TWO questions: Would you allow your son or daughter to work in a factory, given its unsafe conditions? More importantly, would you buy products made by corporations that maltreat their workers? There's always an ethical and unprincipled answer. This came to me when a businesswoman challenged my social media post that was inspired by Doug Conant, who said:<\/p>\r\r
\"To win in the marketplace, you must first win in the workplace.\" The challenger may have lost her \"maternal instinct\" when she said it. Jenny (not her real name) told me: \"I don't think this is right because internal and external are different areas. And sometimes, the person[s] handling them are not the same, or maybe they are not in the same shoes.\"<\/p>\r\r
She added: \"You can win the market with [a] lousy workplace.\"<\/p>\r\r
What a pathetic argument: Why should we patronize a \"lousy workplace\" in the presence of its competitors who know how to respect its employees? It's a red flag. For example, if a company doesn't pay the proper compensation and benefits, then it's cheating. And if it can cheat its workers, then how much more the customers?\"<\/p>\r\r
There are other things to consider. How about their smelly toilet?<\/p>\r\r
Jenny continued with another faulty logic: \"As a customer, you do not investigate the workplace. You only need the product...\" She's patently wrong. If this basic thing about respecting the workers can't be managed properly, how much more are its products?<\/p>\r\r
She continued: \"Theory is different from actual business. Sales is not related to employee treatment.\" Obviously, that's a misguided principle. I concluded with a firm statement: \"It's not a theory but a practical lesson in humanity.\" Jenny stopped arguing.<\/p>\r\r
Respect for people<\/strong><\/p>\r\r
There's always the golden rule: Treat other people as you would want them to treat you. Even if they can't pay you back with material things, be kind to people to the best of your ability. It is called the \"ethics of reciprocity,\" as taught by many religions around the world.<\/p>\r\r
In the workplace, it is known as \"Respect for People,\" one of the two pillars alongside \"Continuous Improvement\" of the Toyota Way. It has its origin in the age-old industrial democracy system that allows the workers to participate in problem-solving and decision-making processes.<\/p>\r\r
That's how Toyota workers are trained. Toyota icon Taiichi Ohno explained it well: \"Toyota's style is not to create results by working hard. There's no limit to people's creativity. \"People don't go to Toyota to work; they go there to think.\"<\/p>\r\r
In any problem, we must be guided by a principled answer. In business, it's always possible to earn an honorable profit. There's no need to treat the workers badly. If you do, chances are their work would manifest in several invisible, sloppy ways, resulting in disasters for the oblivious customers. Many times, it results in unmotivated workers.<\/p>\r\r
Sure, you can dismiss them anytime. But imagine the lost opportunities you'll get while searching for new workers who may repeat the same rotten process. Indeed, ethical thinking is more exhausting than anything, but not if the employers stick to their personal values.<\/p>\r\r
Corporate dashboard<\/strong><\/p>\r\r
To make Respect for People a durable program is to monitor the managers' key performance metrics through a dashboard system. You can't drive a vehicle without a reliable dashboard that tells you if you're going good or bad, like if your gas is near empty or the engine is overheating or whatever.<\/p>\r\r
The dashboard system in bulletin boards must include a monthly post that includes the number of employee suggestions and amount of their actual savings, absenteeism and tardiness rate, highlights of town hall meetings with the CEO, accident rate and near miss incidents, labor productivity, and defects rate, among others.<\/p>\r\r
A dashboard can only be done by top management having the willpower to make them happen rather than simply giving in to what their managers want to do in their comfort zones. The organization may be earning a lot, but how about the amount they're losing? Chances are, managers don't know what they're missing or losing.<\/p>\r\r
Not everything that we see is true. To find the truth on the ground, ask questions with incredulity. Trust people, but just the same, verify what they're claiming. Now, here's a test. Your sales target is $50 million in revenue, and you surprisingly achieved $60 million in a year.<\/p>\r\r
What's your net revenue? $30 million? You may be missing something.<\/p>\r\r
TWO questions: Would you allow your son or daughter to work in a factory, given its unsafe conditions? More importantly, would you buy products made by corporations that maltreat their workers? There's always an ethical and unprincipled answer. This came to me when a businesswoman challenged my social media post that was inspired by Doug Conant, who said:
"To win in the marketplace, you must first win in the workplace." The challenger may have lost her "maternal instinct" when she said it. Jenny (not her real name) told me: "I don't think this is right because internal and external are different areas. And sometimes, the person[s] handling them are not the same, or maybe they are not in the same shoes."
