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.
No comments:
Post a Comment