President Dan Weaver agrees. "I won't know until we close our books on this fiscal year if we're actually paying more or less under gain-sharing," he says. "My gut feeling is that if we are spending more, it's not by much. But I've gained control over my labor costs [as a percentage of sales], because I know I'm always going to be paying out 33%, and that allows me to give better quotes [on prospective contracts]. Plus, I'm guaranteeing the company a good [rate of] return, and providing everybody on the payroll with an incentive at the same time." He believes gain-sharing is what will allow Pontiac to break even for fiscal 1983 -- despite the sagging sales volumes that have afflicted any company closely allied with the ailing auto industry. Having a more efficient work force that produces 30% less waste or scrap and works "substantially" less overtime has made all the difference, he says.
None of these improvements was automatic, of course. Pontiac's employees many of them experienced foundry workers who take a show-me attitude toward new productivity gimmicks, were "distrustful [of gain-sharing] until they got their first checks and figured out that all it means is more production equals more bucks," says industrial engineer Eric Forst. He believes the key to the acceptance of the program was -- and always will be -- "staying upfront with [employees]."
In that spirit, the Weavers have all but opened their books to the work force. "Employees now have access to [sales and production] information that they didn't have before," Dan Weaver says. "We put our figures on the bulletin board weekly, so people always know how well we're doing and what areas we have to work on."
But, to be sure that the particulars aren't beyond the grasp of his employees, Weaver has had to alter the way he collects and reports the data. "We aren't acting like we're in England anymore," he quips. "We talk in dollars and cents, not pounds. It never used to mean anything to [the employees] if we scrapped 50 pounds of metal or 50 finished pieces. Now it does, because we tell them how much each of those pieces are worth, and they know it's coming off their incentive. They know that we're shooting for [shippable goods worth] $20,000 in sales per day, and less than 10% scrap. And, believe me, they keep track of whether we're ahead or behind."
They keep track so well, in fact, that the weekly meetings held following the posting of each new status report tend to focus as much on company policies as profits. "The employees are starting to ask us why we do things," says Dan Weaver. "They're looking over our shoulders now, forcing us to be good managers." Grinders, for example, have been known to ask why they are expected to do extra work on some shipments but not on others. "They want to make sure there's a good reason for all the trouble -- whether we're charging more for it or not," Weaver says. Managers, on the other hand, have used this increased awareness of the company's condition to make those who work under them better employees. "With these numbers, I've got the tools to tell people what needs to be done," says plant manager John Weaver. "I'm able to move people around [to staff lagging areas better] without them saying, 'Hey, it's not my job.' "
But, by all accounts, Pontiac's employees are increasingly likely to take up the slack without being asked. Where once production workers enjoyed downtime, content to lean on their machines and watch a co-worker change the patterns needed to make molds for each casting contract, they now walk over to help. There is also active resistance to any talk of increasing the size of the work force -- which has actually fallen by 9.3% since gain-sharing began. In the front office, clerks rejected offers to hire some extra help for them, pointing out that such a move would only spread the incentive thinner. At about the same time, foremen successfully argued against filling two supervisory vacancies. They split up the leftover duties among themselves instead.
"I guess we just don't need as much supervision as we used to," Dan Weaver shrugs. "There's a lot of peer pressure these days. People kind of police themselves, and each other -- and if something goes wrong, they really raise cain. Nobody wants to see any goofing off anymore. They want to get things done well, and get them done fast."
Forst agrees. From his elevated office, he sees a purposefulness in the production area that peaks toward the end of each four-week incentive period. "In the last few days, you can see everybody pushing for all the production they can get -- especially if they already know production's good enough to make the next incentive check a big one." Then, all eyes figuratively shift to the one man who most determines whether that extra push makes it onto the incentive checks -- Larry Sands, in shipping and receiving.
"I feel much more pressure to get things out the door," he says matter-of-factly. "Nothing counts toward the incentive until it's invoiced, so I've got people asking me about shipments all the time." To keep up with production -- and the questions of pestering co-workers -- Sands has been known to work many hours overtime.
It is one more example, Dan Weaver says, of how gain-sharing has used dollars and cents to teach relatively obscure lessons no amount of management lecturing could hammer home. "Every employer knows you can't have much lag time between production and shipment if you expect to get paid within 30 days, but that doesn't make any difference to most employees. Well, to ours it does. Shipments mean sales, just like good, fast production means sales -- and sales mean dollars to our employees. Everybody in this company has an incentive to help us make money."
