Drugs and Workplace Productivity

Productivity doesn’t just happen. It takes focus and sustained effort to accomplish work tasks. However, the amount of focus and effort varies, depending on the difficulty of the task.

The opposite is also true. That is, non-productivity does “just happen.” It is so easy to be non-productive – that’s why many of us can slide into a weekend of rest and relaxation without any effort!

But while at work, it is important to do our best to be as productive as possible. And in order to do that, it is equally important to respect our bodies and not use substances that can inhibit our work performance. Ever.

According to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, drug abuse costs employers $81 billion annually.

As well, workers who report having three or more jobs in the previous five years are about twice as likely to be current or past year users of illegal drugs as those who had two or fewer jobs.

And, an astounding 70% of the estimated 14.8 million Americans who use illegal drugs are employed.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse in 2003 estimated that legal substances (tobacco and alcohol) account for 79.3% of the total cost of substance abuse, while illegal drugs account for 20.7% ($8.2 billion) of costs.

With the recent explosion of “medical marijuana” retailers, these numbers are estimated to increase. Employers now find themselves in a situation where they need to consider even more so the impacts of once-illicit drugs on their workforce. The impacts on work productivity are difficult to ignore.

I continue to be in awe and amazed at the silence of the medical community about the ill effects of cannabis (usually termed “marijuana”). In terms of the workplace, however, cannabis has an immediate and ongoing effect on productivity.

It has been documented that cannabis causes the following side effects (this is not a complete list):

  • Decreased focus
  • Decreased concentration
  • Decreased alertness
  • Decreased memory and thinking capabilities
  • Decreased motivation – as such, this affects the employee’s ability to relate to their colleagues, clients and customers
  • Increased risk of developing dependence
  • Increased risk of respiratory illness
  • Increased risk of mental illness
  • Diminished relationships – think about how this impacts teamwork in the workplace with added pressure being placed on non-users including poor collaboration on projects (as an example)
  • Increased absenteeism
  • Increased risk of injury of self or others (resulting in loss of time and potential workers’ compensation)
  • Decreased driving performance

Of note is that marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in Canada, with 10.6% of Canadians reporting past-year use in 2012. As well, Canadian youth have the highest rate of past-year marijuana use (28% in 2009-2010) compared to student in other developed countries.

While governments are starting to “give in” to the demand for legalizing marijuana, this legalization has put the onus on organizations to conduct their own workplace drug testing. In addition, organizations need to ensure adequate workforce training in identifying potential drug use.

Human resource departments are now even more critical to the organizations’ functions to ensure the business’s bottom line is not being impacted by drug use.

One of the ways in which HR can help is to build relationships with managers and employees. When you know someone, it’s much easier to identify changes in behaviour and productivity and to provide proper intervention.

In addition, implementing policies and procedures will help all workers be aware of the signs and symptoms of drug use. Much like personal issues or inter-staff and management issues, keeping substance use/abuse top-of-mind helps to identify the problem, so it can be addressed quickly.

 

Before You Buy That New iGadget

Recent promos for the latest new technology gave me pause. And it should give you pause, too.

There is no doubt that we are a society of “must-have-the-latest-new-toy,” but have you thought about what happens to your old technology – those smartphones, laptops, printers, and other energy-emitting devices that you no longer wish to use? What is your old technology doing to Mother Earth?

You might say that you are responsible and recycle your old electronics. Good for you. And I bet many recycling depots do a decent job of ensuring safe recycling practices. But some old electronics may fall through the cracks.

In August 2009, CBS revealed some startling evidence (as only 60 Minutes can!) about old electronics being shipped illegally to countries like China where the dismantling of the equipment is hurting (understatement) the people and the environment. You can see the show here: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-wasteland-50076351/.

If the 60 Minutes investigation does not give you pause, perhaps the following might.  

A report by Liam Young and Kate Davies of the Unknown Fields Division traces the supply chain of the global economy in reverse. Their research brings the point home (literally).

After the 60 Minutes expose aired, the Chinese government tried to clean-up Guiyu’s booming e-waste operation. However, Young and Davies state “that what really happened is that it went underground – or more specifically, inside.”

“Actually what happened is that the industry has moved from the street and into peoples’ houses,” he says. “So now this new form of mining is now a domestic industry, where a circuit board bubbles away to refine the copper next to a pot of noodles in someone’s kitchen.”

