Search results

White‐collar productivity measurement can be improved, according to results from group sessions conducted with 39 executives, managers and academics which elicited a list of eleven useful areas for measurement. There are three types of ways in which the measurements can be used: self‐improvement; performance appraisal, salary and promotion; and feedback, communication and work direction. Highly interactive jobs should be measured at group level, with individual performance judged on the basis of group results. Peer group ratings can also measure white collar productivity, with existing MBO systems providing information; and time management techniques are also appropriate.

An existing effective system of productivity measurement is desirable if productivity improvement initiatives are to take place. Yet amongst white collar workers, productivity measurement tends to be ill‐defined and often non‐existent. This article outlines a framework within which managers can measure white collar productivity.

Currently over seventy percent of the work force is employed in white‐collar jobs. The implication ofwhite‐collar productivity for organizational growth and competitiveness is extremely significant. It is easy to measure the productivity for blue‐collar employees, as the inputs and outputs are well defined. However the process of measuring the productivity of the white‐collar employee is complicated. A model for measuring white‐collar productivity is presented. The organization should design its own productivity measures seeking active employee involvement. The measures developed should be used to design productivity improvement strategies for long term growth and competitiveness of the organization.

Critical analysis of previously developed white‐collar productivity management techniques focuses on the existing shortcomings of several measurement and evaluation methodologies of white‐collar personnel and functions. An analytical method of defining and measuring various pertinent characteristics of both routine and non‐routine white‐collar jobs helps in the development of a more suitable productivity management methodology. A systematic procedure is described for the measurement and evaluation of white‐collar productivity for an individual, a group of individuals or a department. The recommended measures, viz, operations‐based productivity measures for routine and non‐routine jobs, explain in detail the relationship of different white‐collar job characteristics and individual and group productivity at the middle management level. A case example is cited which illustrates the proposed approach. The advantages, along with some limitations, of the methodology are also highlighted.

A recent research project on white collar quality circles in manufacturing industry was carried out because previous research at UMIST indicated that white collar circles were more difficult to set up and sustain. The study involved interviews in eleven companies which had or had had white collar circles, and questionnaire surveys of manufacturing companies and quality circle consultants. The findings indicate that white collar circles are no more difficult to initiate than blue collar circles but they can be harder to sustain. There was little evidence that companies were aware of the benefits of increasing white collar productivity or the part that circles can play in this and white collar workers are often sceptical about the relevance of circles to them. It was also found that white collar circles can face difficulties such as problem choice, over‐complex projects, organising meetings and a tendency to form multi‐disciplinary groups. Companies intending to start white collar circles need to be aware of the pitfalls but these should not deter them from setting them up.

A study carried out at UMIST of the operation of white‐collar circles in manufacturing firms is reported. Despite the problems associated with initiating and sustaining white‐collar circles, it is not suggested that they should be avoided.

We are seeing a basic transformation of the technology underlying one of our most fundamental economic activities, information handling. In particular, that major part of information handling that we call “office work” (in both industry and government offices) is being automated. Office automation is not just an incremental improvement in office equipment, analogous to electric typewriters and bookkeeping machines, and it is not accomplished by installing hardware, even complex electronic systems. It also requires redefining work and tasks, and restructuring the work flow and the work organization to fit the logic of the computer and the full range of its capabilities.

While profitability improved for a sample of 260 downscaling firms in 46 industries, productivity declined dramatically. We propose and critically examine five competing hypotheses to explain these findings: (1) learning curve effects associated with new technologies; (2) experience curve effects associated with the introduction of new products or entering new markets; (3) systemic problems within the firm; (4) unexpected loss of more productive employees, and (5) reduced commitment among remaining employees.

IF THERE IS one thing that is troubling the Government — or should be — as it already is a prime worry to the population of Britain (and specially those immediately affected by it) it is the unacceptable level of unemployment.

Concepts underlying productivity management and other measures of organisational performance are discussed. Expert opinions can clarify many “misunderstood” concepts which need an interdisciplinary approach for exploration. The Delphi technique, as a structured group communication process employing the group process or participative approach, has been recommended with a view to formulating appropriate policies. Four issues, namely organisational objectives related to productivity improvement, productivity measures, problems faced in implementing productivity improvement techniques or tools, and recommendations to overcome the problems in manufacturing organisations in India are extensively investigated through a Delphi study, conducted during 1987‐88.