Game Theory, Somali warlords, Change Management, and all that ..........

Last month, I have had a chance to revisit Somalia, a country which has been at war with itself for nearly two decades now. I first visited this country about six years ago, just when for the first time in nearly fifteen years, a federal government was formed. For those of you who have forgotten the recent history of Somalia, here is a brief recap: a Federal government which existed collapsed in 1991, and since then the country has been ruled by warring groups (called warlords) lording over different territories of the country, all trying to wrest control of the rest of the territory from the other groups; everyone printing their own currency, and issuing even passports to the ‘people’ under their control, and claiming to be the ‘legitimate’ authority in control!

To the outsiders like me, it has always been a puzzling scenario as to why all initiatives to bring the warring factions together for greater good of everyone have failed time and again, when the ongoing impasse is actually harming the mutual interests of all warlords and the people they rule.

During this visit, I travelled to a few remote areas accompanied by two local youths who run a social organisation which supports some of the communities in resolving local conflicts. The discussions I have had with them gave me an entirely different insight into the situation in the country. Over the years, I have read a lot and spoken to scores of researchers and so-called Somali-watchers who have given their own interpretation of what has been happening in the country. I don’t think I had ever understood any rationale behind the crisis that has protracted this long.

How can you call it a perfectly rational behaviour when the warring groups have brought such wanton destruction of life and property in the country for nearly twenty years? Yet there is a rationale behind what’s happening out there.

Put yourself in the shoes of a Somali, and consider the dilemma here:

Let’ say there are only two warlords. If one warlord (A) lays down arms and B doesn’t, then the latter will overrun the entire territory of A and grab all the arms A has, and A (and his group) will end up with nothing. If warlord A keeps his arms and B surrenders, the reverse will be true. If however, both A and B keep their arms and troops, each one can protect himself and his army. It is another matter that both would be better off by laying down their arms and getting into nation-building activities. But that does not happen, and each one tries to expand its territory or arms, regardless of what the other does.

Sounds familiar?

Well, not so long ago, for nearly five decades the civilised world witnessed exactly this prisoners’ dilemma in the form of the cold war and nuclear stockpiling.

A non-violent version of this dilemma often can be seen in organisations too. Some years ago, I was involved in helping a large international humanitarian organisation to put in place a systematic performance management system. We undertook extensive consultation at all levels of the organisation and introduced something which was developed through months of iterative exercises. This had buy-in from all managers and senior leaders of the organisation. A detailed roll-out strategy involving briefings and training for all managers and staff was implemented over a six-month period.

The system was as good as one could get, and the commitment, so we thought, of the organisation was clearly there to use it to bring about fundamental changes in the ways of staff development and performance management.

Earlier this year, I was back again in this organisation to assist with a review of their humanitarian work. This gave me an opportunity to see for myself how the staff appraisal system was actually working in practice after three years it was introduced.

The system on paper, the forms, the guidelines and the instructions are all up-to-date, and couldn’t be better. However, in its actual use, things were different: although managers were trained, it is not integrated into the development of managers, and many managers do not believe that it (staff appraisal) is actually important to do and may be actively discouraged by more senior managers from using it as this was not valued by the management.

This, coupled with the fact that the performance appraisal was not linked to any management decision-making processes (training, promotion, sanction), influences the collective belief about its (ir)relevance. Staff and managers now engage in a game of going through the motions of conducting the appraisals which are now reduced to the task of filling in forms once a year.

This is again a classic case of the prisoners’ dilemma where although collective interests would be served by an effective appraisal system, individuals work against their own interests, and against the effective implementation of this system.

Collective beliefs and values demonstrated by the management didn’t quite nurture the appraisal system in the organisation.

But this is a topic that has to wait for the next story.