“It’s too easy for people to sit in an air conditioned flat in New York or London, tweeting on laptops and talking on their phones about the horrors of the rare earth mining industry or cheap production and exploitative labor in China,” Young says.

The reality is much worse.

Young and Davies collected some of the toxic mud created from recycled technology and created “lovely” toxic sludge vases. These vases are part of an exhibit at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London which opened on April 22, 2015.

Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan summarizes the journey of the vases in a report titled “These Vases are Actually Made From Liquefied Smartphone ByProducts.” Here’s an excerpt:

“The mud that makes up each of these vessels was carefully drawn from a toxic lake in Inner Mongolia, where the sludge from the world’s most prolific Rare Earth Element refineries ends up. It was brought to London, where a ceramicist in a hazmat suit worked to turn it into actual pottery, representing the waste created by a smartphone, a featherweight laptop, and a car battery. Starting today at the Victoria & Albert Museum’s exhibit What Is Luxury?, you’ll be able to see each vase in person—a stark visualization of exactly what’s involved in building your electronics.”

After reading Campbell-Dollaghan’s report, I learned that our smartphones each have about 380 grams of toxic and radioactive waste. Think about that the next time you go to answer or make a call on your smartphone.

The questions before us are simple: 

  1. How much newer-better-luxury stuff do we really need?
  2. At what point will manufacturers take responsibility for killing the planet?
  3. What can be done now to reverse the damage?

The answers to the questions are probably not as simple.

The Competitive Edge

What’s your competitive edge? What makes you or your business the “one” to beat?

If you’re like most businesses, you probably say that you’re good at what you do or that you’re better than anyone else in your craft. That’s all well and good, but why should clients care?

Here’s the thing:  Clients don’t actually care about you or your business. They only care about themselves and what you or your business can do for them. This makes sense, since clients want as much value as they can get, but they don’t typically care where they get it.  

What can you or your organization do to position yourselves to be the best? Here are four considerations: 

  1. Cost. Reducing operating costs will provide you with a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Relentlessly pursue the removal of all waste in your organization to reduce operating costs. Look at the entire cost structure of your organization for all potential cost-reduction areas. And don’t forget to pursue Lean production in all you do.
  2. Speed. Make sure you are able to deliver on your promises quickly and by no later than promised due dates. You can improve speed of delivery by improving your organization’s communications capabilities (think:  Technology) and using equipment that is reliable and right for the job. Ensure you have knowledgeable workers to assist with your projects. Also, use just-in-time production to reduce inventories and reduce risk.
  3. Quality. While some companies employ quality as a reaction to the marketplace, to compete on quality means that you and your organization use it to please the customer and not just a way to avoid problems. Since quality is different for each customer, you and your organization need to understand your customers’ needs, wants and requirements, so that you can translate them into exact specifications for the customers’ desired goods and services.
  4. Flexibility. Competing on flexibility means that your organization is able to adjust to changes in the marketplace relating to its product mix, volume or design. This means being able to produce a variety of goods or services within the same facility to meet customized requests. Multi-skilled workers and excess capacity in the business can help an organization compete on flexibility. 

Most organizations should start positioning themselves in the market by focusing first on quality. Once quality is perfected, then focus on speed of delivery, then cost-cutting in operations and, finally on flexibility. 

If your organization is not as competitive as you believe it should be, improving on all of the above competitive advantages may be in order. You will find that as you become more competitive, you will reach a point where a trade-off will be required between being better in one or another area. This will ultimately set you apart from your competition.

Off Target

When Target came to Canada in 2011, not only were consumers surprised that the retailer opened up over one hundred stores across the country, but so was the business community. To do such a “big bang” approach, you either know what you’re doing or you’re taking a major risk. Unfortunately for Target, its major risk did not pay off.

Target’s biggest failing was in not piloting its entry to Canada with one or two stores before launching full scale. Any project manager worth their trade will tell you that starting small and building up when it makes sense to do so is the best guarantee of success.

In addition to missing the mark with their full-scale roll-out across Canada, Target missed out on the basics of operations management. For one thing, their demand forecasting appears to have been a dismal failure. If they had forecast properly, they would have learned that Canadians preferred the U.S.-type Target stores and not reincarnations of Zellers.

