Are We Obsessed with Productivity?

Sep 9

I may have rolled my eyes the first time I heard that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared 2023 the “year of efficiency.” And yet, it resonated. Suddenly, "doing more with less" was the buzz everywhere. Sure, it wasn't all Zuckerberg's influence. Market changes pushed us all to tighten budgets and zero in on productivity.

Thinking back to 2020, the global pandemic threw productivity into the spotlight. How many of you remember when your employers debated if you could be “productive” while working from home? Are longer hours, uninterrupted work time, and time in office indicators of productivity? These questions have been circulating.

So it only makes sense that these questions have continued to be front and center in this shift to organizational optimization. Which brings the question- What does “productive” mean? And just as important, how do you know that employees are productive? I’d love to say that there is a singular measure of productivity that gives you all the answers. But, as you well know, there isn’t. But there are signals- signs of efficiencies, signs of optimizations, signs of accomplishing goals.

Productivity and efficiency are not the same thing

You may take it for granted that productivity and efficiency belong in the same conversation. We’ve all been put under a microscope around how many hours a day we work- historically, longer hours were perceived as more value added. We’ve also all tasked folks with doing work quickly, to meet ambitious deadlines. One of the most highlighted recruiting metrics is time to fill- how fast can we get it done? So, I’ll clarify that efficiency and productivity are not the same thing.

Productivity is about the volume of outcomes per unit of input—how much work gets done. Efficiency is about using fewer resources to achieve the same goal—how fast work gets done. You can be productive but not efficient, or vice versa. Ideally, we aim to be both.

When put together, an organization can be deemed effective. Organizational effectiveness is a measure of how well a business functions. If a business is doing the “right” things well, in terms of speed and volume, these are strong signals of effectiveness. But what is the role HR plays in designing and executing on these signals?

HR’s influence

Not too long ago, boosting productivity and efficiency often meant slashing costs, and HR was seen as the enforcer of layoffs. If you've been working for a decade or more, you probably remember when HR felt like the bad guy. But we've come a long way since then. Now, we understand that optimizing productivity and efficiency involves many more strategic factors. With the right insights into workforce talent, performance, and productivity, HR can shift from being mere cost-cutters to strategic partners, advising on talent management for long-term business success.

So what insights do you need? There's no definitive checklist, but certain key areas deserve attention. A well-run organization has strong people, effective processes, and the right technology. These elements must interact seamlessly to produce quality work. Clear communication among the right people, well-defined processes to execute on priorities, and tools that enable work completion are essential. Plus, employees need to feel good about their work. There are metrics that support all of these channels. Let's break it down.

Communication

First and foremost is communication. The ability to communicate with the right people quickly and effectively is no easy feat. There are a few indicators of good communication.

# of reporting layers: Too many layers inevitably means more people to talk to, which takes longer and is more likely to turn into a game of telephone. It’s why you often hear companies talk about “flattening” their organization (aka reducing the number of layers).
# of active relationships: There is a balance between the optimal number of colleagues you speak to on a regular basis. Too many, and you are spread too thin, and no one has quality exchanges of information. Too few, and you are too siloed, hoarding information that might be valuable to the business.

Performance and engagement

Beyond communication, traditional performance and engagement measures can still offer good insight. While imperfect, they can deliver directional signals if used effectively.

% of high performers: Is there an upward trend in the volume of high performers? Upward trends can mean multiple things, but can be an indication that more people are performing favorably! And better performers presumably produce better (and faster?) outcomes.
% agree: Employee engagement surveys almost always have a question (or two) related to productivity in the organization. Employees may be asked if they have the information they need to do their job or whether the systems and processes available support getting their work done effectively. The rate of agreement to these items offer important insights into the success. If they don’t feel enabled to do their work, how can they be productive?

Work produced

Digital footprints in the workplace can be telling. Some of these need to be used carefully, as there is a fine line between monitoring for punitive reasons and generating insights for organizational improvements. You don’t want to erode trust with your employees!

# of tickets completed: Nearly every organization has some project management system today, from Jira to Asana. Tickets are created to represent tasks, and they are tracked as progress is made. The volume of tickets completed is one way to look at things. If we use the mantra that less is more, however, this metric should not be examined in a vacuum.
Speed of tickets completed: Perhaps more meaningfully aligned with efficiency is the pace with which tickets are closed. How long does a bug fix take? How long does it take to get a customer issue resolved? Has that speed increased recently? What steps are slowing things down?

Organizational design

Perhaps some of the most important metrics related to productivity focus on the size and shape of the organization. If there are too many people working too slowly on the wrong things, inevitably organizational effectiveness will suffer.

Span of control: When a manager has few direct reports, it can be a signal of inefficiency. Too many managers to train, too many conversations to align, too many management styles, and too many duplicate efforts. It’s not universally bad to have a small span, as there are pockets that require deep expertise and focus that align well to smaller teams (we know those teams!). But, it should be a consideration and closely examined when considering restructuring.
# of managers with 1 direct report: A spinoff of span of control, understanding why a manager would only have 1 direct report is essential. If each of these managers doubled to 2 direct reports, there could be half as many managers. And managers are expensive!

A real example

In one organization, there were some clear signals of inefficiency. While the business was growing, resources were decentralized and the left hand didn’t always know what the right hand was doing. Key metrics highlighted this.

Spans of control were lower than expected for a company of their size and industry. A deep dive into why this was happening helped diagnose the reason for low span of control. One key reason is that there were duplicative teams in different parts of the organization. With two teams doing the same (or similar) things, the overlap was expensive. These discoordinated efforts meant smaller teams with smaller spans. If one leader combined and directed both teams, the span of control would increase, and presumably, the efficiency.

Span of control isn’t the only metric impacted by centralizing and combining duplicative teams. There were fewer reporting layers. Communication patterns also are greatly improved. There were fewer steps in the chain of telephone, leading to more coordination and alignment.

When the CHRO brought these insights to the organizational leadership, the answer was obvious. Combine teams, increase spans, improve communication. No one pushed back. The CHRO was praised for addressing inefficiencies and improving organizational effectiveness. Without these insights, the CHRO may not have even recognized the duplicative efforts, and certainly would’ve had a harder time convincing anyone to make a change.

No universal answer

Now, in this particular case, there was an obvious solution. But you know that certainly isn’t always the case. Having two separate teams may serve a clear purpose in a different organization. In that case, the focus on the number of active relationships might be a better signal that those two separate teams are not in close communication.

The key is having the right insights to tell the right story. A good advisor, like The Bregman Group, can help curate these metrics and build a compelling narrative, ensuring HR has a seat at the table and drives meaningful change. When equipped with the right insights, it changes everything. Not only do you meaningfully contribute to the effectiveness of the business, but this also models the role that HR can play in many business discussions. Because in this day and age, there is so much value HR can bring to the table, and we want to ensure that we always have a seat!