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.