Best Practices
Managing Productivity
Ways to Boost Employee Productivity
Productivity is the life blood of your organization. Service
organizations, manufacturing, high tech, even non-profit charities share
the need to do more with less. Those who have ignored it are no longer
competitive or possibly no longer in existence.
Most of your productivity is determined by your production process itself-but
employees also play a significant role in overall productivity. This study
examines the factors in the workplace that affect productivity-over and
above the production process itself.
The importance of productivity is clear to all organizations. Service
organizations, manufacturing, high tech, even nonprofit charities share
the need to do more with less. Those who have ignored it are no longer
competitive or possibly no longer in existence.
No single "magic bullet"
maximizes productivity
As Deming¹ pointed out, most of your organization's productivity
is influenced by the actual production process itself. The equipment you
use, the way you process your materials, the number of errors produced
by the system, the pattern of workflow-provide the overall constraints
of the relative efficiency or inefficiency of the system.
However, since employees themselves affect productivity, suppose we could
identify the factors that influence productivity that are beyond the work
process itself? This study is an exploration of the human side of the
organization. Our client had invested in new equipment and better procedures
and had seen gains in productivity. If this study could identify human
resource factors that affect productivity, the company could maximize
the contribution of its employees-thus, getting a better return on its
investment.
Of the factors inside your organization, which ones affect productivity?
Case Study:
The company is modest in size. About 700 managers and employees participated
in the survey, which represented over 93% of the workforce. The company
has been growing rapidly for the past several years.
This particular company is interesting in that it has a good balance
of both white-collar and blue-collar employees. Thus, the results would
not be unique to white-collar or blue-collar employees. Over seven different
languages are spoken at the main company site; smaller satellite locations
have a more typical U.S. workforce. Yet, the results for this analysis
are similar to what we have seen in much larger organizations.
This analysis was part of a larger study whose goal was to support an overall
process of continuous improvement. The company is following our general MFI®
process (Measurement-Feedback-Improvement). This is not a formal TQM process,
rather it simply enables small workteams across the organization to create and
implement improvements based on data supplied by the survey. This is a "grass
roots" process that manages problems while they are small. Its goal is to put
information into the hands of people who can use it to make changes that simultaneously
strengthen the organization and improve employees' lives at work.
How did we measure productivity?
This project included the entire organization from janitors to executives,
so no simple behavioral measure could be used (like the number of units
per hour). Instead, participants responded to a cluster of questions that
asked about their typical level of productivity (high to low), as well
as questions that asked about how productive they thought they could be.
The more they agreed that they were both productive and as productive
as they could be-the more the total score indicated they were making good
use of their current system and technology. Note that this measure tends
to stress the effective use of what you have. It does not necessarily
estimate what might be gained through alternative production methods.
Can we trust the results of such a measure? The measure passed "quality
control tests" of validity and reliability. It also had correlated well
with physical measures of productivity in previous projects. The combined
evidence suggested the results could be trusted.
Planning.
The factor that most strongly affected productivity was planning.²
Workgroups that had adequate planning for their needs were more productive.
Be careful, this does not mean that the more planning you do, the better.
Action: Have workteams discuss, "About which aspects of our jobs are we doing
enough planning? Which aspects of our jobs would be better with additional
planning?" The faster the pace and growth of your organization, the
harder it is to plan. The more your organization has to respond to the
competition or a changing environment, the less you are able to do long
term planning. However, don't use these as excuses. Look at your workflow
and decide where planning (often involving teamwork and communication
with other departments) will help. The goal is simply to do enough--not
to do so much that you are now replacing action with planning or making
yourselves inflexible.
Policies and Procedures.
The factor that had the second strongest impact on productivity was having
policies and procedures that help people do their jobs. Often organizations
view guidelines and procedures as ways to control people. They seem to
operate from a "fear paradigm" that suggests if employees aren't controlled,
the result will be anarchy.
Action: Approach policies and procedures more like a music score-something
to help people coordinate their activities and to help maintain quality.
Have work-groups review the policies and procedures that affect them.
Identify the ones that are efficient and help get work done. Identify
the ones that would be better if revised or eliminated.
Teamwork within Workgroups.
The third strongest factor affecting productivity was having good teamwork
within workgroups. Workgroups with better teamwork were more productive.
Action: Have workgroups discuss what teamwork means to them in terms of behaviors.
When are they doing it well? Identify instances where it could be better.
Work hard to avoid blame. Rather than talking about individuals-talk
about workflow and how people can coordinate and support each other
to increase the team's effectiveness. As you will see in other Special
Reports, two factors that consistently affect teamwork are blame and
authority. Employees who don't have enough authority to do their jobs
or who tend to blame each other are less likely to work well as a team.
Focus your discussion on behaviors and processes.
Clear Roles and Responsibilities.
The fourth strongest factor affecting productivity was people having
a clear idea about what they were supposed to be doing. The more people
knew their responsibilities, the higher the productivity.
Action: Have workteams periodically review what each person is expected to
do. The more you work on "customized" or changing projects, the more
people's responsibilities should be defined in general terms. What you
want is a description that is clear enough so everything gets done and
you don't find duplication of work. You don't want to be so restrictive
that you create an "it's not my job" mentality.
Desire to Stay.
It is hard to be concerned about productivity if all you want to do is
leave the organization or transfer to a different department. Maintaining
employees' enthusiasm for their jobs and the organization is important.
Action: Many employees are cautious about indicating a desire to quit for fear
of retaliation. If you think employees want to quit or transfer from
a particular group (especially if the group has a history of turnover
or transfers), then it is appropriate to try to identify the factors
that may be encouraging people to want to leave. Interviews, focus groups
or anonymous written comments or feedback may help.
While we see similar underlying causes of productivity in a number of
organizations, each organization is different. If you feel that productivity
is low for a group, the five factors identified for this organization
can give you ideas of what to look for. However, only an analysis of your
organization would identify the factors that may be unique to your organization.
¹ W. Edwards Deming. Out of the Crisis. MIT, 1986.
<² For those of you who have participated in MIT's "Beer Game,"
you should find this result familiar. See Peter Senge's, The Fifth Discipline.
New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990.
Story research provided by:
Bavendam Research Inc.,
3010 77th Avenue SE, Suite 204, Mercer Island, WA 98040
206-232-3059
www.bavendam.com
back to best practices
|
Best Practices
Training and Assessment Tools
Comparison of Job Training Programs
Helpful Links
Best Places To Work Award
Become a High-Performance Learning Organization
"I want to thank you for the grants! I canít tell you how much it has helped our business. The Wheatstone training helped us get two great jobs including a six-station build out for
Clear Channel in Rochester, New York, and the latest project, a studio build out for the University of North Carolina. This project should gain us national publicity. Also the Siemons training was a requirement to get our network certification to install a network system for the state of Pa. This is for their new OVR building in Altoona. We are starting that project within the next few weeks."
Matt Lightner, President
Lightner Electronics, Inc.
Claysburg, Pa.
|
