Пойгина Л.Б., Туринова Л.А. - English for Masters. Management Part 1 (1175658), страница 5
Текст из файла (страница 5)
Without specific objectivesfor productivity, it would not be possible to determine whether productivity is high or low.Objectives provide a guideline for deciding what work is productive and what iscounterproductive. This helps members of the organization coordinate their efforts, which isitself one of the primary factors in organizational productivity. This is why Riggs and Felixstate in capitals:PRODUCTIVITY IS THE MEASURE OF HOW SPECIFIED RESOURCES AREMANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH TIMELY OBJECTIVES STATED IN TERMS OFQUANTITY AND QUALITY.Productivity-Oriented Mission and Objectives.
Unlike many American businesses, theJapanese rarely define their mission in terms of profit. This concept is neither new noruniquely Japanese. Long before productivity and crisis became linked in the vocabulary ofAmerican business, Peter Drucker observed that the mission of an organization shouldalways revolve around the needs of its customers. Clearly, an organization cannot beproductive if it does not determine what its intended customers really need in relation to theoutputs the organization is capable of producing. This means that the strategic planningprocess has to include a systematic analysis of market, competition, and the relative strengthof the organization.Long-term Planning for Productivity. When American businesses do formally stateobjectives for productivity, all too often the time frame is short.
A specific improvement issought for next quarter or within a year. The Japanese, in contrast, have long-term objectives.They often invest in research and development and human productivity programs that areintended to pay off five and ten years in the future. They are doing so well at present partlybecause, as is its habit, the future has arrived.A long-term perspective is vital to sustained productivity growth because it iscommon for productivity to decline temporarily for reasons that have no bearing on theeffectiveness of an improvement program.
For example, seasonal sales variations or shortlived recessionary periods may reduce consumption of output, even though quality hasimproved. Also, almost every introduction of new technology or procedures is characterizedby a training period during which productivity falls because people are not yet familiar withtheir new tasks. During the learning period labor costs rise because the benefits of theprogram have not been realized.
If there is a lot of pressure on management to maintainshort-term profits, they have an incentive to dump programs that will not have immediateresults.For sustained productivity over many years, the mission of the large organizationneeds to be broad and oriented to the future. Earlier we attributed the failure of the massive17 Penn Central to its concept of its business as railroads rather than transportation. This tied itto a technology that was fading in relative importance and effectiveness. A good example ofa future-oriented statement of mission is the 1981 announcement by Xerox that it was in the"automated office business," even though 95 percent of its current sales were still fromcopiers.Fortunately for America, business leaders in increasing numbers are becoming awareof the counter productiveness of a short-term profit orientation and the need for a long-term:perspective.
In a survey of almost 1000 top executives by the Heidrick and Strugglesmanagement research company. 76 percent said that immediate financial goals have beenoveremphasized to a damaging degree.Integrated Productivity Planning. A long-term perspective is needed from top to bottom inthe planning process. Long-range strategic plans for productivity have to be fully supportedby shorter-range plans, subunit objectives, and even rules and procedures.
Top managementcannot claim it wants continued, long-term productivity gains, while it penalizes a middlemanager for spending money on equipment that has not yet realized its full potential.Management has to show its support by putting its money behind productivity; improvementprograms must be formally incorporated in the budget.Formal planning for productivity is felt throughout the management process. Itfacilitates motivating people to perform in ways that contribute to productivity by clarifyingwhat the organization wants and by setting a basis for tying rewards to productivity.Naturally, planning for productivity is the basis for controlling for productivity.II. _____________________________The organizing process is the means by which management merges the key inputs oflabor, materials, technology, information, and people to attain objectives.
Effectiveorganizing makes optimal use of resources and minimizes the loss of productivity caused byconfusion over responsibility, lack of coordination between subunits, and tangledcommunication channels. The organizing process has historically made some of the mostdramatic improvements to productivity. The concept of specialized division of laborimproved the productivity of manufacturing so much that it changed the nature of society andthe global balance of power. But American managers have to realize that specialization is nolonger new and no longer the property of a few industrialized nations.The components of organizing most relevant to productivity are technology, taskdesign, and structure.Task Design.
Like technology, task design has historically been a major contributor toimproved productivity. Industrial engineers and job improvement specialists have enjoyed ahigh level of employment ever since the scientific management school dramatically increasedproductivity by systematically analyzing and redesigning tasks. In some cases task designeven surpasses technology as major factor in productivity. But Adam Smith, whose vividdescription of pin manufacturing popularized division of labor, doubtless would be dismayedby how we have specialized tasks to the point of diminishing returns.
Even managerial workhas become so fragmented and diffused that in far too many instances the prevailing attitudeis "If it's not part of my description, it's not my responsibility. Let someone else worry aboutit." The result is that subunits do not mesh into an effective, efficient organization.To increase productivity, task design must be both efficient and well suited to theneeds of the work force. Due to social changes, modem workers tend to respond less well to18 simple, narrow tasks than workers of Frederick Taylor's day.
The current trend in designingtasks to increase overall productivity is toward more flexible task assignments and workrules. This often means that even methods that have proven themselves over decades may nolonger be the most productive. For example, Frederick W. Taylor's "scientific management"concept of job specialization - breaking jobs into the simplest possible components - led tothe moving assembly line and helped make U.S. manufacturing operations the most effectivein the world during the first half of 20th century.More flexible job designs and assignments can have significant benefits in the form ofhigher productivity.
They are enabling some U.S. companies to compete effectively onceagain in the global market place.Structure. The appreciation of structure's impact on productivity is more recent than that oftask design. The way an organization is structured establishes the relationship betweenmanagers and subordinates on every level and between the major subunits of an organization.One direct way this affects productivity is the ratio of managers to nonmanagers. Managersarc a major cost factor.
If an organization's structure allows it to use fewer managers withoutan adverse affect, it clearly will increase productivity. A 40 percent reduction in middlemanagement size is a major reason for the dramatic improvement in Chrysler Corporation'sprofitability under Lee Iacocca. When analyzing the high productivity of Japanese automanufacturers, it is significant to note that they have 5 levels of management compared to the11 or 12 levels typical of U.S.
auto makers. One reason for recent productivity improvementsis that American companies have become a lot learner. The Fortune 500 companies aloneemployed 2.2 million fewer people at the end of 1985 than at the beginning of 1980.Structure affects productivity in other, more subtle ways as well. Studies show thatcertain groups, such as professionals and scientists, tend to respond poorly to rigid structureswith a high degree of supervision. In such a structure their needs may not be satisfied bytheir work and their performance level may decline. Organizations with less centralizedstructures also tend to be able to introduce change more quickly.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
