is to overcome extreme narrow-minded and self-interested short-termism that guides organisational behaviours and decisions. Artificial bloating of revenues to misrepresent growth and profitability prospects and short-changing employees, partners or clients at the cost of sacrificing goodwill and trust have become viable business strategies. 

I have spent much time pondering this paradox of how we see ourselves as rational and logical thinkers, yet choose to self-sabotage when in a large enough setting. Trying to make sense of this, I have arrived at a theory that I call ‘collaborative diseconomies of scale’. It describes how a group growing beyond a certain size will see increasing number of members shift from prioritising mutual long-term collaboration to start acting with selfish short-term interests. 

It is simple enough to understand the underlying motive, seeing that we are members of the species called ‘homo economicus’; we act according to what offers the best rewards for our expended efforts. A good example is the taxi driver knowing that the city he is in is too big for it to be worthwhile being honest and building a reputation. There is a bigger premium for cheating one’s customers. When the links between people become too spread out and diffuse, the sense of shared interests and responsibility disintegrates.

Although it’s probably not possible to pinpoint at what size and density of population that this starts occurring, it appears to be a law of nature that it will do so once a certain limit has been passed. The mechanisms that trigger this wider decline in our ethics can also be seen in individual organisations.

To paraphrase a theory by Wharton professor Adam Grant, people mostly fall into the categories of takers, matchers and givers. ‘Takers’ strive to get as much as possible from others, while offering as little as possible; ‘matchers’ aim to trade evenly; while ‘givers’ are those who selflessly contribute to others and are driven more by the intrinsic purpose of their work. 

I don’t imagine that these character traits that determine organisational behaviour are entirely set from birth, but are instead largely impacted by environment. I see the most critical factors being population size and density relative to available resources and economic growth.  However, in contrast to a macro societal level, as in a city or region, I see it possible to exert greater influence on a company in a deliberate attempt to shape its corporate culture and thus behaviour. 

How to assemble different character types and nurture an environment where they best complement and push each other forward is a never-ending puzzle that determines the strength and survival of organisations. I don’t know the formula for success but too many ‘takers’ looking to derive value from a diminishing number of ‘matchers’ and ‘givers’ is a likely doomed recipe. 

We often hear that we should look at the bigger picture. However, no matter how big or complex the structure of an organisation, the most valuable insights are often found by looking at the smaller picture of how relationships between individuals are valued and function.  

Oscar Wendel is the Conference Manager of Construction Week.

Parameters of Success and Safe-guards against - How securing the integrity of supply chains is crucial for economic success

http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-8842-flaws-imperfections-in-nation-building-success-formula

I attended the Africa Global Business Forum in Dubai recently where a favourite theme for discussion was how African nations can learn from others as to how to become successful business and trading hubs.  As is usual, pointing out the real issues holding Africa back was kept to a minimum. Rather, convenient excuses for sub-par performance, with pat suggestions of possible remedies, were preferred. A recent favourite I’ve been hearing is how computers with Internet and Facebook, installed in all classrooms across Africa, would be the magical solution for the continent’s problems. 
 

It brought to mind a story from about a year ago now when I ran the Masai Mara Marathon in Kenya. This is a remarkable event, requiring some impressive logistics out on the savannah. No expenses are spared, with backing from several big-name corporate sponsors. Every kilometre along the track sees an armed guard on the lookout for wild animals. 

Despite the marathon’s seemingly impressive organisation, the water supplied at the stops was insufficient for about half of the runners. Numerous people collapsed under the scorching sun and were evacuated by ambulances. Many were furious, as were the sponsors, who made public apologies to the participants. 

It was probably not that someone had failed to calculate the number of bottles required for the number of runners that had registered. An educated guess is rather that, somewhere along the supply chain of getting the water out on the track, an ‘entrepreneur’ saw the opportunity to take a detour and offload the water bottles to disburse for their own profit. 

