Synopsis: Communication For Productivity
Letters written to some 7500 Workers / Managers /
Union Leaders, following a period of strike / Go slow / Murders (1979 -
1987), at Mumbai factory of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. This direct / open /
honest communication led to a remarkable atmosphere of trust between
Workers and Management, which, in turn, increased productivity at 3% per year
(ave).
|
1 Nov 1979
To:
Article Published in Powai
Pageant
PRODUCTIVITY
- "PRODUCT" OF THE BRAIN BY THE BRAWN
Someone said
recently that productivity is yet another name for
hard work. The definition is
elegant for its simplicity. It is a simple statement
of an otherwise complex subject. It is also a brief statement. It has, therefore, both the key
attributes of mathematics
- simplicity and brevity.
Looking
beyond this simple definition, the
word 'productive' makes us think
of the manner in which
this hard work-or effort-was
applied. Was all that hard work effective? The cause
and effect relationship is brought
into picture. Obviously, effort
is the "cause". But
was the effort "effective"? Did it produce the desired result? Or did
it produce any result at all?
Now we see the light! No matter how "hard"
the effort, it is no good
- not productive - unless
it produces certain
"effects" - the results.
Long
before man invented the circle,
he used square wheels on
stone-age carts. You can imagine the
effect?
(Those who drive on Bombay roads
do not have to stretch their imaginations). It called
for applying a lot of effort but did
not take one very
far!
It also took
a long time
to get anywhere. Although time was not important, the effort was, so when
the stone-age cart Mark II, with circular wheels was test-marketed, it was an instant success!
Someone had
finally hit the key -
how to multiply muscle power
by brainpower - the "product" of the
brain by
the brawn. From this
"product" came
"productivity". This
then is the more involved definition of productivity. Life
on earth was never going to be the
same again!
Let us look at the change the
definition underwent.
From,
(i.e. effect
is a function of effort)
we moved into
effect = F (effort x brain)
So we learned how to enhance the effect for the same given effort through application of intelligence.
Alternatively, for the same
given effect, we could use much
less effort, using mental skills.
Productivity,
therefore, means using both body and
mind simultaneously, for easier attainment of a given end-result.
Although there is a
limit 'beyond which the body cannot be prodded to greater
effort, there does not seem
to be any such limit to mental
powers. When the two are
multiplied, the results can be fantastic. The history
of mankind has proved this again
& again. Depressingly, more often than not, this multiplication has been used
for the self rather than for the
benefit of mankind.
In so
far as productivity means producing more for the
same effort or producing the same quantity
for less effort, no one would
have any quarrel. This was particularly so when it
concerned one's own efforts
to gain an
individual advantage. Such a
situation, however, did not last
beyond the days of the caveman who hunted
alone for food.
For an end
objective, (in this case food -
shall we
say survival?) -
co-operative effort emerged as
early as the caveman-hunter era.
Co-operative effort was synergetic and
certainly more productive.
The co-operative effort
was problem-solving in so much as
it was an answer (solution) to the question of
survival. Co-operation also improved
the chances of attaining the desired solution.
One does not
know for sure, but at this stage one or
more of the following things happened:
1. Some persons with a
greater sense of survival
desired greater (than
equal) share of the
end-result.
2. Some persons
with greater mental or greater
physical abilities desired a
greater share - a share
out of proportion to their physical effort contribution.
(This was a
couple of million
years before man
stopped working for himself
and started working for the
Income Tax Department;).
Anyway, we see here
at once, the roots of Marx-Lenin's class
struggle as also
Lord Mahavira's Asteya principle
of desirability of minimum wants.
As long as an
individual desired to take
more out of the Society
than what he was prepared
to give to the society by way
of his effort, no societal wealth could
be created. In such a situation
an individual could amass
wealth only at
the cost of impoverishment of
some other individuals,
the sum total remaining the same.
It is
only when every member of the society gave more to it than
what he took away,
could societal wealth
increase. Create more, consume
less. Contribute more, distribute less. This, then is the principle of the Wealth of Nations.
Now you will notice
the relevance of the earlier remarks. Productivity became
a dirty word
only when it
became synonymous with exploitation of the efforts of the others to gain personal advantage for a
few. This was particularly so in a cooperative
venture like an industrial
organisation where necessary persons
of varying physical
and mental skills must work
together towards a common goal.
Even in an indealistic situation where nobody took advantage of nobody,
the question of establishing an equation
(or rather an inequation -
mathematically speaking.' ) between the
contributions of thousands of employees,
each possessing an unique combination of physical and
mental skills, remains
intractable. Although some
norms of overall
Corporate Productivity can be established for
a given venture and could prove to be a
useful yardstick if used
consistently, the enormous complexity of
a modern business venture renders all but impossible any attempt at measuring an individual's contribution to that overall
productivity gain.
Any overall
productivity index tends to mix up the
effect of several resource inputs in the
denominator of the simplified formula.
input
The same is
true of the selection of any
numerator, such as sales, cost of
production, profit, etc. Therefore, the
only true measure of labour productivity can be
equated as
Labour
productivity = Physical output
The
foregoing equation is particularly true for a
diversified operation,
considering that, at
macro-level, no single index
can be found
which can isolate
labour productivity, it appears
inescapable that all
the manufacturing units must
establish work standards in terms of the standard
hours for the production to be
achieved. The ratio of the standard hours to the actual
hours would then indicate an
individual's or a group's performance index or productivity level. Output as measured by the number of physical units for a given
unit of time is something which
is easily understood by all
concerned. This brings us back to where we started, namely hard
work - for what is hard work other than doing more in the
same period of time?
H.C. PAREKH
