More and more companies are using “productivity” metrics to measure employee performance. But this metric can give an unfair and inaccurate assessment if it goes wrong.
In 2019, Bill Taylor, an accounting professor at Brigham Young University, published a feature article in the Harvard Business Review on the dangers of productivity metrics.
University professors are usually judged by how many papers they publish in academic journals, not in mainstream publications like the Harvard Business Review. But fortunately, he says, Taylor’s boss seems to have considered his work in light of the article.
But not all bosses are as flexible as Taylor’s college dean when it comes to how they measure performance.
Productivity metrics are like a paradox in modern management. Productivity metrics, widely used in call centers and manufacturing plants, are beginning to find their way into knowledge-work areas such as social work, law, and health care, according to a recent New York Times study.
The rise of remote work has led to a rise in the use of productivity metrics as a means of scoring employee productivity and allowing bosses to make sure their subordinates are working hard.
Logically, scoring employee productivity helps an organization identify top performers and spot potential problems. But when companies use these tools carelessly, they risk encouraging wrong behavior, exacerbating inequality among employees, and making employee performance worse rather than better.
Productivity metrics are far from fair
Understanding employee performance has been a challenge for decades, especially in “complex and multifaceted jobs,” said Michael C. Sturman, director of human resources at Rutgers University. It is said that the sense of issue is serious in
What kind of person makes a significant contribution to the organization? The answer depends on when you ask the question, who you ask it to and, of course, on what basis. Also, I can imagine the difficulty of quantifying soft tasks such as training subordinates, collaboration, and thinking.
It’s also easy to confuse the behavior an organization wants with the outcome it wants, says Taylor. The numbers that companies measure to measure performance, such as “time spent by service personnel on computers,” are very often correlated with the results the organization seeks, such as improved customer satisfaction.
But your boss doesn’t want you to do “computer-using activities” per se. For example, let’s say an employee has installed a “mouse jiggler” that automatically moves the computer’s mouse (no laughing, it’s actually used). Using this, the employee can appear to be online all day long. However, this does nothing to measure customer satisfaction.
The biggest problem with scoring employee productivity is that companies can assume they’re evaluating their employees fairly, says organizational behavior specialists at the French business school INSEAD. Associate Professor Kaisa Snellman.
“We have an objective performance evaluation system. It’s hard to say.”
For example, research shows that workplace performance evaluations and scoring systems are biased by gender and race. Other studies have shown that men are seen as superior and valued more than women in multiple industries and occupations. This is a plausible phenomenon, even in controlled experiments for educational background, age, and role.
In addition, even when performance is evaluated by seemingly objective indicators such as “production volume” and “absence rate,” the likelihood that non-white employees will be evaluated for their high ability to perform their duties is much higher than that of white employees. Studies have repeatedly shown that it is much lower than that.
We also know there is a bias in compensation systems tied to performance appraisal scores. A paper published in 2014 found gender differences in promotion rates at large law firms that track paid hours.
However, a meta-analysis of nearly 200 studies on differences in performance appraisal and compensation between men and women found that women’s pay increases were smaller than those of men, even when performance appraisals were similar. There was a 14-fold difference in wage increases for women and men, even though the ratings were roughly the same.
Productivity declines as metrics are pursued
Cary Cooper, Professor of Organizational Psychology at Manchester Business School, UK, co-authored “The Healthy Workforce,” wrote that employees are motivated to work. In order to do so, he cites a vast body of business research that says he needs to feel trusted, valued, and treated with discretion.
Studies show that hardworking employees are less likely to be absent and more likely to stay with the organization instead of changing jobs.
Cooper points out that grading employees based on output and giving them a score is counterproductive for “actual productivity” and “engagement.”
“Employees need to be given autonomy, trust and recognition. But productivity metrics go against this. I will let you.
Productivity metrics that tell you that you are not doing well are useless. Employees don’t know how to improve. From an employee’s point of view, productivity metrics are just uncomfortable.”
In addition, Taylor says companies overlook the fact that different employees respond differently to the same performance management tools. Some employees are intrinsically motivated to work hard, while others work for money. If we measured this solely by productivity scores, we might demotivate hard-working employees who are intrinsically motivated.
If we could know what motivates each employee, we could design a more effective performance management system, saving time, effort and money.
A comprehensive performance approach is needed
Although productivity metrics are risky, there are practical use cases for them.
“For managers,[productivity indicators]are good for getting a rough sense of scores and local familiarity. It is possible to determine who is doing this and identify potential problems,” said Snellman.
For example, if a department’s productivity index scores are low, it could be a sign of poor management. Low team performance scores may indicate a lack of psychological safety.
But a single score should not decide the fate of an individual employee.
“Productivity scores are best used as a diagnostic tool for employees, and should not be used as a basis for dismissal,” says Snellman.
Companies should take a step back and think. Professor Cooper also says:
“Why do companies use productivity metrics? I think it’s the latter.” (Cooper)
The way Taylor recommends is for companies to involve their employees in how they measure performance. Ask how employees spend their weekdays. Maybe you’re dealing with an angry customer while you’re offline, or maybe you’ve been thinking about a business problem.
Thinking about how to take employee work into account can also reward such behavior, Taylor says.
“The majority of people want to do good things, and you have to be very careful not to try to control the behavior of your employees and drown out their intrinsic motivation,” says Taylor. )
[原文：If your employer is trying to dump poor performers by tracking the time you spend online and on calls, watch out. Researchers say these metrics ‘are anything but fair.’]
(Edited by Ayuko Tokiwa)
Source: BusinessInsider
David Ortiz is an opinionated and well-versed author, known for his thought-provoking and persuasive writing on various matters. He currently works as a writer at 24 news breaker, where he shares his insight and perspective on today’s most pressing issues. David’s unique voice and writing style make his articles a must-read for those seeking a different point of view.