The oblique search for new industrial opportunities





The search is not about analysis



Landing spacecraft on a comet but still not enough development

Since the landing of the Philae lander on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko yesterday I have been asked a few times times by readers and friends why this is possible, yet we struggle with development, inequality, racial transformation in RSA, exclusion, inclusion and poverty.

I have two answers. Firstly, landing a spacecraft is by now no longer complex, it has become merely very complicated. I mean that once you can figure out the questions, many answers are self-evident. For the parts that are not self-evident you can conduct research and development, and choose between alternatives based on the results. You still have a huge problem with sequencing, but this is why these space missions are so expensive. That is why India can put a spacecraft in space (it is complicated) but still struggle with gender and poverty issues (it is complex). That is why South Africa can host the SKA (very complicated) but not deliver water to communities (complex, as it involves politics, competencies and competing priorities). We just don’t know in which order to solve all the problems in our developing countries, and everything seems to affect everything. Development is complex. In fact, we are not even allowed to fully unpack or discuss the problems because we have become overly sensitive, making things even more complex.

The second answer is about science. For space, we have science. Once politicians allocate funding to an agency, technocrats and scientists take over. We have scientists and engineers arguing about principles, about facts and about theorems. Experiments are conducted. Tests are run. Data recorded, processed and compared. There is a lot of debate allowed and even if criticism is never nice to receive, it helps to refine results, arguments and propositions. There is also the scientific method which means that even if I think I am right I must still convince editors and reviewers and funders with evidence in the form of data and experiments that can be repeated.

Our problem in development is that we do not appreciate criticism, never-mind not relying on proper research. If I question black economic empowerment policies in South Africa I am labelled a racist, even if I believe some kind of redress is needed but I am merely questioning the current modalities. If I question the way donors select value chains based on preferential impact on women I am described as being against inclusion and social justice. If I question the focus on low skilled jobs I am thrown out as a market liberal or capitalist. We just don’t allow sufficient debate backed by proper research. In many countries where I work criticism is not welcomed or appreciated.

I am afraid that the same can be said of the climate change debate, where any person that questions the prevailing consensus is quickly dismissed as a a person in denial.

Extrinsic and intrinsic rewards

Anybody that has read any recent articles on management, HR, strategy and leadership will know that you cannot use extrinsic rewards to motivate people extrinsically. Yet, in my daily experience of working between ordinary employees and management, in firms and in public institutions, it seems that this logic rules supreme.

The most acute form I find in South African universities, where journal articles are counted by everyone but the good lecturers and researchers. The good researchers and thinkers in our universities don’t need the recognition (nor the little research grant they are paid in South Africa). Our best lecturers and researchers are driven by an intrinsic motivation. They love teaching, they enjoy their work. They love the technology they get to work with. If they were driven by extrinsic rewards they would have been working in the private sector, or running their own company.

I find the same crazy logic in economic development. Except the extrinsic rewards is not so aimed at the individual, but a team or a programme. Perhaps it is not even a reward, it is a unspoken threat. However, our best practitioners out in the field don’t need specific measures (treated as targets), they know what resources they have, and what is not working as it should. Perhaps they don’t know exactly how to fix the complicated nest of interrelated problems, but they are intrinsically motivated to find solutions. To try and try again. Of course the extrinsic reward of a good income matters, but it is not the highest priority. I often think the targets and indicators set for development is a better indication of a lack of trust by donors in their employees (and their counterparts) than it is about making sure activities are leading in the right direction.

%d bloggers like this: