Improving Productivity, obviously.
- PJ Stevens
- May 19
- 4 min read
Productivity: If it’s so obvious, why aren’t we better at it?
Productivity is one of those words that gets bounded around in business as if it’s universally understood, clearly defined and easily improved.
Yet in reality, it’s a seemingly misunderstood concept and a stubbornly difficult one to get right. Ask a dozen managers to define what productivity means in their team or project, and you’ll likely get a dozen different answers. Ask them what gets in the way of improving it, and many will say.... time, too many meetings, or simply that it’s complicated.
But is it really? On paper, productivity is straightforward. It’s definition is simply about producing more value with the same or fewer inputs, or getting more done, better and faster. In economic terms, it’s output divided by input.
In everyday terms, productivity is about working smarter, delivering results without wasting time, energy or resources. So why, if we all nod in agreement when we hear the word, do we so often fail to improve it in practice?
Part of the problem is perception. Productivity is too often reduced to a vague sense of ‘busy-ness.’ Many teams equate it with people looking busy, replying to emails, sitting in meetings or logging hours. There’s a cultural hangover in many organisations where being visibly active is mistaken for being effective. But productivity is not about activity, it’s about impact. Impact requires clarity, focus, attention and good decision making. Without those, all the activity in the world just burns time, resources and budget without moving the needle.
This is where the gap begins to show. While we intellectually understand productivity, our behaviours and systems don’t always reflect that understanding. For example, when priorities are unclear - or constantly changing - people default to doing what feels urgent rather than what’s important. People tick off low-value tasks for the satisfaction of progress or short term feelings of success, even if those tasks add little or nothing to the overall outcome. This isn’t laziness or incompetence as such, it’s a rational response to unclear direction and a need (fear) to look important.
Leadership plays a crucial role here, because when leaders don’t define clear outcomes or fail to align teams on what matters most, productivity suffers. People waste time trying to interpret priorities or hedge their bets across multiple, sometimes conflicting demands. They become reactive, not proactive. In my experience, what looks like a ‘productivity problem’ is often a ‘leadership focus problem’ in disguise.
Systems and processes also play their part as many organisations are saddled with outdated tools and models that fail to give value they once did, inefficient workflows, and ridiculous bureaucratic approval chains that make it harder to get things done. People know the steps are slow or wasteful because they live through them, but they follow them anyway because that’s how it’s always been done. Attempts to improve productivity often start with people (we need to work harder) rather than processes (we need to work smarter). The truth is that even the most motivated team of people will struggle if the systems around them are broken, outdated, conflicting or clunky.
And then there’s the human factors such as fear, fatigue and politics. In some workplaces, people are afraid to take initiative, challenge waste or suggest better ways of working for fear of ridicule, a back lash or similar. They spend energy managing relationships, covering their backs (arses!) or chasing sign-off rather than focusing on delivery. In other businesses we see that people are simply exhausted, they feel that burned out sensation from constant change, always-on (available) culture and poor work-life boundaries. You cannot expect high productivity from a tired, stressed workforce, no matter how many motivational posters you hang up or values you plaster across walls!
What makes this all the more frustrating is that many of the barriers to productivity are known, particularly by staff. They’re not mysteries, they are more often hidden in plain sight. Leaders and managers often know much of what’s not working. They can see the inefficiencies, hear the complaints and feel the drag on performance. However, changing how work gets done, such as challenging the status quo, cutting out waste, clarifying priorities, investing in better systems, all requires attention, courage and time. And that’s where the paradox kicks in, because we’re too busy working to fix or improve how we work.
Improving productivity is less about asking people to do more, its really more about making it easier for them to do what matters, such as identifying, understanding and removing barriers. That might mean removing unnecessary meetings, streamlining decision making, or being much clearer about attention and priorities. It might mean protecting people’s time so they can focus, think and create, rather than react, attend unnecessary meetings and chase colleagues and clients. It might mean letting go of old ways of working that no longer serve a purpose or offer the value they once did.
In my experience, this all starts with leadership.
Middle and senior managers are in a unique position to shift the needle. They have the ability to create clarity where there’s confusion, to challenge waste where it’s become normal and importantly to role model a culture of impact rather than activity. The question isn’t whether productivity is important, it’s whether we’re willing to do the work on the work that enables people to thrive, be at their best and deliver improvements and change.
So the next time someone in your organisation says 'we need to be more productive,' don’t reach for the stopwatch or the spreadsheet. Try asking a useful questions, such as do we know what really matters; are we making it easy for people to deliver that; and are we brave enough to stop doing what no longer adds value?
Productivity may be simple in theory but in practice, it demands leadership.

Comments