Hi Friends,

Even as I launch this today ( my 80th Birthday ), I realize that there is yet so much to say and do. There is just no time to look back, no time to wonder,"Will anyone read these pages?"

With regards,
Hemen Parekh
27 June 2013

Now as I approach my 90th birthday ( 27 June 2023 ) , I invite you to visit my Digital Avatar ( www.hemenparekh.ai ) – and continue chatting with me , even when I am no more here physically

Thursday, 1 November 1979

PRODUCTIVITY - "PRODUCT" OF THE BRAIN BY THE BRAWN

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,
                                  effect =F  (effort)         
                                  (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.

Productivity  =  Output
                                                                                 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
                                                                               Labour manhours
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

No comments:

Post a Comment