Kenya’s per capita GDP was USD 97.62 in 1960, ahead of India’s $83.81 (World Bank data, here and throughout in this article). At the time, coming to Kenya from India, was an advancement. By 1980, we had done better: the gap between us and India had widened, in our favour. Our GDP per capita was $446.6 vs India’s $271.25. By then coming to Kenya from India was like emigrating to a developed country.
Then we fell headlong, or, as some people say, we got Moi-ed, to a low of $222.60 in 1993, while India’s GDP per capita had by-past ours and grown to $308.53. That is when Kenyans started to travel to India in droves, initially for education, later for medical purposes, now for industrial goods. Going to India became a statement of prestige.
Gloom does not last forever. Towards the end of the 20th Century, under President Mwai Kibaki, our economy started to run again, although, unfortunately, alongside mega corruption deals. By 2015, according to World Bank data, We had re-grown way past our failure point of the 90s to a respectable per capita GDP of $1,367.7, a good comparison to India’s $1,598.
Per capita GDP = the total output of a country divided by the country’s population. Total output includes money earned by big corporates such as, in our case, Safaricom, banks, Breweries… The reason it is important to compare the per capita GDP of your country with another country’s is simple: it helps to demonstrate how you measure up to a country you admire, despise (which you should never do), or think of as a competitor.
Better still, you can use the per capita GDP of your country (and calculation methodology) to measure up how you, as an individual or business, measure up with your country’s (or another country’s) average productivity. Take Kenya’s current per capita GDP, for example: $1,367.7 (Shs 136,770). That means a productivity of Shs 11,397.5 per month, Shs 438.36 per day. You may think: I do better than that! Before you so exclaim, note that you have to factor your entire population. Let’s say you and your wife, combined earned Shs 1 million during the year. Divide it by the total population in your home, say three kids and the three or so other people you wholly support. That cuts you down to size: Shs 13,888 per month, Shs 534 per day, or just slightly better than the national average! Do the same for your business: total earnings divided by the total population of its employees and their dependents.
Now that we are on the same level (of agreement, I suppose) that our level of productivity is pretty low, let’s discuss a how to effect an upward growth of your per capita GDP at individual or business level. I recommend three actions:
- Setting three-dimensional goals: one dimensional goals formulate what is easily stated as the business’ expectation from an employee, eg hit a sales turnover of one million ($, shs etc). Although one dimensional goals are important for their simplicity, they fail us when it comes to unambiguity or clarity as to process and resourcing (or another enabling-related parameter). These two additional dimensions, when made part of goal-setting, greatly improve the realisable potential of the set goals as well as the quality of the expected performance.
- Integrating performance measurement with goals, work plans and job descriptions. The idea here is to make sure that employees will be tasked to work through crisp-clear job descriptions and work plans (personally, I require those who work under me to prepare their short-term work plans), and ensure that their output is measured and a record kept. That becomes the basis for all reward, capacity building (to correct or strengthen aspects of an employee’s capacity) and promotion. Totally objective.
- Integrating employee’s personal issues (social, family) into the design of work places. One of the most common complaints I hear from my friends who are employed is the lack of flexible work options at their work places. Some find that certain tasks could be done remotely from anywhere (at home; around the world), and that not being physically there at the office will not mean that they are less efficient and effective. Increasingly, in the 21st Century, employers are finding out that by making it their business to factor employees’ social and circumstantial needs actually work for better, and not for worse. Terms like flexible work hours and telecommuting or remote attendance are fast-becoming part of our office jargon. I support: instead of focusing on 8 to 5 attendance, focus on output, wherever it will be realised from!
Haron Wachira 