Productivity Declines: Does it matter?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, as reported by Bloomberg, employee productivity dropped last quarter at a 2% annual rate. The common wisdom is that we have pushed an overstretched workforce as far as we can, but there could be other reasons.

One is that sales are declining, but not sharply enough to warrant layoffs just yet. Small business generates about two-thirds of the new jobs in America. Those owners who survived the Great Recession by reducing staff are reluctant to do so again without a clear indication of what is coming.

Large corporations  can reduce head count to meet short-term profitability objectives. As long as hiring and training costs are treated as immediate expenses, rather than the long-term investments they should be considered, layoffs create an immediate improvement to their bottom line.

Small business owners can’t afford to ignore the cost of bringing a new employee up to speed. Throwing away the training investment in any new hire is wasteful, regardless of the accounting treatment it engenders. In a small business, waste is simply waste. Making the bottom line look better in this quarter at the expense of future profits is nonsensical to an owner. He or she has to take a longer term view.

computer usersAn alternative explanation for the productivity drop, and one that isn’t even mentioned in the media, is that employees are simply being less productive. As one owner said to me earlier in the week; “I look into every office, and the person inside is staring at a computer. How am I supposed to know if they are accomplishing anything?”

It’s a good question. He might more accurately ask “How do I know if they are accomplishing what they are being paid for?”

Back in the dark ages before portable cellular phones, most workplaces had a prohibition against using company telephones for personal business. It was easy enough to track. If an employee was engaged in  a personal conversation you could tell, and calls were billed individually with documentation of the number dialed. Unfortunately, that billing methodology led us to unwittingly term the forbidden behavior as using the company telephones (theft of equipment capability), rather than using company-paid time (theft of personnel capability). With personal communications devices, the rationale quickly became “I’m not using the company’s phone.”

Most employers stuck with this hardware-based policy logic as computers, and then Internet connections became ubiquitous. The logic fails, however, when the time wasters are built-in, or promoted by the company. Operating systems come with pre-installed games. Supervisors forward jokes or cute videos to subordinates, who then redistribute them to coworkers.

Policies against using the Internet for personal reasons are difficult to enforce, and have been shown to be most violated by management. Disciplining an employee becomes impossible if he or she can produce one non-business email from someone higher up on the organizational chart. Forbidding personal cell phone use in the office is tougher to justify if you use that same phone to contact an employee when he is in the field.

One of the biggest challenges is defining misuse. We can start with using company resources for illegitimate activity, like online gambling or illegal downloading. From there, however, things get murkier. If employees can have a radio at their desk, can they therefore stream an Internet music station? If someone communicates via email with a staffer in another location, can they use that same email account to invite them to a party?

Productivity measurements may be important to economists, but on an individual level they become meaningless. Business owners must rely on what an employee accomplishes to judge performance. The melding of work and personal communications means that we have to trust employees to act as adults, and guide them with clear objectives rather than rules for behavior.

Posted in Management | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Small Business and BIG Taxes – Timing is Everything

This column typically focuses on the issues of running a business, especially those that revolve around leading employees and growing profits. When I am consulting on issues that include tax planning, I am supposed to include a “Circular 230 Disclaimer”, which cautions any advice as not encouraging tax evasion. So I start this by reminding readers to consult with their CPAs, who are far more qualified than I to determine whether any change for tax purposes is advisable.

Whew! Having at least partially covered my legal butt, I will now venture my opinion.

Many small business owners I know who have had their companies for 20 years or more are structured as “C”, or regular corporations. Years ago, I also had a C-Corp. It was the only way you could cover your health and other benefits as an employee expense. Many others use it because the first $50,000 of taxable profit is dinged at a very low rate. That makes it much easier to accumulate working capital without paying the full personal ordinary income tax rate from the first dollar of earnings.

Here is the issue. Owners from the Baby Boom generation are planning their exits, and a privately held C-Corp can be a tax nightmare to sell. Some 80% or more of small business sales are asset sales. When you sell the assets of a C-Corp, it creates ordinary income for the corporation (C-Corps don’t get capital gains treatment). Then when you distribute the balance to yourself or other shareholders, you pay dividend tax.

