KEY POINTS:
From all over the political spectrum, from business leaders to think-tank members and academics, the chorus of wailing swells. New Zealand's productivity is too low.
We're told we are in the OECD's relegation zone and the outlook is grim. The cry is "do something".
But what chance
of success? Look at the evidence and you'd have to conclude that pigs have got a better chance of flying. Why so?
There are four very good reasons.
Take communications technology for a start. The miracle of absolute human connectivity via emails, mobiles and the net is supposed to mean we work faster and better. But we all know that's not right. It actually means we are constantly tempted by jokes, gossip, sports results and a myriad of other delights available via our screens.
And not only do we spend time reading all this stuff, but we spend some more time deciding what should be forwarded and to whom, and then discussing the best bits of what's just arrived on screen with those in our immediate vicinity.
And of course, the fact that others can access you 24-7, as they say, means that they do. Life becomes a series of interruptions. And given that attention spans are in general retreat, is it any wonder not a hell of a lot gets done?
Then we have the demands of bureaucracy - both government and corporate.
Forms must be filled, objectives met, surveys completed, reports made, reviews undertaken and PowerPoint lectures endured. Everything is to be measured - to meet the requirements of those who don't seem to have grasped that so much of what really is important can't be measured.
Half a century ago, Dr Laurence Peter, trying to fathom why incompetence was so widely in evidence throughout society, concluded it was because people were being promoted, progressively, to the point where they were not up to the job they were supposed to be doing - and remained there. It became known as the Peter Principle.
It still applies. And what's more the HR industry has refined the good doctor's work. Having brilliantly managed to have us all accepting as fact that anyone entering the workforce today can expect to have several different careers with umpteen different employers over their lifetime, it sets about facilitating the process - while clipping the ticket at each stage of course. We acquire some skills and knowledge and then join the nomadic hordes.
So what's the problem ? The problem is that just about everything is run by people who don't really know what they're doing - because they haven't been in the job long enough to properly get to grips with all its ins and outs.
If these impediments to productivity weren't enough, there's another problem - insidious, seldom recognised and just as damaging as the previous three.
It's the general decline in language skills. We still speak English (if increasingly overlaid with a Valley Girl patois) but we don't speak it very well.
We use a lot of "blunt" words - those whose meaning is indistinct - and we don't use them very well. More and more of us are unable to convey what we mean clearly and with precision. It's like trying to knit while wearing boxing gloves.
Does it really matter? In this paint-by-numbers era, can't we get away with buzzwords, cliches and generalisations to "catch each other's drift"?
When verbal imprecision leads to confusion, misunderstanding and mistakes, of course it matters. And of course the process of tidying up the consequent mess leaves even less time for those involved to be productive.
As the election approaches, we can expected to hear the "p" word bandied about by those on the stump. They'll all tell us they recognise the nation needs to lift its game. But don't expect answers to the obstacles detailed above.
Meanwhile the armies of the partially competent, distracted by the temptations of illicit entertainment, hog-tied by external and internal bureaucracy and struggling with articulation, lead us into the future.
Don't look now, but is that the bottom of the aforementioned OECD table I can see?
* Neville Martin is a communications consultant and former Dairy Board spokesman.
