A GUY'S VIEW - Productivity and viability
All the commentators on the Barbados economy, without a political axe to grind or not cracking jokes, are ad idem on the issues which have brought us to this juncture.
There is also agreement on the need for major changes in the way we do business if we are to find our way to safer ground.
The need for improved production is one of the views that is commonly held. It is also agreed that we have not been very productive for a long time now. While this is not disputed, I am not familiar with many recommendations on how this may be turned around.
It is one thing to complain about poor productivity, but it is another to say what can be done to encourage currently unproductive workers to shift to another gear. Solutions rather than the recitation of problems are needed now more than ever.
Why are our workers unproductive, or at least, not producing enough? Is it just laziness? Is it a form of sabotage? Is it the plague of socialism where benefits are obtained regardless of contribution and the negative mindset that comes from that policy?
Barbadians have a long history of resisting work when they choose to do so. Historians have pointed to this as one of the forms of slave resistance. Although similar strategies were used elsewhere, this form of resistance was more relevant to Barbadian slaves than most others, simply because they had no place to which they could run in order to escape their harsh bondage. This form of resistance included sabotage, such as breaking tools or setting fire to crops and buildings. Feigning illness, playing dumb or slowing down work were also employed. It was easier to “assault” the slave owner’s property than to strike him, and this informed their methods of resistance until a more direct blow could be struck.
We cannot divorce ourselves from our history. Is history repeating itself in the form of worker resistance? This may not be our first thought because, on the surface, most of us believe that our workers have gone past this way of thinking, but are we fooling ourselves?
How is this different from workers saying that they will put in reduced effort until they receive more money, but remain on the job for an entire day and always seem busy? Maybe, too many of our workers are on a work-to-rule without ever declaring this formally.
Whatever the reason for our low productivity, it seems clear that talking about it or even complaining about it will change nothing. If we are not willing to import an entire workforce, we must find ways of encouraging production. Workers must now be given an incentive to produce.
The financial resources are scarce and will not increase in the absence of production. But although some may wish to make it so, this is not a chicken or the egg scenario. Production definitely must precede money, for it is production that creates money.
A scientific effort must be made to tie production to remuneration. It is counterproductive to continue with a remuneration system which rewards non-work. If a business, or a Government department, employs 20 persons, and ten are diligent while the other ten loaf, it is unfair to remunerate all 20 in the same way. The end result of this is that you are planting the seeds of the destruction of that enterprise, for eventually the ten diligent employees will adopt the approach of the ten with no light. Human nature is such that most people gravitate towards the base instincts. Water always flows downhill.
If there is no willingness to go in this direction, then the viability of our businesses and departments must be considered. While a business which is losing money will disappear, Government departments are different. They could be among the worst run organisations in the world, but they continue to open their doors and dump the taxpayers’ money.
Maybe it is time to tie the remuneration of Chief Executive Officers, however styled, to the productivity of their departments. One is living in denial if one believes that worker unproductivity is not a function of management. A manager cannot be doing a good job and his or her department is losing money like a burst pipe. There may be a need to part company with workers who will not produce, but this should be after their manager is fired.
Take a leaf from the most successful sporting teams in the world. The reputation of the manager matters little if the team is not getting the right results. The manager does not go out onto the field of play, but he is responsible for preparing those who do, and if they do poorly, he is responsible.
If the management is acceptable and the entity is still losing money, then it is not viable and should be closed. A competent manager would look at the strengths and weaknesses of his enterprise and if it is discovered to be unviable, he would immediately address how it may be put right. No Government Minister should have to tell a manager that his or her department needs to be restructured. The need for such rearrangement should be put by the manager. And if this cannot be an effective solution, the department should not exist.
Of course there are certain Government departments that will never make money and should never be expected to, so this observation is not relevant to them, but there are too many that should be self-sufficient and are not, simply because nothing will happen if they continue to be a drain on the revenue.
There have been public pronouncements about the need to make the Queen Elizabeth Hospital more self-supporting. Some of the things said by that institution’s management suggest that some thought has indeed gone into how this may be achieved.
The Postal Service has embarked on a number of initiatives to better fund itself. That entity has recognised that given the rise of electronic mail, the revenue from the sale of stamps will not suffice.
These are examples that demonstrate that under the right leadership, Government departments and publicly funded entities can do more to finance themselves. And those that can, should. A loss making entity that is not providing an essential public good or service is not sustainable. If good money continues to be thrown behind bad, eventually, the country will not be viable.
In this regard it is time to look at entities that are deep in debt and sinking further. Are the services they provide absolutely essential and still needed? Are they viable? If not, can we reasonably ask the tax payers to continue to carry them? To whose benefit?