Among the reasons for the decline in labor productivity. Why is labor productivity low in Russia?

Labor productivity is an evaluative, primarily quantitative indicator, which in a more understandable transformation is easily explained by the formula “time is money”. That is, how much time does it take for the average person, for example, an American or a Russian, to produce products, again, for example, worth a thousand real dollars.

Without going into scientific and economic details, labor productivity in a particular country is calculated by dividing GDP by the total number of employees. Therefore, other things being equal - political, tax, climate, etc. - those who have greater labor productivity live better, longer, more beautifully. According to the Wall Street Journal, labor productivity in the industrial sectors of the economy in the European Union is on average 20% lower than in the United States, which, of course, affects the way of life.

But this lag, although unpleasant, is not critical, which cannot be said about Russia. Labor productivity in a number of Russian industries is tens of times lower than American and European indicators, but in general in Russia they work worse than citizens of developed countries by 4-5 times.

According to RIA Novosti, productivity varies significantly by industry. Thus, Russian space enterprises annually perform work at the rate of $14.8 thousand per worker or engineer; this figure in the aerospace complex of the European Union is $126.8 thousand, and in the US NASA - $493.5 thousand (33.3 times higher). The average worker at electric locomotive and car-building enterprises in Russia earns $20-25 thousand a year, which is four times worse than a Frenchman and eight times worse than a Canadian. The picture is the same at the country's shipyards: our shipbuilder works three times slower than a South Korean with the same volume of metal structures; the same is true in the automobile industry.

In the overall gap in labor productivity, the most significant component is low competitiveness. The simplest example from domestic practice: labor productivity in the civil aircraft industry is six times lower than in the defense complex. In other words, the consumer is willing to pay significantly more for a unit of Russian military products than for similar, but civilian equipment.

Reasons for low labor productivity in Russia:

Significant social burden, i.e. The significant costs of youth and professional sports weigh heavily on corporate GDP, and those who are essentially engaged in useful work participate in the “decrease” in productivity of corporations and the country as a whole. And taking into account the annual working time, which in Russia is less than that of foreign colleagues due to holidays, these losses are significant.

Low qualifications. According to statistics from the Ministry of Labor, the number of highly qualified workers in Russia is 5-7% of the total number of employees, while in developed countries it is within half, which is a powerful factor influencing labor productivity, as it allows for constant updating of technology and equipment.

Technological heritage of the past. It is known that scientific and design firms focused on the development of new industries cannot be created at once, even by pumping up capital. Real engineering personnel are “forged” over generations, and cutting-edge technologies grow on the basis of previously created and effectively working developments. There is a technological imbalance in the Russian Federation, since the USSR supported exclusively military and space engineering. As a result: the products of the Russian military-industrial complex are still a competitor and are in demand, as evidenced by the reports of defense industry export organizations and their annually increasing share in the arms market. The problem is that purchases of know-how and new machines can boost industry to a certain threshold level, but will not ensure parity in the labor productivity of Russians. This is due to the fact that Western countries, obeying the instinct of economic self-preservation, will never share their supernova secrets, and will sell, albeit good technologies, but of yesterday. It is obvious that the Western level of labor productivity can only be achieved by Russian science.

"Soviet" mentality. He is also from the past. Business experts recognize that Darwin's theory also applies to industrial competition. The smartest and luckiest survive, those who are able to organize the optimal work of their employees, strictly weeding out the incapable and promoting the gifted. It is unlikely that years of study at Cambridge and smart books on labor optimization will help a “naturally bad manager.”

Labor productivity is one of the most important indicators of enterprise performance.

Under labor productivity it is necessary to understand the effectiveness of people's work. An increase in labor productivity means an increase in its effectiveness (efficiency). In market conditions, high labor productivity ultimately ensures an increase in production volume.

It is necessary to distinguish between the productivity of social and individual labor.

Social labor productivity – these are the costs of living and materialized labor (the totality of means and objects of labor) in the sphere of material production. An increase in the productivity of social labor is achieved when total savings in labor resources and means of production are ensured.

Individual labor productivity determined only by the cost of living labor of an individual worker.

Note that in the practice of planning and accounting, the indicator of social labor productivity is used only for the national economy as a whole. For industries and enterprises, the indicator of individual labor productivity is used.

Increasing labor productivity, achieved on the basis of saving working time, leads to expansion of production, reduction of production costs, increased profitability of production, growth of national income, and, ultimately, is the main condition for the growth of national wealth.

An alternative to increasing labor productivity by increasing production volumes is to increase the number of workers employed in material production.

