I like it when my disciplined actions result in desirable outcomes, and one might say that is a form of being productive. One would say I have the affliction of a striver, attributed to my immigrant sensibility, where working hard is equated to being a valuable contributor. 

Although considered a high performer in many spaces, with the drive to do and accomplish more, as of late, I have found it troublesome when my desire to be a valuable contributor has been reduced to strictly an output. 

With the drive for greater output at speed and frequency that does not allow for the human systems to rest and recover — to be creative and innovate — I am challenged by the usage of the term productivity. And I do not have a replacement word to qualify that feeling of accomplishment for doing an activity well. 

The concept of productivity is a 250-year-old manufacturing construct that no longer serves our society of knowledge workers; individuals who engage their creativity and intellect, while collaborating with other humans to solve complex problems. 

Breaking it down, productivity is a mathematical equation of output divided by time. This concept has permeated every industry and adversely affected the way we work and measure our work. 

In some cases, it has reduced the individual to an object, churning out units. This is based on quantity output, while not considering if the individual doing the work is working at their full potential, in a purposeful way. 

For example, in the case of the healthcare system, doctors are incentivized to keep patient interactions between 8 to 15 minutes. Meanwhile, patients suffer from not having their concerns fully addressed, as the doctor might feel stretched to see a high volume of patients.

This results in a check-the-box approach to care. It not only misses the nuisance of the patient, it negates the ways in which their psycho-social dynamics impact the way they care for themselves. 

Nothing good comes from treating the doctor as a machine — reducing their work to time bound interactions and paperwork; the central role of a doctor is to care for another human. 

How might we reframe this process to center both the doctor and patient for maximum care of them both?

• The “how” of their collaboration.
• The “how” of their needs.
• The “how” of their satisfaction.

In your organization, how might you center the “how”?

I have been in discussions around how coaching can increase clients’ productivity, thereby driving the organizations’ productivity, framed as a return on investment. Since no two coaching clients [nor organizations] are the same, reducing the coaching process to a simple productivity equation leaves me perplexed. 

Productivity should not be the only measure of how well a contributor is working. 

In what ways are your talents invited to collaborate, bring their creative energy to influence the work, innovate across teams, and stretch in a new way?

We are living the aftermath of focusing so heavily on productivity, which might lead to decreased outcomes, disenfranchised employees, and lower employee engagement.

An organization that values inclusive well-being strategies will counterbalance this drive for metrics with a human-valued proposition to how work is designed and done.

What do you say, can you help me find another word to replace “productivity” that values the employees’ contribution and the organization’s health? 

More to come on this topic in the article, Resist Unnecessary Urgency.