1

Productivity : between competitiveness

and social approach

Julien Pelletier Project Development Managerof the French National Agency

for the Improvement of Working Conditions (ANACT)

2

INTRODUCTION

1. ANACT PRESENTATION

2. THE GLOBAL APPROACH: A SURVEY TO ILLUSTRATE

3

MISSIONS

•TO IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS AND COMPANY EFFICIENCY

•TO PROMOTE THE APPROPRIATION OF METHODS OF CHANGE

•TO DEVELOP INNOVATIVE PROJECTS IN THE LABOUR-RELATED FIELD

4

Created in 1973 300 employees in 25 regional units 1500 annuel interventions in companies 300 events per year Publications: books, magazine, booklets, internet…

The ANACT has a three-party board: Employer organisations Employees unions States representatives

The ANACT network

5

Short interventions aimed at SME’S, 5 days long and free of charge

Back-up for companies, provided by tools and methods for project steering, follow-up work groups in order to experiment long-term projects

Collective territorial, branch or interprofessional actions at SME’S

Survey to understand some problems in labour-related field

Training for company players, consultants, prevention players, etc.

Methods of action

6

Our field

• Work organization

•Health at work

•Age management

•Skills and competencies

7

A SURVEY…

TO BE PUBLISH IN: « Les pratiques d’interventionen entreprise », Editions Anact, 2007

8

Social Organizational innovations innovations

The key concepts

Social and economic performance

9

1. Participation• Team work• Problem solving group

2. Partnership• Joint committees• Cooperation

Social innovations

10

1. Production• Just-in-time • Machine adjustment time• Manufacturing management

2. Quality• Certification• Manufacturing cell• Statistical process control

3. Flexibility• In production• In professions

Organizational innovations

11

1. Economic• Productivity • Competitiviness• Cost effectiveness• …

2. Social• Qualification• Intensification• Empowerment• Health and safety• Compensation

Performance

12

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY: Presence of innovations

Innovations Managers (364) Unions (260)

Just-in-time 60% 58%

Time machine 65% 57%

Manufacturing management

67% 72%

Statistical control

63% 71%

Certification 62% 71%

Work team 40% 53%

Problem solving group

65% 60%

13

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY:Models of cooperation

Participation

9/11%

Democracy

14/20%

Traditional factories

47/53%

Partnership

30/15%

- Partnership +

+

Partici-pation

-

14

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY: Social and organizational innovations

Innovations/Models

Production+quality

Flexibility Team group

Training Pay bonus

Traditional 52 55 17 49 17

Partnership 62 52 31 62 24

Participativ 67 66 68 47 18

Democracy 71 60 72 67 32

All factories

59 58 33 55 21

15

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY: Models and performance

TRADITIONAL PARTNERSHIP PARTICIPATIV DEMOCRACY

PRODUCTIVITY 50 79 58 78QUALITY 27 44 31 75PRODUCTION COST

18 4 6 9

GLOBAL PERFORMANCE

30 48 38 51

INTENSIFICATION 31 46 35 50QUALIFICATION 46 55 52 65EMPOWERMENT 23 28 28 48HEALTH PROBLEM (reduction)

(15) (21) (19) (26)

ABSENTEISM 8,7 9,0 4,6 6,6

16

CONCLUSION

2/3 OF ENTERPRISES IMPLEMENTED ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATIONS

1/5 USE THE DEMOCRACY MODEL TOIMPLEMENTE THESE INNOVATIONS

THIS MODEL IS CHARACTERIZED BY: VERY STRONG PARTICIPATION

STRONG INTENSITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATIONS

HIGHER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PERFORMANCE

17

CONCLUSION

The democracy model is characterizedby intensification of work…

But also by more training and empowermentwhich can explained, if we use the Karasek theory,

the good social performance in absenteism andin health problem.

18

CONCLUSION

Participation and partnership in the areas of organization of work and

strategic corporate management are pertinent and important due to the

increased requirements of involvement in work and the superiority of the

economic and social performance they generate.

19

THANK YOU