Want Effective Management? Check Your Paperwork.

Check this from Management-Issues:

According to a study of nearly 1,300 mid-level managers around the world by consultancy Proudfoot, vast swathes of the average manager's working day are spent on unproductive activities.

The Global Productivity Report found managers spent 34 per cent of their time on administrative tasks and just a tenth of their time on training and active supervision of their workers.

Their workers, too, were not exactly buzzingly productive. More than a third of their time – 34.3 per cent – was spent on unproductive activities, up from just over 32 per cent recorded the year before.

This meant workers were spending 1.7 days a week on unproductive workplace activities, it concluded.

Managers spent in total 18.5 per cent of their time on unproductive activities, or the equivalent of just under a full working day per week, it added.

Yet, for every five point increase in the share of time managers spent on active supervision, the productivity of their workers, or at least the amount of time they spent on unproductive activities, improved by one point, the survey also found.

The managers were also asked to list their top six barriers to improving productivity.

Topping the list was a shortage of skilled workers, followed by a lack of good internal communication, red tape, rules and regulations, poor employee morale, high staff turnover and, lastly, the quality of their own supervisors.

Chickens, Eggs, and People Who "Get It"

Let's assume that the survey results are valid and that the 1300 managers represented a scientific random sampling with an acceptable +/-% margin of error.

The managers' list of 'barriers to improving productivity' is formidable. I couldn't help but notice:

1. The quality of their own supervisors. Productive workplaces are all about effective bosses. If this a universal problem then there is a systemic management issue at work globally.

2. Assuming the data are true, managers often aren't required to manage and develop people. They are administering the businesses instead.

3. An emphasis on paperwork would be consistent with red tape and rules and regulations.

4. I never know what good internal communications really means. I've written about it before. "Communications" is a catch-all phrase and one needs to ask probing questions to find out what is really underneath.

5. Well, if there is too much paperwork and not enough management it's not a stretch to see that employee morale would be down, prompting thoughts of leaving the company.

6. I intentionally saved 'skilled workers' for last. The skilled workers thing pops up constantly (think, "war for talent"). There are gazillions of talented people graduating from universities each year along with gabillions of experienced workers looking to make a move (see the research above).

Would someone please tell me:

a. What skills are absent to the extent that there is a seemingly universal crisis?

b. If these skills are in fact absent, what are companies and educational institutions doing--individually and in concert--to impact the situation.

All of the above are so behaviorally interrelated that one has to ask the, "What came first, chicken or egg?" question.

BTW: The answer is good management. In organizations, everything flows from that. If managers can't or won't manage, then one would expect to see this kind of survey result.

What I Am Seeing

Finally, an observation based on daily experience in organizations.

I'm not seeing a shortage of skills. I'm seeing a shortage of people who "get it."

• People who come into work, scan the horizon, and say, "What's happening and how can I be most helpful?"

• People who look at the bigger picture and the connectedness of themselves to the whole.

• People who ignore the fine print in their job descriptions and look at "all other duties as may be assigned" as the operative part.

What's going on in your working world?

Comments

[Chris - Manager's Sandbox]

I can't help put wonder how much productivity would go up if we stopped measuring time and started measuring output instead. There's this notion that "work" means being in your chair from 8 to 6 of 9 to 5 or whatever your hours are nowadays. The amount of time employees waste on stupid things may shrink (or even become irrelevant) if we focused more efforts on measuring the outcomes we're looking for. Google "Business Week Smashing the Clock" for a great article on how Best Buy has put that philosophy to work at their corporate office.

- Chris

[Steve Roesler]

Chris,

You're on it.

At the risk of going too far down memory lane, my last job (before I started the business) was at a Fortune 50 company. From the outset my boss sat down with me and said, "Here's what we need to accomplish. Write out your related goals for this month on a piece of notebook paper and give me a copy. We'll get together every 30 days and see how we're doing."

We did it for a couple of years. Never any talk of administration unless something was needed to achieve a result. And we did what we set out to do.

Will check out the Business Week article and if it fits I'll add it to those post or a future one.

