Does Time Matter?

Of course it does!

However, concentrating on squeeing every last drop of productive output from each day and multi-tasking to get more done can lead to burnout, to stress and anxiety and to a drop in performance.

If this sounds like your existence, then think about what it represents.  

Time is managing you, rather than you managing your time.

Almost certainly, you and/or your loved ones, will be complaining about your poor work-life balance.

You have to regain control over your schedule - by better prioritisation, better delegation, better planning, making sure you have fewer distractions, taking proper breaks - all the usual time management practices.

Time does matter.  So, control it.  Make control of your own schedule your very own superpower, rather than your arch-enemy.  Your family will thank you for it - and you will feel much better for it. Almost certainly, you will also be more productive - so your organisation will also thank you for it! 

A Lesson in Communication

Doug Conant was the CEO of Campbell Soups in 2001 when the company’s business was at  rock bottom due to several organisational issues including a toxic culture. Among the many leadership strategies, Doug adopted, one of them was to engage with each staff member and personally, connect with them.

He did something that was unheard of – in his 10 years at the helm, he wrote 20 notes a day, resulting in more than 30,000 notes to thank employees for their contribution to the company. On his visits to offices, he would find his notes stapled to the softboards, bulletin boards and sharing pride of place on their desks. 

Not surprisingly,  as a result in 2009 Campbell Soups outperformed its competitors.

None of this required new technology, new techniques or new advisors.

It simply required new communication.  We know that, above all, effective communication requires a will, a desire to communicate.  Conant’s desire to communicate changed the culture of the organisation - and transformed its performance.

Balance Needed

I have talked previously about the need to balance the pursuit of efficiency with a need for resilience - we need to be able to cope with supply chain, labour or other problems.

We have also talked previously about the need to balance a concentration on throughput with the need to maintain, or improve, quality.  No use making more widgets if we can’t sell them or they are going to annoy our customers.

Another balance we’ve mentioned is the balance between concentrating on throughput or the longer-term well-being of our workforce.  A workforce that gets burned out becomes inefficient.

Now I’m adding another balance to the list -not one we’ve explicitly mentioned but one we’ve hinted at.  This is the balance between continually refining and improving what we do with the need to do other things - to innovate In both products and processes. 

So, you can see why being a senior executive or manager is a difficult task.  Maintaining a watch on all these factors - and maintaining the balance - can be tricky.

But another way of looking at it is to use a common factor - value.  We ask how any decision we are about to make will affect value for the customer.

This is the true essence of productivity - which is, remember, the ratio of output to input - or value created per dollar employed in the business.  Productivity - if measured properly - helps maintain the various balances, using efficiencies only where they add value for the customer … the one true balance.

How Good Are They?

Over the last couple of decades (before the pandemic) lots of middle income countries and middle-performing companies were integrated into global supply chains. Advanced nations and advanced companies had no choice as they needed new sources of materials, parts and skills.

These new supply chain partners soon learned what was expected of them and with a fair bit of prompting and a fair bit of help and support, they upped their game and moved from the middle ranks to the top ranks.  

This is how countries like China and Mexico rose up the ranks of manufacturing industry countries.

It helped that the companies involved could see the ‘art of the possible’ from their new partners. 

(It also helped that a number of countries abandoned manufacturing ingthe pursuit of a services-based economy.)

It also led to internal competitors of these companies seeing  the gains being made and striving to emulate this enhanced performance - raising the levels of performance of whole industrial sectors in these previously middle income countries.

This was, in effect, a very unstructured form of benchmarking.  

Look what they are doing.

Wow, it looks good!

It seems to her working.

Couldn’t we try try it as well? 

It is always easier to emulate something you can see working, rather than some theoretical model or vision.

This is why sector-based benchmarking can work for any country.

Measure the performance of a range of organisations in a sector across a range of factors.

Identify the ‘good’ and the ‘best’ performers on each factor.

Share the lessons of good performance.

Set in train programmes to help the ’tail’ of companies to emulate the performance of the few at the head.

Re-measure performance and identify gains. 

Simple - in theory.  And remember, you are showing companies what their peers are doing and achieving. , not holding ups some ideal model.