But wait. Are we too narrow-minded at times? Marketers and stakeholders seem to be constantly on the lookout of opportunities, hoping to find out how the external environment affects consumers' and buyers' purchasing behaviour. Have they forgotten that the staffs and workers are also directly impacted by the external environment, and that failure to properly manage them could spell disaster? We have a recent case study to look at over here:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-16/honda-s-chinese-supplier-strikes-caught-carmaker-by-surprise.html
Academically speaking, the development of business management resulted in a variety of management orientation, but variations of Scientific Management seemed to be the most commonly applied style of management in manufacturing industries. In brief, the key idea is to breakdown the manufacturing process into manageable parts, examine the time taken to perform each parts, and then implement steps to reduce the time taken. The workers are usually inconsequential, if not smarter tools that are expected to work within a tight timeframe. Imagine performing the same task over and over again.
Now let's reflect on reality. Scientific management is able to achieve brilliant results in the earlier days in China, primary due to social factors at the point of time. The education level of most of the workforces were relatively low. China government was then desperately trying to wipe out corruption. Stringent foreign policies and red tapes means the level of foreign investments is relatively low, and even if there were any job opportunities created, it was mostly to exploit the low wage level of the common people at that point of time. There's also not many job variety to choose from. Working in harsh conditions in the factory is a common affair. It's probably also in the culture that Chinese tends to be more hardworking. Honda made the right choice in the earlier years to have sunk so much investments in setting up manufacturing plants in China, given that they are going for cost leadership.
So what has changed today? There are speculations that China will become the next superpower in a few decades time. The general populace are now somewhat better off, better educated and more updated with the help of Internet. Jobs that offer better prospects are now more easily available that few are now willing to work in a factory, much less as a blue collar worker. China's one child policy means that in about 30 years time from now, the current generation will have to support themselves, AND both their parents... a foreseeable long-run financial burden. Furthermore in Chinese culture, parents are typically more protective of their only child, meaning that the future generations capability to endure hardship may no longer be comparable to their ancestors. On a final final point, the gap between distribution of wealth is growing, which means an increasing dissension between the workers and the wealthier upper managements:
http://news.asiaone.com/News/the%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20100531-219438.html
No doubt Honda's brand reputation would be severely affected, especially when they barely tided over a recent calamity where some models of their cars were discovered to be defective:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8571118.stm
What can be done? It is not easy question to answer... There is however a lesson to be learned for failing to heed the needs of the people working for the firm.
In my opinions, these are the following points to take note of when it comes to managing people:
- Establish frequent and clear communication channels - In Honda's case, there are only suggestion boxes, which are informal means of communication between the chinese factory workers and their japanese section leaders. The workers have no means to communicate their difficulties directly with their section leader, and it's hard to tell if anything is done with the suggestions given. My suggestion is that Honda should either hire chinese speaking section leaders who reports directly to their chinese-proficient japanese overseer, and/or they could hold quarterly meet-up with each sections with a translator present their idea across to their in-charge.
- Understand their needs and wants - This could be discovered during their recruitment and during the quarterly sharing session. Apply the principle of marketing not only on the consumers, but also on the firm's own workers. In this case of course, is finding a compromise between satisfying the workers' needs and the firm's needs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some time ago when I saw the news on TV, I vaguely remembered that there was even recreational centre built for the workers, but the workers do not have the time and energy to enjoy the facilities due to their shift schedules. Despite the good intent, the investment made to raise workers' satisfaction failed because they failed to take into consideration the living conditions of the workers.
- Goal Congruence and Rewarding - Face it! Not withstanding other industries, the blue collars are only in it for the money. Unless there's any plausible means of making significant career advancement by starting as a blue collar worker, else only money talks the loudest! And of course, profitability is also a goal on every business organisation known to exist. There comes a time where firms need to come up with profit-sharing schemes to encourage workers to perform, especially when the firm is making profits. This could comes in the form of pay raise, percentage bonus or even annual dinner functions. In my opinion, Honda could foster teamwork within each section and raise overall productivity by offering a hefty bonus for the most productive section every half a year. Of course, criteria of measuring productivity should be clear, openly accessible and measured frequent to keep them constantly motivated.
- Culture of Positivity - In my opinion, this is actually the most important. Even reflecting back on the experiences of previous employment, I find it hard to single out any firm where there is no culture of "pointing fingers" when things go wrong. This is a very negative culture to have indeed, because it ruins the rapport between the staffs, reduces productivity, inhibits creativity, as well as diminishes the employees capability to effectively deal with sudden uncertainties that arises. In my opinion, the upper management should avoid the tendency to put blames, manage the incident first, then do an after-action-review with the employees involved, looking forward to implement practices to avoid the same incident happening again.