This scenario can almost be seen as a microcosm of the challenges faced daily in Africa. Overlooking even the simplest logistical detail can jeopardise the entire operation. Any opportunity to pilfer will be taken if there are even any remotely reasonable grounds for denying being complicit in the theft.

It is not corruption so much as sheer ‘leechism’ that explains nations that fail to create overall prosperity for their people. When I lived in Jakarta, I was told it was an open secret how jobs as public servants in positions to take bribes were sold to applicant able to pay the most. These economically counter-productive ‘jobs’ were often the most well-paid jobs available. It may sound provocative, but it is a simple observation that various forms of ‘leeching’, on all levels of society, is the ‘national industry’ of most countries that remain poor, despite these having favourable conditions to promote prosperity. 

Having spent much of my youth in both Singapore and Chile during the periods of their strongest economic growth, what I saw as central to both their success stories was the in-built safety mechanisms that prevented societal inefficiencies taking root and becoming burdensome. Fundamental parameters were in place to restrict public servants abusing their positions by creating obstacles and delays to obtaining bribes. Opportunities for parasitical behaviours overall were deliberately minimised. For instance, among the first things I noticed when arriving in Santiago was how most stores, small or big, only had a single person allowed to accept payment and to handle the cash register. Even buying a piece of gum at a pharmacy required one to wait for three separate people to hand pieces of paper to each other before the goods were handed over. As for Singapore, the opportunity for even getting fined for spitting gum on the street is insignificant as it is illegal to bring in a single pack to the country.

Both countries have long been among the least corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International. In the context of Chile widely outperforming its Latin American neighbours and Singapore’s unique position in Asia, this is particularly impressive.

It is irrelevant to ask whether these countries have populations with more evolved morals and character. Character is not revealed in what a person can restrain himself or herself from doing in any given situation. That is largely dictated by the aggregate of life experiences and the given circumstances at hand. True character can only be revealed by how we would act if we knew with absolute certainty that we would not get caught. 

For economic prosperity, what is needed is often not about more opportunity, but less. Consider that when we live in the habitat our bodies were designed for, six hours in movement each day with an all-natural diet, the natural norm is having the physique of a professional athlete. That we fail to live up to this natural state of being is explained more by our unnatural opportunities not to, rather than any individual strength or weakness of willpower.

It is not difficult to apply the same logic to understand how the economic health and efficiency of societies functions similarly. That is, only allowing for opportunities to engage in activities that are non-sabotaging makes success inevitable.

The Side-Effects of Economic Success: Backtracking our steps in order to get a glimpse of the road ahead

The willingness to pay a premium for immediate versus future rewards is a familiar concept. economists call it hyperbolic discounting. However, less
attention is given to how the opposite also applies. that is, our willingness to accept disproportionately higher risks and costs if there is a time lag for paying them.

For instance smoking and sun-tanning: imagine if consequences such as cancer materialise instantaneously instead of with a delay. engaging in any of these activities recklessly would probably be
as uncommon as seeing anyone taking their chances of running across a heavily- trafficked highway.

our inability to correctly price the long-term costs and consequences of our decisions is reflected in every level of society, irrespective of a person’s background or social context.

this blind spot is so all-encompassing that a government borrowing for pensions, while knowing it will be unable to repay this, is not dissimilar to the self- imposed denial of an individual massively overspending on their credit cards.
i see economics as the extension of sociology and psychology. it is the scorecard of the aggregated incentives that a group acts upon. the story which economics reveals cannot be understood if separated from either of these two.

if the global economic crisis is behavioural at root, can we find better solutions if we treat the problems from a social perspective? i see an obstacle in doing so in that freedom, democracy and capitalism are used interchangeably to justify self-sabotaging behaviours.

yes, the world’s population is better off than in previous times in terms of health and daily conveniences. But our entrepreneurial spirit, innovation and market efficiencies have, in a sense, succeeded too well.

Demand has been driven too far for our own best interests when we are lured into sacrificing our future well-being for fleeting luxuries.

