.
Gente concentrada no aumento da produtividade através da redução dos custos em detrimento do aumento do valor criado. Gente que não conhece os números de Rosiello (e ainda deste e outro) e só sabe olhar para o denominador da equação da produtividade.
.
Assim, quando escrevo sobre o tema da produtividade recordo Larreche e a originação de valor (parte I, parte II e parte III) e tudo parece claro e transparente, o caminho mais adequado é apostar no numerador da equação da produtividade, pois reduzir os custos não é tão eficaz como criar valor.
.
Por isso, acho muito útil este recorte do livro "Competing for the Future" de Gary Hamel e C. K. Prahalad onde os autores colocam bem o desafio:
.
"Imagine a chief executive who, fully aware that if he or she doesn't make effective use of corporate resources someone else will be given the chance, launches a tough program to improve return on investment.
Now, ROI (or RONA, or ROCE, and so forth) has two components: a numerator-net income-and a denominator-investment, net assets, or capital employed. (In a service industry, a more appropriate denominator may be headcount.) Managers throughout our not-so-hypothetical firm also know that raising net income is likely to be a harder slog than cutting assets and headcount. To grow the numerator, top management must have a point of view about where the new opportunities lie, must be able to anticipate changing customer needs, must have invested preemptively in building new competencies, and so on. So under intense pressure for a quick ROI improvement, executives reach for the lever that will bring the quickest, surest improvement in ROI-the denominator. To cut the denominator, top management doesn't need much more than a red pencil. Thus the obsession with denominators.
In fact, the United States and Britain have produced an entire generation of denominator managers. They can downsize, declutter, delayer, and divest better than any managers in the world. Even before the current wave of downsizing, U.S. and British companies had, on average, the highest asset productivity ratios of any companies in the world. Denominator management is an accountant's shortcut to asset productivity.
Don't misunderstand. We have nothing against efficiency and productivity. We believe, and will argue strongly, that a company must not only get to the future first, it must get there for less. Yet there is more than one route to productivity improvement. Just as any firm that cuts the denominator and holds up revenue will reap productivity gains, so too will any company that succeeds in growing its revenue stream atop a slower growing or constant capital and employment base. Although the first approach may sometimes be necessary, we believe that the second approach is usually more desirable."
Now, ROI (or RONA, or ROCE, and so forth) has two components: a numerator-net income-and a denominator-investment, net assets, or capital employed. (In a service industry, a more appropriate denominator may be headcount.) Managers throughout our not-so-hypothetical firm also know that raising net income is likely to be a harder slog than cutting assets and headcount. To grow the numerator, top management must have a point of view about where the new opportunities lie, must be able to anticipate changing customer needs, must have invested preemptively in building new competencies, and so on. So under intense pressure for a quick ROI improvement, executives reach for the lever that will bring the quickest, surest improvement in ROI-the denominator. To cut the denominator, top management doesn't need much more than a red pencil. Thus the obsession with denominators.
In fact, the United States and Britain have produced an entire generation of denominator managers. They can downsize, declutter, delayer, and divest better than any managers in the world. Even before the current wave of downsizing, U.S. and British companies had, on average, the highest asset productivity ratios of any companies in the world. Denominator management is an accountant's shortcut to asset productivity.
Don't misunderstand. We have nothing against efficiency and productivity. We believe, and will argue strongly, that a company must not only get to the future first, it must get there for less. Yet there is more than one route to productivity improvement. Just as any firm that cuts the denominator and holds up revenue will reap productivity gains, so too will any company that succeeds in growing its revenue stream atop a slower growing or constant capital and employment base. Although the first approach may sometimes be necessary, we believe that the second approach is usually more desirable."
.
ADENDA: Nem de propósito "Empresas podem reduzir mais de 20% dos custos em áreas não estratégicas" O propósito é louvável mas... o problema é a ocupação do prime-time dos gestores com a redução dos custos, com a eficiência. E tempo de qualidade para equacionar os desafios da criação de valor? Recordo os textos de Gertz e Batista, não se pode reduzir a empresa até à grandeza.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário