The Cultural Divide

Always having an interest in social interaction, in both professional and cultural societies, this melting pot I call the work-place is a wonderful centre for observing the behaviour of a variety of species of that common, and yet psychologically elusive animal: mankind.
When I started building my team out of nothing, I was looking for people who I could put to work - people who would accept me as their overlord and bring some intelligence, rather than specific skills, into the arena. It was their innate abilities I was looking to utilise, and the team has an overall feeling of being slightly out of their depth, but coping when given the right assistance. That assistance is me, chivvying them along, and the networks I hope they build over time within the company to help them solve their problems. From a technical, or professional, point of view, my people are not in the same social group as the engineers that surround. However, and this is an interesting point, everyone in the company has a degree (even the receptionist is a student), and so each has some professional standing, they just don't necessarily work in the field of their education.
When hiring engineers (and I have done), technical skills are as important as being able to build a team that works together. I don't think there's any question on that. But what is the reality in a small dynamic company? Is an engineer going to rely on those technical skills exclusively, or even for most of the time? No. Experience counts for more - the knowledge gained from applying those skills, and the wisdom from being exposed to different environments - unless, of course, you do hire someone for a specific task you can lock away in a cupboard. That's what contractors are for.
And so, with my professionals working outside of their field, their experience counts for more than the fact that they are non-technical people in a semi-technical environment. This then comes down to how much experience my people have had as to how useful they are, and I suddenly find a divide I hadn't expected. Anne is significantly older and wiser than the others. She's had some professional marketing experience not only at great variance to what is expected of her here, but also quite useful if we thought about how to apply it. Add to that the fact that she is the only Japanese person left in the office. I know very little about Japanese business or working practices. I know what it means to get an office with a window (it means you have nothing better to do), and I think I understand what it means when work gets taken from you to give to someone else (losing face). As an Australian, it's hard to come to grips with these, because we tend to think the opposite (or is it just me?). A window seat means that you get the natural light! Having a task taken off you can mean either a breather, or else the opportunity to get on with one of a thousand other things that have been accumulating in your in-box.
Anne had gotten quite concerned that some of her requests, which were very important to her (and her personal self-worth) and how she perceived her market, were not being seen to, and she had no visibility of their priority. She was right, of course, and I intend to investigate how I can get that visibility myself; but she also showed her Japanese cultural training - there was a problem, why was it not being dealt with? The attitude in a busy organisation is that prioritisation solves such issues - problems will be solved in priority order. Priorities will change as the business focuses. It's a simple equation based on a few essential, but essentially flawed assumptions - work is a constant stream of activity that should not fluctuate; resources are a fixed pool over which you minimise wastage. If neither of these is the case, then you don't get the problem of 'false' perception that things don't get done. If work is not a constant stream of activity, and is assumed to have peaks and troughs, then resourcing would have to change to cater for that. If resources were not a fixed pool, but a dynamic pool, then using more staff in the short term, or being able to redeploy staff likewise, would allow you to deal with different levels of work. This applies to manufacturing, IT, financial services, wherever.
Of course, this is extraordinarily stupid fantasy, that there is the possibility of having semi-trained people on tap, drifting between organisations whose work-load fluctuates. There are companies providing a service, however, more or less; and I am sure that they are utilised by other companies who've taken that step beyond believing that you can plan for resourcing months in advance. It's a matter of how culturally acceptable they are (company culture, that is). They are contractors. They are consultants. They cost a lot more than full-time employees because they are short-term.
The only caveat to the bad-planning versus accepting reality debate is this: what if the resourcing requirement is actually long-term, can be planned as long term, but will simply not be accepted as a long-term cost commitment within the organisation's budget? Then it's just a management issue.