Recycled Bullsh-IT

In its annual airing in the media recently Productivity has been described as poor, like the rest of us, as it’s been affected by Brexit and COVID. It is being blamed for our low wages and anything else the government wants to escape responsibility  for.  But what is productivity, how do we improve it, and should we care?

 Love’s Labour’s Lost

The standard economic definition of productivity is “rate at which goods or services are produced, especially output per unit of labour”. In theory, the higher the rate of productivity the richer everyone is as more wealth is generated for the same number of people. Conversely, low rates mean less money. Of course, we all nod (off) when we hear this, or worry that what they actually mean is:

1. We’ll do more with less (i.e., you’re fired)
2. You need to work harder/faster/better. Or we’ll fire you
3. Meet your cobot (Collaborative Robot) that will be working with you. And then replacing you

 Measure for Measure

But is productivity the right metric, and what does it really tell us? From a macro-economic (country) level, creation of more value with the same population through higher productivity should mean more prosperity to be shared around. For a company, the same should mean higher profits. Both require investment to succeed (R&D tax breaks, more automation, self-service, etc). Unfortunately, preventing the oligarchy and fats cats skimming off most the cream is difficult, so your average worker rarely sees the gains from the lower cost of output.

 As You Like It

At a personal level we are exhorted to increase our own productivity by better time management, multi-tasking, performance monitoring, continually improving ourselves, and so on. Computers were going to help us. Then Filofaxes, PDAs, Internet of Things (IoT), Smartphones, Messaging, Augmented Reality (AR), etc., were going to help maximise efficiency so we could crank up our individual output to superhuman levels. Shame they’ve all failed, but the journey was entertaining.

 Comedy of Errors

But wait a minute. Are we measuring the right things? A better set of benchmarks might be:

• Meeting stakeholder needs
• Optimising performance

By stakeholders we should include all impacted parties; not just bosses, shareholders, and customers – but also employees and suppliers. Profitable companies, that create unhappy staff and a bankrupt supply chain, are not being productive, just exhibiting the worst caricatures of capitalism. Optimum performance is about reaching a balance between squeezing more out of the workforce & vendors and allowing them to feel fulfilled with minimum stress.

 Much Ado About Nothing

There have been several research studies that have pointed to a link between happiness and productivity, where happy staff have increased the productive use of their time (whatever that is) by over 10%. The causal link the other way (productive people are happier) is less verified, but most people genuinely want to do the best job they can. If only it weren’t for the constant interruptions and Zoom meetings….

 All’s Well That Ends Well

So, have we solved the Productivity Pair of Ducks? Probably not, but here’s my medical quackery to help anyway:

•  Map and match all your stakeholder needs – it’s a balancing act, but at least be clear what you are juggling
• Remove bottlenecks and demotivators – find out & fix what (or who) is stopping your staff from being happy and productive
• Leave them alone – stop pestering your workers all the time and give them adequate blocks of time to deliver (and relax) when they don’t have to worry about emails, messages, phone calls, etc

 See also my first stab at The Productivity Paradox

John“Richard III”Moe