"will convene at 25 large U.S. companies to speed recovery ' ZP, El País 21 November
Letter to President
Mr. President,
If 3,350,972 SMEs represent 99.88% of employment (2009 figures Ministry of Industry), 25 large companies can not directly represent more than 0.12% remaining. Unrepresentative.
If calls them by their impact, calls for advice or a photo. The second option is more desirable than the first.
The idea of \u200b\u200bcreating the Commission "National Competitiveness" says concern about this and it is very positive. The effectiveness of this body could be positive if you think of an entity of action and more than doubtful if a new meter. And to measure does not reduce accidents, the many ways to measure the competitiveness questionable not going to improve.
To improve the competitiveness do not get advice from those who, with notable exceptions, their negligence led to conditions that have led to the current crisis and our very poor competitive position. Nor by the large consulting firms that advised these empresas.Para solve a problem created with a mindset to be used new ways of thinking.
The inability of a significant part of our senior management corporate CEOs and bankers to manage the companies to anticipate and plan for the future has led to a crisis of incalculable consequences involved in a global systemic crisis, for managers who are not exempt from liability.
recent years has dominated the culture of quick profit, the reduction of any "cost" of personal enrichment at all costs climbing high corporate positions, not otherwise exempt from nominations finger. Pitch culture of cronyism and secondments over efficiency.
New incentives and subsidies for big businesses do not generate competitiveness and its proposed reduction in benefits are not concerned with its operators. In large companies as premium is, with notable exceptions, remain in office and in the best case, the short-, always at the expense of long-term competitiveness.
But the pay cuts will make the best people put their attention elsewhere. Again the short term that benefits against the long term, short-term solution to the structural.
reduction job has not always carried out with a competitive basis, but often short-term pure, whose impact will be seen in the coming years. Impairment of talent in companies and deterioration of Social Security accounts.
Our professional, working less, or are less innovative, or charge higher wages than in other European countries more competitive, that they are able to avoid the winds of crisis.
Get quick dividends without improving the companies themselves, without creating corporate culture, has caused the waste of talent, labor, materials and public and private resources. In short, the increased costs of inefficiency loss of our competitiveness.
We played a reflection of our leaders. When the wind blew for, it had good dividends. When the market is booming, everyone is a good manager. But our companies are not competitive, few were concerned that they were, it was decided quickly squeezing juicing. The benefit speed is incompatible with the consolidation of the company, as well as the short term is essentially incompatible with the long term.
The company responsible for this disease have been high managers and politicians who have failed, or unwilling, to manage properly. The lack of vision of our "senior management" is therefore clear.
is the key to competitiveness and this is right. To achieve this you must fix your attention to new business, small and medium enterprises by facilitating their creation by removing barriers and not taxing the starting positions of exploration and innovation.
Achieving competitiveness is not easy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is deceiving him. Requires knowledge, know how to interpret the organizations and systems, able to identify the causes of challenges and opportunities for improvement, namely to create operational and strategic knowledge and know how to understand people. The only possible negotiation is one in which all parties win.
The belief that {} = {lower costs or greater benefits more competitive} is widespread, but it is a fallacy. Some costs are necessary, some not. The income statement does not dispute. Which must be eliminated are the costs of non-quality, but this requires a continuous search for better solutions, continuous improvement.
Competitiveness is not achieved by reducing costs. Quite the contrary. I leave one sentence summary of W. Edwards Deming, the man who managed to get entire crisis countries exquisitely applying a basic principle: "If we focus efforts on reducing costs, the final costs and lost market share increase, thus lose competitiveness. If we focus efforts on improving quality, reducing costs and gain market more competitive than we are. "
The basis of competitiveness is to work together to establish ways of continuous quality improvement. In saying this I also have an impact on how bad it is to use "models" of quality presets that have contributed little to prevent the crisis.
Trust Management the only thinker who was able to anticipate the current crisis based on bad management practices and the principles for continuous improvement have given excellent results in the companies that have learned to use: W. Edwards Deming.
0 comments:
Post a Comment