Is it Time for Leaders to Rethink Productivity?

Change is everywhere, and to varying degrees we’re all experiencing it. With the emergence of AI, which is intrinsically changing how work is being executed and assessed, the way we have to define productivity will inevitably change too. In fact you could argue that the way we measure success at work may be becoming outdated. 
For a long time, productivity has been relatively straightforward to define and assess: Output over time, efficiency, doing more with less. They were reliable measures in environments where work was predictable, repeatable, and largely execution-focused. 

But as AI becomes more embedded in operational areas, what used to be a sign of high performance is increasingly becoming the baseline for many individuals, teams and organisations. Many of the indicators that once signalled progress (speed, volume, efficiency), are more easily achievable, but at what cost?

When output becomes easier to generate, there’s a risk that we begin to mistake output itself for productivity. And It’s also worth remembering that productivity, at its core, has never been about speed alone; it’s always been about whether outcomes are meaningfully better, whether value has been added. So that’s where the real question sits for leaders, not whether work is happening faster, in this new world it probably is, but whether the outcomes of that work are genuinely improving, and if we therefore need to change how we both view, and measure productivity. 

Are we getting lost in the AI hype?

Something we’re seeing more and more is that organisations are seeing these changes in productivity (time saved, speed of output, volume of work) as sole evidence of it bringing discernible benefits.

And to some extent, that’s understandable:

• If something takes less time, it feels like progress. 
• If output increases, it looks like efficiency. 
• If work accelerates, it gives the impression of momentum.

You have to remember that the assumption that faster equals better only holds under certain very limited conditions. Time saved is only valuable if that saved time is being reinvested in higher-value work. And only then if quality is maintained or improved. A degradation in quality is taking you backwards, not forwards. 
So without all of that context and consideration, you may find that the idea of ‘being faster’ or ‘doing more’ risks becoming a superficial measure of progress, this is where tension and confusion can emerge.  At this point  leaders need to define what productivity means, otherwise their organisations will default to the easiest version of it.

It’s all about the top down approach

We often talk about the idea that people don’t simply follow a strategy, but mimic the behaviours displayed by leaders. It's this behaviour that permeates and delivers the greatest impact. So how leaders view, define and measure productivity will ultimately shape the culture of the organisation. 

• If leaders consistently prioritise speed, teams will optimise for speed. 
• If leaders only recognise output, teams will increase output. 
• If leaders focus on efficiency as the dominant narrative, it will shape how success is interpreted across teams.

In the absence of a clear definition of what “better” actually looks like, those signals begin to fill the gap. And over time, this starts to shape behaviour throughout the organisation:

• Work may become faster, but slightly less considered. 
• Output may increase, but without a corresponding improvement in clarity,  impact or quality.
• Decisions may be made more quickly, but with less depth or alignment. 

In isolation, these scenarios aren’t great; but together they will dramatically change the standard of what good looks like in an organisation.

What does this mean for leaders? 

Productivity is evolving, then it isn’t enough to rely on inherited definitions or default metrics. Leaders need to become more explicit in how performance and all its related metrics are defined. What did good look like and what does it look like now. They need to be more intentional in what they reinforce, and more considered in how they interpret the signals they are seeing.

All of this means moving beyond ‘time saved’ as any kind of relevant  indicator of success. It means recognising that time saved, in itself, is not an outcome. Unless it is deliberately redirected, it’s often absorbed back into more work, creating the appearance of productivity without necessarily improving any aspect of performance.

It means: 

1. Being clearer about the expectations on productivity from individuals
2. Redefining what other high-value measures of productivity teams should focus on
3. Communicating any changes with clarity and understanding 

And perhaps most importantly, it requires leaders to actively reinforce new standards. Because if productivity is not deliberately defined, organisations will default to the simplest version of it. And that version, while easy to measure and easy to report, is likely not the one that drives meaningful performance.

In that sense, productivity is no longer just an operational concern, it’s a leadership responsibility. How it is defined, interpreted, and reinforced will ultimately determine how your organisation behaves, what it values, and what it delivers.