dinamiche industriali a.a. 2016/17 lezione 24 ... · lezione 24 doesmanagement matter? francesca...
TRANSCRIPT
Dinamiche Industriali
a.a. 2016/17
Lezione 24
Does management
matter?Francesca Lotti
IntroduzioneLe scorse lezioni abbiamo visto che c’è una forte differenza
nella produttività di imprese (e stabilimenti).
CAUSE?
• Proximate factors:– “Hard” technology (e.g. Research & Development)
– Skills (e.g. Expansion of college education)
– Management (a technology & a skill?)
• Some deeper factors “driving” the above– Competition
– Globalization
– Regulations & government policies
– Legal
– Culture2
Introduzione
• L’eterogeneità nei livelli di produttività si correla
con alcune pratiche manageriali
• Pensate all’adozione di alcune pratiche
manageriali come all’adozione di una tecnologia,
non semplicemente agli stili manageriali
• Le pratiche manageriali contribuiscono a
spiegare le differenze nei livelli di TFP tra paesi
– In media il 30% del gap di TFP rispetto agli US è da
ricondursi alle differenti pratiche manageriali
3
Introduzione
4
Introduzione
• Il dibattito è ancora piuttosto aperto, anche perché si pone una questione molto rilevante.
• Come misuriamo la qualità del management?
5
Introduzione
• Domanda: secondo voi, quali sono i pro e
i contro dell’utilizzo dei casi di studio per
studiare la qualità del management?
6
Come misuriamo il management?
• Progetto di ricerca internazionale sul management
• Obiettivo: esaminare le differenze nelle prassi di management in maniera trasversale, sia nelle diverse aziende sia nei diversi paesi.
• Partners: – sede nel Centre for Economic Performance
– London School of Economics
– Stanford University
– Harvard Business School
• interviste molto esaurienti da oltre 20,000 managers in 35 paesi.
7
Come misuriamo il management?
http://worldmanagementsurvey.org/8
9
10
La metodologia
11
L’intervista: primo blocco
12
L’intervista: secondo blocco
13
L’intervista: terzo blocco
14
Example dimensions
evaluated
Quality of targets
Consequence
management
Performance
tracking
People
management
Management
practices
Operations
management
Performance
management
Time horizon of
targets
Measures tracked do not directly
indicate if overall business
objectives are being met.
Tracking is ad hoc
1
Most key performance indicators
are tracked formally. Tracking is
overseen by senior management
3
Performance is continuously
tracked and communicated,
formally and informally, to all
staff, using a range of visual
management tools
5
Dimension scoring criteria
Interconnection
of targets
Interconnection
of targets
Dimension scoring criteria
15
Examples of performance metrics – Heathrow RANK IT!!
16
Examples of performance metrics – Toyota RANK IT!!
17
TO GENERATE THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT SCORE , TAKE THE AVERAGE OF ALL 18
DIMENSIONS MEASURED
Perform-
ance and
target
manage-
ment
Talent
manage-
ment
Lean
shop-floor
operations
Dimensions Score
Overall management
score, on scale of 1–5,
is calculated from
average of all 18
dimensions
1. Introduction of lean manufacturing
2. Degree of lean principles used
3. Documentation and improvement of processes
4. Performance tracking
5. …
2
3
2
3
4
7. Consequence management
8. Quality of targets
9. Target stretch
10. Clarity of goals and measurement
11. …
3
2
3
3
13. Importance of human capital
14. Reward of high performers
15. Rewarding poor performers
16. Promoting high performers
17. …
3
4
3
4
5
18
Score (1): Measures tracked do not indicate directly if overall business objectives are being met. Tracking is an ad-hoc process (certain processes aren’t tracked at all)
(3): Most key performance indicators are tracked formally. Tracking is overseen by senior management.
(5): Performance is continuously tracked and communicated, both formally and informally, to all staff using a range of visual management tools.
(4) Performance tracking
19
Score (1): Top management's main focus is on short term targets .
(3): There are short and long-term goals for all levels of the organization. As they are set independently, they are not necessarily linked to each other
(5): Long term goals are translated into specific short term targets so that short term targets become a "staircase" to reach long term goals
(10) Target time horizon
20
Score (1): Goals are either too easy or impossible to achieve; managers provide low estimates to ensure easy goals
(3): In most areas, top management pushes for aggressive goals based on solid economic rationale. There are a few "sacred cows" that are not held to the same rigorous standard
(5): Goals are genuinely demanding for all divisions. They are grounded in solid, solid economic rationale
(11) Targets are stretching
21
Score (1): Poor performers are rarely removed from their positions
(3): Suspected poor performers stay in a position for a few years before action is taken
(5): We move poor performers out of the company or to less critical roles as soon as a weakness is identified
(15) Removing poor performers
22
Score (1): People are promoted primarily upon the basis of tenure
(3): People are promoted upon the basis of performance
(5): We actively identify, develop and promote our top performers
(16) Promoting high performers
23
Manufacturing
firms with 100
(50)-5000
employees
Scope
Identify formal
universe
Conduct Interviews
Confirm eligible firms
Verify sample is
representative
Defined as manufacturing firms from
ORBIS databases
Confirmed if currently operating with
manufacturing facility in country of focus
Schedule interviews directly
Compare distribution of firms with
eligible universe on key dimensions
Approach
I rispondenti
Focus on manufacturing as easier to measure productivity
(but also for Schools, Hospitals and Retail) 24
25
Dependentvariable Productivity Profits
(ROCE)5yr Salesgrowth
Exit
Estimation OLS OLS OLS Probit
Firm sample All All Quoted All
Management23.3***
1.952***6.738***
-26.2**
Firms 2,927 2,927 2,927 3,161
BETTER PERFORMANCE IS CORRELATED WITH BETTER MANAGEMENT
Notes: OLS Regressions includes controls for country, industry, year, firm-size, firm-age, skills etc.