5.4. Indicators for assessing labor productivity and methods for their calculation

In industry, two indicators are used to measure the productivity of individual labor: production and labor intensity of products.

Product output (B) – reflects the output of products (works or services) per unit of working time or per one average worker.

For example, during a work shift one machine operator produced 10 parts worth 5,000 rubles.

Output can be calculated per employee of industrial production personnel. It reflects the level of labor productivity in value terms and is the ratio of the cost of gross output or marketable products produced over a certain period of time (decade, month, quarter, year) to the average number of industrial production personnel.

For example, the cost of gross output is 120 million rubles/year; number of industrial production personnel – 600 people. The output will be B = 120 million rubles. /600 people = 200 thousand rubles.

Output in natural units of measurement most objectively reflects the dynamics of labor productivity and is used in enterprises that produce homogeneous products. The cost method is used to determine the level and dynamics of labor productivity in those enterprises where the product range is diverse. The labor method, based on measuring the volume of production in standard hours, is used primarily in in-plant planning.

Production may be planned And actual . When determining planned output, the planned indicators of production volume and number are taken into account, and when assessing actual output, actual results are taken into account.

Labor intensity (TE) is the cost of working time to produce a unit of product or work.

Indicators of labor productivity, production and labor intensity of products are related to each other by an inversely proportional relationship, that is, the lower the labor intensity, the higher the output. This dependence can be written as follows:

Where ∆V– relative increase in output in the reporting year, %; (-∆TE)– relative reduction in labor intensity in the reporting year, %.

For example, in the base year, production amounted to 80 thousand rubles. The labor intensity of the product is 50 thousand hours. In the reporting year, output increased to 100 thousand rubles, and labor intensity decreased to 40 thousand hours.

The increase in output amounted to ∆V=10/8-1=0.25 or 25%;

- reduction in labor intensity ∆TE=40/50-1=-0.2 or 20 %.

Or according to the formula given above:

The increase in output amounted to ∆V=20*100/(100-20=0.25) or 25%;

- reduction in labor intensity - ∆TE=25*100/(100+25)=0.2 or 20 %.

Based on the nature of working time costs, three types of labor intensity of products are distinguished: standard, planned and actual.

Standard labor intensity - this is the cost of working time for the production of a unit of product, calculated for all operations of the technological process of manufacturing a specific unit of product according to current standards. The indicator of standard labor intensity is used for payroll calculations, planning costs and wholesale prices, as well as when designing new similar products.

Planned labor intensity - these are labor costs planned for a certain period for the manufacture of products, which take into account measures to reduce standard labor intensity.

Actual labor intensity – determined by the actual labor costs for production. A comparison of actual and standard labor intensity allows us to identify reserves for its reduction.

A comparison of planned and actual labor intensity reflects an increase labor productivity (PT) :

Changes in labor productivity can be assessed using actual labor intensity, i.e. the ratio of the actual labor intensity of the base and reporting years.

For example, in the base year the actual labor intensity of a unit of production is 15 minutes, in the reporting year - 12 minutes, then the productivity increase will be 15min./12min.=1.2 or 120%.

Labor savings are taken as a single indicator for all industries, reflecting the growth of labor productivity for each factor (the reason under the influence of which the level of labor productivity changes) and in general. The essence of calculating such an indicator of labor productivity growth is to determine a possible reduction in the number of employees as a result of measures to reduce the labor intensity of manufactured products, rational use of working time, as well as changes in the volume and structure of production.

Labor productivity level calculated by the formula

,

Where VP– annual volume of commercial (gross) products (works or services) at comparable prices, rub.; H sr.sp.– average number of employees, rub.

Increase in labor productivity (percentage) is determined by the formula

Where E i– possible number of redundant workers, calculated by a separate factor, people; E– possible number of redundant workers, calculated based on all factors, people; H pl– number of employees calculated for the production volume of the planning period based on the production of the base period, people.

The influence of individual factors on labor productivity is determined by calculating the change in the number of employees as a result of individual measures for mechanization and automation of production processes, the introduction of new technology and equipment, etc.

Changing the number of workers by reducing lost working time calculated in absolute value using the formula

Where H r.p.p.– number of workers for the planned period, people; P r.v.p.– percentage of lost working time in the planned period; P r.v.b.– percentage of lost working time in the base period.

Change in the number of production personnel due to an increase in production volume, if the increase in production volume does not require a proportional increase in the number of all personnel of the enterprise, it is determined by the formula

Where H b– number of industrial production personnel in the base period, people; ∆V– planned percentage of production growth; ∆H P– planned percentage of the required increase in the number of production personnel.

On a direct line with Vladimir Putin, the president said that the current decline in household incomes is natural, since in previous years they grew, outpacing labor productivity indicators. The numbers confirm this: Rosstat notes a slowdown in labor productivity growth from year to year, and in the United States they work 3.5 times more efficiently. The Secret found out from experts why this is happening.

Valery Mironov Deputy Director of the Development Center Institute, National Research University Higher School of Economics

In the 2000s, there was a large influx of export earnings due to rising oil prices. This resource curse discouraged businesses from adopting new, efficient technologies, as oil prices rose $10–20 every year and revenues were generated regardless of efficiency.

The second reason is weak competition due to the fact that the creation of new industries is very bureaucratic and requires bribes. In the regions, it is difficult, for example, to create a new enterprise without permission from the governor’s administration. This also relaxes and negatively affects productivity. It's one thing when there are two or three competitors in the market, and another thing when there is one monopolist.

The IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook for 2013 shows that Russia lags behind in many workforce characteristics: work motivation, mentoring development, personnel training as a company priority, attracting and retaining talent, the quality of the education system as a whole, quality of the management education system, employee knowledge of foreign languages. In addition, compared to other countries, we have a larger gap between the remuneration of engineers and the remuneration of senior management, which also does not inspire workers.

At the same time, Russia is among 15 countries with negative labor force growth. The workforce is shrinking, so it is especially important to work efficiently to keep GDP growing so we can keep up with the fast-growing world economies. And this is completely solvable - you can find a lot of examples when an enterprise begins to engage in organizational restructuring, changes internal production communications, improves warehousing, delivery of materials to the workplace - and this causes a twofold increase in labor productivity.

Last year, the growth rate of labor productivity in industry was about 5%, which is generally not bad, but this was associated with an approximately three-percent reduction in the number of employees in the number of jobs replaced. And in the future, growth can only continue with the support of investments. But investments have decreased due to the crisis, and we are unlikely to see significant productivity growth. Most likely, this year it will grow by 1–1.5%. We can expect more only if sanctions are lifted or Russian capital that has gone abroad returns. The Ministry of Economic Development has submitted a three-year forecast to the government for discussion, and it states that labor productivity growth of 2.3–2.4% will begin only in 2017.

The quality of the workforce also depends on the level of education and health care, and the government is still going to save on this. But the employer can improve the education of employees at his own expense. Enterprises had the opportunity to do this before the crisis, but they were accustomed to using the cheap labor of guest workers. With the depreciation of the ruble, Russia has become less attractive for migrants, so enterprise management will have to invest more intensively in Russian workers. And the workers themselves should invest more in themselves, in their education and health.

Evgeniy Marakhovsky Head of the goods production department at 3M Russia

Most Russian enterprises have not updated their equipment and technologies for decades. First of all, it has to do with money. It is difficult to get a loan, which means that companies do not have long-term development and modernization programs. In addition, many people want to get maximum profit, this also negatively affects labor productivity. The relative cheapness of labor in Russia plays an important role. It is often more profitable for a manufacturer to hire an additional employee than to automate production.

Another reason, in my opinion, lies in the business models of Russian enterprises, which operate on the holding principle. They include auxiliary functions: vehicle fleet, repair shops, construction and other facilities. This structure does not allow the enterprise to be flexible and concentrate on the key process. Large international corporations outsource such non-core functions, while carefully monitoring the quality of the services provided.

And the people themselves are not interested in work. Most work under a piece-rate wage system, which tends to increase the quantity and decrease the quality of products produced. Large international corporations do not work according to such a system, preferring an hourly payment system in which bonuses are a motivating factor. The motivation of personnel to fulfill the plan and the motivation associated with production culture are very different. Large corporations motivate people specifically to achieve business goals, improve culture and, as a result, productivity.

The level of wages is an important, but not the primary factor. You should not expect that when wages increase, people will begin to work better - the habituation effect will inevitably work. Payment should be tied to business goals, which is when it increases productivity.

A young specialist, coming to production after university, usually retrains, which means additional financial and time costs for the company, reducing labor productivity. Thus, improving the model of higher education in the country and linking it to production needs will help increase labor productivity.

In addition to low living standards, developing countries are also characterized by low labor productivity. The concept of the production function, which expresses the systemic relationship between the level of production and the combination of factors that create it at the existing level of technology, is often used to describe the ways in which a society satisfies its material needs.

However, this concept of technical dependence must be complemented by a broader approach that would take into account other components - the art of management (management), the motivation of workers and the flexibility of institutional structures. Labor productivity in developing countries (output per worker) is very low compared to developed countries. Economic theories explain this discrepancy as follows.

For example, the concept of diminishing marginal productivity states that adding more than a certain amount of a variable factor (labor) to other fixed factors of production (capital, land, materials, etc.) leads to a reduction in the additional (marginal) product resulting from its use. The reason is the decreasing marginal productivity of a given variable factor. Thus, low labor productivity is caused by the absence or severe shortage of additional factors of production (physical capital, managerial experience).

According to this concept, in order to increase productivity, it is necessary to mobilize domestic savings and attract foreign capital to invest in material means of production and human capital (for example, to improve the quality of management) by improving general and special education systems, as well as to implement institutional changes in many areas. These changes may include reform of land tenure and corporate taxation, improvement of the credit and banking systems, the formation and consolidation of an independent, non-corrupt and effective administrative apparatus, and the restructuring of general and special education systems to bring them into line with the needs of developing societies.

For a productivity strategy to be successful, it is necessary to take into account the above and other non-economic factors that are the social component of the production function. An old saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." The situation is similar in developing countries: economic opportunities for improvement can be created, but they will not work without the necessary institutional and structural changes.

One should also take into account the attitude of workers and management personnel to improve their skills, the ability of the population to perceive and adapt to innovations, the willingness to experiment in order to achieve success, and the attitude towards physical labor, discipline, power and exploitation. The person's physical and mental suitability for the job must be taken into account. The economic success of the four Asian Tigers - Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea - can largely be attributed to the quality of their workforce, operational excellence and institutional changes aimed at increasing productivity.

The close relationship between low income and low productivity in developing countries is clearly reflected in the physical health of the population. It is known that poor nutrition in childhood has an extremely negative impact on the physical and intellectual development of the child. A qualitatively and quantitatively inadequate diet and lack of basic conditions for personal hygiene can undermine the health of workers in subsequent years and negatively affect their attitude towards work. Low productivity in such a situation is largely caused by apathy, physical and emotional inability to withstand the constant pressure of competition in the labor sphere.

Thus, low living standards and low labor productivity are socio-economic phenomena that mutually reinforce each other; they are both the main consequence and cause of the underdevelopment of the Third World. Myrdal's theory of "circular cumulative causation" in the underdeveloped world is based on the mutually reinforcing interaction between low living standards and low labor productivity

High population growth rates and the burden of maintaining its disabled population

Of the 5.5 billion world population (1993), more than 3/4 is concentrated in the Third World and less than 1/4 is in developed countries. Its growth rate and mortality rate in both groups of countries are sharply different. The growth rate in most developing countries is very high, usually from 30 to 40 people per thousand inhabitants, and in developed countries they do not reach even half of this figure.

The total fertility rate is perhaps one of the most visible indicators that distinguishes developed countries from developing ones. No developed country has achieved; level of 25 children born per 1 thousand population, and for developing countries this is a rare exception.

The mortality rate is also higher in developing countries, but the difference here is from developed ones; countries is not as high as in the birth rate due to some improvement in living conditions and successes in the fight against infectious diseases. Therefore, the population growth rate in Third World countries averages 2% (2.3% excluding China), while in industrial countries it is 0.5%.

This explains that about 40% of the population of the Third World are children under the age of 15 (less than 21% in developed countries). In most developing countries, the burden on the economically active population (15 to 64 years old) to support disabled members of society is almost twice as great as in rich countries, although in the latter the proportion of people over 65 years of age is much higher. In general, about 45% of the population in developing countries needs such support, compared to about 1/3 in developed countries, with the share of children in the first group of countries being 90%, and in the second only 66%.

Third World countries have to cope not only with high rates of population growth, but also with a heavier burden of supporting the disabled population.

High, rising levels of unemployment and underemployment

One of the main reasons for the low standard of living in developing countries is the incomplete and ineffective use of labor compared to developed countries, which manifests itself in two forms.

Underemployment is when rural and urban populations use only part of the working day, week or season. The underemployed include those who work full-time, whose labor productivity is so low that their reduction does not cause any noticeable decrease in output.

Visible unemployment, in which people are able and willing to work, but there are no suitable vacancies for them.

Visible unemployment currently affects an average of 10-15% of the labor force in developing countries. However, unemployment in the 15 to 24 age group, many of whom are well educated, is usually twice as high. The table shows estimated unemployment data for 12 developing countries (1980s).

