>> MIM Speaks
MANAGING WITH CAUTION.
MAY 12, 1996 -
THE STAR
WE stand proud as a nation for our economic performance, our
international competitiveness, our ambitious projects and for
our vision to be a fully developed country by the year 2020.
But as we stride confidently forward we should also recognise
our vulnerability and the emerging signs of potential threat
to our capacity to maintain and sustain our development
momentum; and to be cautious enough to learn from the painful
lessons of history.
We are a trading nation and our prosperity is dependent on
global markets. Over the years we have been fortunate and our
transition from exporting primary commodities to exporting
manufactured products has been smooth. We are now structuring
for a higher contribution from the service sector by way of
import substitution and by industrialising services like
health and education.
The continuing success of exports is our ability to compete.
Our successful sale of the Proton car overseas is simply
because we are price competitive for the category of passenger
vehicle. To continue to remain competitive will demand that
our cost of production and distribution is kept within bounds.
It is because of this economic imperative that manufacturing
locations of multinationals have moved to lower cost centres
worldwide. While we are still a relatively lower cost centre
compared to Taiwan, Singapore and Australia, we are fast
losing ground to India, Indonesia and the Philippines.
For most organisations, the most consuming cost item is
labour. The relocation of US and Japanese electronic assembly
operations to Penang in the 70s is principally because there
was an abundances of trainable young people from the rural
communities around the Bayan lepas region at very reasonable
wage rates.
The situation has now changed and it is becoming difficult to
atract labour, even at much higher rates That is why for many
multinationals the new pastures are India, Indonesia and the
indo-china countries .
Our vulnerability to the vagaries of international trade was
forcefully demonstrated by the mid-80s recession.
Because our exports were low, the economic multiplier effect
worked in reverse and virtually all companies serving the
domestic market were severely affected to the extent of
requiring massive retrenchments to continue to remain viable.
The cycle is now reversed as virtually all organisations have
difficulty in recruiting suitable staff in the right numbers.
Hence the concern expressed by many economists about the
overheatedness of the economy and the corresponding danger of
a sudden reversal.
Importing migrant labour can never be the long-term solution.
Germany recruited labour from Turkey and Greece in the 80s and
had considerable social difficulties in managing this issue
when economic growth tapered.
The official figure of 1.3 million immigrant workers in the
country is a source of worry, quite apart from the social
upheaval of deviant behaviour that increasingly find
prominence in the local media. We need to be concerned over
the likely scenario of a slower rate of economic growth in the
future when the labour market is less tight.
The call to national duty by retirees and housewives can only
be a temporary remedy as it raises issues of quality of life
and effectiveness.
The tight labour market is causing a spiralling movement of
labour to the highest bidder, sometimes quite out of
proportion to human competency. Even high-paying organisations
are losing staff because there is always an employer who is
prepared to poach rather than train. This, indeed, is a
remarkable about turn from the scenario 10 years ago when
engineers were walking the streets to get any job, even for as
low as RM500.
What are the options for Malaysian organisation? Do we raise
salaries to get the manpower and prejudice our competitiveness
in the long run. Do we up our training and find that we are
in fact training for other employers? Do we consider
recruiting all the cultural cruit part-time help? Outsource
part of our work ? Reorganise?
Clearly there can be no one solution to our manpower woes. For
quite a number of employers, the balance has to be struck
betweeen short-terms expediency and long-term requirement.
At the one extreme is the American proposition described by
Charles Handy as the the 1/2 x 2 x 3 X 2 x 3 formula, which
proposes that you reduce the staff requirement by half, pay
double for those who remain but expect three times the
performance.
In theory, it is logical as it is a win-win situation for the
employer and employee. In reality it is doubtful that
performance can be multiplied three-fold, even if employees
work two shifts. But the proposition underscores the theory
that people will be motivated by financial gain-which may not
be always correct beyond a point when quality of life becomes
severely affected.
At the other extreme is the Japanese proposition of a
paternalistic employer offering a package of incentives in
which seniority is the important determinant. This proposition
attracts corporate loyalty such that the longer you are with
the organisation the less likely will you seek alternative
employment.
How do we position ourselves in Malaysia? Perhaps somewhere in
between the American and Japanese models, recognising both it
and loyalty. Many organisations, including the civil service,
have introduced variants of a performance-based compensations
scheme and have also made tractive to remain in the
organisation longer by adjusting perks (leave, insurance,
medical, EPF contributions, pension), more generously for
longer service staff.
While carefully laid-out schemes of service are defensible in
the turbulence of the employment market, it is under siege as
younger staff in particular are more attracted by immediate
financial rewards than by promises of career growth and
development.
The challenge for the employer is the retention of good
productive staff while welcoming the departure of poor
performers. A depletion of numbers should be viewed as the
opportunity to rationalise operations.
Just as retrenchment initiatives were preceded by
restructuring exercises, there is no reason why the
organisation should not re-engineer its operations to require
less numbers to produce the same result.
Over the years layers of fat and activities do creep and
become excess to real needs. We must resist the temtation to
fill the vacancy simply because it has been created by the
departure of an employee.
IT can be aligned effectively, during the current tight
employment situation, for organisational development and
success. The issue is one of investment, no longer that of
employee resistance, fear and uncertainty that organisations
faced a generation ago when computerisation was first
introduced to corporate life.
In any case, it is rational policy to drive towards the
application of higher-end technology as we move towards Vision
2020. Learning from the lessons of developed e countries and
the newly industrialised economies the the trajectory for
development is to move away from labour-intensive industries
to higher value-added competence.
As Malaysians become more educated with the liberalisation if
educational opportunities, are we ushering in an era of an
enlightened and knowledgeable workforce with the promise of
higher Potential for contributing to organisational purpose.
This transformation should see us depend less on kaki tangan
more on brain power as the driving force for continuing
prosperity.
Managing success is as important as managing a recession.
Raising salaries to match the competition buys short-term
relief; in the long term it can be injurious if it erodes
competitiveness.
The truly professional staff will be attracted not just by
salary but also by the total benefits package, including
insurance and medical, educational opportunities, corporate
culture, the sense of wellbeing and personal worth and the
feeling of belonging. A less-caring employer will only release
highly paid staff more recently recruited when a downturn
occurs. In a recession corporate loyalty does pay!
Contemporary management literature supports the proposition
that during economic prosperity human productivity can be
enhanced through co-operation, empowerment and enterprise.
To treat employees as mercenaries is to devalue human
contribution as a factor of production. It has been the
ongoing task of modern management thinking to elevate human
contribution to a partnership in which the employee is a
critical stakeholder who enjoys the benefits and protection of
the organisation.
To sacrifice this philosophy in our haste to pursue business
is to expose our Achilles heel.
|