Free article on management & leadership for . Visit the [ PDF GALLERY ] for articles in PDF format. The Five Major Pitfalls in Productivity Improvement Naturally, the idea behind improving your organization’s productivity is to advance efficiency and output — not drive it into the ground. Yet, ironically, years of experience and extensive research through hundreds of companies shows that attempts at improvement can trigger dramatic failure. These are more than just minor snags. They can not only impede your improvements, but seriously jeopardize the core of your business. What you don't do can be just as important to the success of a productivity effort as what you do. This article highlights actions that will put your organization in peril. 1. A command from top management. Sometimes, near panic can erupt in the front conference room. As top managers review the performance of the organization, they see numbers that cause distress and over reaction. These are not trivial observations. The problems may be: The unit output per hour of labor or machinery is lower than planned. The cost of capital equipment, facilities, or materials is exceeding expectation. The time to produce the product or service is too long. As these high level managers review such information, their collective reaction may be, “Something must be done — and quick.” And, hence, an ill prepared directive is born which says to the lower levels of management, “Produce more with your existing resources within the next 120 days.” Recently, the senior staff and the vice president of manufacturing for a large copier company did just that. In fact, those were the words of an email sent to the department heads. The memo continued: “You are the ones closest to the action. This is very important. So, do what needs to be done. Report back with the details of your plan and the expected increase in productivity.” While each group took the instruction seriously, they were at a loss as to what needed improvement and, especially, how to get results in such a short time. Some groups held suggestion meetings with front-line workers. One group hired outside consultants. Others created special taskforces. These were all valiant attempts, but the initial questions on what the goals were and how to accomplish them grew into confusion and then into the beginning of chaos. Could money be spent for equipment upgrades? Could facilities be expanded? How much increase in volume was needed? Which organizations were to take the lead — Production, Engineering, or Quality Assurance? No one knew. And so, each group plunged ahead with almost frantic and sometimes irrational actions. Inter-departmental disputes arose. Labor performance standards were arbitrarily increased. Quality acceptance standards were loosened to allow more output. Personnel performance warnings were increased. Supplier deliveries were increased to anticipate growth. Machine preventive maintenance was delayed to allow more on-line production time. New product introductions were postponed so as not to conflict with existing resources. What was the result? It’s interesting that nearly anyone could easily anticipate the impending disaster, but these “high-titled” managers did not. Within ninety days attrition increased, customer returns sharply jumped, cost-of-goods grew, and machines failed. It became a calamity. 2. An oppressive style. The directive is not an inherently bad management action. Certainly, leaders must understand and initiate improvements. Productivity may need to improve for a variety of reasons. However, even if improvements are clearly needed, the “edict style” of implementation nearly always fails. For example, an attractive lady may want to kiss her boyfriend. But, the moment she feels a “demand,” the attraction changes and resentment steps in. And so it is with the organization. Everyone will wholeheartedly support improvement. They will innovate and sacrifice. But, let them sense oppression, and they will resist. 3. Placing responsibility on the worker level. For several decades, many consultants, authors, and organizations have advocated a shift in work and innovation responsibility from the manager to the worker. Essentially, their reasoning is that each worker knows the details of their task much better than the manager. And, therefore, the one who can and should lead the way with productivity improvement is the lowest level worker. Has this approach been successful? In some company cultures the answer is yes. But, attempts made by managers in most organizations have failed. Here’s why.        Upside-down management. Teams and worker ‘circles’ are used. They meet regularly to brainstorm. They discuss problems that relate to quantity and quality of work, and their relationship with other organizations. From these meetings come a listing of ideas and proposals, some of which can be addressed by group members, but most require some degree of action and attention by managers. The result? Managers and supporting departments are presented with a “to-do” list. Does that list mesh with organization priority or capabilities? Perhaps. But, if not, the worker groups feel quashed when their suggestions are denied. In addition, an unspoken and pressuring influence comes with that list: If the suggested items on the list are not attended to, the initiating worker group will lose enthusiasm and consider that management really doesn’t care about their recommendations. Hence, an inverted management structure is created. Managers respond to the unofficial assignments given by the workers. Does this suggest that organizations should not look for or accept suggestions from all workers? Certainly not. Obviously not.        