Is it OK to use the word 'productivity'?

At the personal level, many people associate the word ‘productivity’ with working (too) hard, suffering a poor work-life balance and increasing stress.

At the organisation level, many people associate the word ‘productivity’ with working harder, restructurings and layoffs.

At national level, few people understand the word ‘productivity’ - talk about it confuses and frightens them.

Productivity is a difficult (and dirty) word for all of these people.

Yet, at the national level, increasing productivity has been the driving force underlying improved living standards and social gains.

At the organisational level, increasing productivity has been the driving force underlying improved profits and job security.

At the personal level, increasing productivity has been the driving force underlying a reduction in drudgery and improved leisure time.

All the other ills (those mentioned above) are the result of a lack of understanding and a mismanagement of the consequences of improving productivity.

Poor governments fail to understand their role in improving productivity.  This is essentially building the infrastructure that creates the potential for higher productivity (a favourable  macroeconomic climate and appropriate transport, technology and communications infrastructures).

Poor managers fail to take the steps necessary to exploit any potential for higher productivity provided by effective government policies snd the current market for their products.  They also often fail to invest in developing the skills of their workforce.

Poor individuals fail to organise their work (and even their life) to make themselves more productive.  They fail to invest the time to maximise their use of work-based and work-related tools snd technologies.

Productivity is necessary.  But so is an understanding of it by those who take decisions that can affect it.  So, use then word more often - and explain it more clearly. 

Its not the medium - or even the message.

Most of us have done some form of study that involves a section on improving communications.

We learn about the importance of making any message appropriate to the target audience - using the right language, using appropriate images, and so on.

We also learn about choosing the medium for the message according to factors such as the need for speed, the need for feedback loops, etc.

Yes, it is neither of these that is the main factor in determining the effectiveness of communication.

What matters most is the desire to communicate. Does the sender of the message really want to communicate - clearly  - to achieve his/her desired results…. or is the communication process a ‘box-ticking’ exercise. 

Where there’s a will, there’s communication.

Where there isn’t, there is much more likely to be confusion and misunderstanding. 

 

Technology isn't always helpful

Just imagine you were the CEO of Walmart several years ago.  

You can see that Amazon is starting to gain a foothold in markets beyond the books and music where it started.

You know you have to have some kind of response, some preparation for when Amazon (or someone like Amazon) starts to intrude on your core markets.

You also know that any significant excursion into online sales is going to be expensive.

Yet you can’t abandon your successful, physical stores - or fail to maintain your investment in improving them…. they are not exempt from fierce competition.

This means that the advance of technology has resulted in you having to make two sets of investment, rather than one, to maintain or grow your market share.

The  same dilemma hit newspapers who had to start experimenting with digital print and online sales alongside their traditional distribution methods.

A few companies in each of these different sectors have been successful, but there is a long tail of companies who have experienced declining sales and the threat of extinction.

Why am I talking about this in a productivity blog?

Because this explains some of the slowdown in productivity over the last decade.

This is probably a temporary phenomenon.  When the winners emerge and the losers go to the wall, overall productivity should rise.

The problem, then, is there might be one company to rule them all (Amazon?) with the attendant problems of monopoly.

Keeping It (Very) Simple

Sometimes keeping things simple yields the best results.  This is particularly true for start-ups and small businesses.

Don’t get sucked into complex (and expensive) systems of control or ‘improvement’. Stick to the basics.

Set realistic goals (consistent with your declared mission and vision). If the goals are long-term, set intermediate targets.

Communicate those goals/targets throughout the organisation (especially to those who can influence them).

Make sure staff have the skills and support needed to realise those goals.

Measure progress towards those goals.

Review the measures regularly and take corrective action where they indicate a lack of expected progress.

Reward those who excel in their work and accelerate progress towards goals.

Ensure the goals stay relevant as conditions or circumstances change.

 

Do We Have To Make A Choice

Climate-change activists often insist theirs is the right way.  They insist that everything we do (or more often not do) must help ‘save the planet', rather than make us richer or more secure. Yet, in all fields of human activity, the two can co-exist, even help each other…. If we look at green policies and practices through a long-range telescope, looking at the bigger picture and taking a long-term view.  (I know we are facing a shortish-term crisis …..but bear with me.)

Take agriculture.  If we reduce, or preferably stop, the use of pesticides and fertilisers, and use ‘old-fashioned’ approaches to improving and protecting the soil, we can save money, reduce the damage to the planet and improve yields (and therefore productivity).

If in industry, we stop trying to clean up the mess produced by manufacturing processes, and instead redesign them to avoid producing that mess in the first place, again we can reduce our costs, reduce the damage to the planet and,  in the longer -term, improve yields.

We have to start thinking strategically and holistically, instead of looking for short-term measures and failing to think through linkages and unintended consequences of these short-term measures (which is, by and large, what we do now).  We could transform.our stuttering attempts at climate-damage limitation into a climate-improving strategy which at the same time improves productivity across a range of industrial sectors.