Democracy and capitalism are largely to thank for increased welfare and decreased conflicts through the spread of free enterprise and trade. yet, this relies on power structures remaining stable, and it is often overlooked that this stability hinges on the mechanism of self-oppressing spending patterns of the majority of citizens. that is, people voluntarily sacrifice opportunities for long-term benefits and chances of self- improvement in exchange for satisfying momentary urges. a good demonstration of this can be seen each morning in cities around the world when minimum-wage workers wait in line to pay five dollars for coffee in paper cups.

Consumerist ideals have become fundamental drivers and conditions that shape human existence. it is unreasonable to expect that this trend can be reversed. we need to recognise that what unites most of us now is instant gratification, the currency that people can be incentivised with most effectively.
solving the economic problems we face on a global scale requires that we design policies aligned with this reality. that is, figuring out how to apply a mix of short- term incentives that results in the daily behaviours and decisions of citizens to simply act less self-destructively.

I do not suppose that there is any silver bullet for this. in the past, social norms and religion filled the function of promoting virtues of delayed gratification and resisting temptation; however, in 2013, both social protocol and faith are declining. to keep pace with changing values and lifestyle demands, an updated understanding and approach of the motivating triggers that influence our impulses will be required. A rough mental image and outline of our future selves, along with the sacrifices and efforts needed, is probably a good starting point to not abandon our destiny to the mercy of our whims.

Winner's Dilemma - Enthusiasm and the battle for the status quo

Link to article online

The first-mover advantage is often understood as having the good sense and fortune of being first to enter a market. While that is often the scenario of many market leaders, rarely is it about merely being first.

Seizing the advantage referred to is laying claim to big enough market territory to leverage market inequalities that arise and result in an uneven playing field.
All companies that have been able to reach a position of dominance tend to share this trait. Competitors are crowded out through means of advantages of scale in production and/or distribution.
Rockefeller dominated by owning railroads that gave access to distribution. Microsoft holds its position largely due to the needs of compatibility. Amazon built a supplier and distribution system of incomparable reach and efficiency.

How raising the entry barriers for competitors function are well covered in economic theory. Yet, rarely do you find much discussion on strategies for how corporations can benefit from stifling change and progress. Maxims such as ‘innovate or die’ are far more palatable.
While the value of continuous innovation cannot be understated, what often is, if not completely overlooked, are the inherent difficulties in upholding a consistent level of performance. The term ‘status quo’ has negative connotations and is often deceptively understood as a euphemism for complacency.

It is fascinating to study how complete failure and breakdown usually occurs shortly after an organisation reaches its pinnacle of achievement. In my theory, which I call ‘the winner’s dilemma’, I attribute two major factors to explain this phenomenon. The first is that success can be like a disease in how even the best can be seduced into underestimating their competitors and overestimating their contribution and value.

The second factor is the stamina of enthusiasm. As seen in countless Hollywood movies, enthusiasm alone can make up for any number of shortcomings in overcoming incalculable odds.
Though these movies are mostly exaggerated, it is nonetheless the case that our capability is constrained directly by our level of enthusiasm. It is the fuel that feeds the fire of resolve and perseverance.

Put simply, the secret is about not letting boredom seep in. We have an overpowering urge for novelty and for the sense of moving forward if we are to maintain enthusiasm.
I suspect this is our strongest motivator and influence on our perceived wellbeing. Consider how the most intelligent and wealthiest of parents sometimes fail most miserably in kindling any drive or curiosity in their offspring to accomplish anything.
For motivation or desire to exist at all requires an absence of fulfilment. Thus, full satisfaction can become a state of no satisfaction.
Inevitably, nothing fails like success. Given enough time, it has no place to go with nothing left to prove.

The most challenging of circumstances for winning followers and rallying troops is not having a goal line to cross or adversary to conquer. Where a company’s peak performance is likely to only result in a status quo, or even decline – this is where the most difficult victories are won.