These data are just the tip of the iceberg of labor underutilization in developing countries. If we add hidden unemployment to visible unemployment, as well as people who have lost hope of finding work and given up further searches, it turns out that almost 35% of the Third World labor force is unemployed.

The supply of labor, judging by past and current birth rates, will increase rapidly in the foreseeable future, and accordingly the supply of new jobs will need to increase. However, due to the enormous rate of labor force growth in urban areas (5 to 7% per year) in many developing countries, especially in Africa, migration flows from rural areas are difficult to count on in the fight against unemployment and underemployment, with a mood of hopelessness masses of studying and educated youth doomed to an unsuccessful search for a job.

Labor productivity in Russia is 26% of the US level

the Russian Academy of Sciences

To increase the efficiency of Russian enterprises, owners and managers are installing new equipment, introducing ERP systems and other innovations in management. However, the results are unsatisfactory: the productivity of the new equipment is significantly lower than the calculated one, the output is a lot of defects, and production costs are not reduced.

Many managers correctly diagnose that the problems of their enterprises are primarily related to personnel - low discipline, low performance and low labor productivity. And, at first glance, it seems that to solve the problem you only need to develop the right system of labor incentives...

All “generally accepted” methods of motivating staff
in Russia they don’t give results

Russian leaders have learned from their own experience that in our country tariff, piecework, bonus, non-tariff, mixed and other remuneration systems do not justify themselves. KPIs, grading systems and other Western management innovations do not work as they should. Methods of non-material motivation do not produce results. The incentive systems they themselves have developed do not help either.

Russian personnel did not work as they should, are not working and are not going to work.

Moreover, this problem concerns all large, medium and small Russian enterprises.

How labor is stimulated in Germany and Japan

To understand the problem, let's first look at how Germans are paid. Their entire salary consists of salary. Any payments above salary are extremely rare and very insignificant. It is not customary for sellers to pay a percentage of sales. German workers don't need this. They already work well: the whole world admires German quality. They have high labor productivity. And there is no piecework payment or other “cunning” incentive system and is not required.

The situation is similar in Japan. Japanese workers are disciplined and initially focused on efficient work. They strictly carry out all orders of their immediate superiors and strictly follow all instructions. Most companies use the so-called floating salary system. But this is only a type of salary system. Therefore, Japanese workers are also on salaries, on time-based wages.

It turns out that the key to effective staff performance is not at all where Russian managers are looking - not in KPIs, not in the “deal”, not in the systems of material and non-material incentives. Neither the Germans nor the Japanese have these systems. Then what motivates them to engage in productive work?

Why are the Germans and Japanese productive?

The effectiveness of organizations in each country directly depends on the characteristics of the national mentality, under the influence of which organizational culture and collective thinking are formed in enterprises. It is mentality and collective thinking that makes a person behave in a certain way.

Residents of Germany and Japan, due to the peculiarities of their mentality, are efficient, disciplined, and gravitate toward order and organization. As a result, in German and Japanese companies an appropriate organizational culture is formed - “unwritten” rules that are strictly followed by all personnel of the organizations. It is “customary” for them to observe labor discipline, work productively and efficiently, and strictly follow the orders of their managers.

The management of foreign companies does not waste time on solving management problems, like their Russian colleagues. Foreign managers are confidently increasing the productivity and quality of labor, the competitiveness and profitability of their enterprises.

Features of management in Russia

Russia has a different mentality, a different culture. It is “not customary” for us to work well, it is “not customary” to strictly follow the orders of our managers. As a result, all kinds of organizational problems constantly reach the level of senior management of enterprises: violation of deadlines, violation of instructions, inconsistency between departments, downtime, overstocking, defects, shortages, high production costs, etc.

And instead of solving strategic problems, the Russian leader is forced to deal with these organizational problems, since they generate significant losses and reduce profits. Moreover, these problems create organizational chaos. As a result, Russian enterprises fail to properly implement either an automation system, ISO, or lean manufacturing. Nothing works the way it should work. Moreover, we repeat, this problem concerns all large, medium and small Russian enterprises.

What needs to be done to improve the efficiency of Russian enterprises?

In order for a Russian employee to start working well, it is necessary to create conditions under which it is impossible to work “carelessly”, within which the employee could not even think about doing a bad job.

This requires a special solution that will not only effectively motivate each employee of the organization to work productively, but also, most importantly, will transform the organizational culture and collective thinking, making them the same as in the world's leading companies.