People are not always the problem
Managers in large organizations are too concerned with downsizing and cost cutting and not concerned enough with efficiency, productivity and customer satisfaction.
“Much of the conventional wisdom about downsizing—like the fact that it automatically drives a company’s stock price higher, or increases profitability—turns out to be wrong, Jeffrey Pfeffer writes for Newsweek in February 2010. Pfeffer writes that there is “empirical evidence showing that labor-market flexibility isn’t necessarily so good for countries, either. A recent study of 20 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development economies over a 20-year period by two Dutch economists found that labor-productivity growth was higher in economies having more highly regulated industrial-relations systems—meaning they had more formal prohibitions against the letting go of workers.”
“Buy new technology so that you can let people go” is a golden rule of modern management. There is a belief that the very purchase of technology will in and of itself make the organization more efficient. People are the problem. Technology is the solution.
At some point, letting go of people becomes a counter-productive strategy. At some point, managers need to focus on the people that are left within the organization. A manager needs to ask: How can I make my staff more productive and efficient, not with a view to letting some go, but rather with the objective of making the organization more competitive?
Organizations bemoan the loss of customer loyalty to brands. Loyalty is a two-way street. From an organizational point of view, loyalty begins after the customer has bought the product or service. Loyalty is built or lost when the customer has a problem and needs help from the organization. The downsizing devotees invariably try to spend as little as possible in customer support. Long term, they reap the consequences.
The end objective of technology should be to extend the capabilities of people, not to replace them. Sure, as technology drives efficiency some people will lose out, but that should not be an objective in and of itself. The objective should be to become more efficient and deliver a better service to the customer.
Properly managed, an intranet can deliver greater efficiency and reduce costs. It can help staff carry out tasks faster. It has that potential, but it is a potential that is not being realized in most intranets because of a lack of focus on the tasks and the staff who need to carry out the tasks.
Technology must ultimately be for people, not a replacement for people. I have met many managers over the years who have little or no concern whether the time of their customers or staff is being wasted by websites with confusing menus and links and poor search results. However, if I tell these very same managers that I’ve found a way to reduce headcount, they get very excited.
The goal of the organization should not be to fire as many people as possible. The goal should be to become as efficient as possible. To achieve efficiency we need quality people working with the technology to test, tweak, mould, refine, adapt, plan.
People are not always the problem. And technology on its own is rarely the solution.
Lay Off the Layoffs
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233131

Brian says:
Added on February 22nd, 2010 at 7:42 am“Loyalty is a two-way street.” Amen to that. It always seems absurd that savings in measures less then one staff member are not appreciated. Some of Nielsen’s labour sums are simplistic, but I think it’s quite valid to ask how many staff hours are wasted on bad processes and poor software (including intranets). Or, Gerry’s flipside, how much could we “extend the capabilities”?
Jim Hanna says:
Added on February 23rd, 2010 at 1:41 amMr. McGovern,
As usual I agree with almost everything you had to say in this column. Efficiencies, whether technologically based or otherwise, should not be considered an excuse to dump good people. A more efficient business should be able to produce more products and sell them for a more competitive price, which should lead to greater sales volume, at which time more people will be needed. In addition, as you mentioned, customer support by most businesses is abysmal, and those technologically displaced people may be your best source for support staff that is already familiar with your products and procedures.
Please continue the good work of obseving reality and rubbing our noses in it.
Ramsey Mohsen says:
Added on February 24th, 2010 at 3:22 amI’m a very long time reader and inactive commenter. But I wanted to just drop in the comments and tell you I appreciate the time you spend with your posts. This post is another great post I appreciate your thoughts. Great work.
Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:
Added on February 24th, 2010 at 8:49 amThanks, Ramsey. Appreciated.
Sam Marshall says:
Added on March 18th, 2010 at 10:34 amWell said Gerry! Whenever I get into weary ROI debates about intranets the rebuttal of an intranet improving efficiency is “if everyone saves 10% of their time a week, we still can’t reduce headcount so there’s no return”. But this to me shows a low opinion of employees - that they won’t use the time saved to be more productive. Yet if a factory’s output was improved 10% managers would be very excited.
Sure, employees could waste the 10% on doing more Facebook, but if that’s the concern, what are motivation levels like for the other 90% of the time anyhow?
Sam
Natalie Gimm says:
Added on April 1st, 2010 at 2:17 amIt would be great if companies used technology — and, more importantly, training people how to use that technology — to set the goal of reducing everyone’s hours to the amount they are supposed to work each week (in Australia it’s 37.5). Instead of the insane 45, 50, 60 hours due to inefficient processes. Then maybe they wouldn’t be so stressed, they’d be able to spend more time with family/friends and become more productive. But then .. I dream big!
Cheers, natalie