What's wrong with British industry?

D. COMINO

Demetrius Comino is chairman of Dexion Ltd.

Why is Britain in trouble? Why are we not doing as well as, if not better than, half a dozen other countries one could name?

Only too frequently when faced with such a question, we are prone to list a dozen reasons for our failure. reasons which, when challenged, begin to look more than suspiciously like weak excuses: 'The re- sources of the Germans were destroyed and they had to start from scratch'. Is it an advantage to have to start from scratch? Had the situation been reversed and we had been left behind, would we not have said that we were so crippled that it was im- possible to close the gap? 'The Americans are so prosperous because they have such a vast home market.' Did we have a vast home market when we were the most prosperous nation in the world? `Ah, yes, but things are different now, competition in exoprts is so fierce.' Then how do we explain the tremendous success of the Japanese in exports? 'Cheap labour.' And the success of the Germans? And so on.

The truth is that every situation has its causes; how do we explain the fact that, when things go wrong, we look for external causes. We say the circumstances were the cause. When, on the other hand, things go well, circumstances take a back seat—we, our own efforts were the cause. What we overlook is that circumstances are our raw material. It is circumstances we have to cope with and to use, but how we face those circumstances depends on our attitudes, our self-reliance, our. determin- ation and our motivations.

But what happens when we look around? Most of us nowadays seem to be expecting something from someone else. Young people (and their elders) seem to expect someone to do things for them, rather than to do things for themselves and, unfor- tunately, the tendency in our society .seems to be to encourage people to think this way.

Even as a nation we seem to have lost our confidence—our self-reliance. We seem to think we are entitled to things. The

'Gnomes of Zurich' must hand us money on a plate. They are malevolent if they don't. We are entitled to a high standard of living.

When things get tough today, do we see this as a challenge? Or do we look around for excuses, or someone else to blame? Any- one will do: the Government, the opposition, the unions, the management, the workers, the speculators. The French for not doing so well. The Germans for doing so well.

I say we have no excuses and, even if we had, it is profitless and time-wasting to look for them; it is damaging to lull our- selves into inactivity as a result. If the causes of a situation are seen as largely out- side ourselves, and we are so ready to blame others for our failures, why is it that we never attribute our successes to others too?

I suggest it is high time we pulled our- selves together and set about examining our- selves, our objectives and our methods. It is high time we learned to rely on ourselves, once again, just as the Elizabethans did, and to set about putting our house in order. After all, I am not suggesting the impossible. It has been done. Germany and Japan, to mention only two, have done it. Both are countries that lost the war, both started with resources way below our own. What others have done, we too can do.

Now I don't want to turn round and do precisely what I have been criticising—that is, blame others for our failures. Neverthe- less, there is a hierarchy of responsibilities in all organisations. It is not merely wrong but useless for the top management of a company to blame its subordinates and workers.

A management must manage. Provided its objectives are right, it must see to it that these objectives are understood and accepted by all the lower levels. If the organisation fails, then it is ultimately failure at the top. It is silly and futile to blame the lower levels of the hierarchy. The simple fact is, management has failed.

In the same way a government must govern. If its objectives are right, then it is up to the government to see that they are fully understood and accepted. If the

objectives are misunderstood; if they . unacceptable and cannot be made accepta or if the means are ineffective or cannot made effective, it is no use the govern turning round and blaming all and sund for its failure. The simple fact is. it h failed and it had better re-examine objectives and its ways and means.

Some people may say that it is not fa to draw an analogy between gosernme and business. I agree that there a differences. However, if governments cla that they are not free to deliver the uo, they promise, what right have they to ma those promises and to make them with much vehemence and confidence when th seek votes? They cannot have it both mat either they believe they can keep th promises but fail, or they are open to charge of false pretences. To blame othe or circumstances, every time they fail a to claim credit for any and all successes far too naive to be taken seriously.

Now. I can only speak as an industrial and even then some industrialists might di agree with me. But I see the function industry as one of the basic producers the wealth of the country, and it is on th wealth that practically everything e depends. This is what we in industry sta to do. We want to produce wealth - wealth, goods and services—and to rewarded and encouraged if we do.

When some industrialists say they are industry only to make money, they confu real wealth—goods and services—tti money which is, after all, only a token. measure and a means of exchange. W they exist at all, why others are prepar to pay them money and permit them make a profit, is because they produce r wealth from which the purchasers bene

Now if these confusions exist-1 me the confusion of wealth with money a the confusion of the functions and ob tives of industry—then it is up to t government to clear them up; just as it is to good management to get functions a objectives clearly understood at all levels an organisation.

There is an educational job to be do here, and if the government does not take I initiative, I fail to see who will. It is use !talking of the selfishness of indusi alists, any more than it would do any g for management to talk of the selfish of its employees. Something must be do about it. This calls for better common tions. It calls for lining up objectives so t individual selfishness works in the inter of the organisation as a whole.

In short, it calls for better understand rand the provision of scope for all to better for themselves if, and only if. contribute to the whole. If industry produce wealth, what we in industry %%. is not sympathy, not gifts, not somethi on a plate. What we want is siinpl opportunity and the encouragement. What gives us satisfaction is achieveme We want the opportunities to achiese get things done, to contribute. What need is leadership with clear, construe objectives; a simplification of the ever m complicated, time consuming, almost inct prehensible legislation and taxation. threatens to engulf us in a sea of unprod tive paper work; and we want to be g the scope and the encouragement to get with the job. Britain's main problem is that we prod too little and that we consume too much. Starting from that, the objectives sh be clear. If the country is to get out of the sorry mess it's in, then industry must pro- duce more wealth. That is its function and it can produce it. But only the government can give the leadership, the support, the encouragement and the necessary conditions to enable industry to do so. The government is at the top of the hierarchy—and, being there, it must accept the duties and the responsibilities that go with being at the top. If and when it does, we in industry shall be able to do our job and do it even better than we have done it hitherto.