-10
010
2030
4050
60m
ean
of r
etur
n
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
FUTURE STOCK RETURNSMost intriguingly, for an earlier (summer 2004) survey cohort of publicly quoted US firms we find correlated future (2005) stock holding returns
Sto
ck h
oldi
ng r
etur
ns o
ver
2005
(%
)
Management score (to nearest 0.5) assessed in summer 2004
Significant at 1% level
4 29 57 58 49 37 19 # of firms
26
WELL MANAGED FIRMS ALSO APPEAR TO BE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT
Ene
rgy
use,
log(
KW
H/$
sal
es)
Management
1 point higher management score associated with about 20% less energy use
27Source: Bloom, Genakos, martin and Sadun, NBER WP14 394. Analysis uses Census of production data for UK firms
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4mean of management
USGermanySweden
JapanCanadaFrance
ItalyGreat Britain
AustraliaNorthern Ireland
PolandRepublic of Ireland
PortugalBrazilIndia
ChinaGreece
Management practices across countries
Average Country Management Score
Distinct groups
28
29
0.2
.4.6
.8
1 2 3 4 5management
0.2
.4.6
.8
1 2 3 4 5management
US, manufacturing, mean=3.33 (N=695)
India, manufacturing, mean=2.69 (N=620)
De
nsi
tyD
en
sity
Firm level management score, manufacturing firms 100 to 5000 employees
Management practices across firms (US and India)
29
0.5
10
.51
0.5
10
.51
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Australia Brazil Canada China
France Germany Great Britain Greece
India Ireland Italy Japan
Poland Portugal Sweden US
Den
sity
management
US SCORES HIGHLY BECAUSE OF FEW BAD FIRMS
Firm-Level Management Scores
-.4 -.2 0 .2 .4mean of peo_ops
IndiaPolandChina
Republic of IrelandUS
Northern IrelandBrazil
Great BritainCanadaGreece
JapanGermanyPortugal
ItalyAustralia
FranceSweden
COUNTRY LEVEL RELATIVE MANAGEMENT
Relatively better at ‘operations’ management (monitoring, continuous improvement, Lean etc)
Relatively better at ‘people’ management (hiring, firing, pay, promotions etc)
People management (hiring, firing, pay & promotions) – operations (monitoring, continuous improvement and Lean)
Accounting for management across
firms & countries
• Concorrenza
– Livelli di concorrenza più elevata si associano a
miglior management
• Family firms
• Multinationals
• Labor market regulations
• Education
32
0.5
10
.51
0.5
1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Dispersed Shareholders Family, external CEO Family, family CEO
Founder Government Managers
Other Private Equity Private Individuals
OWNERSHIP MATTERS – FIRMS WITH PROFESSIONAL CEOS ARE WAY BETTER RUN THAN FAMILY, FOUNDER OR GOVERNMENT FIRMSDistribution of firm management scores by ownership. Overlaid dashed line is approximate density for dispersed shareholders, the most common US and Canadian ownership type
Average Management Score 33
2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4
USJapan
SwedenGermany
CanadaAustralia
ItalyGreat Britain
FrancePoland
Northern IrelandRepublic of Ireland
IndiaChina
PortugalBrazil
Greece
MULTINATIONALS APPEAR ABLE TO TRANSPORT GOOD MANAGEMENT AROUND THE WORLD
Average Management Score
Foreign multinationals
Domestic firms
COUNTRIES WITH MORE FLEXIBLE LABOUR MARKETS HAVE BE TTER PEOPLE MANAGEMENT SCORES
ChinaFrance
Germany
ROI
Greece
10045 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Employment flexibility*
0
2.6
2.7
GB2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
People Management Practice score
US
0
Sweden
NI**
Portugal
Poland
Japan
Italy
India
2.8
* 100 minus the World Bank ‘Employee rigidity index’** Assumed NI labour productivity same as Great Britain
Source: Data collected from interviews as of September 2008, World Bank; team analysis
Labour market rigidity index* vs people Management Practice score – By country
020
4060
80
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
EDUCATION IS ALSO STRONGLY LINKED WITH BETTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Management score (rounded to nearest 0.5)
Per
cent
with
a d
egre
e
Non-managers
Managers
Conclusioni
• Le pratiche manageriali contano
• Ci sono metodologie alternative per rilevarle, oltre ai casi di studio
• Queste metodologie ci consentono di fare rilevazioni standardizzate, tra paesi e nel tempo
• Ma soprattutto ci consentono di mettere il relazione le pratiche manageriali alla performance di un’impresa
37