Target also missed out on strategic capacity planning as well as facility layout design. Their inventory systems management was absent, to say the least. This also speaks to their lack of adequate supply chain management. When inventory is scant (as it was at Canadian Target stores), one might reasonably presume that the retailer was using some type of customized just-in-time fulfillment. However, this, too, appears to not have been part of Target’s strategy.

A material requirements planning or enterprise resource planning software would have helped Target manage its stocks and stores. However, we can see that even if Target had such a system, it, too, failed them.

And what about quality? Quality and price are generally prominent factors for consumers. Integrating quality into every element of an operation allows an organization to reduce its prices while still remaining profitable. Clearly, quality does not appear to have been a high priority for Target.

While one can hypothesize about Target’s demise in Canada, it provides little comfort to Target employees. As well, the company itself is now targeted (pardon the pun) as a losing venture:  At least, in Canada.

One thing is certain, though: Target really did miss its mark!

The Lightness of Black Friday

According to Kevin Roose of the Daily Intelligencer, Black Friday is “a nationwide experiment in consumer irrationality, dressed up as a cheerful holiday add-on.”

It’s hard to disagree with Kevin’s assertion!

The problem with Black Friday is not so much the consumer irrationality (although that really should be a concern for society!); it is more about how suppliers both anticipate and succeed in increasing their inventory turnover by taking advantage of the irrational consumer. Is that such a bad thing?

I think it is and here’s why – first, sales days like Black Friday evoke erratic behavior and, second, these types of frenzied sales force consumerism to take a back seat.

Black Friday sales are not necessarily big sales, but they are a super opportunity for suppliers to unload their burgeoning warehouses. This speaks to poor management of inventory and too much inventory, at its core, implies (and typically masks) big management issues with the company.

Excess inventory may mean that a company is placing inaccurate inventory orders. When this happens, the company holds more inventory than the market demands. That’s why sales like Black Friday are a welcome opportunity to unload the excess, even if it is at a discounted price.

Too much inventory creates other problems for the company, as well. For instance, too much inventory takes up valuable floor and shelf space. If the item does not sell quickly, then other more valuable inventory does not make it to the shelf. This is a double whammy, so-to-speak. Not only is the poorly moving inventory not selling, but neither is the good inventory.

And when companies aren’t able to sell their inventory, this hurts their bottom line. Black Fridays and other types of sales days provide an opportunity for the retailer to drastically cut costs to sell its inventory – even if the sale is a net loss.

A major concern for companies is not only the space taken up by slow-moving inventory, but the associated carrying costs. These costs are typically about 30 percent of the value of total inventory. For instance, if the value of all television sets at your favourite store is about $1 million, then the cost to the company to carry (store) that inventory is another $300,000 on top of that. Carrying costs include things like rent, utilities and labour.

And let’s not forget about waste. In a worst-case scenario (and we know that this happens more often than not – even in Victoria!), companies throw out their excess inventory. This is why it is so critical for companies to ensure that their inventory turnover is high – to reduce carrying costs and waste – both of which cut into profits.

Ultimately, the question we should be asking is:  “Why do we need so much stuff?” And, why do suppliers need to meet this demand?

It’s true that consumers drive demand, but it should be a corporate social responsibility on all suppliers – from the acquisition of raw materials to the end seller – to help everyone curb excess. But who will start first? Will it be the consumer who refuses to engage in sales like Black Friday; thereby not helping companies move their inventory? Or will it be the smart supplier who decides to stop stocking whatever the consumer wants (and, therefore, risks going out of business)? It’s a difficult question indeed.

For my part, I bought a new iPhone today. Who do I blame? Me for buying a product that I did not need? Or the store that stocked it and enticed me with a good price?

Service – Now!

When you’re in line waiting for service, how long is too long?

Studies show that on average, waiting more than three minutes is too long. And customers that wait more than three minutes? There is a strong likelihood that they are dealing with the only available service provider. If customers have choices, they will leave.

This is not good news for providers of service.

How good is your company at providing top-notch customer service? STELLAservice, an online customer service rating company, found that DisneyStore.com ranked among the top ten for both speediest e-mail support (1 hour, 47 minutes, 40 seconds) and phone support (12 seconds). For the full survey, click here.

In addition to speed (or time), customers are also looking for the following qualities in service (source: Evans and Lindsay, The Management and Control of Quality).

