Kenneth N. C and Martin H. Bingham, Contributors

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in declaring India's 'Year of Productivity', in 1982, challenged her people: "We must get more out of every acre under the plough, out of every spindle and machine, out of every technologist and worker, out of every rupee spent." An American employee was to state quite boldly, several decades ago: "Productivity is the key to our future and the size of our pay cheques."

Why the interest in productivity?

Productivity, simply put, is the result of greater efficiencies in operation, measured in terms of improvements in the level of output per capita. Increasing productivity is an essential component of wealth creation.

The process might be greatly enhanced by a combination of factors. Although these have been the subject of intense debate and research, there is considerable convergence around a range of initiatives. These include better quality of supervision and work life, performance standards, incentive schemes and improved comprehensive training of employees.

Palpable reasons

As we observe the world around us, we are inclined to proffer seemingly palpable reasons for the success of other nations. By extension, we are comforted in our own lack of advancement. One factor that keeps recurring is 'culture'. They, we are told, operate within 'a different culture'. True. But what is culture?

To begin with, there is nothing innate about it. Culture emerges out of our experiences - education, training, interaction with others - the socialisation process. It is learned behaviour. Given the right conditions, we can also learn. Learning, however, requires a context and a focus.

The Asian Productivity Organisation (APO) was established in 1961 - a year before Jamaica's Independence. It is not by chance that four of their members, The 'Asian Tigers' - Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea, emulating the Japanese - came roaring at the rest of the world a couple decades later. At the end of its 30th congress in Bangkok, Thailand, in 1992, the APO issued the 'Bangkok Declaration on Productivity for Better Quality of Work Life'. Among its conclusions, "... productivity is the key to prosperity and the role of the people is crucial in bringing about continuing improvement.'' It also points to, "... the importance of human resource development for making people more creative, innovative, efficient and effective in their work performance."

A New York Times article on September 4, 2007, citing a study by the International Labour Organisation, points to "a near doubling of productivity in East Asia over the last decade." As a result, "the number of working poor in Asia fell by nearly 50 per cent, or 148 million, from 1996 to 2006". According to this study, in the year 2006, "the productivity rise was 3.3 per cent at the global level, 2.1 per cent for the industrialised world, and 8.5 per cent in East Asia".

What would it have meant for us as a people if productivity had been a central focus during the past 47 years? According to figures cited by Dr. Charles Douglas (The Gleaner 5/9/2006), between 1950 and 2000, Jamaica's annual rate of labour productivity growth was 1.5 per cent. During the same period, Trinidad and Tobago recorded annual labour productivity growth of 3.1 per cent, and Barbados, 3.6 per cent .

Implications

To highlight the implications, Douglas noted that at the prevailing rate of growth, it would require 47 years for a doubling of our output. It would take less than half that time - 23 years - for Trinidad and Tobago and 20 years for Barbados! (For the much-vaunted Singapore, it would be 13 years at an annual rate of 5.8 per cent).

In a July 2003 Inter-American Development Bank study, 'Productivity and Competitiveness in the Jamaican Economy', its author, Professor Andrew S. Downs of the University of the West Indies notes: "One of the problems identified with the low level of productivity in Jamaican enterprises is the poor quality of supervisory and general management ... " The study points to the "need for greater organisational development aimed at promoting a high-performance culture."

In response to a query about her apparent lack of enthusiasm in providing the service requested, a young employee remarked: "I still get my pay." This attitude raises several questions: What do entrants into the workforce know about the functioning of organisations? What is the rationale behind the contributions they are expected to make? Is the educational system designed to inculcate such fundamental values? What of the societal mores; are these supportive of such ends?

Our educational system is expected to make a greater contribution. The education budget should be reconfigured to allow for every child to receive eight-10 years of relevant elementary education. This would require a sacrifice we cannot afford to think we cannot afford. Many individuals have been, and will be, able to pull themselves up having received that start. Very few will be able to do so without it.

'Principles of business'

The closest we have come to providing relevant, organisation-specific instruction, is in the teaching of 'principles of business' at the CXC level. However, the subject is optional and in its current construct, falls short of what is truly required to adequately reorient our workforce. Its curriculum should, therefore, be revamped and serious consideration given to making it a core subject like maths and English.

Development requires a confluence of factors and events. The efficient management of the workforce is among the most fundamental. In order to fully realise our potential, the workforce needs to be sufficiently equipped and prepared. This preparation should begin at the earliest possible time in the life of the individual. Our much-publicised effort to join the First World by 2030 can be attained, but only if our managers and their employees are exposed to greater levels of training than now exist.

Jamaica is unlikely to progress beyond the level of the productivity of its workforce. The new paradigm should be built around this notion and training should be the torch that guides the way.

Kenneth N. Bingham is a consultant in human resource management and Martin H. Bingham is an economist. The father-son team may be contacted at: articles.newera@yahoo.com