By Demet Demirer, Chair of the Construction 5.0 CICA Working Group
Let’s go through a short story about an ordinary construction company at somewhere:
XYZ Construction Inc. was going through tough times due to inefficiencies and rising costs in its projects. Chairman Mr. Z, believing they needed a heroic General Manager to overcome these challenges, asked a consulting firm to find candidates from the industry and arrange interviews. One candidate was a woman; without even considering her, he scheduled an afternoon meeting with a male candidate who had 30 years of experience at established firms in the sector.
On the day of the interview, the Monthly Executive Committee meeting started at 10:00 AM and turned out to be highly tense. Mr. Z grilled the managers on every tiny detail, trying to learn the facts and make decisions. He even called field personnel for some specifics and frequently cross-checked the managers’ information with his nephew in charge of accounting and finance. The meeting dragged on into the late afternoon this way.
Mr. Z believed he knew everything better than his employees and insisted that even the smallest decisions be run by him. During the meeting, he clashed with the Deputy General Manager responsible for mega projects. Even though the deputy insisted that the customer’s conditions required a different perspective, Mr. Z pressured him not to challenge his words and ensured his directives were followed.
Throughout the meeting, as Mr. Z blamed the project managers, they in turn pointed fingers at design, procurement, accounting, and support services. This triggered defence mechanisms, leading to arguments that served no solution.
The head of the Procurement Department—another nephew of his—was a two-year college graduate with little experience. Though he didn’t know much about the work, his uncle trusted him blindly and never questioned his decisions. Mr. Z dismissed feedback from other managers about his nephew’s mistakes as fabrications to cover their own shortcomings.
The Procurement Manager, not maliciously, was simply trying to meet corporate targets by consolidating orders and picking the cheapest bids to minimize supplier costs. Unfortunately, he disregarded project delivery timelines and conditions in the process. Meanwhile, the other nephew in accounting and finance thought delaying payments generated financing income and turned the company profitable. Mr. Z was thrilled with their efforts. Project managers, however, argued this mindset harmed projects, causing delays in deliveries, late completions, and penalties. But Mr. Z shut them down, saying, « You’re just bad at managing projects and blaming Procurement and Finance. »
When the meeting ended, Mr. Z told the demoralized and demotivated managers he had an important interview and sent them out. They knew something was being organized behind their backs. This lack of trust even led some to quietly explore job opportunities elsewhere.
After the meeting, Mr. Z told the incoming GM candidate about his own great achievements and how the company had stumbled recently only because he couldn’t find the right staff. He was impressed by the candidate’s success at his previous company and his assurance that he could implement the same system here. Mr. Z figured he could meet the candidate’s high salary-plus-bonus demand by keeping general raises low, and they agreed on a start date within a month.
Mr. Z believed the company’s troubles stemmed from a lack of oversight, so he went home content, having added yet another layer of hierarchy and control to the system.
Does this story sound familiar to you? If you’d like, I can summarize it for you with a few key phrases:
Blame Culture: The biggest barrier to transparency and creativity. It triggers defence mechanisms, shifting focus from solutions to self-justification or counter-blaming. Research shows people’s cognitive capacity drops by about 20% in blame environments—suddenly, you’re in a silly argument. You’re pruning your company’s brilliant minds with this culture.
Micromanagement: Often a sign of upper management’s lack of trust in employees’ competence and character, or an oversized ego. Yet information erodes as it flows upward. In fast-paced projects, waiting for top-down decisions—based on incomplete info—blocks success.
Gender Discrimination: Diversity and inclusion aren’t just trendy social postures. Teams with from diverse backgrounds and mindsets are more creative and can evaluate situations from multiple point of views. Differences in gender, religion, and social environments enrich society and companies. Inclusion fosters creativity and richer idea structures.
Nepotism: Emerges when appointments prioritize connections and personal trust over competence and experience. Inexperienced people in key roles lead to bad decisions, demotivate high performers (even causing them to leave), harming the company today and tomorrow.
Increasing Hierarchy: Hierarchies and silos trap information, while growing bureaucracy hinders quick, right decisions. In tough times, some executives think hiring a « hero manager » from outside and adding reporting layers will fix things. Without investing in the doers and the system, this creates bigger problems.
Siloed Organization: In silos, info stays trapped within departments, and unique departmental goals make it impossible to see the big picture or impacts. Procurement hits cost targets without noticing (or feeling) how delays inflate project penalties. Project managers feel the pain deeply, but can’t intervene. As goals drift, blame and conflict between silos escalate.
Bad Supplier Relationships: First, decide if your partners are mere transactional vendors or collaborative solution providers. Aggressive cost-cutting erodes mutual trust, sabotaging joint adaptation to market changes.
Lack of Respect: You’ve probably heard Steve Jobs: « It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do. » Respect for people starts with respect for their ideas. Then questioning why they didn’t solve things themselves is unfair.
Trust Deficit: No trust sends a « fight or flight » signal. Big changes affecting responsible managers, without communicating to others, erode trust. This prevents managers from feeling safe and focusing on work.
System Copy-Pasting: Every company’s culture is unique. Imposing another firm’s system top-down fails and erodes employee buy-in. True system change grows from holistic culture and trust.
I’m sure you spotted many deadly sins in this short tale. Everyday behaviors we overlook become new paving stones on your company’s road to hell.
If you were to rewrite this story to turn the company around, how would you do it?
For example, rather than bringing in new managers without informing your teams, you would take actions to foster transparency and a climate of trust in order to earn their confidence, wouldn’t you? Instead of blaming your employees for any issues that arise, you would encourage them to understand the root causes and ensure that systematic improvements are made to prevent similar mistakes from happening again. You would break down silos and enable decisions to be made collectively by cross-functional teams. Most importantly, you would focus on how to unlock your employees’ potential and grow your business.
Wishing you the best as you work to overcome these obstacles.