  1. Timeliness. Is the service completed on time? For example, is an overnight package delivered overnight?
  2. Completeness. Is everything the customer asked for provided? For example, is a mail order from a catalog company complete when delivered?
  3. Courtesy. How are customers treated by employees? For example, are catalog phone operators at Sears nice and are their voices pleasant?
  4. Consistency. Is the same level of service provided to each customer each time? For example, is your newspaper delivered on time every morning?
  5. Accessibility and convenience. How easy is it to obtain the service? For example, when you call Sears, does the service representative answer quickly?
  6. Accuracy. Is the service preformed right every time? For example, is your bank or credit card statement correct every month?
  7. Responsiveness. How well does the company react to unusual situations (which can happen frequently in a service company)? For example, how well is a telephone operator at Sears able to respond to a customer’s questions about a catalog item not fully described in the catalog?

When working with customers, service providers are in a more precarious situation than are producers of manufactured goods. Because service can be intangible (unlike a product or good that is tangible), it is sometimes hard to know a customer’s expectations. A service’s “fitness for use” is often in the eyes of the customer.

By building quality into every dimension of service, organizations will not only attain excellence in service, but happy and loyal customers – and a healthy bottom line.

Government Spending: A Cause of Inefficiency

We often hear that government is inefficient:  They spend too much, they take too much time to provide services, they do not provide quality services, they have too many checkpoints, and so on. But who or what is government? Are employees not the heart of any organization?

Contrary to popular belief, employee performance is not the problem when it comes to efficiency. There are many very industrious and efficient employees in any industry, including government.

The root of inefficiency in government relates to money. More specifically, because governments do not spend their own money, inefficiency can be a serious problem.

To put this into perspective, think about these four possible scenarios relating to spending money (source: Milton Friedman, Free to Choose) (a matrix is also provided):

  1. You spend your own money on yourself. When you spend your own money on yourself, you take care with your money, trying to get the best deal (best quality for least cost).
  2. You spend your own money on somebody else. When you spend your money on somebody else, you still take care to spend the least amount of money, but you are not as concerned about the quality of the product or service. For example: buying gifts for someone else.
  3. You spend somebody else’s money on yourself. When you spend somebody else’s money on yourself, your primary concern is to get the best quality. Money really is no object. For example: buying yourself a gift or enjoying dinner on “somebody else’s dime.”
  4. You spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. When you have somebody else’s money to spend on others, concern for quantity of spending and quality of product and service is not a high consideration. This is the situation with government spending.

Now put yourself in government’s shoes. If you have an almost unlimited supply of someone else’s (i.e., taxpayer) money each year, how will you spend it? Will you really give your systems and processes the due care that you would if you were spending your own money?

Unlike private organizations that spend money on goods and services that the market values, government spending has no information value. That is, organizations that spend to meet market demand will create a profit – this is the value that the organization generates. If it stops generating value for its customers, it stops making money.

In government, no matter how much money is spent and no matter how much output is produced, government does not know the value of its output. This contributes to a cycle of inefficiency in spending and outputs.

When was the last time your government told you how well they spent your money?

While pockets of government departments do forge ahead with implementing efficiency measures, there is generally no check on government efficiency. Governments are inefficient because they can be.

Value: Defined

Lots of people are talking about value these days – especially in light of Lean culture.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides eight definitions for “value.” The definitions relate to market price, luminosity, and denomination. From a business perspective, value is related to market price and the customer’s perception of a fair return on an exchange.

From a Lean perspective, value is anything that the customer is willing to pay for – as long as it meets these three criteria:

  1. The customer cares about it.
  2. The product or service must be physically transformed or the step toward transformation must be an essential prerequisite for another step.
  3. The product or service is delivered “right the first time.”

“Non-Lean” organizations sometimes have a tough time determining what it is that their customers’ value. But determining value is actually not that difficult. It comes down to ensuring that the above three criteria are met – all the time. Look at it this way:

  • An organization with efficient processes is able to keep its costs down. This results in a greater ability to attract more customers and translates to value for the customer.
  • An organization with inefficient processes incurs higher production costs. These costs get transferred to the customer. The customer does not see this as value.

Inefficiency can be a business killer. This is where Lean organizations have an edge over non-Lean organizations.

Lean cultures enable waste reduction in business processes that directly contribute to value for the customer. Lean cultures help businesses thrive.

