Want workers to be productive? Think of their well-being too: Opinion (UAT 3)

Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 20 Jun 2024

Managers who think only of driving workers to produce more are not doing their firms any favours. Let’s rethink our definition of productivity.

Many companies use traditional productivity metrics to assess the value that employees bring to an organisation. These are tangible, quantifiable, and results-based measurements such as work quality and output, efficiency rates, and the number of projects completed on time and on budget. This is the sole aspect that some managers use to determine promotions, salary bumps, and performance bonuses.

However, some companies and managers may take this too far, especially when the number of hours an employee works or is available is taken as a measure of productivity and, therefore, their value to the firm. Take the recent example of former Baidu public relations head Qu Jing. After videos of her glorifying an always-on, work-till-you-drop culture – including statements such as “don’t expect weekends off” and “keep your phone on 24 hours a day, always ready to respond” – were made public, she faced intense backlash, with many describing her management style as toxic. Ms Qu eventually issued a public apology and was reportedly fired from the Chinese tech giant.

Ms Qu seems to have failed to understand that employee well-being is a critical – but sometimes overlooked – factor that drives both productivity and performance. To truly reap the benefits of an engaged and motivated workforce, organisations need to broaden their definition of productivity to account for their employees’ mental and physical health.

Building wealth and well-being

Much of my research revolves around designing and leading teams to pursue the dual objectives of wealth and well-being. The idea behind this is combining instrumental goals – such as making money for the company – with the physical and psychological well-being of the people within the organisation.

This is how some of the best companies and leaders are rethinking productivity: They are not focusing on wealth or well-being, but wealth and well-being. There is a certain logic behind this. Increasingly, the performance of employees, and hence the organisation, depends on individuals engaging fully with one another and their tasks at work. Focusing on traditional productivity metrics alone is inadequate because it can come at the expense of employee well-being. And if employees struggle on this front, it will reflect in their output and performance.

For a company to succeed, employees need to feel like they are in an environment where they can do their best work. If individuals are under immense stress, or close to burnout, their brains will likely not function optimally. They may second-guess themselves and refrain from sharing their ideas, questions, or concerns with others. Collaboration will also suffer as employees do not feel psychologically safe to engage, hurting company performance.

Psychological safety – a shared belief that team members can express their ideas, questions, or concerns and not be embarrassed or ostracised – is something that I’ve been researching with Professor Amy C. Edmondson of Harvard Business School. In a study, we looked at drug development teams from six large pharmaceutical firms. Much like many of today’s global organisations, the teams were diverse, consisting of people from different backgrounds and with varying functional expertise. What we found was that the presence of psychological safety not only improved individual well-being but also helped these teams optimise their performance.

Collaboration between team members is essential for performance in fast-moving workplaces where managers don’t have all the answers. Individuals need to be in a good place mentally to bring their diverse talents to solve complex problems. However, if individuals are fearful – whether due to low morale, the threat of retrenchments, or undue stress – they will be unable to fully apply their cognitive and emotional capabilities. Building and maintaining an organisational environment that cultivates psychological safety and prioritises employee well-being is thus a critical piece of the puzzle.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that managers should do away with traditional productivity metrics altogether or be soft on performance measures. Instead, I am suggesting a shift from an either/or mindset (either productivity or well-being) to a both/and approach (both productivity and well-being). You don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and companies can still push people and put their feet to the fire if their performance leaves something to be desired – it just won’t be the only thing they measure to determine productivity.

Where leaders come in

Leaders play an essential part in fostering a both/and workplace culture. Suppose a company just uses traditional productivity metrics to gauge employee value. In that case, those who score high on this front will be appointed to management or leadership roles, putting them in a position to shape and enforce organisational culture how they see fit.

However, not all employees who burn the midnight oil or outstrip their peers regarding work output and efficiency necessarily make the best managers. If leaders are only concerned about driving productivity in the traditional sense – with no regard for the well-being of those they manage – it can hurt the organisation’s overall performance.

To ensure that the right people are in the driver’s seat, companies could consider including the mental well-being of their team members as a managerial key performance indicator (KPI). They should also adopt a careful and considered approach when it comes to promotions. What this means is not simply elevating top performers based on traditional notions of productivity. Instead, organisations should also assess values and abilities that aren’t as easily quantifiable but can significantly impact building psychological safety and boosting output.

In my work with Professor Deborah Ancona of MIT Sloan School of Management, we determined that sense-making skills are one of the critical capabilities that effective leaders should possess. Individuals who are strong in sense-making are open to new trends and information, enjoy learning from others, and can create order from uncertainty. They realise that better methods may come from outsiders and do not merely search for new information but also integrate it into a cohesive framework that helps team members understand the next move.

Sense-making leaders know that to cultivate a productive team that produces solid results for the organisation, team members must be able to engage fully with their capabilities at work. They understand that when leaders and organisations truly care about the well-being of their workers, instrumental outcomes also improve. Importantly, they recognise what is required to create such an environment and can act on it.

Well-being as a marker of productivity

It should go without saying that individuals’ well-being will impact their work performance. However, some organisations have been slow to consider this as a marker of productivity – perhaps because they think it is harder to measure than other more easily assessable and quantifiable outputs or because they fail to understand its importance.

By shifting from an either/or mindset to a both/and approach, organisations can move towards achieving the dual goals of wealth and well-being. If done well, this can not only result in a happier and healthier workforce, but also improve overall company performance.