BENEATH THE SURFACE Creative Conflict, the Opposite of Group Think O ne of the fundamental aspects of any company’s , or for that mat ter individual’s success, comes down to the “risk-reward” equation. We are all familiar with this notion, which is reduced to “you get what you allow yourself to ask for, work for or even dream about.” In the world of geotechnics, particularly when it comes to the engineering design community, I am comfortable stating that, for the most part, the pursuit of geotechnical solutions — and the companies that provide them — is “risk-averse.” This mindset is under- standable since the first responsibility of any engineer, and according to the “Hippocratic Code of Engineering,” is to provide a safe project conclusion for the public. We don’t want bridges, dams, buildings and the like to come tumbling down. The result is often overly con- servative design. How “overly conser- vative” is “conservative enough” is an open question, and not part of this diatribe. What I am offering is a way of looking at arriving at the most creative AND safe solution. Rethinking Group Think Way back in the day when IBM was coming up with the most advanced software and hardware, the classic image of the “IBMer” was a man, yes a man, in a dark suit, white shirt, dark tie and complimentary sensible shoes. I’m sure the socks were dark as well. This was the image the company chose to portray, as that kind of visage projected responsibility, professionalism and yes, safety. Here’s the dark secret, (and I know this first hand as I had friends who worked at IBM in those antediluvian days…), those clean shaven, clean cut, men, yes men, were the guys who worked “upstairs,” the ones who made the sales calls, appeared in the ads, focused on bean counting and projected the external IBM image. At the same time, lurking way below in the “IBM basement” were again mostly men, clad in Birkenstocks, t-shirts, often bearded, brain thrusters. These oft disheveled folks didn’t punch time cards, had their own keys to the subterranean netherworld and were encouraged, yes encour- aged, to TAKE RISKS. To think way, way out of the carton. To the credit of the upstairs leadership, they realized that in order to make real advances in the then relatively nascent hi-tech world there needed to be people who weren’t bound by the constraints of “group think.” This basically means going along with the status quo, n e v e r ma k i n g waves, being a good soldier, and never, ever questioning the authori ty of the “suits.” The Birkenstockers threw out ideas, questioned every assumption, disagreed (creatively) with each other and ultimately arrived at elegant solutions. The result was, again back in the day, that IBM became the undisputed leader in the hi-tech universe. AUTHOR S. Scot Litke, Hon. D.GE or technical society. The point is however, that falling lock step into agreement for convenience, political considerations and even safety, is not necessarily the path to success. Unless of course “success” means never taking a risk. I am here reminded of how success is “Can you tolerate creative dissent within your company or department?” achieved in any sport or any activity in which speed or being on the edge is the key factor in “winning. ” Thi s c ould appl y t o skiing, track events, tennis, horse racing, Creative Conflict Concept In later years, other very successful companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Nike, a n d F a c e b o o k , t o n ame a f ew, institutionalized the idea of “Creative Conflict.” That concept is to not walk the “it’s been tried before and it didn’t work” line or “go along to get along.” For these kinds of companies it was not only okay to disagree, cordially of course, (well not always), it was encouraged. In order to pull this off, the guys upstairs had to be comfortable and supportive of living in a working environment in which agreement- for-agreement’s sake was not the desired modus operandi. This did not mean that the conducting of all business affairs was chaotic. Structure, agreement on a whole host of principles and operations is critical for the success of any organization, be it a business, government agency/department mountain climbing, being a concert pianist, or an opera singer seeking to hit the highest, high C, you name it. The reality is that if you are performing cautiously, holding back if you will, you will lose. It’s that simple. A ski racer is always on the brink of crashing. A race horse’s back end is always trying to catch up with its front end in order to remain upright, a concert pianist is always trying to produce the most wonderful performance of any piece, and so on. Is it comfortable being on the edge? No, not for most folks. Is it essential to winning? Yes. Does it mean that you throw all caution to the wind? No. It is a calculated chance you take. If you are prepared, have done due diligence, understand the risks, “trained properly,” then you are ready to succeed. Will you always win? Certainly not. Is this for every athlete, every company, and every performer? Nope. Tolerating Creative Dissent To put this in the direct perspective of those in the geo-design and geo-construction industry, the challenge becomes: Can one tolerate creative dissent within one’s company or department? Does this mean DEEP FOUNDATIONS • MAR/APR 2016 • 101