If your customer values your product or services, they will pay your asking price. If your offering does not meet your customers’ criteria for value, the customer may still pay for it, but will definitely be shopping around next time they want the same thing.

Next time you complete a transaction with your customer, ask them to rate the value that they just received from you. Their response will tell you how well you are actually doing compared to how well you think you’re doing. Consider it a reality check.

Value is the key to organizational survival. If an organization consistently delivers poor value to its customers, it goes out of business. It’s that simple.

Thriving or Surviving?

What is your worst case scenario? What will you do if: (a) you are unable to prevent it from happening, or (b) you are unable to mitigate the outfall from its actual occurrence?

What if the worst possible thing happens during your project, in your company, in your life? What will you do if you cannot prevent the thing you thought you could prevent?

It’s true. Sometimes even the best thought-out plans and prepared-for scenarios are beyond our control.

Many organizations create risk management strategies and hope to never use them. Some even go beyond planning and simulate risks to test their risk mitigation strategies. But imagine an environmental, financial, or other disaster that is beyond your or your risk management strategy’s control. The risk blows up your project or your organization.

What happens next is the difference between surviving and thriving.

An organization that survives will patch up the outfall from the risk and continue business with a limp, hoping to get back to pre-risk operations.

An organization that thrives will look beyond the risk, reinventing itself to become a stronger, better service provider. In short, companies that thrive are lean to begin with and are able to bounce back stronger than ever

Many companies anticipate and identify challenges and opportunities in any project. That is a typical first step. However, moving beyond the first step involves change—and change is difficult. For one thing, agile companies (those that thrive) do not have an emotional attachment to the corporate status quo. They are not in love with their product or service. In fact, the less emotionally attached the corporation is to its products, processes, services, etc., the easier it is to change and become a thriving organization.

A thriving enterprise reinvents itself frequently. It not only looks forward five, 10, 15 or more years down the road, but it continuously adjusts its products, processes, and services to meet the approaching challenges and opportunities. In fact, a thriving organization learns to “fail forward” to thrive. That is, developing a perspective around change, challenges and opportunities that are relentlessly solution focused enables organizations to thrive.

Like love and respect for a family, revisiting and remembering the past is good, but not if it stalls your future. Organizations that pre-emptively make the necessary hard decisions, will not only sustain their future, but will thrive in doing so.

Kaizen to the Rescue

Successful organizational improvement initiatives depend on successful follow-up and maintenance. To this end, a very effective continuous improvement approach is Kaizen—“change for the best” or “good change.”

Kaizen is a Lean methodology that includes a set of activities applied continuously to all functions in an organization. What sets Kaizen apart from other improvement methodologies is that it involves all employees in the organization—from the CEO to the front line workers.

And it is easy to apply in any type of organization and to all processes within the organization.

Kaizen originates in Japanese businesses, but its influence since the Second World War is worldwide. The reason is simple: Kaizen humanizes the workplace by involving all employees to spot and eliminate waste in business processes. The process is transparent and inclusive of all those involved in the process: from suppliers to customers to employees to all other stakeholders.

The continuous improvement from Kaizen is a daily process of evaluating workflow and eliminating waste on the spot. In many organizations bogged down with policies, directives, and other “checking” mechanisms, workflow is slow and wasteful. But with Kaizen, eliminating waste directly targets these checking mechanisms to improve efficiency and productivity, enabling a faster workflow.

Another benefit of Kaizen is that usually only small improvements are delivered. Over time, these small improvements add up to big improvements because many (all) processes are involved throughout the organization. And this compound productivity improvement means huge savings in time and money for the organization—systematically replacing inefficient practices with customer value-adding practices is a win-win for all.

Kaizen replaces the command-and-control mid-twentieth Century models of improvement programs. Because changes to processes are carefully monitored by those who directly work in the process, Kaizen’s continuous improvement is sustainable. In addition, changes are typically done on a smaller scale, so it is easier to monitor and sustain improvements in the long term.

While Kaizen events are usually week-long blitzes of improvement and limited in scope, issues identified at one event are very useful in informing subsequent improvement events. This type of “paying it forward” approach of “plan-do-check-act” helps maintain a cycle of continuous improvement in all of the processes in the organization.

What is also interesting, but perhaps not surprising, Kaizen has evolved into personal development principles because of its simplicity. Check out Robert Maurer’s book on this topic: One Small Step Can Change Your Life: The Kaizen Way.