[Jo]

Funny, I wrote on inefficiency yesterday too! It's in the air.

Simply, if we cut out the make-work, we wouldn't be in recession!

As for the skill shortage, is there one? I hear of leadership-moments - I buy into that. I also read a take on the 'war for talent'. It is a 'war with talent'. The logic is that firms need talent more than capital now - hence the war with talent. The context of the remark is that unfortunately talent has shot itself in the foot with the financial crisis and we now see the resurgence of capital. Labour of course is nowhere to be seen.

We'll watch this weekened with interest!

[Jo]

Did my comment come through?

[Jo]

Well, not!

I was pointing out that if we cut out the inefficiency we wouldn't come out of the recession!

I also don't buy the skills shortage idea. I read a take on the war for talent, I forget where. It is a war with talent. Capital is no longer sufficient to dominate a business process - capital is no dependent on talent - hence war with. The context was someone commenting that talent has shot itself in the foot with the financial crisis. Capital is able to make a comeback with inputs from taxpayers who will need protection. We will watch the weekend with interest!

Hope you are well.

[Jim Stroup]

Time management is an ongoing problem that besets everyone at every level. It has made the career of many a consultant, and probably will forever.

Your expanding this from an individual matter to a question of management environment is right on the money. Often, it is inescapably a personal shortcoming. But just as often it is an environmental one. And the two certainly don't neutralize each other like noise-canceling sound waves - they increase the confusion.

Moreover, it is an excellent touch to question what constitutes productive behavior in an organization, and to explore what the answers to that may say about what's really going on. Of course, even when our time is managed well and effectively addresses the expectations clearly made of us, it may nevertheless prove to be unproductive.

These are excellent questions you pose for anyone who manages other people - who is responsible for the general management environment and specific personnel development in a given group.

Peter Drucker defined an executive as someone who always is asking how he or she can contribute. That sums up your last three points - in particular, with respect to connecting specific talents with corporate aims.

Another home run - thanks Steve.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Jo,

Thanks for the inquiry; feeling good and, thankfully, there isn't a shortage on the work scene at this end.

I'm not sure I'm understanding their connection between capital, talent, and talent shooting itself in the foot. Help me out here!

[Steve Roesler]

Jim,

Kind words.

What are you seeing out there in your practice when it comes to those questions? Part of the reason this came on the radar screen was a call from someone working on Job Descriptions. This person believed that by changing the fine print in job descriptions that it would force an overall change in cooperation and "big picture" thinking. Some further investigation revealed that the underlying concern wouldn't be resolved in that way. Those involved are very competent at what they do and simply don't see their role or their related compensation consistent with what is being asked of them. We'll see what happens.

[Wally Bock]

Hi Steve. It will not come as a stunning surprise to you that I believe that workplace productivity is all about your boss. We do an abysmal job of selecting people with even a possibility of succeeding, hardly train them in the skills they'll need for their supervisory role and then fail to hold them accountable for the most important part of their work.

Over and over we see "workers who lack skills" under one boss turn into productive dynamos under another. And we see productive contributors turn into problems when they step from one system to another.

So let me pose a "stir the pot" question. In most organizations today people are put into supervisory roles by the supervisors above them. What if we used another system?

What if workers selected who would be promoted?

[Steve Roesler]

Wally, I would have been surprised had you not emphasized your ongoing posture regarding management and productivity.

Your question leads to a former discussion about democratic workplaces and what that really entails. Heck, if the current methodology isn't yielding results, why not go with the worker plan? No one knows better than workers who is fair and just, has people skills, and understands what it takes to achieve results in a given area.

Of course, what we're talking about strikes at the heart of organizational equilibrium:

1. Relinquishing power and control

2. Showing trust in the workforce

Pioneers like Semler have proven that it can be unbelievably effective. I'm a fan of productivity, effective management, and democratic/participative workplaces. After spending nearly half my life doing organizational consulting I'm convinced that the only way this can happen is with a strong, secure, highly self-aware CEO that says, "This is how we're going to operate."

How would you do it?

[Sharon]

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Sharon

http://www.autoloans101.info