Like Me

 There has been a tendency since forever for companies to hire new people that are like the existing people.  This results partly from both conscious and unconscious bias but also from a 'reasoned' argument that like people will get on better so the new staff will not disrupt existing relationships snd cultures.

This is still taking place in an era where the DEI movement has never been stronger - and where most senior managers and execs have had unconscious bias training. - and would probably profess their support for increasing diversity.

I remember many years ago when studying innovation being told that: 

If you have an engineering problem and you ask an engineer to solve it, you should get a competent solution.  If you ask non-engineers to solve it, you might get an innovative solution idea which can be made to work by an engineer.

So, diversity can bring different strengths to play on problems and issues, and help you relate to different segments of the market.

So look around your organisation - and especially at new hires. Are they all out of the same mould?  If so, you might be missing out on a variety of views that could increase your capacity to innovate, grow and develop.

In The Right Job

 During the pandemic many people changed jobs - though some people also lost jobs. Quite a lot of the changes invalid a switch to a different ,location and/ or to a different industry as people sought out  jobs they thought might be secure until at least after the pandemic.

The situation has been rather like that where people get made redundant and start a new role/job/career/business, saying subsequently that the redundancy was the best thing that happened to them.

So, hopefully, n we have more people in more suitable and more enjoyable jobs. suitable and more enjoyable roles.  People who are satisfied with their job/role are generally more productive. If only the economy would grow, these people would form the basis of a mini productivity boom.

So the government and then fiscal guardians and policy-setters in particular have a very important (and not particularly easy) task to accomplish - to grow the economy before then potential of his current situation is dissipated.

If governments can do this, you might look back on the pandemic as an opportunity taken, rather than as an unfortunate catastrophe. Your business would be stronger - and you would be happier.

Think longer-term

 In the UK (snd many other Western countries) companies find it difficult to plan further ahead than their next 3 month reporting period. If their reported performance drops, so does their share price - end their value.  This makes long-term planning difficult for CEOs and Boards of Directors.  This results in what  is termed 'short-termism'

Now things are getting worse. Though many companies have signed up to various carbon neutral or net zero strategies, they must commit to long (sometimes very long) planning horizons before they will see significant change, never mind the goal of zero-carbon. 

How does all this impact productivity.

Well short-termism is a productivity drag - it does not aid revolutionary innovative thinking except that a few 'rogue thinkers' will actually arrive at previously unseen ways of making positive change which directly supports a net zero aim, while benefiting economic performance..  This also has the advantage that firms which support such thinkers and reap the benefits are also likely to anticipate developing sustainability  legislation (rather than having to react to it after the event) and be in position to lead the charge to both sustainability snd higher profits.

So, look to the longer-term; lead the movement to net zero and take the innovative steps forward.  You should get improved performance, satisfaction and success.

Do Something

 Many firms coast along - especially if they are (at least moderately) successful. They work on the principles that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and 'Doing nothing is easier than doing something'.  

However, being productive snd competitive is more like running a race.  If you coast, sooner or later someone will overtake you - and then it might be too late to react and respond.

Similarly with technology.  Technology moves on.  If you don't move with it, you get left behind. 

So, keep an eye on your environment and changes that are happening, or are about to happen.  Keep an eye on your competitors.  But perhaps more importantly, keep an eye on your internal systems, processes and working practices.  What opportunities are there for positive change?  How can you improve those systems and processes? How can you improve the skills of your workforce?

Then do something. By all means plan it carefully and introduce it slowly.  But do it!

UK Workers are Not Working Hard Enough

 This is a statement you will often see in the UK press (and those in other countries will see similar statements with their country replacing the UK.)

IBu is it true?

Well, firstly the statement is normally made because someone has read the latest official productivity statistics.  This shows that in the aggregate, output per worker is down. However, most workers whose output contributes to the figures are not working as individuals but as part of s team within a section  department that is s pert of an  organisation

Does this mean that we should be attributing the low productivity to teams of workers rather than individuals?