On the surface, increasing competiveness and profitability is a mathematical formula of maximising output of resources and minimising cost. Modern markets favour companies that compete this way on economies of scale by making jobs both standardised and interchangeable. Until they are not; our human need for a sense of belonging and purpose remains unchanged.
Despite, or maybe because of, increasing automation, the competitiveness of any organisation depends more than ever on its ability to stir up a desire for life in its members. Ultimately, nothing that is human can thrive without enthusiasm.

Value economy over knowledge economy

 link to article online


There is an overwhelming trend to speak obsessively about the move towards a knowledge economy that will dominate future job markets. However, if you look at the US, a majority of the unemployed have some form of college education, and the US Bureau of Labour Statistics estimates that seven out of ten growth occupations over the next decade will be in low-wage fields such as service jobs.

This is not a pessimistic observation about our economy, it is more of a reassurance for the world’s economies; the demand in the market remains centred on the need for people to simply do things that need doing. That nobody is particularly thrilled about having these jobs does not change this reality. The countries that are able to act on delivering a “value economy”, and not solely focusing on a pipedream of a work force in the “knowledge economy”, will have major advantages in being able to create the most valuable asset of all: social stability through means of gainful employment.
This challenge is common across the globe, and the solutions required are probably similar. It is about providing answers for the age-old questions of why and what. These are the two main areas in which we define our sense of purpose and who we are.

What is different in our day and age compared to just a generation and even longer ago is that there is no longer as strong a correlation between working and surviving. For an ever-growing global urban population, the basic human needs of survival are catered for, and what used to be seen as luxuries are now considered to be necessities. Most people can afford coffee in the morning, transportation in motorised vehicles, cigarettes and smart phones. Significant improvements in lifestyles and personal well-being require radically-increased spending power. However, instead of this being something positive, it is proving to be a cause for social incitement and upheaval around the world.

Maslow famously argued in his Hierarchy of Needs that, once a person is able to fulfil his or her basic needs, they will aspire towards self-actualisation. But now that the fight for survival has largely been removed, it is having the ironic implication of becoming another human tragedy. Our essential needs (and more) are no longer earned, but are instead provided for, and are now expected, as a minimum human right. Meanwhile, self-actualisation is being confused with fulfilling impulsive urges for consumption of luxury goods, the desire for instant gratification is self-perpetuating. This is fuelling an existential angst, in that we no longer have clear answers as to the why and what of our lives.
It is said that it is not the attainment of happiness that gives us satisfaction, but our pursuit of it. If this is so commonly agreed to be true, why is it being ignored? While it may be controversial to postulate, is not the value and product of a population’s work activities secondary to providing a task to complete, and some form of duty and responsibility that offers a sense of purpose, identity and self-worth? If you disagree, you only need to look at the consequences of pursuing happiness per se.
Having expectations that are in line with our achievements, and feeling a degree of control in influencing this balance are central to our sense of justice and personal satisfaction. I see this as the most valuable consequence of what is referred to as democracy. That is, rewards are not random or dictated by favouritism. Seen from this perspective, any group, regardless of their relative affluence or welfare, can be made to feel disadvantaged, dissatisfied and oppressed. Is this not what we are seeing today?

The priority on any nation’s agenda should really not be to increase the academic skills and intellect of populations. The work ahead of us is really not about increasing the skills and growing the intellect of populations. The correlation between intelligence and work ethic is unpredictable at best.
Yet, it is not a question of being ‘either/or’. The logistics sector offers a good example of the inflection point between the knowledge side and the delivery aspect. There is no limit to the demand for faster and better services, and meeting these demands requires continued improvements in processes, equipment and professional operations staff on the ground.

There is no question that new technology offers limitless ways for improved solutions for delivering services. Yet, in the end, actually delivering value that is of any use to a whole population comes down to the work ethic and pride of the individual. What is needed first and foremost is the reinstatement of the basic work ethic of national work forces to serve in the ’value economy’. It is vitally important that there is a greater understanding of the fact that economies thrive on the basis of services being delivered to a higher overall standard, services with an explicit spelt-out function and purpose. Societies can really only thrive in a context where the output of a nation’s work force serves as much of an economic function as it does a social purpose.