Connecting the Dots

×

Connecting the Dots, Patrick Watson’s online newsletter, now lives exclusively on the Mauldin Economics website.

Please bookmark this page so you can always find his latest take on the geopolitical, cultural, and technological forces decentralizing and disrupting the global economy.

A Productivity Paradox

April 17, 2018

Economics is the study of people’s rational choices when they’re faced with scarcity and uncertainty.

The problem: people aren’t rational. They often act against their own economic interests—or appear to. So we have behavioral economics to figure out why.

Now, you might think businesses are different since they focus on the bottom line, not vague feelings. Yet companies can act irrationally just like individuals do… and they may be even less likely to realize it, much less admit it.

That’s a shame because everyone might be better off if they did.


Photo: Getty Images

Regular Hours

Not so long ago, work was a daytime, Monday-through-Friday thing for most people. Now much of the US economy runs 24/7.

As a result, millions of workers have unpredictable schedules. This is especially common in retailing. Chain stores use algorithms to match staffing with store traffic.

On the surface, that makes sense. Why pay workers to stand around and do nothing? The shareholders expect management to maximize profits. If it’s hard on the workers, well, they can get another job.

But what if this hyper-precise scheduling is bad for the business too? One recent study says steady schedules can bring in more revenue.

University of California researchers worked with Gap stores in the Chicago and San Francisco areas to measure the impact of stable work schedules. Here’s how it worked, as reported in The New York Times:

The study randomly assigned about two-thirds of the stores to a so-called treatment group, in which managers were encouraged to provide workers with more consistent start and stop times from day to day, and more consistent schedules from week to week. Many managers were also authorized to slightly increase the total number of payroll hours that they could allocate to their workers. Scheduling at the remaining one-third of the stores continued largely as usual.

The result: The change in average sales during the experiment was 7 percent higher at the stores subject to the new policies than at the stores in the control group.

So, when managers let people work regular hours, sales rose 7%. Across a sizable company like Gap, that’s millions of dollars a month.

The study found much of the improvement came from reduced employee turnover. Stores with stabilized schedules had more experienced workers, who sold more products.

While it’s hard to measure every factor in a study like this, the results suggest something important: treating people as valuable members of the company, instead of as interchangeable parts, can bring better results.


Photo: Getty Images

Six Days a Week

For restaurants, then, there’s a direct connection between the hours they are open and the revenue they receive.

Or so you might think.

Consider Chick-fil-A, whose stores are closed on Sundays due to the founder’s religious beliefs. That turns out to be good business as well.

According to trade publication QSR, in 2016 the average Chick-fil-A brought in 73% more revenue in six days than the average McDonald’s did in seven days.

Nor is it just McDonald’s. Chick-fil-A sales were triple the average Wendy’s sales, again with one less day per week to do it.

Against vigorous competition, Chick-fil-A easily wins the revenue fight with one hand tied behind its back, so to speak.

One reason: Chick-fil-A seems to treat its staff well—not so much with higher wages, but opportunities for education and advancement.

But there’s something else, too:  Chick-fil-A workers know they’ll always have Sundays off. I suspect it gives Chick-fil-A lower turnover and better-trained workers. They return the favor by going the extra mile to please customers. Revenue follows.

Could other chains do the same? Sure. Strong evidence says it would help productivity and sales. The rational move would be to copy Chick-fil-A’s practice. But they don’t, and some have even gone the other direction, expanding hours to stay open all night.


Photo: Getty Images

Paying Attention

You can probably guess my point. Treating workers as valuable assets instead of disposable tools isn’t just the right moral choice—it’s often the smart financial choice as well. Yet many employers irrationally choose not to.

This isn’t new information. In a now-famous 1920s experiment, Western Electric changed the lighting at its plant in Hawthorne, Illinois. It found making the room brighter improved productivity.

That makes sense, but then it got weird. They turned the lights down again, and productivity improved even more.

Western Electric also varied other employee benefits like break times. In each case, changes increased output. The effect faded with time, but something had obviously happened.

The conclusion: it wasn’t so much the changes, but that workers saw management paying attention to them. They worked more efficiently when they thought the company cared about their comfort. Imagine that.


Photo: Getty Images

Double Down on People

Today’s economists and central bankers know productivity is a problem, but they can’t seem to find a solution. Employers responded with measures like algorithmic scheduling in retail stores or all-night hours in fast food.

Maybe these changes raise productivity sometimes, but the aggregate economic data suggests they usually don’t—at least not anymore.

The next idea: robots and AI. Reduce or even eliminate those pesky humans.

But if the Gap experiment and Chick-fil-A’s success mean anything, doubling down on humans might cost less and work even better. 

It’s something to consider if you own a business. And you don’t need the Fed’s help to do it.

See you at the top,

Patrick Watson

P.S. If you’re reading this because someone shared it with you, click here to get your own free Connecting the Dots subscription. You can also follow me on Twitter: @PatrickW.

Discuss This

0 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

benjamin.t.roberts@wellsfargo.com

April 20, 4:01 p.m.

This ties in with the observations in “Love ‘Em or Lose ‘Em: Getting Good People to Stay”.

Management theory from the ‘80’s taught that people were disposable and interchangeable, and too many people from that era (and that kind of calcified thinking) are still in charge.  It was wrong then, but the focus was on short-term, first order effects which allowed them to focus on current payroll costs.  The second order effects meant higher turnover, lower employee loyalty and engagement, and higher overall expenses (when the negative productivity of new employees and the attendant training costs over time are factored in).

For “key” employees, it’s even worse, since the payroll cost (salary & benefits) of the new employee is likely to meet or exceed the existing employee’s payroll cost.  Then there’s also the hiring process cost of locating and obtaining the next “key” employee to replace the one that left.  Add to that the fact that new “key” employees are typically not “up to speed” on the company’s concerns / projects, and you have a higher inefficiency at a higher cost.

Most managers don’t understand that they would be better off performing an annual analysis of what they would pay a new employee with the skills, training, and experience of the existing employee, and ensure that the existing employee was paid at least at that rate.  That would also naturally reward employees for accelerating their training, certifications, and knowledge applicable for the given role.  Given the costs associated with replacement of the employee, a strong argument could be made for even paying them more (perhaps 10%) than what a new employee with all their talents would make.  Trying to underpay an employee just poisons the morale, and encourages the employee to leave, taking all their knowledge, contacts, and experience with them, and forcing higher costs on the company.

michael@disruptiveconsulting.ca

April 17, 11:34 a.m.

You start this article with a sentence that isn’t accurate, at least for an Austrian Economist, which I am.  That is: Economics is the study of people’s rational choices.  The starting place of Austrian Economics is “Human Action”.  I think von Mises left of the “rational” bit on purpose.  The only ones who make the assumption choices or actions are based in rationality is economists who haven’t gone back to first principles.  Yes, it is an economics of “rational beings” but this rationality can’t possibly be assume in every, or even most, cases.  Especially when another “rational being” is making their own assumptions about what is rational.

As a bit of an aside, I introduced “flex time” before it was a name in use (at least common use) in the early ‘60’s.  Did I have a happy work force?  Yes.  Did anyone leave while I was there (5 years)?  No.  Were they productive?  Well the competitor down the road had sales that were double ours but we were growing and they weren’t - and our ROIC went from twice theirs to four times theirs.  Not too long after I left, the flexitime was taken away and all the things named above decreased and the company was later sold - with none of the original employees remaining.

Where did the idea come from?  It just felt right to me.

Don Braswell

April 17, 9:17 a.m.

An interesting study would be the method in which a minimum wage depresses wages ion the local market.  What do I mean?  A company who pays over minimum wage may see itself at a disadvantage (rational or not) and therefore only pay minimum wage when the “prevailing rate” is above that rate.  So when Costco (another company that pays better wages), pays a premium, they get more loyalty and better employees.  Instead of allowing the market to set the wages, other companies pay minimum wage for entry level jobs.  BUT if they had to compete for the labor, they may set a higher rate…SO if bureaucrats set the wage artificially high, they depress the number of workers.  IF they set the wage artificially low (as it probably is now), they depress the wages of existing workers… Sort of a lose-lose proposition that is imposed from above for the workers. 

As a final comment, Chick-Fil-A encourages the helpful attitude in their employees.  I believe they have a metric which ties any advancement to your helpful attitude at the workplace.  Grousing = no promotion.  Happy = good evaluations and perhaps a pay raise…


Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact service@mauldineconomics.com.

Disclaimers

The Mauldin Economics website, Yield Shark, Thoughts from the Frontline, Outside the Box, Over My Shoulder, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, The 10th Man, Connecting The Dots, Stray Reflections, Street Freak, ETF 20/20, Macro Growth & Income Alert, In the Money, and Mauldin Economics VIP are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC. Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

Mauldin Economics has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. If you have a website or newsletter and would like to be considered for inclusion in the Mauldin Economics affiliate program, please go to http://affiliates.ggcpublishing.com/. Likewise, from time to time Mauldin Economics may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.

© Copyright 2018 Mauldin Economics