No!

In most organisations, the work of individuals snd teams forms a component part of some larger overall  process or working system.Moat likely, it is this process or system which is 'at fault'. The various component parts may be out of balance meaning we get bottle necks snd queues of materials or parts waiting for the next operation … or we get one component of the system that produces errors (perhaps as a result of machine or equipment failure) which means work has to be redone or corrected….. or equipment breaks down causing delays … or individuals do not have all the skills that would enable them to provide optimal performance.    

You get the picture. 

Few working systems or business processes are perfect (all the time).  The resulting drop in performance and productivity has nothing to do with how hard individuals (or teams) are working, but is related to the overall performance of 'the system'.

This is the responsibility of the management team, not the workers.  Yet they still get their quarterly or annual bonus when the workers are using money on their output-related incentive scheme.

When you next read about poorly-performing workers, correct this to 'poorly-performing management teams.  

Let's shift any blame to where it should lie. 

And think about your won orgsnisation.   Take action rsther htan simply laying blame elsewhere.

Do we trust governments to deal with AI?

 AI has significant potential to help improve healthcare.  It can (hopefully) save lives, improve the work and job satisfaction of health professionals’, and make health systems more people centred. 

It can help address some of health’s largest challenges including a depleted and disheartened workforce, future threats to public health, ageing populations, and increasing complexity of health due to co-morbidities. 

So, bring it on.  The advantages look clear.

However, the arrival of AI does mean an incredible amount of personal data will br sloshing sabout the various system and putting people at risk of their personal (and valuable data being borrowed or stolen by 'bad actors'.  

There is also a risk of assuming that all data being fed to the AI agents is of high quality - but, especially in the early days of healthcare AI, this may not be the case.  AI trained ion poor quality data is not effective and may put patients at risk and lesd to biased or skewed results.

So governments their agencies and their technology partners have the triple. tasks of creating effective and efficient AI system to provide the claimed benefits, ensuring that data is used appropriately,  whilst simultaneously protecting the vast data sources and stores that will arise.

Do we trust them to be able to do that?

Be Wary of Transferring Your Ideas Across Continents

 I have worked extensively in other countries than my own (UK).  I have learned many valuable lessons  - but perhaps the most important is that local solutions (to productivity problems) MUST be informed by local factors, local priorities, local policies.

Take agricultural productivity as an example.   Generally agricultural  productivity (in terms of yield per acre) is much lower than in most other parts of the world - and (perhaps surprisingly) is reducing in many places.

Does this mean we should import agricultural practices from Europe or America where productivity is much higher.

Perhaps but first we need to assess:

• the degree to which a different climate affects productivity (the availability of water to irrigate crops, etc)
• the knowledge and skill levels of farmers
• The reasons for different practices.

Many African farms are very, very small - a lot of them are 1-man small-holdings.  Thought this does not maximise productivity, it does mean that lots of people scrape a living through farming.  If Africa was to mechanise like Western farms, most of these people would lose their livelihood - and a few individuals (probably Westerners) would become rich.

Would this be helpful to the countries involved?

Probably not.  They need to move at their own pace, moving labour from agriculture only when there are other industries to absorb - and benefit from - it.

So, when being a consultant 'expert', be careful about decisions you take. You might improve productivity - but destroy lives

Don't Fix The Problem

 A lot of people spend a lot of time fixing problems.  Of course, you have to do something about a problem that has occurred - especially if it's one affecting our customers.

Burt the real key to problem-solving is to identify the root cause of the problem and sort that out.  This prevents the problem re-occurring

Many of you will have heard of the 5 Why's approach to solving problems,.  When you have a problem, you ask what has gone wrong.  Then you ask WHY it went wrong. What was the immediate cause of the problem happening? Then you keep working 'backwards' asking WHY until you feel that you have identified the real (or root) cause  This typically takes 5 Whys - hence the name of the approach. It gets you to understand that if this root cause was fixed, the problem would not have occurred.

