The EconomistOctober 12th 2019 Business 672 sion said it would ask clients to source and
integrate the parts themselves.
The ban’s longer-term effects look hazi-
er. It has spooked the firms’ Western re-
search partners, whose help they rely on to
develop cutting-edge technology. On Octo-
ber 9th the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, which cut ties with Huawei
earlier this year, said it was reviewing those
with SenseTime. American suppliers who
lobbied their government to keep selling to
Huawei may recoil at defending firms sus-
pected of aiding human-rights abuses.
Foreign customers and investors may
be put off, too. Over a quarter of Hikvision’s
revenues come from abroad. In 2018 it en-
tered the msci index of emerging-market
stocks. But foreign shareholders are skit-
tish. After selling down its stake ubs, a
Swiss bank, is no longer among its ten big-
gest investors. This week Goldman Sachs,
an investment bank, said it was reviewing
its role in Megvii’s forthcoming flotation in
Hong Kong. Megvii insists its blacklisting
reflected a “misunderstanding” of the
company, which earned 1% of its revenue
in Xinjiang last year and requires clients
“not to weaponise our technology”.The ban came days before the latest
round of trade talks, due on October 10th,
after The Economistwent to press. President
Donald Trump may see it as a bargaining
chip. Samm Sacks of New America, a think-
tank in Washington, discerns darker mo-
tives. The blacklisting is “a clear shot
across the bow from the decouplers of dc”,
she says, referring to national-security
hawks intent on disentangling the com-
mercial ties that bind the two superpowers.
Sure enough, the move led China to decry
America’s “wanton interference” in its in-
ternal affairs. It threatened retaliation. 7Bartleby Second thoughts
Economist.com/blogs/bartlebyT
he storyof the emperor’s new
clothes is one of Hans Christian
Andersen’s best-known fables. Conmen
fool the monarch into believing they
have made him a fabulous suit that the
unworthy will be unable to see. Courtiers
dare not say that the emperor is naked; it
takes a child to point out the obvious.
The moral is that people are often too
hidebound by social convention to state
their views. How many companies have
ploughed ahead with expensive projects
that were favoured by the chief exec-
utive, even when other managers have
had doubts? In his new book “Rebel
Ideas: The Power of Diverse Thinking”,
Matthew Syed, a sportsman-turned-
journalist, argues that the key to dealing
with this problem is “cognitive div-
ersity”. In other words, assembling a
team of people with different perspec-
tives and intellectual backgrounds.
He begins with the striking example
of the failure of the American authorities
to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sep-
tember 11th 2001. An important reason,
he argues, was that the ciawas domin-
ated by white Christian males, who failed
to grasp how Osama bin Laden was ex-
ploiting Islamic symbols to build sup-
port. Or take the British government
team that introduced the poll tax in
1989-90, a disastrous policy that led to
riots in Trafalgar Square. The policy’s
masterminds were all drawn from
wealthy stock and did not appreciate
quite how hard it would hit low-earners.
People from different backgrounds
approach problems from different an-
gles—that much should be blindingly
obvious. It is not just about selecting
people for teams from both sexes and
various ethnicities (though that, too).
Hire only Cambridge politics graduates
(or Harvard mbas or Stanford softwareengineers) and they will have studied
under the same professors and absorbed
similar world views, regardless of their
gender or skin colour.
In the modern world, with all its com-
plexity, co-operation is essential if break-
throughs are to be made. In science and
engineering, 90% of papers are now writ-
ten by teams rather than individuals.
Analysis of American patent filings since
1975 showed teams dominate in every one
of the 36 defined categories.
There are two elements to selecting a
good team. First, assemble people with
diverse viewpoints. Second, ensure that
those viewpoints are heard and respected.
That may not happen if those in charge are
overbearing. A study of over 300 projects
by the Rotterdam School of Management
found that those led by junior managers
were more likely to succeed than those led
by senior managers—maybe because other
team members were less intimidated
about pointing out potential pitfalls to
someone lower down the pecking order.
The ability to speak up within an orga-
nisation, without fear of sanction, isknown as “psychological safety” and was
described by Amy Edmondson of the
Harvard Business School in a book on the
issue. Mr Syed cites a study of teams at
Google, which found that self-reported
psychological safety was by far the most
important factor behind successful
teamwork at the technology giant.
One way to overcome diffidence
while brainstorming, for instance, is for
everyone to write down their ideas but
ensure they are anonymous. That way,
opinions about thoughts are less closely
tied to the seniority of the thinker and
can be tested against each other with less
fear or favour (though some degree of
second-guessing is probably unavoid-
able). Increasing the number and range
of ideas on offer (within reason) may be
the secret of success. As Mr Syed writes,
the willingness to share knowledge pays
off in a world of complexity.
Another advantage of diversity is that
outsiders can spot profitable opportuni-
ties that insiders may miss. Immigrants
account for 13% of the American pop-
ulation but 27.5% of those who start a
new business. By their nature, migrants
have more get-up-and-go than the aver-
age person—otherwise they wouldn’t
move. Some may start businesses be-
cause existing ones won’t hire foreign-
ers. But Mr Syed is probably right that
experiencing more than one culture is a
competitive advantage.
A fresh perspective may help existing
firms, too. Studies show that firms with
more diverse boards enjoy higher returns
than ones with identikit directors. Corre-
lation is not causation, of course; suc-
cessful businesses may feel freer to
appoint atypical board members. But a
bit of variety can’t hurt.It pays companies to encourage a variety of opinions