Dialogue: If we want to make it big, we must be more critical

New Zealand's poor productivity continues to be a source of concern. Much of the problem relates to cultural shortcomings, writes MATTHIAS HAUER*.

Some time ago I read that from 1960 to 1997, New Zealand's productivity grew by 60 per cent, whereas average OECD growth was 139 per cent. That represents bad news for this country.

Modern theory tells us that one of the keys to an organisation's productivity and success is its culture, which then shapes the habits of the people. The debate relating to New Zealand's productivity, however, has focused mainly on external factors and quick fixes.

Three productivity-limiting aspects of New Zealand's culture must be addressed if the country is to succeed.

The first is the way in which New Zealand is culturally locked in the Anglo-Saxon box. Evidence for this is that compulsory learning of a second language for all students is not even discussed here.

New Zealand's cultural world exists entirely of Britain, Australia, the United States and Canada. When my wife attended a conference about educational issues, an invited speaker argued that New Zealand had the best education system in the world. The speaker had visited only England, Scotland and Australia.

Believing that the Anglo-Saxon world is everything has its consequences for this country's economic well-being. All the comparisons people make are, first, to Britain and Australia and then largely to the US. In addition, most of the ideas this country discusses are taken from fashionable theories from the US.

All these countries are very limited role models. Britain is not a particularly good example to learn from in relation to productivity; Australia has a very different economic structure; and the US is operating on such a large scale that economic models work in a completely different environment.

The US is in itself an economic continent and, in contrast to New Zealand, can afford some degree of cultural insularity because it has so many huge companies and organisations. Its internal cultural diversity is huge as well.

For New Zealand, a small country remote from world markets, absolute commitment to an export-focused economy is essential.

This means embracing the world by opening its mind to other cultures. This would increase the awareness of other countries' strengths and would enable New Zealand to learn from them and, if necessary, adapt to them.

It would make the possibility of learning from countries in regions such as Scandinavia a reality. These countries, and other small ones, would be much better role models than Britain, Australia and the US.

The Scandinavian countries, for example, are small and economically highly effective but nevertheless have a great deal more social fairness and security than Britain, New Zealand and, in particular, the US.

Looking beyond the Anglo-Saxon mindset would mark a final emancipation from Britain, from which this country inherited its insular mentality.

If New Zealand doesn't change its mindset, I see it following the US, not Britain. It is on track to replicate the not-very-healthy US society but on a much lower economic level - inequality, a divided society, low social security, increased crime rates and so on. Social capital is being destroyed but without the huge American industrial and financial resources to compensate partly for that.

A simple start towards ending Anglo-Saxon cultural insularity would be the compulsory learning of at least one second language at high school and an educational vision which fostered cultural exchange.

New Zealanders are also hampered by their "everything's fine" attitude. I'm not talking about the positive impact this attitude has on mood and enthusiasm but that New Zealanders cannot cope with criticism. It is extremely difficult to say critical things here.

There seems to be an unwritten rule that every conversation, every meeting, everything has to be positive, an important step forward, a valuable experience.

You have to be very careful about saying critical things because people get nervous when you raise a controversial argument or if a problem is discussed with vigour.

Children are generally told from an early age that arguing is bad. In Germany, arguing is valued and we love long discussions with strong arguments.

Avoiding conflict and not liking to argue has economic impacts. People often don't tell you what's wrong and they don't complain.

While this is nice in the first place, things are not going to improve. The New Zealand way is being satisfied when things just work. Demanding more would be seen to be too critical.

But producing high quality requires critical awareness and critical input from others. It also requires unbiased comparison against other countries' standards, which is not always comforting.

It would be good for Germans to adapt a bit of the easy-going New Zealand attitude but New Zealand needs a more critical culture to get a higher quality awareness.

There is also the question of reliability and continuity. New Zealand is mostly an honest society, but it is not a society with a culture of reliability. It took me a while to get used to the noncommital attitude of New Zealanders. When we first arrived here and someone said, privately or as company representative, "I'll call you back," I expected a call back. But I quickly learned that rarely happened. I'm even starting to do the same thing myself, which I do not like.

There are a lot of phrases like "We should catch up", "You will hear from us", "We'll do this again", "No problem" and so on where nothing happens afterwards.

This, again, is linked to avoiding criticism and conflict. The alternative is to say to someone, "I don't have time" or "I can't do this" or even "I don't like this." This is hard for New Zealanders to do.

The consequences of this noncommital attitude, combined with conflict avoidance, are not good for productivity. People get used to it as a comfortable way of dealing with other people, and this reduces reliability.

Organising large projects is stressful. People always tell you "yes, yes," or they just don't respond. Consequently, everything has to be double-checked and people have to be constantly tracked.

But you are not allowed to complain about it. You must always positively encourage people, otherwise you run the risk of going nowhere. How I would like to complain loudly sometimes.

The lack of continuity here relates to the reliability of institutional and organisational structures. The country had rigid institutions and regulations until the mid-1980s. Now there is the other extreme: change is worshipped as a value in itself.

This means that change is always viewed as something positive. Together with an already busy and short-term attitude, this results in restless activity. People change their jobs after a short time, institutions and organisations reorganise themselves constantly, everyone is on the move and busy. But for what? The only people who get value from this are the armada of consultants.

Institutional and organisational knowledge gets destroyed, people work longer, the activity level is high, but is it productive? I have never seen such a restless society.

I hope that by raising these cultural issues, discussion about cultural openness and habits gets more focus. It is crucial for the country's economic welfare.

* Matthias Hauer, a computer expert from Germany, left New Zealand recently after living here for five years.

Herald features

Our turn

The jobs challenge

Common core values

href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=57032">Catching the knowledge wave | Official site