I’m not expert on the details of the new tax law passed in the last month, but if proceeds from the sale are enough to trigger a 39% taxation range, you could be paying that twice. In other words, about 37 cents of each dollar in proceeds finally goes to you, and 63 cents to the IRS. Owners who decide to sell before checking the tax implications (and there are many) get a very rude surprise. (I’m mixing corporate and personal tax rates here, but remember you should talk to a professional. The point is still valid.)

This double taxation doesn’t occur in “pass-through” entities like Subchapter S corporations, LLCs or partnerships, but changing a C-Corp is (of course!) a bit more complicated than just doing the paperwork.

1120sTaxFormYour C-Corp can be converted to a Subchapter S by filing an election form. Here’s the catch. The conversion triggers the Built In Gains (appropriately shorthanded as BIG) tax. The entire value of the corporation becomes your personal property, and therefore personal income to you.

Here’s the good news (at last!), you don’t have to pay tax on that income immediately. You are allowed to amortize it over time, or until you sell the assets of the business. Here’s some more good news, that amortization period has just been reduced from ten years to five. So if you sell in more than 5 years, you are only taxed on the proceeds of the sale one time, at your personal rate.

What if you plan to sell in less than five years? The conversion is at a present value, it doesn’t change. If your business is growing, that new growth is in the Subchapter S. So each year you save some potential taxes via amortization, and some more on the growth in the “new” entity.

Why am I devoting a whole column to this technical stuff? Because there is one…more…catch. (Aren’t you surprised?) A subchapter S election may only be made in the first 75 days of the fiscal year. If yours started on January 1, you have until March 15th to file, or lose the option. If you lose the option, you lose a whole year of both growth and amortization at the potentially lower rates.

If you are a Baby Boomer who still runs your business in a C-Corp, talk to your accountant. There are some other benefits of conversion, but I’m happy to let him look smart. And like the man says, “Don’t try this at home!”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leaner and Meaner (Part 4): Beating the Big Guys

If your small business depends on excellent employees, how can you attract and retain them against the resources of larger corporations? In our previous installments of this Leaner and Meaner series, we’ve talked about how the pressures of running a business today require accomplishing more with less. For most of us, that means employees who are very good at what they do, and who are getting better all the time.

Small businesses have a litany of reasons why they are an attractive employment alternative to big organizations. Some are true, but others are merely fantasies that an owner creates to make him- or herself feel better about not being competitive, or not hiring the best.

True Differentiators

An employee in a small business is an individual. Others in the company know who they are, and what their role is in the organization. They don’t have to search a cafeteria at lunch time to see whom they might recognize. They don’t have a job description defined by a number (level II administrative clerk) or shared with dozens of others.

cube farmPeople want to be important. Big businesses can tell people they are important, but reality intrudes when you are sitting in a cube farm that stretches to the horizon. In a small business, every employee really is a key part of the machine. It is an owner’s job to make sure that is understood, both by the employee and by his or her coworkers.

Everyone wants to make a difference. Imagine standing outside of the exit gate from a large businesses employee parking lot. Pretend you have each employee roll down the car window and answer two questions: “Did you do a good job today?” and “How do you know?”

Most will answer “Yes” to the first question, and “I don’t know” to the second. Enthusiasm for a job has to come from more than slogans and team meetings. It should be generated by an understanding of why your job is important, and how it impacts the company as a whole. A small business enjoys a tremendous advantage when communicating that information to every employee.

False Differentiators

The most frequent and least credible claim I hear from small business owners about the advantages of working in their company is “We treat everyone like family.” It is a poor differentiator because it is so true.

Most families are a least somewhat dysfunctional. Which of your employees is uncle Bob, who is only contacted about births and deaths, and happily ignored the rest of the time? Which one is cousin Brittany, whose life disasters provide ongoing grist for the gossip mill? Employees have their own families, and all the baggage that comes with them.

