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.

Industrial Relations

One of the ironies of modern business life is that whenever anyone uses the term ‘industrial relations’ they are almost certainly referring to poor relationships.  

Similarly, the ‘industrial relations industry’ is about handling (and dealing with the consequences of) poor industrial relations.

So, how do we avoid the pitfalls associated with these poor relationships.

Well, it starts at the top - in all senses of the word.  

It clearly starts with the senior executive team and/or the business owner(s).  They set the tone, the atmosphere  and the organisational culture in which relations with the rest of the organisation are developed.

Secondly, it starts with the ‘top’ of the strategic hierarchy of the way in which the organisation operates-  the culture, mission and, especially, the values set.  A key value required by the top people in the organisation is empathy - the ability to put themselves in the place of others and understand their views, concerns and motivations.

The senior team need to understand why other stakeholders take the stance, or carry out the actions, that they do.  What they do, every day - and what they plan for the future - must be informed by that understanding.  Good fortune and rewards should be shared; good performance should be acknowledged.   Equally, of course it must be clear that behaviour inconsistent with the core values of the organisation will not be tolerated.

It is, of course, generally easier to maintain good industrial relations in times of success, and when the organisation is not being threatened by damaging external factors.  It. Is at these times when effective communication is important  so that stakeholders understand the threat and the reasons for ‘defensive action’.

Industrial relations is not an exact science. There is no formula for success  - but a strong will to communicate based on basic empathy and a supportive culture will prove invaluable.

 

Essential Inefficiency

Productivity equals efficiency.  Yes?  

Well, yes - by and large.

But sometimes we need something else … something more.

The recent problems with supply chains (after both the COVID pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine) reminded us that resilience is also important - but may use additional resources, and therefore be ‘less efficient’.

In fact, risk reduction. In general causes an organisation to be less efficient.

Similarly, compliance with regulation can add cost and lower resource efficiency. Yet society needs transparency and compliance in some areas.  Think food production and distribution, for example. 

Of course, one can see compliance here as being a mark of ‘quality’, so it may add value even while adding cost.

It is important, though, to recognise when total concentration on efficiency must be mediated by other desirable or essential factors.

Sometimes such factors might make the organisation more productive in the longer term - employee training and well-being are obvious examples.  They cost the organisation money - but without them, the long-term future may be bleak.

So, let’s hear it for essential inefficiency!

Let Thnm Laugh

If they see employees laughing, some managers make negative comments which can be summarised as ‘You are here to work, not to have fun’.

However, humour has positive benefits form an organisation.

It promotes and strengthens social relationships; reduces stress, and even has a positive effect on people’s bodies. strengthening the immune system. 

So, treat laughter as a positive sign of an engaged and motivated workforce.

Workplaces and work environments that favour humour will bring benefits not only for the employees, but also for the company..

So, let them laugh.

Industrial Relations

One of the ironies of modern business life is that whenever anyone uses the term ‘industrial relations’ they are almost certainly referring to poor relationships.  

Similarly, the ‘industrial relations industry’ is about handling (and dealing with the consequences of) poor industrial relations.

So, how do we avoid the pitfalls associated with these poor relationships.

Well, it starts at the top - in all senses of the word.  

It clearly starts with the senior executive team and/or the business owner(s).  They set the tone, the atmosphere  and the organisational culture in which relations with the rest of the organisation are developed.

Secondly, it starts with the ‘top’ of the strategic hierarchy of the way in which the organisation operates-  the culture, mission and, especially, the values set.  A key value required by the top people in the organisation is empathy - the ability to put themselves in the place of others and understand their views, concerns and motivations.

The senior team need to understand why other stakeholders take the stance, or carry out the actions, that they do.  What they do, every day - and what they plan for the future - must be informed by that understanding.  Good fortune and rewards should be shared; good performance should be acknowledged.   Equally, of course it must be clear that behaviour inconsistent with the core values of the organisation will not be tolerated.

It is, of course, generally easier to maintain good industrial relations in times of success, and when the organisation is not threatened by damaging, external factors.  It. Is at these times that effective communication is important  so that stakeholders understand the threat and the reasons for ‘defensive action’.

Industrial relations is not an exact science. There is no formula for success  - but a strong will to communicate based on basic empathy and a supportive culture will prove invaluable.

Mind the Gap

Firms who wish to be fully productive need a workforce that is engaged, motivated and fully skilled.

Firms who do not have fully skilled employees are, in effect, giving away capacity..  Firstly, of course, employees who do not have all of the skills they need to carry out their role properly will be slower at completing designated tasks.  They are also likely to make more mistakes and errors.  They may also get frustrated as they identify their own poor performance -or have it pointed out to them by their supervisor.

Putting them in this position is not fair on them - and is s significant drain on organisational productivity.

So, undertake regular skills reviews, identify the skills needed and the skills currently available. This should show up any skills gaps and ‘all you have to do’ is to fInd ways of  filling them.

Simple, isn’t it?

Its Productivity Week

For most (all?) countries, at the moment, that headline could ha de been rewritten as ‘Its Productivity Weak”. Productivity, globally, has been fading as a result of general  economic decline, the COVID pandemic, the war in Ukraine- and the effects on global supply chains.

So what should governments do?

Well, one tactic employed fairly regularly is to nominate a particular day or week s ‘national productivity day’ or ‘national productivity week’..  The aim is  to raise awareness of,  and provide a focus on, productivity in the hope that organisations will recognise the need to address  it - and improve it. 

Such days (for simplicity and brevity we will drop the reference to weeks) generally do no harm - but neither do they generally do much good. This is because the governments that create such days tend not to follow through with other measures that might add some action to the rhetoric.

Focusing on productivity for one day is clearly not enough to have a significant impact.   It can be the start of a real initiative for some organisations but most will require ongoing information, advice and support …. and access to the knowledge and skills that can support a full-throttle initiative.  The organisation needs some fairly quick results - the quick wins that help maintain commitment by the senior team.

So if you are a member of a government - or a government adviser - start planning a structured programme of advice and support that can be launched on national productivity day - and then reviewed and refined in one year’s time when national productivity day rolls around again.

This support can be expensive - but not providing it is a lot  more expensive.