| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.09 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Abstract(s)
A produtividade apresenta-se como um indicador central nos sistemas económicos dos países
e nas respetivas empresas. Compreender a sua amplitude torna-se imperativo para a melhoria
contínua dos níveis de produtividade. Muitas vezes este conceito vem associado ao conceito
de produtividade do trabalho, no entanto, estes não têm o mesmo significado.
A produtividade do trabalho na realidade nacional tem-se pautado por valores reduzidos,
imputados diretamente ao capital humano. Este estudo, pretende dar um contributo em torno
desta problemática, avaliando um conjunto de indutores, que permitam aferir em medida os
baixos níveis de produtividade são unicamente da responsabilidade dos trabalhadores.
Analisamos se fatores, como a comunicação, a formação, o compromisso de todos, a liderança
praticada e a existência de gratificações dentro das empresas, podem desempenhar um papel
crucial e preponderante para a produtividade do trabalho e para o resultado final da empresa.
Aliado a estes fatores existe a influência que a gestão das empresas pode ter nestes
indicadores, valorizando ou diminuindo o nível de produtividade do trabalho, e, portanto, não
podendo imputar apenas ao capital humano a responsabilidade dos resultados.
Os resultados obtidos sugerem que estes fatores detêm significância estatística efetiva sobre
os níveis de produtividade nas empresas, quer na ótica do colaborador como na ótica do
gestor. Na ótica dos colaboradores, os indutores liderança e motivação, que acabam por surgir
agrupados, detêm um impacto positivo na produtividade, enquanto que o compromisso
apresenta um impacto negativo. Na ótica da gestão, os indutores motivação, comunicação e
formação apresentam impactos positivos na produtividade surgindo a liderança como um
indutor de impacto negativo. Ao nível das remunerações e custo com empregados, ambos os
modelos demonstram que estas duas variáveis quantitativas detêm impacto positivo na
produtividade.
ABSTRACT: Productivity is a central indicator in countries' economic systems and in their companies. Understanding its breadth becomes imperative for continuous improvement of productivity levels. Often this concept is associated with the concept of work productivity, however, these do not have the same meaning. The productivity of work in the national reality has been based on reduced values, imputed directly to human capital. This study intends to make a contribution around this problem, evaluating a set of inductors, that allow to gauge in measure the low levels of productivity are solely of the responsibility of the workers. We analyze whether factors such as communication, training, commitment of all, leadership practiced and the existence of corporate bonuses can play a crucial and preponderant role for the productivity of the work and for the final result of the company. Allied to these factors there is the influence that the management of the companies can have in these indicators, valuing or diminishing the level of labor productivity, and therefore, not being able to attribute to the human capital only the responsibility of the results. The results suggest that these factors have an effective statistical significance on the levels of productivity in companies, both from the perspective of the collaborator and from the perspective of the manager. From the point of view of the employees, the inducers of leadership and motivation, which eventually appear grouped, have a positive impact on productivity, while the commitment has a negative impact. From the point of view of management, the motivation, communication and training inducers present positive impacts on productivity, with leadership emerging as an inducer of negative impact. Regarding salaries and employee costs, both models demonstrate that these two quantitative variables have a positive impact on productivity.
ABSTRACT: Productivity is a central indicator in countries' economic systems and in their companies. Understanding its breadth becomes imperative for continuous improvement of productivity levels. Often this concept is associated with the concept of work productivity, however, these do not have the same meaning. The productivity of work in the national reality has been based on reduced values, imputed directly to human capital. This study intends to make a contribution around this problem, evaluating a set of inductors, that allow to gauge in measure the low levels of productivity are solely of the responsibility of the workers. We analyze whether factors such as communication, training, commitment of all, leadership practiced and the existence of corporate bonuses can play a crucial and preponderant role for the productivity of the work and for the final result of the company. Allied to these factors there is the influence that the management of the companies can have in these indicators, valuing or diminishing the level of labor productivity, and therefore, not being able to attribute to the human capital only the responsibility of the results. The results suggest that these factors have an effective statistical significance on the levels of productivity in companies, both from the perspective of the collaborator and from the perspective of the manager. From the point of view of the employees, the inducers of leadership and motivation, which eventually appear grouped, have a positive impact on productivity, while the commitment has a negative impact. From the point of view of management, the motivation, communication and training inducers present positive impacts on productivity, with leadership emerging as an inducer of negative impact. Regarding salaries and employee costs, both models demonstrate that these two quantitative variables have a positive impact on productivity.
Description
Keywords
Produtividade Colaboradores Gestão Liderança Motivação Remuneração Formação Comunicação Compromisso