Social interaction, working with people you like and whose company you enjoy, is a key part of company culture. Being sociable and supporting as you would with family, instead of demanding performance, is a clear pathway to mediocrity. Worse, the best workers will leave if they feel they are supporting underperformers.

Competitive Factors

Pay: Big companies can afford to pay more than normal market rates to offset their lack of emotional rewards. That doesn’t mean small companies can pay less than market rates and make it up with culture. You have to be within the range. Check the salary scales on websites dedicated to that purpose, and make sure you keep up with the norm. Employees have real families to support.

Benefits: Health insurance isn’t an option if you want to attract top performers. You may not be able to afford a gilt-edged plan, and you may have to ask for more employee contribution that a big company does. Not offering anything however, is a guaranty that the best prospects will pass you by.

Flexibility: It is laughable that Corporate America is beating the daylights out of small business on the flexibility issues. The only reason a small business can’t compete is because the owner doesn’t want to. Tailoring some customization into schedules or duties is greatly appreciated, and really speaks to how you value an individual.

Growth: Small business usually can’t offer a “career path” of incremental advancement, but that is no reason you can’t offer employees a chance to grow and learn. The current issue of Inc. Magazine quotes Harvard Professor Teresa M. Amabile:

“Of all the things that contribute to a happy workday, the one thing that stands out from my research is making progress on meaningful work.”

Each employee is proportionately more important in a small business. Attracting people who want to be meaningful in their workplace should be a slam-dunk. Having the financial resources to compete on the rest of the issues requires you to be “leaner and meaner.” For that, you need exceptional employees. I admit that it’s a Catch 22, but you can’t build your bottom line with poor performers.

 

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Management | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Leaner and Meaner (Part 4): Beating the Big Guys

  1. I enjoyed the article, we have worked hard to bring our small business to the size and profitability to retain our top performers. Although we think of ourselves as a family we do cull the family to make room for new family members. Most of the time “family members” who are repeatable passed up will leave on their own: At times We need to let them know their future is not with us. When this happens we need to step back and rebuild the team, though recently we have the new member work for a week at a time with one trainer in their work related areas. after a month we confer with the trainers and see where their strengths are, should any of the managers feel the time investment will not pay off the individual is let go. the longer it takes to make that decision the more difficult it is to let them go–part of the family dilemma I suspect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leaner and Meaner (Part 3): Investing in Employees

Employees are free agents. As a business owner you wouldn’t sell your customers at a loss because in past years you made a profit. Neither should we expect employees to get better at their jobs without expecting compensation commensurate with their current market value.

In the wildly popular “Downton Abbey” series the kitchen maid, Daisy, is bucking for a raise and promotion. She says “I know a lot of things I didn’t know when I started here.” Mrs. Patmore, the cook, tells Daisy “Yes, but they are all things I taught you.” Daisy replies, “Well yeah, but I learned ’em!”

Gratitude is a lousy motivator. Expecting loyalty from an employee simply because you’ve taught them skills is a surefire path to turnover. In a competitive economy where you are trying to accomplish more with less (see last week’s Leaner and Meaner column) each individual on your team has to be better. The days of making up for mediocre talent by adding bodies is over.

Over 70% of the US Gross Domestic Product is from services. Services are performed by people. If you are going to increase profits faster than you increase revenues in a service business, you have to do it by having more productive employees. That means investing in them, and then keeping that investment longer for a better return.

Investing means more than wages, benefits and on-the-job training. Job benefits like support for formal education, flexible hours and training that increases job market value means the most to the best employees. Unfortunately, those are the productive workers to whom we often offer the least flexibility. In a company of mediocre workers, the ones who rise to the top are frequently the most shortchanged when it comes to additional investment.

Small business owners tend to myopia. They look at their companies as self-contained universes. If your expectation is that an employee should be gratified because he or she is compensated better than other people in your organization, or others within their department, it is time to understand that such measures are no longer valid. Employees can check the internet for comparative wages. They discuss salaries with each other, with friends and with former co-workers through social media. They are acutely aware of competitive market rates for their abilities, even if you aren’t.

