David Sudjiman

Doing the right thing and doing things right is the every company’s goals. Productivity is always the number one reason to reduce production expenses and gain the most profit margins.

However, sometimes the Company forgets to look at employee involvement to support company to reach its stated goals. Company may use the best system and technology yet to leave the employee involvement behind will make a big waste as the employees are the entity that runs the system.

In what areas employees should be involved? What kind of methods to grab employee attention to support the Company through their involvement? Who will take the benefits from employee involvement?

This article will try to address those question based on a catering company named Air Catering as a case study to assess.

Disclaimer

This article is using a non existing company. If there are similarity or identical name or condition, the author will take no responsibility as this case study is basically intended for education purpose only and no actual company is involved in this article.

Introduction

What is it a good system without any body wants to commit on it? Even worse, what is it good a system without anyone even aware of it? There are many ways to make the workers run at the same speed as the company does. However, the failure to achieve company’s goal is tightly related with workers commitment. The involvement of each part of the workers will help the company to fulfill its goal. Therefore, certain method should be prepared to set how the involvement of workers will reach company expectation. One good approach will basically leverage the level of productivity through motivation (Locke, Latham & Erez 1988).

Albeit that the problems may rise from several points, this article will only present some ideas about the workers involvement to create the most conducive way to help the company reach its stated expectation.

Background - The Company

Air Catering (“Company”) caters to many international and domestic flights that arrive in Sydney Australia. Currently, the Company supplies approximately 15,000 foods per day with more than 200 employees per shift. 3 shifts per day makes this company never sleeps. In each shift, approximately 40 percent of workers are not Company’s permanent employee yet casual workers are outsourced from a company named Casual R Us (CrU). The casual workers are hired as the Company sometimes experience less food order from flights for low season or even to meet up the sudden increasing that happens. Using this 60-40 method, the Company expects to keep the number of workers is adequate to perform in time food delivery.

The system has been running with the first pit-stop starts from storage area. This storage area will distribute any foods that are needed by each kitchen divisions. Currently, the Company has 5 different kitchens. The food varies from raw vegetables, fruits, to meats and oils. The food distribution is very tightly related with the next chain that one error in some part of the chain will slow down the process. If late delivery to flight occurs, the Company will suffer to pay certain big amount of money as penalty for each minute.

From the above mentioned situation it is obvious that the Company will need to have the most efficient way to prepare the food and make the delivery.

To differentiate, the author will use the word employees (or employee) for any person that is employed as a permanent staff by the Company. Casual worker (or casual workers) will refer to the casual workforce from company CrU. To cover all of the employees and the casual workers, the term workers (or worker) will be used. The term manager will be used for managerial level such as manager or supervisor while the term operational workers will refer to the workers under managerial level.

Employee Involvement

Aspirations

Locke, Latham & Erez, (1988) believe that in creating implementation plan, involvement is better required. It is not uncommon to see some of decision were made without even involving operational workers. Based on the article by Shapiro (1999), Company should put the effort to getting more understanding for employee needs and aspirations. Shapiro’s (1999) study also showed that the more motivated employee, the more he/she will put some effort to create improvement for the Company.

How the Company can get the aspiration from workers? Ideally, communication matters. If the company is in a good condition for communicate then communication can occur and aspiration can be caught. However, there are some of the operational workers not willingly to express his/her idea to the managerial level. In this case, the Company can provide with anonymous mailbox so that any of the workers can submit his/her aspiration without even fearing his/her name will be found. Another way to get aspirations from workers is to create some competition. For example, for anybody who can demonstrate the fastest way to put the food in a particular tray will be rewarded.

Experience Manager

Terrible decision can happen sometimes. When this happens in this Company, usually, the operational workers will think that the decision makers were lack of knowledge on how the real work happens on the floor. That is why, according to Fenton (2001), the Company has to put some effort to look for experience manager with the capability to capture some different point of views. For example, by providing a good carrier level in the Company will create experience manager that also knows the operational work from the lowest point of view. People that are gradually building his/her career from the bottom level will gain more operational experience and expected to gain some respect by giving sense that he/she was from operational level.

Direction

Mislead direction will certainly diminished the motivation to do the task required as the operational workers not surely understand what the decision makers want to achieve. Bartol (2003) mentioned that direction will make easier and better understanding to achieve goals. If the operational workers understand the goals, it will be more easily to propose a new way of working to enhance company productivity.

Productivity by Experience

One of the main problems that are likely to occur is the distribution of employees to work with each kitchen division. With productivity as the main concern, it is expected that the employee who has been working long enough will know the work and doing it in more efficient way. Most of the job is actually very easy task such as preparing vegetables for cooking, putting the cooked food in bowls, putting the snacks into trays, or making sandwiches. The real game will be involving on how many a person can prepare certain amount of food per certain amount of time, usually 45 minutes. Of course, the longer a person working at the same job, the more experience him/her.

On a contrary, this is not what is happening in the Company. Operational workers are often moved into a different kitchen to work with different task yet still the Company expected that any operational workers still have the same speed with previous experience. This is not only happening while the Company doing the increasing orders from flights. If that the case, workers can understand the temporary move. However, there many cases that a person, which has been working on certain kitchen for certain mount of years, is moved and not just for temporarily. The reasons given from supervisors are that the Company expected everybody to have the experience to do all task in all kitchens.