Bad job descriptions. One worker’s comment describes a frustration felt by front line workers, “I’m not being paid to discover and implement new and better methods. My job is to perform the task as directed. We have leaders and specialists who get paid far more than me to address these issues. The company wants me to identify problems and initiate fixes? I don’t think so. If they want me to be a high-powered specialist, they need to triple my wage. I want to help, but this is ridiculous.” The point is well taken.        Lack of expertise. It may not be in the best interest of management to have front line workers engage in changes. The reason? Workers may be well intentioned and eager, but may not have the expertise to correctly recognize or analyze problems that come before them. For example: A truck driver may clearly understand the rules of the road and the behavior of the vehicle. However, the driver may not necessarily understand performance limits and requirements of the engine or transmission. A food processing worker may believe that a change in conveyor belt lubrication will increase machine working time. However, a change may adversely affect the product or its packaging.        Removal of skills sets. Typically, organizations have people skills to address all aspects of their operation. They have skills in finance, accounting, engineering, production, quality, distribution, warehousing, office management, human relations, physical facilities, etc. They all interrelate and overlap. To ask the front line worker in any of these organizations to analyze or to initiate action means that, to some extent, those with the real expertise are removed from their assignments. Remove proper skills and organization performance degrades.        Lack of strategic guidance. The most critical pieces of information tend to reside with management. What new products are coming? When will they arrive? What are budget constraints? What cost margins can be tolerated? What are the assignments given to each department? These are strategic considerations. Management can not maintain strategic control and at the same time relinquish responsibilities to the front line worker. On shifting responsibility to front line workers, Peter Drucker’s view is short yet comprehensive. He said, “The productivity of work is not the responsibility of the worker but of the manager.” 4. An unclear purpose. Yogi Berra made a comment that can be applied to an organization’s entry into productivity improvement. In his amusing style, he said, “You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there.” Exactly why must productivity be improved? Many companies don’t pause long enough to reach a consensus. It’s nearly unbelievable, but true. Some may think the focus should be on supplier costs, others may think the priority should be in new product designs, modernized equipment, retraining, worker benefits, etc. Worse yet, some company heads say, “There must be something wrong. Let’s find something to measure.” And, within weeks, large expenditures of time and money are dedicated to formulas, measures, computer systems, and simulations. Without an unambiguous and well defined target, how can the organization succeed? 5. The absence of leadership.        The appointed coordinator. "Organization doesn't really accomplish anything.” Colin Powell said. “Plans don't accomplish anything, either. Theories of management don't much matter. Endeavors succeed or fail because of the people involved.” As a key leader, your involvement is vital. There is an easy way to gauge the significance of productivity improvement. It is the mark of the leader’s hand in all aspects of its beginning and progression. This is a case where delegation is not the right managerial tool. While it possible for the main leader to appoint a coordinator to lead the improvement effort, substitutes never bring the original and authentic passion of the leader. While preparing for an intense combat mission, one soldier perfectly illustrated this principle. He said, “I just got back from the mission briefing session. At the end, Major Thompson said, ‘Men, good luck. I’m with you all the way. If you need me, I’ll be in the rear observing through heavy lenses.’ “Wow.” he continued, “Is that ever reassuring. His commitment is with binoculars and ours commitment is with our lives.”        “Instant Productivity” packages. Some packages come neatly wrapped by consultant companies. They include special forms for workers to complete, manuals explaining their “unique” philosophy, cafeteria banners, paycheck stuffers, suggestion programs, gain sharing, motivation videos, facilitation of worker “circles,” and many other quick plug-ins to improve productivity. There is a strong tendency for companies to look for these neatly packaged “super-programs” with cute acronyms. They have become an easy way for leaders to handoff the productivity improvement task — but they are short lived and have no lasting value. What may work for one company may not work in another. Off-the-shelf solutions are rarely the answer. Improvement requires a fresh view. With a refreshed view, every manager, particularly the head, must have obvious and explicit involvement in leading a productivity and change activity. If responsibility is misplaced, if no clear and convincing explanations are given, if the top leader manages from afar, then the assumption propagated through the organization will be, “This is just a flash in the pan. It will go away.” Whatever your circumstance, productivity improvements must be born from a fresh, new look at the reasons, the leadership, the responsibility, and the accountability for the change. Albert Einstein's comments are well taken when he said, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."