Is productivity improvement a hard or soft skill?

Is it better, for example, to consider and analyse hard performance data or approach improvement from a softer, behavioural stand point.

This is definitely not an ‘either …. or’ scenario.  Hard and soft skills are complementary.

When we change elements of a process, a system, a procedure or a specification, we fail unless the result is changed behaviour.

Preferably we make our changes to processes, systems, etc within a changed culture where we expect contributions as to what to change and how to change to come, in part, from those whose behaviour we want to modify.

Change is much more likely to be successful and sustainable when people do it to themselves (or at least contribute to it)  rather than having it imposed externally.

So, if you want to appoint someone to lead change, make sure they have hard skills - so they can diagnose problems and opportunities for change, and soft skills - so they can generate and support the changed behaviours that lead to real improvement.

I have written a number of blog posts relating to working from home including ones that describe the  difference in view of effectiveness of WFH as perceived by employees and their managers.

Managers who think staff working from home are not always productive sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to monitor what they think is productivity.

They may monitor websites and apps visited by employees during work hours; they may monitor keystrokes; they may block certain sites; they may capture random screenshots.

Of course, if employees know such surveillance is going on, they will find ways of working around it, and we have a form of ‘arms race’ as each outdoes the other. 

None of it, of course, is productive.

All this goes away if the managers start to concentrate on outputs, and outcomes, instead of inputs.

Ask not, “What do we want our employees to do?” but “What do we want our employees to achieve?”

We know there is a disconnect between the views of employers and employees on the productivity of working from home. Employees are happier and believe they are more productive; their managers are not so sure.

Now it seems, that some of those employees are indulging in what has been termed ‘productivity theatre’.  They make sure their mouse moves frequently - even if they are not working productively - in case their keystrokes are being monitored.

They also attend online meetings which do not directly involve them so managers can spot their participation.

However, this ‘presenteeism’ in not engagement - or not meaningful engagement anyway.  These people are wasting time and being non-productive by trying to show themselves as productive.

This productivity gap needs to be filled.

Lots of US sports articles talk about productivity of a team, or a quarterback or other star player. Of course, they don’t understand the meaning of ‘productivity’. What they are talking about is ‘performance’.

The  two are linked but they are not synonymous. Productivity is a ratio of output to input whereas performance relates to output only.

Does it matter if sports reporters use the wrong term?

Well, in the greater scheme of things, not really.

BUT …

If the readers of such articles get to understand productivity as a measure of output and then see articles talking about national productivity they might make judgements on what they read based on their false concept. This could even influence their political thinking and then their voting pattern.

So, that sports writer could be responsible for  a change of mayor, senator or, even,  president.

Perhaps we should encourage US sports writers to understand productivity and write accordingly.

Perhaps, also, we should encourage all citizens to understand productivity and act accordingly.   

After all, it is productivity that’s determines their future wealth and well-being.

The UK has a new monarch and a new Prime minister- one avowedly committed to economic growth as the way to climb out off the abyss we are in.

But, as yet, apart from the long-espoused commitment to tax cuts, we have seen little evidence of what will create that growth.

Where is the infrastructure strategy?

Where is the skills strategy?

These are key responsibilities of government for a high performing, high productivity nation.

As yet, we have heard a few platitudes, but no plans.

I am available for an advisory role!

Many of us procrastinate.  We leave tasks we don’t want to do. And work on simpler tasks that we enjoy - or at least tolerate.

If this sounds like you, then read on.

The five-minute rule is a cognitive-behavioural technique that tricks the brain into starting something it has been trying to avoid. The rule  is that you must commit just five minutes to the task, knowing that when the five minutes are up, you can stop, and move on to something else, if you want to.

The chances are that simply starting the task has allowed you to overcome the biggest hurdle to completion and, in many cases,  you will be able to complete the rest of your task more easily - and straight away. 

However, for the five-minute rule to work, you must give those first five minutes your undivided, total attention.

Try it! What have you got to lose?

The UK has a new monarch and a new Prime minister- one avowedly committed to economic growth as the way to climb out off the abyss we are in.

But, as yet, apart from the long-espoused commitment to tax cuts, we have seen little evidence of what will create that growth.

Where is the infrastructure strategy?

Where is the skills strategy?

These are key responsibilities of government for a high performing, high productivity nation.

As yet, we have heard a few platitudes, but no plans.

I am available for an advisory role!

We know that meetings suck time snd energy out of an organisation - so why do we have so many. Especially these days when there are so many other ways of communicating without dragging  everyone to a central point which requires some of them to leave their offices and travel to that central point, further taking up their precious time.

One way that some organisations have found to find out what meetings  are essential is to establish a code of voluntary, rather than mandatory, attendance.

Relevant people are informed that a particular meeting is to be held and are given the agenda.  They then decide whether they need to, or want to, attend.

It helps, of course, to have some means of measuring the outcomes and the effectiveness of meetings so that a comparison of the ‘before’ and ‘after’ cultures can be made …. but, in the absence of formal measures, managers will’ know’ whether the new regime is working.

Equally, of courses it helps if those at the top also establish an effective communication process to ensure important messages are cascaded throughout the organisation.

Those meetings that have few attendees should be considered for review and possible removal.  Look at the agendas and the potential length of the meetings.  People often complain about the length and frequency of meetings as much as the fact that it exists in the first place.

So, empower your employees to choose which meetings they attend - and mean it.  Fill any communication  gaps.  After, say, 6 months, survey staff and find out their reactions - which meetings may be removed from the schedule … and whether any new, perhaps informal, meetings have been established to fill any gaps.

Then establish a new schedule of fewer, more efficient meetings.

Its not quite a simple as it sounds…. but it is a way of moving to a new low-meeting culture which still works effectively and releases time for other activities.

Simple question asked here. Can you do anything in your break times to help your work performance?

Well, of course, you can.

Drink water - and keep hydrated.

Take a walk.  Humans are made to move - not sit still. 

Breathe.  Make positive attempts to breathe deeply and soundly.

If you are going to snack, snack healthily.

Avoid using your phone.  You’ve probably spent the last hour or so looking at a screen. Give your eyes and brain a rest.

These are all simple things - but they can make a difference to your performance.

Give it a try - and see if you feel better and/or perform better.

Bullying does take place in many workplaces.

Bullying gets a lot of attention in schools ands colleges - and there are strategies to deal with it and the consequences of it.

This rarely happens in the workplace.  Most firms don’t know whether bullying happens in their organisation - and, where it might, they usually chose to ignore it, assuming it will sort itself out. 

The problem, and the difference between bullying in schools, is that in workplaces it is often those in authority that are the perpetrators - intimidating, offending or humiliating those that report to them.

The result can be short term performance loss, but, if not checked, it can result in longer-term mental health issues. Often, the only recourse for the victim is to leave their job.

All of this can have a major impact on productivity and be very expensive. 

The culture of the organisation can be changed  - with far-reaching effect.

Companies need to find ways of making themselves aware of incidents or patterns of bullying. One clear way is a form of ’whistleblowing’ reporting system which guarantees anonymity for the whistleblowers - at least in the initial stages.

The company then needs to make sure the bullying is addressed - without causing further harm to the victim.  The victim must be supported and the bully must be punished  but, more importantly, have his/her behaviour changed.

There is clearly a role for training and development but there is also a need to clarify values and management policies and practices which are deemed acceptable.

The result can be an improvement in organisational culture, in staff well-being and morale - and in productivity.

Any costs should easily pay for themselves.  

Changing culture and management practice can be costly - but nowhere near as costly as a poor culture and a bullied workforce!