1 Productivity : between competitiveness and social approach Julien Pelletier Project Development Manager of the French National Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions (ANACT )

2 INTRODUCTION 1.ANACT PRESENTATION 2.THE GLOBAL APPROACH: A SURVEY TO ILLUSTRATE

3 MISSIONS TO IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS AND COMPANY EFFICIENCY TO PROMOTE THE APPROPRIATION OF METHODS OF CHANGE TO DEVELOP INNOVATIVE PROJECTS IN THE LABOUR-RELATED FIELD

4  Created in 1973  300 employees in 25 regional units  1500 annuel interventions in companies  300 events per year  Publications: books, magazine, booklets, internet…  The ANACT has a three-party board:  Employer organisations  Employees unions  States representatives The ANACT network

5  Short interventions aimed at SME’S, 5 days long and free of charge  Back-up for companies, provided by tools and methods for project steering, follow-up work groups in order to experiment long-term projects  Collective territorial, branch or interprofessional actions at SME’S  Survey to understand some problems in labour-related field  Training for company players, consultants, prevention players, etc. Methods of action

6 Our field Work organization Health at work Age management Skills and competencies

7 A SURVEY… Manufacturing sector… 35% respondants Directors and unions representatives TO BE PUBLISH IN: « Intervenir en Entreprise: Pratiques actuelles», Editions Anact, 2007 To illustrate the global approach

8 Social Organizational innovations Three key concepts Social and economic performance

9 Two aspects: 1.Participation Team work (« on line ») Problem solving group (« off line ») 2. Partnership (unions/boss) Joint committees (quality, health…) Cooperation (trust, transparency…) Social innovations

10 1. Production Just-in-time Machine adjustment time Manufacturing management 2. Quality Certification Manufacturing cell Statistical process control 3. Flexibility In production In professions Organizational innovations

11 1.Economic Productivity Competitiviness Cost effectiveness … 2. Social Qualification Intensification Empowerment Health and safety Compensation Performance

12 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY: Presence of innovations InnovationsManagers (364)Unions (260) Just-in-time60%58% Time machine65%57% Manufacturing management 67%72% Statistical control 63%71% Certification62%71% Work team40%53% Problem solving group 65%60%

13 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY: Models of cooperation Participation (team work, problem solving group) 9/11% Democracy (participation+ partnership) 14/20% Traditional factories (taylorism) 47/53% Partnership (joint committees, cooperation) 30/15% - Partnership + + Partici- pation -

14 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY: Social and organizational innovations Innovations /Models Production +quality FlexibilityTeam group TrainingPay bonus Traditional Partnership Participativ Democracy All factories

15 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY: Models and performance TRADITIONALPARTNERSHIPPARTICIPATIVDEMOCRACY PRODUCTIVITY QUALITY PRODUCTION COST GLOBAL PERFORMANCE INTENSIFICATION QUALIFICATION EMPOWERMENT HEALTH PROBLEM (reduction) (15)(21)(19)(26) ABSENTEISM 8,79,04,66,6

16 CONCLUSION  2/3 OF ENTERPRISES IMPLEMENTED ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATIONS  1/5 USE THE DEMOCRACY MODEL TO IMPLEMENTE THESE INNOVATIONS  THIS MODEL IS CHARACTERIZED BY: VERY STRONG PARTICIPATION STRONG INTENSITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATIONS HIGHER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PERFORMANCE

17 CONCLUSION  The democracy model is characterized by intensification of work…  But also by more training and empowerment which can explained, if we use the Karasek theory, the good social performance in absenteism and in health problem.

18 CONCLUSION Participation and partnership in the areas of organization of work and strategic corporate management are pertinent and important due to the increased requirements of involvement in work and the superiority of the economic and social performance they generate.

19 THANK YOU