Sort that out and you have fixed the problem - for good.

You don't have to use the 5 Why's approach (though it is very simple) but you should always aim to understand why a problem occurred and the likelihood of it happening again.

I've often said that I made my career out of asking (awkward) questions.  The 5 Why's approach is just one way of asking those questions.

Asd a business leader, ytu should be asking awkward questions (like "Why?") all thr time.

So, don't (just) fix the problem - fix the cause the problem?

Policy has driven inequality

 I have the advantage and disadvantage of being old. I remember what I think were 'better times' (but all old people in most historic eras have felt the same.

When I first worked in industry, unions were strong and fought well for what they saw as a fair share of the results of productivity gains made by their companies.  Strong unions did manage to keep the pay divide (between the worst and best paid employees) under control - and they did this in an age when productivity rose constantly (largely as a result of technology improvements and innovations).

Many said that the unions were too strong and so political priorities were for a time focused on reducing the power of unions.  This, again for a time, improved the economy but - whether as a direct result or not - did start the widening of the pay gap.  This has widened continually over the years as self -and mutually -serving remuneration committees secured vast increases in pay for senior executives whilst those further down the food chain received only modest increases.

This seemed to be acceptable for a while . Only the unions occasionally complained - but they by now had too little power to do anything about it.

A few policy decisions have attempted to ameliorate the situation (minimum wage, equal pay, and so on) but industry bosses have so much power, they can safely navigate around these little problems.  Their pay - even for those in the public sector, in hospitals and universities - has continued to rise steadily. They have bonus schemes which seem to have little to do with long-term success snd can sit smugly even when the fortunes of their company start to wane.

The politicians of the 'new right' form alliances with the great industry leaders and we enter a spiral of mutual interest' making the problem worse.

I have written before how I expect AI to make things worse (in the medium to longer-term) so the cavalry are not coming anytime soon.

Well, as I said at the start, I am old.  This not my problem, my fight. I hope younger generations - and business leaders with high morals and progressive ideas - can address these problems - but I an not sorry I won't be around for the fight.

Tracing Tasks

 The UK does not have a good record on employee training and development. Compared to many other developed countries the skill levels in our workforce are low.  Government incentives to train and develop employees are not strong. - and many employers are fearful about giving employees skills which increase their value to competitor organisations.

"Train them and they will go elsewhere" is a common mantra.

Well, perhaps employees with higher levels of skills do deserve higher wages - and if those higher skills make the organisation more productive, perhaps the organisation can afford higher pay.

If the higher skills levels have not resulted in higher productivity, something is wrong. The organisation has not developed systems and processes which can exploit - or which even demand - higher skills levels.

Organisations should be continually refining working systems, processes and work methods to increase productivity - and which give employees meaningful and rewarding work to do.

The organisation should be treating these valuable assets (the highly skilled workers) well and the workers should feel well looked after and valued.

They then have no need, and no inclination to go elsewhere.  This is a virtuous circle and should result in continuously increasing productivity - and resulting wage development.  

Everyone is happy!

Virtuous Circles

The UK does not have a good record on employee training and development. Compared to many other developed countries the skill levels in our workforce are low.  Government incentives to train and develop employees are not strong. - and many employers are fearful about giving employees skills which increase their value to competitor organisations.

"Train them and they will go elsewhere" is a common mantra.

Well, perhaps employees with higher levels of skills do deserve higher wages - and if those higher skills make the organisation more productive, perhaps the organisation can afford higher pay.

If the higher skills levels have not resulted in higher productivity, something is wrong. The organisation has not developed systems and processes which can exploit - or which even demand - higher skills levels.

Organisations should be continually refining working systems, processes and work methods to increase productivity - and which give employees meaningful and rewarding work to do.

The organisation should be treating these valuable assets (the highly skilled workers) well and the workers should feel well looked after and valued.

They then have no need, and no inclination to go elsewhere.  This is a virtuous circle and should result in continuously increasing productivity - and resulting wage development.  

Everyone is happy!

Is Msanufacturing a Preoductive Sector?

 f course it is.  By its very definition, it produces. It turns out goods - often in high quantities.

But does manufacturing have high productivity?

Yes, normally it does.  Over the years, manufacturing has adopted lots of new technologies - and all of these have had a positive effect on productivity… reducing the time taken to produce goods - and reducing the number of people required to produce them.

What this all means is that over the years since the Industrial revolution brought about the modern manufacturing sector, productivity has risen massively.  This has resulted in those who own and run the sector becoming wealthy - in some cases, massively wealthy.

In the early decades, it also saw massive growth in labour as people flocked from the countryside to the cities and took up jobs in the emerging manufacturing sector.  

This was accelerated as agricultural productivity also rocketed and the demand for labour in the farms and fields steadily diminished.

But more recently the rise in automation, in robotics - and now in AI - has seen the need for manufacturing labour decline.

So, manufacturing still generates wealth - but that wealth is shared by fewer people!

The continuing rise in robots and AI will mean fewer opportunities for people to engage in well-paid, skilled work in the sector.  Fewer people still will share in the wealth generated.

If these trends continue unabated, we might one day see a world where a few mega-factories produce lots of goods - and produce them with high productivity processes and systems … but there is no-one left  to buy the goods produced.  The potential customers are on the breadline - worrying not about new phones or TVs but about their next meal.

Please tell me my vision of the future is not real!.  

Please tell me government - and academics - are working on new forms of government and policy that will prevent this future coming about!

Please tell me that the pursuit of higher productivity is not shortly to become counter-productive!

What's the Purpose?

When starting a task - a simple one or a complex multi-faceted project - the most important factors are to fully understand the context of the task - and your purpose in starting it.

What are you trying to achieve?

Why is this task/project important in achieving your goals?

If you do fully understand the purpose, you are more likely to have a positive attitude towards the task.

This is particularly important if the task itself has unpleasant or inconvenient aspects to it.  For example if the task is to discipline a member of staff, you might find such a task difficult and keep putting it off. If, however, you can see the true underlying purpose (or purposes) of this task - perhaps to help this member off staff improve their contribution, or to show other members of staff that you treat everyone fairly , praising and penalising as appropriate - it becomes easier to undertake. 

For more complicated , perhaps more serious tasks, understanding the purpose should mean you are much less likely to make a mistake or to mis-communicate to others with regard to the task.

It should also help you set meaningful goals and intermediate targets.

So, take the time to think through the items on your ToDo list or in your strategic plan - and fully understand why each needs to be successfully completed.  If you don't understand the purpose, why do it?

Time toThink

 There is quite s variety of views on the effectiveness of multi-tasking. Some people think it is essential to cope with the demands of a modern workplace. Others think it simply distracts from the efficiency of single-focus work.

There is some truth in both views and whether multitasking is 'right' for a worker depends on his/her personality and on the nature of the work.

This blog post, however, is not intending to come down on one side of the debate or the other.

It is to remind you that in a modern, multi-faceted, ultra-busy working world, it is essential to make time….. to think.  

This may mean making small adjustments to your current working processes and workflows.  For example, project teams should make sure they meet together regularly to avoid the need to send emails around the team which arrive and are dealt with asynchronously and may result in mis-communication, misunderstanding and delays.

Perhaps a short catchup meeting (face-to-face or virtual) at the end of each day will ensure everyone is 'on the same page' and information can be shared, discussed and used as the basis for decisions.

Perhaps ten minutes at the end of each lunch break can be set aside for a communications blackout and a 'thinking window'.

Everyone - and each team - should think about what might work for them - to give them reflection and thinking time … and if the agreed team protocol does not work for you, you need to superimpose your additional, individual framework to met your own needs.

If you lead a team or an organisation, you need to ensure they have such periods of thinking time.  Their creativity and productivity will improve 

Think about it!