Recently there have been news saying that there is a reduction of productivity and that this results in a loss of competitiveness.
Basically, I think this is rubbish because I find that the measurement of productivity is quite gray. Using an example... Is the person that makes 20 sales a month productive, or the person who assists in the administrative work of the salesman that makes 20 sales a month productive? The problem with productivity is that the calculation is quite gray (at least to me) and that very often, the excuse of increasing productivity is just to increase the workload of the common worker.
Using the above example, What happens if the administrative staff is removed because they are deem unproductive? Do you think that the salesman can still make 20 sales a month or will the salesman just make 10 sales because he/she will drown in the administrative work of those 10 sales? I will say the latter is more probable.
In this case, trying to make your business more productive will result in a vicious cycle because the end-result will that it will look like a cost-cutting initiative. Productivity will go down while costs is being cut because of the simple fact that they don't find any reason to stay. Trying to squeeze more sales from a person need not mean that you should just pile this person with work and see if he/she swims or drown.
That's why I think measurement of effectiveness of the work force is best measured using the companies' results report. If the staff is productive, it will translate to the company's overall bottom line. It's just that simple. The people supporting the backend work should not be forgotten and treated as un-productive because they do fill an important role within the organisation. Without them greasing the wheels so as to speak, your top people will just drown in the mountains of paperwork needed.
So take those productivity figures with a pinch of salt. The boss will be quite familiar with the company's best interests and change accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment