Can we kill productivity as a performance measure?

[Jamey Austin]

I get really excited by challenges to long-standing convention. Not just by the possible changes that might get triggered but by what the challenges often reveal about the conventions in the first place. For example, we take the 40-hour (or longer) workweek as almost sacrosanct. But look into its history and you discover how arbitrary it really is.

In Dominic Price's recent Work Life article, "It's time to stop measuring productivity," he exposes a slew of conventional ideas we have about productivity. The main one?

More productivity = good.

But is it, always? 

As he says, "productivity is just a mathematical equation: output divided by time." Which means that productivity is fundamentally linked to output – not outcomes. When we talk about increasing productivity, we’re actually talking about increasing output.

This might apply to certain work, but what about knowledge work?

In that context, more output doesn’t necessarily mean better results. Dom says, "As best-selling author Dan Pink told me recently, he could write two mediocre books in the same time it takes to write one really good book. Two books is twice the output! Twice the productivity! Hallelujah! But his publisher would have some pretty choice words for him because mediocre books don’t sell."

See, even though Pink would've been twice as productive, the results wouldn't have been twice as good.

"And yet, as a society of knowledge workers, we are obsessed with productivity," says Dom. "We’ll click on any article with that word in the headline." 

Here's a question: could you leave the "cult of productivity?" Could you (and your organization) move away from output and focus instead on outcomes? Could you make the switch from efficiency to effectiveness?

[Curt Holley]

Great post @Jamey Austin and hinged off Dom's awesome article.

To answer your question: Where I work I can see this transformation occurring. Yes, it's a work in progress, Yes! there are pockets of resistance, but as someone who has yearned to switch/be part of "the switch" I can say...."It is happening".

I'm lucky enough to be answering to someone who believes in and encourages it, as well as with autonomous teams. #lucky

But I realise that globally, this journey is in various states, from "not even started" to "fully enlightened" and everywhere in-between.

[Jamey Austin]

Thanks @Curt Holley – glad to hear it, and I appreciate the response. Clearly there's a lot of nuance, and much trial and error. What a fascinating concept, especially in light of things like "Bezosism" which I read about this morning here: https://thehustle.co/09152021-Bezosism/ I suppose Amazon workers aren't "knowledge workers" per se but there's something frightening about a person being on the clock like that. Sure, we can do it. Probably in certain situations we can excel, with a kind of productivity gamification or natural competitive instinct? But the whole enterprise seems rooted in something that isn't healthy, long-term.

[Curt Holley]

Sad, but true @Jamey Austin 

[Christine P. Dela Rosa]

My $1.99 is that the fastest way to kill productivity as a performance measure, is to trace the source of performance measures. 

• What does the organization prioritize through visible communications? 
• What does senior leadership give accolades for?
• What are bonuses or promotions based on?

It seems to me that work goals often trickle down from on high. So if OKRs or success benchmarks are tied to productivity-related metrics, then we won't change as individuals or teams. But if they're tied to outcomes, then everyone will adjust.

Of course it's not that simple. Doing this^ requires accountability, positive reinforcement from leadership, consistency in teams setting outcome-oriented goals, and managers who can guide their teams towards approaches that change outcomes over productivity. But the goal-setting is where it starts.

[Jamey Austin]

Good points @Christine P. Dela Rosa I might even give you $2.03 for 'em. :)

[Bill Sheboy]

Hi, community!

I sometimes find such "spirited conversations" about productivity missing an idea: what if your teams already define productivity in terms of outcomes/value to customers/problems solved over time? 

And as @Christine P. Dela Rosa notes, your organization/culture/leaders provide focus, give timely feedback, incentivize better behaviors, and hold people accountable for improving (e.g. learn more that helps, reduce mistakes, share/collaborate, seek to understand your customers, etc.).  Then it would seem improving productivity is a result of having already managed people performance effectively...rather than the other way around.

[John Funk]

Agreed - the only way to stop productivity as a measure is to replace it with something better - as in measuring outcomes. You usually can't take something away that people rely on without replacing with with something else better - or at least perceived as something better. 

[Jamey Austin]

Yes @John Funk it takes developing a new system. I like how Dom describes that in his piece. But @Bill Sheboy is right in the sense that productivity, per se, would be viewed a little different if you / your org already had new systems in place. Then productivity is talking about how you're managing your efforts toward those goals.

[Rostane Gribi]

That's one interesting approach to productivity and I agree with it. Time has change so did the tools... Great article !
Thanks for the insights and I'd love to share an article about the subject, hope you like it: https://zenkit.com/en/blog/best-note-taking-apps-2021/

[Esme Crutchley]

Great article! In my business, we're more focused on outcomes because no task is created equal...a task might take a whole blummin' week (because it's technically a project), which would mean that by 'traditional' standards, we'd 'achieved' a single thing. But that item might be the most important thing at that time and nothing can move on without it. We try and look at the highest impact project or task and focus on that, not 'how many things can we get checked off our to do list today/this week to show that I'm pulling my weight.'

[Sedera Randria]

For several years now, I took the initiative to use my annual evaluation as an opportunity to experiment OKRs. This has changed the way I discuss my objectives with my boss. 

[Laura Holton _ACE Rotterdam_]

That's a good question, I think it may always be a work in progress but for us in general outcomes are the main focus however output is always a little in the background. 

[Walter Buggenhout]

Although I am a strong believer of a focus on outcomes (it no use going at 200 mph if you're going in the wrong direction), I also think that there is nothing wrong with measuring productivity as well.

Even for knowledge work, the ability to deliver and the speed at which you can release new stuff has become of utmost importance in a very competitive market. I don't think it would be smart to sail blind in that area, keeping in mind that the direction you're taking should indeed come first.

[Curt Holley]

If you are focusing on ensuring everyone is pointed in the right direction (they know why, when and where they are going) and they get there successfully in a timely manner. Isn't that the definition of Outcome focus?
I think it is important to drop the old "productivity" terminology, so as to assist reset the thinking (often of senior leadership) away from previous ways of measuring/thinking.

[Gaurav]

Great article @Jamey Austin!!
Thinking about the question, my opinion is we can't choose one over the other as both output and outcomes are somewhere interlinked. We need to balance out the usage of both the parameters as 1 alone might not be sufficient.