Outcomes Not Outputs

It is no surprise to us to hear the workplace has changed, especially given the rate of technological innovation being introduced and that we are still yet to face. Many of us are still trying to make sense of it all. A recent online article from Deloitte Insights (READ IT HERE) addresses one of these challenges – how to know it is making a difference. The article notes that with all the newly introduced technologies, productivity is actually declining! Consequently, they propose that its time to find a different (better) metric to measure what matters. They illustrate this by pointing out that “traditional productivity math tends to focus on reducing input and increasing output, but more output may not necessarily translate to better (or more efficient) results.”

One of the issues with traditional productivity tracking is that it can lead to what the article refers to as “performative work.” That is, it is where employees engage in activity that gives the appearance of productivity. Quoting from a survey conducted by Slack, it was found that an average employee spends 32% of their time on such activities. Another issue with traditional productivity metrics is that they may actually exclude segments of the workforce, like contractors and service providers, which does not paint a true picture of productivity. And the new skills required in the workplace do not feature in traditional productivity measures. Skills like problem-solving are not easily measured.

Having highlighted some of the issues with traditional productivity measures, the authors do provide some ideas for an alternative. Instead of focussing on activity, the focus should be on “whether the work being done is the right work.” This involves a shift in focus “from productivity to performance, from productivity outputs to human outcomes.” Business outcomes are relatively easy to conceive and measure, and can include value, quality, customer retention, etc. But the human outcomes are more difficult. These may include “the goals and objectives that help an organisation’s people thrive physically, emotionally, financially, and professionally.” The article refers to a survey that reports people “prefer to be evaluated on their performance – what they produce or achieve, the quality and impact of their work, and their personal growth and skills development.” An example offered in the article is to measure worker happiness, which has been “linked to improved engagement, productivity, and culture, and reduces attrition risks at the enterprise level.”

The last word on this belongs to the authors; “quantitative productivity metrics may still have a specific role to play in the workplace, but more meaningful measurements should be considered when it comes to evaluation and prioritizing how we perform as humans. Organisations who can untether themselves from the productivity metrics of the last century could discover new opportunities to measure what matter and create a more inclusive, human-centered future.”