In recent study by Langbein and Jorstad (2004) is proven that if an employee spends more time to work in his/her activities the productivity will increase to a certain point and then will slightly decrease. The most reasonable assumption can be made on why the Company is moving people after several years of working (some are just after several days) is that the Company is trying to avoid that workers will be bored by doing the same task every day for years. However, this is not the explanation comes from the supervisor. Currently, everybody thinks that moving a worker to another kitchen is a common thing. Like it or not.

Another example can be given for a job called Runner. A Runner tasks is to provide any required material for people who are preparing food. This runner has to remember all kind of food that exist, warehouse location, and all kind of tools required for preparing food. This is not talking about several numbers of variations, it is about tens of variation of food. This is absolutely takes time to learn by remembering the places, kinds of food and tools. However, the Company are often moving these runners and when they are come back to be a runner, still, supervisor expects that those runner has already know everything.

Reward System

This reward system is not merely about money or promotion which no doubt can motivate the workers. However, this reward system will discuss about the term Reciprocity which Bartol (2003) explain as a principle to pay back on what the workers do based on certain things that is comply with the Company’s goals. The pay back can be in term of giving the right resources to help the workers do the task more efficiently. For example, it is good the make the workers being respected by helping to prepare certain resources available so that the workers feel more supported.

Bartol (2003) mentioned about recognition that will be rewarded for each employee that is doing a good work. Simply saying like, “Good Job! ”, “I like your work! ”, “You’re very helpful! ” won’t cost too much yet it is priceless recognition from supervisor to make the workers feel motivated and looked after.

In the Company, this is not actually implemented as a good habit among supervisor. It is the operational workers themselves that even has the awareness to tell his/her friend for good work recognition. Isn’t that the supervisor should be more sensitive regarding this matter? Why does this happen on the lowest level of workers but not on supervisory level?

Well Defined Job Description

For a company that has been on the street more than 30 years, the Company will have more than enough knowledge to do the internal job. Each of the details is well formulated to achieve highest productivity. However, this is not happening as it expected. The Company seem never learn from mistake to have a well defined job description for each type of operational task. For example, each of the new workers is expected to go with the flow with simple direction from colleagues and sadly, this direction is differs from one to another. The Company never give the proper instruction to do certain task while it is a big sign on the wall written “If in doubt, ask! ” but asking to whom that would be another problem. Even sometimes, asking a proper method is not a good habit as the supervisor will tend to translate this as incompetence. Even the supervisors their selves sometime has argument with operational workers who has been working there long enough.

Taylor (1985, cited in Bartol 2004) argues that each task should be well defined to create the best method to do the task will highest productivity. This part should be thoroughly assessed and even the Company is expected to use proper man for proper well defined job. The question is quite obvious, what happened if the Company does not even know the most productive way to arrange the food placement in the tray while the Company is expecting the workers to do it in productive way?

Wren (1994, as cited in Bartol 2003) wrote about Frank Gilbreth study for find the most efficient way for bricklaying process. At the end of Frank’s study, he increased the production output from 1000 brick to 2700 per day (Wren 1994, as cited in Bartol 2003). This could be a good example on for a company to define a Company guideline for each simple task.

Conclusion

Assessing Company productivity through employee involvement can be defined by looking back on what currently Company to achieve its productivity goals. It is a compulsory for a company to create expectation, those kind of expectation should be well defined as the Naj (1993) and Dumaine (1994) study (cited in Bartol 2003). Naj & Dumaine argue that to reach the expectation, the Company should create a point where from this point assessment can be made.
What can be assessed if there is no expected goals define in the future?

After defining a set of expectation, the Company then can make planning to gain such mentioned productivity level (Bartol 2003). Studies should be made to create the best method to do the task efficiently (Taylor 1985, as cited in Bartol 2003). After method is defined, reviewing the method before implementation if required (Bartol 2003) while it is possible to give a try-out for certain method to see how it really works in the environment.

After the most efficient method defined and review was tested, implement it (Gourlay 1994, as cited in Bartol 2003). What is it good to have the best method without using it?

The last thing not to forget, as now the Company has the stated expectation and the best method, make sure that workers are keep on track to work on the best method toward expectation while modification sometimes required (Hammer & Champy 1993, as cited in Bartol 2003).

On the other hand, these four steps will not make any difference to the Company employee involvement is not considered as an important part to create more productive work environment. It is likely expected that the Company should be more sensitive to grab ideas from workers as the workers are the final edge of productivity which the company can rely on. More experience people in supervisory level should be added because the production workers will receive orders from them that are why making sure better decision is highly expected to make the workers where should they go. Putting experience people on the right place can be mutual beneficial for the Company and the workers to gain productivity. The Company will get the food delivered in time, and the workers will fell doing the most of his/her experience. Supervisory level should aware the rewarding systems will also giving them benefit to have more workers feel looked after. Do the right thing as the first time, as written in the wall of the Company should motivate the Company to evolve to create better way to work and making sure that everybody is involved.

References

Bartol, K, Tien, M, Matthews, G & Martin, D 2003, Management: a pacific rim focus, enhanced edn, Sydney, McGraw Hill.

Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P. & Erez, M. 1988, The determinants of Goal Commitment, Academy of Management Review, 31, pp.23-39.

Shapiro, G 1999, ’Quality and equality: Building a virtuous circle’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, p.76 (online ProQuest)

Fenton, M 2001, ’Employee involvement and the middle manager: Saboteur or scapegoat? ’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, p.24 (online ProQuest)

Langbein, L & Jorstad, C 2004, ’Productivity in the Workplace: Cops, Culture, Communication, Cooperation, and Collusion’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, Iss. 1, p. 65. (online ProQuest)