Too many small business owners avoid such additional “sunk costs” for fear that they are training new competitors, or that their highest skilled employees will be pirated away by bigger companies. That is clearly a danger, but in a free market lack of investment merely dooms you to produce with assets that are less effective and less efficient than those of your competitor. That is not the road to “leaner and meaner.”

For decades, the proponents of human resource accounting have argued that businesses should capitalize the hiring and training expense of a new employee. If we amortized those costs over time, and had to write them off against profits if an employee left before they were fully recouped, we would have a very different attitude towards retention.

Increasing your competitiveness is no longer a choice; it is a necessity. Treating employees like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark about the world outside and teaching them only what they need to know for your purposes, reduces your competitiveness and increases replacement costs. The trick to creating a tough, winning organization is to build a team of talented high performers who enjoy compensation and benefits that will stand up against any other opportunity.

Small business owners cringe when I say that. They say “We can’t pay what the big guys pay!” Even more often I hear “How can I pay top wages when I don’t even make top wages?” The answer to both questions is the same, and we will delve deeper into them next week.

Posted in Leadership, Management | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leaner and Meaner (Part 2): Retaining Good Employees

Last week we discussed the post-recession challenges that face business owners, and the economic and demographic shifts that mean we need to run our companies better than we ever have before.

Between 2008 and 2010 many business owners faced a task they had never previously dealt with; reducing staff. There are few things that impact the culture of a company more than layoffs. The pain for both the employees who stay and the owner who had to make the tough decisions lingers for a long time, but eventually it subsides, and the business continues. This time, continuation doesn’t mean returning to former practices.

Small businesses create almost two-thirds of the new jobs in America. As our persistent unemployment figures show, those jobs are not coming back at a rate that anyone could consider healthy. At the same time, the employers who I work with are complaining about the generally poor quality of applicants for the positions they have available. What created this anomaly?

Some of the slow job growth is caused by a reluctance to overstaff. In the event of another economic hiccup, owners want to avoid being in the same position as before; subjecting their companies to the pain of downsizing. The more important reason, however, is that in many businesses two people are now doing the work that three employees did before.

Downsizing is Darwinian. The slower and less skilled employees are dropped, and those who are more experienced and productive are retained. The net result is that any attrition going forward involves a more difficult replacement challenge than before. Running leaner usually means that the entry-level folks, the assistants and limited-task workers who provided the raw material to train for more demanding positions, are no longer there.

This missing pipeline of employees-in-training may be due to a reduction in staff, or simply because you have avoided hiring, but it is endemic in small businesses nationwide.

The other side of the coin in a leaner operation, therefore, is that when you experience inevitable turnover, the replacement employee has to be more capable than those you hired in the past. Every termination now takes with it a proportionately higher piece of a small company’s “corporate knowledge.” That experience in “How we do what we do” can’t be immediately replaced by any new hire. You now need people who know more to begin with, and can get up to speed on the remaining capabilities faster than they did before.

Most small businesses could do with a stronger recruiting and screening process, but we’ll leave that for another day. The secret to retaining the corporate knowledge of experienced employees is simple. Don’t let them leave! Like existing customers, the most valuable employees are the ones who already do a good job for you. They are the most likely candidates for new responsibilities. They have a work ethic that you know, and their ability to absorb new training is enhanced by the base of knowledge they already possess.

Owners complain that resumes today show too much “job hopping.” Younger workers have been trained to believe that opportunity requires regular job changes. Too much time in one position is considered a sign of low ambition.

I think those days are coming to an end. Longer job tenures will be partly due to a leaner hiring environment, but also because employers are realizing the need to “hang onto the good ones.” We have an obligation as employers to reorient our workforce. Tenure in a position should not only indicate dependability, but it should also reflect an employee who was worth an ongoing investment.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Management | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Leaner and Meaner (Part 2): Retaining Good Employees

  1. Stan Wyner says:

    Recruiting, retention, and downsizing should be done within the context of an overall succession plan designed not only for ownership transitions, but also “bench strength.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *