THE revelation that productivity in Zambia’s formal sector plummeted by three per cent per year between 2008 and 2012 makes sad reading.
Truly, the finding by the Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR) is a heartrending development, which should be taken seriously by all employers in both public and private sectors.
Productivity, which can loosely be defined as a measure of the efficiency of a person, machine, factory, system, or a country for that matter, in translating inputs into positive outputs, is cardinal.
According to ZIPAR research, the overall levels of productivity in Zambia increased between 2008 and 2012. However, productivity in the formal sector declined by three per cent a year.
While there is usually more emphasis on production among many people, productivity is in our view much more important because it takes into consideration the inputs and their costs.
It is possible to record mass production, but at what cost?
We are aware, for instance, that the maize bumper harvests the country has been recording have been at great cost – to a major extent, because the crop is mainly produced by the small-scale farmers whose productivity is so low.
Productivity in the workplace is something that does not come overnight but is a process that develops into a culture of doing things over a long period of time.
A simple research shows that one of the factors for that could be the fear of failure because when faced with the possibility of failure, most workers choose to do nothing, thereby affecting productivity.
Other workers are so complacent with the status quo that they don’t want to try new things or new ways of doing things, thereby remaining stagnant resulting in low performance at work.
Yet other employees could just lack commitment to achieve more and, in the end, do not perform mainly because things do not seem to them like it would go the way they want it to.
There are equally those who wait for ‘the right time’ to do anything.
Many fail to do anything at work because they always wait for ‘the right time’ and ultimately they become ineffective because of procrastination.
For the Zambian scenario, further factors could be lack of appropriate training for the employees, lack of relevant tools, breakdown in supervision and low remunerations.
The result of this research is even worrisome in that the drop in productivity is recorded in the formal sector whose effects cut across the entire economic sphere and touches service delivery.
The formal sector, which encompasses the private and public arena, is critical to any nation as workers’ inefficiencies affect all directly or indirectly.
Understandably, during the period under review, the mining sector experienced the highest productivity gains in mining output per worker-hour of 15.4 per cent a year.
This is because in the mines there are strict orders on performance and targets with employees going beyond their targets receiving rewards.
There are also firm ways of ensuring accountability for each employee’s work hours.
Generally, all employees should endeavour to increase their productivity so that the national productivity levels could improve in the end.
On the other hand, the employers should equally go out of their way to motivate their workers to put in their best as opposed to the business-as-usual kind of arrangement.
This is the only way Zambia will be developed.
This country will not develop by merely increasing production of goods and services without addressing productivity!
It greatly matters to consider at what cost a product is produced. Mass production alone is not enough!  OPINION