Did you hear the recent controversy around the Motrin baby ad?
On a Saturday, Motrin released a new ad campaign aimed at moms wth young babies. Specifcally moms using those baby carriers. You can find the add at the link below.
Anyway, by Monday it was removed after thousands of upsent moms starting twitering about the condescending ad. I thought it was kinda cute; but I'm not a mom, none-the-less many moms were offended.
Many managers fear the thought of their employees being "idle". Indeed, some employees fear the same thing. What if I have no assigned work, what shall I do?
For the manager, an idle employee may mean lost opportunity, work that could be getting done but isn't. The mere thought of employees sitting down and doing nothing may be enough to make a manager shutter.
This article addresses the difference between being "un-productive" and being "idle", and why being idle, is not necessarily a "bad" thing, and in fact in some cases working too hard can be counter productive.
To begin with, let us agree that productivity is a measure of a system or process working together as a collective. It is not a measure of individual performance.
At any given time, any given person has a workload ( "X"), the set of tasks (or inventory) that is on their plate to handle. Since no one works in isolation, we need to consider 2 speeds/rates for each person/resource.
A) The rate at which "X" increases. How often is stuff put onto the top of the pile to work on (We will call this i(x)
B) The rate at which "X" decreases, we will call this d(x)
In an isolated/simplistic environment we can consider 3 scencarios
1) i(x) > d(x) -> The worker continues to fall behind on the work load, more work is added then can be completed in a given period of time
2) i(x) <> The work is catching up on work and the workload is decreasing
3) i(x) = d(x) -> The worker is processing the workload as fast as it is occuring
Finally we consider the point at which X=0 and i(x) = 0 and d(x) =0. The worker has "nothing" to do
The common mis-conception that occurs, is when a manager notices case 2. The worker is catching up and soon will approach "0". A typical re-action is to increase i(x). Give the worker more items to work on and thereby improve productivity. Right?
The problem becomes obvious, when we look at the chain that occurs between people and the end deliverable (goal). If Person (A) is outputing at a fast rate i(x) <> i(x). Giving more workload to Peron (A) is useless because the entire system will only be producing at the rate of person (B) or person (C), or where-ever the slowest aspect of the system.
Now, perhaps in a mfg environment, it is fairly easy to determine this chain. Person (A) makes X widgets/hour and gives them to Person(B) who assembles these widgets into gizmos and gies them to Person(C) who puts them in a box and ships them, etc etc.
In other environments, such as the service industry similar connected items occur, but may not be as easy to see. A manager may distribute workload to 10 people, each of which deliver that workload separately (or at least appears separate) to the other team members, but in fact many interactions occur between Person A, B, and C that cannot be easily understood or identified. Plus the "goal" changes, All members are contributing to a similar goal of performing some service but it cannot be as easily defined as "Make a radio". It is more like "Deliver excellent service - fast, efficient, and reliable".
Anyway, you look at it, if Person (A) has a high workload and cannot catch up i(x) > d(x) while Person (B) has no workload. We cannot state that Person A is more (or less) productive then Person (B). We have to understand the relationship between Person(A) and Person(B), we need to determine the constraints of our process, and assign resources that attack those (and only those) constraints, which will then improve the overall productivity of the system.
Related Reading:
The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement By: Eliyahu M. Goldratt
1) Bonus Pay is a reward for doing a good job
This myth is perpetuated by upper level management who give the idea, that if everyone works really hard you will get a bonus cheque for your hard work. It is an 'incentitive reward'
The reality, however, is that a company will only consider bonus pays if a) the company made a profit and b) their is leftover money after the profit that can be given back to employees.
Although there is a relationship between hardwork and profitibility. It is not a gaurentee, everyone in the entire company can be working their best, but the company still may not have enough business to make a profit, so they can't give you a bonus.
2) Bonus Pay is to be expected
The Myth:
If you hit (or exceed) the targets given to you by your manager, you can fully expect to recieve your bonus. You can count on it; and assume it in your budget.
The Reality:
In a perfect world, if everyone meets his/her targets, the company will make a profit and will be able to give some of it to you as a bonus. It is very rare for most business that everyone will meet their targets, and the bonus cannot be paid out.
In the "real" world bonus money is like winning the lottery. If you continue to work long enough (weather hard or not), it becomes increasily likely at some point you will get at least one bonus pay.
But think about it; when you are trying to plan your expenses for next month, do you write in "Lottery Winnings:" as expected income?, and neither should you write in Bonus Pay, no matter how much your manager is 'sure' you will get it !!!
3) If you don't get your Bonus Pay it means you should work harder to get it
Okay, perhaps I am just repeating myself, but again, the company needs to make a profit (probaby a very good profit) to consider paying out a bonus. The companies profit is dependant upon many factors such as the market, time of year, labour paid out to employees, office expenses, and other factors that you may have no control of whatsoever. You could work 40 hours / week or 120 hours / week, but at the end of the day if the company makes no money; neither will you.
4)Bonus Pay is your responsiblity alone
One key incredient to getting a bonus is the efficiency of the team to work well together, if everyone is actively involved and working to the same goal (increasing profitability) , then it is more likely to get bonus pay. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean you didn't do a good job, it means the sum of everyone didn't perform.
To some extent we all have a responsiblity to help the company move forward, and we all take a 'hit' when screw ups happen. You're not in this alone, and neither is your bonus pay.
Bottom Line: Don't ever ever expect your bonus pay !
