Apple.
Tesla.
The 1990s Chicago Bulls.
Tom Brady.
What do all of these things have in common? They are, or are involved in, a competitive environment, and from a productivity level, are very successful.
Measuring productivity as the main success metric is common practice in any competitive environment. Companies look at profits to determine how well they are doing. They look at sales to determine how successful individual employees are. Sport teams look at stat lines to determine who deserves a new contract extension, or who deserves more playing time.
The reason that productivity is the main metric tracked in competitive environments is based on a few simple facts. One, it is easy. It is easy to quantify, and easy to evaluate over a period of time. And secondly, it is a performance indicator, and in competitive environments, performance trumps all.
When leaders begin to focus solely on productivity, and push to the way side other metrics, the environment in which they operate in begins to be tarnished. However, what is interesting with environments that focus solely on productivity, is that productivity doesn’t always diminish. Let’s take a look at two theoretical, but very real environments.
Environment A is one where:
staff are expected to stay late, and arrive early, often putting in much longer days than expected
people are rarely praised for meeting performance goals (as it is expected), and disciplined hard for any mistakes or shortcomings they make
there are two standards set: one for managers and leaders where they have more freedom, flexibility, and a lower standard of quality when it comes to work, and one for employees and players, with limited freedom, flexibility, and a higher standard of quality when it comes to work
Environment B is one where:
staff have the freedom to come and go as they please, as long as the work is completed
performance goals are celebrated, and any shortcomings are approached in a way where management looks to help improve the situation compared to ostracizing the individual
there is one standard set for all members. One that leaders create, and abide by, showing the people they lead how to work in these standards
When we look at productivity between the two environments, we may be shocked to see that they aren’t that different. However, what will be different, is staff well-being.
In Environment A, staff will experience periods of burnout, lack of confidence due to constant negative reinforcement, low morale, and a low willingness to increase the standard.
In Environment B, staff won’t experience periods of burnout, will have increased confidence, which leads to further creativity, and will have a willingness to want to increase the standard in the environment.
In his interview with The Guardian, Graham Potter, manager of Brighton in the English Premier League, discusses his attempt at trying to create Environment B. “You’ve always got to provide a reason why players would come and play for your football club. And if it’s just finances, then we’ll hit our ceiling, because 95% of the league’s determined by finance. So you have to provide something else: an identity, a style that players can identify with.”
Potter is able to understand the importance of focusing on other aspects that are meaningful to people, such as identity, when building environments. Focusing specifically on productivity ends with toxic environments. And toxic environments result in productivity becoming unsustainable. Staff are unable to continue the productivity levels they have due to burnout and low morale, concluding in high turnover rates, or a decrease in productivity over a longer time period.
So when it comes to competitive environments, productivity cannot be the sole focus. Productivity, combined with high staff satisfaction, means sustainable results. And sustainable results means we create environments that can consistently Get Over the Hump.
Think you know someone who wants to Get Over the Hump?
Want to join the climb?